BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Tom Torlakson, Chairman
821 (Nava)
Hearing Date: 7/16/07 Amended: 7/11/07
Consultant: Miriam Barcellona IngenitoPolicy Vote: NR&W 5-2
-1-
AB 821 (Nava)
Page 2
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 821 would (1) prohibit the use of lead
ammunition in specified zones (condor ranges); (2) require the
Fish and Game Commission (FGC) to establish, by regulation, a
public process to certify centerfire rifle and pistol non-lead
ammunition and to define non-lead ammunition, as specified; and
(3) require FGC to establish a coupon program to provide for
free or reduced charge non-lead ammunition to big game permit
holders with permits to hunt in the specified zones if non-state
funds are available.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Fund
Certification process $8 Special*
Regulations $23 Special*
Coupon Program $50 $50
Non-State+
Coupons unknown
Non-State+
Reports $7 Special*
Notification of huntersminor and absorbable Special*
Enforcement see Staff Comments Special*
*Fish and Game Preservation Fund
+Federal, private, non-profit, or other non-state monies.
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS:
AB 821 would prohibit the use of lead ammunition when taking big
game or coyotes within areas believed to be habitat for condors.
Staff notes that California condors are designated as fully
protected species, the most protective category in state law,
and have been the subject of a well-known, and costly, captive
breeding program that is designed to avoid the extinction of
these birds. By prohibiting the use of lead ammunition in the
condor ranges, survival rate of condors in the wild may
increase.
AB 821 (Nava)
Page 3
The FGC and the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) have already
developed amendments to Sections 353 and 475 of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations regarding methods authorized for
taking of big game. The modifications to regulations were
broader than the ones proposed by this bill in that the
modification applied to more game and non-game animals,
including birds, and included a broader range of ammunition. In
the fiscal analysis presented to the FGC no state costs were
identified and modest costs to hunters were identified due to
the higher cost of non-lead ammunition. DFG noted that it did
not estimate that the increased cost to hunters would impact
hunting in California. The regulations have not yet been acted
upon.
This bill would require FGC to establish a process to certify
centerfire rifle and pistol non-lead ammunition. Non-lead
ammunition, under this bill, would be defined in regulation as
only including centerfire rifle and pistol ammunition in which
there is no lead content. DFG estimates this to cost about
$8,000. The cost of doing these regulations would be minor and
absorbable (less than $13,000) because much of the drafting and
FGC work has been done, as noted above, when the FGC considered
a similar regulation earlier this year. DFG estimates it would
also have to respond to public comments generated by the bill.
These costs would be less than $2,000 and should be absorbable
in the normal workload of DFG and FGC.
If non-state funds are sufficient, as determined by the
Department of Finance, this bill would require FGC to establish
a process that would provide hunters, in specified areas, with
non-lead ammunition at no or reduced charge through the use of
coupons sent to a permitholder with the appropriate permit tag.
DFG estimates this would cost about $50,000 annually in staff
time and reporting. DFG did not provide an estimate for the
amount of funds that would be required for the coupons
themselves.
This bill would require FGC to report on the levels of lead
found in California condors for the calendar years of 2008,
2009, and 2012. Each report would be due the following year.
DFG estimates it would be $6,800 to collect the condor lead
level information and prepare the required reports in each of
the three specified years.
AB 821 (Nava)
Page 4
This bill would require DFG to notify those hunters who may be
affected. DFG estimates it would require $35,000 annually to do
this because it hand stuffs its mailings to hunters. Staff
contents that this figure is high because the requirements of
this bill do not require a separate notification to the hunters
rather than part of an existing mailing. Staff estimates these
costs would be fully absorbed within current resources because
DFG currently has a voluntary program regarding the use of
non-lead ammunition and it notifies hunters about that program.
Additionally, DFG already mails out permits and tags to hunters
and this information could be included in those mailings.
Staff notes that enforcement costs of this bill are difficult to
determine as DFG has provided conflicting information and no
back-up date to support its estimates. In its February 27, 2007
documents prepared for the FGC hearing regarding the method of
taking game and non-game animals and birds, DFG and FGC
estimated that there would be no additional state costs.
However, when analyzing this bill, DFG estimated that enforcing
the bill's narrower provisions would cost an estimated $269,467
annually. It was indicated to committee staff that testimony
was heard at the FGC hearing from a warden that indicated DFG
would, in fact, need additional positions. Staff has requested
the minutes or transcripts from that meeting but was informed by
DFG that no minutes or transcripts were available. Upon further
discussions, it appears DFG identified these enforcement costs
(additional wardens) based on an assumption that the Legislature
wanted the provisions of the bill enforced at a higher level
than other regulations. This bill does not specify that
requirement. Further discussions lead to a revised
interpretation that additional wardens would not be needed but
there would be costs associated with testing the ammunition in
the field to verify it was lead-free. After discussions with
both DFG and the manufacturer of this item, staff found that
each of these devices would cost about $5,000. It is unclear
how many of these devices would be needed in the field. Nothing
in this bill would prohibit DFG from sending samples to regional
locations for testing, which could significantly reduce costs.
Presumably, enforcement would be in the ranges specified in the
bill. If DFG were to purchase 10 to 20 of these testers for
enforcement purposes, costs to DFG would be $50,000 to $100,000
in one-time costs.
AB 821 (Nava)
Page 5