Existing law, enacted as part of the Marine Life Management Act of 1998, generally establishes a comprehensive plan for the management of marine life resources. Existing law requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop, and submit to the Fish and Game Commission for its approval, a fishery management master plan, and provides for the preparation and approval of fishery management plans, which form the primary basis for managing Californias sport and commercial marine fisheries. Existing law declares various state policies with regard to the management of fishery resources.

Existing law authorizes the department to issue permits, subject to restrictions and regulations that the department determines are desirable, to take or possess, in any part of the state, for scientific, educational, or propagation purposes, mammals, birds and the nests and eggs thereof, fish, amphibians, reptiles, or any other form of plant or animal life.

Existing law requires the commission to encourage the development of new types of commercial fishing gear and new methods of using existing commercial fishing gear by approving permits, known as experimental gear permits, to be issued by the department, consistent with specified policies, for that development or use, subject to certain restrictions.

Under existing law, any violation of the Fish and Game Code, or of any rule, regulation, or order made or adopted under the code, is generally a misdemeanor.

This bill would authorize the commission to approve experimental fishing permits to be issued by the department for specified purposes that would authorize commercial or recreational marine fishing activity otherwise prohibited by the Fish and Game Code or regulations adopted pursuant to that code, subject to certain requirements, including a requirement that activities conducted under the permit be consistent with specified policies enacted as part of the Marine Life Management Act of 1998 and any applicable fishery management plan and a requirement that the permit be subject to certain commission conditions. The bill would require the commission to post, and annually update, information regarding approved experimental fishing permits, as specified, on its Internet Web site. The bill would require the commission, on or before January 1, 2023, and every 5 years thereafter, to report to the appropriate legislative committees summarizing the benefits of the experimental fishing permit program, as specified. Because a violation of the terms of a permit would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, enacted as part of the Marine Life Management Act of 1998, generally establishes a comprehensive plan for the management of marine life resources. Existing law requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop, and submit to the Fish and Game Commission for its approval, a fishery management master plan, and provides for the preparation and approval of fishery management plans, which form the primary basis for managing Californias sport and commercial marine fisheries. Existing law declares various state policies with regard to the management of fishery resources.

Existing law authorizes the department to issue permits, subject to restrictions and regulations that the department determines are desirable, to take or possess, in any part of the state, for scientific, educational, or propagation purposes, mammals, birds and the nests and eggs thereof, fish, amphibians, reptiles, or any other form of plant or animal life.

Existing law requires the commission to encourage the development of new types of commercial fishing gear and new methods of using existing commercial fishing gear by approving permits, known as experimental gear permits, to be issued by the department, consistent with specified policies, for that development or use, subject to certain restrictions.

Under existing law, any violation of the Fish and Game Code, or of any rule, regulation, or order made or adopted under the code, is generally a misdemeanor.

This bill would authorize the department to issue commission to approve experimental fishing permits to be issued by the department for specified purposes that would authorize commercial or recreational marine fishing activity otherwise prohibited by the Fish and Game Code or regulations adopted pursuant to that code, subject to certain requirements, including a requirement that activities conducted under the permit be consistent with specified policies enacted as part of the Marine Life Management Act of 1998 and any applicable fishery management plan and a requirement that the permit be subject to certain department commission conditions. The bill would require the commission to post, and annually update, information regarding approved experimental fishing permits, as specified, on its Internet Web site. The bill would require the commission, on or before January 1, 2023, and every 5 years thereafter, to report to the appropriate legislative committees summarizing the benefits of the experimental fishing permit program, as specified. Because a violation of the terms of a permit would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, enacted as part of the Marine Life Management Act of 1998, generally establishes a comprehensive plan for the management of marine life resources. Existing law requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop, and submit to the Fish and Game Commission for its approval, a fishery management master plan, and provides for the preparation and approval of fishery management plans, which form the primary basis for managing Californias sport and commercial marine fisheries. Existing law declares various state policies with regard to the management of fishery resources.

Existing law authorizes the department to issue permits, subject to restrictions and regulations that the department determines are desirable, to take or possess, in any part of the state, for scientific, educational, or propagation purposes, mammals, birds and the nests and eggs thereof, fish, amphibians, reptiles, or any other form of plant or animal life.

Existing law requires the commission to encourage the development of new types of commercial fishing gear and new methods of using existing commercial fishing gear by approving permits, known as experimental gear permits, to be issued by the department, consistent with specified policies, for that development or use, subject to certain restrictions.

Under existing law, any violation of the Fish and Game Code, or of any rule, regulation, or order made or adopted under the code, is generally a misdemeanor.

This bill would authorize the department to issue experimental fishing permits for specified purposes that would authorize commercial or recreational marine fishing activity otherwise prohibited by the Fish and Game Code or regulations adopted pursuant to that code, subject to certain requirements, including a requirement that activities conducted under the permit be consistent with specified policies enacted as part of the Marine Life Management Act of 1998 and any applicable fishery management plan and a requirement that the permit be subject to certain department conditions. Because a violation of the terms of a permit would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, enacted as part of the Marine Life Management Act of 1998, generally establishes a comprehensive plan for the management of marine life resources. Existing law requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to develop, and submit to the Fish and Game Commission for its approval, a fishery management master plan, and provides for the preparation and approval of fishery management plans, which form the primary basis for managing Californias sport and commercial marine fisheries. Existing law declares various state policies with regard to the management of fishery resources.

Existing law authorizes the department to issue permits, subject to restrictions and regulations that the department determines are desirable, to take or possess, in any part of the state, for scientific, educational, or propagation purposes, mammals, birds and the nests and eggs thereof, fish, amphibians, reptiles, or any other form of plant or animal life.

Existing law requires the commission to encourage the development of new types of commercial fishing gear and new methods of using existing commercial fishing gear by approving permits, known as experimental gear permits, to be issued by the department, consistent with specified policies, for that development or use, subject to certain restrictions.

Under existing law, any violation of the Fish and Game Code, or of any rule, regulation, or order made or adopted under the code, is generally a misdemeanor.

This bill would authorize the department to issue experimental fishing permits for specified purposes that would authorize commercial or recreational fishing activity otherwise prohibited by the Fish and Game Code or regulations adopted pursuant to that code, subject to certain requirements, including a requirement that activities conducted under the permit be consistent with specified policies enacted as part of the Marine Life Management Act of 1998 and any applicable fishery management plan and a requirement that the permit be subject to certain department conditions. Because a violation of the terms of a permit would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

GOVERNOR'S VETO

GV Bill Id:AB 1228

Author:(Bloom)

As Enrolled Ver:September 15, 2017

2/3 vote

Original Committee Reference: W., P., & W.

SUMMARY: Allows the Fish and Game Commission (FGC) to authorize the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to issue experimental fishing permits (EFP), as specified, that authorize commercial or recreation fishing activity that is otherwise prohibited. Specifically, this bill:

1. Lists the following activities for which the FGC may authorize an EFP: scientific research, educational, limited testing, public display, data collection, compensation fishing, conservation engineering, exploratory fishing, health and safety survey, environmental cleanup or hazard removal purposes, or any combination of these.
2. Requires, at a minimum, that an EFP be consistent with state policy to restore marine living resources, applicable fishery management plans, and conditions the FGC deems necessary to ensure protection of marine resources. Additionally, only exempts an EFP permittee as specified.
3. Provides that activities conducted under the EFP shall not involve bottom trawling except as specified.
4. Requires the FGC develop a process for issuing EFP's that is consistent with existing marine fisheries stakeholder outreach.
5. Limits EFP's to be issued for a period of no more than four consecutive years.
6. Requires the FGC to post, and annually update, information regarding approved EFP activities, including information on the fishery and region affected, the experimental intent, and other relevant information on its Internet Web site.
7. Requires the FGC to, on or before January 1, 2023, and every five years thereafter, complete and provide to the appropriate legislative committees a report summarizing the approved EFPs and benefits of the EFP program to the sustainability of California fisheries, efficiency of fishing effort, and reduction of bycatch in California fisheries.
8. Defines "compensation fishing" to mean fishing conducted for the purpose of recovering costs with resource surveys and scientific studies.
9. Defines "conservation engineering" to mean the study of fish behavior and the development and testing of new gear technology and fishing techniques for specified purposes.
10. Defines "exploratory fishing" to mean fishing to collect data or conduct other research, typically to provide information that could inform the potential opening of a new fishery or an area currently closed to fishing.
11. Makes findings and declarations as to value and status of Pacific Ocean health, the efficacy of the federal Exempted Fishing Permit program, and the potential benefit of an EFP program for the state.

The Senate amendments:

1. Provide that the FGC authorize EFPs.
2. Require the FGC to post, and annually update, information regarding approved EFP activities on its Internet Web site.
3. Require the FGC to on or before January 1, 2023, and every five years thereafter, complete and provide a report to the appropriate legislative committees summarizing the approved EFPs and benefits of the EFP program.
4. Add a definition of "exploratory fishing".

EXISTING LAW:

1. Under federal law, allows the National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Administrator or Director to issue exempted fishing permits.
2. Establishes the Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and where feasible, restoration of the state's marine living resources. The objective of the MLMA is to, among other things, accomplish all of the following:
   1. Allow and encourage only those activities and uses of marine living resources that are sustainable.
   2. Support and promote scientific research on marine ecosystems.
   3. Manage marine living resources on the basis of best available scientific information.
   4. Involve all interested parties in marine living resource management decisions.
3. Establishes fishery management plans (FMP) as the primary basis for managing sport and commercial marine fisheries. Requires FMPs to be based on the best scientific information available. Subjects the development of FMP to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
4. Requires the DFW to have a fishery master plan to, in part, prioritize and track FMPs that are approved by the FGC. Requires the fishery master plan to, among other things, include:
   1. A description of the research, monitoring, and data collection activities that the DFW conducts and any additional needs for essential fishery information.
   2. A process that ensures the meaningful involvement of fishery participants, marine scientists, and other interested parties.
   3. A process for periodic review and amendment of the master plan.
5. Requires the FGC to encourage the development of new types of commercial fishing gear and new methods of using existing commercial fishing gear through the issuance of experimental gear permits. Experimental gear permits may only be issued for a period of not more than one year, and may be renewed for a period of not more than four consecutive years.
6. Finds and declares that a proactive approach to management of emerging fisheries will benefit commercial and sport fisheries. Directs the FGC to encourage emerging fisheries. Establishes a process to identify emerging fisheries and develop FMPs associated with emerging fisheries. Specifies actions to be taken in the adoption of FMPs for emerging fisheries, including a research plan that has objectives for evaluation, a description of methods and data collection techniques, and a timetable for completing the evaluation.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the DFW estimates the costs of issuing permits to conduct experimental gear projects, scientific or management projects will range between $94,000 – $164,000 per permit/project (permit fee revenue). This includes the following estimated costs for a project of average complexity and scope:

1. Department permit application review costs = $1,500
2. CEQA compliance document preparation = $80,000 - $150,000
3. Commission public vetting and permit approval process = $1,000
4. Project monitoring = $7,000
5. Project evaluation = $4,300

COMMENTS: The federal Exempted Fishing Permit process has been available since 1976. The permits are designed to provide short-term exemptions from regulations. The purpose of the permits is to provide an opportunity for experimentation. Through the exemptions, fishermen and scientists can collect important scientific information that they otherwise could not. This is particularly valuable where prohibitions on fishing have limited data collection. The permits allow for testing innovative approaches and create ways to find practical solutions to fisheries problems. The knowledge gained from the opportunities provided by the permits allow for technical advancements in fishing and fishery management that can improve fishery outcomes. The goal of the learning process that is allowed under these permits is ultimately to lead to the development of better regulations that allow for sustainable fishing.

This bill creates an analogous EFP process to the federal Exempted Fishing Permit. The federal process is generally viewed as successful. That would indicate that a similar process in California could be successful as well.

GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:

This bill authorizes the Fish and Game Commission to approve, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue, experimental fishing permits that authorize commercial or recreational marine fishing activities otherwise prohibited by law.

While I support sustainable fishing practices, this bill creates significant and unfunded requirements on the Commission and the Department. This bill also duplicates an existing permit which already allows the testing of experimental fishing gear.

As our marine ecosystem changes, California should be a leader and support innovative and sustainable fishing practices. Therefore, I am directing the Department of Fish and Wildlife to work with the author on legislation to address the identified concerns.

Analysis Prepared by: Ryan Ojakian / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0002438

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1228

Author:(Bloom)

As Amended Ver:July 17, 2017

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: W., P., & W.

SUMMARY: Allows the Fish and Game Commission (FGC) to authorize the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to issue experimental fishing permits (EFP), as specified, that authorize commercial or recreation fishing activity that is otherwise prohibited. Specifically, this bill:

1. Lists the following activities for which the FGC may authorize an EFP: scientific research, educational, limited testing, public display, data collection, compensation fishing, conservation engineering, exploratory fishing, health and safety survey, environmental cleanup or hazard removal purposes, or any combination of these.
2. Requires, at a minimum, that an EFP be consistent with state policy to restore marine living resources, applicable fishery management plans, and conditions the FGC deems necessary to ensure protection of marine resources. Additionally, only exempts an EFP permittee as specified.
3. Provides that activities conducted under the EFP shall not involve bottom trawling except as specified.
4. Requires the FGC develop a process for issuing EFP's that is consistent with existing marine fisheries stakeholder outreach.
5. Limits EFP's to be issued for a period of no more than four consecutive years.
6. Requires the FGC to post, and annually update, information regarding approved EFP activities, including information on the fishery and region affected, the experimental intent, and other relevant information on its Internet Web site.
7. Requires the FGC to, on or before January 1, 2023, and every five years thereafter, complete and provide to the appropriate legislative committees a report summarizing the approved EFPs and benefits of the EFP program to the sustainability of California fisheries, efficiency of fishing effort, and reduction of bycatch in California fisheries.
8. Defines "compensation fishing" to mean fishing conducted for the purpose of recovering costs with resource surveys and scientific studies.
9. Defines "conservation engineering" to mean the study of fish behavior and the development and testing of new gear technology and fishing techniques for specified purposes.
10. Defines "exploratory fishing" to mean fishing to collect data or conduct other research, typically to provide information that could inform the potential opening of a new fishery or an area currently closed to fishing.
11. Makes findings and declarations as to value and status of Pacific Ocean health, the efficacy of the federal Exempted Fishing Permit program, and the potential benefit of an EFP program for the state.

The Senate amendments:

1. Provide that the FGC authorize EFPs.
2. Require the FGC to post, and annually update, information regarding approved EFP activities on its Internet Web site.
3. Require the FGC to on or before January 1, 2023, and every five years thereafter, complete and provide a report to the appropriate legislative committees summarizing the approved EFPs and benefits of the EFP program.
4. Add a definition of "exploratory fishing".

EXISTING LAW:

1. Under federal law, allows the National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Administrator or Director to issue exempted fishing permits.
2. Establishes the Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and where feasible, restoration of the state's marine living resources. The objective of the MLMA is to, among other things, accomplish all of the following:
   1. Allow and encourage only those activities and uses of marine living resources that are sustainable.
   2. Support and promote scientific research on marine ecosystems.
   3. Manage marine living resources on the basis of best available scientific information.
   4. Involve all interested parties in marine living resource management decisions.
3. Establishes fishery management plans (FMP) as the primary basis for managing sport and commercial marine fisheries. Requires FMPs to be based on the best scientific information available. Subjects the development of FMP to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
4. Requires the DFW to have a fishery master plan to, in part, prioritize and track FMPs that are approved by the FGC. Requires the fishery master plan to, among other things, include:
   1. A description of the research, monitoring, and data collection activities that the DFW conducts and any additional needs for essential fishery information.
   2. A process that ensures the meaningful involvement of fishery participants, marine scientists, and other interested parties.
   3. A process for periodic review and amendment of the master plan.
5. Requires the FGC to encourage the development of new types of commercial fishing gear and new methods of using existing commercial fishing gear through the issuance of experimental gear permits. Experimental gear permits may only be issued for a period of not more than one year, and may be renewed for a period of not more than four consecutive years.
6. Finds and declares that a proactive approach to management of emerging fisheries will benefit commercial and sport fisheries. Directs the FGC to encourage emerging fisheries. Establishes a process to identify emerging fisheries and develop FMPs associated with emerging fisheries. Specifies actions to be taken in the adoption of FMPs for emerging fisheries, including a research plan that has objectives for evaluation, a description of methods and data collection techniques, and a timetable for completing the evaluation.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the DFW estimates the costs of issuing permits to conduct experimental gear projects, scientific or management projects will range between $94,000 – $164,000 per permit/project (permit fee revenue). This includes the following estimated costs for a project of average complexity and scope:

1. Department permit application review costs = $1,500
2. CEQA compliance document preparation = $80,000 - $150,000
3. Commission public vetting and permit approval process = $1,000
4. Project monitoring = $7,000
5. Project evaluation = $4,300

COMMENTS: The federal Exempted Fishing Permit process has been available since 1976. The permits are designed to provide short-term exemptions from regulations. The purpose of the permits is to provide an opportunity for experimentation. Through the exemptions, fishermen and scientists can collect important scientific information that they otherwise could not. This is particularly valuable where prohibitions on fishing have limited data collection. The permits allow for testing innovative approaches and create ways to find practical solutions to fisheries problems. The knowledge gained from the opportunities provided by the permits allow for technical advancements in fishing and fishery management that can improve fishery outcomes. The goal of the learning process that is allowed under these permits is ultimately to lead to the development of better regulations that allow for sustainable fishing.

This bill creates an analogous EFP process to the federal Exempted Fishing Permit. The federal process is generally viewed as successful. That would indicate that a similar process in California could be successful as well.

Analysis Prepared by: Ryan Ojakian / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0001767

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1228

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 9-0, 7/11/17

AYES: Hertzberg, Stone, Allen, Atkins, Hueso, Jackson, Monning, Stern, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 9/1/17

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/30/17 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill authorizes the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to approve and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) to issue one-year experimental fishing permits, subject to certain requirements, including requirements of the Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) and any applicable fishery management plan. This bill also defines experimental fishing for this purpose.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the federal Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1976 which is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in the federal waters of the United States. The key objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, increase long-term economic and social benefits, and ensure a safe and sustainable seafood supply. In addition, the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorizes an “exempted fishing permit” (EFP) program, which is executed pursuant to the definitions of what qualifies as exempted fishing in Title 50 of the Code of Federal regulations, Section 600.10 (50 CFR § 600.10) and the process laid out in 50 CFR § 600.745.
2. Allows, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 8606, commercial fishermen to obtain limited exemptions to develop new types of commercial fishing gear and new methods for using approved gear.

This bill:

1. Authorizes the Commission to approve one-year experimental fishing permits, issued by the Department and subject to certain requirements, for specified purposes that would authorize commercial or recreational marine fishing activity otherwise prohibited by the Fish and Game Code. Activities conducted under the permit would be required to be consistent with policies enacted in the MLMA and any applicable fishery management plan.
2. Defines experimental fishing to include scientific research, educational, limited testing, public display, data collection, compensation fishing, conservation engineering, exploratory fishing, health and safety survey, environmental cleanup, or hazard removal purposes.
   1. Compensation fishing means fishing conducted for the purpose of recovering costs associated with resource surveys and scientific studies that support the management of a fishery, or fishing that serves as an incentive for participation in those studies.
   2. Conservation engineering means the study of fish behavior and the development and testing of new gear technology and fishing techniques that promote efficient harvest of target species or reduced collateral.
   3. Exploratory fishing means fishing to collect data or conduct other research, typically to provide information that could inform the potential opening of a new fishery or an area currently closed to fishing.
3. Requires the Commission to post, and annually update, information regarding approved EFP activities, including information on the fishery and region affected, the experimental intent, and other relevant information on its Internet Web site.
4. Requires the Commission to complete and provide to the appropriate legislative committees a report summarizing the approved EFPs and benefits of the EFP program to the sustainability of California fisheries, efficiency of fishing effort, and reduction of bycatch in California fisheries on or before January 1, 2023, and every five years thereafter.
5. Prohibits bottom trawling in ocean waters of the state unless the person engaging in bottom trawling holds specified permit and is limited to locations where bottom trawling is authorized under the applicable permit.

Background

1. The federal EFP program has facilitated changes not only in fishing gear, but also in fisheries management. An EFP awarded to a fishermen’s organization in the Cape Cod fishing region allowed participating vessels to exceed daily trip limits for Georges Bank cod, while those vessels adhered to a shared allocation of this stock and enhanced reporting standards. The shared allocation was calculated based on a catch history and applied to all participating vessels. The EFP had authorized this group to pilot a different management approach, including higher reporting standards to ensure compliance. This framework produced an experimental process and a data collection mechanism without major state investment. The results of this EFP provided the framework for future legislation to promote a shares-based model for the groundfish fishery in 2010.
2. Several California fisheries have encountered major challenges in recent years related to ocean conditions, water temperatures, and toxic algal blooms. For example, west coast salmon runs have been negatively impacted in recent years by drought conditions in their natal rivers and El Niño conditions in the Pacific Ocean that reduce their food sources. This year, 2017, much of the California coast has been closed to commercial salmon fishing. For the Dungeness crab fishery in California, 2016 was one of the worst years in recent history because toxic algal blooms tainted the crabs that were caught to the point that monitoring by the California Department of Public Health led to the judgment that Dungeness crab from that time period were too contaminated to eat in many cases. These are traditionally two of the most important commercial fisheries in California. The challenges for these fisheries are relatively recent and unusual when compared with the productivity of the fishery over the past several decades. However, these problems are related to ocean conditions that may continue as a consequence of climate changes.
3. Fisheries management in California involves both the Department and the Commission. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2855 (b), existing California law requires the Department to develop and submit a fishery management master plan to the Commission for approval. Further, the Commission is required, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 8086, to encourage the development of new types of commercial fishing gear and new methods of using existing gear permits.

Comments

1. Is AB 1228 consistent with or complementary to the MLMA? The MLMA includes language to promote collaboration in fisheries research and management. For example, pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 7060 (c), the Department is required to encourage the participation of fishermen in fisheries research within a framework that ensures the objective collection and data analysis, the collaboration of fishermen in research design, and the cooperation of fishermen in carrying out the research. Further, a report prepared for the Ocean Protection Council in 2010, “Lessons Learned from California’s Marine Life Management Act” recommended that the Department develop pilot projects in collaborative data gathering and other aspects of fishery management with willing fishers. Finally, the MLMA is currently under review, which adds some uncertainty to this discussion. However, this program seems to reasonably address that recommendation and would likely be complimentary to the MLMA.
2. Why would an EFP program be more effective than the current, experimental gear permit program? The current experimental gear permit program only applies to commercial fishermen and focuses on types and uses of fishing gear. However, both commercial and recreational fishermen would be able to participate in the EFP program proposed by this bill, and would promote a wider breadth of experimental permits, and possibly a wider breadth of conservation benefits and/or research funds. Further, research that may be pursued under a state EFP program that would not be possible under the existing experimental gear permit program includes data collection that may lead to improved or redesigned management approaches, better understanding of catch composition and biological information about caught fish, and better use of electronic monitoring to provide cost-effective and accurate information to managers.
3. Scientific assessment has only been completed for a relatively small number of California’s fisheries. This deficit is unlikely to change in the near term. An EFP program could improve the management of California fisheries by enhancing data collection and funding, particularly for those fisheries that have not yet been assessed. The EFP program should facilitate academic and non-governmental organization research in California fisheries, and these partnerships will likely increase the scope, intensity, and possibly the consistency of data collection, and accelerate analyses of those data.
4. A mechanism for leveraging academic and private sector research dollars? These partnerships will likely increase the potential for the acquisition of outside funds. For example, fisherman’s organizations and other private-sector groups with fishing interests may fund experimental fishing proposals that aim to increase the efficiency of catch for target fish and the decrease of bycatch. Further, academic research institutions may bring in funds to study specific marine fish populations or fisheries relative to Marine Protected Areas. Therefore, it may be that by decentralizing some of California fisheries monitoring and research, the Department moves toward a better financial position with regard to data collection and fisheries management.
5. Previous experimental approaches in California using to improve gear and catch efficiency have been completed and have been successful in testing new gear. For example, the Tanner Crab Experimental Gear Permit was for use of a different type of crab trap. An experimental gear permit was needed, because Fish and Game Code Section 9011 defines crab trap requirements, and only provides specifications for traps that are used for purposes of taking Dungeness and rock crabs. However, no mention is made regarding traps that might be used for purposes of taking other species of crab. As a result, crab traps that are constructed differently than Dungeness or rock crab traps may not be used for purposes of commercial harvest of other species of crabs. Tanner crab in California may be economically viable to bring a vessel already equipped for fishing deep water crab down to California, and the experimental gear permit promoted interest in the fishery.
6. Will EFPs trigger full California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental impact report? It is likely that a significant number of EFPs would be exempt from CEQA either through the “Information Collection” categorical exemption, or the “general rule” categorical exception. For example, both the Tanner Crab Experimental Gear Permits and the Hagfish Experimental Gear Permits were exempt from full CEQA environmental impact reports.
7. New techniques for assessing the status and productivity of fishery stocks could enhance the information that is available to those who manage each fishery. As noted in a 2015 Ecology Law Quarterly article, fish populations, and by extension, fisheries are managed with relatively high uncertainty when compared with another, seemingly similar natural resource, hunted wildlife. This inherent challenge makes management difficult, particularly when several California fisheries are experiencing high variability. Predictions of changing ocean conditions under climate change scenarios may make fisheries management even more difficult. Upwelling events of cold, nutrient-rich waters contribute to making marine ecosystems off the coast of California some of the most productive in the world. However, these marine ecosystems and fisheries also respond dramatically to large-scale changes in ocean conditions. An EFP program is one strategy that may yield improved and timely information for fisheries managers.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the costs of this bill are unknown, and likely in the hundreds of thousands, for the Department and the Commission (Fish and Game Preservation Fund) staff and equipment necessary to adopt regulations, and evaluate and approve EFP applications.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/1/17)

Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara

Environmental Defense Fund

Fort Brag Groundfish Association

Half Moon Bay Fisheries Marketing Association

Morro Bay Community Quota Fund

Natural Resources Defense Council

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations

Sportfishing Association of California

The Nature Conservancy

Watermen’s Alliance

Six Individual Professors/Dean from California Polytechnic University, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and UC Santa Barbara

Two Individuals

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/1/17)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author and supporters of this bill argue that a large majority of the fisheries in California’s state waters have never been scientifically assessed or actively managed under approved fishery management plans, largely due to capacity and financial constraints. Further, given the realities of state budget constraints and competing priorities, the promotion of fisheries in the wake of changing ocean conditions and climate change will “depend on developing, testing, and integrating new, cost-effective science and management tools and successfully incentivizing and leveraging currently underutilized academic and private sector contributions toward improving fishing management.” They cite the EFP program as a good model for a statewide program

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 5/30/17

AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Cervantes, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gomez, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Chau, Choi, Eggman

Prepared by:

9/4/17 12:53:34

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

AB 1228 (Bloom) - Marine fisheries: experimental fishing permits

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 1228 allows the Fish and Game Commission (commission) to authorize the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to issue experimental fishing permits (EFP) for scientific research, educational, limited testing, data collection, compensation fishing, conservation engineering, exploratory fishing, health and safety survey, environmental

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown, likely in the hundreds of thousands, for CDFW and Commission (Fish and Game Preservation Fund) staff and equipment necessary to adopts regulations, and evaluate and approve EFP applications.

Background:

Existing law. The federal Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1976 is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in the federal waters of the United States. The key objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, increase long-term economic and social benefits, and ensure a safe and sustainable seafood supply. In addition, the Magnuson-Stevens act authorizes an “exempted fishing permit” program, which is executed pursuant to the definitions of what qualifies as exempted fishing in Title 50 of the Code of Federal regulations, Section 600.10 (50 CFR § 600.10) and the process laid out in 50 CFR § 600.745.

The federal EFP program has facilitated changes not only in fishing gear, but also in fisheries management. An EFP awarded to a fishermen’s organization in the Cape Cod fishing region allowed participating vessels to exceed daily trip limits for Georges Bank cod, while those vessels adhered to a shared allocation of this stock and enhanced reporting standards. The shared allocation was calculated based on a catch history and applied to all participating vessels. The EFP had authorized this group to pilot a different management approach, including higher reporting standards to ensure compliance. This framework produced an experimental process and a data collection mechanism without major state investment. The results of this EFP provided the framework for future legislation to promote a shares-based model for the groundfish fishery in 2010.

Existing California law and regulations allow commercial fishermen to obtain limited exemptions to develop new types of commercial fishing gear and new methods for using approved gear. The Marine Life Management Act of 1998 (MLMA), establishes a comprehensive plan for the management of marine life resources. The MLMA is currently under review by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (the Department), and the review includes information gathering on existing Fishery Management Plans and consideration of the “Lessons Learned from California’s Marine Life Management Act” report from 2010. Public workshops and stakeholder meetings are part of this ongoing review, and according to the Department, the goal is to submit the draft amended Master Plan in late 2017 to the Fish and Game Commission, after it has undergone independent scientific review.

State of state fisheries. Several California fisheries have encountered major challenges in recent years related to ocean conditions, water temperatures, and toxic algal blooms. For example, west coast salmon runs have been negatively impacted in recent years by drought conditions in their native rivers and El Niño conditions in the Pacific Ocean that reduce their food sources. This year, 2017, much of the California coast has been closed to commercial salmon fishing. For the Dungeness crab fishery in California, 2016 was one of the worst years in recent history because toxic algal blooms tainted the crabs that were caught to the point that monitoring by the California Department of Public Health led to the judgment that Dungeness crab from that time period were too contaminated to eat in many cases. These are traditionally two of the most important commercial fisheries in California. The challenges for these fisheries are relatively recent and unusual when compared with the productivity of the fishery over the past several decades. However, these problems are related to ocean conditions that may continue as a consequence of climate changes.

The management of fisheries by the state of California involves both the Department and the Fish and Game Commission. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 2855 (b), existing California law requires the Department to develop and submit a fishery management master plan to the Commission for approval. Further, the Commission is required, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 8086, to encourage the development of new types of commercial fishing gear and new methods of using existing gear permits. The state has jurisdiction over all fish in state waters extending three miles into the Pacific Ocean from shore, except for management of species without federal management where state jurisdiction extends 200 miles.

Proposed Law:

2. Makes findings and declarations.
3. Allows the commission to authorize the CDFW to issue experimental fishing permits (EFP) for scientific research, educational, limited testing, data collection, compensation fishing, conservation engineering, exploratory fishing, health and safety survey, environmental cleanup or hazard removal purposes, or any combination of these purposes subject, at a minimum, to all of the following:
   1. Activities conducted under the EFP shall be consistent with policies set forth in Section 7050 and any applicable fishery management plan.
   2. An EFP is subject to those conditions the commission deems necessary to ensure the protection of marine resources, and shall be revoked if the continued use would have an adverse impact on any resource, allocation of a resource, or other adverse impact to established fisheries.
4. Prohibits bottom trawling in ocean waters of the state unless the person engaging in bottom trawling holds specified permit and is limited to locations where bottom trawling is authorized under the applicable permit.
5. Exempts only those activities outlined in statute and regulations.
6. Requires the commission to establish an expeditious process for department review, public notice and comment, commission approval, and prompt department issuance of EFPs.
7. Upon completion of the activities authorized in an EFP, or periodically under terms specified by the commission, requires a person fishing under an EFP to submit to the commission and the department a final report summarizing the EFP research and findings, and any scientific reports or other publications created as a result of the activity.
8. Unless otherwise specified by the commission, an EFP is valid for a period of one year. However, the department cannot issue an EFP for more than four consecutive years.
9. Requires the commission to post, and annually update, information regarding approved EFP activities, including information on the fishery and region affected, the experimental intent, and other relevant information on its Internet Web site.
10. Requires the commission to, on or before January 1, 2023, and every five years thereafter, complete and provide to the appropriate legislative committees a report summarizing the approved EFPs and benefits of the EFP program to the sustainability of California fisheries, efficiency of fishing effort, and reduction of bycatch in California fisheries.
11. Defines terms for the purposes of the bill.

Staff Comments:

National Exempted Fishing Permits. The federal Exempted Fishing Permit process has been available since 1976. The permits are designed to provide short-term exemptions from regulations. The purpose of the permits is to provide an opportunity for experimentation. Through the exemptions, fishermen and scientists can collect important scientific information that they otherwise could not. This is particularly valuable where prohibitions on fishing have limited data collection. The permits allow for testing innovative approaches and create ways to find practical solutions to fisheries problems. The knowledge gained from the opportunities provided by the permits allow for technical advancements in fishing and fishery management that can improve fishery outcomes. The goal of the learning process that is allowed under these permits is ultimately to lead to the development of better regulations that allow for sustainable fishing.

This bill creates an analogous EFP process to the federal Exempted Fishing Permit. The federal process is generally viewed as successful. That would indicate that a similar process in California could be successful as well.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Senator Robert Hertzberg, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: AB Hearing Date: July 11, 2017

Subject: Marine fisheries: experimental fishing permits

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

1. The federal Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1976 is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in the federal waters of the United States. The key objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, increase long-term economic and social benefits, and ensure a safe and sustainable seafood supply. In addition, the Magnuson-Stevens act authorizes an “exempted fishing permit” (EFP) program, which is executed pursuant to the definitions of what qualifies as exempted fishing in Title 50 of the Code of Federal regulations, Section 600.10 (50 CFR § 600.10) and the process laid out in 50 CFR § 600.745.

2. The federal EFP program has facilitated changes not only in fishing gear, but also in fisheries management. An EFP awarded to a fishermen’s organization in the Cape Cod fishing region allowed participating vessels to exceed daily trip limits for Georges Bank cod, while those vessels adhered to a shared allocation of this stock and enhanced reporting standards. The shared allocation was calculated based on a catch history and applied to all participating vessels. The EFP had authorized this group to pilot a different management approach, including higher reporting standards to ensure compliance. This framework produced an experimental process and a data collection mechanism without major state investment. The results of this EFP provided the framework for future legislation to promote a shares-based model for the groundfish fishery in 2010.

3. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 8606, existing California law and regulations allow commercial fishermen to obtain limited exemptions to develop new types of commercial fishing gear and new methods for using approved gear.

4. Existing California law enacted as part of the Marine Life Management Act of 1998 (MLMA), establishes a comprehensive plan for the management of marine life resources. The MLMA is currently under review by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (the Department), and the review includes information gathering on existing Fishery Management Plans and consideration of the “Lessons Learned from California’s Marine Life Management Act” report from 2010. Public workshops and stakeholder meetings are part of this ongoing review, and according to the Department, the goal is to submit the draft amended Master Plan in late 2017 to the Fish and Game Commission, after it has undergone independent scientific review.

5. Pursuant to Public Resources Code §§ 21000-21178, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a process that applies to all discretionary projects conducted or approved by a California public agency. Permits issued by a California agency, such as the Department, can be considered approval of a discretionary project under CEQA, and therefore can trigger the application of CEQA regulations. However, certain projects qualify for categorical exemptions or, after an initial study, a negative declaration, rather than a full environmental impact report. Categorical exemptions substantially decrease the time, money, and effort that must be undertaken to meet CEQA obligations.

6. Findings and declarations of various state policies related to fisheries, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 7050 and § 7059, describe the importance of information, scientific research, adaptive management, use of science, and a collaborative process, among others, to the success of sustainable fisheries in California.

7. Existing law restricts the fishing practice of bottom trawling for California halibut or shrimp, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 8494 or § 8842, respectively.

8. Several California fisheries have encountered major challenges in recent years related to ocean conditions, water temperatures, and toxic algal blooms. For example, west coast salmon runs have been negatively impacted in recent years by drought conditions in their native rivers and El Niño conditions in the Pacific Ocean that reduce their food sources. This year, 2017, much of the California coast has been closed to commercial salmon fishing. For the Dungeness crab fishery in California, 2016 was one of the worst years in recent history because toxic algal blooms tainted the crabs that were caught to the point that monitoring by the California Department of Public Health led to the judgment that Dungeness crab from that time period were too contaminated to eat in many cases. These are traditionally two of the most important commercial fisheries in California. The challenges for these fisheries are relatively recent and unusual when compared with the productivity of the fishery over the past several decades. However, these problems are related to ocean conditions that may continue as a consequence of climate changes.

9. The management of fisheries by the state of California involves both the Department and the Fish and Game Commission. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 2855 (b), existing California law requires the Department to develop and submit a fishery management master plan to the Commission for approval. Further, the Commission is required, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 8086, to encourage the development of new types of commercial fishing gear and new methods of using existing gear permits.

PROPOSED LAW

This bill would:

1. Authorize the Fish and Game Commission to issue one-year experimental fishing permits, subject to certain requirements, for specified purposes that would authorize commercial or recreational marine fishing activity otherwise prohibited by the Fish and Game Code. Activities conducted under the permit would be required to be consistent with policies enacted in the MLMA and any applicable fishery management plan.
2. Define experimental fishing to include scientific research, educational, limited testing, public display, data collection, compensation fishing, conservation engineering, exploratory fishing, health and safety survey, environmental cleanup, or hazard removal purposes.
   1. Compensation fishing means fishing conducted for the purpose of recovering costs associated with resource surveys and scientific studies that support the management of a fishery, or fishing that serves as an incentive for participation in those studies.
   2. Conservation engineering means the study of fish behavior and the development and testing of new gear technology and fishing techniques that promote efficient harvest of target species or reduced collateral.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

The author and supporters of this bill argue that a large majority of the fisheries in California’s state waters have never been scientifically assessed or actively managed under approved fishery management plans, largely due to capacity and financial constraints. Further, given the realities of state budget constraints and competing priorities, the promotion of fisheries in the wake of changing ocean conditions and climate change will “depend on developing, testing, and integrating new, cost-effective science and management tools and successfully incentivizing and leveraging currently underutilized academic and private sector contributions toward improving fishing management.” They cite the federal Exempted Fishing Permit program as a good model for a statewide program

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

None Received

COMMENTS

1. The Fish and Game Commission may be more appropriate for the approval or rejection of EFP applications. The Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to give the authority for approving permits to the Fish and Game Commission. [Amendment 1]
2. Given that this would be a new program, reporting requirements to the Legislature and the public would benefit the program. The Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to include reporting requirements to the legislature on a five-year interval, as well as consider requiring that a summary of each permitted project be posted on the Department’s website, with annual updates. [Amendment 2]
3. The definitions of conservation engineering and exploratory fishing would be important to the implementation of this bill if it becomes law. The Committee may wish to amend the bill to clarify these definitions. [Amendment 3]
4. Is AB 1228 consistent with or complementary to the MLMA? The MLMA includes language to promote collaboration in fisheries research and management. For example, pursuant to Fish and Game Code § 7060 (c), the Department is required to encourage the participation of fishermen in fisheries research within a framework that ensures the objective collection and data analysis, the collaboration of fishermen in research design, and the cooperation of fishermen in carrying out the research. Further, a report prepared for the Ocean Protection Council in 2010, “Lessons Learned from California’s Marine Life Management Act” recommended that the Department develop pilot projects in collaborative data gathering and other aspects of fishery management with willing fishers. Finally, the MLMA is under review currently, which adds some uncertainty to this discussion. However, this program seems to reasonably address that recommendation and would likely be complimentary to the MLMA.
5. Why would an EFP program be more effective than the current, experimental gear permit program? The current experimental gear permit program only applies to commercial fishermen and focuses on types and uses of fishing gear. However, both commercial and recreational fishermen would be able to participate in the EFP program proposed by this bill, and would promote a wider breadth of experimental permits, and possibly a wider breadth of conservation benefits and/or research funds. Further, research that may be pursued under a state EFP program that would not be possible under the existing experimental gear permit program includes data collection that may lead to improved or redesigned management approaches, better understanding of catch composition and biological information about caught fish, and better use of electronic monitoring to provide cost-effective and accurate information to managers. When combined with the innovative harvesting methods and gear solutions that could result from existing programs to reduce bycatch and habitat impacts, AB 1228 has the potential to significantly the sustainability of California fisheries relative to the status quo.
6. Scientific assessment has only been completed for a relatively small number of California’s fisheries. This deficit is unlikely to change in the near term. An EFP program could improve the management of California fisheries by enhancing data collection and funding, particularly for those fisheries that have not yet been assessed. The EFP program should facilitate academic and non-governmental organization research in California fisheries, and these partnerships will likely increase the scope, intensity, and possibly the consistency of data collection, and accelerate analyses of those data.
7. A mechanism for leveraging academic and private sector research dollars? These partnerships will likely increase the potential for the acquisition of outside funds. For example, fisherman’s organizations and other private-sector groups with fishing interests may fund experimental fishing proposals that aim to increase the efficiency of catch for target fish and the decrease of bycatch. Further, academic research institutions may bring in funds to study specific marine fish populations or fisheries relative to Marine Protected Areas. Therefore, it may be that by decentralizing some of California fisheries monitoring and research, the Department moves toward a better financial position with regard to data collection and fisheries management.
8. Previous experimental approaches in California using to improve gear and catch efficiency have been completed and have been successful in testing new gear. For example, the Tanner Crab Experimental Gear Permit was for use of a different type of crab trap with the intent of capturing Tanner Crabs. An experimental gear permit was needed, because Fish and Game Code § 9011 defines crab trap requirements, and only provides specifications for traps that are used for purposes of taking Dungeness and rock crabs. However, no mention is made regarding traps that might be used for purposes of taking other species of crab. As a result, crab traps that are constructed differently than Dungeness or rock crab traps may not be used for purposes of commercial harvest of other species of crabs. Tanner crab in California may be economically viable to bring a vessel already equipped for fishing deep water crab down to California, and the experimental gear permit promoted interest in the fishery.
9. Will EFPs trigger full CEQA environmental impact report? It is likely that a significant number of EFPs would be exempt from CEQA either through the “Information Collection” categorical exemption, or the “general rule” categorical exception. For example, both the Tanner Crab Experimental Gear Permits and the Hagfish Experimental Gear Permits were exempt from full CEQA environmental impact reports.
10. New techniques for assessing the status and productivity of fishery stocks could enhance the information that is available to those who manage each fishery. As noted in a 2015 Ecology Law Quarterly article, fish populations, and by extension, fisheries are managed with relatively high uncertainty when compared with another, seemingly similar natural resource, hunted wildlife. This inherent challenge makes management difficult, particularly when several California fisheries are experiencing high variability. Predictions of changing ocean conditions under climate change scenarios may make fisheries management even more difficult. Upwelling events of cold, nutrient-rich waters contribute to making marine ecosystems off the coast of California some of the most productive in the world. However, these marine ecosystems and fisheries also respond dramatically to large-scale changes in ocean conditions. An EFP program is one strategy that may yield improved and timely information for fisheries managers.
11. The Committee may wish to consider technical and minor amendments to the bill to improve clarity [Amendments 4-5].

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS

AMENDMENT 1

-Amend Section 1022 (a) to read “The commission may authorize, and the department may issue,”

-Replace “department” with “commission” in Section 1022 (a) (2)

-Amend Section 1022 (b) to read: “The commission shall establish a process for an expeditious department review, public notice and comment, and prompt department issuance of EFPs”

- Amend Section 1022 (c) to read: “Upon completion of the activities authorized in an EFP, or periodically under terms specified by the commission department, a person fishing under an EFP shall submit to the commission and the department a final report summarizing the EFP research and findings, and any scientific reports or other publications created as a result of the activity.”

Amend Section 1022 (d) to read: “Unless otherwise specified by the department commission, an EFP issued pursuant to this section is valid for a period of one year. However, the department shall not issue an EFP for more than four consecutive years.”

AMENDMENT 2

Add (e) and (f) to Section 1022, as follows

(e) The commission shall post approved EFP projects, with information on the fishery, region, the experimental intent, and other relevant information on its website, with annual updates.

(f) The commission shall complete a report to the appropriate legislative committees, every 5 years starting in January 2023, summarizing the approved EFPs and benefits of the EFP program to the sustainability, efficiency of catch, and reduction of bycatch in California fisheries.

AMENDMENT 3

Amend Section 1022 (e) (2) to state “Conservation engineering” means the study of fish behavior and the development and testing of new gear technology and fishing techniques that promote efficient and sustainable harvest of target species or reduce collateral […]

Add the following to Section 1022 (e):

(3) “Exploratory fishing” means collecting data or conducting other research while fishing, typically to provide information that could inform the potential opening of a new fishery or an area currently closed to fishing.

AMENDMENT 4

Amend Legislative Findings to read:

 The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) Californians value healthy, sustainable ocean fisheries and ecosystems. The Pacific Ocean and its rich marine resources provide valuable environmental, economic, aesthetic, recreational, educational, scientific, nutritional, social, and historic benefits to the people of the state.

(b) A large majority of the fisheries in California’s waters have not been scientifically assessed or actively managed under approved fishery management plans, largely due to capacity constraints. This threat to ocean health is exacerbated by climate-driven changes that are already impacting fisheries in dynamic and complex ways.

(c) Well supervised, strategic experimentation that tests hypotheses or new management approaches, or both, and that is aligned with overarching state management goals and research priorities, would likely accelerate the development of innovative scientific and technology tools for improving state fishing management.

(d) The federal Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) program, authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provides a useful model for advancing on-the-water strategic experimentation. The EFP program has a proven track record for leveraging millions of dollars from fishing industry associations, conservation organizations, and independent research entities toward addressing priority research questions and ultimately improving fishing management.

(e) A streamlined state Experimental Fishing Permit program would represent a significant step toward ensuring that California’s ocean management can meet the challenges of rapidly changing and increasingly unpredictable ocean conditions, and would deliver effective outcomes that protect the state’s natural resources, port communities, and coastal economies.

(f) A state Experimental Fishing Permit program would promote collaborative and cooperative fisheries research and would develop enhance rigorous information that would be available for management of state fisheries and, in some cases, would inform the development of fishery management plans adopted pursuant to Part 1.7 (commencing with Section 7050) of Division 6 of the Fish and Game Code.

(g) In establishing a state Experimental Fishing Permit program, California can distinguish itself as a leader in strategic, innovative fishery management, and provide a replicable state model for encouraging valuable and productive collaborative fisheries research in coastal waters.

AMENDMENT 5

Amend Sec. 4 (a) to read:

The commission may authorize, for scientific research, educational, limited testing, public display, data collection, compensation fishing, conservation engineering, exploratory fishing, health and safety survey, environmental cleanup or hazard removal purposes, or any combination of these purposes, experimental fishing permits (EFP) that authorize

SUPPORT

Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara

Environmental Defense Fund

Fort Brag Groundfish Association

Half Moon Bay Fisheries Marketing Association

Morro Bay Community Quota Fund

Natural Resources Defense Council

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations

Sportfishing Association of California

The Nature Conservancy

Watermen’s Alliance

6 Individual Professors/Dean from California Polytechnic University, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and UC Santa Barbara

2 Individuals

OPPOSITION

None Received

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1228

Author:(Bloom)

As Amended Ver:April 18, 2017

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to issue experimental fishing permits (EFP), as specified, that authorize commercial or recreation fishing activity that is otherwise prohibited. Specifically, this bill:

1. Lists the following activities for which the DFW may authorize an EFP: scientific research, educational, limited testing, public display, data collection, compensation fishing, conservation engineering, exploratory fishing, health and safety survey, environmental cleanup or hazard removal purposes, or any combination of these.
2. Requires, at a minimum, that an EFP be consistent with state policy to restore marine living resources, applicable fishery management plans, and conditions the DFW deems necessary to ensure protection of marine resources. Additionally, only exempts an EFP permittee as specified.
3. Provides that activities conducted under the EFP shall not involve bottom trawling except as specified.
4. Requires the DFW develop a process for issuing EFP's that is consistent with existing marine fisheries stakeholder outreach.
5. Limits EFP's to be issued for a period of no more than four consecutive years.
6. Defines "compensation fishing" to mean fishing conducted for the purpose of recovering costs with resource surveys and scientific studies.
7. Defines "conservation engineering" to mean the study of fish behavior and the development and testing of new gear technology and fishing techniques for specified purposes.
8. Makes findings and declarations as to value and status of Pacific Ocean health, the efficacy of the federal Exempted Fishing Permit program, and the potential benefit of an EFP program for the state.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Under federal law, allows the National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Administrator or Director to issue exempted fishing permits.
2. Establishes the Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and where feasible, restoration of the states marine living resources. The objective of the MLMA is to, among other things, accomplish all of the following:
   1. Allow and encourage only those activities and uses of marine living resources that are sustainable.
   2. Support and promote scientific research on marine ecosystems.
   3. Manage marine living resources on the basis of best available scientific information.
   4. Involve all interested parties in marine living resource management decisions.
3. Establishes fishery management plans (FMP) as the primary basis for managing sport and commercial marine fisheries. Requires FMPs to be based on the best scientific information available. Subjects the development of an FMP to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
4. Requires the DWF to have a fishery master plan to, in part, prioritize and track FMPs that are approved by the Fish and Game Commission (Commission). Requires the fishery master plan to, among other things, include:
   1. A description of the research, monitoring, and data collection activities that the DFW conducts and any additional needs for essential fishery information.
   2. A process that ensures the meaningful involvement of fishery participants, marine scientist, and other interested parties.
   3. A process for periodic review and amendment of the master plan.
5. Requires the Commission to encourage the development of new types of commercial fishing gear and new methods of using existing commercial fishing gear through the issuance of experimental gear permits. Experimental gear permits may only be issued for a period of not more than one year, and may be renewed for a period of not more than four consecutive years.
6. Finds and declares that a proactive approach to management of emerging fisheries will benefit commercial and sport fisheries. Directs the Commission to encourage emerging fisheries. Establishes a process to identify emerging fisheries and develop FMPs associated with emerging fisheries. Specifies actions to be taken in the adoption of FMPs for emerging fisheries, including a research plan that has objectives for evaluation, a description of methods and data collection techniques, and a timetable for completing the evaluation.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the DFW estimates the costs of issuing permits to conduct experimental gear projects, scientific or management projects will range between $94,000 – $164,000 per permit/project (permit fee revenue). This includes the following estimated costs for a project of average complexity and scope:

1. Department permit application review costs = $1,500
2. CEQA compliance document preparation = $80,000 - $150,000
3. Commission public vetting and permit approval process = $1,000
4. Project monitoring = $7,000
5. Project evaluation = $4,300

COMMENTS: The state has jurisdiction over all fish in state waters. State waters extend 3 miles out into the Pacific Ocean from shore. Where there is no federal management of a species, state jurisdiction extends 200 miles out into the Pacific Ocean from shore. Where there is federal management of a species, the state has, while not required to, adopted that management policy in the 3 miles of marine state waters. Within fisheries that are managed by the state, depending on the species, either the Fish and Game Commission or the DFW manage the species.

The federal Exempted Fishing Permit process has been available since 1976. The permits are designed to provide short-term exemptions from regulations. The purpose of the permits is to provide an opportunity for experimentation. Through the exemptions, fishermen and scientists can collect important scientific information that they otherwise could not. This is particularly valuable where prohibitions on fishing have limited data collection. The permits allow for testing innovative approaches and create ways to find practical solutions to fisheries problems. The knowledge gained from the opportunities provided by the permits allow for technical advancements in fishing and fishery management that can improve fishery outcomes. The goal of the learning process that is allowed under these permits is ultimately to lead to the development of better regulations that allow for sustainable fishing.

This bill creates an analogous EFP process to the federal Exempted Fishing Permit. The federal process is generally viewed as successful. That would indicate that a similar process in California could be successful as well.

In 1998, AB 1241 (Keeley), Chapter 1052, Statutes of 1998, created the MLMA to provide a science based framework for the sustainable management of California's marine resources. The MLMA set several goals to sustainably manage marine resources, conserve entire ecosystems, recognize marine value outside of fishing, restore fisheries, reduce bycatch, and to incorporate all stakeholders in management decisions.

Prior to the MLMA, management of fisheries in California had generally been undertaken in a piecemeal fashion. The MLMA initiated a more comprehensive approach to fisheries management. It moved fisheries management away from a species by species approach, to one focused on all marine life. The goal was to focus fisheries management decisions on long term management decisions to avoid crises from occurring. In making these shifts the MLMA largely moved fisheries management decisions out of the legislature and into the DFW and the Commission.

The MLMA also established a process for addressing emerging fisheries. This was done by defining emerging fisheries to be a fishery that is not an established fishery and that has a trend of increased landings or participants in the fishery.

The state has allowed for commercial fishing gear experimental permits since 1957. Commercial fishing gear experimental permits do not allow for experimentation with new fisheries, with recreational fisheries, or recreational fishing gear. The commercial fishing gear experimental permits only allow for the testing of fishing gear in commercial fisheries.

Analysis Prepared by: Ryan Ojakian / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0000555

Date of Hearing: May 10, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1228

Author:(Bloom) – As Amended Ver:April 18, 2017

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to issue experimental fishing permits (EFPs) to authorize commercial or recreation fishing activities that are otherwise prohibited. Authorized fishing activities and purposes include scientific research, limited testing, public display, data collection, compensation fishing, conservation engineering, exploratory fishing, health and safety surveys, environmental cleanup or hazard removal, educational purposes, or any combination of these.

This bill requires, at a minimum, that an EFP be consistent with state policy to restore marine living resources, applicable fishery management plans, and conditions the DFW deems necessary to ensure protection of marine resources. Additionally this bill:

1. Specifies activities conducted under the EFP shall not involve bottom trawling except as specified.
2. Requires DFW to develop a process for issuing EFP’s that is consistent with existing marine fisheries stakeholder outreach.
3. Limits EFP’s to be issued for a period of no more than four consecutive years.

FISCAL EFFECT:

DFW estimates the costs of issuing permits to conduct experimental gear projects, scientific or management projects will range between $94,000 – $164,000 per permit/project. (permit fee revenue).

This includes the following estimated costs for a project of average complexity and scope:

1) Department permit application review costs = $1,500

2) CEQA compliance document preparation = $80,000 - $150,000

3) Commission public vetting and permit approval process = $1,000

4) Project monitoring = $7,000

5) Project evaluation = $4,300

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. In order for California to build “climate-ready” fisheries, we must test and integrate new, cost-effective science and management tools; and incentivize and leverage currently underutilized academic and private-sector contributions toward improving fishing management.
2. Background. The state has jurisdiction over all fish in state waters. State waters extend 3 miles out into the Pacific Ocean from shore. Where there is no federal management of a species, state jurisdiction extends 200 miles out into the Pacific Ocean from shore. Where there is federal management of a species, the state has, while not required to, adopted that management policy in the 3 miles of marine state waters. Within fisheries that are managed by the state, depending on the species, either the Fish and Game Commission or the DFW manage the species.
3. National Exempted Fishing Permits. The federal Exempted Fishing Permit process has been available since 1976. The permits are designed to provide short-term exemptions from regulations. The purpose of the permits is to provide an opportunity for experimentation. Through the exemptions, fishermen and scientists can collect important scientific information that they otherwise could not. This is particularly valuable where prohibitions on fishing have limited data collection. The permits allow for testing innovative approaches and create ways to find practical solutions to fisheries problems. The knowledge gained from the opportunities provided by the permits allow for technical advancements in fishing and fishery management that can improve fishery outcomes. The goal of the learning process that is allowed under these permits is ultimately to lead to the development of better regulations that allow for sustainable fishing.

This bill creates an analogous EFP process to the federal Exempted Fishing Permit. The federal process is generally viewed as successful. That would indicate that a similar process in California could be successful as well.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Galehouse / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 25, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE

Eduardo Garcia, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1228 (

Author:Bloom) – As Amended Ver:April 18, 2017

SUBJECT: Fisheries: experimental fishing permits

SUMMARY: Authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to issue experimental fishing permits (EFP), as specified, that authorize commercial or recreation fishing activity that is otherwise prohibited. Specifically, this bill:

1. Lists the following activities for which the DFW may authorize an EFP: scientific research, educational, limited testing, public display, data collection, compensation fishing, conservation engineering, exploratory fishing, health and safety survey, environmental cleanup or hazard removal purposes, or any combination of these.
2. Requires, at a minimum, that an EFP be consistent with state policy to restore marine living resources, applicable fishery management plans, and conditions the DFW deems necessary to ensure protection of marine resources. Additionally, only exempts an EFP permittee as specified.
3. Provides that activities conducted under the EFP shall not involve bottom trawling except as specified.
4. Requires the DFW develop a process for issuing EFP’s that is consistent with existing marine fisheries stakeholder outreach.
5. Limits EFP’s to be issued for a period of no more than four consecutive years.
6. Defines “compensation fishing” to mean fishing conducted for the purpose of recovering costs with resource surveys and scientific studies.
7. Defines “conservation engineering” to mean the study of fish behavior and the development and testing of new gear technology and fishing techniques for specified purposes.
8. Makes findings and declarations as to value and status of Pacific Ocean health, the efficacy of the federal Exempted Fishing Permit program, and the potential benefit of an EFP program for the state.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Under federal law, allows the National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Administrator or Director to issue exempted fishing permits.
2. Establishes the Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and where feasible, restoration of the states marine living resources. The objective of the MLMA is to, among other things, accomplish all of the following:
   1. Allow and encourage only those activities and uses of marine living resources that are sustainable.
   2. Support and promote scientific research on marine ecosystems.
   3. Manage marine living resources on the basis of best available scientific information.
   4. Involve all interested parties in marine living resource management decisions.
3. Establishes fishery management plans (FMP) as the primary basis for managing sport and commercial marine fisheries. Requires FMPs to be based on the best scientific information available. Subjects the development of an FMP to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

1. Requires the DWF to have a fishery master plan to, to in part, prioritize and track FMPs that are approved by the Fish and Game Commission (Commission). Requires the fishery master plan to, among other things, include:
   1. A description of the research, monitoring, and data collection activities that the DFW conducts and any additional needs for essential fishery information.
   2. A process that ensures the meaningful involvement of fishery participants, marine scientist, and other interested parties.
   3. A process for periodic review and amendment of the master plan.
2. Requires the Commission to encourage the development of new types of commercial fishing gear and new methods of using existing commercial fishing gear through the issuance of experimental gear permits. Experimental gear permits may only be issued for a period of not more than one year, and may be renewed for a period of not more than four consecutive years.
3. Finds and declares that a proactive approach to management of emerging fisheries will benefit commercial and sport fisheries. Directs the Commission to encourage emerging fisheries. Establishes a process to identify emerging fisheries and develop FMPs associated with emerging fisheries. Specifies actions to be taken in the adoption of FMPs for emerging fisheries, including a research plan that has objectives for evaluation, a description of methods and data collection techniques, and a timetable for completing the evaluation.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS: This bill seeks to provide an additional fisheries management tool to the DFW that is modeled after the federal Exempted Fishing Permit.

Author’s Statement.

In order for California to build “climate-ready” fisheries, we must test and integrate new, cost-effective science and management tools; and incentivize and leverage currently underutilized academic and private-sector contributions toward improving fishing management.

Background. Fishery Management Jurisdiction. The state has jurisdiction over all fish in state waters. State waters extend 3 miles out into the Pacific Ocean from shore. Where there is no federal management of a species, state jurisdiction extends 200 miles out into the Pacific Ocean from shore. Where there is federal management of a species, the state has, while not required to, adopted that management policy in the 3 miles of marine state waters. Within fisheries that are managed by the state, depending on the species, either the Fish and Game Commission or the DFW manage the species.

MLMA California’s Approach to Fishery Management. With 1,100 miles of coastline California’s marine waters are expansive. California’s marine life is also rich and diverse, with thousands of species occupying a wide variety of habitats. There are many demands on this abundant marine life including commercial fishing, sport fishing, tourism, and recreation. Those demands are increasing, compounded with climate change, exploitation of fisheries, and other environmental stressors make management of this resource very challenging. In 1998, AB 1241 (Keeley) created the MLMA to provide a science based framework for the sustainable management of California’s marine resources.

The MLMA set several goals to sustainably manage marine resources, conserve entire ecosystems, recognize marine value outside of fishing, restore fisheries, reduce bycatch, and to incorporate all stakeholders in management decisions. In fashioning the MLMA the Legislature drew upon years of experience in California and elsewhere in the United States and the world. Prior to the MLMA, management of fisheries in California had generally been undertaken in a piecemeal fashion. The MLMA initiated a more comprehensive approach to fisheries management.

The MLMA established that the primary basis for fisheries management to be FMPs. FMPs are based on best available science and contain all relevant information and management alternatives to allow for the DFW and the Commission to make informed management decisions. The MLMA required a master plan to guide management decisions and to organize and prioritize FMPs. The MLMA also required annual reporting on the status of fisheries to monitor the effectiveness of management decisions.

The MLMA was an innovative approach to marine management. It moved fisheries management away from a species by species approach, to one focused on all marine life. It took a proactive approach to marine life management. The goal was to take fisheries management decisions out of reacting to the latest crisis and to move to one focused on long term management decisions to avoid crises from occurring. In making these shifts the MLMA largely moved fisheries management decisions out of the legislature and into the DFW and Commission.

MLMA has Limitations. Because the preparation of FMPs is a complex process that requires considerable research and discussion before adoption, many species have yet to be covered under an FMP. FMPs are subject to CEQA and as of 2001, the estimated cost of developing an FMP ranged from $1.4 million for updating an existing plan on a single species to $6.6 million for a new FMP dealing with many species.

Addressing MLMA Limitations. The MLMA built in a required periodic review and update of the master plan. This would allow for identification of areas in which improved management could occur. The first and only master plan was published in 2001. The DFW initiated an update to the MLMA last year. According to the DFW website, the amended MLMA Master Plan will be designed to:

• Enhance the sustainability of the state’s ocean fisheries;
• Elevate ecosystem health in decision-making;
• Help promote more efficient, effective, and streamlined fisheries management;
• Establish a clear pathway for improving the management of individual fisheries;
• Set clear expectations for managers and the public; and
• Foster transparency and flexibility in fisheries management with tribes and native communities, stakeholders, and interested members of the public.

The MLMA also established a process for addressing emerging fisheries. This was done by defining emerging fisheries to be a fishery that is not an established fishery and that has a trend of increased landings or participants in the fishery. The MLMA also encouraged management of emerging fisheries through FMPs being developed for emerging fisheries. FMPs for emerging fisheries are to prevent excess fishing by limiting take by means that may include restricting landings, time, area, gear. FMPs for emerging fisheries are required to contain a research plan for evaluation of the fishery.

The state has allowed for commercial fishing gear experimental permits since 1957. Commercial fishing gear experimental permits do not allow for experimentation with new fisheries, with recreational fisheries, or recreational fishing gear. The commercial fishing gear experimental permits do allow only for the testing of fishing gear in commercial fisheries.

National Exempted Fishing Permits. The federal Exempted Fishing Permit process has been available since 1976. The permits are designed to provide short-term exemptions from regulations. The purpose of the permits is to provide an opportunity for experimentation. Through the exemptions, fishermen and scientists can collect important scientific information that they otherwise could not. This is particularly valuable where prohibitions on fishing have limited data collection. The permits allow for testing innovative approaches and create ways to find practical solutions to fisheries problems. The knowledge gained from the opportunities provided by the permits allow for technical advancements in fishing and fishery management that can improve fishery outcomes. The goal of the learning process that is allowed under these permits is ultimately to lead to the development of better regulations that allow for sustainable fishing.

This bill creates an analogous EFP process to the federal Exempted Fishing Permit. The federal process is generally viewed as successful. That would indicate that a similar process in California could be successful as well. The federal process is administered at the regional level and there are differences between the eight regions. That indicates that several variations of this process can be and are successful.

The experience from those regions should help inform the process developed by the DFW through this bill. This bill incorporates components that are consistent with the process in the MLMA and the commercial fishing gear experimental permits.

Prior and Related Legislation.

• AB 1241 (Keeley), Chapter 1052, Statutes of 1998, created the Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) which established the process by which the state manages marine resources.

Supporting Arguments.

Proponents support efforts to expand opportunities for experimentation and innovation in the science and management of California’s state managed fisheries. Conservation of our state’s unique coastal ecosystems and the effective management of our recreational and commercial fisheries require innovative new approaches to science and management. This is even more important in the face of new challenges presented by our changing oceans. It is essential to create a pathway for increased fisheries experimentation, one that facilitates the exploration of ideas that can inform and improve our management, while ensuring appropriate oversight and alignment with overarching management goals. By developing a platform for a wide range of on-the-water research initiatives, we can help create a hub for fisheries innovation here in California that supports shared management objectives and facilitates the development of more adaptive, cost-effective management models.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, UCSB

Half Moon Bay Fisheries Marketing Association

Sportfishing Association of California

Environmental Defense Fund

Fort Brag Groundfish Association

Monterey Bay Aquarium

Morro Bay Community Quota Fund

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations

Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara

Watermen’s Alliance

Ben Ruttenberg, Professor, California Polytechnic State University

Crow White, Professor, California Polytechnic State University

Dean Wendt, Professor, California Polytechnic State University

Michael Bell, Oceans Program Director, The Nature Conservancy, California

Seth Atkinson, Staff Attorney, Oceans Program, Natural Resources Defense Council

Chugey Sepulveda, Senior Research Biologist, Pfleger Institute of Environmental Research

Brice Semmens, Assistant Professor, Marine Biology Research Division, Scripps Institute of Oceanography

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Ryan Ojakian / W., P., & W. /