BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1148
Page 1
( Without Reference to File )
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1148 (Pavley)
As Amended August 30, 2012
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :24-14
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 8-2APPROPRIATIONS 10-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Blumenfield, |Ayes:|Gatto, Blumenfield, |
| |Campos, Fong, Gatto, | |Bradford, |
| |Roger Hernández, Hueso, | |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
| |Yamada | |Davis, Fuentes, Hall, |
| | | |Hill, Cedillo |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Bill Berryhill, Beth |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| |Gaines | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 8-0
--------------------------------
|Ayes:|Hueso, Blumenfield, Fong, |
| |Gatto, Roger Hernández, |
| |Huffman, Lara, Yamada |
| | |
--------------------------------
SUMMARY : Makes numerous changes to implement policy
recommendations arising out of a Strategic Vision process for
the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the Fish and Game
Commission (FGC) in order to improve the effectiveness of these
entities in protecting and managing state fish and wildlife
resources. Specifically, this bill :
1)States legislative findings and declarations regarding the
Strategic Vision process that was initiated as a result of the
passage of AB 2376 in 2010 and the need for reforms to improve
and enhance the capacity of DFG and FGC. States legislative
intent to focus more of the work of the FGC on implementing
state hunting and fishing laws, and to enhance DFG's ability
to focus on managing its lands, its enforcement
SB 1148
Page 2
responsibilities, its conservation programs, and enhancing the
scientific basis of DFG's decisions.
2)Modifies and updates requirements related to sustainable
management of the state's hatchery program and native
fisheries, including the following:
a) States legislative findings regarding the role of
hatcheries and the importance of genetic diversity in
managing California native trout species, and that DFG seek
to provide diverse recreational angling opportunities.
b) Requires DFG to make publicly available on its Internet
website information on DFG's inventory of California trout
streams.
c) Requires DFG every 5 years to update the state Strategic
Plan for Trout Management, and specifies objectives,
including providing angling opportunities, conserving wild
and native trout, and ensuring environmental sustainability
and ecosystem watershed health. Requires the plan to be
guided by specified considerations including adaptive
management of trout populations to be self-sustaining,
increasing angler satisfaction, ensuring appropriate age
distribution of wild trout, and ecologically and
environmentally sustainable hatchery and stocking practices
for native trout.
d) Requires DFG to prepare trout management plans
consistent with the Strategic Plan for Trout Management for
all wild trout waters within three years following
designation of a wild trout water by the FGC, and to update
the plans every 5 years.
e) Requires priority to be given for stocking native
hatchery-produced species where stocking is determined
appropriate by DFG. Provides that waters where stocking is
not appropriate include waters where stocking would
adversely affect species listed under state or federal
endangered species acts. Requires hatchery-produced trout
to be stocked to support sustainable angling opportunities
and fishing access, including urban fisheries. Requires DFG
to ensure that trout stocked for recreational purposes are
unable to reproduce, with specified exceptions.
SB 1148
Page 3
f) Requires DFG to form a Strategic Trout Management Team
to oversee trout management statewide. Requires DFG's
Strategic Plan for Trout Management to be reviewed by the
Strategic Trout Management Team, the hatchery operations
committee, and an ad hoc peer review committee.
g) Deletes obsolete provisions relating to state hatchery
production goals and clarifies that the state hatchery
production goal is 2.75 pounds of released trout per sport
fishing license sold, and that a predominant number of
released fish be catchable size or larger.
h) States that at least $2 million dedicated under existing
law to the Heritage and Wild Trout program from the
Hatcheries and Inland Fisheries Fund (HIFF) may be used for
development of trout management plans, and that up to 25%
may be expended for watershed restoration projects,
resource assessment and scientific inquiry. Clarifies that
funds from the HIFF may be used for development of the
state Strategic Plan for Trout Management, and states that
funding for Heritage Trout Waters is a priority for the
HIFF.
i) Requires DFG on an annual basis to invest in hatchery
facility improvements and rehabilitation to ensure progress
towards achieving hatchery production targets.
j) Authorizes DFG, beginning January 1, 2015, to obtain
hatchery-produced fish from any California-based hatchery
if all of the following criteria are met:
i) The hatchery production goal of 2.75 pounds of
released trout per sport fishing license sold is not met;
ii) DFG, following an inspection, determines the
hatchery is in compliance with standards that are as
stringent as those in effect at state hatcheries in order
to minimize the risk of the spread of disease or invasive
species; and,
iii) The cost per pound of the fish provided by the
hatchery does not exceed the cost of state hatchery fish
calculated equivalently, including transportation costs.
SB 1148
Page 4
aa) Appropriates $1 million from the HIFF to DFG for
capital outlay expenditures necessary for improvements to
state hatcheries to achieve hatchery fish production goals.
3)Establishes a program for review, approval and oversight of
mitigation and conservation banks, including a fee structure
and provisions governing the application, review and approval
process. States legislative findings and declarations
regarding the values and importance of conservation and
mitigation banks in providing habitat lands which are managed
to fulfill mitigation requirements, the need for greater
transparency, and the need to fund the regulatory costs of DFG
related to mitigation and conservation banks. (See Assembly
Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee policy analysis for further
detail.)
4)Requires DFG after a bank is approved to conduct compliance
review and to establish and maintain a database, available on
DFG's website or another website linked to DFG's website,
which allows bank sponsors to update mitigation and
conservation bank information.
5)Requires DFG to adopt guidelines and criteria to implement
mitigation and conservation bank requirements. The guidelines
shall incorporate information from a 2011 Memorandum of
Understanding the state entered with federal agencies for
purposes of jointly establishing a coordinated approach to
mitigation and conservation banking in California.
6)Makes the following changes relating to fees charged for fish
and game activities:
a) Requires FGC to adjust license, stamp, permit and tag
fees for inflation based on changes in the Implicit Price
Deflator, pursuant to Section 713 of the Fish and Game
Code, at least every 5 years.
b) Requires, with regard to the fees for lifetime
sportsmen's licenses, sport and commercial fishing
licenses, commercial fish business and vessel licenses,
hunting licenses, ocean sport fishing enhancement stamps,
commercial fishing enhancement stamps, and trapping
SB 1148
Page 5
licenses that the FGC adjust the license fees to recover,
but not exceed, all reasonable administrative and
implementation costs of DFG and the FGC relating to those
licenses.
c) Provides that except where the Fish and Game Code
expressly prohibits the adjustment of statutorily imposed
fees, the FGC may establish a fee or the amount thereof by
regulation. Requires that fees established by the FGC
shall be in an amount sufficient to recover reasonable
administrative and implementation costs of the FGC and DFG
relating to the program for which the fee is paid.
Authorizes the FGC to establish a fee structure to phase in
fee adjustments to provide for full cost recovery within 5
years.
d) Clarifies DFG's authority to adjust fees for CEQA
filings, streambed alteration agreements and scientific
collector permits. Requires that the fees be sufficient to
recover reasonable administrative and implementation costs
and authorizes fee adjustments to be phased in to provide
for full cost recovery within 5 years.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes DFG in the Natural Resources Agency and provides
that wildlife resources are held in trust by DFG for the
people of the state, and generally charges DFG with
administration and enforcement of the Fish and Game Code,
along with the FGC.
2)Establishes the FGC in the Constitution and authorizes the
Legislature to delegate to the FGC powers relating to the
protection and propagation of fish and game.
3)Provides in the Fish and Game Code for various licenses and
permits with some fees set statutorily, others set by DFG or
the FGC, and many, but not all, adjusted for inflation.
4)Establishes a state policy to maintain wild trout fisheries
and discourages artificial planting of hatchery raised
nonnative fish in wild trout waters. Provides for designation
of Heritage Trout Waters containing indigenous native trout
species. Requires that one third of sport fishing license fees
SB 1148
Page 6
be used to attain production goals for state hatcheries by
certain dates, and designates $2 million of those funds for
the Heritage and Wild Trout program.
5)Directs DFG to establish and update a database of wetlands
mitigation banks. Establishes a state policy to preserve
wetlands habitat and requires DFG to develop and administer a
program for wetlands mitigation banks in the Sacramento/San
Joaquin Valley.
6)Requires the FGC every three years after MPAs are established
to receive and consider petitions for modifications to the
MPAs.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Unknown workload costs to DFG and the commission to review and
adjust fees as needed (special funds). These costs should be
covered by fee revenue, which DFG and the commission can set
to ensure they do so. However, there may be a lag between the
time DFG and the commission develop and adopt fees and the
time any resulting revenue increase is realized. It is not
clear DFG or the commission has the resources to cover these
activities from other funds until they receive additional fee
revenue.
2)Ongoing cost in the tens of thousands of dollars to DFG to
support the strategic trout management team (special fund).
3)Significant costs, likely in the low millions of dollars
annually, to DFG to plan, review, establish and monitor
conservation and mitigation bank programs (special fund).
These costs should be fully covered by the fees the bill
authorizes DFG to collect from applicants.
Amendments adopted on the Assembly Floor also appropriate $1
million from the HIFF for capital outlay expenditures necessary
to improve and rehabilitate state hatchery facilities.
COMMENTS : This bill implements numerous changes designed to
implement broad policy recommendations arising out of a
Strategic Vision process conducted this past year to improve the
capacity of DFG and the FGC to carry out their public trust
SB 1148
Page 7
mandates for protection and management of fish and wildlife. AB
2376 (Huffman), Chapter 424, Statutes of 2010, directed the
Secretary of Natural Resources to appoint a state executive
committee, blue ribbon citizen commission (BRCC), and
broad-based stakeholder advisory group to engage in a public
deliberative process and develop recommendations to improve the
effectiveness of DFG and the FGC. The groups met for several
months and released a final report in April 2012. The report
includes broad recommendations on such issues as mission, scope
of responsibilities, scientific capacity, principles to guide
natural resources management, permitting and enforcement.
This bill contains three major themes: it modifies various fee
authorities of DFG and the FGC to allow for but not exceed
recovery of administrative and implementation costs; establishes
a process for review, approval and oversight of mitigation and
conservation banks; and updates California's hatcheries and wild
trout program.
This bill creates a program for review, approval and oversight
of mitigation and conservation banks. These changes facilitate
private sector participation in providing necessary mitigation
opportunities and are supported by many participants in the
mitigation and conservation bank industry. Mitigation and
conservation banks are 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.
DFG has found that mitigation and conservation banks can provide
more effective habitat conservation than piecemeal per project
mitigation, but available information on the status of banks has
been limited. Although mitigation and conservation banks have
been an ongoing activity for many years, the policy has for the
most part not been codified. In the absence of an established
funding source, DFG has also suspended approval of any new
mitigation banks at this time. This bill provides the fee
revenue to cover DFG's program costs, which promotes the
Strategic Vision goal of ensuring that programs have identified
funding sources. The database requirements also further the
goals of increased transparency and accountability. The option
allowing an applicant to submit a draft prospectus for
pre-review seeks to meet the goals, identified in the Strategic
Vision, of providing assistance to applicants with pre-project
SB 1148
Page 8
planning and making the application review process more
consistent and transparent to applicants.
This bill makes numerous reforms to update DFG's hatcheries and
wild trout programs. Among other things, it reflects
advancements in the scientific understanding of the impacts of
hatchery practices on native fish populations, and the
importance of genetic diversity in maintaining wild
self-sustaining populations. This bill seeks to balance the
goal of providing quality outdoor recreational opportunities for
fishermen who pay license fees that support fishery programs,
with the goal of sustainable ecosystem-based management. The
Strategic Vision placed a priority on science-based
decision-making and overall ecosystem health. Regular updates
to the existing Strategic Plan for Trout Management are proposed
to provide an overarching systematic framework for the
management of all trout species. This bill also seeks to
incorporate best practices into hatchery production.
Maintaining and promoting genetic diversity in hatchery fish is
recognized as critical to producing robust and resilient fish
and a healthy fishery. Existing policy and numerical goals on
stocking to promote angler opportunities, established through AB
7 (Cogdill), Chapter 689, Statutes of 2005, are retained, and
program goals are clarified to align with current practice and
scientific understanding. DFG is specifically authorized to
purchase trout from private hatcheries to meet trout stocking
goals, if specified conditions are satisfied. This bill also
appropriates $1 million from the HIFF for improvements to state
hatcheries needed to help meet state hatchery production goals.
The hatchery and wild trout reforms in this bill seek to promote
the goals identified in the Strategic Vision of maintaining
healthy ecosystems, promoting public outdoor recreation
opportunities, practicing adaptive management, ensuring
science-based decisions, and promoting ecosystem based
management informed by credible science. The requirement for
DFG to make information on trout inventories available on DFG's
website also promotes the Strategic Vision's goal of providing
timely access to data collected or used by DFG and the FGC.
These provisions recognize the changing diversity of California
by requiring that areas where hatchery-produced trout are
stocked to provide angling opportunities and fishing access
include urban fisheries.
SB 1148
Page 9
This bill includes provisions allowing DFG and the FGC to adjust
various licensing fees to achieve cost recovery, with direction
to phase in fee increases as necessary for various programs.
These changes apply to both sport and commercial fishermen and
to hunters. Inadequate funding was identified in the Strategic
Vision process as one of the greatest barriers to implementation
of DFG's mission, and it was acknowledged that meaningful change
must include fiscal reforms. The provisions in this bill giving
DFG and the FGC authority to adjust fees as necessary to recover
program costs is consistent with recent legislative actions
giving more fee setting authority for fishing and hunting to the
FGC which would set the fees through a regulatory process under
the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Information provided
by DFG and FGC staff early on in the Strategic Vision process
emphasized the need for financial stability, and the difficulty
both entities face with unfunded mandates. In particular, DFG
and the FGC noted that 57% of the fees for licenses and permits
in the Fish and Game Code require legislative action in order to
adjust fees to bridge the gap between revenues and operational
costs. The Legislature has frequently imposed new statutory
mandates on DFG without providing the funding necessary for
implementation. This bill begins the process of correcting that
problem by shifting authority from the Legislature to the FGC
and DFG to make adjustments in fees as necessary to recover but
not exceed reasonable administrative and implementation costs
relating to the particular license or permit.
Supporters of this bill note the long overdue need for reform of
the state's wildlife management. Most of the articulated
opposition to this bill was removed with amendments taken in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee and the Assembly Water, Parks
& Wildlife Committee which reheard this issue on August 29,
2012. Opponents had objected to provisions included in prior
versions of this bill clarifying strict liability for Fish and
Game code violations and creating a private cause of action.
The private cause of action and strict liability provisions were
deleted from this bill in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Opponents also objected to legislative intent language which
was added articulating principles for mitigation, and to
provisions shifting responsibility for implementation of certain
aspects of the Marine Life Protection Act to the Ocean
Protection Council (OPC). The Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife
Committee reheard this bill on August 29, 2012, and additional
SB 1148
Page 10
amendments were taken to delete the legislative intent on
mitigation principles and the OPC provisions. Opponents who
testified at the hearing indicated they were removing their
opposition with the adoption of these amendments.
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0005802