Bv12n5s02

Chairman Wise reminded the Council that identifying funding shortfalls in DEC’s marine resource programs, and assisting the Department in finding the money to cover these shortfalls, were part of the Council’s statutory obligations. The Council’s Subcommittee on Marine Resource Program Financing Needs (Chairman Wise and Councilors Robert Danielson, Melissa Dearborn, David Relyea, and John Davi, Jr.) was established more than a year ago to prepare recommendations to the Council on unmet marine resource programs needs, to identify potential funding sources to meet these needs, and to suggest how the Council could assist DEC in securing the needed monies. The Subcommittee met several times with Gordon Colvin, head of the Department’s Bureau of Marine Resources, and other program and administrative staff of the bureau to discuss marine programs and activities that are either partially or completely unfunded. The Subcommittee prepared a list of such programs that it considered to be of highest priority. The list keyed these marine resource program needs to specific work objectives found in the Bureau of Marine Resources 2001/2002 annual Plan of Work. Mr. Wise distributed the list to the Council (a copy is attached to this bulletin).

Mr. Wise explained to the Council that the individual items on the list of marine resource program needs were not ranked. To fully fund all items on the list would require an additional @ $4.5 million beyond the current annual operating budget of the Bureau of Marine Resources, an increase of approximately 65%. The Subcommittee’s efforts dealt solely with the program needs of the Bureau of Marine Resources. Mr. Wise said the Subcommittee recognizes that, notwithstanding the greater resources now being deployed on marine resource law enforcement by DEC’s Division of Law Enforcement, enforcement activities also could and should be bolstered. Additional discussions with law enforcement staff are needed to flesh out the specific needs.

Councilor Jordan noted that the Bureau of Marine Resources has lost several staff since the Subcommittee began its work. He suggested that refilling these vacancies should be given higher priority than filling new positions, several of which are included in the Subcommittee’s recommendations. Councilor Freierman sought assurance that there would be an effort made to take advantage of other groups, programs, etc. involved in marine resource management, monitoring, and research as a way to fill unmet marine resource program needs most efficiently and inexpensively. Chairman Wise responded that he hoped that the Council could agree on a plan to meet the listed program needs that would include input from many different groups in the hopes of receiving financial support from many sources. Councilor Yaxa asked what state support might be given to the town shellfish management programs (Bureau Objective BM005). Mr. Colvin said that there had been several grant programs most notably The Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act program. In the late 1960’s and 1970’s, DEC gave grants for towns to assist their shellfish management programs. Eventually, the program ended and Congress didn’t reauthorize the Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act.

Mr. Wise then led the Council through a discussion of several potential sources of funds for the additional $4.5 million annually that is estimated to be required to fully fund the list of recommended marine resource program enhancements/expansions.

Increase in General Fund Support

Mr. Gerry Barnhart, Director of DEC’s Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources, indicated that an increase in the Department’s General Fund appropriation that would cover a significant portion of the additional needed funds was so unlikely that it could effectively be ruled out. He had recently met with the Division budget staff to discuss how to move 30 Division employees off the General Fund. In Mr. Barnhart's view, until the economy turns completely, an increase in General Fund support to the Department’s marine resource programs won’t happen.

Redirection of State Boating Fuel Tax Revenues

One option is to attempt to earmark a small fraction on the annual state fuel taxes paid by boaters to support expanded marine resource programs and activities. Chairman Wise observed that this would require certain beneficiaries of the current boating fuel tax revenue stream to forego this income and these groups would, of course, oppose this. Councilor Ferrera said that reauthorization of the Wallop-Breaux legislation is scheduled for this year. Congressman Breaux’s staff has indicated that there may be a willingness on the part of Congress to direct the federal boating fuel tax (4.5 cents/gallon) component of the Wallop-Breaux funding to the states rather than to the federal Highway Fund. Mr. Ferrera also indicated that a new Federal bill would increase that tax, so the amount of additional monies available to state’s for sportfishing restoration-related activities could be proportionately greater in the future.

Mr. Barnhart clarified a few things regarding Wallop-Breaux funds. Wallop-Breaux revenue comes from two sources: 1) excise taxes on the sale of recreational fishing gear and a portion of federal marine fuel taxes, which is now the largest source of revenue. Wallop-Breaux funds are allocated to the states based on a formula that incorporates the land and water areas of each state and the number of licensed anglers in each state. No single state can get more than 5% of the total annually available from the program. New York State does not get this maximum amount now. Our apportionment is based only on fresh water fishing licenses because we don’t have a marine recreational fishing license. If New York had a marine recreational fishing license, it would instantly become a maximum state for the full 5%.

Addition to State Sales Tax/redirection of a Fraction of State Sales Tax Revenues

Chairman Wise noted that a study of alternative mechanisms by which to fund sport fisheries management programs in the Northeast determined that redirection of 1/8 of 1% of the total state sales tax revenues in New York in 1998 to marine resource management programs would have yielded $270 million, while redirection of 50% of sales tax revenues attributable to sportsmen’s purchases would have generated more than $62 million. He noted that the aggregate cost of the priority marine resource program enhancements identified by the subcommittee was only $4.5 million, so the sales tax options would produce far more money than is needed. Chairman Wise said that the other option would be to create a new tax, which would be harder. The current recipients and/or beneficiaries of programs now funded through sales tax revenues would resist any redirection of those revenues to fund marine resource programs. Pursuit of any option involving state sales tax would involve the Council in a state-wide and long-term effort of considerable proportions, an effort whose successful outcome in likely problematic.

Use of Lottery Proceeds

The New York State Constitution explicitly stipulated that revenue generated by the Lottery goes to support education programs. Using any of this revenue stream to support marine resource programs of DEC would require amending the state Constitution. Like the sales tax options, seeking to amend the state Constitution in an effort to secure stable and long-term financial support of marine resource programs would require a statewide effort that is probably not within the abilities of the Council to realistically undertake.

New/increased License Fees

Instituting new or increasing present license fees was the final revenue option assessed by the subcommittee and discussed by the Council. Chairman Wise stated that most of the subcommittee’s discussions on license fees focused on the idea of instituting a marine recreational fishing license, but the subcommittee felt that there also was merit in reviewing the appropriateness of fee structures for existing commercial fishing licenses. With respect to creating a marine recreational fishing license, Mr. Wise reminded the Council that it was on record as supporting such a license, provided that certain concerns, such as a prohibition on use of license revenues for non-marine program purposes, could be satisfactorily handled. Previous work by both the Council and the New York Sportfishing Federation had made it quite clear that there were safeguards that could be used to deal effectively with these concerns.

Mr. Colvin recalled that, in 1983, the Cuomo administration developed a proposal that zeroed the budget of the then-Division of Marine Resources, created a marine recreational fishing license, and moved the Department’s marine program onto the revenue from the new license. This proposal was a shock to everybody and it had problems; for example, it would have funded programs that were clearly unrelated to recreational fishing, like the shellfish sanitation program, from recreational license fee revenues. This proposal was not implemented, but it did serve to highlight several salient issues about the marine recreational fishing license idea.

In the 1980’s, the Marine Resources Account of the State Conservation Fund was created by an amendment to the state finance law. The language in the law says that all revenue collected under the authority of Article XIII of the Environmental Conservation Law is placed in the Marine Resources Account and it specifies that these monies must be used only for marine resource programs. There is a built-in mechanism in the state finance law to receive revenue, if it comes out of Article XIII. Mr. Colvin reminded the Council that a recent audit of the Conservation Fund conducted by the State Comptroller reported that the money in the fund was being spent correctly and no diversions or inappropriate expenditures had been unearthed since the Conservation Fund was established in 1925. Further, MRA funds are often used as match to federal funds that help support DEC marine programs. Should federal auditors uncover inappropriate expenditures of these funds, there would be severe financial sanctions placed on New York by the federal government.

Chairman Wise reported that the Subcommittee saw the license revenue option as the most practicable and promising of the alternatives it assessed. The group recommended to the Council that it authorize the subcommittee to continue its work by putting together a comprehensive license proposal that would include both a new marine recreational fishing license and, if warranted, increased fees for existing commercial licenses. The details of this proposal would be developed through a series of discussions with various groups associated with the state’s recreational and commercial fishing industries and, at some point, should be discussed in an informal way with members of the State Legislature prior to being brought formally before the Council. Mr. Wise suggested that all sides needed to be comfortable with the specifics of such a licensing proposal if it were to have any chance of being implemented. In its extended work, the Subcommittee would periodically refer back to full Council on its progress. Mr. Wise and Mr. Colvin reiterated that, with particular regard to a marine recreational fishing license, all of the concerns and reservations that have been expressed over the years can be dealt with satisfactorily.

Councilor McBride stated that he felt a marine recreational fishing license proposal should be given serious consideration, but its acceptability will ultimately depend on how it deals with such concerns and reservations as prohibiting redirection of the revenues, using license fee revenues to offset reductions in General Fund appropriations to marine programs, etc.

Capt. Neil Delanoy of the Captree Boatmen’s Association stated that, when a marine recreational fishing license was discussed twenty years ago. It faced very strong opposition, including almost all party and charter boat owners/operators. He expressed skepticism that the reaction will be much different today.

Chairman Wise stated that he was not looking for a specific proposal right now; he wanted the Council to endorse the idea of working with the groups that the Subcommittee has to work with to attempt to frame a licensing proposal. He stressed the point of the Council’s statutory obligation to help DEC find the money to run a first-class marine resource program. Chairman Wise reiterated what Councilwoman Freierman had brought up, i.e., piggybacking some of the identified priority marine resource program needs onto other initiatives already underway at the local, regional, and federal levels. He stated that the Subcommittee and DEC staff will take advantage of any opportunity to save money in this way.

Councilor McBride suggested that, since the Council didn’t have a quorum and wouldn’t be able to take any formal action at this meeting, the issue of the Subcommittee’s future actions be discussed and voted on at the next Council meeting. An informal poll of the Council indicated support for the Subcommittee to continue its work in the way recommended.

MRAC Subcommittee on Marine Resource Program Financing
Bureau of Marine Resources Program Needs

This identifies current program priority needs of the Bureau of Marine Resources. These needs are either 1) activities/programs currently conducted by the Bureau that are under funded and, thus, whose objectives are incompletely met or 2) activities/programs that have been identified as important to achieving the overall mission of the Bureau but for which funding/staff capability does not exist; i.e., new program initiatives. The needs are organized by program section and, within a section, by Bureau Objective (B.O.), as described in the Bureau’s 2001-2002 Plan of Work.

A. Finfish & Crustaceans Section

B.O. BM012

BULLETIN

BULLETIN

15 July 2003

Volume XII, No. 5

Report, Council Subcommittee on DEC Marine Resource Program Financing Needs

BULLETIN

BULLETIN

15 July 2003 Volume XII, No. 5

Report, Council Subcommittee on DEC Marine Resource Program Financing Needs

15 July 2003

Volume XII, No. 5