SAUK PRAIRIE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE v. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, WISCONSIN NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD AND WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
No. 2023AP2303
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT I
November 25, 2025
DECISION
DATED AND FILED
November 25, 2025
Samuel A. Christensen
Clerk of Court of Appeals
NOTICE
This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in
the bound volume of the Official Reports.
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
petition to review an adverse decision by the
Court of Appeals. See
and
Appeal No. 2023AP2303 Cir. Ct. Nos. 2016CV642
2016CV662
2017CV20
2017CV52
2019CV516
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT I
SAUK PRAIRIE CONSERVATION ALLIANCE,
PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
V.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
WISCONSIN NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD AND
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION,
RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
APPEAL from orders of the circuit court for Sauk County:
PATRICIA A. BARRETT, Judge. Affirmed.
Before White, C.J., Colón, P.J., and Geenen, J.
Pеr curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent
or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in
¶1 PER CURIAM. The Sauk Prairie Conservation Alliance (Alliance),
an environmentalist group, appeals from orders of the circuit court dismissing its
petitions for judicial review of the actions of the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board (NRB), and the
Wisconsin Department of Administration (DOA) in relation to the Sauk Prairie
State Recreation Area (SPSRA). Alliance generally challenges SPSRA’s
designation as a state recreation area, the approval of SPSRA’s master plan, and
the contested case hearing that Alliance was granted as part of the proceedings in
this matter. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 SPSRA is part of a larger portion of land consisting of roughly 7,354
acres adjacent to Devil’s Lake State Park in Sauk County, Wisconsin. For many
decades, this larger portion of land served as the Badger Army Ammunitions Plant
established during World War II for the production of military propellants. At one
point, the plant was the largest propellant manufacturing plant in the world. The
plant contained thousands of buildings, hundreds of miles of roadways, railways,
and elevated steam pipes. Operations at the plant ended around 1975. However,
after years of heavy industrial use, the soil and groundwater were highly
contaminated with substances such as asbestos, lead paint, toxic industrial
chemicals, and oil. Cleanup efforts ensued, and the plant was decommissioned in
1997 by the United States Department of Defense.
¶3 Following the decommission of the plant, state and local officials
formed a task force, known as the Badger Reuse Committee, for the primary
purpose of planning for future state ownership of the land. Membеrs of the
committee included a DNR representative, tribal representatives, and
representatives from nonprofit organizations, such as Alliance. In 2001, the
committee’s work culminated in issuing the Badger Reuse Plan. The Badger
Reuse Plan proposed that SPSRA be used for conservation and low-impact
recreation uses.
¶4 In 2004, DNR submitted an application to the Federal Lands to
Parks Program to acquire the land for SPSRA. DNR’s application was approved
the next year, and beginning in 2010, the United States National Park Service
(NPS) transferred large portions of the land to DNR through the program. The
land transfers contemplated use of the land for public recreation and public park
land, but there was also deed language reserving rights to certain existing uses,
including use of the property by the Wisconsin Army National Guard for
helicopter training and drills and access to the land by the United States Army. In
total, approximately 3,385 acres were transferred to DNR ownership for what is
now SPSRA.
¶5 DNR formally began the master planning process for SPSRA
starting around 2012. The master planning process culminated in the 2016 Master
Plan, which included a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The 2016
Master Plan allowed cеrtain uses, including dual-sport motorcycling, dog training
and trialing, and special events such as paintballing. These uses, however, had not
been recommended as uses by the Badger Reuse Committee in the Badger Reuse
Plan. The 2016 Master Plan also recognized that the Wisconsin Army National
Guard would continue its helicopter training and drills on the property. Overall,
though, the 2016 Master Plan focused on the fact that the plan as a whole would
4
improve the environment because a former munitions plant was being converted
into a state recreation area that would be focused on conservation.
¶6 Alliance and others voiced opposition on several occasions during
the master planning process and following the adoption of the 2016 Master Plan to
what they termed “high-impact”1 uses that were inconsistent with the overall
conservation and low-impact uses recommended in the Badger Reuse Plan.
¶7 Alliance filed its first petition for judicial review in Sauk County
Circuit Court on December 8, 2016, seeking review of a draft of the 2016 Master
Plan. Alliance claimed that the inclusion of these high-impact uses such as
rocketry,2 dog training and trialing, dual-sport motorcycling, and special events
including paintball events, were inconsistent with the uses contemplated in the
land transfers from NPS and asserted that the plan was approved by DNR with an
insufficient environmental analysis of the impact of these uses. Overall, Alliance
alleged that DNR and NRB violated the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act
(WEPA),
planning laws.4 After NRB approved the 2016 Master Plan, Alliance filed a
second petition for judicial review in Sauk County Circuit Court, generally raising
the same issues but as to the now final 2016 Master Plan. The second petition was
consolidated with the first into the same proceeding.
¶8 Alliance also filed two requests with DNR for a contested case
hearing, in which Alliance sought the oppоrtunity to introduce evidence of the
effect the high-impact uses would have on the land and of other defects in the
2016 Master Plan. DNR denied both of Alliance’s requests, prompting Alliance to
file two more petitions for judicial review in Sauk County Circuit Court in 2017
seeking judicial review of DNR’s denials of Alliance’s requests for a contested
case hearing. Both of these petitions for judicial review were also consolidated
into the same case with Alliance’s prior petitions for judicial review.
¶9 Following briefing on the matter of the contested cаse hearing, the
circuit court granted Alliance’s request,5 and the matter was referred to
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mark Kaiser for a contested case hearing. ALJ
Kaiser set eight issues to be addressed and held a hearing over the course of four
days, from January 14 to 17, 2019. Alliance presented testimony from twelve
witnesses, and DNR presented testimony from another nine witnesses. In all, the
hearing resulted in thousands of pages of additional testimony and exhibits being
added to an already extensive record. Following the hearing, ALJ Kaiser referred
the matter to NRB. The record given to NRB included more than 13,000 pages of
documents, thousands of additional documents added by stipulation of the parties,
and audio recordings. On October 22, 2019, NRB held a vote at one of its
meetings and reapproved the 2016 Master Plan, with the high-impact uses. No
written decision was issued following the contested case hearing.
¶10 Alliance subsequently filed a fifth petition for judicial review in
Sauk County Circuit Court on November 21, 2019, in which Alliance raised most
of its original claims that the 2016 Master Plan violated NEPA, WEPA, and other
state master planning laws. In this fifth petition, Alliance also added claims
involving deficiencies in the contested case heаring and the resulting decision
from NRB reapproving the 2016 Master Plan. Alliance further added DOA as a
named party as a result of its involvement with holding the contested case hearing.
This fifth petition was similarly consolidated into the same case with Alliance’s
four other petitions for judicial review.
¶11 On November 25, 2020, Alliance filed a motion to conduct
discovery and hold an additional evidentiary hearing at which it could take
testimony related to its claims of procedural irregularities in the contested case
hearing. Through the additional discovery and testimony, Alliance sought to
determine the extеnt of NRB’s review of the materials from the contested case
hearing prior to NRB reapproving the 2016 Master Plan. The circuit court granted
Alliance limited discovery on the matter, and NRB board members submitted
responses to interrogatories indicating whether they had received and reviewed the
materials from the contested case hearing prior to voting to reapprove the 2016
Master Plan.
¶12 In August 2022, nearly six years after Alliance filed its first petition
for judicial review, the parties began briefing on the merits of Alliance’s petitions
for review of the 2016 Master Plan. The parties also submitted supplemental
briefing requested by the circuit court on the issue of whether Alliance had
standing. The circuit court held a hearing on November 1, 2023, at which it
ultimately found in favor of DNR, NRB, and DOA, and dismissed Alliance’s
petitions.
¶13 At the hearing, the circuit court began by noting that the case was “a
voluminous file” with tens and quite possibly hundreds of thousands of pages.
The circuit court continued on to find that the Badger Reuse Plan was not a
controlling document, stating that to call it a plan was a “relatively euphemistic
title because it really wasn’t that[.]” “[A]t no time was it a plan,” and “[w]hat it
was intended to do is make recommendations of values that should be considered
in a draft plan.” Thus, the circuit court found “no actual basis that it meets any of
the criteria of a plan in the first place” and found “more importantly” that the
circuit court lacked “any authority that [it] can choose out of the air a separate
document and put it in place as the plan for this property.” The circuit court
further reviewed the deeds transferring the land to DNR and found that the land
came with “extensive limitations and an extensivе ongoing relationship with the
United States Army,” including use of the land for continued helicopter training
and drills. The circuit court, therefore, found that it did not have “any authority”
to void the agreement or otherwise require DNR to dishonor the agreement.
Having rejected the Badger Reuse Plan and any authority over helicopter use at
SPSRA, the circuit court found that it could not find that the 2016 Master Plan was
deficient by allowing the so-called high-impact uses.
¶14 Alliance now appeals. Additional relevant facts will be set forth as
necessary.
DISCUSSION
¶15 On appeal, Alliance raises thirteen issues that can be broken down
into categоries of issues related to what Alliance argues are procedural
irregularities in the contested case hearing and then deficiencies with the substance
and procedure of the 2016 Master Plan, which includes its compliance with
WEPA and master planning laws. In response, DNR and NRB raise the threshold
issue of Alliance’s standing to pursue claims alleging deficiencies in the 2016
Master Plan based on DNR’s alleged noncompliance with the master planning
laws. DOA also raises two additional issues in the alternative as to whether,
pursuant to
and whether sovereign immunity applies to bar Alliance’s claims against the
DOA.
¶16 We turn first to standing before turning to Alliance’s arguments on
appeal. As a result of our conclusions on the various arguments made by DNR,
NRB, and Alliance, we do not address the alternative arguments raised by DOA.
See State v. Blalock, 150 Wis. 2d 688, 703, 442 N.W.2d 514 (Ct. App. 1989)
([“]Cases should be decided on the narrowest possible ground[.]”).
I. Standard of Review
¶17 “When an appeal is taken from a circuit court order reviewing an
agency decision, we review the decision of the agency, not the circuit court.”
Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist. v. DNR, 2011 WI 54, ¶25, 335 Wis. 2d 47, 799 N.W.2d73 (citation omitted). We “shall not substitute [our] judgment for that of the
agency as to the weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact.”
STAT. § 227.57(6)
competence, and specialized knowledge of the agency involved.”
interpretation of law.”
unless we find “a ground for not doing so.” Lake Beulah Mgmt. Dist., 335Wis. 2d 47, ¶26; see also
II. Standing
¶18 Standing is a two-part inquiry. First, we ask “whether the petition
alleges injuries that are a direct result of the agency action.” Friends of BlackRiver Forest v. Kohler Co., 2022 WI 52, ¶21, 402 Wis. 2d 587, 977 N.W.2d 342
(citation omitted). Second, we ask “whether ‘the injury is to an interest which the
law recognizes or seeks to regulate or protect.’” Id., ¶23 (citation omitted). We
“construe the law of standing liberally and even an injury to a trifling interest may
suffice.” Friends of Blue Mound State Park v. DNR, 2023 WI App 38, ¶25, 408Wis. 2d 763, 993 N.W.2d 788 (citation omitted). “Whether a party has standing is
a question of law that we review independently.” Friends of Black River Forest,402 Wis. 2d 587, ¶10 (citation omitted).
¶19 In this case, however, we assume for our purposes that Alliance has
standing. See Voters with Facts v. City of Eau Claire, 2018 WI 63, ¶26, 382Wis. 2d 1, 913 N.W.2d 131 (indicating that the court may assume standing to
reach the merits). After several years of extensive proceedings, we do not find it
productive to resolve this matter on the basis of a threshold issue, such as standing.
Furthermore, DNR and NRB acknowledge that a lack of standing would not even
dispose of this matter in its entirety because Alliance has standing to bring its
WEPA claims. Therefore, we assume for our purposes that Alliance has standing,
and we turn to the arguments that Alliance has raised on appeal. See id. However,
even reaching the merits of Alliance’s numerous issues on appeal, we conclude
that Alliance’s claims fail.
III. Procedural Irregularities in the Contested Case Hearing
¶20 As noted, Alliance raises several issues on appeal about what it
terms “procedural irregularity” stemming from the contested case hearing that was
granted. Alliance argues that there were multiple procedural irregularities
including (1) ALJ Kaiser was required to prepare a written decision including
findings of fact and conclusions of law but did not, (2) ALJ Kaiser erroneously
excluded one of Alliance’s expert witnesses for the reason that the expert witness
improperly sought to provide legal opinions, (3) ALJ Kaiser improperly referred
the matter to NRB for a decision, and (4) NRB’s decision to reapprove the 2016
Master Plan following the contested case hearing violated due process and was
unsupported by substantial evidence. In identifying these procedural irregularities,
Alliance seems to generally argue that it has not been afforded the procedural due
process to which it is entitled with the contested case hearing it was granted.
¶21 In response, DNR and NRB argue that Alliance was not entitled to a
contested case hearing in the first place. However, should we reach the merits of
Alliance’s claims, DNR and NRB argue that Alliаnce’s claims fail on the merits.
Alternatively, DNR and NRB argue that, even assuming the existence of all the
errors alleged by Alliance, any errors were not material such that they warrant any
kind of reversal or remand for additional proceedings.
¶22 We turn first to the contention that Alliance was not entitled to a
contested case hearing in the first place. Whether a party has a right to a contested
case hearing under
independently. Haase-Hardie v. DNR, 2014 WI App 103, ¶12, 357 Wis. 2d 442,855 N.W.2d 443.
¶23 On this point, we note that the same issue about the right to a
contested case hearing on a master plan was raised in a similar case before this
court where a different environmental group sought judiсial review of DNR’s
master plan for a state park. Friends of Blue Mound State Park v. DNR, 2025WI App 63, __ Wis. 2d __, __ N.W.3d __. In that case, we concluded that DNR
properly denied the request for a contested case hearing. Id., ¶¶1-2. We explained
that DNR regulations for master planning required public participation during the
master planning process, but those regulations also provided DNR with discretion
over the form of that public participation. Id., ¶21. Therefore, the exception to the
right to a contested case hearing in
hearings at the discretion of the agency are expressly authorized by law” applied,
and there was no right to a contested case hearing. Friends of Blue Mound,2025 WI App 63, ¶21. We further observed that holding a contested case hearing
following the master planning process during which the public is able to
participate and submit materials to DNR renders the public participation aspect of
the master planning process redundant. Id., ¶¶22-23.
¶24 We similarly conclude here that Alliance was not entitled to a
contested case hearing, and for that reason аlone, Alliance’s claims stemming
from the contested case hearing fail. However, we also agree with DNR and NRB
that assuming the existence of any and all of the errors identified by Alliance
related to the contested case hearing, those errors do not warrant reversal or
remand for further proceedings of any kind. See
¶25 “The court shall remand the case to the agency for further action if it
finds that either the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action has
been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow prescribed
procedure.” Id. In short, the fairness of the proceedings and the correctness of the
action has not been impaired by any of the procedural irregularities that Alliance
has identified related to the contested case hearing.
¶26 Alliance itself recognizes that, by way of the contested case hearing
that lasted four days, it was able to introduce the testimony of twelve witnesses,
DNR was able to present nine witnesses, and the parties collectively added
thousands of additional pages to an already extensive record. Alliance was further
able to trigger another vote by NRB on whether to approve the 2016 Master Plan,
and Alliance was still able to obtain judicial review of the 2016 Master Plan. The
circuit court similarly recognized that “the process here has been enormous” and
the record amassed during these proceedings has exceeded hundreds of thousands
of pages. Indeed, the record in this appeal lists over 700 documents. We conclude
that there is, therefore, no need to remand this matter for additional proceedings
related to the contested case hearing.
IV. Alliance’s Discovery Request
¶27 Related to the contested case hearing, Alliance also argues that the
circuit сourt erroneously denied Alliance’s request to conduct discovery following
the contested case hearing to determine what materials, if any, were reviewed by
NRB members prior to deciding to reapprove the 2016 Master Plan. While we
need not address this argument because we conclude that Alliance had no right to
a contested case hearing, we briefly address this issue for the sake of
completeness.
¶28 In its discovery request, Alliance sought not only to conduct
discovery but also to take deposition testimony or conduct an evidentiary hearing
to dеtermine exactly what materials the NRB members reviewed and each
member’s understanding of those materials. The circuit court, however, restricted
Alliance to issuing limited interrogatories asking each NRB member if he or she
received the materials from the contested case hearing and if each member
sufficiently reviewed those materials to make an informed decision.
¶29 We review a circuit court’s discovery order for an erroneous
exercise of discretion. Lane v. Sharp Packaging Sys., Inc., 2002 WI 28, ¶19, 251Wis. 2d 68, 640 N.W.2d 788. “We will sustain a discretionary act if we find the
[circuit] court examined the relevant facts, applied a proper standard of law, аnd
using a demonstrative rational process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable
judge could reach.” Id. Having reviewed the record, we discern no erroneous
exercise of discretion on the part of the circuit court in granting Alliance the
opportunity to pose limited interrogatories to each NRB member.
V. Alliance’s Arguments About the 2016 Master Plan
¶30 Finally, we turn to Alliance’s arguments related to the substance of
the 2016 Master Plan itself. Generally speaking, Alliance’s complaints about the
2016 Master Plan fall into two categories of violations of state laws: (1) that the
2016 Master Plan does not comply with the master planning laws, and (2) that the
2016 Master Plan does not comply with WEPA. For the most part, these
violations are premised on the 2016 Master Plan’s inclusion of high-impact uses—
particularly the dual-sport motorcycling, the dog training and trialing, and the
helicopter training and drills by the Wisconsin Army National Guard6—as
violations of the master planning laws and WEPA because they are in conflict
with those low-impact and conservational uses contemplated by the Badger Reuse
Plan.
¶31 Specifically as it applies to the master planning laws, Alliance
argues that DNR violated several master planning laws by (1) fаiling to consider
local and regional perspectives, including the local and regional perspectives
embodied in the Badger Reuse Plan; (2) failing to consider the effects of high-
impact uses on adjacent areas and avoiding adverse impacts where practicable;
(3) treating the 2016 Master Plan as a new master plan and not an amendment to
the Badger Reuse Plan; (4) approving high-impact uses that are inconsistent with
the Badger Reuse Plan; and (5) failing to undertake the master planning process
prior to designating SPSRA as a state recreation area.
¶32 As to WEPA, Alliance identifies nine areas in which Alliance
contends the 2016 Master Plan violates WEPA: (1) it does not sufficiently identify
or evaluate alternatives, (2) it used the wrong baseline, (3) it failed to adequately
analyze environmental impacts or cumulative impacts, (4) it inappropriately
limited the analysis to 15 years, (5) it did not adequately discuss mitigation
measures, (6) it did not adequately evaluate consistency with plans or policies of
federal, state, local, and tribal governments, (7) it did not include a summary of
comments received and DNR’s response to those comments, (8) it did not provide
а list of state, federal, tribal, and local approvals, and (9) it failed to consult with
agencies with jurisdiction or special expertise.
¶33 Having summarized Alliance’s arguments and listed the many
alleged violations, we turn to whether the 2016 Master Plan violates any of the
state master planning laws or WEPA.
Master Planning Law Violations
¶34 Many of Alliance’s arguments for violations of the master planning
laws can be distilled down to one major theme—the Badger Reuse Plan is a
document with legal force that dictates the uses that can be approved in the 2016
Master Plan. Thus, Alliance contends that the 2016 Master Plan violates several
master planning laws because it is inconsistent with the Badger Reuse Plan that
approved use of SPSRA lands only for low-impact and conservational use. In
fact, Alliance argues that the Badger Reuse Plan is the operative master plan for
SPSRA. The Badger Reuse Plan, however, has no such legal force.
¶35 Here we note that Alliance, in a parallel federal proceeding, pursued
arguments that the inclusion of high-impact uses in the 2016 Master Plan were
violations of the Property and Administrative Services Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Sauk Prairie Conservation All. v. UnitedStates Dep’t of Interior, 944 F.3d 664, 666 (7th Cir. 2019). In that case, the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Alliance’s relianсe on the Badger Reuse
Plan as restricting the use of the land for only low-impact uses. Id. at 671-72. The
Seventh Circuit stated, “As far as we can gather from the record, the committee’s
recommendations were exactly that: recommendations.” Id. at 671. Thus, the
Seventh Circuit recognized that the Badger Reuse Plan’s recommendation to allow
low-impact uses at SPSRA was not binding. Id.
¶36 The circuit court reached a similar result below when it stated that
calling the Badger Reuse Plan a plan was a “relatively euphemistic title.” “[A]t no
time was it a plan,” and “[w]hat it was intended to do is make recommendations of
values that should be considered in a draft plan.” Thus, the circuit court found “no
actual basis that it meets any of the criteria of a plan in the first place” and “more
importantly, … any authority that [the circuit court] can choose out of the air a
separate document and put it in place as the plan for this property.”
¶37 We see no reason to disagree with the prior conclusions reached by
the Seventh Circuit and the circuit court as to the nature of the Badger Reuse Plan.
Rather, we take the Badger Reuse Plan for what it is, namely a recommendation to
DNR to use SPSRA for low-impact and consеrvation uses. Indeed, the Badger
Reuse Plan was drafted prior to DNR ownership of any land and was drafted by
the Badger Reuse Committee, not DNR. A master plan, more properly, results
from the master planning process specifically undertaken by DNR, when directed
to do so by NRB. See
Nov. 2024). Thus, we are unpersuaded by Alliance’s argument that DNR violated
several of the master planning laws listed above because the Badger Reuse Plan
was in some way an operative master plan or other sort of legally binding
document.
¶38 Having so concluded, we are left with Alliance’s argument that the
master planning process itself was unlawful as a result of DNR’s improper
designation of SPSRA as a state recreation area. We are unpersuaded that any
alleged violations with the designation of SPSRA as a state recreation area require
any further discussion. As we noted previously, “[t]he court shall remand the case
to the agency for further action if it finds that either the fairness of the proceedings
or the correctness of the action has been impaired by a material error in procedure
or a failure to follow prescribed procedure.”
procedural irregularities in the designation of SPSRA as a state recreation area
have not impaired the fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action.
The proceedings in this case have been exhaustive, and we need not remand this
matter to address any procedural irregularities stemming from the designation of
SPSRA as a state recreation area.
WEPA Violations
¶39 “The scheme of WEPA is not proposed to control agency direction,
but to require that agencies consider and evaluate the environmental consequences
of alternatives available to them in the exercise of that consideration in the
framework provided by [
in nature and does not control agency decision making.” State ex rel. Boehm v.DNR, 174 Wis. 2d 657, 665, 497 N.W.2d 445 (1993). “The purpose of WEPA is
to insure that agencies consider environmental impacts during decision making.”
Id.
¶40 To the extent that Alliance claims that the 2016 Master Plan violated
WEPA because it did not provide adequate analysis on various topics, such as
reasonable alternatives, environmental impacts, and cumulative impacts, we
consider that its arguments may be condensed down in large part to disagreement
with the analysis done by DNR. Alliance seems to find DNR’s analysis
inadequate based on the length of the analysis in the 2016 Master Plan and its lack
of consideration of the Badger Reuse Plan. WEPA is a procedural, and not a
content, requirement, and we have already addressed above that the Badger Reuse
Plan does not limit the ultimate uses approved in the 2016 Master Plan. Rather,
we conclude that the analysis done by DNR in the 2016 Master Plan is sufficiently
detailed to satisfy WEPA’s requirements. As the Seventh Circuit already
described, the 2016 Master Plan “included a meaningful explanation of why the
DNR thought dog training and off-road motorcycle riding specifically would have
a minimal impact, even when viewed in isolation.” Sauk Prairie ConservationAll., 944 F.3d at 668.
¶41 Alliance also argues that the 2016 Master Plan did not evaluate the
proper baseline. In other words, Alliance argues that the 2016 Master Plan should
have compared the impact of the high-impact uses to what would occur if the
property were used only for low-impact or conservation uses and the 2016 Master
Plan should not have compared the proposed uses to the current uses. On this
matter, we again recognize that the Seventh Circuit has already rejected Alliance’s
baseline claim in Alliance’s parallel federal case under NEPA, which is WEPA’s
federal counterpart. Sauk Prairie Conservation All., 944 F.3d at 677-78. In fact,
the Seventh Circuit stаted that Alliance’s proposed baseline was considered as the
baseline for evaluating dual-sport motorcycling and dog training and trialing. Id.
Accordingly, we are also not persuaded that Alliance correctly asserts that the
2016 Master Plan violates WEPA because it considered the wrong baseline.
¶42 To the extent we have not specifically addressed each and every
individual violation of the master planning laws, WEPA, or other state laws listed
by Alliance, we decline to do so. As a result of the laundry list of violations
identified by Alliance in its briefing, wе consider many of these points to be
inadequately developed, and we do not address them for this reason. State v.Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 1992) (“We may
decline to review issues inadequately briefed.”). “An appellate court is not a
performing bear, required to dance to each and every tune played on appeal.”
State v. Waste Mgmt. of Wis., Inc., 81 Wis. 2d 555, 564, 261 N.W.2d 147 (1978).
CONCLUSION
¶43 In sum, Alliance raises several issues on appeal related to the 2016
Master Plan adopted for SPSRA and the contested case hearing that it was granted
by the circuit court. We are not persuaded that Alliance’s arguments warrant
reversаl or further proceedings in this matter, and therefore, we affirm the circuit
court’s order dismissing Alliance’s petitions for judicial review.
By the Court.—Orders affirmed.
This opinion will not be published. See
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5
Notes
that this is not a term defined in statutes, regulations, the 2016 Master Plan, or elsewhere.
final 2016 Master Plan.
Policy Act (NEPA),
argument on appeаl. Thus, we consider this argument to be abandoned. See A.O. Smith Corp. v.Allstate Ins. Cos., 222 Wis. 2d 475, 491, 588 N.W.2d 285 (Ct. App. 1998). Furthermore, any
argument that the 2016 Master Plan violated NEPA has been settled by the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals. Sauk Prairie Conservation All. v. United States Dep’t of Interior, 944 F.3d 664,666-67 (7th Cir. 2019).
contested case hearing.
training and drills was originally requested by the Pentagon, that NPS had no say over this use
when it transferred the land to DNR, and that the Army conditioned its approval of the land
transfer to DNR on continued helicopter use. Sauk Prairie Conservation All., 944 F.3d at 674,679. Thus, the land transfer to DNR came with deed language requiring the use of SPSRA lands
for helicopter training and drills by the Wisconsin Army National Guard. The Seventh Circuit
stated, “It was the Army’s land to begin with, and the Army would not release it without this
provision. In other words, helicopter training was going to continue at [SPSRA] one way or
another.” Id. at 679. The circuit court likewise recognized that SPSRA was transferred to DNR
with “extensive limitations and an extensive ongoing relationship with the United States Army,”
and the circuit court found it had no authority to void the agreement or otherwise require DNR to
dishonor the agreement. We similarly conclude that this court lacks the ability to require DNR to
void or dishonor the agreement allowing continued use of SPSRA lands for helicopter training
and drills.