Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCounty Board of Supervisors - Minutes - 1/26/201676 Minutes of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors’ Budget Meeting Of January 26, 2016 – 6:00 p.m. Bayfield County Board Room, Courthouse, Washburn, Wisconsin The monthly meeting of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors was called to order by Chairman Pocernich at 6:00 p.m. Pocernich welcomed everyone to the meeting. Roll call was taken by County Clerk, Scott Fibert as follows: Bichanich-present; Miller- absent. Crandall-present; Rondeau-present; Wendling-present; Bussey-present; Jardine- present; Maki-present; Kittleson-present; Bennett-present; Pocernich-present; Strand- present; Williams-absent. Total: 13; 11 present, 2 absent. A quorum of board members was present to conduct business. The following individuals were also present for the meeting; Mark Abeles-Allison, County Administrator; Dawn Bellile, Deputy County Clerk; Robert Schierman, Zoning Director, Ben Dufford, County Conservationist; Terri Kramolis, Public Health Nurse; Jason Fischbach, UW-Ex Agricultural Agent; Alex Strachota, Large-Scale Feeding Operations Committee Member; Michelle Dale, Environmental Health Sanitarian; John Sauer, Large-Scale Feeding Operations Committee Member, Kevin Johnson, Veteran’s Service Officer; Kathy Schutte, Ashland County Board Supervisor; Tony Johanik, Town of Eileen Chairman; Joe Rose, Ashland County Board Supervisor; Patrick Glynn, Jason Bodine, Forest Administrator; KBJR TV Representatives, Representative from the Ashland Daily Press. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all in attendance. The Board paused for a Moment of Silence in honor of David Lulich. 1. Motion Regarding Minutes of Regular December 15, 2015 and January 19, 2016 Bayfield County Board of Supervisors’ Meetings. The Board dispensed with the reading of both meetings. A motion was made by Jardine/Kittleson to adopt the minutes of the December 13, 2015 Bayfield County Board of Supervisors’ Meeting. The motion carried. A motion was made by Jardine/Maki to adopt the minutes of the January 19, 2016 Bayfield County Board of Supervisors Meeting. 2. Public Comment. Joe Rose, Sr., Ashland County Board of Supervisor, gave his greetings to the Board and to the Large-Scale Livestock Operations Committee, and complimented them on an outstanding job they have done. Rose is still concerned about the location of the proposed CAFO in the Whittlesey Creek area. We already have a superfund site, and possibly another in Barksdale where DuPont was located. He is concerned for his children, grandchildren and those yet to come in future generations. What kind of a world will they live in? Will there be any clean water, fresh air, or wilderness left for 77 them? What kind of a life will they have? Rose stated he is on the Ashland County Board of Supervisors and is speaking about the potential pollution which doesn’t know any political boundaries. Rose stated Northland College conducted a survey which stated that 2/3rds of the people in our area are opposed to the CAFO. Please keep this in mind in your deliberations. Robert Blanchard, Chairman for the Bad River Tribe in Odanah. Blanchard read from a letter (which is on file in the County Clerk’s office for review). Blanchard wanted to state that the Bad River Tribe encourages and supports the rights of our neighbors in Bayfield County to also use every tool you have to protect the water, land, wildlife and people of your county. As your neighbor, the Bad River Tribe encourages and supports the Bayfield County Board’s efforts to protect the shared waters of Chequamegon Bay and Lake Superior by considering these stricter ordinances. We see your determination to protect our shared natural environment, and we say miigwech for your leadership and foresight as you help protect what we all use together. Cheryl Ash, stated she was grateful to be here tonight. This is our home. We are asking you to protect our home, water and air. We need your protection but we need your support. We also need to protect the animals and look out for their welfare. If we could have larger gestation crates for the animals, it’s possible that it will slow them down. We need to help keep this kind of treatment to animals humane. We are here to support you, so care about us and help us. Ed Korlewski stated it has been a privilege to sit with you over the past year, listening and commenting when allowed. This is his last chance to give input focusing on one subject of the operations ordinance. There are 50 some businesses that have signed a petition and raised concerns over the possibility of a CAFO coming to our area. You have used a reasonable, common sense approach to the Badgerwood application. In many large cities, security cameras are in place which are used to fight crime. We are experiencing an increase in crime here in Bayfield County. When security measures were introduced they were criticized showing that the public could not be trusted. Somehow those people were being treated unfairly. The first city to install security cameras was London. If we enjoy a higher standard of living and security, then here is the link. By simply proving we are doing nothing wrong, then bring the cameras on. There is a good argument of check in the works, if the CAFO says no problem, then the goal for protecting the public has been met. Ted Eastlund representing Friends of the Eau Claire Lakes area which was formed in 1973 in Barnes. In Jan., 2015, citizens were greatly concerned about a CAFO. Eastlund read from a letter he supplied the Supervisors with earlier. He is very concerned about public health risks associated with CAFOs and he listed the many viruses which can occur. (A copy of the letter is on file in the County Clerk’s office for review). 78 Sue Korlewski, stated that weeks ago at the Public Hearing, 1 citizen pointed out that we the people will support your decision. She reiterated that the citizens will stand with you at passing both ordinances. Bayfield County places the highest value on your people, water, air and land. The 40 or so jobs that may be set up here are not equal to the 813 jobs and 52 employers presently here. Many of these jobs could be lost if the CAFO moves in. The majority of your constituents want this ordinance passed. The Chairman reported that time for public comment has ended, however, if the Board would like to extend it for an additional 15 minutes they could do so. A motion was made by Bussey/Wendling to extend the public comment period for another 15 minutes. The motion carried. Joe Russo, was here to read a letter on behalf of the Chequamegon Food Cooperative. The Coop is concerned that the proposed Badgerwood Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) would adversely affect the environment of the Chequamegon Bay Area. As such, the Board of Directors of the Chequamegon Food Coop ask Bayfield County to develop stringent standards and means of enforcement that will prevent environmental damage by the proposed CAFO. A copy of the letter is on file in the County Clerk’s office for review. Charlie Ortman – thanked the Board stating they are doing a marvelous job. You don’t get a chance to get a whack at something this big twice. The idea of putting on strict regulations is great as you can always ease up later if you need to. When you are done, there is a push for a National Marine Sanctuary. Cynthia Simmons thanked the committee for their commitment to the long, hard work. She stated she has learned a lot through this process, and has much respect with everything you have been presented. People have probably been calling you crying, screaming, questions, concerns, etc.; admitting she left a message, feeling frustrated. She feels different today, optimistic that you will do what is in the best interest of the County and adopt the proposals that the committee has come very, very far with. Hoping that tonight will end with the Ordinance passing. She would like to address animal welfare. Somewhere along this path there has to be room for that. Wanted to offer her time and anyone who would like to help to incorporate the welfare of the animals and future CAFOs if they meet requirements. Jim Zorn lives on Colby Road and is Executive Administrator for the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife. Many from the Town of Eileen are grateful for your commitment, thanking Marco for taking the time in the careful study, being unbiased, and making good recommendations. Please adopt the necessary ordinances. We support you and you have documented well what you need to do. From the other role, the Great lakes, we urge the County to exercise the full amount of your authority. The South Fish Creek Watershed needs to be protected. In his job, he sees more and more. What good is 79 the right to fish if there is only 1 fish left. Let’s work together. Everyone thanked them in exercising their authority and they stand by the Board and Committee. Schman Mellen, Hebster, stated the people of Bayfield County live here for 3 reasons: the environment, to make our living off this environment or both. This needs to be protected, this is very serious. This is one of the few pristine places left in the United States, please protect it. Appreciates everything that they have done, but we the people will not stop fighting. Gus McClelland, Herbster. Thanked everyone for the time they spent researching and their hard work. Spoke briefly of Flint Michigan and their troubles. Is Ashland going to have this problem since they pull their water from Chequamegon Bay? He thanked the board. Public comments was closed. 3. Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action on Large-Scale Livestock Study Committee’s Final Report, Excluding Ordinances. Chairman Pocernich asked Large-Scale Livestock Study Committee Chair, Fred Strand, if the Committee has completed their work assignment. Strand reported that they have and Jason Fischbach will make a presentation on behalf of the Committee. Fischbach’s presentation was via a powerpoint as follows: Moving Forward Bayfield County Large‐Scale Livestock Study Committee Report and Recommendations to the Bayfield County Board Large‐Scale Livestock Study Committee 1. Analyze the impact of large‐scale livestock operations on ground water, surface water, and air quality in Bayfield County 2. Provide recommendations to the County Board on actions to mitigate the impacts from large‐scale livestock operations 80 Committee Process • Compile and analyze information related to surface water, groundwater, air quality, and microbiology (The Facts and Risks) • Identify gaps in existing regulations, enforcement, implementation, outreach education (The Gaps) • Identify actions necessary to address the gaps (The Solutions) How Could There Be Gaps in Existing Regulations? • The legislative intent of ATCP 51: – “provide uniform regulations of livestock facilities” – “designed to balance the economic viability of farm operations with protecting natural resources and community interests” Do the statewide regulations strike the right “balance” for Bayfield County? Thriving farms And Clean air and water 81 What Are the Risks to Public Health and Safety? What Are the Risks to Public Health and Safety? Primary Risks to Public Health and Safety • Pathogens and nutrients in manure • Phosphorus in surface water • Nitrates in groundwater • Odor and hazardous air emissions • Zoonotic disease transmission The committee did not look at issues of animal welfare or economic impact. 82 Manure Manure Risk #1 Construction of manure storage pits or structures without pre‐construction soil borings or engineering plans creates a risk of groundwater contamination or structure failure. 313 Standard – Engineering specifications for manure storage facilities 83 Currently: The DNR requires livestock operations with 1000 au or more to follow the 313 Standard (NR 243). Bayfield County’s Siting Ordinance requires livestock operations with 500 au or more to follow the 313 Standard (ATCP 51). Manure Risk #2 Barnyards, feedlots, and dry lots with unmitigated runoff to surface waters pose a threat To water quality and public health. 84 Barnyard run-off control practices limit nutrient losses. Currently: The DNR requires operations with 1000+ au to submit engineering plans showing no contaminated runoff from livestock facilities (NR 243). Bayfield County’s Siting Law requires operations with 500 or more animal units to minimize runoff from livestock facilities (ATCP 51). Most counties require all new and expanding livestock operations to follow practice standards for manure storage and barnyard facilities Most counties require all new and expanding livestock operations to follow practice standards for manure storage and barnyard facilities 85 Manure Risk #3 Spreading manure at times and in places of high runoff risk threatens water quality and public health. What’s in the Runoff Depends Greatly on Where, When, and How Manure Is Spread All Livestock Operations Have Restrictions on Where Manure Can be Spread in Relation to Water 86 Operations Over 1,000 Animal Units Have Even More Restrictions 87 Storage Capacity is Key Phosphorus in Surface Water Phosphorus Risk #1 Soil erosion, nutrient runoff, and peak flows deliver phosphorus to downstream waters. Too much phosphorus causes algae growth. Too much algae causes fish kills and makes water dangerous to swim in and drink. • < 500 Animal Units – Bayfield County ‒ No required storage • 500‐999 Animal Units – Capacity contingent on 590 nutrient management plan and 590 restrictions • 1000+ Animal Units – 180 days storage available as of Nov 30, unless… 88 Annual Contour Perennial Row Crops Strips Forages 89 90 Nitrates in Groundwater Groundwater Risk #1 Though the clay soils provide significant protection of groundwater, leaching of nitrates from fertilizer and manure through areas of sandier soils pose a risk to groundwater quality. Groundwater • Most wells are in sand/gravel deposits within the silty/clay glacial till • The surficial soils likely protect most wells from surface activities 91 Evidence of some nitrates in areas with little protective clay 92 Odor and Hazardous Air Emissions Air Quality Risk #1 Concentrated livestock operations emit hazardous chemicals and particulates including ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and dust. Air emissions from large‐scale livestock facilities are exempt from point‐source air emissions regulations. But, there are many technologies and methods available to limit emissions. Zoonotic Disease Zoonotic Disease Risk #1 Disease organisms in manure pose a threat to public health. Primary Human Pathogens in Swine Manure • Enterohemorrhagic E. coli (e.g., E. coli O157:H7) • Salmonella species • Campylobacter species • Yersinia enterocolitica • Listeria species • Giardia lamblia • Rotavirus (possible transmission from pigs to humans) • Norovirus (pigs believed to harbor human strains) • Hepatitis E virus 93 Human and Livestock Pathogen Movement in the Environment • Pathogen loads in manure are not tested or regulated • Pathogen load reduction strategies and technologies exist, but are not typically required (anaerobic digestion) • Control of transmission relies on controlling runoff and implementing biosecurity Zoonotic Disease Risk #2 Concentration and presence of livestock increases the risk of development of novel disease organisms such as influenza viruses and antibiotic‐resistant 94 Recommendations Magnitude of the Risks Are Specific to An Operation • The risks posed by any given livestock operation depend on soil type, proximity to surface water, depth to groundwater, proximity to neighbors, species of livestock, and the unique operational characteristics of each operation. Many Ways to Address the Risks • Take no additional action • Provide outreach education, training, facilitation • Provide cost‐share assistance • Implement regulations – Zoning and siting – Operational Recommendation #1 Operations Ordinance • Operations with 1000 or more animal unites would be required to obtain an Operations Permit from Bayfield County • The applicant would submit an operations plan demonstrating how the operation would not cause pollution or a nuisance and would protect human health and safety 95 • The applicant would be required to demonstrate a facility of similar operations that has been operating for at least 10 years has not caused pollution or a nuisance • To the extent not preempted by ATCP 51, the County could impose conditions necessary to prevent pollution or a public or private nuisance • By a majority vote, the County Board would decide whether to issue an Operations Permit and whether to include any conditions • The applicant would be required to post bonding for pollution clean‐up or nuisance abatement • The applicant would be responsible for the County’s cost of review of the application and monitoring for compliance of permit terms and conditions Recommendation #2 Enact the South Fish Creek Manure Storage and Management Ordinance to reduce the risk that livestock operations with more than 1000 animal units will increase phosphorus loading in South Fish Creek and the Chequamegon Bay 96 Install 540 days of manure storage capacity. Implement an annual cropping and nutrient management plan with at least three spreading windows to ensure 180 days of storage capacity by Nov 30. No manure within concentrated flow areas. No Manure within 1000’ of lake or 300’ of a stream unless the manure is incorporated within 48 hours. 97 Recommendation #3 Surface water • Consider a county ordinance to make sure new or expanding operations less than 500 animal units are following construction guidelines for manure storage and facility runoff • Increase cost‐sharing to help existing livestock operations install conservation practices • Maintain staffing to assist existing producers in developing and implementing nutrient management planning • Provide funding to assist existing farms with farm succession planning • Develop a water‐quality trading program to allow operations to increase phosphorus discharge by reducing phosphorus discharge elsewhere in the watershed Recommendation #4 Groundwater • Provide funding to test at least 10 private wells in each township to provide a baseline understanding of water quality • Develop a groundwater susceptibility map for the County to identify areas prone to nitrate leaching • Close abandoned wells Recommendation #5 Air Quality • Utilize the Operations Ordinance to address issues of odor, dust control, and hazardous air emissions on a case‐by‐case basis 98 Recommendation #6 Zoonotic Disease • Implement manure spill response training • Implement a public health ordinance to require a monitoring and containment plan in the event of influenza or other viral disease outbreak • Enable use of manure digestors • Enable hoseline transport and injection of manure Strand had nothing additional to add at this time but if anyone had questions for Fischbach, now would be the time to ask. There was no additional discussion. A motion was made by Strand/Crandall to move and accept the Moving Forward Report, including adoption of the Surface Water, Ground Water, Air Quality, Microbiological Findings of Fact and Gaps contained in Appendices 3 through 6 of the Report, and to refer the additional recommendations contained on Pages 3 through 6 of the Report to the Land Conservation Committee and Board of Health, which shall report back to the Board within 90 days their plans for addressing the additional recommendations. This motion does not pertain to the two recommended Ordinances, which need to be voted on separately. The motion carried. 4. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Bayfield County Amendatory Ordinance No. 2016-03, Large-Scale Concentrated Feeding Operations Ordinance. Chairman Pocernich turned the meeting over to Attorney Linda Coleman who brought the County Board up to speed on the topic. Coleman reported that she had the opportunity to join the Committee a number of times as they turned toward an operations ordinance and more recently the Manure Storage Ordinance. Coleman gave background information regarding the application that was received by Bayfield County. There is nothing exceeding the CAFO Ordinance currently in Bayfield County regulating siting matters than what we have which is State standards. We are allowed to have more stringent standards if we find alternate ways to approach livestock siting again through Zoning which we currently do not do - we use a permit. The path the Committee chose was to draft an Operations Ordinance. Coleman stated that as far as she knows, there are no Livestock Operation Ordinances in Wisconsin. In the case of the Supreme Court vs Adams, Wisconsin Siting Review Board, in making its decision, the Supreme Court stated that local municipalities are not left without any ability to regulate. The Wisconsin Supreme Court made a difference between livestock siting and livestock operations and she explained the difference. This is new terrain and hasn’t been tested. It is unclear if it will hold up in Court. It was made to create an Ordinance that didn’t have a lot of specific requirements that will apply to everyone. Coleman explained the difference between siting and operations giving a background of how the Operations Ordinance was drafted as far as the legal framework. The application does request very specific information. This is how we got to where are today. 99 The Board asked questions of Coleman at this time. Animal welfare came up regarding the confinement of the animals and crate size and care. Is there something later on that the County can work on to recommend or say what size we won’t allow? Animal welfare is one of those topics that isn’t covered in the siting law. We would be able to regulate this in the Operations Ordinance. The advice of the committee was to leave it open for the time being. The Board will be able to determine whether it is sufficient or not for the proposed farm. Abeles-Allison thanked Coleman for explaining the contents of the Operations Ordinance to the Board. Coleman stated that this document is very unique and like no other ordinance. The key aspects are to make sure that is legally defensible document. The Board should be pleased with this. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Ordinance, which reads as follows: WHEREAS, the special Bayfield County Large-Scale Livestock Study Committee has determined, based on well-documented factual findings, that it is necessary and appropriate for Bayfield County to regulate both the operations and siting of large-scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (“CAFOs”), in order to adequately protect public health (including human and animal health), safety, and general welfare, prevent public and private nuisances, and preserve the quality of life, environment, and existing livestock and other agricultural operations of Bayfield County; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2015, the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors enacted Chapter 2 “Livestock Facilities Licensing Ordinance” of Title 5 [Public Safety] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin (hereinafter “Livestock Facilities Licensing Ordinance”), pursuant to the powers granted under the Wisconsin Constitution and Wisconsin Statutes, including but not limited to Wis. Stat. §93.90 (“Livestock Siting Law”), and Wis. Admin. Code Ch. ATCP 51; and WHEREAS, the Livestock Facilities Licensing Ordinance was enacted pursuant to Wis. Stat. §93.90, and Wis. Admin. Code Ch. ATCP 51, to establish standards and procedures for licensing the siting of new and expanded livestock facilities, to protect the public health and safety of the people of Bayfield County; and WHEREAS, on February 18, 2015, the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors enacted Chapter 4 “Moratorium on Livestock Facilities Licensing” under Title 5 “Public Safety” for a duration of twelve (12) months (with a possible extension of up to 6 more months), pursuant to Wis. Stat. §59.03(2), to provide adequate time to determine whether amendments to the Livestock Facilities Licensing Ordinance or creation of another ordinance is necessary to adequately protect public health and safety, and determine whether adequate resources exist to enforce any new or existing livestock facilities ordinances; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §59.03(2), the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors “is vested with all powers of a local, legislative and administrative character, including without limitation because of enumeration, the subject matter of water, sewers, streets and highways, fire, police, and health, and to carry out these powers in districts 100 which it may create for different purposes, or throughout the county….” Wis. Stat. §59.03(2); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §59.70(1), Bayfield County has authority to “enact building and sanitary codes, make necessary rules and regulations in relation thereto and provide enforcement of the codes, rules and regulations by forfeiture or otherwise”; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §92.15, Wis. Admin. Code §ATCP 50.60(1), and Wis. Admin. Code §NR 151.096(3), Bayfield County has authority to issue individual permits that require livestock facilities to comply with uncodified conservation or water quality protection standards that may exceed state standards, without prior review and approval by Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (“DATCP”) or the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”), provided such permit requirements or standards are not routinely applied as de facto regulatory enactments; and WHEREAS, although Wis. Stat. §93.90, and Wis. Admin. Code Ch. ATCP 51, impose limitations on Bayfield County’s authority to restrict the siting of livestock facilities of over 500 animal units, these laws do not limit or withdraw Bayfield County’s authority to regulate the ongoing operations of such facilities to prevent pollution, protect public health, safety, and general welfare, and prevent or abate nuisances which may be caused by livestock facilities, and this was expressly recognized in Adams v. Wis. Livestock Facilities Siting Review Bd., 2012 WI 85, ¶ 65 n. 30 & ¶¶ 75, 83-84, 342 Wis. 2d 444, 820 N.W.2d 404; and WHEREAS, in Adams v. Wis. Livestock Facilities Siting Review Bd., a majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court stated that: Our decision does not leave political subdivisions without recourse against polluters. Most importantly, political subdivisions retain the authority to bring nuisance abatement actions against polluting farms. See Wis. Stat. § 823.01. More generally, this decision does not speak to political subdivisions’ ability to regulate livestock facility operations. It simply says that the legislature has forbidden them from regulating livestock facility siting except as permitted by the Siting Law. Id., 2012 WI 85, ¶ 65 n. 30; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §254.51(5), Bayfield County has authority to enact “ordinances that set forth requirements for animal-borne and vector-borne disease control to assure a safe level of sanitation, human health hazard control or health protection for the community”; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §254.59(7), Bayfield County has authority to “enact an ordinance concerning abatement or removal” of human health hazards that is “at least as restrictive as” Wis. Stat. §254.59, which may be enforced in Bayfield County; and WHEREAS, in addition to the Livestock Facilities Licensing Ordinance enacted on January 27, 2015, it is in the best interests of the County of Bayfield to enact a separate ordinance, to more effectively, efficiently, and comprehensively regulate the operations of large-scale CAFOs of 1,000 animal units or greater, regardless of where they may be sited, to adequately protect public health (including human and animal health), safety, and general welfare, and to prevent public and private nuisances, and preserve the quality of life, 101 environment, and existing small-scale livestock and other agricultural operations of Bayfield County; and WHEREAS, it is deemed to be in the best interest of the County of Bayfield that the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, be further modified and amended in the manner set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 6 [Large-Scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Ordinance] of Title 5 [Public Safety] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby created to read as follows: Chapter 6 Large-Scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Ordinance Sec. 5-6-1 Authority This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the powers granted under the Wisconsin Constitution and the Wisconsin Statutes, including but not limited to Wis. Stats. §§ 59.03(2), 59.70(1), 254.51(5) & 254.59(7). Sec. 5-6-2 Title and Purpose The title of this ordinance is the Large-Scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance is to effectively, efficiently, and comprehensively regulate the operations of Large-Scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations of 1,000 animal units or greater (“CAFOs”), without respect to siting, to protect public health (including human and animal health), safety, and general welfare, to prevent pollution and the creation of private nuisances and public nuisances, and to preserve the quality of life, environment, and existing small-scale livestock and other agricultural operations of Bayfield County (“the County”). Sec. 5-6-3 Definitions (a) All definitions located in Section 5-2-3 of the Bayfield County Code of Ordinances are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference as if set forth herein. (b) “Large-Scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation” or “CAFO” means a lot or facility, other than a pasture or grazing area, where 1,000 or more animal units have been, are or will be stabled or concentrated, and will be fed or maintained by the same owner(s), manager(s) or operator(s) for a total of 45 days or more in any 12- month period. Two or more smaller lots or facilities under common ownership or common management or operation are a single Large-Scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation or CAFO if the total number of animals stabled or concentrated at the lots or facilities equal 1,000 or more animal units and at least one of the following is true: (1) The operations are adjacent; (2) The operations utilize common systems for the land spreading of manure or other wastes; (3) Animals are transferred between the lots or facilities; (4) The lots or facilities share staff, vehicles, or 102 equipment; or (5) Manure, barnyard runoff or other wastes are commingled in a common storage facility at any time. (c) “Operations” means a course of procedure or productive activity for purposes of conducting and carrying on the business of a “Large-Scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation” or “CAFO,” including populating animal housing facilities, storing and managing animal and other waste materials, and conducting any other business activities. (d) “Pollution” means degradation that results in any violation of any environmental law as determined by an administrative proceeding, civil action, criminal action or other legal or administrative action, investigation or proceeding, including but not limited to a determination of a violation of a livestock or cropland performance standard under Wis. Admin. Code. §§ NR 151 & 243.23, a determination that any type of unacceptable practice has occurred under Wis. Admin. Code § NR 243.24, a determination that malodorous emissions have been caused or allowed in violation Wis. Admin. Code § NR 429.03. For the purpose of this paragraph, issuance of an order or other communication addressing corrective action or a stipulated agreement, fine, forfeiture or other penalty, is considered a determination of a violation, regardless of whether there is a finding or admission of liability. (e) “Private nuisance” means a nontrespassory invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land, and the invasion is either: (1) Intentional and unreasonable, or (2) Unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules controlling liability for negligent or reckless conduct, or for abnormally dangerous conditions or activities. (f) “Public nuisance” means a thing, act, occupation, condition or use of property which shall continue for such length of time as to: (1) Substantially annoy, injure or endanger the comfort, health, repose or safety of the public; (2) In any way render the public insecure in life, health or in the use of property; or (3) Unreasonably and substantially interfere with, obstruct or tend to obstruct or render dangerous for passage or public use any street, alley, highway, navigable body of water or other public way or the use of public property or other public rights. (g) “Siting” means determination of the place where the structures and other physical facilities associated with development of a “Large-Scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation” or “CAFO” may be located, pursuant to Chapter 2 “Livestock Facilities Licensing Ordinance” of Title 5 [Public Safety] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, Wis. Stat. §93.90, and Wis. Admin. Code Ch. ATCP 51. Sec. 5-6-4 Large-Scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations or CAFOs (a) Regardless of siting, a Large-Scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation or CAFO shall be allowed to conduct operations within the County only as provided for under this ordinance. 103 (b) The applicant shall apply for a “CAFO Operations Permit” prior to conducting any operations associated with a Large-Scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation or CAFO within the County. The application shall be submitted on a form provided to the applicant by the County Clerk, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix A. (c) The Bayfield County Board of Supervisors (“County Board”) shall decide whether or not to approve and issue a CAFO Operations Permit to an applicant that has submitted a complete application and paid the required application fee, after holding a public hearing on the application and considering any evidence concerning the application and the proposed CAFO presented by the applicant and any other interested persons or parties, including members of the public and other governmental agencies or entities, and special legal counsel and expert consultants who may be hired by the County to review the application and advise the County Board. (d) The County Board shall approve and issue a CAFO Operations Permit, either with or without conditions, if it determines by a majority vote of all members of the County Board, supported by clear and convincing evidence presented by the applicant, that the operations of the proposed CAFO, with or without conditions, will protect public health (including human and animal health), safety, and general welfare, prevent pollution and the creation of private nuisances and public nuisances, and preserve the quality of life, environment, and existing small-scale livestock and other agricultural operations of the County, and that the application meets all other requirement of this Ordinance. (e) The County Board shall issue a CAFO Operations Permit, with or without conditions, to an applicant that has met all other requirements of this Ordinance provided it determines, based on information provided by the applicant and verified by the County, that a CAFO having substantially similar operational characteristics, housing the same species of animals, and utilizing similar operations, has been continuously operated in the United States for at least ten (10) years without causing pollution of groundwater or surface water, and without causing either a private nuisance or a public nuisance, as determined by an administrative proceeding, civil action, criminal action or other legal or administrative action, investigation or proceeding. However, this requirement may be waived by the County Board at the specific request of the applicant for a CAFO Operations Permit if the County Board determines after a hearing and based on clear and convincing information provided by the applicant and verified by the County, that the proposed CAFO will otherwise meet the requirements set forth in Sec. 5-6-4 (d), above. (f) A CAFO Operations Permit approved by the County Board can be voided at any time if the permittee violates any conditions of the permit or any conditions of any other required Federal, State or County permits or licenses, at any time. The County Board shall hold a hearing in advance of the voiding of any permit and provide the permitee an opportunity to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that there have been no 104 violation of conditions of the permit or condition of any other required Federal, State or County permits or licenses. Sec. 5-6-5 Procedures (a) An applicant for a CAFO Operations Permit shall complete a Bayfield County CAFO Operations Permit Application (Appendix A) and pay the required application fee of one dollar ($1.00) per proposed animal unit to Bayfield County, at the time the application is submitted to the County Clerk. (b) Upon signing and submitting a CAFO Operations Permit Application to the County Clerk, the applicant shall agree to fully compensate the County for all legal services, expert consulting services, and other expenses which may be reasonably incurred by the County in reviewing and considering the application, regardless of whether or not the application for a permit is subsequently approved, with or without conditions, or denied by the County Board. Within thirty (30) days of a request by the County Administrator, the applicant shall provide an administrative fee deposit with the County Clerk in an account such that funds are available to be withdrawn by the County and used to pay for or reimburse the County for the costs and expenses the County incurs in connection with processing the permit application. The County Administrator, in consultation with other County employees, independent consultants and/or legal counsel, shall determine the initial administrative fee deposit based upon the anticipated costs necessary to process the application. After the initial administrative fee deposit, should the County Board at any time determine that additional fees related to the processing of the application will be necessary, the applicant will make an additional fee deposit into the related administrative fee account within fifteen (15) days of receipt of a request for additional funds by the County Board. Any funds remaining in the administrative fee account once the permit application process is complete shall be returned to the applicant. If the administrative fee account is insufficient to cover all remaining costs related to the CAFO Operations Permit Application, the County shall issue a bill for the remaining costs to the applicant, who shall pay said bill within thirty (30) days. (c) After receiving the application and the application fee, the County Clerk shall mail a notice that a CAFO Operations Permit Application has been received to all landowners within 3 miles of the proposed CAFO with the date and time of the County Board meeting at which the application will be first considered. The notice shall provide information on how interested persons and parties may inspect and obtain a copy of the application. (d) The County Clerk shall then place the application on the agenda for the next regular County Board meeting for which required notice can be provided, at which time the County Board shall conduct an initial review of the application and schedule further proceedings for review and consideration of the application by the County Board. Such proceedings shall include: (a) Considering the need to hire special legal counsel and expert consultants to review the application and advise the County Board; (b) 105 Developing a plan to make a determination of the completeness of the application within a reasonable amount of time; (c) Developing a plan to schedule further proceedings, including scheduling a formal public hearing before the County Board on the application at least sixty (60) days after the application has been determined to be complete by the County Board, and scheduling a subsequent special meeting of the County Board to decide whether or not to grant the requested permit and what, if any, conditions shall be required if the requested permit is granted, within a reasonable amount of time. (e) At the formal public hearing held by the County Board on the application at least sixty (60) days after it has been determined to be complete, the County Board shall consider any evidence concerning the application and the proposed CAFO presented by the applicant and any other interested persons or parties, including members of the public and other governmental agencies or entities, and special legal counsel and expert consultants who may be hired by the County to review the application and advise the County Board. (f) In its review and consideration of a CAFO Operations Permit Application, the County Board shall act in a quasi-judicial capacity, and its final decision on whether or not to approve and issue a CAFO Operations Permit, either with or without conditions, shall be based on written findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the provisions of this ordinance, which shall be filed with the County Clerk and served on the applicant by regular U.S. Mail. (g) The County Board shall approve and issue a CAFO Operations Permit, either with or without conditions, if it determines by a majority vote of all members of the County Board, supported by clear and convincing evidence presented by the applicant, that the operations of the proposed CAFO, with or without conditions, will protect public health (including human and animal health), safety, and general welfare, prevent pollution and the creation of private nuisances and public nuisances, and preserve the quality of life, environment, and existing small-scale livestock and other agricultural operations of the County and that the application meets all other requirement of this Ordinance. (h) The County Board shall issue a CAFO Operations Permit, with or without conditions, to an applicant that has met all other requirements of this Ordinance if it determines, based on information provided by the applicant and verified by the County, that a CAFO having substantially similar operational characteristics, housing the same species of animals, and utilizing similar operations, has been continuously operated in the United States for at least ten (10) years without causing pollution of groundwater or surface water, and without causing either a private nuisance or a public nuisance. However, this requirement may be waived by the County Board at the specific request of the applicant for a CAFO Operations Permit if the County Board determines, upon a hearing and based on clear and convincing information provided by the applicant and verified by the County, that the proposed CAFO will otherwise meet the requirements set forth in Secs. 5-6-4 (d) and 5-6-5 (g), above. 106 (i) The County Board shall, in granting any CAFO Operations Permit, require the applicant to ensure that sufficient funds will be available for pollution clean-up, nuisance abatement, and proper closure of the CAFO if it is abandoned or otherwise ceases to operate as planned and permitted, based on the following provisions: 1. Notification. The County Board shall determine the required financial assurance level of the CAFO and shall notify the applicant. As a condition of a permit, the County Board shall require financial assurance to be filed with the County Board in an amount sufficient to clean-up environmental contamination if the same were to occur, to abate public nuisances caused by CAFO operations, including but not limited to the testing and replacement of any potentially contaminated private and public wells and water supplies within the areas subject to CAFO operations, and to ensure proper closure of the CAFO, should the applicant elect to close or should the closure occur for some other reason. Upon notification of the required financial assurance levels by the County Board, but prior to commencing operations of the CAFO, the applicant shall file with the County Board said financial assurance conditioned on faithful performance of all requirements of this chapter and the permit. Upon notification by the County Board of financial assurance or deposit approval and conformance with permit conditions, the applicant may commence CAFO operations. 2. Bond Requirements. (a) Bonds shall be issued by a surety company licensed to do business in this state. At the option of the applicant or permit holder a performance bond or a forfeiture bond may be filed. Surety companies may have the opportunity to complete the clean-up of environmental contamination or complete proper closure of the CAFO in lieu of cash payment to the County. (b) Each bond shall provide that the bond shall not be canceled by the surety, except after not less than 90 days’ notice to the County Board, in writing, by registered or certified mail. Not less than 30 days prior to the expiration of the 90 day notice of cancellation, the applicant or permit holder under this chapter must deliver to the County Board a replacement bond or approved alternate financial assurance in absence of which all CAFO operations shall cease. (c) The bond shall be payable to “Bayfield County, Wisconsin.” 3. Alternate Financial Assurance. An applicant or permit holder may deposit cash, irrevocable letters of credit, irrevocable trusts, established escrow accounts, negotiable certificates of deposit or negotiable government securities with the County in lieu of a bond. Certificates of Deposit shall be automatically renewed or replaced with an alternate security before the 107 maturity date. Any interest earned by the financial assurance will be paid to the applicant at the time such financial assurance is cancelled or withdrawn. 4. Financial Assurance Reevaluation. (a) The County Board may reevaluate and adjust accordingly the amount of the financial assurance required for the CAFO, including reevaluating said financial assurance when requested to do so by the applicant or permit holder, provided that the applicant or permit holder may only request a reevaluation once per year. (b) The applicant or permit holder shall notify the County Board in writing if there is a ten percent (10%) change in the average daily number of animal units housed at the CAFO in any 365 day period. This notification shall be provided at any time such a change occurs, and not just for financial assurance reevaluation. (c) The County Board shall notify the applicant in writing within 60 days of a decision to adjust the amount of the financial assurance for the CAFO, whether the adjustment results in a greater or lesser financial assurance requirement. 5. Financial Assurance on Multiple Projects. Any applicant or permit holder that receives a permit from the County Board for two or more CAFOs may elect, at the time the second or subsequent CAFO is approved, to post a single financial assurance in lieu of separate financial assurance on each CAFO. Any financial assurance so posted shall be in an amount equal to the estimated cost to the County to clean-up environmental contamination if the same were to occur at all such CAFOs, to abate public nuisances caused by CAFO operations, including but not limited to the testing and replacement of any potentially contaminated private and public wells and water supplies within the areas subject to CAFO operations, and to ensure proper closure of all such CAFOs, should the applicant elect to close or should the closure occur for some other reason. When an applicant elects to post a single financial assurance in lieu of separate financial assurance previously posted on an individual CAFO the separate financial assurance shall not be released until the new financial assurance has been accepted by the County Board. 6. Financial Assurance Release. The County Board shall release the applicant’s or permit holder’s financial assurance after providing notice to all property owners within 3 miles of the CAFO of the intent to release financial insurance and allowing such owners 90 days to object, if it finds, after inspection of the CAFO and documentation provided by the permit holder, that the permit holder has completed or ceased CAFO operations at the permitted location and all associated parcels, and that there is no environmental contamination or 108 public nuisance remaining at any locations used for any part of the CAFO operations, after operations have ceased. 7. Cancellation. The financial assurance shall provide that it may not be canceled by the surety or other holder or issuer except after not less than a 90 days’ notice to the County Board in writing by registered or certified mail. Not less than 30 days prior to the expiration of the 90 days’ notice of cancellation, the applicant or permit holder shall deliver to the County Board a replacement financial assurance. In the absence of this replacement financial assurance, all CAFO operations shall cease until the time the required financial assurance is delivered and in effect. 8. Changing Methods of Financial Assurance. The operator of a CAFO may change from one method of financial assurance to another. This may not be done more than once a year unless required by an adjustment imposed pursuant to this chapter. The permit holder shall give the County Board at least 60 days’ notice prior to changing methods of financial assurance and may not actually change methods without the written approval of the County Board. 9. Bankruptcy Notification. The applicant or permit holder under this chapter shall notify the County Board by certified or registered mail of the commencement of voluntary or involuntary proceedings under the United States Bankruptcy Code, U.S. Code Title 11--Bankruptcy, naming the applicant or permit holder as a debtor, within 10 days of commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding. (j) The County Board may approve a CAFO Operations Permit and attach conditions to protect public health (including human and animal health), safety, and general welfare, prevent pollution and the creation of private nuisances and public nuisances, and preserve the quality of life, environment, and existing small-scale livestock and other agricultural operations of the County. To the extent not expressly or otherwise preempted by Wis. Stat. §93.90, and Wis. Admin. Code Ch. ATCP 51 or any other provision of state or federal law, such conditions may include, but are not limited to: 1. Conditions relating to the operational characteristics of the proposed CAFO, to protect public health, prevent point and non-point sources of air and water pollution, and prevent private nuisances and public nuisances; 2. Conditions relating to the management of animal and other waste that may be generated as part of a CAFO’s ongoing operations, to protect public health, prevent point and non-point sources of air and water pollution, and prevent private nuisances and public nuisances; 3. Conditions relating to the population and depopulation of individual animal housing facilities, to protect public health and prevent the spread of animal- borne and vector-borne disease, to assure a safe level of sanitation, and to assure human health hazard control or health protection for the community; 109 4. Conditions relating to biosecurity and the maintenance of animal health and welfare, to prevent the spread of animal-borne and vector-borne disease, to protect public health, and provide for animal safety and welfare; 5. Conditions relating to transportation of animals as part of a CAFO’s ongoing operations, to protect public health, prevent pollution, and prevent private nuisances and public nuisances; 6. Conditions relating to protection of private and public drinking and agricultural wells, and other public water supplies, as part of a CAFO’s ongoing operations to protect public health, prevent pollution, and prevent private nuisances and public nuisances; 7. Conditions relating to air emissions and dust control as part of a CAFO’s ongoing operations, to protect public health, prevent pollution, and prevent private nuisances and public nuisances; 8. Conditions relating to protection of the private and public property rights and property values of affected property owners, as part of a CAFO’s ongoing operations, to protect the general welfare of the County’s residents and property owners, and to prevent private nuisances and public nuisances; 9. Conditions relating to permit compliance, enforcement, and monitoring, including establishment of fees that may be assessed against the permittee to cover the costs of hiring, training, and maintaining County personnel, or for contracting with private consultants, to conduct permit compliance, enforcement and monitoring activities for the County; 10. Any other conditions deemed reasonably necessary or appropriate by the County Board to effectively, efficiently, and comprehensively regulate the operations of a CAFO, to protect public health (including human and animal health), safety, and general welfare, prevent pollution and the creation of private nuisances and public nuisances, and preserve the quality of life, environment, and existing small-scale livestock and other agricultural operations of the County. (k) An applicant or any other person or party who is aggrieved by a final decision of the County Board on whether or not to approve and issue a CAFO Operations Permit, either with or without conditions, or a taxpayer, or any officer, department, board or bureau of the County, may, within thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision with the County Clerk, commence an action seeking the remedy available by certiorari in the Bayfield County Circuit Court. The court shall not stay the decision appealed from, but may, with notice to the County Board, grant a restraining order. The County Board shall not be required to return the original papers acted upon by it, but it shall be sufficient to return certified or sworn copies thereof. If necessary for the proper disposition of the matter, the court may take evidence, or appoint a referee to take evidence and report findings of fact and conclusions of law as it directs, which shall constitute a part of the proceedings upon which the determination of the 110 court shall be made. The court may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify, the decision brought up for review. (l) In any certiorari proceeding brought under the preceding paragraph, attorney fees and costs shall not be allowed against the County Board unless it shall appear to the court that it acted with gross negligence, or in bad faith, or with malice in making the decision appealed from. (m) A final decision of the County Board under this ordinance is not subject to appeal under Wis. Stat. 93.90(5) or the provisions of Chapter 2 “Livestock Facilities Licensing Ordinance” of Title 5 [Public Safety] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, Wis. Stat. § 93.90, and Wis. Admin. Code Ch. ATCP 51, which apply only to siting decisions. (n) The County Board, or its designee, shall work to ensure on an ongoing basis that all requirements and conditions of any permit issued under this ordinance are followed by the permittee. To assist in accomplishing this task, any permit issued pursuant to this ordinance shall be subject to an annual renewal fee in the amount of One Dollar ($1.00) per animal unit. Sec. 5-6-6 Permit Term & Extensions (a) A permit issued by the County Board under this ordinance shall be for an initial term of five (5) years, so long as the permittee remits the annual renewal fee set forth in Sec. 5-6-5(n), above. Thereafter, if no substantial changes or modifications are proposed to the CAFO operations and there have been no permit violations or compliance problems a permittee may apply for extension of the same permit for additional five (5) year periods. The County Board may request any information it finds reasonably necessary to evaluate whether no substantial changes or modification are proposed or have taken place, and the permittee shall provide such information. If substantial changes or modifications are determined to have taken place, or if there have been violations of the permit conditions or requirements under this ordinance, or under any state or federal requirements, the permittee shall have to reapply for an Operations Permit and follow all steps required under this ordinance. Sec. 5-6-7 Penalties (a) Any violation of this ordinance shall be punishable by a forfeiture of not less than $100.00 or more than $5,000.00 per day for every day of violation of this ordinance, plus the costs of prosecution, including the County’s reasonable attorney fees and costs, for each and every violation. (b) Each day of violation shall constitute a separate offense. In addition, the County Board may: (1) issue a notice of violation and order that specifies required remedial action, which may include a stop operations and work order; (2) suspend or revoke the permit; or (3) impose any other available enforcement remedy. 111 Section 2. Except as specifically modified and amended by this ordinance, the Bayfield County Code of Ordinances shall remain in force and effect exactly as originally adopted and previously amended. All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with or in contravention of the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 3. Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction adjudges any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance, unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected thereby. In addition, if a court of competent jurisdiction adjudges any section, clause, provision, condition, or portion of any CAFO Operations Permit approved and issued by the County Board, pursuant to this ordinance, unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder of the CAFO Operations Permit shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected thereby. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from the date of its passage by the County Board. APPENDIX “A” BAYFIELD COUNTY CAFO OPERATIONS PERMIT APPLICATION Application Filing Fee: $ _________ (# of Animal Units) x $1.00 per AU = $ ____________ Date of Application: ____________________________________________________________ Name of Individual or Organization Operating CAFO): _________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ Name of Individual Completing Application: _________________________________________ Federal Employer ID# ____________________ State Employer ID# __________________ Contact Person: _______________________________________________________________ Address: _____________________________________________________________________ City ____________________________State _______________________Zip _____________ Phone: ( )_____________ Fax: ( )______________ Cell Phone: ( ) _____________ Email: ________________________________________________________________________ Provide the Legal Description and owner name and contact information for each parcel of the land at which the livestock facilities will be located. If any of the land is rented include a copy of the lease agreement or other document demonstrating permission to use the land and/or facilities as proposed. Provide the following information for each parcel. 112 ____ ¼ of ____ ¼, Section____Township ____N. Range____W. Town of _____________ Tax Parcel ID Number: _____________________________________ Acreage ______ Name and Address of Land Owner: Name: ________________________________________________________________ Address: _____________________________________________________________ City ____________________________State _____________________ Zip _______ Provide the Legal Description and owner name and contact information for each parcel of Owned or Rented land proposed to be used in conjunction with CAFO Operations (e.g. manure spreading). For each parcel of Rented land include a copy of a cropland lease agreement or other document demonstrating permission to use the land as proposed. The term of the lease agreement must be clearly indicated in the lease agreement. Provide the following information for each parcel. ____ ¼ of ____ ¼, Section____Township ____N. Range____W. Town of___________________ Tax Parcel ID Number: _____________________________________ Acreage _______________ Name and Address of Land Owner: Name: ________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________ City ____________________________State _______________________Zip _______________ (1) Describe current land uses within and immediately adjacent to the proposed CAFO site, including aerial photographs. For lands being used for crop production, include a description of crops currently being grown with an estimate of acreage of each crop. (2) Permits: a. Does this CAFO have a Bayfield County Siting License? Yes No b. Does this CAFO have a Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems Permit? Yes No c. Does this CAFO have Bayfield County Land Use Permit(s)? Yes No If so, identify the permits held. ______________________________________ d. If this CAFO lacks any of the above permits, please set forth all plans to obtain any of the above permits, including when applications have been or will be filed, and the expected date for approval or denial of the permit. (3) Location/Crops/Phosphorus: a. Identify each structure or facility intended to be used in conjunction with the proposed CAFO, setting forth the location, physical dimensions, and intended use for each structure, as well as how many animal units, if any, will be housed in each structure. At a minimum, include all information and drawings required by Wisconsin Administrative Rules, Chapter NR 243.12(1)(a) 1 through 5. 113 b. List each crop that will be grown on land managed by the CAFO. Provide an annual yield estimate for each crop and an explanation of how that estimate was determined. c. Provide aerial photos that identify all perennial streams, intermittent streams, navigable waters, and direct conduits to navigable waters on or within 1,000 feet of any parcel of land intended to be used in conjunction with the proposed CAFO. d. Provide a soil map using SSURGO data for all parcels of land intended to be used in conjunction with the proposed CAFO. Include a soil map unit description for each predominant and critical soil type shown on the maps and include an estimate of soil depth to bedrock or gravel or sand deposits. Include soil test data for phosphorus with one sample per five acres. The soil test data must have been collected no more than 12 months prior to submission of this application. e. Using the P-Trade report in SNAP-PLUS or other viable means, provide an estimate of total annual field edge phosphorus losses for all fields to be used in conjunction with the proposed CAFO for each of the two full calendar years prior to the date submitting this application. f. Provide an estimate of total annual phosphorus losses for each of the two full calendar years prior to the date submitting this application for all existing agricultural facilities (buildings, animal lots, animal feeding areas, feed storage etc.) on all lands to be used in conjunction with the CAFO. g. Provide an estimate of total annual phosphorus losses for each of the full five calendar years of the proposed operations for all existing agricultural facilities (buildings, animal lots, animal feeding areas, feed storage, etc.) on all lands to be used in conjunction with the CAFO. (4) CAFO operations: a. Describe the method or methods the CAFO will employ to store any and all animal waste products, including describing the exact location where such products will be stored at any time during operation of the CAFO. You may refer to information and drawings submitted in response to paragraph (3) a. above, as appropriate. b. Describe the method or methods the CAFO will employ to handle and process any and all animal waste products, including the specific machinery and methods that will be employed, the location where the processing of waste will take place, and any materials or chemicals that will be used. Describe any technology or processes that will be used (such as anaerobic digestion) that will alter pathogen loads, nutrient content, or moisture levels of the manure prior to land-spreading. c. Provide a complete nutrient management plan that meets the requirements of Wisconsin Administrative Code NR 243.14. The plan shall be based on the volume of manure that will be generated by the operation in each of the five calendar years covered by this Permit. Include all lands being used in conjunction with the operations of the CAFO, including but not limited to: spreading manure, growing and harvesting crops, applying commercial fertilizer, shall be included in the nutrient management plan. Provide a copy of a cropland lease agreement or other document for all rented lands included in the nutrient management plan. The lease agreements must clearly allow the land use as proposed in the nutrient management plan. d. Provide an estimate of how many livestock mortalities are expected for the operation in a given year and a description of how that estimate was determined. Describe the method 114 or methods the CAFO will use to store dead animals (carcasses), including describing the exact location where such carcasses will be stored and for how long. e. Describe the method or methods the CAFO will use to handle, process, and dispose of any and all dead animals, including the specific technology, machinery, and methods that will be employed, the location where the processing/disposal of carcasses will take place, and any materials or chemicals that will be used. If licenses or approvals are necessary from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources or other state, town, or federal agency, provide copies of those licenses, permits, and/or approvals. If this CAFO lacks any of the required licenses, permits, and/or approvals, describe all plans and expected dates for receiving them. f. Describe the technologies or method(s) the CAFO will employ to reduce, eliminate, or treat methane, nitrous oxide, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and particulate emissions from the proposed CAFO, including the specific technology, machinery, and methods that will be employed, and any materials or chemicals that will be used. g. Describe how animals will be transported to, from, and within the CAFO, including a description of the type, size and weight (loaded gross vehicle and each axle) of the transportation vehicles, all highways or roads within the County that will be used, the proposed hours of operation for said transportation, and the specific path of travel for all such transportation. h. Describe how all animal waste will be transported to, from and within the CAFO, including a description of the type, width, length, and weight (loaded gross vehicle and each axle) of the transportation vehicles, all highways or roads within the County that will be used, the proposed hours of operation for said transportation, and the specific path of travel for all such transportation. i. Describe how all other products or materials (apart from animals or manure) will be transported to, from and within the CAFO, including a description of the type, width, length, and weight (loaded gross vehicle and each axle) of the transportation vehicles, all highways or roads within the County that will be used, the proposed hours of operation for said transportation, and the specific path of travel for all such transportation. j. Describe the type, width, length, and weight (loaded gross vehicle and each axle) of each implement of husbandry (excluding manure and animal hauling equipment) that will be used on highways or roads within the County. Provide an aerial photos showing the specific path of travel for the implements of husbandry and the estimated hours of operation of the equipment on the highways or roads in Bayfield County. k. If manure is transported by pipeline (permanent or temporary) to fields for land-spreading provide a map showing the intended route and the location and photo of every culvert used along the route. Show all perennial streams, intermittent streams, and direct conduits to navigable waters on the map(s). If required, provide a copy of the permit(s) allowing use of the right-of-way or culvert. If crossing driveways or land not under the control of the CAFO, provide a letter from the landowner clearly granting permission to cross the driveway or land with the permanent or temporary pipeline. l. Identify all residential and business structures within 500 feet of a gravel road in Bayfield County used at any time of the year by implements of husbandry, agricultural CMVs, tractor-trailers, or semi-trailers. Describe how road dust generated by use of the gravel roads by the CAFO will be controlled. 115 m. Identify the source of all water to be used at the proposed CAFO facility and the anticipated quantity of water that will be necessary for all CAFO related operations, and also set forth the location of any private or public well located within 1000 feet of any parcel of real estate to be used in conjunction with the proposed CAFO facility. Provide well-drilling records, if available, for all private or public wells within 1000 feet of any parcel of real estate to be used in conjunction with the proposed CAFO facility. n. Identify a CAFO having substantially similar operational characteristics, housing the same species of animals, and utilizing similar operations, that has been continuously operated in the United States for at least ten (10) years without causing pollution of groundwater or surface water, and without causing either a private nuisance or a public nuisance. Set forth in what ways said existing CAFO has similar operational characteristics of the CAFO proposed in this application. In the alternative, state whether the applicant is requesting a waiver of this requirement and, if so, provide information that may be verified by the County, to show that the proposed CAFO will otherwise meet the requirements set forth in Secs. 5-6-4 (d) and 5-6-5 (g), of the Ordinance. (5) Animal Welfare: a. Describe how all animals will be housed in the proposed CAFO, including a description of the size of each pen or stall any animal will be kept in, the number of animals that will be kept within each pen, and the location and type of any outdoor area allotted for animals. b. In the event of power outages or equipment failure, describe how the welfare of animals housed by the CAFO will be maintained including, but not limited to: providing water, venting hazardous air emissions, cooling, and feeding. c. Describe how all animal units will be fed, including the type of feed, the amount of feed per animal, the method of feeding each animal, etc. d. Apart from the feed identified above, identify all products (including chemicals or medicines) that will be injected in, fed to, or otherwise administered to animals in the CAFO on an ongoing basis (i.e. at least once per month): e. Identify any and all measures that will be taken to prevent the spread of disease between animals and between animals and humans at the proposed CAFO. f. Identify all veterinary care that will be routinely administered to or available to the animals of the proposed CAFO, and identify all medicines or treatments that are anticipated to be administered to animals of the proposed CAFO. Identify steps that will be taken by the CAFO to limit development of resistance to antibiotics. (6) Employee Welfare: a. Identify the number of anticipated employees at the proposed CAFO. b. What type of education will employees receive regarding operating safe CAFOs and maintaining safe and healthful conditions for animals and employees at said facility? c. What type of healthcare will be made available to employees of the proposed CAFO, or what type of routine medical examinations will be performed? d. What are the hours and days of anticipated operation of the proposed CAFO specifically identifying days and times where machinery or other equipment that may make noise detectable to neighboring properties will be in use? 116 (7) Emergency management: a. Set forth in detail an emergency plan of action in the event of soil, water or air contamination emanating from the proposed CAFO, or in the event of a spill of animal waste products, whether on or off the proposed CAFO site, including the name and contact information for emergency management response team members, the equipment and location of equipment available to respond to such an emergency situation, the anticipated timeline for response to an emergency event, and the anticipated testing measures to be used to ensure the emergency response was effective. At a minimum, include all information and drawings required by Wisconsin Administrative Rules, Chapter NR 243.12(13)6. b. Set forth in detail an emergency plan of action in the event of a mass animal mortality event (death of more than 5% of the animals within a 72 hour period) caused by natural disaster, disease, equipment failure, or other cause. Include the name and contact information for the emergency management response team members, the equipment and location of equipment available to respond to such an emergency situation, the anticipated timeline for response to an emergency event, and the anticipated testing measures to be used to ensure the emergency response was effective. c. Identify all residences and businesses within 1000’ of the proposed CAFO site and provide names and contact information for all the owners of those residences and businesses. Indicate how each of those owners will be contacted within 30 minutes of a failure of air filtration or other equipment intended to limit emission of hazardous gasses or particulates. d. Set forth in detail all regular testing or monitoring that will take place to ensure that no contamination or environmental degradation is occurring as a result of CAFO related activities. Provide a description of the testing or monitoring protocols and schedule as well as how the data will be communicated to the County. (8) Environmental Impact: a. List resources that may be impacted by the proposed CAFO such as timber, agriculture, surface water, ground water, air quality, noise pollution and plant, wildlife or fish habitat. Describe measures that will be taken to mitigate those impacts. b. Are there any known endangered species on or near the proposed CAFO site? Yes / No. If yes – describe the species and whether an environmental impact statement will need to be prepared? c. Will groundwater monitoring wells be installed? If not, describe why not. If so, provide information on each monitoring well including anticipated well depth, well location, chemicals and/or substances that will be monitored, and the schedule and protocol for testing the water from each well. How will this information be shared with Bayfield County and the public? d. Describe erosion control practices that will be used during the CAFO operations. If no measures will be used, explain why none are needed. e. Describe how concentrated flow areas and direct conduits to surface waters will be maintained in perennial vegetation. If concentrated flow areas and/or direct conduits to groundwater are rutted during field operations, describe how the concentrated flow areas and/or direct conduits to surface water will be repaired. Provide an estimate of how often the concentrated flow areas and/or direct conduits to surface water will need to be repaired. 117 (9) Public and private nuisances: a. Describe measures that will be taken to screen the CAFO operation from view of surrounding land uses or explain why such measures are not needed (include photos of the area to show affected areas or why no areas will be affected). b. Describe how odor from the livestock facilities and land-spreading activities will be controlled. If no such measures are necessary, explain why. Also explain the schedule and method for air quality testing, if any, within a quarter mile of the proposed CAFO’s boundaries before, during and after the CAFO is opened, worked and closed. (10) Financial Security: a. Set forth all bonds already in place in relation to CAFO operations and in support of this permit or, if no such bonds exist, set forth the amount the operation anticipates obtaining in a bond amount. Explain why this amount is sufficient pursuant to the terms of the Bayfield County Livestock Operations Ordinance. (11) Example CAFO Operations: a. Set forth all bonds already in place in relation to CAFO operations and in support of this permit or, if no such bonds exist, set forth the amount the operation anticipates obtaining in a bond amount. Explain why this amount is sufficient pursuant to the terms of the Bayfield County Livestock Operations Ordinance. Print or Type the Livestock Operator’s Name: ___________________________________ Legal Name of Livestock Company:____________________________________________ Legal address of Livestock Company:__________________________________________ City___________________________ State _________________ Zip ______________ Signature: _____________________________________ ________________________ Authorized Operating Company Representative’s Signature Date Note: Signature of this application by the applicant or applicant’s representative authorizes the County and its designees to enter upon the property to perform needed inspections at any time and on as many occasions as the County or its designee deems necessary without prior notice to applicant(s). Note: Applicant(s) are required to provide twenty-five (25) copies of their completed application to the County Clerk upon submission, along with the application filing fee. The additional copies are for the County Board, adjoining landowners, and the general public at the public hearing. Note: If the answers to any of the above questions can be found in an approved Bayfield County Siting Permit or WPDES permit, applicant may refer to the appropriate sections of said permit and attach a copy thereof to this application. Section 2. Except as specifically modified and amended by this ordinance, the Bayfield County Code of Ordinance shall remain in force and effect exactly as originally adopted and previously amended. All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with or in contravention of the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 3. SEVERABILITY. If a court of competent jurisdiction adjudges any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby. 118 Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Bayfield on the 26th day of January, 2016. By Action of the BAYFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Attested to by: Dennis M. Pocernich, Chairman A motion was made by Strand/Jardine to adopt Ordinance 2016-03, Creating Chapter 6 [Large-Scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Ordinance] of title 5 [Public Safety] of the Bayfield County Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, WI. Discussion took place that this is a good ordinance to adopt. Attorney Coleman did a very good job describing the procedures on how this ordinance was developed. Bayfield County Board needs to do whatever they can to exercise and keep the control we have. There is a legal basis for doing this ordinance. This is the best option that we have. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Miller – absent; Crandall – yes; Rondeau – yes; Wendling – yes; Bussey – yes; Jardine – yes; Maki – yes; Kittleson – yes; Bennett – yes; Pocernich – yes; Strand – yes; Williams – absent; Bichanich – yes. Total: 13, 11 yes, 0 no, 2 absent. The motion carried. 5. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Bayfield County Amendatory Ordinance No. 2016-04, South Fish Creek Watershed Animal Waste Storage and Management Ordinance. Attorney Coleman explained the development of this ordinance as well. There was evidence that the South Fish Creek Watershed already suffers from impairment. For that reason, the Large-Scale Committee has approved a Manure Storage Ordinance in a particular fashion in that region that would exceed State standards. We are required, under §92.15 when regulating issues regarding water quality, that we have to seek permission from the DNR. This is what this ordinance does. Fischbach explained this ordinance very well in the powerpoint. This would not come into effect until approved by the DNR. What we would be trying to tell the DNR is that there needs to be stricter regulations upon manure storage due to the fact that the area is already affected by pollutants of this nature. This is CAFO specific. It does exceed State standards that are specific to the South Creek Watershed if passed by the board. The Board dispensed with the reading of the ordinance, which reads as follows: FINDINGS: The Bayfield County Board of Supervisors makes the following findings: 1. The predominant farmed soils in Bayfield County are clay-looms originating from glacial till. With high bulk density and slow infiltration, runoff during the spring snowmelt and after heavy rains is common. 119 2. To farm the clay soils of Bayfield County, agricultural producers maintain extensive surface drainage networks to rapidly remove excess water. 3. Drainage practices that increase runoff rates from agricultural lands lead to higher peak flows in streams, resulting in increased streambank erosion and consequent loading of particulate phosphorus and sediment into downstream surface waters. 4. As such, the primary threat from agriculture to surface water in Bayfield County is from surface run-off carrying sediment, nutrients, and manure. 5. Phosphorus loading in surface waters and consequent algal blooms constitute a threat to human health due to toxins produced by the algae. 6. Microbiological pathogens from manure in runoff and surface waters constitute a threat to human health. 7. Most erosion, sedimentation, and nutrient loss from agricultural lands occur during spring snowmelt and during large storm events. 8. Historical precipitation data and future climate modeling indicate the Chequamegon Bay region is and will continue to receive more precipitation in larger storm events. 9. Increasing manure and fertilizer applications within a watershed is likely to increase nutrient loading into surface waters within that watershed. 10. The required manure storage capacity for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations under NR 243 Wis. Adm. Code, given the climate and soils of Bayfield County, is likely inadequate to ensure no winter manure applications. 11. The short growing season for grain crops such as corn, soybeans, and sunflowers, and the likelihood of saturated or frozen ground conditions after harvest increases the likelihood that manure cannot be applied after harvest, and consequently, livestock operations covered by NR 243 relying on application of manure in the fall after harvest of grain crops are likely to utilize emergency spreading allowances for winter applications of manure. 12. Manitowoc County in Wisconsin, with soils similar to those found in Bayfield County, has implemented additional limits on mechanical application of manure in order to achieve water quality standards in surface waters. 13. The phosphorus levels in South Fish Creek in northeast Bayfield County have exceeded the maximum thresholds permitted under NR 102.06 Wis. Adm. Code in 2014 and 2015. (Lehr, 2015) 14. The phosphorus levels in nearshore areas of Chequamegon Bay have exceeded the maximum thresholds permitted under NR 102.06 Wis. Adm. Code in 2014 and 2015. (Lehr, 2015) 15. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Drinking Water and Groundwater, “Source Water Assessment For Ashland Water Utility, Ashland, Wisconsin, March 27, 2003” has determined: 120 a. The City of Ashland, Wisconsin, located on the south shore of Lake Superior’s Chequamegon Bay, relies solely on source water from the bay to provide drinking water to its residents. (p.2) b. The area providing Ashland’s source water includes the watersheds of Bono Creek, Boyd Creek, Whittlesey Creek, and the north and south branches of Fish Creek, located in Bayfield County. These streams drain an area of relatively flat, impermeable red clay soils, resulting in heavy sedimentation. (p.5) c. The source area contains a mixture of agricultural activities identified by the Department as having negative impacts on the south branch of Fish Creek (South Fish Creek). (p.6) d. The shallow nature of Chequamegon Bay has multiple negative impacts on source water quality, including warmer summer and autumn temperatures, more easily suspended lake bottom sediments and less dilution of contaminants entering the bay. (p.7) e. The normal counterclockwise circulation pattern in the bay negatively impacts source water by drawing the discharge of the Fish Creek and Bay City Creek east along the shoreline towards the drinking water intake. (p.8) f. Ashland’s municipal water supply has one surface water intake located in southeastern Chequamegon Bay. The calculated sensitivity of the intake— defined as the likelihood that source water will be impacted by contaminants due to the intrinsic physical attributes of the source water area—is very high. (p.9) g. Concentrated animal feeding operations (over 1000 animal units) have the potential to contribute pollutants such as inorganic, synthetic organic, microbial contaminants as well as hormones and antibiotics to the source water. (p.10) h. Ashland’s source water quality is significantly impacted by local factors and highly susceptible to contamination. (p.14) i. Manure management is a recommended means of dealing with negative impacts on Ashland’s source water. (p.15) Based on the foregoing findings, the Board further finds that the following regulations pertaining to the operations of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations within the South Fish Creek watershed are necessary to achieve water quality standards under section 281.15 of the Wisconsin Statutes and to protect public health and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby ordain as follows: Chapter 7 of Title 5 [Public Safety] is hereby created to read as follows: 121 Chapter 7 South Fish Creek Watershed Animal Waste Storage and Management Ordinance Sec 5-7-1 Authority. This chapter is adopted under authority granted under Section 59.02, 59.03, 59.70, 92.15, and 92.16 of the Wisconsin State Statutes. Sec. 5-7-2 Applicability. All Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, as defined in Sec. 5-6-3(b) of the Bayfield County Code of Ordinances, located or utilizing owned or rented land within the South Fish Creek watershed in Bayfield County for the housing of livestock, production of crops, spreading of manure, or any other agricultural activity shall comply with the regulations in this chapter. Sec. 5-7-3 Interpretation. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this chapter shall be held to be minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of Bayfield County, and shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other power granted by the Wisconsin State Statutes. Sec. 5-7-4 Severability Clause. If any provision or portion of this chapter is ruled invalid by a court, the remainder of the chapter shall not for that reason be rendered ineffective. Sec. 5-7-5 Effective Date. This chapter shall become effective upon its adoption and publication by the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors and approval by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources under s. 92.15 of the Wisconsin Statutes and NR 151.096 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. Sec. 5-7-6 Definitions. Definitions herein are to conform to the provisions set forth in the Wisconsin Administrative Code and Bayfield County Code. (a) Compliance Order. A document or notification from the Land Conservation Committee, or their designee, outlining the nature of the violation(s) of the provisions of this chapter and corrective measures. (b) Conduit to a navigable water. A natural or man-made area or structure that discharges to a navigable water via channelized flow. This includes open tile line intake structures, open vent pipes, sinkholes, agricultural well heads, drainage ditches that discharge to navigable waters and grassed waterways that drain directly to a navigable water. (c) Intermittent stream. A watercourse with a bed and bank where water does not flow continuously and that is identified as an intermittent stream on a United States Geological Survey 1:24,000 quadrangle map. (d) Manure. Excreta from livestock, poultry, or other animals. Manure includes the following when intermingled with excreta in normal farming operations: debris including bedding, water, soil, hair, and feathers: processing derivatives including separated sand, separated manure solids, precipitated manure sludges, supernatants, digested liquids, composted biosolids, and process water; and runoff collected from barnyards, animal lots, and feed storage areas. 122 (e) Manure storage facility. An impoundment made by constructing an embankment or excavating a pit or dugout or by fabricating a structure to contain manure and other animal or agricultural wastes that has a volume of 500 cubic feet or more and a depth of 2 feet or more. (f) Nutrient Management Plan. A plan that outlines the management and crediting of nutrients from all nutrient sources including soil reserves, commercial fertilizer, manure, organic byproducts, legume crops, and crop residues. All nutrient sources shall be accounted for and properly utilized. This plan must meet the current NRCS 590 standard, and NR 243 where applicable, and applies to all fields where plant nutrient sources and soil amendments are applied during the course of a rotation. Management includes the rate, method, and timing of the application of all sources of nutrients to minimize the amount of nutrients entering surface water and groundwater. The plan includes manure nutrient testing and routine soil testing and is developed according to USDA –NRCS Technical Standard 590. (g) Operator. A person responsible for the oversight or management of equipment, facilities or livestock at a livestock operation, or is responsible for land management in the production of crops. (h) Perennial stream. A channel where water flows continuously and that is identified as a perennial stream on a United States Geological Survey 1:24,000 quadrangle map. (i) One hundred (100)-year, twenty-four (24)-hour rainfall event. A rainfall event measured in terms of the depth of rainfall occurring within a twenty- four(24)-hour period and having an expected recurrent interval of once in one hundred (100) years. Sec. 5-7-7 Manure storage capacity. Animal manure storage facilities shall be properly designed to provide a minimum of 540 days of manure storage. In addition, liquid manure storage and containment facilities shall also have markers near the bottom of the facility indicating the levels at which the facility provides 180 and 270 days of storage, respectively. Such capacity shall include storage at all times for direct precipitation and runoff from a 100 yr, 24 hr storm event. Liquid storage facilities shall be emptied so that the 270-day level indicator is visible on at least one day between July 15 and September 1. In addition, the storage facility shall be emptied so that the 180-level indicator is visible on at least one day between October 15 and November 30. The operator shall record the days on which the 270-day and 180-day level indicators were visible and send a photo of the indicator to the Bayfield County Land Conservation Department. In the event the facility is not emptied to show the 270-day level indicator for any reason AND the facility is not emptied to show the 180-day level indicator by November 30 of the same calendar year for any reason, the operator shall transfer the manure to another manure storage facility or waste treatment plant in such 123 quantity as to empty the facility to show the 180-day level indicator by December 10 of that calendar year. If the facility was emptied to show the 270-day level indicator in the required time period, but was not emptied to show the 180-day level indicator during the required time period for any reason, the operator shall submit a written plan to the Land Conservation Department for approval by December 5 showing how the storage facility shall be emptied to show the 180-day level indicator by December 15 of that calendar year. Such a plan may include land- spreading the manure subject to any applicable local, state, or federal restrictions and upon approval by the Land Conservation Department. Approval of any proposed land-spreading by the Department shall depend on the ground conditions of the fields proposed for spreading, the method and rate of spreading, the forecasted weather during that time, and the Land Conservation Department’s determination of the risk of runoff from such land-spreading. Land-spreading shall not be an option unless the operator can demonstrate that weather conditions or other factors beyond the operator’s control prevented the spreading that otherwise would have resulted in emptying the pit to the required level by the required time. Sec. 5-7-8 Spreading windows. The annually updated nutrient management plan required under NR 243.14 Wis. Adm. Code shall include for each cropping year at least three distinct manure spreading windows in which at least 1/3 of the total manure produced and stored annually by the animal feeding operation is capable of being mechanically applied according to the spreading rates allowed by the nutrient management plan. Spreading windows include, but are not limited to: prior to planting in the spring, after each harvest of hay or perennial forage in the summer and fall, after harvest of small grains in the summer and fall, after harvest of corn or soybeans in the fall, or at any other time when the ground is not frozen or snow-covered and the application is allowable under the NR 243.14 Wis. Adm. Code. Sec. 5-7-9 Phosphorus. For fields within the South Fish Creek watershed, the operator may not increase soil test phosphorus levels over a 4-year crop rotation unless the operator can demonstrate that deliverability of phosphorus to the impaired waterbody will not increase as a result of increases in soil test phosphorus in the field. The operator may not raise soil test phosphorus levels over a 4-year crop rotation above the optimum level for the highest phosphorus demanding crop in the rotation for a field with soil test phosphorus levels below optimum levels. In addition, for fields within the South Fish Creek watershed, the Phosphorus Index shall not be higher than 2 for any single cropping year in the rotation. The application of this provision shall be suspended if and when it is satisfactorily demonstrated to the County Board that the phosphorus levels in the South Fish Creek watershed have not exceeded the maximum permitted levels of phosphorus under NR 102.06 for at least two consecutive years immediately preceding such determination, but any such suspension shall terminate upon a subsequent satisfactory demonstration to the County Board that such levels have again been in excess of the maximum permitted levels for at least two consecutive years. Sec 5-7-10 Further limits on mechanical application of manure. Mechanical application of manure is only permitted to meet crop needs and is subject to the following limitations: (a) Manure or process wastewater may not be applied by any means when precipitation 124 capable of producing runoff is forecast by the National Weather Service within 48 hours of the time of planned application. In addition, manure or process wastewater may not be applied by any means on days with a high or medium risk of runoff as indicated in the Runoff Risk Advisory Forecast by the Wisconsin Manure Management Advisory System. (b) No manure at any time of the year may be mechanically applied to any channel or concentrated flow area that flows to an intermittent stream, lake, perennial stream, pond, or sinkhole. This includes all conduits to intermittent stream or navigable waters. (c) No manure at any time of the year may be mechanically applied to land within 100 feet of an active or inactive well unless that well has been abandoned per USDA- NRCS Technical Standard 351. Manure that is mechanically applied to land that is more than 100, but less than 300 feet, and is upslope of an active or inactive well and that drains to a well must be incorporated into the soil within 48 hours of application. (d) No manure at any time of the year may be mechanically applied to land that is within 300 feet of and that drains to a drainage tile surface inlet, intermittent stream, or perennial stream, unless the manure is incorporated into the soil within 48 hours of application. (e) No manure at any time of the year may be mechanically applied to land that is within 1,000 feet of a lake or pond and that drains to the lake or pond unless it is incorporated into the soil within 48 hours of application. (f) Spreading restrictions listed in this article shall be in addition to any other rules or provisions regulating the mechanical application of animal manure including, but not limited to, WPDES permits issued under NR 243 or Operations Permits issued by Bayfield County. In the case of conflict, the most stringent provisions shall apply. Sec. 5-7-11 Inspection Authority. Bayfield County, or its designee, is authorized to enter upon any lands affected by this chapter to inspect the land or manure storage facility to determine compliance with this chapter. Sec. 5-7-12 Penalties and Enforcement. (a) Any violation of this chapter shall be punishable by a forfeiture of not less than $100 or more than $5000 per day for each violation of this chapter, plus the costs of prosecution, including the County’s reasonable attorney fees and costs. Each day of violation shall constitute a separate offense. (b) In addition, the County Board, or its designee, may issue a notice of violation and order that specifies required remedial action, which may include a stop operations and work order, or the Board may impose or seek any other available enforcement remedy, including injunctive relief. Dated this 26th day of January, 2016. 125 By Action of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors Dennis M. Pocernich, Chairman A motion was made by Strand/Wendling to adopt Bayfield County Amendatory Ordinance No. 2016-04, South Fish Creek Watershed Animal Waste and Management Ordinance, and that it be submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for approval in accordance with Section 92.15 of the Wisconsin Statutes and NR 151.096 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Crandall – yes; Rondeau – yes; Wendling – yes; Bussey – yes; Jardine – yes; Maki – yes; Kittleson – yes; Bennett – yes; Pocernich – yes; Strand – yes; Williams – absent; Bichanich – yes; Miller – absent. Total: 13, 11 yes, 0 no, 2 absent. The motion carried. Chairman Pocernich personally thanked the Advisory Committee and the County Board Supervisors for their work, time and dedicated service. Pocernich then introduced each of the members to the audience. They were all applauded with a standing ovation. 6. Discussion and Possible Action on Large-Scale Livestock Moratorium and Committee. Pocernich reported to the Board that according to how the moratorium reads and has been interpreted, as of tonight, the moratorium will cease as we now have an ordinance in place and have acted upon it. A short break was taken at 7:30 p.m. returning at 7:40 p.m. 7. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2016-01, Request to Amend the UW- Extension 292 Budget. Fischbach was present to explain that this number is where grant funds are housed. We are doing our annual budget amendment as presented. The County Board has to authorize expenditures when these budget amendments take place. Our revenues have exceeded our budget. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows: WHEREAS, the Bayfield County UW-Extension Office has received funds above the amount budgeted for 2015 from various Agricultural Projects and Grants and has expended funds above the amount budgeted for 2015 for various Agricultural Projects and Grants; and WHEREAS, the 2015 Bayfield County UW-Extension 292 budget needs to be amended to reflect these increases and expenses: Revenue Accounts to increase for a total of $ 28,731.56 # 292-25-43570-005 Woody BioMass Grant in the amount of $13,564.74 #292-25-47471 UW-Extension Reimbursements in the amount of $15,166.82 Disbursement Accounts to increase for a total of $ 28,731.56 # 292-25-55631-50290 126 (Ag Programs – Contractual Services) in the amount of $6,285.08 # 292-25-55636-50290 (Woody BioMass Grant–Contractual Services) in the amount of $ 10,145.60 # 292-25-55643-50290 (Buy Local, Buy WI Grant - Contractual Services) in the amount of $ 12,300.88 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors assembled this 26th day of January, 2016 does hereby amend the UW-Extension 292 budget to reflect the increase in revenues by $ 28,731.56 and the increase in expenditures by $ 28,731.56. By Action of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors Dennis M. Pocernich, Chair A motion was made by Bussey/Kittleson to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No. 2016-01, Request to Amend the UW-Extension 292 Budget. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Rondeau – yes; Wendling – yes; Bussey – yes; Jardine – yes; Maki – yes; Kittleson – yes; Bennett – yes; Pocernich – yes; Strand – yes; Williams – absent; Bichanich – yes; Miller – absent; Crandall – yes. Total: 13, 11 yes, 0 no, 2 absent. The motion carried. 8. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2016-03, Request to Amend the Planning & Zoning Department 2015 Overall Budget. Rob Schierman, Zoning Director, was present to explain that changes have occurred in his office and additional costs will be incurred as it relates to additional monies for wages, health insurance and HRA costs. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows: WHEREAS, A change of staff, pay levels and life circumstances of staff in the Planning & Zoning Department during 2015 resulted in additional wages, health insurance and HRA costs; and WHEREAS, additional cost overages in legal, special services and contractual services; and WHEREAS, additional permit fees are anticipated to cover cost overages in the department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors assembled this 26th day of January, 2016, does hereby authorize that the 2015 Planning and Zoning Department Budget be amended to reflect the additional costs for Wages, Health Insurance and HRA and Revenues from Permit Fees as follows: 127 EXPENDITURES Increase Health Insurance Line Item 100-26-56401-50154 by $1,607.00 Increase HRA Line Item 100-26-56401-50156 by $9,450.00 Increase Legal 100-26-56401-50212 by $3,566 Increase Special Services 100-26-56401-50250 by $2,461 Increase Mileage 100-26-56401-50332 by $2,082.00 Increase Office Supplies 100-26-56402-50310 by $311.00 Increase Postage 100-26-56402-50311 by $73.00 REVENUES Increase Zoning Permits and Fees 100-26-43580-44401 by $19,166.00 Increase BOA Fees 100-26-43580-44403 by $384.00 By Action of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors Dennis M. Pocernich, Chairman A motion was made by Rondeau/Jardine to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No. 2016-03, Request to Amend the Planning & Zoning Department 2015 Overall Budget. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Wendling – yes; Bussey – yes; Jardine – yes; Maki – yes; Kittleson – yes; Bennett – yes; Pocernich – yes; Strand – yes; Williams – absent; Bichanich – yes; Miller – absent; Crandall – yes; Rondeau – yes. Total: 13, 11 yes, 0 no, 2 absent. The motion carried. 9. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2016-02, Request to Amend the Planning & Zoning Department 2016 Insurance Budget. Schierman again explained that change of life circumstance has occurred in his office in 2016, which has resulted in 2016 in a correction of the health insurance costs. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows: WHEREAS, a change of life circumstance of staff in the Planning & Zoning Department in 2016 resulted in a correction of health insurance costs as follows: GENERAL FUND: Decrease Contingency [Cost Allocated] Line Item 100-00-51410-50000 by $31,280 EXPENDITURES: Increase Zoning [Health Insurance] Line Item 100-26-56401-50154 by $24,980 Increase Zoning [HRA] Line Item 100-26-56401-50156 by $6,300 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors assembled this 26th day of January, 2016, does hereby authorize that the 2016 128 Planning and Zoning Department Budget be amended to reflect the additional costs for Health Insurance as follows: GENERAL FUND: Decrease Contingency [Cost Allocated] Line Item 100-00-51410-50000 by $31,280 EXPENDITURES: Increase Zoning [Health Insurance] Line Item 100-26-56401-50154 by $24,980 Increase Zoning [HRA] Line Item 100-26-56401-50156 by $6,300 By Action of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors Dennis M. Pocernich, Chair A motion was made by Rondeau/Jardine to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No. 2016-02, Request to Amend the Planning & Zoning Department 2016 Insurance Budget. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Bussey – yes; Jardine – yes; Maki – yes; Kittleson – yes; Bennett – yes; Pocernich – yes; Strand – yes; Williams – absent; Bichanich – yes; Miller – absent; Crandall – yes; Rondeau – yes; Wendling – yes. Total: 13, 11 yes, 0 no, 2 absent. The motion carried. 10. Report of the Bayfield County Planning & Zoning Department Regarding Amendments to Section 13, “General Land Use Requirements,” Bayfield County Code of Ordinances, specifically Sections 13-1-21; 13-1-22 and 13-1-62. Schierman explained that this is to amend several areas in Section 13 and County Board approval is needed. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Report, which reads as follows: TO: The County Board of Supervisors of Bayfield County on the hearing of petitions to amend the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Committee of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors, having held a public hearing pursuant to Section 59.69(5)(e), Wisconsin Statutes; notice thereof having been given as provided by law; and having been duly informed of the facts pertinent to the following changes; hereby recommends the following action on said petition: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 13-1-21; 13-1-22; and 13-1-62 CODE OF ORDINANCES, BAYFIELD COUNTY, WI Section 1. Subsection (e)(1) [fee schedule] of Section 13-1-21 [General Land Use Requirements] of Article B [General Provisions] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning Code] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions): ll. Boathouse………………………. ………………….$ 300.00 129 mm. Refiling or Rehearing before Planning & Zoning Committee…………………. ………………….$ (see below) (The fee shall be equal to the fee for the underlying application, as set forth in Section 13-1-21(e)(1)a-ll) Section 2. Subsection (a)(4) [Structures Exempt Under 59.692(1V) Wis. Stats.] of Section 13-1-22 [Setback and Height Restrictions] of Article B [General Provisions] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning Code] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions): b. The total cumulative floor area of all structures within the shoreland setback area of the lot upon which the structure is to be located shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet. Section 3. Subsection (6)(a) [Boathouses] of Section 13-1-22 [Setback and Height Restrictions] of Article B [General Provisions] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning Code] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions), and deletions highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions): (6) Boathouses. No boathouse may be constructed closer to a navigable body of water than the applicable setback after the effective date of this provision. Any existing boathouse between the applicable setback and the ordinary high water mark shall be subject to Section 13-1-40(f)(2-3). Any existing boathouse extending beyond the ordinary high water mark shall be subject to Sec. 30.121, Wis. Stats. a. Only boathouse construction activities which follow Best Management Practices (BMPs) and are done in a manner designated to minimize erosion, sedimentation and impairment of fish and wildlife habitat and which are accomplished in conformity with all applicable federal, state and local laws are permissible in the shoreland. b. Boathouses shall be designed, constructed and used solely for the storage of boats and/or related equipment and shall not include any habitable living area including but not limited to decks, patios, lean-tos or porches. c. Boathouses shall not be equipped with a potable water supply, fireplaces, patio doors, food preparation equipment, furniture or any features inconsistent with the use of the structure exclusively as a boathouse. d. Boathouses shall have a gable roof with eves not to exceed 24 inches. 130 e. Boathouses shall not be placed water ward beyond the ordinary high water mark unless otherwise approved by the Department of Natural Resources. f. Only one boathouse is permitted, as an accessory structure, for each buildable lot. A boathouse may not be the first structure on the parcel. g. Boathouses shall not be excavated into an existing slope of more than 20 percent unless Class B Special Use permit is approved by the Planning & Zoning Department. h. Boathouses shall be entirely within the access and viewing corridor; must be setback a minimum of ten feet from the ordinary high-water mark, and shall be constructed in conformity with all floodplain zoning standards. i. Boathouses shall not exceed one story. Maximum height from the boathouse floor to the roof peak shall not exceed 12 feet. The footprint shall not exceed 400 square feet. j. The maintenance and repair of existing nonconforming boathouses, which extent beyond the ordinary high-water mark, shall comply with the requirements of Wis. Stats. §30.121. k. Standards for removal of shoreline vegetation in Section 13-1-23 shall be complied with. l. Boathouses must use exterior building materials or treatments that are inconspicuous and blend with the natural setting of the site. m. A boathouse requires a land use permit and must include an impervious surface calculation form and associated fee(s). Section 4. The table listed under Section 13-1-62(a) [Classification of Uses] of Article D [Zoning Districts] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to include the following: PERMISSIBLE USES R-4 R-3 R-1 R- 2 R- RB C I M A- 1 A- 2 F- 1 F- 2 W Boathouses P P P SB P P Trailhead SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB Section 5. Except as specifically modified and amended by this ordinance, the Bayfield County Code of Ordinance shall remain in force and effect exactly as originally adopted and previously amended. All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with or in contravention of the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. 131 Section 6. SEVERABILITY. If a court of competent jurisdiction adjudges any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby. Section 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage. BAYFIELD COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE William Bussey, Kenneth Jardine, Dennis Pocernich, Brett Rondeau, Fred Strand A motion was made by Rondeau/Bennett to receive and place on file the Report of the Planning & Zoning Committee Regarding Amendments to Section 13, “General Land Use Requirements,” Specifically Sections 13-1-21; 13-1-22 and 13-1-62. Discussion took place stating that this language is a result after the implementation of ACT 55 as it relates to boat houses. Further discussion took place on ACT 55 itself. A brief discussion also took place on permitting for trail heads. The motion carried. 11. Bayfield County Zoning Amendatory Ordinance No. 2016-02, Regarding Amendments to Section 13, “General Land Use Requirements,” Specifically Sections 13- 1-21; 13-1-22 and 13-1-62. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Ordinance, which reads as follows: The Bayfield County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows: That the Bayfield County Zoning Ordinance, adopted June 1, 1976, be and the same, is hereby amended as follows: WHEREAS, Wisconsin Statute §59.69 (5) authorizes the County Board to adopt a zoning ordinance and §59.692 mandates the county to zone by ordinance all shorelands in its unincorporated area; and WHEREAS, Wisconsin Statute §59.69(5)(e) authorizes the County Board to amend an ordinance and Wisconsin Statute §59.692(2)(a) states that the powers of §59.69 apply to ordinances and their amendments enacted under §59.692; and WHEREAS, Section 13-1-104 Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin authorizes the County Board to make amendments to Title 13, Chapter 1 of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin pursuant to Wisconsin Statute §59.69; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of the County of Bayfield to also amend Section 13-1-21 Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin to create a fee of $300 on the existing fee schedule for construction of a boathouse; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of the County of Bayfield to create amend Section 13-1-21 Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, to create a fee for any rehearing or reapplication in front of the Planning & Zoning Department which is commensurate with the fee for the underlying request that is being refiled or reheard; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of the County of Bayfield to amend Section 13- 1-22 Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, pertaining to boathouses to set forth more requirements as to the location, construction and use of boathouses; and 132 WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of the County of Bayfield to also amend Section 13-1-22(a)(4)b. pertaining to structures exempt under Wisconsin Statutes Sec. 59.692(1v) to clarify that the total cumulative floor area of all structures within the shoreland setback area shall not exceed 200 square feet in order to qualify any proposed structure to be exempted from setback requirements; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of the County of Bayfield to also amend Section 13-1-62 Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, to indicate that boathouses are permitted uses in A-1 and F-1 zoning districts, in addition to all other districts where they are currently permitted uses and to indicate that trailheads are allowed in W districts (conservancy) with a Special Use Class B permit; and WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of the County of Bayfield that the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin be further modified and amended in the manner hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Subsection (e)(1) [fee schedule] of Section 13-1-21 [General Land Use Requirements] of Article B [General Provisions] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning Code] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions): ll. Boathouse………………………. ………………….$ 300.00 mm. Refiling or Rehearing before Planning & Zoning Committee…………………. ………………….$ (see below) (The fee shall be equal to the fee for the underlying application, as set forth in Section 13-1-21(e)(1)a-ll) Section 2. Subsection (a)(4) [Structures Exempt Under 59.692(1V) Wis. Stats.] of Section 13-1-22 [Setback and Height Restrictions] of Article B [General Provisions] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning Code] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions): b. The total cumulative floor area of all structures within the shoreland setback area of the lot upon which the structure is to be located shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet. Section 3. Subsection (6)(a) [Boathouses] of Section 13-1-22 [Setback and Height Restrictions] of Article B [General Provisions] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] of Title 13 [Zoning Code] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, is hereby amended to read as follows, with additions highlighted by the double underline feature (additions), and deletions highlighted by the strike out feature (deletions): 133 (6) Boathouses. No boathouse may be constructed closer to a navigable body of water than the applicable setback after the effective date of this provision. Any existing boathouse between the applicable setback and the ordinary high water mark shall be subject to Section 13-1-40(f)(2-3). Any existing boathouse extending beyond the ordinary high water mark shall be subject to Sec. 30.121, Wis. Stats. a. Only boathouse construction activities which follow Best Management Practices (BMPs) and are done in a manner designated to minimize erosion, sedimentation and impairment of fish and wildlife habitat and which are accomplished in conformity with all applicable federal, state and local laws are permissible in the shoreland. b. Boathouses shall be designed, constructed and used solely for the storage of boats and/or related equipment and shall not include any habitable living area including but not limited to decks, patios, lean-tos or porches. c. Boathouses shall not be equipped with a potable water supply, fireplaces, patio doors, food preparation equipment, furniture or any features inconsistent with the use of the structure exclusively as a boathouse. d. Boathouses shall have a gable roof with eves not to exceed 24 inches. e. Boathouses shall not be placed water ward beyond the ordinary high water mark unless otherwise approved by the Department of Natural Resources. f. Only one boathouse is permitted, as an accessory structure, for each buildable lot. A boathouse may not be the first structure on the parcel. g. Boathouses shall not be excavated into an existing slope of more than 20 percent unless Class B Special Use permit is approved by the Planning & Zoning Department. h. Boathouses shall be entirely within the access and viewing corridor; must be setback a minimum of ten feet from the ordinary high-water mark, and shall be constructed in conformity with all floodplain zoning standards. i. Boathouses shall not exceed one story. Maximum height from the boathouse floor to the roof peak shall not exceed 12 feet. The footprint shall not exceed 400 square feet. j. The maintenance and repair of existing nonconforming boathouses, which extent beyond the ordinary high-water mark, shall comply with the requirements of Wis. Stats. §30.121. 134 k. Standards for removal of shoreline vegetation in Section 13-1-23 shall be complied with. l. Boathouses must use exterior building materials or treatments that are inconspicuous and blend with the natural setting of the site. m. A boathouse requires a land use permit and must include an impervious surface calculation form and associated fee(s). Section 4. The table listed under Section 13-1-62(a) [Classification of Uses] of Article D [Zoning Districts] of Chapter 1 [Zoning Code] or Title 13 [Zoning] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby amended to include the following: PERMISSIBLE USES R-4 R-3 R-1 R-2 R-RB C I M A-1 A-2 F-1 F-2 W Boathouses P P P SB P P Trailhead SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB Section 5. Except as specifically modified and amended by this ordinance, the Bayfield County Code of Ordinance shall remain in force and effect exactly as originally adopted and previously amended. All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with or in contravention of the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 6. SEVERABILITY. If a court of competent jurisdiction adjudges any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby. Section 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage. By Action of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors Attested to by: Dennis M. Pocernich, Chairman A motion was made by Rondeau/Jardine to adopt Bayfield County Zoning Amendatory Ordinance No. 2016-02, Regarding Amendments to Section 13, “General Land Use Requirements,” Specifically Sections 13-1-21; 13-1-22 and 13-1-62. The motion carried. 12. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2016-04, Commitment of Veterans’ Donated Funds. Kevin Johnson, Veteran’s Service Officer, was present to give a background on the donated funds. Johnson stated that he isn’t always able to spend money down that has been received and this would allow the money to be put into a non-lapsing 135 fund for subsequent years. This would be an accepted procedure to use pursuant to Bayfield County’s auditors. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows: WHEREAS, the Bayfield County Veterans Service Office frequently receives monetary donations from individuals and organizations; and WHEREAS, these donations are made with a stipulation that the monies are used to assist Veterans in need and for no other purpose; and WHEREAS, it is not possible to deplete these donations within each and every budget cycle; and WHEREAS, guidance for the commitment of funds within the county’s fund balance is provided in Statement No. 54 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors assembled this 26th day of January, 2016, authorizes the balance of these donations to be committed perpetually for future Veterans assistance services. By Action of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors Dennis M. Pocernich, Chairman A motion was made by Bichanich/Crandall to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No. 2016-04, Commitment of Veterans’ Donated Funds. The motion carried. 13. Bayfield County Amendatory Ordinance No. 2016-01, Amending Bayfield County Ordinance, Chapter 3, “All Terrain Vehicles and Off-Road Motor Vehicle Operation,” Section 10-3-10, “Designated Routes.” This has been to the Highway Committee and is being forwarded for approval by County Board. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Ordinance, which reads as follows: WHEREAS, Wisconsin Statutes §59.03(2) provides that, except as elsewhere specifically provided in the statutes, the board of any county is vested with all powers of a local, legislative and administrative character; and WHEREAS, Wisconsin Statutes §59.02(2) permits the enactment of ordinances by the County Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, Section 2-2-3, Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, authorizes County Board committees or individual supervisors to introduce proposed ordinances; and WHEREAS, it is deemed to be in the best interest of the County of Bayfield to create subsection “e” “Adoption of Additional Standards” in Chapter 1 “Traffic and Parking” of Title 10 “Motor Vehicles and Traffic,” Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin; and 136 WHEREAS, it is deemed to be in the best interest of the County of Bayfield that the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin, be further modified and amended in the manner hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors assembled this 26th day of January, 2016, does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 3 [All-Terrain Vehicles and Off-Road Motor Vehicle Operation] of Title 10 [Motor Vehicles & Traffic] of the Code of Ordinances, Bayfield County, Wisconsin is hereby amended with the following changes and additions: Sec. 10-3-10 Designated Routes. The following route is designated an all- terrain vehicle route in Bayfield County: 4. CTH D (Birch Bend Road to Namakagon Chief) 0.23 mile. This should be changed to read: 4. CTH D (CTHM to Pioneer Road) 6.07 miles. Section 2. Except as specifically modified and amended by this ordinance, the Bayfield County Code of Ordinance shall remain in force and effect exactly as originally adopted and previously amended. All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with or in contravention of the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 3. SEVERABILITY. If a court of competent jurisdiction adjudges any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Bayfield on the 26th day of January, 2016. By Action of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors Dennis M. Pocernich, Chairman A motion was made by Bichanich/Crandall to adopt Bayfield County Amendatory Ordinance No. 2016-01, Amending Bayfield County Ordinance, Chapter 3, “All Terrain Vehicles and Off-Road Motor Vehicle Operation,” Section 10-3-10, “Designated Routes.” The motion carried. 14. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2016-05, Request to Amend Forestry & Parks Department 2015 Budget. Jason Bodine, Forest Administrator, was present to explain his Resolution to the Board. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows: WHEREAS, as per Wisconsin State Statute 28.11(9)(d), Bayfield County is required to distribute 10% of net timber sale receipts to towns that contain county forest lands; and 137 WHEREAS, the 2015 expense budget for the 10% net timber sale receipts due to Towns (100-34-56125-50590) was $275,000; and WHEREAS, the amended 2015 revenue budget for county forest stumpage (100-34- 46811 & 100-34-46815) was $3,110,000.00; and WHEREAS, the actual county forest timber sale revenues for CY 2015 was $4,993,057.80; and WHEREAS, the required 10% timber sale payment due to the towns totaled $499,305.78; and WHEREAS, the required 10% timber sale payment to the towns exceeded budget; and WHEREAS, the department was awarded a $40,000.00 DNR Sustainable Forestry Grant in 2015; and WHEREAS, the grant funded 100% of the approved work on the county forest; and WHEREAS, the department completed the approved work in November 2015, at a total cost of $37,717.98; and WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds available in the 2015 county forest stumpage revenue lines to offset these overages. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors, assembled this 26th of January, 2016 approves the following 2015 budget amendments: Increase 2015 10% Timber Sales Due Towns expense line: 100-34-56125-50590 by $224,305.78; Increase 2015 Sale of Wood-CFL-Co Share revenue line: 100-34-46811 by $201,875.20; Increase 2015 10% County Forestry-Towns revenue line: 100-34-46815 by $22,430.58; Increase 2015 State Sustainable Forestry Grant expense line: 100-34-56123-50390 by $37,717.98; Increase 2015 State Sustainable Forestry Grant revenue line: 100-34-43597 by $37,717.98. By Action of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors Dennis M. Pocernich, Chairman A motion was made by Maki/Bichanich to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No. 2016-05, Request to Amend Forestry & Parks Department 2015 Budget. A roll call vote was taken as follows: A roll call vote was taken as follows: Jardine – yes; Maki – yes; Kittleson – yes; Bennett – yes; Pocernich – yes; Strand – yes; Williams – absent; Bichanich – yes; Miller – absent; Crandall – yes; Rondeau – yes; Wendling – yes; Bussey – yes. Total: 13, 11 yes, 0 no, 2 absent. The motion carried. 138 15. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Approval of the 2016 Forestry & Parks Department Work Plan. Bodine presented his report stating that 2015 was a banner year and 2016 even better. The estimated 2016 sustainable harvest goal was 5,060 acres. This represents an increase of 415 acres (roughly 9%) when compared to the harvest goal for 2015. He gave numerous factors which impacted the harvest goal for this coming year. Bodine also reported that they finished up the Lost Creek Trail. It is exciting to see all of this come together from the recreational standpoint. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Annual Report, which is as follows: BAYFIELD COUNTY FORESTRY & PARKS DEPARTMENT ANNUAL WORK PLAN January 1 through December 31, 2016 The Bayfield County Forestry and Parks Department Work Plan for the 2016 calendar year gives direction and meaning to the Forestry and Parks budget, further defines and supplements the Comprehensive Fifteen Year Land Use Plan, and emphasizes current needs of the County Forest, Parks and Trails Programs. This plan also complies with Chapter NR47 Wisconsin Administrative Rules for the administration of the County Forest Administrator Grant Program. SUSTAINABLE TIMBER HARVEST One of the primary missions of the Bayfield County Forestry and Parks Department is to manage, conserve, and protect the natural resources of the County Forest. Multiple use and sustainable forest management practices will be utilized to provide a wide variety of forest products and amenities for current and future generations. Sustainable forest management is commonly defined as meeting the forest resource needs and values of the present without compromising the similar necessities of future generations. Timber harvests are important for the economic well-being of Bayfield County, as well as for the health and vigor of the forest. One of the major objectives of timber management is to produce a perpetual sustained yield of forest products. In part, this is realized through the analysis and scheduling of forest stands for management and, ultimately, the development of sustainable annual and long term harvest goals. Implementation of professionally recognized, sound forest management and harvesting techniques is essential. Existing reconnaissance data, along with thorough field inspections conducted by Bayfield County Forestry and Parks Department staff (hereafter “Department”) and DNR foresters, will be used to determine which stands are ready for treatment. In addition, the long term monitoring of stands that have previously received treatment is crucial in determining the success of past management practices. The results of previous management will aid in the development and implementation of future prescriptions. 139 Annual Sustainable Harvest Goal The estimated 2016 sustainable harvest goal for the Bayfield County Forest is 5,060 acres. This represents an increase of 415 acres (roughly 9%) when compared to the harvest goal for 2015. Numerous factors impacted the harvest goal for this coming year. In the jack pine type, the Department has made an attempt to carry mature stands on the landscape as long as possible. This was done primarily to provide a relative even flow of annual harvest, as well as to maintain a level of mature jack pine on the landscape. However, currently, many stands are experiencing significant mortality, at levels exceeding 30%. The Department can no longer carry these mature stands without experiencing even greater losses of volume. As a result, the short term plan is to manage all stands experiencing 30% or greater mortality within the next two years. In 2016, the goal will be to manage the worst stands and those that are located within the Barnes Barrens. The remainder will be managed in 2017. Once the stands with the greatest amount of mortality have been managed, the Department will evaluate the remaining and plan accordingly. If the county discovers that many stands need to be managed immediately, the goal for 2016 may be adjusted accordingly. It is anticipated that a majority of the mature jack pine will be managed within the next five years. Afterwards, very little jack pine will be managed until the next larger age classes reach maturity, which would be around the year 2030. In the northern hardwood type, prescriptions for existing stands have repeatedly conflicted with field observations. Previously, the standard prescription given to nearly all northern hardwood stands was all-aged management (or a thinning). On many sites, especially sites of marginal quality (or potential), this prescription is oftentimes incorrect and the stand is ultimately managed with even-aged methods. In response, one goal for 2016 (and 2017) is to update all stand and prescription information in the northern hardwood type. In the meantime, the 2016 goal for all-aged management was decreased slightly and even-aged management increased slightly, as a temporary response to current observations. Once all stands have been updated, it is anticipated that most stands on poor to medium-poor sites will be managed with even-aged methods, while stands on medium to good sites will be managed with un-even aged methods. The Department is also in the process of updating information in all mature red oak stands, primarily in an attempt to better capture management needs. To date, updated stand information has revealed a significant decrease in acres ready for, or otherwise in need of, a thin. It is anticipated that the total amount of acres suitable for a thin will significantly decrease. We anticipate finishing red oak updates in 2016. The slight increase in the 2016 goal is a result of adding stands ready for an overstory removal. Overstory removal is primarily based on a stand’s response to previous even-aged management (typically a shelterwood or seed tree harvest) and overall readiness to release established desired regeneration. Responses are highly variable and difficult to predict. Subsequently, these stands are treated on a case by case basis. The 2016 goal may increase (or decrease) depending on actual responses to previous treatments. 140 Small, natural increases in the aspen and red pine types and decreases in the paper birch and white pine types were the other more notable changes, when compared to the goals for 2015. The primary reason for the increase in red pine was due to the recent acquisition of property (via the Stewardship grant). Most of the properties purchased with the assistance of the Stewardship grant were red pine plantations, many of which were ready for immediate management. Table 1 displays the sustainable harvest goal (acres) per primary timber type for 2016 (during the season, the annual harvest goal may be adjusted for a variety of reasons, i.e. response to unanticipated natural events or significant changes in reconnaissance data or as otherwise stated above). The goal for 2015 is also included for comparison: Table 1: Sustainable Harvest Goal (acres) Timber Type 2015 2016 Aspen 1,300 1,340 Northern Hardwood 835 895 Red Oak 820 870 Paper Birch 40 30 Scrub Oak 250 255 Red Pine 855 935 Jack Pine 165 365 White Pine 100 90 Swamp Conifer 130 140 Swamp Hardwood 110 100 Fir/Spruce 40 40 Total 4,645 5,060 One of the objectives in managing the forest is to strive for a regulated, even flow of harvests, equally distributed over the landscape. However, sustainable harvest goals typically fluctuate slightly from year to year. Most fluctuations are explained by the irregular distribution of age classes over the entire forest and, subsequently, when they are ready for management. Among other things, fluctuations are also a result of a change in management direction for individual timber types, responses to natural disturbances or other unforeseen natural events, a relatively poor response in growth from previous management, modifications in response to accomplishments from the previous year (i.e. the management of backlogged stands) or land acquisition. On the Bayfield County Forest, the primary annual differences in sustainable harvest goals are a result of a variety of factors, some of which include: improved reconnaissance information, a significant increase in the number of stands reaching management age (particularly in the aspen and red pine types), the inclusion of harvest goals for the swamp 141 hardwood and swamp conifer timber types, adjustments in the management approaches of the aspen, red oak and northern hardwood timber types, and modifications as a result of previous accomplishments. In 2015, the county purchased 1,855 acres of industrial forest lands with the assistance of the Stewardship grant. The county also included 747 acres of county owned, non-county forest lands, as a match. In total, 2,602 acres were added to the County Forest program. These acres will naturally provide an increase in harvest levels, particularly in the red pine type. Over the past decade, the sustainable harvest goal has changed significantly. The peak harvest goal was in 2012, with a target of 5,238 acres. This was primarily due to the addition of numerous older, backlogged stands. Now that most of the backlogged stands have been managed, the annual sustainable harvest goal should hover between 4,500 and 5,000 acres per year. Since 2006, the sustainable harvest goal has increased by approximately 61%; from 3,134 acres to 5,060 acres in 2016. Figure 1 displays the total sustainable harvest goals since 2006. 05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,0005,500 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Acres Calendar Year Bayfield County Forest Sustainable Harvest Goals (2006-2016) Maximizing the sustainable management of the county forest was a primary goal heading into calendar year 2011. As displayed in Figure 1, the average sustainable harvest goal from 2011 through 2016 increased by over 1,250 acres per year when compared to the average goals from 2006 through 2010. The significant increase in the sustainable harvest goal created a substantial increase in the amount of time required to successfully accomplish the goal. In addition, numerous other forest management responsibilities increased over the same time period creating a significant deficit in time required to accomplish both annual and long term goals. To address the deficit, one full time forester position was added to the staff in early 2011. The impact of the additional forester was immediate. A recreation forester position was 142 created in 2013. In addition to the recreational responsibilities, this position also maintains forest management duties (roughly 15 to 20%). Figure 2 displays the annual sustainable harvest goal, accomplishment and sold timber sales from 2007 through 2016 (2015 and 2016 are estimates): Prior to 2011, the Department averaged 45 timber sales, covering 3,044 acres per year. The average total winning bid value for those sales was approximately $2.36 million. Since 2011, the Department has averaged 56 sales, covering over 4,500 acres. During that time, the average total winning bid values have more than doubled, from roughly $2.36 million to nearly $4.8 million. The total winning bid values in 2015 topped $6.5 million! Figure 3 displays the total sold value of timber sales and actual revenues from stumpage (harvested timber) from 2007 through 2016 (2016 is a conservative estimate): 143 Bayfield County generated nearly $5.0 million in total stumpage revenue in 2015, a stark contrast to the average $2.285 million generated between 2007 and 2010. Ten percent of the total stumpage revenues generated from the County Forest are distributed to Townships that contain County Forest land. Distribution is prorated and based solely upon the total amount (percentage) of acres located within each Town. Maximizing the sustainable harvest of the forest has numerous benefits. Not only does it have the potential to significantly increase revenues, but it also supports numerous local jobs, fosters new job growth, provides additional recreational opportunities, provides exceptionally well managed products to local wood industries, improves forest health and productivity and creates/maintains a diversity of wildlife habitat. FOREST INVENTORY Correct, up-to-date stand information is imperative in the development of accurate short and long term sustainable harvest goals. There is a direct correlation between the quality and accuracy of the reconnaissance data and the ability for forest managers to confidently develop precise short and long term sustainable harvest goals. The accuracy of any sustainable harvest goal is only as good as the data from which it was derived. Therefore, it is important to update a certain level of stand information on an annual basis. Table 2 summarizes the inventory goal (compartment and stands) and actual accomplishments since 2008: Table 2: Bayfield County Forest Inventory (acres) Year Goal Accomplishment 2008 17,000 9,807 2009 10,000 2,872 2010 10,000 4,079 2011 10,000 9,728 2012 10,000 8,135 2013 10,000 9,316 2014 10,000 8,552 2015 12,500 12,500 2016 12,500 12,500 Average 11,333 8,610 Starting in 2014, the Department focused on updating select individual cover types rather than entire compartments, though a few compartments were still updated. In 2014, the two major cover types targeted for update were mature stands of red oak and mature stands of jack pine. The goal of re-inventory was to develop a system to better prioritize the future management of these two types. In 2015, the target species were the remaining stands of mature red oak and northern hardwood, for similar reasons. 144 In 2016, a few remaining stands of red oak will be updated, but the focus will be acquiring better information on stands of northern hardwood. One of the goals will be to develop accurate prescriptions that will incorporate growth potential based, in part, upon site or habitat quality. In total, approximately 12,500 acres of the County Forest will be re- inventoried. In the red oak timber type, the county forest contains roughly 12,000 acres of mature stands, mostly between 85 and 95 years old. The goal is to spread out the regeneration of these stands over the next 25 to 35 years. In order to do that effectively, we need to identify which stands need management now and which are capable of being harvested in the distant future. Data acquired from the re-inventory process will be used to help schedule future red oak thinnings and will be integral in the development of accurate annual sustainable harvest goals. A portion of the red oak type was inventoried in 2014. More was targeted in 2015. The remainder should be completed in 2016. Site quality, and, subsequently, stand quality are highly variable within the northern hardwood type. In the past, the prescription applied to nearly every stand, by default, has been all-aged management (individual tree selection). While this prescription is preferred on much of the cover type, it is not sustainable on many of the moderate, and nearly all of the poor quality sites. The goal of northern hardwood re-inventory is to better capture site and stand quality as part of the silvicultural prescription. Once the re-inventory is complete, it is anticipated that the total acreage slated for all-aged management will decrease slightly, with a small increase in even-aged management (especially on the poor to moderately poor quality sites). However, the use of group selection as an alternative to the traditional individual tree selection method may be applied on moderate to poor quality sites. This will maintain a more uneven-aged structure and allow mature stands to perpetuate on the landscape. There will still be approximately 5,000 acres of compartment updates in 2016. Since 2001, 179 of 202 compartments, totaling over 145,000 acres have been updated. The goal is to re-inventory the remaining 23 compartments over the next 4 years. Once completed, it will put the Department on pace to achieve the 15 year re-inventory goal. At which time, a 15 year, modified re-inventory cycle will be implemented. When updating entire compartments, priorities will be placed on those that contain a larger percentage of old data (≥20 years old), as well as compartments that contain a larger percentage of stands prescribed for management in the near future. REFORESTATION Reforestation, be it natural or artificial, is a core building block of forest sustainability and a fundamental component of any forest management program. A successful reforestation program provides numerous benefits, some of which include: the restoration of forest productivity, fertility and environmental function; the assurance of a perpetual, sustainable supply of forest resources and amenities for future generations; the protection of soil and water quality; and the establishment and development of quality wildlife habitat. Table 3 summarizes the reforestation efforts that are planned for 2016: 145 Table 3: Bayfield County Forest Reforestation Program Summary 2008 - 2016 (acres) Seeding Monitoring Red Pine Jack Pine White Pine Other1 Jack Pine Trench Fire Plow Scarify Spray Fire Spray TSI2 Bud Cap Regen 2008 378 207 24 0 0 796 88 0 442 0 0 0 0 1,683 2009 487 415 0 0 0 726 72 0 348 40 0 0 0 2,652 2010 367 196 0 0 0 363 118 0 420 42 305 0 0 2,183 2011 319 153 35 68 0 900 88 0 186 21 324 0 0 1,424 2012 295 107 274 0 0 0 177 120 727 32 609 0 0 2,736 2013 281 174 92 0 558 264 0 40 0 0 449 0 239 2,522 2014 0 0 0 0 0 503 20 115 264 0 273 0 239 2,929 2015 62 0 129 0 202 717 0 99 634 0 0 1 239 2,337 2016 203 39 0 0 393 450 0 100 496 0 230 40 209 2,500 Avg.266 143 62 8 128 524 63 53 378 15 243 5 103 2,330 1 In 2011, tamarack and white spruce. 2 Timber Stand Improvement - Hand release of established regeneration Site PreparationPlantingYear Maintenance Spring Planting The planting program has significantly changed since 2013. In 2014, zero acres were planted, the first time that had happened in recent memory. The primary reasons for the decrease are: 1) old fuel break areas have been mostly re-planted. The remaining 144 acres will be seeded to jack pine in 2016; 2) a general lack of previously open areas, which, in the past, were planted to red pine; 3) a lack of mature red pine stands that are ready for regeneration; 4) movement towards primarily jack pine regeneration in the Barnes Barrens Management Area; 5) an emphasis on seeding when attempting to regenerate jack pine. In 2015, 62 acres were planted with containerized red pine stock. Also, 124 acres were planted with containerized white pine stock (some of those acres will be mixed with white spruce). All of the white pine will be planted underneath existing canopies (shelterwoods). In 2016, 203 acres will be planted with containerized red pine, with a total of approximately 152,000 seedlings (planted at a rate of roughly 750 seedlings per acre). Also, 39 acres will be planted with containerized jack pine, with a total of approximately 29,000 seedlings. Regarding the jack pine plantings, one 6 acre site is located in the Barrens, but was determined to be too small to seed, while the other 33 acre site is located north of Highway 2. Seeding is still the preferred option to regenerate jack pine in the Barrens, but planting will most likely be used in areas outside of the Barrens or when seeding doesn’t make sense. In the future, the general expectation is that red pine plantings will hover between 100 and 200 acres or less per year, while white pine underplantings will vary, depending on the availability of suitable sites. We will continue to analyze red pine to determine if there is a need to begin regeneration harvests sooner, in an attempt to evenly distribute age classes over the landscape. If so, annual harvest levels would be adjusted accordingly. Spring Seeding The seeding program also changed significantly over the past few years. Before 2013, the Department had generally moved away from artificial seeding. Starting in 2013, the Department began implementing objectives that were developed in the Barnes Barrens Management Plan. Amongst other things, the plan identifies a preference to regenerate a jack pine dominated landscape (within the Barrens area), with artificial seeding as the 146 preferred reforestation method, primarily because seeding has the potential to create a more natural regenerating landscape. Before a site is seeded it needs to be mechanically prepped and usually sprayed. This provides a better seedbed for the delicate jack pine seed to germinate and develop. Also, there needs to be enough acres available before local contractors are interested in the work. Acres that were trenched in 2015 will be sprayed in 2016. These sites would then be seeded in 2017. The timing of timber harvests also has a direct impact on how many acres will be available for reforestation. Timber sales are sold under two year contracts. The contractor can request up to two - one year extensions (meaning it can take up to four years to complete the sale). In 2016, approximately 393 acres will be seeded with jack pine, using about 100 pounds of seed (seeded at a rate of roughly 4 ounces per acre). For the time being, the seeding program will be somewhat cyclic, generally occurring in alternating years. As the program progresses, we should reach a level where seeding occurs on an annual basis. Site Preparation In 2016, approximately 450 acres are planned for site preparation via power trenching, 496 acres will be treated with chemical and 0 acres will be fire plowed. Site preparation goals reflect the amount of known sales that have been completed within the past year (and are in need of site prep). Occasionally, other timber sales are finished in time to be added to the site prep goals. When that happens, the goal is adjusted accordingly, as budgets allow. In addition, approximately 100 acres of red oak, paper birch and/or northern hardwoods will be scarified, usually with a dozer and straight blade. Scarification will facilitate the natural regeneration of red oak and paper birch, as well as reduce competition from non-desirable species, such as ironwood and, in some stands, red maple. If fire plow sites become available in 2016, there may be some additional acres treated, again, as budgets allow. Release The spraying (release) of young red pine plantations is treated on an as needed basis. Occasionally, young plantations need to be treated in order to release seedlings from undesirable vegetative competition. This release can significantly increase seedling growth and improve the rate of survival. In 2016, approximately 230 acres of young red pine plantations may be aerial sprayed to release the conifers from competition. These stands will be monitored once again in the spring before determining if release is required. Similarly, a few stands may be added if determined to be in need of treatment. The prescribed burn program is still under review to gauge the effectiveness of fire. As a result, 0 acres will be treated with fire in 2016, though the DNR still maintains portions of the fuel break via prescribed fire. Approximately 40 acres of red oak and/or white pine many be mechanically released (TSI with a chain or brush saw), if conditions allow. Other types, like northern hardwoods, may also benefit from mechanical release. These stands will be treated on a case by case basis, as time allows. 147 In the future, it is anticipated that some form of TSI will be required to improve the growth potential and survival of desired regeneration in many previously managed hardwood stands i.e. northern hardwoods, red oak, birch, etc., as well as some conifer stands (primarily white pine underplantings). Internally, time is a limiting factor, as mechanical hand release is very labor intensive. The Department may need to develop TSI contracts to manage the anticipated workload. Seedling Protection Starting in 2013, the Department used bud caps to protect young jack pine seedlings from browsing by white tailed deer. In total, 239 acres were bud capped. This literally involves stapling a 3”x 3” piece of copy paper over the terminal bud/leader of each planted seedling. The reason: plantation monitoring in this area has shown signs of excessive deer browsing. Failure to protect the seedlings could lead to plantation failure. Bud capping would need to be repeated every year until the seedlings are beyond the reach of the deer, which typically takes 3 or 4 years. Currently, the focus is on stands that are planted with containerized jack pine (as these seedlings are a little more nutrient rich when compared to bare root stock or natural regeneration). These same stands were capped in 2014 and 2015. One stand has reached the desired height and will be removed from future capping. The goal for 2016 will be 209 acres. Because most of the jack pine in the future will be regenerated via seed, bud capping will most likely only be used when absolutely necessary, and mostly on jack pine stands that were planted with containerized stock. Natural Regeneration Thousands of acres of natural regeneration will occur on a variety of forest types. The exact amount is solely dependent on the total number of acres harvested in previous years. Forest types such as northern hardwoods and aspen regenerate naturally via seed, stump sprouting and/or coppicing (vegetative sprouting from existing root system) and require very little additional input from the Department. However, the natural regeneration of hardwood forest types such as red oak and paper birch often require additional Departmental maintenance efforts. Natural regeneration monitoring is also starting to find excessive ironwood competition in stands of northern hardwoods. These stands may require additional inputs from the Department in order to achieve the desired future stand condition. Examples of additional inputs include: pre or post sale site scarification to prepare a favorable seed bed and reduce competition, pre or post sale burning or timber stand improvement (TSI) to reduce competition from undesirable tree seedlings and/or prepare favorable seedbeds, and deer browse protection i.e. fencing, repellents, etc. to improve the tree seedlings chance of survival. These additional inputs occur when opportunities arise and are treated on a case by case basis. 148 Seedling Counts All planting sites and many areas that were regenerated naturally require survival counts. Data collected from the counts are used to determine stocking levels of desired tree species and, ultimately, to evaluate the success of the reforestation attempt. Seedling counts are administered at one, two, three and five years after the regeneration attempt on most planted sites. Seedling counts on naturally regenerating hardwood stands are typically administered two to four years after harvest (depending on the forest type) and also include one to two additional surveys to determine success. In 2016, seedling counts will be administered on roughly 1,500 acres of sites that were regenerated artificially (planted or seeded) and on roughly 1,000 acres of sites regenerated naturally. Counts administered on natural sites generally focus on: stands that require additional inputs i.e. mechanical scarification, prescribed fire, etc.; cover types that are typically difficult to regenerate i.e. red oak, paper birch; stands where competition from undesirable species has traditionally been more prevalent i.e. ironwood in stands of northern hardwood; and stands that have a history of excessive browsing from white tailed deer. Prescribed Fire Prescribed fires has traditionally been used to maintain portions of the fuel breaks located in the Township of Barnes, as well as to facilitate natural red oak reproduction in stands located throughout the county forest. In 2016, 0 acres of forested stands will be treated with prescribed fire. Portions of the existing fuel breaks may be treated with fire if conditions allow. Fuel break burns are coordinated by the DNR. If conditions allow, portions of the existing fuel break may receive maintenance burns. WILDLIFE A number of wildlife projects will again be undertaken in 2016. The majority of wildlife habitat improvement work conducted on County Forest land will be accomplished utilizing funding from Wisconsin DNR grant programs, specifically, the County Conservation Aids and Nickel-an-Acre programs. The Nickel-an-Acre program reflects a change from the previous Dime-an-Acre funding. As indicated in the name, the program funding was cut in half starting in 2010 and will continue to be funded at a nickel an acre into the foreseeable future. The County Conservation Aid grant requires a 50% county match on eligible projects. The Conservation Aids project for 2016 have yet to be determined. There is approximately $3,993 available for eligible projects. Additional monies may also be available, as determined by the total amount of unallocated funds. The Nickel-an-Acre grant totals $8,467. This grant has been used to fund a variety of County Forest wildlife projects in the past. Potential projects for 2016 could include, but are not limited to:  Site prep and seeding for jack pine in the Barnes Barrens Management Area. 149  Mechanical and/or chemical treatments for wildlife opening maintenance (currently roughly 100 acres combined per year).  Wildlife habitat development/improvement.  Mechanical site prep for natural white birch, red oak or northern hardwood regeneration.  Prescribed burning of wildlife openings and oak regeneration areas.  Fish habitat projects.  Habitat projects on old homesteads.  Wildlife monitoring.  Breeding bird surveys.  Land acquisition.  Invasive species eradication.  Deer exclosures for red oak regeneration (fencing).  Seedling protection (bud capping, spraying, etc.). ACCESS MANAGEMENT The revised Access Management Plan (Chapter 700) was finalized and approved in 2013. Implementation of the Plan began in 2014 and will continue through 2016. The focus will be on the placement of road and trail markers, informational signage, minor repairs of existing roads and trails and the installation or removal of restrictive features (i.e. berms, gates, etc.) to manage motorized access. Also, the Department will monitor existing road and trail infrastructure to determine future use status or need. All new roads created as part of a timber sale will also need to be reviewed to determine the future use status. Motorized and non-motorized uses are consistently increasing. The Department will continue to address recreational needs and requests on a case by case basis. Repair and maintenance of the infrastructure will occur on an as needed basis, as funding allows. Road building projects may also be developed, especially on those that receive high levels of use, are located in more sensitive areas in need of minor attention, and/or provide access into current or future timber sales and have the potential to increase future stumpage prices. Road projects can be performed by Department staff, DNR staff or general contractors. The Access Management plan will also be reviewed periodically to determine effectiveness and/or in response to general feedback. Any and all proposed updates to the Plan will be presented to the Committee for review. The Department will continue to maintain roughly 40 miles of Primary Forest roads, for which we receive DOT County Forest Road Aids (currently $336/mile). The Department will also continue to identify, plan and/or develop additional forest roads and trails, as the need arises, for later entry into the County Forest Road program. 150 BAYFIELD COUNTY FOREST PLAN The existing County Forest Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the period 2006 – 2020 may be amended to reflect changes and/or updates. Some items that may require updating in 2016 include, but are not limited to:  Integrated Resource Management Unit (IRMU) summaries.  IRMU boundaries.  Barnes Barrens Management Plan summary.  Timber sale contract language.  Firewood permit language.  Miscellaneous forest products permit language.  Timber sale rutting policy.  Forest certification (addition of FSC).  Silvicultural revisions/updates on individual forest types. OTHER ACTIVITIES Recreation: The Department will continue to work with the County Tourism Department and interested user groups regarding recreational activities occurring on the County Forest. The demand for recreational use on County Forest land continues to increase. Over the past few years, the Forestry and Parks Committee has approved numerous re-routes of snowmobile and ATV trails, the construction of a new mountain bike trail network and improvements to existing cross country ski trails. Requests to host events on trails located within the Forest continues to increase as well. Some of the more notable events that utilize portions of trails located on the Forest include: the American Birkebeiner Cross Country Ski Race, the Chequamegon Fat Tire Mountain Bike Race, the Cable Area Off-Road Classic Mountain Bike Race and the Apostle Islands Sled Dog Race. Requests for new or improvements to existing motorized and non-motorized trail systems are expected to continue in 2016 and beyond. Requests for additional trails will be treated on a case by case basis, as per the Access Management Plan. Trail counters have been used in a variety of settings to determine actual use of certain trails and/or areas. Data received from these counters will provide the County with valuable information needed to determine future direction. Counters will continue to be used throughout the forest to monitor usage in 2016. Throughout any given year, the Department will explore additional opportunities to enhance and improve the recreational use of the Forest. Existing networks are routinely analyzed and areas are explored for new recreational potential. Some potential projects for 2016 include: 151 1. Finish minor repairs and signing on the Lost Creek Falls Trail. 2. Finish the construction of two yurts on County Forest land. One yurt will be constructed in the Cable area and one near Mt. Ashwabay. The development of an online reservation/payment system will also be required. 3. Explore the potential of creating new, or improvements to existing, multi-use, non- motorized trails at numerous locations including: Lost Creek Falls, Glacial Kettles Area, Spring Creek Area and Menard Road Area and/or other locations throughout the Forest. Pursue as funding allows. 4. Explore the potential of improving or expanding the existing motorized trail networks on public lands (both state funded and non-funded). This may require collaborating with other public land managers i.e. USFS, DNR, etc., the Red Cliff Tribe, interested user groups and the general public. 5. Explore the potential of creating dispersed camping sites on other portions of the County Forest. Pursue as funding allows. 6. Develop online story boards or other similar methods of advertising and/or promoting recreation on the County Forest. This may include collaborating with the Tourism Department, as well as other agencies or local businesses where tourism is a primary objective. 7. Generate a new recreational trail development and maintenance strategy, with an emphasis on identifying critical trail connections and areas for new construction or enhancement. The plan would include strategies for both motorized and non- motorized recreation, as well as the development of incentives or other appreciation type programs for private landowners when trails are located on private land. Insects and Disease: The Department is continuing to monitor the effects of forest insects such as the jack pine budworm, two-lined chestnut borer, emerald ash borer, and gypsy moth. If any additional sites containing a significant amount of damage are discovered, they will be promptly managed. Also, as new threats are encountered, the Department may need to alter management plans accordingly. The most notable “new” threat regarding the overall health of the forest is the gypsy moth. Gypsy moth numbers, and subsequent defoliation, have been previously observed in very high numbers in the Bayfield Peninsula. The greatest numbers have been found along higher elevations located in the general vicinity of Jammer Hill and Echo Valley Roads. Red oak and aspen are their preferred primary food sources and are the most susceptible to potential mortality, especially the suppressed and over mature individuals. Significant defoliation of red oak and aspen occurred in these areas during the summer of 2012. However, egg mass numbers declined dramatically in 2013 and remained low in 2014 and 2015, indicating that defoliation may only be minor in 2016 and beyond. As a result, we will resume all red oak management in the areas where egg mass counts were high in 2012 152 (currently IRMU’s 1 and 8). If gypsy moth numbers significantly increase in 2016, oak management may be adjusted accordingly. If oak management is reduced in specific units, the sustainable goal in all other units may be adjusted accordingly. The Department is continuing to work with the DNR to determine the best course of action regarding general forest management practices in the face of a threatening gypsy moth defoliation event. Emerald ash borer (EAB) was discovered in Douglas County and, most recently, in Oneida County. As a result, those counties have been quarantined, meaning, in general, that there are now restrictions on the movement of wood. To date, EAB has not been discovered in Bayfield County. It is estimated that ash contributes approximately 0.5% of annual stumpage revenues and is present, as a dominant forest type, on approximately 1.5% of the County Forest. Other than targeting ash a little more often during management (and encourage maple regeneration), Bayfield County is not expecting a major change in forest management practices if EAB is found on the forest, though the movement of ash products would be regulated if quarantined. Invasive Species: The Department routinely inspects roads and timber sales for the presence of invasive species. If located, a plan for treatment is developed. The presence of invasive species (both native and non-native) is relatively rare on the Forest. The Department typically treats a few small patches of land per year. The most common non-native invasive species treated on the County Forest are buckthorn (in the forest) and spotted knapweed (on roads and trails). Black locust has been the most common native invasive to be treated on the Forest, typically occurring in small isolated patches in the vicinity of old, abandoned homesteads. Treatments have traditionally been performed by Department staff, usually involving chemicals. In general, the Department treats less than 10 acres of invasive species per year. In 2016, that number is expected to be as high as 50 acres. Consequently, it may become necessary to contract out treatment, especially if other Department activities require more time or become higher priority. All occurrences are managed on a case by case basis, as funding allows. In 2014, the Department received a Sustainable Forestry Grant for the treatment of spotted knapweed on 50 miles of forest roads in the Barnes Barrens Management Area. The project was completed in 2015. However, spotted knapweed maintains a persistent and viable seedbed for around 7 years, meaning multiple successive treatments are required to reduce the population. The same 50 miles of road will be treated again in 2016. The long term goal is to use herbicide to manage and eventually eliminate knapweed in the area and, 153 hopefully, prevent any further spread into the barrens. The project focuses on roads that are the most heavily infested, but more still needs to be done. Permits: Every year, the Department reviews numerous requests to utilize portions of the Forest. Requests vary, but the most common ones include: providing access to private lands; providing access to land or trails for hosting organized recreational events; collecting balsam boughs; and collecting firewood. All requests are treated on a case by case basis and are typically handled with a use permit. Table 4 summarizes the total permits and approvals issued by the Department from 2008- 2016 (2016 is an estimate): Table 4: Bayfield County Forest Summary of Issued Permits and Approvals Fire Balsam Christmas Birch Disabled Wood Boughs Trees Stems Hunting 2008 360 8 0 1 0 2 9 3 1 2009 423 5 1 1 0 0 10 3 1 2010 436 5 1 1 0 3 10 3 2 2011 503 7 1 6 0 9 10 10 2 2012 441 6 1 7 0 8 12 7 2 2013 406 16 13 3 2 6 17 6 2 2014 486 9 6 4 1 7 21 5 2 2015 394 8 5 5 0 10 18 9 1 2016 450 8 5 4 1 8 18 8 1 Avg.433 8 4 4 0 6 14 6 2 Cones Access StorageYearEvents Many of the permit templates are old or outdated. The Department will periodically review existing permits, including permit fees, or identify the need for new ones and bring all recommendations to the Committee for review. Town Road Aids: In 2010, Bayfield County developed the Town Road Aid Fund. This fund was created to help improve problem areas on Town Roads that provide critical access to the County Forest. Town Road Aids were initially funded at 1% of total annual timber sale revenues (enacted once actual revenues exceed the budgeted amount). Starting in CY 2014, Bayfield County increased the funding level to 2%, with a cap of $80,000. As a result, in CY 2015, there was $80,000 available for eligible Town Road projects. It is anticipated that $80,000 will be available in 2016. All projects are submitted to the Department and ultimately approved by the Forestry and Parks Committee. The Department works closely with each Town in the development and administration of each potential project. Land Acquisition: The Department will continue efforts to acquire private properties on a willing seller, willing buyer basis, when advantageous to the long term goals of Bayfield County. A priority will be given to land located within the existing County Forest blocking. 154 In December 2014, the Department received preliminarily approval for two Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Land Acquisition Grants. The grants were officially awarded in June 2015. As a result, Bayfield County purchased 1,392 acres from Meteor Timber and 463 acres from Lyme Timber. Additionally, the county provided a match of 747 acres of county owned, non- county forest land. In total, 2,602 acres of land was added to the County Forest. By using the appraised value of county owned land as the required match, the Department can tailor projects that significantly reduce (or eliminate) out of pocket expenses. The Meteor Timber and Lyme Timber acquisition projects totaled roughly $2.616 million (including the cost of land, appraisals and other associated fees). The county received approximately $2.265 million from the Stewardship grant (primarily from the appraised value of matched lands). As a result, the county spent roughly $350,000, out of pocket, to purchase over $2.6 million in productive forest land. In the most recent state budget, County Forests received a separate line of appropriation under the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant for $5.0 million each year. The county still maintains ownership of approximately 245 acres of non-County Forest lands that could be used as a match in a future Stewardship project. These properties were appraised at $423,000, meaning they would have roughly $211,500 worth of buying (match) power (properties owned for more than one year are valued at ½ of the appraised assessment). The Department will continue to examine the potential for future Stewardship projects, using these or other suitable county owned, non-County Forest lands as a match. Management of Other Bayfield County Owned Lands: Currently, Bayfield County owns approximately 3,000 acres of County tax title lands, not including lots and other small parcels, in addition to the above listed County Forests Lands. Also, the County owns approximately 3,100 acres of land located in the Bibon Swamp. On occasion, the Department will monitor these parcels for land and/or timber sales, monitor for potential trespass issues, negotiate road, utility and recreational easements or permits and explore for sand and gravel potential. As new parcels are acquired, typically through tax delinquency, the Department will commonly inspect for timber management potential and/or for potential retention and enrollment into County Forest Law. Good Neighbor Authority: The US Forest Service has been authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with States to carry out approved forest, rangeland and watershed restoration services, including timber sales, on Federal land, as per the Good Neighbor Authority (GNA). Under a cooperative agreement between the US Forest Service and the DNR, the DNR may conduct forest management activities on Federal lands. Further, the DNR may contract with a County for the purposes of conducting forest management activities on Federal lands, as outlined under the GNA agreement. Recently (fall 2015), the DNR and the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (CNNF) signed a ten year Agreement, which will be reviewed annually to update the scope of work, as well as to identify additional timber and restoration treatments. The partnership enables the CNNF to more fully implement their Forest Plan and increase the amount of timber offered 155 for sale. The goal for the CNNF in FY 2016 is to reach 100 million board feet in timber sales. Through the GNA, the DNR has a goal of assisting the CNNF in accomplishing approximately 25 million board feet (roughly 5,500 acres) of additional timber sales in FY 2016 (that may not have been established otherwise). The DNR anticipates 15 to 20% of the timber sale work identified under the Agreement to be accomplished by interested counties. If interested, a County can decide their level of involvement, which could include the use of existing staff or hiring part time employees. Counties would be reimbursed for all expenses, including salary, fringe, supplies and service costs, and overhead. Also, if interested, each County would need to adopt a Resolution, which approves entering into an MOU with the DNR. As per the MOU, each County would need to enter into a GNA program contract with the State, which describes the level of involvement and project budget (i.e. rates of reimbursement). Under the current Agreement, there are no timber sale projects identified within the Washburn Ranger District. However, new projects are currently in the process of approval and should be made available shortly. At that time, Bayfield County will have an opportunity to determine interest and, if so, the general level or scope of involvement. Many Department staff members have expressed an interest in timber sale establishment as per the GNA, but only as overtime. The Department would not have any available free time to establish Federal timber sales during normal County hours, without sacrificing our County Forest goals. It is anticipated that the Department could allocate roughly 500 hours of time towards the establishment of timber sales on Federal land within the Washburn Ranger District. Again, this would be as overtime, which would be identified and reimbursed as such under any contract signed with the DNR. It is anticipated that Bayfield County will formally discuss the GNA in early 2016 to determine a desired level of involvement, if any. PARKS The management of all Bayfield County parks and campgrounds was assigned to the Forestry Department in September 2010. The four parks and campgrounds include: 1. Twin Bear Campground 2. Delta Lake Campground 3. Big Rock Campground 4. Atkins Lake Park Since 2010, numerous changes and upgrades have been made to many of the campgrounds. Some of the more significant improvements include: 1. Twin Bear Campground a. Complete electrical rebuild and upgrade throughout entire campground. b. Repair of all major outbuildings and store. c. New fishing pier near the beach area. d. New ADA ramp construction near beach area. 156 e. Creation of new tent camping site. f. Re-establishment of sand beach. g. New individual gas water heaters for each of the three showers. h. New playground equipment near the beach area. i. Re-surfacing of walking path near Puig’s Point. j. New wireless high speed internet access throughout the entire campground. k. New locks/keysets on all outbuildings (all keyed the same). l. Added canoe and kayak rentals. 2. Delta Lake Campground a. Complete re-grade on nearly all existing campsites. b. New playground equipment near beach area. c. New fishing pier. d. Repair of all major outbuildings. e. New electric added to remaining campsites. f. New wireless high speed internet access throughout the entire campground. g. Installation of new mooring dock and small picnic area. h. Modifications to the ADA ramp/path. i. New locks/keysets on all outbuildings (all keyed the same). j. Added canoe and kayak rentals. All parks and campgrounds undergo routine cleanup of brush and downed trees on a regular basis. Parks and campgrounds are also regularly inspected for hazard trees, which are removed as needed. The removal of hazard trees typically occurs when camping is inactive, usually in the late fall or early spring. Most of the trees are cut up and left on site to be used as firewood. Every year, there will be some removal of hazard trees. Some anticipated projects or minor repairs needed to the parks and campgrounds in 2016 include: 1. Twin Bear Campground a. Continue hazard tree removal and overhead branch mitigation, as needed. b. Inspection of retaining walls on a few campsites for future repair. c. Re-grade on a few existing campsites and road surfaces. d. Explore the need to add gutters on the cabin store to divert water away from the entrance to the building. e. Explore the potential for two new tent campsites on the hill behind shower building. Clear area and remove hazard trees. Develop as funding allows. f. Install/re-establish speed bumps at multiple locations. g. Install fencing around new electrical box near garage. h. Upgrade/repair fence around garage. i. Replacement of numerous old picnic tables. j. Transplant trees from hill behind the shower building to the 157 perimeter of the beach to provide future shade. k. Draft and implement a noxious weed mitigation plan for the campground. Continue to monitor for new infestations. Treat as required. l. Install additional mooring docks, if needed. m. Monitor existing infrastructure, repair as needed and as budgets allow. 2. Delta Lake Campground a. Add water line to back loop of campground. b. Evaluate the condition of all primitive toilets in the campground. Replace as necessary. c. Re-deck and/or rebuild the ADA access ramp near the beach area. d. Explore potential of tent camping on County owned island. e. Some minor clean up and rehabilitation of grounds may still be necessary after the winter 2014/2015 timber sale, which removed all hazardous trees. f. Replacement of numerous old picnic tables. g. Install additional mooring docks, if needed. h. Monitor existing infrastructure, repair as needed and as budgets allow. 3. Big Rock Campground a. Explore the potential of adding a covered pavilion near entrance of campground. b. Minor repair on access roads. Most likely will require additional surface material. c. Explore potential of developing a primitive walking/nature trail within the 40 acre county parcel. d. Replacement of numerous picnic tables. e. Explore the potential of developing a hike in campsite on the property. 4. Atkins Lake Park a. Replace sign leading into the park. b. Replacement of dock and old picnic tables, if necessary. Numerous unknown issues or projects will undoubtedly surface throughout the year. All unknown issues will be addressed based on significance and/or importance, as time and budgets allow. TRAILS AND RECREATION The management of county recreational trails was assigned to the Forestry and Parks Department in July 2013. Primarily, this involves the management/oversight of all state funded motorized trails located on county and private land. To help accomplish this task, Bayfield County maintains agreements with the Bayfield County Snowmobile Alliance and local ATV clubs. Table 5 displays the total miles and annual maintenance funds received from the State of 158 Wisconsin per trail type: Table 5: Mileage and Funding For Trails Managed by Bayfield County Trail Type Miles Rate/Mile Total Snowmobile 437 $250 $109,250 ATV Summer 86.75 $600 $52,050 ATV Winter 168.15 $100 $16,815 UTV 86.75 $100 $8,675 Total 778.65 $186,790 In addition to the routine maintenance performed on these trails by the Alliance and local clubs, below is a listing of anticipated Trails projects or issues that may be addressed in 2016: 1. Generate a recreational trail development and maintenance strategy, with an emphasis on identifying critical connections and areas for new construction or enhancement. This may require input from existing partners and user groups, as well as the general public. 2. Re-establish roles and responsibilities with the BCSA, snowmobile clubs and ATV clubs. 3. Update contracts with the BCSA and other clubs. 4. Continue to resolve numerous landowner disputes regarding land ownership and/or trail location. 5. Continue to work, along with the County Tourism Department, on building a supportive network of local Chambers, business owners and community members that will help in the financial and/or logistical support of the Bayfield County trail networks 6. Maintain a database identifying each club and officers, as well as location and mileage maintained for snowmobile and ATV trails. 7. Develop and maintain a database identifying the location and condition of all bridges, culverts, gates and outbuildings on snowmobile and ATV trails. 8. Creating a maintenance/inspection schedule for #7. 9. Develop and maintain a database for all existing permits or easements allowing snowmobile and ATV trails to occur on private land. 10. Develop and maintain a database that categorizes the importance of each trail to the overall network/community i.e. high, medium, low. The database would help ascertain the importance of future repair work. For example, a major repair on a trail designated as low importance might not be a high priority. 11. Combine #’s 9 and 10 to determine where to focus obtaining future easements or 159 access permits. 12. Develop updated permit/easement form. 13. Pursue the concept of compensation to private landowners who allow recreational trails on their land. 14. Complete repair work on Trail 1 off Klemik Road. 15. Complete the re-route of Snowmobile/ATV Trail 24/31. 16. Complete the installation of the new privy at Trail 22/24 intersection. 17. Close out the installation of the new clearspan bridge on snowmobile/ATV Trail 3, over the East Fork of the Flag River. 18. Continue to pursue funding for the Mason-Sanborn snowmobile trail connector, including the acquisition of a clear span bridge over a significant water crossing. 19. Re-grade and/or re-surface Trail 17 (Banana Belt Road) in Iron River. 20. Continue to work on funding a new trailhead shelter on Trail 3, near the intersection of Flag Road and the Battleaxe. 21. Finalize plans for a bridge installation on Trail 63 within the Bibon Swamp State Natural Area. 22. Finalize plans for a clearspan bridge over North Pike’s Creek on Trail 31/1 near Compton Lane, or find a suitable re-route around the problem area. Working with Land and Water Conservation to re-establish the natural stream channel and repair streambank bed. 23. Compile a list of beaver dam issues impacting trail infrastructure. Coordinate with USDA APHIS Animal Control Services to eradicate the problem animals and destroy associated dam structures. The above listed items are known issues or projects that need attention in 2016. All or most of the projects that will require significant repair work or new construction/installation will be submitted to the State for funding. Numerous unknown issues or projects will undoubtedly surface throughout the year. All unknown issues will be addressed based on significance and/or importance, as time and budgets allow. Submitted by Jason Bodine, Forestry & Parks Administrator, December 23, 2015. A motion was made by Bichanich/Strand to receive and place on file the 2016 Forestry & Parks Department Work Plan. The motion carried. 16. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2016-06, General Fund Budget Amendment. Abeles-Allison explained that the purpose of this Resolution is to do some clean up transfers. This was approved early on, however was not amended in the budget. 160 The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows: WHEREAS, County Policy requires that changes or transfer of funds from one fund to another must be approved by the County Executive Committee; and WHEREAS, in 2013, the authority was given to transfer $139,686 from the General Fund to the Department of Human Services Risk Reserve Account; and WHEREAS, the authorized transfer of funds in 2013 did not take place; and WHEREAS, in 2015 authority was given to transfer $80,000 from the General Fund to the Department of Human Services to cover the costs related to certification of Northland Counseling services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors assembled this 26th day of January, 2016 approve the following 2015 budget amendments: Increase 2015 General Fund Transfer to the 235 Fund expense account: 100-00-59235-50998 by $219,686 Increase 2015 General Fund, Fund Balance applied revenue account: 100-00-49301 by $219,686 By Action of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors Dennis M. Pocernich, Chair A motion was made by Rondeau/Kittleson to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No. 2016-06, General Fund Budget Amendments. Discussion took place. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Maki – yes; Kittleson – yes; Bennett – yes; Pocernich – yes; Strand – yes; Williams – absent; Bichanich – yes; Miller – absent; Crandall – yes; Rondeau – yes; Wendling – yes; Bussey – yes; Jardine – yes. Total: 13, 11 yes, 0 no, 2 absent. The motion carried. 17. Bayfield County Resolution No.2016-07, Motor Pool Budget Amendment. Abeles-Allison explained that this is the result of modified insurance formulas. The budget amounts are in excess and we need approval to modify. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows: WHEREAS, revenues and expenditures will exceed the budgeted amount for FY2015 for the County Motor Pool Fund; and WHEREAS, County Policy requires that changes or transfer of funds from one line item to another must be approved by the County Executive Committee; and WHEREAS, the cost of vehicle insurance for motor pool vehicles was recalculated and exceeded the anticipated costs in the FY2015 budget; and WHEREAS, the cost of vehicle repair and maintenance for motor pool vehicles exceeded the anticipated costs in the FY2015 budget; and 161 WHEREAS, the sale of obsolete vehicles exceeded budgeted revenues; and WHEREAS, miscellaneous revenues were received for a patronage credit and as reimbursement for expenses related to water in a gasoline delivery; and WHEREAS, the additional expenses in 2015 were offset by additional revenues. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors assembled this 26th day of January, 2016 approve the following 2015 budget amendments: Increase 2015 County Motor Pool insurance expense account: 720-72-52120-50512 by $1,326 Increase 2015 County Motor Pool Sale of Larger General Fixed Assets Revenue Account: 720-72-49402 by $1,326 By Action of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors Dennis M. Pocernich, Chair A motion was made by Rondeau/Bennett to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No. 2016-07, Motor Pool Budget Amendment. Discussion took place. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Kittleson – yes; Bennett – yes; Pocernich – yes; Strand – yes; Williams – absent; Bichanich – yes; Miller – absent; Crandall – yes; Rondeau – yes; Wendling – yes; Bussey – yes; Jardine – yes; Maki – yes. Total: 13, 11 yes, 0 no, 2 absent. The motion carried. 18. Bayfield County Resolution No. 2016-08, 2015 Copy Machine Fund Budget Amendment. Abeles-Allison explained this is needed to offset revenue. The Board dispensed with the reading of the Resolution, which reads as follows: WHEREAS, County Policy requires that changes or transfer of funds from one line item to another must be approved by the County Executive Committee and changes to the bottom line of a budget must be approved by the County Board; and WHEREAS, $18,622 was expended in 2015, exceeding the budgeted amount by $3,622; and WHEREAS, $19,464 in interdepartmental copy costs were collected in 2015, offsetting the additional expenses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors assembled this 26th day of January, 2016, approve the following 2015 budget amendments: Increase Expense Budget line 730-73-51455-50240 by $1392 Repair & Maintenance 162 Increase Expense Budget line 730-73-51455-50540 by $2230 Depreciation & Amortization Increase Revenue Budget line 730-73-47412 by $3622 Interdepartmental Copy Charge By Action of the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors Dennis M. Pocernich, Chair A motion was made by Rondeau/Crandall to adopt Bayfield County Resolution No. 2016-08, Copy Machine Fund Budget Amendment. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Bennett – yes; Pocernich – yes; Strand – yes; Williams – absent; Bichanich – yes; Miller – absent; Crandall – yes; Rondeau – yes; Wendling – yes; Bussey – yes; Jardine – yes; Maki – yes; Kittleson – yes. Total: 13, 11 yes, 0 no, 2 absent. The motion carried. 19. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding E-Cigarettes Policy. Abeles- Allison explained that 5-6 years ago, Bayfield County passed an Ordinance regarding no smoking on Bayfield County property. This Ordinance excluded forestry and fair grounds. The Health Department has asked that we also include in that ordinance e- cigarettes, having them covered in the same manner as are cigarettes. At this point, it is unknown what people are inhaling or exhaling to protect everyone. Therefore, we are asking that these also be prohibited on Bayfield County property. E-cigarettes seem to be the entry way to smoking and they encourage younger children to use. The Board dispensed with the reading of the policy. The additions to the policy are as follows: 2.4.3 Definitions. “Definition of Electronic Delivery Device: “Electronic Delivery Device” shall mean any product containing or delivering nicotine or any other substance for human consumption that may be used by a person to simulate smoking through inhalation of vapor or aerosol from the product. “Electronic Delivery Device” shall include any such device, whether manufactured, distributed, marketed, or sold and an e-cigarette, e- cigar, e-pipe, e-hookah, or vape pen, or any other product name or descriptor.” A motion was made by Rondeau/Bichanich to adopt the E-Cigarettes Policy. The motion carried. 20. Legal Issues Discussed In Open Session Prior to moving into Closed Session. Abeles-Allison stated that Patrick Glynn made a presentation last week to the County Board. The presentation is in the Drop Box for the Board’s review. Abeles- Allison stated that this is a big step for the County to take. All employees will move forward to the first step of the Wage Study. Cost of implementing this would be approximately $345,000. This would be everything including a 2% increase as well as 163 the 5% increase starting January 30, 2016. Discussion took place on having it retro to January 1, 2016. Discussion took place on general information, employees staying at the same rate, and 2% increases. There was discussion and a motion made at the Personnel Committee to make the wage increase retro to January 1st, 2016. Under the proposal, the average wage increase will be $4.63 total cost of increase in wages. Discussion took place on the liability cost. Further discussion took place on a 2½% wage increase. Neither the Personnel Committee or the County Board decided what the increase would be. Discussion did take place with the Teamsters and the Sheriff’s Union. They were given increases. It was suggested as another option to consider a 1% increase or whatever it takes to get to the next step. Next, Glynn addressed the Board stating he appreciates discussion and debate as it relates to this subject, however, his only comment that he has is that over the meetings he has attended, you have talked about a 2% increase and having the options out there. When you start discussing the implementation process, then you turn it around and it starts downhill. While you do have to have this conversation, you need to make a decision. Discussion then turned to the step structure. Glynn explained it is an annual and then bi-annual procedure. afterwards. Patrick explained how another counties had given steps after 2 years for steps 8, 10 12 and after implementing this, wish they hadn’t as it didn’t work well. A motion was made by Crandall/Wendling to move into closed session pursuant to §19.85(1)(c) considering employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any public employee over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility: (e) deliberating or negotiating the purchasing of public properties, the investing of public funds, or conducting other specified public business, whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session and (g) Conferring with legal counsel for the governmental body who is rendering oral or written advice concerning strategy to be adopted by the body with respect to litigation in which it is or is likely to become involved. The motion carried. A motion was made by Jardine/Kittleson to move out of closed session. The motion carried. 21. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Wage Study and Wage Adjustment Options. After much discussion, and after much floundering since Act 10,the Board stated that they now have a solid wage study and recommendations. It is going to be hard to implement the new wage schedule but it is unavoidable. It was noted, however, that we need to stick to the schedule. There was still some concern about long-term financial consequences going forward. By using Alternative #2, we are exceeding what we budgeted, but it is going to cost money to implement regardless. Further discussion took place on the market value, plus 5% The 2.5% figure is what we 164 discussed prior. Discussion on implementing plan. January 30th was stated to go with, but the Board felt they needed to go back to January 1st as is what everyone was told it would be through. If we adopt this, then let’s stay with it and not use it as an ax to grind people with. If we adopt this, we are getting rid of everything else. We are done. A lengthy discussion again took place on the plan; the Board is willing to stand by their decision, no wavering, no nothing. Recommendations will be as follows: 1. Yes; 2. Change to not less than 1% from January 1st ; 3. Eliminate; 4. Some kind of reporting back to the Personnel Committee so there is a check and balance. The Board wants some insurance, i.e., performance evaluation is needed. 5. Yes; 6. Yes; 7. Yes; 8. Yes; 9. Yes, 2016 – to not less than 1%; 10. Yes. 11. Yes. A motion was made by Maki/Wendling to adopt the wage study with recommendations as stated above. Discussion took place. The motion carried. A motion was made by Rondeau/Crandall to adopt the wages. The motion carried. A motion was made by Bussey/Strand that Bayfield County put the Teamsters on the Wage Schedule for 2016, look at their salaries before the.73% increase, retro to January 1st; give them up to the next step not less than 1% consistent with what has been done with all other employees. The motion carried. 22. Administrator’s Report: a) Future Meeting Dates:  WCA meeting in February  Superior Days final planning day is next Thursday.  There will not be a Personnel Committee meeting this week. b) Mary Dougherty, is going to get in contact with Abeles-Allison regarding Superior Days. 165 There being no further business to come before the Bayfield County Board of Supervisors Chairman Pocernich adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Scott S. Fibert, Bayfield County Clerk