Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
02/15/2017 06:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB6 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 6-JONESVILLE PUBLIC USE AREA
6:04: PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the only order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 6, "An Act establishing the Jonesville
Public Use Area."
6:05:15 PM
JIM SYKES, District Representative, Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su)
Borough Assembly, informed the committee Matanuska-Susitna
Borough Resolution Serial No. 17-012, adopted 2/7/17, and
provided in the committee packet, was unanimously passed in
support of HB 6. He said most of the land around Sutton is
public land under the purview of the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). Mr. Sykes referred to problems raised in the
assembly resolution, and opined HB 6 is a good solution to a
serious problem; in fact, establishing a public use area will
provide a framework so that participating agencies and the
community can make changes similar to those already made by the
Knik River Public Use Area (KRPRU). He said providing services
such as a campground, a designated shooting range, hiking
trails, and all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails are meaningful and
the framework is the first step. Although the assembly
resolution refers to the original draft of the legislation, he
said Section 3 and Section 4 of the bill could be put in the
management plan. He commended community and local government
efforts in this regard - HB 6 has widespread community support -
and said the Mat-Su Borough will work with DNR to create a
management plan. He opined that HB 6 would solve a serious
problem at minimal cost, and urged for the committee's support.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked Mr. Sykes whether the Sutton
Community Council has the ability to work with the Mat-Su
Borough and DNR to create a responsible management plan.
6:10:08 PM
MR. SYKES referred to a letter from the Mat-Su Borough director
of land management, provided in the committee packet. He
advised the departments of land management and planning are
prepared to commit staff time to work with DNR. Furthermore,
the Mat-Su Borough has an interest in seeing improvements made
in this area, as potentially the area could "pay for itself."
He restated support for the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER shared that a lot of the plan for the
Jonesville Public Use Area was fashioned after KRPUA, which was
a nine-year process, and culminated in a good plan.
MR. SYKES agreed the KRPUA was quite successful and the
community holds an annual clean-up to keep the area free of
trash. In addition, the area has a "learning loop" where one
can learn to ride ATVs at a slow and safe speed, and a
campground is being built. He said that the borough was
instrumental in the plan, and offered his hope that KRPUA will
serve as a good template for a solution to the problems in
Sutton.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said she was pleased to have the bill
before the committee.
6:16:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH read from the previously identified Mat-Su
Borough resolution as follows [in part]:
Whereas, the community of Sutton provided its own
resources and funds to clean [up] and monitor the
Jonesville area ....
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH stated the resolution is very commendable;
however, he said his concern about HB 6 is related to the fiscal
notes attached to the KRPUA enabling legislation, one of which
was for $200,000 the first year and $150,000 the next year, and
a second fiscal note was for $330,000, and $270,000 for the
following years. He questioned how much of the fiscal
responsibility the community of Sutton is prepared to bear for
the Jonesville Public Use Area.
MR. SYKES offered the main things the community of Sutton would
be able to contribute would be personnel and community
involvement, although there may be revenue sharing funds
available. At KRPUA there were a few major items and it is
staffed at certain times. In addition, a shooting range was
installed, and sometimes the borough can upgrade trails.
Furthermore, user groups are often interested in upgrading an
area, and some who live nearby often patrol areas. He was
unsure about KRPUA fiscal notes and acknowledged that many
infrastructure improvements to KRPUA may not immediately happen
at the Jonesville area, although the campground area at Slipper
Lake has already been graded, and would be a cost-effective
installation. Mr. Sykes was unsure of "what the financial
commitment would be ...."
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked Mr. Sykes which amendments he
personally does not oppose.
MR. SYKES said that he was referencing the "two sections that
would allow more flexibility, if they were in the management
plan rather than in the legislation, and my personal opinion was
that it didn't make a lot of difference, but that there probably
would be more flexibility if it were in the plan."
6:21:17 PM
Al BARRETTE declared his appreciation for special use areas
because of the inclusion of trapping, and acknowledged
supporting trapping raises many issues. In HB 6, the
legislature has an opportunity to recognize existing or
historical trap lines and avoid conflicts with pet owners and
trap lines. Mr. Barrette referred to his previously submitted
written testimony and urged the legislature to take preventive
measures as to "who can trap where and who can walk a dog
where."
6:22:44 PM
MARK BERTELS, Chairman, Sutton Community Council, informed the
committee the decision to bring the issue to the legislature
came about over one year ago, when the council realized that the
Jonesville Public Use Area would be too much to be included in
the Sutton Comprehensive Plan, thus the Jonesville/Slipper Lake
Action Committee was formed. The committee sought assistance
from the Mat-Su Borough Planning Department, and included many
stakeholders in the committee process such as DNR, the
Department of Public Safety (DPS), the Alaska State Troopers,
and the Mat-Su Borough, along with various local clubs. The
support for the bill has been successful because the
stakeholders shared a consensus for multiple use that was
developed during the committee process. Turning to the
amendments, he said he preferred to "leave this bill open for
the development of any new trails that could alleviate areas
that have high-usage or impact from, specifically, all-terrain
vehicles." Mr. Bertels explained stakeholders agreed that the
community of Sutton overwhelmingly supports the coal industry,
and he said he does not want to compromise the bill with
amendments that would limit multiple use. He restated the bill
required a long intensive process with wide-spread support. The
bill should be passed because it addresses the issue of public
safety and is necessary.
6:28:44 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON paraphrased in part from an amendment
[labeled 30-LS0105\D.13, Bullard, 2/14/17] as follows:
"Nothing in this act would restrict or prohibit
mineral exploration and development activities in the
Jonesville Public Use Area."
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON continued:
And that seems to put mineral and exploration
development above all other things, in sort of in a
first place in the pecking order. Would that, is that
something you'd rather leave to the management plan
for a later day where people can testify and DNR would
draft a management plan?
6:29:39 PM
MR. BERTELS responded:
Well, with all due respect, Representative Josephson,
we, we've been through that process already as far as
the compatibility of resource extraction. We've been
experiencing the compatibility of these different
activities for decades. We've successfully, to the
point where, up until the point where, we had so many
visitors, it wasn't a matter of resource extraction
that was the issue, it was public safety and basic
management and protection of the environment for all
these uses, but ...
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON restated his original point which was there
is no amendment or provision in the bill that would restrict or
prohibit dog walking or berry picking. He remarked:
It just says in this amendment, "Nothing in the act
would restrict or prohibit mineral exploration and
development." Does that swing the language too far
toward mineral exploration and development?
MR. BERTELS said no.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE offered his understanding that Mr.
Bertels is concerned with unintended consequences to any of the
actions [in the bill]. He asked Mr. Bertels if there is a local
planning commission or land use committee utilized by the
community.
MR. BERTELS emphasized that the process leading to HB 6 was due
to the consensus of the stakeholders - including commercial
resource development - and he does not want to see the consensus
compromised.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether Mr. Bertels, as invited
testimony, could return for further testimony if needed.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON indicated yes, and opened public testimony.
6:33:15 PM
KENNY BARBER said that he supports HB 6 and the amendments
proposed by Representative Rauscher. He opined KRPUA has
improved that area, and suggested an amendment to [HB 6] stating
that reroutes of trails must be allowed prior to the closure of
a trail for any reason.
6:35:09 PM
PATTI BARBER said that she supports HB 6 as amended by
Representative Rauscher. She opined that the Jonesville Public
Use Area would help remedy many of the problems residents of
Sutton currently are experiencing. Ms. Barber noted the success
of KRPUA.
6:35:48 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON closed public testimony and announced HB 6,
Version D, was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated that he was offering amendments
recommended by the [Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Office,
Office of the Commissioner, DNR], in order to protect certain
elements of the affected land. He disclosed that he is not a
spokesman for the [Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Office].
6:38:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to adopt an amendment labeled [30-
LS0105\] D.1.
6:38:28 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
6:40:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER withdrew [amendment D.1]. He explained
the content "will be addressed in another amendment later:
D.5."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired as to whether public testimony
would be heard related to the amendments to HB 6.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said there is no protocol to do so and gave
an example.
CO-CHAIR TARR suggested a second round of public testimony would
be heard if the bill were changed significantly.
[Brief discussion ensued regarding the timing of public
testimony as it relates to specific amendments to legislation.]
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to adopt [Amendment 1], labeled
30-LS0105\D.2., Bullard, 1/30/17, which read as follows:
Page 2, lines 2 - 3:
Delete all material and insert:
"(A) continued mineral exploration and
development activities;
(B) motorized access to private property,
including property in which a person has a subsurface
right, in the Jonesville Public Use Area; and"
Reletter the following subparagraph accordingly.
Page 3, line 9:
Delete "or"
Page 3, line 12, following "safety":
Insert "; or
(3) lawful mineral exploration and
development activities within the Jonesville Public
Use Area"
6:43:33 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER stated that Amendment 1 came from the
Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Office. Amendment 1 clarifies
that subsurface rights in the area may be leased for
development, and adds language to the bill that would allow for
continued mining where the Alaska Mental Health Trust
[Authority] has leases.
6:44:08 PM
WYN MENEFEE, Deputy Director, Alaska Mental Health Trust Land
Office, Office of the Commissioner, DNR, informed the committee
HB 6, on page 2, line 2, allows for the continued motorized
access for miners and owners of private property in the
Jonesville Public Use Area. However, the bill does not speak to
the fact that the affected land is a mineral exploration and
development area that has existing mineral coal leases, and that
the subsurface mineral estate is the dominate estate in Alaska.
Amendment 1 clarifies that in addition to motorized access to
miners, a full suite of activities related to mineral
exploration and development would be allowed.
CO-CHAIR TARR questioned whether there is the potential for the
amendment to undermine the purpose of the public use area,
should a significant resource extraction development occur.
MR. MENEFEE stated that the mineral leases could lead to legally
authorized development at some point in time; in fact, there
could be a large pit and structures, or activities that
obliterate certain trails. The amendment does not stop other
uses in the area, but clarifies that if a mineral lease leads to
the development of a mine, the recreational uses of the public
use area would not supersede the mine, which already holds a
legitimate ownership right.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked whether the management plan would address
situations where major development, with infrastructure, may
lead to a closure of a certain area to public use because of
liability.
MR. MENEFEE, speaking from his perspective, said when a lease is
issued through the Alaska surface coal mining control and
reclamation act (ASCMCRA) program, there will be conditions in
the permit that will address interactions with other uses in the
area; however, a coal seam with a lawful lease will mine through
a recreational trail, although there may be offset costs
assessed to provide an alternative trail. He deferred to the
Division of Mining, Land and Water, DNR.
6:49:42 PM
BRENT GOODRUM, Director, Division of Mining, Land and Water,
DNR, anticipated that the above mentioned topic and others would
be addressed through a management plan that would rely upon
statute and regulations as to existing rights.
CO-CHAIR TARR stated her concern is public safety; for example,
abandoned mining sites and equipment can present a hazard for
hikers.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON observed the proposed amendment would strike
the language in the bill that says the management plan shall
allow, "additional public uses of the area determined by the
commissioner to be compatible with this section." He surmised
the Sutton Community Council supports mixed use, albeit with a
priority to mining. He remarked:
... I want you in your management plan deliberations,
to have lots of tension and competition, and if we
strike [subparagraph] (B) line 4, you'll have less,
won't you?
MR. GOODRUM answered any plan dealing with the use of state land
includes healthy tension. He expressed his belief that the
proposed amendment would clarify some of the higher uses already
found within statute, and in the state's understanding of the
dominant estate being the mineral estate. Mr. Goodrum remarked:
And so I don't know that by striking [subparagraph]
(B), public uses which are generally allowed are
already considered activities that we will consider
within our planning process. And so I don't know that
those are diminished any by highlighting the other,
other uses associated with mineral development.
6:52:54 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection to Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected. He asked Representative Rauscher
to accept a friendly amendment adding subparagraph (C) which
read:
(C) additional public uses of the area determined by
the commissioner to be compatible with this section;
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for an opinion from DNR.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON returned attention to [subparagraph] (B),
page 2, lines 4 and 5, of Version D, and pointed out Mr. Goodrum
said DNR takes into consideration public uses.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH questioned the objective of introducing
tension between the differing land interests of the surface
owner and the subsurface owner, which are known. He said the
objective of the bill is to manage the affected area, and the
committee has heard sufficient positive public testimony, and
testimony from the Mat-Su [Borough] Assembly, in support of the
bill.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON clarified that the committee has a unanimous
[resolution] to approve HB 6 as written, not as amended. In
addition, he has heard there are many Mat-Su residents who want
to have dialogue "about mining in the Jonesville area." He said
his intent is to ensure the management plan team considers all
uses.
6:56:17 PM
The committee took an at ease from 6:56 p.m. to 6:58 p.m.
6:58:13 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said he had misread Amendment 1 and that
under Amendment 1 [on page 2 of the bill], lines 4 and 5 would
not be deleted. Co-Chair Josephson removed his objection to the
motion to adopt Amendment 1. There being no further objection,
Amendment 1 was adopted.
6:59:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 30-
LS0105\D.3, which read as follows:
Page 6, lines 3 - 9:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 41.23.289. Penalty. (a) A person who
violates a provision of, or regulation adopted under,
AS 41.23.280 - 41.23.289 is guilty of a violation as
defined in AS 11.81.900.
(b) The supreme court shall establish by order
or rule a schedule of bail amounts for violations
under (a) of this section that allow the disposition
of a citation without a court appearance.
* Sec. 2. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
TRANSITION: SCHEDULE OF BAIL AMOUNTS.
Notwithstanding AS 41.23.289(b), enacted by sec. 1 of
this Act, the supreme court shall have 90 days from
the date that the Department of Natural Resources
adopts regulations to implement this Act to establish
a schedule of bail amounts for violations of AS
41.23.289(a) that allow the disposition of a citation
without a court appearance."
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER explained Amendment 2 would clarify the
penalty section of the proposed bill, found on page 6, lines 3-
9. The amendment would delete the statutory reference to arson
in the 3rd degree - which is burning a vehicle - and insert
transitional language which would provide the supreme court 90
days after DNR adopts regulations to issue a bail schedule for
violations. He said violations would be developed as part of
the management plan, and urged for the amendment to be adopted.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked to hear testimony from DNR regarding
Amendment 2.
MR. GOODRUM said that [Amendment 2] would allow DNR, as it
develops the management plan, to create regulations related to a
bail schedule, and thus monetary fees can be imposed for
violations of regulations that could be enforced by troopers or
peace officers. The provision gives enforcement authority
within a public use area, which is critically important, because
otherwise rules won't be followed.
CO-CHAIR TARR surmised Amendment 2 would give authority for
enforcement, but it would be the responsibility of the troopers
to administer the law were there a violation.
MR. GOODRUM noted only a trooper or a peace officer would be
authorized to issue citations based upon regulations.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON, in order to provide an example of a bail
schedule, read from a schedule of penalties for KRPUA in Alaska
Rules of Court 2016-2017 Edition, Rules of Administration, Rule
43.10 as follows:
If you leave a vehicle unattended for more than 72
hours, you can be fined $300. ... If you discharge a
firearm at an unauthorized target, you could be
charged $50.
7:03:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO pointed out Amendment 2 also states a
person is "guilty of a violation as defined in AS 11.81.900."
If the violations are already well-defined in statute and
identified in the bill, additional language may be redundant.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON advised AS 11.81.900 is a blanket definition
of a violation and does not describe penalties.
MR. GOODRUM stated Co-Chair Josephson is correct.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON remarked:
The concern I had ... [the bill] seemed to say,
"Whatever you do in Jonesville, unless it's arson, is
fine." ... It couldn't have meant that. ... It's
been fixed to my satisfaction ....
7:06:10 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced the amendment labeled 30-
LS0105\D.6, Shutts\Bullard, 2/3/17, would not be offered.
7:07:35 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
7:07:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to adopt Amendment 3, labeled 30-
LS0105\D.5, Bullard, 1/31/17, which read as follows:
Page 4, following line 27:
Insert new material to read:
"Section 9: All"
Page 5, line 7, following "SW1/4NW1/4":
Insert ";"
Page 5, line 8:
Delete all material.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said that Amendment 3 would correct two
errors in the land description of the affected area. In the
bill as written, [on page 4, lines 27 and 28] the property
description mistakenly omitted Section 9, although Section 9 was
to be included. In addition, the amendment deletes Section 21,
which was included [in error] on page 5, line 8, of the original
version of the bill.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked Mr. Goodrum to explain why Section 21
is deleted and why Sections 22 through 30 are not included in
the land description.
MR. GOODRUM said that the inclusion of Section 9 is necessary to
make the unit "a whole unit." He advised Section 21 is one of
the exterior sections in the area, and if the sponsor wishes to
delete this section the department is not opposed, provided it
is a contiguous block.
7:11:06 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
7:11:55 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON removed his objection to Amendment 3 and
there being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
7:12:52 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON moved to adopt Amendment 4, labeled 30-
LS0105\D.7, Wallace/Bullard, 2/3/17, which read as follows:
Page 2, line 3, following "Area":
Insert "in a manner compatible with this section"
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON explained Amendment 4 assures that any
continued motorized access for miners and owners of private
property would be done in a compatible way. However, Amendment
3 retains similar language in [subparagraph] (B), which is now
[subparagraph] (C).
7:13:55 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
7:14:01 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON withdrew Amendment 4. He announced the
amendment labeled 30-LS0105\D.8, Wallace/Bullard, 2/3/17 would
not be offered.
7:14:12 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON moved to adopt Amendment 5, labeled 30-
LS0105\D.10, Bruce/Bullard, 2/3/17 which read as follows:
Page 3, line 22:
Delete "off-road"
Insert "all-terrain"
Page 3, line 25:
Delete "in a way that minimizes"
Insert "to correct existing damage and to
minimize future"
Page 3, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "maintain and enhance off-road motor
vehicle options and opportunities in the Jonesville
Public Use Area,"
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON expressed his intent to omit lines 1-3 of the
amendment.
CO-CHAIR TARR offered Conceptual Amendment 1, to delete lines 1-
4 of Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for clarification.
CO-CHAIR TARR restated Conceptual Amendment 1 deletes lines 1-4
of Amendment 5. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment
1 was adopted.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON, speaking to Amendment 5, as amended, pointed
out that there is no funding for any of the provisions in HB 6.
However, there is existing damage to the area that should be
mitigated and corrected through the management plan when
appropriate, based on available resources, and to minimize
future damage.
7:19:38 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
7:19:42 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR offered Conceptual Amendment 2, to delete lines 8-
11 of Amendment 5, as amended. If adopted, lines 5-8 of
Amendment 5 would remain for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR TARR expressed her understanding that off-road motor
vehicle options are existing uses within a public use area, thus
deleting the aforementioned language would not interfere with
traditional uses of the area.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER removed his objection, and there being
no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said that Amendment 5, as amended, was before
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER directed attention to line 7 that adds
"to correct existing damage [and] to minimize future damage."
He asked for clarification as to what extent correct existing
damage would be defined - and the effect of the added language
on the management plan - and asked for an opinion from DNR.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON observed that Representative Rauscher's
concern could also apply to "shall conduct trail
rehabilitation," and asked DNR whether there was some correction
of existing damage at KRPUA.
7:24:44 PM
MR. GOODRUM noted the proposed management plan will have many
considerations, and opined the current bill would have the
management plan address the area in its present condition. The
amendment adds correcting existing damage and minimizing future
damage, and would add another layer to what needs to be
considered, defined, and resourced within the management plan.
He acknowledged there were efforts to improve trail access in
KRPUA, which has been accomplished by working with partner
groups and users of the area, as well as with assistance from
the legislature.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON inquired as to whether the department holds a
neutral position on the amendment.
MR. GOODRUM said, "... it's not very clear."
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated his concern about falsely raising
expectations by inserting "to correct existing damage."
Further, the existing language "in a way that minimizes" speaks
to the effort of the bill, without a cost component, and is
well-intended. He cautioned that the amendment implies there is
a major effort underway to correct existing damage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted the bill has no opposition and
reflects years of work. She questioned the purpose of the
amendment.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON stated he has been told that the area is
seriously damaged and the intent of the amendment is to correct
existing damage and minimize future damage.
7:29:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH pointed out the bill includes trail
rehabilitation, which implies repair and correcting existing
damages.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked Mr. Goodrum whether any of the existing
damage presents a health and safety concern, and if the
amendment is needed to ensure correction.
MR. GOODRUM supported Representative Parish's remarks about
trail rehabilitation; in fact, the planning effort with the
community, stakeholders, and users will define the most critical
issues, and health and safety issues will be one of the most
important, as is the intent of DNR.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO noted that the community of Sutton has
provided a lot of information and participation in the project,
which will continue with the development of the management plan.
He stressed the vision and wishes of the local community will
provide a management plan well-suited for the area and which
would remove the hazards, and concluded Amendment 5 is
unnecessary.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said that for a long time the community
of Sutton has spent time and money working very hard on this
area, along with local businesses that have donated equipment
and time. A playground was built by the community with $150,000
of donated materials. He cautioned against amending the bill to
the point a fiscal note is required, which would jeopardize the
bill. Representative Rauscher assured the committee the
community of Sutton will deal with the project "in a manner that
you will be proud of."
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON remarked:
I would note for the record, there is no fiscal note.
... [The departments have] already testified that
they're not going to do anything. ... I've
contemplated that we should consider signing a letter
of intent that this be funded, and I may take this up
in the subcommittee ....
[For clarification to the reader: There were three zero fiscal
notes attached to HB 6 labeled, Identifier: HB006-DFG-COM-01-
21-2017, Identifier: HB006-DPS-AST-01-21-17, and Identifier:
HB006-DPS-AWT-01-21-17.]
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON restated that the bill is not funded and
already has a need for funding; he was not trying to redirect
the bill.
7:36:29 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tarr and Josephson
voted in favor of Amendment 5, as amended. Representatives
Westlake, Drummond, Parish, Birch, Johnson, Rauscher, and
Talerico voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 5, as amended,
failed by a vote of 2-7.
7:37:50 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
7:39:14 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON moved to adopt Amendment 6, labeled 30-
LS0105\D.14, Bullard, 2/15/17, which read as follows:
Page 3, line 17:
Delete all material.
Insert "(B) include operating all-terrain
vehicles on trails designated or constructed for their
use, aircraft, and watercraft,"
Page 3, line 20, following "photography,":
Insert "berry picking,"
Page 3, line 21, following the first occurrence of
"and":
Insert "lawful"
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said that the bill, as written [on page 3,
lines 13-17], directs that the commissioner shall allow the use
of all-terrain vehicles, aircraft, and watercraft.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for clarification of "Delete all
material."
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON answered that in Version D, on page 3, line
17 would be deleted. He returned attention to Amendment 6 and
said he has heard from nearby residents that some would prefer
to see ATVs used in areas that are specially designated or
constructed for that purpose, thus the first part of Amendment 6
would focus on not allowing ATV use everywhere in the Jonesville
Public Use Area.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered Conceptual Amendment 1 with the
purpose to separate lines 1-4 of Amendment 6 from lines 5-10.
[The committee treated Conceptual Amendment 1 as withdrawn.]
7:44:15 PM
The committee took an at ease from 7:44 p.m. to 7:46 p.m.
7:46:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for clarification of the word
"lawful" as shown on line 10 of Amendment 6.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON responded that throughout the bill the phrase
used is "permitted mines," thus Amendment 6 seeks to ensure any
mining that occurs would be lawful mining.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH suggested that the committee focus its
efforts on lines 1-4 of the amendment since the remainder meets
the sponsor's approval.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE opined "lawful" and "permitted" are the
same thing.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON explained some mining does not require a
permit, and the amendment is intended to be mining-friendly.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for an opinion from DNR.
MR. GOODRUM said he did not have Amendment 6. He directed
attention to the bill on page 3, line 13, and said any
activities allowed, permitted, or authorized by DNR need to be a
lawful activity, and consistent with statute and regulation.
7:49:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO offered a conceptual amendment that
would add "or areas" after the word "trails" on line 3.
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON stated [Conceptual Amendment 2] would read,
"The commissioner shall allow the Jonesville Public Use Area to
be used for activities that include operating all-terrain
vehicles on trails or areas designated or constructed for their
use, aircraft, and watercraft." He asked for an opinion from
DNR.
MR. GOODRUM said the management plan will be a challenging
process, and advised the additional language narrows the
solutions to be achieved through the management plan. Through
the management plan, DNR will engage with stakeholders and the
public about what is most important for the residents in the
area, and he urged the committee to leave some flexibility, and
thereby, the ability for the public process to strive for
solutions.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON pointed out at public hearings, user groups
or individuals can express their preference for one use over
another, and DNR "might, at your discretion, so designate."
7:54:14 PM
MR. GOODRUM explained that the use of the word "and" means
[trails and areas] would need to be designated and probably
originally constructed for that specific use; many of the
activities that currently take place within the Jonesville area
occur by happenstance, and the current trails were constructed
without a specific purpose. He suggested the word "and" may
complicate the planning efforts.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH pointed out the actual language in the
amendment is not "and" but is "or."
MR. GOODRUM acknowledged "or" is a better word; he restated that
every addition further constricts solutions that can be achieved
through the management plan.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO, returning attention to the intent of
Conceptual Amendment 2, said during testimony he heard that the
area has been traditionally used by residents who are learning
to operate an ATV. Trails have a designation, however, speaking
from his experience, if the management plan seeks to include ATV
use, he advised that an area clear of trees and cars is needed
for those learning to operate an ATV.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER described a large parcel in the
Jonesville mine area of reclaimed coal [mine] flat land used for
recreational vehicle parking and ATVs. He cautioned that this
is a big challenge for the management of the public use area
(PUA), and the local community is not looking for a four-wheeler
playground, which is what is there now, but must consider all of
the recreation listed in the bill. Recently, the community
renovated a hiking trail at a cost of $95,000, and
Representative Rauscher said the community needs latitude in the
PUA and the management plan.
CO-CHAIR TARR questioned whether Mr. Goodrum advised adding "or
areas" would make it more difficult to achieve hoped-for
solutions.
8:00:07 PM
MR. GOODRUM answered he was previously speaking to the amendment
labeled 30-LS0105\D.9, and not to Conceptual Amendment 2. In
speaking to Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 6, he said that
although he agrees that the language of "or areas" in the
conceptual amendment is helpful, he cautioned the committee
against the use of prescriptive language in the legislation.
8:01:32 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 6 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected to Amendment 6, as amended.
8:02:07 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Talerico, Westlake,
Drummond, Parish, Birch, Johnson, Rauscher, Tarr, and Josephson
voted in favor of Amendment 6, as amended. Therefore, Amendment
6, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 9-0.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced HB 6, as amended, was before the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated her support for the bill, and
commended the community of Sutton on its "labor of love."
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed his appreciation for the hard
work and effort of the committee, staff, all who testified, and
the community of Sutton.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH stated his support for the bill and said
HB 6 is an example of a legitimate reason for government "to
step in and provide some services which, which haven't been
happening."
8:05:55 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to report HB 6, as amended, out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSHB 6(RES) was reported out
of the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB006 Amendment D.1.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB006 Amendment D.2.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB006 Amendment D.3.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB006 Amendment D.5.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB006 Amendment D.6.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB006 Amendment D.7.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB006 Amendment D.8.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB006 Amendment D.9.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB006 Amendment D.10.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB006 Amendment D.13.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB006 Amendment D.14.pdf |
HRES 2/15/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |