BILL ANALYSIS 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER | | Senator Fran Pavley, Chair | | 2009-2010 Regular Session | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- BILL NO: AB 2376 HEARING DATE: June 29, 2010 AUTHOR: Huffman URGENCY: No VERSION: May 28, 2010 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes SUBJECT: Fish and wildlife: strategic vision. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW 1. The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) is a department of the State Natural Resources Agency, administered through the director, with responsibility for managing and conserving the state's fish and wildlife and their habitat. The California Fish and Game Code states that the fish and wildlife resources of the state are held in trust for the people of the state by and through DFG. Among its many activities are: conducting biological and field investigations, operation of fish hatcheries, licensing for hunting and fishing, wildlife disease investigation, review of CEQA documents that affect streambed alterations or wildlife habitat, review of timber harvest plans, land management for lands under its jurisdiction, habitat planning and management, enforcement of wildlife protection and hunting and fishing laws, and oil spill planning, enforcement, and response. 2. The state constitution, Article IV, Section 20, created the California Fish and Game Commission, (FGC), composed of 5 members appointed by the Governor, subject to Senate confirmation. Section 200 of the Fish and Game Code delegated to the FGC powers relating to the protection and propagation of fish and game. Elsewhere, the Legislature has delegated to the FGC and to DFG various responsibilities for the protection, management and regulation of fish and game and their habitats. For example, the FGC is generally granted the power to regulate hunting and fishing seasons. 3. State law provides that the FGC shall formulate general policies for the conduct of DFG, and provides that the DFG director is to be guided by those policies and responsible to the FGC for administering DFG in accord with those policies. PROPOSED LAW This bill has several components, all related to developing a strategic vision for DFG and FGC that the author hopes will be helpful in restoring and refocusing these entities on their work in protecting California's natural resources. Specifically, the bill: 1. Directs the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to convene a committee to develop and submit to the Legislature, by July 1, 2012, a strategic vision for DFG and FGC. 2. Provides that the committee shall include the Secretary, the director of DFG, the president of the FGC, the chair of the California Energy Commission, a representative of the University of California, and representatives of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, should they choose to participate. 3. Requires that the strategic vision address specified matters relating to fish and game management, including but not limited to: biodiversity management and ecosystem functions; permitting and regulatory functions; recreational and commercial harvest; scientific capacity; relations with the public, landowners, nonprofits and other land management agencies; reforms necessary to address challenges of the 21st Century; use of technology and data systems; clarification of the roles of DFG and FGC; and strategies for identifying other stable funding options to reduce DFG's dependence on the General Fund. 4. Directs the committee to seek input from other entities and interested parties, and review existing reports and other state models. 5. Directs the Governor or the committee to appoint a "blue ribbon" or citizen commission, advisory committee, task force, or other group or groups to assist in carrying out this task. 6. Requires the committee to seek funding from non-state entities to minimize the use of General Fund moneys for purposes of implementing this bill. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT Defenders of Wildlife states that DFG's previous reliance on hunting and fishing revenues is inadequate for its contemporary tasks and that the result of a strategic planning process could help both DFG and FGC again be leaders in natural resource protection and stewardship. California Council of Land Trusts notes that California is home to approximately 110,000 species of plants and animals, of which more than 350 are threatened or endangered. Additionally, the state's extensive waterways, wilderness areas, and other public lands are an integral part of the state's infrastructure and deserve the best management and oversight that can be provided. Several conservation groups have agreed to help fund the public stakeholder process provisions of the bill, including Audubon, CalTrout, Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and others. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) believes that DFG should be supported with increased general fund revenues and that the search for other DFG funding sources could result in higher fees paid by its members, which ACWA would oppose. COMMENTS The mission of DFG is to manage CA's fish, wildlife and plants, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public. In addition to its traditional role of managing fish and game activities, DFG is the state's lead public trustee charged with conserving and restoring CA's wildlife and ecosystems. DFG's broad responsibilities have expanded and become increasingly more complex over time. Today California is both the most populous and most biologically diverse state in the nation. As a result of population growth and associated development pressures, and competing demands for finite natural resources, CA's environment has experienced unparalleled stressors and resource conservation challenges. In addition, new challenges such as the need to adapt to climate change and to site renewable energy projects, has increased the work load of DFG. The author has introduced this bill with the long term goal of improving and enhancing DFG's capacity and effectiveness in fulfilling its public trust responsibilities for protection and management of the state's fish and wildlife, for their ecological values and for the benefit of the people of the state. 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. Earlier this year, the Assembly Water Parks and Wildlife Committee held a day-long informational oversight hearing on DFG in which the committee reviewed DFG's many mandates and emerging challenges, identified areas where improvements are needed, and received recommendations on ways that DFG's capacity, effectiveness and accountability could be enhanced. A number of common themes emerged from the hearing, including the following: Need for a dedicated, stable funding source. Need for new management models to manage wildlife in an era of scarcity and multiple threats. That the importance of ensuring DFG has capacity to fulfill its mission is heightened by the state's legal public trust responsibility under the constitution to protect fish and wildlife. Need for greater conservation planning efforts statewide, including for monitoring and data collection. Need for greater clarity between roles of DFG and FGC. Need to expedite, prioritize and create incentives in the permitting process for voluntary habitat restoration projects on private lands. Need for increased on the ground game warden enforcement capacity. Need to strengthen DFG's in-house science capacity and partnerships with other academic institutions, like UC and CSU. Database system modernization, standardization, management, coordination and public access should be high priority. While these and other common themes emerged from the hearing, it was clear given the complexities, that a comprehensive review and strategic analysis is needed. This bill provides a pathway for developing that strategic vision, through creation of a state agency-level committee that can look in depth at the issues, with assistance of a blue ribbon or citizen commission and other advisory groups. A process similar to this approach was used to develop the Delta Vision and strategic plan. In addition to the specific topics included in the bill, the gubernatorial committee or task force may also raise topics that are not included in the bill but that are considered important or desirable. A non-exclusive list of both major and minor topics that have been considered by stakeholders over the past several years would include: (1) possible restructuring of the department or a merger with other resource protection entities in state government-several proposals have been developed, but none has ever been endorsed by the administration or introduced as legislation; (2) establishing qualifications or continuing education requirements for the FGC commissioners, (3) comparing methods by which other states choose a director; (4) enhancing the FGC budget by creating a separate line item so that it is no longer part of the DFG budget, (5) continued steps to help reform the budgeting practices at the DFG, and (6) considering other funding mechanisms to help DFG with its well-known budget shortfall. It is interesting to note that the Legislature has three times codified its awareness of the DFG budgeting problems, beginning in 1978. Another important factor in considering DFG and FGC is that, especially for DFG, its conservation and resource planning mandates have increased while its funding has decreased as hunting and fishing license revenues have decreased. The number of sportfishing licenses decreased nearly 14% from 2000 to 2008. The number of hunting licenses has decreased 8% from 2000-2008 and nearly 25% since 1990. DFG is supposed to pay for its hunting and fishing programs through these fees while the department's non-game activities are supposed to be paid for from the General Fund. It has not worked that way for a long time. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS 1. Staff is suggesting, in the first amendment, that the cabinet-level task force also recommend improvements to the role of the commission. 2. While this bill represents an important step in focusing on ways to improve the work of the DFG and FGC, the work of the citizen commission should be undertaken as a project of the state and directed by the secretary. The important role of the stakeholder committee should not be dependent on private funding, although the offer to help provide funding is clearly well-intentioned. The state costs are admittedly minor, but the stakeholder process, which is a required component of the bill, should not be dependent on the identification of non-state funds, as currently provided. To that end, the language on page 4, lines 12-16, should be deleted. That said, nothing would prohibit the stakeholder advisory group members from paying its own costs or sharing the costs of the advisory group (for example, a facilitator) in an arrangement such as a memorandum of agreement approved by the secretary. The key point is that the process should be directed by the secretary. AMENDMENT 1 Page 2, line 8, after "department's" add "and commission's" AMENDMENT 2 Page 4, lines 12-16, delete. SUPPORT Green California California Fish and Game Commission Audubon California California Coastkeeper Alliance California Council of Land Trusts California Trout Defenders of Wildlife Monterey Bay Aquarium Pacific Coast Fed. of Fishermen's Associations The Nature Conservancy The Sportfishing Conservancy Trout Unlimited Trust for Public Land OPPOSITION Association of California Water Agencies