BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER | | Senator Fran Pavley, Chair | | 2011-2012 Regular Session | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- BILL NO: SB 1148 HEARING DATE: April 10, 2012 AUTHOR: Pavley URGENCY: No VERSION: March 29, 2012 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes SUBJECT: Fish and Game Commission: Department of Fish and Game. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW 1. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has numerous statutory functions and the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) has both statutory and constitutional functions related to management of the state's wildlife and protection of habitat. These two units of government have specific and occasionally overlapping roles. Key provisions relate to hunting and fishing and to limiting catch or take of species, to protect wildlife and its habitat, to conserve endangered and threatened species, to operate hatcheries for various fisheries, to discourage the importation or spread of invasive species, to protect streambeds from harmful activities, and to provide access to lands managed for hunting and fishing and public access, among many other responsibilities. DFG also has a responsibility under CEQA to provide comments on proposed actions that require permits from other agencies that have been determined to affect any of the statutory responsibilities assigned to DFG. For many years, DFG has been hampered by budgetary constraints which were driven both by widely variable General Fund appropriations (in some years partially offset by bond funds) but also by an increase in statutory responsibilities. For example, DFG's General Fund appropriations in the past ten years included 4 years when it received approximately $35 million, one year when it received about $50 million, one year when it received $115 million, and two years in the low $80 million range. The last two years have seen General Fund appropriations in the low to mid-$60 million range. 1 For decades, various stakeholder organizations (who include hunters, sport and commercial fishers, recreational users of DFG lands, regulatory permit applicants, and conservation advocates) have struggled with the appropriate funding mix for the department and the appropriate allocation of the workload to the department. Hunting and fishing groups are concerned that their license fees are not spent on providing greater access to fish or prey. Conservation groups worry that not enough effort is spent on scientific research, field work, or activities to conserve important natural habitats. They are also concerned that some decisions reflect political and not scientific priorities. Permit applicants (such as developers, farmers and ranchers, and renewable energy companies) are concerned that, in their view, permit decisions are sometimes too slow or that the required mitigation is sometimes too much. These alleged shortcomings have been reviewed time and again by various expert panels, blue ribbon commissions, task forces, audits, reports from the Legislative Analyst, and others. From time to time there is an infusion of money or an internal reorganization of the department, but all would perhaps agree that the right combination of reforms that would really help the department with its mission has not yet occurred. Last year, Assembly Member Huffman authored AB 2376 which required the Natural Resources Agency to appoint an executive committee, a blue ribbon commission and a broad-based stakeholder group to consider improvements to DFG and FGC. That effort took hundreds of hours of donated stakeholder time and staff time and has resulted in several dozen recommendations that are awaiting final approval. The final report of the executive committee will be available later this year. SB 1148 and AB 2402 (Huffman) have been introduced to be the main vehicles for considering many of the AB 2376 recommendations, although many other legislators have introduced bills as well. 2. DFG is required to index for inflation many of the fees for which it has responsibility, although FGC is not. 3. The Environmental Goals and Policy Report (EGPR) is theoretically required every four years, although that never happens. (Only two have been issued.) The EGPR is an overview of state growth and development and a statement of approved state environmental goals and objectives, including those directed to land use, population growth and distribution, the conservation of natural resources and air and water quality. It also describes actions required to implement the state's 2 environmental goals. 4. DFG is authorized to participate in a wetlands mitigation banking program in Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley. PROPOSED LAW This bill would: 1. Require FGC to index for inflation the fees that it sets. Like DFG, this would be required to occur at least every five years. 2. The fees established in statute for lifetime sportsmen's licenses would be deleted and the amount of such a fee would be set by FGC and indexed for inflation thereafter. The amount of the fee would be set by FGC to recover the reasonable administrative and implementation costs of DFG and FGC. 3. The fees for hunting licenses now set in statute would be deleted and set by the commission to recover the costs and indexed for inflation. 4. The fees for sportfishing in the ocean where an ocean enhancement stamp is required would be deleted from the statute and established by the commission and indexed for inflation. 5. The fees for sportfishing licenses now set in statute would be deleted and set by the commission to recover the costs and indexed for inflation. 6. Require that when the Office of Planning and Research develops its Environmental Goals and Policy Report as required by Section 65042 of the Government Code, that trustee agencies with specific responsibilities to resource protection such as DFG be included in that effort. 7. The bill would make several changes concerning conservation and mitigation banks, entities established by private firms to offer mitigation to project proponents for projects requiring permits from DFG. Conservation banks are generally understood to provide mitigation for species, while mitigation banks are generally understood to provide mitigation for wetlands losses. Although mitigation and conservation banking has been an ongoing activity at DFG for many years, its policy was established by a former Resources Agency secretary and not by the legislature. This bill would define mitigation banks, authorize DFG to 3 recover its costs, and require some accountability and transparency by asking the department (or another website) to provide information about the number of credits available from a bank, the remaining credits available, and other similar information. Coincidentally, DFG has recently suspended approving new mitigation banks because of funding issues. The new fee provision in this bill may help rectify that situation. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT 1. According to the author, deleting fees from statute and allowing the commission to establish them will place fee-making authority with an agency with the greatest expertise and knowledge of appropriate fees for hunting and fishing activities. Also, there is no reason for this fee-setting to be done by the Legislature. 2. Directing specific involvement of DFG in the Environmental Goals and Policy Report was a recommendation of the stakeholder advisory group. It makes sense to include DFG in this report in order to include the best information about resource protection activities undertaken across the state. Of course, the author acknowledges that this depends on an administration willing to complete this report in a timely fashion. 3. The mitigation banking provisions are designed to ratify DFG's existing practices and to add provisions for accountability and transparency. The Nature Conservancy supports the bill both because of the fee provisions and because of the importance of mitigation banking in the Delta and elsewhere. Defenders of Wildlife is in support of the conservation and mitigation banking provision. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION None received COMMENTS The author may further amend the bill following the release of the final recommendations of the executive committee established in AB 2376 (Huffman) in 2010. The Committee reserves the right to consider those amendments assuming the bill returns to the Senate for concurrence. 4 SUPPORT The Nature Conservancy Defenders of Wildlife OPPOSITION None Received 5