Counties demand pause in funding for Pelican River Forest easement

Local officials are seeking a seat at the table over the ongoing proposal for the DNR to purchase an easement in the Pelican River Forest, and, until the officials get input, they want the federal government to halt a federal payout designed to help pay for the purchase.

Oneida County board chairman and Sugar Camp town chairman Scott Holewinski and Monico town chairman and Oneida County supervisor Robert Briggs have sent a letter to Robert Lueckel, a deputy regional forester for the USDA Forest Service, seeking a meeting on the matter.

Cindy Gretzinger, the Forest County board chairwoman, and William Chaney, a Forest County supervisor in Crandon, sent a similar letter, as did Langlade County board chairman Ben Pierce and multiple Langlade County board members.

The letters point out that federal law requires coordination with local governments over stewardship projects involving the management of non-federal forest lands. Coordination advocates have for years maintained that coordination requirements in federal and state statutes are tools by which local units of government can compel federal and state agencies to work integrally with them when planning land-use projects.

However, so far, the letters lament, coordination hasn’t happened on the Pelican River Forest easement proposal, leading to the counties’ assertion of their right to coordination, and this week Northwoods U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wisconsin-7) told The Times he will support the counties’ coordination efforts.

“I stand ready to listen and assist the three counties seeking to provide input on the Pelican River Forest project,” Tiffany said. “More importantly, I am urging the United States Forest Service and the Wisconsin DNR to coordinate with the signatories to fulfill the federal requirement to provide meaningful input from local jurisdictions.”

In their letter, the local officials emphasized that, in June, the USDA Forest Service announced that it had authorized an $11 million grant to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the project. 

“This project does not have the consent or matching grant commitment from the state, nor has it been coordinated with the counties and municipalities that have planning jurisdiction over the project area,” the letters stated.

As such, the officials wrote, the counties of Oneida, Langlade, and Forest, as well as the municipalities within those counties, were requesting that the grant funds be withheld until all parties could meet and work through what they called planning conflicts that the project would create within their respective jurisdictions.

“This issue arose after the Conservation Fund, a nonprofit organization, purchased 70,000 acres in Oneida, Langlade, and Forest counties to protect the area known as the Pelican River Forest from future development,” the letters stated. “The Pelican River Forest LLC proposes to sell a conservation easement to the DNR that will permanently restrict 56,259 acres of this holding, funded in part through a Forest Legacy Program grant to the WDNR for $11 million, or 70 percent of the easement’s cost.”

To secure the required matching grant of $4,028,000, the letter continued, the DNR applied to the State’s Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund.

“On April 18, 2023, the state Joint Finance Committee met in executive session and denied approval of the grant,” Holewinski and Briggs and the officials wrote. “To date, the project does not have the state legislature’s consent or financial commitment approving the matching grant for the conservation easement.”

The Forest Legacy Program (FLP) was established in 1990 through an amendment to the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act (CFAA) of 1978, the letter points out, observing that the CFAA and FLP were created to help fund local and state projects benefiting private forest land management and the communities they support.

Officials: Coordination is required

According to the local officials, federal and state coordination with local governments that have planning jurisdiction over the project area is necessary for the FLP to fulfill its mission. 

In other words, the affected local officials want a seat at the table, and the letter points out that the federal CFAA statute specifically recognizes the federal government’s duty to coordinate with impacted local government entities.

The officials point to language to that effect in the CFAA: “ …[T]he Department of Agriculture, through the coordinated efforts of its agencies with forestry responsibilities, cooperating with other federal agencies, state foresters, and state political subdivisions, has the expertise and experience to assist private landowners in achieving individual goals and public benefits regarding forestry.”

The statute also states that it is the purpose of the law to authorize the secretary of Agriculture, with respect to non-federal forest lands in the United States, and forest lands in foreign countries, of the United States, to assist in the establishment of a coordinated and cooperative federal, state, and local forest stewardship program for management of the non-federal forest lands. What’s more, the officials wrote, Wisconsin’s land-use laws, particularly its provisions on county planning and zoning authority, posit land-use planning authority within the jurisdiction of the various counties.

“The state of Wisconsin has delegated broad local planning and zoning authority to the counties over all the lands within its jurisdiction, including non-federal forest lands,” the letter states. 

Specifically, the letter continues, Wisconsin’s county planning and zoning statute states that it the purpose of the law to promote public health, safety, convenience and general welfare, as well as to encourage planned and orderly land use development, among other things, and that, to accomplish that purpose, “the [county] board may plan for the physical development and zoning of territory within the county …” 

“Each county in Wisconsin must have in place a comprehensive plan, which establishes the plans and policies for nine statutorily required elements, including land-use,” the officials’ letter states. “The county comprehensive plan is to serve as the primary land-use planning authority in its jurisdiction. Wisconsin law even includes a ‘consistency requirement,’ which states that in order for county, town, village, city, or regional planning commissions to enact or amend [certain] land-use ordinances, these ordinances must be consistent with the comprehensive plan.”

In other words, the letter continues, the county comprehensive plan is viewed under Wisconsin law as the primary authority for all projects that impact land use in the county. 

Sort of wondering

Holewinski and the other officials wrote that they were puzzled why the Forest Service had not reached out to the counties.

“Considering that the federal CFAA requires FLP projects to be developed in cooperation with the state’s political subdivisions, such as a county, and that the projects are to be coordinated with local governments, it is unclear why neither your agency nor the WDNR attempted to work with the impacted counties to determine whether the Pelican River Forest Project was consistent with the authorized comprehensive plans,” the letter states.

Land uses in local jurisdictions must be properly balanced to ensure that counties and municipalities can efficiently support the needs of communities, ensure robust local economies, and guide proper stewardship of resources, including forests, Holewinski, Briggs and the other officials wrote.

“The comprehensive plans consider the needs of all landowners, whether they be private, local, state, or federal, and coordinate these appropriately for their short term uses, as well as future needs,” the letter states. “These plans are the only land use policies that ‘comprehensively’ incorporate all the planning requirements of local, state, and federal agencies, private land-use activities, and other functions such as infrastructure and utility requirements. All these needs must be considered in a manner that protects the health, safety and welfare of the citizens, which is the purpose for the comprehensive plan.”

It is imperative that every land-use project that occurs in each county be carried out in coordination with the county’s comprehensive plan, the officials asserted. 

“However, neither your agency nor the WDNR has done so, which creates numerous conflicts with our policies,” they wrote. “No attempt has been made to fully inform the counties on how the project may impact future utility infrastructure, timber production, emergency management access, or any of the other critical issues the counties and municipalities must oversee.”

Additionally, the leaders wrote, the counties have not been provided with a copy of the DNR’s application, the proposed conservation easement, or the proposed long-range Forest Stewardship or Multiple Resources Management Plan prior approval of the grant.

“Although WDNR is required to prepare these in order to receive the grant, they failed to share and coordinate these first with the impacted counties and municipalities,” they wrote. “This should give your agency just cause to rescind the PRFP grant.”

Of paramount concern to the counties and municipalities impacted by the project is the permanent reduction of taxable value to the lands covered by the proposed conservation easement, the officials wrote. 

“Currently, 67.26 percent of the land in Oneida County, 86.82 percent of Langlade County, and 90.73 percent of Forest County is non-taxable or has a reduced tax value base,” they wrote. “Every acre of land that is placed in a reduced tax vehicle, such as a conservation easement, directly harms the county’s ability to pay for the roads, schools, hospitals, emergency services, utilities and other necessary services. These projects must be carefully considered and coordinated to avoid irreparable harm to our counties, municipalities and citizens.”

The officials observed that there were many other concerns with the project that needed to be considered and coordinated before grant funds are released to the DNR. To that end they requested a meeting between January 22 and February 9.

There was no word by press time whether the agency had agreed to a meeting.