PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT

AND STRATEGIC PLANNING

House Bill 4475 (proposed H-2 substitute)

Sponsor:  Rep. Gary Howell

Senate Bill 302 (proposed H-2 substitute)

Sponsor:  Sen. Tom Casperson

Senate Bill 303 (proposed H-1 substitute)

Sponsor:  Sen. Darwin L. Booher

Committee:  Natural Resources

Complete to 3-13-18

BRIEF SUMMARY:

House Bill 4475 and Senate Bill 302 would amend various sections within the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) relating to natural resources management and strategic plans for public lands. In general, the bills would do the following:

·         Require the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to consider the public and private access to and use of state-owned land.

·         Allow the DNR to acquire surface rights north of the Mason-Arenac line if certain conditions are met.

·         Amend and expand the practices for strategic planning, state forests, and acquisition, development, and sale of land.

·         Create a public process to remove human-made barriers blocking access to state-owned land.

·         Amend the Game And Fish Protection Account, the Land Exchange Facilitation Fund, and the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.

Senate Bill 303 would amend the allowable uses and procedures for use approval of the Land Exchange Facilitation Fund.

All of the bills are tie-barred to one another, so none can take effect unless all are enacted into law.

DETAILED SUMMARY:

Land classification considerations

NREPA currently lists general duties for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). To these, House Bill 4475 would add that the DNR must consider all of the following before it issues an order or promulgates a rule that will designate or classify land that it manages for any purpose:

·         Providing for access to and use of the public land for recreation and tourism.

·         The existence of or potential for natural resource-based industries, such as oil and gas development, mining, or forest management, on the public land.

·         The potential impact of the designation or classification on nearby private property.

Surface rights limitations

Currently, the DNR cannot acquire surface rights to land north of the Mason-Arenac line if the DNR owns, or as a result of the acquisition will own, the surface rights to more than 3,910,000 acres of land in that area. Current law states that this restriction will not apply after the enactment of legislation adopting the DNR’s strategic plan (see Strategic Plan, below).

The picture below illustrates the Mason-Arenac line, which is the line formed by the northern boundaries of Mason, Lake, Osceola, Clare, Gladwin, and Arenac Counties.

[Please see the PDF version of this analysis, if available, to view this image.]

House Bill 4475 would strike the restriction described above and instead mandate that if any payment for land located north of the line is not made in full and on time during a fiscal year under Subpart 13 of Part 21 (regarding tax-reverted, recreation, forest, or other lands), under Subpart 14 of Part 21 (regarding real property), or under Section 51106 (regarding commercial forestlands), then the DNR cannot acquire surface rights to land located north of the Mason-Arenac line until the end of that fiscal year unless 1 or both of the following apply:

·         Full payment is made later during that fiscal year.

·         The specific acquisition was approved by resolutions adopted by the legislative bodies of the county and township or townships where the land is located.

For purposes of this new provision (and for purposes of Reports, below), HB 4475 would specify that land in which the DNR acquires or owns surface rights does not include the following:

·         Land acquired under an option agreement in effect on the date when the payment described above became due if the acquisition takes place within 120 days after the payment became due.

·         Land in which the DNR has a conservation easement.

·         Land that was platted before July 2, 2012 under the Land Division Act and acquired by the DNR.

·         Land acquired after July 2, 2012 that:

o   Was acquired by the DNR through litigation or by gift, including a gift of money dedicated to land acquisition.

o   Was commercial forestland on July 2, 2012 and continues to be used consistently with Part 511 (Commercial Forests).

o   Has an area of less than 80 acres or is a right-of-way for accessing other DNR land.

o   Is a trail, including only the land within the utility easement or railroad right-of-way that is the basis for the trail or, if neither of those applies, including a maximum of 50 feet of land to each side of the trail’s main- traveled way.

Strategic plan

Public Act 240 of 2012, which added the provisions described above capping the acreage of land to which the DNR can acquire surface rights, also required the DNR to develop a written strategic plan for the acquisition and disposition of land. At the time of enactment, it was the legislature’s intent to repeal the land cap once the strategic plan was written and legislatively adopted.[1]

House Bill 4475 would add to the requirements for the strategic plan that it must identify critical trail connectors to enhance motorized and nonmotorized natural-resource-dependent outdoor recreation activities for public enjoyment.

HB 4475 also would mandate that the legislature approve the strategic plan, entitled “Department of Natural Resources Managed Public Land Strategy,” issued by the DNR and dated July 1, 2013.[2] The DNR would implement the most recent legislatively approved plan and could not change the plan, except by plan update approved by the legislature. A proposed update would be required by October 1, 2021 and every 6 years thereafter. It would be submitted to the relevant legislative committees and posted on the DNR’s website.

(Currently, the DNR submits strategic plan updates to “senate and house committees with primary responsibility for natural resources and other outdoor recreation and the corresponding appropriation subcommittees.” HB 4475 would replace that long description with relevant legislative committees. The shortened phrase would have the same meaning, and it is used throughout all three bills.)

At least 60 days before posting the proposed updated plan, the DNR must prepare, submit to the relevant legislative committees, and post on its website a report on progress toward the goals set forth in the strategic plan and any proposed changes to the goals, including the rationale for any changes. Under HB 4475, the report also would have to include progress on the DNR’s engagement and collaboration with local units of government.

The bill also would eliminate a provision requiring the DNR to submit to relevant legislative committees a statement identifying land it proposes to acquire or dispose of and describing the effect of the proposed transaction.

Reports

Currently, the DNR is required to post and maintain on its website the number of acres of land, including and excluding land that did not count against the limit applicable north of the Mason-Arenac line, in which the DNR owned surface rights north of that line, south of that line, and in total for the state. The bill would eliminate this requirement.

 

Under HB 4475, the DNR annually would have to submit to the relevant legislative committees, post, and update on its website all of the following:

·         A report on implementation of the plan.

·         The number of acres of land in which the DNR owns surface rights north of the Mason-Arenac line, south of that line, and in total for the state.

·         Information on the total number of acres of the following:

o   Land managed by the DNR.

o   State park and state recreation area land.

o   State game and state waterfowl areas.

o   Land managed by the DNR that is open for public hunting.

o   Land under DNR control that is not open to hunting.

o   State-owned mineral rights managed by the DNR that are under a development lease.

o   State forestland.

·         Public boating access sites managed by the DNR.

·         Miles of motorized and nonmotorized trails managed by the DNR.

Acquisition of land in certain counties

Under House Bill 4475, if 40% or more of the land in a county is owned by this state and managed by the DNR, is owned the federal government, or is commercial forestland, then the DNR could not acquire land if, within 60 days after it sends notice of its proposed acquisition to local legislative bodies (see Notice requirements, below), the DNR receives a copy of a resolution rejecting the proposed acquisition adopted by any of the following:

·         The county board of commissioners.

·         The township board if the land is located in a single township.

·         A township board or boards representing a township or townships in which 30% or more of the land is located, if the land is located in two or more townships.

The DNR also would be charged with maintaining on its website and making available in writing to persons seeking to purchase land from, sell land to, or exchange land with the DNR information about the relevant requirements and procedures under NREPA.

DNR duties

Currently, NREPA requires the DNR to promulgate rules to protect and preserve lands and other property under its control from depredation, damage, or destruction or wrongful or improper use or occupancy. Senate Bill 302 would add to these duties that, not more than 10 days after promulgating a rule, the DNR must provide a copy of the rule to the relevant legislative committees. Within 6 months after the effective date of a rule that limits the use of or access to more than 500 acres of state forest, the DNR, if requested by the chair of a relevant legislative committee, would have to provide testimony to the committee on the implementation and effects of the rule.

SB 302 also would add a clause urging the DNR to promote public enjoyment of the state’s wildlife and other natural resources by providing public access to lands under its control for outdoor recreation activities dependent on natural resources while providing reasonable consideration for both motorized and nonmotorized activities.

Land use and access

Senate Bill 302 would require the DNR to work with a requesting local unit of government to allow use of state land within that local unit that would benefit the local community by increasing outdoor recreation opportunities and expanding access to and appropriate use of natural resources and the outdoors. The DNR could charge the local unit a reasonable fee for the use, as long as the fee would not exceed the costs incurred by the DNR for the use.

Removal of human-made barrier

Senate Bill 302 would mandate that if the DNR receives a written resolution from a recreational users organization or the legislative body of a local unit of government requesting the removal of a berm, gate, or other human-made barrier on land under the DNR’s control, the DNR would have to notify the requestor in writing within 60 days that it will either remove the barrier, not remove the barrier, or not consider the request.

If the DNR notifies the requestor that the barrier will be removed, the DNR would have to remove the barrier within 180 days after receiving the written request.

If the DNR notifies the requestor that the barrier will not be removed, the DNR would have to notify the requestor the reasons why the DNR believes the barrier should not be removed and of the right of the organization or local unit to request in writing a public meeting on the matter. The meeting would have to take place within 21 days after the DNR sends the written notice. If the recreational users organization or local unit of government requests a public meeting, the DNR would have to conduct a public meeting in the city, village, or township where the barrier is located to explain the DNR’s position and receive comments on the proposed removal. After the meeting, and within 180 days after receiving the request to remove the barrier, the DNR would have to approve or deny the request and notify the requestor in writing again. If the request is again denied, the notice would have to include the reasons for denial. If the request is instead approved, the barrier would be removed as follows:

·         By the DNR within 180 days after the public meeting.

·         By the recreational users organization or legislative body requesting the removal of the barrier, if it agrees with the DNR to remove the barrier under the DNR’s oversight and at the requestor’s expense, within 30 days.

The DNR may also not consider the request for removal of the barrier, but only if, within the three-year period preceding receipt of the request, the DNR received another request for removal and acted according to the provisions above for approving or denying it. The notice of nonconsideration would have to explain why the request is not being considered and specify the date after which the DNR is required, if the barrier has not been removed, to consider a new request.

Natural resources trust fund

Under Part 19 (Natural Resources Trust Fund) and in accordance with Section 35 of Article IX of the State Constitution,[3] the interest and earnings of the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) in a fiscal year may be spent in subsequent fiscal years only for the following purposes:

·         The acquisition of land or rights in land for recreational uses or for protection of the land because of its environmental importance or scenic beauty.

·         The administration of the MNRTF, including payments in lieu of taxes on state-owned land purchased through the MNRTF.

·         The development of public recreation facilities.

Furthermore, Part 19 allows one third of the money received by the MNRTF in any fiscal year, excluding interest and earnings, to be spent in subsequent fiscal years for the specified purposes. This authorization, however, does not apply after the fiscal year in which the total balance of the MNRTF, excluding interest and earnings and amounts authorized for expenditure, exceeds $500.0 million. (The $500.0 million cap was reached in May 2011.)

Senate Bill 302 would eliminate the definitions for economic development revenue bonds and total expenditures that are in current law. Additionally, the bill would stipulate that Part 19 is subject to proposed Section 2132a (see Sale or lease of state lands for public purposes, below).

Game and fish protection account

Money in the Game and Fish Protection Account must be spent, upon appropriation, only as provided in Part 435 (Hunting and Fishing Licensing) and for the Account’s administration, which may include payments in lieu of taxes on state-owned land purchased through the Account or the former Game and Fish Protection Fund.

Senate Bill 302 would require the DNR to manage land acquired with money from the Account or the former Fund through the use of scientific game species management for the primary purpose of managing habitat and thereby enhancing recreational hunting opportunities. Unless the DNR could demonstrate that the expenditure was for the primary purpose of managing game habitat and that benefits to nongame species were a result of that primary purpose, both of the following would apply:

·         Money in the Account could not be spent for management of nongame species.

·         Forest treatments on land acquired with money from the Account or the former Fund could not be undertaken to benefit nongame species.

Money in the Account may currently be spent for grants to state colleges and universities to implement programs funded by the Account. Under the bill, this provision would apply only if the DNR did not have the staff or other resources to implement the programs itself.

Sale or lease of state lands for public purposes

Subpart 1 of Part 21, relating to the sale or lease of state lands, now allows tax reverted lands under DNR control to be sold to school districts, to churches, to public educational institutions for public purposes, to the United States, and to governmental units of this state and their agencies. Senate Bill 302 would add “and other religious organizations” after “churches” in this list of eligible entities.

Currently, the State Tax Commission determines the price of land using a formula. SB 302 would change this so the value is determined by an appraisal under proposed Section 2132a. Under that section, if land were proposed for sale or exchange with the DNR based on its appraised value, if two or more appraisals that met DNR standards were made on behalf of the parties to the proposed transaction, and if the high appraisal were less than 10% higher than the low appraisal, the accepted value for purposes of the purchase, sale, or exchange would have to be the average of all of the appraised values. If the high appraisal were at least 10% higher than the low appraisal, the parties could agree upon a new appraiser, whose appraisal or determination based on review of the existing appraisals would be the accepted value. The DNR would be responsible for half of the new appraiser’s fee, while the other party or parties would be responsible for the balance.

Land exchange facilitation and management fund

Subpart 10 of Part 21 pertains to purchasing, selling, and exchanging surplus land and establishes the Land Exchange Facilitation Fund.

Senate Bill 303 would rename the fund the “Land Exchange Facilitation and Management Fund.” The fund would continue to reside in the state treasury and be administered by the DNR. The bill would allow the state treasurer to receive money or other assets from any source for deposit into the fund and require the state treasurer to direct the investment of the fund and credit to the fund the interest and earnings derived from those investments.

SB 303 would amend the purposes for which the fund can be used, and the procedure for approval of those purposes. Currently, one of the purposes for which the fund can be used is the purchase of land for natural resources management, administration, and public recreation, upon the recommendation of the DNR, authorization of the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Board, and approval by the legislature under the terms and conditions of the Kammer Recreational Land Trust Fund Act of 1976. Under SB 303, money from the fund could be used for the purchase of land for natural resources management as long as the land meets the needs outlined in the latest strategic plan approved by the legislature (see Strategic plan, above).

Additionally, SB 303 would allow fund money to be used for the costs of environmental assessments and surveys incurred by the DNR when purchasing land. It would also add that the fund money could be used for the costs of managing the natural resources for public recreation activities and public recreation development projects on DNR-managed land.

Exchange of state land

Currently, any land under DNR control that is allowed to be sold or conveyed may be exchanged for land of equal area or approximately equal value belonging to the U.S. government or owned by private individuals if, in the opinion of the DNR, doing so is in the interest of the state. Senate Bill 302 would delete “in the opinion of the DNR” from the preceding provision.

SB 302 would add several provisions relating to the submission and processing of applications for an exchange for state land. Sixty days after the DNR receives an application from a private individual to exchange that individual’s land for state land, the application would be considered complete. However, if the DNR notifies the applicant in writing before the end of the 60-day period that the application is not complete, and specifies the information necessary to make the application complete, the 60-day period is tolled until the applicant submits to the DNR the specified information, at which time the application would be considered complete.

Within 180 days after an application is complete, or a later date agreed to by the applicant and the DNR, the DNR would have to approve or deny the application and notify the applicant in writing. If the application is denied, the notice would have to contain the specific reasons for the denial.

The DNR would also have to charge a fee for an application for the exchange of state land, which would be $300 plus, if the state land is more than 300 acres in size, the actual reasonable cost of processing the application.

Easement fee

Under Senate Bill 302, the DNR could charge a fee for an application for the grant of an easement. This fee could not exceed the actual reasonable cost of processing an application for an easement or $300, whichever is less.

Surplus land

Currently, the DNR may designate any state-owned land as surplus land as long as it meets certain criteria. Senate Bill 302 would amend these criteria by removing that the land must have been dedicated for public use. One of the determinations that the DNR can currently make is whether the land is occupied for a private use through inadvertent trespass; the bill would instead require the DNR to consider whether sale of the land could resolve an inadvertent trespass. The bill would also require the DNR to consider whether the sale could promote other economic activity beyond forest products and mining.

Presently, the DNR cannot authorize a sale if the proceeds from the sale cause the balance of the Land Exchange Facilitation Fund to exceed $25.0 million. SB 302 would eliminate that requirement. The DNR also cannot presently cannot designate as surplus any land within a state park or recreation area. SB 302 would expand this prohibition to include state wildlife research areas, state fish hatcheries, or state public boating access sites.

SB 302 would add several provisions relating to the submission and processing of applications for surplus land. Sixty days after the DNR receives an application from a private individual to purchase surplus land through a negotiated sale, the application would be considered complete. However, if the DNR notifies the applicant in writing before the end of the 60-day period that the application is not complete, and specifies the information necessary to make the application complete, the 60-day period is tolled until the applicant submits to the DNR the specified information, at which time the application would be considered complete.

Within 180 days after an application is complete, or a later date agreed to by the applicant and the DNR, the DNR would have to approve or deny the application and notify the applicant in writing. If the application is denied, the notice would have to contain the specific reasons for the denial.

The DNR would also have to charge a fee for an application for the purchase of surplus land, which would be $300 plus, if the surplus land is more than 300 acres in size, the actual reasonable cost of processing the application. However, the DNR may charge a fee for an application for the grant of an easement. This fee could not exceed the actual reasonable cost of processing an application for an easement or $300, whichever is less.

However, if an application is not complete or the above fee has not been paid within 60 days after notice, the DNR would have to consider and act upon a completed application that was submitted at a later date.

The DNR could give preference to a local unit of government in a land transaction, but no other person.

SB 302 also would subject appraisals of surplus land to the newly created Section 2132a (see Sale or lease of state lands for public purposes, above).

Sale/exchange of nonsurplus land

Senate Bill 302 would require the DNR, upon request, to consider selling or exchanging land that is not designated as surplus land. The sale or exchange would be subject to the procedures that apply to the sale of surplus land (see above).

The DNR would not be required to consider selling nonsurplus land in a state park, recreation area, or game area, fish hatchery, or public boating access site. These provisions also would not apply to a request to sell land if the request met the bill’s criteria related to a proposed business expansion that was limited by adjacent state land (see below).

Sale or lease for business expansion

Senate Bill 302 would require the DNR, upon request, to consider selling or leasing land if both of the following requirements were met:

·         The prospective buyer or lessee was a business seeking expansion, but was limited by adjacent state land.

·         The sale or lease would result in an economic or other benefit for a local unit of government or region.

Notice of the proposed sale or lease would have to be given as provided in Notice requirements, below. In making its decision on the request, the DNR would have to consider any comments on the proposed sale or lease from local units of government or others, as well as the impact on natural resources and outdoor recreation in the state, giving due regard to the variety, use, and quantity of land then under the DNR’s control.

The price for the sale would have to be established by a method determined appropriate by the DNR and agreed to by the applicant, including appraisal (subject to the provisions regarding multiple appraisals), fee schedule, or true cash value of adjoining land.

Proceeds from sale of the land would have to be deposited in the fund that provided the revenue for the DNR’s acquisition of the land. If there were more than one, the revenue would have to be deposited in the several funds in amounts proportionate to their respective contributions to the acquisition. To the extent that the land was in whole or in part acquired other than with restricted fund revenue, a proportionate amount of the proceeds would have to be deposited in the Land Exchange Facilitation and Management Fund.

Notice requirements

House Bill 4475 would eliminate current land management notice requirements and instead add a new Subpart 17 to Part 21 to detail when and how the DNR would have to give notice in such matters. This new part would prohibit the DNR from disposing of, acquiring, leasing, or significantly developing land more than 80 acres in size, unless all of the following requirements are met:

·         At least 60 days before the disposition, acquisition, lease, or development, the DNR does all of the following:

o   Provides notice in writing to the legislative bodies of the county and the township or townships where the land is located and the relevant legislative committees.

o   Posts the notice on its website.

o   Publishes the notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the land is located. [Newspaper would refer only to a newspaper published in the English language for the dissemination of local or transmitted news and intelligence of a general character, or for the dissemination of legal news, and which meets certain additional factors as described in the Revised Judicature Act (MCL 600.1461).]

·         The notices above contain all of the following information:

o   The location and acreage of the land.

o   For an acquisition, how the land will be used and estimated payments in lieu of taxes.

o   For a sealed or oral bid public auction sale or negotiated sale of surplus land, the date, time, and place of sale or of the DNR’s meeting to authorize the sale.

o   The effect the proposed disposition, acquisition, lease, or development is expected to have on achieving the goals set forth in the strategic plan.

o   The opportunity to request a public hearing on the proposed disposition, acquisition, lease, or development and the date by which the public hearing would have to be requested, which must not be less than 30 days after the public notice is given.

o   DNR contact information for persons who wish to comment on the proposed disposition, acquisition, lease, or development or who wish to meet or request a hearing.

·         The DNR provides an opportunity for representatives of all local units of government where the land is located to meet in person with a DNR representative to discuss the proposed disposition, acquisition, lease, or development.

·         If a timely request is made above, the DNR conducts a public hearing in the township or one of the townships where the land is located. Not less than 15 days before the public hearing, the DNR would have to give notice of the time, date, place, and subject of the public hearing by the same means and to the same parties to which notice was given above.

Issuing orders

The DNR is currently allowed to issue orders necessary to implement the rules it is authorized to promulgate; the orders are effective upon posting. Senate Bill 302 would add that, when issuing an order, the DNR would have to comply with the following procedures:

·         The DNR prepares the order after considering comments from DNR field personnel.

·         The DNR conducts two public meetings and otherwise provides an opportunity for public comment on the order.

·         Beginning at least 30 days before the first meeting and continuing through the public comment period, the DNR includes the order on its agenda and posts the order on its website.

·         At least 30 days before issuing an order that would alter a lawful statute, rule, regulation, or order at the time the order is prepared, the DNR provides a copy of the order to each of the following:

o   Each member of the Senate and House of Representatives standing committees on conservation, the environment, natural resources, recreation, tourism, or agriculture.

o   The chairpersons of the Senate and House of Representatives Appropriations Committees, and the members of the appropriations subcommittees that consider the budget of the DNR.

·         The DNR approves, rejects, or modifies the order.

Not more than 10 days after issuing an order, the DNR would have to provide a copy of the order to the relevant legislative committees. Within 6 months after posting an order that limits the use of or access to more than 500 acres of state forest, the DNR, if requested by the chair of a relevant legislative committee, would have to provide testimony to the committee on the implementation and effects of the order.

The DNR could revise an issued order, as long as the revision complies with the above procedures.

Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act

Part 405 (Wildlife Restoration, Management, and Research) requires the DNR to perform acts necessary to conduct and establish wildlife restoration, management, and research projects in areas in cooperation with the federal government under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and regulations promulgated by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior under that act. In compliance with that act, funds accruing to the state from hunting license fees may not be used for any purpose other than game and fish activities under the DNR’s administration.

Senate Bill 302 would require the DNR to manage land acquired with money received under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to manage game and fish populations to ensure increased recreational hunting and fishing opportunities. Expenditures to enhance game and fish habitat would have to be primarily for the management of game species, but could benefit nongame species.

Commercial forestlands

Senate Bill 303 would amend Part 511 (Commercial Forests) to change the timeline for reporting and payment for commercial forestlands. Currently, on December 1 of each year, the DNR must certify the number of commercial forestlands and the state treasurer must transmit the required amount to the treasurer of each county based on that count. SB 303 would require DNR reporting by November 1 of each year and payment by December 1 of each year.

Sustainable management of state forest

Under Part 525 (Sustainable Forestry on State Forestlands), the DNR must manage the state forest in a manner that is consistent with principles of sustainable forestry. In fulfilling this requirement, the DNR is required to manage forests with consideration of their economic, social, and environmental values by engaging in a number of prescribed actions. Senate Bill 302 would delete the requirement that the DNR plan and manage plantations in accordance with sustainable forestry principles and in a manner that complements the management of and promotes the restoration and conservation of natural forests. The bill would add the following to the DNR requirements:

·         Promote working forests for the production of forest products and ecological value, where appropriate.

·         Actively manage for enhanced wildlife habitat.

The DNR also must currently conserve and protect forestland by taking certain actions, including managing the quality and distribution of wildlife habitats, contributing to the conservation of biological diversity, and developing and implementing stand and landscape-level measures that promote habitat diversity and the conservation of forest plants and animals. The bill would require the DNR to perform these functions while minimizing loss of economic values.

The DNR is required to manage activities in high conservation value forests by maintaining or enhancing the attributes that define them. Under the bill, the DNR would have to do this while minimizing loss of economic values.

SB 302 would also require the DNR to inform the public of the positive aspects of managed forests.

Forestry development, conservation, and recreation management plan

Currently, Part 525 requires the DNR to adopt a forestry development, conservation, and recreation management plan for state-owned land owned or controlled by the DNR. Parks and recreation areas, state game areas, and other wildlife areas on that land must be managed according to their primary purpose. Among other things, the plan and any plan updates must identify the annual capability of the state forest, as well as management goals based on that level of productivity. Senate Bill 302 would delete this requirement.

SB 302 also would require the plan and any updates to include yearly harvest objectives for all state forestland by forest region for a 10-year period. At least every five years, the DNR would have to review the yearly harvest objectives. At least once every ten years, the DNR would have to update the yearly harvest objectives for all state forestland for a ten-year period. The DNR would have to post and maintain the current yearly harvest objectives on its website. For each forest region, the harvest objectives could not exceed the sustainable yields. In setting harvest objectives, the DNR could consider physical, biological, environmental, and recreational objectives.

Beginning October 1, 2018, and each subsequent year, the DNR would have to prepare for sale a minimum of 90% of the yearly statewide harvest objective.

Finally, all of the bills propose numerous technical fixes throughout for concise language and correct references to other parts of Michigan law.

MCL 324.301 et seq.

FISCAL IMPACT:

House Bill 4475 and Senate Bill 302

The likely fiscal impact of these bills on the DNR and local units of government is unclear. The bills create reporting requirements for the DNR to maintain regarding its public land management. The bills also require the DNR to keep certain records and give periodic legislative updates, as well as communicate with local units of government regarding certain types of land use and management transactions. The extent of these administrative costs is unknown and likely to vary.

The bills also designate the primary purpose of the Game and Fish Protection Account as “managing habitat and thereby enhancing recreational hunting opportunities” and focus expenditure of the fund on game species to the exclusion of nongame species.

The DNR would be required to charge an application fee of $300 for the exchange of state land or the purchase of surplus land, plus the cost of application processing for parcels in excess of 300 acres. The DNR would also be allowed to charge an application fee not to exceed $300 or the actual cost of application processing to grant an easement. The amount of revenue likely to be generated by these application fees is uncertain at this time.

Senate Bill 303

Senate Bill 303 would have a neutral fiscal impact on the DNR. The administrative changes made to the Land Exchange Facilitation Fund would not necessarily affect departmental costs or revenues. This fund has been used to purchase land for natural resources management and to administer the sale of surplus state lands. The FY 2017-18 DNR budget includes $5.0 million in appropriations from the fund. The bill is unlikely to have a fiscal impact on local units of government.

                                                                                        Legislative Analyst:   Emily S. Smith

                                                                                                Fiscal Analyst:   Austin Scott

■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House Fiscal Agency staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.

---