Consequences of county’s forest easement unclear

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Easement Change in Delta County

Introduction

The Delta County Board of Commissioners recently discussed a controversial easement change that could potentially require the county to repay grant funds used for the purchase of the county forest. The implications of the new easement terms are still uncertain.

The Easement Issue

The easement in question is located on land owned by Delta Conservation District Manager Rory Mattson. At a meeting on August 15, the Delta County Board of Commissioners approved Mattson’s request to modify the easement terms, restricting access to only fire suppression and timber harvesting uses.

Mattson argues that the original easement, granted by Weyerhaeuser prior to his land purchase, was not intended to allow public access to the forest. However, Conservation District Board Chair Joe Kaplan disputes this claim.

Kaplan also criticizes Mattson for negotiating the purchase of the county forest property and subsequently buying adjacent land as an individual and as part-owner of another parcel with two other individuals, one of whom was a former conservation district chair.

Concerns and Actions Taken

Kaplan expressed concerns about the amendment to the easement agreement and its potential impact on the project. The county is primarily concerned that the change in easement may violate the terms of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Trust Fund Grant used for the forest purchase in 2017. The value of the grant’s contribution is estimated to be around $825,000.

County Administrator Ashleigh Young raised concerns about the easement modification potentially violating the existing agreement with the state. Jon Mayes, program manager for the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund, responded by stating that reducing the county’s easement rights would be incompatible with the project agreement and could represent a breach of the agreement.

Mayes also mentioned the possibility of remedies for breaches, including the repayment of funds. The county is currently awaiting the trust fund’s review of the easement amendment to determine its compatibility with the grant.

Response from Mattson

Following the county board meeting, Mattson reached out to the Daily Press and expressed his belief that the amendment is not in violation of the grant’s terms. He emphasized his commitment to the county’s best interests and stated that he is awaiting the trust fund’s review of the amendment.

Potential Rescission and Legal Binding

Commissioner John Malnar proposed rescinding the amendment during the county board meeting, but it was determined that the document had already been signed and filed, making rescission impossible. The amendment was filed with the county’s register of deeds on August 21, rendering the change legally binding.

Conclusion

The county expects the trust fund to complete its review of the easement amendment and make a determination about its compatibility with the grant in approximately one week.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 15: Life on Land
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The article discusses a controversial easement change that could force the county to pay back grant funds used to purchase the county forest. This issue is related to the management of land resources (SDG 15) and the need for strong institutions and justice (SDG 16).

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains, and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements.
• SDG 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels.

The article highlights the potential violation of the terms of the grant used to purchase the county forest, which relates to the need for conservation and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems (SDG 15.1). It also raises concerns about the transparency and accountability of the institutions involved in negotiating the easement change (SDG 16.6).

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator for SDG 15.1: Proportion of important sites for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity that are covered by protected areas, by ecosystem type.
• Indicator for SDG 16.6: Proportion of the population satisfied with their last experience of public services.

The article does not explicitly mention any indicators, but the potential violation of the grant terms and the concerns about transparency and accountability can be measured using the above-mentioned indicators. The first indicator can assess the extent to which the county forest, an important site for terrestrial biodiversity, is protected. The second indicator can measure the satisfaction of the population with the transparency and accountability of the institutions involved.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: miningjournal.net

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.