HomeMy WebLinkAboutForestry & Parks Committee - Agenda - 5/8/2023Forestry & Parks Department
117 East Fifth Street - P.O. Box 445 - Washburn, WI 54891
Phone: 715-373-6114 - Fax: 715-373-0114
forestry@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov
May 1, 2023
Bayfield County Forestry and Parks Committee Meeting Agenda
Fred Strand (Chair)
Steve Sandstrom
Charly Ray
Jeff Silbert (Vice-Chair)
Larry Fickbohm
The Bayfield County Forestry and Parks Committee will meet on Monday, May 8, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. in
the County Board Room of the Courthouse in Washburn, Wisconsin. This meeting will be held in-
person.
The agenda for this meeting is as follows:
1. Call to Order.
2. Public Comment – Limited to 3 minutes per person. 30 minutes total.
3. Approval of the April 10th Meeting Minutes.
4. Spring Timber Sales. Discussion and action regarding the results of the 2023 spring timber sale
bid opening, including the awarding of contracts.
5. Resolution: Accepting the NOAA Grant for the Sand River Headwaters Land Acquisition
Project. Discussion and possible action regarding the resolution.
6. Recreational Use Request. Chequamegon Area Mountain Bike Association (CAMBA).
Discussion and possible action regarding the following new mountain bike trail requests in the
Ashwabay block of the county forest:
a. Stick Up-Stick Down;
b. Jump Line.
7. 2022 Accomplishment Report. Discussion and possible action regarding the 2022
accomplishment report for the Forestry and Parks Department.
8. Monthly Reports. Discussion of general activities, events, issues and accomplishments. Possible
action on the report(s) only.
a) Forestry (all updates):
a. Carbon Project.
b. Forest Carbon Offset Reserve Fund (FCOR).
c. Land Acquisition Project(s).
d. County Conservation Aid Grant.
Bayfield County Forestry & Parks Committee
May 8, 2023 Meeting Agenda
Page 2 of 2
b) Campgrounds and Day Use Parks (update).
a. Brownstone Trail Project.
c) Trails and Recreation (all updates):
a. Motorized Trails.
b. Non-Motorized Trails.
c. Yurts.
d. Events.
9. Lake States Forest Management Bat Habitat Conservation Plan (Bat HCP). Discussion and
possible action regarding an application to enroll county owned and/or managed lands as part of
the WDNR’s Bat HCP.
10. Access Permit Request. Adam Kaseno. Discussion and possible action regarding a request to
access private property in the Town of Bell.
11. Committee Members Discussion. Discussion regarding matters of the Forestry and Parks
Department.
12. Joseph LeBouton, DNR Representative, Comments.
Any person wishing to attend who, because of a disability, requires special accommodations, should
contact the Forestry and Parks Department office at 715-373-6114 at least 24 hours before the scheduled
meeting time, so appropriate arrangements can be made.
Cc: Bayfield County Forestry & Parks Committee Members
Matt Blaylock, DNR Area Leader
Eric Sirrine, DNR Team Leader
Joseph LeBouton, DNR Liaison
Mark Abeles-Allison, County Administrator
The Daily Press
1
Forestry and Parks Committee Meeting Agenda Summary
May 2023
4. Spring Timber Sales. A total of 33 sales, covering 2,312 acres are included in this offering. The
total minimum bid value is nearly $1.2 million. As per past practice, the timber sales will be
opened starting at 11:00 am on Monday morning. The results will be summarized and shared with
the Committee prior to the meeting. That summary will include a listing of bids per timber sale, as
well as the highest bidder and total values. The recommendation is to approve the results of the
timber sale offering and award contracts to the highest bidder, as per standard process.
Also, the Department recently discovered 7 acres of pocket decline in a stand of mature red pine.
The decline is located within the Leino plantation along Hwy A between Iron River and Barnes.
Pocket decline is caused by a fungal disease that travels through the root grafts and disrupts water
flow within a tree’s vascular system. This will cause rapid decline, the tree will be more susceptible
to various beetles that attack when natural defenses are weakened, and will ultimately lead to death
of the tree. The fungus is spread to adjacent trees. It is important to catch these outbreaks early and
treat them as quickly as possible. In this instance, a buffer is placed around the infected pockets to
also cut any tree that could be infected, but not displaying signs, and eliminate the probability of
spreading further (through root grafts). This is being set up as a direct salvage sale and being
offered for bidding to the traditional pine contractors in the area. Map and bid sheet are attached.
Bids on this salvage sale will be opened on May 16 at 11:00. I’m also seeking approval for this
salvage sale, as the bids would be opened after this meeting and a contract awarded before the
meeting in June.
5. Resolution: Accepting the NOAA Grant for the Sand River Headwaters Land Acquisition
Project. There has been a flurry of last second activity surrounding this acquisition. The closing
date has been set for May 11. A few weeks ago, NOAA officially announced the $1.965 million
award to Bayfield County for the Sand River project. Mark and I just signed the contract with WI
Coastal (who is administering the grant) on Wednesday. At the same time, there have been
numerous discussions with the DNR and DOA regarding the previously awarded ARPA and
Community Forests grants, with a focus on trying to maximize each. Within the last 6 months, the
county was awarded $1.30 million in ARPA funds and $600k in Community Forest funds to use
towards the purchase of the Sand River properties. Add in the $1.965 million NOAA grant, and we
are now in the enviable position of having far more funds than needed to complete the purchase (the
total acquisition is slated to cost $2.606 million). The recommendation from DNR and DOA was to
cancel the ARPA award so that they can re-package it back to Bayfield County for use on similar
land conservation projects (e.g. the recent Bark River acquisition). Doing so would allow us to
apply the entire NOAA award towards Sand River, include roughly $320k from the Community
Forest grant and match that with $320k in county cash. Thus allocating roughly $300k less in
county cash towards that purchase. Then, the ARPA grant can be re-allocated to cover the entire
expense associated with Bark River (which was nearly $1.028 million). And the remaining $272k
2
in ARPA would be available to the county for a future similar land conservation (acquisition)
project. Bottomline, if ARPA is re-assign as presented, the county would replenish the NL land
acquisition account to around $1.5 million, plus have another $272k for use towards a future
acquisition project. With it framed in that way, we officially cancelled the ARPA award for Sand
River, with the caveat that the termination request is rescinded if there is an issue with re-assigning
the grant. I’m still waiting for some of the finer details and hope to have an actual resolution during
the meeting. But, if not ready, I would just be looking for Committee approval to accept the NOAA
grant and apply towards the Sand River acquisition, as well as support of the decision to cancel the
ARPA grant to be re-assigned towards another land purchase (likely Bark River). Since the
spending has already been authorized and we’d actually be allocating less county cash, there is no
budget amendment needed until the final details (e.g. how much is actually going towards each
grant) have been figured out.
6. Recreational Use Request: CAMBA. CAMBA is requesting the construction of two new
mountain bike trails on county forest land within the Ashwabay SMA. Stick up-Stick down and
Jump line. Maps and a description of each request are attached. Traditionally, these smaller
requests have been addressed (approved) internally without formal presentation to the Committee.
But, given the increased interest surrounding different uses in this area, I felt it was important for
the Committee to address even the smallest of requests. As part of the map, there is a description of
the stand that the trail would interface with, including the scheduled plans for future management.
In the past, there have been no concerns with new recreational development in this block as the
county has always supported and encouraged recreational uses of the property. And recreation has
always been viewed as compatible with County Forest Law and non-conflicting with other core,
foundational forest management obligations. But it’s good to review these individually because
they provide an example of how the process works. I recommend approval.
7. 2022 Accomplishment Report. 2022 was another big year for the Department. When
combining the forest management program, with increases in recreational workloads, campgrounds
and parks, newer recreational properties (like Siskiwit Falls), carbon, wildlife projects, land
acquisition projects and barrens management, Department resources are being stretched further than
ever before. Attached is a draft of the 2022 accomplishment report. I’m still fine-tuning a few
sections and will have a final draft to review and discuss during the meeting.
8. Monthly Reports.
a. Forestry
Stumpage revenue for the month of April was below average at nearly $190k. Current total
timber sale revenue is just under $1.24 million, which is slightly behind the three year
average. Expenses are on target. Cassie’s last day with the Department will be May 12.
This will be her last Committee meeting. Deanna Regan has accepted the position and will
also be joining us during the meeting on Monday.
3
a) Carbon Project. Unfortunately, we are still in the same holding position. Waiting
to hear back from ACR. It has now been 25 months since the contract was signed.
And about 3 years since we first began discussing carbon. During a recent meeting
with ANEW, there is hope that the review process will be completed by late May or
early June. Marketing the project has ramped up and we are actively working with
ANEW on promotional materials.
b) FCOR. Once there is some definite movement on the carbon project we will begin
work fleshing out the various guidance documents for each of the three core
programs: land acquisition, forest management and recreation. The priority will be
to begin work on recreation first.
c) Land Acquisition Projects. The Sand River project was described above. There is
an opportunity to re-assign the previously awarded ARPA grant to the recent Bark
River acquisition. Doing so would replenish our non-lapsing land acquisition
account to roughly $1.5 million, plus provide an additional $270k+ in the remaining
ARPA balance that can be used towards a future acquisition. I hope to have more to
share during the meeting.
d) County Conservation Aid Grant. Last year, we were awarded significant DNR
wildlife funds to complete a fuel mitigation corridor (road) around the western
portion of the Bass Lake Barrens. Recently, we were informed that there was a
glitch in the funding protocols and it could not be used towards this project. The
project is already under contract and about to begin. To address this issue quickly, I
worked with the DNR to re-assigned the previously awarded conservation aid funds
from the lake access projects (plus secured a bit more) to Bass Lake, so that we can
continue to move forward with it. The lake access projects are still a priority but
can get funded through other sources and aren’t as time sensitive.
b. Campgrounds and Day Use Parks. The campgrounds are now slated to open on May 17.
The ice just left Twin Bear and there is still snow piled in the shadier spots, so hopefully
sites will be dry enough to start accepting seasonal campers. Big Rock will need some
attention to clean up the higher than normal level of white pine branches that were shed this
winter (due to heavy snow loads). We are already coordinating with the Highway Dept
regarding the construction of the overflow parking lot adjacent to Twin Bear. And will be
starting to plan for the repairs to the retaining walls next.
a. Brownstone Trail Project: The Local Unit of Government (LUG) grant was recently
submitted to the DNR. Landmark Conservancy did all of the heavy lifting regarding
the application and supplemental materials. We continue to work with Landmark
Conservancy regarding the contract for the project, which includes the best way to
address the lease with the Maki’s.
c. Trails and Recreation.
a) Motorized Trail Updates: The snowmobile trails closed on March 31. The Forest
Service recently announced that they likely won’t rescind their closure order until
May 25. We generally open when they do. Will be meeting with a few of the ATV
clubs soon as it’s time to renew maintenance contracts.
4
b) Non-Motorized Trail Updates: Similar to the report from last meeting, we are
starting to prep for a variety of trail projects, including: touch ups to the Lost Creek
Falls trail; trail improvements and new trail construction at Siskiwit Falls; orchard
maintenance at Siskiwit Falls; and plan development at Fire Hill. We will also be
updating rec use agreement with CAMBA and Birkie, which will likely happen
concurrent with the development of the Cable SMA plan. We are starting to work on
various components of the Cable SMA plan and we be reaching out to partners likely
around the end of May.
c) Yurt Updates: Below are the current occupancy rates for each yurt:
d. Events: Nothing new to report.
9. Lake States Forest Management Bay Habitat Conservation Plan. The application for the Bat
HCP is attached. It is fairly straightforward and meant to identify the areas that will be covered
under the DNR’s incidental take permit. As per the permit, there are restrictions on when trees can
be harvested if within a certain distance of known bat hibernaculum or occupied maternity roost
trees. Also restrictions on when trees can be harvested for permanent roads and rec trails on public
lands (e.g. no removal of trees >9 inches during the pup season – June 1 through July 31). This
does not include the removal of hazard trees. This restriction may also be addressed if a survey was
conducted before road/trail activities and no bats detected, but we are still learning what that would
involve (for example, we may be able to use our ARU’s to monitor for the presence of bats). It also
places conditions on when working with bridges and larger culverts (requiring inspections/surveys
for the presence of bats). We (all member counties) will be working with the DNR to determine the
best methods of tracking and reporting activities, so there will be an adjustment period as everyone
gets acclimated to the new process. I recommend approval.
10. Access Permit: Adam Kaseno. Attached is a map of the area. This would actually be a
reciprocal permit, where the county would grant access in exchange for similar access across private
land. This would be the standard 10-year temporary access permit. We would also install a gate at
the intersection with Siskiwit Lake Rd, to restrict unauthorized motorized use (as the area is
seasonally wet). I recommend approval.
11. Committee Members Discussion. This is a discussion only item and meant to provide an
opportunity for the Committee to provide reports.
Yurt February March April May Average
Terra Cotta 46%58%33%42%45%
Evergreen 75%45%40%45%51%
Cable 46%26%13%16%25%
Average 56%43%29%34%40%
1
Cassie Taylor
From:Jason Bodine
Sent:Saturday, April 15, 2023 1:48 PM
To:Cassie Taylor
Subject:FW: Comments on Forestry Committee's April 10th vote on the timber sale at AWB SMA
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Make sure this is included in the CommiƩee packets for the May meeƟng.
Thanks,
Jason Bodine
Forestry and Parks Administrator
Bayfield County
117 E. 5th St.
Washburn, WI 54891
715-373-6114 (office)
715-209-1154 (cell)
From: Elizabeth Andre <eandre@northland.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2023 1:46 PM
To: Mary Dougherty <mary.dougherty@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Steve Sandstrom
<steve.sandstrom@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Larry Fickbohm <Larry.Fickbohm@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Charly Ray
<charly.ray@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Jeremy Oswald <Jeremy.Oswald@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Jeffrey Silbert
<Jeffrey.Silbert@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Dennis Pocernich <Dennis.Pocernich@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Fred Strand
<fred.strand@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; John Rautio <john.rautio@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Marty Milanowski
<Marty.Milanowski@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Madelaine Rekemeyer <madelaine.rekemeyer@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>;
James A. Crandall <James.Crandall@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Brett T. Rondeau <Brett.rondeau@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>;
Forestry <Forestry@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>
Cc: ABC Trails <abctrailswi@gmail.com>; Kate Arnold Ullman <kateaullman@gmail.com>; Kellie Pederson
<kellie.pederson@wisc.edu>; Mark Peterson <markpete.mail@gmail.com>; Cindy McDonnell <csmcdon@gmail.com>;
Doug Olson <dougo@mtashwabay.org>; Kate Kitchell <katepkitchell@gmail.com>; Jason Bodine
<Jason.Bodine@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Mark Abeles-Allison <Mark.Abeles-Allison@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Tom Fitz
<TFitz@northland.edu>; David Ullman <dullman@northland.edu>; Meghan Salmon-Tumas
<msalmontumas@northland.edu>; Katherine Jenkins <kjenkins@northland.edu>; jkotar@wisc.edu; Kevin Brewster
<kbrewster@superiorrivers.org>; kradtke119@gmail.com; Nina Albanese-kotar <nakotar@earthlink.net>; Greg Weiss
<gweiss@northland.edu>; Olaf Kirsten <okirsten@icloud.com>; Ron Bergin <rbergin@cambatrails.org>; Roger Aiken
<roger.aiken@gmail.com>; Sam Christman <sfchristman@gmail.com>; trailsanonymous@gmail.com; Bill Bussey
<billbussey44@gmail.com>; cfinn688 <cfinn688@gmail.com>; emily@cablemuseum.org; tim pavlish
<timpavlish@yahoo.com>
Subject: Comments on Forestry Committee's April 10th vote on the timber sale at AWB SMA
Hello Bayfield County Board of Supervisors,
Please enter the following comments into the public record in advance of your April 18th meeƟng.
2
At the April 10th meeƟng of the Forestry and Parks CommiƩee, aŌer 30-minutes of public comment expressing
alarm over the plans to log within the Ashwabay SMA, almost all the members of the commiƩee expressed a
belief that, once the logging was completed, the public would realize that their worry was misplaced—that
acƟve Ɵmber producƟon around the trails at AWB would not negaƟvely impact their recreaƟon experience in
the way they feared. Almost every commiƩee member expressed their belief that the consideraƟons in the
current logging plan had adequately miƟgated any risks to the experience of trail users.
This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the recreaƟon science and the science of the public’s aestheƟc
forest preferences. As a professor in Outdoor RecreaƟon, I believe it is a liability to Bayfield County to ignore
social science when making forest management plans since the public’s acceptance of forest management
pracƟces is heavily based on aestheƟcs (Ribe, 2002), and study aŌer study shows the public’s idea of what
makes a beauƟful forest is remarkably consistent (Ryan, 2005). Two-hundred and sixty people submitted
comments, signed a petition, and spoke in favor of mature forests surrounding the trails at Ashwabay. Their
aesthetic preferences are not a fluke—this is consistent with research showing that people prefer large trees
and mature forests that do not show obvious signs of forest management (Brown and Daniel 1986; Cook 1972;
Dywer, et al., 1991; Haider 1994; Haider and Hunt 2002; Herzog 1984; Herzog, et al., 2000; Hull, et al., 1987;
Gan, et al., 2000; Gunderson & Frivold, 2008; Kearney & Bradley, 2011; Ribe 1989, 1990; Ryan, 2005;
Schroeder and Daniel 1981; Silvennoinen et al. 2001, 2002; Stolz, 2016; Tyrväinen, et al., 2017).
In conversaƟons with members of the forestry and parks commiƩee, it has become clear to me that the
commiƩee has never been educated about the science of recreaƟonists’ scenic preferences, despite the fact
that the commiƩee is responsible for seƫng management objecƟves for the most important recreaƟon
resource in the county. They are trusƟng forestry professionals to make decisions about the scenic qualiƟes of
this recreaƟon area, but as the USFS argues, “scenic integrity of public forests is too serious a maƩer to be
leŌ to the resource scienƟsts.” The USFS suggests developing a design consciousness through mulƟdisciplinary
involvement, including landscape architects, social scienƟsts, and public involvement at every step of the
process (CoƩon & McBride, 1987: 36; Ryan, 2005).
Foresters—even ones who recreate on trails—cannot rely on their own percepƟons and aestheƟc preferences
to anƟcipate how the public will experience the visible signs of logging, because their forestry experƟse makes
them perceive areas with obvious signs of logging as beauƟful to a much greater extent than the general
public (Anderson, 1978; Andersson, 1994; Arthur, 1977; Eriksson, 2012; Haider, 1994; Gunderson & Frivold,
2008; Kearney & Bradley, 2011; Kearney, et al., 2010; McCool, et al., 1986; Ribe, 2002; Tönnes, et al., 2004).
The general public does not want to recreate in areas with obvious signs of logging (Eriksson, 2013).
There is no way around the fact that logging decreases people’s percepƟons of scenic beauty (Brown & Daniel,
1986; Brunson & Shelby 1992; Brush, 1976; Magill, 1994; Pings & Hollenhorst, 1993). This is especially
important for managers of the Ashwabay SMA to understand, since they are planning to conduct logging on
the vast majority (nearly 100%) of county forest land within the SMA. This is problemaƟc because public
judgements of scenic beauty and “acceptability” for recreaƟon do not recover for many years aŌer logging
acƟvity, regardless of what forestry techniques are used (Shelby, et al, 2004). Even 25 years of regrowth aŌer
an area is clearcut (even-age harvest) has no significant impact on improving scenic raƟngs (Pings &
Hollenhorst, 1993).
Nordic skiers, mountain bikers, and hikers are looking for more than just exercise when they choose where to
recreate. Three of the main things human-powered recreaƟonists are seeking in forest-based recreaƟon are
restoraƟon, posiƟve emoƟons, and the feeling of revitalizaƟon. These are all maximized in older forests, rather
than in younger forests (Simkin, et al., 2020). This explains why study aŌer study show that people who
3
engage in human-powered sports like mountain biking and Nordic skiing strongly prefer a natural-looking
aestheƟc of a mature forest (Eriksson & Nordlund, 2013).
Bayfield Forestry’s plan for the Ashwabay SMA includes educaƟonal signage they think will help the public
come to accept the Ɵmber harvests near the Ashwabay trails. However, studies show that the public’s visual
preferences are very resistant to change (Daniel, 2001, cited in Ryan, 2005). EducaƟonal signage may increase
acceptance for logging, but it will not increase scenic beauty raƟngs (Ribe, 1999), and percepƟons of scenic
beauty are directly related to saƟsfacƟon in recreaƟon (Eriksson & Nordlund, 2013) and how restoraƟve the
recreaƟon experience will be (Simkin, 2020). EducaƟonal signage simply cannot convince recreaƟonists that
they are having a restoraƟve, emoƟonally posiƟve experience in a forest with visual impacts of logging,
regardless of the reasons provided for those logging pracƟces.
If Bayfield County wants to manage the forest within the Ashwabay SMA in a way that will receive public
support, they need to involve the public in every step of the process and take the public’s aestheƟc
preferences seriously (Dearden, 1981; Gericke & Sullivan, 1994; Ryan, 2005; Sturtevant, et al., 2005). The
public affected by the outcome needs to believe that their views were considered before the decision was
made. If people share their opinions and then feel as if the opinions don’t have a bearing on the final decision,
they will experience a “frustraƟon effect.” If the County wants it decisions to be supported, it needs to change
the decision-making structure to address the frustraƟon of the public (Hunt & Haider, 2011).
The public has a strong emoƟonal connecƟon to the forest surrounding the trails at Ashwabay. The USFS
states that forest managers need to understand the public’s emoƟonal connecƟon to parƟcularly special areas
within forests (Ryan, 2005; Schroeder, 2002). Research shows the public will react much more strongly and
negaƟvely to visible impacts of logging in recreaƟonal areas than in other areas (Brunston, 1993; Kneeshaw, et
al., 2004; Ryan, 2002; Ryan, 2005; Wohlwill, 1979; Wohlwill & Harris, 1980). People are especially fond of
natural areas near their homes or where they’ve spent a lot of Ɵme exploring (Kaplan, 1985; Ryan, 2002). This
explains why the public outcry about the planned logging within the Ashwabay SMA is so intense.
Even though the Forestry & Parks commiƩee voted unanimously on April 10th to approve the 2023 Ɵmber sale
within the Ashwabay SMA, it is not too late to miƟgate the damage to the public trust. The bids have not yet
been awarded—please listen to the hundreds of people who have asked you to delay the Ɵmber sale unƟl the
public can be involved in a more robust decision-making process about forest management plans for the
Ashwabay SMA.
Thank you for accepƟng my input. I do appreciate the work county board members do on behalf of all of us,
and I know that we all care about Ashwabay.
References:
Anderson, E. (1978). Visual resource assessment: local percepƟons of familiar natural environments. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Ph.D dissertaƟon. 213 p.
Andersson, T. (1994). Ideals and concepƟons of forest: an experimental study of conceptual deliberaƟon.
CommunicaƟon and CogniƟon. 27(4): 397- 428
Arthur, L.M. (1977). PredicƟng scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical tests. Forest Science. 23:
151-160.
Brush, R.O. (1976). Spaces within the woods: managing forests for visual enjoyment. Journal of Forestry. 74:
744-747.
4
Brown, T.C., Daniel, T. C. (1986). PredicƟng scenic beauty of Ɵmber stands. Forest Science. 32: 471-487.
Applied Forestry. 24(3): 145-149.
Brunson, M., Shelby, B. (1992). Assessing recreaƟonal and scenic quality: how does New Forestry rate? Journal
of Forestry. 90(7): 37-41.
Cook, W.L. (1972). EvaluaƟon of aestheƟc quality of forest trees. Journal of Leisure Research. 4(4): 293-302.
CoƩon, L., & McBride, J. R. (1987). Visual impacts of prescribed burning on mixed conifer and giant sequoia
forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-101. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Forest and Range Experiment StaƟon: 32-37.
Daniel, T.C. (2001). AestheƟc preference and ecological sustainability. In: Sheppard, S.R.J.; Harshaw, H.W., eds.
Forests and landscapes: linking ecology, sustainability, and aestheƟcs. New York, NY: CABI Publishing,
in associaƟon with The InternaƟonal Union of Forestry Research OrganizaƟons: 15-29.
Dearden, P. (1981). Public parƟcipaƟon and scenic quality analysis. Landscape Planning. 8: 3-19.
Dywer, J.F., Schroeder, H.W., & Gobstesr, P.H. (1991). The significance of urban trees and forests: toward a
deeper understanding of values. Journal of Arboriculture. 17(10): 276-284.
Eriksson, L., Nordlund, A.M., Olsson, O., WesƟn, K. (2012). RecreaƟon in Different Forest Seƫngs: A Scene
Preference Study. Forests (3), 923 – 943.
Eriksson, L., & Nordlund, A. (2013). How is seƫng preference related to intenƟon to engage in forest
recreaƟon acƟviƟes?” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening (12), 481 – 489.
Freimund, W.A., Anderson, D.H., & PiƩ, D.G. (1996). Developing a recreaƟon and aestheƟc inventory
framework for forest planning and management. Natural Areas Journal. 16(2): 108-117.
Gan, J., Kolison, S.H., Miller, J.H. (2000). Public preferences for nonƟmber benefits of loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda) stands regenerated by different site preparaƟon methods. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry.
24(3): 145-149.
Gericke, J.L., & Sullivan, J. (1994). Public parƟcipaƟon and appeals of forest service plans: an empirical
examinaƟon. Society and Natural Resources. 7: 125-135.
Gunderson, V.S., & Frivold, L.H. (2008). Public preferences for forest structures: A review of quanƟtaƟve
surveys from Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Urban Forest Urban Green (7): 241 – 258.
Haider, W. (1994). The aestheƟcs of white pine and red pine forests. The Forestry Chronicle. 70(4): 402- 410.
Haider, W., Hunt, L. (2002). Visual aestheƟc quality of northern Ontario’s forested shorelines. Environmental
Management. 29(3): 324-334.
Herzog, T.R. (1984). A cogniƟve analysis for field-and-forest environments. Landscape Research. 9: 10- 16.
Herzog, T.R., Herbert, E.J., Kaplan, R., & Crooks, C.L. (2000). Cultural and developmental comparisons of
landscape percepƟons and preferences. Environmental Behavior (32): 323 – 346.
Hull, R.B., Buhyoff, G.J., & Cordell, H. K. (1987). Psychophysical models: an example with scenic beauty
percepƟons of roadside pine forests. Landscape Journal. 6(2): 113-122.
Hunt, L., & Haider, W. (2011). Fair and EffecƟve Decision Making in Forest Management Planning. Society &
Natural Resources, 14(10), 873 – 887.
Kaplan, R. (1985). Nature at the doorstep: residenƟal saƟsfacƟon and the nearby environment. Journal of
Architectural and Planning Research. 2: 115-127.
Kearney, A.R., & Bradley, G.A. (2011). The effects of viewer aƩributes on preferences for forest scenes:
contribuƟons of aƫtudes, knowledge, demographic factors, and stakeholder group membership.
Environment and Behavior (43): 147 – 181.
Kearney, A.R., Tilt, J.R., & Bradley, G.A. (2010). The effects of forest regeneraƟon on preferences for forest
treatments among foresters, environmentalists, and the general public. Journal of Forestry (108): 215 –
229.
Kneeshaw, K., Vaske, J.J., Bright, A.D., & Absher, J.D. (2004). Acceptability norms toward fire management in
three naƟonal forests. Environment and Behavior. 36(4): 592-613.
Magill, A.W. (1994). What people see in managed and natural landscapes. Journal of Forestry. 92(9): 12-16.
5
McCool, S.F., Benson, R. E., & Ashor, J. L. (1986). How the public perceives the visual effects of Ɵmber
harvesƟng: an evaluaƟon of interest group preferences. Environmental Management. 10(3): 385-391.
Pings, P., & Hollenhorst, S. (1993). Managing eastern hardwood forests for visual quality. In: Vander Stoep,
Gail A., ed. Proceedings of the 1993 Northeastern recreaƟon research symposium; 1993 April 18-29;
Saratoga Springs, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE- 185. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment StaƟon: 89-93.
Ribe, R.G. (1989). The aestheƟcs of forestry: What has empirical preference research taught us?
Environmental Management (13): 55 – 74.
Ribe, R.G. (1990). A general model for understanding the percepƟon of scenic beauty in northern hard- wood
forests. Landscape Journal. 9(2): 86- 101.
Ribe, R.G. (1994). Scenic beauty percepƟons along the ROS. Journal of Environmental Management. 42: 199-
221.
Ribe, R.G. (1999). RegeneraƟon harvests versus clearcuts: public views of the acceptability and aestheƟcs of
Northwest forest plan harvests. Northwest Science (73): 102-117.
Ribe, R.G. (2002). Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of environmental
aƩributes on landscape percepƟons. Environment and Behavior. 34(6): 757-780.
Ryan, R.L. (2002). Preserving rural character in New England: local residents' percepƟons of alternaƟve
residenƟal development. Landscape and Urban Planning. 61: 19-35.
Ryan, R.L. (2005). Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research on aestheƟcs and fuels
management. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-261. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
North Central Research StaƟon. 58 p.
Schroeder, H. (2002). Experiencing nature in special places: surveys in the North-central region. Journal of
Forestry. 100(5): 8-14.
Shelby, B., Thompson, J.R., Brunson, M., Johnson, R. (2004). A decade of recreaƟon raƟngs for six silviculture
treatments in Western Oregon. Journal of Environmental Management. 1 – 8.
Silvennoinen, H., Alho, J., Kolehmainen, O., Pukkala, T. (2001). PredicƟon models of landscape preferences at
the forest stand level. Landscape and Urban Planning. 53: 11-20.
Silvennoinen, H., Pukkala, T., & Tahvanainen, L., 2002. Effect of cuƫngs on the scenic beauty of a tree stand.
Scandinavian Journal of Forest Resarch (17): 263 – 273.
Simkin, J., Ojala, A., & Tyrväinen. (2020). RestoraƟve effects of mature and young commercial forests, prisƟne
old-growth forest and urban recreaƟon forest: A field experiment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
(48): 1 – 12.
Sturtevant, V., Moote, M.A., & Jakes, P. (2005). Social science to improve fuels management: synthesis of
research on collaboraƟon. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-257. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, North Central Research StaƟon. 84 p.
Tönnes, S., Karjalainen, E.; Löfström, I.; & Neuvonen, M. (2004). Scenic impacts of retenƟon trees in clear-
cuƫng areas. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research (19): 348 – 357.
Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Hallikainen, V., 2017. Effect of the Season and Forest Management on the
Visual Quality of the Nature-based Tourism Environment: a Case From Finnish Lapland. Scandinavian
Journal of Forest Research (32)4: 349 – 359.
Wohlwill, J.F., &Harris, G. (1980). Response to congruity or contrast for man-made features in natural
recreaƟon seƫngs. Leisure Science. 3(4): 349-365.
elizabeth
she/her/hers
Elizabeth K. Andre, Ph.D.
6
Professor of Outdoor Education
Northland College
1411 Ellis Avenue
Ashland, Wisconsin 54806
715-682-1324
April 17, 2023
Dear Jason,
I have three questions about the planning process used in the SMA Long Term Planning Recreation at
Ashwabay related to the Mission of BCFD and WI DNR CFL.
1. How did the Bayfield County Forestry Department uphold its Mission and the WI County Forest
Law when developing the SMA Long Term Plan with regard to “maximizing public benefits?”
2. Did your department make an attempt to measure or at least recognize these benefits – including
tourism revenue and jobs? If the answer is no, then how can the department say it maximized
benefits?
3. There was no economic analysis in the SMA Plan, is this somewhere else in other planning
documents?
• Bayfield County brings in $52,000,000 per year in tourism revenue and creates 596 jobs (1 in 4
jobs in the county).
• It looks like the tourism benefits were not considered as they are not identified in the SMA
Plan.
• Tourism benefits and direct revenue to AOEF are quite high compared to the past 17 years of
stumpage contracts that yielded only about $15,656 after expenses to the Bayfield County
citizens.
o The AOEF alone takes in about $2,000,000 per year in revenue and provides 25-50 jobs
with its operations.
o CAMBA brings in $millions per year in tourism revenue and 118 jobs + in Sawyer and
Bayfield Counties. It’s hard to break these out by county but these are big numbers.
(see below for reference)
4. Obviously logging negatively impacts tourism and is a real threat to the success of stakeholder
groups at Ashwabay. Was this considered at all in the planning? If so, how? With 85% of the
harvestable area being clear-cut over a 30 year period (and nearly 100% of harvestable area cut),
how was this justified from an aesthetic and tourism impact standpoint?
By now you must be aware of the abundance of research that shows aesthetics of the forest are very
important to those recreating in the forest. The large amount of public feedback you have received
makes this clear also based on the comments in the web-site portal and the petition comments. Even
though many foresters have biases for aesthetics of logging, the majority of the public doesn’t.
• Unsightly clear-cutting, slash piles, noise, trail damage, lack of effective buffers and other
logging evidence is not what users expect or want. This will cause them not to return to
“forests” that have been cut down for logs and are in various states of “ugly” regrowth – or
have fields of stumps and chewed up soil, and useless buffers. They will tell their friends not to
come also and they will leave bad reviews on various platforms further diminishing tourism
revenue.
Thank you and I look forward to your response.
Cindy McDonnell
Mission and CFL breakout of key wording
BC Forestry Dept Mission WI CFL Comments
Mul%ple use management of
these resources
op#mum produc#on of forest
products together with
recrea%onal opportuni%es,
concept of mul%ple-use
Mul%-use = recrea%on, %mber harvest,
watershed protec%on, wildlife habitat,
etc.
will provide a wide variety of
forest products and
ameni%es
op%mum produc%on of forest
products together with
recrea%onal opportuni%es,
Nothing says forest products take
precedence over other uses. Op%mum
produc%on could be 0 given other
opportuni%es.
From Comp Plan Mission
Statement
The sustainable produc%on of
%mber products and
mul%ple-use management of
these renewable forest
resources generate an
important source of direct
revenue to Bayfield County,
as well as the Towns where
county forests lie, while also
providing a diversity of
economic and social benefits
to residents, local and
regional businesses, and
visitors that rely, at least in
part, on the forest products,
various recrea%onal
ac%vi%es, tourism or other
ameni%es derived from
Bayfield County Forest lands.
to assure maximum public
benefits;
The sustainable produc%on of
%mber products and
mul%ple-use management of
these renewable forest
resources generate an
important source of direct
revenue to Bayfield County,
as well as the Towns where
county forests lie, while also
providing a diversity of
economic and social benefits
to residents, local and
regional businesses, and
visitors that rely, at least in
part, on the forest products,
various recrea%onal
ac%vi%es, tourism or other
ameni%es derived from
Bayfield County Forest lands.
How was this measured in the SMA
Plan?
Logging = net $15,656/year 2013-
2020,.015 jobs
Revenue related directly to AOEF are
at are about $2,000,000 /year with
AOEF and 25-50 year round jobs.
AOEF and CAMBA provides addi%onal
tourism revenue and jobs.
Clearly, tourism benefits are greater
than logging.
to protect the public rights,
interests and investments in
such lands;
How are the public rights and interests
being protected when they are largely
disregarded?
Trail investments and maintenance has
cost in the many hundred thousand
dollars and volunteer hours over the
years. When trails are used for logging
roads by skidders and other
equipment, they are damaged.
Wisconsin County Forest Law 28.11
Administration of county forests.
Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide the basis for a permanent program of county forests and to enable and
encourage the planned development and management of the county forests for optimum production of forest products
together with recreational opportunities, wildlife, watershed protection and stabilization of stream flow, giving full
recognition to the concept of multiple-use to assure maximum public benefits; to protect the public rights, interests and
investments in such lands; and to compensate the counties for the public uses, benefits and privileges these lands provide;
all in a manner which will provide a reasonable revenue to the towns in which such lands lie.
BAYFIELD COUNTY FORESTS - MISSION STATEMENT (FROM WEB-
SITE)
The mission of the Bayfield County Forestry Department is to manage, conserve, and protect forest resources
of the County Forest. Multiple use management of these resources will provide a wide variety of forest
products and amenities for current and future generations through the use of sustainable forest management
practices.
BAYFIELD COUNTY FORESTS - MISSION STATEMENT (FROM COMP
PLAN)
100 MISSION STATEMENT A primary mission of the Bayfield County Forestry and Parks Department is to
sustainably manage, conserve and protect the natural resources of the Bayfield County Forest. Mul%ple use
management of these resources, with a primary emphasis on %mber produc%on, in conjunc%on with other
core values like recrea%onal opportuni%es, watershed and soil protec%on, biological and ecological diversity,
and wildlife habitat, will be applied to ensure a wide variety of forest products and ameni%es are available to
current and future genera%ons. Bayfield County Forest resources will also be managed to minimize impacts
from poten%al natural catastrophes such as flooding, wildfire and insect and disease outbreaks, as well as from
human threats, such as encroachment, fragmenta%on, over-u%liza%on, environmental degrada%on, climate
change and excessive development. The sustainable produc%on of %mber products and mul%ple-use
management of these renewable forest resources generate an important source of direct revenue to Bayfield
County, as well as the Towns where county forests lie, while also providing a diversity of economic and social
benefits to residents, local and regional businesses, and visitors that rely, at least in part, on the forest
products, various recrea%onal ac%vi%es, tourism or other ameni%es derived from Bayfield County Forest lands.
FROM THE UW RIVER FALLS CAMBA STUDY (2020)
Total Economic Impact
The spending of CAMBA users is es%mated to have boosted the 2019 Bayfield and Sawyer County economies
by: • Crea%ng the need for 118 jobs • Genera%ng $2.3 million in labor income • Genera%ng $3.2 million in total
value • Having a total impact of $7.8 million to Bayfield and Sawyer Coun%es during 2019 (Table 1- 4).
Spending by CAMBA users added approximately $1.8 million to the total value of both full-service restaurants
and hotels and motels in the two coun%es (Table 1-5).
From: McDonnell, Brad
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 10:07 AM
To: Jason Bodine
Cc: Mary Dougherty; Steve Sandstrom; Larry Fickbohm; Charly Ray; Jeremy
Oswald; Jeffrey Silbert; Dennis Pocernich; Fred Strand; John Rau o; Marty
Milanowski; Madelaine Rekemeyer; James A. Crandall; Bre T. Rondeau;
Forestry
Subject: AWB cu ng plan response. Please read.
Hi Jason,
I need to provide further input and clarifica on, so you and others understand my posi on and what
others also think/feel in regards of the planned SMA cu ngs, around, through the biking, hiking trails
of Mt. Ashwabay and surrounding areas.
Here are my overall thoughts to further clarify.
I am not surprised by the responses of people who say that nothing can be done with the planned
AWB mber cu ngs of this county land because people feel overwhelmed or afraid.
A er the cu ng is done, it will forever change the AWB forest, usually not for the be er. I have
thought through how this AWB cu ng will benefit people who hike, bike, and love the current forest.
I can’t think of anything posi ve about this planned cu ng.
I am not against logging. I logged for 10 years and logged thousands of forest acres.
But when there is this amount of logging out of this AWB recrea onal area, it’s a blow to many people
as you can imagine. This issue isn’t just about Timber Sale 1 – it’s about the en re SMA plan for
cu ng over a 15 year period. Mapping shows large amount of clear cu ng. I don’t think people
understand this cu ng plan that the county has provided.
I think you get how I feel and how many all people feel to stop areas of the AWB cu ngs that impact
the biking and hiking trails. The hope of many, is that you and the County Board can step up and put a
hold on mber 1 sale for starters and then be open to work with the public on all other planed
cu ngs in this area. Overall, this planned cu ng is a small sec on of land in the big picture but has a
big nega ve impact on Bayfield recrea on and enjoyment of the AWB current forest.
I have already shared this informa on with a couple of members on the County Board but needed to
share with you. Your courage to stop this first cu ng and then hold further mee ngs around the 15
year cu ng plan would be admired and appreciated.
Thank you,
Brad McDonnell
952-292-2049
This e-mail message may contain privileged and/or confiden al informa on, and is intended to be
received only by persons en tled to receive such informa on. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please no fy the sender immediately. Please delete it and all a achments from any servers, hard
drives or any other media. Other use of this e-mail by you is strictly prohibited. All e-mails and
a achments sent and received are subject to monitoring, reading and archival by Watlow. The
recipient of this e-mail is solely responsible for checking for the presence of "Viruses" or other
"Malware". Watlow accepts no liability for any damage caused by any such code transmi ed by or
accompanying this e-mail or any a achment. The informa on contained in this email may be subject
to the export control laws and regula ons of the United States, poten ally including but not limited to
the Export Administra on Regula ons (EAR) and sanc ons regula ons issued by the U.S. Department
of Treasury, Office of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC). As a recipient of this informa on you are
obligated to comply with all applicable U.S. export laws and regula ons. Please note that any views or
opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of Watlow.
1
Cassie Taylor
From:Cindy McDonnell <csmcdon@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, April 21, 2023 8:55 AM
To:Forestry
Subject:Fwd: Ashwabay Forest Plans
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hi Cassie - will you please enter this e-mail into the public record for Ashwabay.
Can you do this with an e-mail or do you need it to be put into a document format first?
Thanks - Cindy
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Cindy McDonnell <csmcdon@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Ashwabay Forest Plans
To: Charly Ray <charly.ray@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>
Cc: Deborah Zvosec <dzvosec@gmail.com>, Stephen Smith MD <smith253@umn.edu>
Thanks for the response Charly. I appreciate it.
As you can imagine, there is A LOT of information floating around right now and misunderstandings that need to be
addressed. I've re-read the SMA a couple times and each time I get more confused and have more questions.
And, I've talked to a lot of people from key stake-holder groups, forestry experts and heard comments from several
sides. I've not talked to any BC timber companies or loggers but I'm married to a veteran logger, so I think I understand
that position and the (sometimes very harsh) realities of what logging through the forest actually means to the soil, the
trees, the wildlife, the beauty. I'm not against logging - just against it here in the AB... and frankly, for good reason.
My previous e-mail with the list of questions is a conglomeration of what I've been experiencing when talking to people.
I believe we all need to get tighter on the facts... and purported "mandates"... and cost/benefit measurement of what is
going on here in the big picture for the area. This area is too important to too many people not to. As an example:
The average timber sale revenue was only $43k to the county over the last 17 years! This is clearly way less than
the tourism economy benefits, taxes generated from property values and user benefits of this Ashwabay area!
How does all this fit into the big plans of the county? I didn't see any analysis of this anywhere in the SMA or
other BC documents. If it's there, I'd like to see it.
Also, I believe we need to start:
1. Thinking of the FOREST as more than a commodity farm waiting to be cut and harvested over and over
forever. That's a very narrow view of a forest as the FOREST is largely the trees... and soil... and provides too
much to us and the wildlife.
2
o Removing the FOREST patch by patch destroys the essence and the benefits - other than for the timber
sales (which is relatively small here). Eventually, a FOREST ceases to be a FOREST in the big sense of the
word.
1. Thinking of the Ashwabay Recreation Area as an important recreational "complex" that is NOT just a collection
of silos with disparate ownership types, governance, and wants/needs... but is a collective and large area that
has evolved with many uses, and attracts many visitors to our area. It is an area that is way more valuable as a
whole than simply the sum of its individual parts (including logs). Logging - and especially clear cutting - is in
direct conflict with these uses. There is simply no other way to state this.
2. Recognizing that there are many other places to log in the BCF and why can't this timber harvesting be shifted to
these areas?
o Why does logging have to be happening here? Why can't this be shifted to the other 160,000 acres?
o What is the impact of losing this revenue anyway vs. losing recreation revenue?
o Maybe there should be a stumpage offset fee for users? Say $1-2 per person from all visitors? Maybe
BC could realize MORE revenue with this approach?
If I get a chance to speak tonight, I'm going to ask for more time for the users to learn and give input, maybe a Q&A
session so that we all can ask questions and get answers, and those answers can be distributed so that we all have a
better understanding of this situation.
As an example, you stated 85% selective cutting and my stats indicate 85% clear cutting - we need to resolve this
disconnect.
We need more facts about the plans - what is "even-managed harvesting" - is that the same as clear cutting?
We need more understanding about mandates - what are they and how do they apply here?
We need more discussion about other good options that might be out there.
In closing, you can tell from my letters that I think it is surreal that BC would even entertain more logging in the AB - and
specifically ANY clear cutting.
"It's-always-been-this-way-ism", "don't tell us how to run our forest" and ignoring the comments given, are not healthy
ways to deal with user input and only serve to whip people up worse. It has created huge distrust. WE are the owners
of the forest - not the FD. Of course the sentiment can quickly go to, "NO LOGGING HERE PERIOD" which is how many
of us feel right now because we have seen the impact of the clear cutting up there, how it's not growing back and
how this glorious area might be absolutely destroyed in our lifetime if 85% is clear cut - which is what our current
numbers indicate. We simply won't be around when - and IF this ever grows back.
\
And we don't feel heard.
Thanks and I hope we can chat over coffee sometime. I'm in town all week and available.
And a sincere thanks for your service to BC citizens. Not easy stuff to contend with right now.
Cindy
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 9:44 AM Charly Ray <charly.ray@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov> wrote:
Thanks for the input Cindy. I'm sure we will get more tonight.
3
I'm with you on moving away from clearcuts and think this sale is a great start. This area would typically have been
mostly clearcut and the County has modified it to 85% very selective, light harvest that will be difficult for anyone to
notice after a year or so. So your comments and ones before have made a big difference.
There's lots of forest still in active management so I'm looking forward to continuing to do the most conservation
focused management we can on the Ashwabay area.
Regards,
Charly
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Cindy McDonnell <csmcdon@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 4:57:00 PM
To: Steve Sandstrom <steve.sandstrom@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Mary Dougherty
<mary.dougherty@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Larry Fickbohm <Larry.Fickbohm@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Charly Ray
<charly.ray@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Jeffrey Silbert <Jeffrey.Silbert@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Fred Strand
<fred.strand@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Jeremy Oswald <Jeremy.Oswald@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; John Rautio
<john.rautio@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; James A. Crandall <James.Crandall@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Dennis Pocernich
<Dennis.Pocernich@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Marty Milanowski <Marty.Milanowski@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>;
Madelaine Rekemeyer <madelaine.rekemeyer@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>; Brett T. Rondeau
<Brett.rondeau@bayfieldcounty.wi.gov>
Subject: Ashwabay Forest Plans
Dear Bayfield County Supervisors,
THANK YOU for your service to the people of Bayfield County and being stewards of the resources entrusted to you.
Attached is a letter regarding the plans to log and clear cut in the Mt. Ashwabay Recreation area including the trails on
Bayfield County land.
My husband and I own property in Bayfield and I've been a user of the trails at Mt. Ashwabay for 50 years! That's
because my father laid out the original XC ski trails there when I was a little girl. Who knew that this area would grow
in popularity to what it is today with XC & DH skiing, biking, hiking, concert going, etc. The conception of these trails
pre-date the Birkie trails!
The Mt Ashwabay Forest is dear to so many people in Bayfield County for its incredible beauty, trails and enormous
economic impact to the area.
It would be a shame if current plans to log/clear-cut aren't re-evaluated before the forest is taken away for OUR
current generations to enjoy.
Please encourage the BC Forestry Committee and Forestry Staff to put the 1st Sale of Timber in 2023, specified in the
SMA plan, ON HOLD until public input can be given the full consideration deserved for this important plan.
Thank you,
Cindy McDonnell
4
Dear Bayfield County Supervisors,
Please enter this e-mail into the Public Record for the discussion on Ashwabay Block SMA
timber cutting, and in advance of your April 18th meeting.
I urge you to take immediate action and remove the Timber Sale 1 contract from the bid
packet, before it's too late.
I concur with Elizabeth Andre's (eandre@northland.edu) email below, which she supported with
a large body of research.
In addition, the notion of "taking a wait and see approach” for Timber Sale 1 is not what the
public wants and they have expressed their wishes in many ways.
Please, no more "wait and see." We have already waited and seen: past cutting has
resulted in ugly scars all across AWB!! Past sales have resulted in extensive damage in the
AB from massive clear cutting and thinning. This has negatively impacted the top of Mt.
Ashwabay, the Diesel Bear Trail, Hot Saw & Skid Road (both aptly named), top of Buzz and
Black Bear, and the end of Sugarbush where it joins Northern Lights. This damage is still
visible after all these years and has impacted the quality of trails... and will impact them for
decades to come.
As you can see by the photos and maps below, this problem is much bigger than Timber Sale
1. Ashwabay is too important to too many people to allow this cutting to move forward. Please
listen to the public and not disregard our input.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Steve Smith
Bayfield, WI
Below are some photos of some of the damage:
Timber Sale 1 will impact the entire southeast area of trails at Ashwabay as shown on the map
for TIMBER SALE 1 only. All red areas will be cut.
Here is what has been cut over the last 17 years. Please take note of the amount of clear cutting
indicated by “Most Trees Harvested”.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Steve Smith
Bayfield, WI
From: Elizabeth Andre <eandre@northland.edu>
Date: April 15, 2023 at 1:45:50 PM CDT
Subject: Comments on Forestry Committee's April 10th vote on the timber sale at AWB
SMA
Hello Bayfield County Board of Supervisors,
Please enter the following comments into the public record in advance of your April 18th
meeting.
At the April 10th meeting of the Forestry and Parks Committee, after 30-minutes of public
comment expressing alarm over the plans to log within the Ashwabay SMA, almost all the
members of the committee expressed a belief that, once the logging was completed, the public
would realize that their worry was misplaced—that active timber production around the trails at
AWB would not negatively impact their recreation experience in the way they feared. Almost
every committee member expressed their belief that the considerations in the current logging
plan had adequately mitigated any risks to the experience of trail users.
This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the recreation science and the science of the
public’s aesthetic forest preferences. As a professor in Outdoor Recreation, I believe it is a
liability to Bayfield County to ignore social science when making forest management plans since
the public’s acceptance of forest management practices is heavily based on aesthetics (Ribe,
2002), and study after study shows the public’s idea of what makes a beautiful forest is
remarkably consistent (Ryan, 2005). Two-hundred and sixty people submitted comments, signed
a petition, and spoke in favor of mature forests surrounding the trails at Ashwabay. Their
aesthetic preferences are not a fluke—this is consistent with research showing that people prefer
large trees and mature forests that do not show obvious signs of forest management (Brown and
Daniel 1986; Cook 1972; Dywer, et al., 1991; Haider 1994; Haider and Hunt 2002; Herzog 1984;
Herzog, et al., 2000; Hull, et al., 1987; Gan, et al., 2000; Gunderson & Frivold, 2008; Kearney &
Bradley, 2011; Ribe 1989, 1990; Ryan, 2005; Schroeder and Daniel 1981; Silvennoinen et al.
2001, 2002; Stolz, 2016; Tyrväinen, et al., 2017).
In conversations with members of the forestry and parks committee, it has become clear to me
that the committee has never been educated about the science of recreationists’ scenic
preferences, despite the fact that the committee is responsible for setting management objectives
for the most important recreation resource in the county. They are trusting forestry professionals
to make decisions about the scenic qualities of this recreation area, but as the USFS argues,
“scenic integrity of public forests is too serious a matter to be left to the resource scientists.”
The USFS suggests developing a design consciousness through multidisciplinary involvement,
including landscape architects, social scientists, and public involvement at every step of the
process (Cotton & McBride, 1987: 36; Ryan, 2005).
Foresters—even ones who recreate on trails—cannot rely on their own perceptions and aesthetic
preferences to anticipate how the public will experience the visible signs of logging, because
their forestry expertise makes them perceive areas with obvious signs of logging as beautiful to a
much greater extent than the general public (Anderson, 1978; Andersson, 1994; Arthur, 1977;
Eriksson, 2012; Haider, 1994; Gunderson & Frivold, 2008; Kearney & Bradley, 2011; Kearney,
et al., 2010; McCool, et al., 1986; Ribe, 2002; Tönnes, et al., 2004). The general public does not
want to recreate in areas with obvious signs of logging (Eriksson, 2013).
There is no way around the fact that logging decreases people’s perceptions of scenic beauty
(Brown & Daniel, 1986; Brunson & Shelby 1992; Brush, 1976; Magill, 1994; Pings &
Hollenhorst, 1993). This is especially important for managers of the Ashwabay SMA to
understand, since they are planning to conduct logging on the vast majority (nearly 100%) of
county forest land within the SMA. This is problematic because public judgements of scenic
beauty and “acceptability” for recreation do not recover for many years after logging activity,
regardless of what forestry techniques are used (Shelby, et al, 2004). Even 25 years of regrowth
after an area is clearcut (even-age harvest) has no significant impact on improving scenic ratings
(Pings & Hollenhorst, 1993).
Nordic skiers, mountain bikers, and hikers are looking for more than just exercise when they
choose where to recreate. Three of the main things human-powered recreationists are seeking in
forest-based recreation are restoration, positive emotions, and the feeling of revitalization. These
are all maximized in older forests, rather than in younger forests (Simkin, et al., 2020). This
explains why study after study show that people who engage in human-powered sports like
mountain biking and Nordic skiing strongly prefer a natural-looking aesthetic of a mature forest
(Eriksson & Nordlund, 2013).
Bayfield Forestry’s plan for the Ashwabay SMA includes educational signage they think will
help the public come to accept the timber harvests near the Ashwabay trails. However, studies
show that the public’s visual preferences are very resistant to change (Daniel, 2001, cited in
Ryan, 2005). Educational signage may increase acceptance for logging, but it will not increase
scenic beauty ratings (Ribe, 1999), and perceptions of scenic beauty are directly related to
satisfaction in recreation (Eriksson & Nordlund, 2013) and how restorative the recreation
experience will be (Simkin, 2020). Educational signage simply cannot convince recreationists
that they are having a restorative, emotionally positive experience in a forest with visual impacts
of logging, regardless of the reasons provided for those logging practices.
If Bayfield County wants to manage the forest within the Ashwabay SMA in a way that will
receive public support, they need to involve the public in every step of the process and take the
public’s aesthetic preferences seriously (Dearden, 1981; Gericke & Sullivan, 1994; Ryan, 2005;
Sturtevant, et al., 2005). The public affected by the outcome needs to believe that their views
were considered before the decision was made. If people share their opinions and then feel as if
the opinions don’t have a bearing on the final decision, they will experience a “frustration
effect.” If the County wants it decisions to be supported, it needs to change the decision-making
structure to address the frustration of the public (Hunt & Haider, 2011).
The public has a strong emotional connection to the forest surrounding the trails at Ashwabay.
The USFS states that forest managers need to understand the public’s emotional connection to
particularly special areas within forests (Ryan, 2005; Schroeder, 2002). Research shows the
public will react much more strongly and negatively to visible impacts of logging in recreational
areas than in other areas (Brunston, 1993; Kneeshaw, et al., 2004; Ryan, 2002; Ryan, 2005;
Wohlwill, 1979; Wohlwill & Harris, 1980). People are especially fond of natural areas near their
homes or where they’ve spent a lot of time exploring (Kaplan, 1985; Ryan, 2002). This explains
why the public outcry about the planned logging within the Ashwabay SMA is so intense.
Even though the Forestry & Parks committee voted unanimously on April 10th to approve the
2023 timber sale within the Ashwabay SMA, it is not too late to mitigate the damage to the
public trust. The bids have not yet been awarded—please listen to the hundreds of people who
have asked you to delay the timber sale until the public can be involved in a more robust
decision-making process about forest management plans for the Ashwabay SMA.
Thank you for accepting my input. I do appreciate the work county board members do on behalf
of all of us, and I know that we all care about Ashwabay.
References:
Anderson, E. (1978). Visual resource assessment: local perceptions of familiar natural
environments. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Ph.D dissertation. 213 p.
Andersson, T. (1994). Ideals and conceptions of forest: an experimental study of
conceptual deliberation. Communication and Cognition. 27(4): 397- 428
Arthur, L.M. (1977). Predicting scenic beauty of forest environments: some empirical
tests. Forest Science. 23: 151-160.
Brush, R.O. (1976). Spaces within the woods: managing forests for visual enjoyment.
Journal of Forestry. 74: 744-747.
Brown, T.C., Daniel, T. C. (1986). Predicting scenic beauty of timber stands. Forest
Science. 32: 471-487. Applied Forestry. 24(3): 145-149.
Brunson, M., Shelby, B. (1992). Assessing recreational and scenic quality: how does
New Forestry rate? Journal of Forestry. 90(7): 37-41.
Cook, W.L. (1972). Evaluation of aesthetic quality of forest trees. Journal of Leisure
Research. 4(4): 293-302.
Cotton, L., & McBride, J. R. (1987). Visual impacts of prescribed burning on mixed
conifer and giant sequoia forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-101. Berkeley, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station: 32-37.
Daniel, T.C. (2001). Aesthetic preference and ecological sustainability. In: Sheppard,
S.R.J.; Harshaw, H.W., eds. Forests and landscapes: linking ecology, sustainability, and
aesthetics. New York, NY: CABI Publishing, in association with The International Union
of Forestry Research Organizations: 15-29.
Dearden, P. (1981). Public participation and scenic quality analysis. Landscape Planning.
8: 3-19.
Dywer, J.F., Schroeder, H.W., & Gobstesr, P.H. (1991). The significance of urban trees
and forests: toward a deeper understanding of values. Journal of Arboriculture. 17(10):
276-284.
Eriksson, L., Nordlund, A.M., Olsson, O., Westin, K. (2012). Recreation in Different
Forest Settings: A Scene Preference Study. Forests (3), 923 – 943.
Eriksson, L., & Nordlund, A. (2013). How is setting preference related to intention to
engage in forest recreation activities?” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening (12), 481 –
489.
Freimund, W.A., Anderson, D.H., & Pitt, D.G. (1996). Developing a recreation and
aesthetic inventory framework for forest planning and management. Natural Areas
Journal. 16(2): 108-117.
Gan, J., Kolison, S.H., Miller, J.H. (2000). Public preferences for nontimber benefits of
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) stands regenerated by different site preparation methods.
Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 24(3): 145-149.
Gericke, J.L., & Sullivan, J. (1994). Public participation and appeals of forest service
plans: an empirical examination. Society and Natural Resources. 7: 125-135.
Gunderson, V.S., & Frivold, L.H. (2008). Public preferences for forest structures: A
review of quantitative surveys from Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Urban Forest Urban
Green (7): 241 – 258.
Haider, W. (1994). The aesthetics of white pine and red pine forests. The Forestry
Chronicle. 70(4): 402- 410.
Haider, W., Hunt, L. (2002). Visual aesthetic quality of northern Ontario’s forested
shorelines. Environmental Management. 29(3): 324-334.
Herzog, T.R. (1984). A cognitive analysis for field-and-forest environments. Landscape
Research. 9: 10- 16.
Herzog, T.R., Herbert, E.J., Kaplan, R., & Crooks, C.L. (2000). Cultural and
developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environmental
Behavior (32): 323 – 346.
Hull, R.B., Buhyoff, G.J., & Cordell, H. K. (1987). Psychophysical models: an example
with scenic beauty perceptions of roadside pine forests. Landscape Journal. 6(2): 113-
122.
Hunt, L., & Haider, W. (2011). Fair and Effective Decision Making in Forest
Management Planning. Society & Natural Resources, 14(10), 873 – 887.
Kaplan, R. (1985). Nature at the doorstep: residential satisfaction and the nearby
environment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 2: 115-127.
Kearney, A.R., & Bradley, G.A. (2011). The effects of viewer attributes on preferences
for forest scenes: contributions of attitudes, knowledge, demographic factors, and
stakeholder group membership. Environment and Behavior (43): 147 – 181.
Kearney, A.R., Tilt, J.R., & Bradley, G.A. (2010). The effects of forest regeneration on
preferences for forest treatments among foresters, environmentalists, and the general
public. Journal of Forestry (108): 215 – 229.
Kneeshaw, K., Vaske, J.J., Bright, A.D., & Absher, J.D. (2004). Acceptability norms
toward fire management in three national forests. Environment and Behavior. 36(4): 592-
613.
Magill, A.W. (1994). What people see in managed and natural landscapes. Journal of
Forestry. 92(9): 12-16.
McCool, S.F., Benson, R. E., & Ashor, J. L. (1986). How the public perceives the visual
effects of timber harvesting: an evaluation of interest group preferences. Environmental
Management. 10(3): 385-391.
Pings, P., & Hollenhorst, S. (1993). Managing eastern hardwood forests for visual
quality. In: Vander Stoep, Gail A., ed. Proceedings of the 1993 Northeastern recreation
research symposium; 1993 April 18-29; Saratoga Springs, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE- 185.
Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station: 89-93.
Ribe, R.G. (1989). The aesthetics of forestry: What has empirical preference research
taught us? Environmental Management (13): 55 – 74.
Ribe, R.G. (1990). A general model for understanding the perception of scenic beauty in
northern hard- wood forests. Landscape Journal. 9(2): 86- 101.
Ribe, R.G. (1994). Scenic beauty perceptions along the ROS. Journal of Environmental
Management. 42: 199-221.
Ribe, R.G. (1999). Regeneration harvests versus clearcuts: public views of the
acceptability and aesthetics of Northwest forest plan harvests. Northwest Science (73):
102-117.
Ribe, R.G. (2002). Is scenic beauty a proxy for acceptable management? The influence of
environmental attributes on landscape perceptions. Environment and Behavior. 34(6):
757-780.
Ryan, R.L. (2002). Preserving rural character in New England: local residents'
perceptions of alternative residential development. Landscape and Urban Planning. 61:
19-35.
Ryan, R.L. (2005). Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research
on aesthetics and fuels management. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-261. St. Paul, MN: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 58 p.
Schroeder, H. (2002). Experiencing nature in special places: surveys in the North-central
region. Journal of Forestry. 100(5): 8-14.
Shelby, B., Thompson, J.R., Brunson, M., Johnson, R. (2004). A decade of recreation
ratings for six silviculture treatments in Western Oregon. Journal of Environmental
Management. 1 – 8.
Silvennoinen, H., Alho, J., Kolehmainen, O., Pukkala, T. (2001). Prediction models of
landscape preferences at the forest stand level. Landscape and Urban Planning. 53: 11-
20.
Silvennoinen, H., Pukkala, T., & Tahvanainen, L., 2002. Effect of cuttings on the scenic
beauty of a tree stand. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Resarch (17): 263 – 273.
Simkin, J., Ojala, A., & Tyrväinen. (2020). Restorative effects of mature and young
commercial forests, pristine old-growth forest and urban recreation forest: A field
experiment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening (48): 1 – 12.
Sturtevant, V., Moote, M.A., & Jakes, P. (2005). Social science to improve fuels
management: synthesis of research on collaboration. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-257. St. Paul,
MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 84
p.
Tönnes, S., Karjalainen, E.; Löfström, I.; & Neuvonen, M. (2004). Scenic impacts of
retention trees in clear-cutting areas. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research (19): 348
– 357.
Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., Hallikainen, V., 2017. Effect of the Season and Forest
Management on the Visual Quality of the Nature-based Tourism Environment: a Case
From Finnish Lapland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research (32)4: 349 – 359.
Wohlwill, J.F., &Harris, G. (1980). Response to congruity or contrast for man-made
features in natural recreation settings. Leisure Science. 3(4): 349-365.
elizabeth
she/her/hers
Elizabeth K. Andre, Ph.D.
Professor of Outdoor Education
Northland College
1411 Ellis Avenue
Ashland, Wisconsin 54806
715-682-1324
BAYFIELD COUNTY FORESTRY AND PARKS DEPARTMENT
COMMITTEE MEETING
April 10, 2023
County Board Room
Members Present: Fred Strand; Jeffrey Silbert; Larry Fickbohm; Charly Ray; Steve Sandstrom
Staff in Attendance: Jason Bodine, Administrator; Steve Probst, Assistant Administrator; Cassie Taylor,
Office Manager
Others in Attendance: Joseph Lebouton, WI DNR; Tessa Levens, Mark Sherman, Elizabeth Andre, Kate
Ullman, Mike Radtke, Sam Christman, John Kotar, Cindy McDonnell, Katherine Jenkins, Chuck Finn, Donn
Christensen
1. Call to Order of Forestry and Parks Committee Meeting.
This meeting was called to order at 6:01 PM.
2. Public Comment:
Public Comment opens at 6:02 PM. Tessa Levens speaks in opposition to spring timber sale offering
tract 4-23, adjacent to her property. Eight citizens in attendance speak against the spring timber sale
offering, tract 27-21, Ashwabay block. John Kotar offers his services as a retired forest ecology
professor, to assist with current and future timber sale development. Public comment closes at 6:31 PM.
3. Approval of the February 13th Meeting Minutes.
MOTION: (Fickbohm, Ray) Receive minutes as presented and place on file. All: Yes. Carried.
4. Approval of the March 13th Meeting Minutes.
MOTION: (Silbert, Sandstrom) Receive minutes as presented and place on file. All: Yes.
Carried.
5. Presentation: Erika Lang, Landmark Conservancy. Partnering with Landmark Conservancy
regarding the transfer and management of land along the Lake Superior shoreline in the Town of
Bayfield. One of the reasons for a transfer of ownership now is due to the deadline for a grant
application. Memorandum of Understanding between Bayfield County and Landmark Conservancy lays
out roles and responsibilities of both Landmark and the County. Bodine adds that Landmark has been a
consistent partner; Brownstone Trail will require a lot of work but the MOU has us moving in the right
direction. Silbert inquires about liability and Erika confirms that liability transfers with ownership.
Fickbohm adds that he spoke with Bob Anderson in highway regarding potential to obtain state funds
because of proximity to Hwy 13. Also asks about presence of hazardous materials on Maki property and
Erika confirms that a Phase I Site Assessment was conducted, nothing found. Discussion is had
regarding existing structures and plans for them, potential for native vegetation and shrub plantings at
site, and workload implications and cost to forestry department.
MOTION: (Silbert, Sandstrom) Forward Memorandum of Understanding and transfer of
ownership proposal to Executive Board for approval. All: Yes. Carried.
Bayfield County Forestry & Parks Committee
April 10, 2023 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 4
6. Resolution: Application for a Stewardship Local Unit of Government (LUG) Grant. This is a 50/50
match grant that would potentially provide around $200k for restoration work on the Brownstone Trail.
Awards are decided by the DNR. Deadline for application is May 1. This is one of the reasons for the
transfer of ownership now. Landmark would provide most of the heavy lifting in grant development, but
the county would be the applicant.
MOTION: (Fickbohm, Ray) Forward resolution and recommend grant application to Executive
Board. All: Yes. Carried.
7. Resolution: Amendment to the 2020-2024 Bayfield County Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan. The following information would replace the current language (under the City of Bayfield section,
which is where the Brownstone Trail is listed now):
BROWNSTONE TRAIL
Existing Facilities:
Established in 1996 by Landmark Conservancy in partnership with private landowners who own the
majority of property that the trail traverses, this approximate 2.25 mile trail connects the City of
Bayfield’s historic downtown at the corner of Wilson Avenue and S. 3rd Street to Pikes Bay Marina and
Port Superior located in the Town of Bayfield. The trail is a highly used, public trail that travels
alongside Lake Superior on an old railroad grade. Uses are non-motorized in nature and include
walking, hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing. The trail passes over brownstone cliffs
and through a forested area of the shoreline that is home to native trees and shrubs as well as wildlife
including migratory birds. Like other lakeshore areas, various sections of the Brownstone Trail and its
lakeside slopes have been impacted by natural and man-made causes through the years. Therefore, at
times, sections of the Brownstone Trail may be closed or re-routed.
Recommended Improvements:
• Additional rest/seating areas along the trail
• Improved walking surfaces where needed through regrading, placing gravel or other appropriate
materials, fixing drainage, installing stairs, etc.
• Stabilizing and restoring eroded areas on and adjacent to the trail through a variety of actions including
purchasing property nearby to achieve restoration goals
• Creating additional public trailheads
• Creating community park/natural areas adjacent to the trail with appropriate infrastructure such as
signage, pavilions, parking areas, bathroom facilities, green space, additional trails, benches, EV
charging stations, etc.
• Invasive plant removal and control activities
• Native plantings
• Connecting Brownstone Trail to Salmo Trail
MOTION: (Sandstrom, Silbert) Forward amendment to County Board with recommendation for
approval. All: Yes. Carried.
Bayfield County Forestry & Parks Committee
April 10, 2023 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 4
8. 2023 Spring Timber Sale Offering. A total of 33 sales, covering 2,312 acres, will be included in this
offering. The total minimum bid value is nearly $1.2 million. This includes the sale located within the
Ashwabay SMA. Of the 33 sales, 6 are re-offers. The re-offers cover 274 acres and have a min bid
value of roughly $89k. Discussion is had regarding the complexity of the Ashwabay SMA sale.
MOTION: (Silbert, Ray) Approve 2023 Spring Timber Sale Offering. All: Yes. Carried.
9. Monthly Reports.
a) Forestry (all updates): Stumpage revenue for the month of March was just over $465k. Current
total timber sale revenue is just under $1.05 million. The revenue received last month was about
average, as is the current pace (which is slightly above last year). Expenses are on target.
a. Carbon Project. ACR is still reviewing project. Meeting to discuss marketing – it’s rare for
nearly all carbon revenues to be reinvested in green projects. Hopefully this will resonate
with potential buyers. Local interest from XCEL and Birkie to invest.
b. Land Acquisition Projects. Sand River still on hold as we await award announcement from
NOAA. Agreement with TPL has been extended for one more month. If there is another
delay in NOAA award, next steps may need to be strategized. Hoping for an announcement
in the next 1-2 weeks.
c. 2022 Accomplishment Report. Plan to present during May meeting.
d. Forest Carbon Offset Reserve Fund (FCOR). COR was recently approved. Will need to start
drafting guidance documents for primary programs listed in FCOR: recreation, land
acquisition, and forest management.
e. Sustainable Forestry Grant. DNR has advised us not to apply, as storm damage projects are
being considered the highest priority.
b) Campgrounds and Day Use Parks. Hope to open campgrounds by mid-May. Coordinating with
Highway on various projects including overflow parking area at Twin Bear, repairs to retaining
walls at Twin Bear, and grading at Delta Lake and Twin Bear.
c) Trails and Recreation.
a. Motorized Trails: Snowmobile trails closed March 31. Expecting total maintenance expenses
to be at an all-time high, due to the heavy snowfall and grooming required.
i. Motorized Grant Applications. Deadline for DNR motorized grant applications is
April 15. Currently working on routine annual maintenance applications. No special
projects this year. Currently working with Alliance and ATV clubs to identify
potential projects for 2024 - will require planning and numerous site visits over the
course of this summer/fall.
b. Non-Motorized Trails: Starting to prep for trail projects: touch ups to Lost Creek Falls trail,
Siskiwit Falls trail improvements and construction, orchard maintenance at Siskiwit Falls,
and plan development at Fire Hill. Working with Bayfield Nordic and Corny Trails Club to
determine whether Siskiwit orchard ski trail makes sense. Also updating rec use agreement
with CAMBA and Birkie. Expecting work on Cable SMA plan to begin late spring.
c. Yurts. Current occupancy rates presented by Bodine. Ray inquires if there is a conservation
easement at Jolly property, preventing a yurt from being placed there. Bodine states that there
isn’t an easement, but there are ordinances and rec restrictions in place. Big Rock is still
being considered for possible location of fourth yurt.
d. Events. Nothing new to report.
MOTION: (Ray, Sandstrom) Receive reports as presented and place on file. All: Yes. Carried.
Bayfield County Forestry & Parks Committee
April 10, 2023 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 4
10. 2023 Town Road Aid Projects. Bodine’s recommendations for Town Road Aid distributions are
presented. Town of Russell’s aid amount is noted to be higher than usual. This is because of the
tremendous amount of recent logging near Peterson Hill Road, requiring significant repair.
MOTION: (Silbert, Ray) Approve recommended Town Road Aid funding. All: Yes. Carried.
11. Recreational Use Request: Cable Natural History Museum. Northwoods geology walk/hike at
Siskiwit Falls property in July 2023. Expecting a dozen or so participants who will be guided by one of
the museum’s naturalists. Bodine recommends approval.
MOTION: (Ray, Fickbohm) Approve recreational use request. All: Yes. Carried.
12. Land Use Request: Iron River Area Chamber of Commerce. Northern Pines Sled Dog Race
Committee requesting permission to establish another 3/4 mile section of trail. New trail would connect
to previously approved network and would eliminate dual use issue on existing trail. Bodine
recommends approval.
MOTION: (Ray, Silbert) Approve land use request. All: Yes. Carried.
13. Committee Members Discussion. Sandstrom inquires about trail buffers at Ashwabay and how to
ensure loggers are precise in their cutting. Steve Probst indicates that he will be paying extra attention to
this sale. Bodine adds that trees are marked and harvest requirements are detailed. Discussion is had
regarding plans for Pigeon Lake. Bodine adds that department is working with Green Fire for
development of more interpretive signage and educational materials.
14. Joseph Lebouton: Appreciates the thoughtful and attentive response of committee members to public
opinion regarding the Ashwabay sale.
The next Forestry and Parks Committee meeting has been scheduled for Monday, May 8th, at 6:00 P.M.
Meeting adjourned at 7:57 PM.
Submitted by,
Cassie Taylor
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Account Account Description Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year Total
Fund 100 - General
REVENUE
Department 10 - County Clerk
46112 Garnishment Fees 250.00 .00 250.00 .00 .00 24.00 226.00 10 177.00
46114 County Clerks Fees 2,000.00 .00 2,000.00 .00 .00 85.00 1,915.00 4 1,607.85
47311 Voter Reg Svcs-Municipality Fees 8,000.00 .00 8,000.00 .00 .00 300.00 7,700.00 4 7,875.00
47312 Other Election Charges-Municipalities 21,600.00 .00 21,600.00 .00 .00 52.90 21,547.10 0 19,559.30
48309 Sale of Maps and Plat Books .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++6.00
48900 All Other Revenue 50.00 .00 50.00 .00 .00 .00 50.00 0 .50
Department 10 - County Clerk Totals $31,900.00 $0.00 $31,900.00 $0.00 $0.00 $461.90 $31,438.10 1%$29,225.65
Department 34 - Forestry
43572 State Grant-Snowmobile Trails 227,285.00 .00 227,285.00 .00 .00 .00 227,285.00 0 303,853.05
43575
43575 State Grant-ATV Trails 52,800.00 .00 52,800.00 .00 .00 .00 52,800.00 0 13,686.52
43575-002 ATV Winter Trail Grants 34,286.00 .00 34,286.00 .00 .00 .00 34,286.00 0 60,116.00
43575 - Totals $87,086.00 $0.00 $87,086.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $87,086.00 0%$73,802.52
43582 Conservation Aids-50/50 NL 4,000.00 .00 4,000.00 .00 .00 .00 4,000.00 0 4,557.60
43584
43584-001 Wisconsin Coastal Management (Siskiwit River) Grant .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++25,184.10
43584-003 Turkey Stamp State Grant .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++12,825.00
43584 - Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 +++$38,009.10
43587 Good Neighbor Grant 30,000.00 .00 30,000.00 .00 .00 .00 30,000.00 0 20,279.85
43597 State Sustainable Forestry Grant 10,000.00 .00 10,000.00 .00 .00 37,023.85 (27,023.85)370 .00
43598 County Forest Admin Grant 68,000.00 .00 68,000.00 .00 .00 70,290.58 (2,290.58)103 65,859.71
43599 Wildlife Habitat .10 Grant NL 8,150.00 .00 8,150.00 .00 .00 8,143.30 6.70 100 8,190.15
43610 State DOT Road Aid NL 13,327.00 .00 13,327.00 .00 .00 13,327.47 (.47)100 13,327.47
46720 County Park Fees 125,000.00 .00 125,000.00 .00 .00 62,251.08 62,748.92 50 144,534.50
46721 Yurt Rental Revenue 47,500.00 .00 47,500.00 .00 .00 9,398.67 38,101.33 20 51,269.33
46811 Sale of Wood-CFL-Co Share 2,948,500.00 .00 2,948,500.00 .00 .00 1,160,004.65 1,788,495.35 39 4,679,087.06
46815 10% County Forestry-Towns 326,500.00 .00 326,500.00 .00 .00 .00 326,500.00 0 .00
46823 Equipment Use Agreement NL .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++1,555.60
48205 Rent on Leased Land 12,604.00 .00 12,604.00 .00 .00 11,988.83 615.17 95 60,788.64
48500 Donations 81,000.00 .00 81,000.00 .00 .00 2,500.00 78,500.00 3 39,252.00
48900 All Other Revenue 1,000.00 .00 1,000.00 .00 .00 171.24 828.76 17 290.79
48910 Permit Revenues 1,000.00 .00 1,000.00 .00 .00 670.00 330.00 67 1,215.00
49301 Fund Balance Applied 40,000.00 .00 40,000.00 .00 .00 .00 40,000.00 0 .00
49401 Sale of Larger $Gen Fixed Assets .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 4,150.00 (4,150.00)+++.00
Department 34 - Forestry Totals $4,030,952.00 $0.00 $4,030,952.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,379,919.67 $2,651,032.33 34%$5,505,872.37
REVENUE TOTALS $4,062,852.00 $0.00 $4,062,852.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,380,381.57 $2,682,470.43 34%$5,535,098.02
Run by Cassie Taylor on 05/02/2023 09:19:40 AM Page 1 of 7
Budget Performance Report
Fiscal Year to Date 05/02/23
Include Rollup Account and Rollup to Account
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Account Account Description Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year Total
Fund 100 - General
EXPENSE
Department 34 - Forestry
State Account 55201 - Parks
50220 Utilities 13,000.00 .00 13,000.00 .00 .00 692.61 12,307.39 5 13,067.69
50225 Telephone 2,650.00 .00 2,650.00 .00 .00 446.68 2,203.32 17 2,247.73
50240 Repair & Maintenance 8,000.00 .00 8,000.00 .00 .00 541.75 7,458.25 7 7,293.16
50290 Contractual Services 46,506.00 .00 46,506.00 .00 .00 9,189.06 37,316.94 20 53,171.71
50313 Printing & Duplication 500.00 .00 500.00 .00 .00 762.00 (262.00)152 .00
50340 Operating Supplies .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++197.84
50350
50350 Repair & Maintenance Supplies 900.00 .00 900.00 .00 .00 .00 900.00 0 1,202.82
50350-002 Yurt Repair & Maintenance 4,500.00 .00 4,500.00 .00 .00 99.96 4,400.04 2 4,246.50
50350 - Totals $5,400.00 $0.00 $5,400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $99.96 $5,300.04 2%$5,449.32
50590 Other Fixed Charges 1,435.00 .00 1,435.00 .00 .00 500.00 935.00 35 1,435.00
State Account 55201 - Parks Totals $77,491.00 $0.00 $77,491.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,232.06 $65,258.94 16%$82,862.45
State Account 55204 - WI Coastal Grant (Siskiwit Riv)
50290 Contractual Services .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++4,436.18
State Account 55204 - WI Coastal Grant (Siskiwit Riv)
Totals
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 +++$4,436.18
State Account 55313 - Recreation Management
50240 Repair & Maintenance 3,000.00 .00 3,000.00 .00 .00 178.37 2,821.63 6 4,170.88
50290 Contractual Services 1,500.00 .00 1,500.00 .00 .00 250.00 1,250.00 17 1,704.66
50340 Operating Supplies 500.00 .00 500.00 .00 .00 187.46 312.54 37 505.33
50350 Repair & Maintenance Supplies 500.00 .00 500.00 .00 .00 192.00 308.00 38 65.70
50351 Fuel 250.00 .00 250.00 .00 .00 13.62 236.38 5 545.66
State Account 55313 - Recreation Management Totals $5,750.00 $0.00 $5,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 $821.45 $4,928.55 14%$6,992.23
State Account 55442 - Snowmobile Trail Maint. Grants
50240 Repair & Maintenance 227,285.00 .00 227,285.00 .00 .00 48,000.00 179,285.00 21 301,488.19
State Account 55442 - Snowmobile Trail Maint. Grants
Totals
$227,285.00 $0.00 $227,285.00 $0.00 $0.00 $48,000.00 $179,285.00 21%$301,488.19
State Account 55443 - ATV Trail Maintenance Grants
50240 Repair & Maintenance 52,800.00 .00 52,800.00 .00 .00 .00 52,800.00 0 38,738.97
State Account 55443 - ATV Trail Maintenance Grants
Totals
$52,800.00 $0.00 $52,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $52,800.00 0%$38,738.97
State Account 55445 - RTA Grants
50240 Repair & Maintenance .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++6,806.25
State Account 55445 - RTA Grants Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 +++$6,806.25
State Account 55447 - ATV Winter Trail Grants
50240 Repair & Maintenance 34,286.00 .00 34,286.00 .00 .00 .00 34,286.00 0 34,286.00
State Account 55447 - ATV Winter Trail Grants Totals $34,286.00 $0.00 $34,286.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $34,286.00 0%$34,286.00
Run by Cassie Taylor on 05/02/2023 09:19:40 AM Page 2 of 7
Budget Performance Report
Fiscal Year to Date 05/02/23
Include Rollup Account and Rollup to Account
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Account Account Description Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year Total
Fund 100 - General
EXPENSE
Department 34 - Forestry
State Account 56105 - Knowles-Nelson Grant
50290 Contractual Services .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++5,268.47
State Account 56105 - Knowles-Nelson Grant Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 +++$5,268.47
State Account 56121 - Forestry
50121 Full Time 649,355.00 .00 649,355.00 .00 .00 148,072.24 501,282.76 23 501,416.27
50131 Sick Leave Pay .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 3,388.09 (3,388.09)+++12,166.92
50132 Vacation Pay .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 8,155.21 (8,155.21)+++37,291.65
50135 Overtime 3,000.00 .00 3,000.00 .00 .00 2,929.61 70.39 98 5,048.22
50138 Holiday Pay .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 4,511.90 (4,511.90)+++24,623.14
50140 Per Diem 2,500.00 .00 2,500.00 .00 .00 800.00 1,700.00 32 3,700.00
50151 Fica/Medicare 50,096.00 .00 50,096.00 .00 .00 12,113.64 37,982.36 24 42,443.54
50152 Co. Share Retirement 44,351.00 .00 44,351.00 .00 .00 11,310.77 33,040.23 26 37,784.97
50154 Health Insurance 145,142.00 .00 145,142.00 .00 .00 41,950.43 103,191.57 29 134,925.55
50155 Life Insurance 81.00 .00 81.00 .00 .00 25.46 55.54 31 81.86
50210 Professional Services 1,000.00 .00 1,000.00 .00 .00 .00 1,000.00 0 168.75
50220 Utilities 3,500.00 .00 3,500.00 .00 .00 1,605.98 1,894.02 46 3,029.64
50225 Telephone 6,050.00 .00 6,050.00 .00 .00 1,714.58 4,335.42 28 5,740.72
50240 Repair & Maintenance 4,000.00 .00 4,000.00 .00 .00 1,308.44 2,691.56 33 3,155.98
50290 Contractual Services 32,500.00 .00 32,500.00 .00 .00 .00 32,500.00 0 4,212.31
50310 Office Supplies 1,250.00 .00 1,250.00 .00 .00 210.82 1,039.18 17 1,174.16
50311 Postage 1,100.00 .00 1,100.00 .00 .00 93.70 1,006.30 9 933.96
50313 Printing & Duplication 3,000.00 .00 3,000.00 .00 .00 247.27 2,752.73 8 3,638.69
50315 Advertising 500.00 .00 500.00 .00 .00 .00 500.00 0 544.30
50320 Publication,Subscriptions & Dues 1,500.00 .00 1,500.00 .00 .00 975.67 524.33 65 1,459.24
50325 Registration Fees & Tuition 2,000.00 .00 2,000.00 .00 .00 1,263.30 736.70 63 819.20
50332 Mileage 45,000.00 .00 45,000.00 .00 .00 9,014.58 35,985.42 20 52,666.70
50335 Meals 200.00 .00 200.00 .00 .00 20.93 179.07 10 159.46
50336 Lodging 750.00 .00 750.00 .00 .00 456.28 293.72 61 406.00
50351 Fuel 1,000.00 .00 1,000.00 .00 .00 521.15 478.85 52 984.60
50353 Parts .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++143.87
50390 Other Supplies and Expense 750.00 .00 750.00 .00 .00 .00 750.00 0 706.18
50395 Safety Supplies 200.00 .00 200.00 .00 .00 .00 200.00 0 189.83
50396 Clothing Allowance 2,970.00 .00 2,970.00 .00 .00 87.03 2,882.97 3 2,409.64
50590 Other Fixed Charges 200.00 .00 200.00 .00 .00 252.00 (52.00)126 172.00
State Account 56121 - Forestry Totals $1,001,995.00 $0.00 $1,001,995.00 $0.00 $0.00 $251,029.08 $750,965.92 25%$882,197.35
State Account 56122 - Equipmnt Use
Agreemnt=NonLapsing
50390 Other Supplies and Expense 4,000.00 .00 4,000.00 .00 .00 .00 4,000.00 0 2,593.69
Run by Cassie Taylor on 05/02/2023 09:19:40 AM Page 3 of 7
Budget Performance Report
Fiscal Year to Date 05/02/23
Include Rollup Account and Rollup to Account
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Account Account Description Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year Total
Fund 100 - General
EXPENSE
Department 34 - Forestry
State Account 56122 - Equipmnt Use
Agreemnt=NonLapsing Totals
$4,000.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 0%$2,593.69
State Account 56123 - State sustainable Forestry Grant
50121 Full Time .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++11,209.06
50151 Fica/Medicare .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++819.05
50152 Co. Share Retirement .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++739.57
50154 Health Insurance .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++3,385.95
50155 Life Insurance .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++2.56
50290 Contractual Services .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++1,892.49
50332 Mileage .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++1,134.63
50390 Other Supplies and Expense .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++7,108.65
State Account 56123 - State sustainable Forestry Grant
Totals
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 +++$26,291.96
State Account 56125 - 10% Timber Sales Due Towns
50590 Other Fixed Charges 326,500.00 .00 326,500.00 .00 .00 .00 326,500.00 0 467,908.79
State Account 56125 - 10% Timber Sales Due Towns
Totals
$326,500.00 $0.00 $326,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $326,500.00 0%$467,908.79
State Account 56128 - Sand & Gravel Pit
Exp.=NonLapsng
50590 Other Fixed Charges 1,000.00 .00 1,000.00 .00 .00 970.00 30.00 97 970.00
State Account 56128 - Sand & Gravel Pit
Exp.=NonLapsng Totals
$1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $970.00 $30.00 97%$970.00
State Account 56129 - Town Road Improvement Aid
50241 Town Road Aid 60,000.00 .00 60,000.00 .00 .00 .00 60,000.00 0 53,000.00
State Account 56129 - Town Road Improvement Aid
Totals
$60,000.00 $0.00 $60,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $60,000.00 0%$53,000.00
State Account 56145 - Access Management
50240 Repair & Maintenance 7,000.00 .00 7,000.00 .00 .00 3,681.72 3,318.28 53 6,269.41
50290 Contractual Services .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++500.00
50340 Operating Supplies 750.00 .00 750.00 .00 .00 332.00 418.00 44 200.91
50350 Repair & Maintenance Supplies 500.00 .00 500.00 .00 .00 .00 500.00 0 .00
50390 Other Supplies and Expense 500.00 .00 500.00 .00 .00 .00 500.00 0 557.65
State Account 56145 - Access Management Totals $8,750.00 $0.00 $8,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,013.72 $4,736.28 46%$7,527.97
State Account 56148 - State D.O.T. Road Aid NL Grant
50240 Repair & Maintenance 43,327.00 .00 43,327.00 .00 .00 .00 43,327.00 0 31,915.63
50351 Fuel .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++691.13
State Account 56148 - State D.O.T. Road Aid NL Grant
Totals
$43,327.00 $0.00 $43,327.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $43,327.00 0%$32,606.76
State Account 56152 - Reforestation=NL
50290 Contractual Services 222,215.00 .00 222,215.00 .00 .00 13,580.00 208,635.00 6 118,780.63
50390 Other Supplies and Expense .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++298.98
Run by Cassie Taylor on 05/02/2023 09:19:40 AM Page 4 of 7
Budget Performance Report
Fiscal Year to Date 05/02/23
Include Rollup Account and Rollup to Account
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Account Account Description Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year Total
Fund 100 - General
EXPENSE
Department 34 - Forestry
State Account 56152 - Reforestation=NL Totals $222,215.00 $0.00 $222,215.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,580.00 $208,635.00 6%$119,079.61
State Account 56159 - Wildlife Habitat .5/Acre Grant
50240 Repair & Maintenance 8,150.00 .00 8,150.00 .00 .00 1,180.97 6,969.03 14 .00
50290 Contractual Services .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++2,342.20
50340 Operating Supplies .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++376.98
State Account 56159 - Wildlife Habitat .5/Acre Grant
Totals
$8,150.00 $0.00 $8,150.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,180.97 $6,969.03 14%$2,719.18
State Account 56160 - County Forest Admin Grant
50111 Department Head 97,739.00 .00 97,739.00 .00 .00 26,690.32 71,048.68 27 81,620.64
50131 Sick Leave Pay .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 375.92 (375.92)+++712.16
50132 Vacation Pay .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 375.92 (375.92)+++6,044.40
50138 Holiday Pay .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 751.84 (751.84)+++3,912.40
50151 Fica/Medicare 7,477.00 .00 7,477.00 .00 .00 1,973.33 5,503.67 26 6,648.91
50152 Co. Share Retirement 6,646.00 .00 6,646.00 .00 .00 1,913.85 4,732.15 29 6,006.21
50154 Health Insurance 21,003.00 .00 21,003.00 .00 .00 7,001.12 14,001.88 33 20,614.18
50155 Life Insurance 27.00 .00 27.00 .00 .00 8.92 18.08 33 26.76
50320 Publication,Subscriptions & Dues 12,069.00 .00 12,069.00 .00 .00 12,069.25 (.25)100 12,146.76
State Account 56160 - County Forest Admin Grant Totals $144,961.00 $0.00 $144,961.00 $0.00 $0.00 $51,160.47 $93,800.53 35%$137,732.42
State Account 56170 - Conservation Match 50/50NL
Grant
50340 Operating Supplies 8,000.00 .00 8,000.00 .00 .00 .00 8,000.00 0 .00
State Account 56170 - Conservation Match 50/50NL
Grant Totals
$8,000.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 0%$0.00
State Account 56171 - Forest Management
50240 Repair & Maintenance .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++255.00
50340 Operating Supplies 18,000.00 .00 18,000.00 .00 .00 4,953.95 13,046.05 28 14,068.99
50810 Capital Equipment .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++1,223.99
State Account 56171 - Forest Management Totals $18,000.00 $0.00 $18,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,953.95 $13,046.05 28%$15,547.98
State Account 56173 - Good Neighbor Grant
50135 Overtime 17,000.00 .00 17,000.00 .00 .00 1,672.56 15,327.44 10 11,269.33
50151 Fica/Medicare 1,301.00 .00 1,301.00 .00 .00 120.04 1,180.96 9 818.39
50152 Co. Share Retirement 1,105.00 .00 1,105.00 .00 .00 113.73 991.27 10 732.51
50154 Health Insurance 6,500.00 .00 6,500.00 .00 .00 486.11 6,013.89 7 3,125.24
50155 Life Insurance 2.00 .00 2.00 .00 .00 .00 2.00 0 1.14
50332 Mileage 1,250.00 .00 1,250.00 .00 .00 100.41 1,149.59 8 (11.80)
50340 Operating Supplies 1,700.00 .00 1,700.00 .00 .00 .00 1,700.00 0 .00
State Account 56173 - Good Neighbor Grant Totals $28,858.00 $0.00 $28,858.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,492.85 $26,365.15 9%$15,934.81
State Account 56176 - Donation Projects
50810 Capital Equipment .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++2,456.85
Run by Cassie Taylor on 05/02/2023 09:19:40 AM Page 5 of 7
Budget Performance Report
Fiscal Year to Date 05/02/23
Include Rollup Account and Rollup to Account
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Account Account Description Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year Total
Fund 100 - General
EXPENSE
Department 34 - Forestry
State Account 56176 - Donation Projects Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 +++$2,456.85
State Account 56177 - Turkey Stamp State Grant
50290 Contractual Services .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++39,192.49
State Account 56177 - Turkey Stamp State Grant Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 +++$39,192.49
Department 34 - Forestry Totals $2,273,368.00 $0.00 $2,273,368.00 $0.00 $0.00 $390,434.55 $1,882,933.45 17%$2,286,638.60
EXPENSE TOTALS $2,273,368.00 $0.00 $2,273,368.00 $0.00 $0.00 $390,434.55 $1,882,933.45 17%$2,286,638.60
Fund 100 - General Totals
REVENUE TOTALS 4,062,852.00 .00 4,062,852.00 .00 .00 1,380,381.57 2,682,470.43 34%5,535,098.02
EXPENSE TOTALS 2,273,368.00 .00 2,273,368.00 .00 .00 390,434.55 1,882,933.45 17%2,286,638.60
Fund 100 - General Totals $1,789,484.00 $0.00 $1,789,484.00 $0.00 $0.00 $989,947.02 $799,536.98 $3,248,459.42
Fund 276 - American Rescue Plan 2021 Grant
EXPENSE
Department 34 - Forestry
State Account 57100 - Capital Expenditures
50820 Capital Improvements .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++58,863.90
State Account 57100 - Capital Expenditures Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 +++$58,863.90
Department 34 - Forestry Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 +++$58,863.90
EXPENSE TOTALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 +++$58,863.90
Fund 276 - American Rescue Plan 2021 Grant Totals
REVENUE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++.00
EXPENSE TOTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++58,863.90
Fund 276 - American Rescue Plan 2021 Grant Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($58,863.90)
Fund 430 - Capital Projects Fund
REVENUE
Department 34 - Forestry
43280 FEMA Grant (2022 Delta Project).00 682,500.00 682,500.00 .00 .00 .00 682,500.00 0 .00
46813 Land Acquisition NL .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++1,523,844.67
48590
48590-003 Contributions Other Municipalities .00 12,500.00 12,500.00 .00 .00 .00 12,500.00 0 12,500.00
48590 - Totals $0.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,500.00 0%$12,500.00
Department 34 - Forestry Totals $0.00 $695,000.00 $695,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $695,000.00 0%$1,536,344.67
REVENUE TOTALS $0.00 $695,000.00 $695,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $695,000.00 0%$1,536,344.67
EXPENSE
Department 34 - Forestry
State Account 55205 - WI Coastal Fund Grants
50252 Purchase of Land=NL .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++62,245.00
Run by Cassie Taylor on 05/02/2023 09:19:40 AM Page 6 of 7
Budget Performance Report
Fiscal Year to Date 05/02/23
Include Rollup Account and Rollup to Account
Adopted Budget Amended Current Month YTD YTD Budget - YTD % Used/
Account Account Description Budget Amendments Budget Transactions Encumbrances Transactions Transactions Rec'd Prior Year Total
Fund 430 - Capital Projects Fund
EXPENSE
Department 34 - Forestry
State Account 55205 - WI Coastal Fund Grants Totals $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 +++$62,245.00
State Account 57100 - Capital Expenditures
50252 Purchase of Land=NL .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1,028,170.38 (1,028,170.38)+++74,677.80
50290 Contractual Services 10,000.00 695,000.00 705,000.00 .00 .00 .00 705,000.00 0 763,157.89
50310 Office Supplies .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 +++749.98
50390 Other Supplies and Expense .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 1,176.00 (1,176.00)+++303.96
50810 Capital Equipment 304,000.00 .00 304,000.00 .00 .00 139,171.40 164,828.60 46 51,599.27
50820 Capital Improvements 70,000.00 .00 70,000.00 .00 .00 332.66 69,667.34 0 32,131.09
State Account 57100 - Capital Expenditures Totals $384,000.00 $695,000.00 $1,079,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,168,850.44 ($89,850.44)108%$922,619.99
Department 34 - Forestry Totals $384,000.00 $695,000.00 $1,079,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,168,850.44 ($89,850.44)108%$984,864.99
EXPENSE TOTALS $384,000.00 $695,000.00 $1,079,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,168,850.44 ($89,850.44)108%$984,864.99
Fund 430 - Capital Projects Fund Totals
REVENUE TOTALS .00 695,000.00 695,000.00 .00 .00 .00 695,000.00 0%1,536,344.67
EXPENSE TOTALS 384,000.00 695,000.00 1,079,000.00 .00 .00 1,168,850.44 (89,850.44)108%984,864.99
Fund 430 - Capital Projects Fund Totals ($384,000.00)$0.00 ($384,000.00)$0.00 $0.00 ($1,168,850.44)$784,850.44 $551,479.68
Grand Totals
REVENUE TOTALS 4,062,852.00 695,000.00 4,757,852.00 .00 .00 1,380,381.57 3,377,470.43 29%7,071,442.69
EXPENSE TOTALS 2,657,368.00 695,000.00 3,352,368.00 .00 .00 1,559,284.99 1,793,083.01 47%3,330,367.49
Grand Totals $1,405,484.00 $0.00 $1,405,484.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($178,903.42)$1,584,387.42 $3,741,075.20
Run by Cassie Taylor on 05/02/2023 09:19:40 AM Page 7 of 7
Budget Performance Report
Fiscal Year to Date 05/02/23
Include Rollup Account and Rollup to Account
Bayfield County Forestry and Parks Department
Timber Sale Revenue Report
Monthly, Cumulative and Three Year Average
Month 2023 2023 2022 2022 2020-2022 Avg 2020-2022
Month YTD Month YTD Cumulative Month
Net Net Net Net Net Net
January 237,285.27 237,285.27 231,864.71 231,864.71 277,438.38 277,438.38
February 346,476.03 583,761.30 166,426.27 398,290.98 494,060.96 216,622.58
March 465,040.89 1,048,802.19 532,758.83 931,049.81 1,000,303.74 506,242.78
April 188,375.71 1,237,177.90 387,260.58 1,318,310.39 1,389,578.09 389,274.34
May 1,237,177.90 863,588.22 2,181,898.61 1,846,827.71 457,249.62
June 1,237,177.90 784,933.05 2,966,831.66 2,329,489.87 482,662.16
July 1,237,177.90 475,882.59 3,442,714.25 2,675,023.47 345,533.61
August 1,237,177.90 258,942.16 3,701,656.41 2,957,252.98 282,229.50
September 1,237,177.90 167,444.95 3,869,101.36 3,120,932.18 163,679.20
October 1,237,177.90 399,254.12 4,268,355.48 3,463,558.94 342,626.76
November 1,237,177.90 220,084.42 4,488,439.90 3,791,386.41 327,827.46
December 1,237,177.90 189,062.67 4,677,502.57 4,045,635.58 254,249.17
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Monthly Revenues Comparison Summary
2020-2022 Month Net 2023 $3.63 $3.83 $4.68 2020 2021 2022
NET REVENUES
BY YEAR
5/2/2023
K:\File System\6000 Management\6500-Finance & Accounting\Revenues\Committee Timber Sale Receipt Report\Timber Sale Revenues - Committee Timber Sale Report
6
Description:Acres:
Whole Tree Ton My bid is based on (check one): Whole Tree Ton*
Roundwood (4" top tons) *The contract will reflect your selection. Roundwood Ton*
Whole Tree Roundwood Logs Price per Ton Price per Ton Price per Total Min. Bid Bid Price Total Bid
Tons Tons MBF Whole Tree Roundwood MBF per Product per Product Per Product
Red Pine*861 655 $19.40 $25.50 $16,702.50
Totals 861 655 0 $16,702.50 Total Bid =
Bids will be awarded based upon total timber sale bid value. All bids must meet or exceed the minimum advertised price per species
and per product, as listed in the Minimum Bid Specifications (above). Failure to do so will result in a rejected bid.
Bid Price is based on unpeeled products.
Enclosed is a bid deposit in the amount of $________________, which represents 10 percent of the stumpage value based upon my total
bid. If declared the successful bidder, the bid deposit will be cashed and credited towards the required 15 percent performance bond.
If declared the successful bidder for this timber sale, I agree to execute a contract of sale, furnish an approved performance bond
amounting to 15 percent of my total timber sale bid value, provide proof of applicable insurances, and provide a current Wisconsin
SFI training certificate within a maximum of 30 calendar days immediately following the auction date.
If declared the successful bidder for this tract, indicate whether you would like to have your enclosed bid deposit cashed and
applied towards your 15 percent performance bond, or held (not cashed) to be replaced with a letter of credit. If you choose to have
the deposit held, we will hold it for 10 business days immediately following the auction date. After 10 days, it will be cashed and
credited towards the 15 percent performance bond. You can still replace the bid deposit (plus the additional 5 percent) with a letter of
credit at any point within the 30 calendar day time period. Cash Hold
Name/Company:___________________________________________________________________
Signature:________________________________________________________________________
Date
Address:_________________________________________________________________________
Telephone:____________________________________
Email Address (optional) (clearly print): ___________________________________________________________
Please include the completed bid form and bid deposit in an envelope clearly marked "Timber Sale Bid Tract #____" for each sale bid.
Bayfield County reserves the right to reject any and all bids, to waive technicalities, and to accept bids most advantageous to the County.
Submit bids to:
Bayfield County Forestry and Parks Department For Bid Results:
Courthouse, Post Office Box 445 www.bayfieldcounty.wi.gov
Washburn, WI 54891
7
Bayfield County Forestry and Parks Department
Timber Sale Bid
Species
This Timber Sale is being offered:
I Hereby Submit My Bid on Timber Sale Number:
Estimated Volume
Total Minimum Bid =
*Average DBH is 12"
Minimum Bid Specifications Final Bid
Length of Contract (Months):24-23
Town of Barnes. T46N R9W Section 23
Sale Must Be Cut By November 1, 2023
x
x
Forester:
Soil: Topography:
Twp: Range: Sec: Township:
Compartment:Stand:Tract Number:Contract Number:
Bayfield County Forestry & Parks Department
Reforestation Code:
Sawlogs(MBF)Red Pine*
>Sale Must Be Harvested By Nov. 1, 2023 >Harvested pine must be hauled within 3 weeks between May 1st and August 31st.
Special Restrictions:
Estimated Volumes
Species Whole Tree 4" Roundwood(Tons)(Tons)861 655
*Average DBH = 12"
Acres:7
µTrails
Roads
Red Line
Harvest Unit
0 500 1,000250 Feet
Neitzel
46N 9W 23 Barnes
Flat Sand
24-23
N/A
149 26
HALFWAY DELTACOUNTYHWYA2324
26 25
Red Line
Red Line
Red Line
TRACT 24-23 – HARVEST REQUIREMENTS
The following terms and conditions supplement those provided in the Bayfield County Timber Sale Contract.
A. PRESCRIPTION:
1. Harvest unit has a salvage clearcut prescription with an estimated average residual basal area of 0 ft2.
B. HARVEST REQUIREMENTS:
1. Harvest all stems 6” in diameter and greater within the harvest area.
2. Ignore all orange paint and harvest all stems 6” in diameter and greater.
3. All dead trees must be severed and laid down. Any dead trees the contractor chooses to utilize will be paid for at
the contract rates.
C. OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND SEASONAL RESTRICTIONS:
1. Sale boundaries consist of red paint lines and roads.
2. Harvested pine cannot be kept on the Bayfield County Forest for more than three weeks from May 1st to August
31st.
3. If harvest will utilize the whole tree, 1 in 10 tops must be left scattered throughout the sale.
D. ACCESS AND ROADS:
1. This contract requires County authorization for all road/landing construction and places a number of other
requirements on road construction and closure.
2. Decking of wood along town roads will not be allowed without permission from Bayfield County.
E. OTHER:
1. To comply with Best Management Practices for Invasive Species: Prior to moving equipment onto or off the sale
area, scrape or brush soil and debris from exterior surfaces to the extent practical.
2. This sale contract will expire on November 1, 2023.
Stick-Up/Stick-Down
Total Segment Length: 703 ft.
Total Length on BCF: 282 ft.
Description:
This is currently a two-way trail from the Ski Hill Road Trailhead. It provides access to the east half of
the Mt. Ashwabay mountain bike trail system. There are two principal goals with this project. First, as
the trail has aged, it has become more difficult to ride, making it less appropriate for less experienced
riders, including the CAMBA North Women’s Skills Clinic which uses this trail. Part of the project would
be to rework the trail to moderate its degree of difficulty, increase sustainability, and make the trail
more accessible to more people and thus more appropriate as the primary access from this trailhead to
the whole trail system. The current trail is entirely on Ashwabay Outdoor Education Foundation
property. Two possible options have been identified as possible reroutes, one of which would cross
county property for approximately 300’. It has not yet been decided which of these options is more
desirable. The option that crosses county property appears to be within the boundaries of the timber
sale in that area. It is likely, however, that the trail will not use county property.
Stands Impacted:
C. 64 S.3
Length of interface: 225 ft.
Type/Size: OAK 11-15”
Origin Year: 1913
Prefix: Z
Recorded Past Management: None
Planned Future Management: None
C. 64 S.25
Length of interface: 57 ft.
Type/Size: ASPEN 5-11”
Origin Year: 1930
Prefix: None
Recorded Past Management: None
Planned Future Management:
Coppice - Tract 27-21 or Sale # 1 in AWB SMA plan document (currently out for bids)
Jump Line
Total Segment Length: 1,111 ft.
Total Length on BCF: 1,111 ft.
Description:
This is a new trail development of approximately 1,100 feet. The purpose of the project is to introduce a
contemporary downhill trail riding experience that includes jumps and drops. Jumps are dirt or wooden
upward sloped ramps that allow a rider to “catch air.” Drops can be dirt and rock, but are often made of
wood and differ from a jump in that they are usually flat with an abrupt drop off the end. All features
would be optional and there would be bypasses or ride arounds for each feature. Features would be on
an Easy to Intermediate level. CAMBA has been gradually introducing this experience within its trails.
Regionally, more and more of this type of trail riding has been developed and is quite popular among
younger riders. The trail will link two parts of the existing Hot Saw trail, ending at location marker A8
not far from the Whiting Road Trailhead. The way in which it is sited will allow riders to ride back up and
repeat multiple laps of the trail. It will also aid in the general flow of the Hot Saw trail and create a new,
different type of trail offering. The trail will be one-way directional. Within the length of the trail,
approximately six to eight jump or drop features will be constructed of dirt or wood. Given the nature
of the soil in that area, wood features may be more practical.
As a note and with regard to liability, the county is both exempt under municipal immunity and
protected by recreational immunity statues. Additionally, CAMBA carries a $1 million liability policy that
names the County as an additional insured. CAMBA's special use agreement with the county also
indemnifies the county.
Stands Impacted:
C. 64 S.1
Length of interface: 1,019 ft.
Type/Size: OAK 5-11”
Origin Year: 1935
Prefix: None
Recorded Past Management: None
Planned Future Management:
Patch Selection in 2027 (Sale #3 in AWB SMA plan document)
C. 64 S.8
Length of interface: 92 ft.
Type/Size: ROW - Powerline
Origin Year: N/A
Prefix: None
Recorded Past Management: N/A
Planned Future Management: N/A
1
BAYFIELD COUNTY FORESTRY AND PARKS DEPARTMENT
ANNUAL ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORT
FOR CALENDAR YEAR
2022
FORESTRY AND PARKS COMMITTEE
Fred Strand, Chair Larry Fickbohm
Jeff Silbert, Vice-Chair Charly Ray
Steve Sandstrom
DEPARTMENT STAFF
LAND AREA
Below is the current amount of county forest acreage located within each Township:
Barnes 40,540.36 Cable 5,556.33 Orienta 4,720.00
Bayfield 32,766.15 Clover 5,386.57 Port Wing 8,876.18
Bayview 13,151.47 Hughes 24,660.73 Russell 7,402.25
Bell 15,095.03 Iron River 6,126.47 Tripp 6,539.52
Namakagon 546.80 Grand View 2,520.00 Lincoln 480.00
Washburn 80.00 Mason 40.00
Official County Forest Acreage: 174,487.47.
The Bayfield County Forest is the third largest county forest in the state of Wisconsin. There are
approximately 1,000 acres of county tax title lands, not including lots and small parcels, in addition
to the above listed county forests lands. On occasion, the Forestry and Parks Department (hereafter,
Jason Bodine
Administrator
Mike Amman
Forester
Andrew O'Krueg
Forester
Jeremiah Neitzel
Forester
Caleb Brown Forester
Jason Holmes
Inventory & Analysis Forester
Jenifer Bratsch
Rec. Specialist
Lindley Mattson
Rec. Specialist
John Mesko
Forest Tech.
Cassie Taylor
Office Manager
Steve Probst
Asst. Admin.
2
“Department”) will monitor these parcels for land and/or timber sales, potential trespass issues, and
negotiate road/utility easements, as well as sand and gravel permits.
COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
A Comprehensive Land Use Plan (hereafter, “Plan”) that will guide the management of the county
forest for the next 15 years was revised throughout 2020 and early 2021and approved by the County
Board of Supervisors (hereafter, “the Board”) in April 2021. The current Plan is valid from 2021
through 2035.
In early 2022, the Forestry and Parks Committee (hereafter. “Committee”) and Board approved the
Department’s 2022 annual work plan. The annual work plan gives direction and meaning to the
Department’s budget, further defines and supplements the Plan, and emphasizes current goals and
needs of the County Forest, Parks and Trails Programs.
FOREST MANAGEMENT
The forest management program is one of the most significant responsibilities of the Department
and one of the largest (and in many years, the largest) of any county forest program in the state.
There are three major facets of the program: 1) forest management (primarily timber sale
establishment and administration), 2) reforestation (natural and artificial), and 3) forest monitoring
(stand and/or compartment updates). The quality and quantity of goal accomplishments, as well as
the sold value of timber sales, are some of the best indicators used to evaluate performance.
For more detailed information on current goals, policies, procedures and general direction regarding
the management of the county forest, please refer to the Plan, the 2023 Budget Narrative and 2023
Annual Work Plan. All documents can be found online at:
http://www.bayfieldcounty.wi.gov/243/Plans-Reports.
Below are the CY 2022 accomplishment summaries of the major forest management goals,
priorities and objectives:
1) Sustainable Timber Harvest Goals: sustainable timber harvest goals for every major
forest type are calculated based upon sound silvicultural guidelines and principles.
Existing stand information, silvicultural prescriptions, responses to previous
management/treatments, reactions to insect and disease outbreaks or other natural disasters,
short or long-term adjustments due to predicted or unexpected management challenges, and
more, are all part of the goal development process.
Forest management accomplishments can be, and oftentimes are, influenced by the factors
listed above. Sustainable harvest goals (acres) are calculated and measurable targets, but are
also fairly dynamic and/or fluid in nature and, as such, are often influenced by a variety of
other variables, including, but not limited to: existing stand conditions, current management
direction, minor nuances/logistics associated with the timber sale establishment process (i.e.
boundary line location, the presence of riparian zones or inoperable slopes, size and/or
3
location of the targeted stand, surrounding management history, etc.), long term projections
and/or objectives, and staffing assignments/priorities.
Table 1 displays the sustainable harvest goals and accomplishments of the timber sale
program by major forest type since 2017.
Accomplishment Summary
As part of the timber sale program, a total of 4,452 acres of county forest land was
sustainably managed in 2022. This represents a decrease of about 15% when compared to
the total accomplishments for 2021. Of the total accomplishment, 4,445 acres were included
as part of species timber type goals (as listed in Table 1), while 7 acres were derived from
less represented timber types that are generally too small (acreage) to develop separate
harvest goals for.
Total sustainable harvest accomplishments were achieved at a rate of approximately 98% of
the overall goal for 2022 (or nearly equal to the sustainable harvest goal).
The management accomplishments for most major timber types fell within the targeted goal.
Below is a summary of accomplishments for the major timber types.
• Aspen: 1,432 acres. The total accomplishment rate for the aspen type was roughly
110% of the management goal (over by 127 acres). The overage is primarily
attributed to the increase in update acres. In general, a stand that is on the schedule
for management may be updated for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited
to: not ready for management; mistyped; removed from the harvest schedule (e.g.
riparian management zone); or where the harvest is delayed for other management
Table 1: Bayfield County Forest Sustainable Harvest Goals and Accomplishments (acres)
Goal Accomp.Goal Accomp.Goal Accomp.Goal Accomp.Goal Accomp.Goal Accomp.Goal Accomp.
Aspen 1,375 1,416 1,420 1,394 1,415 1,521 1,615 1,894 1,600 1,783 1,305 1,432 1,269 1,327
Nor. Hdwd.890 809 720 586 780 820 818 788 782 734 765 722 904 849
Red Maple1 0 0 0 0 50 40 89 143 44 58 76 75 20 26
Red Oak 900 772 795 636 700 650 671 788 681 674 733 682 772 744
Paper Birch 30 55 25 11 25 59 0 31 0 2 30 43 72 62
Scrub Oak 215 227 255 291 210 236 235 267 214 256 232 131 195 235
Red Pine 915 912 930 850 960 1,047 1,030 1,182 1,071 1,101 1,135 1,108 931 941
Jack Pine 345 386 192 238 207 242 171 169 232 250 144 90 315 334
White Pine 90 47 80 173 75 40 108 121 93 86 123 71 89 91
Fir/Spruce 30 1 25 82 30 0 40 30 0 0 0 0 58 64
Swamp Conifer2 140 45 100 70 75 13 60 75 110 156 0 0 107 76
Swamp Hdwd.2 100 94 120 41 385 391 425 291 414 142 0 91 150 104
Total 5,030 4,764 4,662 4,372 4,912 5,059 5,262 5,779 5,241 5,242 4,543 4,445 4,876 4,843
1 Timber type included in goals starting in 2019.
2 Timber types included in goals starting in 2011.
Species Average201720182019202020212022
4
strategies (e.g. located adjacent to a stand that was recently harvested). When
considering the total amount of update acres (429) a total of 1,003 acres were
managed in the form of a timber sale. Minor nuances associated with timber sale
design and development were the other reasons for the difference.
• Northern Hardwoods: 722 acres. 94% of the management goal (under by 43 acres).
In general, there were no significant management issues identified in the northern
hardwood type in 2022. However, 81 acres was updated, rather than included as part
of a timber sale. The minor difference in accomplishment goal is primarily
associated with the natural nuances associated with timber sale design and
development, as well as the stand updates.
• Red Oak: 682 acres. 93% of the management goal (under by 51 acres). Similar to
the northern hardwood type, there were no significant management issues identified
in the red oak type in 2022. However, there was a slight discrepancy in the overstory
removal accomplishment. The red oak goal is separated into three distinct
management/harvest groups: 1) regeneration harvest; 2) thinning; and 3) overstory
removals. Overstory removals are only established when stands have achieved an
acceptable level of desirable regeneration. During the timber sale development
process, stands that were prescribed an overstory removal are analyzed for readiness,
with a focus on regeneration. The overstory removal goal for 2022 was set at 134
acres. However, it was determined that a few stands were not ready for treatment.
As a result, 76 acres of overstory removals were established in 2022. Also, most red
oak stands on the forest are classified as mature or overmature. As such, in general,
only the higher quality stands, with appropriate levels of density, are prescribed for a
thinning. The general goal is to treat as many of these stands as possible over the
next 10 years. The goal for thinning was set at 171 acres in 2022. A total of 166
acres of even-aged thinnings were established. Finally, the regeneration harvest goal
was set at 487 acres in 2022. Regeneration harvests were prescribed on 455 acres.
A total of 81 acres were updated, for similar reasons as described above.
• Scrub Oak: 131 acres. 56% of the management goal (under by 101 acres). Scrub
oak quality is generally highly variable. On average, most scrub oak stands are over
mature and exhibiting significant signs of mortality and decline. However, scrub oak
provides a diversity of habitat, especially in areas otherwise dominated by conifer
plantations. During the timber sale establishment process, areas exhibiting greater
signs of mortality and decline are often included in adjacent sales (where smaller
stands are added to other sales being established in the vicinity). One goal in 2022
was to re-inventory scrub oak stands to establish an updated priority list. Also
highlighting stands that could be retained or extended to provide additional habitat
and/or landscape level benefits. As a result, only stands exhibiting high mortality or
risk were considered for management in 2022.
• Red Pine: 1,108 acres. 98% of the management goal (under by 27 acres). A total of
77 acres were updated in 2022, primarily natural stands that were scheduled to be
regenerated. These stands will be carried longer as part of an extended rotation. The
77 acres of updates, combined with minor nuances associated with timber sale design
and development, were the primary reasons for the difference.
• Jack Pine: 90 acres. 63% of the management goal (under by 54 acres). The
management goal for jack pine is primarily separated into two distinct areas: 1)
5
stands located within the Barnes Barrens Management Area; and 2) stands located
outside the Barrens. Most of the older jack pine stands located within the Barrens
areas are over mature (or well past the average rotation age). As per the annual work
plan, adjustments to the goal for jack pine may be needed to address rapid stand
mortality or to advance the development of the Barnes Barrens Management Area
(BBMA). In general, the harvest goal for the remaining stands of mature jack pine is
well established over the next few years. Deviations from the planned management
activities will generally only occur if there is a need to accelerate harvests due to
excessive mortality, when a stand is exhibiting significant signs of decline, or to
achieve a desired objective within the core area of the Barrens. Two mature stands
of jack pine were held back for management within the BBMA, in coordination with
DNR wildlife, to address potential habitat concerns for the Connecticut Warbler.
See the Barrens section below for more information on that project.
• White Pine: 71 acres. 58% of the management goal (under by 52 acres). The goal
for white pine was 123 acres. A total of 32 acres were updated. These were
primarily natural stands that were scheduled to be regenerated and, similar to red
pine, will be carried longer as part of an extended rotation. Minor nuances
associated with timber sale design and development, were the primary reasons for
the difference.
• Swamp Hardwoods: 91 acres. Starting in 2019, the harvest goal for swamp
hardwood was accelerated to address the inevitable future infestations from EAB.
While the goal for this type was accelerated, most of the stands with better
accessibility and/or market value were established previously. The remaining stands
generally contain poorer accessibility and/or merchantability. While the goal is to
regenerate all of the manageable swamp hardwoods over the next few years, some
stands generally won’t meet minimum requirements to accommodate a commercial
timber sale. As such, the harvest goal for swamp hardwoods is a generally treated as
a target, with actual accomplishments highly dependent on existing conditions and
whether or not the stand contains commercially viable products. Since 0 acres were
scheduled due to poor accessibility and low demand, the accomplishment was over
the goal by 91 acres, and primarily consisted of smaller stands being added to
adjacent larger timber sales.
• Red Maple: 75 acres. Roughly 100% of the management goal (under by 1 acre).
The red maple type was officially included in the harvest goals starting in 2019. A
few larger stands of red maple exist, but this type is often included in other adjacent
sales when an opportunity exists. Of the total 2022 accomplishment for this type,
two larger stands (19 and 51 acres, respectively) were managed as part of a timber
sale and 2 acres were updated.
Table 2 displays a summary of the accomplishments for the sustainable timber harvest
program, from 2013 through 2022.
6
In 2022 roughly 81% of the total accomplishment (acres) was in the form of a timber sale,
while approximately 19% was updated (not included in a timber sale) for the reasons
described below. This is higher than the general average for stand updates from over the
past ten years (which is roughly 10%).
In general, the sustainable harvest accomplishments are in the form of a timber sale.
However, there are occasions when a stand is updated and managed at a later date or
removed from the management schedule altogether. Updates typically occur when a stand
has not attained the predicted amount of growth in between harvests, when a stand simply
isn’t ready for management, when the data describing the stand is incorrect, when a stand is
retained for another purpose (e.g. green tree retention, reserve islands, landscape and/or
structural diversity, etc.), when the stand is removed from management due to a restrictive
feature (i.e. riparian/wetland buffers or inoperable slopes) or when a harvest might be
temporarily delayed for strategic purposes (e.g. located adjacent to a recent harvest or
minimizing impacts to recreation).
Table 3 displays a summary of the primary reasons for stand updates in CY 2022
Table 2: Bayfield County Forest Sustainable Harvest Summary (acres)
Management Timber Sale Stand Total
Goal Establishment Updatea Accomplishments
2013 4,815 4,348 517 4,865
2014 4,620 4,331 511 4,842
2015b 4,645 4,313 492 4,805
2016c 5,060 4,718 304 5,022
2017d 5,030 4,354 465 4,819
2018e 4,662 3,775 607 4,382
2019f 4,912 4,608 471 5,079
2020g 5,262 5,177 679 5,856
2021h 5,241 4,911 493 5,404
2022i 4,543 3,615 837 4,452
Average 4,879 4,415 538 4,953
a Stands are updated, in part, due to inaccuracies in the data or insufficient growth for management.
b Includes 24 acres of other forest types not inc on harvest goals table.
c Includes 89 acres of storm salvage sales and 36 acres of other forest types, not inc. on harvest goals table.
d includes 55 acres of other forest types not inc on harvest goals table.
e includes 10 acres of other forest types not inc on harvest goals table.
f includes 20 acres of other forest types not inc on harvest goals table.
g includes 35 acres of other forest types not inc on harvest goals table and 618 acres of storm salvage sales.
h includes 162 acres of other forest types not inc on harvest goals table.
i includes 7 acres of other forest types not inc on the harvest goals table.
Year
7
On average, roughly 10% of the annual sustainable harvest goal is either not ready for
management, is incorrectly typed or is removed from the harvest schedule, as described
above. In 2022, roughly 19% of the management goal was accomplished in the form of an
update. One primary objective of the reconnaissance/monitoring program is to provide
accurate, up to date information across all timber types, thus reducing incidents where stand
data is incorrect.
Updating stand information, on a routine and regular basis, should significantly reduce the
number of stands being removed from harvest consideration due to incorrect data. When
most of the stand information has been updated, the expectation is that a higher percentage
of stands will be actively managed in the future.
As part of the timber sale establishment process, a harvest goal or prescription is applied to
each stand. The objective of the timber sale could emphasis developing growth and quality
on trees that are retained (thinning and all-aged prescriptions) or it could target ways to
regenerate the new stand (even-aged and all-aged prescriptions).
Table 4 below summarizes the general type of prescriptions applied to stands that were
established as part of a timber sale.
Table 3: 2022 Stand Update Summary
Reason For Update Acres
Riparian Management Zone 404
Incorrect Data 273
Retention 78
Not Ready 46
Recreation 32
Other 4
Total 837
Table 4: Summary of Management Prescriptions (acres)
Even-Aged All-Aged Thinning Total
2015 2,720 400 1,193 4,313
2016 3,185 426 1,107 4,718
2017 2,751 354 1,249 4,354
2018 2,366 312 1,097 3,775
2019 2,876 581 1,151 4,608
2020 3,206 375 1,596 5,177
2021 3,263 396 1,252 4,911
2022 2,142 319 1,154 3,615
Average 2,814 395 1,225 4,434
Year General Prescription Category
8
Over the past eight years, even-aged management treatments have been prescribed on an
average of 2,814 acres; 395 acres of all-aged treatments (primarily on northern hardwood
forest types) and 1,225 acres of thinning (primarily red pine and red oak forest types).
Timber Sale Program: Bayfield County offers two timber sale lettings per year, one in the
spring and one in the fall. On average, roughly half of the sustainable harvest goal (that has
been established as a timber sale) is offered at each letting.
Table 5 displays the summary of timber sale offerings since 2013, including the total
number of sales sold per year, total acres, the total value of the winning high bids, the
average bid value per acre and total revenues received from the sale of timber during each
calendar year.
Total outputs (new timber sales) have remained relatively constant since 2013, but the
timber markets have recessed considerably, especially in 2020 and 2021 (primarily a result
various market responses to the COVID-19 pandemic). While the total number of acres sold
was at an all-time high in 2020, the bid values were at its lowest point since 2011 and timber
revenues were at their lowest point since 2012 (again, a reflection of the COVID influenced
decline in timber markets). However, the average bid value significantly increased in 2022,
to roughly $959.00/acre, which indicates that some markets may finally be recovering.
From 2015 through 2017, revenues received from the sale of wood were at an all-time high.
Over $5.0 million in timber sale revenue was received each year (an average of $5.025
million per year). However, in 2018, timber revenues decreased by roughly 9% when
compared to the amount received in 2017. A similar decline was experienced in 2019.
Timber sale revenues in 2020 were roughly 13% lower than those received in 2019.
Table 5: Bayfield County Forest Timber Sale Summary
Calendar Sales Acres Sales Acres Acres Timber Sale Bid Value Timber
Year Offered Offered Sold Sold Not Sold Bid Values per Acre Revenues
2013 54 4,275 53 4,177 98 $3,614,091 $865 $3,904,104
2014 61 4,388 61 4,388 0 $5,252,530 $1,197 $4,537,661
2015a 57 5,215 54 4,958 257 $6,507,887 $1,313 $5,006,565
2016bc 65 4,750 65 4,750 0 $4,745,850 $999 $5,057,393
2017 53 4,272 50 4,101 171 $3,719,320 $907 $5,009,892
2018 56 4,568 49 3,813 755 $3,509,971 $921 $4,562,243
2019 59 5,031 52 4,267 764 $4,163,432 $976 $4,171,667
2020d 68 5,553 61 5,052 501 $4,081,930 $808 $3,625,794
2021 56 5,002 48 4,114 888 $3,028,909 $736 $3,852,290
2022 60 4,266 55 3,993 273 $3,830,889 $959 $4,679,087
Average 59 4,732 55 4,361 371 $4,245,481 $968 $4,440,670
a Timber revenues include $13,506.80 generated from the management of non county forest lands.
b Includes 89 acres of blowdown salvage sales.
c Timber revenues include $15,393.90 generated from the management of non county forest lands.
d Includes 9 salvage timber sales on 618 acres.
9
In 2021, timber sale revenues increased slightly, by a little over 6% when compared to the
total received in 2020. In 2022, the increase in timber sale revenue was significant. A total
of nearly $4.68 million was received in 2022, an increase of nearly 22% when compared to
2021, and the largest return since 2017.
The level of unsold sales has been relatively consistent over the past five to six years and is
primarily a reflection of poorer market conditions. Nearly all of the unsold sales are located
in areas that required frozen ground conditions for most (or all) of the harvest operations.
Though there was a significant decrease in unsold sales in 2022. Again, this may be an
indication that markets are improving or stabilizing.
Market demand for frozen ground only sales was very poor in 2018 and remained poor in
2019 and 2020, thus contributing to the lack of interest. Also, in 2019 the market for red
pine and jack pine pulp plummeted, which continued through 2021. As a result, many first
thin red pine stands or those with a heavy pulp component received little or no bidding
interest. This improved slightly in 2022, but the trend is expected to continue into 2023.
The timber sale bidding dynamics over the past three years (2019-2022) have also been
markedly different when compared to previous offerings.
Table 6 summarizes the timber sale bidding dynamics since 2013.
The 173 timber sale bids received in 2022 were only slightly higher than in 2021 (which was
the lowest amount in the past 13 years). The average number of bids per sale and number of
different contractors placing have decreased considerably since 2017. The total number of
different contractors (bidders) placing a bid did increase in 2022 when compared to 2021 but
is still well lower than the average prior to 2018.
As markets improve, the expectation is that acres sold, total number of bids and number of
different bidders will also increase. A healthy diversity of contractors (competition) is one
of the keys to optimizing potential timber sale revenues.
Table 6: Timber Sale Bid Summary
2013 54 4,275 53 4,177 221 4.2 34
2014 61 4,388 61 4,388 357 5.9 37
2015 57 5,215 54 4,958 251 4.6 39
2016 65 4,750 65 4,750 323 5.0 39
2017 53 4,272 50 4,101 296 5.9 41
2018 56 4,568 49 3,813 190 3.9 27
2019 59 5,031 52 4,267 220 4.2 31
2020 68 5,553 61 5,052 188 3.1 25
2021 56 5,002 48 4,114 166 3.5 20
2022 60 4,266 55 3,993 173 3.1 29
Average 59 4,732 55 4,361 239 4.4 32
Avg No. of Bids
Per Sales Sold
No. of Different
BiddersYearNo. of Sales
Offered
Acres
Offered
No. of
Sales Sold
Acres
Sold
Total No.
of Bids
10
In general, the long-term sustainable timber harvest goals are projected to remain stable at
around 4,000 to 4,500 (the harvest goal for 2023 is 4,040 acres). As previously stated,
numerous variables can impact how many acres are actually established in any given year.
As of CY23, most timber markets are still considered relatively poor and predicted to remain
so into the foreseeable future. Though the bidding results and timber sale revenue received
in 2022 indicate some improvements. Fluctuations in stumpage prices and volatile market
conditions will have an impact on timber sale revenues. Revenues for 2023 (and into the
future) are directly associated with the value of sales currently under contract, as well as the
value of new sales sold.
If current trends persist, future timber sale revenues will likely hover between $3.0 million
to $4.0 million per year, which is a significant decrease from the average received over the
past five years (roughly $4.2 million).
Timber Sale Contracts
In 2022, the Department awarded 55 new timber sale contracts, covering 3,933 acres, with a
total bid value of $3,830,889 ($974/acre).
Table 7 summarizes the new contracts awarded in 2022 by sale type:
Total timber sales awarded in 2022 increased slightly when compared to 2021, but total
acreage sold decreased. However, the total winning bid values (per acre) increased by
roughly 30% when compared to 2021.
Annual stumpage revenues are generated, almost exclusively, from previously awarded
timber sale contracts. Revenues generated from forest products harvested on every timber
sale are based solely upon the bid price per product per species as listed in each contract. In
general, all timber sale contracts are awarded on a two-year basis, meaning a contractor has
two years to complete the harvest.
However, the Department will also routinely grant contract extensions. Each contract
extension adds one year to the length of the contract. It’s not uncommon for a contractor to
be granted one or two extensions. In some instances, three and up to four, one-year
extensions have been granted. On rare occasions, where warranted, a fifth extension may be
granted. In 2020, 2021 and 2022, all timber sale contract extensions were awarded with no
stumpage price increases, primarily due to the significant decrease in markets. Stumpage
Table 7: 2022 Timber Sale Contracts (per Award Type)
Type Total Acres Value Value/Acre
Traditional 53 3,663 $3,756,008 $1,025.39
Direct1 2 270 $74,881 $277.34
Total 55 3,933 $3,830,889 $974.04
1 Sales are available for direct purchase when they receive no bids after one
traditional offering.
11
price increases will resume in 2023, but only on timber sale purchased post Covid
influenced market decline and after the WI Rapids mill closure, so all contracts sold from
fall 2020 to current would be subject to the standard extension process.
In summary, it can take up to four years or longer before a timber sale contract has been
completed. Markets play a major role on when timber sales go active, but, on average,
roughly 75% of all sales are completed within the initial two-year contract period.
Revenue from a significant percentage of sales sold in 2022, as well as some to be sold in
the upcoming year, will be received in 2023 (see the section on Timber Sale Revenue Model
for more information on the timing of stumpage revenue).
Timber Sale Activity
Timber sale activity occurs in a variety of forms, including, but not limited to: pre-sale
meetings, timber harvesting, forwarding, scaling, hauling, road building, contract
extensions, accounts management, contract close-out requirements, and more. When any
action occurs on a given contract, it’s classified as active.
Table 8 below summarizes timber sale activity on the forest since 2013.
A total of 92 timber sales were active in 2022. Since 2013, an average of roughly 91 timber
sales are active during the year. This is a stark contrast to pre-2012 activity levels, which
averaged about 52 per year (an increase of nearly 70%). Timber sale activity can last
anywhere from a period of a few days or weeks, to a few months, to most of a year,
depending on the size of the sale, harvesting restrictions, operating conditions and the
general goals of the contractor.
Table 8: Summary of Annual Timber Sale Activity1
Year Offered Sold Active2 Completed3,4
2013 54 53 89 43
2014 61 61 97 64
2015 57 54 89 62
2016 65 65 93 41
2017 53 50 94 58
2018 56 49 80 56
2019 59 52 88 47
2020 68 61 95 50
2021 56 48 91 49
2022 60 55 92 57
Average 59 55 91 53
1 Total number per activity per year.
2 Includes active harvesting, hauling, scaling, payments, close-out activities, etc.
3 Once all contract obligations have been met, a timber sale is officially closed.
4 in late 2009/early 2010, a large backlog of completed sales were all closed-out at once.
12
Harvested timber sale volumes are tracked and summarized within the Department’s timber
sale management system (customized Access database). When a timber sale is active, all
harvested volumes are either tracked via a haul ticket or scaled in the field by Department
staff.
Table 9 summarizes the amount of haul/mill tickets and field scales that were accomplished
since 2015.
Nearly all pulpwood that is harvested and hauled as part of a timber sale is tracked with a
ticket. The contractor fills out a ticket with the estimated volume of each load and puts a
copy in a ticket box (which is located at the job site). Another copy of the ticket follows the
load to the mill. The Department collects the tickets from the box and enters the estimated
volume into the accounting system/database. Invoices are generated based on the estimated
volume. When the load is processed at the mill, a copy of the ticket and actual mill volume
are sent back to the Department. The actual mill volumes are then entered into the database.
When the sale is finished and the last mill slip has been entered, the contract ledger is
reconciled and a final bill (or refund) is generated.
All logs are scaled in the field by Department staff. These volumes are also entered into the
Department’s database and generally do not require any additional processing (no tickets are
involved). On occasion, pulpwood piles are also scaled in the field by Department staff.
The information presented in Table 9 represents the total number of tickets and field scales
administered during each year. Since information on each pulp ticket is entered twice (once
for the estimated volume and once for the mill volume), the actual data entry workload
associated with ticket entry is twice the value listed in the table.
As of the end of CY 2022, the Department had 138 timber sales under contract, with 33
different contractors and a total contract value of roughly $9.5 million. During any point in
the year, anywhere from around 10 to upwards of 20, or more, timber sales can be active at
one time.
Table 9: Haul Slip (Ticket) and Field Scale Entries per Year1
Year Tickets2 Field Scales3 Total Entries
2015 6,615 921 7,536
2016 6,938 878 7,816
2017 7,414 713 8,127
2018 7,819 833 8,652
2019 6,441 774 7,215
2020 6,457 748 7,205
2021 6,774 633 7,407
2022 7,116 667 7,783
Average 6,947 771 7,718
1 Pulpwood and log volumes are processed within the Departments timber sale management system.
2 Pulpwood volumes hauled from a timber sale are tracked via a ticket and associated mill slip.
3 Logs and some pulpwood are scaled on site by Department staff prior to hauling.
13
Timber Sale Revenue Model
When analyzing timber sale revenues and the results from previous timber sale offerings,
general patterns develop that allow the Department to estimate when to expect proceeds
from existing contracts. In general, roughly 40% of the revenue generated during any
calendar year comes from contracts sold during the previous year. Approximately 30% is
derived from those sold during the current year, 15% from two years prior, 10% from three
years prior and the rest beyond that. The percentages can vary slightly from year to year,
but generally follow this same pattern.
For example, based on the above model, the general expectation is the 30% of the revenue
generated in 2023 will come from sales sold in 2023; 40% from sales sold in 2022; 15%
from sales sold in 2021; 10% from sales sold in 2020 and the rest from 2019 and earlier.
Markets in 2020 and 2021 were significantly impacted by Covid-19. This included the shut
down of two significant Verso pulp mills (located in Wisconsin Rapids and Duluth, MN).
At peak capacity, the Rapids mill had the potential to consume nearly 25% of all pulp
products produced in the state of Wisconsin.
While the Duluth Mill has been repurposed to primarily consume recycled materials, the
mill in Rapids remains closed. The Duluth mill closure had more of a direct impact on local
stumpage prices, but the closure of the Rapids mill had a major influence on prices across
the entire region.
Harvested Volume
Table 10 below displays the total volume of timber harvested from Bayfield County Forest
timber sales from 2018 through 2022. Pulp (cords) and logs (Mbf – thousand board feet) are
displayed for each primary timber type. For the sake of comparison, all sales sold by the ton
were converted to cords.
Table 10 also displays the total amount of timber sale revenue received each year, as well as
cord equivalents (which converts logs into cords in order to provide a general
overview/summary of the entire program).
14
In 2022, nearly 84,000 cords and a little over 3,300 MBF were harvested from the county
forest. While the pulp volume increased by roughly 5% when compared to 2021, the log
volume decreased by approximately 27%.
Aspen is the largest primary forest type on the county forest (by total acreage). Not
surprisingly, it also comprises the largest volume of wood harvested from the forest. The
amount of aspen volume harvested in 2022 was over 25,000 cords. This was roughly 6%
greater than 2021 and close to the 5 year average. However, in general, the volume of aspen
harvested from the forest has steadily increased over the past decade (averaging roughly
14,500 cords prior to 2013). The increase in harvested aspen volume is directly related to
the steady, but gradual increase in the sustainable harvest goal for aspen.
The mixed hardwood pulp volume harvested in 2022 increased by roughly 14% and logs by
64% when compared to 2021. Mixed hardwood is generally comprised on sugar maple, red
maple, yellow birch, white ash and black ash.
The total volume of red oak pulp harvested in 2021 continued a relatively significant
downward trend that started in 2019. The total amount of red oak pulp harvested in 2021
was roughly 9% less than 2020 and a little over 27% less than 2019. Poor oak pulp markets
are the primary reason for the decrease in volume. The volume of oak logs harvested in
2021 also decreased significantly when compared to 2020. A total of 1,937 Mbf of oak was
harvested in 2021, which was a decrease of roughly 32% when compared to 2020. Red oak
continues to be the dominant species when analyzing total log volume harvested during any
period of time. Roughly 74% of the total log volume harvested in 2021 was from red oak.
Table 10: Timber Harvest Volume Summary (pulp in cords and logs in thousand board feet)
Pulp Logs Pulp Logs Pulp Logs Pulp Logs Pulp Logs Pulp Logs
Aspen 29,704 0 26,170 0 20,419 0 23,878 0 25,245 0 25,083 0
Mx. Hardwood1 20,474 482 21,913 597 20,024 534 20,541 538 23,392 875 21,269 605
Oak 14,101 2,274 11,316 2,042 9,120 2,852 8,296 1,937 7,997 2,280 10,166 2,277
Paper Birch 718 33 285 25 103 1 357 0 23 0 297 12
Basswood 720 111 957 211 727 164 833 147 1,204 178 888 162
Red Pine 9,376 0 7,585 0 11,115 0 14,764 0 21,039 0 12,776 0
Jack Pine 5,334 0 4,573 0 3,228 0 1,632 0 2,180 0 3,389 0
White Pine 465 0 276 0 141 0 954 0 457 0 459 0
Other Conifer2 6,369 0 4,138 0 2,659 0 8,462 0 2,193 0 4,764 0
Total 87,261 2,900 77,213 2,875 67,536 3,551 79,717 2,622 83,730 3,333 79,091 3,056
Total Cord Equiv.3
Revenue
1 Sugar Maple, Red Maple, Yellow Birch, Black Ash, White Ash.
2 White Spruce, Black Spruce, Balsam Fir, Tamarack, Mixed Conifer.
3 Log volumes converted to cords and added to the pulp volume.
Species 2021 2022 Average201820192020
85,815
$4,562,243
93,641 83,537 75,348 85,485 91,063
$4,171,667 $3,625,794 $3,852,290 $4,679,087 $4,178,216
15
Harvested red pine volume continues to increase. Red pine pulp experienced the most
significant increase in harvested volume in 2022, at nearly 43% when compared to 2021.
This is a good indication that red pine pulp markets are starting to improve.
With the exception of the spikes in total cords harvested in 2013 and 2017, jack pine volume
has remained relatively constant over the past decade, generally hovering around 5,300
cords. However, as the Barnes Barrens Management Area begins to take shape, most of the
mature jack pine stands in that unit have been managed. As a result, the amount of jack pine
harvested has steadily declined over the past few years. The 1,632 cords harvested in 2021
was the lowest volume of jack pine in nearly two decades. There was a slight increase in
jack pine harvested in 2022, but as less acreage of jack pine is managed over the next few
years, the amount of harvested volume is expected to continue on a downward trend.
Table 11 includes a summary of cord equivalents. This converts the log volume to cords as
an attempt to simplify/quantify the total amount of wood harvested annually.
Total cord equivalents harvested in 2022 was just over 91,000. This represents an increase
of about 7% when compared to the total for 2021 and well above both the three and five
year averages. Prior to 2013, the average was about 61,000 cord equivalents.
Starting in 2021, the pulpwood volumes on all new timber sales are being advertised and
sold by the ton. This was done to better align with how most mill volumes are reported to
the county (which are primarily in tons), reduce the need to convert quantities from one
measure to another (cords to tons or vice versa) and improve internal efficiencies associated
with processing harvested volumes.
2) Reforestation Program: reforestation, be it natural or artificial, is a core building block of
forest sustainability and a fundamental component of any forest management program. A
Table 11: Total Volume of Wood Harvested (2013-2022)
Year Pulp (cords)Logs (Mbf)Cord Equivalents*
2013 81,024 1,939 85,291
2014 93,321 3,084 100,107
2015 83,023 3,042 89,715
2016 82,372 3,796 90,723
2017 85,214 2,838 91,458
2018 87,261 2,900 93,641
2019 77,213 2,875 83,537
2020 67,536 3,551 75,349
2021 79,717 2,622 85,485
2022 83,730 3,333 91,063
Average 82,041 2,998 88,637
5 Yr Avg 79,091 3,056 85,894
3 Yr Avg 76,994 3,169 83,966
* Converting Mbf to cords and combining pulp and log values.
16
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. Newly regenerating stands are typically monitored 3 to 4 times, and
sometimes more, over a 10-year period, to determine success.
Table 12 displays the summary of the reforestation program from 2018-2022.
a) Planting: a total of 273 acres, on four different sites, were planted in 2022. All sites
were planted at a rate of about 800 red pine seedlings per acre. All seedlings were 2-
0 containerized stock and planted by contracted crews. A total of nearly 220,000 red
pine seedlings were planted in 2022.
An Arbor Day grant in the amount of $39,252 was awarded in 2022. This grant was
used to help offset the costs associated with all seedlings planted in 2022.
The artificial reforestation program has experienced some transformations over the
past decade, which will continue into the foreseeable future, resulting in significantly
less acreage being planted. In general, the primary reasons for the changes are as
follows: re-planting of the old fuel break areas has been completed; a general lack of
previously open area, which, in the past, were planted to red pine; a lack of mature
stands of red pine that are ready for reforestation; movement towards an emphasis on
jack pine regeneration in the Barnes Barrens Management Area; an emphasis on
seeding when attempting to regenerate jack pine; and a significant decrease in stands
that were severely defoliated from a significant outbreak of jack pine budworm in the
early 2000’s.
b) Seeding: A total of 368 acres were seeded with jack pine in 2022. This was a slight
increase when compared to 2021. A total of 7 different sites were seeded, all at a
rate of about 3 ounces per acre (with local seed purchased from the WDNR nursery).
A total of roughly 70 pounds of jack pine seed was applied in 2022.
Table 12: Bayfield County Forest Reforestation Program Summary (acres)
Seeding Monitoring
Red Pine Jack Pine White Pine Jack Pine3 Trench Fire Plow Scarify Spray4 Bud Cap TSI2 Regen
2018 134 0 0 563 257 0 154 296 38 0 5,408
2019 92 0 3 216 305 10 112 323 8 0 5,834
2020 104 0 0 497 355 26 165 277 0 0 4,010
2021 124 0 0 291 363 0 46 848 0 0 3,434
2022 273 0 0 368 278 20 0 252 0 44 2,882
Avg.145 0 1 387 312 11 95 399 9 9 4,314
2 Timber Stand Improvement - Hand release of established regeneration
3 Includes 110 acres of white pine in 2020 and 20 acres in 2021.
4 in 2021, includes 323 acres for red and/or jack pine, and 525 acres for barrens work.
4 In 2022, includes 116 acres for red and/or jack pine and 136 acres for barrens work.
Year Planting Site Preparation Maintenance
17
The jack pine seeding rate was reduced from 4 ounces per acre applied during one
year, to 3 ounces per acre applied during two consecutive years. The primary goal of
the change is to increase the probability of achieving a fully stocked stand of jack
pine.
All seed applications are performed aerially, via a contract with the DNR. All jack
pine seeded acres were previously trenched (two years prior) and sprayed (one year
prior) to provide the best possible site for germination and recruitment. All planted
and seeded sites are monitored on a routine and regular basis to determine success
(see Forest Monitoring section below).
c) Site Preparation: to prepare sites for future planting or seeding, a total of 278 acres
were power trenched (for artificial reforestation) and 20 acres were fireplowed (by
the DNR). In addition, a total of 252 acres were treated with chemical to reduce
potential competition for undesirable vegetation. Of the total chemical treatments
completed in 2022, 116 acres are to be reforested (to either red or jack pine), while
136 acres are in preparation for barrens development in the Bass Lake Barrens
Management Area. A total of 550 acres were prepared in 2022. This was a decrease
of more than half when compared to the total acres prepped in 2021 (1,257 acres),
primarily because of the significant decrease in chemical work.
d) Maintenance: in 2022, 44 acres of timber stand improvement (TSI) was
accomplished, primarily within regenerating northern hardwood stands, with a focus
on treating gaps or groups. A total of roughly 115 gaps, groups and/or patches were
treated, where undesirable regeneration (e.g. ironwood) was cut to release the more
desirable target species (e.g. sugar maple, red oak, yellow birch, basswood, etc).
Stands will be monitored to determine success. Competition from undesirable tree
species is a common and developing problem within stands managed with all-aged
treatments. It is anticipated that TSI will become a more regular means of
facilitating natural regeneration throughout many hardwood forest types.
Currently, most plantations are treated with herbicide prior to planting (see above),
which, in combination with mechanical preparation, creates an exceptional site for
young seedlings to develop, thus eliminating the need for release. In some instances,
release may still be required. However, the goal is to significantly reduce the need
for release by treating future plantations prior to planting. Releasing young seedlings
increases the risk of damage from herbicide, something we hope to eliminate by
treating sites prior to planting. As previously stated, a total of 136 acres located
within the barrens management areas were treated with herbicide to facilitate the
development of barrens habitat. These are expected to be one-time treatments, with
all future maintenance work accomplished via prescribed fire.
A total of 0 acres of young jack pine plantations were treated with terminal bud caps
to deter browsing from white tailed deer. This marks the third year in a row that bud
capping was not required. However, it is anticipated that bud capping will resume in
2023 due to an increase in significant browse pressure.
18
Previously, all bud capped jack pine sites were reforested via planting. It is believed
that since nursery grown jack pine seedlings are very nutrient rich, they are more
attractive to, and targeted by, deer as a food source. But, since 2013, the Department
has seeded far more acres of jack pine than planted. Until recently, seeded sites have
not exhibited the same level of browse pressure and, as such, were not expected to
require additional measures of protection.
However, recent seedling counts have indicated extremely high levels of browsing
on numerous seeded jack pine sites. Bud capping will most likely be required on
many of these seeded sites in the future. Some planted red pine sites are also
showing signs of excessive browse. All stands are monitored on a regular basis and
additional protections may need to be incorporated if significant browsing is
discovered.
More Information on Reforestation
As previously stated, reforestation can be accomplished by either natural or artificial means.
Table 12 above tracks annual reforestation accomplishments, but primarily as they pertain to
artificial regeneration or when additional inputs are/were required by the Department (i.e.
site preparation, release, bud capping, etc.).
Every stand that is managed by the Department is ultimately reforested. However, not all
treatments are regeneration harvests. Some stands are thinned, where a smaller portion of
the trees are removed, typically with the goal of improving development on higher quality
stems. Termed even-aged thinnings (also improvement or intermediate harvests), these
treatments generally target the removal of the poorest quality trees; those that exhibit poor
form and/or vigor; and undesirable, diseased or otherwise unhealthy individuals.
During the thinning process, trees are also removed to improve the development of adjacent
higher quality stems, that are competing for the same limited resources i.e. light, nutrients,
water, etc. Stands that are managed with even-aged thinning practices are ultimately
regenerated, but only when approaching the designated rotation age for that species.
Natural regeneration (either from seed or vegetatively via root suckers or stump sprouts) is
the preferred method of reforestation in all hardwood types (i.e. aspen, birch, northern
hardwood, oak), as well as some stands of conifer (primarily swamp conifer i.e. tamarack
and black spruce, as well as some stands of white pine).
Hardwood types such as red oak and paper birch are reforested primarily with even-aged
treatments (i.e. shelterwood, seed tree and/or clearcut) and typically require additional inputs
from the Department to facilitate the natural regeneration process. Site preparation,
competition control, the manipulation of light, timing of seed dispersal, etc all need to be
considered when regenerating red oak and white birch. As a result, the reforestation process
is monitored more intensively in these stands, as regeneration can be highly variable and the
Department may need to act quickly if the stand is not responding to the treatment.
19
Hardwood types such as northern hardwood (typically dominated by sugar maple, with co-
dominants of basswood and sometimes yellow birch) can be managed with even or un-even
aged techniques. Maple isn’t as fickle as red oak and typically doesn’t require additional
inputs from the Department to encourage adequate regeneration. However, when
implementing un-even aged treatments (i.e. when gaps or small groups are incorporated to
initiate a new cohort or age class), the Department is discovering some challenges with the
process of natural regeneration.
On moderate or poorer quality sites, competition from ironwood has been a growing
concern. Deer exacerbate this issue, as repeated browsing of the desirable regeneration (i.e.
sugar maple, basswood, red oak, the birches, etc.) slows growth (and can eventually kill the
tree) and allows less desirable or undesirable (i.e. ironwood) species to attain and maintain
dominance. Once less desirable species attain dominance, development and growth of the
stand is stagnated and future management potentially altered.
Gaps or groups comprise a relatively small percentage of the stand (typically 10 to 25%), so
it doesn’t take a large population of deer to eventually locate and browse the seedlings. As a
result, most northern hardwood stands that are treated with gaps or groups are monitored
intensively. Additional inputs may be required to facilitate the natural regeneration of
desirable hardwood seedlings and the development of the stand.
Other hardwood types, such as aspen, regenerate prolifically after harvest and rarely require
additional inputs or follow-up from the Department. These stands are regularly monitored
as part of the Department’s reconnaissance program. However, due to concerns with the
potential impacts of a warming climate, the Department is in the process of establishing a
more intensive monitoring program for regenerating stands of aspen.
Quaking aspen has been identified as one of many timbers type that could be negatively
impacted due to changes in the climate. Stands developing on marginal sites are more
inherently stressed and could be most at risk (i.e. sites that are nutrient poor). Monitoring
will cover a cross section of habitat types, but will prioritize stands developing on sites
classified, by the Department, as marginal or nutrient poor.
Table 13 summarizes the general management or reforestation goals for every completed
(closed out) sale from 2013 through 2022 (total sales sold are also included). Management
is basically categorized in one of three ways: 1) with natural regeneration as the
reforestation goal; 2) with artificial regeneration as the reforestation goal; or 3) as an even
aged thinning (or intermediate treatment), where reforestation will come at a later date.
20
A timber sale is considered completed when every component of the contract has been met,
to the satisfaction of the Department. This includes, but is not limited to, harvesting, hauling
and stumpage payments, as well as all road maintenance and/or closure or other similar
requirements.
Timber sales are sold under two year contracts and can be extended for another two to three
years (and sometimes more). At any point during the contract period, a timber sale can go
active. Once active, it is common for a contractor to harvest a portion of the sale and then
move off, leaving more to address at a later date. It’s also common for contract activity to
carry over into another calendar year. A timber sale can still be classified as active even if
all harvesting, hauling and stumpage payments have been met, but other contractual
obligations are still outstanding i.e. road work or other similar requirements.
In Table 13, the acres of completed sales are highly variable, ranging from a low of 2,892 in
2016 to a high of 5,219 in 2014. However, the total acreage of sold timber sales is generally
relatively constant. It is also common for significant portions of a sale to be complete, but
only remain open to satisfy a specific contract requirement or to remove a few loads of
wood.
Of the completed sales (an average of 3,921 acres since 2013), a vast majority are prescribed
to regenerate naturally, with an average of 2,249 acres per year (or over 57%). An average
of 860 acres are prescribed for artificial reforestation (approximately 22%) and 812 acres are
treated with even-aged thinnings or intermediate treatments (approximately 21%). Red pine
and red oak are the two most prominent timber types that receive even-aged thinnings (or
intermediate treatments).
3) Forest Monitoring Program: forest inventory and reforestation/regeneration monitoring
are vital components of any sound, sustainable forest management program. Accurate, up-
Table 13: Summary of Treatments and Reforestation Activities on Completed Timber Sales (acres)
2013 1,215 830 866 2,912 4,177
2014 3,032 1,113 1,075 5,219 4,388
2015 3,127 1,053 586 4,766 4,958
2016 1,570 830 492 2,892 4,750
2017 2,176 1,044 872 4,092 4,101
2018 2,493 1,183 571 4,247 3,813
2019 2,144 455 723 3,322 4,267
2020 2,399 567 671 3,637 5,052
2021 1,952 906 974 3,832 4,114
2022 2,386 617 1,289 4,292 3,993
Average 2,249 860 812 3,921 4,361
1 Natural reforestation refers to stands that will regenerate via seed located naturally on site, or vegetatively via coppicing or stump sprouts.
2 Artificial reforestation refers to stands that will be physically planted or seeded by the Department.
3 Thinnings encompase stands that were treated with even aged prescriptions (or intermediate harvests). These stands are eventually
reforested (either naturally or artificially), at a later date, as per the designated rotation age for that particular timber type.
Total New Sales
SoldYearNatural
Reforestation1
Artificial
Reforestation2 Thinnings3 Total Completed
Sales
21
to-date stand information is essential in the development of viable short and long term
sustainable harvest goals. A successful regeneration program is paramount in the
development of the next forested ecosystem. The accuracy of any sustainable harvest goal is
only as good as the data from which it was derived. Monitoring stands, whether mature or
newly regenerating, on a routine and regular basis is an essential element of the forest
management process.
The forest monitoring program has evolved significantly over the past few years. In the
past, the primary forms of forest monitoring focused on compartment level stand updates (or
reconnaissance) and artificial reforestation surveys. Forest reconnaissance, or updating
stand information, on a compartment level basis has been a staple component of the program
for the past two decades. Today, in addition to compartment level inventory and artificial
reforestation monitoring, forest type (stand level) inventory and natural regeneration
monitoring (FRM and CRS, see below) have been added to the program. Each facet of the
monitoring program is summarized below.
a) Compartment Level Reconnaissance. Starting in 2001, the goal was to update
roughly 10,000 acres of forest annually, until all compartments have been re-
inventoried, and then repeat the process. By targeting individual compartments
(which range from a few hundred acres in size to a few thousand), efforts could be
directed to one general area, thus increasing efficiency and also allowing for the
incorporation of smaller landscape level management decisions.
At nearly 175,000 total acres, a complete re-inventory of the county forest was
estimated to take 17 to 18 years. The last inventory cycle was finished in 2018 and
took a full 18 years to complete.
Table 14 displays the summary of compartment/stand updates from 2013 through
2022.
Table 14: Compartment Inventory Summary (acres)
2013 10 9,316
2014 8 5,014
2015 7 5,320
2016 6 5,784
2017 6 4,107
2018 9 8,613
2019 0 0
2020 13 12,172
2021 21 17,166
2022 10 7,481
Average 10 8,406
Year Number of
Compartments Accomplishment
22
The re-inventory cycle was started again in 2020. A total of 10 compartments and
7,481 acres were inventoried in 2022. The long-term goal is to re-inventory the
county forest over the next 15 years.
b) Stand Level Inventory. In addition to compartment level inventories, the Department
occasionally targets updated stand level information across various primary forest
types. Generally, the reasons for obtaining current information across a primary
forest type are varied and can include: prioritizing management across stands that
are generally all the same age; prioritizing regeneration harvests; fine tuning
prescriptions to more accurately determine short and long term sustainable harvest
goals; and monitoring health and vigor to determine when management is necessary
(especially important on over mature stands). For a variety of reasons, additional
stand information is collected to help in the overall decision making process.
The focus of stand level monitoring, across a forest type, is generally on mature
stands, where information is required to assist in short or long term management
level decisions, as described above. Stand level monitoring began in earnest in 2014,
when mature jack pine stands were prioritized.
Table 15 summarizes primary forest type inventory efforts since 2014.
Red oak and northern hardwood were prioritized in 2015 and 2016. And northern
hardwood inventory continued in 2017. In 2018, 2,462 acres of northern hardwood
(completing the inventory of the mature stands) and 1,392 acres of swamp hardwood
were inventoried.
In 2019, the focus shifted to stands of aspen and red pine. Aspen stands were
selected due to concerns with the potential presence of hypoxylon, which can lead to
mortality and poor growth. Through a GIS analysis using a canopy height model
developed internally with LiDAR info, the Department was able to locate stands that
were potentially underperforming (or developing well below standard growth
Table 15: Primary Forest Type (Stand Level) Inventory Summary (acres)
White Scrub
Birch Oak
2014 2,002 0 3,260 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,262
2015 0 0 5,423 2,187 0 0 0 0 0 7,610
2016 0 0 439 843 0 0 0 0 0 1,282
2017 0 0 0 4,269 104 0 0 0 0 4,373
2018 0 0 0 2,462 1,392 0 0 0 0 3,854
2019 0 721 0 0 0 4,975 0 0 0 5,696
2020 705 15 0 124 92 0 0 0 81 1,017
2021 0 13 55 0 0 101 97 0 47 313
2022 0 109 0 0 588 26 0 2,238 33 2,994
Total 2,707 858 9,177 9,885 2,176 5,102 97 2,238 161 32,401
Year TotalJack Pine Oak Northern
Hardwood
Swamp
Hardwood AspenRed Pine Other
23
charts). The presence of hypoxylon was noted on a few stands during previous
examinations. A total of 4,975 acres were inventoried. Fortunately, none of these
stands contained excessive levels of hypoxylon and were just developing on poorer
quality sites.
Also in 2019, 721 acres of red pine was inventoried in Zone 4 of the Barnes Barrens.
These stands were targeted to help develop the final harvest strategies in that Zone.
Updated stand information will help the Department determine which stands to
prioritize first as some of the last mature red pine is converted to jack pine in the
Zone.
In 2020, a total of 1,017 acres of stand level inventory was accomplished. The
primary emphasis was jack pine stands located in the Barnes Barrens Management
Area (BBMA). Mature stands were re-analyzed for mortality and subsequent timing
of future harvest. Other stands of jack pine in the BBMA were evaluated to
determine the appropriate timing for harvest within each Zone. Additional stands of
northern hardwood and swamp hardwood were also addressed in 2020.
In 2021, a particular forest type was not targeted for re-inventory. Instead, more
resources were dedicated to compartment updates. As a result, there was a
significant decrease in the amount of acres updates at the stand level.
Scrub oak was targeted in 2022. Primarily to establish treatment priorities, as well as
habitat and/or landscape level significance. Stands of scrub oak that were exhibiting
poor health or higher levels of mortality will be treated sooner. However, an
emphasis was placed on locating stands of high habitat and/or landscape value and
extend rotations when possible. This is of particular importance in areas otherwise
dominated by conifer plantations, where stands of mature scrub oak provide a
significant diversity of habitat. Stands of swamp hardwood were also re-examined
as it pertained to evaluating for EAB impacts and marketability.
c) Artificial Reforestation Monitoring. Artificial reforestation pertains to all sites that
were planted or seeded. All sites that are reforested with artificial means are
monitored on a routine and regular basis, to ensure the stand is developing as
intended. On planted sites, monitoring occurs every 1,2,3,5 and 10 years after
planting. After the 10 year, assuming the reforestation activity was successful, the
stand is release from intensive regeneration monitoring and will be observed as part
of the various management processes (i.e. compartment level inventory, timber sale
establishment, etc.).
Seeded sites are monitored on a slightly different scale. Because seed can take
multiple years to germinate, the first reforestation survey generally occurs at year 4
(sometimes sooner). Depending on the results, another survey will be prescribed at
year 7, with a final count at year 10. If a survey discovers an issue or poor results,
another count may be prescribed earlier, especially if a follow up treatment may be
necessary.
24
Table 16 summarizes the artificial reforestation monitoring results since 2017.
In 2022, a total of 1,167 acres of planted and seeded sites were monitored. This was
slightly lower than the total number of acres monitored in 2021. 481 acres of seeded
jack pine sites were monitored, while 686 acres of planted red pine were also
surveyed.
In general, monitoring results show that red pine stands are progressing as expected.
Jack pine seeded sites are generally still too young to quantify, but appear to be
progressing as expected. However, as previously stated, some seeded sites are now
starting to exhibit significant levels of deer browse. In general, stocking on seeded
sites is a little lower and much more variable when compared to planted stands.
If browse pressure continues at current levels and/or if stands are determined to be
inadequately stocked, many of these seeded sites will be considered a failure and will
need to be reforested (again). If a jack pine seeded site is determined to be a failure,
re-planting will most likely be the preferred next step. Jack pine or red pine stock
(containerized) will be planted in sites that are considered a failure (jack pine will be
preferred within the designated barrens areas). Supplemental plantings will most
likely also require bud capping to protect from overbrowsing.
d) Natural Regeneration Monitoring (Competitive Regeneration Survey/Forest
Regeneration Metrix). How a stand will be reforested after a regeneration harvest is
one of the most critical aspects of forest management. As previously stated, every
stand that is managed is ultimately reforested, however, the methods of reforestation
can be somewhat variable, depending, in part, on the timber type and existing
conditions.
Table 13 summarized the general type of regeneration activity that is prescribed to
stands upon completion. Of stands that are reforested after management, natural
regeneration is prescribed roughly 65% of the time. Like artificial reforestation,
natural regeneration monitoring is an essential part of any forest management
activity.
Table 17 summarizes the total amount of natural regeneration monitoring (acres) that
has occurred on the Bayfield County Forest since 2013.
Table 16: Artificial Reforestation Monitoring Summary (acres)
Seeded Planted Seeded Planted Seeded Planted Seeded Planted Seeded Planted Seeded Planted Seeded Planted
Jack Pine 558 145 326 202 446 202 394 202 460 0 481 0 437 150
Red Pine 0 638 0 876 0 891 0 667 0 798 0 686 0 774
White Pine 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 558 832 326 1,078 446 1,093 394 869 460 798 481 686 437 934
Grand Total
2021
1,258 1,371
Average
1,390
2020
1,263
2019
1,539
2018
1,404
2022
1,167
2017Species
25
Natural regeneration monitoring was previously accomplished utilizing the protocols
outlined in the Forest Regeneration Metrix (FRM). Please refer to the 2021 Bayfield
County Forest Annual Work Plan for more detailed information on FRM. As FRM
was developed, the Department slowly incorporated it into the process. The initial
priorities were targeting stands of red oak and northern hardwood (the two hardwood
types that have been experiencing some issues in the reforestation process), but other
timber types were added in 2018.
Starting in CY 2019, the goal was to incorporate FRM on all stands that will be
regenerating naturally after management, as time allows. Monitoring parameters and
protocols are still in the process of development and will be fine-tuned as more
information is collected.
Recently, after working with FRM methodology over the past few years, the
Department concluded that the survey was not providing the results needed to help
facilitate future management level decisions for each stand. The Competitive
Regeneration Survey (CRS) was established internally using some FRM metrics and
methodologies, combined with additional criteria. The goal of CRS is to
measure/monitor stands that are being regenerated naturally to determine the
likelihood of future success. And, if additional inputs will be required to facilitate
the establishment and recruitment of desired tree species. CRS protocols were
adopted starting in 2021. See the 2023 Bayfield County Forest Annual Work Plan
(Work Plan) for more detailed information on CRS protocols.
In 2022, a total of 1,715 acres of naturally regenerating stands were monitored for
success. This is a decrease when compared to the total amount monitored in 2021.
Stands are ultimately monitored when they are on the schedule. A natural
fluctuation in the total number of acres on the monitoring schedule is the primary
reason for the decrease in accomplishment. When/if time is a limiting factor, lower
priority stands like aspen are generally the first types to be removed from the
inventory list.
Table 17: Natural Regeneration Monitoring Summary1
2013 102 0 272 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 374
2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2015 92 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282
2016 352 0 618 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 970
2017 563 0 675 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,238
2018 1,381 0 846 0 799 0 23 0 5 0 3,054
2019 1,364 534 1,118 56 1,224 0 0 0 0 0 4,296
2020 1,652 0 1,065 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 2,747
2021 357 268 418 182 867 31 0 53 0 0 2,176
2022 916 288 396 59 0 0 23 33 0 0 1,715
Average 678 109 560 30 289 3 5 9 1 3 1,685
1 Utilizing the protocols outlined in the Forest Regeneratin Metrix from 2012-2020. Using Competitive Regeneration Survey starting in 2021.
Swamp
Hardwood
Swamp
Conifer TotalRed
Maple
Scrub
Oak OtherWhite
Pine
White
BirchYearNorthern
Hardwood
Red
Oak Aspen
26
For northern hardwood and red oak, FRM surveys occurred at intervals of 3, 5 and
10 years, post harvest. While the CRS protocol targets an initial survey between
years 5 and 7, with additional follow-ups if an issue is found. If issues are
discovered or if natural regeneration is anticipated to be a problem, additional
surveys may be applied to help determine the next course of action.
For all other types that will be regenerated naturally, an initial survey will be
conducted at year 5, post-harvest (or 6/7 with CRS). If natural regeneration is
expected to be an issue, a survey may be conducted earlier. Also, if an issue is
discovered, additional surveys may be applied in successive years to help determine
the next course of action.
In general, the results of regeneration surveys have been variable. Many stands of
red oak and northern hardwood are not regenerating as planned. The results of the
surveys show success in regenerating fully stocked stands of desirable trees, but are
often poorly stocked or underrepresented in the targeted species (e.g. red oak).
The germination and initial establishment of desirable or targeted tree seedlings has
generally not been an issue, but development and recruitment have yielded mixed
results. Though additional site preparation methods, both pre and post-sale, will be
considered as a means to increase germination rates and better facilitate seedling
development.
In most regenerating stands of red oak and northern hardwood, the impacts of over
browsing by white tailed deer have been identified as one of the most limiting factors
in the reforestation process. A system and methods to analyze CRS/FRM data is still
in development and monitoring will continue to be accomplished on all stands in the
process of being reforested.
The Department has also created a custom survey tool that is used to collect
regeneration information in the field (using the CRS protocols) This tool helps to
streamline the data collection process and has been shared with the DNR, as well as
a few other interested counties.
e) Continuous Forest Inventory (CFI). In 2018, the Department began the development
and implementation of a new long term forest monitoring program, termed
continuous forest inventory (CFI).
Table 18 displays the total number of CFI plots established since 2018, per cycle
(establish or re-measurement) and per primary timber type.
27
The primary purpose of implementing a permanent and continuous forest inventory
is to collect statistically sound stand information that will be used to report on the
status and trends of the forest. The multitude of data that will be collected as part of
every plot will be used to track variables like, but not limited to: forest extent, forest
cover (by type), volume, growth, quality, mortality, removals, regeneration, habitat,
health (both at the stand level and forest wide), carbon sequestration, invasive
species, soils, down woody debris, biomass, insects and disease, herbivory, and
more.
The initial establishment phase was completed in 2022. The final 74 plots were
installed in 2022. A total of 667 permanent CFI plots have been installed throughout
the forest. The plots were established throughout all cover types on the forest, in
conformance with Wisconsin DNR CFI protocols. For more detailed information on
the CFI program, please see the 2023 Work Plan.
Once the establishment phase is completed, the re-measure phase begins. In 2022, a
total of 26 plots were re-measured. The data collection process will be repeated,
with the goal of complete re-inventory every five years. Also, the process of data
analysis began in CY 2019 and continued through 2022, with assistance from the
Wisconsin DNR. Though most of the growth and development metrics won’t be
fully realized until the re-measurement phase begins.
Table 18: CFI Plot Establishment and Re-Measurement Summary
Re-Measurement
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2022
Aspen 31 76 87 64 45 10 313
Northern Hardwoods 14 18 15 18 7 3 75
Red Pine 14 10 19 22 0 0 65
Red Oak 10 7 13 17 7 2 56
Jack Pine 14 13 10 13 0 2 52
Scrub Oak 3 5 4 9 3 0 24
Kegs/Water 2 3 6 8 1 1 21
Swamp Conifer 0 4 1 5 2 2 14
Swamp Hardwoods 2 2 4 4 1 0 13
Lowland Brush/Alder 2 2 0 3 2 3 12
Grasses 3 1 1 3 1 2 11
White Pine 0 1 3 4 2 0 10
Red Maple 2 3 1 0 2 1 9
White Birch 1 1 1 1 1 0 5
Fir/Spruce 0 0 2 2 0 0 4
Right of Way 1 0 1 2 0 0 4
Other 0 1 2 1 0 0 4
Hemlock 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Total 99 147 170 177 74 26
Grand Total 26
Primary Timber Type Establishment (First Full Cycle)Grand Total
667 693
28
Establishing 667 CFI plots equates to about 1 plot for every 260 acres of forest land.
At this rate, the plot design will provide a sampling error not to exceed 5% across all
timber types and 10% within each two-inch size class, up to 17 inches in diameter.
Additionally, one CFI plot actually consists of two, 24’ radius plots spaced 120’
apart (from plot centers). Within each plot is a 6.8’ radius subplot (where
regeneration, understory vegetation and other similar data is collected). When
combining both plots, a total of 1,334 plots will be established.
One CFI plot represents approximately 260 acres of county forest land (actually 258
acres). Using that metric, a total of roughly 25,800 acres were inventoried/examined
as part of the CFI program in 2022.
f) Other Monitoring. In addition to the various monitoring efforts listed above, the
Department has also established deer exclusion fencing to analyze the impacts of
browsing. Two larger scale, woven wire fences and numerous small scale poly
exclusion areas.
The two large scale deer exclusion fences were both constructed with eight foot tall,
high tensile woven wire. A 29 acre exclusion is located south of Oulu and was
installed during the spring of 2007. While a 50 acre exclusion is located south of
Cable and was installed during the fall of 2008. Both fences were constructed on
stands being actively managed for red oak. Both locations are routinely monitored to
study the growth and development of regeneration and to better understand the
potential influences of browsing by deer.
Both fence locations have also been recently harvested, where the overstory was
removed to allow established regeneration to recruit. Each site will continue to be
monitored to evaluate the effectiveness of the fence. The fences will also be
maintained throughout this process, with the goal of eventual removal once seedlings
have established and attainted dominance.
A few smaller scale fences (ranging in size from 6’x6’ to nearly ½ acre, made from
high density plastic) have also been constructed on the forest. These are much
smaller in size, but still intended to monitor the impacts of excessive browsing by
white tailed deer.
In addition to stands of red oak and northern hardwood, other cover types like
swamp conifer, white pine and white birch are being monitored to better understand
the potential impacts of deer browse. To date, a total of 15 smaller fences are being
maintained on the forest and monitored on a regular basis.
Information collected from the deer exclusion fences will be used to assist in the
development of future management strategies, especially with regards to
regenerating trees that are also preferred browse species i.e. red oak, paper birch,
jack pine, white pine, (and now most of the traditional northern hardwood species).
29
g) Total Monitoring Across All Programs. Whether new timber sale establishment,
timber sale close-out, compartment level inventory, stand level inventory, artificial
regeneration monitoring, natural regeneration monitoring, or one of the many
reforestation activities, the Department collects information on a significant amount
of county forest land every year. primary
Table 19 summarizes the total amount of acres that are analyzed by the Department
per year, from 2013 through 2022.
In 2022, a total of 23,336 acres were managed by the Department. This represents
about 13% of the total amount of county forest land.
This number also does not include the amount of land monitored as part of the
Continuous Forest Inventory (CFI) program. If including the amount of land
inventoried as part of the CFI program (25,800 acres), the total amount of monitoring
in 2022 would be nearly 50,000 acres or almost 30% of the total amount of county
forest land.
Barrens Management Areas
The Barnes Barrens Management Area (BBMA) was formally designated in 2012 with the goal of
developing and maintaining critically important Pine Barrens habitat through the simultaneous
management of jack pine and open/early successional barrens. This was after nearly 5 years of
strategizing and planning. Development of the Bass Lake Barrens Management Area (BLBMA)
began in 2020 and continued through 2022. Again, following multiple years of planning.
Among other things, the Barrens Management plan defines operational parameters and guidelines
that must be followed to achieve the desired future conditions. Please review the 15-Year
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and 2023 Work Plan for more detailed information on barrens
management.
Table 19: Summary of Principal Activities Occuring on the Bayfield County Forest (acres)1
2013 4,348 2,912 9,316 517 2,253 374 2,097 21,817
2014 4,331 5,219 5,014 5,773 2,553 0 1,414 24,304
2015 4,289 4,766 5,320 8,102 1,472 282 2,083 26,314
2016 4,718 2,892 5,784 1,586 1,419 970 2,038 19,407
2017 4,354 4,092 4,107 4,838 1,390 1,238 1,594 21,613
2018 3,775 4,247 8,613 4,461 1,404 3,054 1,442 26,996
2019 4,608 3,322 0 6,167 1,539 4,296 1,069 21,001
2020 5,177 3,637 12,172 1,696 1,263 2,747 1,424 28,116
2021 4,911 3,832 17,166 804 1,258 2,176 1,652 31,799
2022 3,615 4,292 7,481 3,831 1,167 1,715 1,235 23,336
Average 4,413 3,921 7,497 3,778 1,572 1,685 1,605 24,470
1 Primary activities/goals that are tracked per year.
TotalYearReforestation
Activities
New
Sales
Closed
Sales
Compartment
Inventory
Stand
Update
Artifical
Monitoring
Natural
Monitoring
30
Below is a list of the primary accomplishments within the BBMA since 2012:
• Established a timber sale to address the remaining portion of standing timber in the path of
the core road (which will be located around the entire perimeter of the core area).
• Established timber sales in Zones 1 and 2 to maintain/prepare for the scheduled future
harvest cycles within each zone.
• Began the conversion of red pine stands in Zone 4 to jack pine to prepare for the scheduled
future harvest cycles in that Zone.
• Currently, approximately 3.5 miles of the core road has been completed. Most of the core
road was constructed in 2019, but the final grading and shaping was completed in 2020.
• Knapweed has been treated along heavily infested roads since 2013 (see Invasive Species
section below for more information). As a result, the total amount of knapweed has been
reduced significantly.
• As per the Barrens plan, all reforestation efforts focus on jack pine. Each year, sites are
either trenched, site prep sprayed, or aerial seeded with jack pine.
• In 2020, the Department completed the fourth year of monitoring permanent vegetation
plots, located within the BBMA, to study the effects of various chemical mixtures on the
development of native plants.
• To date, roughly 75% of the core area has been established as open barrens (the core area is
roughly 1,000 acres in size).
• 472 acres (or nearly 50%) of the core area has been treated with at least one prescribed burn.
An additional 192 acres of the core was burned in the spring of 2022, while another 307
acres was burned in the fall. Some of the acres were burned previously.
• In 2020, 426 acres of the core area were roller chopped (mechanical site preparation) to
reduce vertical structure and improve habitat. This project was 100% funded with
supplemental Pittman-Robertson (PR) Wildlife Habitat dollars from the DNR.
• In 2020, 228 acres were treated with herbicide to facilitate the development of the core area.
• In 2020 and 2021, numerous game cameras have been installed throughout the core to
observe the presence and movement of wildlife.
• In 2021, roughly 1 acre was brushed/mowed by the Highway Department to establish a new
lek site for Sharp-tailed grouse. In the spring of 2022, as many as 10 males were observed
dancing on this new site!
• Established a wildlife project that will focus on monitoring birds within the barrens. The
Department will partner with Natural Resources Research Institute (NRRI), University of
Minnesota-Duluth in the development of a sharp-tailed grouse (STG), as well as breeding
bird monitoring projects. The STG project will focus on tagging birds with tracking devices
to monitor movements within barrens habitats. While NRRI is contracted to design and
administer the study, the Department will also be partnering with the DNR and USFS on this
project. The breeding bird survey will focus on collecting nesting information on
representative stands within the BBMA. The goal of both projects is to develop a better
understanding of habitat use. Information collected will be used to fine-tune future barrens
management strategies. DNR wildlife habitat funds will be used to fund a portion of these
projects. NRRI has secured numerous other funds that will be used to address more than
half of the total costs.
o In 2021, NRRI completed a breeding bird survey within the BBMA.
31
o In 2021, NRRI led a project to capture, tag (with gps collars and colored leg bands)
and monitor Sharp-tailed grouse.
▪ A summary report of this project is located on the website:
https://www.bayfieldcounty.wi.gov/243/Plans-Reports.
o Sharp-tailed grouse capture, tagging and monitoring will continue in 2022. As of
May 2023, two males remaining tagged and are still submitting information. This is
significant as there will be at least one solid year of movement charts which will
produce a wealth of information on habitat use throughout all four seasons. The
male that is tagged in the Barnes Barrens was observed dancing on a lek.
o Also in 2022, a more thorough inventory of vegetation was completed within the
core area. This will establish a baseline and will be used to determine habitat
richness. Additional similar monitoring efforts will be required to monitor
development.
• The Department collaborated with DNR Wildlife to identify two mature jack pine stands
that may provide suitable habitat for the Connecticut Warbler. Both stands were slated for
management, but were retained to monitor for use. Approximately 27 acres of one stand
was treated to cut thick understory brush with the goal of improving habitat and increasing
the chances of use by the warbler. The DNR funded the understory treatment. The
Connecticut Warbler has dramatically declined in Wisconsin, with NW providing the last
known breeding populations.
• The Department also maintains roughly a dozen game cameras targeting lek sites to monitor
for the presence of Sharp-tailed Grouse. Game cameras also pick up on a other uses by a
variety of different wildlife species.
• In 2023, the Department invested into a few Autonomous Recording Units (ARU). These
are small audio recording devices designed to collect sound recordings of birds, bats, frogs
and other vocal animals in the wild. Recordings can then be downloaded and processed to
determine species. We are currently working with the Institute for Bird Populations to
calibrate the ARUs and assist in data processing and interpretation. In the future, in addition
to monitoring for Sharp-tailed grouse, these units could assist with breeding bird surveys, or
other similar projects, and is another valuable tool for monitoring usage and ascertaining the
quality of habitat.
Below is a list of primary accomplishments with the BLBMA (starting in 2020):
• Completed numerous timber sales required to begin the development of the BLBMA.
• Established more timber sales to continue development.
• Collaborated with the DNR regarding the best placement for a system/fire management
road. The roads will be constructed within the next few years and serve as primary access to
the BLBMA.
• Roller chopped (mechanical site preparation) 40 acres to reduce vertical structure and
facilitate the development of the BLBMA. This project was 100% funded with
supplemental Pittman-Robertson (PR) Wildlife Habitat dollars from the DNR.
• In 2021, the following was accomplished:
o Site Preparation (roller chopping): 133 acres;
o Site Preparation (herbicide): 378 acres;
o Road Building (new construction): approximately 0.6 miles;
32
o Road Building (ford crossing): installed on new system road to facilitate access.
▪ The roller chopping, herbicide, ford and a portion of new road construction
were funded through PR and Turkey Stamp grants. Another portion of new
road construction was completed as part of an existing timber sale.
o Timber sale establishment to remove merchantable and sub-merchantable trees
within the BLBMA.
• In 2022, timber sale establishment continues with the BLBMA and is expected to continue
through 2023.
• Also in 2022, a total of 137 acres was treated with herbicide to develop habitat. If needed,
herbicide is used to help establish the site. Prescribed fire will be used in the future to
maintain habitat.
• In 2023, additional timber sale work and prescribed burning (habitat development) are
expected to occur.
• Also in 2023, the fuel mitigation corridor (road) will be completed around the west
boundary of the BLBMA. This contract was awarded in 2022.
Invasive Species and Insects and Disease
Over the past few years, the Department has become more involved in the treatment of invasive
species on the county forest. Invasive species have the potential to alter the ecological relationships
among native species, negatively affect the natural functions and structure of forested ecosystems,
and can negatively impact the economic value of the forest.
Currently, non-native invasive species like spotted knapweed and common buckthorn and native
invasive species like black locust are the most common plants treated on the forest.
Table 20 describes the summary of invasive species treatments on the county forest from 2013-
2022.
Table 20: Invasive Species Treatment Summary
Year Road R.O.W. (mi)1 Hand Treatment (ac)2
2013 0 9
2014 50 15
2015 48.5 13.5
2016 48.5 11.5
2017 52.5 24
2018 42 51
2019 42 13
2020 50 30
2021 44 82
2022 44 85
Average 42 28
1 Spotted knapweed treatment in the Barnes Barrens area.
2 Primarily small isolated patches of buckthorn and black locust.
33
The management of invasives species has been a progressively increasing workload, primarily as it
pertains to hand treatments. In 2022, approximately 85 acres were hand treated, primarily by
Department staff. Of that total, 59 acres were targeting the treatment of buckthorn, 12 acres of
multiflora rose, and 14 acres of black locust. Most of the treatments involved foliar chemical
applications, but stump treatments occurred on stems that were too large to be treated with foliar
spray.
It should be noted that, to date, most hand treatments are targeting infestations that generally are
located in isolated and fairly widely distributed patches (in other words, the acres treated in 2022
were not blanketed with a sea of targeted invasive species). Some patches contain higher levels of
density and require more intensive treatments.
Unfortunately, additional outbreaks are discovered every year and will most likely require more
resources to control. As a means to address future workloads, the Department completed an initial
inventory of known problem areas/infestations in 2022. Goals of the inventory are to better define
the extent of infestations and potential demand on resources, as well as to develop a working
management plan that will, in part, address future needs and workloads. Work on the invasive
species management plan will commence in 2023.
In 2015, the Department received a $37,500 Sustainable Forestry Grant for the initial treatment of
spotted knapweed on 48.5 miles of forest roads in the Barnes Barrens Management Area. Herbicide
was used to treat spotted knapweed in the first attempt to reduce further spread into the barrens.
The project focuses on roads that are the most heavily infested, but more still needs to be done.
This grant helped to kick start the program, which will require additional inputs in order to keep the
problem in check.
Starting in 2018 a few segments of road were removed from the treatment area, as spotted
knapweed management in those areas was successful. Rather than treat all roads every year,
another goal of the program is, once under greater control, to treat only those sections were
knapweed has developed or expanded.
A total of 44 miles were treated in the BBMA in 2022. While the total number of miles treated has
remained relatively consistent, the amount of chemical required to address spotted knapweed has
declined by over 50%, from 8.5 gallons in 2015 to 2 gallons in 2022 (which equates to roughly 6
ounces/mile or 1 ounce per acre). The cost per mile has also decreased significantly during that
same timespan, from $750/mile in 2015 to $197/mile in 2022.
The expectation is that some roads will need multiple treatments before the infestation is under
control. Follow-up treatments will also be required to reduce the potential for spread. As
knapweed becomes more manageable, it is also anticipated that less chemical will be required
and/or there may be an opportunity to alternate treatment years. Additional roads may also need
treatment and will be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Oak Wilt. In 2018, three cases of oak wilt were confirmed on the Bayfield County Forest. Two of
the detections were made in Cable and one in Barnes. Please see the Bayfield County Forest 2023
Work Plan and Wisconsin DNR website for more information on Oak Wilt.
34
As a result of the detection, the infected trees needed to be addressed. After an oak wilt infected
tree or pocket is located and confirmed, guidelines/protocols are adopted that help to determine how
the trees/areas will/should be treated. Models or charts that estimate the number of trees located
within potential root grafting distance of a known infection source are applied.
Once the perimeter is established all oak trees within it are double girdled and herbicide is applied
to kill the trees, generally starting at the outside (of the perimeter) and working toward the center.
Once the trees are killed, the oak wilt infected tree(s) are treated. Once all the trees are confirmed
to be dead the uninfected trees may be harvested.
Table 21 below summarizes oak wilt treatments since 2018.
In 2018, a total of 30 red oak trees, including the two infected with oak wilt, were treated as per the
recommended guidelines. Treating the impacted area took one full day with a few staff. Once more
trees are detected, sites may no longer be managed in this manner and may require additional inputs
or contract work (and potentially additional out of pocket expense).
In 2019, 108 trees were treated on six different sites, representing a significant increase in oak wilt
management when compared to 2018. A few infected trees that were treated in 2019, will be felled
and bucked and then either burned or tarped in the spring of 2020.
Covid-19 impacted previously scheduled monitoring efforts as the DNR was unable to fly this area
for new outbreaks. However, the Department performed a few routine drone flights in the Cable
block (near previously identified outbreaks) and did not locate new infestations. While no new
infected trees were treated on county forest land in 2020, Department staff did assist an adjacent
industrial landowner with the treatment of two trees confirmed to have oak wilt.
In 2021, a total of five sites were identified, all in the Cable block of the county forest. The infected
trees were treated with rapid response protocols, then cut and tarped on site. A total of five trees
were treated in this manner. The Department continues to work with the DNR on the monitoring
and treatment of oak wilt across the property.
In 2022, a total of 6 sites were addressed, treating roughly 35 trees. Again, all within the Cable
block of the county forest.
Emerald Ash Borer. Emerald ash borer (EAB) was discovered in Douglas County and, most
Table 21: Summary of Oak Wilt Treatments
Year Total Trees Total Sites
2018 30 2
2019 108 6
2020 0 0
2021 5 5
2022 35 6
Total 36 4
35
recently, in Sawyer County, our neighbors to the west and south. As a result, those counties have
been quarantined, meaning, in general, there restrictions on the movement of wood. To date, EAB
has not been discovered in Bayfield County. However, based on current locations, discovery in
Bayfield County is inevitable. In general, ash contributes less than 0.5% of annual stumpage
revenues and is present, as a dominant forest type, on less than 1.0% of the county forest.
The large purple traps often seen along major roadways, intended to help monitor for and locate the
presence of EAB, are no longer being administered by DATCP or APHIS.
Since 2019, the Department has installed numerous purple traps at various locations on the county
forest where ash is a significant component (a total of 9 different locations each year). To date, all
traps have been negative for EAB.
However, in March 2022 EAB was officially confirmed in Bayfield County. In anticipation of
eventual EAB confirmation, the Department has prioritized the re-inventory of all ash dominated
stands to determine the next course of action. This included identifying stands that will be
prioritized for regeneration harvests and/or associated reforestation actions.
As previously stated, the demand for ash is low, which is exacerbated by the usual operating
conditions (frozen ground only). As a result, timber sales that are dominated by ash are a challenge
to sell, making the silvicultural objectives difficult to accomplish. The Department will also
continue monitoring for EAB (purple traps) in 2023.
Land Transactions
The Department will continue efforts to acquire 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 and/or areas possessing special or unique natural
resource values. All acquisitions are typically enrolled in County Forest Law and managed as part
of the County Forest.
On occasion, the county will also divest of land. Divestment is typically only considered if the land
in question will be put to a higher and better use and will provide greater benefits to the citizens of
Bayfield County. All divestments need to be approved by the Forestry and Parks Committee and
the County Board. Also, before land is formally divested, it first needs to be withdrawn from
County Forest Law (CFL). Requests for withdrawal are submitted to and reviewed by the DNR.
County forest land cannot be divested until a request for withdrawal has been approved by the state.
Table 22 summarizes all County Forest Law (CFL) entries (acquisitions) and withdrawals
(divestments) from 2013-2022.
36
Since 2015, the Department has made a few significant land transactions. In December 2014, the
Department received preliminarily approval for two Knowles-Nelson Stewardship County Forest
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 were added to the county forest in 2015.
Under the current Stewardship model, 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 (which included 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 2016, the Department acquired 200 acres of land, formerly owned by the Wisconsin DNR, near
Mt. Ashwabay, in the Town of Bayfield. The property was purchased entirely with county funds at
a total of $130,650 (or roughly $659/acre). The transaction took a little longer to finalize and was
officially transferred in 2017.
When combining the land purchased in 2016/2017 and the properties made part of the 2015
Stewardship project, the Department added a little over 2,800 acres to the county forest.
In June 2018, the Department submitted another large Stewardship acquisition project, utilizing
portions of county owned properties as a match. The original application included the purchase of
1,110 acres from Ceres Timber, for the appraised value (subsequent grant value) of 181.25 acres of
county owned lands, and 3,040 acres of the Bibon Swamp (for a total of 3,221.25 acres of match
Table 22: County Forest Law (CFL) Entries and Withdrawals
Year Entries1 Withdrawals2 Net Change
2013 40.00 4.25 35.75
2014 40.00 0.00 40.00
2015 2,601.80 0.09 2,601.71
2016 0.00 3.36 -3.36
2017 200.00 90.20 109.80
2018 0.00 82.71 -82.71
2019 3,731.25 0.10 3,731.15
2020 30.00 222.78 -192.78
2021 0.00 362.57 -362.57
2022 161.00 706.49 -545.49
Total 6,804.05 1,472.55 5,331.50
Average 680.41 147.26 533.15
1 Land added to the county forest, typically via purchase, donation, trade or tax delinquency.
2 Land removed from the county forest, typically via sale or trade.
37
lands). In addition, the county would contribute $66,000 in cash. In total, the project was valued at
roughly $1.322 million.
The application was pre-approved by the DNR, but received an objection from the Wisconsin Joint
Finance Committee (JFC). After much discussion with members of the JFC, it was determined that
the objection was raised primarily due to the amount of wetlands being used as a match. To reach a
compromise with the JFC, Bayfield County completely removed the Bibon Swamp from the project
and submitted a revised application. The revised application was re-submitted in October 2018. As
a result, the total size of the project was reduced significantly.
The revised application reduced the potential total acres purchased from 1,110 to 510; the total
acres used as a match decreased from 3,221.25 to 181.25; the total acres included as part of the
grant (acquisition and match) decreased from 4,331,25 to 691.25; the total value of the project
decreased from about $1.322 million to roughly $667,000; and the total amount of cash required as
part of the match increased from approximately $66,000 to around $153,000.
The acquisition was completed in March 2019. As part of the approved project, Bayfield County
was required to enroll the Bibon Swamp in CFL, without compensation. In other words, the county
did not receive match value for the property, but still had to enroll it in CFL (like all other
properties included in the project).
A total of 510 acres was purchased from Ceres Timber for $630,000. The county was awarded a
Stewardship grant in the amount of $485,775 to help purchase this property. To cover the
applicant’s share of the project costs, the county contributed the appraised value of 181.25 acres of
county owned land (which was included in the Stewardship grant) and $153,250 in cash (proceeds
from the land sales to Red Cliff). A total of 691.25 acres of land will be enrolled in CFL, in
addition to the 3,040 acres of the Bibon Swamp (the swamp will be enrolled as special use). After
subtracting the 160 acres sold to Red Cliff (which were removed from CFL) a net grant total of
3,571.25 acres was added to County Forest Law in 2019.
In 2020 and 2021, a total of 572.78 acres was sold to Red Cliff, for a combined value of $837,000.
Proceeds from these sales are being held in a non-lapsing land acquisition account and will be re-
invested in replacement lands. Also in 2020, a 30 acre parcel was purchased (for $15,000) with
partial funding from DNR snowmobile trail aids. This property contains a quarter mile of
designated snowmobile trail and roughly half of an existing snowmobile trail bridge. The 30 acre
property was also enrolled in CFL.
In 2022, a 160 acre parcel was donated to the county. The parcel is located in the Town of Port
Wing and was donated by the Eleanor Schoenfeld Becker Trustees. Also in 2022, a roughly 1 acre
parcel was purchased for $2,500 in the Town of Barnes. This parcel is located adjacent to East
Eight Mile lake and has roughly 150’ of shoreline frontage. Both parcels were enrolled in CFL.
In 2022, the following parcels were withdrawn from CFL:
1. Red Cliff: 706.49 acres were withdrawn from CFL and sold to the Tribe for $1.0
million. These were the remaining parcels of county forest land located within the
reservation, thus completing the repatriation of such lands to the Tribe. See table 23
below for a summary of transactions.
38
In 2022, Bayfield County continued to collaborate with the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa (Red Cliff) regarding the repatriation of county owned lands located within the
reservation. Since 2017, the county has sold a total of 1,439.27 acres of county forest land to Red
Cliff. See Table 23 below for a summary of each sale:
All proceeds from these land sales will be re-invested in replacement lands, enrolled in CFL and
managed as part of the county forest. As of early 2023, Bayfield County is in the process of
completing two large (and one smaller) land acquisition projects that, when finished, will add nearly
3,800 acres to the county forest.
The Department continues to work with various partners (primarily the Trust for Public Land
(TPL), Wisconsin Coastal Management and Landmark Conservancy) on the development of grant
applications for the purchase of replacement lands. Currently, the following three projects are in
development, all at different stages in the process:
1. Towns of Bayfield and Bell: approximately 2,001 acres. Sand River Headwaters
acquisition project. TPL has purchased the property and is Have secured an ARPA and
Community Forests Grant. Also recently secured a NOAA grant. Total project value is
roughly $2.57 million. Expected to be completed in May 2023;
2. Town of Bell: approximately 160 acres near Lost Creek Falls. Recently completed the
purchase of this property in partnership with Landmark Conservancy. Stewardship and
WI Coastal grants were awarded. Total cost was roughly $243,000. Property will be
enrolled in CFL in 2023.
3. Town of Clover: approximately 1,580 acres. Bark River Headwaters acquisition
project. This project was completed in February 2023. Total cost was nearly $1.028
million. Property will be enrolled in CFL in 2023.
ROADS AND RECREATION (on the County Forest)
The Forestry and Parks Department maintains nearly 1,300 miles of roads and trails on the forest.
These roads and trails provide a plethora of recreational opportunities. Some of the more popular
pursuits include: hiking, hunting, mountain biking, snowmobiling, ATVing, cross country skiing,
dog sledding, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, firewood gathering and more.
Table 23: Summary of Land Sales to Red Cliff
Year Acres Value
2017 80 $80,000.00
2018 80 $80,000.00
2020 222.78 $315,000.00
2021 350 $522,000.00
2022 706.49 $1,000,000.00
Total 1,439.27 $1,997,000.00
39
Primary Roads
Approximately 38 miles are classified as primary gas tax roads, which receive maintenance funds
from the Wisconsin DOT (based on $351/mile, but prorated depending on total miles enrolled in the
program). These roads serve as primary access routes into portions of the county forest. A few of
these roads located in the Towns of Barnes and Hughes also play an integral role in the wildfire
protection plan.
The Department performed routine annual inspections on every mile of primary road to monitor for
both road quality and invasive species in 2021. The Department, with assistance from the DNR,
also performed annual routine maintenance on the rights of way for each primary road.
Maintenance usually is in the form of mowing, but can also include herbicide, if encroaching
vegetation is unable to be mowed. A total of nearly 32 miles of primary road right of way was
mowed in 2022. Routine grading of the Flag Road also occurred in 2022. This also included a
significant level of gravel and shouldering work, which was accomplished with assistance from the
Highway Department. Numerous other roads also incurred some minor routine maintenance in
2022, including erosion repair west of Jammer Hill Rd, as well as portions of the Webster-Moore
Rd fuel break road.
Town Road Aids and Other Town Payments
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). All projects are selected and administered by the Department.
Table 24 summarizes the total Town Road Aid Program in 2022.
Table 24: 2022 Town Road Aids Award Summary
Town Funding Amount Project Location
Barnes $6,750.00 West Church
Bayfield $6,750.00 Various
Bayview $4,500.00 Whiting
Bell $5,000.00 South Stone
Cable $2,750.00 Frels
Clover $4,000.00 Lenawee
Highland $4,000.00 Motts
Hughes $6,000.00 Various
Iron River $3,500.00 Ruth Lake
Namakagon $1,000.00 Old Grade
Orienta $2,000.00 East Sorenson
Port Wing $3,000.00 Almstead
Russell $4,500.00 Peterson Hill
Tripp $6,250.00 Various
Total $60,000.00
40
Starting in 2013, Bayfield County increased the funding level to 2% (with a cap of $80,000). As a
result, $80,000 annually has been made available to Towns. Of the 30 County Forests in the State
of Wisconsin, Bayfield County is the only one to offer this unique additional source of funding. In
early 2019, the Forestry and Parks Committee voted to increase this funding and also remove the
cap. However, because of the decrease in stumpage revenue, a total of $65,717 was made available
in 2021 and $60,000 in 2022.
Once again, all Towns submitted solid projects. Most projects revolve around the purchase of
material i.e. gravel, but some include culverts and equipment rentals. The average award amount
was nearly $4,500. The program has been very well received, with many town roads seeing
significant improvements and providing much better access to county forest lands.
In addition to the Town Road Aid program, Townships receive other revenues due to the presence
of county forest lands within Town jurisdictions. As per County Forest Law, the county is required
to distribute at least ten percent of total net stumpage revenues, that are generated from the
management of the county forest, to each Township (that contain county forest lands).
The distribution of funds is prorated and based solely upon the total amount (percentage) of acres
located within each Town. Townships also receive an annual payment from the state. Termed
PILT (payment in lieu of taxes), each Township receives $0.63 per acre for every acre of county
forest land (the PILT payment was increase from $0.30 to $0.63/ac starting in 2022).
Table 25 displays the total amount of revenue distributed or awarded to the Townships as a result of
containing county forest lands.
In 2022, the total 10% stumpage revenue sharing payment from the county was $467,909. This
represented an increase of nearly 22% when compared to the amount distributed in 2021. Prior to
2013, towns received an average annual total payment of roughly $220,000. When combining the
Table 25: Total Annual Payments to Townships
Year 10% Timber Sales Town Road Aids1 DNR PILT2 Total
2013 $390,410 $28,264 $51,434 $470,108
2014 $453,483 $80,201 $51,434 $585,118
2015 $499,306 $72,837 $51,434 $623,577
2016 $504,200 $85,267 $51,598 $641,065
2017 $500,990 $67,034 $51,598 $619,622
2018 $456,224 $81,700 $51,598 $589,522
2019 $417,166 $71,500 $52,725 $541,391
2020 $362,579 $85,750 $52,725 $501,054
2021 $385,229 $65,717 $52,725 $503,671
2022 $467,909 $53,000 $109,927 $630,836
Avg.$443,750 $69,127 $57,720 $570,596
1 Town Road Aids increased in 2014 and 2020.
2 Payment made by the DNR based on $0.63 per acre of county forest land in each Township
41
10% payment, the Town Road Aids and the DNR PILT payment, a total of nearly $631,000 was
distributed to the Townships in 2022. This was an increase of over 25% when compared to 2021.
As previously stated, Townships receive a PILT payment from the state. Since the late 1980’s, this
amount was $0.30/acre. In 2021, the PILT payment was increased to $0.63/acre. The increase in
payment went into effect starting with the CY22 distribution.
Recreation - Events and Use Agreements
The county forest is used for a variety of recreational purposes. Non-motorized uses such as cross-
country skiing, mountain biking, hunting, trapping, hiking, nature watching and dog sledding are
extremely popular. Motorized uses such as snowmobiling and ATVing are also very popular. The
demand for recreational use on public land is increasing every year.
Recreational events have traditionally been a big part of that increasing demand. Every year,
numerous events are hosted on county forest land. All organized events required a permit, which is
approved by the Forestry and Parks Committee.
However, nearly every event that has traditionally occurred on county forest land was cancelled in
2020, primarily as a response to Covid-19. A few of the early winter events were held as per
normal, but nearly all events from March 2020 through the end of the year were cancelled. Many
events resumed in 2021, though many remained cancelled as a response to Covid-19.
Table 27 displays the number of recreational use permits per recreation type that were approved
since 2015. All approved permits were for events that utilized a portion of the Bayfield County
Forest.
In addition to daily general recreational use, trails on the county forest also play an integral role in
numerous popular organized events. Such events include, but are not limited to, the American
Birkebeiner, Apostle Islands Sled Dog Race, Chequamegon Fat Tire Festival and the Cable Area
Off-Road Classic mountain bike race.
Table 27: Summary of Approved Events1
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Mountain Biking 7 7 6 8 7 0 5 8
Cross Country Skiing 6 5 7 9 9 4 7 8
Running 3 4 4 3 3 0 2 4
Dog Sledding 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
Orienteering 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
Other2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2
Total 18 17 19 22 24 7 16 23
1 Includes events, clinics and similar organized activities.
2 Includes snowshoeing and ski-joring events.
Type of Event Number of Events per Year
42
Prior to 2020, the Forestry and Parks Committee approved an average of about 21 organized events
annually. A similar amount was approved in 2020, however, most were cancelled due to Covid-19.
The request to host events resumed in 2021, though a few remained cancelled. A total of 16 events
were approved in 2021. Requests returned to pre-Covid levels in 2022, as 23 events were approved.
Mountain biking and cross-country skiing are generally the most common types, with a vast
majority of events occurring in the Cable block. These events bring numerous participants and
spectators to the area and are excellent examples of multiple use. The number of requests for
mountain bike and cross-country skiing events has increased steadily over the past decade.
The Department also maintains land and/or recreational use agreements with a variety of
organizations, some of which include: the American Birkebeiner Association, Chequamegon Area
Mountain Bike Association (CAMBA), North Country Scenic Trail Association, North End Ski
Club, Ashwabay Outdoor Education Foundation (AOEF), National Fish Hatchery, Town of Barnes,
Bayfield County Snowmobile Alliance, Trails North ATV Club, Iron River Area Chamber of
Commerce, and more.
In general, the use agreements highlight specific areas or trails within the forest and outline
management or use requirements expected from each organization. Use requests are treated on a
case by case basis and require approval from the Committee. Department staff regularly meet with
permit holders regarding trail maintenance, timber sale activities and other recreation related
concerns or issues.
Table 28 displays the approximate miles of designated roads and trails currently located within
county forest boundaries.
In addition to designated trails, the county forest offers an abundance of recreational opportunities
on roads and trails that are not designated for a specific use (i.e. signed and maintained by friends or
use groups). For example, of the approximate 1,300 miles of roads and trails on the county forest,
Table 28: Summary of Desinated Roads and Trails
on Bayfield County Forest Land (miles)
Road or Trail Type Total Miles
Primary Road 38
Secondary Road 1,239
Road & Trail1 56
Unclassified Road 0
Snowmobile Trails2 108
ATV Trails2 42
Cross Country Ski Trails 42
Mountain Bike Trails 41
Hiking Trails 17
Dog Sled Trails 70
1 Where a designated trail is located on a secondary road.
2 Does not include trails located on town roads, other public lands or private lands.
43
approximately 44% can be traveled with a licensed highway vehicle, roughly 73% with an off-
highway vehicle (i.e. ATV,UTV) and over 90% with a snowmobile. In addition, all are open to
hiking and virtually all are open to mountain biking, horseback riding and cross-country skiing.
The Department staff works closely with all permitted recreational user groups on the establishment
and/or maintenance of trail systems. Recreational use agreements with organized clubs (as
described above) continue to be pursued at every opportunity.
In 2021, the Department began the process of developing a County Forest management plan for the
Mt. Ashwabay Special Management Area for Recreation (SMA). This plan was completed in 2022
and is located on the Forestry and Parks Department website.
Recreation - Non-Motorized (managed by the Department)
Recreational trails, whether motorized and part of the state funded system, or non-motorized and
part of a designated network, are an integral and important component of any forest management
program. Over the past few years, the Department has emphasized the importance of recreation,
incorporating efforts to maximize, or better capture, the recreational potential of the forest,
including the construction of the three rustic yurts. At nearly 176,000 acres and spread out over the
length of Bayfield County, the county forest provides, or has the potential to provide, a plethora of
recreational opportunities.
All trails are open to most forms of non-motorized use, but only a small portion are actually
designated and maintained for a specific form of recreation. Trail conditions can also be highly
variable. Of those that are maintained for designated uses, most are managed through
partnerships/agreements with non-profit organizations, and some are maintained directly by the
Department.
Currently, there are two major areas of the county forest where non-motorized recreation is more
organized and intensive. These areas are the low-motorized blocks in Cable and near Mt.
Ashwabay. In these areas, the Department has developed strong partnerships with numerous non-
profit organizations on the designation and maintenance of the trails.
• Cable Area. The Chequamegon Area Mountain Bike Association (CAMBA) is responsible
for the development and management of over 300 miles of mountain bike trails within the
region. This includes trails located on the Bayfield County Forest, Sawyer County Forest
and Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest, in addition to some privately owned lands.
In the Cable block of the Bayfield County Forest, CAMBA maintains approximately 23
miles of sustainably built singletrack mountain bike trails and an additional roughly 11 miles
that occur on logging roads, railroad grades or similar features. These trails connect to those
located on the Chequamegon Nicolet National Forest and Sawyer County Forest to form one
of the most extensive mountain bike networks in the nation. CAMBA maintains a
recreational use permit with the Department that describes the partnership and how trails are
maintained or developed on the Forest. Routine maintenance work and minor trail
improvements occurred in 2022.
44
Numerous mountain bike related events are hosted on trails located within the county forest
in the Cable area. Some of the most popular include: CAMBA hosts the Festival of Trails;
the Cable Area Chamber of Commerce hosts the Cable Area Off-Road Classic; Life Time
Fitness hosts the Chequamegon Fat Tire Festival; and the American Birkebeiner Association
hosts the Fat Tire Birkie (in the winter). All of these events are extremely popular and bring
thousands of riders and spectators into the area.
Also in the Cable block, the North End Ski Club and American Birkebeiner Association
(ABA) maintain cross country ski and snowshoe trails on the county forest. Some of the ski
trails utilize the same portion of ground as the bike trails. Snowshoe trails are also
maintained on most of the single track trails. The North End Ski Trail network totals
roughly 21 miles on county forest land, while the snowshoe network is about 4 miles. Both
organizations maintain recreational use permits with the Department. Fat bike trail (big
tired mountain bikes) are also gaining in popularity. In 2022, a more miles of trail were also
groomed for fat bike use. Maintenance work and minor trail improvements also occurred in
2022.
The North End Ski Club also maintains a warming cabin, outhouse and storage building on
county forest land. The cabin and outhouse are open for public use. The storage building is
used to house much of the gear and grooming equipment required to maintain the trails.
They also host numerous cross country ski events including their flagship North End Classic
race.
The American Birkebeiner Ski Foundation (ABSF) maintains roughly three miles of the
famed Birkie trail on county forest land. They also maintain a newly constructed
warming/storage building and privy. The world famous American Birkebeiner cross
country ski race, as well Prince Haakon and Birkie tour ski events are all held on county
forest land. The ABSF also hosts other events, including various running events and the Fat
Tire Birkie (see above).
Recreational Use Agreements for ABSF and CAMBA will be updated in 2023. The Rec
Use Agreement for North End Ski Club will most likely also be updated in 2023, so that all
groups are current and placed on the same timelines.
• Mt. Ashwabay Area. In the northern portion of the Forest, the Ashwabay Outdoor
Recreation Foundation (AOEF) and Bayfield Nordic maintains an extensive network of
cross country ski and snowshoe trails, in part, on county forest land (also on county land not
part of the county forest i.e. Jolly Trails). Trails are groomed for classic or skate skiing.
AOEF hosts numerous events (both summer and winter events) on the trails including: the
Peel Out 5k Run; WinterDASH running event; and a Fat Tire Expo/Time Trial. In addition,
numerous other groups host events on these same trails, including CANSKI’s Summit Cross
Country Ski Race. The Bayfield and Washburn school districts have also used portions of
the trails for various ski and running meets.
In 2018/2019, the Department worked with AOEF to construct a new section (loop) of cross
country ski trail that connected to an existing network. The connection totaled a little less
than one mile, with roughly 0.65 miles of new construction and about 0.25 miles on existing
45
logging roads. In exchange for some maintenance work on the cross country ski trails,
AOEF helps groom access routes into each yurt (ski trail passes are also included for each
yurt rental).
In 2020, the Department worked with AOEF to improve sections of the Ashwabay trail
system (Deer Path). This involved regrading and re-aligning sections of existing trail and
installing culverts to facilitate better drainage at two separate locations.
Recently, a branch of CAMBA (CAMBA North) was formed to develop a mountain bike
trail network, primarily on county forest land located near Mt. Ashwabay. In 2011, the
Department approved CAMBA’s proposal to construct up to 30 miles of new singletrack
mountain bike trails on county forest land.
In 2018, approximately 4.5 miles of new singletrack trail was constructed, partially funded
with budgeted county capital monies. All new construction occurred on county forest land.
A trailhead parking area was also constructed on county forest land, off Whiting Road, to
provide another access point to the trail system (the primary parking area is located off Ski
Hill Road).
To date, roughly 19 miles of sustainably built, single track mountain bike trails have been
constructed, roughly 18 miles of which is located on county forest land. The 4.5 miles that
were constructed in 2018 essentially marked the completion of the first phase of the project.
Many of these trails are also being maintained in the winter for fat tire mountain bike use.
In 2020, the Department worked with CAMBA to expand the parking area/trailhead at the
Whiting Road location. This included widening and the addition of material. The
Department also worked with SPARK (Student Pathways to Adventure, Resilience and
Knowledge) on the installation of a porta-potty at this same location. Emergency access
sites were also created, with new gates, at this same location.
A concrete vault bathroom was installed at the Whiting Road trailhead in June 2022, thus
replacing the need for a porta-potty.
Trail counters have been installed at both trail head locations (one off Ski Hill Road and one
off Whiting) as a means to monitor and better understand use patterns. The counter off Ski
Hill Road has been in place since 2015, while the counter off Whiting was installed in 2017.
Table 29 summarizes the total amount of trail uses originating from each trail head location.
46
The trail counters were placed in strategic locations in order to capture as much use as
possible. In general, counters from each trail head are capturing different users. However,
there could be instances where a trail user trips the counter at one trail head and rides a good
portion of the entire system, thus tripping the counter at the other trail head. Trail users
could also access the system from other locations, not serviced by one of the trail heads.
The conventional thought is that such uses are offsetting, resulting in solid use data.
As per Table 29, use of the CAMBA trails at Mt. Ashwabay has increased steadily since
2015, especially with the addition of the second trail head, with a spike during the Covid
influenced years of 2020 and 2021.
Use in 2022 decreased markedly, by roughly 35%. This decrease may be best explained by
some form of post Covid-19 normalization, as well as an increase in similar mountain biking
opportunities in the region.
In addition to the Cable and Mt. Ashwabay areas, designated non-motorized recreational trails
and/or areas are located on numerous other county owned properties (on county forest lands, as well
as non-CFL properties). Some of the more popular designated trails include the North Country
Trail, Jerry Jolly Trails, Lost Creek Falls Trail and the newly acquire Swenson Forest
Preserve/Siskiwit Falls property.
• North County Trail. Approximately 8 miles of the North Country Trail travels within the
county forest. These trails are maintained by local chapters of the Association. In 2018,
North Country Trail volunteers completed a roughly 1.4 mile relocation of the trail between
Banana Belt Road and Pero Road, south of Iron River. This re-route moved the trail off an
older logging road and through a forest of younger aspen. A total of roughly 1,400
volunteer hours went into the relocation. The NCT association also maintains two rustic
campsites on county forest land near the trail. One campsite is located near Erick Lake and
the other is located near Morris Pond.
Table 29: Trail Counter Summary - CAMBA Trails
Mt. Ashwabay Location1
2015 3,543 0 3,543
2016 3,965 0 3,965
2017 3,293 1,485 4,778
2018 4,068 1,615 5,683
2019 2,570 3,211 5,781
2020 3,506 4,462 7,968
2021 3,058 4,367 7,425
2022 2,092 2,802 4,894
Avg.3,262 2,243 5,505
1 Number of individual uses per trail head location.
Ski Hill Rd.
Access
Whiting Rd.
Access TotalYear
47
• Jerry Jolly Trails. Some additional work was accomplished on the Jolly trails in 2019. A
broken timber mat, used on the trail to cross a minor wet area, was repaired in 2019 (using
salvaged timbers that were removed from the docks in the City of Bayfield). Some
additional gravel was placed on the access road, parking area and portions of the trail. Work
also began in 2017 to re-evaluate the Jolly network to determine current uses, the intensity
of those uses, the condition of existing infrastructures and explore future direction
options/potential. Trail counters are installed at the trail head or primary access point of the
Jolly network to help determine the amount of use the system receives. A small foot bridge
was repaired in 2021.
Numerous trail improvement projects were completed in 2022, in part with assistance from
Bayfield Area Trails (BATS) and their volunteers, including the installation of a new bridge
and boardwalk, tread improvements and brushing. Similar general maintenance activities
are expected to continue in 2023, including additional trail and sign work.
Table 29a summarizes the total use at Jolly/Pike’s Creek since 2018.
With the exception of 2019, use at Jolly/Pike’s Creek has been fairly consistent over the past
five years. Use in 2022 was very similar to the Covid influenced seasons of 2020 and 2021.
• Lost Creek Falls Trail. Upgrades to the Lost Creek Falls trail began in 2015.
Accomplishments over the past five years, include, but are not limited to: over 1,600 feet of
new hand built trail; nearly 1,300 feet of new boardwalk, some with hand rails; nearly 40
feet of new foot bridges; nearly 1,000 feet of gravel on new and existing trail surfaces;
upgrades to and expansion of the trail head parking area; installation of new trail signs and
markers; installation of a new informational kiosk; removal or trimming of potentially
hazardous or threatening trees; and the installation of location/directional signs on County
Highway C. To date, the total cost of improvements has been just under $60,000.
Table 30 summarizes the total use of the Lost Creek Falls trail, from the Trail Dr. trail head
location, since 2016.
Table 29a: Trail Counter Summary
Jolly/Pike's Creek
Year Number of Users
2018 1,234
2019 676
2020 1,439
2021 1,433
2022 1,333
Avg.1,223
48
The amount of use at Lost Creek Falls continues to impress. Presumably, the massive
increase in use in 2020 and 2021 was significantly influenced by Covid-19 and the resulting
surge in outdoor recreation. Total use in 2022 decreased by nearly 40%, but was still nearly
double the pre-Covid usage.
The average use of the trail has increased from about 2 users per day prior to improvements
(averaged throughout the year) to nearly 30 users per day in 2022. The exceptional amount
of use has also created the need for additional maintenance.
Since 2016, a counter has been installed on the trail near the trailhead as a means to monitor
use. Actual use would most likely be a little higher as the counter only monitors access
from the primary parking area off Trail Drive. The falls are also accessible from the
snowmobile trail off Klemik Road, which is not captured by the counter and still attracts
some users looking to approach the falls from a different way.
More boardwalk and/or gravel will be needed on the Lost Creek Falls trail in the future to
minimize pressure on the landscape, while continuing to provide an enjoyable and
sustainable hiking trail.
In 2019, an $11,000 Recreational Trails Program (RTP) grant was awarded for various trail
construction/rehab work on the Lost Creek Falls trail. These are federal funds administered
through the DNR. A 50% project match is required and was budgeted in 2020. However,
most capital projects were temporarily frozen to address budget concerns involving Covid-
19. The project was completed in 2022 and primarily addressed a few wet areas on the trail,
as well as steps/stairs, or similar access features, to the river. However, some funds still
remain and will be used to touch-up portions of the trail this spring.
In 2021, the Department worked with the Highway Department and the Town of Bell to
upgrade the existing parking area and establish an overflow parking lot. The existing cul-
de-sac located at the end of Trail Drive was improved to allow parallel parking. Parking
congestion has been one of the most pressing issues at this very popular location.
Table 30: Trail Counter Summary
Lost Creek Falls1
Year Number of Users
2016 6,327
2017 7,193
2018 5,468
2019 5,105
2020 14,648
2021 16,562
2022 10,298
Avg.9,372
1 Number of individual users from Trail Dr. trailhead.
49
Numerous projects were completed in 2022, including:
1. Installation of a new concrete vault style restroom facility near the primary parking
area off Trail Dr. The restroom was installed in June 2022.
2. Steps were constructed from the trail to the stream.
3. A picnic area and boardwalk were constructed a short distance from the steps to the
falls.
4. Minor trail improvements, including sign installation were also completed in 2022.
Additional trail improvement projects are anticipated in 2023, including addressing
excessive tread wear, which will likely involve the placement of gravel; addressing
unauthorized and unsustainable user created trails, likely with signs and barriers; and new
signs and kiosk materials. There is also an opportunity to investigate the potential for the
development of new hiking trails that could provide additional options for those looking for
a longer hike.
• Lake Access Projects: in late 2020, the Department complete what is expected to be the first
of many improved lake access projects. The first was Perch Lake, a small, roughly 21 acre
lake located in the Town of Bell. In general, the goal of a lake access project is to improve
public accessibility to the water feature. Generally involving an improved motorized access
road and parking area, an informational kiosk and a new or improved non-motorized access
path to the lake. At Perch Lake, an existing access road was improved, as was a small
parking area. An informational kiosk and sign markers were installed in 2022. An
additional walking path and/or picnic table may also be installed in the future, depending on
use pressure. A similar lake access project was completed near Bismarck Lake in Iron
River. A kiosk and sign markers will be installed at this location in 2023. Other lake access
projects currently being considered include: Pine, Richardson, and Carroll.
• Swenson Forest Preserve/Siskiwit Falls. In 2018, with much assistance from the Bayfield
Regional Conservancy (now Landmark Conservancy), Bayfield County acquired roughly
103 acres of land in the Town of Bell, adjacent to the Siskiwit River. The property was
purchased with a NOAA CELCP grant (administered by Wisconsin Coastal Management)
and matching funds from donations and landowner bargain sales (all secured by the
Conservancy).
Bayfield County ultimately agreed to accept ownership of the property (the Siskiwit River
Estuary Protection project, as titled in the grant) for primarily two reasons: 1) in recognition
of the unique and exceptional natural resource values contained throughout the parcels,
including numerous waterfalls on the Siskiwit River, as well as ecologically significant
forests and wetlands, and agreed that these values should be protected and conserved; and 2)
in recognition of the current public use values and future potential of the property, as
individuals and families have enjoyed recreating on these parcels for generations.
As part of the acquisition, the county also agreed to receive and administer the NOAA
CELCP grant. The overall goal of the grant was to provide permanent protection and
conservation of the ecological, recreational, historical and aesthetic resources of this unique
site.
50
The grant award was in the amount of $186,841 for land acquisition and $7.932 for
construction/infrastructure costs (i.e. parking lot development, access road improvements,
signs, etc). These funds required a match from the recipient. A combination of the grant
funds, donations received by Landmark Conservancy and a bargain sale from the
landowners were used to purchase the property. The total cost of the acquisition was a little
over $305,000 (including all associated fees, taxes, survey work, etc.).
By accepting these funds, the county was mandated, by the terms of the grant, to manage the
property in a manner that will preserve the qualities of these values. In addition, eventually
a conservation easement with the Conservancy will be recorded on this property. This
easement will further require the county to ensure the protection and conservation of these
various important resources. The entire property was re-zoned to W Conservancy in 2018.
Some of the major goals accomplished since 2019 include:
• Primary Parking Lot Development. Located on the east side of the river. This area will
serve as the primary trail head/entry to the property.
• Secondary Parking Lot Development. Located on the west side of the river. This area is
intended to serve as the primary access point to the falls located across the road. Having
two parking areas should reduce the amount of foot traffic on Siskiwit Falls.
• In 2019, two $30,000.00 grants, an Acquisition and Development of Local Parks
(ADLP) Knowles-Nelson Stewardship grant and a Wisconsin Coastal Management grant
(NOAA), were awarded to the Department. Funds from each grant will be used to repair
and improve the existing fisherman/hiking trails located adjacent to or near the Siskiwit
River. The funds will also be used to purchase signs and informational kiosk materials.
• A short hiking trail was mowed in the old hay field. This was accomplished via a
partnership with the Town of Bell. The Town also mows the parking areas in the
summer and plows the access road to the primary parking area in the winter.
• In 2020, planned trail improvement work located on the east side of the river was
completed, including: widening and armoring (adding gravel) the existing tread;
removing hazard trees; brushing the trail corridor; creating a new switchback trail on the
northern most end of the trail; adding steps near the Town Road; and installing a short
boardwalk on a wetter portion of the trail. In addition, a few signs/markers were also
installed.
• In early 2021, an elevated boardwalk was constructed over a wet and narrow portion of
the existing trail. This boardwalk was the major last piece needed to stabilize the
existing fisherman trail located along the river.
• In summer 2021, Landmark Conservancy hosted a celebration event in honor of the
previous landowners and those who contributed to this project. As part of that event, an
informational kiosk and numerous interpretive signs were installed.
• Also in 2021, roughly 1 acre of the old apple orchard located along the eastern most
portion of the property was treated. The Highway Department used an ASV with
brush/mulching attachment to remove thick underbrush. This allowed direct access to
roughly 60 apple trees. These trees will be part of a rehabilitation project slated for
2023.
• The Department is working with Chequamegon Audubon to install and maintain
51
numerous bird and bat houses on the property, primarily near the meadow, east of the
river.
• The Department is also collaborating with the WDNR regarding the restoration of the
old roughly 7 acre meadow, with the goal of establishing and maintaining a native
prairie. The first site preparation prescribed burn is expected to occur in 2023.
• Some of the more noteworthy accomplishments in 2022 include:
o Installation of a new concrete vault style restroom facility adjacent to the primary
parking area (east side of river). The restroom was installed in June 2022.
o With assistance from the Highway Department, additional trails were constructed
on the west side of the river. These are shorter loop trails, but provide additional
hiking opportunities.
o Also with assistance from the Highway Department, an additional trail was
constructed on the east side of the property, from the meadow and through the
apple orchard. This also included the construction of a small bridge. This work
was accomplished with assistance from Cornucopia Trails Club (CTC)
volunteers.
o The Department entered into an agreement with Bayfield Nordic to groom cross-
country ski trails within the old meadow and the new trail through the orchard.
The meadow was groomed throughout the 2022/23 ski season, but the orchard
loop was determined to be too narrow to facilitate skiing. A trail counter was
installed to monitor use. This information is still in the process of being
summarized, but there was a total of nearly 1,500 uses during the ski season
(which is positive considering each full loop was approximately ½ mile).
o In partnership with the Town of Bell, the town continues to mow near the
parking area and plow snow in the eastern parking area.
• New entrance signs and trail markers were ordered in 2021/2022 and will be installed in
2023. Additional trail work is also planned on both sides of the river.
• For detailed information on future plans for the Siskiwit property, see the 2023 Annual
Work Plan.
Table 30a summarizes the total use at Siskiwit Falls, from access located on the east side
of the river, since 2019.
The trail counter is located on the entrance road leading to the primary parking area on
the east side of the river. As such, it tracks the number of entries into the property,
rather than counting individual uses on the trail.
Table 30a: Trail Counter Summary
Siskiwit Falls
Year Number of Users
2019 1,638
2020 5,899
2021 9,233
2022 6,901
Avg.5,918
52
A total of 6,901 uses were registered in 2022, which was a decrease of roughly 25%
when compared to 2021. The decrease in use is likely attributed to the post-Covid
normalization process. Also, since there is a smaller parking area on the west side of the
river, in conjunction with recent new trail improvements, some of the use that would
have occurred on the east side has shifted there. And there isn’t a trail counter on the
western parking area to monitor use.
Since the trail counter essentially registers vehicles, it’s a little more difficult to quantify
the actual number of people that recreated on the property. However, if assuming an
average of two people per vehicle, a total of nearly 14,000 people visited the property in
2022. The actual number of visitors is likely much higher when considering the amount
of use that occurred on the west side of the property.
• Fire Hill Preserve. In October 2018, the Department once again partnered with Landmark
Conservancy on another potential land acquisition project. The Fire Hill Preserve Project is
located in the Town of Bayfield and contains approximately 104 contiguous acres of forested
land. To purchase the property, the Conservancy and Department collaborated on the
development and submission of a Wisconsin Coastal Management land acquisition grant
application (Landmark also submitted a Stewardship grant application).
If awarded, the grant would cover 40% of the cost of acquisition, with the applicant required to
pay the remaining 60%. As part of required applicant match, the Conservancy has secured
funds through donations and other grants (Stewardship), as well as a bargain sale from the
current landowner, to cover the entire amount. The total project was estimated to cost nearly
$226,000, with little to no out of pocket expense from the county.
In December 2019, the county was awarded the Wisconsin Coastal Management grant. On
December 27, 2019, the project officially closed. In early 2020, ownership of the Fire Hill
property was conveyed to Bayfield County. Little work has been accomplished on the property
since the initial purchase
Throughout 2023, the Department will begin the process of developing short and long term
goals and objectives for the property (while collaborating with the Conservancy and Wisconsin
Coastal Management, as well as the Town of Bayfield).
In general, the property will be managed as part of the county parks program. Most likely as a
day use facility, with excellent potential for non-motorized recreational opportunities. The
property is extensive, is located in an area that is frequented by a lot of people (situated in the
middle of orchard/berry farm country within the Bayfield Peninsula) and contains an excellent
existing road network for primary accessibility (most of which is paved).
A new entrance sign for the property was purchased in 2022 and will be installed in 2023 or
whenever the best location for the sign is determined.
Please refer to the 2023 Work Plan for more information on plans for Fire Hill.
53
There are numerous other organized recreational events and/or activities that utilize portions of the
county forest. For example, Iron River Chamber hosts the increasingly popular Northern Pines Sled
Dog race, which almost exclusively utilizes trails on county forest land located in the Town of Iron
River. Every year, the Department works closely with all user groups on the maintenance of and/or
improvements to existing trails.
Periodically, new trails or re-routes are also addressed. All are treated on a case by case basis, with
larger projects needing Committee approval. Groups are also informed of current or future timber
sale activities located adjacent to or in the vicinity of designated trail networks. Occasionally, slight
timber sale modifications may be incorporated into the sale design, and are treated on a case by case
basis. The Department is also incorporating trail counters on some of the more significant
recreation networks with the goal of better understanding use. Information obtained from the
counters will also be very beneficial for future planning and development efforts.
Recreation - Yurts
During the summer of 2016, two yurts were constructed on county forest land. One yurt was
constructed in the Cable area and one near Mt. Ashwabay (now named Evergreen – it’s green in
color). In late summer of 2018, a third yurt was constructed, a little north of the first one located
near Mt. Ashwabay (named Terra Cotta – reddish clay in color).
Table 31 summarizes the rates of occupancy and total net revenues per yurt from 2016-2022.
In 2020, all three yurts were temporarily closed through a portion of March and nearly all of May in
response to the Covid-19 pandemic (for a total of about 40 days each). In addition, throughout the
month of May and into June, the yurts were occasionally closed to allow for more thorough
cleaning and resting in between reservations. As a result, each yurt was closed for a total of about
65 to 70 days throughout CY 2020. Not surprisingly, there was a slight decrease in total occupancy
rates at both Bayfield locations. In contrast, occupancy rates actually increased at the Cable
Table 31: Yurt Occupancy (Nights Rented) and Total Net Revenue1
Occupancy Net Revenue Occupancy Net Revenue Occupancy Net Revenue Occupancy Net Revenue
2016 42 $2,369 0 $0 15 $838 57 $3,207
2017 269 $15,641 0 $0 168 $9,905 437 $25,545
2018 260 $14,841 30 $1,712 180 $11,452 470 $28,006
2019 255 $15,982 238 $16,115 167 $10,357 660 $42,454
2020 208 $13,754 214 $14,151 194 $11,897 616 $39,801
2021 318 $21,415 329 $21,870 236 $16,133 883 $59,418
2022 258 $18,732 259 $19,105 172 $13,432 689 $51,269
Total 1,610 $102,733 1,070 $72,953 1132 $74,014 3,812 $249,701
Avg. (3 yr)261 $17,967 267 $18,375 201 $13,821 729 $50,163
1 The following fees/taxes apply to each reservation: Airbnb 3%; State sales tax 5.5% (Airbnb started collecting state sales tax in 2018);
Cable room tax 4% (only at Cable location); Bayfield room tax 6.5% (only at Bayfield locations).
2 The Bayfield - Evergreen location went live on October 8, 2016.
3 The Bayfield - Terra Cotta location went live in September 2018.
4 The Cable location went live on November 12, 2016.
Bayfield - Evergreen2 Cable4
Year TotalBayfield - Terra Cotta3
54
location, primarily due to the stronger demand for outdoor recreational opportunities (and the fact
that the occupancy rates in Cable had traditionally been much lower than those at both Bayfield
locations).
In 2021, occupancy rates were at an all-time high, far surpassing the Covid influenced 2020 season,
but also exceeding the pre-Covid season of 2019. However, as expected, there was a slight decrease
(roughly 14%) in occupancy in 2022, likely due to post-Covid normalization. Even so, the total
revenue collected in 2022 was the second highest total to date at $51,269.
Occupancy of the Terra Cotta and Evergreen yurts were nearly identical in 2022, at 259 and 258,
respectively. A total of 172 nights were rented at the Cable location. This represents occupancy
rates of 71%, 71% and 47%, respectively.
An average of 3 to 4 people stay at the yurt as part of each reservation. Using an average of 3.5
people per night and 517 nights rented, combined, in 2022 a total of roughly 1,800 people stayed in
the Bayfield yurts and recreated on the surrounding county forest.
Occupancy at the Cable yurt has traditionally been much lower than that experienced at Bayfield
locations. Using the same average rate of occupancy as the Bayfield location, at 3.5 people per
night and 172 nights, in 2022 a total of over 600 people stayed in the Cable yurt and recreated in the
surrounding county forest.
When combining all yurt locations, a total of 689 nights were rented in 2022. This represents an
average combined occupancy rate of roughly 63%.
As part of the process, the yurts are subjected to taxes (state, local and room taxes), as well as fees
from Airbnb. Airbnb charges a flat rate of 3% per transaction. Airbnb now also collects state and
local taxes (which are now paid by the renter, as part of the total fee associated with renting a yurt).
The room tax for the Town of Bayfield is 6.5% and the room tax for the Town of Cable is 4%.
For more detailed information on the yurts, please see the 2023 Work Plan.
PARTNERSHIP WITH THE DNR
In accordance with s. 28.11, the DNR oversees the county forest program. As per that partnership,
the DNR provides an abundance of professional, technical and financial assistance to counties
having lands entered in the county forest program. As part of the technical assistance, the DNR
allocates a total of 46,000 hours, statewide, to counties having lands enrolled in the county forest
program.
The amount of technical assistance (termed “time standards”) dedicated to each county is
determined through a fairly complex formula. Past, present and future workloads are incorporated
into the formula to determine the level of assistance required by each county.
Timber sale establishment, reforestation, regeneration monitoring, reconnaissance, timber sale
administration, road and trail maintenance, as well as time associated with certification, work
planning, various meetings, other professional services, and all associated paperwork (and more) are
55
all part of the calculation. If the total request from all counties exceeds the roughly 46,000 hour
annual threshold, a general proration is adopted to equally adjust the final figure accordingly.
Time standards were re-calculated in Fiscal Year 2023 (in CY 2022). On the Bayfield County
Forest, the annual time commitment allocated by the DNR to the county, after the pro-rate is
applied, was calculated at 4,271 hours (time standards were pro-rated to 3,640 hours per year from
FY 2020-22). The significant increase in hours was a direct reflection of the growth in various
forest management programs that occurred over the past five+ years, including, but not limited to:
timber sale establishment, timber sale administration, reforestation, regeneration monitoring
(including CRS), forest reconnaissance (compartment and stand inventory), invasive species
control, and increases in prescribed fire associated with barrens management.
As part of the annual time commitment, the DNR provides assistance in a variety of areas,
including, but is not limited to:
1. Establishment of timber sales. Roughly 20% to 25% of the annual sustainable harvest goal
is accomplished by DNR foresters.
2. Forest reconnaissance (both compartment and stand updates).
3. Forest stand data entry (WisFIRS, see below) and maintenance.
4. Continuous Forest Inventory (CFI) plot sampling/data collection.
5. Regeneration monitoring, both artificial and natural.
6. Timber stand improvements (TSI).
7. Timber sale administration.
8. Mechanical site preparation for natural regeneration.
9. Mechanical site preparation for artificial regeneration.
10. County forest road and trail construction and maintenance.
11. Road right of way and wildlife (game) opening mowing/maintenance.
12. Prescribed burning.
13. Support from professional forest management specialists, including forest hydrologists,
wildlife biologists, forest ecologists, forest health specialists, GIS specialists, etc.
14. Support, manage and administer the county forest group certifications, for both SFI and FSC
(both forest certificates are administered by the DNR through a group format).
15. Assistance in the development and maintenance of the comprehensive land use and annual
work plans.
16. Function as a catalyst for the transfer of technology and professional or scientific
information, as well as providing opportunities for training or enhancement.
17. Financial support through various grants, aids and loans.
FOREST CERTIFICATION
The Bayfield County Forest is dual, third party certified (as part of the Wisconsin County Forest
Program group certificates, which are managed by the DNR). For the past ten plus years, the
Department has maintained forest certificates with both SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative) and
FSC (Forest Stewardship Council). The DNR maintains all aspects (administratively and
financially) of both the SFI and FSC group certificates.
56
The standards, principles and/or strategic direction of each non-profit, independent forest certifying
body are developed by their respective board members and staff, which include representation from
conservation organizations, academia, tribal entities, family forest owners, private forest
landowners, public forest landowners and the forest products industry. Each certifying organization
is further structured into three sectors (SFI) or chambers (FSC), incorporating environmental, social
and economic components. This diversity reflects the wide variety of interests in the forest
management community.
As part of certification, the county forest management program is audited annually against the strict
standards, guidelines and principles of each independent organization. To date, every year,
Bayfield County has either met or exceeded each standard.
In August 2019, Bayfield County was one of four counties selected for a full re-certification audit
(Douglas, Ashland and Barron were the other three counties).
The results of the audit were nearly perfect. Both SFI and FSC issued zero corrective actions
(neither major nor minor) and reported zero opportunities for improvement. The county forest
program received numerous accolades and commendations. All of which is extremely rare in a full
re-certification audit and a reflection of a high quality forest management program administered by
Bayfield County.
In 2022, as part of the routine annual certification audit for both SFI and FSC, the Wisconsin
County Forest program received minor opportunities for improvements (OFI’s) regarding special
site designations and describing high conservation value forests (if applicable). The DNR will be
working with the WCFA to best address these opportunities for improvement.
Maintaining forest certification isn’t a mandate. The Department invites each certifying entity to
analyze and scrutinize our management of the forest. We ask them to subject our forest
management practices, plans and principles to their strict, rigid and dynamic internal standards,
principles and guidelines. Maintaining one certificate, let alone two, is a significant commitment
and demonstrates the county’s desire to assure the public that we have some of the best managed
forests in the country. The Department will continue working with each independent certifying
body, as well as the DNR.
The results of the audit also help to solidify and to reaffirm that the county forest is sustainably
managed, not only to the standards and expectations of those auditing and overseeing the program,
but also to the professional principles and values exhibited and demanded by all staff members
within the Department. Bayfield County continues to maintain dual certification through both FSC
and SFI.
This collaboration will help to ensure that the county forest is sustainably managed, not only to the
standards and expectations of those auditing and overseeing the program, but also to the
professional principles and values exhibited and demanded by all staff members within the
Department.
57
FOREST CARBON PROJECT
Forest Carbon Assessments and Marketing
The County Forest provides an important ecosystem function in the form of carbon sequestration, or
the uptake and storage of carbon in trees, shrubs, vegetation and associated wood products. The
carbon sink in forests and wood products helps to offset sources of carbon dioxide released into the
atmosphere i.e. as created by activities such as deforestation, forest fires, and fossil fuel emissions.
Awareness of, or emphasis on, carbon sequestration has evolved over time, especially as concerns
regarding a potentially changing climate and subsequent negative impacts have commanded more
attention.
Sustainable forest management practices, such as those currently prescribed by the Department, can
increase the ability of the forest to sequester atmospheric carbon, while still producing and/or
enhancing other core ecosystem services i.e. timber products; recreational opportunities; wildlife
habitat; improved soil and water quality. Harvesting and regenerating forests can also result in
improved net carbon sequestration in wood products and new forest growth, especially when
compared to other alternative land uses. Interest in forest carbon sequestration projects has also
increased, as entities explore options or opportunities for climate change mitigation.
Over the past few decades, carbon markets have emerged as one option to address climate change
related concerns. The voluntary retail carbon market continues to evolve, especially as an
increasing number of individuals, governments, companies, and similar entities pledge and/or seek
to reduce their carbon footprints or become carbon neutral.
In response to the various (and often significant) commitments to reduce carbon dioxide emissions,
carbon is now a priced and valuable environmental commodity in the global marketplace, with
offsets available for purchase within the carbon markets. By allowing the broader public to engage
in climate protection, the voluntary market has the potential to further advance societal awareness of
carbon emissions, the potential impacts of climate change and the significance of consumer action
and/or behavior.
Data regarding carbon sequestration is collected as part of the CFI program. Information from the
CFI program can be used to develop, assess and analyze carbon stocks and trends on the County
Forest (or carbon accounting). Carbon stock and trend information, in conjunction with other
similar assessments on forest carbon, can help the Department better understand the correlation
between carbon storage, previous management practices and disturbance impacts.
In February 2021, Bayfield County officially approved moving forward with a forest carbon
offset/marketing project that would involve most of the county forest (roughly 158,000 acres), but
only if it was determined to be a good fit with the current mission of the Department, and it didn’t
conflict with County Forest Law. After both contingencies were satisfied, in early April 2021,
Bayfield County entered into an agreement with Bluesource, LLC (now called ANEW) to help
develop, register, verify and administer the project.
ANEW will assist the county in all aspects of the carbon project including, but not limited to:
development, listing, inventory (a total of 446 CFI plots and associated data will also be used as
58
carbon inventory plots), growth and yield monitoring, verification, registration, maintenance,
administration, and marketing. The agreement with ANEW will be for the first 10 years of the
project (with an exclusive option to extend), but the terms of use with ACR will be for a 40 year
period.
The results of any forest carbon project could have the potential to alter and/or modify certain
approaches or strategies regarding the sustainable management of the County Forest, as determined
by the Administrator and/or Committee. It also has the potential to positively impact the budget.
Depending on the amount of carbon offsets available to market, as well as the price per unit during
the time of sale, Bayfield County could realize a significant new source of revenue.
The carbon project is expected to be fully verified and registered by ACR by June 2023. Once the
project is verified and registered, the first sale from the issuance of carbon credits is expected to
occur in Q3 or Q4 2023. In addition, all expenses associated with the carbon project are addressed
in the payment to the county. As such, there will be no direct, budgeted expenses associated with
this carbon project.
Below are some of the more noteworthy accomplishments in 2022 and anticipated workloads
associated with the carbon project in 2023:
• Project Development and Marketing – Ongoing. The marketing phase has been ongoing
throughout much of 2022 and into early 2023. Marketing will continue to increase as the
project gets closer to completion. The Department is working closely with the ANEW
marketing team on the development of marketing and promotional materials and will
continue to collaborate throughout 2023.
• CFI Plot Re-Measurement – Ongoing. The project reporting period is April 1 through
March 31 every year. As part of the reporting process, the Department is required to
provide information on all significant disturbance related activities throughout the project
area. Disturbance can include timber harvests, natural events (like wildfire, windstorms,
insects and disease outbreaks, etc), or similar activities where a significant number of trees
have been removed or died. The Department is required to keep track of all CFI plots where
disturbance occurred and report updated information to ACR (through ANEW).
o The total number of CFI plots that will require a re-measurement is expected to be
around 20 to 25 per year.
• Third-Party Verification and Site Audit – Completed Summer 2022 (late June/early July).
The project area was audited by a team of ANEW, ACR and third-party contractors to
determine initial compliance. This initial project audit took roughly one week. The project
passed the site audit and, as of early May 2023, was still under final review by ACR.
• Project Registration and Carbon Credit Issuance – In Process. Anticipated Completion by
Early Summer 2023 (June 2023). If the project is determined to be in compliance, it will be
officially registered with ACR. Shortly after the project is registered, carbon credits are
issued and sold.
o Once officially registered, roughly 158,000 acres of the Bayfield County Forest
would be participating in the voluntary carbon market under the American Carbon
Registry (ACR) Improved Forest Management (IFM) program. As of early 2023,
the Bayfield County Forest is still one of the largest public forests in the nation to
participate in the voluntary carbon market.
59
• Carbon Revenue. The first carbon credit payment is expected to arrive in Q3 2023.
• Forest Carbon Offset Reserve Fund (FCOR): Completed March 2023. Throughout 2022,
the Department worked on establishing a plan to re-invest a portion of future carbon returns
in nature, green, or outdoor based projects. The FCOR describes three primary categories
that would be targeted for investment: Forest Management; Recreation; and Land
Acquisition. A total of up to 40% of the first three full carbon offset payments would be
directed to each category as summarized in the FCOR. The Carbon Offset Reserve Fund,
which includes the FCOR, was approved in March 2023.
• Reporting. Ongoing. Routine and regular reporting will also be part of the carbon project.
This will include plot re-measurements (as described above), as well as supporting
documentation as requested by the ANEW and/or ACR.
The project verification and site audit required a significant level of staff time and resources in
2022. Site audits are only expected to occur every ten years, so will not be a significant annual
workload. While the actual annual workloads are still relatively unknown, CFI plot re-measurement
and reporting will become an annual occurrence. Once a full year has been completed, which
would include the marketing and sale of carbon credits, the actual time required to manage the
carbon project will become more clear.
The recognition of forest carbon is yet another important variable to consider when developing
sound sustainable short and long-term management strategies for the County Forest.
PERMITED USES
Permits are issued by the Forestry and Parks Department for events, rights-of-way, timber storage,
private property access, firewood, miscellaneous forest products, and other recreational activities.
Table 32 displays a summary of permits issued on the forest from 2015 through 2022 (a summary of
permitted rec events can be found in Table 27).
Firewood comprises the vast majority of the total permits issued on an annual basis. In 2022, 264
firewood permits were issued, which was an increase of roughly 17% when compared to 2021.
Table 32: Bayfield County Forest Summary of Issued Permits and Approvals
Fire Balsam Christmas Disabled
Wood Boughs Trees Hunting
2015 394 8 5 5 10 18 9 1
2016 331 10 3 4 6 17 10 1
2017 285 19 1 4 7 19 6 1
2018 250 12 2 6 11 23 9 1
2019 284 10 2 5 4 24 4 2
2020 278 11 2 6 5 7 5 1
2021 226 6 3 8 6 16 6 1
2022 264 7 2 9 4 23 2 1
Avg.289 10 3 6 7 18 6 1
Year Cones Access Events Storage
60
Firewood permits are free of charge and are available online. Nearly all of the permit applications
come via the website.
Permits for balsam boughs, Christmas trees and cones were nearly identical to last year. However,
there was a decrease in access permit requests, as well as disabled hunter permits.
The Department is also still in the exploration stages of developing a maple sugaring permit system,
where low/poor quality hardwood stands could be tapped for maple syrup production. A pilot
maple tapping project was approved in 2019, though, due to limited participation and then Covid-
19, was extended through the 2023 season. While there is some potential for an expanded tapping
program, the amount of resources available to develop a more robust program has been somewhat
limited. Work on the development of a maple tapping program will continue in 2023, as time and
resources allow.
Sand and Gravel
Sand and gravel is extracted and sold from county managed pits, to be used on approved municipal
projects. All projects are reviewed and acted upon by the Committee.
The Department maintains two pits on the county forest: the largest one being in the Town of
Bayfield, commonly referred to as the Sand River Pit (which is also were the staging of the Apostle
Islands Sled Dog Race was held); with a smaller one off the end of Tulip Lane, in the Town of
Russell. These pits are primarily used by local municipalities, as well as the Red Cliff Tribe, for the
maintenance of local infrastructure. Over the past few years, the Committee has approved the
temporary storage of power line infrastructure as Xcel Energy continues work on local electrical
grid upgrades.
Table 33 displays the total amount of sand and gravel and revenues received from 2014 through
2022.
All revenue received from the sale of sand and gravel is deposited in a non-lapsing account for
eventual site reclamation activities. This was as per a 5-year agreement with the Towns of Bayfield
and Russell, and the Red Cliff Tribe, for harvesting and crushing material at the Sand River Pit.
Table 33: Sand and Gravel Summary
Year Yards Value
2014 11,000 $16,500.00
2015 0 $0.00
2016 0 $0.00
2017 12,750 $19,125.00
2018 0 $0.00
2019 0 $0.00
2020 0 $0.00
2021 21,398 $20,328.10
2022 0 $0.00
Avg.5,016 $6,217.01
61
There was no mining activity in the pits in 2022. As displayed in Table 33, activity in the pits is
highly variable and generally occurs once every few years.
WILDLIFE HABITAT IMPROVEMENT/MONITORING
Forest openings, dominated by forbs and grasses, are important habitat for a great diversity of
wildlife species. Since the mid 1970’s, numerous, small forest openings have been maintained on
the forest to encourage this diversity of habitat. The openings are relatively small in size (average
about 1 acre) and are spread throughout the county forest (although they are more numerous in the
Bayfield peninsula). Each opening is treated about every five years to discourage encroaching
woody vegetation.
Table 34 displays a summary of the wildlife opening maintenance program, performed on county
forest land, from 2013 through 2022.
In 2022, 60 wildlife openings, covering 62 acres were mowed. While 0 openings were treated with
a mix of chemical and hand cutting. Openings are typically scheduled for maintenance four out of
every five years. It is anticipated that most openings will be mowed in the future, while those
treated with chemical will generally only be considered if experiencing significant encroachment or
presence of invasive species. All work was completed by DNR staff, using a combination of DNR
and county equipment.
In 2008, a breeding bird monitoring project was developed for the county forest. In 2008 and again
in 2009, 350 permanent diurnal and 40 nightjar points were completed. An additional 297 diurnal
and 17 nightjar points were taken in 2010. The remaining portion of the forest was completed in the
spring of 2011. In total, 1,200 diurnal and 200 nightjar points have been taken.
In 2018, the Department contracted with the Natural Resource Research Institute (University of
Minnesota-Duluth) to analyze the bird survey data and develop a functional application that would
utilize the information. The result was the development of a shiny app and summary report. The
Table 34: Summary of Maintained Wildlife Openings on County Forest Land
Mowed Mowed Hand Treated1 Hand Treated1 Total Total
Number Acres Number Acres Number Acres
2013 59 52 63 53 122 105
2014 34 40 48 25 82 65
2015 24 32 50 55 74 87
2016 51 36 47 33 98 68
2017 37 44 46 36 83 80
2018 94 97 19 13 113 110
2019 69 71 18 9 87 80
2020 15 17 37 37 52 54
2021 63 44 20 15 83 59
2022 60 62 0 0 60 62
Average 51 49 35 27 85 77
1 using a mix of herbicide and hand cutting
Year
62
application will be used to measure bird/habitat associations, anticipate how forest management
may influence these relationships and predict general species occurrence. The report also provided
recommendations for future work/analysis. In 2019, the app was in the process of being installed
on county servers. After addressing numerous technical issues, that work was completed in early
2021.
The Department is still periodically working with the DNR and other resource professionals to
assist in additional/supplemental bird and/or other wildlife monitoring projects.
Wildlife Projects in the Barrens Management Areas (BBMA and BLBMA). One related project
involves the use of conspecific attraction to help in the monitoring for the presence of Kirtland’s
Warblers in the Barnes Barrens Management Area. Conspecific playback literally involves the
broadcasting of the primary songs of a species, with the aid of sound equipment, to encourage
individuals to settle in an area.
In 2014, the DNR detected one male Kirtland’s Warbler, with no females or nesting being located.
In 2015, three males were detected, with no females or nesting being located. In 2016, the first
confirmed nesting and successful fledging of Kirtland’s Warblers in Bayfield County occurred in
the Barnes Barrens Management Area (BBMA). All five nestlings successfully fledged. In 2017,
three males were observed (one of those males was a banded 2016 nestling). However, no females
or nest activity was located in 2017. A male and female nested in 2018 and hatched five young.
Unfortunately, the nest failed due to an unknown cause.
In 2019, one banded male returned to the site, but did not locate a female and did not nest. No other
Kirtland’s were observed in 2019. The project was not continued in 2020 due to Covid-19 related
field restrictions. A solitary Kirtland’s was heard singing in 2021, but a nest was never confirmed.
In 2022, field work was designated in another location and did not include BBMA. Some birds
were observed and a nest discovered, but fledgling success was not confirmed.
The Barnes Barrens Area provides excellent potential habitat for the endangered Kirtland’s
Warbler. If breeding success continues and an extensive population begins to develop, this area will
be a prime example of how intensive, sustainable forest management can provide critical habitat for
a variety of rare species.
The Barnes Barrens Area also contains one of the highest populations of sharp-tailed grouse in
Wisconsin. In 2017, partly as an attempt to maintain the genetic diversity of the sharp-tailed grouse
population in the Moquah Barrens, the DNR, in partnership with numerous other agencies, trapped
over 200 birds in NW Minnesota and released 67 of them in the barrens.
One of those birds (a radio collared female) made her way down to the Barnes Barrens Area core
area, promptly established a nest site, mated, laid 10 eggs, and hatched at least six chicks. An
indirect accomplishment through a joint effort of numerous partner agencies with the goal of
maintaining a healthy and genetically diverse population of sharp-tailed grouse.
The Department is currently collaborating with NRRI, the DNR and USFS regarding a sharp-tailed
grouse banding project. Data received from such a project will be used to provide information on
movement within the barrens and how stands are being utilized, on a daily basis, by the birds. The
63
results could also be used to develop new or modify existing forest management strategies within
the barrens, with the goal of optimizing habitat. Work on this project began in 2021 and continued
through 2022. See the Barnes Management Area section above (page 30) for more detailed
information on accomplishments within the BBMA and BLBMA.
The BBMA has been very well received by the professional community. The plan has been viewed
as a ground-breaking model that blends sound, landscape level forest (pine barrens) management,
with the maintenance and development of optimal and perpetual wildlife habitat for a variety of
species, including many of greatest conservation need.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE – GRANTS AND AIDS
Financial assistance plays a major role in helping to achieve annual and long-term objectives.
Table 35 outlines some of the major grants and aids awarded to the Department over the past decade
(2018 through 2022). Every award listed in the table, with the exception of the Arbor Day and
FEMA grants, has come from the State of Wisconsin.
In 2022, nearly $165,000 was received from the major grants and aids. This was a decrease of
roughly 30% when compared to 2021, primarily due to a significant level of wildlife funding on
one-time projects.
The Sustainable Forestry grant and County Conservation Aids are generally highly variable. Both
are awarded based on the state fiscal year and revenues are received after projects are completed. In
some cases, a project can be completed in one year, with actual re-imbursement received the
following year.
Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average
County Forest Administrator $52,938 $60,704 $67,100 $70,349 $65,860 $63,390
Wildlife Habitat2 $8,058 $20,057 $53,192 $102,395 $21,015 $40,943
DOT Road Aid $11,849 $11,836 $13,327 $13,309 $13,327 $12,730
Sustainable Forestry $0 $4,375 $44,748 $0 $0 $9,825
County Conservation $8,014 $4,235 $0 $0 $4,558 $3,361
Arbor Day3 $16,336 $0 $5,202 $15,344 $39,252 $15,227
FEMA $0 $96,766 $0 $0 $0 $19,353
GNA $9,393 $41,516 $43,284 $32,014 $20,280 $29,297
Stewardship $0 $0 $2,342 $0 $0 $468
WI Coastal Management $186,841 $448 $93,404 $613 $0 $56,261
Total $293,429 $239,938 $322,600 $234,023 $164,292 $250,856
1 Where awarded funds were received per calendar year.
2 Starting in 2019, includes funds received Wisconsin Habitat Partnership Fund Grant. Starting in 2021, includes funds from the Turkey Stamp grant.
2 In 2020, includes $44,978 from the WI Habitat Partnership grant.
2 In 2021, includes $66,312 from the WI Habitat Partnership grant; $25,847 from Turkey Stamp; and a $2,000 donation from the Sharp-tailed Grouse Ssociety.
3 Also includes similar awards/donations.
Table 35: Bayfield County Forestry and Parks Department Summary of Major Grants and Aids1
64
The Sustainable Forestry grant is also competitive with other county forest programs, and,
therefore, not guaranteed. The Arbor Day grant is privately funded and also competitive. Funding
from this grant covers trees purchased as part of the planting program. Other grants and/or aids are
received within a calendar year, but may not be regularly recurring and, as such, are not included in
the table listed above.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is very sporadic and contingent upon a
disaster declaration. Land acquisition grants from Knowles-Nelson Stewardship and WI Coastal
Management are also awarded irregularly and on a project by project basis. But, when awarded,
both grants have the potential to be substantial. While the Stewardship grant has primarily been
used to purchase land that will be enrolled in CFL, the WI Coastal grant has primarily been used to
assist in the purchase of unique properties with high conservation value. These properties have not
been enrolled in CFL, but are still managed by the Department (primarily with a recreational
emphasis i.e. Siskiwit Falls and Fire Hill).
Additionally, many grants are awarded in a specific calendar year, but full or partial re-imbursement
is not realized until the project is complete. Also, most grants are awarded by state or federal
agencies and are based on the fiscal year, with a contract length of typically two years. Most can
also be extended, without penalty, for another full year. A good example is the Wisconsin Habitat
Partnership Fund grant (Pittman-Robertson funds) that was awarded in 2018. Roughly $51,000 in
grant funds, for work to be completed in the Barnes Barrens, was awarded to the Department.
Work occurred (expenses incurred) in 2018, 2019 and 2020 and the reimbursement funds were
received in 2020.
GOOD NEIGHBOR AUTHORITY (GNA)
In spring 2016, Bayfield County entered into a GNA Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
the DNR. As part of the MOU, the county agreed to become a contractor of the state, with the
ultimate goal of assisting in the establishment of timber sales on federal land.
Program contracts are established with the state on an annual basis and subject to a mutually agreed
upon scope of work. All work performed by the county as part of the GNA MOU is accomplished
outside of normal business hours. As a result, the focus on, and completion of, core Department
goals and objectives are not impacted by the MOU.
The scope of work defines the level of involvement the Department is willing to provide, outlines
general goals and expected accomplishments and establishes an estimated budget. All salary,
fringe, supplies, services and overhead costs, contributed by the county as per the GNA program
contract, are reimbursed by the state.
Table 36 summarizes GNA activity since 2016.
65
The scope of work is also subject to annual revisions and Department involvement is highly
dependent on opportunities located within the Washburn Ranger District of the Chequamegon-
Nicolet National Forest. The scope of work generally involves, but is not limited to: initial stand
assessments; prescription development and writing; timber sale boundary establishment; timber
marking and cruising; timber sale write-up; and timber sale administration.
In 2022, 7 stands covering 357 acres were included as part of the GNA workload, which still
continues to be entirely focused on stands of red pine. In 2022, the workload was skewed more
heavily towards second and third thinnings, which require more time to establish.
Since 2016, a total of nearly 2,500 hours have been attributed towards the GNA program. Again,
these hours are classified as overtime and do not interfere with normal Departmental operations.
Work on the CY2022 program contract will continue in 2023. In addition, the eight GNA program
contract with the state will be developed in early 2023, likely for the management of red pine stands
on the Washburn Ranger District. Starting in 2019, timber sale administration has become a
significant GNA workload. The administration of timber sale contracts increased in 2020 and is
expected to be a significant workload into the foreseeable future.
OTHER RECREATION ACCOMPLISHMENTS (State Funded Motorized Trails)
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 lands, but also includes groomed snowmobile trails on federal and
state lands. To help accomplish this task, Bayfield County maintains agreements with the Bayfield
County Snowmobile Alliance (which is an assemblage of local snowmobile clubs), local ATV
clubs, the US Forest Service and the DNR.
Table 36: Summary of GNA Activities (2016-2022)
2016 2017 15 381 326 $21,033.35 $0.00
2017 2018 20 675 358 $23,960.56 $39,627.93
2018 2019 17 889 365 $24,164.40 $9,393.10
2019 4 2020 52 1,685 490 $38,548.18 $41,515.62
2020 2021 17 520 410 $30,267.16 $43,284.28
2021 2022 16 478 251 $18,538.86 $32,014.38
2022 2023 7 357 250 $15,934.81 $20,279.85
144 4,985 2,450 $172,447.32 $165,835.31
1 Total work assigned per calendar year per GNA contract.
2 Includes hours associated with timber sale establishment and administration.
3 A portion of the revenues are generally received the year after work has been completed.
4 Of the total stands/acres, 17 stands and 634 acres were prescription writing only.
Revenues 3
Total
Calendar
Year
Fiscal
Year
No. of
Stands 1
Total
Acres 1
Total
Hours2 Expenses
66
Table 37 lists the total miles per motorized trails type as per 2022, managed by the Department, as
well as the amount of state maintenance aids received.
The State of Wisconsin provides annual aids for the maintenance of existing motorized trails and
also offers some additional funding opportunities for individual trail rehabilitation and new trail
development projects.
Below are some of the more noteworthy accomplishments on the state funded motorized trails
systems in 2022:
✓ Were awarded a state grant in 2018 to construct a covered shelter on Trail 3 (Flag Road),
near the concrete vault bathroom that was installed in 2017 (also with 100% funding from a
state grant). The grant will cover 100% of the costs. Some preliminary work on the design
of the shelter began in 2019. Construction of the shelter was completed in 2020. The local
clubs coordinated a work day to paint/stain the shelter in 2021. Routine maintenance of the
area continued throughout 2022.
✓ Storm damage clean-up caused by early season heavy snow and wind created issues across
the county and impacted nearly all snowmobile trail networks. Downed trees, bent over
brush, heavy amounts of limbs and other debris needed to be removed from the trails. This
caused nearly $40,000 in additional start-up costs, primarily in labor as clubs scrambled to
clear trails prior to opening.
✓ Re-grade of Trail 13 near the intersection with Trail 19.
✓ Re-grade and repair Trail 19 near the Pub and Grub.
✓ Re-route of Trail 13 near the Sandor property.
✓ Re-route of Trail 31 between Valley Rd and Highway 13.
✓ Fix washout and re-grade on Trail 3 near Flag River bridge.
✓ Continued to work on the temporary re-route of portions of Trail 31 South to avoid stretches
that have become very wet and difficult to freeze down. If the re-route becomes permanent,
additional permits will need to be obtained as there would be new stream and wetland
crossings. In addition, the 40’ bridge currently over the Ounce River would need to be
removed and stored for future use. The goal is to make this route permanent.
✓ Beaver control near various bridges has become an annual activity. A few nuisance beaver
were removed and dams were addressed, in a response to rising water threatening the
integrity of the bridge (and use of the trail). The primary areas were beaver control
measures were required were on Trails 1, 17 and 31.
✓ Multiple bridge re-sets on snowmobile Trails 1 and 31. Primarily as a result of beaver
activity.
Table 37: Mileage and Funding For Trails Managed by Bayfield County
Trail Type Miles Rate/Mile Total
Snowmobile 454.41 $300 $136,323
ATV Summer 86.75 $600 $52,050
ATV Winter 177.13 $200 $35,426
UTV Summer 86.75 $200 $17,350
Total 805.04 $241,149
67
✓ Numerous re-routes of the snowmobile trail system as a result of closure on private lands.
When re-routes are required, the Department works closely with the Alliance to locate
suitable re-routes and collaborate with the landowners. This will continue to be a problem
in the future.
✓ Placement of gravel on numerous sections of ATV trail. Sections are treated as needed and
as reported by the clubs.
✓ Continue to collaborate with the Forest Service on establishing a new access road near FR
447 (which was recently closed at the private property line). The closure of FR447 resulted
in the temporary closure of Trail 40, also known as the Wally Polk Memorial Trail. This
trail will remain closed until a permanent re-route can be established.
When compared to previous years, aside from the significant level of storm damage that occurred
early in the snowmobile season, 2022 was a relatively quiet year in terms of trail related issues.
Bayfield County works with local clubs (both ATV and snowmobile) and the Snowmobile
Alliances to ensure that all trails are in a safe and enjoyable riding condition. All routine or minor
maintenance activities are typically accomplished by the clubs, while most major rehabilitation
projects are administered by the Department.
During any given year, routine maintenance can include the posting/maintenance of signs, brushing,
removal of debris, mowing, grooming, minor washout or rutting repair, grading, placement of
gravel, etc.
Major rehabilitation can include significant culvert washouts, bridge repair, significant damage
occurring as a result of flooding or other major storm event, etc. Addressing concerns or questions
from private landowners (generally regarding trails approved for use on their property) is also a
significant part of managing the motorized programs.
In addition to the state funded trails, the Forest provides numerous opportunities to recreate with a
motorized vehicle. As previously stated, there is a total of nearly 1,300 miles of inventoried roads
and trails on the county forest. Of that total, approximately 73% are accessible with an ATV/UTV
and 44% accessible with a highway vehicle. The county monitors the condition of roads and trails
and performs routine maintenance on a case by case basis.
PARKS & CAMPGROUNDS
In September 2010, the management of all county owned parks and campgrounds were assigned to
the Forestry and Parks Department. This includes the management of three campgrounds (Twin
Bear Lake, Delta Lake and Big Rock) and one day use park (Atkins Lake).
Most of the major improvements have been focused on the two largest and most popular
campgrounds, Twin Bear and Delta Lake. Below is a summary of all major accomplishments, at
Twin Bear and Delta Lake, since the transition.
1. Twin Bear Campground
a. Complete electrical rebuild and upgrade throughout the entire
campground.
b. Repair of all major outbuildings and store.
68
c. New seasonal mooring dock (2017).
d. New transient mooring dock, with steps (2017).
e. Construction of new overflow parking area (2017).
f. Construction of new fenced in storage area adjacent to garage (2017).
g. New pressure tank in the upper well (2018).
h. New well pump in the upper well (2019).
i. Reconstruction of the beach area.
j. New fishing pier near the beach area.
k. New ADA access ramp to the beach area.
l. Creation of new tent camping site.
m. Re-grade of the parking area to control runoff and improve drainage.
n. New gas hot water heaters, for each shower, in the shower building.
o. Installed high-speed wireless internet service throughout the entire
campground.
p. Installed new playground equipment near the beach area.
q. Re-established and re-surfaced the walking path near Puig’s Point.
r. Improved an old dock and added a new access point to the lake.
s. Changed out all locks to the same keyset.
t. Trimming of hazard branches and removal of hazard trees (a little nearly
every year).
u. Replacement of picnic tables (ongoing – a little every year).
v. Numerous other minor improvements throughout the campground.
w. Erosion repair after two significant storms (2020).
x. Removed storm damaged slide from the play area (2020).
y. Remove tree from and repair the roof on the shower building (2020).
i. Repair included a new metal roof.
z. Powered vents added to the shower building (2020).
aa. Temporarily installed security cameras in response to a theft of property
occurrence (2020).
bb. A new fishing dock was installed at Puig’s Point in 2021.
cc. New entrance signs were order in 2021 and will be installed in 2022.
dd. Cabin re-stained (2022).
ee. Cabin porch and entry ramp repaired (2022).
2. Delta Lake Campground
a. Complete camping pad re-grade on nearly all campsites.
b. New playground equipment near beach area.
c. Removed old access boardwalk near the playground and replaced with
graveled path (2017/2018).
d. Minor repairs to the beach area (2017 and 2018).
e. New fishing pier.
f. Repair of all major outbuildings.
g. New electric added to last four remaining powerless campsites.
h. A small timber sale was established to remove all dead and dying hazard
trees. Mostly over mature white birch and aspen.
i. Installed high-speed wireless interest service throughout the entire
campground.
j. Added another mooring dock/fishing pier and small picnic area.
69
k. Installed another section on additional mooring dock.
l. Replaced hot water heater in the shower building.
m. Changed out all locks to the same keyset.
n. Minor maintenance on the wooden access ramp.
o. Re-located the fee tube due to previous theft related issues.
p. Replacement of picnic tables (ongoing - a little every year).
q. Numerous other minor improvements throughout the campground.
r. Erosion repair after two significant rainstorms (2020).
s. New outhouse (2021).
3. Atkins Lake Park (day use)
a. New boat launch dock (2017).
b. A new primary park sign was installed in 2019.
c. Old fee tube was removed in 2020.
d. Old kiosk was removed in 2021.
4. Big Rock Campground
a. Removed large dead white pine near river (2018)
b. Removed hazard trees and branches/limbs throughout entire campground
(2018).
c. Regraded and surfaced main parking area (2018).
d. Resurfaced a few camping pads (2018).
e. Replacement of roughly one quarter of the picnic tables (2018).
f. A new primary park sign was installed in 2019.
g. New concrete slab around the hand pump in 2020 (6.5’x 6.5’x 3.5”).
h. New kiosk near the fee tube (2020).
In addition to the physical improvements to the parks and campsites, many logistical improvements
have also been made. At both Twin Bear and Delta Lake, seasonal sites have been re-structured in
a way to better capture the value potential in each campground. The reservation system for each
was also adjusted to give all interested an equal chance at reserving a site. Also in 2021, an option
to pay with a credit card was established. This feature was made available at Twin Bear and Delta
Lake starting with the 2022 season and will continue through 2023.
Table 38 summarizes the total amount of occupancy at each campground from 2013 through 2022.
The seasonal category represents the total number of sites that were rented for an entire camping
season (generally the first weekend in May through October 31), while the day use category
represents the total number of days non-seasonal campsites were rented within each campground
over the entire camping season. Total revenues received are also included (total revenues include
seasonal sites, day use sites, boat launching, boat mooring, canoe rentals and other miscellaneous
charges).
70
Covid-19 had a significant influence on the management of all campgrounds in 2020 and 2021. As
a response to concerns surrounding Covid-19, the Department made a significant temporary change
to the way Twin Bear and Delta Lake was managed in both 2020 and 2021. Campsites at both
properties were only available for rent by the season. Transient camping was not permitted at Twin
Bear or Delta Lake in 2020 or 2021. Also, the opening of each campground was slightly delayed to
start the 2020 season to develop Covid-19 management strategies.
The number of seasonal campsites available to rent at Twin Bear and Delta Lake was increased to
achieve an occupancy rate of around 80 to 85%%. In 2020, a total of 35 seasonal campsites were
rented at Twin Bear and 27 at Delta Lake. In 2021, that number was increased slightly, to 37 and
31, respectively.
A “normal” camping structure was implemented in 2022 at both Twin Bear and Delta Lake, which
included the more traditional mix of transient and seasonal camp sites.
Camping returns established another record in 2022. Total camping revenue was nearly $145,000
in 2022, which was roughly 7% higher than 2021 (which was the previous record). Use at Twin
Bear was at an all-time high, with total returns nearly 20% higher than 2021. The transient use at
Twin Bear was also at an all-time high. Similar records of use (for transients) were also established
at Delta Lake and Big Rock in 2022.
In addition to camping, boat launch activity (available at both Twin Bear and Delta Lake, for a fee,
and Atkins Lake, for free) continue to increase. Day use of the playground equipment (available at
Twin Bear and Delta Lake), as well as the beach (again, at Twin Bear and Delta Lake) has also
significantly increased. Total use of the parks, in terms of overnight camping and day-time use of
the grounds, has increased dramatically over the past few years.
Table 38: Campround Rates of Occupancy and Total Revenues (Seasonal and Transient)1
Seasonal Transient Revenue Seasonal Transient Revenue Seasonal Transient Revenue Seasonal Transient Revenue
2013 26 519 $52,018 10 387 $19,950 0 286 $3,524 36 1,192 $75,491
2014 28 539 $53,822 10 388 $19,303 0 303 $3,733 38 1,230 $76,858
2015 17 1,034 $56,835 10 251 $20,176 0 405 $5,118 27 1,690 $82,129
2016 18 876 $57,401 12 298 $25,304 0 491 $6,209 30 1,665 $88,914
2017 19 1,132 $64,617 13 422 $31,705 0 625 $7,689 32 2,179 $104,011
2018 19 1,010 $64,197 15 442 $34,639 0 581 $7,246 34 2,033 $106,082
2019 19 1,058 $68,960 15 503 $39,122 0 513 $6,617 34 2,074 $114,700
2020 35 0 $60,581 27 0 $41,145 0 914 $11,263 62 914 $112,988
2021 37 0 $69,598 31 0 $51,941 0 920 $13,437 68 920 $134,976
2022 23 1,183 $83,488 18 552 $47,153 0 954 $13,893 41 2,689 $144,535
Average 24 735 $63,152 16 324 $33,044 0 599 $7,873 40 1,659 $104,068
Avg. (3 yr)32 394 $71,222 25 184 $46,746 0 929 $12,864 57 1,508 $130,833
Avg. (5 yr)27 650 $69,365 21 299 $42,800 0 776 $10,491 48 1,726 $122,656
1 Seasonal represents the total number of campsites rented for an entire season; Transient is a summary of the total number of days
non-seasonal campsites were rented at each campground.
Year Twin Bear Delta Lake Big Rock Total
71
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTATION AND PARTICIPATION
Most staff members of the Department are active members, representatives or participants in
various professional committees or organizations. Participation can vary from casual interactions to
formal representation. Some of the more noteworthy over the past few years include:
1. Member of a Committee that updated the Economics chapter of the WDNR Silvicultural
Handbook – Steve Probst.
2. Assisted in the Log-A-Load for Kids program – Steve Probst.
3. Member of the BMP for Water Quality monitoring/compliance team – Steve Probst.
4. Member of a Committee that updated the Jack Pine chapter of the WDNR Silvicultural
Handbook – Andrew O’Krueg.
5. Member of the WDNR Tree Marking Guidelines Ad Hoc Team – Jeremiah Neitzel.
6. WCFA representative on the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts, Forestry
working group – Jason Holmes.
7. Member of the WNDR Natural Regeneration Ad Hoc Team – Mike Amman.
8. Member of the Captive Cervid Committee – Mike Amman.
9. Forestry stakeholder representative on the Wisconsin County Deer Advisory Council
(CDAC) – Mike Amman.
10. Member of the WDNR Sharp-tailed Grouse Advisory Committee – Mike Amman.
11. WCFA Representative on the WDNR Recreation Stakeholders Committee – Jen Bratsch.
12. Core Member of the Bayfield Area Trails (BATs) Committee – Jen Bratsch.
13. Renewed MSHA Certification – John Mesko.
14. Maintained Herbicide Applicators License – Jeremiah Neitzel.
15. Maintained FAA license to operate drones – Mike Amman, Jason Holmes, Jen Bratsch and
Steve Probst.
16. Presenter(s) at one stop of the Natural Resources Board tour (in Cable) – Jason Holmes and
Mike Amman. Focus of the discussion was on an overview of the Bayfield County Forest,
summary of recreation in Cable, challenges associated with forest management and
recreation, deer and continuous forest inventory.
17. Presenter at the WI SAF Annual Conference in Wausau – Jason Holmes. The focus of the
presentation was regeneration monitoring and deer browse issues.
18. Presenter at a meeting of the Northern Area GIS User Groups – Jason Holmes.
19. Guest Presenter at Northland College – Jason Holmes. Discussion of forestry and the
county forest system during a Forestry class.
20. Presenter at a Wisconsin Woodland Owners Association meeting in Hayward – Jason
Holmes. Adapting forest to climate change.
21. Presenter at a Northern Forest Birds Workshop in Ashland – Andrew O’Krueg. Overview
of the Barnes Barrens Management Area.
22. Presenter at MN SAF Conference – Andrew O’Krueg. Presentation of the Barnes Barrens
Management Area.
23. Presenter at the Wisconsin Sharp-tailed Grouse Society Annual Meeting in Red Cliff –
Andrew O’Krueg. Summary of the Barnes Barrens Management Area.
24. Presenter at the Wisconsin Wildlife Society conference. Ruffed-grouse research and policy.
Mike Amman. (in 2020).
25. Forestry Representative on the DNR Sharp-Tailed Grouse Advisory Committee – Mike
Amman (2022).
72
26. Presenter at WI Chapter of the Wildlife Society Meeting – Presentation on Barrens
Management and Sharp-Tailed Grouse – Mike Amman (2022).
27. Presenter at WI Sharp-Tailed Grouse Society Meeting – Mike Amman (2022).
28. Presenter at Bayfield County Forest Barrens Field Tour – Andrew O’Krueg and Mike
Amman (2022).
29. Demonstration of Oak Wilt Treatments with Rec Groups and Industrial Landowners –
Jeremiah Neitzel.
30. Wisconsin Academy Focus Group Participant – Jason Holmes (2022).
31. Forest Certification, Carbon and Climate Change – Michigan State Online Course – Caleb
Brown (2022).
32. Demonstration of Tree Planting at Washburn Elementary School – Andrew O’Krueg.
33. WCFA/Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science (NIACS) Climate Adaptation
Workshop – All field staff (2022).
34. Presenter(s) during the full dual forest recertification audit – the entire Department staff.
35. Hosted professional tours of various forest management activities on the county forest,
including, but not limited to, numerous visits to the two deer exclusions fences; the Barnes
Barrens Management Area; and red oak regeneration site visits.
36. As part of professional development, all staff members attend various meetings, conferences
and technical training sessions throughout the year, including those arranged and/or hosted
by the WCFA, SAF, WDNR and other similar organizations.
37. WCFA/WisFIRS Pesticide Training – Tester – Jeremiah Neitzel.
38. Innovation Award. In 2020, the Department was the recipient of the Wisconsin Society of
American Foresters (SAF) Innovation in Forestry Award. SAF is the national, scientific and
educational organization representing the forestry profession in the United States. The
Innovation award is presented annually to a project, team, or an individual to recognize
excellence in silvicultural innovation, transfer of knowledge, and/or outreach for the purpose
of furthering sustainable forest management in Wisconsin. Mike Amman and Jason Holmes
accepted the award during the annual Wisconsin SAF meeting (which was held virtually in
2020).
39. Forest Stewardship Guild Meeting Presentation (2021) – Andrew O’Krueg. Presentation
about barrens development and management.
40. University of Minnesota – Sustainable Forests Education Cooperative Presentation (2021) –
Andrew O’Krueg. Presentation on pine and barrens management.
MEET THE STAFF
The information listed above describes the general Departmental accomplishments for CY 2022.
Below is a brief background history of Department and DNR staff employed to accomplish those
goals (that were part of the Department in CY 2022).
Administrator: Jason Bodine.
a. Experience: Forester with Bayfield County from 2000 to 2009. Administrator from 2009 to
present.
b. Highest Level of Education: Master of Science in Forestry from Michigan Technological
University.
c. Primary Role: administers and manages all aspects of the forestry, parks and recreation
programs. Directs day to day operations and all planning efforts. Supervises all employees
73
working within the Department.
Assistant Administrator: Steve Probst.
a. Experience: Forester with Bayfield County from 1999 to 2000. Assistant Administrator
from 2000 to present.
b. Highest Level of Education: Bachelor of Science in Forest Management from UW Stevens
Point.
c. Primary Role: assist the administrator in all facets of the forest management program.
Provides lead field role in all aspects of timber sale administration.
Forester: Mike Amman.
a. Experience: Forester with Bayfield County from 2003 to present.
b. Highest Level of Education: Bachelor of Science in Natural Resources from UW Madison.
c. Primary Role(s): timber sale establishment, forest reconnaissance, reforestation and
regeneration monitoring and database management (GIS and WisFIRS). Assist in other
aspects of the forest management program.
Forester: Andrew O’Krueg.
a. Experience: Forester with Bayfield County from 2010 to present.
b. Highest Level of Education: Bachelor of Science in Forest Management from UW Stevens
Point.
c. Primary Roles(s): timber sale establishment, forest reconnaissance, reforestation and
regeneration monitoring and database management (GIS and WisFIRS). Assist in other
aspects of the forest management program.
Forester: Jeremiah Neitzel.
a. Experience: Forester with Bayfield County from 2011 to present.
b. Highest Level of Education: Bachelor of Science in Forest Management from UW Stevens
Point.
c. Primary Roles(s): timber sale establishment, forest reconnaissance, reforestation and
regeneration monitoring and database management (GIS and WisFIRS). Assist in other
aspects of the forest management program.
Forester: Caleb Brown.
a. Experience: Forester with Bayfield County since 2018.
b. Highest Level of Education: Master of Science in Forest Biology from Purdue University.
c. Primary Role(s): timber sale establishment, forest reconnaissance, reforestation and
regeneration monitoring and database management (GIS and WisFIRS). Assist in other
aspects of the forest management program.
Inventory and Analysis Forester: Jason Holmes.
a. Experience: Forester with Bayfield County from 2012 to 2018; Inventory and Analysis
Forester from 2018 to present.
b. Highest Level of Education: Master of Science in Forestry from Michigan Technological
University.
c. Primary Roles(s): develop and manage the CFI and FRM programs, including data analysis
and reporting; provide a lead role in the management of the access management program;
play a lead role in the management of various GIS databases; assist in other field forestry
related tasks including timber sale establishment, inventory, and reforestation.
Recreation Specialist: Jenifer Bratsch.
a. Experience: Recreation Forester with Bayfield County from 2016 to present.
b. Highest Level of Education: Master of Science in Physical Geography from the University
of Calgary.
74
c. Primary Roles(s): assist in the management of state funded ATV and snowmobile
programs, all recreation related activities on county forest lands, including all designated
non-motorized trails and yurts, and county owned campgrounds and day use parks.
Recreation Specialist: Lindley Mattson.
a. Experience: Office manager with the Forestry and Parks Department from February 2019-
April 2022; Recreation Specialist since April 2022.
b. Highest Level of Education: Bachelor of Science in Business Management from UW River
Falls.
c. Primary Roles(s): assist in the management of state funded ATV and snowmobile
programs, all recreation related activities on county forest lands, including all designated
non-motorized trails and yurts, and county owned campgrounds and day use parks.
Forest Technician: John Mesko.
a. Experience: Forest Technician with Bayfield County from 2001 to present.
b. Primary Roles(s): heavy equipment operation, road and trail maintenance, repair and
construction, parks maintenance, assist in the timber sale program, assist in the reforestation
program.
Office Manager: Cassie Taylor.
d. Experience: Office manager with the Forestry and Parks Department since April 2022.
e. Primary Roles(s): maintains accounts receivable and payable, prepares vouchers for all
expenditures, manages all accounts and paperwork associated with the timber sale program,
manages and prepares all financial records, statements and reports, provides customer
service.
WDNR – County Forest Liaison Forester: Joseph LeBouton.
a. Experience: WDNR - County Forest Liaison Forester from 2011 to present.
b. Highest Level of Education: PhD candidate in the Department of Forestry at Michigan State
University for five years where he studied links between forest landscape composition,
white-tailed deer densities and northern hardwood forests.
c. Primary Roles(s): coordinating the DNR’s contribution to Bayfield County Forest
management activities. The DNR provides the county with enough forest management
assistance annually to set up 25% of the sustainable harvest, perform roughly 50% of the
required forest reconnaissance updates, as well as contribute to road maintenance, forest
improvement activities, prescribed fire, and wildlife habitat improvement projects.
For DNR use only:
DNR Application ID: Date Application Received:
September 2022
Landowner Enrollment Program: County Forest
Application
1. All County Forests are eligible to enroll regardless of size or the presence of special habitat
features (known roost trees or hibernaculum).
2. Submit form and necessary documentation to the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (DNR).
A. Applicant Information
Applicant Type (check one)
☒ County Forest
County Name1
Bayfield County
Mailing Address
117 East 5th Street, PO Box 445
City
Washburn
State
WI
Zip
54891
Email
jason.bodine@bayfieldcounty.wi.g
ov
Phone
715-373-6114
Primary Point of Contact Name
Jason Bodine
Phone (primary)
715-373-6114
Phone (secondary)
B. Location of Forestlands to be Enrolled
County:
Bayfield County
☒ Digital files showing all parcel boundaries and County forestlands to be enrolled is available in
WISFIRS.
Lake States Forest Management Bat Habitat Conservation Plan
Landowner Enrollment Program Application
For DNR use only:
DNR Application ID: Date Application Received:
September 2022
C. Description of Forestlands to be Enrolled
List total acres of forestlands to be enrolled. (Note: Acres enrolled do not have to total the acres of
the entire property; however, all acres enrolled must be forested.
Indicate type and percent of forestlands to be enrolled.
Total Forested Acres: 158,913 acres (See attached WISFIRS Report 101)
1. Type of forestlands (check all that apply):
☒ Deciduous and mixed forest types;2 estimated percent of total forestland acres = 75%
☒ Coniferous forest types;3 estimated percent of total forestland acres = 25%
- See attached WISFIRS Report 102
2. Any other relevant information:
2 Deciduous and mixed forest types are dominated by the following tree species: oak/pine, oak/hickory,
maple/beech/birch, aspen/birch, other hardwoods, and elm/ash/cottonwood.
3 Coniferous forest types are dominated by the following tree species: red/jack pine, spruce/fir (upland and lowland),
other eastern softwoods, Scotch pine and Norway spruce, aspen/birch, and exotic hardwoods (tree of heaven, princess
tree, Norway maple, and Siberian elm).
Lake States Forest Management Bat Habitat Conservation Plan
Landowner Enrollment Program Application
For DNR use only:
DNR Application ID: Date Application Received:
September 2022
D. Estimate of Covered Activities on Enrolled Lands
Provide estimated acreages over the next 5-year period, as well as over the permit duration (e.g.,
the time between enrollment and 2072), on which covered activities will occur. DNR understands
that these acreages are estimates and could change but requests a “best guess” based on past
experience. DNR will use the information provided below to determine the total level of take
coverage to issue to the landowner via the Landowner Agreement and Certificate of Inclusion. The
take allocation provided in the Landowner Agreement and Certificate of Inclusion will be binding
for the duration of the permit term unless the agreement is terminated or modified. Note, DNR has
a finite level of take coverage that can be allocated to landowners. As a result, DNR will evaluate
each request for take coverage against the total allocation and determine, on a case-by-case basis, if
the program can extend take coverage to the applicant. If DNR is unable to allocate enough take
coverage to an applicant, that landowner may be encouraged to seek take coverage from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service on their own. For this reason, DNR requests that the landowner makes
every attempt to estimate the take coverage need as precisely as possible.
Timber Harvest and Related
Forest Management Practices
(acres)
Estimated Maximum
Acres over 5-year
Period
Maximum Total Acres over
Entire Permit Term (2022–
2072)
Even-aged Harvest – Removing live
trees through clearcuts,
shelterwood, or seed tree
management.
See attached WISFIRS
Report 201
See attached WISFIRS Report
201
Uneven-aged Harvest – Removing
one live tree at a time (single-tree
selection) throughout the stand, or
by removing small clusters of live
trees (group selection).
See attached WISFIRS
Report 201
See attached WISFIRS Report
201
Salvage Harvest- Removing dead,
dying, or damaged trees to avoid
economic loss.
unknown unknown
Total Harvest : 20,500 205,000
Prescribed Fire (acres)
Estimated Maximum
Acres over 5-year
Period
Maximum Total Acres over
Entire Permit Term (2022–
2072)
Prescribed burns and fire breaks 2,500 25,000
Roads and Trails Construction,
Maintenance, and Use a (miles)
Estimated Maximum
Miles over 5-year
Period
Maximum Miles over Entire
Permit Term (2022–2072)
County forest road construction 5 50
Lake States Forest Management Bat Habitat Conservation Plan
Landowner Enrollment Program Application
For DNR use only:
DNR Application ID: Date Application Received:
September 2022
County forest road maintenance 10 100
County forest trail construction 5 50
County forest trail maintenance 15 150
a Temporary county forest road(s) associated with forest management is covered as part of timber harvest and related
forest management practices for all ownership types and should not be included in road estimates. Incidental take
resulting from construction and maintenance of forest roads and trails that are primarily used for forest management
and public recreation are only covered on county lands. Please estimate the total miles of county forest roads and trails
that are expected to require tree removal during the permit term.
Explanation of Acreage Estimates – Optional. For the purposes of estimating coverage, DNR assumes
regular implementation of covered activities (e.g., xx acres every xx years). Please describe below the
implementation of any covered activities that will occur on an irregular basis throughout the permit terms or
if multiple treatments are planned on the same area over time. For example, prescribed fire might occur
during the first 5 years of enrollment and then not again during the remaining permit term. Similarly, another
example to describe here is if you plan on completing a thinning timber harvest followed a few years later by
a clearcut timber harvest.
E. Forest Certification Program
Check all forest certification programs in which land to be enrolled is currently participating. If not
enrolled in any program listed, then check None.
☒ Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
☒ Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI)
☐ American Tree Farm System
☐ None
The Rx burn will primarily involve the Barnes Barrens, Bass Lake Barrens and Barnes Area Fuel Break
maintenance. These areas are burned on a regular cycle (e.g. once every 4 years) and then
repeated. As such, these same areas will be treated numerous times over the next 50 year time
frame.
Also, over the next 50 years, it is anticipated that numerous stands will be thinned and later
regenerated (clearcut). This is standard practice and would occur on numerous stands throughout
the 50 year period, such as red oak, red pine, white pine, and northern hardwood.
Lake States Forest Management Bat Habitat Conservation Plan
Landowner Enrollment Program Application
For DNR use only:
DNR Application ID: Date Application Received:
September 2022
F. Additional County-owned lands to be enrolled
Provide location (maps if possible), acreage and covered activity information for other county-
owned lands you wish to enroll that are not part of the County Forest Law. You may use additional
pages or include information as attachments.
Atkins Lake Park : 1.96 acres
Big Rock Campground: 40 acres
Delta Lake Campground: 39.25 acres
Fire Hill Preserve: 107.49 acres
Jolly Trail Property: 47 acres
Siskiwit Falls Park: 95 acres
Twin Bear Campground: 37.80 acres
Bayfield County Snowmobile Trails: ~100 miles
Bayfield County ATV Trails: ~60 miles
The covered activity for all properties is possible tree cutting. Maps/locations are attached.
Kaseno Access Route~ 1,400 feet
Access on Kaseno Propertyfor County Use ~ 1,500 feet
SISKIWIT LAKE
Kaseno Access RequestSection 15, T50N R6WTown of Bell
.
Legend
Kaseno Property (40 acres)
Bayfield County Forest