SB 1251 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis

BILL ANALYSIS �

-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

BILL NO: SB 1251 HEARING DATE: April 24, 2012

AUTHOR: Evans URGENCY: No
VERSION: April 9, 2012 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Ocean Protection Council: Aquatic Invasive Species
Working Group.

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Numerous state agencies and statutes have some applicability to
the issue of controlling aquatic invasive species (AIS):

1. AIS may be used as a factor in determining whether to list
surface water bodies as impaired pursuant to federal or state
law, and as such may be within the jurisdiction of the State
Water Resources Control Board or a regional water board. AIS
therefore may be considered within the context of "total maximum
daily loads" or the California Ocean Plan.

2. The statutory framework for consideration of AIS issues in
California involves multiple agencies. The key provisions, but
by no means an exhaustive list, include:

A. The California Ballast Water Management Act which directed in
1999 the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), the State Lands
Commission (SLC) and the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) to undertake specified actions to minimize AIS entry
into state waters from ships discharging ballast water.

B. The Marine Invasive Species Act (2003) which required the
Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) within DFG to
undertake specific actions, including the DFG NAS monitoring
program.

C. The Coastal Ecosystem Protection Act (2006) repealed the
sunset provision in MISA and assigned several new
responsibilities to DFG including additional monitoring
1

responsibilities, internet posting of information from the
monitoring program, and reporting to the Legislature. This
legislation, authored by Sen. Simitian, remains in effect.

A recent report commissioned by this Committee noted that the
management of coastal aquatic invasive species includes 7 state
laws encompassing 230 code sections and 50 sections in the
California Code of Regulation. (Muir, Managing Coastal Aquatic
Invasive Species in California: Existing Policies and Policy
Gaps, California Research Bureau, 2011).

The state entities with the most involvement in AIS, in addition
to DFG, are: the departments of Boating and Waterways,
Agriculture, Water Resources, State Water Resources Control
Board, State Coastal Conservancy, and the State Lands
Commission.

Several other laws focused on specific invasive species. AB 2631
(Wolk) in 2006 prohibited transportation of dreissenid mussels
and authorized inspections by DFG and the sunset on that
provision was accomplished in SB 215 (Huff) in 2011.

AB 2065 (Hancock) authorized control programs for invasive
mussels. AB 1540 (Buchanan did the same for an invasive plant,
the South American sponge plant.

3. AB 1683 (Wolk) proposed a statewide invasive species council.
That bill passed the Legislature in 2004 but was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger.

4. In 2009, several state agencies created the Invasive Species
Council of California. The council was created neither by
statute nor by executive order. Many appreciate the council's
focus on interagency coordination. One of its recommendations is
to establish an interagency and private sector working group.
The council is chaired by the Secretary of the Food and
Agriculture and includes 5 other agency heads. Its advisory
committee has 24 stakeholder members. The advisory committee has
identified 1700 species of all types for which various
strategies could apply including exclusion, detection,
eradication, control, or management action by the state. This
process has also evaluated the potential economic impacts of
these invasive species.

4. In 2008, DFG in conjunction with many other state agencies,
developed the California Aquatic Invasive Species Management
Plan. This report suggests more than 160 different management
2

actions. This report meets federal requirements and thus
California is eligible for federal matching funds. One of its
recommendations, along with the report listed below, recommends
a rapid response plan. This report was funded in part by the
Ocean Protection Council, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the Coastal Conservancy.

A key recommendation of this plan was to establish the
California Agencies Aquatic Invasive Species Team (CAAIST) which
are the AIS managers of each of the state agencies that work on
the topic. The CAAIST then feeds into the work of the executive
managers of each agency. The CAAIST has been established and
meets twice a year.

5. The Ocean Protection Council (OPC) and the Ocean Science
Trust (OST) have major roles in coordinating statewide coastal
AIS management. The trust encourages multi-agency,
multi-institution coordination for ocean science, management,
and policy. OST received a grant of $1 million to develop risk
assessments for several vectors (methods of entry into the
state) of NAS. The OPC has identified nearly 40 California
public agencies with some involvement with NAS issues.

6. The Muir Report and many other observers have noted the need
to improve institutional coordination. A graphic depiction of
the multi-institutional approach in California from a former
Science and Technology Fellow, Newsha Ajami, who worked for the
Committee in 2011 is attached to this analysis. The
Environmental Law Institute credits California with a "complex
invasive species regulatory system" which may understate the
case.

7. A recent report from a private firm commissioned by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that California establish
an AIS rapid response fund funded with an assortment of fees.
(Cardno ENTRIX, California Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid
Response Fund, 2011). Similar programs exist in Washington,
Maine, Ohio, Idaho, Maryland, and Oregon. Funding streams are in
place in Maine, Washington, and Oregon.

8. The 2011 report from DFG noted the arrival of 4 more invasive
species into San Francisco Bay, one of the water bodies
worldwide with the highest numbers of invasive species.

Economic Impacts of AIS. Economic damages are difficult to
estimate, but AIS have clearly caused millions of direct and
indirect costs due to ecological impacts, industry losses, and
3

control and monitoring efforts. The removal of an invasive
algae, Caulerpa taxifolia, from Southern California cost $4.3
million in 2003-04. California is the largest ocean economy in
the U.S. and is at risk of potentially major losses as a result
of coastal AIS.

Private and public economic interests most affected adversely by
NAS include water distributions systems, industrial cooling
systems, boat maintenance, marina facilities, navigational
equipment, and threats to commercial and recreational fishing.
Non-market impacts can also be substantial and include changes
in biodiversity, habitats or food webs, reduced water quality,
and reduced recreational, cultural, aesthetic, and scientific
values. Nationwide, NAS effects on wildlife accounts for
approximately 40% of threatened and endangered species listings
according to numerous sources.

According to the National Ocean Economics Program's California's
Ocean Economy, 2005, in California, $43 billion of the gross
state product is attributed to coastal industries in the
following sectors: tourism and recreation, 58%; transportation,
including ports, 34.5%; construction, minerals, ship and boat
building, and harvesting of marine life, 7.5%. Tourism and
recreation accounted for 76.8% of all coastal employment.

Current Expenditures in California. Total statewide agency
expenditures in fiscal years 05-06 and 06-07 averaged $26
million per year, according to the Cardno/ENRIX report. A large
portion of this funding was on mussel, water hyacinth, Caleurpa,
and other species for which a rapid reaction was required. On
the other hand, the author believes that DFG alone spent about
$39 million on various invasive species efforts. The discrepancy
indicates that tracking NAS in California is difficult.

PROPOSED LAW
This bill amends the California Ocean Protection Act (that
created the OPC) and requires it, and the Wildlife Conservation
Board, to grant funds to jointly establish an "aquatic invasive
species working group with jurisdiction over aquatic invasive
species, both coastal and inland. All members would be appointed
by the Secretary for Resources and would include 25 members
representing a combination of local government, marina
districts, boating, fishing, environmental groups, and one
member from the Ocean Science Trust. All would be able to
appoint an alternate.

The bill directs the California Agencies Aquatic Invasive
4

Species team to serve in an advisory capacity to the working
group.

The working group would be required to use a science panel,
which would be appointed by the Resources Secretary. The science
panel would consist of six persons, with expertise in aquatic
invasive species.

The working groups would several responsibilities including:

1. Gathering and analyzing relevant information to develop an
action plan and implementation procedures;

2. By 1/1/14, recommend to the Legislature any needed future
legislation and a report whose goal is the development of a
well-funded, comprehensive, statewide approach to the management
and control of aquatic invasive species.

3. The working group is to prioritize and recommend actions to
control AIS through early detection, control, and eradication,
as well as monitoring, rapid response, public education, It is
also to recommend ways to eliminate duplication among state
agencies and to recommend a funding source for a comprehensive
statewide control program.

4. Three documents are included in the bill that the working
group is directed to use. Other sources may be used.

The working group is permitted to create subcommittees, is
required to hold at least one public hearing. The OPC grant may
cover travel costs.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, the purpose of the bill is to
streamline the state's response to AIS and to improve
communication between the agencies. The author notes the
economic costs of AIS, the multiplicity of the state's current
statutes,

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received.

COMMENTS
This bill has the potential to resolve and simplify the state's
multi-dimensional approach to dealing with AIS, or it has the
potential to be another in the long line of statutes discussed
5

earlier that, despite their accomplishments, have failed to
create an integrated approach across agencies to deal with this
important issue. The following amendments will be prepared in
conjunction with the author.

Amendment 1 deletes the provision that the OPC and the WCB shall
make a grant to establish a working group and adds a provision
that the OPC and the WCB shall enter into an inter-agency
agreement that addresses creation of the working group as
specified in the bill. The purpose of this amendment is to avoid
imposing an outcome on what are generally competitively granted
funds.

Amendment 2 directs the Secretary to appoint a member of the
OPC, or its executive director, to chair the working group.

Amendment 3 deletes the references to two specific plant
organizations and replaces them with generic aquatic plant
experts.

Amendment 4 directs that among the range of funding options that
might be considered, that the working group consider whether
specific invasive species vectors should be used as a basis for
funding, and if so, to make specific recommendations.

Amendment 5 deletes the references to specified documents that
the working group is to rely on and instead directs the working
group to rely on the best available scientific and planning
information to fulfill the requirements of the bill.

Amendment 6 adds an option that the working group may consider
integrating its work with that of Food and Agriculture
Department in order to create an integrated approach for all
aquatic species in California, both aquatic and terrestrial.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS

AMENDMENTS 1 -6
Adopt the amendments in the Comments.

SUPPORT
None Received

OPPOSITION
None Received