ESCANABA — The impact of changes to a controversial easement across land owned by Delta Conservation District Manager Rory Mattson remains unknown, but concerns over how the changes were made to the agreement continue to mount.

At the Aug. 15 Delta County Board of Commissioners meeting, the commissioners granted a request by Mattson to modify the terms of the easement that allowed access to the county forest through his property, restricting access to only fire suppression and timber harvesting uses. Mattson has maintained the easement originally granted by Weyerhaeuser prior to his purchase of the land was not intended to allow public access to the forest — a claim disputed by Conservation District Board Chair Joe Kaplan, who with the rest of the district board has asked for the state attorney general’s office to investigate whether Mattson had a conflict of interest negotiating the county’s purchase of the forest land as well as properties he purchased later adjacent to the forest.

Regardless of any potential investigation into Mattson by the conservation district, the primary concern for the county is that the change in easement may violate terms of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Trust Fund Grant used to purchase the 1,400 acres of forest in 2017. There is some disagreement about the exact value of the amount that could be at risk, but County Board Chair Dave Moyle puts the value of the trust fund’s contribution to the forest purchase around $825,000.

Even before the board of commissioners heard Mattson’s request, there were concerns that changing the easement could jeopardize the agreement. On Aug. 11, County Administrator Ashleigh Young reached out to Jon Mayes, program manager for the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund, via email about a possible change to the easement taking place.

“Mayes responded on Aug. 17, two days after the county board approved the amendment, stating that “reducing the easements rights held by the county is not compatible with the conditions outlined in the project agreement between Delta County and the State of Michigan.” He advised the county not to move forward with any ­changes that would “diminish the rights of the public for the current or future access or to the use of the Cornell Forest property” and that changes “would almost certainly represent a breach of the project agreement.”

By then, the agreement amending the easement had already been signed — something Moyle did immediately following the meeting on Aug. 15, consistent with the board’s usual operating procedure. The document was then filed with the county’s register of deeds on Aug. 21.

County Commissioner John Malnar said at the Sept. 5 county board meeting that he had reached out to the Michigan Association of Counties, which informed him the county could have rescinded the approval if the document had not been signed and legally recorded.

“We can’t get it done,” he said at that meeting.

In reality, the county may have been able to reverse course, because the initial filing on Aug. 21 was signed but not notarized as required.

On Sept. 12 — 27 days after the county was alerted an easement change would “almost certainly” violate the agreement with the Trust Fund — Mattson and Moyle signed a new signature page for the easement amendment before a notary public at First Bank. Mattson also signed and had notarized an affidavit stating the amendment to the easement agreement filed on Aug. 21 “inadvertently left off the notary for the signing parties.”

The notarized documents were filed with the register of deeds the following day, Sept. 13, according to the Delta County Internet Land Records Search System.

“You waited a month and then you just signed two pages of the amendment agreement — didn’t go to the county to get it notarized. You went to First Bank, where the district does all it’s banking,” Kaplan told Moyle during public comment at the Sept. 21 commission meeting.

When asked about the new signature pages by the Daily Press, Moyle said notarizing the pages was not “clandestine” but was merely procedural.

“I’ve already signed the document through the authority of the board and so I didn’t feel like I was going behind anybody. I just figured it was another step,” he said.

Moyle went on to say that he firmly believed that the change to the easement would not diminish the public’s ability to access the forest or violate the grant. He said he expected the board’s actions would “come out in the wash” once the DNR reviewed the original easement agreement signed in 2017, which was sent to Mayes sometime before the Sept. 19 meeting.

“It doesn’t really matter what I do; it matters what the DNR says. And so, if they don’t bless this, then we’re obviously going to have to take steps to reverse it,” he said.

Moyle was not sure how the county would reverse the easement amendment if Mattson decided not to work with the county. Mattson himself, however, has previously said he won’t leave the county out to dry.

“I’ve always had the county at heart, so I can tell you this much: I’m not going to screw the county. I’m just not, because that’s not Rory Mattson,” he told the Daily Press earlier this month.

Like Moyle, Mattson has held the position that the changes to the easement do not violate the grant and that a thorough review from the DNR will reveal that to be fact.