Performance audit, Game and Fish Department and Commission

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT
GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
AND COMMISSION
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
September 1991
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
September 26, 1991
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable F i f e Symington, Governor
Mr P h i l l i p Ashcroft, Chairman
Arizona Game and Fish Commission
Transmitted herewith i s a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit
of the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Commission. This report i s in
response to a June 14, 1989, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight
Committee and was conducted as a part of the Sunset Review set forth in
Arizona Revised Statutes $ 041- 2351 through 41- 2379.
The report addresses the effectiveness and efficiency of the Arizona Game
and Fish Department and Commission. Specifically, we found that the
Department can be more effective in dealing with controversial w i l d l i f e
management issues. We also found that the Department needs to step up i t s
e f f o r t s to develop a comprehensive planning and evaluation system. Further,
we found that the span of control between the Department's Regional
Supervisors and the s t a f f they supervise i s excessive and should be
addressed. Finally, we found that watercraft regulation should be modified
to require t i t l i n g , and to eliminate regulation f o r certain types of
watercraft.
My s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased to discuss or c l a r i f y items in the report.
This report w i l l be released to the public on September 27, 1991.
Sincerely,
~ ougllds R. Norton
Auditor General
DRN : l mn
CC: Commission Members
Duane Shroufe, Director
Arizona Game and Fish Department
2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE ' SUITE 700 . PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ' ( 602) 255- 4385 . FAX ( 602) 255- 1 251
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and
Sunset Review of the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Commission,
pursuant to a June 14, 1989, resolution of the J o i n t Legislative
Oversight Committee. This performance audit was conducted as part of the
Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) § § 41- 2351
through 41- 2379.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department ( AGFD) is responsible for
administering and enforcing the game and f i s h laws and the boating and
watercraft laws. The mission statement of the Department i s to conserve,
enhance, and restore Arizona's diverse w i l d l i f e resources and habitats
through aggressive protection and management programs, and to provide
w i l d l i f e resources and safe watercraft recreation for the enjoyment,
appreciation, and use of present and future generations. The Department
is overseen by the Game and Fish Commission, a five- member body whose
members are appointed by the Governor for staggered five- year terms.
The De~ artment Can lmorove
Its Effectiveness In Controversial
Wildlife Manaeement Issues ( See pages 5 through 11)
The Arizona Game and Fish Department can be more effective in dealing
with controversial issues i t must address because of i t s expanded role.
The Department's role has grown over the past few years. Traditionally,
the Department's focus was on managing game and fish species for
consumptive use ( hunting and fishing) by sportsmen. However, the
Department has expanded i t s w i l d l i f e advocacy role as a result of changes
in federal law, direction from the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, and
passage of the Heritage Fund I n i t i a t i v e last year.
With i t s expanded role, the Department has been involved in some
controversial issues related to the use of public lands. Most of the
controversy experienced by the Department has come from i t s involvement
in issues relating to timber harvesting, c a t t l e grazing, and threatened
and endangered species such as the Mount Graham red squ i r re l . For
example, the Department's appeals and intervention in timber sales have
been c r i t i c i z e d by industry as being single- minded in t h e i r concern for
w i l d l i f e while ignoring the economic impact on business and communities
in the timber industry.
In response t o c r i t i c i s m , the Commission has taken several steps to
further improve policy development and guidance for the Department. For
example, as a result of the timber- related controversies, the Commission
developed and approved a process for appealing Forest Service decisions,
and established a policy statement supporting the concept of multiple use
management on public lands. However, the Department should consider
additional actions including developing more biological information on
nongame and threatened and endangered species; establishing a special
team to develop, manage, and carry out Commission policy on controversial
issues; and increasing i t s interaction with groups involved with
controversial issues.
The Department Needs to Step up Its Efforts
to Develo~ a Comprehensive Planning
and Evaluation Svstem ( See pages 13 through 18
The Department needs to do more to implement a comprehensive system of
planning and evaluation. Because the Department i s responsible for
implementing a broad array of programs throughout Arizona, adoption of a
comprehensive planning system would enhance the Department's a b i l i t y to
manage i t s operations. The Department i n i t i a t e d development of a
comprehensive planning system in 1985, but the Department s t i l l does not
have an overall plan to direct operations and establish clear
p r i o r i t i e s . As a result, regional personnel receive limited direction
and are forced to decide Department p r i o r i t i e s . I n developing a
comprehensive plan, the Department needs to focus i t s planning e f f o r t s ,
to involve more personnel departmentwide, and to establish an
implementation schedule.
Sianif icant " Span of Control" Problems
Exist in the Department's Six Reaional
Offices ( See pages 19 through 24)
The span of control between the Department's Regional Supervisors and the
s t a f f they supervise i s excessive and should be addressed.. The Regional
Supervisors are responsible for administering a wide variety of
Department programs including w i l d l i f e management, habitat conservation,
game and f i s h law enforcement, watercraft enforcement, and information
and education services. However, Regional Supervisors have an average of
20 employees reporting d i r e c t l y to them-- more than they can e f f e c t i v e l y
supervise. The Department needs to add f i e l d supervisors to oversee
f i e l d s t a f f .
The Department Should Modifv Its
Watercraft Regulation ( See pages 25 through 30)
Changes are needed to Arizona's watercraft regulation. F i r s t , Arizona
should require t i t l i n g of watercraft. T i t l i n g establishes proof of
ownership, discourages boat t h e f t , and allows liens to be recorded by
financial i n s t i t u t i o n s . Currently, 29 states and the D i s t r i c t of
Columbia require the issuance of a t i t l e , and the United States Coast
Guard strongly endorses t i t l i n g . Second, Ar i zona shou I d cons i de r
eliminating regulation for certain types of watercraft. Arizona is one
of only 8 states that requires a l l watercraft to be registered. Included
in Arizona's requirements are sailboats, rowboats, canoes, kayaks,
sailboards, and i n f l a t a b l e r a f t s . Federal law requires that only
motorized boats be registered. Revenues lost through the elimination o f
regulation for these watercraft could be recovered through an increase in
registration fees and taxes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIMDING I: M E DEPARTUENT CAN IMPROVE
ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN CONTROVERSIAL
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department's W i l d l i f e Management
Role Has Expanded. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Expanded Role
Brings Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Additional Measures Needed
to Better Address Controversies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING I I : THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO STEP UP ITS
EFFORTS TO WELOP A COUPREHENSIVE
PLANNING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comprehensive Planning
and Evaluation Needed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AGFD Has I n i t i a t e d Development of a
Comprehensive Planning System, However, Some
C r i t i c a l Plans Are Not Yet in Place. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Decisions Regarding P r i o r i t i e s
Are Often Left to the Regions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Additional Steps Could Be Taken
to F a c i l i t a t e Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING I l I: SIGNIFICANT " SPAN OF COHIROL" PROBLEMS
EXIST IN THE DEPARTMENT'S
SIX REGIONAL OFFICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Span of Control in the Department's
Regional Offices i s Excessive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Field Supervisors Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Con ' t )
Pane
FINDING IV: THE DEPARTUENT SHOULD W l F Y
ITS WATERCRAFT REGULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Arizona Should Issue T i t l e s
for Regulated Watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5
Arizona Should Discontinue
Registration of Certain
Boat Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7
Recomnendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
OTHER PERTINENT INFOWATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1
SUNSET FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
AGENCY RESPONSE
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 Arizona Game and Fish Department
Statements of FTEs and Actual Expenditures
Fiscal Years 1988- 89, 1989- 90,
and 1990- 91 ( Unaudited). . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 2 Arizona Game and Fish Department
Number of Employees Supervised by
Regional Supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
TABLE 3 Numbers of Nonmotorized Watercraft
Registered in Arizona As of August 1991. . . . . . 28
TABLE 4 Examples of Heritage A c t i v i t i e s
Planned in Fiscal Year 1991- 92 . . . . . . . . . . 34
TABLE 5 Salary Information of Other
Western States for Positions
Equivalent to W i l d l i f e
Manager I and I I Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
TABLE 6 W i l d l i f e Manager Salary in Comparison
with Other Arizona State Agencies. . . . . . . . . 37
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Arizona Game and Fish Department
Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
FIGURE 2 Comp rehens i ve P l ann i ng and
Evaluation System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
FIGURE 3 Arizona Game and Fish Department
Current Structure of a Typical Region. . . . . . . 2 1
FIGURE 4 Arizona Game and Fish Department
Proposed Structure of a Typical Region . . . . . . 23
FIGURE 5 Heritage Fund Allocation
To Game and Fish Program Areas . . . . . . . . . . 32
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and
Sunset review of the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Commission,
pursuant to a June 14, 1989, resolution of the Joint Legislative
Oversight Committee. This performance audit was conducted as part o f the
Sunset review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) 9541- 2351
through 41- 2379. This i s the f i r s t performance audit of the Arizona Game
and Fish Department conducted by the Auditor General.
Backaround
As early as 1881, concern over the unrestricted drain on Arizona's
w i l d l i f e resources led to the formation of the Arizona Fish Commission.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department and Commission were establ ished, in
essentially their present form, in 1929. The Arizona Game and Fish
Department ( AGFD) i s the State agency charged with administering and
enforcing the game and f i s h laws and the boating and watercraft laws.
The mission statement of the Department i s to conserve, enhance, and
restore Arizona's diverse w i l d l i f e resources and habitats through
aggressive protection and management programs, and to provide w i l d l i f e
resources and safe watercraft recreation for the enjoyment, appreciation,
and use of present and future generations.
The Arizona Game and Fish Commission i s a five- member body whose members
are appointed by the Governor for staggered five- year terms
( A. R. S. 517- 201). The Commission appoints a Director ( A. R. S. $ 17- 211)
who acts as secretary to the Commission and serves a five- year term. The
Di rector i s responsible for the supervision and control o f al l a c t i v i t i e s
of the Department and enforces a l l Commission rules and orders.
Oraanization and Prwrams
AGFD i s organized into four divisions: W i l d l i f e Management, Field
Operations, Special Services, and Information and Education. Each
division i s comprised of special ized branches which handle the a c t i v i t i e s
that fa1 l i n t o t h e i r categories. Some of the programs currently operated
by the Department include: fisheries management, game management, nongarne
management, habitat management, game and f i s h law enforcement,
information and education, research, engineering, habitat development,
and watercraft-- including registration and boating education and
enforcement.
The Department divides Arizona into six administrative regions which
function as part of the Field Operations Division. Regional headquarters
are located in Pinetop, Flagstaff, Kingman, Yuma, Tucson, and Mesa.
Regions are divided into d i s t r i c t s managed by d i s t r i c t w i l d l i f e managers
who report to the regional supervisor.
Budaet and Staffing
AGFD receives no State General Fund monies. The Department receives most
of i t s operating revenue from the sale of licenses, permits, watercraft
registration fees and taxes, and Federal grants. Some other sources of
revenue include: donations, interest income, fines and c i v i l penalties,
and rental income.(') A summary of AGFD expenditures for f i s c a l years
1988- 89, 1989- 90, and 1990- 91 are shown in Table 1, page 3.
The Department's funding w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t l y expanded with the addition
of the Heritage Fund. T i t l e 17, Chapter 2, Arizona Revised Statutes was
amended by adding A r t i c l e 6 in November 1990 due to the voter- approved
Prspos i t ion 200 " Ar izona Her i tage Fund . I' The Department w i l l receive $ 10
m i l l i o n annually for purposes which include preserving, protecting, and
enhancing Arizona's w i l d l i f e , w i l d l i f e habitat, endangered and threatened
species, urban w i l d l i f e , and for environmental education.
For fiscal year 1990- 91, AGFD had 398.8 full- time equivalent ( FTE)
positions, 276.0 Game and Fish funded positions and 122.8 Federal aid
funded positions.
( 1 ) Statutes require that revenues ( except Federal grants) received by the Department be
transferred to the State Treasurer for deposit into special funds, such as the game
and f i s h and the watercraft licensing funds. These funds are appropriated to the
Comnission for use i n carrying out i t s duties.
TABLE 1
ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
STATEMENTS OF FTEs AND ACTUAL EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1988- 89, 1989- 90, AND 1990- 91
( Unaudited)
FTE positions 399.3 398.8 398.8
Personal services $ 9,557,948 $ 9,812,241 $ 10,641,206
Employee related 2,795,965 2,726,626 3,160,396
Prof. & outside services 1 ,395,247 972,457 1 ,752,498
Travel, in- state 48 1 ,637 568,431 571,726
out- of- state 52,636 62,456 86,200
Capital outlay 2,745,935 3,912,057 5,487,870
Other operating 4.390.078 5,191,978 5,262,083
TOTAL $ 21,419,438 $ 23,245,346 $ 26,961,979
Source: Arizona Financial Information Systems Reports for the Fiscal
Years Ending June 30, 1989, 1990, and 1991. FTE information
obtained from AGFD budget requests for Fiscal Years 1990- 91 and
1991- 92.
Audit Sco~ e
Our audit report of the Arizona Game and Fish Department presents
findings and recommendations in four areas:
AGFD's involvement in controversial issues
The Department's planning and evaluation process
The span of control of Regional Supervisors
Watercraft regulation
In addition to these audit areas, we present a section on other pertinent
information which includes information regarding the recently approved
Heritage funding, and W i l d l i f e Manager salary and workload information
( see pages 31 through 39). This report also contains a response to the
twelve sunset factors ( see pages 41 through 45).
Time constraints did not allow us to review the efficiency and
effectiveness of several Department programs. Some examples of these
programs include game management, f i s h e r i e s , h a b i t a t , game and f i s h law
enforcement, research, and data processing . These programs expend
s i g n i f i c a n t amounts of Federal and State funds and involve many
Department s t a f f .
The audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and s t a f f express appreciation to the Arizona, Game
and Fish Commission Chairman, Commission members, the Director of the
Arizona Game and Fish Department, and s t a f f for their cooperation and
assistance throughout the audit.
FINDING I
THE DEPARTMENT CAN IMPROVE ITS EFFECTIVENESS
IN CONTROVERSIAL WILDLIFE
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
" Those searching for a state agency that avoids controversy and
walks the middle of the road w i l l wish to pass the offices of
the Arizona Game and Fish Department." ( Arizona Republic,
February 17, 1991)
As the a r t i c l e suggests, the Department has been involved in many
controversial issues regarding w i l d l i f e management over the past few
years. Several factors have mandated a more expanded w i l d l i f e management
r o l e f o r the Department beyond that of i t s t r a d i t i o n a l focus on hunting
and fishing. Along with this larger and more active r o l e managing
w i l d l i f e , the Department has received c r i t i c i s m for i t s actions.
Although some of the criticisms have been addressed, more can be done.
Dwartment ' s Wildlife Manaaement
Role Has Expanded
The Department's role has expanded beyond i t s t r a d i t i o n a l focus on
providing for consumptive use of w i l d l i f e . Traditionally, the Department
had focused i t s e f f o r t s on managing game and f i s h species for consumptive
use ( hunting, fishing, and trapping) by sportsmen. Managing big game
herds, setting hunting seasons, stocking f i s h , enforcing hunting and
fishing laws, and providing hunter education were and s t i l l are major
a c t i v i t i e s of the Department. The Department, however, has augmented i t s
organization to address i t s expanded role. Habitat specialist positions
were established in the regions in 1979. In 1983, the Department created
a nongame branch to conserve and manage nongame species. In 1989, the
habitat branch was organized to further emphasize habitat evaluation and
conservation functions. Further, the Department has devoted considerable
resources in the past three years to research of nongame species, and
increased s t a f f size in the research branch from 13 to 60 s t a f f .
Several factors mandate a broader Department role.
0 Federal reauirements - Federal laws provide for a strong State Game
and Fish role in the planning and management of w i l d l i f e and habitat
on Federal land. This i s especially c r i t i c a l i n Arizona where
one- third of the land is Federal land managed by the Forest Service
and the Bureau of Land Management ( BLM), and much of the w i l d l i f e
habitat in the State i s on t h i s land. The National Forest Management
Act ( NFMA) provides for a comprehensive process to obtain input from
interested parties including State Game and Fish agencies for the
development and execution of management plans for the national
forests. Although the Act was passed i n 1976, forest plans for
Arizona were not developed and completed u n t i l the late 1980s.
Department public lands involvement includes reviews of forest and
range land management plans, proposed timber sales, grazing
allotments, and, in general, any proposed a c t i v i t y which has an
impact on w i l d l i f e on Federal land. These reviews can include f i e l d
studies to provide further information and to determine effects on
w i l d l i f e . Department s t a f f work with Forest Service and BLM s t a f f on
biological projects and also in developing plans.
Direction from Commission - Arizona statutes give the Commission
broad authority to manage w i l d l i f e i n the State through the AGFD.
The Commission establishes Department policy and gives the Department
d i r e c t i o n for i t s a c t i v i t i e s . In 1987, the Commission for the f i r s t
time established a Department mission statement which delineates the
Department's expanded role by directing the department to conserve,
enhance, and restore Arizona's diverse w i l d l i f e resources and
habitats through aggressive protection and management programs.
Heritaae Fund Initiative - The passage of the Her i tage Fund i n i t i a t ive
i n the 1990 election w i l l continue to expand the role of the
Department. The i n i t i a t i v e requires that the Department assess
w i l d l i f e habitats statewide, provide increased environmental
education and information e f f o r t s , develop urban w i l d l i f e programs,
increase access to public lands, and also acquire sensitive habitat
for w i l d l i f e . The i n i t i a t i v e provides $ 10 mi l l i o n annually to carry
out these duties. The Department expects to eventually add 105 s t a f f
to perform Heritage Fund duties.
Ex~ anded Role
Brinm Controversy
As a result of i t s expanded role, the Department has been involved in
controversial issues related to public land use. Public land use issues
are inherently controversial due to the varied perspectives of those
e n t i t i e s with an interest in these issues. Some of the larger
con t rovers i es the Department has part i c i pated in have been issues
relating to timber harvesting, c a t t l e grazing, and threatened and
endangered species such as the Mount Graham red s q u i r r e l . These types of
controversies are not unique to Arizona. Other western states' Game and
Fish departments are experiencing similar controversies.
Controversy to be expected - Because of the nature of the issues,
increased public concern about the environment, and the Department's
mandated role, some controversy w i l l inevitably occur over how public
lands w i l l be used. The Department's primary role i s to manage, protect,
and enhance w i l d l i f e . However, t h i s may c o n f l i c t with the goals of other
parties under the Federal concept of managing land for multiple use. In
addition to the Department, both environmental groups and various
industries attempt to influence how national forests w i l l be managed.
Overview of major controversies - Three of the larger w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d
controversies in which the Department participated include the following:
Timber - Much of the controversy involving the Department over the
past few years has come from i t s active r o l e in issues concerning
timber harvesting in the national forests in Arizona. The Department
has appealed or intervened on several timber sales and forest
management plan proposals. Department e f f o r t s have been c r i t i c i z e d
by industry as being single minded in their concern for w i l d l i f e
while ignoring the economic impact on business and communities.
Comnunity leaders and employees also expressed concern in letters to
both the Governor and the Department. In response, the Department
published a " white paper" which gave i t s perspective of the issues.
One timber company then published a counter- response to the
Department's white paper and also sued the Department to gain access
to information related to timber issues. The s u i t was recently
resolved in favor of the Department and the timber company indicated
they would not appeal the decision.
Cattle - The Department has been involved in controversial issues
relating to the c a t t l e industry. Ranchers are concerned about large
numbers of elk grazing on public land used for grazing c a t t l e . The
Department and the Forest Service have allowed elk populations to
increase in Arizona, putting additional pressure on the habitat also
used for c a t t l e grazing. Another problem has been elk grazing and
damage to private land used for c a t t l e . The Department has responded
to some concerns by bui lding fences to keep elk out and also holding
controversial special hunts to reduce elk numbers in problem areas.
Another cattle- related controversy involving the Department concerned
bears and mountain lions. Ranchers were k i l l i n g bears and mountain
lions to minimize their attacks against c a t t l e . I n response to
pub1 i c concern about the number of predators taken by ranchers and
the methods used, the Department worked with industry to pass
l e g i s l a t i o n further regulating the taking of predators. Senate Bi l l
1137, passed in 1990, restricted ranchers to taking only the k i l l e r
animal, restricted methods of taking, and required ranchers to report
that an animal was taken. P r i o r t o t h i s law, ranchers could take
unlimited numbers of predators and had no r e s t r i c t i o n s on methods
used.
Mount Graham Red Sauirrel - The Department was also involved in the
controversial issue regarding the Mount Graham red s q u i r r e l . The
Department and many env i ronmen ta l groups were concerned that the
building of a telescope s i t e on Mount Graham would seriously threaten
the habitat of the squirrel to the point of possible extinction. The
issue was heated and involved several e n t i t i e s in addition to the
Department and p o l i t i c a l and environmental groups including the
Governor, the University o f Arizona, and most of the congressional
delegation.
Other western states ex~ eriencincl similar controversies - W i l d l i f e and
habitat controversies in Arizona are not unique. Many western states
have experienced similar controversies. Timber- cutting controversies
have been raging in the Northwest, p i t t i n g the timber industry against
w i l d l i f e departments and environmentalists over the issue of
timber- cutting's impact on w i l d l i f e habitat. Further, several states
reported controversies arising from c a t t l e grazing.
Additional Measures Needed
to Better Address Controversies
The Commission and the Department should both consider additional
measures to better address their involvement in controversial issues. In
response t o c r i t i c i s m , the Commission has taken several steps to help
ensure e f f e c t i v e p o l i c y development and Department action in i t s and the
Department's involvement in controversial issues. Some additional
measures, however, may further improve effectiveness.
Comnission has addressed c r i t i c i s m - In response to c r i t i c i s m about the
Department's role in controversial issues, the Commission has taken
several steps to improve policy development and guidance for the
Department. Although the Commission i s charged by statute to establish
policy for the Department, i t was at times not informed of actions being
taken by the Department. However, as a result of timber- related
controversies in 1990 and the resulting c r i t i c i s m , the Commission took
8
several actions to help ensure i t s involvement in decisions related to
cont rovers ia I issues. F i rs t , the Comi ss ion deve loped and approved a
process for appealing Forest Service decisions. This process includes
Department presentation of related information for review by the
Commission and the State Forester. The Commission w i l l then determine
whether an appeal w i l l be pursued. Second, the Commission also
established a policy statement supporting the concept of multiple use
management on public lands administered by the Forest Service and the
BLM. In this policy the Commission directs the Department to continue to
be an active partner with Federal land management agencies and the public
in the design and application o f multiple- use prescriptions for resource
management. Third, the Commission has devoted time at monthly Conunission
meetings to obtain updates and information on public land issues.
A d d i t i ~ n a l measures needed - The Commission and Department should
consider additional actions to improve their handling of controversial
issues on public lands. These include: ( 1) developing more biological
information, ( 2) developing a special team to address, manage, and
respond to controversial issues; and ( 3) establishing more task forces or
committees to s o l i c i t input and help develop concensus on controversial
i ssues .
Several respondents to our survey of e n t i t i e s that interact with the
~ e ~ a r t m e n t ( ' s) t ated that the Department needs to develop more biological
information on nongame and threatened and endangered species.
Information i s needed on these and other species to better determine the
impact public land use decision making has on these species. For
example, not enough biological information has been gathered to date on
the Goshawk population on the North Kaibab Ranger D i s t r i c t on the Kaibab
National Forest. Information is needed because t h i s b i r d of prey has
been designated as an indicator species for that forest. ( An indicator
species i s one that i s most l i k e l y to show the typical effects of forest
management actions on w i l d l i f e and the ecosystem.) The North Kaibab has
( 1 ) We surveyed 139 individuals representing agencies and organizations t h a t i n t e r a c t with
the Department. Seventy- three responded to the survey which contained questions about
the Department's effectiveness.
been one of the most controversial of a l l Arizona public land disputes,
with debate focusing on whether the Goshawk w i l l be adversely impacted by
additional timber cutting proposals.
The Department u n t i l recently has devoted few resources to nongame
species. However, Heritage Fund requirements w i l l increase s t a f f and
help address the biological information need. The Heritage Fund requires
that the Department address nongame habitat and species and makes funding
available for biological studies. The Department's Heritage Fund program
proposals c a l l for an additional 105 s t a f f , many of which w i l l be habitat
and research oriented.
The Department should also cong . ? r organizing a special team to develop,
manage, and carry out Comrniss i l l i c y on controversial issues. Several
e n t i t i e s we surveyed c r i t i c i z - . the Department's a b i l i t y to act as a
coordinated u n i t . These e n t i t i e s were concerned that positions on issues
vary among regions, and f e l t that the central o f f i c e i s not involved
enough in the issues. New Mexico's Game & Fish Department has
established a special team comprised of central o f f i c e management and
supervisors that meet monthly to discuss issues, reach concensus and set
policies.
Another measure the Commission and Department should consider i s
establishing additional task forces or committees comprised of interested
parties to receive input and develop consensus on controversial issues.
Some e f f o r t s towards t h i s have already begun. The Governor has recently
established a public land use advisory council comprised of State agency
directors with environmentally- related responsibilities. In addition,
the Commission has established or has participated in working groups that
include industry, environmental and other groups. Although some e f f o r t
has taken place, the Commission agreed more proactive use of task forces
i s needed to address controversial issues. Some other western state game
and f i s h agencies have established task forces or committees to help
ensure that input i s received from a l l parties. For example, Utah uses
task forces to obtain concensus on big game management policies.
Membership includes ranchers, sportsmen, legislators, Federal agency
personnel, livestock association representatives and agency personnel.
Washington has a standing committee to address, mitigate, negotiate and
reach agreement on controversial issues such as timber cutting. The
cormittee is comprised of representatives of state and Federal agencies,
Indian tribes, industry, land owners, sportsmen and environmental groups.
RECOMMENDATION
The Commission and Department should consider:
a. continuing to strengthen their research efforts towards nongame
species so that additional biological information can be provided for
public land use decision making, and
b. continuing to develop a process to better coordinate and address
controversial issues.
FINDING I1
THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO STEP UP ITS EFFORTS TO DEVELOP
A COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM
The Arizona Game and Fish Department needs to do more to implement a
comprehensive system of planning and evaluation. Although the Department
started developing a comprehensive planning system in 1985, c r i t i c a l
components of the system are not yet in place. As a result, management
is limited in i t s a b i l i t y to provide clear direction to Department s t a f f ,
and p r i o r i t i e s are often determined at the regional level. The
Department should consider several measures to f a c i l i t a t e completion of
i t s comprehensive planning and evaluation system.
Comprehensive Planning
and Evaluation Needed
Sound planning and evaluation are needed to ensure that the AGFD operates
in an effective and e f f i c i e n t manner. The Department is responsible for
implementing a broad array of programs throughout Arizona. Adopting a
comprehensive planning system could enhance the Department's a b i l i t y to
manage i t s operations.
Department operations s i ~ nf iic ant and wides~ read- The nature of AGFDts
organizational structure and operations increases the need for
comprehensive planning and evaluation within the Department.
The Department operates a wide range of programs including fisheries
management, game management, nongame management, habitat management,
game and fish law enforcement, watercraft law enforcement, research,
and information and education.
The Department's f i e l d a c t i v i t i e s are widespread, with approximately
300 staff i n s i x regional offices and in f i e l d assignments throughout
the State. These employees are responsible for a variety of
a c t i v i t i e s including enforcement, w i l d l i f e management, and research.
AGFD1s organizational structure is diffused, having a line and staff
structure that separates responsibi l i ty for program planning and
program implementation.
Figure 1 presents the Department's current organizational structure.
FIGURE 1
ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
SERVICES
AUDIO/ VIDEO
EDUCATION 1 -
4- 1 PUBLICATIONS p E q
Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department
Comrehensive plannina could offer several benefits to AGFD - The
Department could benefit from the establishment of a comprehensive
planning system. As shown in Figure 2, page 15, comprehensive planning
is an integrated system of management that involves ongoing evaluation of
objectives and monitoring of progress. I t s components include strategic
planning, operational planning, implementation, and evaluation.
AGFD Has Initiated Develmment
of a Com~ rehensive Plannina Svstem. However,
Some Critical Plans Are Not Yet in Place
Despite the Department's e f f o r t s to develop a comprehensive planning
system, key p l ann i ng and eva l ua t i on componen t s have yet to be deve loped.
AGFD has beuun develoment of a comprehensive system - The Department
began deve lop i ng a comprehens i ve p l ann i ng and eva l uat ion system i n 1985
and has made progress in several areas.
Strategic planning - The Department has developed an overall mission
statement, general goals and objectives, and strategic plans for i t s
game, fisheries, and nongame programs.
Operational ~ l a n n i n g- Operational plans, such as program narratives
and annual work plans, have been prepared for programs and functional
areas that receive Federal funding. The Department has also
attempted to l i n k objectives to a c t i v i t i e s i n the planning process
for Heritage funds.
* Evaluation - Annual progress reports are prepared for Federally
funded programs. AGFD has also installed a computerized cost
accounting system to track the cost of, and manhours allocated to,
Department programs and functions.
C r i t i c a l system components have vet to be develo~ ed - A l though some
progress has been made, the Department s t i l l needs to complete important
tasks in each area of the comprehensive planning system. These include:
Strateuic planning - The Department s t i I I needs to integrate
organizational goals and objectives for programs and functional
areas.
O~ erational Planning - AGFD needs to develop department- wide
objectives and translate the objectives into specific a c t i v i t i e s ,
resource requirements, and p r i o r i t i e s .
Evaluation - The Department needs to develop a comprehensive system
to evaluate Department operations and determine whether objectives
are being met.
In addition, the Department needs to adopt plans to guide several
c r i t i c a l programs and functions. For example, although employees in the
Department's Field Operations Division spend approximately 38 percent of
their time performing enforcement duties, AGFD lacks a department- wide
plan for i t s law enforcement function.
Decisions Resardina Priorities
Are Often Left to the Recrions
In the absence of a comprehensive planning and evaluation system,
decisions concerning work p r i o r i t i e s frequently must be made at the
regional level. Four of the six Regional Supervisors we interviewed
indicated that they receive l i t t l e direction from management concerning
overall organizational p r i o r i t i e s . As indicated e a r l i e r , the region
s t a f f are responsible for performing work assignments i n a variety of
programs including fisheries management, game management, nongame
management, habitat management, game and fish law enforcement, watercraft
enforcement, and information and education. Regional Supervisors may
receive work assignments d i r e c t l y from the various program s t a f f in the
Department's central o f f i c e . When these work assignments from central
o f f i c e c o n f l i c t , Regional Supervisors must either seek direction from the
Associate Director for Field Operations at the central o f f i c e or
determine p r i o r i t i e s themselves. As a result, regions can vary
considerably in their approach and practice to various a c t i v i t i e s . For
example, the Investigator i s used as a uniformed o f f i c e r in one region,
for special projects in another, and for Operation Game Thief
investigations in a t h i r d . Some regions w r i t e t i c k e t s for certain
offenses, whereas others only give warnings for the same offenses. Some
regions focus enforcement e f f o r t s on certain v i o l a t i o n s such as hunting
from a vehicle, whereas others focus on repeat offenders. According to
the Department, regions may also have to choose between hunt patrol
verses watercraft patrol, hunt patrol verses State Fair duty, license
issuance verses f i e l d a c t i v i t y and road k i l l response verses habitat
protect ion.
Additional Stem Could Be Taken
to Facilitate lm~ lementation
Although the Department i s making progress towards developing i t s
planning and evaluation system, i t should consider several steps to help
f a c i l i t a t e system development and implementation.
focus in^ of plannina e f f o r t s within a u n i t - Current plans are
developed by program areas within the organization. No
organizational unit has r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r developing and
implementing the comprehensive system. The Department's Funds
Coordinator has suggested establishing a unit within the d i r e c t o r ' s
o f f i c e that i s responsible for development of o v e r a l l s t r a t e g i c and
operational plans. A group such as t h i s could bring together plans
from a l l functional areas and meld them into comprehensive
documents. In addition, the group could also monitor and evaluate
program progress. Placing the unit within the director's o f f ice
would also help ensure that emphasis i s placed on completing the
management system.
a Develooing an implementation schedule - I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the tasks
that remain to be done, and the expected completion dates for these
tasks, would help focus the Department's e f f o r t s to implement these
components. In addition, establishment of such a schedule would
allow the Commission and the public to evaluate the Department's
progress in t h i s area.
a Involvina ~ ersonnel throuahout the Deoartment - AGFD's management
team, including Branch and Regional Supervisors, should be involved
in the i n i t i a l development, and ongoing operation of the Department's
comprehensive planning process.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department should continue i t s e f f o r t s to develop a comprehensive
planning and evaluation system. To help develop t h i s system AGFD should
take the following actions:
a. centralize r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for system development and implementation
in the Director's o f f i c e ,
b. establish an implementation schedule that i d e n t i f i e s components that
remain to be developed and includes target dates for the development
of these components, and
c. u t i l i z e the Department's management team, including Branch and
Regional Supervisors, in the development and ongoing operation of the
comprehensive planning system.
FINDING Ill
SIGNIFICANT SPAN OF CONTROL" PROBLEMS EXIST
IN THE DEPARTMENT'S SIX REGIONAL OFFICES
The span of control between AGFD Regional Supervisors and the s t a f f they
supervise i s excessive. The Department needs to add f i e l d supervisors to
oversee W i l d l i f e Managers.
The S ~ a no f Control in the Department's
Resional Offices Is Excessive
The a b i l i t y of the Department's Regional Supervisors to direct employee
work e f f o r t s is inhibited by the extreme span of control that exists at
the regional level. Regional Supervisors must oversee a large number of
employees who are dispersed throughout large geographical areas. As a
result, they are unable to provide adequate supervision.
AGFD Regional Supervisors oversee too manv em~ lo~ ee- s AGFD's Regional
Supervisors play a key role in the Department. They are responsible for
administering a wide variety of Department programs including w i l d l i f e
management, habitat conservation, game and f i s h law enforcement,
watercraft enforcement, and information and education services.
Regional Supervisors serve as direct supervisors for an average of 20
employees. As Table 2 on page 20 shows, the Department's Regional
Supervisors t y p i c a l l y are responsible for supervising a Game Specialist,
a Fisheries Specialist, one or more Habitat Specialists, a Law
Specialist, an Investigator, an Office Manager, and nine to f i f t e e n
d i s t r i c t W i l d l i f e Managers. They may also supervise a Regional Assistant
and s t a f f who are responsible for managing Department- operated w i l d l i f e
areas. Figure 3 on page 21 depicts the existing span of control for an
average region. The supervisory responsibilities of AGFD Regional
Supervisors w i l l increase even further with the addition of new s t a f f
needed to implement Heritage I n i t i a t i v e programs.
TABLE 2
ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES SUPERVISED BY
REGIONAL SUPERVISORS
Rea i on
W i l d l i f e Managers 9 11 12 10 15 15 12.0
Reg i ona l Spec i a l i st s ( ~ ) 5 5 4 4 5 4 4.5
Investigators 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . O
Office Manager 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . O
Other - 1 - 3 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1.3
Total s t a f f supervised
( a) S p e c i a l i s t s assigned t o each o f the Department's s i x regions i n c l u d e a Game
Speci a1 i s t , Fisheries Speci a1 i s t , Law Speci a1 i s t , and one to two Habi t a t
S p e c i a l i s t s . I n a d d i t i o n , an Information and Education S p e c i a l i s t i s assigned to
Region 5.
Source: AGFD personnel roster for April 1991.
The d i f f i c u l t i e s associated with supervising such a large number of
employees i s exacerbated by the size of AGFD regions. These regions vary
in size from 10,920 to 30,788 square miles. Each region contains a
number of d i s t r i c t s that are overseen by W i l d l i f e Managers. In some
instances, i t may take the Regional Supervisor several hours to reach a
W i l d l i f e Manager's d i s t r i c t by car. For instance, the Region 2
Supervisor indicated he would need to drive 210 miles from the Flagstaff
regional o f f i c e to v i s i t h i s W i l d l i f e Manager assigned to Fredonia on the
Arizona S t r i p ( the Arizona lands north ci the Colorado River).
Similarly, the Region 5 Supervisor indicated - at the Tucson regional
o f f i c e i s approximately 170 miles from the Portal d i s t r i c t in
southeastern Arizona.
FIGURE 3
ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
CURRENT STRUCTURE OF A TYPICAL REGION
Source: Prepared by Auditor General staff based on the current AGFD
regional structure.
The excessive soan of control has resulted i n limited su~ ervision -
Regional Supervisors seldom see many of the employees that they are
required to supervise. Although regional staff typically have quarterly
meetings in the regional offices, Regi~ nal Supervisors spend l i t t l e time
in the f i e l d with their s t a f f . One Regional Supervisor we interviewed
said he rarely gets out to his W i Id1 i f e Managers' d i s t r i c t s unless there
is a problem or a special project. Another Regional Supervisor said that
he t r i e s to v i s i t his W i l d l i f e Managers on the Arizona Strip once per
year, but may be unable to make the t r i p this year because of time
constraints. W i l d l i f e Managers we surveyed agree that their Regional
Supervisors seldom v i s i t them in their d i s t r i c t s . Of the 67 Wildlife
Managers who responded to our survey,(') 39 percent indicated that their
Regional Supervisor v i s i t s them in t h e i r d i s t r i c t less than once per year.
Because Regional Supervisors are unable to spend time in the f i e l d with
their s t a f f , t h e i r a b i l i t y to adequately supervise and evaluate s t a f f i s
adversely impacted. Regional Supervisors we interviewed indicated that
they cannot provide close supervision to a l l o f t h e i r subordinates and
that i t i s also d i f f i c u l t to adequately evaluate s t a f f performance.
Field Su~ ervisors Needed
The supervisory responsibilities of the Department's Regional Supervisors
could be reduced through the addition o f f i e l d supervisors. Most other
western states we contacted use mid- level supervisors to provide direct
oversight of f i e l d s t a f f . In Arizona, f i e l d supervisor positions
( c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f W i l d l i f e Manager I l l s ) could be added to each region
to oversee d i s t r i c t W i l d l i f e Managers. Figure 4 on page 23 shows what
impact t h i s would have on the typical Regional Supervisor's span of
control.
( 1) A l l 72 d i s t r i c t W i l d l i f e Managers were sent a w r i t t e n questionnaire as part of our
evaluation of the Department.
FIGURE 4
ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF A TYPICAL REGION
- Wildlife Manager
I
Wildlife
Manager
I
Wildlife
Manager
- Wildlife Manager
, Wildlife
Manager
I
Source: Prepared by Auditor General s t a f f based on proposed AGFD
regional structure.
During the course of our audit, the Commission developed a legislative
budget proposal for fiscal year 1992- 93 which contains a proposal to
establ ish 14 W i Id1 i fe Manager I I I posit ions within the ~ epartment. These
W i l d l i f e Manager i l l s would be u t i l i z e d as f i r s t line, working f i e l d
supervisors, and would be responsible for providing direction and support
to an average of five d i s t r i c t W i l d l i f e Managers. The f i e l d supervisors
would be involved in planning a c t i v i t i e s , directing subordinates, and
monitoring and evaluating progress toward program objectives. They would
also be responsible for evaluating the performance of employees under
their supervision.
1 - 3 Other
- Staff I I I
Reg~ onal
invest~ gator
Offlce
Manager
Game
Spec~ allst
Fisheries
Speclalist
W~ idl~ fe
Manager Ill
1 - 2 Habitat
Spec1ailsts
Wlldl~ fe
Manager Ill
Law
Speclallst
Wiidl~ fe
Manager Ill
RECOMMENDATION
The Department should continue to pursue e f f o r t s to develop a f i e l d
supervisor position to reduce the number of s t a f f d i r e c t l y supervised by
Regional Supervisors.
FINDING 1V
THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD MODIFY
ITS WATERCRAFT REGULATION
Changes are needed to improve Arizona's watercraft regulation. F i r s t ,
Arizona should require t i t l i n g of watercraft to establish ownership and
discourage t h e f t . Second, statutes should be revised to exempt some of
the types of boats currently regulated, and registration fees should be
increased to recover lost revenues.
AGFD is responsible f o r registering watercraft. Watercraft, per
A. R. S. $ 5- 301, includes any boat designed to be propelled by machinery,
oars, paddles, or wind action, or as may be defined by regulation of the
Commission. Owners of watercraft requiring registration must submit a
registration application to the Department. Upon registration, the
Department provides the owner decals containing the owner's registration
number, and a registration c e r t i f i c a t e . The owner is required to a f f i x
the decals to both sides of the watercraft p r i o r to use. Watercraft
registrations are to be renewed annually. There were 143,334 registered
watercraft in Arizona during calendar year 1990.
Arizona Should Issue
T i t l e s for Re~ ulated
Watercraft
Arizona should require issuance of a t i t l e for regulated watercraft.
T i t l i n g establishes ownership, discourages t h e f t , and allows for liens to
be recorded.
A t i t l e establishes roof of owners hi^. In the same respect as is
done for automobiles, t i t l e s would offer boat owners proof of
ownership.(') Under the current system, boat owners have only their
registration as proof of ownership. However, a boat need only be
registered i f i t is to be taken out on the water. Thus, an owner may
have no current registration i f the boat i s not used. With a t i t l i n g
( 1) Boat t r a i l e r s , which are often worth only a f r a c t i o n o f the value of a boat, are
t i t l e d i n Arizona.
system, a l l regulated boats are t i t l e d to show proof of owners,
whether or not the boat i s taken out on the water. To tran:-
ownership, the new owner must have a signed- off t i t l e from 7; 33
previous owner.
T i t l i n a discouraaes boat theft and launderina of stolen boats.
T i t l i n g could discourage the t h e f t o f boats within Arizona. Although
the Department has no comprehensive figures of stolen boats, the
Department's Boating Safety Coordinator estimates that the Department
currently has 400 to 500 outstanding cases. Because Arizona has no
t i t l i n g , the boats can be taken out of state and sold. Further,
t i t l i n g would discourage the use of Arizona as a " laundering" state
for boats stolen in other states. Lack of t i t l i n g makes i t
r e l a t i v e l y easy to register stolen boats. An individual could
register a stolen boat in Arizona by using a " dummied up" b i l l of
sale. The registration can then be used to obtain a t i t l e in another
state.
A t i t l e allows recordina of liens. T i t l i n g would also benefit
financial i n s t i t u t i o n s by allowing liens to be recorded against
boats. Currently, when an automobile i s t i t l e d , financial
i n s t i t u t i o n s are able to record liens d i r e c t l y on the t i t l e .
However, because boats are not t i t l e d , financial i n s t i t u t i o n s are
unable to do the same. Instead, they f i le a Uniform Commercial Code
1 ( UCC1) with the Secretary of State's Office. When a financial
i n s t i t u t i o n i s processing loan applications for used boats, they must
submit a written request to the Secretary of State's Office t o
determine i f a lien is on the boat. The request requires a
processing period of 3 to 5 work days and then a written response is
mailed to the requestor. I f the lien were on the t i t l e , i t could
a l e r t a potential purchaser that a loan may s t i l l be outstanding.
Both boat dealers and the Coast Guard support a move to t i t l i n g .
According to Marine Trade Association o f f i c i a l s , dealers favor t i t l i n g
due to the added protection i t would offer them. Currently, when
trade- ins are accepted, the dealers have no immediate proof they are not
taking stolen boats or boats which may s t i l l have liens against them.
The Coast Guard i s also encouraging states to move to t i t l i n g .
Currently, 29 states and the D i s t r i c t of Columbia require the issuance of
a t i t l e for regulated watercraft.
Although there i s support for a move to t i t l i n g , a Department o f f i c i a l
expressed concern with the cost of implementing a t i t l i n g system.
However, as with automobiles, any additional cost for t i t l i n g could be
covered through a t i t l i n g fee. For example, New Mexico charges a $ 10 fee
to t i t l e boats.
A r i zona Shou l d D i scon t i nue
Reaistrat ion of Certain
Boat Cat eao r i es
Arizona should discontinue registering certain watercraft. Arizona
requires a l l watercraft to be registered, however, Federal regulations do
not require t h i s , and only a few states are as s t r i c t as Arizona.
Exempting some watercraft from registration requirements would result in
a loss of revenues, but i f necessary, lost revenues could be recovered
through a fee increase for remaining boats.
Arizona's registration reauirements are s t r i c t e r than reauired - Arizona
is one of only eight states which require that all watercraft be
registered.(') Included in Arizona's requirement are nonmotorized
sailboats, rowboats, canoes, kayaks, sai lboards, and i n f l a t a b l e
rafts.( 2) Although Arizona registers al I watercraft, Federal law
requires that only motorized boats be registered. Per Federal law,
states must register " each vessel equipped with propulsion machinery of
any type used on waters subject to the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the United
States and on the high seas . . ." Most states ( 41) register only
motorboats or motorboats and sailboats.
AGFD o f f i c i a l s provided varying reasons for the need to register a l l
watercraft. According to two o f f i c i a l s , registering a l l watercraft
ensures that al l users of the State's lakes share in the cost of boating
safety enforcement and lake ~ mprovements.(~) However, another o f f i c i a l
indicated that eliminating the nonmotorized boats and smaller sailboats
would benefit the Department because: ( 1) registration of these
watercraft tends to generate the most public complaints ( e. g., why do we
need to register an i n f l a t a b l e r a f t ? ) , and ( 2) these watercraft tend to
have documentation problems such as no b i l l of sale. Registering a l l
watercraft does appear to inconvenience the public. For example, i f
( 1 ) Three of the eight states have exceptions; f o r example, Iowa excludes i n f l a t a b l e s
under seven f e e t i n length and canoes/ kayaks under 13 f e e t i n length.
( 2) The Department i s currently amending i t s rules to eliminate i n f l a t a b l e r a f t s less than
12 f e e t i n length with no motor from r e g i s t r a t i o n requirements.
( 3) Per A. R. S. 55- 323.55 percent of license taxes collected on boat r e g i s t r a t i o n s a r e
deposited by AGFD i n t o two funds-- 15 percent to the State Lake Improvement Fund, and
85 percent to the Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund.
someone purchased an i n f l a t a b l e r a f t from a department store, the receipt
alone i s not adequate proof of ownership to register the r a f t . Instead,
the owner i s required to return to the store with a b i l l of sale form,
and have the store complete the form. Further, many inexpensive boats
are sold at garage sales, again making i t unlikely that the new owner
w i l l have proper proof of ownership.
Elimination of some watercraft would have a financial im~ act - I f Arizona
eliminates some boats from registration requirements, revenues would be
lost. The extent of impact would depend on what boats were eliminated
from registering requirements. During calendar year 1990, Game and Fish
registered 143,334 watercraft. As of August 1991, AGFD registered 19,636
watercraft that were not required to be registered per Federal law. The
breakdown of these watercraft i s shown in Table 3. I f a l l watercraft
shown in Table 3 were to be eliminated from registration, approximately
$ 216,000 in revenues col lected from regist rat ion fees and taxes would be
l o s t . ( ' ) In addition, the Department would lose approximately $ 38,000
from the Coast Guard from monies i t receives based on the number of boats
reg i s tered and do l lars expended on boat i ng programs.
TABLE 3
NUMBERS OF NONMOTORIZED WATERCRAFT
REGISTERED IN ARIZONA AS OF AUGUST 1991
Type of watercraft
Ut i l i ty ( e. g., rowboats)
Sai lboats
Catamarans
Sai lboards
Canoedkayaks
lnflatables
Other boats
Total
Source: Arizona Game and Fish Department
Number
reaistered
( 1) The revenue impact would be shared among the recipients of r e g i s t r a t i o n monies; the
Department would lose approximately $ 145,500, the State Lake Improvement Fund would
lose approximate1 y $ 10,500, and the Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund would lose
approximate1 y $ 60,000.
As an alternative, the State may wish to continue to register some
sailboats. Ten states register a l l motorboats, plus sailboats over
certain lengths ( e. g., boats over 12 feet long). Seven other states
require a l l motorboats and sailboats to be registered. Arizona currently
registers approximately 3,100 sailboats and catamarans, which generate
about $ 38,000 in revenues.
Lost revenues could be recovered with increased fees - I f i t is deemed
necessary to recover revenues lost through the elimination o f certain
watercraft from registration requirements, fees for remaining boats could
be increased. In calendar year 1990, Arizona registered approximately
143,000 boats. Based on our analysis, approximately $ 254,000 and 20,000
boats would be eliminated through narrowing of the laws to focus on
motorized watercraft. Increasing fees by $ 2.00 for the remaining
estimated 123,000 boats should make up for the lost revenues.
An increase of $ 2.00 per boat should not unduly burden boat owners.
According to Department o f f i c i a l s , Arizona fees have not been raised in
at least 10 years. Per A. R. S. 55- 321, the current fee for Arizona
residents i s a $ 4.00 registration fee plus a license tax of 50 cents per
foot up to 18 feet in length, and 75 cents per foot for each foot over 18
feet.(') These fees are r e l a t i v e l y low. For example, to register a
16- foot boat, regardless of value, the current fee would be $ 12.00.
However, several other states assess a registration fee plus a property
tax.
I f fees are increased, both registration fees and license taxes should be
increased. Currently, the Department retains a l l monies collected
through the registration fee. However, as noted e a r l i e r , the State Lake
Improvement Fund, and the County Law Enforcement and Boating Safety Fund
receive a portion of the license taxes. Thus, to ensure no parties are
negatively impacted, the registration fee as well as the license taxes
would need to be increased.
( 1) For nonresidents, there i s a r e g i s t r a t i o n fee of $ 10 plus a license tax of 65 cents
per foot up to 18 f e e t i n length, and $ 1.25 f o r each foot over 18 feet.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. The Legislature should consider amending A. R. S. T i t l e 5 to require
that watercraft be t i t l e d , and to establish a fee to cover the cost
of t i t l i n g .
2. The Legislature should consider amending A. R. S. T i t l e 5 to reduce the
scope of watercraft regulated in Arizona. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the
Legislature should consider l i m i t i n g r e g i s t r a t i o n ( and t i t l i n g , i f
implemented) to include only motorized boats, and, i f desired, some
or a l l sailboats.
3. The Department should revise i t s rules and regulations to coincide
with any revisions to statute.
OTHER PERTINENT lNFORMATlON
During the audit we developed other pertinent information regarding the
Department's implementation of programs funded by Heritage monies, and
information regarding Wildlife Managersf salary and workload.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department
Bes- ins Heritaae Fund Implementation
Heritaae fund adds $ 10 m i l lion annual IY for w i l d l i f e procjrams - In
November 1990, Arizona voters passed an i n i t i a t i v e measure that provides
$ 20 million of lottery proceeds annually to be used for preserving,
protecting, and enhancing Arizona's natural and scenic environment.
One- half of the funds goes to the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and
the other one- half goes to the Arizona State Parks Board. In general,
the State Parks portion w i l l be used for the development of State, local,
and regional parks, the development of natural areas, and State/ historic
preservation; while the Game and Fish funds w i l l be used for the w i l d l i f e
programs that are described in Figure 5 on page 32. Both the definition
of the w i l d l i f e programs to be funded and the do1 lar al lotment for each
are specified in the i n i t i a t i v e .
The Heritage Fund w i l l generate changes within the budget, programs, and
constituencies of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The annual
infusion of $ 10 mi l lion into the Department's budget represents a 33
percent increase over the Department's expenditures in fiscal year
1990- 91. This funding w i l l al low significant enhancement of a variety of
programs that, according to the Department, had been severely underfunded
in the past. Prior to Heritage funding, programs focusing on the
protection and management of threatened and endangered w i l d l i f e and other
nongame species were supported by limited dollars coming primarily from
sportsmen's license fees and State income tax checkoff monies. Heritage
monies w i l l fund new and expand existing w i l d l i f e programs. Figure 5 on
page 32 presents the amounts allocated by the i n i t i a t i v e to the five
program areas. A description of each program area is also provided.
FIGURE 5
HERITAGE FUND ALLOCATION
TO GAME AND FISH PROGRAM AREAS
Identification, Inventory, Acquisition
Protection and ~ an& embnt of
Sensitive Habitat
/ I($ 6 million) \
Environmental
Education Public
($. 5 million) Urban Access
Habitat Evaluation
& Protection
($ 1.5 million)
Wildlife
($ 1.5 million)
($ 5 million)
Identification. inventorv. acauisi tion. ~ r o t e c t i o n , and manaaenent of sensitive
habitat - A t least 40 percent ($ 2.4 m i l l ion) i s required to be spent on acquisition
of habitat used by endangered, threatened, and candidate species. Funds efforts to
prevent Arizona's loss of declining species and thei r habitats.
Habitat evaluation and ~ r o t e c t i o n - Funds for the assessment of the status,
condi ti on, and ecological value of habi t a t and subsequent recmendati ons of
management, conservation, or other protection or mitigation efforts. Also funds
e f f o r t s t o protect the qua1 i ty, diversity, abundance, and serviceability of habitats
for the purpose of maintaining or recovering populations of Arizona w i l d l i f e .
Public accesp - Funds e f f o r t s to provide increased public access to publicly held
lands. This could be fishing access or access for other recreational users. This
might be achieved by a gate or c a t t l e guard, a road, or purchase or lease o f private
property. ( Eminent domain cannot be used with Heritage funds, i . e . , the Department
must purchase land from a w i l l i n g party.)
urban w i l d l i f e - Funds for conservation, enhancement, and establishment of w i l d l i f e
populations and habitat c c u r r i n g within the l i m i t s of an incorporated area or i n
proximity to one. A goal af the Department i s to increase the opportunity within the
urban comnuni ty f o r positive interaction with wild1 i fa. Programs may include working
with developers to preserve habitat, providing education, coordinating watchable
w i l d l i f e sites, enforcement, etc.
Environrental education - Funds for educational programs dealing with basic
ecological principles and the effects o f natural and man related processes on natural
and urban systems and programs to enhance public awareness of the importance of
safeguarding natural resources.
Source: Prepared by Auditor General staff based on Heritage initiative
requi rements.
Status of the Department's implementation of Heritaae proqrams - FuI I
implementation of the Heritage- funded programs w i l l occur over the next
two years. The Department has just recently completed the planning
needed for implementation. These plans call for approximately one- third
of the Heritage programs to be base programs, staffed and conducted by
Department employees. During the planning efforts, the Department
sol i c i ted pub1 ic input, and i t w i l l be developing additional strategies
for ongoing communication with the public regarding Heritage programs.
Although the i n i t i a t i v e was passed in 1990, fiscal year 1992- 93 w i l l be
the f i r s t year of f u l l funding. The $ 10 m i l l i o n i n funds was prorated
for fiscal year 1990- 91 and the Department received $ 5.9 mi l l ion.
Because Heritage program planning did not start u n t i l after the
i n i t i a t i v e passed and because the Department wants to have the monies in
hand before any expenditure, the Department w i l l not spend the funds
received in one fiscal year u n t i l the following fiscal year ( estimated to
be a six- month lag time). Thus, the Department plans expenditures of
$ 5.9 m i l l i o n i n fiscal year 1991- 92 and $ 10 m i l l i o n i n fiscal year
1992- 93.
In preparation for the fiscal year 1991- 92 implementation schedule, the
development of Heritage program plans began in January 1991 and is almost
complete. Planning teams were charged with developing 5- year strategies,
annual working plans, and one- year budgets for the Heritage program
segments. As of August 1991, the Commission has approved al l of the
Heritage program pieces.
Some Heritage funds w i l l be passed through to other groups in the form of
grants and some funds w i l l be used to acquire habitat and public access.
However, approximately one- third of AGFD Heritage monies w i l l remain
within the Department to staff functions that w i l l be conducted
internally. The Department plans ultimately to fund 105 FTEs ( 16.75 in
administrative and support and 88.25 in the program areas) with Heritage
monies in fiscal year 1992- 93, the f i r s t year of f u l l funding. Almost
three- fourths of the 88 program staff w i l l be dedicated to the two
program areas focusing on w i l d l i f e habitat. Examples of Heritage
a c t i v i t i e s planned to begin in fiscal year 1991- 92 are presented in Table
4, page 34.
TABLE 4
EXAMPLES OF HERITAGE ACTIVITIES
PLANNED IN FISCAL YEAR 1991- 92
Proqram ~ rea(') Planned Heritaae A c t i v i t i e s
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , - Maintain Heritage data base to allow
Inventory, Protection, analysis of data essential to protection
Acquisition & Management planning f o r sensitive habitat
of Sensitive Habitat - Acquire sensitive h a b i t a t , p r i m a r i l y
through purchase of deed r e s t r i c t i o n and
easements
Habitat Evaluation - Add Habitat Coordinators and Specialists to
and Protect ion the regions
- Add Environmental Compliance positions
Public Access - Develop public access database
- l den t i fy access needs - Acquire new access agreements
Staff the two regions housing Phoenix and
Tucson metro areas for urban programs ( 14
FTEs)
Award $ 349,282 of $ 853,600 budget in grants
inventory and research of urban w i l d l i f e
occurrence, habitat, and behavior
Provide technical assistance to developers
Develop " watchable w i Id1 i fe" sites
Environmental
Educa t i on
- Provide $ 100,000 to Department of Education
to assist in implementing Environmental
Education Act
- Improve and develop public information
projects, including production of 13- week
audio visual/ television program
( a) The Department has established another program area to provide administrative and
support a c t i v i t i e s t o the f i v e program areas established by the I n i t i a t i v e . These
support a c t i v i t i e s w- ' be funded by i n t e r e s t earned on Fund monies. Planned
administrative a c t i v i 3s f o r f i s c a l year 1991- 92 include h i r i n g 15.75 FTEs and
purchasing approximate1 y $ 80,000 i n equipment.
Source: Summary of Heritage Program planning documents by Auditor
General s t a f f .
Wildlife Manacjer Sala
and Workload Informaron
Currently, Arizona's W i l d l i f e Manager salaries, when compared to others
who perform similar work, are low. Further, the W i l d l i f e Manager's
responsibilities have grown to the point that W i l d l i f e Managers must
regularly work extensive overtime to complete thei r duties . ( ' I The
Department is exploring measures to address these areas.
The Arizona Game and Fish Department has divided the State into six
regions comprised of 72 d i s t r i c t s . Each d i s t r i c t i s assigned a W i l d l i f e
Manager. The W i l d l i f e Manager performs a variety of technical w i l d l i f e
management f i e l d a c t i v i t i e s such as conducting game and f i s h surveys,
making hunt recommendations, performing habitat evaluations, and game and
f i s h enforcement. The W i l d l i f e Manager i s required to have a Bachelor's
degree in w i l d l i f e science and must obtain Arizona Law Enforcement
Officer Advisory Council c e r t i f i c a t i o n as a peace o f f i c e r .
W i l d l i f e Manaaers receive low pav i n comparison to other oraanizations -
W i l d l i f e Managers receive r e l a t i v e l y low pay based on comparisons with
other state and Federal agencies we surveyed. AGFD should continue to
pursue increases in W i l d l i f e Manager salaries to bring the salaries more
in l i n e with others performing similar work.
Arizona's W i l d l i f e Managers' salaries are lower than those in most other
states we surveyed. We contacted the game and f i s h departments in ten
western states and requested salary information pertaining to positions
equivalent to Arizona's W i l d l i f e Manager I and 1 1 . For the W i l d l i f e
Manager I, Arizona's s t a r t i n g salary of $ 18,555 was $ 3,094 below the
$ 21,649 average of the other western states. Further, Arizona's W i l d l i fe
Manager I I salary of $ 21,481 was $ 3,929 less than the $ 25,410 average of
other western states. Table 5, page 36, summarizes the results of our
comparison.
( 1) Our review was l i m i t e d t o W i l d l i f e Manager position salaries and workload only.
According to Department o f f i c i a l s , similar problems occur with other positions within
the Department.
TABLE 5
SALARY INFORMATION OF OTHER WESTERN
STATES FOR POSITIONS EQUIVALENT TO
WILDLIFE MANAGER I AND 11 POSITIONS(~)
W i l d l i f e
State Manaaer I
California
l daho
Colorado
Nevada
0 r egon
Washington
New Mexico
Utah
Montana
Arizona
Wyom i ng
W i Id1 i fe
State Manaqer I I
California
Nevada
Washington
Co lo rado
1 daho
New Mexico
0 r egon
Wyom i ng
Utah
Montana
Arizona
( a) Only two states, Colorado and New Mexico, have a W i l d l i f e Manager who performs both
b i o l o g i c a l and enforcement r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as i s done i n Arizona. None of the other
western states combine these r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and i n these cases, we used the salary
i n f o r m a t i o n o f the b i o l o g i s t posi t i o n f o r comparison purposes.
Source: Telephone survey of ten western states.
Federal agencies have a lower starting pay but salary increases are more
rapid. Several Federal agencies were requested to provide salary
information. As noted above, exact comparisons to Arizona's W i l d l i f e
Managers could not be made because o f variations in responsibilities.
However, four Federal agencies ( Bureau of Land Management, Nat i ona l Park
Service, U. S. Fish and W i l d l i f e , and Forest Service) provided pay
information for positions somewhat comparable to the W i l d l i f e Manager
position. The s t a r t i n g pay for a l l four positions is $ 16,973. Only the
National Park Service did not require a four- year degree. While the
Federal employee s t a r t i n g pay of $ 16,973 is less than the $ 18,555 base
pay for a W i l d l i f e Manager I, after tws years of service the Federal
employee can expect to receive $ 25,717. By comparison, AGFD'S W i l d l i f e
Manager I l s have been with the Department an average of 9.5 years with an
average pay of $ 26,335.
Although there appears to be no comparable positions in other Arizona
state agencies, a review of four positions that had some s i m i l a r i t i e s was
made and i s compiled in Table 6, page 37. State Parks employs Park
Operations Officers who work in park settings and are responsible for
enforcing park rules. The State Land Department employs Natural Resource
Managers who are responsible for administering specialized land
management or natural resource conservation programs. The Department of
Environmental Quality's Environmental Health Specialists are responsible
for s c i e n t i f i c environmental control work which includes gathering data
and conducting f i e l d samples. AGFD W i l d l i f e Managers perform similar
duties to these positions by overseeing f i e l d operations, gathering data
and conducting studies for conservation programs.
TABLE 6
WILDLIFE MANAGER SALARY IN COMPARISON
WITH OTHER ARIZONA STATE AGENCIES
4- Yea r
Pay Base deg ree
Posit ion a rade salary reau i red?
W i I d l
Park
Env i r
Na t u r
i f e Manager
Operations Officer
- onmental Health Spec.
? al Resource Manager
15 $ 18,555 YES
15 $ 18,555 NO
17 $ 21,481 NO
17 $ 21,481 NO
Source: Auditor General compilation of information received from DEQ,
State Parks, and State Land.
We also obtained salary information for Department of Public Safety ( DPS)
o f f i c e r s for comparison purposes-- DPS o f f i c e r s ' base salary is $ 26,391.
Although the enforcement work performed by DPS o f f i c e r s and W i l d l i f e
Managers d i f f e r s , both positions require ALEOAC c e r t i f i c a t i o n .
On June 20, 1991, the Department submitted a l e t t e r t o the Department of
Administration, Personnel Division, o f f i c i a l l y requesting a
Classification Maintenance Review of the W i l d l i f e Series within AGFD
which includes the W i l d l i f e Manager. W i l d l i f e Manager salaries have not
been formal ly revi ewed s i nce 1984.
W i l d l i f e Manaaers' increased r e s ~ o n s i b i l i t i e s have contributed to
additional work hours - Not only are W i l d l i f e Managers paid r e l a t i v e l y
low wages, they also need to work extensive hours to perform their
required a c t i v i t i e s . Increases in W i l d l i f e Managers' duties and
responsibilities have resulted in these extra hours. However, the
Department i s considering several measures to address t h i s issue.
W i l d l i f e Managers work extensive hours. Department records indicate
W i l d l i f e Managers routinely work longer than the standard 40- hour work
week. A survey of W i l d l i f e ~ anagers(') indicates they work additional
hours which are not reported on time records. Some W i l d l i f e Managers
have lost leave, both annual and holiday, because of the demands on their
time.
Most W i l d l i f e Managers + .! i t necessary to work additional hours to
perform required duties and most of these hours are not reported.
W i l d l i f e Manager time records for fiscal year 1989- 90(~) indicate that
they reported an average of 119 hours of overtime. However, AGFD time
records do not r e f l e c t the extent of overtime worked as W i l d l i f e Managers
do not report a l l hours worked. A l l 67 W i l d l i f e Managers responding to
our survey indicated that they worked more hours during the year than
they reported. Sixty- three of 67 W i l d l i f e Managers ( 4 did not provide
information) estimated they averaged 8.5 hours per week not o f f i c i a l l y
reported on their time records. This equates to an extra 27,846 hours
per year or 13 FTEs. When combined with the reported hours, total
additional hours worked equate to approximately 17 FTEs.
The most frequently cited reason for not recording time worked was the
lack of available overtime pay ( 72 percent). W i l d l i f e Managers receive
the regular hourly pay rate f o r the f i r s t 6 hours of overtime in a pay
period ( from 80 to 86 hours). They are granted compensatory time for any
work over 86 hours at a rate of 1.5 hours for every hour worked.
Overtime i s approved only when funds are available; consequently,
compensatory time can only be earned i f there are s u f f i c i e n t funds
( 1 ) We conducted a survey of a l l 72 W i l d l i f e Managers who had worked i n one of the State's
72 d i s t r i c t s . Si xty- seven Wild1 i f e Managers responded.
( 2) Sixty- five of 72 d i s t r i c t W i l d l i f e Managers were i d e n t i f i e d as having worked the
e n t i r e f i s c a l year.
avai lable to pay for the f i r s t 6 hours of overtime. According to
W i l d l i f e Managers, t h i s curb on overtime has affected the number of hours
reported.
Not only are W i l d l i f e Managers not being compensated for hours worked,
some W i l d l i f e Managers f o r f e i t annual leave and holiday time. A review
of the Department's " year- end maximum leave adjustments" for calendar
year 1990, disclosed that 37 W i l d l i f e Managers lost a t o t a l o f 1,303
hours of leave(') ( 869 hours of annual leave; 434 hours of holiday leave).
The Department i s taking steps to reduce the W i l d l i f e Manager workload.
These actions include:
lncreasin~ the number of districts - According to Department o f f i c i al s ,
the possibi l i ty of reducing d i s t r i c t size i s currently being
considered. Over 60 percent of survey respondents f e l t that reducing
the size of at least some of the d i s t r i c t s would help reduce their
work load.
Decreasina habitat related demands - The Department i s planning to use
Heritage Funds to add habitat specialists to i t s regional offices.
The addition of these specialists may reduce the workload of the
current W i l d l i f e Managers. According to survey respondents ( 47
percent), much o f t h e i r expanding duties are a result of additional
habitat work. Many of the respondents f e l t that habitat work could
be handled more completely by personnel who specialize in the area.
The Department i s planning to use Heritage Funds to add habitat
specialists to i t s regional offices. The addition o f these
specialists may reduce the workload of the current W i l d l i f e Managers.
Addina Wildlife Manaaer Ills - As noted in Finding I I I, page 17, the
Department i s requesting the addition of 14 W i l d l i f e Manager I l l
positions to provide supervision and f i e l d support t o W i l d l i f e
Managers. The addi t ion of these posi t ions may help reduce a port ion
of the W i l d l i f e Manager's workload.
( 1) Lost leave i s not unique to W i l d l i f e Managers. The 1,303 hours of l o s t leave
represents less than one- half of the t o t a l hours l o s t department- wide. However, due
to time constraints, we limited our analysis to W i l d l i f e Manager positions.
SUNSET FACTORS
In accordance with A. R. S. 941- 2354, the Legislature should consider the
following 12 factors in determining whether the Arizona Game and Fish
Department and Commission should be continued or terminated.
1. Obiective and ~ umosei n establishina the Aaency
The Arizona Game and Fish Department and Commission were established
in 1929 to oversee the management, preservation, and harvest of
w i l d l i f e in Arizona. The five- member Commission i s responsible for
providing direction and oversight to the Department through the
Department di rector. The Department director i s charged with
supervising the Department and ensuring that Commission policies are
carried out. The Department carries out a wide range of programs to
f u l f i l l i t s w i l d l i f e management role. Major Department programs
include game, fisheries, nongame, habitat, research, watercraft,
information and education, and enforcement. The recently passed
Heritage Fund I n i t i a t i v e w i l l expand the r o l e o f the Department in
f i v e areas: public access; urban w i l d l i f e ; environmental education;
habitat evaluation and protection; and habitat i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ,
inventory, protection, acquisition, and management.
2. The effectiveness with which the Aaencv has met its obiective and
purpose and the eff iciencv with which the Aaencv has operated
The Commission and the Department appear generally effective in
meeting their objective and purpose. Our review of e n t i t i e s that
interact with the Department found that most rate the Department
" very effectivet' in carrying out i t s responsibilities.
Our review did, however, identify several areas in which the
Department could improve i t s efficiency and effectiveness.
The Department could improve i t s involvement in w i l d l i f e - r e l a t e d
controversies ( see Finding I, page 5).
The Department could improve i t s organizational and program
effectiveness through establishing a comprehensive planning and
eva I uat ion process that encompasses a l l Department programs ( see
Finding i i, page 13).
The Department could improve supervision of f i e l d s t a f f by
establishing f i e l d supervisor positions within each region ( see
Finding l l I, page 19).
The Department could better protect boat owners through t i t l i n g
of boats. In addition, the Department should eliminate
registration requirements for some or a l l nonmotorized
watercraft ( see Finding IV, page 25).
3. The extent to which the Aaencv has operated within the public interest
The Commission and Department have operated within the public
interest by performing a variety of functions related to their
mandate to manage, preserve, and harvest w i l d l i f e . The Commission
and Department establish hunting and fishing seasons; determine
harvest numbers; enforce hunting and fishing laws; manage boating
registration and enforcement functions; manage game, nongame, and
fisheries programs; manage w i l d l i f e research and habitat programs;
provide w i l d l i f e information to the public; conduct public education
programs; and provide w i l d l i f e management information and concerns
for the public lands management planning process.
Several e n t i t i e s we contacted were concerned that the Department did
not s u f f i c i e n t l y take into consideration the economic impact of some
of i t s actions relating to timber issues on the national forests.(')
We address the Department's involvement in t h i s issue in Finding I,
see page 5. In that Finding we note that ( 1) the Department has a
legitimate role in public land management issues; ( 2) the Commission
has taken several steps to help ensure that the Department i s
properly addressing public lands issues; and ( 3) the Commission has
provided recommendations for the Department to improve i t s a b i l i t y to
manage public lands issues.
( 1) I n 1991, the Legislature passed SB 1431 which states that the Department may consider
the adverse and beneficial economic impact of i t s actions.
4. The extent to which rules and reaulations ~ romulsated bv the Aqencv
are consistent with the leuislative mandate
According to the Department's Attorney General representative, rules
and regulations promulgated by the Commission are consistent with
l e g i s l a t i v e mandate. The Commission i s empowered to promulgate rules
and regu Iat ions needed to carry out Agency responsi bi I i t i es.
A. R. S. 541- 1054 requires that a l l State agencies review and, i f
necessary, revise a l l rules within a five- year timeframe. As part of
the rule- making process, the Department must assess the economic
impact of i t s rule changes. The Department began comprehensive rules
revision in 1987 and i s now completing revision o f the f i n a l section
of rules ( those relating to watercraft). They have also begun rules
review for the next five- year cycle and are addressing hunting and
fishing rules and also rules of practice before the Commission.
5. The extent to which the Aaencv has encouraaed input from the ~ u b l i c
before promulaatinq its rules and re~ ulations and the extent to which
it has informed the public as to its actions and their ex~ ected i m ~ a c t
on the public
The Commission and Department use a variety of methods to encourage
input and inform the public about proposed rules and regulations.
According to the Commission and Department, they inform the public of
proposed rules by ( 1) mailing Commission meeting agenda notices to
approximately 300 e n t i t i e s ; ( 2) placing a r t i c l e s in i t s magazine
Arizona W i l d l i fe Views, circulation 13,500; and ( 3) providing news
releases at least weekly to approximately 300 members of the media.
A t Commission meetings, time i s provided for public input on proposed
rules and other act ions. The Commission and Department also sponsor
public meetings around the State to obtain input on specific issues
and programs, and also to promote communication.
6. The extent to which the Aaencv has been able to investiaate and resolve
complaints that are within its iurisdiction
We were not able to analyze the Department's complaint handling
because complaints are not f i l e d c e n t r a l l y , but are located with
whomever responded to the complaint. Complaints are received at both
the central o f f i c e and the regional o f f i c e s and are assigned to the
person or section within the Agency that can best respond to the
particular concern. The Department does not keep a complaint log,
and i t does not have a system to track complaint response and
resolution.
7. The extent to which the Attornev General or anv other applicable
A~ encv of State government has the authoritv to prosecute actions
under enablinq leaislation
The Attorney General provides legal support for the Commission and
Department and represents them i n l i t i g a t i o n concerning their
a f f a i r s . County Attorneys have responsibi 1 i t y for prosecuting
violations of statutes. A. R. S. T i t l e s 5 and 17 provide for the
resolution of criminal proceedings through prosecution by the County
Attorneys. Both t i t l e s also prescribe penalties for criminal
v i o l a t i o n s . As c e r t i f i e d peace o f f i c e r s , Department W i l d l i f e
Managers have enforcement authority. T i t l e 17 allows for c i v i l
proceedings and penalties to recover for losses of w i l d l i f e . The
Commission i s empowered to rescind l icense p r i v i leges and can assess
fines and c i v i l penalties for persons convicted of v i o l a t i n g Agency
statutes.
8. The extent to which the Aaesqy has addressed deficiencies in the
enablinq statutes which prevent iC - om fulf illina its statutorv mandate
The Commission over the past several years has consistently sought
l e g i s l a t i o n r e l a t i n g to i t s enabling legislation. For example, in
1990 the Legislature passed legislation relating to w i Id1 i fe
v i o l a t i o n s , pioneer game and fish licenses, and w i l d l i f e predators.
According to the Department's Attorney General representative, the
Commission s u f f i c i e n t l y addressed deficiencies in i t s enabling
statutes through i t s annual l e g i s l a t i v e package.
9. The extent to which chanaes are necessary in the laws of the Aaencv
to adeauatelv complv with the factors listed in the sunset law
Based on our audit work, we recommend that the Legislature consider
requiring t i t l i n g of watercraft and eliminating r e g i s t r a t i o n o f some
or a l l nonmotorized watercraft ( see Finding I V , page 25).
10. The extent to which the termination of the Aqencv would siqnificantlv
harm the Dublic health, safetv or welfare
Terminating the Commission and Department could cause significant
harm to the public's health and safety. The Department has primary
responsibility in the State for w i l d l i f e management and watercraft
regulation. Comnission rules and Department programs promote and
enforce safe hunting, trapping, and watercraft operation. No other
public e n t i t y addresses these functions, except for some limited
county watercraft enforcement. In addition, public welfare would be
impacted as i t pertains to the continued existence of w i l d l i f e . No
other e n t i t y in the State i s charged with the management,
preservation, and harvest of w i l d l i f e . Through i t s w i l d l i f e
management programs, the Department helps ensure the v i a b i l i t y of
various w i l d l i f e species whether for hunting and fishing, for
nonconsumptive enjoyment by the public, or for the preservation of
threatened and endangered species.
11. The extent to which the level of re~ ulation exercised bv the Auencv is
a ~ ~ r o p r i a taen d whether less or more strinqent levels of requlat ion
would be a ~ ~ r o ~ r i a t e
We recommend that the Legislature consider eliminating the
requirement to register some or a l l nonmotorized watercraft and
requiring t i t l i n g of appropriate watercraft ( see Finding I V , page 25).
12. The extent to which the Aqencv used ~ r i v a t e contractors in the
performance of its duties and how effective use of private contractors
could be accom~ lished
The Department contracts for a variety of services from the private
sector. For example, the Department contracts for maintenance, major
construction, security systems, heavy equipment repair, engineering
and land surveys, temporary s t a f f , p r i n t i n g and publications, mail
services, f l e e t maintenance and repairs, and many other services.
C Governor
F~ feS ym~ npton
THE STATE ~ ommrrslonera
Phlll~ pW . 4~ hcroft, E agar, Chairman
Gordon K Wht~ ngK, londyke
Larry Taylor Yuma
GAME & FISH DEPARTMENT t h ~ a b a h1 Woodin. Tucson
t Artha Porter. Scottsdal~
2221 West Greenway Road, I'hoenix, Ari~ ona8 5023- 43 12 ( 602) 942- 3000 1) lreclor
Duane I-. Shmuie
D e p q Direcior
' I'homas W. Spaldlng
September 25, 1991
B
Mr. Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
2700 North Central Avenue, Suite 700
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
D
Dear Mr. Norton:
The Arizona Game and Fish Commission and Department have completed
review of the revised preliminary report draft of the recently completed
performance audit.
B
The revised preliminary draft report incorporates a great many of the
agreed upon changes which resulted from our meeting with your staff on
September 13, 1991 in Springerville, Arizona.
The Audit Team is to be commended for their diligence and understanding
@ in making the recommended revisions, as well as for the basic accuracy
in compiling the overall preliminary draft report. Their openness and
cooperation with the Commission and the Department is reflected in the
revised preliminary draft report and has been greatly appreciated by all
who worked with them.
In the way of a final response to the revised preliminary draft report
we offer the following considerations.
The rapid urbanization of Arizona has truly expanded the Commission's
G and Department's roles in addressing the complex concerns relating to
the interfacing of wildlife resources to Arizona's human population.
Efforts to address nontraditional nonconsumptive wildlife
responsibilities as well as managing such traditional wildlife
considerations as big game populations have presented challenges that
8 did not exist in former years.
In an attempt to increase the effort to gather nongame information, the
Commission, in recent years, has authorized the Department to increase
the number of positions in the Research Branch from 13 to 60 through
Federal Grant funding.
D
Additional emphasis in the area of nongame and endangered species
inventory and habitat needs, have been made by the Commission, to the
Department, in the authorization of approximately 88 non administrative
positions which are to be funded by the recently passed Heritage
Initiative.
SI
The Heritage Initiative provides the Department uz, to $ 10 million
annually for five specific program areas identified within the
Initiative.
The Department has also developed a Commission approved Crisis
Management Team in its continuing efforts to be responsive to the needs @
of the public as it regards the public's interfacing with both rural and
urban wildlife concerns.
The Commission, its members appointed by the Governor and with each
member confirmed by the Senate, continues to hold open public meetings
as a forum for public input into its decision making process. These ( I
meetings are normally held monthly and at various locations within the
State.
While considerable resources have been expended to allow for a greater
exchange of information between the public and the Commission and
Department, we concur with the audit finding and recommendation. a
The Commission and the Department will continue to further the effort of
communications with its many diverse publics.
The Commission and Department will also continue to seek legislative
assistance in this effort as exemplified in the cooperative effort with r)
the livestock industry which saw the passage of Senate Bill 1137 in
1990. This bill helped resolve public concerns over the indiscriminate
killing of various predatory animals which were negatively impacting the
livestock industry. ( reference to S. B. 1137 is made in Sunset Factor # 8
as " wildlife predatorsn).
The Commission and Department concur that comprehensive planning can be
pursued with greater resolve and is being continued in that mode.
By policy, the Deputy Director of the Department is charged with the d
development and implementation of such a comprehensive plan.
Elements of the plan are in place but the entire plan has not yet been
implemented. This continues to be a priority of the Deputy Director and
is reflected by the contracting of a special planing consultant to bring
this effort to fruition. @
The Commission and Department concur with the finding regarding span of
control in the Department's six Regional Offices. We ask for
legislative support for the budgetary appropriations necessary to a
address this organizational consideration.
The Commission and Department concur with the recommendation that if
legislation is introduced requiring the titling of certain watercraft;
that a fee mechanism be concurrently established within that legislation
to administer that program.
The commission and Department concur with the rationale developed
regarding wildlife Manaser Salary and Workload Information. We feel
that the information presented with regard to this topic is symptomatic
of a Department wide problem. At a Director's Staff briefing the Audit
Team indicated that they would mention in its report that, although
other series in the Department were not fully evaluated, it is probable
that many work units ( within the Department) suffer similar problems to
those of the Wildlife Manager's ( i. e. loss of annual leave, working
excessive over time, unrecorded hours etc.).
We ask legislative assistance in budgeting, as well as Department of
Administration ( DOA), Personnel Division assistance, in the Commission's
and Department's request to conduct a Department- wide Classification
Maintenance Review ( CMR) of all Department positions.
The topic of Commission form of Department oversight, as expressed by a
few outside interests, was discussed early in the performance audit
process. his topic was not mentioned in the preliminary report draft
or the revised preliminary report draft.
Dialogue continues to surface regarding the possibility of a change in
the omm mission form of Department oversight. The implications are that
the duties and responsibilities of the Commission could be reduced and
the ~ irector appointed by the Governor. The five person om mission, as
appointed and confirmed within the purview of Arizona Revised Statutes,
has proven to function and serve the public and the wildlife resources
of Arizona very well since 1929. The Commission continues to serve
Arizona well as evidenced by the response to the Sunset Factors.
One of the functions of the c om mission is to hire a Department Director.
This system has allowed for wildlife management through a process which
has been able to maintain biological and scientific continuity over the
many years of its existence.
The Audit Team had previously informed the Director's Staff that they
had received considerable input to this issue from the public as well as
from various organizations and interests. The Audit Team also stated
that they had not had sufficient time to survey other states and their
various forms of oversight.
The Commission and Department feel that even though the Audit Team did
not have sufficient time to totally survey the other states, the
sensitivity and importance of this issue warrants, at a minimum, the 0
inclusion of their findings within Arizona.
At a briefing of the Department Director on May 20, 1991 the Director
was told that a summary of the survey of the 139 individuals ( agencies,
associations) would be published as a finding in the performance audit
report ( see footnote ( 1) on page 9 of the revised preliminary report ir
draft) .) The results of this survey would be indicative of how well the
Department, as overseen by the Commission, does business in North
America.
a
Again the Commission and Department wish to express their gratitude to
the Audit Team for their objective assessment of this Commission and
Department in the performance audit. In their findings and
informational items, they have pointed out ways to improve the operation
of the Commission and Department. They have confirmed a number of this
agency's own recognized needs and have provided additional reinforcement •
to this agency in terms of future approaches to the legislature for
program and personnel relief.
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to comment on the revised a
preliminary report draft and to have our comments incorporated into the
final performance audit report.
Sincerely, -
Chairman
Arizona Game and Fish Commission