Forest land sale and permitting review

Full Title:
Wabeno Economic Development Act

Summary#

This bill would transfer about 14 acres of National Forest land in the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (Wisconsin) to a private company, Tony’s Wabeno Redi-Mix, LLC, if that company offers to buy the land at market value within certain time limits. It also orders a 180‑day review and public report on how Federal permitting works for stone, sand, and gravel projects on Federal lands.

  • Land sale: Requires the Forest Service to sell the described parcel to Tony’s Wabeno Redi‑Mix, LLC if the company offers the appraised market value within 180 days after the appraisal is approved.
  • Appraisal and process: The Forest Service must finish an appraisal within 300 days of the bill’s enactment. A survey will set the exact acreage.
  • Buyer pays costs: The buyer must pay the appraised price and cover costs for the survey, the appraisal, and any environmental or resource studies required by law.
  • Hazardous materials: The Forest Service must disclose known hazardous substances but is not required by this bill to clean up or remove them before the sale.
  • Permitting review: The Department of the Interior must consult with agencies, industry, and states and deliver a publicly available report within 180 days describing current permitting timelines for stone, sand, and gravel projects, inefficiencies, economic impacts, and recommendations to streamline the process.

What it means for you#

  • Tony’s Wabeno Redi‑Mix, LLC: Could buy and own the specified 14‑acre parcel, including mineral rights, if it follows the bill’s timing and payment rules.
  • Local community (Wabeno area): May see private development or industrial use of the parcel once sold. The bill does not specify the buyer’s intended use.
  • Forest Service / U.S. Department of Agriculture: Must complete an appraisal within 300 days, process a sale if an offer is made within the required window, and manage conveyance paperwork and map/survey tasks.
  • Companies in the stone, sand, and gravel sector: May benefit from the Interior Department’s review and any future policy or administrative changes recommended to speed up permitting.
  • State permitting authorities and other agencies consulted: Will be asked to participate in the Interior’s review and may see recommendations that touch their procedures.
  • Taxpayers: The federal government would no longer own that parcel; the sale proceeds (market value) would go to the U.S., but other fiscal effects are not stated in the bill.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The buyer must pay the appraised market value and the costs of the survey, the appraisal, and any environmental or resource studies required under federal law.
  • The Forest Service must complete the appraisal within 300 days and handle conveyance paperwork; the bill directs the buyer to cover appraisal costs, which reduces immediate federal expenses.
  • The Department of the Interior must prepare a report within 180 days; the bill does not provide a cost estimate for that review or for any follow‑on administrative work if recommendations are adopted.
  • By stating the Secretary is not required to remediate disclosed hazardous substances, the bill may shift cleanup costs or liability concerns away from the federal government; the bill does not quantify any savings or future costs.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to transfer a small parcel of National Forest land to a local company to support local economic activity or development.
  • Requiring the buyer to pay market value and associated costs could be seen as protecting federal receipts while enabling private use of the land.
  • The mandated review of permitting for stone, sand, and gravel appears intended to identify delays or duplications and recommend ways to speed approvals for that industry, which supporters may argue would reduce project costs and time.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is that the bill transfers public forest land, including mineral rights, to a private company; the bill does not specify limits on future uses after sale.
  • The hazardous‑materials provision allows the Secretary only to disclose known contamination and not to require cleanup; this could leave cleanup costs or environmental risks with the buyer or future owners and reduces federal cleanup obligations.
  • The bill gives the Secretary authority to set “other terms and conditions” for the sale without listing what those may be, leaving some details unclear.
  • The permitting review covers industry stakeholders and could be seen as focused on speeding approvals for extractive industries; the bill does not specify how environmental or public‑interest protections will be weighed in recommendations.
  • It is unclear how local public input or local government land‑use rules will be integrated, and the bill does not describe post‑sale monitoring or restrictions on land use.