{"id":3501777,"date":"2024-06-13T14:37:35","date_gmt":"2024-06-13T14:37:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/?p=3501777"},"modified":"2024-06-13T14:37:35","modified_gmt":"2024-06-13T14:37:35","slug":"the-steady-state-of-beautiful-bayfield-county","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/stories\/2024-06-13\/the-steady-state-of-beautiful-bayfield-county\/","title":{"rendered":"The Steady State of Beautiful Bayfield County"},"content":{"rendered":"

Bayfield County<\/a>, Wisconsin is situated on the shores of Lake Superior, the largest freshwater lake in the world by surface area. Deep in the heart of the Great Northwoods, the county is unique in its glaciated beauty. It also happens to be a rare example of a county in harmonious balance between its natural and constructed communities.<\/p>\n

Bayfield County has been refreshingly free of\u00a0growth controversies<\/a>\u00a0and displays key attributes that approach the characteristics of \u00a0a\u00a0steady-state county<\/a>. Its citizens understand the value of local forests and farmland, and they embrace a conservation ethic that guides their stewardship of county resources. A\u00a0regional land conservancy<\/a>\u00a0is active and respected in the community, and citizens understand the benefits of local agriculture.<\/p>\n

Of special interest to the\u00a0Keep\u00a0<\/a><\/em>Our Counties Great<\/a>\u00a0campaign, the conceptual framework for a steady state economy is established in the\u00a0Bayfield County Comprehensive Plan<\/a>. The plan embraces sustainability, systems thinking, and climate resilience.<\/p>\n

A Stable Economy and Careful Planning<\/h3>\n

Bayfield County has had a low and stable population (approximately 15,000 residents) for more than 40 years. It\u2019s also had a stable GDP of\u00a0$400 -$450<\/a>\u00a0million. Although\u00a0residents\u2019 income<\/a>\u00a0is slightly below the U.S. mean, security of home ownership is much higher than the national average,\u00a087 percent<\/a>\u00a0compared to less than\u00a066 percent nationwide<\/a>.<\/p>\n

While Bayfield enjoys a relative lack of controversy over growth and development, it\u00a0shares challenges<\/a>\u00a0with other communities. These include home affordability and a shortage of housing for seniors. In response to these challenges, the County Board\u00a0okayed construction<\/a>\u00a0of 60 workforce and retirement housing units in\u00a0Washburn<\/a>, the county\u2019s largest community. Notably, however, the county integrated this additional housing within town boundaries. And it granted approvals primarily in response to the needs of the community rather than a developer\u2019s pursuit of profit. Indeed, local officials seem averse to the typical sprawling housing tracts that are\u00a0so common elsewhere<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Take, for example, the case of the local landowner who petitioned Bayfield\u2019s Plan Commission to build a subdivision on a parcel of more than 100 acres. The parcel sat on a high bluff with striking vistas, a tempting place to build homes. But the commission voted it down, partly because the land was situated within\u00a0an orchard district<\/a>. Instead, a plan commissioner encouraged the landowner to contact a local land conservancy to explore an alternative idea focused on preservation.<\/p>\n

Government agencies in Bayfield are attentive to conservation of resources. (Jimmy Emerson<\/a>,\u00a0Flickr<\/a>)<\/em><\/p>\n

The conservancy received this suggestion warmly. And it aligned with the\u00a0Farmland Preservation Program<\/a>\u00a0that guides local planners. Together, the landowner and the conservancy created the\u00a0Fire Hill Preserve<\/a>, a recreation area that conserves the parcel\u2019s woods and includes a trail system for residents and visitors.<\/p>\n

Bayfield County\u2019s planners have methodically evaluated and mapped all the farmland in the county to conserve the agricultural base. Amazingly, that base is growing; farm acreage increased by 13 percent over the last decade. The number of farms increased over the period too, to\u00a0more than 400<\/a>, so average farm size fell.\u00a0 One-third of the farms are\u00a0less than 50 acres<\/a>\u00a0in size. \u00a0Individuals or families constitute\u00a0more than 95 percent<\/a>\u00a0of the owners of Bayfield County farms.<\/p>\n

Bayfield County has created a thriving local food economy featuring a consortium of growers, the\u00a0Bayfield Foods Farmers Cooperative<\/a>. The coop maintains a year-round CSA (Community Supported Agriculture<\/a>) program, whose customers purchase portions of the farms\u2019 harvests, which comprise some 200 foods. The coop offers easy access, with 20 locations for pick-up. It also provides bulk food purchases and wholesale deliveries to stores and restaurants. The coop\u2019s mission is to \u201cre-build local food systems<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The county food system includes nine\u00a0farmer\u2019s markets<\/a>, one on the Chippewa tribal land, the\u00a0Red Cliff Mino Bimaadiziiwin Tribal Farm Stand<\/a>. As promoted by the Bayfield County government, local food has a multiplier effect,\u00a0yielding twice as much income<\/a>\u00a0for the local economy as imported food. Recirculating dollars locally is a hallmark of a sustainable economy. It\u00a0pays dividends<\/a>\u00a0in keeping farmland protected and providing employment in the county.<\/p>\n

A Focus on Biocapacity<\/h3>\n

Biocapacity<\/a>\u00a0describes the regenerative capacity of an area, while the\u00a0ecological footprint<\/a>\u00a0refers to the acreage required (within the area or elsewhere) to support the economy of the area. Biocapacity is the ultimate basis for the human economy and from a sustainability perspective should be larger than a community\u2019s footprint. At the global level, humanity\u2019s footprint exceeds the planet\u2019s\u00a0total biocapacity<\/a>. Few counties have undertaken assessments of their biocapacity and footprint, which makes care for the local environment especially important.<\/p>\n

Indeed, careful management of local biocapacity is a prerequisite for a steady state economy. This ethic is evident in the careful oversight of forests and farms by Bayfield County planners. The forests of Bayfield County, comprising\u00a085 percent<\/a>\u00a0of the county, provide area for\u00a0sustainable timber harvesting<\/a>, wildlife habitats, and a repository for carbon, the sequestration of which is a recently recognized economic service in the county.<\/p>\n

The Northwoods region is a contiguous belt running from northern Michigan through Wisconsin and into Minnesota. It is regarded as\u00a0globally significant<\/a>\u00a0for water resources, biological species diversity, and carbon storage. Bayfield County\u2019s biocapacity is certainly important locally. And it is integral to the ecological and climatological functioning of the Northwoods and, by extension, Earth.<\/p>\n

Bayfield County was not always a model of biocapacity conservation. As was common a century ago in the upper Midwest, Wisconsin lost nearly all its northern forests to logging. Much of the denuded landscape was not capable of supporting agriculture, either. During the Depression, when many landowners could not pay their taxes, the county government acquired the land. Today, the county owns and manages nearly\u00a0170,000 acres<\/a>. Forests have regenerated and the landscape has repaired itself, largely because the land is held in public ownership by federal, state, and county agencies.<\/p>\n


\nPublic land held by county, state and federal agencies.<\/em><\/p>\n


\nThe ecological landscapes of Bayfield County.<\/em><\/p>\n

Indeed, Bayfield is exceptional in having half of its land held publicly in a state where\u00a085 percent of the land<\/a>\u00a0is privately owned. Moreover, Bayfield forests comprise the third-largest county forest in Wisconsin. The state legislature established them in 1927. Since then, harvesters have managed the county forests responsibly, providing around $5 million annually in timber product sales. Now the biocapacity of Bayfield County is generating income not just from timber products but also from carbon sequestration.<\/p>\n

In 2021,\u00a0Bayfield County registered<\/a>\u00a090 percent of its forests in a voluntary, 40-year carbon offset program with the\u00a0American Carbon Registry<\/a>. County officials are working with\u00a0ANEW<\/a>, a market-based emissions-reduction consultancy, to generate and market carbon credits. They are using a\u00a0stringent methodology<\/a>\u00a0for assuring the integrity of the offsets.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not clear, however, how the program deals with the Achilles\u2019 heel of offsets. Generating money to purchase carbon credits from Bayfield County (or any county) entails an environmental impact somewhere else, due to the trophic requirements of economic activity. Brian Czech calls this thorny dilemma the \u201ctrophic conundrum<\/a>.\u201d He further argues that the environmental costs of generating money tend to exceed the environmental benefits of spending that money, even on conservation programs. This doesn\u2019t mean forest conservation is a bad idea. Quite the opposite. But it points toward the importance of regulatory policy for conservation, as opposed to the strained attempts to perform conservation with market mechanisms.<\/p>\n

In any event, the Bayfield arrangement is expected to provide nearly five million metric tons of carbon credits in the first\u00a020 years of operation<\/a>, more than offsetting the emissions of the Bayfield county population. The\u00a0project was the first<\/a>\u00a0of its kind on county forest land in the USA.<\/p>\n

The Bayfield County Forest Comprehensive Land Use Plan focuses on sustainable practices. It mirrors the County Comprehensive Plan\u2019s commitment to sustainable community development. Its aim is to avoid generating environmental impacts that compromise the prospects of future generations. The Forest Comprehensive Land Use Plan is unique among such plans. It\u00a0includes input<\/a>\u00a0by the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. Their reservation is located along the coast within Bayfield County. Their voice is integral to forest management practices, and is provided biannually by the\u00a0Bayfield County Tribal Relations Committee<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Another crucial component of protecting the biocapacity is a conservation land trust that evaluates critical habitat for preservation.\u00a0The Landmark Conservancy<\/a>\u00a0is a regional land trust with key landholdings in Bayfield County. It\u00a0has developed a\u00a0strategic conservation focus<\/a>\u00a0that concentrates efforts for climate resiliency on 17 focus areas within its region. Four of the 17 are located in Bayfield County with the largest area, the Lake Superior South Shore Streams, coinciding with the Lake Superior Coastal Plain. This coastal plain is particularly important for shorebirds that are among the most threatened bird guilds. Their populations have\u00a0declined by 50 percent<\/a>\u00a0over the past 40 years. In fact, the area is vitally important as a\u00a0migratory route<\/a>\u00a0for a variety of birds.<\/p>\n

Landmark Conservancy and county officials have also collaborated on land protection in Bayfield County. Recently they worked on the purchase of\u00a03,900 acres of forests<\/a>\u00a0to safeguard migratory bird habitat.<\/p>\n

Comprehensive Planning with a Systems Approach<\/h3>\n

Clearly, Bayfield County officials hold a vision for land planning and development that emphasizes protection and preservation of its lands and natural systems. Indeed, Bayfield County begins its\u00a02023 Comprehensive Plan<\/a>\u00a0with a commitment to a \u201cfuture that places sustainability, systems-thinking, and climate change resilience at its core.\u201d The Plan focuses on seeing community facets in an integrative way, rather than in isolation. In the words of the authors, \u201cthe approach views a community as a dynamic and interconnected system, rather than a collection of separate parts.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/a>
\nPublic land held by county, state and federal agencies (left) and the ecological landscapes of Bayfield County (right). All of Bayfield\u2019s ecological landscapes are within the Northwoods Country.<\/em><\/p>\n

The State of Wisconsin mandates<\/a>\u00a0the\u00a0nine elements<\/a>\u00a0of the plan, so they are common to other plans. But the Bayfield plan\u2019s focus on interrelationships of community is unique and rare in county plans. By understanding how actions in one area affect others, policymakers and officials are less likely to do harm.<\/p>\n

Traditional policymaking often fails to capture a policy\u2019s full costs or account for negative \u201cexternalities<\/a>\u201d\u2014side effects that are external to \u00a0the policy\u2019s primary goal. By contrast, an integrative, holistic approach to policymaking doesn\u2019t seek to accomplish one goal while neglecting others. It takes full account of the costs of a policy, which helps to minimize negative side effects.<\/p>\n

The plan does not explicitly prescribe limits to county growth. But it subjects growth and development decisions to a range of considerations relevant to a long-term sustainable future. Growth is not a driver within the comprehensive plan; indeed, it is only briefly mentioned. The many needs of the community place bounds and constraints on quantitative growth and prioritize qualitative development.<\/p>\n

Advancing a Path to Steady State<\/h3>\n

Steady-state economics is a response to a systems failure in conventional economics and flawed societal assumptions about infinite growth. These failures to integrate systems thinking into planning are degrading ecosystems and jeopardizing human flourishing\u2014and perhaps humanity\u2019s survival\u2014as economies worldwide increasingly approach and exceed\u00a0planetary boundaries<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Communities need a holistic approach to planning and a respect for biocapacity if they are to counter the present-day inertia of growth. By establishing an integrated, systems-based approach to its comprehensive planning, Bayfield County is moving toward developing a community consensus on reducing negative externalities in policy making. There is room for improvement, to be sure. For example, the county would do well to swap out its market-based carbon sequestration program for regulations that prohibit forest cutting to ensure long-term forest health.<\/p>\n

Still, Bayfield is an encouraging example of a county that stewards its resources. Instead of a siloed approach to county planning, Bayfield County officials recognize their county as a complex adaptive system. The County is committed to protecting and enhancing its biocapacity and including\u00a0indigenous perspectives<\/a>\u00a0in its planning.\u00a0 It stands as a steady-state model for other communities to follow.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Bayfield County has been refreshingly free of\u00a0growth controversies\u00a0and displays key attributes that approach the characteristics of \u00a0a\u00a0steady-state county.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":128238,"featured_media":3501778,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[79717,213528,79718],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3501777","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-economy","category-economy-featured","category-environment"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3501777","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/128238"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3501777"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3501777\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3501778"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3501777"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3501777"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.resilience.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3501777"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}