Groups pile on in protest of House Legacy Amendment bill; NRA has already weighed in

The NRA has already fired its big guns at a poorly constructed House Legacy Amendment bill that passed last week and is headed to a conference committee, where it will compete with a much better Senate version of the same bill.
Now The Nature Conservancy, Pheasants Forever and other environment, conservation, wildlife, fishing and hunting groups are weighing in, protesting that the House bill is unworkable.
Here's a copy of the letter The Nature Conservancy, the Trust for Public Land, the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association and others sent to House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher on Monday:
Dear Speaker Anderson Kelliher:

The undersigned groups represent a number of nongovernmentalconservation organizations working to protect Minnesota's naturalresources. We have been veryactive in supporting the Clean Water, Land and Legacy amendment, and continueto work very closely in the implementation of programs and projects proposedfor funding via the Outdoor Heritage Fund.

We appreciate the thoughtfulness the House has given issuesrelated to the appropriation of this Fund. The number and speed of decisions required have made this anunusual process. Even so, in thisinaugural year of constitutional funding, progress has been very good,legislative support to date has been appreciated, and we believe the frameworkis in place for great success.

We do, however, have several concerns with some of thelanguage related to the Outdoor Heritage Fund (OHF) in the current engrossmentof House File 1231. House File1231 as it stands contains both appropriation and policy language. The latter is broad-reaching in scopeand highly prescriptive in practice. As a result, it will be difficult to efficiently and effectively deliverthe natural resource conservation envisioned by Minnesotans with their November4^th vote. We are alsoaware that the DNR and BWSR have expressed similar concerns to ours.

We do believe there are good concepts in HF1231. It is critically important that therebe standards governing how Outdoor Heritage Funds are spent; and it is equallyimportant the Minnesotans know how and where these funds are spent. We believe there needs to be moredialogue to develop the appropriate policy language for addressing theseissues.

Attached iis a list of some of our most serious concerns withHF1231. As you can see, they spanthe gamut from high-level oversight issues to those of constitutionality tothose of technical inaccuracies. Dueto the range and seriousness of many of the issues and the detail which needsto be addressed, we believe it would be more appropriate to take additionaltime before committing many of these issues to statute. We believe the Outdoor Heritage Councilcould be an appropriate venue to deliberate on these issues and providerecommendations to the Legislature. Further, we believe such recommendations need to be subsequently vettedthrough the normal policy committee process.

We respectfully request to meet with you to discuss theseconcerns and discuss how we can provide any guidance you might request inresolving these problems. We willcontact your office to request a meeting in the next few days. We know this is an incredibly busy timebut these are important issues for the future of our natural resources. Your assistance would be mostappreciated.

The Nature Conservancy MinnesotaDeer Hunters Association MinnesotaLand Trust

Pheasants Forever Trustfor Public Land TheConservation Fund

Problem Areas in House File 1231 (SecondEngrossment) (https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1231.2.html&session=ls86)

The citations below have been identified as implementationproblems by one or more conservation partners, however not all partners haveequal issue with individual sections.

Line 4.10 changes ownership of land from federal to statewith respect to the Northern Tall Grass Prairie project recommendation: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hasbeen a long-standing partner in prairie conservation. Original intent of this recommendation was to allow federalownership to reduce state Payment In Lieu of Tax (PILT) obligations. Thischange will result in U.S.F. declining to participate, thus incurring PILT andlosing federal matching dollars.

Lines 14.33&81.18 would require private landownersselling land to DNR to make public their legal and other fees for thetransaction: While public accountabilityis important, this is private information and should not be required to be madepublic. This will discouragelandowners from conveying land to the state.

Line 15.16 precludes use of restoration and enhancementfunds on conservation lands owned by a non-governmental conservationorganization unless also subject to a conservation easement. Nongovernmental partners are criticalto achieving state conservation goals and providing for restoration andenhancement on those lands should be encouraged.

Line 72.16 and line 73.12 require funding for publicoutreach and for restoration audits. This may be counter to the constitutionaldedication for "protect, enhance, restore". Further, combined administrative expenses are accumulatingrapidly and may exceed statutory 1% cap.

Line 79.23 requires that funding for an "entireproject" be requested and granted. This suggests that proposerswould need to request funds for development, restoration, ongoing maintenance,and future additions all at the same time. Requiring a large cash set-asidenow, for actions that aren't required for many years, may mean that needed fundsfor urgent protection projects may not be available, and critical lands may belost.

Line 80.14 and the following section appear to precludespending on "non-native" species, even if these are now well-established anddesired by the public (e.g., pheasants, brown trout, and rainbow trout). This will preclude projects thathundreds of thousands of Minnesotans favor.

Line 81.12 eliminates wetland replacement and mitigationcredits from any land acquired or lands on which conservation easements areacquired. This eliminates a potential pool of wetland mitigation in areas ofthe state, such as the north, where such mitigation is needed, and does sowithout compensating the owner.

Line 83.9 requires the commissioner of DNR to approve twoland appraisals in certain cases. Currently, the commissioner only "approves" (i.e., certifies) oneappraisal for a specific project, no matter how many appraisals are done. Only one can be "correct", andcertifying two different values is fundamentally inaccurate. This activity is governed already bystatute (84.0272 and 84.0274).

Line 91.22 and following section establishing a long-termeasement and land management account contains multiple issues and problems,including:

Lines 92.11 and 92.18 require that the "owner" oflands acquired with state funds for natural resource purposes shall contribute5% of the appraised value to the management account. The term"owner" is ambiguous as to who has the obligation to make thispayment. Is it the permanent owner of the conservation land, such as theDNR? Is it the original landowner who sells the land to the DNR? Orif a nonprofit is involved, is it the nonprofit who may be the owner of theland for a period of time? The language is also unclear as to where the5% is supposed to come from, i.e., state or private funds.

Line 94.9 sets up a one-time payment for PILT on newlyacquired lands but specifies no source of funds; this will be a huge issue forimplementation.

Lines 100.3 makes appropriations from the Outdoor HeritageFund that have not been recommended by the LOHC. While acknowledging the merit of addressing Emerald AshBorer, the Council should have the opportunity to review and act on thisallocation.