BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 787
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 26, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared Huffman, Chair
AB 787 (Chesbro) - As Amended: March 31, 2011
SUBJECT : Marine Protected Areas: California Native American
Tribes
SUMMARY : Requires the Fish and Game Commission (FGC) to permit
California Native American tribe members to continue fishing and
gathering practices for traditional religious, ceremonial and
cultural purposes within a marine protected area. Specifically,
this bill :
1)States Legislative findings and declarations that traditional
take of marine resources and other customary uses by
California Native American tribes and tribal communities are
an intrinsic component of the ecosystem, of minimal
disturbance, and consistent with marine protected areas, and
that there is no scientific evidence for the North Coast area
that gathering for subsistence and ceremonial purposes has had
an adverse effect on marine resources.
2)Requires the FGC, notwithstanding the restrictions and uses
allowed in marine protected areas under current law, to permit
California Native American tribe members to continue fishing
and gathering practices for traditional religious, ceremonial
and cultural purposes within a marine protected area, subject
to applicable tribal and federal environmental laws.
3)Requires the FGC to require a person engaging in fishing or
gathering in a marine protected area to hold a tribal
identification card.
4)Defines "California Native American tribe" to mean a federally
recognized Native American tribe in California or a
non-federally recognized California Native American tribe
listed on the California Tribal Consultation List maintained
by the Native American Heritage Commission.
EXISTING LAW :
1)The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) provides for the
designation of a system of marine protected areas (MPAs),
AB 787
Page 2
including but not limited to marine life reserves, to protect
and conserve the state's marine life, habitat and ecosystems.
The MLPA requires the FGC to develop a Marine Life Protection
Program and a process for establishing a system of MPAs that
are designed and managed as a network. The MLPA provides that
the program may include various levels of protection, and
requires the FGC to adopt a master plan for siting and
management of MPAs based on best readily available science.
2)Requires that the FGC hold public hearings and convene
workshops in each biographical region of the state to review
alternative MPA networks and receive comments on preferred
siting alternatives. Requires that the preferred alternative
meet certain specified objectives.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : The MLPA, enacted in 1999, calls for the redesign
and establishment of a network of MPAs to protect and conserve
marine life, habitat and ecosystems. There are several types of
MPAs, including marine life reserves in which no fishing or
other extractive activities are allowed, and other MPAs in which
certain types of commercial and recreational harvesting
activities are allowed. The goals of the MLPA are to protect
the natural diversity and abundance of marine life and the
integrity of marine ecosystems, to sustain marine life
populations, including those with economic value, to improve
recreational and educational opportunities, and to protect
marine natural heritage. The FGC was charged with the
responsibility of administering the program and the process for
designing the network of MPAs.
California adopted a regional approach to designing the coast
wide system of MPAs and divided the state into 5 study regions.
After a multi-year planning process, regulations establishing a
new network of MPAs have been completed for the Central Coast
region, for the North Central Coast region, and most recently,
for the South Coast region. The plan development process is
underway in the North Coast region and just beginning in the San
Francisco Bay region, the last of the five regions. The process
in each region has included an MLPA blue ribbon task force and
the appointment of a regional stakeholder group. Plan
alternatives developed are also reviewed by an MLPA master plan
science advisory team. In the North Coast region, the regional
stakeholder group was able to reach agreement on a Unified
AB 787
Page 3
Proposal with broader cross-interest support than was achieved
in any of the other regions. The Unified Proposal, which was
presented to the FGC in February of this year, included an
intent to allow for traditional, non-commercial, subsistence,
ceremonial, cultural and stewardship uses by tribal people to
continue in marine protected areas.
The FGC at its February 2011 meeting directed staff to develop a
revised MPA network proposal for the North Coast study region,
consistent with the Unified proposal and allowing for continued
tribal uses. The direction to staff was to bring back the
revised proposal to the FGC's April meeting to be considered for
adoption. Tribal representatives, including the Chair of the
Yurok Tribal Council, stated at the FGC meeting that they
accepted the Unified proposal, provided the state acknowledges
the sovereign rights of tribes to gather along the coast as they
have for thousands of years.
Whether the FGC has existing authority under the law to allow
for continued tribal traditional uses in MPAs, or whether a
statutory change is needed is unclear. The Resources Agency
indicates they are conducting legal analysis and working on ways
to address the accommodation of tribal gathering rights
administratively under the existing law, and are hopeful that
additional legislative changes may not be necessary. To date,
they have not identified an option that they feel confident
would be defensible if challenged in a court of law, but they
are continuing to explore various options with the goal of
presenting a viable proposal to the FGC at their June meeting.
In the event that effort does not come to fruition, this bill
would not only give the FGC express authority to allow continued
traditional tribal uses in MPAs but would require the FGC to do
so.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support Opposition
None on file None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
AB 787
Page 4