Lakeland Times files records request for Pelican River Forest documents

With questions still circulating about the state Department of Natural Resources’s purchase of a conservation easement in the Pelican River Forest, questions ranging from the state’s procurement of a bridge loan to fund it to the lack of coordination with local governments, The Lakeland Times has filed an open records request with the DNR to try and discover some answers.

The state’s purchase of the conservation easement adds protection to 54,898 acres of the forest and brings the total to more than 67,000 acres that will be forever off limits to economic development, most of it in Oneida County. 

The purchase originally consumed some 80 percent of the town of Monico, though the final deal carved out about 1,200 acres for economic development in the township.

Initially, an $11-million Forest Legacy Program (FLP) federal grant for the purchase required a $4 million match from the state, which the DNR intended to fund through the state’s Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program. In April, though, led by state Sen. Mary Felzkowski (R-Tomahawk), the legislature’s Joint Finance Committee blocked the funding.

However, in his State of the State on January 24, Evers announced that he had secured other funding to complete the purchase of the easement and expected the deal to be completed forthwith. It was finalized about a week later.

According to the Conservation Fund, which owns the land, the Richard King Mellon Foundation provided a bridge financing loan, while individual, foundation, and corporate support helped provide a match for federal Forest Legacy Program funds, including a $600,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation through Walmart’s Acres for America Program.

Still, opponents of the purchase have questioned the details of the bridge loan, and some local leaders remain angry that neither the state nor the U.S. Forest Service reached out to coordinate the purchase with local governments to make sure the purchase appropriately aligned with local land use plans.

Efforts to challenge the easement purchase in court have stalled, but Times publisher Gregg Walker said this week too many puzzles remain to just let the issue drop.

“So many questions about whether state and federal agencies complied with coordination statutes, not to mention the details of the bridge loan,” Walker said. “In addition, with what appears to be essentially a state taking of land with taxpayer dollars, we believe the citizens of Wisconsin have a right of know the details of the negotiations. If state officials did not coordinate with local government, then just who did they coordinate with? We want to know.” 

The Times made the request in a March 25 letter to the agency.

The newspaper requested all documents and communications related to the Pelican River Forest Project (PRFP) between the agency and the counties of Oneida, Forest and Langlade, as well as all other local governments directly and indirectly impacted by the PRFP, including elected and non-elected officials.

Walker said he was also concerned about the nature of communications between agency officials and the landowner (the Conservation Fund) and with environmental groups such as the Gathering Waters Alliance.

Walker said the lack of coordination was particularly troublesome.

“Federal and state laws require coordination, and we’d like to see how the DNR thinks it satisfied that requirement without ever contacting local governments in the impacted area,” he said. “It must be a mighty peculiar and novel interpretation.”

Specifically, the newspaper asked the agency to provide documentation of the review made by the DNR of the Oneida, Langlade and Forest County comprehensive plans, policies and resolutions as they related to the PRFP, as well as to provide documentation of the potential conflicts identified by the DNR between the Oneida, Langlade and Forest County comprehensive plans, policies and resolutions and the PRFP, as well as the steps taken to resolve these conflicts.

The Times requested the same documentation for the towns and special districts directly and indirectly impacted by the PRFP, and asked for all documents related to the state matching grant for the PRFP, including the identification of all entities and individuals involved in facilitating and guaranteeing the bridge loan used to secure the grant.

A lingering concern

The lack of coordination continues to be a concern to local and national leaders.

In December, officials in the affected counties — Oneida, Forest, and Langlade — as well as in the towns of Sugar Camp and Monico, sent letters to the U.S. Forest Service demanding that the federal payout be halted until the federal government coordinated with impacted local governments over the parameters of the purchase, which they say is a statutory requirement. 

To say it another way, the local officials wanted a seat at the table to ensure that the conditions of the purchase and the purchase itself were compatible with local comprehensive land use plans.

On January 17, Robert Lueckel, a deputy regional forester for the USDA Forest Service, responded, notifying the local officials that its coordination efforts had been sufficient under federal law — despite no coordination with the counties or any towns — and that the impending deal would be closed by the end of January.

What’s more, the Forest Service not only told the counties it would not engage in any further coordination, it asserted that the agency was required to release the $11-million grant funding because Congress mandated that it do so under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023.

The Forest Service gave Tiffany the same brush off. The congressman had sent a letter February 1 also raising the issue of coordination, and the agency finally responded on March 26, almost two months later.

In the letter from John Crockett, the deputy chief for state, private, and tribal forestry, the agency stressed what it called its long and successful history of providing financial assistance to the state through those various forestry programs, including the Forest Legacy Program (FLP), a forest conservation program administered by the Forest Service in partnership with designated state agencies. 

Wisconsin joined the FLP in 2000 upon completing the Forest Legacy Program Assessment of Need, Crockett wrote.

“The Forest Service fully supports cooperative and collaborative conservation efforts among all levels of government, as well as nongovernmental entities and private individuals,” Crockett assured Tiffany. “In compliance with the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act (CFAA), the FLP program is administered directly with the designated state agency, which, in this case, is the Washington [sic] Department of Natural Resources (WDNR).”

Crockett got the state wrong, but still assured Tiffany that the DNR was responsible for all coordination concerning implementation of an FLP project grant awarded to the state. 

“We believe that during its 23-year history of participation in the program, the WDNR has abided by all state and federal laws, as well as program requirements,” he wrote.

The veracity of that statement is another reason to request records, Walker said, to see if that claim is accurate. Crockett also acknowledged that on January 17, Lueckel had sent a response letter to the counties on the Pelican River Project. 

“We understand that your office has received a copy of that correspondence.,” he wrote. “As indicated in that letter, our counsel has advised us that the state and the agency have acted in accordance with all applicable laws.”

Still, Crocket wrote in concluding, the agency would welcome the opportunity to meet with Tiffany to discuss the Forest Legacy Program and the Pelican River Forest Project.

Walker said the records sought ought to clarify just what coordination the DNR actually did with local governments, and whether that process aligned with applicable law. 

Richard Moore is the author of “Dark State” and may be reached at richardd3d.substack.com.