On the agenda: Alma Land Management Agenda 11-06-2026 — Data center (Nov 6)

Notice of Public Meeting
Committee:

Land Management Committee

Date:

Friday, November 6th, 2026

Time:

8:00 a.m.

Location:

3rd Floor County Board Room, 407 S. 2nd Street, Alma, WI 54610

https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/239226884893858?p=AqrIAq64ERuYv2TKpF

Remote Access:

This meeting is open to the public, but portions of the meeting may be closed if this notice indicates that the
committee may convene in closed session.
The following matters may be reviewed, discussed and acted upon at this meeting, and deviations from the order
shown may occur:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

Land Management Hearing and Meeting
Call to Order
Roll Call of Members
Verification of Open Meetings Law Compliance
Approve Agenda
Approve Minutes from Previous Meeting
Public Comment
Election of Land and Water Board Candidates (pick 3)
Wisconsin Land and Water | 2027-2028 Election
Trout Unlimited Road/Stream Crossing data presentation
Discussion on Data centers
Discussion on Remonumentation
Surveyor Report
Director Report
Chairperson Report
Correspondence
Future Agenda Items
Next Meeting Date and Time
Adjourn

Date: October 30,2026

Max Weiss, Chair
_________________________________________
By:Lisa Schmitt, County Clerk

Board Members: If unable to attend, please contact the Chair. If the Chair is unavailable, please contact the County Clerk’s Office at 608-685-6209.
If the Chair and the County Clerk are not available, please call the Administrative Coordinator at 608-685-6234.
Persons with Disabilities: Buffalo County shall attempt to provide reasonable accommodations to the public for access to its public meetings,
provided reasonable notice of special need is given. If you require special accommodations to attend this meeting, please contact the County Clerk’s
Office at 608-685-6209.
Public Access to the Courthouse: The South Entrance will be the only access to the building after 4:00 p.m. Monday – Thursday and after 12:00
p.m. on Fridays.
Persons who are members of another governmental body, but who are not members of this committee, may attend this meeting. Their attendance
could result in a quorum of another governmental body being present. Such a quorum is unintended, and they are not meeting to exercise the
authority, duties, or responsibilities of any other governmental body.

BUFFALO COUNTY MINUTES
Committee of the Board:
Date of the Meeting:

Land Management
Friday, June 5th, 2026

The Meeting and Hearing was called to order at 8:04 a.m.
Land Management Members Present: Mr. Max Weiss, Mr. Chris Lindstrom, Mr.
Robert Sendelbach, Mr. Steve Nelson, Mr. William Bruegger, Mr. Joe Bragger
Others Present for All or Parts of the Meeting: Mr. Cale Severson, Mr. Lee Engfer
Ms. Abigail Soderberg, Mr. Briar Golden, Mr. Ron Jasperson, Mr. Marty Wenger, Mr.
Mike O’Connor, Mr. Dennis Bork. Online-Ms. Jaqueline Schneider, Mr. Alex Dunlevy,
Mr. Joe Krumrie
Meeting verified with Open Meeting law compliance
Approval of Agenda-Mr. Bruegger motioned to approve, Mr. Bragger second, carried.
Approval of minutes- Mr. Sendelbach motioned to approve minutes, second Mr.
Lindstrom, carried.
Public comments- None
Public Hearing
Reading of the notice of public hearing—Ms. Abigail Soderberg read the notice
Comprehensive Land Use Plan-Mr. Golden spoke on the update being presented
Public testimony-- none
Correspondence-none
Adjournment- Hearing was adjourned at 8:32
Review/Discussion/Action regarding An Ordinance to adopt the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan-Mr. Bragger motioned to approve the update seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom. Unanimous vote yes. Carried.
Marty Wenger—Mr. Wenger inquired about the road frontage requirement. Discussions
were held on how the number was devised, uniform land divisions, and what the
conflicting definitions were.
General discussion on data centers—WCA came out with documentation one how
Counties should proceed. General discussion followed.
GIS/LIO report—Ms. Schneider spoke on her work as of late
Surveyor report-Maxville field work is done, working on mapping

Director report-Mr. Severson discussed his and staffs work on zoning and the
Comprehensive Land use plan.
Committee chair report-Mr. Weiss said he and Mr. Severson will attend the Nelson
town meeting on September 15th.
Public Correspondence: none
Future agenda items- update on information learned about data centers and the
results of Town of Nelson meeting.
Review/Discussion/Action regarding the Next Meeting Date and Time: The next
meeting date and time will be October 2nd at 8am.
Adjournment: Adjourned at 9:50am
Respectfully Submitted,
Cale Severson
Land Management Director

Road-Stream Crossing Inventory Report:
Buffalo County, Wisconsin

Photos: Left- Unnamed Stream at Ziegeweid Valley Rd, Middle- Eagle Creek at Co Rd G,
Right- Doelle Creek at John Deere Rd

Sara Strassman, Ernie Ludke, Maggie Dremsa
Trout Unlimited, Driftless Area Program, La Crosse, Wisconsin

Introduction:
Road-stream crossings can impede aquatic organism passage, increase flood
risk, and pose infrastructure hazards when in poor condition (Dauwalter et al.
2017; Knox et al. 2017). Assessment of fish passage, flood flow capacity, and
structural condition have become increasingly important as changing
precipitation patterns and more frequent or intense rainfall events can place
stress on road-stream crossings.
Undersized culverts can restrict streamflow, increase upstream water levels,
and contribute to flooding, especially when culverts are not properly sized to
accommodate streamflow and channel characteristics. Bankfull width
represents the top of the stream channel at which water begins to overflow
onto the floodplain, and it can be used to determine whether a structure is
undersized or not. When culverts are too narrow or affect aquatic
connectivity, they may disrupt sediment transport, alter stream hydraulics,
and increase flood related risks. In addition, poorly designed or deteriorating
crossings can limit fish movement and other aquatic organisms which reduce
aquatic connectivity.
Assessments conducted using Great Lakes Stream Crossing Inventory
(MiDNR 2020) provide a standardized approach to documenting crossing
characteristics, evaluating aquatic organism passage, and identifying
potential stream connectivity and structural concerns. These assessments
can help prioritize maintenance, replacement, and restoration efforts to
improve and protect aquatic habitats while reducing infrastructure risks.

Road Stream Crossing Inventory
We identified road-stream crossings in Buffalo County, Wisconsin, prioritized
them for inventory, and then inventoried crossings in the field during June to
August 204. Road-stream crossings identified by Winston and Diebel (2015)
were used as targets for field surveys. The crossings were prioritized for
surveying by:

1. WDNR Brook Trout Reserve
2. Class I Trout Stream
3. Class II Trout Stream
4. Class III Trout Stream
5. Other
A field crew identified a watershed for inventory each week during the field
season, navigated to the crossings within each watershed using ESRI Field
Maps mobile application, and inventoried each crossing using the Great Lakes
Stream Crossing Inventory Protocol. The Great Lakes protocol measures
various factors, such as outlet drop, constriction, structure condition, and
similar site conditions. These attributes are used to assess fish passage,
general structure condition, and flood risk.

Aquatic Organism Passability Score
The ability of an aquatic organism to move upstream or downstream through a
stream system is an organism’s aquatic passability. Organisms should be able
to travel freely through a road-stream crossing with no difficulties reaching
spawning, food, or habitat protection areas. If a road-stream crossing is
improperly designed for a channel and stream flow, it can be an issue for
aquatic organisms to pass.
Fish passability through a road crossing is rated on a scale of 0 to 4: with 0
being a crossing is currently unassessed, 1 is a crossing that is a barrier to
passage at all times, 2 is a crossing that is a barrier at most flows, 3 is a barrier
at high flows, and 4 is a crossing that is not a barrier at all. The following
conditions will cause a crossing to be assessed as a barrier: outlet of a
structure is perched, ratio of structure water depth to stream water depth is
less than 0.1, and/or water velocity in the structure is greater than 3.0ft/sec at
baseflow. Structures with the following conditions are assessed as barriers at
most flows: water depth in the structure is less than 0.2ft, water velocity is 2
to 3ft/sec at baseflow, the structure is longer than 30ft and does not have

natural substrate through its entire length. Finally, structures with the
following conditions are considered barriers at high flows: the structure width
to bankfull stream ratio is less than 0.5 or there is a scour pool downstream of
the crossing.

Overall Score:
The overall score of a structure is calculated based on 24 metrics. Generally,
the higher the score the structure is given, the greater the need for
improvements. A score of 30 or greater is an indication that the crossing
should be observed more closely for future replacement (GLSCI, MI DNR).
The following conditions will increase the overall score, indicating the crossing
is either more likely to fail or has an impact on stream functions. The
maximum number of points for each criterion is in parenthesis.
-

Multiple structures/culverts (4 points)
Poor alignment (angle at which water enters structure) (4 points)
Trash rack over inlet (1 point)
General deterioration of the structure (7 points)
Percent plugged with material (4 points)
Percent crushed (4 points)
Smaller constriction ratio/ bankfull width to structure width (7 points)
Aquatic organism passability score (10 points)
Large perch height (4 points)
Larger expansion ratio/ scour pool to bankfull width (2 points)
Upstream ponding (4 points)
Upstream sediment wedge (3 points)
Road sediment deposition (3 points)
Overall channel stability (3 points)
Stream entrenchment (3 points)
Road core integrity (4 points)
Frequent road overtopping (2 points)

-

Diversion potential (7 points)
Location of low point (3 points)
Runoff path (1 point)
Downstream fill depth height (7 points)
Inlet and outlet armoring (1 point)
Extent of erosion (6 points)
Time sensitive needs (4 points)

At approximately 25% of the road-stream crossings inventoried, water quality
data was conducted. Water quality data was collected using WiseH2O mobile
application (mH2O App — MobileH2O, LLC). Sampling sites were selected at
stream headwaters, mouths, and confluences to get an understanding of
changing water quality through the watershed. Water quality data is
summarized in Appendix A.

Inventory Results:
Across Buffalo County, Trout Unlimited crew members surveyed 186 roadstream crossings throughout the 2024 summer field season assessing
structures on perennial streams located on public roads (figure 1,2).
Structures on private roads or ones that were dry on the day of assessment
were left and marked private or dry (figure 3). Out of the 186 crossings
surveyed, there were 117 bridges, 68 culverts, and 1 ford (table 1). The crew
members surveyed the structures looking for their overall barrier potential to
aquatic organisms, the structure’s condition, and their potential risks to
washouts and flooding.

Figure 1: Trout streams located in Buffalo County (Class I streams are green, class II
streams are light blue, and class III streams are dark blue)

Ford

Figure 2: Crossings surveyed (bridges are squares, culverts are circles, and the ford is
marked as two black triangles)

Figure 3: Crossings surveyed on trout streams (stars are fully assessed sites, triangles are
private, black lines are bridge adequate and circles are dry crossings)

Crossings prioritized for assessments in the county were on trout streams, or
small tributaries that flow into the trout streams, and most of those crossings
surveyed were bridges. Typically, bridges are more flood resilient and do not
impact fish passage, so to identify more flood prone structures, assessments
of structures not on trout streams are recommended.

County Level Breakdown
Metric

Totals

Total Crossings

1,078

Total Crossings Visited

398

Dry/ephemeral

155

Inaccessible-private

57

Fully Assessed Crossings

186

Table 1: Overview of crossings visited in Buffalo County

Road-Stream Crossings Visited (n=398)
14%

47%
39%

Fully assessed

Dry/ephemeral

Figure 4: Breakdown of crossings visited

Inaccessible-private

County Level Breakdown of Crossings Surveyed
Metric

Totals

Total Structures Inventoried

186

Culverts

68

Bridges

117

Fords

1

Barrier at High Flows

12

Barrier at Most Flows

19

Not a Barrier

107

Not Fully Assessed

13

Potential Behavioral Barrier (lack of substrate in structure)

1

No Deficiencies

17

Not New, Good Condition

55

Good Condition

58

Moderate Deterioration

40

Moderate to Major Deterioration

10

Major Deterioration

1

Major Deterioration, piping evident

1

Undersized

54

Complete Barriers

34

Table 2: Overview of data collected at the fully surveyed crossings in Buffalo County

Crossing Type
0%

37%

63%

Culvert

Bridge

Ford

Figure 5 : Breakdown of types of crossings fully surveyed (n=186)

Crossing Scores
20
18

Number of Crossings

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 34 37 39 45

Scores

Figure 6: Graph depicting crossing scores in Buffalo County

Crossing Condition
5%1%

9%

1%
22%
30%

32%

No Deficiencies

Not New, Good Condition

Good Condition

Moderate Deterioration

Moderate to Major Deterioration

Major Deterioration

Major Deterioration, Evidence of Piping

Figure 7: structure condition in Lafayette County

Passability
8% 1%
18%

10%

57%

6%

Potential Behavioral Barrier

Not a Barrier

Barrier at High Flows

Barrier at Most Flows

Barrier

Not Assessed

Figure 8: passability levels in Buffalo County

Sizing Standards
3%

8%

28%
61%

Meets Minimum Sizing Standards

Meets Ideal Sizing Standards

Undersized

Not Assessed

Figure 9: Graph depicts the sizing width standards of the crossings throughout Lafayette
County. Minimum sizing standards are 1.2 times bankfull width, and ideal sizing standards
are 1.2 times bankfull width +2 feet.

*Note: The surveys on bridges were not fully completed due to them not
affecting aquatic passage, so sizing standards for bridges are not available

Top 5 Worst Offenders Across Buffalo County
Crossing Name; Site ID
Eagle Creek at Unnamed Road;
4317-8
Unnamed Stream at Simons
Rd; 4314-41
Eagle Creek at Waumandee
Glencoe Rd; 4317-19
Center Creek at Co Rd KK;
5558-10
Unnamed Stream at Co Rd F;
5558-43

Fish
Passability

Overall
Score

Barrier

45

Barrier

39

Full Report
Link to report
Link to report
Link to report

Barrier

37

Barrier

34

Link to report

Barrier

34

Link to report

Table 3: List of top scoring structures across Buffalo County

1. Eagle Creek at Unnamed Rd; Glencoe, WI, 44.23201/-91.68111

Figure 10: Map showing site location

Figure 11: Outlet image

Site notes: Two 19 foot-long, 1.8ft by 2.0ft and 1.3ft by 1.3ft metal culverts
with a 0.3 ft perch height that impedes aquatic passage. These culverts are
also very undersized, constricting water flow which increases water velocities.

2. Unnamed Stream at Simons Rd; Lookout, W I 44.40512/-91.62172

Figure 12: Map showing site location

Figure 13: Outlet image

Site notes: An 18-foot long, 8ft by 8ft concrete box culvert with a large 4.0ft
perch that impedes aquatic organism passage.

3. Eagle Creek at Waumandee Glencoe Rd; Glencoe, WI 44.25412/91.65086

Figure 14: Map showing site location

Figure 15: Outlet image

Site Notes: A 31-foot long, 11.5ft by 7.0ft pipe arch metal culvert. The culvert
has a 1.0ft perch that freefalls into a large 3.5ft deep scour pool.

4. Center Creek at Co Rd KK; Urne, WI, 44.4951/-91.96302

Figure 16: Map showing site location

Figure 17: Inlet image

Site notes: A 195-foot long, 12ft by 10ft concrete box culvert. The upstream
concrete apron is slanted disconnecting the stream which is creating
upstream ponding. Aquatic organisms cannot pass through the culvert due to
the upstream apron as well as the lack of substrate and water levels in the
culvert.

5. Unnamed Stream at Co Rd F; Urne, WI, 44.52427/-91.88628

Figure 18: Map showing site location

Figure 19: Outlet image

Site notes: A 55 foot-long, 2.5ft by 2.5ft metal culvert with a 2.0ft perch
height and 2ft deep scour pool at the outlet.

Crossings with the Worst Deterioration
Crossing Name;
Site ID
Eagle Creek at
Unnamed Road;
4317-8
Elk Creek at Hovey
Valley Rd; 4310-4
Elk Creek at Co Rd
H; 4310-3
Unnamed Stream
at Co Rd CC

Fish
Passability Site Condition/Notes
Major deterioration; undersized double
culvert with concrete headwall/deck
slab that is cracking
Barrier
Not a
Major deterioration, evidence of piping;
barrier
upstream guardrail damaged and loose
Moderate to major deterioration; large
Barrier
crack in decking
Not a
Moderate to major deterioration; small
barrier
and deteriorating wingwalls
Moderate to major deterioration; inlet
concrete apron is not flush with metal
culvert which is creating a perch of the
concrete into the inlet. Two metal
culvers put together, and the upstream
Barrier
culvert has shape changes at the seam

Unnamed Stream
at Boland Valley
Road; 4520-61
Doelle Creek at
John Deere Rd;
Barrier at
4521-16
most flows
Unnamed Stream
at Christ Rd; 431436
Barrier

Moderate to major deterioration;
moderate shape changes inside culvert
Moderate deterioration; minor shape
changes throughout culvert

Table 4: List of top deteriorating structures

Full
Report
Link to
report
Link to
report
Link to
report
Link to
report

Link to
report
Link to
report
Link to
report

Visit the Dashboard for a Complete Report of the County
The report above identifies the structures most at risk for failure or aquatic
organism barriers; however, a more comprehensive list of the structures
across the county can be found on the Michigan DNR Stream Crossing
Dashboard. The dashboard allows users to filter structures based on criteria
such as location, passability, overall score, and condition, providing a useful
resource for identifying and prioritizing structures for further assessment.

Appendix A
Water Quality Summary
Using the WiseH20 mobile application, crew members sampled water quality
at approximately 25% of the road-stream crossings. The application utilizes
test strips with a photo calibration card as well as user defined entries to
capture data. The platform serves monitoring, educational, and outreach
purposes. Data is entered on the observation page. Results can be viewed on
the results map by parameter. Impacts of results and educational pages
further explain each criterion to create bins for results and the impact those
levels have on trout and ecosystems. The figure below shows data entry
platform.

Figure 20: WiseH2O Data Entry Platform and Reference Pages

The survey crew members sampled at approximately 25 sites across Buffalo
County during the 2024 field season. The full sampling parameters, dates, and
locations can be downloaded through the Angler Science Driftless Program
webpage at: Angler Science Driftless Area Program — MobileH2O, LLC.

Figure 21: Map showing water quality sampling
sites

A Word About Precision & Accuracy
It is important to clarify that the data collected using this method is meant for screening
level interpretation only. Trout Unlimited follows a tiered evaluation process for this data.
First, upon measuring a parameter that is in the unhealthy range reported by the app, we
recommend replicating testing with WiseH2O. Participants should return on a few different
occasions to assess whether exceedances continue. Second, if exceedances continue to
occur, participants are asked to confirm samples with a certified lab, if possible. If labbased results appear concerning, consultation with state water quality biologists is
recommended.

The reason for resampling and for lab verification is that the level of precision of the testing
strips is not sufficient to draw management conclusions from a single sample. The
application organizes the data into bins that represent a range of values. For example, Total
Phosphate falls into Bin 0 when the concentration detected is anything less than 100 ppb.
However, the Wisconsin total phosphorus standard is 100 ppb, so our tests can predict if a
sample is generally above or below that criterion but cannot provide a precise
concentration for values that might be slightly below or above that threshold.

Summary of Important Trout Stream Metrics:
Water temperatures that exceed 67F can have a negative effect on a trout’s
health. High water temperatures, especially those that exceed 76F, can cause
stress or mortality. It is important to monitor watershed temperatures to
determine where trout can thrive. Majority of water temperatures fell within
the healthy range. One temperature fell above the recommended temperature
on Trout Run Creek at 69F.

Figure 22: Map of water temperature

Nitrate and Phosphate
Excess nitrate & phosphate typically cause excessive aquatic vegetation and algae growth
that can impair habitat, macroinvertebrate life and dissolved oxygen levels. These indirect
mechanisms usually constitute the primary impacts to trout.

Nitrate levels across the county all fell within optimal ranges; however, there
were locations where phosphate read higher than normal.
Streams that had contained phosphorus levels above 0ppm:
- Elk Creek: 100ppm
- Harvey Creek: 100ppm
- Rossman Creek: 300ppm

Figure 23: Map of nitrate levels

Figure 24: Map of phosphate levels

References
Dauwalter, D. C., J. Hastings, M. Melchoir, and J. D. Welter. 2017. Preface: a look back at
Driftless Area science to plan for resiliency in an uncertain future. D. C. Dauwalter,
editor. A look back at Driftless Area science to plan for resiliency in an uncertain
future, volume Special Publication of the 11th Annual Driftless Area Symposium, La
Crosse, Wisconsin.
MiDNR. 2020. Great Lakes stream crossing inventory instructions (updated). Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan.
Winston, D., and M. Diebel. 2015. A screening method for identifying fish passage barriers
at road crossings using LiDAR-derived elevation data. Bureau of Science Services,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison.