BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 505 HEARING DATE: April 26, 2011
AUTHOR: La Malfa URGENCY: No
VERSION: March 25, 2011 CONSULTANT: Katharine Moore
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Fish: licenses: trout hatcheries.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Recreational fishermen spent an estimated $1.1 billion on
freshwater trips and equipment in California in 2007 and enjoyed
roughly 10 million days of recreation. An integral part of the
Department of Fish and Game's (DFG's) mission is to manage
California's diverse fish resources and fish habitats for their
ecological and recreational value. To that end, there are 14
trout hatcheries owned and operated by DFG primarily for fish
stocking. These hatcheries rear rainbow, golden, cutthroat,
brown, lake and brook trout, among other species. There are
also approximately 40 private aquaculturists located in
California raising a variety of fish and marine plant species,
including trout. DFG contracts with private aquaculturists to
provide fish in some circumstances, such as for the Fish in the
City program.
In 2005, the Legislature unanimously passed AB 7 (Cogdill, c.
689, Statutes of 2005) which established clear production (fish
stocking) goals for recreational trout fisheries and a dedicated
funding mechanism to meet these goals. These goals were revised
in 2008 by SB 1262 (Cogdill, c. 1262). Specifically, AB 7 added
section 13007 to the Fish and Game Code (FGC) which requires,
among other provisions, that:
One-third of all sport fishing license fees (with
limited exception) will be deposited in: the Hatchery and
Inland Fisheries Fund (HIFF) to support DFG programs
including: (1) the management, maintenance and capital
improvement of the state's hatcheries, (2) to the Heritage
and Wild Trout Program and related enforcement, (3) and
other programs.
1
The following fish production goals be met by state
hatcheries:
o A minimum of 2.25/2.5/2.75 pounds of released
trout by July 1, 2007/2008/2009 and thereafter per
number of sport fishing license sold the preceeding
year. Most of the fish planted must be of catchable
size
The Heritage and Wild Trout program receives $2,000,000
from the HIFF for specified purposes.
25% of the total amount of trout stocked be native trout
in their original source watersheds. This goal was to be
met on the following schedule:
o 15%/20%/25% and at least 4/4/5 species (with
restrictions) by July 1, 2010/2011/2012 and
thereafter; and
Required DFG to report by July 1, 2008 and biennially
thereafter to the Legislature on the implementation of AB
7.
According to DFG has had partial, but by no means complete,
success at meeting the AB 7 goals. More complete details are
provided in the second comment below. In 2010, DFG released a
final environmental impact report/statement (EIR/S) on its
hatchery and fish stocking programs in response to an earlier
lawsuit. Fish stocking was disrupted temporarily in some
locations throughout the state in order to comply with
provisions in the EIR/S. DFG has indicated that this disruption
did not impact their ability to meet AB 7 fish stocking goals.
Last year's AB 2376 (Huffman, c. 424, Statutes of 2010)
requires, in part, that the Secretary of Natural Resources
convene a committee to develop a strategic plan for DFG and the
Fish and Game Commission to address specified matters relating
to statewide fish and wildlife resource management. The
strategic plan must be completed and reported by July 1, 2012.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would:
Mandate that DFG purchase from private suppliers located
in California 20% of the pounds of fish to be stocked to
meet the AB 7 production goals using HIFF revenues on the
following schedule:
o 5% by July 1, 2012;
o 10% by July 1, 2013;
o 15% by July 1, 2014;
o 20% by July 1, 2015 and thereafter
2
Broaden the specific annual reporting requirements to
the Legislature as of July 1, 2012 to include:
o Combined HIFF revenues;
o The current balance of HIFF funds;
o Itemized expenditures and the statutory
authority underpinning them;
o The number of fish planted through HIFF and
the hatcheries that supplied them; and
o All loans made from HIFF and the status of
each.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "In 2005, the widely-supported AB 7
created a worthwhile goal for the Department of Fish & Game by
requiring a certain number of trout to be planted in
California's waterways and ensuring that fishing license fee
revenues are used for the benefit of California's anglers.
However, due to a lack of hatchery capacity and despite
significant revenue increases, the Department been unable to
reach the fish planting requirements of AB 7 and has in fact
experienced a decline in fish production over the past several
years. The Department is now farther from reaching the AB 7
planting requirements than it was just three years ago. The
solution to this issue is simple, low-cost and readily
available, as the state is home to numerous privately-operated
fish hatcheries that would be able to assist DFG in reaching its
goal rapidly. This bill does not displace any existing DFG
programs, facilities or employees, it simply gives DFG a new
tool to use in efforts ensure that the Department fulfills the
planting requirements of AB 7."
Alpers Trout LLC, a private trout farm operator stocking waters
in Mono and Inyo counties, emphasizes, "The eastern Sierra is
the premier destination outdoor recreation area for southern
California and trout fishing is the number one activity for our
visitors. ? With over 12 million visitor days per year, our
region is one of the most heavily used recreation areas in the
United States. The fishing industry touches, literally, every
household in our two Counties." Alpers Trout and other
supporters also emphasize the economic and recreational benefits
of increased trout planting, particularly in depressed rural
areas; state that DFG is incapable of meeting the AB 7
production goals without private assistance; and assert that
more fish would lead to the purchase of additional licenses.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
SEIU Local 1000 argues, "This measure is unnecessary,
3
duplicative of the state's own resources, inefficient, risks
introduction of invasive species and lacks oversight. At the
state run hatcheries, there is a significant amount of control
over the monitoring Żof] invasive species and disease that could
cause devastating environmental impact to our fisheries.
Additionally there is a tight rein on the quantity of fish
available for recreational fishing and therefore how much is
spent from the Hatchery and Inland Fisheries Fund."
"We would Żbe] open to discussing the issue of private
hatcheries accessing funds from the Hatchery and Inland
Fisheries Fund, but only as part of a larger discussion related
to the State Budget. ? The creation of the fund was meant to
improve the existing hatchery system and we are committed to
making sure that funding stays in the hatchery system."
COMMENTS
Another DFG mandate? Numerous past reports and studies,
including reports by the Legislative Analyst's Office, the State
Auditor, the Little Hoover Commission and others have
highlighted the need for reform of DFG. One pressing - and
acknowledged concern - is that DFG's overall conservation and
resource planning mandates have increased while stable funding
sources to meet these mandates remain elusive. This bill adds
to the funding pressures at DFG as an unknown amount of funds
would be re-directed from DFG to private contractors. Private
contractors who support this bill have indicated that an
increase in production to meet AB 7 goals is within their
capabilities. However, given this bill's mandate has no
provision for cost control, there is no guarantee that the total
amount of trout planted would increase. AB 7 clearly provided
for DFG's fixed costs. In view of this and the AB 2376 review
underway, the committee may wish to replace the mandate and
instead provide DFG with the unequivocal authority to use
private contractors at DFG's discretion, and subject to DFG's
oversight, to meet 20% of the annual stocking goals in a
cost-effective manner (see amendments).
DFG's progress towards meeting AB 7 goals . Since 2007, DFG has
planted between approximately 3,600,000 to 4,300,000 pounds of
trout per year while selling from 1,862,000 to 2,077,000
licenses. This resulted in a "pounds per license" production
factor of about 1.9 - 2.2 for mostly catchable fish It is
difficult to discern any particular trend in the underlying
values, except that the sale of fishing licenses has declined
consistently since 2007. It is unknown what role the severe
economic recession played in that decline. As the AB 7
4
production factor goals increased to 2.75 pounds per license in
2009, DFG's fish stocking is roughly 30% below target now. DFG
has stated that insufficient and uncertain funding and spending
authority has hindered meeting AB 7 goals. In lieu of
increasing production, DFG has focused on maintaining a stable
supply of fish the last few years. Given the necessary rearing
time for trout of approximately 18 months prior to release,
these decisions have to be made in advance.
DFG has made better progress meeting the native trout planting
goals where - at about 19% and 3 heritage species - they are
just under the January 1, 2011 goals of 20% and 4 heritage
species. DFG's current program includes Lahontan cutthroat
trout, Eagle Lake trout and Golden trout and there are plans to
expand and include Kern River rainbow trout and possibly endemic
steelhead species. DFG has invested HIFF funds in capital
improvements at several of their hatcheries since 2006 which is
expected to result in the physical capability to meet AB 7 goals
in the near future using existing facilities. However, DFG
estimates that an additional $8.4 million would be required in
operations to grow and stock the additional 1.5 million pounds
of fish needed to meet AB 7 production requirements. Further,
DFG has stated that federal approval of the 2010 EIR/S will make
DFG eligible to receive federal Sport Fishing Restoration Act
(SFRA) funds to augment HIFF funding. DFG has received SFRA
funds in the past.
Bringing hatcheries and hatchery practices into the 21st
Century . California has been operating fish hatcheries since
the 19th century and fish stocking programs are an integral and
necessary component of recreational and commercial fishing, as
well as the recovery of native, if not wild, fish populations.
However, scientific advances in, for example, the understanding
of fish genetics and biology, and the complexity of ecosystem
response to various interdependent factors indicate that
hatchery practices require substantial improvement. Hatchery
reform efforts have begun in California. It is important to
recognize that this will be a long-term and on-going process
that will likely take considerable time - even with adequate
funding - to reach fruition.
Of particular relevance to this bill is the issue of the
potential spread of invasive species and disease into the
state's inland waters through fish planting. The 2010 EIR/S
indicated these issues must be addressed, particularly for DFG's
regulation and oversight of private aquaculturists. That
process has begun and is controversial. It is likely to have
5
long-term impacts on both DFG and private aquaculture, and DFG
will require the necessary capacity to perform increased and
effective oversight. Currently there are no requirements for
any kind of certification or inspection at private aquaculture
facilities for diseases that affect fish or amphibians.
Where are the 2008 and 2010 reports to the Legislature ? DFG has
not been able to provide the required reports to committee
staff. At the least, these reports are not readily-available.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
On page 2, line 21: insert the word "state" between "for"
and "hatcheries" so it reads "?goals for state hatcheries,
based on the sales of the following types?"
AMENDMENT 2
On page 3, delete lines 10 - 19 inclusive and replace with:
"(2) The department may, if the production and planting
goals of paragraph (1) are not projected to be met by state
hatcheries, contract with privately-owned hatcheries
located within the state to procure up to 20 percent of the
pounds of fish necessary to meet those goals provided that
the cost per fish or pound of fish planted does not exceed
the department's cost, equivalently-calculated. Revenues
deposited in the Hatchery and Inland Fisheries Fund per
subdivision (a) may be used."
AMENDMENT 3
On page 3, line 36: insert the word "the state" between
"by" and "fish" so it reads "?numbers of trout produced by
the state fish hatcheries to comply?"
SUPPORT
Alpers Trout LLC
California Association for Recreational Fishing
Calaveras Trout Farm, Inc.
California Guest Services, Inc.
Mt. Lassen Trout Farm, Inc.
United Anglers of Southern California
OPPOSITION
SEIU Local 1000
6
7