EASY GUIDE TO USING THE BINDER

1. Download and open the binder document using your Adobe Acrobat program/app.

2. If a bookmark panel does not automatically appear on either the top or left side of the screen, click/tap on the “bookmark symbol” located near the top left-hand corner.

3. To make adjustments to the view, use the Page Display option in the View tab. You should see something like:

4. We suggest leaving open the bookmark panel to help you move efficiently among the staff summaries and numerous supporting documents in the binder. It’s helpful to think of these bookmarks as a table of contents that allows you to go to specific points in the binder without having to scroll through hundreds of pages.

5. You can resize the two panels by placing your cursor in the dark, vertical line located between the panels and using a long click /tap to move in either direction.

6. You may also adjust the sizing of the documents by adjusting the sizing preferences located on the Page Display icons found in the top toolbar or in the View tab.

7. Upon locating a staff summary for an agenda item, notice that you can obtain more information by clicking/tapping on any item underlined in blue.

8. Return to the staff summary by simply clicking/tapping on the item in the bookmark panel.

9. Do not hesitate to contact staff if you have any questions or would like assistance.

OVERVIEW OF FISH AND GAME COMMISSION BUSINESS MEETINGS

 This is the 147th year of continuous operation of the California Fish and Game Commission in partnership with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Our goal is the preservation of our heritage and conservation of our natural resources through informed decision making. These meetings are vital in achieving that goal. In that spirit, we provide the following information to be as effective and efficient toward that end. Welcome and please let us know if you have any questions.

 We are operating under Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act and these proceedings are being recorded and broadcast via Cal-Span.

 In the unlikely event of an emergency, please note the location of the nearest emergency exits. Additionally, the restrooms are located ______.

 Items may be heard in any order pursuant to the determination of the Commission President.

 The amount of time for each agenda item may be adjusted based on time available and the number of speakers.

 Speaker cards need to be filled out legibly and turned in to the staff before we start the agenda item. Please make sure to list the agenda items you wish to speak to on the speaker card.

 We will be calling the names of several speakers at a time so please line up behind the speakers’ podium when your name is called. If you are not in the room when your name is called you may forfeit your opportunity to speak on the item.

 When you speak, please state your name and any affiliation. Please be respectful. Disruptions from the audience will not be tolerated. Time is precious so please be concise.

 To receive meeting agendas and regulatory notices about those subjects of interest to you, please visit the Commission’s website, www.fgc.ca.gov, and sign up for our electronic mailing lists.

 All petitions for regulation change must be submitted in writing on the authorized petition form, FGC 1, Petition to the California Fish and Game Commission for Regulation Change, available at http://www.fgc.ca.gov/public/information/petitionforregulatorychange.aspx.

 Reminder! Please silence your mobile devices and computers to avoid interruptions.

 Warning! The use of a laser pointer by someone other than a speaker doing a presentation may result in arrest.

Revised 4/7/17 U:/Groups/FGC/Meetings/Binders/2017/Binder Contents/Overview_Business Meeting_2017_Apr INTRODUCTIONS FOR FISH AND GAME COMMISSION MEETINGS

Fish and Game Commission Eric Sklar President (Saint Helena) Jacque Hostler-Carmesin Vice-President (McKinleyville) Anthony Williams Member (Huntington Beach) Russell Burns Member (Napa) Peter Silva Member (El Cajon)

Commission Staff Valerie Termini Executive Director Melissa Miller-Henson Deputy Executive Director Mike Yaun Legal Counsel Erin Chappell Wildlife Advisor Susan Ashcraft Marine Advisor Mary Brittain Administrative Assistant Sherrie Fonbuena Analyst

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Chuck Bonham Director Wendy Bogdan General Counsel Jordan Traverso Deputy Director, Communications, Education and Outreach David Bess Deputy Director and Chief, Law Enforcement Division Stafford Lehr Deputy Director, Wildlife and Fisheries Division Kevin Shaffer Fisheries Branch Chief Kari Lewis Acting Wildlife Branch Chief Craig Shuman Marine Region Manager

I would also like to acknowledge special guests who are present: (i.e., elected officials, tribal chairpersons, other special guests)

Updated 8/9/2017 U:\Groups\FGC\Meetings\Binders\Binder Contents\Intros_CommissionMtgs.doc Commissioners STATE OF CALIFORNIA Valerie Termini, Executive Director Eric Sklar, President Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320 Saint Helena Sacramento, CA 95814 Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Vice President (916) 653-4899 McKinleyville www.fgc.ca.gov Anthony C. Williams, Member Fish and Game Commission Huntington Beach Russell E. Burns, Member Napa Peter S. Silva, Member El Cajon

Wildlife Heritage and Conservation Since 1870

REVISED* MEETING AGENDA August 16, 2017, 8:00 AM

Resources Building – Auditorium 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

The meeting will be live streamed at www.cal-span.org

* Item 25 is revised to include two potential actions.

NOTE: See important meeting deadlines and procedures at the end of the agenda. Unless otherwise indicated, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife is identified as “Department.”

Call to order/roll call to establish quorum

1. Approve agenda and order of items

2. Public forum for items not on agenda The Commission may not discuss or take action on any matter raised during this item, except to decide whether to place the matter on the agenda of a future meeting. (Sections 11125, 11125.7(a), Government Code)

CONSENT ITEMS 3. Receive Department’s evaluation of the petition to list Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) as endangered or threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (Pursuant to Section 2073.5, Fish and Game Code)

4. Receive and approve request to transfer California Halibut Trawl Vessel Permit No. BT0043 from Frank Cardinale to Robert T. Burchell

5. Tribal Committee (A) Work plan development I. Update on work plan and draft timeline II. Discuss and approve new topics

1

6. Wildlife Resources Committee (A) Work plan development I. Update on work plan and draft timeline II. Discuss and approve new topics

7. Authorize publication of notice of intent to amend sport fishing regulations (Sections 1.05, 1.11, 1.18, 1.61, 1.74, 2.10, 2.25, 5.35, 5.41, 5.88, 7.00, 7.50 and 8.00; repeal Section 1.60; and add Section 2.05; Title 14, CCR)

8. Approve meeting dates and locations for January through December of 2018

9. Commission recognition of newly-inducted members of California Waterfowler’s Hall of Fame

10. Non-marine items of interest from previous meetings

11. Non-marine petitions for regulation change from previous meetings (A) Action on petitions for regulation change I. 2017-003 to eliminate the parking use exemption for Los Angeles County at Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve (B) Action on pending regulation petitions referred to staff and the Department for review – none scheduled at this time

12. Non-marine, non-regulatory requests from previous meetings (A) Action on non-regulatory requests (B) Action on pending non-regulatory requests referred to staff and the Department for review – none scheduled at this time

13. Department informational items (A) Director’s report (B) Wildlife and Fisheries Division, and Ecosystem Conservation Division (C) Law Enforcement Division (D) Marine Region (E) Other

14. Other informational items (A) Staff report (B) Legislative update and possible action (C) Other

15. Announce results from Executive Session

16. Marine Resources Committee (A) July 2017 meeting summary I. Receive and adopt recommendations (B) Work plan development I. Update on work plan and draft timeline II. Discuss and approve new topics

2

17. Adopt proposed regulations for a process to automatically conform state recreational fishing regulations to federal regulations (Add Section 1.95, Title 14, CCR)

18. Re-adopt emergency regulations regarding abalone (Section 29.15, Title 14, CCR)

19. Authorize publication of notice of intent to amend recreational abalone regulations (Section 29.15, Title 14, CCR)

20. Discuss proposed changes to commercial nearshore and deeper nearshore fishing permit and appeal regulations (Sections 150, 150.02, 150.03 and 705, Title 14, CCR)

21. Discuss proposed commercial sea cucumber regulations (Add Section 128, Title 14, CCR)

22. Authorize publication of notice of intent to amend commercial sea urchin regulations (Section 120.7, Title 14, CCR)

23. Department annual report on marine protected areas management for 2016

24. Discuss California drift gillnet swordfish fishery

25. Marine items of interest from previous meetings (A) Approve signature to a memorandum of understanding among members of the Marine Protected Area Statewide Leadership Team and the Marine Protected Area Collaborative Network related to advancing the management of California’s marine protected area network (B) Approve letter to the California State Lands Commission regarding proposed Huntington Beach desalination project (C) Other

26. Marine petitions for regulation change from previous meetings (A) Action on petitions for regulation change I. Petition #2017-004 to authorize commercial access fishing opportunity for market squid in northern California II. Petition #2017-005 to create twenty northern pink shrimp permits (B) Action on pending regulation petitions referred to staff and the Department for review I. Petition #2016-018 to open Santa Cruz Harbor to salmon fishing II. Petition #2016-020 to disallow bow and arrow and harpoon gear for recreational take of sharks and rays

27. Marine non-regulatory requests from previous meetings (A) Action on non-regulatory requests (B) Action on pending non-regulatory requests referred to staff and the Department for review – none scheduled at this time

3

28. Discuss and act on Commission administrative items

(A) Next meetings (B) Rulemaking timetable updates (C) New business (D) Other

Adjourn

EXECUTIVE SESSION (Not Open to Public)

Pursuant to the authority of Government Code Section 11126(a)(1), (c)(3), and (e)(1), and Section 309 of the Fish and Game Code, the Commission will meet in closed Executive Session. The purpose of this Executive Session is to consider:

(A) Pending litigation to which the Commission is a Party I. California Fish and Game Commission v. Central Coast Forest Assoc. and Big Creek Lumber Company (Coho listing, south of San Francisco) II. Tri-State Crab Producers Assoc v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; California Fish and Game Commission (Dungeness Crab “Fair Start” provision in section 8279.1 of the Fish and Game Code). III. Dennis Sturgell v. California Fish and Game Commission, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Office of Administrative Hearings (revocation of Dungeness Crab Vessel Permit No. CT0544-T1) IV. Kele Young v. California Fish and Game Commission, et al. (restricted species inspection fee waiver) V. Public Interest Coalition v. California Fish and Game Commission (California Environmental Quality Act) VI. California Cattlemen’s Association and California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Fish and Game Commission (gray wolf listing)

(B) Possible litigation involving the Commission

(C) Staffing

(D) Deliberation and action on license and permit items

4

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION 2017 MEETING SCHEDULE

Note: As meeting dates and locations can change, please visit www.fgc.ca.gov for the most current list of meeting dates and locations.

MEETING COMMISSION MEETING COMMITTEE MEETING OTHER MEETINGS DATE Wildlife Resources California Tower September 13 3737 Main Street Highgrove Room 200 Riverside, CA 92501

Tribal SpringHill Suites by

October 10 Marriott 900 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 SpringHill Suites by Marriott October 11-12 900 El Camino Real Atascadero, CA 93422 Marine Resources November 9 Marina Handlery Hotel December 6-7 950 Hotel Circle North San Diego, CA 92108

OTHER MEETINGS OF INTEREST

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies  September 10-13, 2017, Snowbird, UT

Pacific Fishery Management Council  September 11-18, 2017, Boise, ID  November 14-20, 2017, Costa Mesa, CA  March 8-14, 2018, Rohnert Park, CA  April 4-11, 2018, Portland, OR

Pacific Flyway Council  August 25, 2017, Spokane, WA

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies  January 3-8, 2018, San Diego, CA

Wildlife Conservation Board  August 24, 2017, Sacramento  November 30, 2017, Sacramento

5

IMPORTANT COMMISSION MEETING PROCEDURES INFORMATION

WELCOME TO A MEETING OF THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION This is the 147th year of operation of the Commission in partnership with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Our goal is the preservation of our heritage and conservation of our natural resources through informed decision making; Commission meetings are vital in achieving that goal. In that spirit, we provide the following information to be as effective and efficient toward that end. Welcome and please let us know if you have any questions.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Persons with disabilities needing reasonable accommodation to participate in public meetings or other Commission activities are invited to contact the Reasonable Accommodation Coordinator at (916) 651-1214. Requests for facility and/or meeting accessibility should be received at least 10 working days prior to the meeting to ensure the request can be accommodated.

STAY INFORMED To receive meeting agendas and regulatory notices about those subjects of interest to you, visit the Commission’s website, www.fgc.ca.gov, and sign up for our electronic mailing lists.

SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS The public is encouraged to comment on any agenda item. Submit written comments by one of the following methods: E-mail to [email protected]; delivery to Fish and Game Commission, 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320, Sacramento, CA 95814; or hand-deliver to a Commission meeting. Materials provided to the Commission may be made available to the general public.

COMMENT DEADLINES The Written Comment Deadline for this meeting is 5:00 p.m. on August 3, 2017. Written comments received at the Commission office by this deadline will be made available to Commissioners prior to the meeting.

The Late Comment Deadline for this meeting is noon on August 11, 2017. Comments received by this deadline will be marked “late” and made available to Commissioners at the meeting.

After these deadlines, written comments may be delivered in person to the meeting – Please bring ten (10) copies of written comments to the meeting.

NON-REGULATORY REQUESTS All non-regulatory requests will follow a two-meeting cycle to ensure proper review and thorough consideration of each item. All requests submitted by the Late Comment Deadline (or heard during public forum at the meeting) will be scheduled for receipt at this meeting, and scheduled for consideration at the next business meeting.

PETITIONS FOR REGULATION CHANGE Any person requesting that the Commission adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation must complete and submit form FGC 1, titled, “Petition to the California Fish and Game Commission for Regulation Change” (as required by Section 662, Title 14, CCR). The form is available at

6

http://www.fgc.ca.gov/public/information/petitionforregulatorychange.aspx. To be received by the Commission at this meeting, petition forms must have been delivered by the Late Comment Deadline (or delivered during public forum at the meeting) and will be scheduled for consideration at the next business meeting, unless the petition is rejected under staff review pursuant to subsection 662(b), Title 14, CCR.

VISUAL PRESENTATIONS/MATERIALS All electronic presentations must be submitted by the Late Comment Deadline and approved by the Commission executive director before the meeting. 1. Electronic presentations must be provided by email to [email protected]. 2. All electronic formats must be Windows PC compatible. 3. It is recommended that a print copy of any electronic presentation be submitted in case of technical difficulties. 4. A data projector, laptop and presentation mouse will be available for use at the meeting.

CONSENT CALENDAR A summary of all items will be available for review at the meeting. Items on the consent calendar are generally non-controversial items for which no opposition has been received and will be voted upon under single action without discussion. Any item may be removed from the consent calendar by the Commission upon request of a Commissioner, the Department, or member of the public who wishes to speak to that item, to allow for discussion and separate action.

LASER POINTERS may only be used by a speaker during a presentation; use at any other time may result in arrest.

SPEAKING AT THE MEETING To speak on an agenda item, please complete a “Speaker Card" and give it to the designated staff member before the agenda item is announced. Cards will be available near the entrance of the meeting room. Only one speaker card is necessary for speaking to multiple items.

1. Speakers will be called in groups; please line up when your name is called. 2. When addressing the Commission, give your name and the name of any organization you represent, and provide your comments on the item under consideration. 3. If there are several speakers with the same concerns, please appoint a spokesperson and avoid repetitive testimony. 4. The presiding commissioner will allot between one and three minutes per speaker per agenda item, subject to the following exceptions: a. The presiding commissioner may allow up to five minutes to an individual speaker if a minimum of three individuals who are present when the agenda item is called have ceded their time to the designated spokesperson, and the individuals ceding time forfeit their right to speak to the agenda item. b. Individuals may receive advance approval for additional time to speak if requests for additional time to speak are received by email or delivery to the Commission office by the Late Comment Deadline. The president or designee will approve or deny the request no later than 5:00 p.m. two days prior to the meeting.

7

c. An individual requiring an interpreter is entitled to at least twice the allotted time pursuant to Government Code Section 11125.7(c). d. An individual may receive additional time to speak to an agenda item at the request of any commissioner. 5. If you are presenting handouts/written material to the Commission at the meeting, please provide ten (10) copies to the designated staff member just prior to speaking.

8 Item No 2 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

2. PUBLIC FORUM

Today’s Item Information ☒ Action ☐ Receipt of public comments, petitions for regulation change, and requests for non-regulatory actions.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions  Today’s receipt of requests and comments Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento

Background This agenda item is primarily to provide the public an opportunity to address FGC on topics not on the agenda. Staff also includes written materials and comments received prior to the meeting as exhibits in the meeting binder (if received by written comment deadline), or as late comments at the meeting (if received by late comment deadline), for official FGC “receipt.”

Public comments are generally categorized into three types under public forum: (1) petitions for regulation change; (2) requests for non-regulatory action; and (3) informational-only comments. Under the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, FGC cannot discuss any matter not included on the agenda, other than to schedule issues raised by the public for consideration at future meetings. Thus, petitions for regulation change and non-regulatory requests generally follow a two-meeting cycle (receipt and direction); FGC will determine the outcome of the petitions for regulation change and non-regulatory requests received at today’s meeting at the next in-person FGC meeting following staff evaluation.

As required by the Administrative Procedure Act, petitions for regulation change will be either denied or granted and notice made of that determination. Action on petitions received at previous meetings is scheduled under a separate agenda item titled “Petitions for regulation change from previous meetings.” Action on non-regulatory requests received at previous meetings is scheduled under a separate agenda item titled “Non-regulatory requests from previous meetings.

Significant Public Comments No public comments or petitons have been received for this meeting.

Recommendation (N/A)

Exhibits (N/A)

Motion/Direction (N/A)

Author: Mary Brittain 1 Item No. 3 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

3. CASCADES FROG (CONSENT)

Today’s Item Information ☒ Action ☐ Receive DFW’s 90-day evaluation report on the petition to list Cascades frog as a threatened or endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

Summary of Previous/Future Actions  Received petition Mar 1, 2017  FGC transmitted petition to DFW Mar 6, 2017  Published notice of receipt of petition Mar 31, 2017  Public receipt of petition Apr 26-27, 2017; Van Nuys  Approved 30-day extension for evaluation Jun 21-22, 2017; Smith River  Today receive DFW evaluation of petition Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento  Determine if petitioned action may be warranted Oct 11-12, 2017; Atascadero

Background

A petition to list Cacades frog as a threatened or endangered species under CESA was submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity on Mar 1, 2017. On Mar 6, 2017, FGC transmitted the petition to DFW for review. A Notice of Receipt of Petition was published in the California Regulatory Notice Register on Mar 31, 2017.

California Fish and Game Code Section 2073.5 requires that DFW evaluate the petition and submit to FGC a written evaluation with a recommendation, which is being received today under the consent calendar (Exhibit 1).

Based upon the information contained in the petition and other relevant information, DFW has determined that there is sufficient scientific information available at this time to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. DFW recommends that the petition be accepted and considered (DFW memo, Exhibit 2).

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation FGC staff: Under a motion to adopt the consent calendar, accept DFW’s evaluation report to allow staff to provide notice of consideration of DFW’s candidacy recommendation in Oct 2017. DFW: Accept and consider the petition for further evaluation.

Exhibits 1. DFW 90-day evaluation, dated Jul 2017 2. DFW memo, received Jul 25, 2017

Author: Sheri Tiemann 1 Item No. 3 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

Motion/Direction

Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission adopts the consent calendar, items 3-4.

Author: Sheri Tiemann 2 Item No. 4 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

4. HALIBUT TRAWL PERMIT, CARDINALE (CONSENT)

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Approve request to transfer California Halibut Bottom Trawl Vessel Permit No. BT0043 to Robert T. Burchell.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (N/A)

Background

Since Apr 2006, any vessel using bottom trawl gear in the state-managed halibut fishery must possess a valid California halibut bottom trawl vessel permit (CHBTVP) issued pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 8494. A CHBTVP may only be transferred under specific conditions.

Frank Cardinale held a CHBTVP for use on F/V Cardinale I, which he sold with his vessel and other permits to Robert T. Burchell in Sep 2016 and filled out a CHBTVP transfer application form. In Feb 2017, Mr. Cardinale unexpectedly passed away before the CHBTVP transfer application was submitted to DFW. On Apr 4, 2017, DFW received from Mr. Burchell the CHBTVP transfer application on behalf of Frank Cardinale’s estate (Exhibit 1), and in Jun 2017 the estate’s representative, Mrs. Mary Jo Cardinale, submitted documentation on the sale of the boat and permit to Mr. Burchell (Exhibit 2).

Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 8594(d)(3), a CHBTVP permitholder, or his/her conservator or estate representative, may request to transfer the permit with the vessel to a new permitholder if, prior to the implementation of a halibut trawl restricted access program, specific conditions are met. Since there is not a formal restricted access program for the California halibut fishery, FGC must determine if Mr. Cardinale was eligible to transfer the permit to another owner.

Two conditions must be met for FGC to approve a CHBTVP transfer: (1) The permitholder has died, is permanently disabled, or is at least 65 years of age and is retiring from commercial fishing; and (2) California halibut landings contributed significantly to the record and economic income derived from the vessel, as determined by regulations adopted by FGC.

DFW reviewed landings data and the documentation submitted by Robert T. Burchell and the estate of Mr. Cardinale, to support FGC consideration. The application indicates that Mr. Cardinale is 65 years of age or older, and agrees to permanently retire from commercial fishing; however, Mr. Cardinale is now deceased.The first required condition is met.

Regarding the second condition, FGC has not yet adopted regulations for deteriming whether landings have contributed significantly to the record and economic income derived from the vessel. In the absence of regulations, DFW limited its review to landings data and to license and permit information, to verify that F/V Cardinale-1 held a valid CHBTVP, Mr. Cardinale held a valid commercial fishing licence, and Mr. Cardinale landed California halibut from the vessel prior to sale.

Author: Melissa Miller-Henson 1 Item No. 4 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

DFW confirmed that F/V Cardinale-1 held a valid CHBTVP from the 2006-07 permit year to the 2016-17 permit year, that Mr. Cardinale possessed a 2016-2017 commercial fishing license and commercial boat registration for F/V Cardinale-1, and that Mr. Cardinale participated in the Califorina halibut fishery from 2006 through 2007 and contributed to the record of California halibut landings (Exhibit 3).

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation FGC staff: Approve the application to transfer California Halibut Trawl Vessel Permit No. BT0043 from Frank Cardinale to Robert T Burchell with the stipulation in DFW’s recommendation. DFW: Consider the application to transfer California Halibut Trawl Vessel Permit No. BT0043 and, if approved, require that as a necessary condition to transfer the CHBTVP, Mr. Burchell must renew the CHBTVP for the 2017-18 permit year withint 60 days of FGC approval.

Exhibits 1. Transfer application and non-confidential documentation submitted by Robert T. Burchell, received by DFW on Apr 4, 2017 2. Bill of sale for F/V Cardinale I and halibut, salmon and crab permits, submitted by Mrs. Mary Jo Cardinale on Jun 15, 2017 3. DFW Memo, received Aug 9, 2017

Motion/Direction

Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission adopts the consent calendar, items 3-4.

Author: Melissa Miller-Henson 2 Item No. 5 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

5. TRIBAL COMMITTEE

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Discuss and provide direction regarding agenda topics for the Oct 10, 2017 Tribal Committee (TC) meeting in Atascadero. Receive update on TC work plan and draft timeline. Discuss and approve new topics for TC review.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions  Most recent TC meeting Jun 20, 2017; Smith River  Today receive update and approve agenda topics Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento  Next TC meeting Oct 10, 2017; Atascadero

Background

Updates In Jun 2017, FGC received a verbal summary of the Jun 20 TC meeting, and approved TC recommendations to add two topics to the TC work plan (Exhibit 1): 1. Begin scheduling the annual tribal commission planning meeting around the February 2018 FGC meeting and invite federal and state natural resource partner agencies to participate. 2. Convene a co-management tribal workgroup conference call to solicit feedback on draft language regarding a co-management vision and definition. The conference call is set for Sep 7 and the agenda is included in Exhibit 2.

Potential Oct 10, 2017 Agenda Items Potential agenda topics for the Oct 10, 2017 TC meeting are shown in the Oct column of the TC work plan and include the following items: 1. Staff updates  Efforts to formalize TC in statute  Planning for the annual FGC-Tribal planning meeting pursuant to FGC’s tribal consultation policy, and other FGC committee updates  Update and outcomes from the co-management tribal workgroup conference call to take place Sept 7, 2017 2. DFW updates 3. Continue discussion on developing vision statement on co-management 4. Any new future agenda topics as well as a review of the existing work plan (Exhibit 1)

A verbal report on these agenda items and any resulting recommendations will be provided at the Oct 2017 FGC meeting.

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Author: Valerie Termini 1 Item No. 5 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

Recommendation FGC staff: Approve list of draft agenda topics for Oct 10, 2017 TC meeting.

Exhibits 1. TC work plan, revised Aug 2017 2. Meeting agenda for TC conference call on co-management, scheduled for Sep 7, 2017

Motion/Direction

Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission approves the agenda topics for the Oct 10, 2017 Tribal Committee meeting.

Author: Valerie Termini 2 Item No. 6 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

6. WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Review tasks referred to the Wildlife Resources Committee (WRC), review potential agenda topics for Sep 13, 2017 WRC meeting, and consider new potential topics for WRC review.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions  Most recent WRC meeting May 24, 2017; WRC, Sacramento  Today approve draft Sep WRC topics Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento  Next WRC meeting Sep 13, 2017; WRC, Riverside

Background

WRC Work Plan and Draft Timeline

FGC directs committee work. Current topics already referred to WRC are shown in the work plan in Exhibit 1. Draft agenda topics for the Sep 2017 WRC meeting are shown in the Sep column of the work plan for FGC review and consideration today:  Proposals for annual rulemaking - Upland game birds - Mammal hunting - Waterfowl hunting - Central Valley Chinook Salmon sport fishing - Klamath River sport fishing  Proposals for rulemaking - Falconry  Special projects updates - Wild pig management - Delta Fisheries Forum - Predator Policy Workgroup

Discuss and Approve New WRC Topics

No new agenda topics are proposed at this time.

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation FGC staff: Approve draft agenda topics for the Sep 2017 WRC meeting

Exhibits 1. WRC work plan with draft agenda topics for Sep 13, 2017 WRC meeting

Author: Erin Chappell 1 Item No. 6 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

Motion/Direction

Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission approves the draft agenda topics for the Sep 2017 Wildlife Resources Committee meeting.

Author: Erin Chappell 2 Item No. 7 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

7. SPORT FISHING

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Authorization to publish notice of intent to change inland sport fishing regulations.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions  Today’s notice hearing Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento  Discussion hearing Oct 11-12, 2017; Atascadero  Adoption hearing Dec 6-7, 2017; San Diego

Background DFW has combined DFW proposals and public requests (FGC petitions 2016-003, 2016-006 and 2016-023) for proposed changes to the 2018 inland sport fishing regulations. The draft initial statement of reasons (ISOR; Exhibit 1) identifies a number of proposed changes to current regulations:  Rock Creek (Shasta County) Closure to Protect Shasta Crayfish: Add Rock Creek, in the Hat Creek Drainage, to the Special Fishing Regulations (Subsection 7.50(b) (151.5) with an all year fishing closure to protect Shasta crayfish.  Clarification of No Take of Salmon in the Sacramento and McCloud Rivers and Tributaries Above Shasta Lake: Amend the Sierra District Regulations (Section 7.00) to clarify that all rivers and associated tributaries above Shasta Lake are closed to the take of salmon, and amend subsection 7.50(b)(115) to direct readers to the District General Regulations. The changes will protect Chinook Salmon when they are reintroduced into the upper Sacramento and McCloud rivers above Shasta Lake.  American River (Nimbus Basin) Fishing Closure: The current request for closure is designed to protect Chinook Salmon and Central Valley steelhead trout, which will utilize this section of the river for both in-river spawning and rearing along with essential hatchery operations. This combines subsections 7.50(b)(5)(A) and 7.50(b)(5)(B) and closes this section of river to fishing all year.  Artificial Lure and Bait Definition Changes: Amend multiple sectons in Title 14 to align with the new definitions for artificial lure and bait.  Allow Bow and Arrow Fishing for Catfish: The bow and arrow fishing community has requested the opportunity to fish for catfish in certain waters in the state. This request was considered by Department law enforcement and regional biologists who determined that bowfishing could be allowed on waters with large carp populations and that are popular for bowfishing. Amend Section 2.25 to allow bowfishing for bullheads and catfish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, Big Bear Lake in San Bernardino County, and Lake Isabella in Kern County.  Revision of Mendocino, Sonoma and Marin Counties’ Low Flow Closure Time Period to Align with the Adult Steelhead Season: Revise Section 8.00(b) to redefine the season of the Special Low Flow Conditions to coincide with the end of the adult steelhead fishing season on March 31.

Author: Jon Snellstrom 1 Item No. 7 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

 Crayfish: In alignment with the proposal to close Rock Creek to fishing to protect Shasta crayfish, Section 5.35 will need to be amended to add Rock Creek to the list of waters where take of crayfish is prohibited.  Steelhead Report and Restoration Card Requirements: Amend Section 5.88 as DFW staff reassessed the fisheries management objectives of the Steelhead Report and Restoration Card and determined that the data being collected, location codes, and reporting instructions and requirements can be simplified.  Sport Fishing Report Card Requirements: Amend Section 1.74 to update procedures regarding lost report cards, to provide guidelines for obtaining a duplicate report card, and reporting harvest from a lost report card without obtaining a duplicate report card.  Restrict Leader Length to Less Than Six Feet to Reduce Potential Foul-Hooking (Snagging) of Salmon and Steelhead: Add the leader length restriction to Section 2.05, to reduce foul-hooking of salmon and steelhead in anadromous waters.  Updates to Authority and Reference Citations Based on Recent Legislation: As necessary, non-substantive changes are made to the authority and reference sections as a result of changes to Fish and Game Code by Senate Bill 1473 (Statutes 2016; Chapter 546) which took effect on Jan 1, 2017.

California Environmental Quality Act It is determined that there is no substantial evidence the sport fish project that is the subject of this proposed rulemaking could have a significant effect on the environment. Staff will file a draft negative declaration with the State Clearinghouse and provide the draft as an exhibit for the Oct discussion hearing.

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation FGC staff: Approve the request to go to notice as recommended by DFW. DFW: Approve as recommended in the ISOR.

Exhibits 1. ISOR for 1.05 et al. 2. DFW memo, received Jul 19, 2017

Motion/Direction Moved by______and seconded by ______that the Commission authorizes publication of a notice of its intent to amend sections 1.05, et al., repeal section 1.60, and add section 2.05, related to sport fishing regulations for the 2018 seasons.

Author: Jon Snellstrom 2 Item No. 8 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

8. 2018 MEETING DATES AND LOCATIONS

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Approve meeting dates and locations for 2018.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions  Discussed draft 2018 meeting dates and locations June 21-22, 2017; Smith River  Today approve dates and locations Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento

Background

FGC conducts its annual business during eight meetings per year, consisting of six 2-day meetings (Feb, Apr, Jun, Aug, Oct and Dec) and two 1-day teleconferences (Mar and Apr). Committees each hold three half- to full-day meetings per year, either staggered between FGC business meetings (WRC, MRC), or the afternoon before the first day of each 2-day FGC meeting (TC).

Adequate meeting facilities have become more difficult to secure and advance planning increases the likelihood of locating suitable and available venues. Thus, in order to ensure that staff has adequate time to identify and secure venue options that meet FGC’s requirements related to cost, information technology and security conditions, State-mandated bids, contracting conditions and timelines, it is important for meeting dates and locations to be identified well in advance.

Staff prepared a list of proposed meeting dates and locations for 2018 (Table 1) which was discussed at the Jun FGC meeting, revised by staff given the direction received in Jun, and proposed for adoption today. Adopting the 2018 meeting dates and location at this meeting will support staff’s ability to identify and pursue facility options in the meeting locations preferred by FGC members.

Staff developed the proposed meeting dates and locations taking into consideration State holidays, other relevant meeting schedules, and regulatory deadlines. Staff recommends avoiding high-cost areas such as San Luis Obispo, Palm Desert, Palm Springs and Santa Barbara, where meeting and lodging costs are usually prohibitive relative to approved rates for State business.

In 2018, marine items are recommended to be heard on the first day and non-marine items are recommended for the second day of FGC meetings.

Author: Mary Brittain 1 Item No. 8 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

Table 1: Proposed 2018 FGC and Committee Meeting Dates and Locations

Proposed Dates Meeting Type Proposed Location January 11 WRC Santa Rosa February 6 TC Sacramento February 7-8 FGC Sacramento March 6 MRC Petaluma area March 15 Teleconference Arcata, Napa, Sacramento, Los Alamitos and San Diego April 12 Teleconference Arcata, Napa, Sacramento, Los Alamitos and San Diego April 18-19 FGC Ventura May 17 WRC Los Alamitos June 19 TC Sacramento June 20-21 FGC Sacramento July 17 MRC San Clemente area August 22-23 FGC North Coast September 20 WRC Sacramento October 16 TC San Joaquin Valley October 17-18 FGC San Joaquin Valley November 14 MRC Sacramento December 12-13 FGC Los Angeles

Other Relevant 2018 Meetings  Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies – January 3-8 and July 12-17  Pacific Fishery Management Council – March 8-14, April 4-11, June 6-14, September 5-12, and November 1-8  Wildlife Conservation Board – Dates unknown at this time

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation FGC staff: Approve the proposed 2018 dates and locations.

Exhibits (N/A)

Motion/Direction Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission directs staff to secure meeting facilities for the identified meeting dates and locations for 2018.

Author: Mary Brittain 2 Item No. 9 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

9. WATERFOWLER’S HALL OF FAME

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Recognize newly inducted members of the California Waterfowler’s Hall of Fame.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions FGC has annually recognized inductees into the California Waterfowler’s Hall of Fame through the presentation of signed Fish and Game Commission resolutions.

Background This year’s inductees or their representatives will be presented with certificates by the California Waterfowl Association; inductees are Tupper Ansel Blake, Honorable Robert “Bob” Cline, Tony A. Marnell II, Larry Merlo and Ed Smith.

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation (N/A)

Exhibits 1. Resolution for Tupper Ansel Blake 2. Resolution for Robert “Bob” Cline 3. Resolution for Tony A. Marnell II 4. Resolution for Larry Merlo 5. Resolution for Ed Smith

Motion/Direction Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission recognizes Tupper Ansel Blake, Robert “Bob” Cline, Tony A. Marnell II, Larry Merlo and Ed Smith as members of the California Waterfowler’s Hall of Fame.

Author: Mary Brittain 1 Item No. 10 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

10. ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS (NON-MARINE)

Today’s Item Information ☒ Action ☐ This is a standing agenda item to provide FGC with updates on non-marine items of interest from previous meetings.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (N/A)

Background

This item is an opportunity for FGC staff and DFW to provide any follow-up information on non- marine topics previously before FGC. FGC staff has not identified any items for discussion today.

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation (N/A)

Exhibits (N/A)

Motion/Direction (N/A)

Author: Erin Chappell 1 Item No. 11 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

11. NON-MARINE PETITIONS FOR REGULATION CHANGE

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ This is a standing agenda item for FGC to act on regulation petitions from the public that are non-marine in nature. For this meeting: (A) Action on petitions for regulation change received at the Jun 2017 meeting. (B) Update on pending regulation petitions referred to staff or DFW for review.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (A)  Receipt of new petitions Jun 21-22, 2017; Smith River  Today’s action on petitions Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento (B)  Today’s update Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento

Background As of Oct 1, 2015, any request for FGC to adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation must be submitted on form FGC 1, “Petition to the California Fish and Game Commission for Regulation Change” (Section 662, Title 14). Petitions received at an FGC meeting are scheduled for consideration at the next business meeting, unless the petition is rejected under 10-day staff review as prescribed in subsection 662(b). Petitions scheduled for consideration today under 11(A) were received at the Jun 2017 meeting in one of three ways: (1) submitted by the comment deadline and published as tables in the meeting binder, (2) submitted by the late comment deadline and delivered at the meeting, or (3) received during public forum. Petitions considered under 11(B) were scheduled for action at a previous meeting and were referred by FGC to DFW or FGC staff for for further evaluation prior to action. (A) Petitions for regulation change. Exhibit A1 summarizes the regulation petitions scheduled for FGC action today and provides staff recommendations for each request. Today, one non-marine regulation petition received in Jun 2017 is scheduled for FGC action: Petition #2017-003 requesting a parking exception at Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve (Exhibit A2). (B) Pending regulation petitions. This item is an opportunity for staff to provide a recommendation on petitions previously referred by FGC to DFW or FGC staff for review. FGC may act on any staff recommendations made today. No updates on pending petitions were received from FGC staff or DFW for this meeting.

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Author: Erin Chappell 1 Item No. 11 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

Recommendation (A) Adopt the staff recommendation for the regulation petition to (1) deny, (2) grant, or (3) refer to committee, DFW staff, or FGC staff for further evaluation or information gathering. See Exhibit A1 for the staff recommendation for the regulation petition.

Exhibits A1. FGC table of non-marine petitions for regulation change received through Jun 22, 2017 A2. Petition #2017-003: Parking exception at Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve

Motion/Direction (A) Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission adopts the staff recommendation for action on the June 2017 petition for regulation change.

Author: Erin Chappell 2 Item No. 12 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

12. NON-MARINE NON-REGULATORY REQUESTS

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ This is a standing agenda item for FGC to act on non-regulatory requests from the public that are non-marine in nature. For this meeting: (A) Action on non-regulatory requests received at the Jun 2017 meeting. (B) Update on pending non-regulatory requests referred to FGC staff or DFW for review.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (A)  FGC receipt of requests Jun 21-22, 2017; Smith River  Today’s action on requests Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento (B)  Today’s update Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento

Background FGC provides direction regarding requests from the public received by mail and email and during public forum at the previous FGC meeting. Public requests for non-regulatory action follow a two-meeting cycle to ensure proper review and consideration. (A) Non-regulatory requests. Non-regulatory requests scheduled for consideration today were received at the Jun 2017 meeting in one of three ways: (1) submitted by the comment deadline and published as tables in the meeting binder, (2) submitted by the late comment deadline and delivered at the meeting, or (3) received during public forum. Two non-regulatory requests received in Jun 2017 are scheduled for action today. Exhibit A1 summarizes and contains staff recommendations for each request.

(B) Pending non-regulatory requests. This item is an opportunity for staff to provide a recommendation on non-regulatory requests that were scheduled for action at a previous meeting and referred by FGC to DFW or FGC staff for further review. FGC may act on any staff recommendations made today.

No updates on pending requests were received from FGC staff or DFW for this meeting.

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation (A) Adopt staff recommendations for non-regulatory requests to (1) deny, (2) grant, or (3) refer to committee, DFW staff, or FGC staff for further evaluation or information- gathering. See Exhibit A1 for staff recommendations for each non-regulatory request.

Author: Erin Chappell 1 Item No. 12 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

Exhibits A1. FGC table of non-marine, non-regulatory requests received through Jun 22, 2017

Motion/Direction (A) Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission adopts the staff recommendations for actions on Jun 2017 non-regulatory requests.

OR

Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission adopts the staff recommendations for actions on Jun 2017 non-regulatory requests, except for item(s) ______for which the action is ______.

Author: Erin Chappell 2 Item No. 13 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

13. DEPARTMENT INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

Today’s Item Information ☒ Action ☐ Standing agenda item to receive and discuss informational updates from DFW: (A) Director’s Report (B) Wildlife and Fisheries Division, and Ecosystem Conservation Division (C) Law Enforcement Division (D) Marine Region (E) Other

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (N/A)

Background

Verbal reports are expected at the meeting for items (A) through (D).

(C) Wildlife Officer Nicole Kozicki was previously recognized by DFW’s Law Enforcement Division as the 2017 Wildlife Officer of the Year, and was also recently recognized at the national level as the Pogue-Elms Wildlife Law Enforcement Officer of the Year (Exhibit C1).

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation (N/A)

Exhibits C1. DFW news release: Nicole Kozicki Recognized Nationally as Wildilfe Officer of the Year, dated Jul 12, 2017

Motion/Direction (N/A)

Author: Melissa Miller-Henson 1 Item No. 14A STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

14A. OTHER INFORMATIONAL ITEMS – STAFF REPORT

Today’s Item Information ☒ Action ☐ Receive the staff report, including staffing updates, staff time allocations, and previous meeting outcomes.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (N/A)

Background

California Law Revision Commission (CLRC): Consistent with the authority FGC granted in Jun 2017 to Executive Director Termini, comments were submitted on “Part 1” of CLRC’s tentative recommendation for reorganizing the Fish and Game Code into a new Fish and Wildlife Code (Exhibit 1). FGC staff has a number of concerns with the tentative recommendation, which appear to be mirrored by DFW. Staff will have additional information to report during today’s meeting.

Staffing update: One position will become vacant at the end of Aug, a vacant position has been filled beginning Aug 16, 2017, and two other positions remain vacant.  Mary Brittain, our administrative assistant, has accepted a promotional position with the California Energy Commission; while we are excited about this great opportunity for her, Mary will be sorely missed at the FGC office, where she has played a key coordination role. Mary’s last day in the office will be Aug 25. Staff will seek to fill this important position as quickly as possible.  The vacant associate governmental program analyst position is now filled, beginning today! Rick Pimentel comes to FGC from the California Department of Social Serivices where he worked for almost seven years in different positions. Over the next couple of months he will complete various trainings and learn how the FGC office operates, with a goal of being fully on-boarded by mid-Nov.  The program manager position remains vacant. Funding for the position has now been identified and staff received authorization to advertise the position; this position is expected to remain vacant for at least several more months during the recruitment process. In the meantime, some of the program manager’s responsibilities have been distributed among FGC staff to the extent possible.  Recent legislation has created the need to amend Title 14, CCR with new Fish and Game Code citations; as this project will generate significant workload, a retired annuitant with a legal or regulatory background is needed to provide project support. Having now completed the hiring process for the regulatory analyst and securing approval to advertise the program manager position, staff will now be able to focus on filling this need. In the meantime, FGC staff is addressing updates to Title 14 with individual rulemaking files.

Staff time allocations: To help keep FGC current on where its staff is expending time, Exhibit 2 reports the allocation of time in general categories for the previous two months, as well as highlights some specific activities during that time. Note that, not including the retired

Author: Melissa Miller-Henson 1 Item No. 14A STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

annuitant, unfilled positions and leave represented 25% and 31% of staff’s Jun and Jul hours, respectively, which has significantly impacted capacity.

Previous meeting outcomes: Due to staffing constraints, previous meeting outcomes have not been completed; official meeting minutes for FGC meetings are the video files, which are available through the FGC website at www.fgc.ca.gov/meetings.

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation (N/A)

Exhibits 1. Letter from Valerie Termini to the California Law Revision Commission, dated Aug 9, 2017 2. Staff Report on Time Allocation and Accomplishments, dated Aug 8, 2017

Motion/Direction (N/A)

Author: Melissa Miller-Henson 2 Item No. 14B STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

14B. OTHER INFORMATIONAL ITEMS – LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Review and discuss legislation of interest, and provide any staff direction.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (N/A)

Background

FGC staff has prepared a list of legislation that may affect FGC’s resources and workload (see below); each description includes a brief synopsis and current bill status. Additional information is also available in DFW’s Aug 2017 Legislative Report (Exhibit B1).

This is an opportunity for FGC to provide direction to staff concerning any proposed legislation. At any meeting, FGC may direct staff to provide information to or share concerns with bill authors. FGC members also have the option to take positions on bills at the same meeting an update is provided.

Updates on FGC Positions SB 234: A draft letter formally withdrawing FGC’s previous support and opposition for the amended bill (Exhibit B2).

Introduced Legislation

SB 49 (De Leon and Stern) – California Environmental, Public Health, and Workers Defense Act of 2017. Status: ordered to Assembly. Read second time. Held at appropriations. Summary: The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the state. The California Endangered Species Act requires FGC to establish a list of endangered species and a list of threatened species and generally prohibits the taking of those species. This bill would prohibit state or local agencies from amending or revising their rules and regulations implementing the above state laws to be less stringent than the baseline federal standards, as defined, and would require specified agencies to take prescribed actions to maintain and enforce certain requirements and standards pertaining to air, water, and protected species.

SB 161 (McGuire) – Fish and Game Commission: tribal committee. Status: In Assembly apprpriations. Suspense file. This bill would require FGC to form a tribal committee from its membership consisting of at least one commissioner and would require the committee to report to FGC from time to time on its activities, consistent with requirements for MRC and WRC, and to make recommendations on all tribal matters considered by FGC.

SB 188 (Jackson) – State Lands: Leasing: oil and gas. Status: In assembly appropriations.This bill would prohibit the State Lands Commission and the local trustees of granted public trust lands from entering into any new lease or other conveyance that authorizes the exploration for, or the development and production of, oil and natural gas upon those lands. The bill would prohibit the State Lands Commission and the local trustees of granted public trust lands from entering into any lease renewal, extension, or modification that

Author: Valerie Termini 1 Item No. 14B STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

authorizes a lessee to engage in new or additional exploration, development, or production of oil and natural gas.

SB 234 (Berryhill) – Fishing: local regulation: report. Status: In Assembly appropriations. This bill would require that FGC undertake a survey and evaluation of local ordinances that regulate fishing. In the survey and evaluation, FGC shall identify and catalog these ordinances, evaluate whether these ordinances are within or outside of the scope of the holding of People v. Mueller (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d. 949 or within or outside the scope of local police powers generally, and recommend to the Legislature a course of action with regard to ordinances thatFGC determines to be unlawful. In addition, the bill would require that FGC submit the survey and evaluation to the Legislature in a report by December 31, 2018; the report shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.

SB 473 (Hertzberg) - California Endangered Species Act. Status: In assembly. Re-referred to Committee on Appropriations.This bill makes several changes to the California Endangered Species Act that reflect input from academic, business, and conservation interests.

AB 907 (Garcia) - Office of Outdoor Recreation and Public Lands Enhancement. Status: In committee: Hearing canceled. Held under submission. This bill would establish the Office of Outdoor Recreation and Public Lands Enhancement in the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development for specified purposes, including promoting active healthy lifestyles and improving the quality of life for all Californians, and would require the director of the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development to administer the Office of Outdoor Recreation and Public Lands Enhancement. The bill would require the Office of Outdoor Recreation and Public Lands Enhancement to create an advisory group to offer advice, expertise, support, and service to it, without compensation.

AB 1228 (Bloom) - Experimental fishing permits. Status: In Senate. Read second time and amended. In Senate Appropriations. This bill would allow for FGC to authorize DFW 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 DFW conditions. Because a violation of the terms of a permit would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

AB 1337 (Patterson and Cooley) – Fish and Game Commission: meetings and hearings: live broadcast. Status: In Senate. Third reading. This bill would require FGC provide a live video broadcast on its web site of every FGC meeting or hearing that is open and public and every meeting or hearing conducted by MRC, WRC, or tribal committee that is open and public.

AB 1544 (Dahle and Mathis) - Hunting: nonlead ammunition. Status: Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (2-year bill; may be acted upon Jan 2018). This bill would require FGC temporarily suspend the prohibition on the use of nonlead ammunition for the taking of all wildlife for a specific hunting season and caliber if FGC finds that nonlead ammunition of the specific caliber is notavailable for any reason. The bill would require FGC, on or before Jan 1,

Author: Valerie Termini 2 Item No. 14B STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

2019, to adopt criteria to determine when nonlead ammunition is not available for purposes of this provision and would require those criteria to include regional availability and cost of nonlead ammunition. The bill would prohibit a suspension from remaining in effect for longer than three years. The bill would require FGC to make any finding that nonlead ammunition is not available publicly on its website.

AB 1617 (Bloom and Chiu) - Department of Fish and Wildlife: Fish and Game Commission: funding: strategic vision. Status: Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(10). (2-year bill; may be acted upon Jan 2018). Requires the secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to appoint a stakeholder advisory group to report on the progress made toward implementing the California Fish and Wildlife Strategic Vision. Requires the secretary to direct DFW to evaluate and implement program efficiencies and to establish a task force that reviews and makes recommendations regarding FGC and DFW mandates, efficiencies and funding. Requires DFW to identify and propose new sources of revenue to fund its responsibilities.

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation FGC staff: Approve draft letter prepared by staff to send to the Assembly Appropriations Committee withdrawing support for and opposing SB 234.

Exhibits B1. DFW Legislative Report, dated Aug 2017 B2. Draft FGC letter withdrawing prior support for and opposing SB 234, dated Aug 2017

Motion/Direction Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission approves and directs staff to send a letter to the Assembly Appropriations Committee regarding withdrawing support for and opposing SB 234, as recommended by staff.

Author: Valerie Termini 3 Item No. 14C STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

14C. OTHER INFORMATIONAL ITEMS – OTHER

Today’s Item Information ☒ Action ☐ Standing agenda item to allow staff to identify any additional informational items that arise after meeting materials are produced, or for Commissioners to provide updates on recent FGC- related activities.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (N/A)

Background (N/A)

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation (N/A)

Exhibits (N/A)

Motion/Direction (N/A)

Author: Heather Benko 1 Item No. 15 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

15. EXECUTIVE SESSION

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Announce results from Executive Session, to include: (A) Pending litigation to which FGC is a party (B) Possible litigation involving FGC (C) Staffing (D) Deliberation and action on license and permit items

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (N/A)

Background

Pursuant to the authority of Government Code Section 11126(a)(1), (c)(3), and (e)(1), and Section 309 of the Fish and Game Code, FGC meets in closed executive session at each meeting. The purpose of executive session is to consider topics A-D as reflected on the meeting agenda. (A) See agenda for a list of civil litigation to which FGC is a party and pending at the time the agenda was posted. (B) No possible litigation to report at the time the meeting binder was prepared. (C) Two positions are currently open (staff services manager and legal/regulatory clerk) and one will be vacant at the end of Aug (administrative assistant). (D) No license and permit items are ready for final action by FGC.

Recommendation (N/A)

Exhibits (N/A)

Motion/Direction (N/A)

Author: Michael Yaun 1 Item No. 16 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

16. MARINE RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒

Receive summary from Jul 20, 2017 MRC meeting and adopt MRC recommendations. Receive update on MRC work plan and draft timeline, and approve new topics for MRC review.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions  Most recent MRC meeting Jul 20, 2017; MRC, Santa Rosa  Today approve MRC recommendations Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento  Next MRC meeting Nov 9, 2017; MRC, Marina

Background

MRC works under FGC direction to set and accomplish its current work plan (Exhibit 1).

Previous Direction from FGC

In Jun, FGC discussed progress related to the MRC’s coastal fishing communities project. Based on public comment, FGC directed staff to prepare a letter to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) emphasizing the importance of considering coastal fishing communities when evaluating potential impacts of proposed projects. Staff has prepared a draft for FGC consideration and approval today (Exhibit 2).

MRC Meeting Summary

MRC met on Jul 20 and discussed the following topics: 1. Red abalone  fishery management plan progress  update on recreational fishery 2. Pacific herring – fishery management plan progress 3. Marine Life Management Act master plan for fisheries – amendment process update 4. Aquaculture leases  developing best management practices  considering future state water bottom lease applications 5. Fisheries Bycatch Workgroup – update 6. Fishing communities – regional meetings planning 7. Federal oversight of California drift gillnet swordfish fishery

A summary of the meeting is provided as Exhibit 3. During the meeting, MRC developed three recommendations (see below); in addition, following MRC discussion of the federal drift gillnet swordfish fishery, President Sklar requested that a discussion be added to the Aug FGC meeting agenda (see Agenda Item 24, this meeting).

Author: Heather Benko and Susan Ashcraft 1 Item No. 16 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

MRC Recommendations

Based on the July 20 meeting discussion, MRC has three recommendations for FGC consideration: 1. Abalone recreational fishery: DFW surveys indicate that more catch reduction measures than the 2017 emergency regulations are likely needed for 2018. Therefore, consider a range of catch reduction management measures for 2018 in the categories proposed by DFW, excluding a total fishery closure and adding rotating partial closures. 2. Fisheries Bycatch Workgroup: Support delivery of the draft bycatch section for the amended MLMA master plan, as proposed by the workgroup, directly to DFW for inclusion with the amended master plan to be submitted to MRC in Nov 2017 and to FGC in Dec 2017. 3. Coastal fishing communities: Approve the revised schedule for coastal public meetings in 2017 (Exhibit 4).

New Agenda Topics

None identified.

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation

FGC staff: Approve the draft letter to CCC regarding coastal fishing communities; consider MRC recommendation #1 under Agenda Item 19 – Recreational red abalone regulations (this meeting); approve MRC recommendation #2; approve MRC recommendation #3 as proposed in Exhibit 4.

Exhibits 1. MRC 2017 Work Plan, updated Jul 20, 2017 2. Draft letter from FGC to CCC regarding fishing communities 3. Meeting summary from Jul 20, 2017 MRC meeting 4. Proposed coastal fishing communities meeting schedule with staff revisions, Aug 2017

Motion/Direction Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission approves recommendations 2 and 3 from the July 20, 2017 Marine Resources Committee meeting, as proposed, and directs staff to send the letter to the California Coastal Commission regarding coastal fishing communities, as recommended by staff.

OR

Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission approves recommendations 2 and 3 from the July 20, 2017 Marine Resources Committee meeting as

Author: Heather Benko and Susan Ashcraft 2 Item No. 16 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

proposed, except ______, and directs staff to send the letter to the California Coastal Commission regarding coastal fishing communities, as recommended by staff and with the changes discussed today.

Author: Heather Benko and Susan Ashcraft 3 Item No. 17 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

17. FISHERIES AUTOMATIC CONFORMANCE PROCESS

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Adopt proposed regulation for a process to automatically conform state recreational fishing regulations to federal regulations.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions  Notice hearing Apr 26-27, 2017; Van Nuys  Discussion hearing Jun 21-22, 2017; Smith River  Today’s adoption hearing Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento

Background

For species managed under federal fishery management plans or regulation, FGC usually takes concurrent action to conform State recreational regulations to federal regulations adopted by the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS); this dual process is redundant and inefficient. The proposed regulation, Section 1.95, Title 14, will establish a process through which State recreational fishing regulations for salmon and Pacific halibut will automatically conform to federal regulations, unless FGC adopts regulations for said species using the regular rulemaking process.

For annual regulations or corrections to annual regulations for salmon and Pacific halibut, the proposed regulation would require, no later than 10 days after federal regulations are published in the Federal Register, that:  FGC submit amended State regulations to the Office of Administrative Law for publication in the California Code of Regulations, and file the amended State regulations with the Secretary of State;  DFW issue a news release announcing the Federal Register in which the federal regulations are published and the effective date of the conformed State regulations;  FGC mail or email the news release to interested parties;  To the extent practicable, DFW provide information on any changes to the State regulations via public contact, electronic notification, and online and printed publications.

The proposed regulation would also require that an update on the conformed State regulations be included on the agenda of the next regularly-scheduled FGC meeting.

For in-season changes to regulations for salmon and Pacific halibut, the proposed regulation indicates that State regulations shall conform to the applicable federal regulations publicly noticed through the NMFS ocean salmon hotline and NMFS Area 2A Pacific halibut hotline, respectively.

Author: Sherrie Fonbuena 1 Item No. 17 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

Significant Public Comments 1. One oral comment in support of the proposed regulation was received at the Jun 22, 2017 FGC meeting.

Recommendation FGC staff: Adopt the regulation as proposed.

Exhibits 1. DFW memo, received Apr 11, 2017 2. Initial statement of reasons 3. Draft notice of exemption

Motion/Direction

Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission adopts proposed Section 1.95, related to a process to conform State recreational fishing regulations to federal regulations and that the Commission has determined, based on the record, this approval is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the guidelines in Title 14 sections 15307 and 15308.

Author: Sherrie Fonbuena 2 Item No. 18 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

18. ABALONE EMERGENCY

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Re-adopt red abalone emergency regulations currently set to expire on Sep 29, 2017.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions  Adopted emergency regulations Dec 7-8, 2016; San Diego  Today re-adopt emergency regulations Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento

Background

Under existing statute (Fish and Game Code Section 5521) and regulation (Section 29.15), red abalone may only be taken for recreational purposes north of San Francisco Bay, except in the Fort Ross closure area. The current regulation specifies the season, hours, annual and daily limits, special gear provisions, measuring devices, abalone report card requirements, and minimum size. The regular recreational red abalone annual limit is 18 abalone (except for Sonoma County, where the limit is 9 abalone) and the regular season is open Apr – Jun and Aug – Nov.

Red abalone may be collected by hand through two methods: 1. “Skin diving”, in which anglers generally use a mask, snorkel, dive fins, wetsuit, and weight belt to dive under water to collect abalone (without the aid of scuba gear); and 2. “Rock picking”, in which anglers search for abalone in tide pools by feeling under rocks.

On Dec 7, 2016, FGC took emergency action to reduce the recreational annual limit and the season length due to harmful environmental conditions affecting both the fishing grounds and health of red abalone.The emergency action reduced the annual recreational limit from 18 to 12 abalone (except for Sonoma County, for which the annual limit remains at 9 abalone) and reduced the season from 7 months to 5 by closing Apr and Nov for the recreational fishery.

DFW has not observed any significant improvement to the environmental conditions and health of the red abalone resource in 2017. DFW has requested FGC take action at its Aug 2017 meeting to re-adopt the emergency regulations for an additional 90-day period as the initial emergency regulations are set to expire on Sep 29, 2017.

Significant Public Comments 1. Comments from a former consultant to the California Abalone Association: (1) Does not consider DFW’s reports of abalone status in California to be trustworthy, and does not believe DFW has carried out appropriate management strategies; and (2) states that Amendment H in the Abalone Recovery and Management Plan could provide relief by reducing fishing pressure in northern California by opening south-central and southern California as alternative fishing grounds. Further states that it would appear within the power of FGC to immediately open San Miguel Island to red abalone fishing.See Agenda Item 19, Exhibit 3.

Author: Sheri Tiemann 1 Item No. 18 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

Recommendation FGC staff: Re-adopt emergency regulations DFW: Re-adopt emergency regulations for an additional 90-day period as the initial emergency regulations are set to expire on Sep 29, 2017.

Exhibits 1. DFW memo, received Aug 3, 2017 2. Draft statement of proposed emergency regulatory action, dated Jul 24, 2017

Motion/Direction

Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission determines, pursuant to Section 11346.1 of the Government Code, that an emergency situation exists.

The Commission further determines, pursuant to Section 15061(a) of Title 14, that the action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as an action necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency as specified in Section 15269(c) of Title 14.

The Commission further determines, pursuant to Section 399 of the Fish and Game Code, that adopting this regulation is necessary for the immediate conservation, preservation, or protection of birds, mammals, reptiles, or fish (abalone).

Therefore, pursuant to Government Code Section 11346.1(h), the Commission re-adopts the emergency changes to Section 29.15 .

Author: Sheri Tiemann 2 Item No. 19 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

19. RECREATIONAL ABALONE

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Authorize publication of notice of intent to amend red abalone regulations.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions  Adopted emergency regulations Dec 7, 2016; San Diego  MRC vetting Jul 20, 2017; MRC, Petaluma  Today’s notice hearing Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento  Discussion hearing Oct 11-12, 2017; Atascadero  Adoption hearing Dec 6-7, 2017; San Diego

Background

On Dec 7, 2016, FGC took emergency action to reduce the recreational annual limit and the season for abalone fishing due to harmful ocean conditions affecting both the fishing grounds and health of red abalone (see Agenda Item 18).

DFW has not observed any significant improvement to the oceanic conditions and health of the red abalone resource in 2017 following emergency action, and anticipates that additional management constraints are likely warranted beyond the emergency measures. Therefore, concurrent to the request to re-adopt the emergency regulations under Agenda Item 18, DFW requests that FGC authorize notice of intent to amend Section 29.15 through a standard rulemaking for the continued protection of the red abalone resource for the 2018 season.

At the Jul MRC meeting, DFW highlighted a range of catch reduction management measures within several management categores; MRC requested that, for the Aug FGC meeting, DFW analyze specific options within those categories as discussed, excluding the option of a total fishery closure and additionally analyzing possible rotating partial closures (see MRC recommendation). Based on discussions at the Jul MRC meeting, the regulatory options DFW recommends for possible inclusion in the initial statement of reasons (ISOR) include: (1) further reduce the annual limit, (2) reduce the daily bag/possession limit, (3) change the season length, (4) implement individual site closures, and (5) implement county closures with a limitation on report cards. The regulation would encompass the area open to recreational harvest of red abalone north of San Francisco Bay pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 5521 and Section 29.15.

DFW will share initial 2017 dive survey results at the Aug FGC meeting that may help further clarify regulatory options for the ISOR.

Significant Public Comments 1. Statement from a fisherman’s perspective that a size increase is far more acceptable than site or fishery closures. Requests that a size limit increase be considered as an alternative because increasing the size limit would (1) reduce actual landings (total allowable catch) because of the decrease in the number of available legal abalone

Author: Sheri Tiemann 1 Item No. 19 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

and (2) allow abalone more time to reproduce prior to becoming legal for harvest. The fisherman believes this to be consistent with DFW managers’ main concern of reduced reproduction due to absence of kelp/food and competition from “exploding” urchin populations. See Exhibit 2. 2. Comments from a former consultant to the California Abalone Association: (1) Does not consider DFW’s reports of abalone status in California to be trustworthy, and does not believe DFW has carried out appropriate management strategies; and (2) states that Amendment H in the Abalone Recovery and Management Plan could provide relief by reducing fishing pressure innorthern California by opening south-central and southern California as alternative fishing grounds. Further states that it would appear within the power of FGC to immediately open San Miguel Island to red abalone fishing.See Exhibit 3.

Recommendation FGC staff: Authorize publication of notice. MRC: Select range of options for catch reduction measures to include in the ISOR, excluding a total fishery closure and adding possible rotating partial closures, from options to be identified by DFW at the Aug FGC meeting. DFW: Select range of options to include in the ISOR and authorize publication of notice. DFW anticipates that at the FGC meeting it will recommend limiting options to changes to the annual/daily bag limit and possible site closures to increase regulatory simplicity.

Exhibits 1. DFW memo, received Aug 3, 2017 2. Email from Jack Likins, received Aug 1, 2017 3. Email from Steven L. Rebuck, received Aug 1, 2017

Motion/Direction

Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission authorizes publication of a notice of its intent to amend Section 29.15, related to red abalone regulations with the range of options as presented and recommended by the Department.

OR

Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission authorizes publication of a notice of its intent to amend Section 29.15, related to red abalone regulations with the range of options as presented and recommended by the Department except ______.

Author: Sheri Tiemann 2 Item No. 20 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

20. COMMERCIAL NEARSHORE AND DEEPER NEARSHORE FISHING

Today’s Item Information ☒ Action ☐ Discuss proposed changes to commercial nearshore and deeper nearshore fishing permit and appeal regulations.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions  Notice hearing Jun 21-22, 2017; Smith River  Today’s discussion hearing Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento  Adoption hearing Oct 11-12, 2017; Atascadero

Background

The proposed changes to commercial nearshore and deeper nearshore fishing regulations in sections 150, 150.02, 150.03 and 705 are outlined in the staff summary for the Jun 21-22 FGC meeting (Exhibit 1) and detailed in the initial statement of reasons (ISOR; Exhibit 2).

Significant Public Comments 1. Concern from a commercial fisherman who had to use retirement funds to purchase two nearshore permits and retire one in order to legally have this expensive permit, and was not allowed to transfer two deeper nearshore permits (Exhibit 3).

Recommendation (N/A)

Exhibits 1. Staff summary for the Jun 21-22, 2017 FGC meeting 2. ISOR 3. Email from Sharleen Allred, received Jul 29, 2017

Motion/Direction (N/A)

Author: Sheri Tiemann 1 Item No. 21 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

21. COMMERCIAL SEA CUCUMBER

Today’s Item Information ☒ Action ☐ Discuss proposed sea cucumber regulations.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions  Receive/accept DFW recommendation to add sea Dec 3, 2014, Van Nuys cucumber to 2016 rulemaking calendar  FGC approved MRC recommendation to add Dec 9-10, 2015; San Diego an update on this fishery to a future MRC meeting  MRC vetting Mar 23, 2017; MRC, Oceanside  Receive/accept MRC recommendation Apr 26-27, 2017; Van Nuys  Notice hearing Jun 21-22, 2017, Smith River  Today’s discussion hearing Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento  Adoption hearing Oct 11-12, 2017; Atascadero

Background The commercial sea cucumber fishery is a limited entry fishery with separate permits for the dive and trawl fisheries, which primarily target warty (Apostichopus parvimensis) and giant red (Apostichopus californicus) species, respectively. The fisheries are governed by Fish and Game Code, which specifies gear types, fees, records, the number of permits, and permit renewal and transfer processes. Currently there are no statutes or regulations that specify seasons, size limits, catch limits or limits on dive gear usage. However, Fish and Game Code Section 8505.3 gives authority to FGC to adopt regulations that are reasonably necessary to protect the sea cucumber resource.

At the Mar 23, 2017, MRC meeting, DFW presented its research findings and information on the status of the warty sea cucumber commercial fishery; the results indicate a significant risk to the long-term sustainability of this fishery. From 2013 to 2016 DFW conducted fishery analyses and collected additional essential fishery information required to inform the development of management measures for the fisheries. At its Apr 26-27, 2017, meeting, FGC accepted MRC’s recommendation to add a rulemaking to FGC’s 2017 rulemaking calendar to address DFW’s concerns.

Informed by an evaluation of fishery trends, reproductive patterns of the species, a 2014 survey of fishery participants, and meetings with the fleet in Mar and Apr 2017, DFW determined that a seasonal closure during the key spawning period for warty sea cucumber is the preferred first step for addressing sustainability concerns. The initial statement of reasons (ISOR; Exhibit 3) proposes a new Section 128 for commercial sea cucmber and includes three closure options: (1) Apr 1 – Jun 30; (2) Mar 1 – Jun 14; or (3) Jan 1 – Jun 14. A survey of commercial divers was distributed in early Jun; results of the survey are provided in Attachment 2 of the ISOR.

Author: Sherrie Fonbuena 1 Item No. 21 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation (N/A)

Exhibits 1. DFW memo, received Jun 5, 2017 2. DFW memo, received Jul 19, 2017 3. Initial statement of reasons, with attachments 1 and 2

Motion/Direction (N/A)

Author: Sherrie Fonbuena 2 Item No. 22 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

22. COMMERCIAL SEA URCHIN

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Authorize publication of notice of intent to amend commercial sea urchin regulations.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions  Today’s notice hearing Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento  Discussion hearing Oct 11-12, 2017; Atascadero  Adoption hearing Dec 6-7, 2017; San Diego

Background

Currently, subsection 120.7(d), Title 14, sets the total number of sea urchin diving permits at 300. Subsection 120.7(e) further prescribes a random drawing system for distributing new permits as they become available. Under the current system, applicants who have held a sea urchin crewmember permit for more than two years have their name entered into the random drawing one additional time for each additional year they have held such permit; however, this advantage is very small in practice due to a maximum cap of five times that a name may be entered into a drawing. Currently Section 750(c)(4) requires no fee for the random drawing application.

Summary of Proposed Amendments

The proposed amendments to subsection 120.7(d) would decrease the sea urchin fishery’s capacity goal to 150 permittees. The capacity goal will be achieved by issuing one new permit only after 11 permits have been retired; this ratio was chosen to simplify the calculation in which new permits would be issued, taking in account the new permit that is added to the fishery.

The lottery system proposed in subsections 120.7(e) and (f) would ensure that the most experienced applicants enjoy a realistic advantage over less-experienced applicants. Under the new system, 80 percent of the new permits would be given to applicants with the most experience in the fishery as crewmembers. The remaining 20 percent of the new permits would be distributed under a drawing system where every remaining applicant has an equal chance of being selected to receive a new permit.

Other amendments to Section 120.7 include:  Add one extra fishing day per week in the months of Jun to Oct in southern California.  Clarify the requirements for authorization of an assistant for a sea urchin diver permittee.  Remove language that no longer has any effect and clarify other regulatory text.

The proposed amendment to Section 750(c)(4) would remove reference to the current drawing application form and add a minor administrative fee of $4.38 for future applications to enter the drawing.

Author: Sheri Tiemann 1 Item No. 22 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendations FGC staff: Authorize publication of notice. DFW: Authorize publication of notice as described in the initial statement of reasons (ISOR).

Exhibits 1. DFW memo, received Jul 25, 2017 2. ISOR

Motion/Direction

Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission authorizes publication of a notice of its intent to amend sections 120.7 and 750(c)(4), related to commercial sea urchin and sea urchin diving permit fee regulations.

Author: Sheri Tiemann 2 Item No. 23 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

23. REPORT ON MARINE PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT FOR 2016

Today’s Item Information ☒ Action ☐ Receive DFW annual report on marine protected areas (MPA) program management activities in 2016.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (N/A)

Background

California’s network of 125 MPAs, adopted by FGC consistent with the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), is managed by DFW in collaboration with numerous partners. The collaborative nature of MPA management in California is exemplified by the Ocean Protection Council- convened MPA Statewide Leadership Team, with management commitments memorialized in an MPA Statewide Leadership Team work plan (Exhibit 1).

With its adoption of the MLPA Master Plan for MPAs in 2016, FGC signaled a move from the design, initial implementation, and baseline monitoring phase into long-term program management. In light of this transition, FGC requested that DFW prepare annual reports to inform FGC of recent management and monitoring activities. The 2016 report presented today (Exhibit 2) is the first of these annual reports.

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation (N/A)

Exhibits 1. MPA Statewide Leadership Team 2015-2018 work plan 2. DFW memo – “MPA Management Program Highlights for 2016”, received Aug 8, 2017

Motion/Direction (N/A)

Author: Susan Ashcraft 1 Item No. 24 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

24. DRIFT GILLNET SWORDFISH FISHERY

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Discussion and possible direction to staff regarding the California drift gillnet swordfish fishery.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (N/A)  MRC received public request for overview Mar 23, 2017; MRC, San Clemente  FGC approved MRC request to add topic Jun 21-22, 2017; Smith River  Presentation at MRC Jul 20, 2017; MRC, Santa Rosa  Today’s discussion Aug 16, 2017; FGC, Sacramento

Background

In Mar 2017, MRC received a public request to schedule a presentation on the California swordfish drift gillnet fishery and federal management efforts; at FGC’s June 2017 meeting, MRC recommended supporting that request. A presentation was made at the Jul 2017 MRC meeting. The overview included a presentation from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Unit that provided information regarding the federal management of this fishery, background on the drift gillnet fishery and changes within it over the last 20 years, and potential federal management actions under consideration. Based on discussion at the MRC meeting, President Sklar requested that this topic be added to today’s agenda.

The drift gillnet fishery is managed federally by NMFS and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) under the federal HMS Fishery Management Plan. The fishery primarily harvests swordfish, but can also take other commercially valuable species like bonito, thresher and mako shark, and opah. The fishery operates under a limited entry permit system with mandatory gear requirements and time-area closures intended to limit bycatch of protected species. In recent years, PFMC has been actively engaged in reviewing management measures and evaluating alternative gear.

Due to concerns about a recent NMFS ruling regarding hard caps for incidental take of marine mammals, PFMC will meet in Sep to consider a range of alternatives for drift gillnet permits for deep-set buoy gear (DSBG) and linked buoy gear (LBG). DSBG and LBG provide alternative gear for use in swordfish fisheries that more selectively target highly migratory species (exhibits 1 and 2). The objective of PFMC action is to provide a commercially viable addition to the existing suite of legal gears used to target swordfish, and encourage use of fishing gear that minimizes bycatch of finfish and protected species, while ensuring the economic viability of the swordfish fishery and sustained participation of west coast fishing communities. Authorizing this innovative gear type has tremendous potential to provide fishermen the flexibility needed to maximize catch of swordfish under varying oceanographic conditions, as well as mitigate bycatch in swordfish fisheries around the globe.

In response to concerns about bycatch issues with drift gillnet, FGC could send a letter to PFMC requesting that it prioritize alternatives that develop the DSBG fishery but also encourage and create an incentive for current drift gillnet fishermen to engage in commercial

Author: Valerie Termini 1 Item No. 24 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

DSBG or LBG to reduce bycatch. Staff drafted a letter to PFMC (Exhibit 3) for FGC consideration.

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation FGC staff: Approve draft letter to PFMC regarding prioritizing alternative gear types for the swordfish drift gillnet fishery.

Exhibits 1. Background presentation on DSBG configurations by Dr. Chugey Sepulveda, dated Mar 2014 2. NOAA overview of the drift gillnet gear type and frequently asked questions, dated Jun 2017 3. Draft letter to PFMC regarding alternative gear types

Motion/Direction Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission directs staff to send the letter to the Pacific Fishery Management Council regarding alternative gear types for the swordfish drift gill net fishery, as recommended by staff.

Author: Valerie Termini 2 Item No. 25 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

25. ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS (MARINE)

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ This is a standing agenda item to provide FGC with updates on marine items of interest from previous meetings. For this meeting there are three topics: (A) Approve letter to California State Lands Commission (SLC) on proposed Huntington Beach seawater desalination project (B) Approve memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Marine Protected Area (MPA) Statewide Leadership Team (leadership team) and MPA Collaborative Network regarding management of California’s MPA network (C) Receive update on status of recreational razor clam fishery closure

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (A)  FGC letter sent to CCC on proposed project Feb 1, 2017  Today approve letter to SLC on proposed project Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento (B)  FGC endorsed OPC’s MPA Partnership Plan Dec 3, 2014; El Segundo  FGC executed MPA implementation MOU between partner agencies  FGC received final MPA leadership team work plan Oct 7-8, 2015; Los Angeles  Today authorize execution of MPA MOU Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento (C)  FGC emergency closure of recreational razor clam Apr 25, 2016; emergency fishery teleconference  FGC 90-day extension of emergency closure Oct 19-20, 2016; Eureka  Declaration of fishery closure by DFW Director Jan 30, 2017  Today’s update Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento

Background This item is an opportunity for staff to provide any follow-up information on marine topics previously before FGC.

(A) FGC Comment Letter on Huntington Beach Desalination Project In Feb 2017, FGC submitted a letter to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) to express ecological concerns related to the proposed seawater desalination project in Huntington Beach currently under consideration (Exhibit A1). An equivalent letter to the California State Lands Commission (SLC) is drafted but held to correspond with timing of SLC consideration. In Jun 2017, staff advised FGC that the SLC hearing was scheduled on the project. At the same meeting, FGC received a letter from the project applicant, Poseidon Water, with responses to concerns expressed by FGC to CCC, and an offer to meet with FGC members or staff (Exhibit A2). FGC directed staff to

Author: Susan Ashcraft 1 Item No. 25 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

review the responses and consider if any follow-up was warranted, including possible revisions to the draft FGC comment letter to SLC. Today, staff has an update and draft letter to SLC for FGC consideration (Exhibit A3).

(B) MOU between MPA Statewide Leadership Team and MPA Collaborative Network FGC is a member of the MPA Statewide Leadership Team, a standing body convened by the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to ensure communication, collaboration, and coordination among entities that have significant authority, mandates, or interests that relate to the MPA network. In 2014, OPC developed an MOU among the leadership team members. Other members of the leadership team include the California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Parks and Recreation, State Water Resources Control Board, SLC, CCC, California Ocean Science Trust, National Park Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Resources Legacy Fund Foundation.

The leadership team has recognized the role played by the MPA Collaborative Network, formed in 2014, which includes 14 individual collaboratives associated with coastal counties of California. The work of these collaboratives provides local knowledge and coordination of efforts to support MPA management in their regions. In recognition of this value, OPC has asked state agencies involved in the leadership team to formalize their working relationship with the MPA Collaborative Network through a non-binding MOU. The MOU intends to confirm roles, facilitate input from all signatories into the state’s MPA management program, and provide a platform for collaboration. The MOU also lays the groundwork for seeking support and funding for shared priorities. Signatures are currently being approved and gathered, and a signature on the MOU is requested of FGC at this meeting (Exhibit B1).

(C) Razor clam emergency closure In Apr 2016, California’s health agencies (California Department of Public Health and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) determined that razor clams in Humboldt and Del Norte counties had high levels of domoic acid that posed a human health risk, and recommended closing the recreational fishery (there is no commercial fishery). FGC took emergency action to close the fishery from Apr to Oct 2016, and continued the closure through Jan 26, 2017.

On Jan 30, 2017, under new authority established by Fish and Game Code Section 5523, DFW’s director issued a declaration to uphold the closure based on persistently elevated domoic acid levels, and notified FGC. The closure continues until the director is notified by public health agencies that a health risk no longer exists.

Recently, the health agencies confirmed that elevated domoic acid levels (above the agency-imposed 20 ppm limit) are ongoing in both Humboldt and Del Norte counties (Exhibit C1).

Author: Susan Ashcraft 2 Item No. 25 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

Significant Public Comments

A request for FGC to actively engage in the review process for the proposed Poseidon desalination project to ensure robust review of fish and wildlife protections within and outside MPAs. Provides supporting documentation in attachments (Exhibit A4).

Recommendations FGC staff: (A) Review and approve revisions to the draft comment letter to SLC concerning the seawater desalination project in Huntington Beach, as proposed by staff; (B) authorize FGC to execute the MPA management MOU.

Exhibits A1. Letter from FGC to CCC, dated Feb 1, 2017 A2. Letter from Scott Malone, Poseidon Water, received May 16, 2017 A3. Draft letter from FGC to SLC A4. Email from Susan Jordan, California Coastal Protection Network, received Aug 4, 2017 B1. MOU to advance management of California’s MPA network, dated Jun 23, 2017 C1. California Department of Public Health email and test results for domoic acid levels in the most recent razor clam samples, received May 8, 2017

Motion/Direction (A) Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission directs staff to send the letter to the California State Lands Commission regarding the proposed seawater desalination project in Huntington Beach, as recommended by staff. OR

Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission directs staff to send the letter to the California State Lands Commission regarding the proposed seawater desalination project in Huntington Beach, as recommended by staff, except for ______.

AND

(B) Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission authorizes execution of the memorandum of understanding, as shown in Exhibit B1, among the member agencies of the MPA Statewide Leadership Team, MPA Collaborative Network staff, and MPA Collaborative Network members, related to advancing management of California’s MPA network.

Author: Susan Ashcraft 3 Item No. 26 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUG 16, 2017

26. MARINE PETITIONS FOR REGULATION CHANGE

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ This is a standing agenda item for FGC to act on regulation petitions from the public that are marine in nature. For this meeting: (A) Action on petitions for regulation change received at the Jun 2017 meeting. (B) Update on pending regulation petitions referred to staff or DFW for review.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (A)  Receipt of new petitions Jun 21-22, 2017; Smith River  Today’s action on petitions Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento (B)  Today’s update and possible action on referrals Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento

Background As of Oct 1, 2015, any request for FGC to adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation must be submitted on form FGC 1, “Petition to the California Fish and Game Commission for Regulation Change” (Section 662, Title 14). Petitions received at an FGC meeting are scheduled for consideration at the next business meeting, unless the petition is rejected under 10-day staff review as prescribed in subsection 662(b). Petitions scheduled for consideration today under 26(A) were received at the Jun 2017 meeting in one of three ways: (1) submitted by the comment deadline and published as tables in the meeting binder, (2) submitted by the late comment deadline and delivered at the meeting, or (3) received during public forum. Petitions considered under 26(B) were scheduled for action at a previous meeting and were referred by FGC to DFW or FGC staff for further review prior to action. (A) Petitions for regulation change. Exhibit A1 summarizes the regulation petitions scheduled for FGC action today and provides staff recommendations for each. Two marine regulation petitions were received in Jun 2017 and scheduled for FGC action at this meeting: I. Petition #2017-004 (authorize commercial open access fishing for market squid in northern California) (Exhibit A2) II. Petition #2017-005 (create twenty northern pink shrimp permits) (Exhibit A3) (B) Pending regulation petitions. This item is an opportunity for staff to provide a recommendation on petitions previously referred by FGC to DFW or FGC staff for review. FGC may act on any staff recommendations made today. Two updates on pending petitions referred to FGC staff or DFW are scheduled for action at this meeting: I. Petition #2016-018 (allow year-round recreational Chinook salmon fishing in Santa Cruz Harbor): DFW recommends that FGC deny the request (see petition and DFW memo in exhibits B1 and B2, respectively).

Author: Susan Ashcraft 1 Item No. 26 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUG 16, 2017

II. Petition #2016-020 (ban recreational fishing of sharks and rays using bow and arrow and harpoon gear): DFW recommends that FGC deny the request (see petition and DFW memo in exhibits B3 and B4, respectively).

Significant Public Comments (A) The California Wetfish Producers Association does not support authorization of open access fishing opportunity for market squid and provides rationale and historical context for the current limited entry permit program (Exhibit A4).

Recommendation (A) Adopt staff recommendations for regulation petitions to (1) deny, (2) grant, or (3) refer to committee, DFW, or FGC staff for further evaluation or information- gathering. See Exhibit A1 for FGC and DFW staff recommendations for each regulation petition. (B) Adopt DFW recommendations for regulation petitions #2016-018 and #2016-020, previously referred to DFW for review and recommendation.

Exhibits A1. FGC table of marine petitions for regulation change received through Jun 22, 2017 A2. Petition #2017-004: Authorize commercial open access for market squid in northern California A3. Petition #2017-005: Create north pink shrimp permits A4. Email from California Wetfish Producers Association, dated Jul 30, 2017 B1. Petition #2016-018: Recreational take of Chinook salmon in Santa Cruz Harbor B2. DFW Memo regarding Petition #2016-018, dated Jul 18, 2017 B3. Petition #2016-020: Ban recreational shark and ray fishing with bow and arrow B4. DFW memo regarding Petition #2016-020, dated Jul 18, 2017

Motion/Direction (A-B) Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission adopts the staff recommendations for action on the June 2017 petitions for regulation change and pending petitions #2016-018 and #2016-20.

OR

Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission adopts the staff recommendations for action on the June 2017 petitions for regulation change and pending petitions #2016-018 and #2016-20, except for item(s) ______for which the action is ______.

Author: Susan Ashcraft 2 Item No. 27 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

27. MARINE NON-REGULATORY REQUESTS

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ This is a standing agenda item for FGC to act on non-regulatory requests from the public that are marine in nature. For this meeting: (A) Action on non-regulatory requests received at the Jun 2017 meeting. (B) Update on pending non-regulatory requests referred to staff or DFW for review.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (A)  FGC receipt of requests Jun 21-22, 2017; Smith River  Today’s action on requests Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento (B)  Today’s update Aug 16, 2017; Sacramento

Background FGC provides direction regarding requests from the public received by mail and email and during public forum at the previous FGC meeting. Public requests for non-regulatory action follow a two-meeting cycle to ensure proper review and consideration. (A) Non-regulatory requests. Non-regulatory requests scheduled for consideration today were received at the Jun 2017 meeting in one of three ways: (1) submitted by the comment deadline and published as tables in the meeting binder, (2) submitted by the late comment deadline and delivered at the meeting, or (3) received during public forum. Six non-regulatory requests received in Jun 2017 are scheduled for action today. Exhibit A1 summarizes and contains staff recommedations for each request; for those received in writing, individual requests are provided in exhibits A2-A3.

(B) Pending non-regulatory requests. This item is an opportunity for staff to provide a recommendation on non-regulatory requests that were scheduled for action at a previous meeting and referred by FGC to DFW or FGC staff for further review. FGC may act on any staff recommendations made today.

No updates on pending requests were received from FGC staff or DFW for this meeting.

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation (A) Adopt staff recommendations for non-regulatory requests to (1) deny; (2) grant; or (3) refer to committee, DFW staff, or FGC staff for further evaluation or information- gathering. See Exhibit A1 for staff recommendations for each non-regulatory request.

Author: Susan Ashcraft 1 Item No. 27 STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

Exhibits A1. FGC table of marine non-regulatory requests received through Jun 22, 2017 A2. Email from Marin Audubon Society, received May 31, 2017 A3. Email from Chris Markoff, received May 31, 2017

Motion/Direction (A) Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission adopts the staff recommendations for actions on June 2017 non- regulatory requests.

OR

Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission adopts the staff recommendations for actions on June 2017 non-regulatory requests, except for item(s) ______for which the action is ______.

Author: Susan Ashcraft 2 Item No. 28A STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

28A. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS – NEXT MEETINGS

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ This is a standing item to review logistics and approve draft agenda items for the next FGC meeting.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (N/A)

Background

The next FGC meeting is scheduled for Oct 11-12, 2017 in Atascadero. Staff does not anticipate any special logistics for this meeting.

Potential agenda items for the Oct meeting are provided in Exhibit 1 for consideration.

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation FGC staff: Approve draft agenda topics for Oct 11-12, 2017 FGC meeting.

Exhibits 1. Potential agenda items for Oct 11-12, 2017 meeting

Motion/Direction

Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission approves the draft agenda items for the October 11-12, 2017 Commission meeting, as amended.

Author: Mary Brittain 1 Item No. 28B STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

28B. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS – REGULATORY TIMETABLE

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Review and approve requested changes to the perpetual timetable for anticipated regulatory actions.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (N/A)

Background

Each year FGC adopts and submits to the Office of Administrative Law a rulemaking calendar. Subsequently, FGC maintains a perpetual timetable for anticipated regulatory actions. At each FGC meeting, staff provides the latest approved regulatory timetable along with proposed changes highlighted in bolded blue text (Exhibit 1).

DFW submitted a memo (Exhibit 2) requesting one change to the FGC regulatory timetable:  Move a rulemaking to add Section 749.9, for incidental take of tricolored blackbird (TCBB), Agelaius tricolor, from TBD status to a scheduled rulemaking. DFW requests a regular rulemaking to make permanent the emergency regulations to address incidental take of TCBB during the extended candidacy period beyond the expiration of the 2nd emergency action scheduled to expire on Sep 7, 2017. The notice should be scheduled for the Oct meeting in Atascadero, discussion at the Dec meeting in San Diego, and adoption at the Feb 2018 meeting in a location yet to be determined.

FGC staff includes in the timetable in blue underline text the requested 2018 meeting dates and locations scheduled for approval under Agenda Item 8 for this meeting.

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation FGC staff: Adopt the proposed changes to the timetable for anticipated regulatory actions and provide direction on the scheduling of any proposed rulemaking changes identified during the meeting.

Exhibits 1. Proposed timetable for anticipated regulatory actions, updated Aug 4, 2017 2. DFW memo, received Aug 3, 2017

Motion/Direction Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission approves the proposed amendments to the timetable for anticipated regulatory actions.

Author: Jon Snellstrom 1 Item No. 28C STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

28C. ADMININISTRATIVE ITEMS – NEW BUSINESS

Today’s Item Information ☒ Action ☐ This is a standing agenda item to allow Commissioners to bring new items of business to FGC.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (N/A)

Background (N/A)

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation (N/A)

Exhibits (N/A)

Motion/Direction (N/A)

Author: Melissa Miller-Henson 1 Item No. 28D STAFF SUMMARY FOR AUGUST 16, 2017

28D. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS – OTHER

Today’s Item Information ☒ Action ☐ This is an opportunity for Commissioners or staff to raise any other topics related to future meetings and other administrative items that have arisen since binder production.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions (N/A)

Background (N/A)

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation (N/A)

Exhibits (N/A)

Motion/Direction (N/A)

Author: Heather Benko 1 State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Wildlife

REPORT TO THE FISH AND GAME COMMISSION

EVALUATION OF THE PETITION FROM THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY TO LIST THE CASCADES FROG (RANA CASCADAE) AS ENDANGERED OR THREATENED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Photo by Justin Garwood

Prepared by California Department of Fish and Wildlife

July 2017

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 2 A. Candidacy Evaluation …………………………………………………………………………..2

B. Petition History…………………………………………………………………………………...4

C. Overview of Cascades Frog Ecology………………………………………………………….5

Sufficiency of Scientific Information to Indicate the Petitioned Action May Be Warranted ..... 6 A. Range……………………………………………………………………………………………..7

1. Scientific Information in the Petition ...... 7

2. Other Relevant Scientific Information ...... 7

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Range ...... 7

B. Life History………………………………………………………………………………………..9

1. Scientific Information in the Petition ...... 9

2. Other Relevant Scientific Information ...... 11

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Life History ...... 12

C. Kind of Habitat Necessary for Survival……………………………………………………….12

1. Scientific Information in the Petition ...... 12

2. Other Relevant Scientific Information ...... 13

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Kind of Habitat Necessary for Survival ...... 13

D. Distribution and Abundance…………………………………………………………………...13

1. Scientific Information in the Petition ...... 13

2. Other Relevant Scientific Information ...... 15

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Distribution and Abundance ...... 15

E. Population Trend……………………………………………………………………………….15

1. Scientific Information in the Petition ...... 15

2. Other Relevant Scientific Information ...... 16

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Population Trend ...... 16

i F. Factors Affecting the Ability to Survive and Reproduce and Degree and Immediacy of Threat…………………………………………………………………………………………....16

1. Scientific Information in the Petition ...... 16

2. Other Relevant Scientific Information ...... 26

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Factors Affecting the Ability to Survive and Reproduce and Degree and Immediacy of Threat ...... 27

G. Impact of Existing Management Efforts……………………………………………………...27

1. Information in the Petition ...... 27

2. Other Relevant Information ...... 30

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Impacts of Existing Management Efforts ...30

H. Suggestions for Future Management ………………………………………………………..31

1. Information in the Petition ...... 31

2. Other Relevant Information ...... 31

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Suggestions for Future Management ...... 32

I. Availability and Sources of Information………………………………………………………32

1. Information in the Petition ...... 32

2. Other Relevant Information ...... 32

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Availability and Sources of Information .....32

J. Detailed Distribution Map……………………………………………………………………...32

1. Information in the Petition ...... 32

2. Other Relevant Information ...... 32

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to a Detailed Distribution Map ...... 33

Status of the Species ...... 33 Literature Cited ...... 33

ii I. Executive Summary

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) submitted a petition (Petition) to the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to list the Cascades Frog (Rana cascadae) as endangered or threatened pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.

The Commission referred the Petition to the Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) in accordance with Fish and Game Code Section 2073. (Cal. Reg. Notice Register 2017, No. 13-Z, p. 479.) Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2073.5 and Section 670.1 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Department has prepared this evaluation report for the Petition (Petition Evaluation). The Petition Evaluation is an evaluation of the scientific information discussed and cited in the Petition in relation to other relevant and available scientific information possessed by the Department during the evaluation period. The Department’s recommendation as to whether to make Cascades Frog a candidate for listing under CESA is based on an assessment of whether the scientific information in the Petition is sufficient under the criteria prescribed by CESA to consider listing Cascades Frog as endangered or threatened.

After reviewing the Petition and other relevant information, the Department makes the following findings:

 Population Trend. The Petition contains sufficient information to indicate that the overall trend in California populations of Cascades Frogs is declining, with the most precipitous declines occurring in the southern portion of the species’ range.

 Range. The Petition contains a sufficient description of the Cascades Frog’s range in California, including evidence suggesting range contractions in the Lassen and Mount Shasta regions.

 Distribution. The Petition contains a sufficient description of the historical and recent distribution of Cascades Frogs’ populations in California, which indicate declines across the species’ range, with the most extensive losses occurring in the southern portion.

 Abundance. The Petition contains a sufficient description of what was known about historical and recent abundance of Cascades Frogs’ populations, which indicate declines across the species’ range, with the most extensive reductions in population size occurring in the southern portion.

 Life History. The Petition contains a sufficient description of the life history of Cascades Frogs based on the scientific information available for the species, which indicates some aspects may render it particularly vulnerable to natural and anthropogenic impacts.

 Kind of Habitat Necessary for Survival. The Petition contains a sufficient description of the types and conditions of habitats required for Cascades Frog survival, including the fact that it is a highly aquatic species with specialized needs.

1  Factors Affecting the Ability to Survive and Reproduce. The Petition contains sufficient information to suggest that Cascades Frogs are adversely affected by historical habitat damage and a number of on-going and future threats such as habitat loss, climate change, disease, and introduced fish, that act together in threatening the species’ continued survival.

 Degree and Immediacy of Threat. The Petition contains sufficient information to indicate impacts from some of the primary threats to the long-term survival of Cascades Frogs will continue or potentially worsen in the future.

 Impacts of Existing Management. The Petition contains sufficient information to suggest that existing regulatory mechanisms and management efforts do not adequately protect Cascades Frogs from impacts that threaten their long-term survival.

 Suggestions for Future Management. The Petition contains sufficient scientific information on additional management actions that may aid in maintaining and increasing self-sustaining populations of Cascades Frogs in California.

 Availability and Sources of Information. The Petition contains a 17-page bibliography of literature cited, the majority of which were provided to the Department.

 A Detailed Distribution Map. The Petition contains a sufficiently detailed map of the historical and contemporary distribution of Cascades Frogs in California.

In completing its Petition Evaluation, the Department has determined the Petition provides sufficient scientific information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, the Department recommends the Commission accept the Petition for further consideration under CESA.

II. Introduction

A. Candidacy Evaluation

CESA sets forth a two-step process for listing a species as threatened or endangered. First, the Commission determines whether to designate a species as a candidate for listing by determining whether the petition provides “sufficient information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted.” (Fish & G. Code, § 2074.2, subd. (e)(2).) If the petition is accepted for consideration, the second step requires the Department to produce within 12 months of the Commission’s acceptance of the petition a peer reviewed report based upon the best scientific information available that indicates whether the petitioned action is warranted. (Fish & G. Code, § 2074.6.) The Commission, based on that report and other information in the administrative record, then determines whether or not the petitioned action to list the species as threatened or endangered is warranted. (Fish & G. Code, § 2075.5.)

2 A petition to list a species under CESA must include “information regarding the population trend, range, distribution, abundance, and life history of a species, the factors affecting the ability of the population to survive and reproduce, the degree and immediacy of the threat, the impact of existing management efforts, suggestions for future management, and the availability and sources of information. The petition shall also include information regarding the kind of habitat necessary for species survival, a detailed distribution map, and other factors the petitioner deems relevant.” (Fish & G. Code, § 2072.3; see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (d)(1).) The range of a species for the Department’s petition evaluation and recommendation is the species’ California range. (Cal. Forestry Assn. v. Cal. Fish and Game Com. (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 1535, 1551.)

Within 10 days of receipt of a petition, the Commission must refer the petition to the Department for evaluation. (Fish & G. Code, § 2073.) The Commission must also publish notice of receipt of the petition in the California Regulatory Notice Register. (Fish & G. Code, § 2073.3.) Within 90 days of receipt of the petition, the Department must evaluate the petition on its face and in relation to other relevant information and submit to the Commission a written evaluation report with one of the following recommendations:

 Based upon the information contained in the petition, there is not sufficient information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted, and the petition should be rejected; or

 Based upon the information contained in the petition, there is sufficient information to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted, and the petition should be accepted and considered.

(Fish & G. Code, § 2073.5, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2).) The Department’s candidacy recommendation to the Commission is based on an evaluation of whether or not the petition provides sufficient scientific information relevant to the petition components set forth in Fish and Game Code Section 2072.3 and the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 670.1, subdivision (d)(1).

In Center for Biological Diversity v. California Fish and Game Commission (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 597, the California Court of Appeals addressed the parameters of the Commission’s determination of whether a petitioned action should be accepted for consideration pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2074.2, subdivision (e), resulting in the species being listed as a candidate species. The court began its discussion by describing the standard for accepting a petition for consideration previously set forth in Natural Resources Defense Council v. California Fish and Game Commission (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1104:

As we explained in Natural Resources Defense Council [citation], “the term ‘sufficient information’ in section 2074.2 means that amount of information, when considered with the Department’s written report and the comments received, that would lead a reasonable person to conclude the petitioned action may be warranted.” The phrase “may be warranted” “is appropriately characterized as a ‘substantial possibility that listing could occur.’” [Citation.] “Substantial possibility,”

3 in turn, means something more than the one-sided “reasonable possibility” test for an environmental impact report but does not require that listing be more likely than not. [Citation.]

(Center for Biological Diversity, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at pp. 609-10.) The court acknowledged that “the Commission is the finder of fact in the first instance in evaluating the information in the record.” (Id. at p. 611.) However, the court clarified:

[T]he standard, at this threshold in the listing process, requires only that a substantial possibility of listing could be found by an objective, reasonable person. The Commission is not free to choose between conflicting inferences on subordinate issues and thereafter rely upon those choices in assessing how a reasonable person would view the listing decision. Its decision turns not on rationally based doubt about listing, but on the absence of any substantial possibility that the species could be listed after the requisite review of the status of the species by the Department under [Fish and Game Code] section 2074.6.

(Ibid.)

B. Petition History

On March 1, 2017, CBD submitted the Petition to the Commission to list Cascades Frog as endangered or threatened under CESA. On March 6, 2017, the Commission referred the Petition to the Department for evaluation. The Department requested of the Commission, and was granted, a 30‐day extension to the 90‐day Petition evaluation period. This Petition Evaluation report was submitted to the Commission on July 25, 2017.

The Department evaluated the scientific information presented in the Petition as well as other relevant information the Department possessed at the time of review. The Department did not receive any information from the public during the Petition Evaluation period pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2073.4. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2072.3 and Section 670.1, subdivision (d)(1), of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Department evaluated whether the Petition includes sufficient scientific information regarding each of the following petition components to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted:

 Population trend;

 Range;

 Distribution;

 Abundance;

 Life history;

 Kind of habitat necessary for survival;

4  Factors affecting ability to survive and reproduce;

 Degree and immediacy of threat;

 Impacts of existing management;

 Suggestions for future management;

 Availability and sources of information; and

 A detailed distribution map.

C. Overview of Cascades Frog Ecology

The Cascades Frog (Rana cascadae) is a medium-sized member of the “true frog” family Ranidae. Females are larger than males and can grow to over 8 cm (3.1 in) in length (Garwood and Welsh 2007). The species’ typical dorsal (top) coloration is brown, tan, or drab-green with well-defined inky black spots, a cream-colored jaw stripe, and strong dorsolateral folds (Thomson et al. 2016). Their sides are mottled and fade into a cream or buff ventral (bottom) coloration, usually with yellowish (sometimes reddish) areas posteriorly and on the undersides of their legs (Slater 1939, Thomson et al. 2016). California populations are genetically distinct from populations in Oregon and Washington (Monsen and Blouin 2003).

Within California, Cascades Frogs range from the Klamath-Trinity region, along the Cascades Range axis in the vicinity of Mt. Shasta, southward to the headwater tributaries of the Feather River (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The historical elevation range of Cascades Frogs in California was from approximately 230 to 2500 m (750 to 8200 ft), although extant populations appear to be restricted to sites above 1220 m (4000 ft) (Garwood and Welsh 2007). There are two disjunct populations recognized in California: the Southern Cascades, which comprises about 40% of their California range, and Klamath Mountains, which comprises about 60% (Pope et al. 2014); however, they do not appear to form distinct genetic units (Chang and Shaffer 2010).

Cascades Frogs inhabit a variety of mostly lentic (still water) habitats such as large lakes, ponds, wet meadows, and streams (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Pope et al. 2014). Adult Cascades Frogs demonstrate a high degree of site fidelity (Olson 1992), and at a site in the Trinity Alps, they were often observed moving from different breeding, feeding, and overwintering habitats in a consistent pattern year after year (Garwood 2009). They are diurnal (active during the day) and are typically found close to water, often in open, sunny areas along shorelines that provide basking and foraging opportunities, but they can move between basins by crossing over mountain ridges (Brown 1997, Garwood 2009, Pope et al. 2014, Welsh et al. 2006).

Breeding occurs shortly after snowmelt as surface water becomes available, and eggs are typically deposited in shallow lake alcoves, ponds, potholes, flooded meadows, and sometimes

5 slow-moving streams and anthropogenic (human-made) wetland habitats (Garwood et al. 2007, Pope 2008b, Pope and Larson 2010, Quinn et al. 2001). Cascades Frogs are explosive breeders, with all egg laying taking place at a site over a period of 3 to 14 days (Briggs 1987, Garwood 2009, Nussbaum et al. 1983, Olson 1988, Sype 1975). For breeding to be successful, sites cannot freeze over after eggs are deposited and must possess water long enough to support egg and larval development, which can take three to four months depending on temperature (Pope and Larson 2010, Pope et al. 2014, Pope et al. 2011). Larvae (tadpoles) can tolerate a wide range of temperatures and tend to aggregate in warmer areas (Pope n.d., Wollmuth et al. 1987); however, some shallow sites may exceed their critical thermal threshold (Pope et al. 2014, Pope and Larson n.d.). Larvae that do not metamorphose prior to winter probably do not survive (Garwood 2009). Adults and juveniles likely hibernate in mud at the bottom of ponds, spring-fed saturated ground, and deep ponds and springs (Briggs 1987, Pope et al. 2014) and require sites that do not freeze solid to survive. Annual adult survival is generally relatively high, although substantial mortality can occur during prolonged winters with heavy snow if individuals do not possess the energy reserves to last the duration of the season (Briggs and Storm 1970, Pope 2008b, Pope et al. 2014).

Juvenile and adult Cascades Frogs are generalist predators, primarily consuming aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates (Joseph et al. 2011, Larson 2012) but occasionally preying on larvae or recently metamorphosed Pacific treefrogs or conspecifics (i.e., cannibalism) (Pope et al. 2014). The most common Cascades Frog prey items in one study included grasshoppers, spiders, ants, crane flies, and insect larvae (Larson 2012). Aquatic invertebrates are consumed less at sites with non-native fish, which may compete for the same prey (Joseph et al. 2011). Non- native fish may also prey on Cascades Frogs, at least their young life stages. Welsh et al (2006) reported that Cascades Frog larvae were 3.7 times (CL: 1.8-5.6) less likely to be found in lakes with fish than those without, and Pope (2008a) reported an increase in survival of young frogs from 59% to 94% and an increase in frog density by a factor of 13.6 due to increased recruitment within 3 years of removing non-native fish from 3 lakes.

Natural predators on Cascades Frogs include: gartersnakes, American dippers, American robins, Clark’s nutcrackers, river otters, rough-skinned newts, diving beetles, giant water bugs, dragonfly naiads, and predatory leeches (Briggs and Storm 1970, Garwood 2006, Garwood and Welsh 2007, Garwood and Wheeler 2007, Nauman and Dettlaff 1999, Peterson and Blaustein 1991, Pope et al. 2008, Stead and Pope 2010).

III. Sufficiency of Scientific Information to Indicate the Petitioned Action May Be Warranted

The order in which the petition components are evaluated below more closely reflects the order that they were provided in the Petition. This differs from their sequence in Fish and Game Code section 2072.3 and Section 670.1, subdivision (d)(1), of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, as well as in the Executive Summary and Introduction of this Petition Evaluation.

6 A. Range

1. Scientific Information in the Petition

The Petition provides the following information on the Cascades Frog’s range on pages 4 and 5. However, for purposes of this Petition Evaluation, “range” is limited to the species’ California range. (Cal. Forestry Assn. v. Cal. Fish and Game Com., supra, 156 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1551.)

The Cascades Frog’s range extends along the length the Cascade Range, from approximately 24 km (15 mi) south of the border with British Columbia in northern Washington, to the northern edge of the Sierra Nevada in California (Pearl and Adams 2005). Within California, the species’ range extends from the Klamath-Trinity region, along the Cascades’ axis in the vicinity of Mt. Shasta, southward to the headwater tributaries of the Feather River at elevations from approximately 230 to 2500 m (750 to 8200 ft) (Jennings and Hayes 1994). There are two disjunct populations: the Southern Cascades, which comprise about 40% of their California range, and Klamath Mountains, which comprise about 60% (Pope et al. 2014).

2. Other Relevant Scientific Information

Figure 1 shows the presumed range of Cascades Frogs in California (Thomson et al. 2016). The range of the Southern Cascades population encompasses parts of Butte, Lassen, Plumas, Shasta, and Tehama counties. The range of the Klamath Mountains population encompasses parts of Shasta, Siskiyou, and Trinity counties. The total area of the Cascades Frog range in California (gray area in Figure 1) is 321,346 ha (794,062 ac) in the Southern Cascades and 715,730 ha (1,768,600 ac) in the Klamath Mountains, but the species is patchily distributed within these areas.

In addition, there is a recent sighting of a Cascades Frog on private land approximately 500 m (1640 ft) outside of the range boundary depicted in Figure 1 (CDFW 2017a). While this distance represents a minimal extension, it suggests that, where suitable habitat exists in close proximity to the existing recognized range, the species may be present. For example, there are a few clusters of suitable habitat that have not been sufficiently surveyed that, if occupied, could slightly expand the species’ range in the vicinity of the Shasta-Trinity and Lassen national forests (J. Garwood pers. comm.).

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Range

The Department concludes the Petition contains a sufficient description of the Cascades Frog’s range in California, including evidence suggesting range contractions in the Lassen and Mount Shasta regions.

7

Figure 1. Cascades Frog range in California (Thomson et al. 2016)

8 B. Life History

1. Scientific Information in the Petition

The Petition contains the following information on the Cascades Frog’s life history on pages 4 to 8, including species description, taxonomy, life cycle, diet, movements, and sources of mortality.

Cascades Frogs are brown, copper, tan, or olive colored with a spotted back and yellowish to cream underside, dark mottling around the groin, and a cream-colored stripe extending from the jaw to the shoulders. Adults grow to 4.4-7.6 cm (1.75-3 in) in length, and females are larger than males (Stebbins 2003). Cascades Frog larvae are dark brown with copper and pinkish speckling, golden coloring on the sides, and a finely speckled tail (Nafis 2013). Their bodies are oval, their eyes are dorsally located (as opposed to on the sides of their head), and they grow to approximately 5 cm (2 in) in length. Cascades Frog eggs are black above, white below, and widely spaced within a gelatinous mass containing 300-800 eggs (Nafis 2013).

The Cascades Frog is a medium-sized member of the family Ranidae, the “true frogs.” It is morphologically (Dunlap 1955, Slater 1939) and genetically (Case 1978; Green 1986a, 1986b) distinct from other Ranids. Populations in California have been isolated from Oregon and Washington populations for approximately 2 million years and differ significantly genetically (Monsen and Blouin 2003). The extent of genetic differentiation between the Southern Cascades and Klamath Mountains populations in California is unknown (Pope et al. 2014). The species typically exhibits a metapopulation structure, but high degrees of genetic isolation have been observed in some local populations over relatively small distances (Monsen and Blouin 2004, Pope et al. 2014). Gene flow likely drops over a distance of 10 km (6.2 mi) between populations (Pope et al. 2014).

Cascades Frogs are relatively long-lived, and late-maturing (Pope et al. 2014). Males attain sexual maturity between 3 and 4 years of age, while females mature between 4 and 5 years of age, and lifespan is typically 5 to 10 years (Ibid.). Cascades Frogs are active during the day (Stebbins 1985).

Cascades Frog reproduction is triggered by spring snowmelt, which can occur from March to mid-August (Stebbins 1985) depending on location, seasonal conditions, and elevation. Males enter the breeding sites first after ice and snow thaw, opening up surface water along the shoreline, and form chorusing groups (Briggs 1987, Garwood and Welsh 2007). Calling occurs above and below the surface (Stebbins 1985). It appears that males do not defend territories, but their interactions may result in regular spacing across breeding habitat (Olson 1988). Females are rarely seen during breeding; they primarily swim underwater to oviposition sites and leave after breeding is complete (Olson 1992).

Egg masses are typically laid communally in pond and lake habitats but singly in meadow pools (Garwood et al. 2007, Pope and Larson 2010), and a small portion have been found in small low-gradient streams with slow flows (Pope 2008b). They are usually deposited near the surface in shallow water attached to emergent vegetation, wood, boulders, or the shoreline, but they have also been found 2 m (6.6 ft) deep and free-floating (Garwood et al. 2007, Pope and Larson

9

2010). Because breeding occurs soon after open water habitat becomes available, egg masses may be vulnerable to late freezes (Pope and Larson 2010, Pope et al. 2011).

The duration of embryonic development (i.e., time to hatching) is temperature-dependent but typically takes around three weeks in California (Blouin and Brown 2000, Garwood and Larson n.d., Sype 1975). In spring-fed sites with consistently cold water (2 to 10 ºC [35 to 50 ºF]), hatching may be delayed slightly, but since egg masses are usually laid in shallow open water, sun exposure rapidly increases temperatures to above 13 ºC (55 ºF), which are better for development. Larvae are able to tolerate a wide range of water temperatures and tend to aggregate in the warmest areas of ponds and lakes during the day (Pope n.d., Wollmuth et al. 1987). These areas are typically near shore, gently sloping, and protected from the wind (O’Hara 1981, Olson 1992) where temperatures can reach over 20 ºC (68 ºF) during the day and drop to near freezing at night. Larvae have also been observed in shallow pools as warm as 38 ºC (100 ºF), but they appeared highly stressed (Pope and Larson n.d.).

Larval development is also temperature-dependent and can take from 2 to 4 months to metamorphosis (Pope et al. 2014). At sites with short hydroperiods, larvae can become stranded and desiccate prior to metamorphosis (Garwood 2009, O’Hara 1981, Pope et al. 2011, Sype 1975). Larvae that fail to metamorphose prior to the onset of winter do not apparently survive overwintering (Garwood 2009). Larvae and metamorphs (individuals transitioning from larvae to frog) preferentially associate with kin over non-kin (Blaustein and O’Hara 1982a, 1982b, 1987; Blaustein et al. 1984; O’Hara and Blaustein 1981, 1985). This kind of kin association can affect growth, predator avoidance, and other factors (Hokit and Blaustein 1994, 1995, 1997). Garwood (2009) found that newly metamorphosed frogs tended to remain near their natal ponds.

Adult Cascades Frogs demonstrate a high degree of site fidelity (Olson 1992), and at a site in the Trinity Alps, they were often observed moving from different breeding, feeding, and overwintering habitats in a consistent pattern year after year (Garwood 2009). In other areas that can support all habitat needs, they may remain at the waterbody year-round (Pope 2008a).

Adult Cascades Frog survival varies by location. Survival rates in the Trinity Alps were estimated between 68 and 93% (Pope 2008b, Pope et al. 2014), but Briggs and Storm (1970) reported survival at around 55% from a site in central Oregon. In the latter study, it appeared most of the mortality occurred over winter. This can occur during unusually long winters with heavy snowfall if individuals do not possess sufficient energy stores to survive the protracted season (Pope et al. 2014).

Juvenile and adult Cascades Frogs are generalist predators, primarily consuming aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates (Joseph et al. 2011, Larson 2012) but occasionally preying on larvae or recently metamorphosed Pacific Treefrogs (Pseudacris regilla) or conspecifics (Pope et al. 2014). The extent to which aquatic prey are consumed appears to be influenced by the presence of fish; in fishless lakes, more aquatic invertebrates were eaten, whereas in lakes with fish, more terrestrial species were eaten (Joseph et al. 2011). Larson (2012) recorded invertebrates from 102 families in Cascades Frog stomach contents with 5 groups among the

10

most important diet components: grasshoppers (Acridiadae), spiders (Aranae), ants (Formicidae), crane flies (Tupilidae), and insect larvae.

Natural predators of Cascades Frog include: gartersnakes (Thamnophis spp.) (Garwood and Welsh 2007, Pope et al. 2008); birds such as American dippers (Cinclus mexicanus) (Garwood and Welsh 2007), American robins (Turdus migratorius) (Briggs and Storm 1970), and Clark’s nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana) (Garwood 2006); mammals such as river otters (Lontra canadensis) (Pope et al. 2014); other amphibians such as Rough-skinned Newts (Taricha granulosa) (Peterson and Blaustein 1991); aquatic insects such as diving beetles (Dytiscidae), giant water bugs (Belostomatidae), and dragonfly naiads (Odonata) (Garwood and Wheeler 2007, Nauman and Dettlaff 1999); and predatory leeches (Hirudinida) (Stead and Pope 2010). Predatory leeches have been implicated as a potential contributor to dramatic declines in Cascades Frogs in the Lassen region (Ibid.).

2. Other Relevant Scientific Information

Cascades Frogs have prominent dorsolateral folds, and their dorsal black spots are often described as “inky” with sharply defined edges (Stebbins 2003, Thomson et al. 2016). Jennings and Hayes (1994) note that numerous specimens from eastern Siskiyou and Shasta counties were previously misidentified as Oregon Spotted Frogs (Rana pretiosa). The last verified Oregon Spotted Frog in California was from a 1918 museum collection; the species is considered likely extirpated in the state (USFWS 2014, 2016a), so future misidentifications are not likely to occur.

Preliminary data indicate Southern Cascades and Klamath Mountains populations of Cascades Frogs are not separate genetic units (Chang and Shaffer 2010). Instead, populations from southeastern Siskiyou County and Shasta counties appear to form one group, while the rest form another (Ibid.). This suggests that populations from southern portion of the range (Plumas and Tehama counties) are more closely related to those in Trinity Alps than they are to those in Shasta County (i.e., their nearest neighbor), although the authors noted that the southern-most populations may also form a separate group (Ibid.). They cautioned that these results are preliminary and may change with a larger dataset (Ibid.).

In addition, a second genetic study at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is currently exploring if any broad- and fine-scale patterns of Cascades Frog genetic structure occurs throughout isolated populations of California and its entire range (Bennett Hardy pers. comm.). This study is using more advanced sequencing techniques and single nucleotide polymorphism datasets. The Department was involved with providing tissues to this study from the Klamath Mountains region in 2016.

Cascades Frogs are considered explosive breeders (Sype 1975). The typical oviposition period for a particular site lasts between 3 to 14 days (Briggs 1987, Garwood 2009, Olson 1988), and mature females are thought to produce a maximum of one clutch of eggs per year (Sype 1975). This life history strategy makes the species particularly vulnerable to late freezes, which can eliminate an entire cohort.

11

The species does not appear to possess a bet-hedging strategy where some individuals breed early and some later when conditions may be more favorable.

Cascades Frog dispersal appears to be limited, which has implications for gene flow among extant populations and recolonization of extirpated populations. Garwood (2009) measured Cascades Frog dispersal in the Klamath Mountains and found significant differences in patch connectivity within a basin relative to between basins. Garwood (2009) found on average 51% of juvenile Cascades Frogs dispersed from their natal patches within an individual basin, and only 1% dispersed over mountain passes to colonize adjacent basins. The study indicated habitats occurring in close proximity, but in separate adjacent basins, should be recognized as essential for gene flow given the low dispersal rates between basins.

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Life History

The Department concludes the Petition contains a sufficient description of the life history of Cascades Frogs based on the scientific information available for the species, which indicates some aspects may render it particularly vulnerable to natural and anthropogenic impacts.

C. Kind of Habitat Necessary for Survival

1. Scientific Information in the Petition

The Petition contains the following information on Cascades Frog habitat use and requirements on page 7.

Cascades Frogs inhabit a variety of mostly lentic habitats such as large lakes, ponds, wet meadows, and streams at mid- to high-elevations (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Pope et al. 2014). They are typically found close to water, often in open, sunny areas along shorelines that provide basking and foraging opportunities, but can occasionally move between basins by crossing over mountain ridges (Brown 1997, Garwood 2009, Pope et al. 2014, Welsh et al. 2006). Cascades Frogs are less likely to occupy wetlands that are farther away from lakes, and their abundance is often lower at these sites as well (Cole and North 2014).

Breeding occurs in areas that are first to become available after snowmelt such as shallow lake alcoves, ponds, potholes, flooded meadows, and sometimes slow-moving streams and anthropogenic (human-made) wetland habitats. For breeding to be successful, sites must possess water long enough to support egg and larval development, which can take three to four months depending on temperature (Pope and Larson 2010, Pope et al. 2014). As previously mentioned, while larvae can tolerate a wide range of temperatures and will select for warmer areas, some shallow sites may exceed their critical thermal threshold (Pope and Larson n.d., Pope et al. 2014).

Cascades Frogs require overwintering sites that do not freeze solid. They likely hibernate in mud at the bottom of ponds, spring-fed saturated ground, and deep ponds and springs (Briggs 1987, Pope et al. 2014).

12

2. Other Relevant Scientific Information

The effect of non-native fish presence on Cascades Frogs is discussed in more detail below in Section F-1, but it is worth briefly noting here as it relates to habitat quality and its ability to sustain healthy populations of Cascades Frogs. Welsh et al. (2006) found that Cascades Frog larvae were 3.7 times more likely to be found in fishless lakes than lakes with fish. Garwood and Welsh (2007) reported Cascades Frog densities were 6.3 times greater in a fishless meadow than one with trout. Pope (2008a) observed an increase in survival of young frogs from 59% to 94% and an increase in frog density by a factor of 13.6 due to increased recruitment within 3 years of removing non-native fish from 3 lakes.

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Kind of Habitat Necessary for Survival

The Department concludes the Petition contains a sufficient description of the types and conditions of habitats required for Cascades Frog survival, including the fact that it is a highly aquatic species with specialized needs.

D. Distribution and Abundance

1. Scientific Information in the Petition

The Petition contains the following information on the changes in Cascades Frog distribution and abundance in California on pages 8 through 12. Pope et al. (2014) conducted comprehensive reviews on the status of Cascades Frogs in California, and found that the species has become extremely rare in the Southern Cascades but remains “fairly widespread” in the Klamath Mountains. The Petition separates the discussion of Cascades Frog distribution and abundance in California by these two regions.

Southern Cascades

There were no formal surveys for Cascades Frogs in the Southern Cascades prior to 1980, but data from historical museum collections suggest the species was widespread and abundant, particularly in the vicinity of Lassen Volcanic National Park and the northwestern and southern portions of the Lassen National Forest (Pope et al. 2014). This area covered portions of the Pit River and most of the headwater tributaries of Hat, Deer, Mill, Battle, and Butte creeks, and upper North Fork and West Branch Feather River (Ibid.). Declines in the Southern Cascades populations were not recognized until the 1970s (Ibid.).

By the 1990s, Cascades Frogs had apparently disappeared from a large portion of formerly occupied sites. Fellers and Drost (1993) failed to detect the species at 16 historical localities, and only detected them at 1 of 50 sites (2%) surveyed. Jennings and Hayes (1994) estimated the species had been lost from approximately 99% of its historical range in the Lassen region. From 1993 to 2007, Fellers et al. (2008) conducted 1,873 amphibian surveys at 856 sites, encompassing all Cascades Frog habitats, within Lassen Volcanic National Park and Lassen National Forest. Cascades Frogs were found at only 6 sites over the 14 years of surveys, and a

13 III.D.1. Information in the Petition (continued) single frog was reported from an additional site (Ibid.). There was no evidence of reproduction at most sites, and reproduction in all but one remained lower than the annual reproductive output of one breeding pair for over 12 years (Ibid.). Three populations have been found to the south on private land and three to the north near Lassen National Forest (Pope and Larson n.d.).

In total, 12 sites have been documented to support Cascades Frogs in the Southern Cascades region since 1993 (Pope et al. 2014). Abundance estimates range from 5 individuals at Colby Creek to 150 individuals at Carter Meadow (Ibid.). Data from a mark-recapture study conducted between 2008 and 2011 indicated each population is slowly declining, and about half are at risk of extirpation, while the others are likely to continue declining (Ibid.). Cascades Frogs have not been detected in Lassen Volcanic National Park since 2008, in spite of multiple surveys of known occupied sites and suitable meadow habitats (Ibid.). The species appears to be extirpated from the park.

Klamath Mountains

By the 1970s, Cascades Frogs had been recorded from approximately 25 locations in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, but few populations had been recorded from the Klamath National Forest, and there was no evidence of declines (Pope et al. 2014). Jennings and Hayes (1994) reported that the species seemed common in appropriate habitat in the Klamath Mountains region.

Between 1999 and 2002, occupancy and abundance data were collected for all mapped lakes, ponds, and wet meadows in the Trinity Alps Wilderness, Russian Wilderness, Marble Mountains Wilderness, Siskiyou Wilderness, Red Buttes Wilderness, Castle Crags Wilderness, and parts of the Shasta-Trinity and Klamath National Forests outside of wilderness areas (Welsh and Pope 2004). No Cascades frogs were found in the Siskiyou or Red Buttes wilderness areas (Ibid.). Occupancy (i.e., at least one of any life stage) and evidence of reproduction (i.e., observation of at least one egg mass or larvae) data from the remaining areas are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Cascades Frogs Population Data in the Klamath Mountains (from Welsh and Pope 2004, cited in Pope et al. 2014)

Wilderness Area Occupied (%) n (sites) Reproducing (%) n (sites) Trinity Alps 58.7 223/380 30.5 116/380 Russian 31 17/54 5.5 3/54 Marble Mountains 32 80/250 11 28/250 Castle Crags 19 3/16 - - Shasta-Trinity 100 15/15 - -

In 2008, 112 previously occupied sites in the Klamath Mountains were re-surveyed, and 79% were found to still support Cascades Frogs (Piovia-Scott et al. 2011, Pope et al. 2014). While no

14 III.D.1. Information in the Petition (continued) significant declines were noted, the abundances of some previously robust populations appeared low (Pope et al. 2014).

Of the 695 water bodies surveyed between 1999 to 2001 in the Trinity Alps, Russian, and Marble Mountain wilderness areas, the maximum number of adult Cascades Frogs seen at a water body was 32, and the mean number of adults encountered at occupied sites was only 4 (Welsh and Pope 2004). Since that survey effort, a 9-year mark-recapture study was conducted on 8 of these populations. At 5 of the sites, adult abundance was fewer than 25 individuals, while the other 3 appeared relatively robust (Garwood n.d., Pope 2008a). Pope and Piovia-Scott (2010) estimated two headwater lakes supported more than 500 Cascades Frogs in 2010; only one other site in the Trinity Alps is believed to support similar numbers (Pope et al. 2014).

The Cascades Frog populations in the Klamath Mountains have not experienced the same dramatic declines as those in the Southern Cascades, but low abundance and some extirpations are cause for concern (Pope et al. 2014).

2. Other Relevant Scientific Information

As previously noted in the Range section (A.2), a limited number of potentially suitable habitats that have not been surveyed occur slightly outside of the known range, which have the potential to slightly expand the distribution and potential abundance of this species if present (J. Garwood pers. comm.).

Aside from the observations denoted on the distribution map provided in the Petition on page 9 and those in Figure 1, little is known about the distribution and abundance of Cascades Frogs in the Mount Shasta region, which is located in the northeastern portion of the species’ range in California.

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Distribution and Abundance

The Department concludes the Petition contains a sufficient description of what was known about historical and recent Cascades Frog distribution and abundance to indicate that both have declined across the species’ range in California, to some extent, with the most precipitous declines occurring in the southern portion.

E. Population Trend

1. Scientific Information in the Petition

The Petition contains the following information on Cascades Frog population trends in California on page 12.

Cascades Frog populations have declined significantly in the Southern Cascades region. The species appears to be extirpated from Lassen Volcanic National Park, where it was once considered abundant. After several intensive survey efforts, it appears that only 12 sites continue to support the species, all with low numbers that are slowly declining. Pope et al.

15 III.E.1. Information in the Petition (continued)

(2014) determined that without active management, some of these populations will disappear within 10 years, and the remainders are at risk of extirpation.

Cascades Frogs are still widespread and relatively abundant in the Klamath Mountains region. Some recent extirpations have been documented, and some previously robust populations have declined. These instances are more common in the eastern portion of the region in the Castle Crags Wilderness and Klamath National Forest where population sizes are generally small.

Overall, the Cascades Frog’s range has contracted at the southern end. Fellers and Drost (1993) and Jennings and Hayes (1994) estimated that the species had been extirpated from around 99% of the populations surrounding Mount Lassen and 50% of their total historical distribution in California. More recently, Fellers et al. (2008) noted that the range has contracted further.

2. Other Relevant Scientific Information

A long-term population monitoring study sponsored, in part, by the Department has been ongoing since 2003 in the Klamath Mountains (J. Garwood pers. obs.). Overall captures of adult and juvenile Cascades Frogs have decreased steadily through the duration of the study (Figure 2), indicating the population is in steady decline. In addition, annual Cascades Frog egg mass counts have ranged from 46 to 82 masses annually across 8 to 14 patches. The number of egg masses produced does not appear to be in steady decline, but the number of patches used for breeding within the population has steadily declined from 14 to 9 indicating patch-level extinctions.

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Population Trend

The Department concludes the Petition contains sufficient information to indicate that the overall trend in California populations of Cascades Frogs is declining, with the most precipitous declines occurring in the southern portion of the species’ range.

F. Factors Affecting the Ability to Survive and Reproduce and Degree and Immediacy of Threat

1. Scientific Information in the Petition

The Petition contains the following information on threats affecting the ability of Cascades Frogs to survive and their degree and immediacy on pages 12 through 25. These include airborne contaminants, climate change, disease, fire suppression, habitat loss and alteration, introduced fish, livestock grazing, recreational activities, and small population sizes.

16

Figure 2. Captures of uniquely marked Cascades Frogs separated by age class, census period, and year across three habitat patches in Echo Lake Basin from 2003 to 2016, Klamath Mountains, CA. Green bars represent adult Cascades Frogs and red bars represent juveniles (J. Garwood pers. obs.).

17 III.F.1. Information in the Petition (continued)

Airborne Contaminants

Deposition of airborne agrochemical pollution from the Central Valley into the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades is well-documented (Aston and Seiber 1997, Bradford et al. 2010, Datta et al. 1998, Davidson 2004, Davidson et al. 2002, Hageman et al. 2006, LeNoir et al.1999, McConnell et al. 1998) and has likely contributed to declines in Cascades Frog populations in some regions (Davidson 2004, Davidson et al. 2002). On average, 62.7 million kg (168 million lbs) of pesticides were applied each year to agricultural lands (primarily in the Central Valley) between 1998 and 2014 (CDPR 2017). In the Lassen region, approximately four times more agriculture land was located upwind of extirpated Cascades Frog population sites than extant ones (Davidson et al. 2002). Chlorpyrifos, dacthal, and endosulfans, banned organochlorines, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PCBs) were found in Cascades Frog tissues, but there was no significant pattern in pesticide concentrations between Southern Cascades and Klamath Mountains Cascades Frog populations (Davidson et al. 2012).

Paulk and Wagner (2004) reported that glyphosate and Malathion significantly adversely affected Cascades Frog larval survival and development at concentrations below the EPA- recommended maximum levels for surface water. Hatch et al. (2001) reported that juvenile Cascades Frogs were not able to sense or avoid toxic levels of fertilizers such as urea, and Marco and Blaustein (1999) reported that nitrites can affect Cascades Frog larval behavior and metamorphosis. In addition to the direct effects agricultural chemicals can have on amphibians, they may be interacting with other stressors in the environment, resulting in increased vulnerability to predators and disease, including weakening immune systems and facilitating chytridiomycosis (see “Disease” below) outbreaks (Blaustein et al. 2011, Bradford et al. 2011, Brühl et al. 2011, Davidson et al. 2007).

The degree to which airborne contaminants threaten the continued survival of Cascades Frogs is presumed to be low; however, complex interactions may exist between these chemicals and other stressors that have not been thoroughly examined (Pope et al. 2014). These effects are expected to be greatest in low- to mid-elevations downwind of agricultural areas (Ibid.).

Climate Change

As ectotherms, all aspects of amphibians’ life history are strongly influenced by the external environment, particularly temperature and moisture. Higher average temperatures, varying precipitation patterns, and alterations in disturbance regimes such as fire are already affecting many wildlife species across North America (Case et al. 2015, Chen et al. 2011, Parmesan 2006, Root et al. 2003). Among a set of 195 species of plants, mammals, birds, and herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles) from the Pacific Northwest, Case et al. (2015) determined that herpetofauna were, on average, the most sensitive group to climate change. This result was primarily driven by the fact that 90% of the amphibians and reptiles studied relied on at least one habitat type that was highly sensitive to climate change, such as the seasonal wetlands Cascades Frogs occupy (Ibid.).

Climate-associated shifts in amphibian phenology (seasonal timing), geographic range, and host-pathogen interactions have been documented (Blaustein et al. 2010, Corn 2005, Li et al.

18 III.F.1. Information in the Petition (continued)

2013), and evidence is emerging that climate change may be contributing to population declines as well (Lowe 2012, Rohr and Palmer 2013). Li et al. (2013) synthesized the results of 14 long- term data sets on amphibian breeding timing in the U.S. and Europe and discovered that over half the populations under study were breeding earlier. Shifts in timing of breeding can have fitness and population-level consequences; amphibians that emerge earlier in the spring can be vulnerable to subsequent freeze events (Li et al. 2013). In addition, shifts in geographic range in response to climate change can be difficult for species like Cascades Frogs with restricted high- elevation ranges and specific habitat requirements (Ibid.).

Cascades Frogs inhabit montane wetlands, frequently using hydrologically intermediate ponds, which are naturally variable, holding water in most years but occasionally drying during droughts (Lawler et al. 2014, Ryan et al. 2014). Several studies predict a decreased availability of this habitat type as the distribution and composition of Pacific Northwest montane wetlands are altered by climate change (Lawler et al. 2014, Lee et al. 2015, Ryan et al. 2014). These projections are associated with changes in snowpack volume, runoff, direct precipitation, and evaporation (Hamlet et al. 2005, IPCC 2007, Ryan et al. 2014). Snowpack is estimated to have declined by more than 50% over the past century, snowmelt runoff and peak water availability are occurring earlier in the year, and soil moisture is receding (Hamlet et al. 2007, Mote et al. 2005, Ryan et al. 2014). Rising temperatures and decreased summer precipitation will continue to reduce mountain snowpack and increase evapotranspiration and soil-moisture stress in late summer months, potentially converting more than half of the intermediate montane wetlands into ephemeral wetlands by the 2080s (Lee et al. 2015). Lawler et al. (2014) concluded that Cascades Frogs had the highest risk of climate-change related declines of the three species of amphibians they studied in the Pacific Northwest. The predicted loss of high elevation, intermediate wetlands will force Cascades Frogs to move to larger, deeper lakes that are more likely to support non-native fish, which decrease abundance and survival (Ryan et al. 2014).

In the Cascades Range, Ryan et al. (2014) reported that wetland drawdown is occurring earlier and more rapidly, water availability is greatly reduced, complete drying is occurring more frequently, and summers have longer dry periods. This can lead to stranding and desiccation of Cascades Frog larvae and decreased larval densities, along with shifts in size at metamorphosis and reduced survival due to increased water temperatures (Lawler et al. 2014, Semlitsch et al. 1988). In addition, among the most important predictors of Cascades Frog occupancy at a site was the number of available pools (Cole and North 2014).

Climate change may facilitate or exacerbate other environmental stressors, leading to population declines (Lowe 2012, Rohr and Palmer 2013). For example, a more variable climate and more frequent extreme weather events due to climate change have the potential to increase the pathogenicity of chytrid, the fungus responsible for widespread amphibian declines (Li et al. 2013, Raffel et al. 2013).

The current drought in parts of the Pacific Northwest may be indicative of average future climatic conditions in the Cascades Frog range. In some areas, near complete reproductive failure has been observed as a result of premature drying in ponds that typically remain wetted throughout the year. Dead adults have also been observed in these areas.

19 III.F.1. Information in the Petition (continued)

The degree to which climate change threatens the continued survival of Cascades Frogs is potentially high, particularly for populations that breed in ephemeral wetlands and those in the Southern Cascades region where the species is already rare and, therefore, highly susceptible to environmental stochasticity (Pope et al. 2014).

Disease

Chytridiomycosis is the amphibian disease caused by the fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd). The result of its global rate of infection and associated mortality has been described as “the most spectacular loss of vertebrate biodiversity due to disease in recorded history” (Skerratt et al. 2007). Symptoms of adult amphibians with chytridiomycosis include lethargy and reluctance to flee, skin abnormalities, loss of righting reflex, and extended back legs. In infected larvae, the jaw sheaths and tooth rows are abnormally formed or lack pigment, which likely inhibits foraging ability (Fellers et al. 2001). The species-specific impact of Bd varies and can be influenced by temperature, predation pressure, pesticide exposure, and UV-B radiation, as well as the virulence of the strain (Berger et al. 2005, Farrer et al. 2011, Fisher et al. 2009, Gahl et al. 2012, Piovia-Scott et al. 2015, Retallick and Meira 2007).

Bd occurs throughout the Cascades Frog’s range, and the species is susceptible to infection (Adams et al. 2010; Garcia et al. 2006; Piovia-Scott et al. 2011, 2015). In lab experiments, Cascades Frog metamorphs exposed to Bd experienced significant mortality (Garcia et al. 2006), but declines in wild populations in the presence of Bd are not universal (Piovia-Scott et al. 2011, Pope et al. 2011). The reasons why some Bd infected populations decline dramatically, while others remain relatively stable, are not well known (Pope et al. 2014), but a rapid decline at one site is presumed to be the result of a particularly virulent strain (Fellers et al. 2008, Piovia-Scott et al. 2015). Juvenile Cascades Frog abundance at Section Line Lake in the Klamath Mountains decreased from hundreds in 2010 to two in 2012, and adults began to decline three years later (Piovia-Scott et al. 2015). No other factors such as predation or desiccation were evident, but a virulent strain of Bd was identified, and the high rate of overwintering mortality was consistent with chytridiomycosis-associated declines (Ibid.).

The significant decline in Cascades Frog populations in the southern portion of their range due to Bd and the prevalence of the disease throughout the species’ range is cause for concern (Pope et al. 2014). It appears that larger populations of frogs may increase resistance to Bd (Knapp et al. 2011), so efforts aimed at increasing Cascades Frog population sizes, such as removing predatory trout, may be crucial to ensuring the species’ survival (Ibid.). In addition, there is some evidence that treatment with antifungal drugs, such as Itraconazole, increases survival of Bd-infected Cascades Frogs (Hardy et al. 2015).

Other infectious diseases may also negatively affect Cascades Frogs in California. For example, Saprolegnia ferax is a species of water mold that commonly infects fish that can spread to amphibians and has caused die-offs of the species in Oregon (Blaustein et al. 1994, Kiesecker and Blaustein 1997). Prevalence of Saprolegnia in the wild has increased due to introduction of hatchery-raised fish (Blaustein et al. 1994), and this practice has the potential to transmit more virulent strains to amphibians (Bucciarelli et al. 2014). Saprolegnia-associated mortality may be

20 III.F.1. Information in the Petition (continued) greater with increased exposure to UV-B radiation, which is likely to occur more frequently as wetlands shrink due to climate change (Bucciarelli et al. 2014, Kiesecker and Blaustein 1995).

The degree to which disease threatens the continued survival of Cascades Frogs is considered to be high. Bd is present across the species’ range and appears to be significantly reducing juvenile survival in many populations, which increases the risk of population extirpations (Pope et al. 2014).

Fire Suppression

Fire suppression activities in California have the potential to adversely affect Cascades Frogs, although this subject has not been well studied and most evidence is anecdotal (Pilliod et al. 2003). Fire suppression activities that could directly impact Cascades Frogs include water drafting from ponds and streams, application of fire retardant, and construction of fuel breaks. These activities could also result in indirect impacts to the species through changes in aquatic and riparian habitats via sedimentation, alteration in downed woody debris, and reduction in amounts of vegetation associated with required habitats (potentially producing both positive and negative effects). In spite of this, no known impacts to Cascades Frogs from fire suppression activities have been documented. These activities occur regularly in the lower elevations of the Cascades Frog range and near the wildland-urban interface, putting the remaining populations in the Southern Cascades region at greater risk than those in the Klamath Mountains region, which is primarily subalpine, with long fire return intervals, and largely in wilderness areas. Fire crews and other fire personnel attempt to minimize impacts to aquatic and semiaquatic species and their habitats, but inadvertent impacts may still occur.

Construction of fire lines or firebreaks can be extensive and mimic habitat changes associated with roads and road construction. Sedimentation associated with unpaved roads can be greater than from logging or fire (Rieman and Clayton 1997). Restoration activities like installation of water bars and revegetation can reduce erosion (Pilliod et al. 2003). Using mechanized equipment in wilderness areas for fire suppression is not permitted.

Application of ammonia-based fire retardant and surfactant-based fire suppressant from air tankers or fire engines has the potential to adversely affect Cascades Frogs because some are toxic to aquatic organisms (Buhl and Hamilton 2000, Gaikowski et al. 1996, McDonald et al. 1996). Tanker pilots are directed to avoid aerial application of retardant or foam within 91 m (300 ft) of waterways (USDA 2011), although accidental contamination is still possible.

Potential large-scale indirect effects of fire suppression activities on Cascades Frog habitat include decreased water input and altered peak flows into wetlands as well as increased sediment yield. Fire suppression activities over the past century have led to dense forests with very high fuel loads. Dense forests can reduce snowpack and take up water for transpiration, resulting in reduced water yields downslope (Kattelmann 1996). In addition, fire suppression can increase the natural invasion of shrubs and trees into open meadows, clogging formerly open breeding habitat with vegetation (Fellers and Drost 1993). Cascades Frogs may be losing suitable habitat in Lassen Volcanic National Park in part due to woody vegetation encroachment (Ibid.). The Forest Service began actively removing fuel loads in an effort to reduce the

21 III.F.1. Information in the Petition (continued) frequency and intensity of wildfires. Catastrophic fire can produce some of the most extreme and extensive alterations to watershed condition of any type of disturbance (Kattelmann 1996).

The degree to which fire suppression activities threaten the continued survival of Cascades Frogs differs by location. It is unlikely to be high in wilderness and high-elevation areas with sparse vegetation, where mechanized equipment is not permitted and fire suppression activities are rare. However, it is potentially high in the Southern Cascades region, because so few populations and limited numbers of animals remain (Pope et al. 2014).

Habitat Loss and Alteration

Vegetation and fuels management, water development and diversion, mining, and road effects can degrade or destroy Cascades Frog habitat.

Timber harvest, fuels management, salvage logging, and prescribed fire can impact Cascades Frogs (Pope et al. 2014). These activities change vegetation structure, the shade it produces, and woody debris, which can alter the quality of breeding, active-season, refuge, and overwintering habitat quality (Ibid.). They can also affect soil stability, erosion, and sediment loading to aquatic habitats (Ibid.). The effects of controlled burns for fuel reduction on Cascades Frogs are not well understood (Pilliod et al. 2003). Prescribed fire may benefit the species if it reduces encroachment of woody vegetation into meadows or the likelihood of a catastrophic fire, but it can be hazardous if undertaken in areas with granitic soils. Erosion rates of burned areas on granitic soils can be 66 times as great as in undisturbed watersheds and can elevate annual sediment yields for 10 years or more (Megahan et al. 1995).

Water developments, such as dams and diversions, can dramatically alter aquatic habitats (Harris et al. 1987, Moyle and Randall 1998). Dams can raise the levels of existing lakes or ponds or flood meadow habitat, eliminating, or potentially creating, Cascades Frog habitat. Diversions can modify the hydrology and water retention at a site potentially affecting breeding habitat. Most major water developments and diversions occur at lower elevations (Moyle and Randall 1998), but hydroelectric power generation and water storage reservoirs also occur in higher elevation areas within the Cascades Frog’s range, such as Lake Almanor and Butte Valley Reservoir in the Southern Cascades region and Shasta and Trinity dams in the Klamath Mountains region (Pope et al. 2014). There are about 15 small lakes and meadow systems within the species’ historical range in California that have some form of hydrological development, the majority of which consist of small dam structures that raise the water level of an existing water body.

Suction-dredge gold mining in streams and rivers can impact habitat by increasing suspended sediment, rearranging stream substrate, altering stream geomorphology, and directly trapping or killing aquatic organisms, including Cascades Frogs (CDFG 2011). All instream suction-dredge mining has been suspended since 2009 in California; however, the legacy impacts of historic hydraulic mining continue, including altered stream geomorphology and release of contaminants such as acid, cadmium, mercury, and asbestos in waterways (Larson 1996).

22 III.F.1. Information in the Petition (continued)

Most populations of Cascades Frogs are likely not directly affected by roads, but the indirect impacts of roads on the species’ habitats and dispersal ability may be significant (Pope et al. 2014). Roads have the potential to change soil density, temperature, soil water content, light input, dust, surface water flow, pattern of runoff, and rates of sedimentation, and may also serve as barriers to movement that could prevent recolonization of extirpated sites (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Six major highways (Interstate 5 and Highways 32, 36, 44, 89, and 299) partly or completely fragment portions of the Cascades Frog’s range in California. In addition, paved, dirt, and gravel roads and trails occur throughout the species’ range. Road crossings of water courses have the potential to block in-channel movements and dispersal events if culverts are too steep, become blocked by debris, or become disconnected from the streambed.

The degree to which habitat loss and alteration caused by these factors threaten the continued survival of Cascades Frogs is considered to be low with the exception of population isolation and habitat alteration caused by roads, which may be moderate on private lands and on the Lassen and Klamath national forests (Pope et al. 2014).

Introduced Fish

The impacts of stocking non-native fish into historically fishless waters on ecosystem functions and native species assembles, particularly amphibians, have been well documented (Bradford 1989, Hartel et al. 2007, Hartman et al. 2013, Knapp 2005, Knapp and Matthews 2000, Knapp et al. 2001, Pilliod and Peterson 2001, Ryan et al. 2014, Schindler et al. 2001, Vredenburg 2004, Welsh et al. 2006). This impact is widespread; non-native trout and other salmonids occupy approximately 95% of large mountain lakes and 60% of smaller ponds and lakes that were formerly fishless in the western U.S. (Bahls 1992). The majority of large and deep lakes in the Klamath Mountains and Southern Cascades support non-native populations of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) or rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Pope et al. 2014, Welsh et al. 2006).

Introduced fishes can affect amphibians in a number of ways. Introduced fish and native species compete for resources such as invertebrate prey (Bucciarelli et al. 2014, Finlay and Vredenburg 2007). Joseph et al. (2011) reported that adult Cascades Frogs co-occurring with introduced trout had smaller proportions of aquatic invertebrate prey in their stomachs than those occupying areas without trout. Introduced fish also directly prey upon native amphibians (Finlay and Vredenburg 2007, Simons 1998). Hartman et al. (2013) observed that, in the presence of trout, Cascades Frog larvae were most often found in shallow, vegetated areas that serve as a refuge from fish. The presence of nonnative fish can also lead to an increase in other predators. For example, in the Klamath Mountains, the Aquatic Gartersnake (Thamnophis atratus) was able to expand its range as a result of more prey availability (introduced fish), thus facilitating opportunities to also increase predation upon Cascades Frogs (Pope et al. 2008).

Several studies have documented a “fish” effect on Cascades Frog abundance and distribution. Welsh et al. (2006) reported that Cascades Frog distribution was negatively correlated with fish distribution, and Cascades Frog larvae were 3.7 times more likely to occur in lakes without trout. Garwood and Welsh (2007) reported that the density of Cascades Frogs was 6.3 times higher in a fishless stream than a similar one containing a high density of trout. Pope (2008a) reported

23 III.F.1. Information in the Petition (continued) that, within 3 years of removing fish from 3 lakes, Cascades Frog densities increased 13.6 times and juvenile survival increased from 59% to 94%. Cole and North (2014) reported that the presence of trout was one of the strongest factors predicting presence of Cascades Frogs, and at higher elevations where trout were absent, Cascades Frogs dominated the aquatic species assemblage. Given climate change predictions, it can be expected that as higher elevation, intermediate wetlands dry up, Cascades Frogs will be forced to move into deeper waterbodies that are more likely to be occupied by fish, and the shallow refuges that protect larvae will likely also dry up, forcing the species into deeper waters with less protection (Pope et al. 2014, Ryan et al. 2014).

The declines of Cascades Frog populations, as well as two other native amphibians in California, prompted a lawsuit that concluded in a ruling that the Department must consider the impacts of fish stocking on the environment and native ecosystems. The resulting Environmental Impact Statement (ICF Jones and Stokes 2010) determined that the impacts of non-native trout on Cascades Frogs were “potentially significant.” There were 175 trout stocking locations within the Cascades Frog’s range in California (ICF Jones and Stokes 2010). Although stocking has since ceased in areas known to support Cascades Frogs (ICF Jones and Stokes 2010, Pope et al. 2014), many populations of stocked fish are likely self-sustaining (Pope et al. 2014).

The degree to which introduced fish and other predators threaten the continued existence of Cascades Frogs is considered to be high and widespread (Pope et al. 2014). The adverse impacts of introduced fish on Cascades Frog presence and densities have been demonstrated in the Klamath Mountains region, strongly suggesting they also contributed to declines in the Southern Cascades region (Ibid.). In addition, the interactions of introduced fish with other stressors, such as climate change and disease, may also be high (Ibid.).

Livestock Grazing

Seasonal cattle and sheep grazing have occurred in California for over two centuries, and the impacts on native ecosystems have been well documented (Fleischner 1994, Menke et al. 1996). These impacts include loss of native species, changes in species composition, alteration of hydrological function, including lowered water tables, soil deterioration, degradation of fish and aquatic insect habitat, and changes in ecosystem structure and function (Belsky et al. 1999, Fleischner 1994, Flenniken et al. 2001, Kauffman and Krueger 1984). There are no published studies that have directly examined the impacts of livestock grazing on Cascades Frogs, but negative impacts to other high elevation wetland ecosystems and Ranid frog habitats have been reported, include reducing vegetative cover, creating excess nitrogen pollution, increasing siltation of breeding ponds, and altering the local hydrology through erosion (Jennings 1996, Jennings and Hayes 1994).

Livestock grazing still occurs across most of the Cascades Frog’s range, but the extent and numbers on public lands have been reduced dramatically compared to past practices. Meadow sites occupied by Cascades Frogs on private lands in the Southern Cascades region are still grazed by livestock, as is much of the species’ range in the Klamath Mountains region, although, although portions of the wilderness areas are inaccessible to cattle or are not

24 III.F.1. Information in the Petition (continued) permitted for grazing. Long-term impacts of historical grazing practices are difficult to quantify, but where it has resulted in channel incision and lowered water tables, there may be less available Cascades Frog breeding habitat or it may dry up more rapidly (Pope et al. 2011). Risks from current grazing practices include trampling and water quality degradation, which are a greater threat to already small populations such as those in the Southern Cascades region (Pope et al. 2014).

The degree to which livestock grazing threatens the continued survival of Cascades Frogs is presumed to be low. Although livestock grazing is still fairly widespread across the Cascades Frog’s range in California and effects from previous grazing may be extensive, the practice has not been permitted for over 10 years in most breeding habitats on public lands in the Lassen region, where the species has experienced the most extreme declines, and livestock numbers have been reduced on other public lands within the Cascades Frog’s range (Pope et al. 2014). However, where livestock grazing still occurs in the Southern Cascades region, negative impacts could reduce the likelihood of persistence due to already small population sizes (Ibid.).

Recreational Activities

Approximately two-thirds of the Cascades Frog’s range in California occurs on public lands; approximately 5% on national park lands and 62% on national forest lands (USDA 2001b). Approximately half of the national forest lands are designated as wilderness areas, where recreation is dispersed and limited to non-motorized activities such as hiking, fishing, and camping. On the other half, recreational use can involve motorized activities such as off- highway vehicle use, which may have the potential for greater impacts. Of the one-third of the species’ range that occurs on private lands, most is owned by timber companies with limited public recreation, but there are some campsites and lodges with heavy recreational use.

There are no published studies that have directly examined the effect of recreational activities on Cascades Frogs, but potential impacts can be inferred from reports on similar habitats or species. Mid- to high-mountain lakes, streams, ponds, and wet meadows are popular recreational destinations that provide fishing and swimming opportunities and are connected through trail networks and campsites. Construction and use of trails and camps disturbs vegetation and soil structure, and anglers often create shoreline trails for access to fishing spots even at remote wilderness lakes, which can result in erosion that increases sedimentation in pools (Boyle and Samson 1985, Brönmark and Hansson 2002, Garton et al. 1977, Knight and Cole 1991). Recreational packstock (horses and mules used to assist travel in remote areas) grazing in alpine meadow habitat can adversely affect habitat quality, particularly important shallow water areas around breeding ponds and lakes, and can directly trample all life stages of frogs (Cole et al. 2004, Moore et al. 2000, Olson-Rutz et al. 1996).

Recreational activities may degrade habitat quality or frequently disturb normal basking and feeding behaviors, which can increase the production of glucocorticoid stress hormones in frogs, the long-term effects of which include suppression of growth, reproduction, and immune system functions (Moore and Jessop 2003). Stress hormones in amphibians are also elevated by exposure to Bd and cause increases in metabolic rates that are energetically costly (Peterson 2012, Wack et al. 2012), and the effect of environmental stress on frogs exposed to

25 III.F.1. Information in the Petition (continued)

Bd appears to result in lower energy stores and survival compared to unstressed frogs (Peterson 2012).

The degree to which recreational activities threaten the continued survival of Cascades Frogs is presumed to be low to moderate. Over most of the species’ range, recreational activities are light and dispersed, but in some high-use areas like lakes that are not within designated wilderness and have road access, they may have measurable impacts to Cascades Frogs and their habitats (Pope et al. 2014). Recreational impacts also interact synergistically with other stressors to increase stress, which reduces the health and resilience of Cascades Frog populations (Pope et al. 2014).

Small Population Sizes

Small population size, combined with genetic isolation, increases a species’ risk of extinction. Isolated sites are less likely to support Cascades Frog populations over the long-term and are less likely to be recolonized once the population is extirpated (Pope et al. 2014). Therefore, increasing population sizes and habitat connectivity are important factors in ensuring the long- term viability of Cascades Frogs.

Monsen and Blouin (2004) reported that Cascades Frogs exhibit extreme genetic isolation over relatively short distances compared to other frog species; gene flow is reduced at distances of as little as 10 km (6.2 mi). Montane habitats may promote this type of isolation, particularly for species like Cascades Frogs that have a limited active season and specialized habitat requirements, which make long-distance movements risky and infrequent (Ibid.). Recolonization of a historically occupied site in Oregon reportedly took 12 years, even though a population of Cascades Frogs was located within 2 km (1.2 mi) of the site (Blaustein et al. 1994).

The degree to which small population sizes threaten the continued survival of Cascades Frogs is potentially high in the Lassen area of the Southern Cascades region due to lack of connectivity among the remaining populations, which could lead to a genetic bottleneck (Young and Clarke 2000).

2. Other Relevant Scientific Information

Marijuana (Cannabis spp.) cultivation may also pose a threat to Cascades Frog survival. Marijuana cultivation is concentrated in Northern California throughout the lower elevation portion of the Cascades Frog’s range, especially in habitats below 1500 m (5000 ft). Water diversions associated with illegal Marijuana cultivation can be a significant threat to desiccation- intolerant amphibian species (Bauer et al. 2015), including the highly aquatic Cascades Frog. Increased inputs of nutrients from fertilizers, toxins from pesticides, and other pollutants also potentially threaten existing Cascades Frog habitats, although these impacts have not been directly studied.

If beaver populations had declined historically in parts of the Cascades Frog’s range, it may have contributed to loss or modification of breeding habitat. Cunningham et al. (2007) showed that as beavers have recolonized areas of their former range in North America, they have increased the number and diversity of available breeding sites in the landscape for pond-

26

breeding amphibians. Cascades Frogs are known to occur in habitats modified by beavers in the Lassen region (Pope et al. 2011).

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Factors Affecting the Ability to Survive and Reproduce and Degree and Immediacy of Threat

The Department concludes that the Petition contains sufficient information to suggest that Cascades Frogs are adversely affected by historical habitat damage and a number of on-going and future threats such as habitat degradation and loss, climate change, disease, and introduced fish, that may be synergistically acting together to threaten the species’ continued survival.

G. Impact of Existing Management Efforts

1. Information in the Petition

The Petition contains the following information on the impact of existing management efforts on the Cascades Frog on pages 26 through 29.

Federal Regulatory Mechanisms

The Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the Cascades Frog for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act (CBD 2012), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the petition possessed substantial information indicating listing may be warranted (USFWS 2015), but the agency does not expect to make a determination on whether or not to propose the species for listing until 2022 at the earliest (USFWS 2016b). Other federal regulatory mechanisms that could potentially provide some form of protection for the Cascades Frog include occurrence on federally protected land and consideration under the National Environmental Policy Act. There are no federal Habitat Conservation Plans in California that cover the Cascades Frog (USFWS 2017).

Occurrence on National Forests and National Parks/National Environmental Policy Act

Populations of Cascades Frogs that occur on federal lands are mostly protected from development, although other activities on these lands have the potential for harm and may threaten their long-term survival. In spite of management policies on federal lands that are designed to protect natural resources, amphibians are still declining in these areas, and the policies and practices do not provide protection from threats such as airborne contaminants and non-native predators (Adams et al. 2013). For example, even though non-native fish are no longer stocked in occupied Cascades Frog habitat (ICF Jones and Stokes 2010), there do not appear to be any current efforts to eradicate self-sustaining populations on federal lands within their range.

The national forest lands within the Cascades Frog’s range in California have forest plans that provide direction on management and protection of aquatic and riparian-dependent species (Pope et al. 2014). In multiple-use areas (most non-wilderness areas), riparian management

27 III.G.1. Information in the Petition (continued) zones are designated around all waterbodies and fluvial systems to emphasize their protection and to help maintain their ecological integrity. Generally, only activities that promote maintenance and restoration of these ecosystems and their functions are permitted within the riparian management zones, but timber harvest, road building, livestock grazing, and other activities that may degrade Cascades Frog habitat are not prohibited under the plans.

The Forest Service adopted the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment in 2001, which contains an Aquatic Conservation Strategy focused on reducing some threats to amphibians, including the Cascades Frog. Some of these measures include changes to livestock grazing and non- native fish stocking practices, but the plan also contains activities such as fire and fuels management that may increase risk of habitat degradation for Cascades Frogs. Efforts to weaken the environmental protections, and increase the amount of logging allowed, under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment have been on-going since its adoption.

One of the products of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment was publication of a conservation assessment for the Cascades Frog, in cooperation with other federal agencies, state agencies, universities, and research scientists (Pope et al. 2014, USDA 2001a). Conservation Assessments provide only management recommendations, not mandated habitat protections. The conservation assessment is envisioned to be the first of a three-phase process that also includes a conservation strategy and a conservation agreement, but given the fact that the conservation assessment took over a decade to produce, actions and protections in the planned conservation strategy and agreement will likely not be afforded to the species anytime soon.

The Cascades Frog is designated as a Sensitive Species by the Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) of the Forest Service (USDA 1998). Under Forest Service policy, Sensitive Species are to be managed in a way that ensures their viability and precludes trends toward endangerment that would warrant federal listing. All Forest Service planned, funded, executed, or permitted programs and activities are reviewed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C.4321-4370a) for possible adverse effects on Sensitive Species, through a Biological Assessment and Evaluation. The NEPA process requires federal agencies to describe a proposed action, consider alternatives, identify and disclose potential environmental impacts of each alternative, and involve the public in the decision-making process. However, neither the Sensitive Species designation nor the NEPA process requires avoidance of impacts, just consideration and disclosure, so even if the determination is that Cascades Frogs will be harmed or destroyed, the action may be undertaken.

Lassen Volcanic National Park is the only national park within the Cascades Frog range in California, and its Resource Management Plan (NPS 1999) acknowledges the species’ decline and provides guidance relevant to Cascades Frog conservation. These include maintaining and rehabilitating aquatic systems; protecting and monitoring populations of sensitive species; promoting cooperation among federal, state, and private entities in preserving ecosystem health; eliminating or controlling damaging non-native species; and restoring, to the extent feasible, extirpated species. However, the Cascades Frog is now extirpated from Lassen Volcanic National Park, and because fish stocking began before the park was established, it is

28 III.G.1. Information in the Petition (continued) unclear which species of fish were native to each system. Even though stocking ceased completely in 1992, 16% (9 of 57) of the park’s lakes still supported introduced trout as of 2004 (Stead et al. 2005).

State Regulatory Mechanisms

The Cascades Frog is listed as a Species of Special Concern by the state of California (CDFW 2017b). This is an administrative designation that reflects the fact that the species is in decline but does not afford any substantive or legal protection. Other state regulatory mechanisms that could potentially provide some form of protection for the Cascades Frog include a state aquatic biodiversity strategy and consideration under the California Environmental Quality Act. There are no Natural Community Conservation Plans that cover the Cascades Frog (CDFW 2017c).

Aquatic Biodiversity Strategy

The Department developed a strategy for maintaining aquatic biodiversity in high-elevation wilderness ecosystems, including protecting and enhancing native amphibian assemblages, while trying to optimize recreational trout fishing opportunities (Garwood and Welsh 2007). The Department began implementing this conservation strategy in 1999 in the Sierra Nevada Mountains through development of watershed-based management plans focused on Sierra Nevada and Southern Mountain Yellow-legged Frogs (R. sierrae and R. muscosa, respectively), but differences between the ecology of these species and the Cascades Frogs rendered the watershed plans inadequate to protect Cascades Frogs (Ibid.).

California Environmental Quality Act

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code §§ 21000- 21177) requires state agencies, local governments, and special districts to evaluate and disclose impacts from projects in the state. Under CEQA, Species of Special Concern must be considered during the environmental review process, with an analysis of the project impacts on the species, only if they meet the criteria of sensitivity under Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines. However, project impacts to Cascades Frogs would not need to be analyzed if project proponents determined there are insignificant impacts (e.g., if the project does not have population-level or regional effects or impacts a small proportion of the species’ range).

In addition to promoting environmental protection through procedural and informational means, CEQA has substantive mandates that can benefit declining or otherwise imperiled species. Public agencies are required to deny approval of a project with significant adverse effects when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures can substantially lessen such effects. However, this mandate is rarely implemented, and lead agencies may approve projects despite remaining significant adverse impacts after all mitigation measures and alternatives deemed feasible have been adopted, if it finds that social or economic factors outweigh the environmental costs. CEQA is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a habitat protection mechanism.

29 III.G.1. Information in the Petition (continued)

Summary

Existing federal or state regulatory mechanisms do not adequately protect Cascades Frog populations or their habitats. Without state listing, significant conservation efforts for the Cascades Frog, reintroduction of the species at unoccupied historic sites, and implementation of frog habitat restoration projects are unlikely to occur.

2. Other Relevant Information

The Department is in possession of additional information on existing management efforts for the Cascades Frog, specifically relating to introduced fish management and eradication. As stated in the Petition, fish stocking by the Department in waters known to support Cascades Frogs has ceased (ICF Jones and Stokes 2010). This has a direct bearing on Cascades Frog conservation. Some waterbodies in the Cascades Frog range lack spawning habitats and others are known to suffer from oxygen depletions caused by periodic eutrophic conditions (B. Aguilar pers. comm.). Although the Department has not assessed many of these waters since the change in stocking management, some fish populations are not self-sustaining and have likely gone extinct.

From 2003 to 2008, a fish removal experiment was conducted in four lakes across the Klamath Mountains that support extant Cascades Frog populations (Pope 2008a). Results from the Pope (2008a) experiment are covered in detail within the Petition. Currently, two of the four lakes have remained fishless as a result of the research project (K. Pope pers. comm.).

Starting in 2014, following the recommendation of a draft basin management plan, the Department began a fish removal project in Echo Lake Basin, Klamath Mountains. The goal of this project is to restore approximately 70% of the available aquatic habitat for Cascades Frogs. This basin was chosen for restoration based on its exceptional Cascades Frog habitats and because it maintains persisting Cascades Frog populations. The basin has been part of a long- term Cascades Frog population monitoring program initiated in 2003 (Garwood and Welsh 2007). Habitats containing brook trout include Echo Lake and approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) of stream channels occurring below the lake. Since the inception of the fish removal project, 724 brook trout have been removed from the lake and streams, with complete removal expected in 2017 (Demianew et al. 2016). The Department is tracking the numerical response of native amphibian populations in response to the removal of brook trout with a before-after-control- impact study design.

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Impacts of Existing Management Efforts

The Department concludes the Petition contains sufficient information to suggest that existing regulatory mechanisms and management efforts do not adequately protect Cascades Frogs from impacts that threaten their long-term survival.

30

H. Suggestions for Future Management

1. Information in the Petition

The Petition contains the following suggestions for future management of the Cascades Frog on page 30.

Remove Invasive Fish: Remove trout within the species’ range to increase the amount of fishless habitat available, and continue to not stock in waters supporting Cascades Frogs.

Investigate Disease Treatment: Research the effectiveness of various methods to reduce the mortality rate of Bd, and determine the feasibility of treatment in the wild.

Modify Fuel Management and Livestock Grazing: Determine the effects of vegetation and fuels management and livestock grazing on Cascades Frogs, and modify management practices and grazing leases accordingly to protect and restore the species’ habitat.

Restore Habitat: Determine the effectiveness of restoration and habitat enhancement methods such as modifying breeding pools, removing livestock, thinning riparian vegetation to increase basking opportunities, or thinning lodgepole pines adjacent to breeding pools; monitor populations pre- and post-restoration; prioritize sites for restoration actions.

Restrict Pesticide Use: Determine where and when pesticide uses should be restricted to prevent exposure to Cascades Frogs.

Reduce Recreational Impacts: Encourage diffuse recreation and limit camping at lakes inhabited by Cascades Frogs on federal lands.

Consider a Captive Breeding Program: Begin a captive breeding program to provide donors for reintroductions if local populations become extirpated.

Reintroduce Populations: Explore reintroduction into appropriate habitat within the historical range, and investigate the feasibility of translocation or reintroduction of captive raised Cascades Frogs, particularly in Lassen Volcanic National Park.

Monitor Populations: Institute a long-term, rangewide program to monitor extant Cascades Frog populations.

2. Other Relevant Information

The following recommendations are adapted from Thomson et al. (2016) California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern.

Conduct a detailed genetics study: Characterize the degree and extent of intraspecific variation and use that information to designate management units and to inform population reintroduction and augmentation efforts. Note that a current population genetics study is being conducted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison (B. Hardy pers. comm.).

31

Quantify interactive effects of threats: Better understanding of the relative weight of each threat (e.g., climate change, Bd, introduced fish, etc.) and their interactions may be useful in developing conservation strategies.

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Suggestions for Future Management

The Department concludes the Petition contains sufficient scientific information on additional management actions that may aid in maintaining and increasing self-sustaining populations of Cascades Frogs in California.

I. Availability and Sources of Information

1. Information in the Petition

The Petition contains a 17-page bibliography of literature cited on pages 31 through 47, the vast majority of which were provided to the Department on a CD.

2. Other Relevant Information

The Department used publicly available information and provided citations. The Department also used unpublished reports and personal communications that can be provided upon request. The Department did not receive any information from the public during the Petition Evaluation period pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 2073.4.

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to Availability and Sources of Information

The Department concludes the Petition contains sufficient sources of information that are readily available to attempt to determine the status of the Cascades Frog.

J. Detailed Distribution Map

1. Information in the Petition

The Petition contains a detailed map of the distribution of Cascades Frogs in California on page 9, which depicts known localities up to 2011 and distinguishes between sites that were confirmed to be occupied between the following years: 1891-1980, 1980-1999, 1999-2011 (Pope et al. 2014). All localities within the map provided by the petition fall within the Department’s Cascades Frog 2016 range map (CDFW 2016).

2. Other Relevant Information

The Department’s range map for Cascades Frog (Figure 1) is based on the work in Thompson et al (2016). There are subtle differences in the distribution of Cascades Frog observations in Thomson et al. (2016) and those in the Petition’s map (Pope et al. 2014); however, none of these substantively change the known distribution of the species.

32

3. Sufficiency of the Petition with regard to a Detailed Distribution Map

The Department concludes the Petition provides a sufficiently detailed map of the historical and contemporary distribution of Cascades Frogs in California.

IV. Status of the Species

The Cascades Frog occupies mid- to high-elevation wetlands in the Klamath Mountains and Southern Cascades, and every life stage is closely associated with aquatic habitats. The species’ distribution and abundance have declined in parts of its range in California, most dramatically in the Southern Cascades/Lassen region where few populations remain and nearly all are very small. Populations within the Klamath Mountains region are still relatively widespread and appear to be mostly stable, even with seemingly low overall population sizes. The Cascades Frog’s breeding cycle is closely tied to snowmelt, and successful reproduction requires breeding habitats to remain stable for several months during embryonic and larval development. The direct and interactive effects of climate change, disease, and introduced fish appear to be the primary threats to continued survival of the species. Additional possible threats, which may be more severe at lower elevations and in areas with very small populations, include airborne contaminants, recreational activities, livestock grazing, fire suppression activities, and roads.

Having reviewed and evaluated the Petition on its face and in relation to other relevant information, including the material referenced in the Petition and other information in possessed or received by the Department, the Department has determined that there is sufficient scientific information available at this time to indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted and recommends that the Petition be accepted and considered. (See Fish & G. Code, § 2073.5, subd. (a)(2); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.1, subd. (d).)

V. Literature Cited

Adams, M.J., N.D. Chelgren, D. Reinitz, R.A. Cole, L.J. Rachowicz, and S. Galvan. 2010. Using Occupancy Models To Understand the Distribution of An Amphibian Pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Ecological Applications 20(1): 289-302.

Adams, M.J., D.A.W. Miller, E. Muths, P.S. Corn, and E.H.C. Grant. 2013. Trends in Amphibian Occupancy in the United States. PLoS ONE 8(5):e64347.

Aston, L.S., and J.N. Seiber. 1997. Fate of Summertime Organophosphate Pesticide Residues in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Journal of Environmental Quality 26(6):1483-1492.

Bahls, P. 1992. The Status of Fish Populations and Management of High Mountain Lakes in the Western United States. Northwest Science 66(3):183-93.

33

Bauer S.D., J.L. Olson, A.C. Cockrill, M.G. van Hattem, L.M. Miller, M. Tauzer, and G. Leppig. 2015. Impacts of Surface Water Diversions for Marijuana-Cultivation on Aquatic Habitat in Four Northwestern California Watersheds. PLoS ONE 10(3):e0120016. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120016.

Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of Livestock Influences on Stream and Riparian Ecosystems in the Western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54:419-431.

Berger, L., G. Marantelli, L.L. Skerratt, and R. Speare. 2005. Virulence of the Amphibian Chytrid Fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis Varies With the Strain. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 68:47-50.

Blaustein, A.R., and R.K. O’Hara. 1982a. Kin Recognition in Rana cascadae Tadpoles: Maternal and Paternal Effects. Animal Behavior 30:1151-1157.

Blaustein, A.R., and R.K. O’Hara. 1982b. Kin Recognition Cues in Rana cascadae Tadpoles. Behavioral and Neural Biology 36:77-87.

Blaustein, A.R., and R.K. O’Hara. 1987. Aggregation Behavior in Rana cascadae Tadpoles: Association Preferences among Wild Aggregations and Responses to Nonkin. Animal Behavior 35:1549-1555.

Blaustein, A.R., B.A. Han, R.A. Reylea, P.T.J. Johnson, J.C. Buck, S.S. Gervasi, and L.B. Kats. 2011. The Complexity of Amphibian Population Declines: Understanding the Role of Cofactors in Driving Amphibian Losses. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1223:108-119.

Blaustein, A.R., D.G. Hokit, R.K. O’Hara, and R.A. Holt. 1994. Pathogenic Fungus Contributes to Amphibian Losses in the Pacific Northwest. Biological Conservation 67:251-254.

Blaustein, A.R., R.K. O’Hara, and D.H. Olson. 1984. Kin Preference Behaviour Is Present after Metamorphosis in Rana cascadae Frogs. Animal Behavior 32:445-450.

Blaustein, A.R., S.C. Walls, B.A. Bancroft, J.J. Lawler, C.L. Searle, and S.S. Gervasi. 2010. Direct and Indirect Effects of Climate Change on Amphibian Populations. Diversity 2:281- 313.

Blouin, M.S., and S.T. Brown. 2000. Effects of Temperature-Induced Variation in Anuran Larval Growth Rate on Head Width and Leg Length At Metamorphosis. Oecologia 125:358-361.

Boyle, S.A., and F.B. Samson. 1985. Effects of Non-Consumptive Recreation on Wildlife. A Review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13(2):110-116.

Bradford, D.F. 1989. Allotropic Distribution of Native Frogs and Introduced Fishes in High Sierra Nevada Lakes of California: Implication of the Negative Effect of Fish Introductions. Copeia 3: 775-778.

34

Bradford, D.F., R.A. Knapp, D.W. Sparling, M.S. Nash and K.A. Stanley. 2011. Pesticide Distributions and Population Declines of California, USA, Alpine Frogs, Rana muscosa and Rana sierrae. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 30:682–691.

Bradford, D.F., K.A. Stanley, L.L. McConnell, N.G. Tallent-Halsell, M.S. Nash, and S.M. Simonich. 2010. Spatial Patterns of Atmospherically Deposited Organic Contaminants at High-Elevation in the Southern Sierra Nevada Mountains, California. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29(5):1056-1066.

Briggs, J.L., Sr. 1987. Breeding Biology of the Cascades Frog, Rana cascadae, with Comparisons to R. aurora and R. pretiosa. Copeia 1:241-245.

Briggs, J.L., and R.M. Storm. 1970. Growth and Population Structure of the Cascades Frog, Rana cascadae Slater. Herpetologica 26(3): 283-300.

Brönmark, C., and L.A. Hansson. 2002. Environmental Issues in Lakes and Ponds: Current State and Perspectives. Environmental Contamination 29(3):290-306.

Brown, C. 1997. Habitat Structure and Occupancy Patterns of the Montane Frog, Rana cascadae, in the Cascades Range, Oregon, at Multiple Scales: Implications for Population Dynamics in Patchy Landscapes. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 161 pp.

Brühl, C.A., S. Pieper, and B. Weber. 2011. Amphibians at Risk? Susceptibility of Terrestrial Amphibian Life Stages to Pesticides. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 30(11):2465- 2472.

Bucciarelli, G.M., A.R. Blaustein, T.S. Garcia, and L.B. Kats. 2014. Invasion Complexities: The Diverse Impacts of Nonnative Species on Amphibians. Copeia 14(4):611-632.

Buhl, K.J., and S.J. Hamilton. 2000. Acute Toxicity of Fire-Control Chemicals, Nitrogenous Chemicals, and Surfactants to Rainbow Trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129(2):408-418.

[CBD] Center for Biological Diversity. 2012. Petition to List 53 Amphibians and Reptiles in the United States as Threatened or Endangered Species Under the Endangered Species Act.

[CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 2011. Suction Dredge Permitting Program Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. California Department of Fish and Game, February 2011.

[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat Relationships. 2016. Cascades Frog Range Map-A042, BIOS Layer ds591.

[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. 2017a. Geographic Information System query for Cascades Frog (Rana cascadae). Accessed April 1, 2017.

35

[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Diversity Database. 2017b. Special Animals List, July 2017. Period publication. 51 pp.

[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017c. Summary of Natural Community Conservation Plans. Accessed February 2, 2017. Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans

[CDPR] California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 2017. Pesticide Use Statistics. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur14rep/tables/table2.pdf

Case, M.J., J.J. Lawler, and J.A. Tomasevic. 2015. Relative Sensitivity to Climate Change of Species in Northwestern North America. Biological Conservation 187:127-133.

Case, S.M. 1978. Biochemical Systematics of Members of the Genus Rana Native to Western North America. Systematic Zoology 27:299–311.

Chang, A.T., and Shaffer, H.B. 2010. Population genetics and phylogenetics of Rana cascadae in the Lassen and Klamath region. Unpublished report to the United States Forest Service.

Chen, I.C., J.K. Hill, R. Ohlemuller, D.B. Roy, and C.D. Thomas. 2011. Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming. Science 333:1024-1026.

Cole, D.N., J.W. Van Wagtendonk, M.P. McClaran, P.E. Moore, and N. McDougald. 2004. Response of Mountain Meadows to Grazing By Recreational Pack Stock. Journal of Range Management 57:153-160.

Cole, E.M. and M.P. North. 2014. Environmental Influences on Amphibian Assemblages across Subalpine Wet Meadows in the Klamath Mountains, California. Herpetologica 70(2):135- 148.

Corn, P. S., 2005. Climate change and amphibians. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 28.1: 59–67.

Cunningham, J. M., A.J.K. Calhoun, and W.E. Glanz. 2007. Pond‐breeding amphibian species richness and habitat selection in a beaver-modified landscape. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8):2517-2526.

Datta, S., L. Hansen, L. McConnell, J. Baker, J. LeNoir, and J.N. Seiber. 1998. Pesticides and PCB Contaminants in Fish and Tadpoles from the Kaweah River Basin, California. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 60:829–836.

Davidson, C. 2004. Declining Downwind: Amphibian Population Declines in California and Historical Pesticide Use. Ecological Applications 14(6):1892-1902.

Davidson, C., M.F. Benard, H.B. Shaffer, J.M. Parker, C. O’Leary, J.M. Conlon, and L.A. Rollins-Smith. 2007. Effects of Chytrid and Carbaryl Exposure on Survival, Growth and Skin

36

Peptide Defenses in Foothill Yellow-Legged Frogs. Environmental Science and Technology 41:1771-1776.

Davidson, C., H.B. Shaffer, and M.R. Jennings. 2002. Spatial Tests of the Pesticide Drift, Habitat Destruction, UV-B, and Climate-Change Hypotheses for California Amphibian Declines. Conservation Biology 16(6):1588-1601.

Davidson, C., K. Stanley, and S.M. Simonich. 2012. Contaminant Residues and Declines of the Cascades Frog (Rana cascadae) in the California Cascades, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 31(8):1895-1902.

Demianew, J., J. Garwood, and B. Aguilar. 2016. Aquatic resource restoration of Echo Lake basin: a sub-alpine predatory fish removal to restore population-scale perennial habitats of declining northern California amphibians. Drought Monitoring Interim Performance Report. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Arcata, CA. 15 pp.

Dunlap, D.G. 1955. Inter- and Intraspecific Variation in Oregon Frogs of the Genus Rana. American Midland Naturalist 54(2):314-331.

Farrer, R.A., L.A. Weinert, J. Bielby, T.J. Garner, F. Balloux, and F. Clare. 2011. Multiple Emergences of Genetically Diverse Amphibian-Infecting Chytrids Include a Gobalized Hypervirulent Recombinant Lineage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 108:18732-18736.

Fellers, G.M., and C.A. Drost. 1993. Disappearance of the Cascades Frog Rana cascadae at the Southern End of Its Range, California, USA. Biological Conservation 65:177-181.

Fellers, G.M., D.E. Green, and J.E. Longcore. 2001. Oral Chytridiomycosis in the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (Rana muscosa). Copeia 2001:945-953.

Fellers, G.M., K.L. Pope, J.E. Stead, M.S. Koo and, H.H. Welsh, Jr. 2008. Turning Population Trend Monitoring Into Active Conservation: Can We Save the Cascades Frog (Rana cascadae) in the Lassen Region of California? Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(1):28-39.

Finlay, J., and V.T. Vredenburg. 2007. Introduced Trout Sever Trophic Connections Between Lakes and Watersheds: Consequences for a Declining Montane Frog. Ecology 88(9):2187- 2198.

Fisher, M.C., J. Bosch, Z. Yin, D.A. Stead, J. Walker, and L. Selway. 2009. Proteomic and Phenotypic Profiling of the Amphibian Pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis Shows That Genotype Is Linked to Virulence. Molecular Ecology 18:415-429.

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological Costs of Livestock Grazing in Western North America. Conservation Biology 8(3):629-644.

37

Flenniken, M.R., R. McEldowney, W.C. Leininger, G.W. Frasier, and M.J. Trlica. 2001. Hydrologic Responses of a Montane Riparian Ecosystem Following Cattle Use. Journal of Range Management 54(5):567-574.

Gahl, M.K., J.E. Longcore, and J.E. Houlahan. 2012. Varying Responses of Northeastern North American Amphibians to the Chytrid Pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Conservation Biology 26(1):135-141.

Gaikowski, M.P., S.J. Hamilton, K.J. Buhl, S.F. McDonald, and C.H. Summers. 1996. Acute Toxicity of Three Fire-Retardant and Two Fire-Suppressant Foam Formulations to the Early Stages of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15(8):1365-1374.

Garcia, T.S., J.M. Romansic and A.R. Blaustein. 2006. Survival of Three Species of Anuran Metamorphs Exposed to UV-B Radiation and the Pathogenic Fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 72(2):163-169.

Garton, E.O., T.C. Foin, C.W. Bowen, J.M. Everingham, R.O. Schultz, and B. Holton, Jr.1977. Quantitative Studies of Visitor Impacts on Environments of Yosemite National Park, California, USA and Their Implications for Park Management Policy. Journal of Environmental Management 5:1-22.

Garwood, J.M. No date. Unpublished data. On file with USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA.

Garwood, J.M. 2006. Natural History Notes: Rana cascadae (Cascades Frog). Tadpole Predation. Herpetological Review 37(1):76.

Garwood, J.M. 2009. Spatial Ecology of the Cascades Frog: Identifying Dispersal, Migration, and Resource Uses at Multiple Spatial Scales. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 97 pp.

Garwood, J.M., and M. Larson. No date. Unpublished data. On file with USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA.

Garwood, J.M. and H.H. Welsh, Jr. 2007. Ecology of the Cascades Frog (Rana cascadae) and Interactions with Garter Snakes and Non-Native Trout in the Trinity Alps Wilderness, California. Final report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Arcata, California. Biology 3(1):28-39.

Garwood, J.M., and C.A. Wheeler. 2007. Rana cascadae Predation. Herpetological Review 38(2):193-194.

Garwood, J.M., C.A. Wheeler, R.M. Bourque, M.D. Larson, and H.H. Welsh, Jr. 2007. Egg Mass Drift Increases Vulnerability During Early Development of Cascades Frogs (Rana cascadae). Northwestern Naturalist 88(2):95-97.

38

Green, D.M. 1986a. Systematics and Evolution of Western North American Frogs Allied to Rana aurora and Rana boylii: Electrophoretic Evidence. Systematic Zoology 35(3):283-296.

Green, D.M. 1986b. Systematics and Evolution of Western North American Frogs Allied to Rana aurora and Rana boylii: Karyological Evidence. Systematic Zoology 35(3):273-282.

Hageman, K.J., S.L. Simonich, D.H. Campbell, G.R. Wilson, and D.H. Landers. 2006. Atmospheric Deposition of Current-Use and Historic-Use Pesticides in Snow at National Parks in the Western United States. Environmental Science and Technology 40:3174-3180.

Hamlet, A.F., P.W. Mote, and M.P. Clark. 2005. Effects of Temperature and Precipitation Variability on Snowpack Trends in the Western United States. Journal of Climate 18:4545- 4561.

Hamlet, A.F., P.W. Mote, and M.P. Clark. 2007. Twentieth-Century Trends in Runoff, Evapotranspiration, and Soil Moisture in the Western United States. Journal of Climate 20:1468–86.

Hardy, B.M., K.L. Pope, J. Piovia-Scott, R.N. Brown, and J.E. Foley. 2015. Itraconazole Treatment Reduces Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis Prevalence and Increases Overwinter Field Survival in Juvenile Cascades Frogs. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 112:243-250.

Harris, R.R., C.A. Fox, and R. Risser. 1987. Impacts of Hydroelectric Development on Riparian Vegetation in the Sierra Nevada Region, California, USA. Environmental Management 11:519-527.

Hartel, T., S. Nemes, D. Cogalniceanu, K.O. llerer, O. Schweiger, C.I. Moga, and L.Demeter. 2007. The Effect of Fish and Aquatic Habitat Complexity on Amphibians. Hydrobiologia 583:173-182.

Hartman, R., K. Pope, and S. Lawler. 2013. Factors Mediating Co-Occurrence of an Economically Valuable Introduced Fish and Its Native Frog Prey. Conservation Biology 28(3):763-772.

Hatch, A.C., L.K. Belden, E. Scheessele, and A.R. Blaustein. 2001. Juvenile Amphibians Do Not Avoid Potentially Lethal Levels of Urea on Soil Substrate. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20(10):2328-2335.

Hokit, D.G., and A.R. Blaustein. 1994. The Effects of Kinship on Growth and Development in Tadpoles of Rana cascadae. Evolution 48(4):1383-1388.

Hokit, D.G., and A.R. Blaustein. 1995. Predator Avoidance and Alarm-Response Behaviour in Kin-Discriminating Tadpoles (Rana cascadae). Ethology 101:280-290.

Hokit, D.G., and A.R. Blaustein. 1997. The Effects of Kinship on Interaction Between Tadpoles of Rana cascadae. Ecology 78(6):1722-1735.

39

ICF Jones and Stokes. 2010. Final Hatchery and Stocking Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA.

[IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland.

Jennings, M.R. 1996. Status of Amphibians. Pp. 921-944 In: Status of the Sierra Nevada. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Volume II: Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources Report 37. University of California, Davis, CA.

Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Final Report submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Contract No. 8023. 255 pp.

Joseph, M.B., J. Piovia-Scott, S.P. Lawler, and K.L. Pope. 2011. Indirect Effects of Introduced Trout on Cascades Frogs (Rana cascadae) Via Shared Aquatic Prey. Freshwater Biology 56:828-838.

Kattelmann, R. 1996. Hydrology and Water Resources. Pp.851-920 In: Status of the Sierra Nevada. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Volume II: Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources Report 37. University of California, Davis, CA.

Kauffman, J.B., and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock Impacts on Riparian Ecosystems and Streamside Management Implications: A Review. Journal of Range Management 37(5):430- 438.

Kiesecker, J.M., and A.R. Blaustein. 1995. Synergism Between UV-B Radiation and a Pathogen Magnifies Amphibian Embryo Mortality in Nature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 92:11049-11052.

Kiesecker, J.M., and A.R. Blaustein. 1997. Influences of Egg Laying Behavior on Pathogenic Infection of Amphibian Eggs. Conservation Biology 11(1):214-220.

Knapp, R.A. 2005. Effects of Nonnative Fish and Habitat Characteristics on Lentic Herpetofauna in Yosemite National Park, USA. Biological Conservation 121:265-279.

Knapp, R.A., and K.R. Matthews. 2000. Non-Native Fish Introductions and the Decline of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog from Within Protected Areas. Conservation Biology 14(2):428- 438.

Knapp, R.A., C.J. Briggs, T.C. Smith, and J.R. Maurer. 2011. Nowhere to Hide: Impact of a Temperature-Sensitive Amphibian Pathogen along an Elevation Gradient in the Temperate Zone. Ecosphere 2(8):1-26.

40

Knapp, R.A., P.S. Corn, and D.E. Schindler. 2001. The Introduction of Nonnative Fish into Wilderness Lakes: Good Intentions, Conflicting Mandates, and Unintended Consequences. Ecosystems 4:275-278.

Knight, R.L., and D.N. Cole. 1991. Effects of Recreational Activity on Wildlife in Wildlands. Transactions of the 56th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 56:238-247.

Larson, D.J. 1996. Historical Water-Use Priorities and Public Policies. Pp. 163-185 In: Status of the Sierra Nevada. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Volume II: Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources Report 37. University of California, Davis, CA.

Larson, M.D. 2012. Diet of the Cascades Frog (Rana cascadae) as it Relates to Prey Availability in the Klamath Mountains of Northwest California. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 71 pp.

Lawler, J., A. Hamlet, M. Ryan, S. Lee, M. Halabisky, L.M. Moskal, and W. Palen. 2014. Extended Monitoring and Modeling of Climate Change Effects on Pacific Northwest Wetlands. Agreement Number: GS276A-A. Northwest Climate Science Center, Final Report. 123 pp.

Lee S.-Y., M.E. Ryan, A.F. Hamlet, W.J. Palen, J.J. Lawler, and M. Halabisky. 2015. Projecting the Hydrologic Impacts of Climate Change on Montane Wetlands. PLoS ONE 10(9):e0136385. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136385

LeNoir, J.S., L.L. McConnell, G.M. Fellers, T.M. Cahill, and J.N. Seiber. 1999. Summertime Transport of Current-Use Pesticides from California’s Central Valley to the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18(12):2715-2722.

Li, Y., J.M. Cohen, and J.R. Rohr. 2013. Review and Synthesis of the Effects of Climate Change on Amphibians. Integrative Zoology 8:145-161.

Lowe, W.H. 2012. Climate Change Is Linked to Long-Term Decline In A Stream Salamander. Biological Conservation 145:48-53.

Marco, A., and A.R. Blaustein. 1999. The Effects of Nitrite on Behavior and Metamorphosis in Cascades Frogs (Rana cascadae). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18(5):946-949.

McConnell, L.L., J.S. LeNoir, S. Datta, and J.N. Seiber. 1998. Wet Deposition of Current-Use Pesticides in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 17(10):1908-1916.

McDonald, S.F., S.J. Hamilton, K.J. Buhl. and J.F. Heisinger. 1996. Acute Toxicity of Fire Control Chemicals to Daphnia magna (Straus) and Selenastrum capricornutum (Printz). Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 33:6272.

41

Megahan, W.F., J.G. King, and K.A. Seyedbagheri. 1995. Hydrologic and Erosional Responses of a Granitic Watershed to Helicopter Logging and Broadcast Burning. Forest Science 41:777-795.

Menke, J.W., C. Davis, and P. Beesley. 1996. Rangeland Assessment. Pp. 901-972 In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Volume III: Assessments, Commissioned Reports, and Background Information. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources Report 38. University of California, Davis, CA.

Monsen, K.J., and M.S. Blouin. 2003. Genetic Structure in a Montane Ranid Frog: Restricted Gene Flow and Nuclear-Mitochrondrial Discordance. Molecular Ecology 12:3275-3286.

Monsen, K.J. and M.S. Blouin. 2004. Extreme Isolation by Distance in a Montane Frog Rana cascadae. Conservation Genetics 5:827-835.

Moore, I.T., and T.S. Jessop. 2003. Stress, Reproduction, and Adrenocortical Modulation in Amphibians and Reptiles. Hormones and Behavior 43:39-47.

Moore, P.E., D.N. Cole, J.W. Wagtendonk, M.P. McClaran, and N. McDougald. 2000. Meadow Response to Packstock Grazing in the Yosemite Wilderness: Integrating Research and Management. Pp. 160-164 In: Cole, D.N., S.F. McCool, W.T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin (compilers). Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference-Volume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and Management. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Mote, P.W., A.F. Hamlet, and M.P. Clark. 2005. Declining Mountain Snowpack in Western North America. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86:39-49.

Moyle, P.B., and P.J. Randall. 1998. Evaluating the Biotic Integrity of Watersheds in the Sierra Nevada, California. Conservation Biology 12:1318-1326.

Nafis, G. 2013. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Available at: http://www.californiaherps.com/.

Nauman, R.S., and Y. Dettlaff. 1999. Rana cascadae (Cascades Frog): Predation. Herpetological Review 30(2):93.

[NPS] National Park Service. 1999. Assessment of Amphibians Found in National Parks in the Sierra Nevada of California. Report of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Point Reyes National Seashore, Point Reyes, CA.

Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie, Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University Press of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 332 pp.

O’Hara, R.K. 1981. Habitat Selection Behavior in Three Species of Anuran Larvae: Environmental Cues, Ontogeny and Adaptive Significance. Ph.D. Dissertation. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 146 pp.

42

O’Hara, R.K., and A.R. Blaustein. 1981. An Investigation of Sibling Recognition in Rana cascadae Tadpoles. Animal Behavior 29:1121-1126.

O’Hara, R.K., and A.R. Blaustein. 1985. Rana cascadae Tadpoles Aggregate with Siblings: An Experimental Field Study. Oecologia 67:44-51.

Olson, D.H. 1988. The Ecological and Behavioral Dynamics of Breeding in Three Sympatric Anuran Amphibians. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 260 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Olson, D.H. 1992. Ecological Susceptibility of Amphibians to Population Declines. Pp. 55-62 In Harris, R.R., H.M. Kerner, and D.C. Erman (editors), Proceedings of the Symposium on Biodiversity of Northwestern California. Berkeley, CA.

Olson-Rutz, K.M., C.B. Marlow, K. Hansen, L.C. Gagnon, and R.J. Rossi. 1996. Packhorse Grazing Behavior and Immediate Impact on a Timberline Meadow. Journal of Range Management 49:546–550.

Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37:637–669.

Paulk, N.K., and R.S. Wagner. 2004. Interaction of Glyphosate and Malathion on Mortality and Development in Cascades Frogs (Rana cascadae). Northwestern Naturalist 85(2):24.

Pearl, C., and M.J. Adams. 2005. Rana cascadae. Pp. 538–540 In M. Lannoo (editor), Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of United States Species. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Peterson, J.A. and A.R. Blaustein. 1991. Unpalatability in Anuran Larvae as a Defense Against Natural Salamander Predators. Ethology, Ecology and Evolution 3:63-72.

Peterson, J.D. 2012. Physiological Effects of Chytridiomycosis, a Cause of Amphibian Population Declines. PhD Dissertation. Auburn University, Auburn, AL. 80 pp.

Pilliod, D.S., and C.R. Peterson. 2001. Local and Landscape Effects of Introduced Trout on Amphibians in Historically Fishless Watersheds. Ecosystems 4(4):322-333.

Pilliod, D.S., R.B. Bury, E.J. Hyde, C.A. Pearl, and P.S. Corn. 2003. Fire and Amphibians in North America. Forest Ecology and Management 178:163-181.

Piovia-Scott, J., K.L. Pope, S.P. Lawler, E.M. Cole, and J.E. Foley. 2011. Factors Related to the Distribution and Prevalence of the Fungal Pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in Rana cascadae and Other Amphibians in the Klamath Mountains. Biological Conservation 144:2913-2921.

Piovia-Scott, J., K. Pope, and S.J. Worth. 2015. Correlates of Virulence in a Frog-Killing Fungal Pathogen: Evidence from a California Amphibian Decline. The ISME Journal 9:1570-1578.

Pope, K.L. No date. Unpublished data. On file with USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA.

43

Pope, K.L. 2008a. Assessing Changes in Amphibian Population Dynamics Following Experimental Manipulations of Introduced Fish. Conservation Biology 22(6):1572-1581.

Pope, K.L. 2008b. Population Monitoring of Remnant Populations of Cascades Frogs (Rana cascadae) in the Lassen Region of California. Final Report to the Lassen National Forest, December 2008. Unpublished report. On file with USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA.

Pope, K.L., and M.D. Larson. No date. Unpublished data. On file with USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA.

Pope, K.L., and M.D. Larson. 2010. Second Year of Population Monitoring of Remnant Populations of Cascades Frogs (Rana cascadae) in the Lassen Area of California. Final report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS #81420-8-H158. 28 pp. Unpublished report on file with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA.

Pope, K.L., and J. Piovia-Scott. 2010. Unpublished data. On file with USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA.

Pope, K., C. Brown, M. Hayes, G. Green, and D. Macfarlane (technical coordinators). 2014. Cascades Frog Conservation Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-244. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 116 pp.

Pope, K.L., J.M. Garwood, H.H. Welsh, Jr., and S.P. Lawler. 2008. Evidence of Indirect Impacts of Introduced Trout on Native Amphibians via Facilitation of a Shared Predator. Biological Conservation 141:1321-1331.

Pope, K.L., M.D. Larson, and J. Piovia-Scott. 2011. Status of Remnant Populations of Cascades Frogs (Rana cascadae) in the Lassen Area of California. Final report for year 2008 to the Lassen National Forest, ISA #05-06-03. Unpublished report on file with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lassen National Forest, Susanville, CA. 38 pp.

Quinn, T., J. Gallie, and D.P. Volen. 2001. Amphibian Occurrences in Artificial and Natural Wetlands of the Teanaway and Lower Sauk River Drainages of Kittitas County, Washington. Northwest Science 75(1):84-89.

Raffel, T.R., J.M. Romansic, N.T. Halstead, T.A. McMahon, M.D. Venesky, and J.R. Rohr. 2013. Disease and Thermal Acclimatization in a More Variable and Unpredictable Climate. Nature Climate Change 3:146-151.

Rieman, B., and J. Clayton. 1997. Wildlife and Native Fish: Issues of Forest Health and Conservation of Sensitive Fish Species. Fisheries 22(11):6-15.

Retallick, R.W., and V. Miera. 2007. Strain Differences in the Amphibian Chytrid Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and Non-Permanent, Sub-Lethal Effects of Infection. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 75:201-207.

44

Rohr, J.R., and B.D. Palmer. 2013. Climate Change, Multiple Stressors, and the Decline of Ectotherms. Conservation Biology 27:741-751.

Root, T.L., J.T. Price, K.R. Hall, S.H. Schneider, C. Rosenzweig, and J.A. Pounds. 2003. Fingerprints of Global Warming on Wild Animals and Plants. Nature 421:57-60.

Ryan, M.E., W.J. Palen, M.J. Adams, and R.M. Rochefort. 2014. Amphibians in the Climate Vise: Loss and Restoration of Resilience of Montane Wetland Ecosystems in the Western US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12(4):232-240.

Schindler, D.E., R.A. Knapp, and P.R. Leavitt. 2001. Alteration of Nutrient Cycles and Algal Production Resulting from Fish Introductions into Mountain Lakes. Ecosystems 4:308-321.

Semlitsch, R.D., D.E. Scott, and J.H.K. Pechmann. 1988. Time and Size at Metamorphosis Related to Adult Fitness in Ambystoma talpoideum. Ecology 69(1):184-192.

Simons, L.H. 1998. Natural History Notes: Rana cascadae (Cascades Frog). Predation. Herpetological Review 29(4):232.

Skerratt, L.F., L. Berger, R. Speare, S. Cashins, K.R. McDonald, and A.D. Phillott. 2007. Spread of Chytridiomycosis Has Caused the Rapid Global Decline and Extinction of Frogs. Ecohealth 4:125-134.

Slater, J.R. 1939. Description and Life History of a New Rana from Washington. Herpetologica 1(6):145-149.

Stead, J.E., and K.L. Pope. 2010. Predatory Leeches (Hirudinida) May Contribute to Amphibian Declines in the Lassen Region, California. Northwestern Naturalist 91:30-39.

Stead, J.E., H.H. Welsh, and K.L. Pope. 2005. Survey of Amphibians and Fishes at All Lentic Habitats in Lassen Volcanic National Park: A Report to the National Park Service. LVNP Study Number: LAVO-00717 contracted with Southern Oregon University and U.S. Forest Service, Redwood Sciences Laboratory.

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 3rd Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.

Sype, W. E. 1975. Breeding habits, embryonic thermal requirements and embryonic and larval development of the Cascades Frog, Rana cascadae (Slater 1939). Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Thomson, R.C., A.N. Wright, and H.B. Shaffer. 2016. California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 390 pp.

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30.

45

[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998. Region 5 Sensitive Species List. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Southwest Region.

[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001a. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement. San Francisco, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001b. Unpublished Geographic Information System (GIS) Data. On file with: Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.

[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2011. Nationwide Aerial Application of Fire Retardant on National Forest System Land, Record of Decision. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 74 pp.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for Oregon Spotted Frog; Final Rule. August 29, 2014. Federal Register 79(168): 51658-51710.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on 31 Petitions. July 1, 2015. Federal Register 80(126):37568- 37579.

[USFWS] U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Oregon Spotted Frog; Final Rule. May 11, 2016. Federal Register 81(91): 29336-29396.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016b. National Listing Workplan. 7-Year Workplan (September 2016 Version).

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. ECOS: Environmental Conservation Online System. Accessed February 2, 2017. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?sId=7827

Vredenburg, V.T. 2004. Reversing Introduced Species Effects: Experimental Removal of Introduced Fish Leads to Rapid Recovery of a Declining Frog. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 101:7646-7650.

Wack, C.L., S.E. DuRant, W.A. Hopkins, M.B. Lovern, R.C. Feldhoff, and S.K. Woodley. 2012. Elevated Plasma Corticosterone Increases Metabolic Rate in A Terrestrial Salamander. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology-Part A: Molecular and Integrative Physiology 161:153-158.

Welsh, H.W., and K.L. Pope. 2004. Impacts of Introduced Fishes on the Native Amphibians of Northern California Wilderness Areas. Final Report to the California Department of Fish and Game, contract number P0010025 AM#1 with U.S. Forest Service, Redwood Sciences Laboratory.

46

Welsh, H.H., K.L. Pope, and D. Boiano. 2006. Subalpine Amphibian Distributions Related to Species Palatability to Non-Native Salmonids in the Klamath Mountains of Northern California. Diversity and Distributions 12: 298-309.

Wollmuth, L.P., L.I. Crawshaw, R.B. Forbes and D.A. Grahn. 1987. Temperature Selection During Development in a Montane Anuran Species, Rana cascadae. Physiological Zoology 60:472-480.

Young, A.G., and G.M. Clarke (editors). 2000. Genetics, Demography and Viability of Fragmented Populations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Personal Communications

Aguilar, Bernard. Environmental Scientist, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Redding, CA. Phone conversation on April 11, 2017.

Garwood, Justin. M.S. Environmental Scientist, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Arcata, CA. Phone conversation on April 11, 2017.

Hardy, Bennett. M.S. Student, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, WI. Electronic mail received April 13, 2017.

Pope, Karen, Ph.D. Research Wildlife Biologist. USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA. Electronic mail received April 13, 2017.

47

California Fish and Game Commission Tribal Committee (TC) Work Plan Revised August 2017

2017 2017/18 Feb 7 Jun 20 Oct 10 TBD

Topic Type Goals Atascadero Smith River Santa Rosa Special Projects Co-management TC workgroup Development of a vision statement and definition X X X Regulatory/Legislative Formalizing Tribal Committee in statute TC project Legislative Bill X X X Kelp and algae harvest management DFW project Recommendation and guidance X X Emerging Management Issues FGC Climate Policy FGC policy Development of a policy for the FGC. Looking for X recommendations and guidance as we move forward. Fishing communities MRC project Recommendation and guidance X X Management Plans Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) Master Management framework Updates on DFW process to amend the Master Plan for Plan for Fisheries document - part of MRC Fisheries, and identify areas of interest to Tribes X crosswalk Elk DFW X X Informational/Special topics Cross pollination with MRC and WRC Ongoing FGC committee Identification of tribal concerns and common themes that coordination overlap between WRC and MRC. X X X Annual Commission-Tribal planning meeting Annual FGC- Tribal coordination 1) Identify process to inform Tribes of anticipated regulatory pursuant to Commission’s tribal consultation and consultation and policy topics to be considered each year; 2) Identify tribal policy priorities from within topics; 3) Develop collaborative interests; X X X 4) Contribute to planning logistics for annual meeting

OPC update on tribal participation in the statewide OPC project X leadership team OPC update on Safeguarding California and Sea OPC project X Level Rise Request for a presentation and update on the DFW/LED X implementation of Prop 64 FGC staff to provide a regulatory calendar FGC overview and where tribal interests could provide X feedback New Topics Begin planning for February 2018 Annual tribal FGC X committee planning meeting Develop tribal solicitation letter and conference FGC Develop draft language for Oct TC meeting based on input call regarding co-management draft language for from a wide variety of tribes X X vision statement and definition

FGC = California Fish and Game Commission MRC = FGC's Marine Resources Committee WRC = FGC's Wildlife Resources Committee DFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife LED = DFW's Law Enforcement Division OPC = California Ocean Protection Council

Commissioners STATE OF CALIFORNIA Valerie Termini, Executive Director Eric Sklar, President Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320 Saint Helena Sacramento, CA 95814 Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Vice President (916) 653-4899 McKinleyville Fish and Game Commission www.fgc.ca.gov Anthony C. Williams, Member Huntington Beach Russell E. Burns, Member Napa Peter S. Silva, Member El Cajon

Wildlife Heritage and Conservation Since 1870

TRIBAL COMMITTEE CONFERENCE CALL MEETING ON DEVELOPING A SHARED VISION AND DEFINITION OF CO-MANAGEMENT FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF FGC

Meeting Agenda September 7, 2017, 2:00 PM

Conference call information provided upon RSVP

1. Welcome and introductions

2. Overview and goals of meeting

3. Tribal co-management vision and definition statements

(A) Background (B) Comment on drafts (C) Themes to focus on?

4. Interest in developing a workgroup on co-management

(A) Need statewide interest and sustained effort (B) Outreach to California tribes (C) Workgroup approval

5. Next Steps

(A) Levels of interest in a tribal workgroup (B) Dates for a future meeting (if needed) Wildlife Resources Committee (WRC) 2016-2017 Draft Work Plan: Schedule topics and timeline for items referred to WRC (Updated for Aug 2017 FGC meeting) 2017 2018

JAN MAY SEP JAN Topic Type of Topic (Redding) (Sacramento) (Riverside) (TBD)

Annual Regulations

Upland Game Birds Annual X / R X X / R

Sport Fish Annual X X / R X

Mammals Annual X / R

Waterfowl Annual X / R Central Valley Salmon Annual X / R

Klamath River Sport Fish Annual X / R

Regulations & Legislative Mandates

Falconry Referral for review X X X / R

Russian River sport fishing Referral for review X

Emerging Management Issues

Lead Ban Implementation DFW project X X

Wild Pig Management Referral for review X X X / R

Special Projects

Predator Policy Workgroup WRC workgroup X X X / R

Delta Fisheries Forum (May 24, 2017) Referral X / R

KEY X Discussion scheduled R Recommendation developed and moved to FGC

STATE OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REGULATORY ACTION (Pre-publication of Notice Statement)

Amend Sections 1.05, 1.11, 1.18, 1.61, 1.74, 2.10, 2.25, 5.35, 5.41, 5.88, Subsection (b) of Section 7.00, Subsection (b) of Section 7.50, and Subsection (b) of Section 8.00; Repeal Section 1.60; and Add Section 2.05, Title 14, California Code of Regulations Re: Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations

I. Date of Initial Statement of Reasons: June 2, 2017

II. Dates and Locations of Scheduled Hearings:

(a) Notice Hearing: Date: August 16, 2017 Location: Sacramento

(b) Discussion Hearing: Date: October 11, 2017 Location: Atascadero

(c) Adoption Hearing: Date: December 6, 2017 Location: San Diego

III. Description of Regulatory Action:

(a) Statement of Specific Purpose of Regulation Change and Factual Basis for Determining that Regulation Change is Reasonably Necessary:

This California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) proposal combines Department and public requests for changes to Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR), for the 2017 Sport Fishing Regulations Review Cycle. This proposal will reduce foul-hooking of salmon, protect Shasta crayfish, protect salmon released above Shasta Dam, clarify regulations for artificial lures and bait, increase protection for Chinook Salmon and steelhead in the lower American River,DRAFT increase bow fishing opportunities, update the sport fishing report card requirements, and make needed corrections to existing regulations. The proposed regulatory changes are needed to reduce public confusion and improve regulatory enforcement.

The Department is proposing the following changes to current regulations:

1

ROCK CREEK (SHASTA COUNTY) CLOSURE TO PROTECT SHASTA CRAYFISH Shasta crayfish (Pacifastacus fortis) is listed as an Endangered Species pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.)(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.5(B)) and the federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.)(53 Fed.Reg. 38460-38465 (1988)). The current distribution for Shasta crayfish includes small and isolated spring fed areas in the Fall and Pit River drainages (Shasta County). Rock Creek, in the Hat Creek Drainage, was historically occupied by Shasta crayfish and was recently restored to provide refuge for and aid in the survival of the species. The Department is proposing to close Rock Creek to all fishing all year from Rock Creek spring downstream to Baum Lake. This proposal will aid in the protection of Shasta crayfish and its habitat.

Proposal: Add new subsection (b)(151.5) to Section 7.50, Special Fishing Regulations Add Rock Creek, in the Hat Creek Drainage, to the Special Fishing Regulations with an all year fishing closure to protect Shasta crayfish.

CLARIFICATION OF NO TAKE OF SALMON IN THE SACRAMENTO AND MCCLOUD RIVERS AND TRIBUTARIES ABOVE SHASTA LAKE The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) are conducting feasibility studies for the reintroduction of winter-run and spring-run Chinook Salmon into the McCloud and Sacramento rivers. As part of a Fish Passage Pilot Project, federal agencies will be introducing an experimental release of Chinook Salmon into the Sacramento and McCloud drainages starting in 2017 or 2018 and continuing indefinitely. It is imperative that these rivers and their tributaries above Shasta Lake be closed to salmon fishing to reduce salmon loss and increase the success of the Fish Passage Pilot Project.

Proposal: Add new language to Section 7.00, District General Regulations, and to subsection (b)(115), McCloud River, in Section 7.50, Special Fishing Regulations. Amend the Sierra District Regulations to clarify that all rivers and associated tributaries above Shasta Lake are closed to the take of salmon, and amend subsection (b)(115)DRAFT to Section 7.50 to direct readers to the District General Regulations. These changes will protect Chinook Salmon when they are reintroduced into the upper Sacramento and McCloud rivers above the Shasta Lake.

AMERICAN RIVER (NIMBUS BASIN) FISHING CLOSURE Under current regulations, the American River (in Sacramento County) from Nimbus Dam to the Hazel Avenue bridge piers is open to fishing all year (Section 7.50(b)(5)(A)), and from the Hazel Avenue bridge piers to the U.S. Geological

2

Survey gauging station cable crossing about 300 yards downstream from the Nimbus Hatchery fish weir is open to fishing January 1 through August 15 (Section 7.50(b)(5)(B)). The current request for closure is designed to protect Chinook Salmon and Central Valley steelhead trout, which will utilize this section of the river for both in-river spawning and rearing along with essential hatchery operations.

The BOR and the Department have completed a joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Nimbus Hatchery Fish Passage Project (Project). The primary goal of the Project is to maintain a fully functional system of collecting adult Chinook Salmon and Central Valley steelhead trout sufficient to meet the hatchery’s mitigation goals. Phase 1 of the Project extends the Nimbus Hatchery fish ladder 1500 feet (.30 miles) upstream into the Nimbus Basin. With the completion of the new fish ladder, Phase 2 of the Project will permanently remove the existing Nimbus Hatchery fish weir, and spawning gravel injections will be completed within the section of river associated with Section 7.50 (b)(5)(B). A gravel restoration and side channel creation project to create spawning and rearing habitat in the Nimbus Basin was completed in 2014.

However, the Project has the potential to affect Chinook Salmon and Central Valley steelhead trout holding, spawning, and rearing in this section of the lower American River. Under current hatchery operations, large numbers of adult Chinook Salmon and Central Valley steelhead trout hold below the existing fish weir located below the Hazel Avenue bridge before being routed to the fish ladder located at the south end of weir. Fish that enter the hatchery that are not ripe for spawning are released back into the river through the outfall, located approximately 100 feet below the existing fish ladder. As a result, current hatchery operations utilize a small portion of the river below the weir to cycle fish in and out of the hatchery. However, once the existing fish ladder is moved upstream into the Nimbus Basin, the length of river utilized for hatchery operations will increase by approximately 1,500 feet. Upon completion of the Project, holding, spawning, and rearing Chinook Salmon and Central Valley steelhead trout will distribute throughout the hatchery operations area. As a result, the entire section of river should be closed to fishing all year to ensure successful hatchery operations. DRAFT Consequently, if the area is not closed to fishing by the Fall of 2018, anglers will continue fishing in the Nimbus Basin downstream to the USGS gauging station and target holding and spawning Chinook Salmon and Central Valley steelhead trout. Although Section 2.35 states that fishing shall not take place within 250 feet of a fish ladder, this would have little effect in protecting salmon and steelhead under the new configuration. The new ladder entrance would be greater than 250 feet from where salmon are expected to hold until the ladder is opened to allow salmon and steelhead into the Nimbus Hatchery. The proposed

3 closure would also provide the American River Trout Hatchery and Nimbus Hatchery with greater protection from contamination by the New Zealand Mud Snail (NZMS), which have been documented adjacent to the hatchery in Section 7.50(b)(5)(B).

Proposal: Amend subsections (b)(5)(A) and (b)(5)(B) of Section 7.50, Special Fishing Regulations Combine subsections 7.50(b)(5)(A) and 7.50(b)(5)(B) and close this section of river to fishing all year.

ARTIFICIAL LURE AND BAIT DEFINITION CHANGES The purpose of the regulation change is to clarify that no scents or flavors shall be used on lures on waters where only artificial lures with barbless hooks may be used. After consulting with wildlife officers on this subject, it has become clear there is some subjectivity in interpreting the current regulation which has resulted in inconsistency and confusion. By clarifying this definition, law enforcement will have increased success enforcing this rule and the public will have a clearer description of this rule.

The definition of a lure (Section 1.60) would be removed from the Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations and only “artificial lure” would be used. With this change, three substitutions in the current regulations would need to be made: (1) Section 1.05, Angling; (2) Section 1.61, Non-buoyant Lure; and (3) Section 2.10(b)(3), Hook and Weight Restrictions. In all three sections lure would be changed to artificial lure. In addition, the definition of artificial lure would be amended to clarify that only non-scented and non-flavored lures may be used. Lastly, there is currently no definition of bait in Title 14. A definition of bait is needed to help clarify when scents and flavors can be used.

Proposal: Repeal Section 1.60, Lure; Amend Sections 1.05, Angling; 1.11, Artificial Lure; 1.61, Non-buoyant lure; and 2.10, Hook and Weight Restrictions; and add Section 1.18, Bait Amend multiples sectons in Title 14 to align with the new definitions for artificial lure and bait.

ALLOW BOW AND ARROW FISHING FOR CATFISH The bow and DRAFTarrow fishing community has requested the opportunity to fish for catfish in certain waters in the state. Bowfishers have expressed that they often encounter catfish in their pursuit for carp and would like to be able to take catfish as well. This request was considered by Department law enforcement and regional biologists who determined that bowfishing could be allowed on waters with large carp populations and that are popular for bowfishing. These waters include the Sacramento San-Joaquin Delta, Lake Isabella in Kern County and Big Bear Lake in San Bernardino County. Allowing bowfishing for catfish on these waters will increase fishing opportunities for bowfishers.

4

Proposal: Amend Section 2.25, Bow and Arrow Fishing Amend Section 2.25 to allow bowfishing for bullheads and catfish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, Big Bear Lake in San Bernardino County, and Lake Isabella in Kern County.

REVISION OF MENDOCINO, SONOMA, AND MARIN COUNTIES’ LOW FLOW CLOSURE TIME PERIOD TO ALIGN WITH THE ADULT STEELHEAD SEASON Section 8.00(b) establishes a season for special low flow conditions for Mendocino, Sonoma, and Marin County coastal streams; however, the current end date extends the length of the low flow season past the adult steelhead fishing season on most coastal streams (except Russian River) which provides an unnecessary protection and may potentially confuse anglers. The current sport fishing regulations allow fishing in coastal streams of Mendocino, Sonoma, and Marin counties from the fourth Saturday in May through March 31, except for the Russian River which is open all year. Gear restrictions change from November 1 through March 31 to accommodate fishing for adult steelhead on all Mendocino, Sonoma, and Marin County coastal streams. There is no need for the season of special low flow conditions to extend beyond March 31, as most streams (except Russian River) are closed to any fishing from April 1 until the fourth Saturday in May, which is prior to the end of the current low flow season. The Russian River is the exception because it is open year round due to other sport fisheries such as American shad and smallmouth bass. For consistency, the Russian River should be included in this change, but it would result in the potential reduction of protected days under a low flow closure between April 1 and the fourth Saturday in May (52-57 days depending upon the calendar year). The loss of this additional protection on the Russian River is not likely to be significant as the bulk of the steelhead will have spawned and angler effort targeting steelhead will be low in the months of April and May. The steelhead population on the Russian River is also unlike other coastal streams because it is supplemented with hatchery steelhead. Additionally, the Russian River is a flow regulated stream and flows are likely to be higher in April and May than other coastal streams and less likely to be subject to a low flow closure due to water releases. Conforming the low flow closure season with the end of the adult steelhead fishing season on Mendocino, Sonoma, and Marin County coastal streams helpsDRAFT simplify regulations and reduces confusion between the fishing season and low flow closure season and it would not significantly impact the Russian River steelhead population in the event of low flow conditions in the months of April and May. Proposal: Amend Subsection (b) of Section 8.00, Low-Flow Restrictions Revise Section 8.00(b) to redefine the season of the Special Low Flow Conditions to coincide with the end of the adult steelhead fishing season on March 31.

5

CRAYFISH In alignment with the proposal to close Rock Creek to fishing to protect Shasta crayfish, Section 5.35 will need to be amended to add Rock Creek to the list of waters where take of crayfish is prohibited. Rock Creek is a tributary to Baum Lake, which is an instream lake of Hat Creek in the Hat Creek Drainage.

Proposal: Amend Section 5.35, Crayfish Amend Section 5.35 to add Rock Creek to the list of waters where fishing for crayfish is prohibited.

STEELHEAD REPORT AND RESTORATION CARD REQUIREMENTS Department staff reassessed the fisheries management objectives of the Steelhead Report and Restoration Card and determined that the data being collected, location codes, and reporting instructions and requirements can be simplified. In order to accomplish this, verbiage within Section 5.88 must be changed.

Proposal: Amend Section 5.88, Steelhead Report and Restoration Card Requirements Remove reference to “wild” steelhead because it is not legal to retain a wild steelhead, and remove the requirement to report the number of hours that were fished for steelhead.

SPORT FISHING REPORT CARD REQUIREMENTS Section 1.74 establishes guidelines for report card regulations including reporting harvest authorized by a report card; however, this section does not include a mechanism for confirmation that data from a report card has been reported. This proposal requires report card holders who submit data online to write the provided confirmation number on their report card and retain the report card until for 90 days after the reporting deadline.

When a report card is lost, a licensee may wish to obtain a duplicate, or may simply need to fulfill the harvest reporting requirement before the reporting deadline. Section 1.74 does not currently provide guidelines for licensees who have lost their report card and need to report their harvest, but do not need to obtain a duplicate report card. This proposal updates procedures regarding lost report cards toDRAFT provide guidelines for obtaining a duplicate report card, and also for reporting harvest from a lost report card without obtaining a duplicate report card.

Proposal: Amend Section 1.74, Sport Fishing Report Card Requirements Amend Section 1.74 to update procedures for reporting online and for lost report cards.

6

RESTRICT LEADER LENGTH TO LESS THAN SIX FEET TO REDUCE POTENTIAL FOUL-HOOKING (SNAGGING) OF SALMON AND STEELHEAD The Department and the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) have struggled for years to eliminate and/or regulate snagging salmon. This has proven difficult given that some of the spawning aggregations, habitat, and creative snagging techniques that have evolved over time. Water operations, changes in angling ethics, and population growth likely have also contributed to this ongoing problem. After struggling with these issues statewide, the Commission directed the Department to find a solution.

In 2014, the Department formulated a snagging working group to help evaluate the issue through a structured decision making process. Both Department staff and angling stakeholders participated in multiple meetings. One action resulting from this effort was a directed study to assess the efficacy of a reduced leader length in relation to the “flossing” fishing technique based angling/snagging rig. Although this technique/rig is not the only gear that can be used to purposefully foul-hook salmon, it is currently legal and very effective when used in the right habitat (Feather, American, Sacramento, Yuba, and Klamath rivers) with high densities of spawning/migrating salmon. The results of the study showed a significant correlation with foul-hooking (82-94%) regardless of the leader length and a reduction in landing rates for the shortest leader.

Proposal: Add Section 205 to Title 14, Leader Length Restriction Add the leader length restriction to Title 14, Chapter 2, Article 1, to reduce foul- hooking of salmon and steelhead in anadromous waters.

Updates to Authority and Reference Citations Based on Recent Legislation

Senate Bill 1473 (Stats. 2016, Ch. 546) made organizational changes to the Fish and Game Code that became effective January 1, 2017. The changes included moving the Commission’s exemptions from specified Administrative Procedure Act time frames from Section 202 to Section 265 of the Fish and Game Code, moving the Commission’s organization and meeting from Section 206 to Section 110 of the Fish and Game Code, moving the Commission’s effective date procedures from Section 215 to Section 270 of the Fish and Game Code, and moving the Commission’s authority to adopt emergency regulations from Section 240 toDRAFT Section 399 of the Fish and Game Code. In accordance with these changes to the Fish and Game Code, sections 202, 206, 215, and 240 are removed from, and sections 110, 265, 270, and 399 are added to, the authority and reference citations for this rulemaking. Senate Bill 1473 also repealed subdivision (b) of Section 220 of the Fish and Game Code; therefore, Section 220 is removed from the list of authority and reference citations for this rulemaking.

7

Minor Editorial Corrections for Clarity In addition to the above proposals, minor editorial corrections are proposed to correct typographical errors and to improve regulation clarity.

Benefits of the Proposed Regulations It is the policy of this state to encourage the conservation, maintenance, and utilization of the living resources of the ocean and inland waters under the jurisdiction and influence of the state for the benefit of all the citizens of the State. In addition, it is the policy of this state to promote the development of local California fisheries in harmony with federal law respecting fishing and the conservation of the living resources of the ocean and inland waters under the jurisdiction and influence of the State. The objectives of this policy include, but are not limited to, the maintenance of sufficient populations of all species of aquatic organisms to ensure their continued existence and the maintenance of a sufficient resource to support a reasonable sport use. Adoption of scientifically- based trout and salmon seasons, size limits, and bag and possession limits provides for the maintenance of sufficient populations of trout and salmon to ensure their continued existence.

The benefits of the proposed regulations are concurrence with Federal law, sustainable management of California’s trout and salmon resources, and promotion of businesses that rely on recreational sport fishing in California.

(b) Authority and Reference Sections from Fish and Game Code for Regulation:

Authority: Sections 200, 205, 219, 265, 270, 315, 316.5, 399, 1050, 1053.1, 1055.1, 7380 and 8491, Fish and Game Code.

Reference: Sections 110, 200, 205, 206, 255, 265, 270, 316.5, 399, 713, 1050, 1053.1, 1055.1, 7149.8, 7380, 7381, 7382, 8490 and 8491, Fish and Game Code.

(c) Specific Technology or Equipment Required by Regulatory Change:

None. DRAFT (d) Identification of Reports or Documents Supporting Regulation Change:

None.

(e) Public Discussions of Proposed Regulations Prior to Notice Publication:

No public meetings are scheduled prior to the notice publication. The 45- day public notice comment period provides adequate time for review of the

8

proposed changes.

IV. Description of Reasonable Alternatives to Regulatory Action:

(a) Alternatives to Regulation Change:

Smith River Petition Petition #2016-023; received by the Commission at its Oct 2016 meeting; at Dec 2016 meeting Commission granted petition for consideration in the 2017 rulemaking for the 2018-19 season.

Petitioner recommends that the Department ban the use of roe as bait for fishing for salmon and steelhead. Petitioner also recommends closing the middle and south forks of the Smith River to fishing in November and December to protect spawning salmon.

Department Response The current Smith River fishing regulations provide for protection of salmon and steelhead. The Smith River special fishing regulations include limited harvest, seasonal closures, a permanent section closure, and restricted angling gear (Section 7.50(b)(180)). The proposed fishing regulation changes listed in the petition (2016-023) show a local concern for the sport salmon fishery, but are unlikely to achieve the desired outcome based on past and current fish monitoring data for the Smith River. For example, the salmon trends in the Smith River do not indicate a declining trend over time, but show a stable population with normal variability (USFS 1960, Moyle 2002, Larson 2014). Alternatively, local Pacific Oceans trends, which are likely a mix of Oregon and California stocks have shown declines over time and should not be an indicator of Smith River salmon status.

As noted in the petition, hooking mortality as described in the “1997/98 Smith River Survey Summary” report did indicate a 26% swallowing rate for bait and 0% for flies, but the following year 1998/99 Sparkman (2000) indicated 17% of fly caught fish swallowed the hook. While there is no doubt that fish may swallow a hook with any angling method used, the annual variability described in these studies leads to some uncertainty about targetingDRAFT specific gear types and expectations. In addition, the angler surveys grouped steelhead and salmon together comparing hook swallowing, although steelhead represented the majority of the catch (70- 83%) in all years (petitioner is concerned about salmon hook swallowing).

While the Department agrees there are salmon spawning above the “forks” of the Smith River, mainstem Middle and South fork access is mainly limited to shore anglers as drift boats face harsher drift/water

9 conditions and typical do not fish above the forks. The proposed area/seasonal closure would be targeting a specific user group with no substantial evidence to support the perceived protection for salmon during this time.

Striped Bass Petition Petition #2016-003; received by the Commission at its Feb 2016 meeting; at April 2016 meeting Commission granted petition for consideration in the 2017 rulemaking for the 2018-19 season.

The petitioner requests a change to the bag, possession, and size limits for striped bass on the San Joaquin River between Friant Dam and Highway 140 in Fresno, Madera, and Merced counties. Petitioner recommends increasing the daily bag limit for striped bass to 10, with no size limit in the San Joaquin River.

Department Response The Department does not support the proposal because it will not likely accomplish the overall intended purpose, increase juvenile salmon survival at a level of statistical significance, given striped bass life history (ability to recolonize) and lack of prey preference. The confounding part of the striped bass predation issue relative to the San Joaquin River and its tributaries is that, pending location, there can exist both resident and anadromous populations of striped bass. Though the resident population is reduced, in theory, with greater harvest, the anadromous population can overcome any reductions made to resident populations thereby negating any population reduction effects.

Spearfishing Petition Petition #2016-006; received by the Commission at its Jun 2016 meeting; at Aug 2016 meeting Commission granted petition for consideration in the 2017 rulemaking for the 2018-19 season.

The petitioner requests that the Department make the freshwater spearfishing regulations the same as the freshwater bow and arrow fishing regulations. DRAFT Department Response The Department does not support this proposal because of the safety issues associated with spearfishing as well as potential conflicts with other more common angling and recreational activities. In addition, extensive evaluations would need to be conducted to determine impacts to lakes and streams due to year-round spearfishing. Furthermore, with the current spearfishing regulations, there are already rules and regulations in place at lakes and rivers that are under the jurisdiction of federal, local,

10

and state agencies, and private organizations that do not permit the use of weapons upon those lands. Allowing the proposal would certainly convolute the new regulation (as it already has) and will not be consistent with what is already established by these organizations.

(b) No Change Alternative:

The no change alternative would leave existing regulations in place.

(c) Consideration of Alternatives:

In view of information currently possessed, no reasonable alternative considered would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulation is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed regulation, or would be more cost effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

V. Mitigation Measures Required by Regulatory Action:

The proposed regulatory action will have no negative impact on the environment; therefore, no mitigation measures are needed.

VI. Impact of Regulatory Action:

The Department assessed the potential for significant statewide adverse economic impacts that might result from the proposed regulatory action, and made the following initial determinations relative to the required statutory categories:

(a) Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Businesses, Including the Ability of California Businesses to Compete with Businesses in Other States:

The proposed action is not anticipated to have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states becauseDRAFT the expected impact of the proposed regulations on the amount of fishing activity is anticipated to be minimal relative to recreational angling effort statewide.

(b) Impact on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State, the Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses, or the Expansion of Businesses in California; Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents, Worker Safety, and the

11

State’s Environment:

The expected impact of the proposed regulations on the amount of fishing activity is anticipated to be minimal relative to recreational angling effort statewide. Therefore, the Commission does not anticipate any impacts on the creation or elimination of jobs, the creation of new business, the elimination of existing business or the expansion of businesses in California.

The Commission anticipates benefits to the health and welfare of California residents. Providing opportunities for a salmon and trout sport fishery encourages consumption of a nutritious food.

The Commission does not anticipate any non-monetary benefits to worker safety.

The Commission anticipates benefits to the environment by the sustainable management of California’s sport fishing resources.

(c) Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person or Business:

The agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

(d) Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding to the State:

None.

(e) Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies:

None.

(f) Programs Mandated on Local Agencies or School Districts:

None. DRAFT

(g) Costs Imposed on Any Local Agency or School District that is Required to be Reimbursed Under Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4, Government Code:

None.

(h) Effect on Housing Costs:

12

None.

VII. Economic Impact Assessment:

The proposed regulations will revise and update inland sport fishing regulations starting in 2018. Currently, the seasons, size limits, and bag and possession limits for sport fishing are periodically reviewed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Fish and Game Commission. This set of amendments will reduce foul-hooking of salmon, protect Shasta crayfish, protect salmon released above Shasta Dam, clarify regulations for artificial lures and bait, increase protection for Chinook Salmon and steelhead in the lower American River, increasing bow fishing opportunities, update the sport fishing report card requirements, and make needed corrections.

Inland sport fishing regulation’s affected parties include recreational anglers, commercial passenger fishing vessels and a variety of businesses that support anglers. The economic impact of regulatory changes for sport fisheries are estimated by tracking resulting changes in fishing effort, angler trips and length of stay in the fishery areas. Distance traveled affects gas and other travel expenditures. Day trips and overnight trips involve different levels of spending for gas, food and accommodations at area businesses as well as different levels of sales tax impacts. Direct expenditures ripple through the economy, as receiving businesses buy intermediate goods from suppliers that then spend that revenue again. Business spending on wages is received by workers who then spend that income, some of which goes to local businesses. Recreational fisheries spending thus multiplies throughout the economy with the indirect and induced effects of the initial direct expenditure.

The adoption of scientifically-based regulations provides for the maintenance of sufficient populations of inland sport fish to ensure their continued existence and future sport fishing opportunities that in turn support businesses related to the fishery economy.

The most recent 2011 U.S. Fish and Wildlife national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife associated recreation in California reports about 1.35 million resident and nonresidentDRAFT inland sport fish anglers contributed about $1.2 billion in trip and equipment expenditures to the State’s economy. With the addition of the indirect and induced effects of this $1.2 billion direct revenue contribution, the total economic benefit to California’s economy is estimated to be about $2.03 billion. This corresponds with about $960 million in total wages to Californians and about 16,000 jobs in the State annually.

This regulatory action may impact businesses that provide services to sport fishermen but these effects are anticipated to range from none to small positive

13 impacts, depending on the regulations ultimately adopted by the Commission. Sport fishing business owners, boat owners, tackle store owners, boat manufacturers, vendors of food, bait, fuel and lodging, and others that provide goods or services to those that sport fish in California may be positively affected to some degree from increases to business that may result under the range of proposed regulations. These anticipated impacts may vary by geographic location. Additionally, economic impacts to these same businesses may result from a number of factors unrelated to the proposed changes to inland sport fishing regulations, including weather, fuel prices, and success rates in other recreational fisheries that compete for angler trips.

(a) Effects of the Regulation on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State:

The cumulative effects of the changes statewide are estimated to be neutral to job elimination and potentially positive to job creation in California. No significant changes in fishing effort and sport fishing expenditures to businesses are expected as a direct result of the proposed regulation changes.

(b) Effects of the Regulation on the Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses Within the State:

The cumulative effects of the changes statewide are expected to be neutral to business elimination and have potentially positive impacts to the creation of businesses in California. No significant changes in fishing effort and sport fishing expenditures to businesses are expected as a direct result of the proposed regulation changes.

(c) Effects of the Regulation on the Expansion of Businesses Currently Doing Business Within the State:

The cumulative effects of the changes statewide are expected to be neutral to positive to the expansion of businesses currently doing business in California. No significant changes in fishing effort and inland sport fishing expenditures to businesses are expected as a direct result of the proposedDRAFT regulation changes.

(d) Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents:

The Commission anticipates benefits to the health and welfare of California residents. Trout and salmon are a nutritious food source and increasing inland sport fishery opportunities encourages consumption of this nutritious food. Sport fishing also contributes to increased mental

14

health of its practitioners as fishing is a hobby and form of relaxation for many. Sport fishing also provides opportunities for multi-generational family activities and promotes respect for California’s environment by younger generations, the future stewards of California’s natural resources.

(e) Benefits of the Regulation to Worker Safety:

The proposed regulations are not anticipated to impact worker safety conditions.

(f) Benefits of the Regulation to the State's Environment:

It is the policy of the state to encourage the conservation, maintenance, and utilization of the living resources of the inland waters under the jurisdiction and influence of the state for the benefit of all its citizens and to promote the development of local California fisheries. The objectives of this policy include, but are not limited to, the maintenance of sufficient populations of all species of aquatic organisms to ensure their continued existence and the maintenance of a sufficient resource to support a reasonable sport use, taking into consideration the necessity of regulating individual sport fishery bag limits in the quantity that is sufficient to provide a satisfying sport. Adoption of scientifically-based inland trout and salmon seasons, size limits, and bag and possession limits provides for the maintenance of sufficient populations of trout and salmon to ensure their continued existence. DRAFT

15

Informative Digest/Policy Statement Overview

This California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) proposal combines Department and public requests for changes to Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR), for the 2017 Sport Fishing Regulations Review Cycle. This proposal will reduce foul-hooking of salmon, protect Shasta crayfish, protect salmon released above Shasta Dam, clarify regulations for artificial lures and bait, increase protection for Chinook Salmon and steelhead in the lower American River, increasing bow fishing opportunities, update the sport fishing report card requirements, and make needed corrections to existing regulations. The proposed regulatory changes are needed to reduce public confusion and improve regulatory enforcement.

The Department is proposing the following changes to current regulations:

ROCK CREEK (SHASTA COUNTY) CLOSURE TO PROTECT SHASTA CRAYFISH Shasta crayfish (Pacifastacus fortis) is listed as an Endangered Species pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.)(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 670.5(B)) and the federal Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.)(53 Fed.Reg. 38460-38465 (1988)). The current distribution for Shasta crayfish includes small and isolated spring fed areas in the Fall and Pit River drainages (Shasta County). Rock Creek, in the Hat Creek Drainage, was historically occupied by Shasta crayfish and was recently restored to provide refuge for and aid in the survival of the species. The Department is proposing to close Rock Creek to all fishing all year from Rock Creek spring downstream to Baum Lake. The proposed closure will protect Shasta crayfish and its habitat.

Proposal: Add subsection (b)(151.5) to Section 7.50, Special Fishing Regulations Add Rock Creek, in the Hat Creek Drainage, to the Special Fishing Regulations with an all year fishing closure to protect Shasta crayfish.

CLARIFICATION OF NO TAKE OF SALMON IN THE SACRAMENTO AND MCCLOUD RIVERS AND TRIBUTARIES ABOVE SHASTA LAKE The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) are conducting feasibility studies for the reintroduction of winter and spring-run Chinook Salmon into the McCloud and Sacramento rivers. As part of a Fish Passage Pilot Project, federal agencies will be introducing an experimental release of Chinook Salmon into the SacramentoDRAFT and McCloud drainages starting in 2017 or 2018 and continuing indefinitely. It is imperative that these rivers and their tributaries above Shasta Lake are closed to salmon fishing to reduce salmon loss and increase the success of the Fish Passage Project.

Proposal: Add new language to Subsection (b) of Section 7.00, District General Regulations, and to subsection (b)(115), McCloud River, in Section 7.50, Special Fishing Regulations.

16

Amend the Sierra District Regulations to clarify that all rivers and associated tributaries above Shasta Lake are closed to the take of salmon, and amend subsection (b)(115) of Section 7.50 to direct readers to the District General Regulations. These changes will protect Chinook Salmon when they are reintroduced into the upper Sacramento and McCloud rivers above the Shasta Lake.

AMERICAN RIVER (NIMBUS BASIN) FISHING CLOSURE Under current regulations, the American River (in Sacramento County) from Nimbus Dam to the Hazel Avenue bridge piers is open to fishing all year (Section 7.50 (b)(5)(A)), and from the Hazel Avenue bridge piers to the U.S. Geological Survey gauging station cable crossing about 300 yards downstream from the Nimbus Hatchery fish weir is open to fishing January 1 through August 15 (Section 7.50(b)(5)(B)). The current request for closure is designed to protect Chinook Salmon and Central Valley steelhead trout, which will utilize this section of the river for both in-river spawning and rearing along with essential hatchery operations.

The BOR and the Department have completed a joint EIS/EIR for the Nimbus Hatchery Fish Passage Project (Project). The primary goal of the Project is to maintain a fully functional system of collecting adult Chinook Salmon and Central Valley steelhead trout sufficient to meet the hatchery’s mitigation goals. Phase 1 of the Project extends the Nimbus Hatchery fish ladder 1500 feet (.30 miles) upstream into the Nimbus Basin. With the completion of the new fish ladder, Phase 2 of the Project will permanently remove the existing Nimbus Hatchery fish weir, and spawning gravel injections will be completed within the section of river associated with section 7.50(b)(5)(B). A gravel restoration and side channel creation project to create spawning and rearing habitat in the Nimbus Basin was completed in 2014.

However, the Project has the potential to affect Chinook Salmon and Central Valley steelhead trout holding, spawning, and rearing in this section of the lower American River. Additionally, under current hatchery operations, large numbers of adult Chinook Salmon and Central Valley steelhead trout hold below the existing fish weir located below the Hazel Avenue bridge before being routed to the fish ladder located at the south end of weir. Fish that enter the hatchery that are not ripe for spawning are released back into the river through the outfall, located approximately 100 feet below the existing fish ladder. As a result, current hatchery operations utilize a small portion of the river below the weir to cycle fish in and out of the hatchery. However, once the existing fish ladder isDRAFT moved upstream into the Nimbus Basin, the length of river utilized for hatchery operations will increase by approximately 1,500 feet. With completion of the Project, holding, spawning, and rearing Chinook Salmon and Central Valley steelhead trout will distribute throughout the hatchery operations area. As a result, the entire section of river should be close to fishing all year to ensure successful hatchery operations.

Consequently, if the regulations are not changed by the Fall of 2018, anglers will continue fishing in the Nimbus Basin downstream to the USGS gauging station and

17 target holding and spawning Chinook Salmon and Central Valley steelhead trout. Although Section 2.35 states that fishing shall not take place within 250 feet of a fish ladder, this would have little effect in protecting salmon and steelhead under the new configuration. The new ladder entrance would be greater than 250 feet from where salmon are expected to hold until the ladder is opened to allow salmon and steelhead into the Nimbus Hatchery. The regulation change would also provide the American River Trout Hatchery and Nimbus Hatchery with greater protection from contamination by the New Zealand Mud Snail (NZMS), which have been documented adjacent to the hatchery in Section 7.50(b)(5)(B).

Proposal: Amend subsections (b)(5)(A) and (b)(5)(B) of Section 7.50, Special Fishing Regulations Combine subsections 7.50(b)(5)(A) and 7.50(b)(5)(B) and close this section of river to fishing all year.

ARTIFICIAL LURE AND BAIT DEFINITION CHANGES The purpose of the regulation change is to clarify that no scents or flavors shall be used on lures on waters where only artificial lures with barbless hooks may be used. After consulting with wildlife officers on this subject, it has become clear there is some subjectivity in interpreting the current regulation which has resulted in inconsistency and confusion. By clarifying this definition, enforcement will have a lesser problem enforcing this rule and the public will have a clearer description of this rule.

The definition of a lure (Section 1.60) would be removed from the Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations and only “artificial lure” would be used. With this change, three substitutions in the current regulations would need to be made: (1) Section 1.05 Angling; (2) Section 1.61, Non-buoyant Lure; and (3) Section 2.10(3), Hook and Weight Restrictions. In all three sections lure would be changed to artificial lure. In addition, the definition of artificial lure would be amended to clarify that only non-scented and non- flavored lures may be used. Lastly, there is currently no definition of bait in Title 14. A definition of bait is needed to help clarify when scents and flavors can be used.

Proposal: Repeal Section 1.60, Amend Section 1.11, Artificial Lure, and add Section 1.18, Bait Amend the current definition of artificial lure and add a definition of bait.

ALLOW BOW AND DRAFTARROW FISHING FOR CATFISH The bow and arrow fishing community has requested the opportunity to fish for catfish in certain waters in the state. Bowfishers have expressed that they often encounter catfish in their pursuit for carp and would like to be able to take catfish as well. This request was considered by CDFW law enforcement and regional biologists who determined that bowfishing for bullhead and catfish could be allowed on waters with large carp populations and that are popular for bowfishing. These waters include the Sacramento San-Joaquin Delta, Lake Isabella in Kern County and Big Bear Lake in San Bernardino

18

County. Allowing bowfishing for catfish on these waters will increase fishing opportunities for bowfishers.

Proposal: Amend Section 2.25, Bow and Arrow Fishing Amend Section 2.25 to allow bowfishing for bullhead and catfish in the Delta, Big Bear Lake, and Lake Isabel.

REVISION OF MENDOCINO, SONOMA, AND MARIN COUNTIES LOW FLOW CLOSURE TIME PERIOD TO ALING WITH THE ADULT STEELHEAD SEASON Section 8.00(b) established a season for special low flow conditions for Mendocino, Sonoma, and Marin County coastal streams; however, the current end date extends the length of the low flow season past the adult steelhead fishing season on most coastal stream (except Russian River) which provides an unnecessary protection and may potentially confuse anglers. The current sport fishing regulations provides fishing in coastal streams of Mendocino, Sonoma, and Marin counties from the fourth Saturday in May through March 31, except for the Russian River which is open all year. Gear restrictions change from November 1 through March 31, to accommodate fishing for adult steelhead on all Mendocino, Sonoma, and Marin County coastal streams. There is no need for the season of special low flow conditions to extend beyond March 31, as most streams (except Russian River) are closed to any fishing from April 1 until the fourth Saturday in May, which is prior to the end of the current low flow season. The Russian River is the exception because it is open year round due to other sport fisheries such as American shad and smallmouth bass. For consistency, the Russian River should be included in this change, but it would result in the potential reduction of protected days under a low flow closure between April 1 and the fourth Saturday in May (52-57 days depending upon the calendar year). The loss of this additional protection on the Russian River is not likely to be significant as the bulk of the steelhead will have spawned and angler effort targeting steelhead will be low in the months of April and May. The steelhead population on the Russian River is also unlike other coastal streams because it is supplemented with hatchery steelhead. Additionally, the Russian River is a flow regulated stream and flows are likely to be higher in April and May than other coastal streams and less likely to be subject to a low flow closure due to water releases. Conforming the low flow closure season with the end of the adult steelhead fishing season on Mendocino, Sonoma, and Marin County coastal streams helps simplify regulations and reduces confusion between the fishing season and low flow closure season and it would not significantly impact the Russian River steelhead population in the eventDRAFT of low flow conditions in the months of April and May.

Proposal: Amend Subsection (b) of Section 8.00, Low-Flow Restrictions Revise Section 8.00 (b) to redefine the season of the Special Low Flow Conditions to coincide with the end of the adult steelhead fishing season on March 31.

CRAYFISH In alignment with the proposal to close Rock Creek to fishing to protect Shasta crayfish, S ection 5.35 would need to be amended to add Rock Creek to the list of waters where

19 take of crayfish is prohibited. Rock Creek is in the Hat Creek Drainage in Shasta County.

Proposal: Amend Section 5.35, Crayfish Amend Section 5.35 to add Rock Creek to the list of waters where fishing for crayfish is prohibited.

STEELHEAD REPORT AND RESTORATION CARD REQUIREMENTS Department staff reassessed the fisheries management objectives of the Steelhead Report and Restoration Card and determined that the data being collected, location codes, and reporting instructions and requirements can be simplified. In order to accomplish this, verbiage within Section 5.88 must be changed.

Proposal: Amend Section 5.88, Steelhead Report and Restoration Card Requirements Remove reference to “wild” steelhead because it is not legal to retain a wild steelhead, and remove the requirement to report the number of hours that were fished for steelhead.

SPORT FISHING REPORT CARD REQUIREMENTS CCR Section 1.74 establishes guidelines for report card regulations including reporting harvest authorized by a report card; however, this section does not include a mechanism for confirmation that data from a report card has been reported. This proposal requires report card holders who submit data online to write the provided confirmation number on their report card and retain the report card until for 90 days after the reporting deadline.

When a report card is lost, a licensee may wish to obtain a duplicate, or may simply need to fulfill the harvest reporting requirement before the reporting deadline. Section 1.74 does not currently provide guidelines for licensees who have lost their report card and need to report their harvest, but do not need to obtain a duplicate report card. This proposal updates procedures regarding lost report cards to provide guidelines for obtaining a duplicate report card, and also for reporting harvest from a lost report card without obtaining a duplicate report card.

Proposal: Amend Section 1.74, Sport Fishing Report Card Requirements Amend Section 1.74 to update procedures for reporting online and for lost report cards. DRAFT RESTRICT LEADER LENGTH TO LESS THAN SIX FEET TO REDUCE POTENTIAL FOUL-HOOKING (SNAGGING) OF SALMON AND STEELHEAD The Department and the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) have struggled for years to eliminate and/or regulate snagging salmon. This has proven difficult given some of the spawning aggregations, habitat, and creative snagging techniques that have evolved over time. Water operations, changes in angling ethics, and population growth likely have also contributed to this ongoing problem. After struggling with these issues statewide, the Commission directed the Department to find a solution.

20

In 2014, the Department formulated a snagging working group to help evaluate the issue through a structured decision making process. Department staff and angling stakeholders participated in multiple meetings. One action resulting from this effort was a directed study to assess the efficacy of a reduced leader length in relation to the “flossing” fishing techniques based angling/snagging rig. Although this technique/rig is not the only gear that can be used to purposefully foul-hook salmon, it is currently legal and very effective when used in the right habitat (Feather, American, Sacramento, Yuba, and Klamath rivers) with high densities of spawning/migrating salmon. The results of the study showed a significant correlation with foul-hooking (82-94%) regardless of the leader length and a reduction in landing rates for the shortest leader.

Proposal: Add Section 205 to Title 14, Leader Length Restriction Add the leader length restriction to Title 14, Chapter 2, Article 1, to reduce foul-hooking of salmon and steelhead in anadromous waters.

Minor Editorial Corrections for Clarity In addition to the above proposals, minor editorial corrections are proposed to correct typographical errors and to improve regulation clarity.

Benefits of the Proposed Regulations It is the policy of this state to encourage the conservation, maintenance, and utilization of the living resources of the ocean and inland waters under the jurisdiction and influence of the state for the benefit of all the citizens of the State. In addition, it is the policy of this state to promote the development of local California fisheries in harmony with federal law respecting fishing and the conservation of the living resources of the ocean and inland waters under the jurisdiction and influence of the State. The objectives of this policy include, but are not limited to, the maintenance of sufficient populations of all species of aquatic organisms to ensure their continued existence and the maintenance of a sufficient resource to support a reasonable sport use. Adoption of scientifically-based trout and salmon seasons, size limits, and bag and possession limits provides for the maintenance of sufficient populations of trout and salmon to ensure their continued existence.

The benefits of the proposed regulations are concurrence with Federal law, sustainable management of California’s trout and salmon resources, and promotion of businesses that rely on recreationalDRAFT sport fishing in California.

21

Regulatory Language

Section 1.05, Title 14, CCR, is amended as follows:

§ 1.05. Angling. Angling means take of fish by hook and line with the line held in the hand, or with the line attached to a pole or rod held in the hand or closely attended in such manner that the fish voluntarily takes the bait or artificial lure inside its mouth. Note: Authority cited: Sections 200, 202, 205, 210, 219 and 220265, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 2, 15, 200, 202, 205, 206, 215265 and 220270, Fish and Game Code.

Section 1.11, Title 14, CCR, is amended as follows:

§1.11. Artificial Lure An artificial lure is a man-made lure or fly designed to attract fish. This definition does not include scented or flavored artificial baits. Any manufactured or man-made non-scented/flavored (regardless if scent is added in the manufacturing process or added afterwards) device complete with hooks, intended to attract fish. Artificial lures include, but are not limited to; spoons, spinners, artificial flies, and plugs, made of metal, plastic, wood, or other non-edible materials. Note: Authority cited: Sections 200, 205, 210, 219 and 219, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 203.1 and 5516, Fish and Game Code.

Section 1.18 is added to Title 14, CCR, as follows:

§1.18. Bait. Any natural or manufactured product or device which is used to attract fish by the sense of taste or smell, including any product or device to which scents or flavored attractants have been added or externally applied. Bait includes, but is not limited to; scented and flavored paste, scented manufactured fish eggs, and traditional organic baits such as worms, grubs, crickets, leeches, stink baits, insects, crayfish, human food, fish, fish parts, and fish eggs. Authority cited: Sections 200, 205, 219 and Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 203.1 and 205, Fish DRAFTand Game Code.

Section 1.60 is repealed from Title 14, CCR, as follows:

§ 1.60. Lure. A manufactured article or object equipped with one or more hooks designed to attract or catch fish.

1

Note: Authority cited: Sections 200, 202, 205, 210 and 220, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 200, 202, 205, 206, 209, 210, 215 and 220, Fish and Game Code.

Section 1.61, Title 14, CCR, is amended as follows:

§ 1.61. Non-Buoyant Artificial Lure. Any artificial lure that sinks in freshwater. Note: Authority cited: Sections 200, 202, 205, 210 and 220, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 200, 202, 205, 206, 209, 210, 215 and 220270, Fish and Game Code.

Section 1.74, Title 14, CCR, is amended as follows:

§1.74. Sport Fishing Report Card Requirements. (a) Purpose. These regulations are designed to improve recreational fishing effort and catch information in some or all areas where the fisheries operate. Many of these species are of high commercial value, and therefore, additional enforcement mechanisms are needed to improve compliance with existing bag limits and other regulations, and to reduce the potential for poaching. (b) Report card requirements apply to any person fishing for or taking the following species regardless of whether a sport fishing license is required: (1) Salmon, in the anadromous waters of the Klamath, Trinity, and Smith river basins. Anadromous waters are defined in Section 1.04 of these regulations. (2) Steelhead trout. (3) White sturgeon. (4) Red abalone. (5) California spiny lobster. (c) General Report Card Requirements. (1) Any person fishing for or taking any of the species identified in this Section shall have in his immediate possession a valid non-transferable report card issued by the department for the particular species. See special exemption regarding possession of report cards for lobster divers in Section 29.91 of these regulations. (2) All entries made on any report card or tag shall be legible and in indelible ink. (3) A report card holder fishing with a one, two, or ten-day sport fishing license, may replace the expired fishing license without purchasing a new report card so long as the report card is still valid. (4) Report cards areDRAFT not transferable and shall not be transferred to another person. No person shall possess any report card other than his own. (5) A person may only obtain one abalone report card and one sturgeon report card per report card period. (6) Any report card holder who fills in all available lines on his steelhead, salmon or lobster report card shall return or report the card to the department pursuant to subsection 1.74(e) prior to purchasing a second card.

2

(7) Data recording and tagging procedures vary between report cards and species. See specific regulations in sections 5.79, 5.87, 5.88, 27.92, 29.16, and 29.91 that apply in addition to the regulations of this Section. (d) Report Card Return and Reporting Requirements (1) Report card holders shall return or report their salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, or abalone report cards to the department pursuant to subsection 1.74(e) by January 31 of the following year. (A) Any report card holder who fails to return or report his salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, or abalone report card to the department by the deadline may be restricted from obtaining the same card in a subsequent license year or may be subject to an additional fee for the issuance of the same card in a subsequent license year. (2) Report card holders shall return or report their lobster report cards pursuant to subsection 1.74(e) by April 30 following the close of the lobster season for which the card was issued. (A) Any report card holder who fails to return or report his or her lobster report card by April 30 following the close of the lobster season specified on the card shall be subject to a nonrefundable non-return fee specified in Section 701, in addition to the annual report card fee, for the issuance of a lobster report card in the subsequent fishing season. (e) Report Card Return and Reporting Mechanisms: (1) By mail or in person at the address specified on the card. A report card returned by mail shall be postmarked by the date applicable to that card as specified in subsection 1.74(d)(1), or 1.74(d)(2). (2) Online through the department's license sales service website by the date applicable to that card as specified in subsection 1.74(d)(1) or 1.74(d)(2). Report card holders reporting online will be provided a confirmation number upon successful submission. The report card holder must record the provided confirmation number in the space provided on the report card and retain the report card for 90 days after the reporting deadline. Report cards submitted online must be surrendered to the department upon demand. (3) If a report card is submitted by mail and not received by the department, it is considered not returned unless the report card holder reports his or her report card as lost pursuant to subsection 1.74(f). (f) Lost report cards. (1) Any report card holder who loses his report card shall submit an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, in person to a department license sales office containing all of the following information:DRAFT (A) A statement containing the report card holder's full name confirming that the originally issued report card cannot be recovered. (B) A statement containing the report card holder's best recollection of the prior catch records that were entered on the report card that was lost. (C) A statement describing the factual circumstances surrounding the loss of the card. (2) An affidavit for a lost report card shall be presented at a department license sales office, by the date applicable to that card specified in subsection 1.74(d)(1) or 1.74(d)(2) to be considered returned.

3

(3) Notwithstanding subsection 1.74(c)(5), any report card holder who loses his report card during the period for which it is valid may replace the lost report card by submitting an affidavit as described in subsection 1.74(f)(1) and payment of the report card fee and replacement processing fee specified in Section 701. (A) Based on the information provided in the written affidavit for abalone and sturgeon report cards, the department shall issue only the number of tags that were reported unused on the previously issued report card. (f) Lost report cards. (1) Any report card holder who loses his report card shall submit an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury, to a department license sales office containing all of the following information: (A) The report card holder's full name and a statement confirming that the originally issued report card is lost and cannot be recovered. (B) A statement containing the report card holder's best recollection of the prior catch that were entered on the report card that was lost. (C) A statement describing the factual circumstances surrounding the loss of the report card. (2) No Duplicate Requested or Available. Any report card holder who lost his or her report card and is not obtaining a duplicate report card shall ensure that the steps are completed: (A) The report card holder shall submit an affidavit as described in subsection 1.74(f)(1). If the report card holder previously submitted the harvest report card data online, the report card holder must include the confirmation number for the harvest report on the affidavit. (B) If the report card holder has not reported the data from the lost report card via the online site, department staff shall enter the harvest information from the affidavit. (C) An affidavit for a lost report card shall be submitted to a department license sales office, by the harvest report submission deadline date applicable to that report card specified in subsection 1.74(d)(1) or 1.74(d)(2) to be considered returned. (3) Duplicate Report Card Requested. Notwithstanding subsection 1.74(c)(5), any report card holder who loses his or her report card during the period for which it is valid may replace the lost original report card by completion of the following: (A) Submitting an affidavit as described in subsection 1.74(f)(1). (B) Submitting payment of the report card fee and the nonrefundable replacement processing fee specified in Section 701. (C) Department staff shall enter the harvest information from the affidavit to the duplicate report card.DRAFT Note: the original report card should not be reported. Instead, the data from the original will be reported on the duplicate report card. (D) Based on the information provided on the affidavit for abalone and sturgeon report cards, department staff shall remove tags reported as used and issue only the number of tags that were reported unused on the lost original report card. (E) Report card holders shall verify that the harvest information has been accurately transferred from the affidavit to his or her duplicate report card. (F) The duplicate report card shall be reported pursuant to the requirements for the original report card as specified in subsection 1.74(d).

4

Note: Authority cited: Sections 200, 205, 1050, 1053.1, 1055.1 and 7380, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 200, 205, 206, 713, 1050, 1053.1, 1055.1, 7149.8, 7380, 7381 and 7382, Fish and Game Code.

Subsection 2.05 is added to Section 2.00, Title 14, CCR, as follows:

§2.05. Leader Length Restriction It shall be unlawful to use any configuration of fishing tackle in anadromous waters unless the distance between the terminal hook or terminal lure and any weight attached to the line or leader, whether fixed or sliding, is less than six feet. For purposes of this section, “weight” includes any product used to submerge the line or leader, including non-buoyant artificial flies or artificial lures, but does not include integrated or sinking fly fishing lines, lead core lines used while trolling from a boat, dropper weights used while trolling from a boat, or clipped weights used with downrigger systems. Note: Authority cited: Sections 200, 205, and 219, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 203.1 and 205, Fish and Game Code.

Section 2.10, Title 14, CCR, is amended as follows:

§ 2.10. Hook and Weight Restrictions. (a) Definition of Gap: For the purposes of this section, “gap” means the distance measured from the point of a hook to the shank. (b) Maximum Gaps and Gear Rigging for Rivers and Streams unless otherwise provided (does not apply to lakes and reservoirs, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (see Section 1.71 for definition of the Delta), and the Colorado River. 1. No person shall use any single hook with a gap greater than 1 inch or any multiple hook with a gap greater than 3/4 inch. 2. It is unlawful to use any hook which is directly or indirectly attached closer than 18 inches to any weight exceeding 1/2 ounce. 3. It is unlawful to use any multiple hook or more than one single hook on non-buoyant artificial lures exceeding one ounce. 4. It is unlawful to use any weight directly attached below a hook. (c) Maximum Gaps for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (see Section 1.71 for definition of the Delta). 1. No person shall use any single hook with a gap greater than 1 inch or any multiple hook with a gap greater than 3/4 inch. Note: Authority cited:DRAFT Sections 200, 202, 205 and 220219, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 200, 202, and 205 and 220, Fish and Game Code.

Section 2.25, Title 14, CCR, is amended as follows:

§2.25. Bow and Arrow Fishing. (a) Bow and arrow fishing is permitted only for the taking of carp, goldfish, western sucker, Sacramento blackfish, hardhead, Sacramento pike minnow and lamprey, all year, except in:

5

(a)(1) Designated salmon spawning areas (See Fish and Game Code Section 1505). (b)(2) The Colorado River District where only carp, tilapia, goldfish and mullet may be taken. (c)(3) See bullfrogs (sSection 5.05). (d)(4) The East Fork of the Walker River between Bridgeport Dam and the Nevada State line where only carp may be taken. (b) Bow and arrow fishing is permitted for bullheads and catfish in the following waters: (1) Within the boundaries of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (See Section 1.71). (2) Big Bear Lake in San Bernardino County. (3) Lake Isabella in Kern County. Note: Authority cited: Sections 200, 202, 205, 210, 219, 265 and 220275, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 110, 200, 202, 203.1, 206, 207, 210, 217.5, 217.6, 219 and 220219, 255, 265 and 275, Fish and Game Code.

Section 5.35, Title 14, CCR, is amended as follows:

§5.35. Crayfish. (a) Open season: All year, except for closures listed in subsection (d) of this Section. (b) Limit: No limit. (c) Methods of take: Crayfish may be taken only by hand, hook and line, dip net or with traps not over three feet in greatest dimension. Any other species taken shall be returned to the water immediately. Traps need not be closely attended. (d) Closures for Protection of Shasta Crayfish: Rock Creek (in the Hat Creek Drainage in Shasta County), Fall River upstream of Spring Creek Bridge, Lava Creek, Tule River and all connected waters upstream of Little Tule River, Sucker Springs Creek, Crystal Lake, Rising River and Rising River Lake are closed to take and possession of crayfish. (See Section 4.30 for prohibition against crayfish use for bait in sections of the Pit River). (e) The season closures in Chapter 3 (District Trout and Salmon Special Regulations) do not apply to crayfish fishing with methods other than hook and line (see sections 7.00 and 7.50(a)(23)). Note: Authority cited: Sections 200, 202, 205, 215265, 270 and 8491, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 110, 200, 202, 205, 206265, 8490 and 8491, Fish and Game Code.

Section 5.41, Title 14,DRAFT CCR, is amended as follows:

§ 5.41. Landlocked Salmon. (a) Open season: All year (b) Daily bag limit: Five (c) Possession limit: Ten (d) Size limit: None (e) See exceptions in Section 7.50(b) for Bucks Lake, Lake Pardee, New Bullards Bar Reservoir, upper Scotts Flat Reservoir, and Trinity Reservoir.

6

Note: Authority cited: Sections 200, 202, 205, 210, 219, and 220, 255 and 265, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 200, 202, 205, 210, 215, and 220, 255 and 265, Fish and Game Code.

Section 5.88, Title 14, CCR, is amended as follows:

§ 5.88. Steelhead Report and Restoration Card Requirements for Inland Waters (FG 682, See Section 701). (a) Steelhead Fishing Report and Restoration Card Required. All anglers must have a Steelhead Fishing Report and Restoration Card in their possession while fishing for or taking steelhead in anadromous waters, as defined in Section 1.04. Anglers must complete and return the card pursuant to regulations in this Section and in Section 1.74. For purposes of these regulations, a steelhead trout is defined as any rainbow trout greater than 16 inches in length found in anadromous waters. (b) Prior to beginning fishing activity, the cardholder must record the month, day, and location code on the first available line on the report card. (c) When a hatchery steelhead is retained, the cardholder must immediately fill in a circle indicating whether the fish is a wild fish or a hatchery fish mark the appropriate field. (d) When the cardholder moves to another location code, or finishes fishing for the day, the angler must immediately record on the card the number of wild and hatchery fish steelhead that were released from that location . (e) In the event an angler fills in all lines and returns a Steelhead Fishing Report and Restoration Card, an additional card maymust be purchased to continue to fish for steelhead. See Section 1.74. (f) The annual fee for the Steelhead Fishing Report and Restoration Card is specified in Section 7380 of the Fish and Game Code. Note: Authority cited: Section 7380, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 7380 and 7381, Fish and Game Code.

Section 7.00, Title 14, CCR, is amended as follows:

§7.00. District General Regulations. Unless otherwise provided, waters shown as open to trout fishing in subsections (a) through (g) below, are open to fishing for other species. Gear restrictions listed in this section apply to the take of all species of fish unless otherwise noted. Every body of water listed in subsectionsDRAFT (a) through (g) of Section 7.00 (below) is closed to all fishing, except during the open season as shown. Unless otherwise provided, waters closed to trout fishing are closed to fishing for all other species, except that these closures do not apply to fishing for amphibians (see Section 5.05), freshwater clams (see Section 5.20), crayfish (see Section 5.35), and lamprey (see Section 5.40), using legal fishing methods other than hook-and-line fishing, and saltwater clams, crabs, ghost shrimp, and blue mud shrimp (see Ocean Regulations Booklet Sections 29.20 to 29.87). Crabs may only

7

be taken using hoop nets or by hand, and Dungeness crab may only be taken within the North Coast District and Sonoma and Mendocino counties. Daily bag and possession limits, unless otherwise provided, mean the total number of trout. Unless otherwise provided, no more than one daily bag limit may be possessed. Coho (silver) salmon may not be taken in any of the waters of the State, except in Lake Oroville and Oroville-Thermalito Complex (Diversion Pool, Forebay, and Afterbay) and the Feather River from the Diversion Pool Dam to the Fish Barrier Dam. Incidentally hooked Coho (silver) salmon, except those in Lake Oroville and Oroville-Thermalito Complex (Diversion Pool, Forebay, and Afterbay) and the Feather River from the Diversion Pool Dam to the Fish Barrier Dam, must be immediately released unharmed to the waters where they are hooked. In waters where the bag limit for trout is zero, fish for which the bag limit is zero must be released unharmed, and should not be removed from the water. These waters may also be subject to restrictions on fishing methods and gear (sections 2.00 through 2.45), fishing hours (section 3.00), and the use of bait (sections 4.00 through 4.30).

…[No changes to subsection (a)]

(b) Sierra District

(1) All rivers and associated Closed to the take of salmon. tributaries above Lake Shasta.

(12) Anadromous waters of Last Saturday in Apr. 2 hatchery trout or Tehama and Shasta counties not through Nov. 15. hatchery steelhead*. listed in the Special Regulations. Only artificial lures 4 hatchery trout or (Section 7.50). (See subsections and barbless hooks hatchery steelhead* in (b)(156) and (b)(156.5) of Section may be used. possession. 7.50, regarding the Sacramento Closed to the take of River.) salmon. (23) All lakes and reservoirs All year. 5 trout per day. except those in the Fall River 10 trout in possession. Valley, those in Inyo and Mono counties and those listedDRAFT by name in the Special Regulations.

(34) All streams, lakes and Last Saturday in Apr. 5 trout per day. reservoirs in Inyo and Mono through Nov. 15. 10 trout in possession. counties, except those listed by name in the Special Regulations.

8

(45) All streams, lakes and Last Saturday in Apr. 2 trout reservoirs in the Fall River Valley through Nov. 15. above the Pit No. 1 PG&E Diversion Dam on Fall River in Shasta County, except those listed by name in the Special Regulations. (56) All streams in Lassen and Saturday preceding 5 trout per day. Modoc counties east of Highway Memorial Day 10 trout in possession. 395 and north of Clarks Valley through Road. Clarks Valley Road is Nov. 15. defined as those portions of county routes 510, 512 and 506 running easterly from the town of Madeline to the Nevada border.

(67) All other streams except Last Saturday in Apr. 5 trout per day. those listed by name in the through Nov. 15. 10 trout in possession. Special Regulations.

(78) Mono County waters, when closed to trout fishing, are closed to all fishing, except for the unrestricted portions of Fish Slough which are open to fishing all year. Also, see Mono County waters listed in sections 5.00 and 7.50.

(89) SPECIAL BROOK TROUT BONUS BAG AND POSSESSION LIMIT: (A) IN SIERRA DISTRICT WATERS OF SISKIYOU, SHASTA AND TEHAMA COUNTIES, UP TO 10 BROOK TROUT PER DAY LESS THAN 8 INCHES TOTAL LENGTH MAY BE TAKEN AND POSSESSED IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER DAILY BAG AND POSSESSION LIMITS SPECIFIED FOR THE SIERRA DISTRICT. (B) IN THE SIERRA DISTRICT SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 80, UP TO 10 BROOK TROUT PER DAY LESS THAN 10 INCHES TOTAL LENGTH MAY BE TAKEN AND POSSESSED IN ADDITIONDRAFT TO THE OTHER DAILY BAG AND POSSESSION LIMITS SPECIFIED FOR THE SIERRA DISTRICT. THIS ALLOWANCE DOES NOT INCLUDE RED LAKE IN ALPINE COUNTY OR KIRMAN, LANE OR ROOSEVELT LAKES IN MONO COUNTY.

…[No changes to subsection (c) through (g)]

9

Note: Authority cited: Sections 200, 202, 205, 220265 and 240399, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 110, 200, 205 and 206, Fish and Game Code.

Section 7.50, Title 14, CCR, is amended as follows:

§7.50. Alphabetical List of Waters with Special Fishing Regulations.

. . . [No changes to subsections (a) through (b)(4)]

Open Season and Special Daily Bag and Possession Body of Water Regulations Limit

(5) American River (Sacramento Co.) (A) From Nimbus Jan. 1 through July 15. 2 hatchery trout or hatchery Dam to the Hazel Closed to all fishing all steelhead**. Avenue bridge year. 4 hatchery trout or hatchery piers. U.S. steelhead** in possession. Geological Survey gauging station cable crossing about 300 yards downstream from the Nimbus Hatchery fish rack site.

July 16 through Dec. 31. 2 hatchery trout or hatchery steelhead**. 4 hatchery trout or hatchery steelhead** in possession. 2 Chinook salmon. 4 Chinook salmon in possession. (B) From Hazel Jan. 1 through July 15. 2 hatchery trout or hatchery Avenue bridge DRAFTOnly barbless hooks may steelhead**. piers to the U.S. be used. 4 hatchery trout or hatchery Geological Survey steelhead** in possession. gauging station cable crossing July 16 through Aug. 31. 2 hatchery trout or hatchery about 300 yards Only barbless hooks may steelhead**. downstream from be used. 4 hatchery trout or hatchery the Nimbus steelhead** in possession.

10

Hatchery fish rack 2 Chinook salmon. site. 4 Chinook salmon in possession. (CB) From the U.S. Jan. 1 through July 15. 2 hatchery trout or hatchery Geological Survey Only barbless hooks may steelhead**. gauging station be used. 4 hatchery trout or hatchery cable crossing steelhead** in possession. about 300 yards downstream from the Nimbus Hatchery fish rack site to the SMUD power line crossing at the southwest boundary of Ancil Hoffman Park. July 16 through Oct. 31. 2 hatchery trout or hatchery Only barbless hooks may steelhead**. be used. 4 hatchery trout or hatchery steelhead** in possession. 2 Chinook Salmon. 4 Chinook Salmon in possession. (DC) From the Jan. 1 through July 15. 2 hatchery trout or hatchery SMUD power line steelhead**. crossing at the 4 hatchery trout or hatchery southwest steelhead** in possession. boundary of Ancil Hoffman Park July 16 through Dec. 31. 2 hatchery trout or hatchery down- stream to steelhead**. the Jibboom Street 4 hatchery trout or hatchery bridge. steelhead** in possession. 2 Chinook Salmon. 4 Chinook Salmon in possession. (ED) From the Jan. 1 through July 15. 2 hatchery trout or hatchery Jibboom Street DRAFTsteelhead**. bridge to the 4 hatchery trout or hatchery mouth. steelhead** in possession. July 16 through Dec. 16. 2 hatchery trout or hatchery steelhead**. 4 hatchery trout or hatchery steelhead** in possession.

11

2 Chinook Salmon. 4 Chinook Salmon in possession. Dec. 17 through Dec. 31. 2 hatchery trout or hatchery steelhead**. 4 hatchery trout or hatchery steelhead** in possession. . . . [No changes to subsections (b)(6) through (b)(14)] (15) Bear Creek Saturday preceding 5 trout per day. and tributaries Memorial Day through Nov. 10 trout in possession. (Shasta and 15 Siskiyou Cos.) between PondosaPonderosa Way bridge and confluence with Fall River. . . . [No changes to subsections (b)(17) through (b)(22)]

(23) Big Sur River (Monterey Co.). (A) Big Sur river Fourth Saturday in May 0 trout. and tributaries through Oct. 31. Only above the artificial lures with barbless upstream end of hooks may be used. the gorge pool at the boundary of Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park withwithin the Ventana Wilderness Area.

(B) Big Sur river DRAFTClosed to fishing all year. within Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park, east of the Highway 1 bridge, to its boundary withwithin the Ventana Wilderness Area.

12

. . . [No changes to subsections (b)(23.5) through (b)(26)]

(26.5) Bridgeport Reservoir Ttributaries (Mono Co.). All Bridgeport Last Saturday in April 1 trout. Reservoir through the Friday tributaries except preceding Memorial Day Swauger Creek, and Oct. 1 through Nov. 15. from Bridgeport Minimum size limit: 18 Reservoir upstream inches total length. Only to Highway 395, artificial lures with barbless and Swauger hooks may be used. Creek, from Bridgeport Reservoir upstream to the private property fence line above the Forest Service campground. (27) Brush Creek Fourth Saturday in May 2 hatchery trout or hatchery (Mendocino Co.). through Mar. 31. Only steelhead**. Main stem below artificial lures with barbless 4 hatchery trout or hatchery the Lawson bridge. hooks may be used from steelhead** in possession. Also see Section the fourth Saturday in May 8.00(c). through Oct. 31. Only barbless hooks may be used from Nov. 1 through Mar. 31. Main stem below Fourth Saturday in May 2 hatchery trout or hatchery the Lawson bridge. through Mar. 31. Only steelhead**. artificial lures with barbless 4 hatchery trout or hatchery DRAFThooks may be used from steelhead** in possession. the fourth Saturday in May through Oct. 31. Only barbless hooks may be used from Nov. 1 through Mar. 31. . . . [No changes to subsections (b)(28) through (b)(36)]

13

(37) Carmel River below Los Padres Dam. (Monterey Co.).

(A) Carmel River Closed to all fishing all tributaries below year. Los Padres Dam and main stem from Los Padres Dam to the bridge at Robles Del Rio/Esquiline roads (Rosie's Bridge). (B) Carmel River Dec. 1 through Mar. 7, but 2 hatchery trout or hatchery main stem below only on Sat., Sun., Wed., steelhead**. the bridge at and opening and closing 4 hatchery trout or hatchery Robles Del days. Only artificial lures steelhead** in possession. Rio/Esquiline roads with barbless hooks may be (Rosie's Bridge). used. Also,Also see Section 8.00(c). . . . [No changes to subsections (b)(38) through (b)(46)] (47) Cottoneva Fourth Saturday in May 2 hatchery trout or hatchery Creek (Mendocino through Mar. 31. Only steelhead**. Co.). Also see artificial lures with barbless 4 hatchery trout or hatchery Section 8.00(b). hooks may be used from steelhead** in possession. Main stem below the fourth Saturday in May the confluence of through Oct. 31. Only South Fork barbless hooks may be Cottoneva Creek. used from Nov. 1 through Also see Section Mar. 31. 8.00(b). . . . [No changes to subsections (b)(48) through (b)(51)] DRAFT (52) Crooked Creek (Mono Co.).

(A) Crooked Creek Closed to all fishing all below the City of year. Los Angeles gauging station.

14

(B) Crooked Creek Last Saturday in April 0 trout. and tributaries through Nov. 15. Only above the City of artificial lures with barbless Los Angeles hooks may be used. gauging station. . . . [No changes to subsection (b)(114)

(115) McCloud Also see Sierra District General Regulations (Section River and 7.00(b)). tributaries (Shasta and Siskiyou cos.). (A) Moosehead Closed to all fishing all Creek and all year. tributaries.

(B) McKay Creek Closed to all fishing all and all tributaries year. including Sheepheaven Spring.

(C) Edson Creek Closed to all fishing all and all tributaries, year. excluding Dry Creek.

(D) Swamp Creek Last Saturday in Apr. 0 trout. and all tributaries. through Nov. 15. Only artificial lures with barbless DRAFThooks may be used. Last Saturday in Apr. 2 trout. (E) McCloud River through Nov. 15. Only from McCloud Dam artificial lures with barbless downstream to hooks may be used. confluence of Ladybug Creek.

15

(F) McCloud River Last Saturday in Apr. 0 trout. from confluence of through Nov. 15. Only Ladybug Creek artificial lures with barbless downstream to hooks may be used. lower boundary of the U.S. Forest Service loop (southern boundary of section 36, T38N, R3W). (G) McCloud River Closed to all fishing all from the lower year. boundary of the U.S. Forest Service loop (southern boundary of section 36, T38N, R3W) downstream to the upper boundary of the McCloud River Club (southern boundary of section 14, T37N, R3W).

. . . [No changes to subsections (b)(115.2) through (b)(151)] (151.5) Rock Creek Closed to all fishing all year. in the Hat Creek Drainage (Shasta Co.) from Rock Creek spring (origin) downstream to DRAFT Baum Lake. . . . [No changes to subsections (b)(152) through (b)(169)] (170) San Luis All year. 2 hatchery trout or hatchery Obispo Creek (San steelhead**. Luis Obispo Co.) 4 hatchery trout or hatchery from mouth to the steelhead** in possession.

16

first and most southwestern highway 1/101 bridge (the first bridge upstream from the lagoon).

. . . [No changes to subsections (b)(170.1) through (b)(212)] * Wild Chinook Salmon are those not showing a healed adipose fin clip and not showing a healed left ventral fin clip. **Hatchery trout or steelhead in anadromous waters are those showing a healed adipose fin clip (adipose fin is absent). Unless otherwise provided, all other trout and steelhead must be immediately released. Wild trout or steelhead are those not showing a healed adipose fin clip (adipose fin is present).

Note: Authority cited: Sections 200, 205, 265, 270, 315, 316.5 and 399, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 200, 205, 265, 270 and 316.5, Fish and Game Code.

Subsection b of Section 8.00, Title 14, CCR, is amended as follows:

§ 8.00. Low-Flow Restrictions. (b) Mendocino, Sonoma, and Marin County coastal streams: Stream Closures: Special Low Flow Conditions. From October 1 through April 30March 31 as follows: Any of the stream reaches listed in subsections (1) through (4) below shall be closed to all angling on Tuesday and Wednesday when the department determines that the flow on the previous Monday at the applicable designated gauging stations is less than the minimum flows set forth in subsections (1) through (4). Any of the stream reaches listed in subsections (1) through (4) below shall be closed to all angling on Thursday and Friday when the department determines that the flow on the previous Wednesday at the applicable designated gauging stations is less than the minimum flows set forth in subsections (1) though (4). Any of the stream reaches listed in subsections (1) through (4) below shall be closed to all angling from Saturday through Monday when the department determines that the flow on the previous Friday at the applicable designated gauging stations is less than the minimum flows setDRAFT forth in subsections (1) through (4). Notwithstanding this provision, the department may close or keep a stream reach closed to fishing when the minimum flow is exceeded on the scheduled flow determination day if the department is reasonably assured that the stream flow is likely to decrease below the minimum flow as specified in the corresponding subsections (b)(1) through (4) before or on the next flow-determination date. In addition, the department may reopen a stream at any time during a closed period if the minimum flow as specified in the corresponding subsections (b)(1) through (4) is

17 exceeded and the department is reasonably assured that it will remain above the minimum flow until the next scheduled Monday, Wednesday, or Friday flow determination. The department shall make information available to the public by a telephone recorded message updated, as necessary, no later than 1:00 p.m. each Monday, Wednesday, and Friday as to whether any stream will be open or closed to fishing. It shall be the responsibility of the angler to use the telephone number designated in the sport fishing regulations booklet to obtain information on the status of any stream. THE NUMBER TO CALL FOR INFORMATION IS (707) 822-3164 for Mendocino County and (707) 944-5533 for Sonoma, Marin, and Napa counties. (1) All streams tributary to the Pacific Ocean (and its bays) in Mendocino County, except for the Russian and Gualala rivers. Minimum Flow: 200 cfs at the USGS gauging station on the main stem Navarro River near Navarro, CA. (2) All streams tributary to the Pacific Ocean (and its bays) in Sonoma and Marin counties, except for the Russian River. Minimum Flow: 150 cfs at the gauging station on the South Fork Gualala River near Sea Ranch (Sonoma County). (3) Russian River main stem below the confluence of the East Branch Russian River (Mendocino and Sonoma counties), Laguna de Santa Rosa, and Santa Rosa Creek. Minimum Flow: 300 cfs at the gauging station located on the main stem Russian River near Guerneville (Sonoma County). (4) The Napa River (Napa County) between Trancas Avenue in Napa and Oakville Cross Bridge near Yountville. Minimum Flow: 15 cfs at the gauging station at the Oak Knoll Bridge on the main stem Napa River. (c) South Central Coast Streams - Special Low Flow Closures: During December 1 through March 7 the following streams (subsections (1) through (7)) will be closed to fishing when the department determines that stream flows are inadequate to provide fish passage for migrating steelhead trout and salmon. Closed streams will be reopened when the department determines flows are adequate for fish passage. (1) Upper Penitencia Ck. (Santa Clara Co.) and Lower Coyote Ck. below its confluence with Upper Penitencia Ck (U. S. G. S. gauging station on lower Coyote Ck. above St. Highway 237 in Milpitas). (2) Pescadero Creek and all anadromous reaches of San Mateo Co. coastal streams normally open for fishing, from Elliot Ck. through Milagro Ck., shall be closed to all fishing when the departmentDRAFT determines that the Pescadero Ck. flows are impeding fish passage. (U. S. G. S. gauging station is on Pescadero Ck.) (3) The San Lorenzo River and all its tributaries, as well as all anadromous reaches of coastal streams normally open for fishing in Santa Cruz Co. from the San Lorenzo R. on North through Wadell Ck., shall be closed to all fishing when the department determines that the San Lorenzo flows are impeding fish passage. (U. S. G. S. gauging station in Henry Cowell Redwood State Park).

18

(4) Aptos and Soquel Creeks (Santa Cruz Co.) shall be closed to all fishing when the department determines that the Soquel Ck. flows are impeding fish passage. (U. S. G. S. gauging station on Soquel Ck.). (5) The Pajaro River and Uvas, Llagas, and Corralitos Creeks, (Santa Cruz, Monterey, & Santa Clara Co.) shall be closed to all fishing when the department determines that the Pajaro R. flows are impeding fish passage. (U. S. G. S. gauging station on the lower Pajaro River). (6) The main stem of the Salinas River (Monterey Co.), below its confluence with the Arroyo Seco River shall be closed to all fishing when the department determines that the flows are impeding fish passage (U. S. G. S. Spreckels gauging station on the Salinas R.). (7) The Arroyo Seco River (Monterey Co.) shall be closed to all fishing when the department determines that the flows are impeding fish passage. (Flows to be evaluated at U. S. G. S. Spreckels gauging station on the Salinas R. and the U. S. G. S. gauging station near Geenfield on the Arroyo Seco R.). (8) The Carmel River main stem, and the adjacent waters of San Jose, Gibson, Malpaso, Soberanes Creeks that are West of Highway 1 (Monterey Co.), shall be closed to all fishing when the department determines that the flow at the U. S. G. S. gauging station near Carmel is less than 80 cfs. (9) The Big Sur River main stem west of the Highway 1 bridge, all of Limekiln Ck and its tributaries, and the anadromous portions of all other Big Sur Coast streams West of Highway 1 in Monterey Co., from Granite Ck. south to Salmon Ck., shall be closed to all fishing when the department determines that the flow at the U. S. G. S. gauging station on the Big Sur River is less than 40 cfs. The stream flow gauges referred to above in subsections (8) and (9) will be checked on Tuesday and Friday of each week. The decision as to whether these rivers will be open or closed to fishing will take place only on Tuesday and Friday of each week. In the event that river flow differs later in the week, the fishing status for each specific river will not change until the day following the next scheduled reading. It shall be the responsibility of the angler to use the telephone number designated in the sport fishing regulations booklet to obtain information on the status of any of the rivers or creeks listed above in subsections (1) through (9). THE NUMBER TO CALL FOR INFORMATION IS (831) 649-2886. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 200, 202, 205, 215and 220265 and 270, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 110, 200, 202, 205, 206 and 220 and 265, Fish and Game Code. DRAFT

19

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION RESOLUTION HONORING Tupper Ansel Blake

HEREAS, the Waterfowler’s Hall of Fame was established in 2006 to recognize those W individuals who have made significant contributions to enhancing waterfowl and their habitats in California; and

HEREAS, many wildlife professionals, have dedicated their life’s work to management W and research to conserve waterfowl and their habitats; and

HEREAS, many sportsmen and other conservationists have served a critical role in W conserving our waterfowl resource by preserving, restoring, and enhancing natural habitats, managing agricultural habitats with wildlife in mind, and implementing other land uses specifically designed to benefit the waterfowl resource; and

HEREAS, some sportsmen and other conservationists have significantly benefited the W waterfowl resource by advocating legislation and other policies that provide needed resources for nesting and wintering waterfowl populations;

OW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Fish and Game Commission Nhereby recognizes the addition of Mr. Tupper Ansel Blake to the Waterfowler’s Hall of Fame; and

URTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commission recognizes Tupper began his career Fin the 1970s as a professional wildlife photographer whose work was featured in numerous magazines; in 1978, conservationist Starker Leopold convinced him to undertake longer photographic surveys focusing on specific conservation issues; in 1979, Tupper launched an unprecedented photographic survey of the wildlife and wildlands of California under the sponsorship of the National Audubon Society and the California Department of Fish and Game, resulting in a traveling exhibition and an award-winning book, Wild California; and

INALLY, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commission further recognizes Tupper for F producing four more books, as well as multiple fine art portfolios, for his major exhibitions at numerous museums, and for his multiple awards from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society and California Waterfowl.

DATED AUGUST 16, 2017

Eric Sklar, President Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Vice President

Anthony C. Williams, Member Russell Burns, Member

Peter Silva, Member Valerie Termini, Executive Director

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION RESOLUTION HONORING Honorable Robert (Bob) Cline

HEREAS, the Waterfowler’s Hall of Fame was established in 2006 to recognize those W individuals who have made significant contributions to enhancing waterfowl and their habitats in California; and

HEREAS, many wildlife professionals, have dedicated their life’s work to management W and research to conserve waterfowl and their habitats; and

HEREAS, many sportsmen and other conservationists have served a critical role in W conserving our waterfowl resource by preserving, restoring, and enhancing natural habitats, managing agricultural habitats with wildlife in mind, and implementing other land uses specifically designed to benefit the waterfowl resource; and

HEREAS, some sportsmen and other conservationists have significantly benefited the W waterfowl resource by advocating legislation and other policies that provide needed resources for nesting and wintering waterfowl populations;

OW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Fish and Game Commission Nhereby recognizes the addition of Mr. Bob Cline to the Waterfowler’s Hall of Fame; and

URTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commission recognizes Bob for being an advocate Ffor the outdoors and hunting; throughout his life, he has been a dove, duck and quail hunter; for over 40 years, Bob has been a member of the Colusa Shooting Club, which is dedicated to preserving natural habitat; Bob is one of the founding organizers of the Butte Sink Waterfowl Association – serving as secretary and then president; – which covers 10,000 acres of privately-owned wetlands, and has been essential to preserving and enhancing the Butte Sink and addressing issues common to clubs, including high-water trespass, water supply, drought issues, guaranteeing water flows to the Sink and enhancing habitat for ducks; Bob is a past director and life member of California Waterfowl, and continues to serve on the California Waterfowl Regulations and Traditions Committee; and he is a life member of the National Rifle Association; and

INALLY, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commission further recognizes Bob was a member F of the California State Assembly from 1971 to 1980 – serving on the Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee – where he was always a zealous advocate for hunters’ rights and habitat preservation.

DATED AUGUST 16, 2017

Eric Sklar, President Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Vice President

Anthony C. Williams, Member Russell Burns, Member

Peter Silva, Member Valerie Termini, Executive Director

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION RESOLUTION HONORING Tony A. Marnell II

HEREAS, the Waterfowler’s Hall of Fame was established in 2006 to recognize those W individuals who have made significant contributions to enhancing waterfowl and their habitats in California; and

HEREAS, many wildlife professionals, have dedicated their life’s work to management W and research to conserve waterfowl and their habitats; and

HEREAS, many sportsmen and other conservationists have served a critical role in W conserving our waterfowl resource by preserving, restoring, and enhancing natural habitats, managing agricultural habitats with wildlife in mind, and implementing other land uses specifically designed to benefit the waterfowl resource; and

HEREAS, some sportsmen and other conservationists have significantly benefited the W waterfowl resource by advocating legislation and other policies that provide needed resources for nesting and wintering waterfowl populations;

OW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Fish and Game Commission Nhereby recognizes the addition of Mr. Tony Marnell II to Waterfowler’s Hall of Fame; and

URTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commission recognizes Tony, who acquired the F5,200 -acre Mandeville Island in the San Joaquin River Delta where no clear refuge had previously existed, and established a virtual Eden for wintering and breeding waterfowl and other wildlife; this effort led to establishment of the Tuscany Research Institute, which provided a critical scientific basis for programs Tony was to embark upon; a founding and longtime supporter of California Waterfowl’s Mallard Legacy Program, he acted on early research results, which showed a huge potential to increase mallard production in California; he funded years of waterfowl population monitoring efforts conducted by California Waterfowl; Tony’s waterfowl passion led him to engage and serve as the lead and major donor for Ducks Unlimited’s Pintail Initiative, a partnership project with California Waterfowl and the U.S. Geological Survey that used newly developed satellite telemetry to answer management questions related to migration and habitat use; and

INALLY, BE IT RESOLVED, that the further recognizes Tony for taking on the most F difficult conservation issues; much of his passion for conservation is on display in his photo-documentary book, Mandeville Island: A Fine Balance.

DATED AUGUST 16, 2017

Eric Sklar, President Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Vice President

Anthony C. Williams, Member Russell Burns, Member

Peter Silva, Member Valerie Termini, Executive Director

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION RESOLUTION HONORING Larry Merlo

HEREAS, the Waterfowler’s Hall of Fame was established in 2006 to recognize those W individuals who have made significant contributions to enhancing waterfowl and their habitats in California; and

HEREAS, many wildlife professionals, have dedicated their life’s work to management W and research to conserve waterfowl and their habitats; and

HEREAS, many sportsmen and other conservationists have served a critical role in W conserving our waterfowl resource by preserving, restoring, and enhancing natural habitats, managing agricultural habitats with wildlife in mind, and implementing other land uses specifically designed to benefit the waterfowl resource; and

HEREAS, some sportsmen and other conservationists have significantly benefited the W waterfowl resource by advocating legislation and other policies that provide needed resources for nesting and wintering waterfowl populations;

OW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Fish and Game Commission Nhereby recognizes the addition of Mr. Larry Merlo to the Waterfowler’s Hall of Fame; and

URTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commission recognizes Larry, who as a young Fteenager became so good at vocally calling geese that he was offered a job guiding on the Mallard Pond at Llano Seco, the start of a career in waterfowl guiding; he started the Butte Creek Gun Club on the Adams Ranch near Durham and, a decade later, Ken Hofmann purchased the ranch and renamed it Rancho Esquon; Larry would remain at the ranch for the next eighteen years as habitat and hunt program manager and Ken’s personal guide; Larry’s knowledge and skill helped him develop waterfowl habitat with innovative techniques, becoming one of the most influential practitioners of habitat management for waterfowl and wetlands in North America and

INALLY, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission further recognizes Larry for being a F man of all seasons, as was reflected in his longtime involvement and support of California Waterfowl; he also took a leadership role in forming the local Durham area chapter of Ducks Unlimited; perhaps his greatest contribution to the future of our natural resources was introducing hundreds of newcomers, especially youth, to waterfowl hunting and wetland conservation; and, as a conservation giant, his vision for a healthy environment and abundant wildlife will extend far beyond the distant horizon.

DATED AUGUST 16, 2017

Eric Sklar, President Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Vice President

Anthony C. Williams, Member Russell Burns, Member

Peter Silva, Member Valerie Termini, Executive Director

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION RESOLUTION HONORING Ed Smith

HEREAS, the Waterfowler’s Hall of Fame was established in 2006 to recognize those W individuals who have made significant contributions to enhancing waterfowl and their habitats in California; and

HEREAS, many wildlife professionals, have dedicated their life’s work to management W and research to conserve waterfowl and their habitats; and

HEREAS, many sportsmen and other conservationists have served a critical role in W conserving our waterfowl resource by preserving, restoring, and enhancing natural habitats, managing agricultural habitats with wildlife in mind, and implementing other land uses specifically designed to benefit the waterfowl resource; and

HEREAS, some sportsmen and other conservationists have significantly benefited the W waterfowl resource by advocating legislation and other policies that provide needed resources for nesting and wintering waterfowl populations;

OW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Fish and Game Commission Nhereby recognizes the addition of Mr. Ed Smith to the Waterfowler’s Hall of Fame; and

URTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commission recognizes Ed for his achievements Fearly in his career while working for the California Department of Fish and Game where, in 1971, Ed became manager of the Mendota Wildlife Area in Fresno County; soon he was promoted to wildlife management supervisor for Region 4 in Fresno, where he researched and developed wetland management techniques to promote the growth of waterfowl food plants (moist soil management); these techniques were adopted and put into practice by private ducks clubs, other state wildlife areas and national wildlife refuges, work that persists today across California and the western U.S. where wetlands are routinely managed; additionally, Ed was instrumental in establishing the 25-shell limit on state wildlife areas, directed botulism control efforts in the Tulare Basin, and was a supporter of youth hunts; and

INALLY, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commission further recognizes Ed for his leadership F as chairman of the Wildlife Area Habitat Committee, which was instrumental in developing and implementing wetland management plans on 13 state wildlife areas; Ed took a special interest in pheasant biology and population dynamics and, in retirement, became a consultant to both state and private landholders on pheasant habitat management.

DATED AUGUST 16, 2017

Eric Sklar, President Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Vice President

Anthony C. Williams, Member Russell Burns, Member

Peter Silva, Member Valerie Termini, Executive Director

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION DECISION LIST FOR NON-MARINE PETITIONS FOR REGULATION CHANGE RECEIVED THROUGH JUN 22, 2017, FOR FGC ACTION Revised 07-27-2017

FGC - California Fish and Game Commission DFW - California Department of Fish and Wildlife WRC - Wildlife Resources Committee MRC - Marine Resources Committee

Grant: FGC is willing to consider the petition through a process Deny: FGC is not willing to consider the petition Refer: FGC needs more information before deciding whether to grant or deny the petition

Accept Tracking Date Subject of Code or Title 14 or Name of Petitioner Short Description Staff Recommendation FGC Decision No. Received Request Section Number Reject

Ballona Wetlands DENY; pursuant to subsection 662(d)(2), petition Ecological Reserve Eliminate parking use exemption for County of Los RECEIPT: 6/21-22/2017 2017-003 5/26/2017 A Patricia McPherson 630(h)(3), T14 equivalent to previously submitted petition #2017- existing parking Angeles leases ACTION: Scheduled 8/16/2017 002 and no new information provided. areas

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION DECISION LIST FOR NON-MARINE, NON-REGULATORY REQUESTS RECEIVED THROUGH JUN 22, 2017 Revised 07-27-2017

FGC - California Fish and Game Commission DFW - California Department of Fish and Wildlife WRC - Wildlife Resources Committee MRC - Marine Resources Committee

Date Subject of Name of Petitioner Short Description Staff Recommendation FGC Decision Received Request

6/22/2017 Felice Pace Klamath spring-run (1) Requests FGC send letter to Pacific Fishery (1) REFER to FGC staff for further evaluation and RECEIPT: 6/21-22/2017 Sierra Club, North Group chinook Management Council and Secretary of Commerce recommendation. ACTION: Scheduled 8/16/2017 Redwood Chapter requesting completion of the Klamath spring-run (2) DENY; regulation change requests must be Chinook management plan. submitted using the regulation change petition (2) Requests FGC consider more sportfishing form, FGC-1. restrictions for the Klamath and Trinity rivers.

6/22/2107 Rob Miller Elk management Requests FGC increase elk tag allocations in Del DENY; regulation change requests must be RECEIPT: 6/21-22/2017 Norte and Humboldt counties. submitted using the regulation change petition ACTION: Scheduled 8/16/2017 form, FGC-1. Note, tag allocations will be reevaluated upon completion of DFW's elk management plan and environmental document. CDFW News

CDFW Staff, Enforcement, Law Enforcement, Public Safety Nicole Kozicki Recognized Nationally as Wildlife Officer of the Year

July 12, 2017

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is proud to announce that Wildlife Officer Nicole Kozicki has been selected as the Pogue-Elms Wildlife Law Enforcement Officer of the Year. The award, which was formally presented to her at the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) annual conference on July 10, is considered their highest honor. Kozicki is also the first female recipient of the award.

CDFW’s Law Enforcement Division selected Kozicki as the 2017 Wildlife Officer of the Year, which led to her nomination for the WAFWA award. Kozicki has honorably represented CDFW in the San Francisco Bay Area and its communities for 27 years.

“We are very happy to see Wildlife Officer Kozicki receive the Pogue-Elms award for her extraordinary dedication to the protection of California’s natural resources,” said Assistant Chief Steve Riske, who supervises Kozicki. “Her tireless investigations of poaching, pollution, and environmental crimes are an example to her fellow wildlife officers in California and to others throughout the country. Her reputation brings great credit to herself, CDFW and California.”

Kozicki’s ability to handle complex, large-scale investigations — many of which have involved harm to threatened and endangered species — has earned her a reputation as an expert in the field of environmental crimes. Throughout her career, Kozicki has led hundreds of streambed alteration and pollution cases to successful prosecution. Her tireless pursuit of the truth has resulted in hundreds of acres of mitigated lands being preserved in perpetuity and has generated millions of dollars in fines. Fellow wildlife officers as well as investigators from local, state and federal agencies often seek her investigation expertise.

Among the greatest of Kozicki’s accomplishments is her leadership of an investigation related to illegal development practices that threatened two endangered species – the California tiger salamander and the red-legged frog – at Dublin Ranch in Alameda County. Conducted jointly with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the three-year investigation uncovered numerous violations of state and federal law, including egregious grading and illegal stream alterations, habitat destruction and falsification of permitting documents. Kozicki provided testimony in state court for two full weeks. The developer eventually pled no contest to charges of submitting fraudulent documents in an attempt to avoid development requirements. The terms of the plea agreement between the developer, the California Attorney General’s Office and CDFW included almost $1.1 million in fines and restitution, preservation of 107 acres of land in Contra Costa County (known as the Brown Ranch) in a conservation easement and $300,000 put into an account to manage the property.

“Wildlife Officer Kozicki has an extraordinary capability and reputation for investigating cases that affect not only California’s fish and wildlife, but the very habitat where those fish and wildlife live,” said David Bess, Chief of CDFW’s Law Enforcement Division. “The benefits of her investigations will be measured for generations to come.”

WAFWA represents 23 states and Canadian provinces, spanning from Alaska to Texas and Hawaii to Saskatchewan. WAFWA is a strong advocate of the rights of states and provinces to manage fish and wildlife within their borders. It has also been a key organization in promoting the principles of sound resource management and the building of partnerships at the regional, national and international levels in order to enhance wildlife conservation efforts and the protection of associated habitats in the public interest. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Officers Bill Pogue and Conley Elms were killed in the line of duty in 1981, during a poaching investigation. WAFWA created the award in their honor.

###

Media Contact: Lt. Chris Stoots, CDFW Law Enforcement Division, (916) 651-9982

Department of Fish & Wildlife Legislative Report

August 2017 (as of July 26, 2017)

AB 8 (Bloom D) Mountain lions: depredation permits. Introduced: 12/5/2016 Status: 4/28/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was W.,P. & W. on 1/19/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 4/28/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: The California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 establishes that the mountain lion is a specially protected mammal under the laws of this state, and makes it unlawful to take, injure, possess, transport, import, or sell a mountain lion or a product of a mountain lion. The act authorizes a person whose livestock or other property is being or has been injured, damaged, or destroyed by a mountain lion to report that fact to the Department of Fish and Wildlife and request a permit to take the mountain lion. The act requires the department or a specifically authorized animal damage control officer to immediately confirm the reported depredation by a mountain lion, and then promptly issue a permit to take the mountain lion. This bill would authorize, rather than require, the issuance of a permit under these circumstances.

AB 12 (Cooley D) State government: administrative regulations: review. Introduced: 12/5/2016 Status: 5/26/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. on 5/26/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 5/26/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require each state agency to, on or before January 1, 2020, review that agency’s regulations, identify any regulations that are duplicative, overlapping, inconsistent, or out of date, to revise those identified regulations, as provided, and report to the Legislature and Governor, as specified. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2021.

AB 18 (Garcia, Eduardo D) California Clean Water, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018. Introduced: 12/5/2016 Last Amend: 2/23/2017 Status: 6/28/2017-Referred to Coms. on N.R. & W. and GOV. & F. Location: 6/28/2017-S. N.R. & W. Summary: Would enact the California Clean Water, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in an amount of $3,105,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a clean water, climate, coastal protection, and outdoor access for all program. This bill contains other related provisions.

AB 77 (Fong R) Regulations: effective dates and legislative review. Introduced: 1/4/2017 Last Amend: 2/7/2017 Status: 5/26/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. on 5/26/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 5/26/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require the Office of Administrative Law to submit to each house of the Legislature for review a copy of each major regulation that it submits to the Secretary of State. The bill would add another exception to those currently provided that specifies that a regulation does not become effective if the Legislature enacts a statute to override the regulation.

AB 108 (Committee on Budget) Public resources. Introduced: 1/10/2017 Last Amend: 6/12/2017 Status: 7/20/2017-Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Mitchell. Location: 7/20/2017-S. INACTIVE FILE Summary: Current law regulating commercial fishing imposes, or authorizes the imposition of, various license, permit, and registration fees. Existing law requires specified persons to pay commercial fishing fees, referred to as a “landing tax,” calculated on the total weight of fish delivered, based on a rate-per-pound schedule applicable to specified aquatic species. This bill would rename the “landing tax” as a “landing fee” and would revise the rate schedule by increasing certain fees while decreasing other fees to specified amounts. The bill would make conforming and other related changes.

AB 110 (Ting D) Cannabis: medicinal and adult use. Introduced: 1/10/2017 Last Amend: 6/12/2017 Status: 7/20/2017-Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Mitchell. Location: 7/20/2017-S. INACTIVE FILE Summary: The Medical Marijuana Program also provides immunity from arrest to those exempt patients or designated primary caregivers who engage in certain acts involving marijuana, up to certain limits, and who have identification cards issued pursuant to the program unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the information contained in the card is false or fraudulent, the card has been obtained by means of fraud, or the person is otherwise in violation of the law. Under existing law, a person who steals, fraudulently uses, or commits other prohibited acts with respect to those identification cards is subject to criminal penalties. This bill would require probable cause to believe that the information on the card is false or fraudulent, the card was obtained by fraud, or the person is otherwise in violation of the law to overcome immunity from arrest to patients and primary caregivers in possession of an identification card.

AB 118 (Committee on Budget) Transportation. Introduced: 1/10/2017 Last Amend: 6/26/2017 Status: 7/20/2017-Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator Mitchell. Location: 7/20/2017-S. INACTIVE FILE Summary: Would require the Department of Transportation to develop and submit to the Legislature and specified legislative caucuses, by January 1, 2019, a detailed outreach plan intended to increase procurement opportunities for new and limited contracting small business enterprises, as defined, including, but not limited to, those owned by women, minority, disabled veterans, LGBT, and other disadvantaged groups, in all the department’s transportation programs, to undertake specified outreach activities required to be included in the plan, and to update that plan and submit it to specified entities.

AB 424 (McCarty D) Possession of a firearm in a school zone. Introduced: 2/9/2017 Last Amend: 6/19/2017 Status: 7/11/2017-Read second time. Ordered to third reading. Location: 7/11/2017-S. THIRD READING Summary: Would delete the authority of a school district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school authority to provide written permission for a person to possess a firearm within a school zone. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill would exempt from that crime the activities of a program involving shooting sports or activities that are sanctioned by a school, school district, college, university, or other governing body of the institution, as specified, and the activities of a certified hunter education program, as specified.

AB 425 (Caballero D) Timber harvesting plans: exemptions: temporary roads. Introduced: 2/9/2017 Last Amend: 4/4/2017 Status: 7/10/2017-In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file. Location: 7/10/2017-S. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE Summary: The Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act of 1973 authorizes the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to exempt from some or all of those provisions of the act a person engaging in specified forest management activities, including the cutting or removal of trees in compliance with existing law relating to defensible space. In this regard, the act authorizes, until January 1, 2021, the Forest Fire Prevention Pilot Project Exemption if specified conditions are met. This bill would expand the exemption to allow the construction or reconstruction of temporary roads on slopes of 40% or less if certain conditions are met, including that a registered professional forester designates temporary road locations, landing locations, associated class III watercourse crossings, unstable areas, and connected headwall swales, including convergent slopes, on specified maps.

AB 429 (Grayson D) State water policy: water rights: use and transferability. Introduced: 2/13/2017 Status: 5/12/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(3). (Last location was PRINT on 2/13/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 5/12/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law declares that the growing water needs of the state require the use of water in an efficient manner and that the efficient use of water requires certainty in the definition of property rights to the use of water and transferability of those rights. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to those declarations.

AB 472 (Frazier D) Water transfers: idled agricultural land: wildlife, waterfowl, and bird nesting habitat. Introduced: 2/13/2017 Last Amend: 6/26/2017 Status: 7/11/2017-In committee: Set, first hearing. Failed passage. Location: 6/26/2017-S. N.R. & W. Summary: Current law requires landowners to be encouraged, when agricultural lands are being idled in order to provide water for transfer and an amount of water is determined to be made available by that idling, to cultivate or retain nonirrigated cover crops or natural vegetation to provide waterfowl, upland game bird, and other wildlife habitat. This bill would require the department to allow nonirrigated cover crops or natural vegetation to remain on idled agricultural lands, without penalty to the landowner, unless it determines, based on peer-reviewed scientific studies or other credible scientific evidence, that an injury to another legal user of water would occur as a result of allowing those crops or vegetation to remain on those lands.

AB 474 (Garcia, Eduardo D) Hazardous waste: spent brine solutions. Introduced: 2/13/2017 Last Amend: 6/28/2017 Status: 7/10/2017-In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file. Location: 7/10/2017-S. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE Summary: Current law exempts from certain requirements of the Hazardous Waste Control Law wastes from the extraction, beneficiation, or processing of ores and minerals that are not subject to regulation under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, including spent brine solutions used to produce geothermal energy that meet specified requirements. This bill would exempt spent brine solutions that are byproducts of the treatment of groundwater to meet California drinking water standards from those same requirements if certain conditions are met, including that the spent brine solutions are transferred for dewatering via a closed piping system to lined surface impoundments regulated by the California regional water quality control boards.

AB 478 (Waldron R) Sport fishing licenses: age requirement. Introduced: 2/13/2017 Status: 5/26/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. on 5/26/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 5/26/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law requires every person 16 years of age or older who takes any fish, reptile, or amphibian for any purpose other than profit to first obtain a sport fishing license for that purpose, with specified exceptions, and to have that license on his or her person or in his or her immediate possession when engaged in carrying out any activity authorized by the license. This bill would raise the age at which a person is required to obtain a sport fishing license to 18 years of age or older and would make other conforming changes.

AB 510 (Quirk-Silva D) State property acquisition: West Coyote Hills project site: funding. Introduced: 2/13/2017 Last Amend: 7/20/2017 Status: 7/20/2017-From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/11/2017-S. APPR. Summary: Would require that the $15,000,000 appropriated in the Budget Act of 2017 for the purposes of SB 714 of the 2017–18 Regular Session be deposited in the West Coyote Hills Conservancy Program Account in the Coastal Trust Fund to be used for the purchase of specified property and related projects. The bill would make findings and declarations regarding funding under the bill for the Wildlife Conservation Board to open up, operate, and maintain the Robert E. Ward Nature Preserve. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to specify the particular uses of the appropriated funds.

AB 521 (Frazier D) Hunting: elk tags: apprentice elk hunt tags: fees for residents. Introduced: 2/13/2017 Last Amend: 6/26/2017 Status: 7/14/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(10). (Last location was N.R. & W. on 6/14/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 7/14/2017-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Under current law, a hunting license grants the privilege to take birds and mammals. Current law authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue a tag that is required in addition to a hunting license to take an elk. Current law sets the fee for an elk tag for a resident of the state at $165, as adjusted annually pursuant to a specified index. This bill would reduce the fee for an elk tag for a resident of the state to $100 and would prohibit the fee from being adjusted, except pursuant to an analysis of the fee to ensure that the appropriate fee amount is charged and a recommendation to the Legislature or the Fish and Game Commission that the fee be adjusted.

AB 573 (Bigelow R) Depredation: wild pigs: damage guidelines. Introduced: 2/14/2017 Last Amend: 3/23/2017 Status: 4/28/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was W.,P. & W. on 3/23/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 4/28/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law provides that any wild pig that is encountered while in the act of inflicting injury to, or damaging or destroying, or threatening to immediately damage or destroy, land or other property may be taken immediately by the owner or the owner’s employee or agent, as specified. Current law defines “damage” for purposes of these provisions and requires the department to develop statewide guidelines to aid in determining the damage caused by wild pigs. This bill would require the guidelines to consider additional factors and would require the department to update the guidelines as needed.

AB 661 (Mayes R) Magnesia Spring Ecological Reserve: Mirage Trail. Introduced: 2/14/2017 Last Amend: 7/3/2017 Status: 7/17/2017-In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. Location: 7/3/2017-S. APPR. Summary: Current law requires, until January 1, 2018, that the Mirage Trail within the Magnesia Spring Ecological Reserve be open 9 months of the year during the months of May to January, inclusive, and closed for 3 months during the months of February to April, inclusive, to recreational hiking if the Fish and Game Commission determines that specified conditions relating to providing funding and ensuring the proper use and monitoring of the reserve are met. This bill would require the commission, beginning January 1, 2020, and by January 1 every 2 years thereafter, at a public hearing, to assess compliance with the requirements of those provisions and post its findings and any recommendations on its Internet Web site.

AB 707 (Aguiar-Curry D) Clear Lake. Introduced: 2/15/2017 Last Amend: 7/3/2017 Status: 7/11/2017-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 11). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/11/2017-S. APPR. Summary: Would establish in the Natural Resources Agency, the Blue Ribbon Committee for the Rehabilitation of Clear Lake. The bill would require the committee to consist of specified persons, including the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, or his or her designee. The bill would require the committee to meet quarterly for the purposes of discussion, reviewing research, planning, and providing oversight regarding the health of Clear Lake. The bill would require the committee to hold 2 meetings per year in the County of Lake.

AB 718 (Frazier D) Mosquito abatement and vector control districts: managed wetland habitat: memoranda of understanding. Introduced: 2/15/2017 Last Amend: 7/18/2017 Status: 7/18/2017-Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/18/2017-S. APPR. Summary: Current law provides for the formation of mosquito abatement and vector control districts, and prescribes the powers, functions, and duties of those districts, as specified. This bill would authorize a private landowner whose property includes managed wetland habitat, as defined, located within the boundaries of a district and meets other criteria to initiate the opportunity to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the district to establish a process to implement best management practices with regard to the managed wetland habitat.

AB 721 (Bigelow R) Firearms: prohibited firearms. Introduced: 2/15/2017 Status: 7/21/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(11). (Last location was PUB. S. on 5/10/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 7/21/2017-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law prohibits the manufacture, importation, sale, or possession in the state of short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns, as defined. Current law authorizes certain government entities and certain peace officers to purchase and possess these firearms under certain circumstances, as specified.This bill would add district attorney’s offices and peace officer members of these offices to the specified entities and persons authorized to purchase and possess these weapons under specified circumstances.

AB 748 (Ting D) Peace officers: video and audio recordings: disclosure. Introduced: 2/15/2017 Last Amend: 7/19/2017 Status: 7/19/2017-Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. Location: 7/19/2017-S. RLS. Summary: The California Public Records Act requires that public records, as defined, be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. Current law makes records of investigations conducted by any state or local police agency exempt from these requirements. Current law requires specified information regarding the investigation of crimes to be disclosed to the public unless disclosure would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation. This bill would, notwithstanding the above provisions, allow a video or audio recording that relates to a matter of public concern because it depicts an incident involving a peace officer’s use of force, or is reasonably believed to involve a violation of law or agency policy by a peace officer, to be withheld for a maximum of 120 calendar days if disclosure would substantially impede an active investigation.

AB 816 (Kiley R) California Environmental Protection Agency: Natural Resources Agency: Web casts of public meetings and workshops. Introduced: 2/15/2017 Status: 7/11/2017-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 11). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/11/2017-S. APPR. Summary: Would require that each department, board, and commission of the Natural Resources Agency, except as specified, and each department, board, and office of the California Environmental Protection Agency Web cast all onsite public meetings, in a manner that enables listeners and viewers to ask questions and provide public comment by telephone or electronic communication commensurate with those attending the meeting. The bill would require the agencies to make the recording of a Web cast available online for no less than 3 years for subsequent viewing by interested members of the public.

AB 947 (Gallagher R) Department of Fish and Wildlife: lake or streambed alteration agreements: definitions. Introduced: 2/16/2017 Last Amend: 4/17/2017 Status: 5/26/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 5/3/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 5/26/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law prohibits an entity from substantially diverting or obstructing the natural flow of, or substantially changing or using any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or from depositing certain material where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake, without first notifying the Department of Fish and Wildlife of that activity, and entering into a lake or streambed alteration agreement if required by the department to protect fish and wildlife resources.This bill would define “river” and “stream” for purposes of these provisions.

AB 975 (Friedman D) Natural resources: wild and scenic rivers. Introduced: 2/16/2017 Last Amend: 5/4/2017 Status: 7/14/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(10). (Last location was INACTIVE FILE on 6/5/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 7/14/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law establishes that it is the policy of the state that certain rivers that possess extraordinary scenic, recreational, fishery, or wildlife values shall be preserved in their free-flowing state, together with their immediate environments, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the state. This bill would revise that policy to specify that certain rivers that possess scenic, recreational, fishery, wildlife, historical, cultural, geological, or other similar values shall be preserved in their free- flowing state, together with their immediate environments, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the state, and would revise the definition of “immediate environments,” and define the term “extraordinary value” for purposes of that policy.

AB 986 (Gallagher R) Hunting and sport fishing licenses: sport fishing license duration: reduction in license fees for veterans. Introduced: 2/16/2017 Status: 5/26/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. on 3/21/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 5/26/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law requires a resident or a nonresident, 16 years of age or older, upon payment of a specified fee, to be issued a sport fishing license for the period of a calendar year, or, if issued after the beginning of the year, for the remainder thereof. This bill would instead require a resident or a nonresident, 16 years of age or older, upon payment of the fee, to be issued a sport fishing license for the period of 12 consecutive months beginning on the date of issuance.

AB 1000 (Friedman D) Water conveyance: use of facility with unused capacity. Introduced: 2/16/2017 Last Amend: 7/3/2017 Status: 7/11/2017-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (July 11). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/11/2017-S. APPR. Summary: Current law prohibits the state or a regional or local public agency from denying a bona fide transferor of water from using a water conveyance facility that has unused capacity for the period of time for which that capacity is available, if fair compensation is paid for that use and other requirements are met. This bill would, notwithstanding that provision, prohibit a transferor of water from using a water conveyance facility that has unused capacity to transfer water from a groundwater basin underlying desert lands, as defined, that is in the vicinity of specified federal lands or state lands to outside of the groundwater basin unless the State Lands Commission, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, finds that the transfer of the water will not adversely affect the natural or cultural resources of those federal and state lands.

AB 1031 (Waldron R) Personal income taxes: voluntary contributions: Native California Wildlife Rehabilitation Voluntary Tax Contribution Fund. Introduced: 2/16/2017 Last Amend: 4/4/2017 Status: 7/11/2017-Read second time. Ordered to third reading. Location: 7/11/2017-S. THIRD READING Summary: Would allow an individual to designate on his or her tax return that a specified amount in excess of his or her tax liability be transferred to the Native California Wildlife Rehabilitation Voluntary Tax Contribution Fund, which would be created by this bill. The bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to revise the tax return form to include a space for the designation of contributions to the fund when another voluntary designation is removed from the form or there is space, whichever occurs first.

AB 1050 (Allen, Travis R) California Endangered Species Act: Delta smelt. Introduced: 2/16/2017 Last Amend: 3/28/2017 Status: 4/28/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was W.,P. & W. on 3/27/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 4/28/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: The California Endangered Species Act requires the Fish and Game Commission to establish a list of endangered species and a list of threatened species and requires the commission to add or remove species from either list if it finds, upon the receipt of sufficient scientific information, that the action is warranted. The act prohibits the taking of an endangered or threatened species, except as specified. This bill would require the commission to remove the Delta smelt from the endangered species list.

AB 1097 (Levine D) Department of Fish and Wildlife: Significant Natural Areas Program. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Status: 4/28/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was W.,P. & W. on 3/6/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 4/28/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to administer the Significant Natural Areas Program, and requires the department, as part of its administration of the program, to maintain, expand, and keep current a data management system, designated the California Natural Diversity Database. Current law requires that data to be made available to interested parties on request.This bill would instead require that data to be made available on the department’s Internet Web site.

AB 1133 (Dahle R) California Endangered Species Act: experimental populations. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 7/13/2017 Status: 7/13/2017-Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/13/2017-S. APPR. Summary: Would provide that a person who obtains a federal enhancement of survival permit that authorizes the take of endangered or threatened species that is also listed as endangered, threatened, or candidate under CESA, in order to establish or maintain an experimental population of the species pursuant to FESA, requires no further authorization or approval under CESA for that person to take that species as identified in, and in accordance with, the enhancement of survival permit, if specified requirements are met. These provisions would remain in effect only until the effective date of an amendment to FESA that alters the requirements for issuing an enhancement of survival permit.

AB 1151 (Gloria D) Vaquita-friendly fish and fish products. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 5/30/2017 Status: 7/10/2017-In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file. Location: 7/10/2017-S. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE Summary: Current law makes it unlawful for any person to possess, sell, offer for sale, trade, or distribute a shark fin, as defined. Current law generally makes violations of provisions relating to fish and wildlife a crime. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2019, make it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, trade, or distribute fish and fish products that are not vaquita-friendly, as defined. The bill would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife to adopt regulations on or before January 1, 2019, to enforce this prohibition and would prohibit the department from enforcing the prohibition until July 1, 2019.

AB 1197 (Limón D) Oil spill contingency plans: spill management teams. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 4/17/2017 Status: 7/6/2017-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (July 5). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/5/2017-S. APPR. Summary: Current law provides for the rating of oil spill response organizations (OSROs) by the administrator pursuant to specified provisions and requires an oil spill contingency plan to identify at least one rated OSRO for each rating level established pursuant to those provisions. This bill would no longer require an oil spill contingency plan to identify at least one rated OSRO for each rating level and would instead require the plan to identify at least one OSRO rated pursuant to those provisions, and would authorize an owner or operator to rely on its own response equipment and personnel, if they have been rated by the administrator, as specified.

AB 1228 (Bloom D) Marine fisheries: experimental fishing permits. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 7/17/2017 Status: 7/17/2017-Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/17/2017-S. APPR. Summary: Would authorize the Fish and Game Commission to approve experimental fishing permits to be issued by the Department of Fish and Wildlife 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.

AB 1254 (Wood D) Production or cultivation of a controlled substance: civil penalties. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 7/10/2017 Status: 7/11/2017-Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. Location: 7/11/2017-S. APPR. Summary: Current law makes a person found to have violated specified provisions of law generally protecting fish and wildlife, water, or other natural resources in connection with the production or cultivation of a controlled substance liable for a civil penalty in addition to any penalties imposed by any other law. With respect to a violation that occurs on land that a person owns, leases, or otherwise uses or occupies with the consent of the landowner, existing law makes each day that a violation occurs or continues to occur a separate violation subject to the additional civil penalty. This bill would also make each day that a violation occurs or continues to occur on the specified types of public or private land or while the person was trespassing on public or private land a separate violation subject to the additional civil penalty.

AB 1273 (Gallagher R) California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: levee repairs. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 5/2/2017 Status: 7/14/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(10). (Last location was N.R. & W. on 7/6/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 7/14/2017-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Would, until July 1, 2023, exempt from the requirements of CEQA repairs of critical levees of the State Plan of Flood Control within an existing levee footprint to meet standards of public health and safety, except as otherwise provided in a specified regulation. The bill would require the lead agency to take certain actions regarding the repairs. This bill contains other existing laws.

AB 1282 (Mullin D) Transportation Permitting Taskforce. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 6/29/2017 Status: 7/20/2017-Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 18 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77. Location: 7/20/2017-A. DESK Summary: Would require, by April 1, 2018, the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, to establish a Transportation Permitting Taskforce consisting of representatives from specified entities to develop a process for early engagement for all parties in the development of transportation projects, establish reasonable deadlines for permit approvals, and provide for greater certainty of permit approval requirements. The bill would require the Secretary of Transportation, by December 1, 2019, to prepare and submit to the relevant policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature a report of findings based on the efforts of the taskforce.

AB 1337 (Patterson R) Fish and Game Commission: meetings and hearings: live broadcast. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Status: 7/11/2017-Read second time. Ordered to third reading. Location: 7/11/2017-S. THIRD READING Summary: Would require the Fish and Game Commission to provide a live video broadcast on its Internet Web site of every commission meeting or hearing that is open and public and every meeting or hearing conducted by the marine resources committee, wildlife resources committee, or tribal committee that is open and public.

AB 1404 (Berman D) California Environmental Quality Act: categorical exemption: infill development. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 7/10/2017 Status: 7/10/2017-Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/10/2017-S. APPR. Summary: CEQA requires the Office of Planning and Research to prepare and develop, and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to certify and adopt, guidelines for the implementation of CEQA. CEQA requires the guidelines to include a list of classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and that shall be exempt from CEQA (categorical exemption). Current guidelines for the implementation of CEQA exempts from the requirements of CEQA infill development meeting certain requirements, including the requirement that the proposed development occurs within city limits. This bill would revise the above-described categorical exemption to include proposed residential and mixed-use housing projects occurring within an unincorporated area of a county.

AB 1420 (Aguiar-Curry D) Water rights: small irrigation use: lake or streambed alteration agreements. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Status: 7/10/2017-In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file. Location: 7/10/2017-S. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE Summary: Would require the State Water Resources Control Board to give priority to adopting, on or before June 30, 2021, except as provided, general conditions that permit a registrant to store water for small irrigation use during times of high streamflow in exchange for the registrant reducing diversions during periods of low streamflow, as specified. The bill would require that the actions of the board under these provisions be deemed an action taken for the protection of the environment for purposes of specified California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, if those actions do not result in the relaxation of streamflow standards.

AB 1433 (Wood D) Natural and working lands: unified program application and process. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 7/18/2017 Status: 7/18/2017-Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/18/2017-S. APPR. Summary: Current law establishes various programs to provide financial assistance for natural or working lands. This bill would require the Strategic Growth Council, on or before April 1, 2018, to establish and convene an interagency task force consisting of representatives from various state agencies who are knowledgeable in programs for natural or working lands to develop a common application form and process for those programs. The bill would require the task force, on or before January 1, 2019, to develop and implement the common application form and process for those programs.

AB 1471 (Kiley R) Firearms: silencers. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 5/3/2017 Status: 5/12/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(3). (Last location was PUB. S. on 3/13/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 5/12/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law generally makes it a felony for any person, firm, or corporation to possess a silencer within this state. Existing law exempts from that prohibition the sale to, purchase by, or possession by certain law enforcement agencies of a silencer for use in the discharge of their official duties, or possession by peace officers employed by those law enforcement agencies. This bill would make the crime of possessing a silencer inapplicable to the sale or other transfer in interstate or foreign commerce by registered dealers or manufacturers when the sale or other transfer is in accordance with federal law.

AB 1544 (Dahle R) Hunting: nonlead ammunition. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 3/28/2017 Status: 4/28/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was W.,P. & W. on 3/16/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 4/28/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law requires the use of nonlead centerfire rifle and pistol ammunition, as determined by the Fish and Game Commission, when taking big game with a rifle or pistol, and when taking coyote, within the California condor range. Current law further requires by no later than July 1, 2019, the use of nonlead ammunition for the taking of all wildlife, including game mammals, game birds, nongame birds, and nongame mammals, with any firearm, and requires the commission to promulgate regulations by July 1, 2015, that phase in the requirements of these provisions. This bill would require the commission to temporarily suspend the latter prohibition for a specific hunting season and caliber if the commission finds that nonlead ammunition of the specific caliber is not available for any reason.

AB 1587 (Levine D) Invasive species: dreissenid mussels. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 6/29/2017 Status: 7/17/2017-In committee: Hearing postponed by committee. Location: 7/3/2017-S. APPR. Summary: Current law, until January 1, 2020, generally prohibits a person from possessing, importing, shipping, or transporting in the state, or from placing, planting, or causing to be placed or planted in any water within the state, dreissenid mussels, and authorizes the Director of Fish and Wildlife or his or her designee to engage in various enforcement activities with regard to dreissenid mussels. Current law authorizes the director to conduct inspections of waters of the state and facilities located within waters of the state that may contain dreissenid mussels and, if those mussels are detected or may be present, order the closure of the waters or facilities to conveyances or otherwise restrict access to the waters or facilities, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency. This bill would also authorize a peace officer to engage in certain of these enforcement activities, as prescribed, and would extend to January 1, 2023, the repeal date of those provisions.

AB 1608 (Kalra D) Vibrant landscapes for California. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 5/1/2017 Status: 5/26/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 5/10/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 5/26/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require the Department of Conservation to develop the Vibrant Landscape Program to assist eligible applicants in the development and implementation of county and regional plans to, among other things, integrate the conservation and management of natural and working lands with other sectors to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases and achieve other public and environmental benefits. The bill would require the department, in collaboration with the Strategic Growth Council and the State Air Resources Board, to develop guidelines and criteria for the program.

AB 1617 (Bloom D) Department of Fish and Wildlife: Fish and Game Commission: funding: strategic vision. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 5/15/2017 Status: 7/14/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(10). (Last location was N.R. & W. on 6/14/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 7/14/2017-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law requires the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to convene a committee to develop and submit to the Governor and Legislature, before July 1, 2012, a strategic vision for the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Fish and Game Commission that addresses specified matters relating to state fish and wildlife resource management. This bill would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife, in cooperation with the above-mentioned parties and additional specified parties, to identify and propose new sources of revenue to fund the department’s necessary wildlife, land, and marine conservation, restoration, and resources management and protection responsibilities.

AB 1630 (Bloom D) Transportation: wildlife movement and barriers to passage. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 4/17/2017 Status: 4/28/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was TRANS. on 4/4/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 4/28/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law requires the department to seek input from representatives of other state agencies, local government, federal agencies, nongovernmental conservation organizations, landowners, agriculture, recreation, scientific entities, and industry in determining essential wildlife corridors and habitat linkages. Current law also declares that it is the policy of the state to encourage, wherever feasible and practicable, voluntary steps to protect the functioning of wildlife corridors through various means. This bill would authorize the Department of Fish and Wildlife or the Department of Transportation to pursue development of a programmatic environmental review process with appropriate state and federal regulatory agencies for wildlife connectivity-related transportation infrastructure.

SB 1 (Beall D) Transportation funding. Introduced: 12/5/2016 Last Amend: 4/3/2017 Status: 4/28/2017-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017. Location: 4/28/2017-S. CHAPTERED Summary: Would create the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to address deferred maintenance on the state highway system and the local street and road system. The bill would require the California Transportation Commission to adopt performance criteria, consistent with a specified asset management plan, to ensure efficient use of certain funds available for the program.

SB 5 (De León D) California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018. Introduced: 12/5/2016 Last Amend: 7/18/2017 Status: 7/18/2017-From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re- referred to Com. on W.,P., & W. Location: 6/29/2017-A. W.,P. & W. Summary: Would enact the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in an amount of $3,832,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a drought, water, parks, climate, coastal protection, and outdoor access for all program.

SB 22 (Hill D) Firearms: law enforcement agencies: agency firearm accounting. Introduced: 12/5/2016 Last Amend: 3/28/2017 Status: 5/26/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 5/25/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 5/26/2017-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require a law enforcement agency, as defined, to adopt a written procedure to account for firearms that are owned, acquired, maintained, sold, loaned, lost, stolen, or in any way possessed by that agency or by an employee of that agency if used or carried for purposes of carrying out the official duties of his or her employment, as specified. The bill would require that firearms that are lost, stolen, or otherwise disposed of be entered into the AFS. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

SB 49 (De León D) California Environmental, Public Health, and Workers Defense Act of 2017. Introduced: 12/5/2016 Last Amend: 7/18/2017 Status: 7/18/2017-Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/11/2017-A. APPR. Summary: The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act regulates the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the state. The California Safe Drinking Water Act establishes standards for drinking water and regulates drinking water systems. The California Endangered Species Act requires the Fish and Game Commission to establish a list of endangered species and a list of threatened species and generally prohibits the taking of those species. The Protect California Air Act of 2003 prohibits air quality management districts and air pollution control districts from amending or revising their new source review rules or regulations to be less stringent than those rules or regulations that existed on December 30, 2002. This bill would prohibit state or local agencies from amending or revising their rules and regulations implementing the above state laws to be less stringent than the baseline federal standards, as defined, and would require specified agencies to take prescribed actions to maintain and enforce certain requirements and standards pertaining to air, water, and protected species.

SB 50 (Allen D) Federal public lands: conveyances. Introduced: 12/5/2016 Last Amend: 7/12/2017 Status: 7/12/2017-Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/11/2017-A. APPR. Summary: Would establish, except as provided, a policy of the state to discourage conveyances of federal public lands in California from the federal government. The bill would, except as provided, specify that these conveyances are void ab initio unless the State Lands Commission was provided with the right of first refusal or the right to arrange for the transfer of the federal public land to another entity.

SB 58 (McGuire D) Wildlife management areas: payment of taxes and assessments. Introduced: 12/12/2016 Status: 5/26/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 5/25/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 5/26/2017-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Existing law regulates real property acquired and operated by the state as wildlife management areas, and authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife, when income is directly derived from that real property, to annually pay to the county in which the property is located an amount equal to the county taxes levied upon the property at the time it was transferred to the state. Existing law requires those payments to only be made from funds that are appropriated to the department for those purposes. This bill would, commencing with the 2018–19 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, require, instead of authorize, the department to make these payments subject to appropriation by the Legislature.

SB 80 (Wieckowski D) California Environmental Quality Act: notices. Introduced: 1/11/2017 Last Amend: 6/21/2017 Status: 7/20/2017-Read second time. Ordered to third reading. Location: 7/20/2017-A. THIRD READING Summary: The California Environmental Quality Act requires the lead agency to mail certain notices to persons who have filed a written request for notices. The act provides that if the agency offers to provide the notices by email, upon filing a written request for notices, a person may request that the notices be provided to him or her by email. This bill would require the lead agency to post those notices on the agency’s Internet Web site. The bill would require the agency to offer to provide those notices by email. Because this bill would increase the level of service provided by a local agency, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

SB 92 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Public resources. Introduced: 1/11/2017 Last Amend: 6/9/2017 Status: 6/27/2017-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 26, Statutes of 2017. Location: 6/27/2017-S. CHAPTERED Summary: Current law regulating commercial fishing imposes, or authorizes the imposition of, various license, permit, and registration fees. Current law requires specified persons to pay commercial fishing fees, referred to as a “landing tax,” calculated on the total weight of fish delivered, based on a rate-per-pound schedule applicable to specified aquatic species. This bill would rename the “landing tax” as a “landing fee” and would revise the rate schedule by increasing certain fees while decreasing other fees to specified amounts. The bill would make conforming and other related changes.

SB 94 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Cannabis: medicinal and adult use. Introduced: 1/11/2017 Last Amend: 6/9/2017 Status: 6/27/2017-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 27, Statutes of 2017. Location: 6/27/2017-S. CHAPTERED Summary: The Medical Marijuana Program also provides immunity from arrest to those exempt patients or designated primary caregivers who engage in certain acts involving marijuana, up to certain limits, and who have identification cards issued pursuant to the program unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the information contained in the card is false or fraudulent, the card has been obtained by means of fraud, or the person is otherwise in violation of the law. This bill would require probable cause to believe that the information on the card is false or fraudulent, the card was obtained by fraud, or the person is otherwise in violation of the law to overcome immunity from arrest to patients and primary caregivers in possession of an identification card.

SB 144 (McGuire D) Fish and wildlife: steelhead trout: fishing report-restoration card. Introduced: 1/13/2017 Last Amend: 3/15/2017 Status: 7/20/2017-Read second time. Ordered to third reading. Location: 7/20/2017-A. THIRD READING Summary: Current law requires revenues from steelhead trout fishing license fees to be deposited in the Fish and Game Preservation Fund and to be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to monitor, restore, or enhance steelhead trout resources consistent with specified law, and to administer the fishing report-restoration card program. This bill would extend the operation of those provisions to July 1, 2022, to be repealed as of January 1, 2023. The bill would require the department to report to the Legislature regarding the fishing report-restoration card program’s projects on or before July 1, 2021.

SB 161 (McGuire D) Fish and Game Commission: tribal committee. Introduced: 1/19/2017 Status: 7/19/2017-July 19 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file. Location: 7/19/2017-A. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE Summary: Current law requires the Fish and Game Commission to form a marine resources committee and a wildlife resources committee from its membership. This bill would require the commission to form a tribal committee from its membership consisting of at least one commissioner and would require the committee to report to the commission from time to time on its activities and to make recommendations on all tribal matters considered by the commission.

SB 183 (Lara D) Marine protected areas: Native American tribes. Introduced: 1/24/2017 Status: 4/28/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was N.R. & W. on 2/2/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 4/28/2017-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law requires that any proposals for marine protected areas made after January 1, 2002, follow the guidelines set forth in the MMAIA and that specified areas and reserves be designated, deleted, or modified by the commission pursuant to the MMAIA, and the restrictions and allowable uses applicable to those areas be as set forth in the MMAIA. Current law establishes the Native American Heritage Commission and vests the commission with specified powers and duties. This bill would authorize a California Native American tribe to submit a request to the Native American Heritage Commission to approve the tribe’s record of aboriginal use of a specified area of the marine environment for subsistence and cultural purposes.

SB 187 (Berryhill R) Sport fishing licenses: duration. Introduced: 1/25/2017 Last Amend: 5/3/2017 Status: 7/19/2017-July 19 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file. Location: 7/19/2017-A. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE Summary: Would require a resident or a nonresident, 16 years of age or older, upon payment of a specified fee, to be issued a sport fishing license for the period of 12 consecutive months beginning on the date specified on the license, instead of for the period of a calendar year, or the remainder thereof. The bill would require the commission to include, among the costs required to be recovered by an adjustment of the fee amount, transition costs related to the new licensing period.

SB 193 (Cannella R) Monterey County Water Resources Agency: Lake Nacimiento and Lake San Antonio: white bass. Introduced: 1/30/2017 Last Amend: 6/8/2017 Status: 6/8/2017-From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re- referred to Com. on N.R. & W. Location: 6/8/2017-S. N.R. & W. Summary: Current law makes it unlawful to place, plant, or cause to be placed or planted, in any of the waters of this state, any live fish, any fresh or salt water animal, or any aquatic plant, whether taken without or within the state, without first submitting it for inspection to, and securing the written permission of, the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Current law also makes it unlawful to transport or possess any live white bass, whether taken within or without the state, unless it is first submitted for inspection to, and written permission is obtained from, the department. This bill would exempt the movement of white bass between Lake Nacimiento and Lake San Antonio through the interlake underground tunnel or pipeline from the above-described provisions relating to fish and wildlife.

SB 214 (Atkins D) San Diego River Conservancy. Introduced: 2/1/2017 Last Amend: 4/6/2017 Status: 6/29/2017-Read second time. Ordered to third reading. Location: 6/29/2017-A. THIRD READING Summary: The San Diego River Conservancy Act establishes the San Diego River Conservancy in the Natural Resources Agency, and prescribes the territory, membership, functions, and duties of the conservancy with regard to, among other things, the acquisition, protection, and management of public lands within the San Diego River area, as defined. This bill would specify that the powers of the conservancy include improving, developing, and preserving lands for the purpose of protecting the natural, cultural, and historical resources, and entering into a joint powers agreement, as specified.

SB 216 (Moorlach R) Property: wild animals. Introduced: 2/1/2017 Status: 5/12/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(3). (Last location was RLS. on 2/1/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 5/12/2017-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law provides animals that are wild by nature may be the subject of ownership while those animals are living only in specified circumstances.This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to that section of law.

SB 224 (Jackson D) California Environmental Quality Act: baseline conditions. Introduced: 2/2/2017 Last Amend: 4/5/2017 Status: 5/26/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 5/25/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 5/26/2017-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require the Office of Planning and Research, on or after January 1, 2018, at the time of the next review of the guidelines, to prepare, develop, and transmit to the secretary proposed changes or amendments to determine the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether a project has a significant effect on the environment. The bill would require the office, in developing the recommendations to limit the consideration of modifications to the environment at the project site cause by certain actions. The bill would require the secretary to certify and adopt the recommended proposed changes or amendments.

SB 249 (Allen D) Off-highway motor vehicle recreation. Introduced: 2/7/2017 Last Amend: 7/13/2017 Status: 7/13/2017-Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/13/2017-A. APPR. Summary: Would revise and recast various provisions of the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Act of 2003. The bill would expand the duties of the Division of Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation. The bill would require the division to take specified measures to protect natural and cultural resources within state vehicular recreation areas, including measures to mitigate harmful impacts to these areas and to protect them from off-highway vehicle recreation use, as specified.

SB 259 (Wilk R) Reports. Introduced: 2/8/2017 Status: 4/28/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was G.O. on 3/28/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 4/28/2017-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Would require a written report, as defined, submitted by any state agency or department to the Legislature, a Member of the Legislature, or any state legislative or executive body to include a signed statement by the head of the agency or department declaring that the factual contents of the written report are true, accurate, and complete to the best of his or her knowledge.

SB 287 (Dodd D) Habitat restoration: invasive species: Phytophthora pathogens. Introduced: 2/9/2017 Last Amend: 3/15/2017 Status: 5/26/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 5/25/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 5/26/2017-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law establishes the Department of Fish and Wildlife and sets forth the powers and duties of the department with regard to the implementation and administration of, among other things, projects and programs to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat in the state.This bill would require the department, on or before December 31, 2019, to adopt regulations to minimize the risk of Phytophthora pathogens in plant materials used for habitat restoration projects authorized, funded, or required by the state.

SB 345 (Bradford D) Law enforcement agencies: public records. Introduced: 2/14/2017 Last Amend: 5/26/2017 Status: 7/12/2017-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (July 11). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/11/2017-A. APPR. Summary: Would, commencing January 1, 2019, require the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Justice, the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, and each local law enforcement agency to conspicuously post on their Internet Web sites all current standards, policies, practices, operating procedures, and education and training materials, to the extent not prohibited by the California Public Records Act.

SB 347 (Jackson D) State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act. Introduced: 2/14/2017 Last Amend: 6/21/2017 Status: 7/14/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(10). (Last location was P. & C.P. on 6/12/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 7/14/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would enact the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act. The bill would prohibit a person from operating a remote piloted aircraft in any number of specified manners and would require any person using, operating, or renting a remote piloted aircraft and every commercial operator of a remote piloted aircraft to maintain adequate liability insurance or proof of financial responsibility, as specified.

SB 402 (Allen D) Marine fisheries: state policy. Introduced: 2/15/2017 Last Amend: 5/2/2017 Status: 5/26/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 5/25/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 5/26/2017-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Would declare that it is the policy of the state to robustly protect and enhance the significant economic, environmental, recreational, aesthetic, and educational values provided by the Pacific fisheries and would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife and Fish and Game Commission to consider this policy when revising, adopting, or establishing policies, regulations, expenditures, or grant criteria relating to the protection and management of marine fisheries. The bill would require the department and commission, to the extent feasible, to attempt to work collaboratively with the federal government and all fisheries stakeholders in furtherance of this policy.

SB 473 (Hertzberg D) California Endangered Species Act. Introduced: 2/16/2017 Last Amend: 7/3/2017 Status: 7/11/2017-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 6.) (July 11). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/11/2017-A. APPR. Summary: The California Endangered Species Act prohibits the taking of an endangered or threatened species, except in certain situations. Under the act, the Department of Fish and Wildlife may authorize the take of listed species pursuant to an incidental take permit if the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, the impacts are minimized and fully mitigated, and the issuance of the permit would not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The act requires the department to adopt regulations for issuance of incidental take permits. This bill would also apply the take prohibition to public agencies.

SB 503 (Newman D) Personal income taxes: voluntary tax contributions funds. Introduced: 2/16/2017 Last Amend: 7/20/2017 Status: 7/20/2017-From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re- referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/17/2017-A. APPR. Summary: Current law requires that when establishing or extending the operation of specified voluntary tax contribution funds the words “voluntary tax contribution” be included in the name of the fund, that the administering agency comply with specified Internet Web site reporting requirements, that the fund provisions remain in effect only until January 1 of the 7th calendar year following the first appearance of the voluntary tax contribution on the personal income tax return, that the required calendar year minimum contribution amount for the fund to continue appearing on the return is $250,000, and that the contributions be continuously appropriated from the fund to the administering entity. This bill would conform with those requirements by extending the operation of the provisions of the Keep Arts in Schools Fund to January 1, 2025, renaming the fund as the Keep Arts in Schools Voluntary Tax Contribution Fund, continuously appropriating the fund to the Franchise Tax Board, the Controller, and the Arts Council for purposes of carrying out these provisions, and requiring the Arts Council to comply with those Internet Web site reporting requirements.

SB 506 (Nielsen R) Department of Fish and Wildlife: lake or streambed alteration agreements: Internet Web site. Introduced: 2/16/2017 Last Amend: 6/5/2017 Status: 7/21/2017-Vetoed by the Governor. In Senate. Consideration of Governor's veto pending. Location: 7/21/2017-S. VETOED Summary: Would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife, on or before December 31, 2018, and periodically thereafter, to upgrade the information on its Internet Web site regarding lake or streambed alteration agreements, to update its “Frequently Asked Questions” document and other appropriate sources of information regarding the lake and streambed alteration program, and to provide guidance on its Internet Web site to facilitate members of the public in obtaining individualized guidance regarding the lake and streambed alteration program, as specified.

SB 532 (Dodd D) California State Safe Harbor Agreement Program Act: tricolored blackbird. Introduced: 2/16/2017 Status: 4/28/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was N.R. & W. on 3/2/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 4/28/2017-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Would extend the California State Safe Harbor Agreement Program Act indefinitely and would exempt the approval of a safe harbor agreement covering only tricolored blackbird from CEQA. This bill contains other existing laws.

SB 580 (Pan D) Water development projects: Sacramento-San Joaquin watersheds. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Status: 7/19/2017-July 19 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file. Location: 7/19/2017-A. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE Summary: Current law adopts and authorizes federally adopted and approved projects, including a project for flood control along the American and Sacramento Rivers. The projects are authorized at an estimated cost to the state of the sum that may be appropriated by the Legislature for state participation upon the recommendation and advice of the Department of Water Resources or the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. This bill would revise the authorization for the project for flood control along the American and Sacramento Rivers as further modified by a specified report adopted by Congress.

SB 588 (Hertzberg D) Marine resources and preservation. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 6/19/2017 Status: 7/14/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(10). (Last location was NAT. RES. on 6/27/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 7/14/2017-A. 2 YEAR Summary: Would revise and recast the California Marine Resources Legacy Act to establish a similar program to allow, 2 years after the payment of startup costs, a prospective transferor, as defined, to offer and the department to accept title to an artificial reef converted from a decommissioned oil and gas platform for incorporation into the California Artificial Reef Program if similar conditions to as specified are met, except if the platform is required to be fully removed by conditions in a lease issued by the State Lands Commission. As part of the implementation of the program, the bill would require the department to revise the Artificial Reef Plan prepared pursuant to the California Artificial Reef Program.

SB 615 (Hueso D) Salton Sea restoration. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 5/1/2017 Status: 6/27/2017-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 14. Noes 1.) (June 27). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 6/27/2017-A. APPR. Summary: Would require the Natural Resources Agency, by January 1, 2018, to develop a 10-year plan to implement the memorandum of understanding between the agency and the United States Department of the Interior entered into on August 31, 2016, and its addendum, entered into on January 18, 2017, and would require the agency to address certain issues in the plan. The bill would rename the Salton Sea Restoration Act as the “John J. Benoit Salton Sea Restoration Act.” This bill contains other related provisions.

SB 667 (Atkins D) Department of Water Resources: riverine and riparian stewardship improvements. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 6/20/2017 Status: 7/19/2017-July 19 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file. Location: 7/19/2017-A. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE Summary: Current law authorizes the Director of Water Resources to establish a program of flood control and urban creek restoration, known as the Urban Streams Restoration Program, consisting of the development of the capability by the Department of Water Resources to respond to requests from local agencies and organizations for planning and design assistance for efficient and effective urban creek protection, restoration, and enhancement. This bill, upon an appropriation of funds from the Legislature, would require the department to establish a program to implement watershed-based riverine and riparian stewardship improvements by providing technical and financial assistance in support of projects with certain benefits.

SB 709 (Wiener D) Oil spill response and contingency planning. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 4/26/2017 Status: 5/26/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 5/25/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 5/26/2017-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Would define “nonfloating oil” for purposes of the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act. The bill would require the administrator, by January 1, 2020, to conduct and complete an independent scientific study on the best achievable protection of state waters from spills of nonfloating or potentially nonfloating oils, including criteria for oil spill contingency plans and oil spill response organizations (OSROs) responsible for remediating those spills. The bill would require that the scientific study evaluate the hazards and risks and potential hazards and risks that nonfloating or potentially nonfloating oils pose to natural resources and public, occupational, and environmental health and safety.

SB 710 (Anderson R) Silencers. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Status: 5/12/2017-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(3). (Last location was PUB. S. on 3/9/2017)(May be acted upon Jan 2018) Location: 5/12/2017-S. 2 YEAR Summary: Current law makes it a felony to possess a silencer in the state, punishable by imprisonment in county jail or by a fine not to exceed $10,000 or by both that fine and imprisonment. This bill would delete the felony prohibition on possession of a silencer and would authorize an individual in lawful possession of a device that will silence, suppress, or muffle the sound or natural report of a firearm when the firearm is discharged to use that device to hunt a bird, mammal, fish, reptile, or amphibian for which the individual is licensed if the firearm to which the device is attached is lawfully possessed.

SB 771 (De León D) California Environmental Quality Act: continuing education: public employees. Introduced: 2/17/2017 Last Amend: 7/18/2017 Status: 7/18/2017-Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. Location: 7/10/2017-A. APPR. Summary: Would establish a continuing education requirement for employees of public agencies who have primary responsibility to administer the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, as specified. Because this bill would require a public agency to ensure that this continuing education requirement is met, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

SB 809 (Committee on Natural Resources and Water) Natural resources. Introduced: 3/8/2017 Last Amend: 6/20/2017 Status: 7/20/2017-Read second time. Ordered to third reading. Location: 7/20/2017-A. THIRD READING Summary: The California Constitution establishes the 5-member Fish and Game Commission, with members appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate. Current statutory law requires the commissioners to annually elect one of their number as president and one as vice president, by a concurrent vote of at least 3 commissioners. Current law prohibits a president or vice president from serving more than 2 consecutive years. This bill would eliminate this prohibition.

For more information call:

Susan LaGrande, CDFW Deputy Director at (916) 651-6719 Julie Oltmann, CDFW Legislative Representative at (916) 653-9772

You can also find legislative information on the web at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/ and follow the prompts from the ‘bill information’ link.

Commissioners STATE OF CALIFORNIA Valerie Termini, Executive Director Eric Sklar, President Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320 Saint Helena Sacramento, CA 95814 Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Vice President (916) 653-4899 McKinleyville Fish and Game Commission www.fgc.ca.gov Anthony C. Williams, Member Huntington Beach Russell E. Burns, Member Napa Peter S. Silva, Member El Cajon

Wildlife Heritage and Conservation Since 1870

August X, 2017

The Honorable Lorena S. Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair The Honorable Frank Bigelow, Vice Chair Assembly Appropriations Committee State Capitol, Room 2114 Sacramento, California 95814

Re: Senate Bill 234: withdraw support and oppose

Dear Chair Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher and Vice Chair Bigelow:

The California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) writes to withdraw formal support for and to oppose the March 21, 2017 version of Senate Bill 234 (SB 234). SB 234 was amended to direct Commission staff to identify and catalog local ordinances that regulate fishing and, specifically, evaluate whether these ordinances are within or outside of the scope of the holding of People v. Mueller (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d. 949 and submit this evaluation to the Legislature in a report by December 31, 2018.

The California Legislature has delegated to the Commission authority to regulate the take, possession and conservation of birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles from the Oregon border to the Mexican border, and from the Nevada border to three miles out into the Pacific Ocean. The Commission also addresses fish, wildlife, and conservation issues on a broad scale, through such subjects as climate change, predator management, tribal nation engagement, fisheries bycatch, and marine protected areas. The Commission’s powers are delegated within California statutes, primarily the Fish and Game Code.

In its original form, SB 234 would have prohibited a local agency from adopting or enforcing an ordinance to regulate fishing. As fish and wildlife do not respect state lines or administrative boundaries, wildlife regulations and management must be conducted on a broad scale that accounts for migration and overall range of the species. The Commission was supportive of this action.

However, SB 234 was recently amended to now require the Commission to conduct a survey and evaluation, identifying and cataloging local ordinances tied to fishing, and

The Honorable Lorena S. Gonzalez Fletcher The Honorable Frank Bigelow August X, 2017 Page 2 of 2

specifically evaluate whether these ordinances are within or outside of the scope of the holding of People v. Mueller (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d. 949 or within or outside the scope of local police powers generally, and recommend to the Legislature a course of action with regard to ordinances that the commission determines to be unlawful.

Completing this complex survey and evaluation, and determining if the scope is within or outside the Mueller opinion, will be a substantial effort. While the number of local ordinances ultimately may be small, the workload needed to go through such a statewide survey and evaluation is significant. The proposed analysis requires review of all California local government’s “whole purpose and scope of the legislative scheme” and does not simply look at the face of the ordinance itself. Additionally, the analysis is subject to a great deal of interpretation depending on what ordinances may exist statewide.

The assembly appropriations bill analysis notes, “The cost will depend on the number of local ordinances that must undergo legal review and the difficulty in obtaining this information…It also assumes that implementation will result in the redirection of one existing staff position for up to one year.”

Importantly, the Commission’s staff is quite small and it does not have the resources to redirect its only attorney to this effort. To conduct the survey and evaluation would require additional staffing for the Commission. The Fish and Game Preservation Fund, the Commission’s primary funding source, is in structural deficit, and the proposed survey and evaluation is not mission critical. There are many other priority topics at the forefront of the Commission’s responsibilities that require its attention, such as emergency abalone regulations, wild pig issues, California endangered species act listings, fisheries bycatch, and working with tribal nations on resource management issues.

Thank you for your continued leadership and support in the effort to protect California’s natural resources. The Commission strongly urges the appropriations committee not to support this bill.

Thank you,

Valerie Termini Executive Director ec: Members, California Fish and Game Commission The Honorable Tom Berryhill, California State Senate Charlton Bonham, Director, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Susan LaGrande, Deputy Director, California Department of Fish and Wildlife

California Fish and Game Commission Staff Report on Staff Time Allocation and Accomplishments August 8, 2017

Commission staff time is a tangible and invaluable asset. Especially since the Commission’s staff is so small, where and how staff members spend their time matters. This report identifies where Commission staff allocated time to general activity categories (see table) and specific activities (see activities lists) during June and July 2017.

The table below summarizes time allocation across all staff classifications, though some classifications require a greater emphasis on certain categories than others. For example, advisors spend up to 30% of their time on special projects due to committee project assignments, while regulatory analysts spend up to 70% of their time on regulatory program tasks.

General Allocation

June Staff July Task Category* Time Staff Time Regulatory Program 11% 14% Commission/Committee Meetings 35% 21% Legal Matters 5% 5% External Affairs 5% 6% Special Projects 12% 16% Administration 16% 14% Leave Time 9% 16% Unfilled Positions 16% 16% Total Staff Time1 108% 108%

* Total staff time is greater than 100% due to overtime

Activities for June 2017

 Finished preparations for and conducted three publically-noticed meetings (June 20 Tribal Committee, June 21 North Coast Fishing Communities, June 21-22 Commission)  Conducted June 1 Fisheries Bycatch Workgroup meeting and began preparations for next meeting on August 1  Continued preparations for two publically-noticed meetings (July 13 WRC Predator Policy Workgroup, July 20 Marine Resources Committee)  Conducted interviews for the associate governmental program analyst position  Participated in California Department of Finance economic assessment training  Participated in MPA Statewide Leadership Team meeting  Participated in planning team meetings for updates to the Marine Life Management Act master plan for fisheries Activities for July 2017

 Finished preparations for and conducted two publically-noticed meetings (July 13 WRC Predator Policy Workgroup, July 20 Marine Resources Committee)  Finished preparations for and conducted an aquaculture best management practices public meeting (jointly with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife)  Began planning and preparations for August 16 Commission meeting  Continued preparations for August 1 Fisheries Bycatch Workgroup meeting  Completed interview and hiring processes for filling the associate governmental program analyst position  Participated in annual meeting of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies  Participated in a stakeholder workshop to explore ecological risk assessments as a potential prioritization tool to support fisheries management  Participated in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s mission-based budgeting planning meetings and administrative coordination meetings  Participated in the quarterly coordination meeting with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Regulations Unit  Participated in Governor’s Tribal Liaisons meeting  Participated in planning team meetings for updates to the Marine Life Management Act master plan for fisheries

* General Allocation Categories with Sample Tasks

Regulatory Program  Coordination meetings with DFW to  Prepare administrative records develop timetables and notices  Track and respond to public  Review and process CESA petitions comments  Prepare and file notices, re-notices,  Consult, research and respond to ISORs and FSORs inquiries from OAL Commission/Committee Meetings and Support  Research and review practices and  Develop and distribute after-meeting procedures for adaptive management memos/letters  Research and compile subject-  Make travel arrangements for staff specific information and commissioners  Review and develop policies  Conduct onsite meeting management  Develop and distribute meeting  Process submitted meeting materials agendas and materials  Provide commissioner support  Agenda and debrief meetings (expense claims, office hours, etc.)  Prepare meeting summaries and  Process and analyze regulatory audio files petitions and non-regulatory requests  Maintain voting records

Time Allocation and Accomplishments 2 August 8, 2017 Legal Matters  Respond to Public Records Act  Process kelp and state water bottom requests leases  Process appeals and accusations  Litigation  Process requests for permit transfers External Affairs  Engage and educate legislators,  DFW partnership, including joint monitor legislation development of management plans  Maintain state, federal and tribal and concepts government relations  Website maintenance

Special Projects  Predator Policy Workgroup  Fisheries Bycatch Workgroup  Fishing from piers and jetties  Streamline routine regulatory actions  Coastal fishing communities

Administration  Correspondence  Budget development and tracking  Purchases and payments  Health and safety oversight  Contract management  Internal processes and procedures  Personnel management  Staff training and professional  Strategic planning development Leave Time  Holidays  Jury duty  Sick leave  Bereavement  Vacation or annual leave  Professional development

Unfilled  Program Manager  Legal/regulatory clerk  Regulatory analyst (thru August 15)

Time Allocation and Accomplishments 3 August 8, 2017 Marine Resources Committee (MRC) 2017-18 Draft Work Plan: Scheduled topics and timeline for items referred to MRC from the California Fish and Game Commission (Updated July 20, 2017) 2017 2018 MAR JUL NOV MAR San TBD Rosa Santa Marina

Topic Type of Topic Clemente Management Plans MLMA Master Plan for Fisheries Amendment X X X / R Abalone FMP / ARMP Update FMP development X X XX Herring FMP Updates FMP development X X X Regulations Electronic Landings Data System DFW project X Kelp & Algae Harvest DFW project X Nearshore Fishery Structure Referral for review X / R Commercial Sea Cucumber Fishery Referral for review X / R Aquaculture Best Management Practices DFW project X X / R Pink Shrimp Trawl Fishery Referral for review X California halibut trawl permit transferability Referral for review X Emerging Management Issues California’s Fishing Communities MRC project X X XX Aquaculture - Consideration of New Lease Applications Referral for review X Special Projects ` Fisheries Bycatch Workgroup MRC workgroup X X X / R Informational / Special Topics Marine Debris and Plastic Pollution Informational X Offshore Wind Energy (BOEM Project) Informational X Federal Drift Gillnet Fishery for Swordfish & Shark Informational X KEY: X Discussion scheduled X/R Recommendation developed and moved to FGC

Commissioners STATE OF CALIFORNIA Valerie Termini, Executive Director Eric Sklar, President Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320 Saint Helena Sacramento, CA 95814 Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Vice President (916) 653-4899 McKinleyville Fish and Game Commission www.fgc.ca.gov Anthony C. Williams, Member Huntington Beach Russell E. Burns, Member Napa Peter S. Silva, Member El Cajon

Wildlife Heritage and Conservation Since 1870

August XX, 2017

Dayna Bochco, Chair Members California Coastal Commission 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94105-2219

Dear Chair Bochco and members of the California Coastal Commission:

I am writing on behalf of the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) to urge the Coastal Commission to support California’s coastal fishing communities by taking their infrastructure and economic needs into consideration when approving coastal development projects.

Fisheries are an important component of California’s economy, and careful management will ensure their viability into the future. In 2014, California’s commercial and recreational fishing industries supported 166,000 jobs and generated $25.9 billion in sales.1 Increasingly, there are many challenges faced by coastal fishing communities including climate change impacts on habitats and fisheries, declining fish populations or changes in their distribution, commercial development of working waterfronts, and increasing pressures from agencies and non-governmental organizations. Management and planning decisions impact fishing communities and their economic well-being; recognizing this, FGC seeks to strengthen the shared commitment of our partner coastal management agencies to maximize support for California’s coastal fishing communities.

In an effort to preserve and balance California’s maritime heritage and economy and its coastal and ocean DRAFTenvironments, FGC initiated a project in 2016 to connect with coastal fishing communities and explore what may contribute to their resiliency and long-term prosperity. We have learned a great deal about the challenges facing these communities, and we support efforts to minimize these challenges by evaluating potential impacts of proposed projects or management actions to fishing communities, as well as to fisheries as a whole. As such, we urge the Coastal Commission to ensure that proposals for coastal development avoid or minimize impacts on fishing

1 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2014. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-163, 237pp

Dayna Bochco August X, 2017 Page 2 of 2

communities and fishing infrastructure through best available siting, design, and technology.

Minimizing impacts through thoughtful design is consistent with “California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance: Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea Level Rise on Local Coastal Programs and Coastal Development Permits” which was adopted in 2015. As you are aware, the guidance requires planners to account for potential impacts to coastal-dependent development and uses such as commercial and recreational fishing areas and facilities. The guidance is also consistent with Section 30234 of the California Coastal Act, which states:

“Facilities serving the commercial fishing and recreational boating industries shall be protected and, where feasible, upgraded. Existing commercial fishing and recreational boating harbor space shall not be reduced unless the demand for those facilities no longer exists or adequate substitute space has been provided. Proposed recreational boating facilities shall, where feasible, be designed and located in such a fashion as not to interfere with the needs of the commercial fishing industry.”

Additionally, California’s “State General Plan Guidelines” offer direction to managers on considering the preservation of fishing communities during development of water-adjacent facilities, and also calls for such facilities to be consistent with the California Coastal Act guidelines.

With numerous coastal development projects poised for your consideration now and into the future, it is critical to uphold the protections offered to coastal fishing communities by both the California Coastal Act and the Coastal Commission’s adopted policies. Prioritizing fishing communities when making management decisions on coastal development will help ensure California’s maritime heritage is sustained in the long-term.

Thank you for your leadership in the effort to protect California’s maritime heritage and the economic well-being of coastal fishing communities along the California coast.

Sincerely,

DRAFT

Valerie Termini Executive Director

ec: Members, California Fish and Game Commission John Laird, Secretary, California Natural Resources Agency Charlton Bonham, Director, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Commissioners STATE OF CALIFORNIA Valerie Termini, Executive Director Eric Sklar, President Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320 Saint Helena Sacramento, CA 95814 Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Vice President (916) 653-4899 McKinleyville Fish and Game Commission (916) 653-5040 Fax Anthony C. Williams, Member www.fgc.ca.gov Huntington Beach Russell E. Burns, Member Napa Peter S. Silva, Member El Cajon

Wildlife Heritage and Conservation Since 1870

MARINE RESOURCES COMMITTEE Committee Co-Chairs: Commissioner Sklar and Commissioner Silva

July 20, 2017 Meeting Summary

Following is a summary of the meeting as prepared by staff.

Call to order

The meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. by Commissioner Silva at the Flamingo Hotel, 2777 Fourth Street, Santa Rosa California. Commissioner Silva gave the opening remarks.

Susan Ashcraft introduced Fish and Game Commission (FGC) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) staff, and outlined meeting procedures and guidelines, noting that the Committee is a non-decision making body that provides recommendations to FGC on marine items. She reminded participants that the meeting was being audio-recorded and that the audio-recording would be posted to the FGC website. The following Committee chairs, FGC and DFW staff, and invited speakers were in attendance:

Committee Chairs Eric Sklar Present Peter Silva Present

FGC Staff Valerie Termini Executive Director Susan Ashcraft Marine Advisor Heather Benko State Sea Grant Fellow

DFW Staff Randy Lovell Statewide Aquaculture Coordinator Mike Stefanak Assistant Chief, Law Enforcement Division Bob Puccinelli Captain, Law Enforcement Division Dr. Craig Shuman Regional Manager, Marine Region Sonke Mastrup Program Manager, Invertebrate Fisheries, Marine Region Dr. Cynthia Catton Environmental Scientist, Marine Invertebrate Fisheries

1 Other Invited Speakers Heidi Taylor Highly Migratory Species Branch Chief, National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region Dr. Jono Wilson The Nature Conservancy Paige Berube Program Manager, California Ocean Protection Council Sarah Valencia Program Manager (DFW contractor), Herring Fisheries Management Plan (FMP)

1. Approve agenda and order of items

The Committee approved the agenda with the exception of moving Agenda Item 5 to immediately after Agenda Item 6.

2. Public forum for items not on agenda

A commenter notified MRC that a regulation petition will be submitted regarding adding European green crab to the prohibited species list.

Multiple comments were made about the market squid fishery and the potential to open access to northern California fishermen (reference to Petition #2017-004, scheduled for action at the Aug FGC meeting). A discussion ensued with comments that squid policies are outdated, that the fishery is monopolized by a few rich fishermen, that there is a need to diversify fisheries and fish processing in the north, and an explanation that the fishermen are asking for this opportunity as an experiment to determine if the squid fishery could be successful in the north. Commissioners and DFW and FGC staff responded that they understand the need to re-examine the squid policy and the upcoming coastal fishing communities meetings would be a good venue to discuss these concerns.

Commissioner Silva requested that additional background information on the history of the fishery and development of restricted access in the fishery management plan (FMP) be provided when Petition #2017-004 is considered at the Aug FGC meeting in order to provide context for this issue.

One comment was made about white, pink, and black abalone closures and whether there has been any improvement in the populations as a result.

3. Staff and agency updates

(A) California Ocean Protection Council (OPC)

Paige Berube provided high-level updates across OPC’s priority areas (sustainable fisheries, marine protected areas, climate change, emerging uses, marine pollution). She highlighted statewide projects including the California Collaborative Fisheries Research Project, Ocean Litter Strategy Update, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Offshore Wind Project, and aquaculture best management practices.

2 (B) DFW Craig Shuman provided a Marine Region update including the “Marine Region By-the-Numbers” report and a presentation on DFW’s “Fishing and the Ocean” workshops.

Public Discussion

One commenter suggested that it may be beneficial to include commercial fishermen in these workshops in order to facilitate new entrants into “graying” fisheries. The potential value of scheduling fishing “summits” to get people outdoors was discussed.

Sonke Mastrup presented on the efforts of the Whale Entanglement Working Group and reported that the group would have more to share after completing an initial test on different gear configurations.

On behalf of the Law Enforcement Division, Bob Puccinelli presented on marine prosecution cases including abalone poaching, illegal crab pots in marine protected areas (MPAs), and poaching of whelks and octopus.

Public Discussion

There was a comment made about the reduction of transgressions to misdemeanors in wildlife prosecution and how this is severely restricting the ability of local fish and game commissions to operate due to lack of funds.

4. Update on Pacific Herring Fishery Management Plan development

Sarah Valencia presented on the ongoing development of the Pacific herring FMP.

Public Discussion

There was general agreement among commenters that the herring FMP should include some merit-based element. There were mixed comments over the fact that this FMP would be the blueprint for others even though there is not a lot of interest in this fishery by fishermen, though idea of having a blueprint was generally supported. A request was made for changes to the FMP to encourage new participation. One commenter emphasized the important of independent assessment in state-managed fisheries as well as inclusion of ecosystem considerations in FMPs.

5. Update on Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) master plan amendment and stakeholder engagement (*Note: Discussion on Agenda Item 5 occurred after Agenda Item 6)

Craig Shuman presented on the MLMA master plan amendment process, including upcoming workshops on management strategies and fisheries partnerships. He highlighted the current schedule to provide the draft document to MRC in November and submit it to the Commission in December. He announced that DFW has added a new step, to release the draft in advance of the MRC meeting to provide opportunity for public

3 review before then. He emphasized the need for improved communication with stakeholders.

No public comments.

6. Red abalone

(A) Update and potential recommendation regarding recreational fishery

A presentation was given by Sonke Mastrup on the state of the red abalone fishery in northern California. DFW surveys indicate that more catch reduction measures than what was included in the 2017 emergency regulations are likely needed for 2018.

Public Discussion

Comments were made on the economic importance of the recreational abalone fishery, the difficulty of managing the fishery under such uncertain environmental conditions, the booming urchin population and competition with abalone for food sources, perceived lack of sound science used to make management decisions, and a desire to keep the fishery open even if bag limits are very low. Following discussion, MRC developed a recommendation.

Committee Recommendation

MRC recommends that FGC consider a range of catch reduction management measures for 2018, excluding a total fishery closure, from options to be developed by DFW for the August notice hearing, with the addition of rotating partial closures.

(B) Update on fishery management plan development

A presentation was given by Sonke Mastrup on the status of the FMP development for red abalone, and that lessons from the current emergency are being integrated into the FMP management framework to provide management flexibility in unpredictable conditions

Public Discussion

General support was offered by commenters.

Dr. Jono Wilson gave a presentation under public comment on the work that The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has done to explore a potential new data stream derived from citizen science. TNC has engaged with recreational abalone divers and rock pickers on collecting abalone length data using a new phone application; Dr. Wilson highlighted how this data stream could contribute to management and be integrated into the FMP framework.

*Note that the audio recording ended at this time due to loss of battery power.*

4 7. Marine state water bottom leases for purposes of aquaculture

(A) Discuss best management practices planning for existing lease areas and scope of future rulemaking

Randy Lovell presented on the July 17 aquaculture best management practices public meeting held in Tomales Bay. The project is ongoing and will be followed with a similar public meeting in southern California.

Public Discussion

Several commenters provided general support for the development of best management practices and appreciation for the public meeting held July 17.

(B) Discuss planning for and consideration of applications for new leases

Randy Lovell presented on progress made in planning for and considering applications for new leases.

Public Discussion

There were comments expressing concern over approving new leases or expanding existing leases without fully understanding impacts to the environment. Some issues such as impacts to sensitive habitats, marine debris, and external accountability measures were discussed. Multiple comments supported having a marine spatial planning exercise. Oyster growers expressed that they care about stewardship of the bay.

8. Marine Resources Committee project updates and discussion

(A) Fisheries Bycatch Workgroup

Susan Ashcraft presented on progress made by the Fisheries Bycatch Workgroup (BWG) toward completing its deliverables of recommendations for an updated bycatch section for the amended MLMA master plan. She proposed an updated timeline and approach for submittal directly to DFW’s MLMA master plan team, to integrate into the draft amended master plan for MRC review in November. She also expressed appreciation for the hard work of the BWG subgroup developing the draft deliverable for BWG review.

Public Discussion

BWG members in attendance expressed support for the new approach, but requested that any alternatives in the BWG recommendation be brought as drafted to MRC rather than DFW making discretionary selections. The alternatives reflect areas of divergence amongst BWG members on some thorny topics. DFW could bring its recommended alternatives to MRC for consideration. Dr. Shuman agreed to this approach, provided that the BWG recommended section be delivered to DFW by mid-August.

5 Committee Direction

MRC supported delivery of a BWG-recommended draft bycatch section for the amended MLMA master plan as proposed by BWG, directly to DFW for inclusion with the draft amended master plan for MRC discussion in November.

(B) California’s fishing communities public meetings

Heather Benko provided an overview on the coastal fishing communities planning process and proposed a revised meeting schedule.

Public Discussion

One commenter expressed concern over the Commission’s Policy on Restricted Access, citing that this has had major consequences in fishing community vitality, opportunities for new fishery entrants “for the next generation of fishermen” due to the price to purchase permits on the market, and inability for fishermen and ports to adapt fishing strategies and targets as other fishery opportunities decline (e.g., salmon closures, crab closures) or emerge (e.g., migration or redistribution of species outside of historic fishing areas due to climate change). He suggested that FGC undertake a review of its restricted access policy and redistribute access more broadly.

One commenter reinforced interest in accessing fisheries that were not traditionally fished in their port areas, as new opportunities are needed (specifically, the northern California squid quota proposal).

Committee Recommendation

MRC recommends approval of revised coastal fishing communities public meetings schedule for 2017 as proposed.

9. Informational presentation on federal oversight of California drift gillnet swordfish fishery (Note: this item was moved up in agenda order to just after Agenda Item 5 to accommodate the schedule of the presenter.)

Heidi Taylor gave a presentation on the history of the federal drift gillnet swordfish fishery, management measures that have significantly reduced bycatch rates in the fishery, reductions in fishing effort that have led to increases in swordfish importation, and the involved process by Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) to consider authorization of selective deep-set buoy gear through exempted fishing permits. Ms. Taylor also provided the analysis and rationale that led the National Marine Fisheries Service to reject the proposed rule to impose bycatch caps, as recommended by PFMC.

Public Discussion

Several comments were made expressing concern about bycatch in the fishery and the rejection of the hard bycatch caps, although there were multiple comments offered supporting the use of deep-set buoy gear to replace drift gillnets, and higher value of fish from deep-set buoy gear.

6 One fisherman commented that due to numerous management measures, bycatch is now well below scientifically-derived limits; the commenter highlighted a concern that replacing drift gillnets with deep-set buoy gear is economically infeasible- based on exempted fisheries tests to date, and the increased price per pound does not compensate for the loss of volume.

During the discussion, Commissioner Sklar expressed concern about the failure of NMFS to approve hard bycatch caps, requested that a discussion of the federal drift gillnet swordfish fishery be added to the August FGC meeting agenda, and requested that DFW develop possible options for FGC to play a role in encouraging fishermen to transition to more selective gear types.

DFW agreed to develop options to bring to FGC in August for this new agenda item on this topic.

10. Future agenda items

(A) Review work plan, agenda topics, and timeline

Susan Ashcraft reviewed the current work plan and proposed agenda topics for the November MRC meeting.

(B) Potential new agenda topics for Commission consideration

No new items were proposed for consideration.

Adjourn

Commissioner Sklar adjourned the meeting at approximately 4:15 p.m.

7

Smith River (FGC) Jun 21

Coastal Fishing

Fort Bragg Communities Jan 2018 Updated Public Meetings Schedule Revised August 8, 2017

Half Moon Bay/San Francisco Jan 2018

Marina (MRC) Nov 8

Atascadero (FGC) Oct 10

Oxnard (Bycatch Workgroup) Sep

= date/location change from initial proposal San Diego = past meetings (FGC) Dec 5

= meetings aligned with current FGC/MRC meeting

= additional meeting dates/location

STATE OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REGULATORY ACTION (Pre-publication of Notice Statement)

Add Section 1.95 Title 14, California Code of Regulations Re: Process to Conform State Recreational Fishing Regulations to Federal Regulations

I. Date of Initial Statement of Reasons: March 22, 2017

II. Dates and Locations of Scheduled Hearings:

(a) Notice Hearing: Date: April 27, 2017 Location: Van Nuys, CA

(b) Discussion Hearing: Date: June 22, 2017 Location: Smith River, CA

(c) Adoption Hearing: Date: August 17, 2017 Location: Sacramento, CA

III. Description of Regulatory Action:

(a) Statement of Specific Purpose of Regulation Change and Factual Basis for Determining that Regulation Change is Reasonably Necessary:

Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S. Code §1801 et seq.), the federal government exercises exclusive jurisdiction over fishery resources from 3 to 200 miles offshore. However, because these fish stocks also live in State waters, it is important to have consistent State and federal regulations (also referred to as federal rules) establishing season dates and other management measures, and also important that the State and federal regulations be effective concurrently. Consistency of regulations in adjacent waters allows for uniformity of enforcement, minimizes confusion, and allows for a comprehensive approach to resource management. Consistency with federal regulations is also necessary to maintain State authority over its fisheries and avoid federal preemption under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act [16 USC §1856 (b)(1)].

Under current State law (Fish and Game Code Section 7110) the Commission has authority to establish through regulation an automatic process to conform State recreational fishing regulations applicable in State waters (zero to three miles offshore) to federal regulations. The

-1-

conforming actions, implemented pursuant to the automatic process are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act [Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of the Government Code.]

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) adopts fishing regulations annually and may amend the regulations more often, if necessary, to implement fishery management measures adopted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council). These measures include those for recreational fishing in federal waters off California.

For species managed under federal fishery management plans or regulations, the Commission has usually taken concurrent action to conform State recreational regulations to federal regulations that have been adopted through an open and deliberative federal rulemaking process, which includes a detailed review of economic impacts. Conforming State recreational regulations is done in recognition of federal jurisdiction and to ensure consistency and ease of use for constituents who are subject to both State and federal laws while fishing, or possessing sport fish. However, the dual process is redundant and inefficient, and historically the lag between federal action and conforming State action has created a period of management inconsistency and confusion. To improve regulatory efficiency, Fish and Game Code Section 7110 was enacted with the goal of reducing redundancies between State and federal rulemaking processes for these species.

Present Regulations Current recreational fishing regulations for salmon and Pacific halibut are a conglomerate of State regulations that conform to federal regulations, and State regulations that are more restrictive than and not in conflict with federal regulations, including State regulations that cover aspects not addressed in federal regulations.

Proposed Regulation Section 1.95, Title 14, CCR, is proposed to be added to describe the process through which State recreational fishing regulations for salmon and Pacific halibut will automatically conform to federal regulations.

Subsection (a) of Section 1.95, Title 14, CCR The proposed regulation provides that recreational regulations for salmon and Pacific halibut established through the automatic conformance process shall govern unless the Commission adopts regulations using the regular rulemaking process [Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code] and specifically declares at the time of adoption the intent to deviate from the automatic conformance process.

-2-

Necessity: This provision is included to clarify that the Commission reserves its authority to adopt recreational fishing regulations for salmon and Pacific halibut pursuant to the regular rulemaking process.

Subsection (b) of Section 1.95, Title 14, CCR Proposed subsection (b)(1) provides that there are two processes by which State recreational fishing regulations for salmon and Pacific halibut may conform to federal regulations.

Necessity: This provision is included for clarity.

Proposed subsection (b)(2) of Section 1.95 outlines the standard conformance process to be used for annual regulations or corrections to annual regulations.

Proposed subsection (b)(2)(A) provides that no later than 10 days after publication in the Federal Register of any NMFS annual regulation affecting salmon or Pacific halibut, or any correction to an annual regulation affecting such species, the Commission shall submit amended State recreational fishing regulations to the Office of Administrative Law for publication in the California Code of Regulations and shall file amended State recreational fishing regulations with the Secretary of State.

Necessity: This provision is included to ensure that State regulations conform to federal regulations.

Proposed subsection (b)(2)(B) provides that no later than 10 days after publication in the Federal Register of any NMFS annual regulation affecting salmon or Pacific halibut, or any correction to an annual regulation affecting such species, the following shall occur: . The Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) shall inform the public, via news release, of the Federal Register in which the applicable fishing regulations are published and the effective date of the conformed State regulations. [Subsection (b)(2)(B)1.] . The Commission shall mail or email the Department news release to any person, group of persons or small business enterprise that has filed with the Commission a request for notice of, or the Commission believes to be interested in, recreational fishing regulations for salmon or Pacific halibut. [Subsection (b)(2)(B)2.] . To the extent practicable, the Department shall provide information on any changes to the applicable State recreational fishing regulations through public contact, electronic notification, and online and printed publications. [Subsection (b)(2)(B)3.]

-3-

Proposed subsection (b)(2)(C) provides that an update on the conformed State recreational fishing regulations shall be included on the agenda of the next regularly-scheduled Commission meeting.

Necessity: This provision is included to ensure that the public is informed of how to access the annual federal regulation, or correction to an annual federal regulation, to which State regulations automatically conform and to ensure that the public is informed of the changes to State regulations.

Proposed subsection (b)(3) of Section 1.95 outlines the conformance process to be used for in-season changes to regulations.

Proposed subsection (b)(3)(A) provides that State recreational fishing regulations for salmon shall conform to applicable in-season changes to federal regulations and that such changes are publically noticed through the NMFS ocean salmon hotline.

Proposed subsection (b)(3)(B) provides that State recreational fishing regulations for Pacific halibut shall conform to applicable in-season changes to federal regulations and that such changes are publically noticed through the NMFS Area 2A Pacific halibut hotline.

Necessity: This provision is included to ensure that the public is informed of how to access the in-season changes to federal regulation to which State regulations automatically conform, and to ensure that the public is informed of the changes to State regulations.

Subsection (c) of Section 1.95, Title 14, CCR This proposed subsection specifies that the effective date of State regulations conformed pursuant to the automatic conformance process will be the same as the effective date of the federal regulations.

Necessity: This provision is included to ensure that consistent State regulations are in effect concurrently with federal regulations. This provision is needed to reduce public confusion.

Subsection (d) of Section 1.95, Title 14, CCR This proposed subsection specifies that nothing in Section 1.95 controls the adoption or validity of Commission regulations pertaining to the identified species on matters that the federal regulations do not address.

Necessity: This provision is included to clarify that the Commission reserves its authority to adopt State recreational fishing regulations for federally-managed species pursuant to the regular rulemaking process.

-4-

Existing species-specific regulations will remain in Title 14. In the future, these sections may be amended to conform to federal regulations pursuant to the process described in Section 1.95, or may be amended pursuant to the regular rulemaking process, as desired by the Commission.

Goals and Benefits of the Regulation The proposed regulation will help reduce or eliminate the delay between federal action and conforming State action which leads to a period of management inconsistency and confusion between regulations for federal and State ocean waters. Timely conformance also eliminates the potential for a preemption issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Act, and reduces redundant workload for the State.

The proposed regulation may result in future benefits to the environment by the timely conformance to federal regulation, resulting in the sustainable management of California’s fish resources.

(b) Authority and Reference Sections from Fish and Game Code for Regulation:

Authority: Section 7110, Fish and Game Code.

Reference: Section 7110, Fish and Game Code.

(c) Specific Technology or Equipment Required by Regulatory Change: None.

(d) Identification of Reports or Documents Supporting Regulation Change: None.

(e) Public Discussions of Proposed Regulations Prior to Notice Publication:

No public meetings are being held prior to the notice publication. The 45-day comment period provides adequate time for review of the proposed amendments.

IV. Description of Reasonable Alternatives to Regulatory Action:

(a) Alternatives to Regulation Change:

No alternatives were identified by or brought to the attention of Commission staff that would have the same desired regulatory effect.

(b) No Change Alternative:

-5-

Status quo management of salmon and Pacific halibut resources may result in mis-alignment between State and federal regulations. The Council would continue to recommend regulations for federal waters, NMFS would continue to implement federal regulations for waters off California, and the Commission would continue to adopt the same changes to State regulations, for conformance, via regular Administrative Procedure Act rulemakings. Not adopting the proposed process for automatic conformance with federal regulations would continue to result in redundant workload to the State in order to make changes to State regulations to keep them in conformance with federal regulations.

(c) Consideration of Alternatives: In view of information currently possessed, no reasonable alternative considered would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulation is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed regulation, or would be more cost effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

V. Mitigation Measures Required by Regulatory Action:

The proposed regulatory action will have no negative impact on the environment; therefore, no mitigation measures are needed.

VI. Impact of Regulatory Action:

The potential for significant statewide adverse economic impacts that might result from the proposed regulatory action has been assessed, and the following initial determinations relative to the required statutory categories have been made:

(a) Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Businesses, Including the Ability of California Businesses to Compete with Businesses in Other States:

The proposed action will not have a significant adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. The proposed regulation prescribes a procedure the Commission may use to conform State recreational fishing regulations to federal regulations.

-6-

(b) Impact on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State, the Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses, or the Expansion of Businesses in California; Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents, Worker Safety, and the State’s Environment:

The Commission does not anticipate any impacts on the creation or elimination of jobs in California.

The Commission does not anticipate any impacts on the creation of new businesses, the elimination of existing businesses, or the expansion of businesses in California.

The Commission does not anticipate benefits to the health and welfare of California residents.

The Commission anticipates future benefits to the environment by the timely conformance to federal regulation, resulting in the sustainable management of California’s fish resources.

The Commission does not anticipate any benefits to worker safety.

(c) Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person or Business:

The agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

(d) Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding to the State:

The Commission expects time savings for existing staff that will permit both the Commission and Department to devote more staff resources to achieving other core mandates.

(e) Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies: None.

(f) Programs Mandated on Local Agencies or School Districts: None.

(g) Costs Imposed on Any Local Agency or School District that is Required to be Reimbursed Under Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4, Government Code: None.

(h) Effect on Housing Costs: None.

-7-

VII. Economic Impact Assessment:

(a) Effects of the Regulation on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State:

The Commission does not anticipate any significant impacts on the creation or elimination of jobs, because the regulatory action does not alter existing conditions. The intent is to improve regulatory efficiency in State conformance with federal regulations.

(b) Effects of the Regulation on the Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses Within the State:

The Commission does not anticipate any significant impacts on the creation of new business or the elimination of existing businesses in California. The intent is to improve regulatory efficiency in State conformance with federal regulations. The regulatory action does not alter existing conditions.

(c) Effects of the Regulation on the Expansion of Businesses Currently Doing Business Within the State:

The Commission does not anticipate any significant impacts on the expansion of businesses currently doing business in California. The intent is to improve regulatory efficiency in State conformance with federal regulations.

(d) Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents:

The Commission does not anticipate benefits to the health and welfare of California residents. The intent is to improve regulatory efficiency in State conformance with federal regulations. The regulatory action does not alter existing conditions.

(e) Benefits of the Regulation to Worker Safety:

The Commission does not anticipate any benefits to worker safety because this regulatory action will not impact working conditions or worker safety.

(f) Benefits of the Regulation to the State's Environment:

The Commission anticipates future benefits to the environment by the timely conformance to federal regulation, resulting in the sustainable

-8-

management of California’s fish resources.

(g) Other Benefits of the Regulation:

Concurrence with Federal Law: The proposed regulations will establish an automatic process which may be used to bring State recreational fishing regulations into alignment with federal regulations.

-9-

Informative Digest/Policy Statement Overview

Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S. Code §1801 et seq.), the federal government exercises exclusive jurisdiction over fishery resources from 3 to 200 miles offshore. However, because these fish stocks also live in State waters, it is important to have consistent State and federal regulations establishing season dates and other management measures, and also important that the State and federal regulations be effective concurrently. Consistency of rules in adjacent waters allows for uniformity of enforcement, minimizes confusion, and allows for a comprehensive approach to resource management. Consistency with federal regulations is also necessary to maintain State authority over its fisheries and avoid federal preemption under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act [16 USC §1856 (b)(1)].

Under current State law (Fish and Game Code Section 7110) the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) has authority to establish through regulation an automatic process to conform State recreational fishing regulations applicable in State waters (zero to three miles offshore) to federal regulations. The conforming actions implemented pursuant to the automatic process are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act [Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of the Government Code].

Federal regulations may be adopted annually and may be amended more often, if necessary, and serve to implement fishery management measures adopted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. These measures include those for recreational fishing in federal waters off California.

For species managed under federal fishery management plans or regulations, the Commission has usually taken concurrent action to conform State recreational regulations to federal regulations that have been adopted through an open and deliberative federal rulemaking process, which includes a detailed review of economic impacts. Conforming State recreational regulations is done in recognition of federal jurisdiction and to ensure consistency and ease of use for constituents who are subject to both State and federal laws while fishing, or possessing sport fish. However, the dual process is redundant and inefficient, and historically the lag between federal action and conforming State action has created a period of management inconsistency and confusion. To improve regulatory efficiency, Fish and Game Code Section 7110 was enacted with the goal of reducing redundancies between State and federal rulemaking processes for these species.

Current recreational fishing regulations for salmon and Pacific halibut are a conglomerate of State regulations that conform to federal regulations, and State regulations that are more restrictive than and not in conflict with federal regulations, including State regulations that cover aspects not addressed in federal regulations.

-10-

Proposed Regulations Section 1.95 will be added to Title 14, CCR to describe the process through which State recreational fishing regulations for salmon and Pacific halibut will automatically conform to federal regulations.

The proposed regulation provides that recreational regulations for salmon and Pacific halibut established through the automatic conformance process shall govern unless the Commission adopts regulations using the regular rulemaking process [Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code] and specifically declares at the time of adoption the intent to deviate from the automatic conformance process.

The proposed regulations describe the two processes by which State recreational fishing regulations for salmon and Pacific halibut may conform to federal regulations: the standard conformance process to be used for annual regulations, or corrections to annual regulations, and the conformance process to be used for in-season changes to regulations.

The proposed regulation specifies that the effective date of State regulations conformed pursuant to the automatic conformance process will be the same as the effective date of the federal regulation.

The proposed regulation specifies that nothing in Section 1.95 controls the adoption or validity of Commission regulations pertaining to the identified species on matters that the federal regulations do not address.

Existing species-specific regulations will remain in Title 14. In the future, these sections may be amended to conform to federal regulations pursuant to the process described in Section 1.95, or may be amended pursuant to the regular rulemaking process, as desired by the Commission.

Goals and Benefits of the Regulation The proposed regulations will help reduce or eliminate the delay between federal action and conforming State action which leads to a period of management inconsistency and confusion between regulations for federal and State ocean waters. Timely conformance also eliminates the potential for a preemption issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Act, and reduces redundant workload for the State.

The proposed regulation may result in future benefits to the environment by the timely conformance to federal regulation, resulting in the sustainable management of California’s fish resources.

Compatibility with Existing State Regulations The proposed regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing State

-11- regulations. The Legislature has delegated authority to the Commission to adopt recreational fishing regulations in general (Fish and Game Code Sections 200, 205 and 265); and an automatic process to conform State recreational fishing regulations to federal regulations (Fish and Game Code Section 7110). Commission staff has searched the California Code of Regulations and has found no other State regulations related to conforming recreational fishing regulation to federal regulations.

-12-

Regulatory Language

Section 1.95 is added to read:

1.95. Process to Conform State Recreational Fishing Regulations to Federal Regulations. (a) The commission establishes the process in subsection (b) to automatically conform state recreational fishing regulations for the fish species listed in subsections (a)(1) through (a)(2). Conforming regulations established through subsection (b) shall govern unless the commission adopts regulations for said species using the regular rulemaking process [Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code] and specifically declares at the time of adoption the intent to deviate from the automatic conformance process. (1) Salmon as defined in Section 1.73. (2) Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis). (b) Automatic Process to Conform State Recreational Fishing Regulations to Federal Regulations. (1) Recreational fishing regulations for fish species listed in subsections (a)(1) through (a)(2) in state waters shall conform to applicable federal regulations enacted by the National Marine Fisheries Service by the process described in subsection (b)(2) or by the process described in subsection (b)(3). (2) Process for Annual or Corrective Actions. (A) No later than 10 days after publication in the Federal Register of any National Marine Fisheries Service annual regulation for the species listed in subsection (a), or any correction to an annual regulation affecting such species, the commission shall submit amended recreational fishing regulations to the Office of Administrative Law for publication in the California Code of Regulations, and shall file amended recreational fishing regulations with the Secretary of State. (B) Notification of State Conformance Action. No later than 10 days after publication in the Federal Register of any National Marine Fisheries Service annual regulation for the species listed in subsection (a), or any correction to an annual regulation affecting such species, the following shall occur: 1. The department shall inform the public, via news release, of the Federal Register in which the applicable fishing regulations are published and the effective date of the conformed regulations. 2. The commission shall mail or email the department news release to any person, group of persons or small business enterprise that has filed with the commission a request for notice of, or the commission believes to be interested in, recreational fishing regulations for the species listed in subsection (a). 3. To the extent practicable, the department shall provide information on any changes to applicable fishing regulations through public contact, electronic notification, and online and printed publications. (C) An update on the conformed recreational fishing regulations for the species listed in subsection (a) shall be included on the agenda of the next regularly-scheduled commission meeting.

-1-

(3) Process for In-Season Changes. (A) Salmon. Recreational fishing regulations for salmon in state waters shall conform to applicable in-season changes to federal regulations. Public notification of any in-season change to state salmon regulations to conform to in-season changes to federal regulations is made through the National Marine Fisheries Service ocean salmon hotline at (800) 662-9825. (B) Pacific Halibut. Recreational fishing regulations for Pacific halibut in state waters shall conform to applicable in-season changes to federal regulations. Public notification of any in-season change to state Pacific halibut regulations to conform to in-season changes to federal regulations is made through the National Marine Fisheries Service Area 2A Pacific halibut hotline at (800) 662-9825. (c) Effective Date. The effective date of regulations conformed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be the same as the effective date of the federal regulation. (d) Nothing in this section controls the adoption or validity of commission regulations pertaining to the species identified in subsection (a) on matters that federal regulations do not address.

Note: Authority cited: Section 7110, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Section 7110, Fish and Game Code.

-2-

Print Form

Notice of Exemption Appendix E

To: Office of Planning and Research From: (Public Agency): ______CA Fish and Game Commission P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 ______1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 ______Sacramento, CA 95814 County Clerk County of: N/A______(Address) ______

______

Project Title: ______Section 1.95 Process for Automatic Conformance to Federal Regulations

Project Applicant: ______N/A

Project Location - Specific:

Statewide

Project Location - City: ______N/A Project Location - County: ______N/A Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project: This is a process through which State recreational fishing regulations will automatically conform to federal regulations for salmon and Pacific halibut in federal waters of the ocean off California

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: ______California Fish and Game Commission Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: ______California Department of Fish and Wildlife Exempt Status: (check one): Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268); Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)); † Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: ______Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15307, 15308 † Statutory Exemptions. State code number: ______Reasons why project is exempt:

See attached.

Lead Agency DRAFT Contact Person: ______Valerie Termini Area Code/Telephone/Extension: ______(916) 653-4899

If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? ҏ Yes No

Signature: ______Date: ______8/17/2017 Title: ______Executive Director

Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant

Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at OPR: ______Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code.

Revised 2011 August 17, 2017

ATTACHMENT TO NOTICE OF EXEMPTION Adoption of Process for Automatic Conformance to Federal Regulations

The California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) took final action under the Fish and Game Code and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) with respect to the proposed project on August 17, 2017. In taking its final action for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.), the Commission adopted the regulations relying on the categorical exemption for “Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of Natural Resources” contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15307, and the categorical exemption for “Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment” contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15308. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15307, 15308.)

Categorical Exemptions to Protect Natural Resources and the Environment

In adopting a process for automatic conformance of State recreational regulations to federal regulations, the Commission relied for purposes of CEQA on the Class 7 and 8 categorical exemptions. In general, both exemptions apply to agency actions to protect natural resources and the environment. The regulations describe the process through which State recreational fishing regulations will automatically conform to federal regulations for salmon and Pacific halibut in federal waters of the ocean off California.

Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S. Code §1801 et seq.), the federal government exercises exclusive jurisdiction over fishery resources from 3 to 200 miles offshore. However, because these fish stocks also live in State waters, it is important to have consistent State and federal regulations (also referred to as federal rules) establishing season dates and other management measures, and also important that the State and federal regulations be effective concurrently. Consistency of regulations in adjacent waters allows for uniformity of enforcement, minimizes confusion, and allows for a comprehensive approach to resource management. ConsistencyDRAFT with federal regulations is also necessary to maintain State authority over its fisheries and avoid federal preemption under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act [16 USC §1856 (b)(1)].

This proposed action is undertaken to assure the maintenance and enhancement of fishery resources and the marine environment. The Commission has determined there are neither significant cumulative impacts of successive projects of the same type in the same place, nor is there a reasonable possibility the proposed action will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the proposed action is properly subject to the CEQA Class 7 and 8 Categorical Exemptions.

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION STATEMENT OF PROPOSED EMERGENCY REGULATORY ACTION FOR RE-ADOPTION OF EMERGENCY REGULATIONS

Emergency Action to Re-adopt Amendments to subsections (b) and (c) of Section 29.15, Title 14, California Code of Regulations Re: Re-adoption of Emergency Abalone Take Reduction Due to Harmful Environmental Conditions

Date of Statement: July 24, 2017

I. Emergency Regulation in Effect to Date The California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) submitted an emergency rulemaking that became effective April 1, 2017, to address concerns with the red abalone resource due to a combination of unprecedented environmental and biological stressors. The emergency rulemaking reduced the open season length by two months by closing April and November and reduced the annual limit from 18 to 12 (except for Sonoma County, which remained at 9).

II. Request for Approval of Re-adoption of Emergency Regulations Based on California Department of Wildlife (Department) creel surveys and in- water reports and observations in 2017, early indications suggest conditions continue to be very poor and are not likely to quickly improve. Body shrinkage scores for red abalone (over 3,800 samples) assessed from nine sites throughout the fishery in May and June 2017 show 25 percent of the abalone are shrunken and starving. Gonad condition data also indicates no reproduction will occur this year, adding to the two previous years with similar conditions. Kelp resources continue to be poor and the density of purple sea urchin competitors remains high. The Department is requesting that the Commission re-adopt the emergency regulations that are set to expire on September 29, 2017 to continue the emergency regulations through the end of the 2017 season. The Department is preparing a standard rulemaking for the Commission’s consideration to make the 2017 emergency regulations, or more restrictive regulations, effective for the 2018 season.

III. Statement of Facts Constituting the Need for Emergency Regulatory Action The recreational red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) fishery is one of California’s most successful and popular fisheries, and is economically important, particularly to Sonoma and Mendocino counties where approximately 95 percent of the multi- million dollar fishery takes place. Over 25,000 fishermen participate in the fishery each year. Red abalone may be taken with a sport fishing license subject to regulations prescribed by the Commission.

1

Under existing statute (Fish and Game Code Section 5521) and regulation (Section 29.15, Title 14, CCR), abalone may only be taken for recreational purposes north of a line drawn due west magnetic from the center of the mouth of San Francisco Bay, except in the closed Fort Ross area. The current regulation also specifies the season, hours, daily and annual limits, special gear provisions, measuring devices, abalone report card requirements, and minimum size. Red abalone may only be collected by skin diving (without SCUBA) or rock picking during low tides, so that a deep-water refuge population is maintained to enhance productivity of the fishery.

In 2005, the Commission adopted the Abalone Recovery and Management Plan (ARMP) pursuant to requirements in statute (Fish and Game Code Section 5522), to provide a cohesive framework for recovering depleted abalone populations in southern California, and for managing the northern California fishery and future fisheries, including red abalone. The ARMP articulates a framework for sustaining abalone populations based largely on densities, catch, size, and reproductive success as triggers for adjusting total allowable catch (TAC) and engaging other management measures. Using criteria described in the ARMP, the TAC is adjusted when specific triggers are met, through various management actions such as changes to daily bag limits, seasonal limits, and season length.

In 2015, a combination of unprecedented environmental and biological stressors began to take their toll on abalone populations, including warmer-than-normal waters and decreasing food resources, leading to starvation conditions. Throughout 2016 and spring of 2017, the Department conducted surveys, visual assessments, and histological sampling of north coast abalone, and documented citizen reports of unhealthy or moribund abalone within the fishery. The Department has identified wide-sweeping changes in the density, occurrence, size and health of red abalone and the kelp upon which it depends for food. Specifically, the Department has found:

 Warm Water Conditions and Kelp and Algae Declines. Red abalone are herbivores that live on rocky reefs in kelp forests, eating red and brown algae. In 2014, the kelp forests in the abalone fishery region declined by 93 percent due to extreme warm water conditions and an unprecedented increase in herbivorous red and purple sea urchin populations. Unlike abalone, sea urchin populations are generally resilient to food shortages and can survive longer, such that even if water conditions cool, grazing pressure from surviving sea urchins may still keep kelp from wide-spread recovery. Warm water conditions persisted through 2015, impacting kelp recovery and abalone health. Recently there has been some improvement in kelp growth, but current kelp canopies are still very sparse compared to normal years.

2

 Starvation Conditions. Red abalone are susceptible to starvation when kelp and algal abundances decline. Kelp and other algal species are being actively cleared from rocky bottom habitat that is dominated by purple sea urchin, which is greater than sixty times more abundant now than prior to 2013. Urchin populations increased, in part, due to large-scale loss of predatory sea star species in 2013 due to sea star wasting disease. Bull kelp and other algal food sources for abalone have remained at extremely low levels since 2014; the large number of purple urchins is likely keeping kelp recovery confined to very limited areas.

Abalone have been observed stacked on top of each other in shallow water, which could be attributed to either abalone moving from deeper water to shallower water where algae is slightly more abundant, or abalone trying to graze whatever algae is growing on the shells of other abalone; shells were observed to be unusually clean of algal growth. Recent evidence indicates the starvation conditions have not yet abated; additional impacts have been observed in 2017 and are expected to continue through the 2018 season.

 Density Declines. In spite of the Commission’s 2013 actions to reduce take and recover densities, the actions were ineffective in preventing densities from continuing to decline, from an average of 0.47 per square meter (m2) in 2013 to 0.44 per m2 in 2016. The Department believes the density decline is largely due to the environmental conditions described herein.

 Deep-Water Refuge. Deep-water refuge is believed to be a critical component in maintaining a highly productive recreational fishery. Deep- water abalone are generally safe from take and can be a source of both adults to replace abalone removed from shallower waters and larvae to enhance abalone reproduction rates. Surveys in the summer of 2016 showed dramatic reductions in abalone densities in deep water refuges (greater than 28 foot depths). The average density of deep-water red abalone populations over the past four years has declined, increasing the risk that the fishery is not sustainable. It should be noted that abalone movement from deep water into shallow water or from cryptic locations to exposed shallow areas can give the impression that abalone populations are stable or have increased if the absence of abalone in deeper waters is not considered.

 Abalone Health, Reproduction, and Mortality. The abundance of warm water, coupled with a lack of algae, has severely impacted the health and reproductive development of abalone. Fishermen and the public have reported weak, shrunken, and dying abalone, as well as unusually high numbers of empty shells of all size classes throughout the 2016 season, which has continued into the 2017 season. Department surveys revealed

3

more than 25 percent of catch at nine survey sites had body mass that was shrunken (meat smaller than the shell). Reductions in body mass lead to reduced reproductive fitness; just a 20% reduction in body mass can reduce reproduction by 60-90 percent. Red abalone require approximately 12 years to grow to minimum legal size, so that multi-year gaps in reproduction will be observed in the fishery for years to come. Furthermore, recent laboratory feeding studies of starved wild red abalone indicate that reproductive capability may take more than one year to recover to normal levels after algal conditions improve.

The weakened condition of abalone may also reduce their ability to withstand normal storm waves during the winter, increasing mortality. This fishery has suffered two years of poor reproduction (2015 and 2016) with all indications that 2017 will add a third year. This situation is likely to put future sustainability of the fishery at risk. Lack of kelp and other algae greatly reduces cover for red abalone, making them easier to locate by fishermen.

Studies, Reports, or Documents Supporting Factual Emergency

The Department relied on the following document in proposing this emergency rulemaking action:

(1) The Abalone Recovery and Management Plan https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/ARMP

Department staff has documented critical negative impacts to red abalone fishing grounds: (1) A dramatic decline in sea stars, important sea urchin predators, due to sea star disease. (2) A dramatic decline (93 percent) of the kelp canopy in Sonoma and Mendocino counties in 2014. (3) A dramatic increase (60 times) in the density of purple sea urchins in 2015, increasing competition with abalone for food. (4) Warm seawater conditions in Sonoma and Mendocino counties in 2014 and 2015. (5) A lack of kelp, which increases the efficiency of fishing efforts in shallow habitats. (6) A decline in deep-water abalone densities. (7) Continued decline in overall average abalone densities in spite of significant take reductions implemented in 2014.

4

Department staff has documented critical negative impacts to red abalone health: (1) Visual abalone body health scores for abalone taken in the fishery during the spring of 2016 and 2017 show that more than 25 percent of abalone were shrunken in body mass at sites in northern California. (2) Body condition index declined at Van Damme State Park by 20 percent, but no significant difference was observed at Fort Ross in summer of 2016 (60 abalone per site). (3) Department staff and abalone fishermen have observed weak abalone washed up on shore and easy to remove from the rocks as well as many new shells of all size classes, indicating increased natural mortality.

Department staff has documented critical negative impacts to red abalone reproduction: (1) Gonad index declined significantly at Van Damme State Park and at Fort Ross in the summer of 2016 and 2017 (60 abalone per site). (2) Small numbers of larval abalone observed in plankton surveys in Sonoma and Mendocino counties in 2015. (3) Small numbers of newly settled abalone observed in coralline-covered rock samples from Sonoma and Mendocino counties in 2015. (4) Few juvenile (< 21 millimeter) red abalone were observed in artificial reefs in Van Damme State Park in 2015.

IV. Impact of Regulatory Action

The potential for significant statewide adverse economic impacts that might result from the proposed regulatory action has been assessed, and the following determinations relative to the required statutory categories have been made:

(a) Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding to the State:

None.

(b) Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies:

None.

(c) Programs Mandated on Local Agencies or School Districts:

None.

5

(d) Costs Imposed on Any Local Agency or School District that is Required to be Reimbursed Under Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4, Government Code:

None.

(e) Effect on Housing Costs:

None.

V. Re-adoption Criteria 1) Same or Substantially Equivalent

Pursuant to Government Code Section 11346.1(h), the text of a re-adopted regulation must be the “same or substantially equivalent” to the text of the original emergency regulation. The language for the re-adopted regulatory amendment is the same as the language of the original emergency regulation.

2) Substantial Progress

Government Code Section 11346.1(h) specifies that the emergency rulemaking agency must demonstrate that it is making “substantial progress and has proceeded with due diligence” to comply with standard rulemaking provisions. At its June 22, 2017 meeting, the Commission received an update on the status of the red abalone resource and directed the Department to develop a standard rulemaking for Commission consideration to make the 2017 emergency regulations, or more restrictive regulations, effective for the 2018 season. The standard rulemaking effort is scheduled for notice at the Commission’s August meeting, with discussion and adoption hearings scheduled for October and December. The re-adoption of the emergency regulations is needed to allow the Commission time to comply with Administrative Procedure Act provisions.

VI. Authority and Reference The Commission proposes this emergency action pursuant to the authority vested by sections 200, 202, 205, 210, 220, 240, 255, 260, 265, 275, 399, 5520, 5521 and 7149.8 of the Fish and Game Code and to implement, interpret, or make more specific sections 200, 202, 205, 220, 275, 5520, 5521, 7145, and 7149.8 of said code.

IV. Section 399 Finding Pursuant to Section 399 of the Fish and Game Code, the Commission finds that the adoption of this regulation is necessary for the immediate conservation, preservation, or protection of birds, mammals, reptiles, or fish (abalone).

6

Informative Digest (Plain English Overview)

The California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) submitted an emergency rulemaking that became effective April 1, 2017, to address concerns with the red abalone resource due to a combination of unprecedented environmental and biological stressors. The emergency rulemaking reduced the open season length by two months by closing April and November and reduced the annual limit from 18 to 12 (except for Sonoma County, which remained at 9).

Based on California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) creel surveys and in- water reports and observations in 2017, early indications suggest conditions continue to be very poor and are not likely to quickly improve. Body shrinkage scores for red abalone (over 3,800 samples) assessed from nine sites throughout the fishery in May and June 2017 show 25 percent of the abalone are shrunken and starving. Gonad condition data also indicates no reproduction will occur this year, adding to the two previous years with similar conditions. Kelp resources continue to be poor and the density of purple sea urchin competitors remains high. The Department is requesting that the Commission re-adopt the emergency regulations that are set to expire on September 29, 2017 to continue the emergency regulations through the end of the 2017 season. The Department is preparing a standard rulemaking for the Commission’s consideration to make the 2017 emergency regulations, or more restrictive regulations, effective for the 2018 season.

Proposed Regulatory Action: The proposed emergency regulation will reduce the take of abalone within the entire fishery to levels anticipated to be sustainable under current environmental conditions. Acting under the guidance contained in the ARMP, the Department requests the Commission take emergency action to reduce allowable take by amending abalone subsections (b) and (c) of Section 29.15, Title 14, CCR, to reduce the red abalone allowable annual take from 18 to 12 abalone, with the exception that the lower limit of “not more than 9 abalone of the yearly trip limit may be taken south of the boundary between Sonoma and Mendocino Counties” found in subsection 29.15(c) will continue to apply, and to close April and November to fishing.

Benefits: The proposed emergency reduction within the abalone fishery will benefit the environment by protecting the valuable abalone resource from excessive fishing mortality, which will allow the resource the opportunity to rebuild and be sustainable for the future.

Consistency and Compatibility with Existing State Regulations: The Legislature has delegated authority to the Commission to promulgate sport fishing regulations (Fish and Game Code, sections 200, 205, 265, 275 and 399). No other state agency has the authority to promulgate such regulations. The Commission has conducted a search of Title 14, CCR and determined that the proposed regulation is neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing State regulations, and that the proposed regulation is consistent with other sport fishing regulations and marine protected area regulations in Title 14, CCR

7

Regulatory Language

§ 29.15. Title 14, CCR is amended to read:

§ 29.15. Abalone. (b) Open Season and Hours: (1) Open Season: Abalone may be taken only during the months of May, June, August, September and October. (2) Open Hours: Abalone may be taken only from 8:00 AM to one-half hour after sunset. (c) Bag Limit and Yearly Trip Limit: Three red abalone, Haliotis rufescens, may be taken per day. No more than three abalone may be possessed at any time. No other species of abalone may be taken or possessed. Each person taking abalone shall stop detaching abalone when the limit of three is reached. No person shall take more than12 abalone during a calendar year. In the Open Area as defined in subsections 29.15(a) and 29.15(a)(1) above, not more than 9 abalone of the yearly trip limit may be taken south of the boundary between Sonoma and Mendocino Counties. [No changes to subsections (a) and (d) through (h)] Note: Authority cited: Sections 200, 202, 205, 210, 220, 240, 255, 260, 265, 275, 399, 5520, 5521 and 7149.8, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 200, 202, 205, 220, 275, 5520, 5521, 7145, and 7149.8, Fish and Game Code.

1

August 1, 2017

California Fish and Game Commission 1416 Ninth Street, room 1320 Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Notice of intent to amend the recreational abalone regulations in 2018

Dear Commissioners:

I am writing to request that a size limit increase be considered as an alternative for the 2018 abalone regulations changes which are being considered under agenda item #19 of the Fish and Game Commission meeting to be held August 16th. The notice of intent to amend the abalone regulations is being considered under the Abalone Recovery and Management Plan (ARMP) and is the result of current environmental conditions unrelated to fishing.

At the last Marine Resource Committee (MRC) meeting there were several proposals from the DFW for reductions in Total Allowable Catch (TAC) ranging from reductions in daily/annual limits to total fishery closure.

I am requesting that a size limit increase also be considered as an alternative for the following reasons: 1. Increasing the size limit would reduce actual landings (TAC) because of the decrease in the number of available abalones to be caught. 2. Increasing the size limit would allow more abalones to remain in the fishery longer, with a longer time for reproduction. Reduced reproduction, due to absence of kelp/food and competition from “exploding” urchin populations, is the main concern of the DFW managers.

From a fishermen’s perspective, a size increase is far more acceptable than site or fishery closures. I realize that there are draw-backs to a size limit increase, as there are with all TAC reduction alternatives. But, a size limit increase is a simple, better way to provide the required protection of the resource because it improves reproduction and makes closures or other drastic changes unnecessary.

The Department is currently working on a new Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) due to be enacted into law in 2019. This is a perfect opportunity to assess the results of a size limit increase without making the law permanent if, for some unknown reason, it doesn’t have the intended outcome.

Sincerely,

Jack Likins Abalone fisherman

President Eric Sklar and members California Fish and Game Commission

RE: August 16, 2017 Agenda No. 18 & 19, Abalone

Dear President Sklar:

Attached is a letter I wrote following watching your June 22, 2017 meeting. I have been involved with abalone in California my whole life and am as concerned about the future of this resource as you are.

In my letter, I report on my observations over the past 20 years. I am not trying to be overly critical, but am attempting to provide background information to the Commission. I feel there are options available which to date have not been utilized by the California Department of Wildlife (DFW). It appears to me that these options are identified in Amendments H.1 to the Abalone Recovery and Management Plan (ARMP). Utilizing these amendments/options by the California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) could help reduce pressure on the northern California red abalone resource. It appears to me CFGC could do this right now. In addition, exercising these options could provide Californians with renewed access to the red abalone resource.

In 2005, an amendment was added to the ARMP which identifies an abundance of red abalone at San Miguel Island (SMI). At that time, there were an estimated 3,000,000 red abalone emergent at SMI. Of these, 10-20% were of commercial (7 3/4") size. This number should be significantly higher now.

A quote from the ARMP, Amendment H.1:

"Harvesting 10-20% of these abalone falling within the slot (197mm-203mm) size (1-2% of 3.m) should have no negligible effect on the population as a whole." ARMP, H.1, page H-9)

Thank you for your consideration. A signed copy has been mailed.

Steven L. Rebuck

President Eric Sklar and members California Fish and Game Commission 1416 9th St. Sacramento, Ca 95814

July 8, 2017

Steven L. Rebuck

Dear President Sklar and Commissioners:

It has now been 20 years since the recreational and commercial red abalone fisheries south of San Francisco were closed to human use. We can now assess the success and/or failure of Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) policies in regards to red abalone fishing.

At the time of the closure in May 1997, I was a consultant to the California Abalone Association (CAA) representing the commercial abalone fishermen. I also served as the Abalone Technical Consultant to the Southern Sea Otter Recovery Team (TC-SSORT), 1993-2004.

In 1997, I utilized much of the available published literature created by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to defend my clients. Commercial harvest of abalone began in 1850. Abalone was California’s first commercial fishery. I was dismayed in 1997 and later that the CDFG/DFW has ignored this rich historic literature. In my experience, this denial of our history has been a hallmark of CDFG/DFW abalone policy over the past 20 years.

Fact is, it was California counties which first created abalone laws, followed by the California Legislature, enforced through the Fish and Game Code. Although it was the duty of citizens to obey these laws, by 1997, it was the citizens who were blamed for failed resource management by CDFG managers. It can be assumed that the basic CDFG/DFW task is to prevent the overutilization of living natural resources. The state, not the citizens, created the abalone fishing laws.

Between 1916 and the early 1960s, Morro Bay, California was the site of annual landings averaging 2,000,000 pounds per year (Cox, 1962). This “sustainable” fishery was terminated by sea otters, not human use (Fisher, 1939; Ebert, 1968 a&b; Wild and Ames, 1974; Odemar and Wilson, 1974; Miller, 1975,1980; Hardy, 1982; Silva, 1982; Wendell, 1986b, 1995;Gotshall, 1984; et al).

For 1987, CDFG reported 41% of red abalone landing originated from San Nicolas Island, Ventura County, (CDFG, Abalone Ocean Sport Fishing, August 1991) which in 1987, became the site for an experimental relocation of sea otters by the US Fish and Wildlife Serve (FWS). Within 5 years following relocation of sea otters to SNI, these red abalone landings reached zero. This fact was not considered by CDFG in 1997. Commercial red abalone landings were 391,030 in 1987 and 229,252 in 1996 (Annual Status of the Fisheries Report, 2003) reflecting the impact of sea otter relocation.

Using published research from CDFG, one can demonstrate that sea otters, between Monterey and San Luis Obispo County dominated approximately 90% of the former commercial abalone grounds by the mid-1970s. Fishermen were forced to relocate to the Channel Islands in order to continue fishing. Basically, the commercial fishery by the 1990s was fishing approximately 10% of their historic red abalone grounds and were landing approximately 10% of their former catch. One then has to ask: What was the commercial use problem?

Despite the rich literature on sea otters and the abalone fisheries, CDFG in 1997 unfairly focused all blame for resource declines on the commercial divers.

The primary political problem in 1997 was not commercial landings, it was export to China. Sport divers and some at CDFG resented this export. The most obvious solution was to ban export, making the fishery domestic only. Although suggested by CAA, this option/solution was not considered.

The fact was that of the 101 commercial abalone permit holders in 1997, 91 of them also held commercial sea urchin permits. At the time, sea urchin diving was far more lucrative than abalone diving. But, to maintain ones abalone permit, divers were forced to make fixed annual landings. The commercial abalone divers had attempted for years to have this landing requirement waved. In fact, in 1997, legislation was introduced to wave this requirement (Assemblyman Bordonaro), but emergency closure pre- empted this legislation.

A couple of what can only be characterized as dirty tricks were used in 1997 and the years leading up. One of these dirty tricks was the release of “draft” data by CDFG Marine Biologist, Konstantine Karpov. For the years before 1997, Karpov was leaking draft data and other information to the San Francisco Chronicle and other newspapers. These leaks inflamed the recreational dive community against the commercial divers.

A second leak was from CDFG Marine Biologist, Peter Haaker who claimed that sex ratios in red abalone were skewed. These claims were made to the FGC and had an alarming effect. However, after the closure, Haaker admitted his claims were false, but the damage was done. In all my decades of experience with CDFG, I had never seen CDFG biologist act so reckless with draft data.

In the first draft of the Abalone Recovery and Management Plan (ARMP) it states: “…two year closure…” The document also makes the statement that this was a “Fisheries Management Plan” (FMP) (Draft, Informational Document, California Abalone fishing, November 1997; And, Final Draft, 10-9-97 8:08 AM, Appendix 1, Draft Fisheries Recovery/Management Plan for California Abalones.)

Of course, the excuse for not completing this 20 year old FMP was the passage of the Marine Life Protection Act of 1998 (MLMA). So, here we are, now 19 years later and no FMP for the abalone fisheries.

In 2014, DFW announced plans to begin the FMP for abalone fishing. The timeline was to produce a draft FMP by spring, 2015 and a final version by spring 2017. To date, the draft does not yet exist. Is August 2017 a real date?

In 2005, CAA drafted a plan (Alternative 8) which was later incorporated into the ARMP of 2005. One component of this plan was to create a $10. per abalone “fixed tag”. The CAA proposal suggested an experimental harvest of 17,000. red abalone. Had CDFG/DFW accepted this experiment, $170,000. would have been provided the first year before one abalone was harvested. This money could have been used for monitoring the fishery and for law enforcement. Each tag was to have the permit holders information. In addition, harvest size was to be increased to 8”. Over the past 12 years, the tags alone would have generated over $3.4 million dollars. With the combined landing taxes and permit fees, this amount would have been many millions of dollars more. It is curious why DFW said no.

During the 1980s, the commercial abalone divers self imposed a tax on abalone landings to support their research into abalone re-seeding. There was about $250,000. in 1997. After 1997, CDFG siphoned off most of the tax money to fund black hole projects like a “risk assessment” which they funded, then rejected. Only about 1% of this money remains.

In addition, other proposals for a southern abalone fishery have been put forth by the Abalone Advisory Group (AAG) in 2009 and by CAA/Dr. Jeremy Prince and Sarah Valencia, 2009 . Both proposals rejected by DFW.

In 2014, the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) requested an assessment of their methodologies from the California Ocean Science Trust (OST). OST suggested in their final report that DFW methods were flawed. One area was reliance on “density” as their primary management method. (Density was also critiqued by Dr. Prince). A second area of concern was DFWs reliance on “index sites” for collection of density data. DFW was not able to monitor all of their index sites on an annual basis. DFW decided to round- file OSTs report and has continued to rely on failed methodology.

At the FGC June 22, 2017 meeting, former FGC Executive Director, Zonke Mastrup made the statement that “..abalone fishing has never been better .” This is the result of relying on density in the ARMP. Clearly, there is a serious problem with the recreational only abalone fishery under the ARMP. The lack of recruitment will likely spell doom for the fishery in a few short years.

Having only a fishery in northern California means that approx. 5250 southern, south-central California and out-of- state divers converge on the north coast annually, further depleting the remaining abalone (Kashiwada, 2016).

During the 1997 abalone debate, the majority of “blame” for declining stocks was focused on the commercial men. The commercial fishery was harvesting approximately 229,252 (low 1996)-448,593 (high 1992) pounds per year, last decade of the fishery. The recreational fishery on the north coast has been estimated at 1,500,000-3,000,000 pounds per year. “Incomplete data for year 2000 indicated approx.. 728,000 red abalone were taken on the north coast” (Annual Status of the Fisheries Report, 2003) (At 3 pound each, this would be over 2.m pounds of north coast abalone). In the same report, recreational poaching was estimated at 217,000 pounds. Yet, the rhetoric was: “The commercial divers take too many” which was not supported by landing data.

DFW has told us that the current FMP will be for the northern California recreational fishery only. At the pace they are moving, it could be several more years before an FMP is prepared for the area south of San Francisco.

At the June 22, 2017 FGC meeting, there was discussion about “citizen scientists.” I would submit that by ignoring the commercial divers over the past 20 years, DFW has cut off some of the most knowledgeable “citizen scientists” that exist. An examination of the CDFG literature demonstrate this fact. Bonnot (1948) reported it was commercial abalone divers at Morro Bay who first taught CDFG biologists how to dive and that they were “keen observers.” Parker (1986) reported that in cooperative dives between CDFG biologist and commercial divers on the north coast, it was the commercial divers who were far better at finding abalone in non-destructive surveys.

One of the requirements of SB 463 (Thompson, 1997) was the creation of a Recreational Abalone Advisory Committee (RAAC). For the majority of the RAAC history, the appointed members were primarily those recreational divers who wanted the commercial abalone fishery to remain closed, basically creating a kangaroo court.

To recap, DFW continues down a political, unscientific road:

* Ignoring CDFG published historic literature.

* Ignoring alterative plans: Alternative 8, 2005/07 (ARMP Amendment H); Abalone Advisory Group 2009; CAA, Red Abalone Market Fishery, 2009; California Ocean Science Trust, 2014.

* Ignoring alternative funding sources like the $10. commercial tag and/or commercial resource rents.

*Red abalone are not threatened or endangered with extinction statewide.

*DFW ignores significant recovery of pink and green abalone in southern California and red abalone at San Miguel Island. It is easily said these abalone in southern California are “dying of old age” while DFW does nothing but punish the California citizens.

In my opinion, for the past 20 years, CDFG/DFW has mislead the FGC about the status of abalone in California. And, DFW has demonstrated gross incompetence in it’s management strategies.

However, as cited above, CAA did submit an “alternative” in 2005, which was included in the ARMP, (Appendix H, H.1, An Amendment to the Abalone Recovery and Management Plan’s alternative 1). This alternative could provide relief by reducing the amount of red abalone currently being harvested from northern California, providing south-central and southern Californians an alternative fishing ground. It would appear within the power of the CFGC to open immediately San Miguel Island (SMI) to red abalone fishing.

In 2005, in the ARMP, H.1, it was estimated there were 3,000,000 emergent red abalone at SMI (H-4). Of these, 10% to 20% were estimated to be of commercial size—7 ¾” H-9). This was 300,000 to 600,000 abalone in 2005. (ARMP, Appendix H, pages H.1-H.11) What are the emergent population/ legal size percentage now? Our $10. tag proposal was changed to a 10% “resource rent.” At 15,000 red abalone, this would generate $72,000. (ARMP, H-10) 3,000 sport tags/cards would generate an estimated $18,000 (ARMP, H-10).

Opening SMI now could immediately reduce considerable pressure off the northern resource, providing an alternative for those who must now travel hundreds of miles to fish.

“Harvesting 10-20% of these abalone falling within the slot (197mm-203mm) size should have no negligible effect on the population as a whole.” ARMP, H.1, H-9).

The ARMP is the law of the land. It appears the CFGC has the discretion now to open this fishery. Please consider using the ARMP, Amendment H now to help reduce the harvest of red abalone in northern California.

Respectfully submitted,

Item No. 30 STAFF SUMMARY FOR JUNE 21-22, 2017

30. NEARSHORE AND DEEPER NEARSHORE FISHERIES

Today’s Item Information ☐ Action ☒ Authorization to publish notice of intent to amend the commercial nearshore fishery regulations.

Summary of Previous/Future Actions  Today’s Notice hearing Jun 21-22, 2017; Smith River  Discussion hearing Aug 16-17, 2017; Sacramento  Adoption hearing Oct 11-12, 2017; Atascadero

Background

Under current regulations (Section 150), only persons with a Nearshore Fishery Permit are allowed to take nearshore species (cabezon; California scorpionfish; California sheephead; kelp and rock greenlings; and, black-and-yellow, China, gopher, grass and kelp rockfishes). Transfer of a Nearshore Fishery Permit is allowed on a two-for-one basis with the new permittee purchasing two permits, and agreeing to retire one permit and fish using the other. The number of permits has declined 35 percent in the past 13 years and it has become very difficult to find two permits for sale in the same regional management area. Proposed changes for Section 150 include:  clarify that Nearshore Fishery Permit holders can only have one permit, regardless of the management area, at any time;  add a requirement that the estate of a non-transferable Nearshore Fishery Permit shall immediately surrender the permit to DFW;  allow for permit transfers on a one-for-one basis, making it easier for new permittees to enter the fishery as well as current permittees to retire;  standardize the paperwork by changing from notarized letters to a notarized application;  allow the estate of a deceased permittee two years to transfer a permit;  require that the estate of a deceased permittee temporarily relinquish the permit until the transfer can be made;  delay a transfer pending resolution of any criminal, civil and/or administrative action involving the current permittee; and  change the process for appealing denial of a transfer from a two-step process to a one- step process whereby the person denied a transfer can appeal directly to FGC within 60 calendar days of DFW’s denial.

Under current regulations (Section 150.02), only persons who held a valid Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit (for the take of black, blue, brown, calico, copper, olive, quillback and treefish rockfishes) during the immediately preceding permit year are eligible to obtain a permit for the following permit year, which has resulted in a permit moratorium that prohibits any new entrants into the fishery. The proposed regulation would allow new individuals to enter the fishery by obtaining a permit from an existing permit holder. Additionally, the proposed

Author: Sheri Tiemann 1 Item No. 30 STAFF SUMMARY FOR JUNE 21-22, 2017

regulations would require completion of a notarized transfer application. Proposed changes for Section 150.02 include:  establish permit transfer provisions;  establish that all Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permits are transferable;  establish a notarized application for the permit transfer;  allow the estate of a deceased permittee two years to transfer a permit  require that the estate of a deceased permittee temporarily relinquish the permit until the transfer can be made;  delay a transfer pending resolution of any criminal, civil and/or administrative action involving the current permittee, and  establish a permit transfer fee as specified in Section 705.

Current regulations (Section 150.03) allow persons with a Nearshore Fishery Permit to use trap gear with a Nearshore Fishery Gear Endorsement, which is transferable on a one-for-one basis. Proposed changes for Section 150.03 include:  standardize the paperwork by changing from notarized letters to a notarized application;  allow the estate of a deceased permittee two years to transfer the gear endorsement;  require that the estate of a deceased permittee temporarily relinquish the gear endorsement until the transfer can be made;  delay a transfer pending resolution of any criminal, civil and/or administrative action involving the current permittee; and  change the process for appealing denial of a transfer from a two-step process to a one- step process whereby the person denied a transfer can appeal directly to FGC within 60 calendar days of DFW’s denial.

Current regulations (Section 705) establish a Nearshore Fishery Permit Transfer Fee of $500. The proposed regulations would increase the permit transfer fee to somewhere in a range of $1,000 to $2,500 and also establish a transfer fee somewhere in the range of $1,000 to $2,500 for the Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit. The proposed regulations would also include reference to the proposed Nearshore Fishery Permit and Nearshore Fishery Trap Endorsement Transfer Application (DFW 1045) and the proposed Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit Transfer Application (DFW 1048).

Additional minor changes are proposed to correct grammatical errors and remove section references to Title 14, CCR, to improve clarity and standardize regulatory format.

Significant Public Comments (N/A)

Recommendation FGC staff: Authorize publication of notice.

Author: Sheri Tiemann 2 Item No. 30 STAFF SUMMARY FOR JUNE 21-22, 2017

DFW: Authorize publication of notice as detailed in the initial statement of reasons (ISOR) (Exhibit 2).

Exhibits 1. DFW memo, received May 8, 2017 2. ISOR

Motion/Direction

Moved by ______and seconded by ______that the Commission authorizes publication of a notice of its intent to amend sections 150 et al., related to commercial nearshore and deeper nearshore fishing permit and appeal regulations.

Author: Sheri Tiemann 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR PROPOSED REGULATORY ACTION (Pre-publication of Notice Statement)

Amend Subsections (b), (e), (g), (m), and (n) of Section 150; Subsections (d) and (j) of Section 150.02; Subsections (c), (d) and (h) of Section 150.03; and Subsection (b) of Section 705, Title 14, California Code of Regulations Re: Nearshore Fishery Permit, Nearshore Fishery Permit Gear Endorsements, and Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit Transferability

I. Date of Initial Statement of Reasons: April 3, 2017

II. Dates and Locations of Scheduled Hearings:

(a) Notice Hearing: Date: June 22, 2017 Location: Smith River

(b) Discussion Hearing: Date: August 17, 2017 Location: Sacramento

(c) Adoption Hearing: Date: October 12, 2017 Location: Atascadero

III. Description of Regulatory Action:

(a) Statement of Specific Purpose of Regulation Change and Factual Basis for Determining that Regulation Change is Reasonably Necessary:

In 1998, the Legislature created the Nearshore Fishery Permit for the take of cabezon; California scorpionfish; California sheephead; kelp and rock greenlings; and, black-and-yellow, China, gopher, grass and kelp rockfishes. In 2003, the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) established a regional restricted access program allowing take with hook- and-line and dip net (used while diving) gears; trap gear is allowed with a Nearshore Fishery Permit Gear Endorsement. Additionally, 20-year commercial fishers could qualify for a non-transferable permit. Permit transfers are allowed as long as the new entrant purchased two permits, agreed to retire one and fish the other permit if the transfer was approved. Gear endorsement transfers are allowed when the new entrant has a valid permit for the same regional management area. Permit holders only need to purchase one gear endorsement as they are transferable one-for-one. The transfer fees for Nearshore Fishery Permits and gear endorsements

-1-

are $500 and $75, respectively. Notarized letters are used to apply for permit transfers.

In 2003, the Commission established the Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit for the take of black, blue, brown, calico, copper, olive, quillback and treefish rockfishes, amid concerns over increasing effort by those that did not qualify for a Nearshore Fishery Permit. The Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit is a statewide permit without gear restrictions, and is nontransferable.

Between 2003 and 2016, the number of Nearshore Fishery Permits decreased from 220 to 141 due to permit transfers and nonrenewal; and, the Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permits decreased from 281 to 180 due to nonrenewal. Overall the nearshore fishery has seen a 35 percent decline in the number of permits. In 2015, the Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) surveyed nearshore permittees and found that majority (96 percent) supported making the Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit transferable, and while not asked directly, many expressed support for making the Nearshore Fishery Permit transferable on a one- for-one basis. Additionally, in the last several years the Department and the Commission have heard from many fishers about the need to provide for Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit transfers as well as change the Nearshore Fishery Permit transfer provisions.

For the Nearshore Fishery Permit, it has become quite difficult to obtain two permits for the same region that the new entrant wants to fish in. Additionally, the inability to transfer a Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit impacts fishers wanting to enter the fishery, as well as those that want to retire. Finally, the nearshore and deeper nearshore species are frequently caught together and fishers with only one permit and not the other have to discard species that they do not have a permit for.

Changing transfer rules for both nearshore permits will allow new entrants into the fishery, and allow permittees to retire or leave the fishery and either recoup something for their investment or pass their permit along to a family member. It will also make it easier for those with one permit to obtain the other permit, reducing discards.

Unless specified, all section references in this document are for the regulations in Title 14, California Code of Regulations.

Amend Subsection 150(b): Permittees can only hold one permit

Proposed Changes – one permit per person Current regulations state that a person will receive only one Nearshore Fishery Permit for use in only one regional management area during initial -2- issuance. This regulation change would clarify that Nearshore Fishery Permit holders can only have one permit, regardless of the regional management area, at any time.

Necessity/Rationale The proposed change would clarify the Commission’s and Department’s intent that a person cannot hold more than one Nearshore Fishery Permit, regardless of the regional management area stated on the permit. This is supported by state trip limits for cabezon, sheephead and greenlings as well as federal trip limits for rockfishes and California scorpionfish that are based on the individual’s commercial fishing license identification number, such that having additional permits would not allow for the taking of more than one trip limit per person.

Amend Subsection 150(e)(5): Initial Qualification for 20-year California Commercial Fishermen

Proposed changes – death of non-transferable Nearshore Fishery Permit holder This subsection will be deleted and added to subsection (g) permit transfers, procedures and timeline to keep all transfer provisions together.

Amend Subsection 150(g): Permit Transfer, Procedures, and Timeline

Table 1. Summary of proposed changes to Subsection 150(g). Current Subsection Proposed Number Regulation Subject Subsection Number 2-for-1 transfers; Transferee conditions 150(g)(2), 150(g)(5), 150(g)(1)(A) 150(g)(6) 150(g)(1)(B-D) Transfer paperwork (notarized letter) 150(g)(4) Former permit holder cannot take nearshore Proposed to be 150(g)(1)(E) fish species repealed Commission can prescribe other transfer Proposed to be 150(g)(2) provisions repealed 150(g)(3) and Transfer provisions and paperwork after 150(g)(3) and 150(g)(4) permittees death 150(g)(4) Exempt permit transfer from two-for-one requirements in the case of the estate of the Proposed to be 150(g)(5) deceased transferring to the deceased’s repealed family member

Proposed Changes – Current two-for-one transfer provisions Fish and Game Code Section 7857(j) states that a commercial license, permit or endorsement is nontransferable unless otherwise provided in Fish and Game Code. Proposed subsection 150(g)(1) would make this -3-

section inoperable under authority provided in the Nearshore Fishery Management Act, Fish and Game Code Section 8587.1(b).

Subsection 150(g)(1)(A) currently allows Nearshore Fishery Permit transfers on a two-for-one basis, with one permit being surrendered to the Department for cancellation at the time of the transfer, if the number of Nearshore Fishery Permits in a regional management area exceeds the capacity goal. This subsection is proposed to be repealed and replaced by Subsection 150(g)(2), which would prescribe one-for-one permit transfers and require that the transfer be for the same regional management area on the permit.

Necessity/Rationale In 2003, 220 Nearshore Fishery Permits were issued and over the next thirteen years 41 Nearshore Fishery Permits were transferred (with an additional 41 Nearshore Fishery Permits retired) and 35 Nearshore Fishery Permits were not renewed. Of the 35 Nearshore Fishery Permits that were not renewed, 25 Nearshore Fishery Permits were transferable and could have been sold but weren’t. The remaining 10 Nearshore Fishery Permits that were not renewed were nontransferable. In 2016, 144 Nearshore Fishery Permits were issued for an attrition rate of 35 percent.

The proposed regulation change would change the Nearshore Fishery Permit transfer requirements from two-for-one, whereby the new entrant has to purchase two permits, agreed to retire one and fish the other permit if the transfer was approved, to one-for-one. While each region remains above its capacity goal, great progress has been made towards reaching the capacity goals. Additionally, the capacity goals are outdated. In 2002, only one nearshore species had been assessed (black rockfish in 1999) and total allowable catches were developed using a precautionary approach that was based on 50 percent of historic catch. Trip limits were derived from the commercial allocation based on the total allowable catches. Since then, over half of the nearshore species have been assessed (Table 2), resulting in increased total allowable catches and increased trip limits (Table 3), in most cases, such that the established capacity goals are no longer applicable.

-4-

Table 2. List of nearshore species and year the stock was assessed. Species Assessment year Deeper Nearshore Rockfish Black rockfish 2015, 2007, 2003, 1999 Blue rockfish 2007 Brown rockfish 2013 Calico rockfish Copper rockfish 2013 Olive rockfish Quillback rockfish Treefish Shallow Nearshore Rockfish Black-and-yellow rockfish China rockfish 2015 Gopher rockfish 2005 Grass rockfish Kelp rockfish Other Nearshore Fishery Permit species Cabezon 2009, 2005, 2003 California scorpionfish 2004 California sheephead 2004 Kelp greenling 2015, 2005 Rock greenling

Table 3. Nearshore species trip limits for 2003 and 2017. Minor Nearshore Rockfish, North of 40°10’ N lat. Includes shallow and deeper rockfish combined. Numbers in parentheses are rockfish other than black rockfish. Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sep-Oct Nov-Dec 2003 3000 (900) 3000 (900) 3000 (900) 4000 (1200) 4000 (1200) 4000 (1200) 2017 8500 (1200) 7000 (1200) 7000 (1200) 7000 (1200) 7000 (1200) 7000 (1200) Deeper Nearshore Rockfish , South of 40°10’ N lat. Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sep-Oct Nov-Dec 2003 200 Closed 200 500 300 200 2017 1000 Closed 1000 1000 1000 1000 Shallow Nearshore Rockfish, South of 40°10’ N lat. Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sep-Oct Nov-Dec 2003 200 Closed 400 400 300 200 2017 1200 Closed 1200 1200 1200 1200 Cabezon Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sep-Oct Nov-Dec 2003 100 Closed 1000 1000 400 100 2017 300 Closed 500 500 500 300 California scorpionfish Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sep-Oct Nov-Dec 2003 300 Closed 300 400 400 300 2017 1500 Closed 1500 1500 1500 1500 California sheephead Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sep-Oct Nov-Dec 2003 2000 Closed 2400 2400 2400 2400 2017 2000 Closed 2400 2400 2400 2400

-5-

Table 3. Nearshore species trip limits for 2003 and 2017. Greenlings Jan-Feb Mar-Apr May-Jun Jul-Aug Sep-Oct Nov-Dec 2003 25 Closed 25 25 25 25 2017 150 Closed 200 200 200 150

Additionally, the nearshore fishery has been successfully managed using a combination of bimonthly trip limits and depth restrictions. Department staff monitor the catch of nearshore species inseason and recommend changes to trip limits as needed. As a result, the commercial nearshore fishery has not closed early since 2005. Finally, analysis of Nearshore Fishery Permit transfers and fishing activity before and after the transfer reveals half of the new permittees actually fished less than one of the previous owners. This would indicate that fishing effort will only moderately increase, and any increases could be managed by adjusting the bimonthly trip limits.

Proposed changes – Transfer paperwork Current regulations in Subsection 150(g)(1)(B-D) require a notarized letter from buyer and sellers stating the conditions of the transfer, describe completion of the transfer after payment of fees and review by the Department, and if the person holds a nontransferable Nearshore Fishery Permit, that permit shall be surrendered to the Department. These subsections are proposed to be repealed and replaced with subsections 150(g)(4) and 150(g)(6). Subsection 150(g)(4) would change the notarized letters to a notarized application, specify the effective date is the date of written notification by the Department of approval of the transfer, and that the permit is valid for the remainder of the permit year. Subsection 150(g)(6) would require the transferee to surrender their nontransferable Nearshore Fishery Permit to the Department when they receive the transferable permit.

Necessity/Rationale The proposed regulation requires a notarized transfer application to formalize the transfer process and collect accurate information from the permit holder and the proposed permit holder in the place of a notarized letter for each transfer.

Proposed changes – Former permit holder cannot take nearshore fish species Subsection 150(g)(1)(E) states that the former permit holder cannot take nearshore species once the permit transfer is completed unless otherwise permitted by law. This subsection is proposed to be repealed as it is redundant.

-6-

Proposed changes – Commission can prescribe other transfer provisions Subsection (150)(g)(2) allows the Commission to prescribe other transfer criteria should the number of Nearshore Fishery Permits fall below the capacity goal. This subsection is proposed to be repealed because it is redundant, as the Commission retains the ability to change regulations. Additionally, with permit transfers changing to a one-for-one basis there is little need to change transfer requirements.

Proposed changes – Permit transfers after the death of the permit holder Subsections (150)(g)(3) and 150(g)(4) describe the conditions for transfer of a Nearshore Fishery Permit by the estate of the deceased permit holder, allowing for transfer within one year of the death, and requires a notarized letter detailing the conditions of the transfer. These provisions will be included in subsections 150(g)(3) and 150(g)(4). The new Subsection 150(g)(3) requires that the estate of the deceased permit holder to temporarily relinquish the permit to the Department until the transfer is completed, but allows the estate to renew the permit to keep it current. Additionally, it will allow two years for the transfer to take place instead of the current one year. Instead of having a separate subsection to deal with transfer paperwork for the deceased permit holder’s estate, it will be included in Subsection 150(g)(4).

Necessity/Rationale This amendment is necessary because it is unlawful for the estate to allow another commercial fisherman to fish the permit and therefore is required to temporarily relinquish the permit to the Department until the permit transfer can take place. Additionally, changing the amount of time allowed, from one to two years, to transfer permits will give the estate more time to try to find a buyer for the permit. Finally, requiring a notarized application will allow for collection of information from the permit holder and the proposed permit holder in the place of a notarized letter for each transfer.

Proposed changes – Delay transfer pending final resolution of pending action Subsection 150(g)(5) will be added stating that the transfer shall be deferred pending final resolution of any criminal, civil, and/or administrative action involving the current permit holder that could affect the status of the permit. This will prevent a permit from being transferred in an effort to avoid a suspension or revocation of a permit.

-7-

Proposed changes – death of non-transferable Nearshore Fishery Permit holder Currently, Subsection 150(e)(5) states that a non-transferable Nearshore Fishery Permit becomes null and void upon the death of the individual to whom the permit was issued. The proposed change will move the requirement to Subsection 150(g)(7) and will add a requirement that the estate shall immediately surrender the permit to the Department.

Necessity/Rationale This amendment is necessary because it is unlawful for the estate to allow another commercial fisherman to fish the permit and therefore is required to surrender the permit to the Department. The proposed regulations are consistent with current regulations for lobster operator permits (Section 122(c)(5)). This subsection was previously Subsection 150(e)(5) under initial qualification for 20-year fishermen, and is being moved to the permit transfers subsection for clarity.

Amend Subsection 150(m)(3): Transfer Appeals Currently, the appeals process is a two-step process with the Department reviewing the appeal based on the fisher’s request. If the Department denies the appeal, then the permittee has 60 days to appeal to the Commission in writing. The changes to Subsection 150(m)(3) would reduce the appeals to a one-step process via a written request to the Commission for an appeal of the Department’s denial of a Nearshore Fishery Permit transfer within 60 calendar days of the date of the Department’s denial.

Amend Subsection 150(n): Fees Current regulations stipulate that the Department shall charge a nonrefundable fee for each permit transfer, and that if more than one permit is required for the transfer only one fee will be charged. The proposed change would be to delete the reference to more than one permit required to transfer to be consistent with the new transfer provisions.

Add Subsection 150.02(j): Permit transfers, procedures and timelines Current regulations provide for a permit with annual renewal, initial qualifying criteria from 2003, annual renewal requirements, and a control date for a future restricted access program. Current regulations do not provide for transfer of Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permits. Subsection 150.02(j) would be added making all Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permits transferable on a one-for-one basis; allowing transfers after the death of the permit holder with a two year time limit, providing the estate temporarily relinquishes the permit to the department until the transfer can be completed; requiring a notarized application be

-8- submitted along with payment of nonrefundable transfer fee; specifying that the effective date is the date of written notice of approval by the Department; deferring permit transfers until final resolution of any pending action against the current permit holder that could affect the status of the permit; and allowing the person denied transfer to appeal any denial to the Commission within 60 days of the Department’s denial.

Necessity/Rationale In 2003, 281 Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permits were issued, capping participation in this fishery. Over the last thirteen years, 101 Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permits have not been renewed for a 36 percent attrition rate. However, the permittees are ageing with over half the participants over 50 years of age. Other fishers would like to get into the fishery while many of the permittees would like to retire or leave the fishery.

The proposed regulation would allow all Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit holders to transfer their permit to a licensed California commercial fisherman on a one-for-one basis. This would allow existing Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit holders to retire and pass on their permit to a family member or business partner, or sell to a new entrant. Attrition will likely continue to occur but at a slower pace. While effort in the Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit fishery may increase with new entrants, Department staff monitor the catch of Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit species inseason to ensure that catch limits are not exceeded and recommend changes to trip limits as needed.

Additionally, while many fishers (86 in 2016-17) hold both a Nearshore Fishery Permit and a Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit, there are many with only one permit (58 Nearshore Fishery Permit and 98 Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit in 2016-17). These permittees sometimes catch species that require the other permit to land, thus these fish have to be discarded. Easing transfer rules for both permits will make it easier for those with just one permit (Nearshore Fishery Permit or Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit) to purchase the other permit, thus reducing regulatory discards.

Amend Subsection 150.02(d): Fees for Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit Transfers Current regulations provide for an annual permit fee for a Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit, but there are no fees for the transfer of these permits. This change would add a fee as specified in Subsection 705(b) for the transfer of a Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit. See below for additional discussion of permit transfer fees.

-9-

Amend Subsection 150.03(c)(5): Death of the non-transferable Nearshore Fishery Gear Endorsement holder Currently, a non-transferable Nearshore Fishery Gear Endorsement becomes null and void upon the death of the individual to whom the permit was issued. The proposed amendment will move this requirement to subsection 150.03(d)(6) and add that the estate shall immediately surrender the gear endorsement to the Department.

Necessity/Rationale This amendment is necessary because it is unlawful for the estate to fish with the gear endorsement and therefore is required to surrender the gear endorsement to the Department. The proposed regulations are consistent with the proposed regulations for Nearshore Fishery Permits and the current regulations for lobster operator permits (Section 122(c)(5)).

Amend Subsection 150.03(d): Transfer of Nearshore Fishery Gear Endorsements Current regulations allow for transfer of Nearshore Fishery Gear Endorsements on a one-for-one basis and require a notarized letter from buyer and seller. The proposed changes include changing from a notarized letter to a notarized application, specifying that the effective date is the date of written notification by the Department of approval of the transfer, allowing the estate of a deceased transferable Nearshore Fishery Gear Endorsement holder up to two years to complete a transfer, providing that the estate temporarily relinquish the permit to the department until the transfer can be made; and, streamlining the appeals process when denied a gear endorsement transfer.

Necessity/Rationale These changes are necessary to mirror the changes to the Nearshore Fishery Permit transfer rules, since fishers are required to have a Nearshore Fishery Permit in order to have a Nearshore Fishery Gear Endorsement. Most of the time, the Nearshore Fishery Permit and Nearshore Fishery Gear Endorsement are transferred to the same person. Having different rules for the permit and the gear endorsement would be confusing for both the person transferring and the person trying to purchase the permit and gear endorsement.

Amend Subsection 150.03(h)(3): Nearshore Fishery Gear Endorsement Transfer Appeals Currently, the appeals process is a two-step process with the Department reviewing the appeal based on the fisher’s request. If the Department denies the appeal, then the permittee has 60 days to appeal to the Commission in writing. The changes to Subsection 150.03(h)(3) would

-10- reduce the appeals to a one-step process via a written request to the Commission for an appeal of the Department’s denial of a Nearshore Fishery Gear Endorsement transfer within 60 calendar days of the date of the Department’s denial.

Amend Subsection 705(b): Transfer Fees Current regulations provide for a Nearshore Fishery Permit transfer fee of $500. There are no provisions for a transfer fee for a Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit. The proposed change would increase the Nearshore Fishery Permit transfer fee to a range of $1,000 to $2,500, and establish a permit transfer fee for the Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit of a range of $1,000 to $2,500. Additionally, the proposed changes would incorporate the transfer application into the regulations.

Necessity/Rationale The proposed fees for the transfer of a Nearshore Fishery Permit and Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit were set based on a fiscal analyses completed by the Department to recover costs incurred by the Department pursuant to FGC sections 1050 and 8587.1. This transfer fee will cover the administrative costs of the permit, costs to review the applications and to execute approved transfer requests, as well help offset the increased costs to monitor and track nearshore fishery performance and make management adjustments.

The Nearshore Fishery Permit And Nearshore Fishery Gear Endorsement Transfer Application (DFW 1045) will replace the notarized letters that currently are submitted by the permit holders and transferee to apply for a transfer. The Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit Transfer Application (DFW 1048) is new and will standardize the transfer request process. These transfer applications will need to be reviewed and approved by the Department and require the permit holder’s signature “under penalty of perjury” that the information submitted is accurate; both DFW 1045 and DFW 1048 must also be notarized.

Commercial fishing is a highly regulated activity involving the take of public trust resources. Effective administration, management, and enforcement of marine fisheries require accurate information about the resources and those who participate in their take. Penal Code Section 115 makes it a crime to knowingly file a forged document with a government office in the state. Fish and Game Code Section 1054 makes it unlawful to submit any false, inaccurate, or otherwise misleading information on any application or other document presented to the Department for the purpose of obtaining a license, permit, tag or other entitlements and allows the Department to require such applicants to show proof of the statements

-11-

or facts required for obtaining such license or permit. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 2015.5 provides that such statements or facts may be supported by an unsworn declaration in writing of such an applicant which recites that it is certified or declared to be true under penalty of perjury. By requiring such certification on its forms, the Department notifies the applicants of his/her legal duty while establishing his/her knowledge of such duty. Requiring that the signature of the applicant be notarized on both DFW 1045 and DFW 1048 helps minimize the potential for fraud.

Other Changes Additional minor changes are proposed to correct grammatical errors and remove section references to Title 14, CCR, to improve clarity and standardize regulatory format.

(b) Authority and Reference Sections from Fish and Game Code for Regulation:

Authority: Sections 713, 1050, 7071 and 8587.1, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 713, 1050, 7071, 7850, 7852.2, 7857, 7858, 8043, 8046, 8102, 8585.5, 8587, 8587.1, 8588, 8589.5 and 8589.7, 9001 and 9001.5, Fish and Game Code.

(c) Specific Technology or Equipment Required by Regulatory Change: None

(d) Identification of Reports or Documents Supporting Regulation Change:

None.

(e) Public Discussions of Proposed Regulations Prior to Notice Publication:

Marine Resources Committee Meeting, November 15, 2016, Los Alamitos, CA

Marine Resources Committee Meeting, March 23, 2017, Oceanside, CA

The Notice, Discussion and Adoption meetings are being held in three of the four nearshore fishery permit regions and the two Marine Resources Committee meetings were held in the fourth nearshore permit region giving permittees ample opportunity to provide comment.

IV. Description of Reasonable Alternatives to Regulatory Action:

(a) Alternatives to Regulation Change:

An alternative would be to convert one or both nearshore fisheries to open -12-

access. This is not desirable as it would likely result in a significant increase in effort, and possibly push the fishery to unsustainable levels. It is also unfair to the fishermen who did not originally qualify for a permit and have sold or given away their gear. It also creates ill will and a lack of trust between the department and the industry. A California fishery that was restricted has never been converted back to open access before. Restriction adds value to a permit, and has been has been shown to increase fishermen’s sense of ownership and respect for the resource.

Another alternative would be to limit the number of Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit transfers annually. This is not desirable because it would be difficult to develop a system that would fairly address those that were not allowed to complete the transfer process because the number of transfers had been reached for the year. This could also cause the permit holder to lose the opportunity to sell his permit as the other party may not want to wait to try again the following year. Additionally, this would increase the permit transfer fee to cover the additional costs to manage a permit transfer lottery system.

(b) No Change Alternative:

If the proposed regulations are not adopted, it will continue to be very difficult for new members to enter the fishery as participants retire or shift focus to other fisheries. It will also be difficult for permittees to pass their permits along to family members or business partners. In addition, fishermen with only one of the permits will still have to discard fish for which they do not have a permit.

(c) Consideration of Alternatives:

In view of information currently possessed, no reasonable alternative considered would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulation is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed regulation, or would be more cost effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

(d) Description of Reasonable Alternatives That Would Lessen Adverse Impact on Small Business:

The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states.

-13-

The proposed regulations to ease transfer requirements for Nearshore Fishery Permits and to allow transferable Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permits would allow new members to enter the fishery. This is needed to maintain a viable nearshore fishery in California, resulting in a positive economic impact for participants and small businesses.

V. Mitigation Measures Required by Regulatory Action:

The proposed regulatory action will have no negative impact on the environment; therefore, no mitigation measures are needed.

VI. Impact of Regulatory Action:

The potential for significant statewide adverse economic impacts that might result from the proposed regulatory action has been assessed, and the following initial determinations relative to the required statutory categories have been made:

(a) Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Businesses, Including the Ability of California Businesses to Compete with Businesses in Other States:

The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states because the proposed changes are not expected to reduce the number of fishermen active in the fishery, nor the number of trips or harvest quantities.

(b) Impact on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State, the Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses, or the Expansion of Businesses in California; Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents, Worker Safety, and the State’s Environment:

The Commission does not anticipate any impacts on the creation or elimination of jobs, the creation of new business, the elimination of existing businesses or the expansion of businesses in California because the proposed changes are not expected to reduce the number of fishermen active in the fishery, nor the number of trips or harvest quantities..

The Commission does not anticipate any benefits to the health and welfare of California residents, worker safety, or the environment.

(c) Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person or Business:

-14-

The Commission anticipates cost impacts ranging from $1,000 to $2,500 per permit transfer that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.

(d) Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding to the State:

The Department anticipates revenue in the range of $4,200 - $63,000 annually to recover the costs of administering one to fifteen for each nearshore and deeper nearshore permit transfers per year. The proposed action is not anticipated to affect any other State Agency or Federal Funding to the State.

(e) Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies: None

(f) Programs Mandated on Local Agencies or School Districts: None

(g) Costs Imposed on Any Local Agency or School District that is Required to be Reimbursed Under Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4, Government Code: None

(h) Effect on Housing Costs: None

VII. Economic Impact Assessment:

Currently (2016) there are about 238 Nearshore Fishery Permits and Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permits in use. The numbers of nearshore and deeper nearshore permits have declined by 35 percent from 2003 to 2016. About 80 nearshore permits were dropped due to nonrenewal and permit transfers. Deeper Nearshore Species Fisheries Permits have also dropped by about 100 permits due to nonrenewal.

A 2015 Department survey found that 96 percent of Nearshore permittees expressed support for making the Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit transferable. Many permittees also added that they support making the Nearshore Fishery Permit transferable on a one-for-one basis since for the Nearshore Fishery Permit, it has become quite difficult to obtain two permits for the same region. The existing inability to transfer a Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit impacts fishers wanting to enter the fishery, as well as those that want to retire. Another environmental and economic impact should be lessened as these nearshore species are frequently caught together and fishers with only one permit and not the other have to discard species that they do not have a permit for.

-15-

Changing transfer rules for both nearshore permits will allow new entrants into the fishery, and allow permittees to retire or leave the fishery and either recoup something for their investment or pass their permit along to a family member or business partner. It will also make it easier for those with one permit to obtain the other permit, reducing discards. Fishing effort may increase only moderately, and any potential increases would be limited by the bimonthly trip limits.

The proposed regulations to ease transfer requirements for Nearshore Fishery Permits and to allow transferable Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permits would allow new members to enter the fishery. This is needed to maintain a viable nearshore fishery in California, and is anticipated to result in positive economic impacts for participants and businesses.

(a) Effects of the Regulation on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State:

The Commission does not anticipate any adverse impacts on the creation or elimination of jobs within the State because the proposed changes are not expected to reduce the number of fishermen active in the fishery, nor the number of trips or harvest quantities. The proposed regulations to ease transfer requirements for Nearshore Fishery Permits and to allow transferable Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permits would allow new members to enter the fishery which may result in a gradual increase in harvest.

(b) Effects of the Regulation on the Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses Within the State:

The Commission anticipates a positive impact on the creation of new businesses with permit transferability. The Commission does not anticipate any impacts on the elimination of existing businesses within the State because the proposed changes are not expected to reduce the number of fishermen active in the fishery, nor the number of trips or harvest quantities.

(c) Effects of the Regulation on the Expansion of Businesses Currently Doing Business Within the State:

The Commission does not anticipate any impacts on the expansion of businesses currently doing business within the State because the proposed changes are not expected to reduce the number of fishermen active in the fishery, nor the number of trips or harvest quantities.

-16-

(d) Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents:

The Commission does not anticipate any benefits to the health and welfare of California residents.

(e) Benefits of the Regulation to Worker Safety:

The Commission does not anticipate any benefits to worker safety.

(f) Benefits of the Regulation to the State's Environment:

The Commission anticipates benefits to the environment with improved fisheries management and decreased regulatory discards.

(g) Other Benefits of the Regulation: None.

-17-

Informative Digest/Policy Statement Overview

Under current regulations (Section 150), only persons with a Nearshore Fishery Permit are allowed to take nearshore species (cabezon; California scorpionfish; California sheephead; kelp and rock greenlings; and, black-and-yellow, China, gopher, grass and kelp rockfishes). Transfer of Nearshore Fishery Permits is allowed on a two-for-one basis with the new permittee purchasing two permits, agreeing to retire one permit and fish using the other. The number of permits has declined 35 percent in the past 13 years and it’s become very difficult to find two permits for sale in the same regional management area. The proposed regulations would change permit transfers to one-for- one making it easier for new permittees to get into the fishery as well as current permittees to retire. Additionally, the proposed regulations would standardize the transfer paperwork by changing from notarized letters from permit holders to a notarized application provided by the Department. The following is a summary of the changes proposed for Sections 150:

 Clarify that Nearshore Fishery Permit holders can only have one permit, regardless of the management area, at any time (Subsection 150(b))

 Add a requirement that the estate of a non-transferable Nearshore Fishery Permit shall immediately surrender the permit to the Department (Subsection 150(e)(5))

 Revise permit transfers (Subsection 150(g)(1-7)):

. Allow for permit transfers on a one-for-one basis,

. Change the paperwork from notarized letters to a notarized application,

. Allow the estate of a deceased permittee two years to transfer the permit,

. Require that the estate temporarily relinquish the permit until the transfer can be made, and

. Delay the transfer pending resolution of any criminal, civil and/or administrative action involving the current permittee.

 Change the process for appealing denial of a transfer from a two-step process to a one-step process (Subsection 150(m)(3)) whereby the person denied a transfer can appeal directly to the Commission within 60 calendar days of the Department’s denial.

Under current regulations (Section 150.02), only persons who held a valid Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit (for the take of black, blue, brown, calico, copper, olive, quillback and treefish rockfishes) during the immediately preceding permit year are eligible to obtain a permit for the following permit year. This has resulted in a permit moratorium that prohibits any new entrants into the fishery. The proposed regulation -18- would allow new individuals to enter the fishery by obtaining a permit from an existing permit holder. Additionally, the proposed regulations would require completion of a notarized transfer application. The following is a summary of the changes proposed for Section 150.02:

 Establish permit transfer provisions (Subsection 150.02(j)):

. Establish that all Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permits are transferable,

. Establish a notarized application for the permit transfer,

. Allow the estate of a deceased permittee two years to transfer the permit,

. Require that the estate temporarily relinquish the permit until the transfer can be made, and

. Delay the transfer pending resolution of any criminal, civil and/or administrative action involving the current permittee.

 Establish a permit transfer fee as specified in Section 705 (Subsection 150.03(d))

Current regulations (Section 150.03) allow persons with a Nearshore Fishery Permit to use trap gear with a Nearshore Fishery Gear Endorsement, which is transferable on a one-for-one basis. The proposed regulations would change the permit transfer requirement from notarized letters from the permit holder to a notarized application provided by the Department. The following is a summary of the changes proposed for Sections 150.0:

 Move the subsection 150.03(c)(5) requirement that a non-transferable Nearshore Fishery Gear Endorsement become null and void upon the death of the individual to holds the permit and propose to add that the estate of a non- transferable Nearshore Fishery Gear Endorsement holder shall immediately surrender the permit to the Department to Subsection 150.03(d)(6)

 Revise permit transfers (Subsection 150.03(d)) to:

. Change the paperwork from notarized letters to a notarized application,

. Allow the estate of a deceased permittee two years to transfer the gear endorsement,

. Require that the estate temporarily relinquish the gear endorsement until the transfer can be made, and

. Delay the transfer pending resolution of any criminal, civil and/or

-19-

administrative action involving the current permittee.

 Change the process for appealing denial of a transfer from a two-step process to a one-step process (Subsection 150.03(h)(3)) whereby the person denied a transfer can appeal directly to the Commission within 60 calendar days of the Department’s denial.

Current regulations (Section 705) establish a Nearshore Fishery Permit Transfer Fee of $500. The proposed regulations would increase the permit transfer fee to a range of $1,000 to $2,500 and also establish a transfer fee in the range of $1,000 to $2,500 for the Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit. The proposed regulations would also include reference to the proposed Nearshore Fishery Permit and Nearshore Fishery Trap Endorsement Transfer Application (DFW 1045) and the proposed Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit Transfer Application (DFW 1048).

Additional minor changes are proposed to correct grammatical errors and remove section references to Title 14, CCR, to improve clarity and standardize regulatory format.

The proposed regulatory action will benefit fishermen, processors, and the State’s economy by maintaining a healthy sustainable fishery, and ensuring future harvestable nearshore populations.

The proposed regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing State regulations. Section 20, Article IV, of the State Constitution specifies that the Legislature may delegate to the Fish and Game Commission such powers relating to the protection and propagation of fish and game as the Legislature sees fit. The Legislature has delegated to the Commission the power to regulate the commercial take of nearshore species (Section 8587.1, Fish and Game Code). The Commission has reviewed its own regulations and finds that the proposed regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing State regulations. The Commission has searched the California Code of Regulations and finds no other State agency regulations pertaining to the commercial take of nearshore fish stocks.

-20-

Regulatory Language

Section 150, Title 14, CCR is amended as follows: § 150. Nearshore Fishery Restricted Access Program.

[…No proposed changes to subsection (a)] (b) The department shall issue a Nearshore Fishery Permit for a regional management area described in Section 52.04, Title 14, CCR to each nearshore fishery permittee who meets the regional qualifying criteria below. A person will receive only one Nearshore Fishery Permit for use in only one regional management area and cannot hold a valid permit for more than one regional management area. A person meeting the qualifications for more than one regional management area must make a permanent, irrevocable decision prior to obtaining a Nearshore Fishery Permit for the 2003-2004 permit year to fish in one regional management area. The permit shall not be changed to another regional management area under any circumstances.

[…No proposed changes to subsections (c) through (d)] (e) Initial Qualification for 20-year California Commercial Fishermen. During the initial year of the nearshore restricted access program, any person who has been licensed as a California commercial fisherman for at least 20 years at the time of application, and who does not qualify for a permit in (d)(1), (2), (3), or (4) above, and who has participated in the commercial nearshore fishery for at least one of those years as documented by department fish landing receipts submitted in his name and commercial fishing license identification number pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 8046, upon application shall be issued a Non-Transferable Nearshore Fishery Permit for one regional management area, based on the following minimum landing requirements in subsection (e)(1), (2), (3), or (4) below: (1) landed at least 200 pounds of nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, in any one calendar year between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 1999. (A) landings used to qualify must have been made at ports located within the North Coast Region as defined in Section 52.04, Title 14, CCR. (B) Nearshore Fishery Permits issued pursuant to subsection (e)(1) are designated Non-Transferable North Coast Nearshore Fishery Permits and authorize the holder to take, possess aboard a vessel, or land nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, in the North Coast Region only. (2) landed at least 650 pounds of nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, in any one calendar year between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 1999. (A) landings used to qualify must have been made at ports located within the North- Central Coast Region as defined in Section 52.04, Title 14, CCR. (B) Nearshore Fishery Permits issued pursuant to subsection (e)(2) are designated

-1-

Non-Transferable North-Central Coast Nearshore Fishery Permits and authorize the holder to take, possess aboard a vessel, or land nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, in the North-Central Coast Region only. (3) landed at least 1,050 pounds of nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, in any one calendar year between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 1999. (A) landings used to qualify must have been made at ports located within the South- Central Coast Region as defined in Section 52.04, Title 14, CCR. (B) Nearshore Fishery Permits issued pursuant to subsection (e)(3) are designated Non-Transferable South-Central Coast Nearshore Fishery Permits and authorize the holder to take, possess aboard a vessel, or land nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, in the South-Central Coast Region only. (4) landed at least 800 pounds of nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, in any one calendar year between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 1999. (A) landings used to qualify must have been made at ports located within the South Coast Region as defined in Section 52.04, Title 14, CCR. (B) Nearshore Fishery Permits issued pursuant to subsection (e)(4) are designated Non-Transferable South Coast Nearshore Fishery Permits and authorize the holder to take, possess aboard a vessel, or land nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, in the South Coast Region only. (5) A non-transferable Nearshore Fishery Permit shall become null and void upon the death of the permit holder.

[…No proposed changes to subsection (f)]

(g) Permit Transfers, Procedures and Timelines. (1) If the combined total of transferable and non-transferable Nearshore Fishery permits in a regional management area is greater than the capacity goal for that regional management area on or after April 1, 2003, the following provisions for permit transfers are in effect: (A) A Nearshore Fishery Permit issued pursuant to this section may be voluntarily transferred by the permittee, if the transferee (person to whom the permit is to be issued) has never been convicted of a violation of any provision of these regulations or of the Fish and Game Code pertaining to the commercial take of nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR. Until the number of permits in a regional management area equals or falls below the capacity goal for that regional management area, a permit may only be transferred if one additional transferable permit for the same regional management area is surrendered to the department for cancellation at the same time the application for the transfer is submitted to the department. (B) A Nearshore Fishery Permit may be transferred pursuant to this section to a person only if that person holds a commercial fishing license issued pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 7850 and submits to the department a notarized letter from each of the permittees described in subdivision (A), that each includes a statement identifying the -2- person to whom the Nearshore Fishery Permit is to be transferred and setting forth the conditions of the transfer. (C) Application for transfer of a Nearshore Fishery Permit, in the form of a notarized letter, shall be submitted to the department by the transferee. (D) Upon determining that the transferee of the Nearshore Fishery Permit is qualified to receive a Nearshore Fishery Permit and upon payment of all permit and transfer fees, the department shall issue a Nearshore Fishery Permit for that regional management area to the transferee that is valid for the remainder of the then current fishing season. At the time the permit transfer is complete the additional transferable Nearshore Fishery Permit is required to be surrendered by the transferee pursuant to subsection (g)(1)(A). If the transferee holds a Non-Transferable Nearshore Fishery Permit, that permit shall be cancelled. (E) After the transfer of a person's Nearshore Fishery Permit, the former permit holder may not take, possess, transfer, or sell any nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, for commercial purposes unless otherwise permitted by law. (2) Should the combined total of transferable and non-transferable Nearshore Fishery Permits in a regional management area fall below the capacity goal, the commission may prescribe criteria for the transfer of permits or the issuance of additional permits pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act following public notice and not less than one public hearing. (3) A transferable Nearshore Fishery Permit issued pursuant to this section may be transferred to the estate of a permittee who has died only for the purpose of transferring the Nearshore Fishery Permit to another person. (A) Such transfer may be considered if the estate makes application, in the form of a notarized letter, for the transfer within one year of the date of death as listed on the death certificate. (B) The estate is responsible for any permit renewal fees under subsection (n) of this Section or Section 150.03, Title 14, CCR. (4) The Nearshore Fishery Permit in the estate of a deceased permittee may be transferred to any person who meets all of the following qualifications: (A) The person, at that time, holds a commercial fishing license issued pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 7850. (B) The person has never been convicted of a violation of any provision of these regulations or of the Fish and Game Code pertaining to the commercial take of nearshore fish stocks. (C) The transfer of the permit is subject to subsection (g)(1) and (2) above. (5) A Nearshore Fishery Permit in the estate of a deceased permittee that is transferred to an immediate family member (spouse, child, grandchild, parent, or sibling) or to a partner as described in Fish and Game Code Section 8102 is exempt from the requirements in subsection (g)(1) and (2) above. (1) Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 8587.1(b), Fish and Game Code Section 7857(j) is made inoperative as applied to the commercial nearshore fishery. (2) A person with a valid transferable nearshore fishery permit that has not been

-3- suspended or revoked may transfer his/her permit to a licensed California commercial fisherman. The permit shall be transferred for use in the same regional management area listed on the permit. (3) Upon the death of a person with a valid transferable nearshore fishery permit, that person’s estate shall immediately, temporarily relinquish the permit to the department’s License and Revenue Branch. The estate may renew the permit as provided for in this section if needed to keep the permit valid. The estate of the decedent may transfer the permit pursuant to this section no later than two (2) years from the date of death of the permit holder as listed on the death certificate. (4) The permit holder or the estate of the deceased permit holder shall submit the notarized transfer application and the nonrefundable permit transfer fee specified in Section 705 for each permit transfer. The transfer shall take effect on the date on the written notice of approval of the application given to the transferee by the department. The nearshore fishery permit shall be valid for the remainder of the permit year and may be renewed in subsequent years pursuant to this section. (5) An application for a transfer of a nearshore fishery permit shall be deferred when the current permit holder is awaiting final resolution of any pending criminal, civil and/or administrative action that could affect the status of the permit. (6) If a transferable nearshore fishery permit is transferred to a person with a valid non- transferable nearshore fishery permit, the non-transferable nearshore fishery permit shall become null and void and the permit shall be immediately surrendered to the department’s License and Revenue Branch. (7) Upon the death of a person with a valid non-transferable nearshore fishery permit, the permit shall become null and void and the estate shall immediately surrender the permit to the department’s License and Revenue Branch.

[…No proposed changes to subsections (h) through (l)] (m) Appeals. (1) Any applicant who is denied initial issuance of a Nearshore Fishery Permit for any reason may appeal to the department in writing describing the basis for the appeal. The appeal shall be received or, if mailed, postmarked, no later than March 31, 2004. The appeal shall be reviewed and decided by the department. The decision of the department may be appealed in writing to the commission within 60 days of the date of the department's denial. (2) Renewal Appeals. Late renewal appeal provisions are specified in Fish and Game Code Section 7852.2. (3) Any applicant who is denied transfer of a Nearshore Fishery Permit may appeal to the department in writing describing the basis for the appeal. The appeal shall be reviewed and decided by the department. The decision of the department may be appealed in writing to the commission within 60 days of the date of the department's denial.Any person who is denied transfer of a transferable nearshore fishery permit may submit a written request for an appeal to the commission within 60 calendar days of the date of the department’s denial.

-4-

(n) Fees. Notwithstanding Fish and Game Code Section 8587, the fees for a Nearshore Fishery Permit under the restricted access program shall be as follows: (1) The department shall charge an annual fee for each transferable Nearshore Fishery Permit as specified in Section 705. (2) The department shall charge an annual fee for each Non-Transferable Nearshore Fishery Permit as specified in Section 705. (3) The department shall charge a non-refundable fee for each permit transfer as specified in Section 705. If more than one permit is required for the transfer, the fee specified in Section 705 shall be charged.

[…No proposed changes to subsection (o)]

Note: Authority cited: Sections 713, 1050, 7071 and 8587.1, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 713, 1050, 7071, 7850, 7852.2, 7857, 7858, 8043, 8046, 8102, 8587, 8587.1, 8588, 8589.5 and 8589.7, Fish and Game Code.

Section 150.02, Title 14, CCR is amended as follows: § 150.02. Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permits; Control Date for Other Nearshore Species. Control Dates for Other Nearshore Species; Permits to Commercially Take Deeper Nearshore Fish Species.

[…No proposed changes to subsections (a) through (c)]

(d) Fees. (A) The fee for a deeper nearshore species fishery permit is specified in Section 705. (B) The nonrefundable fee to transfer a deeper nearshore species fishery permit is specified in Section 705.

[…No proposed changes to subsections (e) through (i)]

(j) Permit Transfers, Procedures, and Timelines. (1) Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 8587.1(b), Fish and Game Code Section 7857(j) is made inoperative as applied to the commercial deeper nearshore fishery. (2) Upon the effective date of these regulations, each person possessing a valid deeper nearshore species fishery permit that has not been suspended or revoked shall have his or her permit designated by the department as a transferable deeper nearshore species fishery permit. (3) A person with a valid transferable deeper nearshore species fishery permit that has not been suspended or revoked may transfer his/her permit to a licensed California commercial fisherman. -5-

(4) Upon the death of a person with a valid transferable deeper nearshore species fishery permit, the estate of a person with a valid transferable deeper nearshore species fishery permit shall immediately temporarily relinquish the permit to the department’s License and Revenue Branch. The estate may renew the permit as provided for in this section if needed to keep the permit valid. The estate of the decedent may transfer the permit pursuant to this section no later than two (2) years from the date of death of the permit holder as listed on the death certificate. (5) The permit holder or the estate of the deceased permit holder shall submit the notarized transfer application and the nonrefundable permit transfer fee specified in Section 705 for each permit transfer. The transfer shall take effect on the date of the written notice of approval of the application given to the transferee by the department. The deeper nearshore species fishery permit shall be valid for the remainder of the permit year and may be renewed in subsequent years pursuant to this section. (6) An application for a transfer of a deeper nearshore species fishery permit shall be deferred when the current permit holder is awaiting final resolution of any pending criminal, civil and/or administrative action that could affect the status of the permit. (7) Any applicant who is denied transfer of a deeper nearshore species fishery permit may submit a written request for an appeal to the commission within 60 calendar days of the date of the department’s denial. Note: Authority cited: Sections 713, 1050, 7071 and 8587.1, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 1050, 7071, 7852.2, 7857, 7858, 8585.5 and 8587.1, Fish and Game Code.

Section 150.03, Title 14, CCR is amended as follows: § 150.03. Nearshore Fishery Gear Endorsement Program.

[…No proposed changes to subsections (a) through (b)] (c) Qualifications for Gear Endorsement. A transferable gear endorsement shall be issued upon application only to a person who has a valid 2003-2004 transferable Nearshore Fishery Permit, issued pursuant to Section 150, Title 14, CCR, for a specific regional management area as defined in Section 52.04, Title 14, CCR. A non- transferable gear endorsement shall be issued upon application only to a person who has a valid 2003-2004 non-transferable Nearshore Fishery Permit, issued pursuant to Section 150, Title 14, CCR, for a specific regional management area as defined in Section 52.04, Title 14, CCR. The following qualifying criteria shall be used to determine eligibility for either a transferable or non-transferable trap endorsement: (1) North Coast Region Trap Endorsement. A trap endorsement allows the permittee to use trap gear when taking nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, in addition to gear authorized under Section 150(l), Title 14, CCR. A trap endorsement shall be attached to the North Coast Region Nearshore Fishery Permit issued to a person who has satisfied the following requirements: (A) has a valid 2002-2003 general trap permit that has not been suspended or revoked, and -6-

(B) has landed at least 1,000 pounds of nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, between January 1, 1994 and October 20, 2000 that were taken with trap gear. (C) landings of nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, used to qualify must have been made at ports located within the North Coast Region as defined in Section 52.04, Title 14, CCR, as documented by department landing receipts submitted in his name and commercial fishing license identification number pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 8046. (2) North-Central Coast Region Trap Endorsement. A trap endorsement allows the permittee to use trap gear when taking nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, in addition to gear authorized under Section 150(l), Title 14, CCR. A trap endorsement shall be attached to the North-Central Coast Region Nearshore Fishery Permit issued to a person who has satisfied the following requirements: (A) has a valid 2002-2003 general trap permit that has not been suspended or revoked, and (B) has landed at least 1,000 pounds of nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, between January 1, 1994 and October 20, 2000 that were taken with trap gear. (C) landings of nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, used to qualify must have been made at ports located within the North-Central Coast Region as defined in Section 52.04, Title 14, CCR, as documented by department landing receipts submitted in his name and commercial fishing license identification number pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 8046. (3) South-Central Coast Region Trap Endorsement. A trap endorsement allows the permittee to use trap gear when taking nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, in addition to gear authorized under Section 150(l), Title 14, CCR. A trap endorsement shall be attached to the South-Central Coast Region Nearshore Fishery Permit issued to a person who has satisfied the requirements of either (A), or (B) and (C) below: (A) has a valid 2002-2003 finfish trap permit that has not be suspended or revoked, or (B) has a valid 2002-2003 general trap permit that has not been suspended or revoked, and has landed at least 500 pounds of nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, in each of 3 calendar years during the period January 1, 1994 through October 20, 2000 that were taken with trap gear. (C) landings of nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, used to qualify must have been made at ports located within the South-Central Coast Region as defined in Section 52.04, Title 14, CCR, as documented by department landing receipts submitted in his name and commercial fishing license identification number pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 8046. (4) South Coast Region Trap Endorsement. A trap endorsement allows the permittee to use trap gear when taking nearshore fish stocks as described in Section 150.01, Title 14, CCR, in addition to gear authorized under Section 150(l), Title 14, CCR. A trap endorsement shall be attached to the South Coast Region Nearshore Fishery Permit

-7- issued to a person who has a valid 2002-2003 finfish trap permit that has not been suspended or revoked. (5) A non-transferable trap endorsement issued under this Section shall become null and void upon the death of the permit holder.

(d) Transfer of Nearshore Fishery Permit Gear Endorsements. The transfer of a Nearshore Fishery Permit gear endorsement is subject to the provisions of Section 150(g), Title 14, CCR. Only one Nearshore Fishery Permit gear endorsement is required to transfer the gear endorsement to a new permitteeGear Endorsement Transfers, Procedures, and Timelines. (1) Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 8587.1(b), Fish and Game Code Section 7857(j) is made inoperative as applied to the commercial nearshore fishery. (2) A person with a valid transferable nearshore fishery gear endorsement that has not been suspended or revoked may transfer his/her nearshore fishery gear endorsement to a licensed California commercial fisherman with a valid Nearshore Fishery Permit for the same regional management area. The nearshore fishery gear endorsement shall be transferred for use in the same regional management area listed on the nearshore fishery gear endorsement. (3) Upon the death of a person with a valid transferable nearshore fishery gear endorsement, the estate of a person with a valid transferable nearshore fishery gear endorsement shall immediately, temporarily relinquish the nearshore fishery gear endorsement to the department’s License and Revenue Branch. The estate may renew the nearshore fishery gear endorsement as provided for in this section if needed to keep the nearshore fishery gear endorsement valid. The estate of the decedent may transfer the nearshore fishery gear endorsement pursuant to this section no later than two years from the date of death of the nearshore fishery gear endorsement holder as listed on the death certificate. (4) The nearshore fishery gear endorsement holder or the estate of the deceased nearshore fishery gear endorsement holder shall submit the notarized transfer application and the nonrefundable nearshore fishery gear endorsement transfer fee specified in Section 705 for each gear endorsement transfer. The transfer shall take effect on the date of the written notice of approval of the application given to the transferee by the department. The nearshore fishery gear endorsement shall be valid for the remainder of the permit year and may be renewed in subsequent years pursuant to this section. (5) An application for a transfer of a nearshore fishery gear endorsement shall be deferred when the current nearshore fishery gear endorsement holder is awaiting final resolution of any pending criminal, civil and/or administrative action that could affect the status of the nearshore fishery gear endorsement. (6) Upon the death of a person with a valid non-transferable nearshore fishery gear endorsement, the nearshore fishery gear endorsement shall become null and void and the estate shall immediately surrender the nearshore fishery gear endorsement to the department’s License and Revenue Branch.

-8-

[…No proposed changes to subsections (e) through (g] (h) Appeals. (1) Any applicant who is denied initial issuance of a Nearshore Fishery Permit gear endorsement for any reason may appeal to the department in writing describing the basis for the appeal. The appeal shall be received or, if mailed, postmarked, no later than March 31, 2004. The appeal shall be reviewed and decided by the department. The decision of the department may be appealed in writing to the commission within 60 days of the date of the department's denial. (2) Renewal Appeals. Late renewal appeal provisions are specified in Fish and Game Code Section 7852.2. (3) Any applicant who is denied transfer of a Nearshore Fishery Permit gear endorsement may appeal to the department in writing describing the basis for the appeal. The appeal shall be reviewed and decided by the department. The decision of the department may be appealed in writing to the commission within 60 days of the date of the department's denial. Any applicant who is denied transfer of a transferable nearshore fishery gear endorsement may submit a written request for an appeal to the commission within 60 calendar days of the date of the department’s denial.

[…No proposed changes to subsections (i) through (k)]

Note: Authority cited: Sections 713, 1050 and 8587.1, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 1050, 7852.2, 8046, 8589.5, 8589.7, 9001 and 9001.5, Fish and Game Code.

Subsection 705(b), Title 14, CCR is amended as follows: § 705 Commercial Fishing Applications, Permits, Tags and Fees.

Fees (US$) […No proposed change to subsection (a)]

(b) Transfer, Upgrade, or Change of Ownership

[…No proposed changes to subsections (b)(1) through (b)(4)]

(5) Nearshore Fishery Permit And Nearshore Fishery Trap Endorsement Transfer Application DFW 1045 (New 4/2017), incorporated by reference herein.

(A) Nearshore Fishery Permit Transfer 500[1,000.0 0-2,500.00]

-9-

(6)(B) Nearshore Fishery Trap Endorsement Transfer 75.00

(6) Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit Transfer Application DFW 1048 (New 4/2017) incorporated by reference herein.

(A) Deeper Nearshore Species Fishery Permit Transfer [1,000.00- 2,500.00]

[…No proposed changes to subsections (b)(7) through (b)(11), (c) and (d)] NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 713 and 1050, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 713 and 1050, Fish and Game Code.

-10- Tiemann, Sheri@FGC

From: Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2017 10:35 AM To: FGC Subject: Nearshore deep nearshore permits

This is Sharleen Allred. I am unable to attend the Aug 16 th meeting. I will be out of the country. I will not be able to give my opinion on this matter. I currently have a near shore. I had to purchase two nearshore and retire one in order to legally have this expensive permit. The deep nearshore on both licenses the F&G would not allow me to transfer. I saw told at the time of purchase from the F&G that there would no longer be any additional permits issued they were going to continue to retire these permits. because of this reason I used retirement money to set my self up for future. Also f&g would not allow deep near shore transfer with the nearshore which I had two. Please notify me of the out come of this meeting so I know what further action if any I will need to proceed with or any additional information you need. Thanks you Sharleen Allred

Sent from my iPad

1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REGULATORY ACTION (Pre-publication of Notice Statement)

Add Section 128 Title 14, California Code of Regulations Re: Commercial Taking of Sea Cucumber

I. Date of Initial Statement of Reasons: July 11, 2017

II. Dates and Locations of Scheduled Hearings:

(a) Notice Hearing: Date: June 22, 2017 Location: Smith River, CA

(b) Discussion Hearing: Date: August 16, 2017 Location: Sacramento, CA

(c) Adoption Hearing: Date: October 12, 2017 Location: Atascadero, CA

III. Description of Regulatory Action:

(a) Statement of Specific Purpose of Regulation Change and Factual Basis for Determining that Regulation Change is Reasonably Necessary:

The proposed addition of Section 128, Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Commercial Take of Sea Cucumber, is necessary because research and fishery analyses detail concerning trends regarding the warty sea cucumber commercial fishery and indicate that the continued unregulated harvesting of warty sea cucumber during their spawning period poses a significant risk to the sustainability of this fishery.

Current Laws

Current laws for the commercial sea cucumber fishery are found in Fish and Game Code (FGC) sections 8405, 8405.1, 8405.2, and 8405.3. These statutes are permissive with only permits and permitting provisions for the sea cucumber fishery (e.g., gear type, fees, records, renewal, transfer, and number of permits).

The commercial sea cucumber fishery is a limited entry fishery with separate permits for the dive and trawl fisheries, which primarily target warty (Apostichopus parvimensis) and giant red (Apostichopus californicus) species, respectively. In 2016, 82 dive permits and 16 trawl permits were issued. A trawl -1-

permit can be converted to a dive permit during a transfer, but a dive permit cannot be converted to a trawl permit (Section 8405.2, FGC). Regardless of the permit type, all commercial sea cucumber fishermen are required to fill out a commercial fishing log detailing their daily fishing activities (Subsection 8405.1(c), FGC).

There are currently no seasons, size limits, catch limits, or limits on dive gear usage (e.g., SCUBA and surface supplied air) for the sea cucumber dive fishery. However, under FGC subsection 8405.3(a), the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) has the authority to adopt regulations that are reasonably necessary to protect the sea cucumber resource, to assure a sustainable sea cucumber fishery, or to enhance enforcement activities.

From 2013-2016, the Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) conducted fishery analyses and collected additional essential fishery information required to inform the development of management measures for the fishery. At the March 2017 meeting of the Commission’s Marine Resource Committee, the Department presented its research findings and status of the warty sea cucumber commercial fishery. Based on the analysis and feedback from the fishery in the “2014 CDFW Sea Cucumber Diver Survey: Summary of Key Results” (Attachment 1), the Department recommended a seasonal closure as the initial step for addressing sustainability concerns with the fishery.

The Department developed three seasonal closure options for consideration by the Commission after an evaluation of fishery trends, reproductive patterns of the species, and meetings with commercial sea cucumber divers in March and April of 2017. If adopted, the Department is committed to evaluating the effectiveness of the seasonal closure and working with the fishery and others to develop additional management measures pursuant to goals and objectives of the Marine Life Management Act (Section 7050, et seq., FGC).

Current global demand and almost a complete lack of regulations for the fishery will continue to put the fishery at risk, if no action happens. Sea cucumber fisheries around the world that have shown similar trends have resulted in localized depletion and/or collapse of the fishery due to many of the fisheries developing faster than management can respond (Anderson, 2011). In addition, effective management measures for sea cucumber fisheries have been particularly difficult to develop, as many species are data poor, display late maturity, are long lived, have low rates of recruitment, and exhibit density- dependent reproduction.

Fishery Analyses Key Findings

The first recorded commercial landings of warty sea cucumber occurred in 1980, with landings remaining relatively low until 1990 (Figure 1). From 1990 to 1998, -2-

landings went from 50,000 pounds to over 600,000 pounds as market demand increased. The rapid increase in value from 2005 to 2011 is due to the recent increase in market demand from foreign markets resulting in a dramatic increase in the ex-vessel price paid per pound (Figure 2). Global harvest of sea cucumber has expanded greatly in recent times to meet growing demand in Asia. A study examining the global impacts of this demand found that 81 percent of 37 global fisheries have experienced population declines due to overexploitation and that new sea cucumber fisheries expanded five to six times faster in the 1990’s than they did in the 1960’s.

1. Since 2011, landings and ex-vessel value have declined sharply with 2016 landings at a 20-year low and value at an 11-year low (Figure 1). The decline in ex-vessel value has occurred despite the average ex- vessel price per pound increasing (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Sea cucumber dive landings and total ex-vessel value from 1980-2016. Data source: CDFW landings data.

-3-

Figure 2. Average price per pound paid for sea cucumber harvested by the commercial dive fishery from 1980-2016. Lines extending from the averages indicate 95% confidence intervals of the average. Data source: CDFW landings data.

In 2011, the total ex-vessel value for the commercial fishery reached a record high of $2.2 million and landings reached approximately 553,000 pounds. While the average price per pound continued to increase to a record high in 2016 (Figure 2), both annual ex-vessel value and landings have declined continuously since 2011, with 2016 ex-vessel value reaching an 11-year low of approximately $353,000 and landings reaching a 20-year low of approximately 66,000 pounds (Figure 1). The Department is aware that landings data are influenced by sea cucumbers being landed in both an eviscerated (cut) and whole (un-cut) state; however, the Department has found that declines in landings cannot be fully explained by changes in processing practices alone.

According to the 2014 Sea Cucumber Diver Survey (Attachment 1), a majority of individuals believed that the change in processing occurred sometime between 2008 and 2010. Looking at the period from 2008 to 2010 as the most relatable to current processing practices, a continued declining trend from this earlier period until now can be assumed. In addition, the total ex-vessel value has also reached an 11-year low in 2016, suggesting that regardless of landing condition (cut vs. un-cut) the fishery is generating increasingly less ex-vessel value. Considering that demand for sea cucumber is on the rise, as evidence by the average price/lb continually increasing (Figure 2), it is concerning that landings are trending down as this is a classic example of market demand exceeding the ability of the resource to sustain itself. Sea cucumber and other fisheries that have collapsed in the past typically show similar trends in increasing value and decreasing catch. -4-

2. Dive catch per unit effort has declined sharply over the history of the fishery (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Average catch per unit effort (CPUE) for the commercial dive fishery from 1993-2016. Lines extending from the averages indicate 95% confidence intervals of the average. Data source: CDFW landings data.

Catch per unit effort (CPUE) data from commercial dive log data from 1993 to 2016 indicates that the amount of sea cucumber harvested per dive hour is also on a downward trend, with average CPUE for 2016 reaching a record low of 47 pounds per dive hour (Figure 3). As with landings, declines in CPUE are not fully explained by changes in processing practices as evidenced by CPUE declining by 51 percent since 2009, the estimated year that most divers believe that a majority of the fishery was landing product in a cut state. Considering these fishery trends, the Department is concerned with the sustainability of the fishery.

Department Research Findings

Warty sea cucumbers are broadcast spawners with fertilization occurring externally in the water column, requiring individuals to be in close proximity to each other for successful reproduction. The sexes are separate and occur in approximate ratios of 1:1. The reproductive cycle of warty sea cucumber was first described in 1983 for individuals collected off Santa Catalina Island (Muscat, 1983). Research over the course of three years (1980-1982) found that individuals reached peak maturation during the months of March-April with peak spawning occurring during the months of May-June. Department research

-5-

findings on reproductive cycle of the species are consistent with previous findings. The similar findings of these two studies conducted over 30 years apart provide evidence that warty sea cucumber exhibit consistent seasonal spawning behavior during spring and early summer periods.

1. The reproductive condition of warty sea cucumbers increases in early spring with spawning occurring from late spring into summer (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Reproductive condition represented by Gonadosomatic Index (GSI) (%) (Gonad Index) of warty sea cucumber by month from 2013- 2016. (GSI= (gonad weight/ total body weight) x 100) Data source: CDFW data.

Department research findings from 2013-2016 on 1,462 individuals collected from the northern Channel Islands demonstrate that warty sea cucumber ovaries and testes begin maturing in January with gonads continuing to develop through February and March, and reaching peak maturation in April-May as measured using Gonadosomatic index (GSI) analysis (Figure 4). GSI is used to determine the degree of sexual maturity by comparing the proportion of each individual’s gonad mass relative to its total body mass. Although it appears that some spawning may begin as early as April, most spawning occurs from May-July, as shown by the decreasing average GSI values from May to July (Figure 4).

2. Increased densities from March to July indicate formation of spawning aggregations (Figure 5).

Department dive surveys inside and outside marine protected areas (MPAs) at the northern Channel Islands were conducted simultaneously with the reproductive research. The MPAs chosen for this study do not allow the take of warty sea cucumber and represent populations that are in as close to natural

-6-

state as possible. The research revealed that warty sea cucumber densities are considerably lower in fished sites when compared to the MPA sites and that densities inside MPAs build to peak levels during maturation and spawning periods in March-July (Figure 5). This build-up of densities is related to individuals aggregating for spawning. Since warty sea cucumber are broadcast spawners, reproductive success is dependent upon individuals of the opposite sex being in close proximity to increase the chances of successful fertilization. Once spawning activities begin to dwindle in July and August, the densities of warty sea cucumber begin to decline, with annual lows in density observed in MPAs during October and November (Figure 5, Table 1).

The seasonal aggregation behavior displayed by warty sea cucumber results in the resource being the most available to dive harvest during sensitive reproductive periods. For this research, MPAs provided an invaluable tool for determining the seasonality of spawning aggregations as densities outside MPAs did not display measurable seasonal differences in density.

Figure 5. Seasonal densities of warty sea cucumber (number per square meter) measured inside and outside of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) at Anacapa (ANA) and Santa Cruz Islands (SCR) from 2013-2016. Each panel represents a different site with the site name in the panel heading. Data source: CDFW data.

-7-

3. The fishery primarily harvests warty sea cucumber during peak aggregation (March –June) and spawning months (May- July) (Figure 6).

Figure 6. a) Average annual commercial landings by month from 2012- 2016 and b) Average total ex-vessel value by month from 2012-2016. Lines extending from the averages indicate 95% confidence intervals of the average. Data source: CDFW landings data.

From 2012-2016, the months of March-July accounted for approximately 75 percent of the total dive landings, with the fishery peaking in both landings (Figure 6a) and ex-vessel value (Figure 6b) in June. Reasons for this peak in value and landings in June can mostly be attributed to the high CPUE that spawning aggregations provide divers. The practice of harvesting before and during peak spawning times results in the take of individuals before they have a chance to spawn, reducing productivity. Continued unregulated harvesting during the spawning season poses a significant risk to the sustainability of this fishery.

Proposed Regulation

Add Section 128, Title 14, CCR; Commercial Taking of Sea Cucumber

This regulatory proposal would add new Section 128, Title 14, CCR, for the commercial take of sea cucumber. This proposed new section will establish a closed season for commercial take of warty sea cucumber, prohibit the possession of warty sea cucumbers during the closed season, and clarify logbook requirements for commercial sea cucumber dive activities. It is necessary for the Commission to adopt new regulations to protect the sea cucumber resource and to assure a sustainable sea cucumber fishery.

-8-

Add subsection 128(a), Closed Season for Commercial Take of Warty Sea Cucumber

The proposed regulation establishes a closed season for the commercial take of warty sea cucumber during significant portions of the spawning season. This is a critical first step towards improving management of this fishery and resource.

Three seasonal closure options are provided for Commission consideration:

 April 1 to June 30; or

 March 1 to June 14; or

 January 1 to June 14.

The three options protect important aspects of the spawning period (March-July) and strike a balance between the needs of the resource and maintaining the fishery it supports. Each option includes critical aspects of the reproductive stages of aggregation, maturation, and spawning while providing fishing opportunities either before and/or near the end of the reproductive season.

To aid the decision-making process, the reproductive and fishery importance of each month is described in Table 1a, the biological and fishery pros and cons for each option are provided below, and results from a May 2017 “Commercial Sea Cucumber Diver Survey Results for Three Seasonal Closure Options” (Attachment 2) indicate similar levels of preference for options 1 and 3. Most divers ranked them as either their most or least preferred options (Attachment 2, Figure 1). This suggests that two groups exist in the fishery, those that want a shorter closure and those that want a longer closure. However, there is strong agreement between the two groups on option 2, as all respondents ranked it as either their first or second preferred option. No respondents listed option 2 as their least preferred option.

-9-

Table 1 a) Warty sea cucumber reproductive cycle (Department research 2013-2016), average landings, and ex-vessel value of the dive fishery by month (monthly averages calculated using 2012-2016 Department landings data). b) Description of the three proposed seasonal closure options including the months that would be open or closed under each option.

a) January February March April May June July August September October November December Low Low Moderate High Critical Critical Moderate Low Low Low Low Low ‐gonads ‐gonads ‐ gonads ‐peak gonad ‐peak gonad ‐peak gonad ‐gonads reduced ‐gonads extremely ‐gonads ‐gonads ‐gonads ‐gonads developing developing developing maturation maturation maturation with after spawning reduced or absent reduced or reduced or reduced or developing ‐aggregations ‐aggregations nearing ‐some spawning ‐peak spawning some reduction ‐spawning ‐spawning likely absent absent absent ‐aggregations begin building building to 50‐ maturation ‐peak ‐peak due to spawning lessens completed ‐spawning ‐spawning ‐spawning begin building Reproductive and can range 100% of peak ‐aggregations aggregations 75‐ aggregations 75‐ ‐peak spawning ‐aggregations ‐aggregations completed completed completed to 0‐25% of Importance between 25‐ density building to 75‐ 100% of peak 100% of peak ‐peak generally start to declining but can ‐aggregations ‐aggregations ‐aggregations peak density 100% of peak 100% of peak density density aggregations 75‐ decline but can still be between declining to 0‐ near 0% of near 0% of density density 100% of peak still be between 50‐100% of peak 25% of peak peak density peak density densities 75‐100% of peak density density density

Average Percentage of 3.4 6.8 9.7 14.2 16.1 17.6 17.3 11.1 2.9 0.3 0.2 0.3 Annual Landings Average Annual $27,691 $52,219 $83,069 $114,821 $127,765 $142,993 $137,761 $90,575 $23,265 $3,705 $837 $1,612 Ex‐Vessel Value Average number of 11 22 26 29 29 31 27 20 11 4 2 3 participants Importance to Fishery Based on Ex‐Vessel Value 876 4 3 1 2 59101211 (rank 1‐12) b) Seasonal Closure Options Options January February March April May June July August September October November December 1. (April 1 ‐ June 30) Open Closed Open 2. (March 1 ‐ June 14) Open Closed Open 3. (January 1 ‐ June 14) Closed Open

-10-

Option 1: From April 1-June 30 (3 months)

Pros:

Biological:

 Protects the formation of aggregations and gonad development in April.

 Protects the two most critical months for peak maturity and spawning (May and June).

Fishery:

 Allows for harvest during July, August, and March, which are the second, fifth, and sixth most valuable months for the fishery, respectively.

 Allows for harvest from January through March prior to peak spawning periods and July after most spawning has occurred.

 Provides the most fishing opportunity of all three options.

Cons:

Biological:

 Individuals that are developing gonads and forming aggregations in March would be available for harvest.

 If levels of fishing in March increase due to effort shift, then densities may be reduced to levels that would impact successful fertilization during April- June, potentially reducing much of the benefits of protection during this period.

Fishery:

 The fourth, third, and first most valuable months to fishery value would not be open to harvesting (April-June); however, it is expected that a portion of individuals that were historically harvested during these months would be available for harvest once the fishery opens on July 1.

Option 2: March 1-June 14 (3.5 months)

Pros:

Biological:

-11-

 Protects a majority of the months when aggregations form and peak in density (March-June).

 Protects key periods for gonad development (March-May).

 Protects approximately 75 percent of the peak spawning months (May- June).

 Anticipated that most individuals will have spawned before the fishery would re-open on June 15.

Fishery:

 Allow for harvest during two weeks of June, which is historically the most valuable month and all of July and August, which are the second and fifth most valuable months to the fishery, respectively.

 Allows for fishing opportunity in January and February prior to spawning aggregations fully developing and it is expected that CPUE will be enhanced once the fishery re-opens on June 15.

Cons:

Biological:

 Two weeks of June, one of the two most critical spawning months would be open to harvesting, likely resulting in the harvest of some individuals before they spawn.

Fishery:

 Two weeks of historically the most significant landing month (June) would not be open to harvesting. Similar level of impacts to the fishery as option 1, but results in 15 fewer fishing days with the tradeoff of closing March for opening two weeks in June.

Option 3: From January 1-June 14 (5.5 months)

Pros:

Biological:

 Like option 2, protects a majority of aggregation formation (March-June) and approximately 75 percent of peak spawning periods (May-June).

-12-

 Some added benefit by including January and February when densities generally start to increase and gonad development commences.

Fishery:

 Likely to result in the highest CPUE of the three options once the fishery re-opens as aggregations are completely protected prior to the season opening.  Like option 2, allows for harvest during two weeks of June, the most valuable month and all of July and August, which are the second and fifth most valuable months to the fishery, respectively.

Cons:

Biological:

 Like option 2, two weeks of June, one of the two most critical spawning months would be open to harvesting, likely resulting in the harvest of some individuals before they spawn.

Fishery:

 Largest impact to the fishery of the three options, with the greatest impacts to divers who only have sea cucumber permits (17 individuals). The other 65 divers have sea urchin permits and can dive for urchin during the sea cucumber closure.  Expect to result in the “race to fish” once the fishery re-opens due to low sea cucumber availability from September to December, essentially creating a two and one-half to three-month fishing season.

Add subsection 128(b), Prohibiting Possession of Warty Sea Cucumber for Commercial Purposes during the Closed Season

The proposed regulation would prohibit the possession of warty sea cucumber aboard any commercial fishing vessel as well as the landing of warty sea cucumber during the proposed closed season. Since the commercial take of warty sea cucumber during the proposed closed season (subsection 128(a)) is prohibited, the regulation would also require any incidentally caught warty sea cucumber to be immediately returned to the water. The proposed subsection 128(b) is designed to prevent the take, possession, and/or landing of warty sea cucumber by any sea cucumber permit holder during the closed season proposed in subsection 128(a). While warty sea cucumber is almost exclusively taken by divers, minor incidental catch of the species also occurs in the trawl fishery. As such, the proposed regulation would clarify that the possession or landing of warty sea cucumber aboard any commercial fishing vessel during the

-13-

closed season, regardless of the method of take, is prohibited and any incidental catch must be immediately returned to the water.

Add subsection 128(c), Commercial Dive Fishing Logbook Requirement

The proposed regulation would clarify the recordkeeping requirements already laid out in FGC Section 8405.1 by referring to Section 120.7, Title 14, CCR, which specifies the Commercial Dive Fishing logbook form (DFG 120.7), incorporated by reference. The proposed regulation is needed to provide clear rules for recordkeeping under a sea cucumber dive permit and improve regulatory enforcement.

FGC subsection 8405.1(c) requires all sea cucumber permit holders to complete and submit an accurate record of their fishing activities on forms provided by the Department. Currently, each sea cucumber permit is specific to a method of take (i.e., trawl permit or dive permit). Section 176, Title 14, CCR, specifically describes the Department logbook form that commercial trawlers must use to record their trawl fishing activity. However, a similar regulation identifying a specific Department logbook form does not currently exist for divers taking sea cucumbers for commercial purposes. Each commercial sea cucumber dive permit holder currently fills out a daily dive record using the Department’s Commercial Dive Fishing Log, but use of the form is not explicitly referenced in Title 14.

Benefits of the Proposed Regulation

It is the policy of this State to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and, where feasible, restoration of California’s marine living resources for the benefit of all the citizens of the State. The objectives of this policy include, but are not limited to, conserving the health and diversity of marine ecosystems and marine living resources; allowing and encouraging only those activities and uses of living marine resources that are sustainable; and recognizing the importance to the economy and the culture of California of sustainable sport and commercial fisheries.

Over time, a seasonal closure will have a positive impact on population growth of the resource and benefit the fishery.

(b) Authority and Reference Sections from Fish and Game Code for Regulation:

Authority: Section 8405.3, Fish and Game Code.

Reference: Sections 8026, 8405.1, 8405.3 and 8500, Fish and Game Code.

-14-

(c) Specific Technology or Equipment Required by Regulatory Change: None.

(d) Identification of Reports or Documents Supporting Regulation Change:

1. Attachment 1: 2014 CDFW Sea Cucumber Diver Survey: Summary of Key Results.

2. Attachment 2: Commercial Sea Cucumber Diver Survey Results for Three Seasonal Closure Options, May 25, 2017.

3. Anderson, S.C., Flemming, J.M., Watson, R., Lotze, H.K. 2011. Serial exploitation of global sea cucumber fisheries. Fish and Fisheries. 12, 317–339.

4. Caddy, J.F., Defeo, O. 2003. Enhancing or restoring the productivity of natural populations of shellfish and other marine invertebrate resources. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 448. Rome, FAO. 159p.

5. Chavez, E.A., Salgado-Rogel, MA. DE Lourdes, Palleiro-Nayar, J. 2011. Stock assessment of the warty sea cucumber fishery (Parastichopus parvimensis) of NW Baja California. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations. Vol. 52. 136-147p.

6. Muscat, A.M. 1983. Population dynamics and the effect on the infauna of the deposit feeding holothurian (Parastichopus parvimensis) (Clark). PhD Dissertation. University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

7. Purcell, S.W., Lovatelli, A. (eds), Vasconcellos, M.(eds), Yimin, Y. (eds). 2010. Managing sea cucumber fisheries with an ecosystem approach. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 520. Rome, FAO. 157p.

8. Rogers-Bennett, L., Ono, D.S. 2001. Sea cucumbers. California living marine resources: A status report. California Department of Fish and Game. 131–134 p.

9. Schroeter, S.C., Reed, D.C., Kushner, D.J., Estes, J.A., Ono, D.S., 2001. The use of marine reserves in evaluating the dive fishery for the warty sea cucumber (Parastichopus parvimensis) in California, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 58, 1773–1781.

10. Toral-Granda, V., Lovatelli, A., Vasconcellos, M. (eds). 2008. Sea cucumbers. A global review of fisheries and trade. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. No. 516. Rome, FAO. 317p.

-15-

(e) Public Discussions of Proposed Regulations Prior to Notice Publication:

1. March 16, 2017, Los Alamitos, California. The Department presented and discussed the status of the California sea cucumber dive fishery at an outreach meeting to commercial sea cucumber fishermen.

2. March 23, 2017, San Clemente, California. The Department briefed the Marine Resources Committee on the status of the commercial sea cucumber dive fishery and discussed potential sea cucumber regulation changes.

3. April 28, 2017, Oxnard, California. The Department presented sea cucumber dive permit holders in the Santa Barbara/Ventura area with the information regarding the trend of the fishery; the permit holders were given opportunity to voice their opinions concerning potential management measures.

IV. Description of Reasonable Alternatives to Regulatory Action:

(a) Alternatives to Regulation Change:

Total Allowable Catch (TAC): A cap on overall harvest was considered and rejected. This alternative is not deemed viable at this time because historical landings data is used as the basis for determining a sustainable TAC, but such data is not available. Without precise landing data, the Department cannot effectively determine a sustainable quota.

(b) No Change Alternative:

Under the no change alternative, the commercial take of warty sea cucumber during the spawning season will continue to occur without any restriction on take. Research and fishery analyses detail concerning trends regarding the warty sea cucumber commercial fishery and indicate that the continued unregulated harvesting of warty sea cucumber during their spawning period poses a significant risk to the sustainability of this fishery. The intent of the proposed action is the improved management of the warty sea cucumber resource and fishery and a step towards the long- term sustainability of the resource and viability of the commercial fishery in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Marine Life Management Act and provisions of FGC subsection 8405.3(a).

(c) Consideration of Alternatives:

In view of information currently possessed, no reasonable alternative considered would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulation is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to -16-

affected private persons than the proposed regulation, or would be more cost effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

(d) Description of Reasonable Alternatives That Would Lessen Adverse Impact on Small Business:

The proposed action will affect a relatively small number of jobs (17-21) engaged in commercial take of warty sea cucumber as a sole source of income. However, these individuals may sustain their income through the harvest of warty sea cucumbers in the remaining portion of the season. No other reasonable alternative was identified that would lessen the impact on small business while providing the same level of protection to the warty sea cucumber resource.

V. Mitigation Measures Required by Regulatory Action:

The proposed regulatory action will have no negative impact on the environment; therefore, no mitigation measures are needed.

VI. Impact of Regulatory Action:

The potential for significant statewide adverse economic impacts that might result from the proposed regulatory action has been assessed, and the following initial determinations relative to the required statutory categories have been made:

(a) Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Businesses, Including the Ability of California Businesses to Compete with Businesses in Other States:

The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states because harvest quantities by California permittees are not anticipated to fall and a commercial warty sea cucumber fishery only exists in the State of California and there are no like products that currently compete as substitutes for warty sea cucumber. While no other state has a commercial fishery that poses competition, Mexico does have a warty sea cucumber fishery. However, Mexico’s fishery has been exhibiting similar signs of decline. In light of the fact that other sea cucumber stocks in the world have been overharvested, it is critical to maintain a sustainable sea cucumber fishery in California.

(b) Impact on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State, the Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses, or the Expansion of Businesses in California; Benefits of the Regulation to -17-

the Health and Welfare of California Residents, Worker Safety, and the State’s Environment:

The Commission anticipates limited short-term negative impacts from a curtailed season length on the creation or elimination of jobs within the State, with the potential for the direct, indirect, and induced loss of 17 to 21 jobs that are directly or indirectly linked to the warty sea cucumber fishery statewide.

The proposed action is not anticipated to exert significant impact on the creation of new businesses, the elimination of existing businesses, or the expansion of businesses in California because the proposed action will not constitute a substantial year-round drop in fishery activity.

The Commission anticipates generalized benefits to the health and welfare of California residents through the improved reporting and better monitoring of the fishery.

No impacts to worker safety are anticipated.

The State’s environment should benefit by the improved management of the warty sea cucumber resource with the goal of creating a more sustainable sea cucumber dive fishery, which would benefit existing businesses in the long term.

(c) Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person or Business:

The agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. The annual income from sea cucumber harvesting is not likely to change for individuals since the regulation only changes the season dates. The proposal does not impose additional compliance costs such as gear, fees, etc. The individuals comprising the sea cucumber fishery support the changes in order to sustain the fishery for future years.

(d) Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding to the State: None.

(e) Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies: None.

(f) Programs Mandated on Local Agencies or School Districts: None.

(g) Costs Imposed on Any Local Agency or School District that is Required to be Reimbursed Under Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4, Government Code: None.

-18-

(h) Effect on Housing Costs: None.

VII. Economic Impact Assessment:

Reported commercial landings of warty sea cucumber have shown a five-year declining trend since ex-vessel value peaked in 2011, with 2016 landings at a 20-year low (see Figure 1). Dive logbook data also indicate a continuous decline in CPUE over this period, which translates to declining profit margins for fishermen (see Figure 3). Outreach in the fishery community showed the strongest support for a seasonal closure to begin to address the long-term sustainability of the warty sea cucumber fishery.

The three proposed seasonal closure periods include all or part of the key spawning period that spans from March through June. Estimates for the annual economic impacts of each option are shown in Table 2. These values show the difference between the historical average annual values and the projected outcome for the proposed scenarios in which three to five and one-half months of historical catch is forgone. As such, this static comparison tends to over- state the probable impacts because fishermen’s behavior is likely to adjust to the new season length. Effort is likely to shift to the remaining open months and the ex-vessel value may exceed the historical average for those months. Additionally, many warty sea cucumber fishermen will pursue income in other active fisheries during the proposed seasonal closure.

Table 2. Impacts on Ex-Vessel Value, Jobs, Wages, and Total Economic Output

Total Economic Options Ex-Vessel Value Jobs Wages Output

1. (April-June) -$385,579 -17 -$202,859 -$641,898 2. (March-June 14) -$397,151 -17 -$208,947 -$661,163 3. (January-June 14) -$477,061 -21 -$250,989 -$794,194 *proposed by divers

 Option 1, a closure during peak spawning from April - June results in the lowest loss in ex-vessel value and total economic output (Table 2). These three months historically have had the highest landings and value, averaging $ 213,966 in ex- vessel value per month. Despite that, the April – June three-month closure is the shortest time and sums to the lowest aggregate impact on the fishery economy including associated businesses.

 Option 2, March – June 14, constitutes a three and one-half month closure,

-19-

which adds a small amount to the aggregate economic impact, whereas the average ex-vessel value over this period is historically less, at $188,904 per month (Table 3).

 Option 3, January – June 14, is a closure of five and one-half months but spans several months with historically low landings. While the total economic impact is the highest of the options, the historical ex-vessel value per month is the lowest, at $144,399 per month from January – June 14.

Table 3. Adverse Economic Impact Per Month By Proposed Option.

Adverse Impact/Month Options Months Closed Closed 1. (April-June) 3.0 ‐$213,966 2. (March-June 14) 3.5 ‐$188,904 3. (January-June 14) 5.5 ‐$144,399 *proposed by divers The socio-economic multipliers used to derive these estimates are specific to the warty sea cucumber fishery with linkages to an array of associated business activities. Warty sea cucumber fishing is somewhat similar to red sea urchin diving in which the typical operation involves a mid-size fishing vessel, air compression apparatus with hookah lines or scuba equipment, with one or two divers and one crew member. The first stage of warty sea cucumber processing (cutting) is increasingly onboard, while the boiling and drying is on land in facilities in the same county or some other location within the State. The final product is virtually all exported to Asia. The multiplier effect of traded goods once exported outside of the State economy limits the extent of value and income generation within the State. As products leave a region, the market, transportation, and handling costs are also “leaked” outside of the regional economy.

(a) Effects of the Regulation on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State:

The Commission anticipates limited short-term negative impacts from a curtailed season length on the creation or elimination of jobs within the State, with the potential for the total loss of 17 to 21 jobs statewide.

(b) Effects of the Regulation on the Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses Within the State:

-20-

The proposed action is not anticipated to exert significant impact on the creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses because the regulatory action will limit warty sea cucumber harvest over a few months and the total annual harvest could nearly match the historical averages in the remaining open months. Moreover, if harvest during spawning is not curtailed, the long-term economic viability of the warty sea cucumber fishery may be lost which would adversely impact the associated businesses that support the commercial dive fishery for warty sea cucumber.

(c) Effects of the Regulation on the Expansion of Businesses Currently Doing Business Within the State:

The proposed regulations are not anticipated to result in the expansion of businesses currently doing business in the State because the proposed seasonal closure is not expected change the volume of economic activity. Clarification of the logbook requirement is administrative in nature and will not impact the volume of fishing activity or the purchasing of fish.

(d) Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents:

The Department anticipates generalized benefits to the health and welfare of California residents through the improved reporting and better monitoring of the fishery.

(e) Benefits of the Regulation to Worker Safety:

The proposed regulations represent a neutral effect, offering neither benefits nor detriment to worker safety in the State.

(f) Benefits of the Regulation to the State's Environment:

The Commission anticipates benefits to the State’s environment. It is the policy of this State to ensure “the conservation, sustainable use, and, where feasible, restoration of California’s marine living resources for the benefit of all the citizens of the State” (FGC subsection 7050(b)).

Over time, a seasonal closure will have a positive impact on population growth of the resource and benefit the fishery. However, positive impacts may not be measurable for five or more years. Recent findings reported by the National Parks Kelp Forest Monitoring Program demonstrate that warty sea cucumber densities take at least 10 years to recover to pre- fishing levels once areas become fully protected from take by MPAs (D. Kushner, pers. communication). Considering these findings and that fishing will still be allowed outside of the closed season, it can be expected -21-

that warty cucumbers in fished areas may take a considerable amount of time to reach the densities needed to increase the overall productivity of the resource. MPAs will provide an invaluable tool moving forward to assess the degree to which a seasonal closure or other management measures are promoting population growth in fished areas. MPAs allow comparison between fished and non-fished areas to tease out the differences between potential effects of fishing and/or changes in environmental conditions.

-22-

Informative Digest/Policy Statement Overview

The proposed addition of new regulations in Section 128, Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR), will create a seasonal closure that would prohibit all commercial take of warty sea cucumber during a significant portion of the spawning season and prohibit the possession aboard commercial vessels and landings of warty sea cucumbers during the closed season.

Current laws governing commercial harvest of sea cucumber in California are permissive with only permits and permitting provisions for the sea cucumber fishery (Fish and Game Code (FGC) Section 8405, et seq.). There are no seasons, size limits, catch limits or limits on dive gear usage (e.g. SCUBA and surface suppled air) when commercially fishing for sea cucumber by diving or trawling.

Under FGC subsection 8405.3(a), the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) has the authority to adopt regulations that are reasonably necessary to protect the sea cucumber resource, to assure a sustainable sea cucumber fishery, or to enhance enforcement activities. Consistent with the policy and criteria outlined in FGC subsection 8405.3(a), the Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) recommends that the Commission add Section 128, Title 14, CCR, to establish a closed season for warty sea cucumber. The proposed regulations would promote a sustainable warty sea cucumber fishery through the protection of the spawning population.

Three seasonal closure options are provided for the Commission’s consideration,

 April 1 to June 30; or  March 1 to June 14; or  January 1 to June 14.

The proposed regulations would also clarify the existing recordkeeping obligations for commercial sea cucumber dive activities (FGC subsection 8405.1(c)) by referencing Section 120.7, Title 14, CCR, which incorporates the Department’s Commercial Dive Fishing Log form (DFG 120.7) by reference. A similar regulation currently exists for recordkeeping of commercial trawling activities for sea cucumber in Section 176, Title 14, CCR.

Benefits of the Regulations

The proposed closed season for the commercial warty sea cucumber fishery would protect warty sea cucumber spawning aggregations from overexploitation and promote the long-term sustainability of the fishery resource. The recordkeeping requirements would provide clarification and improve compliance with and enforcement of the regulations.

Consistency and Compatibility with Existing Regulations 1

The proposed regulations are consistent with sections 120, 120.7, 123, 189 and 632, Title 14, CCR. Commission staff has searched the CCR and found no other regulations that address the commercial take of sea cucumber and therefore finds that the proposed regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing State regulations. The Legislature has delegated authority to the Commission to adopt regulations necessary to protect the sea cucumber resource and to assure a sustainable sea cucumber fishery (FGC subsection 8405.3(a)). No other State agency has the authority to regulate the commercial take of warty sea cucumber.

2

Proposed Regulatory Language

Section 128, Title 14, CCR, is added to read:

§ 128 Commercial Taking of Sea Cucumber.

(a) Closed Season. Warty sea cucumber may not be taken for commercial purposes from [ April 1 through June 30; or, March 1 through June 14; or, January 1 through June 14 ] .

(b) All warty sea cucumber taken during the closed season shall be immediately returned to the water. Warty sea cucumber may not be possessed aboard or landed from any commercial fishing vessel during the closed season.

(c) Pursuant to Section 190 of these regulations, each sea cucumber dive permit holder shall complete and submit an accurate record of his/her sea cucumber fishing activities on the logbook form incorporated by reference under Section 120.7, of these regulations. The completed daily records shall be sent to the department address specified on the logbook.

Note: Authority cited: Section 8405.3, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 8026, 8405.1, 8405.3 and 8500, Fish and Game Code.

1

Attachment 1 2014 CDFW Sea Cucumber Diver Survey: Summary of Key Results

In summary, 30 out of 86 total dive permittees (35% return rate) provided valuable feedback to questions related to fishery/market dynamics, sea cucumber biology, and current fishery management. Survey results strongly suggest a vast majority (74%, 20 of 27 responses) of fishery respondents feel that current management policies are not sufficient to maintain a sustainable fishery, with a majority of respondents (55%, 15 of 27 responses) suggesting a seasonal closure to improve sustainability.

*Note all further percentages are based off the responses per question unless otherwise noted

General Fishery Practices

1. What is the diver’s home port? (Total responses: 26/30 (86%))

Channel Islands: 11 Santa Barbara: 5 (19%) San Pedro: 3 Terminal Island: 2 (42%) (12%) (8%) Los Angeles: 2 (8%) Ventura: 1 (4%) San Diego: 1 (4%) Marina Del Ray: 1 (4%)

2. What percentage of time does the diver use scuba or hookah to harvest sea cucumbers (Total responses: 30/30 (100%)) Hookah only: 17 Scuba only: 5 Majority hookah: 2 (7%) Majority scuba: 4 (13%) (57%) (17%) Both scuba and hookah equally: 2 (7%)

3. Does the diver use a scooter for harvesting? (Total responses: 29/30 (97%)) Yes: 8 (27%) No: 21 (73%)

4. Does the diver use a scooter for scouting? (Total responses: 29/30 (97%)) Yes: 12 (41%) No: 17 (59%)

5. What percentage of total dive time does the diver use a scooter? (Total responses: 12/30 (40%)) The average use is 24% of total dive time.

6. What year did the fishery start cutting sea cucumbers? (Total responses: 23/30 (77%)) 14 divers said it started within 2008 – 2010 (47%) *Other responses: 1985 (1), 1995 (1), 1999 (1), 2000 (2), 2005 (2), 2007 (1), 2011 (1), not known (3)

7. What year did the individual diver start cutting cucumbers? (Total responses: 28/30 (93%)) 1985 1988 1992 1995 1999 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2013 other (2) (1) (1) (1) (2) (2) (1) (5) (3) (3) (4) (1) (2)

8. What percentage of an individual’s landed product are sold cut? (Total responses: 28/30 (93%)) 100%: 19 91-99%: 4 80-90%: 4 75%: 1

9. What percentage of an individual’s landed product are sold whole? (Total responses: 10/30 (33%)) 100%: 1 25-50%: 1 15-20%: 3 1-10%: 5

10. Does the diver cut differently for each buyer or processor? (Total responses: 28/30 (93%)) Yes: 14 (50%) No: 14 (50%)

11. Does the diver target a specific size of sea cucumber? (Total responses: 21/30 (70%)) Yes: 12 (57%) No: 9 (43%)

12. What size of sea cucumber does the diver target? (Total responses: 14/30 (47%)) 9 divers stated that they target large individuals. 3 divers stated that they target smaller individuals for a live market.

Biology

13. Sea cucumber biology: seasonal movement (Total responses: 20/30 (67%)) 6 divers said they move into deeper areas, spread out, or disappear (ex. go in holes/cracks) in fall 7 divers said they move in to shallow areas during late winter 3 divers acknowledged that they move but no specifics are given

14. Sea cucumber biology: aggregation (Total responses: 16/30 (53%)) All 16 divers noted aggregation behavior 10 divers said aggregations occur from March – July (late spring and summer) 4 divers noted that aggregations occur on the sand at the base of/between rocks Response: “Cuke sometime stand up in groups and undulate back and forth in current”

15. Sea cucumber biology: spawning (Total responses: 13/30 (43%)) 10 divers said spawning happens April – July (late spring and early summer) (77% of responses) *Other responses are “varies”, “hard to be specific”, and “July – Sept, contain eggs/sperm, raise bodies off bottom”

16. Sea cucumber biology: internal organs absent (Total responses: 10/30 (33%)) 8 divers noted that this happens in September – January (Fall/winter) (80% of responses) 2 divers noted this observation, but did not provide a time period

Perspectives on the Fishery and Fishing Behavior

17. Has the diver observed any good changes for the fishery? (Total responses: 7/30 (23%)) 6 divers noted the price being good (86% of responses). Other diver said “Stable market”

18. Has the diver observed any bad changes for the fishery? (Total responses: 21/30 (70%)) 21 divers indicated bad changes for the fishery. These included: “diminishing catch”, “volume is down”, “increased pressure”, “increased competition”, “less animals”, “poaching in MPA’s”, “take of small cucumbers” “start harvesting too early because of increased value” “take too long to reproduce” “nothing to ensure sustainability”, “too much year round harvest, no time for cucumbers to aggregate”

19. What are the advantages/disadvantages of using hookah and/or scuba to harvest? (Total responses: 26/30 (87%)) Advantages: Hookah: safer, easier to enforce closed areas, stay down longer, and can thoroughly work an area Scuba: more efficient, cover more area, no anchoring, less restrictions, can dive in kelp, and can dive in current Disadvantages: Hookah: decreased mobility and restricted in kelp Scuba: more dangerous, can lose divers, and on limited time

20. Has the diver’s diving methods changed as effort has increased, yes or no? (Total responses: 26/30 (87%) Yes: 15 (58%) No: 11 (42%)

21. What has changed for the diver’s diving methods? (Total responses: 26/30 (87%)) Working deeper: 5 (19%) Staying down longer: 3 (12%) More scouting time: 3 (12%) Starting earlier in season: 1 (Jan. – Feb.) Relocation: 1 Increased effort: 1 Only targeting large: 1 No change: 11 (42%)

22. Did the diver’s dive effort increase, decrease, or stay the same from 2012 to 2013? (Total responses: 26/30 (87%)) Decrease: 15 (58%) Increase: 2 (8%) Stay the same: 6 No/NA: 2 (8%) Yes”: 1 (4%) (23%)

23: Why did the diver’s dive effort change? Total responses: 21/30 (70%) Increase effort because less cucumbers: 2 (10%) Increase due to the price: 3 (14%) Decrease effort because less cucumbers: 6 (29%) Decrease due to the price: 3 (14%) Decrease for other personal reasons: 7 (33%) Decrease to give resource a break: 2 (10%) Same: 1 (5%)

24. What are the advantages for being in the sea cucumber fishery over other fisheries? (Total responses: 25/30 (83%)) Season for sea cucumbers (opposite from urchins/complements it): 8 (32%) Price is good: 6 (24%) Paid at the dock/set price: 4 (16%) Change of pace/fun: 4 (16%) Limited permits/transferable permits: 2 (8%) Easier to harvest and transport: 1(4%)

25. What are the disadvantages for being in the sea cucumber fishery over other fisheries? (Total responses: 9/25 (36%)) Unsustainable/unprofitable because bad market: 6 (67%) Unethical managers, researchers, politicians: 1 (11%) Need ice to transport: 1 (11%) Diving deeper: 1 (11%)

Management

26. Does the diver support regulations requiring a count of individuals landed? (Total responses: 26/30 (87%)) Yes: 11 (42%) (note 6 of these individuals reported “yes with a bucket No: 15 (58%) count” size of the bucket varied between 2, 3, and 5 gallons)

27. Does the diver support regulations requiring individuals to report condition (cut vs. uncut)? (Total responses: 23/30 (77%)) Yes: 14 (61%) * No: 9 (39%)

28. What logbook changes does the diver support? (Total responses: 21/30 (70%)) Most fishermen just elaborated on their response to the previous question stating that they would support a space for cut vs. uncut (9 brought it up again) or would support a space to record a bucket count (2 brought it up again). 8 stated that they want no change, not enough information to comment, etc.

29. Are the current regulations enough to keep the fishery sustainable, yes or no? (Total responses: 27/30 (90%)) Yes: 7 (26%) No: 20 (74%)

30. What changes does the diver want to keep the fishery sustainable, if any? (Total responses: 27/30 (90%)) *Note: this is a tally of suggested methods – divers frequently said more than one of these options Seasonal closure: 15 Banning scuba: Size limit: 5 (19%) Total Allowable Catch: 2 (7%) (55%) 7 (26%) Permit Buy backs: 1 IFQ’s: 1 (4%) Area rotation: 1 Nothing/leave alone: 5 (19%) (4%) (4%)

Seasonal closure recommendations: what should season timing be? Spring/Summer months open for harvest everything else closed: 3 responses (“Sea cucumbers are at their greatest density and peak quality from March to July”) Spring/Summer months closed for harvest: 3 responses (“Close for spawning”) Unspecified time: 2 responses (“2 month closure”, “later in year”) Close the fishery from August-December: 1 response Attachment 2 Commercial Sea Cucumber Diver Survey Results for Three Seasonal Closure Options

In order to determine the level of fishery support for the three seasonal closure options, the Department of Fish and Wildlife mailed a survey on May 25, 2017 to all 82 sea cucumber dive permit holders. In the survey, divers were asked to rank the three options in order of preference with 1 being their most desired option, 2 being their moderately preferred option, and 3 being their least preferred option. Forty-three of the 82 surveys were returned to the Department (52% return rate), with 37 individuals providing complete rankings of the three seasonal closure options (Figure 1), 3 individuals choosing to only provide their preference for one of the options (Table 2), and 3 individuals returning their surveys without indicating preference for any of the three options.

Figure 1. Level of preference for the three seasonal closure options submitted by the 37 individuals that provided complete rankings.

Table 1. Level of preference for the three individuals that only supplied their preference for one option.

Seasonal Closure Options

Preference April – June 30 March 1- June 14 January 1- June 14 (3 months) (3.5 months) (5.5 months)

1 (most desired) 1 1 1 2 (moderately desired) 3 (least desired)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REGULATORY ACTION (Pre-publication of Notice Statement)

Amend Sections 120.7 and 705 Title 14, California Code of Regulations Re: Taking of Sea Urchin for Commercial Purposes, and Commercial Fishing Applications, Permits, Tags and Fees

I. Date of Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR): July 11, 2017

II. Dates and Locations of Scheduled Hearings:

(a) Notice Hearing: Date: August 16, 2017 Location: Sacramento

(b) Discussion Hearing: Date: October 12, 2017 Location: Atascadero

(c) Adoption Hearing: Date: December 7, 2017 Location: San Diego

III. Description of Regulatory Action:

(a) Statement of Specific Purpose of Regulation Change and Factual Basis for Determining that Regulation Change is Reasonably Necessary:

Section 9054 of the Fish and Game Code authorizes the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to set the conditions for issuing commercial sea urchin diving permits to prevent overutilization of the sea urchin resource and to ensure that the fishery is efficient and economic on both a state-wide basis and in specific geographic areas. Data collected by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) from fishing reports submitted by sea urchin divers indicates that the potential for overharvesting is a major issue in the fishery. It is necessary that the Commission consider a reduction in the number of divers permitted to take sea urchin in order to ensure a stable population and harvest in future yearsDRAFT.

(1) Delete the Submission Requirement for 2008 in subsection (c)(2)

The provision in subsection (c)(2) specifies that for 2008 (only) applications for renewal of sea urchin diving permits shall be received by the Department or, if mailed, postmarked no later than June 30. After 2009, this was no longer in effect and is therefore deleted.

1

(2) Diver Capacity Reduction, Amend subsection (d)

Present Regulations

The Commission regulation in subsection (d) currently limits the number of annual sea urchin diving permits to 300. All qualified prior sea urchin diving permittees shall be eligible to receive diving permits regardless of the number issued. Any permit that is not renewed is retired. If the total number of renewed permits is less than 300, new permits will be issued to applicants up until the 300-permit cap is filled. Individuals can apply for a sea urchin diving permit only if they have held a valid sea urchin crewmember permit in the two preceding years.

Proposed Regulations

The proposed change to subsection (d) would reduce the capacity level of sea urchin diving permits from the current level of 300 to 150 gradually over a period of several years. The proposed change in subsection (d)(3) specifies that while the number of diving permits issued to prior permittees is greater than 150, only one new sea urchin diving permit shall be available for every 11 permits that are retired pursuant to Fish and Game Code subsection 7852.2(c). Thereafter, the permits will be replaced 1:1 but never over 150 total.

Rationale

Both the sea urchin industry and the Department have been considering revisiting the current capacity goal of the fishery for many years. The fishery has high latent harvest potential from non-active sea urchin permit holders, which has been more evident during recent decades. In addition, the resource has been subject to an increasing effort compression because harvest areas are more limited due to marine protected areas (MPA) and environmental conditions have been persistently poor in recent years. Recent landings in both the northern and southern regions of the fishery are dramatically lower from yearly averages. Commercial divers have been expressing to the Department for many years that quality sea urchin are increasingly more difficult to find, which is further supported by a lower catch per unit effort in the landings data.

The potential for overharvesting due to latent effort is a major issue in the sea urchin fishery. DRAFT During the years of 2007-2016, when the number of sea urchin permits was near 300 permits, 97-100 percent of the landings were made by 150 divers (Figure 1). During that same period, 92-98 percent of the landings were made by 125 divers and 84-93 percent of the landings were made by only 100 divers. A significant portion of the fishery has not been contributing to the total landings, and this latent capacity should be reduced to protect the industry and resource in the event of sudden shocks, such as a spike in market demand and an associated increase in fishing effort.

2

Figure 1. The percent of total landings taken by three levels of sea urchin divers (100, 125, and 150) from 2007-2016, a period when the number of permits was near or at 300 sea urchin permits.

The impact of divers is also concerning to the fishery. Divers are finding it more difficult to sustainably harvest sea urchins due to increased concentration of divers in smaller harvest zones. This in part can be attributed to the establishment of statewide MPAs, most of which were created after 1994 when the sea urchin industry instituted the 300-permit capacity goal. The MPAs have excluded divers from historically prime sea urchin grounds in terms of poundage and quality. Three reports written for the California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (Ecotrust 2008, 2010, and 2011) estimates that MPA reduction of total commercial sea urchin fishing grounds by percent of area, by port, to be the following: South Coast, 2.0-19.3 percent for six ports; North Central Coast, 8.4- 29.9 percent for four ports; and North Coast 8.2 percent for two ports. Recent military closures at San Clemente and San Nicolas islands further compressed the fishing ground by acting as reserves much of the year. As a result, the production andDRAFT roe quality from many reefs have dropped substantially from the excessive harvest pressure.

Changing environmental conditions have significantly reduced the statewide abundance of bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) and giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera), the main food sources for red sea urchin. The sea urchin fishery is based on quality of the product where only animals with gonads, known as “uni”, of specific size and taste are marketable, and this quality is directly correlated to food availability. Increased water temperature caused by the 2016 El Niño and

3

warm water ‘blob’ has reduced the bull kelp beds in northern California by 93 percent from previous years and greatly reduced the giant kelp beds in southern California. Without enough food and desirable habitat, many red sea urchins have become unmarketable.

The purple sea urchin explosion in northern California has further stressed the red sea urchin fishery. This event, in conjunction with the other factors mentioned has been described by the Department as the “Perfect Storm” in the March 2016 issue of CDFW Marine Management News. The explosion of purple sea urchin, a smaller and much less desirable sea urchin, is out-competing red sea urchin for food and suitable habitat typically used for red sea urchin larval settlement. As a consequence, the number of red sea urchin with quality roe in traditionally fished depths has greatly decreased, forcing divers to harvest in deeper waters to find harvestable red sea urchin, further stressing the resource, diminishing productivity, and creating more diver related safety concerns.

Another concern that has yet to manifest itself is the potential range expansion of the sea otter south of Point Conception and north of Monterey Bay. Divers are concerned that a range expansion to the north or south would have a high impact on the fishery, which has been observed at San Nicolas Island where divers believe the densities of commercially valuable invertebrate species has already seen a decline.

The statewide red sea urchin landings in 2016 dropped to a new low of 5.3 million pounds, something not seen since the 1970s when the fishery was in its beginnings. Northern California only accounted for 548,000 pounds in 2016, which is only 20 percent of the ten-year average of 2.7 million pounds. Southern California landings were only 56 percent of the ten-year average of about 8.4 million pounds. At the same time, the weight in pounds of sea urchin landed per fish receipt, used as a proxy of catch per unit effort (CPUE) also appears to be declining (Figure 2). While the proxy may not be a perfect representation due to potentially confounding factors (e.g. divers picking for quantity vs. quality, and efficiency of individual divers), the downward trend arguably warrants further attention.

Reducing the number of sea urchin diving permits by 50 percent should improve the chances of maintaining a sustainable fishery in the event of an unforeseen increase in market demand or other economic shocks that would cause the latent divers toDRAFT re-enter the fishery. However, permit reduction to 150 does not guarantee the resource will not be overfished. A 2015 Department examination of the total revenue in relation to the number of permittees from a period of stability (2009-2013) shows that the per-diver marginal revenue is at its highest when only the 99 most productive fishermen are accounted for (Figure 3). This conclusion is based on various assumptions that may require further refinement, but it does suggest potential economic benefit for a lower capacity goal. The industry presently believes that a capacity goal of 150 permits is a reasonable compromise between the optimal theoretical goal of 99 permits and

4

the current capacity goal of 300 permits. Over time, a responsible capacity should align the number of divers with the size of the harvesting grounds and ensure a sustainable fishery in the years ahead.

Figure 2. Catch per unit effort (pounds landed per landing receipt) for northern and southern areas of the California sea urchin fishery since 1998.

Figure 3. DRAFTOptimal number of sea urchin divers based on ex-vessel revenues (paid to the diver) from 2009-2013 landings, a period of stability in the fishery. This approach selects the number of divers at peak economic efficiency, 99 permits, representing the optimal point. After that, there is a less than 1 percent increase for each added permit. The law of diminishing returns, after the 99 point, while holding all others constant, will yield diminishing returns.

The California Sea Urchin Commission (CSUC) has taken the initiative to conduct self-funded and fisherman-based studies of the sea urchin resource.

5

The CSUC has been collecting data by underwriting an independent study by the University of California Santa Barbara to analyze recruitment of red and purple urchins since 1991, which has been an effective and useful method for monitoring sea urchin recruitment. Some divers on their own initiative collect abundance data prior to harvest so they can measure resource trends. The 150 permit capacity goal is arguably the most cost-effective and feasible alternative to maintain a sustainable fishery. This option would ultimately better align with the available management funding than other alternatives (e.g. Total Allowable Catch, additional seasonal closures), which require more funding to implement.

At the October 8, 2014, Commission meeting in Mt. Shasta, testimony was given by a processor representing six other processors opposing the need to reduce capacity. In support of their position, the processors relied on a 2010 Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) study conducted by the Department, which indicated that the harvest level in southern California was lower than the MSY at that time. The processors argued that a capacity reduction was unwarranted since the fishery was not able to meet the stock’s MSY even with 300 active permittees.

However, it is important to note that the 2010 Department study was made before additional MPAs were established in 2012. In addition, the model used for the analysis (McCall 2009) may not be suitable to inform current management needs in that it does not consider the impact of environmental conditions on gonad quality and the divers’ decisions to harvest urchins. Given the declining status of the fishery at its current state, this MSY analysis is most likely not appropriate for the current status of the fishery.

The Department subsequently requested that the CSUC invite the processors to a special meeting to discuss their differences and seek a compromise. On November 21, 2014 the CSUC Board of Directors and seven of the largest sea urchin processors representing 95 percent of the urchins marketed in California met to discuss their differences. At that meeting, a capacity goal of 225 sea urchin divers was offered as a compromise to the processors; however, no follow-through materialized. Since then, a few processors have expressed support for the currently proposed 150 permit capacity goal. On July 13, 2015, the CSUC sent a letter to the Commission requesting to re-initiate a regulatory change despite not having the full support of the processing sector for the proposed revisedDRAFT capacity level. Most sea urchin divers support achieving capacity reduction in the fishery. In 2012, the CSUC conducted a referendum of all current sea urchin diving permit holders. In total, 142 sea urchin divers representing a wide range of experience, age, and geographic areas participated in the survey. These divers overwhelmingly supported the proposed capacity reduction (81 percent in favor) and reducing capacity by a 10:1 drawing system (79 percent in favor). Ultimately, the industry wishes to continue to be proactive, as it has for the past

6

decade and a half, by contending that a capacity reduction is the most cost- effective way to ensure sustainability and viability.

(3) Modified-Preference Point Drawing System, subsections (d) – (f)

Present Regulations.

As currently set forth in subsections (d) and (e), the drawing system is based on opportunity with a baseline of 300 permits. The current drawing system gives minimal preference to applicants that have been attempting to obtain a sea urchin permit for many years. Although repeat applicants have more drawing chances, they still have to compete with many more applicants with fewer drawing chances. The CSUC desires a system in which applicants with multiple attempts in the drawing have a higher chance of entering the fishery as a sea urchin diver.

Proposed Regulations

The proposed change in subsection (d) would reduce the permit capacity from 300 to 150 over a period of years. In order to assure some opportunity for new divers to obtain permits, the Department proposes to amend the present drawing application in subsection (e) and add new drawing procedures in (f).

The proposed changes under subsection (e) would specify the application process for participating in the annual drawing. The process is fully automated and fairly distributes available permits to successful applicants. Although the application is limited to one application per qualified individual, the automated process adds in the preference points that have accumulated for each applicant based on their years of participation in the drawing.

The proposed addition of a new subsection (f) specifies the drawing process, assigns the proper number of chances, and randomly selects the successful applicant(s). The new system replaces the current drawing system for retired permits with a new Modified-Preference Point drawing system where the number of available permits would be offered on a 4 to 1 basis. The first four permits would be offered to a Preference Group and the next one permit would be offered to the Random Group. This method would carry over to subsequent years and would continue even when the capacity goal is met. Only one new permit will be madeDRAFT available for every eleven permits that are retired. This will continue until the lower capacity goal of 150 is reached. This method is further demonstrated in Table 1 and shows the milestones in which new permits would be issued based on the permit count after the March 31 renewal deadline.

The distribution of permits to both groups is further described in Table 1.

7

Table 1. This table explains in simple terms when a new sea urchin permit would be issued and to which group (Preference or Random).

Each applicant would first be assigned a computer-generated random number then sorted from highest to lowest by the total preference points. One preference point would be awarded for each year they have applied for an urchin diving permit since 2006. The first four available permits, regardless of which year they become available, would be offered to the applicants with the highest number of preference points. The assigned random number would break any tie in preference points if there are fewer permits available than applicants. Any rewarded permit not purchased by the successful applicant would be offered to the next highest applicant in the preference point list. After the first four permits are awarded, the next available permit would be offered to the applicant with the lowest random number. Random numbers would be re-assigned for each year there is a drawing to adjust for added and removed applicants.

Rationale

As of 2016, there are eight applicants that fall under the group with the highest preference points. These eight applicants would be awarded 8 of the 10 first available permits, or earlier if they are chosen within the random draw. Since all applicants are pooled into the Random Group, there would be two independent opportunities for an applicant with a high preference point to obtain a permit. This system still gives applicants with fewer preference points a chance to obtain a sea urchin permit. Only 14 new sea urchin permits will be issued until the new capacity goal of 150 permits is reached. Of these, only two permits will be awarded to the Random Group and 12 would be awarded to the Preference Group. 2006 was chosen as the beginning of the reference period because it accounts for the more recent pool of applicants and the period encompasses a timeframe in whichDRAFT capacity was near 300 sea urchin divers. The 11:1 ratio for capacity reduction allows a chance of entry for new divers into the fishery while meaningfully decreasing the permit count. This ratio of 11:1 was chosen instead of 10:1 to compensate for the one new permit that is added to the fishery during the reduction process. The newly issued permit would still be used in the total permit count calculation to determine when to give out a new permit, thus simplifying the process.

8

(4) Amend Subsection 120.7(l ), Fishing Season, Add Fishing Days in Southern California

Present Regulations.

Current regulations in subsection (l) allow sea urchins to be harvested seven days a week from November through May and Monday through Thursday from June through October.

Proposed Regulation

The proposed amendment to subsection (l), renumbered to (n), would allow the harvest of sea urchin on any weekday (Monday-Friday) from June-October in southern California south of the Monterey-San Luis Obispo county line. This will add 21 additional days of fishing during the summer season. The CSUC is not proposing to add fishing days north of the Monterey-San Luis Obispo county line because it is not supported by the CSUC and the north coast divers.

Rationale

The current closures for the sea urchin fishery were instituted in 1993 to curb resource depletion and did not account for evolving market dynamics. Long- term market trend of sea urchin roe has since evolved from large-scale international exports to one encompassing significant domestic consumption. A reliable supply of a quality product at a fair price is now essential to maintaining and expanding the market share of California's urchin gonads. The current June-October harvest schedule of Monday through Thursday is resulting in delayed market replenishment at the beginning of each week. Sea urchins held over for shipments from the previous Thursday also lose some of their freshness and thus quality.

In addition, an increasing number of fishermen are selling sea urchins directly to the end users at local ports. These markets tend to be open during weekends, and are more amenable to products obtained the day before as opposed to ones that have sat in storage for over a day.

The extended weeks are not expected to increase fishing pressure on the red sea urchin resourceDRAFT in total. Most urchin divers do not currently dive for more than 75 percent of his/her available dive days during the restricted season. Making Fridays available to commercial divers would allow them to further exploit the high-end niche market catered to specific restaurants and end consumers. Divers are expected to divert more time and effort into marketing their catch, preserving the products, and interacting with end users. The extended fishing week is also expected to benefit fishermen by giving them more flexibility in selecting dive days with safer water conditions.

9

The changes in the market require a smaller but steadier supply of urchin roe. The domestic market for California red sea urchin has grown dramatically during the last decade and is continuing to expand, helping to offset the economic damage the fishery suffered with the loss of a substantial portion of its sales to the Japanese market. The U.S. market experiences its highest product demand during the summer months into early fall. By adding one day a week to the current harvesting schedule (June through October), the fishery will be on a more equal footing with the rest of the world. The additional day would also bring an added benefit of giving divers more flexibility to manage their dive schedules.

The reason for renumbering (l) to (n) is to maintain the logbook requirement as set forth in subsection 120.7(m). The Department is currently updating its regulation for the commercial sea cucumber dive fishery, and the pending regulation would cross-reference subsection 120.7(m) for the purpose of establishing its own logbook requirement. Renumbering subsection 120.7(l) would ensure that the logbook requirement remains as subsection 120.7(m) and minimize potential confusion and complication.

(5) Amend Subsection (m), Sea Urchin Diving Logbook

Proposed Change

The subsection phrase “before the sea urchins are landed” would be deleted.

Rationale

The current regulation requires dive logs to be completed and submitted before sea urchins are landed. Since urchins could be landed right as a fishing vessel docks, a fisherman may have to reach the nearest mail box to drop off a dive log before returning immediately back to his or her vessel to land the urchins while the buyer waiting idly at the dock. Furthermore, subsection 190(c) already prescribes a set of condition of when logs must be submitted to the Department. Removing the extra language in subsection 120.7(m), which is not found in the regulations for any other fishery, clarifies the required log requirements.

(6) Remove Subsection (n)(2), Closed Areas Proposed ChangeDRAFT The proposed amendment would delete the current subsection (n)(2), which prohibits commercial sea urchin take inside Gerstle Cove, California. Subsection (n) is renumbered (o).

Rationale

The subsection restricting commercial sea urchin take is unnecessary, since subsection 632(b)(36) already prohibits all commercial take in Gerstle Cove. 10

(7) Amend Subsections (o)(1)-(3); Size Limit

Proposed Change

The proposed amendment to subsection (o), renumbered (p), and reword subsections (o)(1) & (2) to be more streamlined and compact. It would also remove subsection (o)(3).

Rationale

Subsection (o)(1) prescribes a slot size limit for red sea urchin in southern California and subsection (o)(2) prescribes a similar slot size limit in northern California. Red sea urchins within these respective size ranges cannot be taken. However, both subsections then proceed to provide a 30-urchin per-load allowance for all commercial urchin fishermen. The language can be streamlined by integrating the allowances directly into the prohibitions.

Delete subsection (o)(3) which specifically allows the take of red sea urchins below the slot size limits. This language is moot, since an inclusive slot size limit by definition means that fishermen may take individuals smaller than the limit.

(8) Amend Subsection (p), Authorization of an Assistant for a Sea Urchin Diver Permittee.

Proposed Change

The proposed changes would rephrase subsection (p), renumbered (q). The proposed changes would make several minor edits throughout subsection (p), and delete (p)(5), to help improve the clarity of the regulation.

Rationale

The current phrasing of subsection (p)(1) needs clarification. Separating the current requirements into subparagraphs will improve the overall flow of the language.

The current provision in (p)(5) was adopted more than 18 months ago and therefore the term of this provision has lapsed and is deleted for clarity. (9) Amend SubsectionDRAFT 705(c)(4), Commercial Fishing Applications, Permits, Tags and Fees: Sea Urchin Diving Permit Drawing Application and Fee.

Present Regulations.

Current applicants for the sea urchin diving permit drawings are required to fill out a paper application form (FG 1440 (Rev. 1/13)) in order to enter the drawing for a sea urchin diving permit. The application does not incur any cost on the part of the applicant.

11

Proposed Regulations

The proposed regulation would remove reference to the current drawing application form from the regulations and add a minor administrative fee of $4.38 for future applications for entering the drawing.

Rationale

The new drawing system would be migrated to an online system, making the paper application form obsolete. Any reference to the old application form would be removed. A new application fee is imposed because the Department must expend resources every year in order to track the qualified pool of diving permit applicants. The Department must also review the eligibility of successful applicants when new permits are issued. Under Fish and Game Code Section 710.5(b), it is the legislature’s intent for the Department’s operation to be funded by the fees collected from the users of wildlife resources. The calculation of the proposed fee is provided for in Attachment 1 of this ISOR.

(b) Authority and Reference Sections from Fish and Game Code for Regulation:

Authority: Sections 713, 1050, 9054 and 9055, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 713, 1050, 7850, 7852.2, 7857, 9054 and 9055, Fish and Game Code.

(c) Specific Technology or Equipment Required by Regulatory Change: None

(d) Identification of Reports or Documents Supporting Regulation Change:

1. Ecotrust, Report to the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative: Commercial and recreational fishing grounds and their relative importance off the North Coast of California, 2008, 2010, and 2011. 2. 2010 CDFW Urchin MSY Power Point Presentation 3. Attachment 1: Item Fee Calculation & Cost Recovery Sheet for Sea Urchin Diving Permit Drawing

(e) Public Discussions of Proposed Regulations Prior to Notice Publication:

1. OctoberDRAFT 8, 2014 Commission Meeting 2. November 21, 2014 California Sea Urchin Commission Meeting 3. October 7, 2015 Commission Meeting 4. April 28, 2017 Oxnard Port Meeting

IV. Description of Reasonable Alternatives to Regulatory Action:

(a) Alternatives to Regulation Change:

12

Total Allowable Catch in place of a Capacity Reduction

A Total Allowable Catch (TAC) could be used to limit the amount of sea urchin harvested per year by quota in lieu of reducing the number of sea urchin divers. The TAC allotment could be based on historical catch, maximum sustainable yield, stock assessments, and/or model simulations. It would take in account the potential latent effort from inactive sea urchin divers, which is currently about 50 percent of the permits. Given the fact that 150 divers could still potentially overharvest the resource of sea urchin, a TAC would limit the amount of poundage harvested based a sustainable estimation of take and could be adjusted based on the status of the fishery each year or as needed.

Harvest restrictions such as a TAC would prove to be very expensive and cumbersome for the Department to carry out and operate because it depends on staff to track the fishery in real time in order to shut down the fishery when the quota is filled. Similarly, an Individual Fishery Quota, which limits harvest per fisherman, would be just as expensive and cumbersome to enforce and track.

TAC fisheries invariably lead to a rush for the fish, resulting in an increase in competition in a shorter amount of time. Divers would inevitably be taking more chances to get their share of the catch by diving longer and deeper, or going out in inclement weather. This type of fishery could also be very impactful to the economic viability of the active sea urchin divers, limiting them on when they can make their landings thus making it more difficult to compete with worldwide markets.

For the reasons stated above, a TAC is rejected as an alternative to capacity reduction for this fishery.

(b) No Change Alternative:

The no change alternative would keep the existing regulations in place. Currently, the number of annual renewed permits cannot exceed 300, if less than 300, replacement permits would be issued on a one-for-one basis. With the high average age and high latency of the current permit holders, the fishery contains significant latent effort. As older, less active fishermen retire, they will gradually be replaced by younger, more active ones. Such increase in fishing effort can potentially create shocks to both the red sea urchin population and the sea urchin fishery. DRAFT Under a no change alternative, the open season June - October would remain at four days per week. Urchin fishermen in California will continue to face a market handicap against other urchin fisheries, which can provide the market with fresh urchin every day of the week. In addition, consumers in California who buy urchins from local fish markets, which tend to occur on Saturdays, would not be able to access the freshest possible urchin.

13

(c) Consideration of Alternatives:

In view of information currently possessed, no reasonable alternative considered would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the regulation is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed regulation, or would be more cost effective to affected private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.

V. Mitigation Measures Required by Regulatory Action:

The proposed regulatory action will have no negative impact on the environment; therefore, no mitigation measures are needed.

VI. Impact of Regulatory Action:

The potential for significant statewide adverse economic impacts that might result from the proposed regulatory action have been assessed, and the following initial determinations relative to the required statutory categories have been made:

(a) Significant Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Directly Affecting Businesses, Including the Ability of California Businesses to Compete with Businesses in Other States:

The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states because the proposed action will not increase costs or reduce harvest quotas. The gradual reduction in the number of permits issued to 150 will accommodate the 125 average number of active urchin divers. Over time, a reduction in permits issued should align the number of divers with the size of the harvesting grounds, increase the average catch per unit of effort and ensure the long- run sustainability of the fishery.

The addition of one more day per week of fishing during the months of June through October is anticipated to enable sea urchin divers more flexibility to harvest and bring fresh product to market DRAFTat peak demand. This change should assist California sea urchin businesses in remaining competitive.

(b) Impact on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State, the Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses, or the Expansion of Businesses in California; Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents, Worker Safety, and the State’s Environment:

14

No impacts on the creation or elimination of jobs within the state, the creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses are anticipated because the proposed action will not increase costs or reduce harvest quotas.

(c) Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person or Business: The agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. (d) Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding to the State: The Department may experience a reduction in permit sales revenue with the gradual decline in the number of permits issued from the currrent 300 to 150 over time. Permits are $461 per diver annually. If some of the sea urchin diving permittees choose not to renew at a rate of five percent each year, and an estimated 80 applicants enter the annual draw for a new permit, the Department could have revenue losses of about $6,575 in the current year and an estimated $6,229 - $5,901 in the next two fiscal years. Table 2. Estimated Revenue Impact to the State

Inactive Permits 10% Permits Department Fee Fiscal Year Retained Retired Revenue Loss 2018/19 150 15 $ 6,915 2019/20 135 14 $ 6,224 2020/21 122 12 $ 5,601 No change to federal funding to the State is anticipated. (e) Nondiscretionary Costs/Savings to Local Agencies: None. (f) Programs Mandated on Local Agencies or School Districts: None. (g) Costs Imposed on Any Local Agency or School District that is Required to be Reimbursed Under Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4, Government Code: None. (h) Effect onDRAFT Housing Costs: None.

VII. Economic Impact Assessment:

The sea urchin industry has expressed concern about possible excess capacity in the fishery that may result in overutilization or interfere with efficient and economic operation of the fishery. The proposed regulatory action is intended to reduce the number of permits sold to prevent overutilization and to ensure the

15

efficient and economic operation of the fishery. A 2015 Department study found that the per-diver marginal revenue is the highest when only 99 of the most active fishermen are counted suggesting the potential economic benefit of fewer fishery participants. The industry has agreed with the capacity goal of 150 permits from the current 300 permits.

The addition of one more day per week of fishing during the months of June through October is anticipated to enable sea urchin divers more flexibility to harvest and bring fresh product to market at peak demand. This change should assist California sea urchin businesses in remaining competitive.

(a) Effects of the Regulation on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State:

No impacts on the creation or elimination of jobs within the state are anticipated because the proposed action will not increase costs or reduce harvest quotas. These actions are intended to align the number of permits issued, which should increase the average catch per unit of effort and ensure the long-run sustainability of the fishery.

(b) Effects of the Regulation on the Creation of New Businesses or the Elimination of Existing Businesses Within the State:

No impacts on the creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses are anticipated because the proposed action will not increase costs or reduce harvest quotas. These actions are intended to align the number of permits issued, which should increase the average catch per unit of effort and ensure the long-run sustainability of the fishery.

(c) Effects of the Regulation on the Expansion of Businesses Currently Doing Business Within the State: None.

(d) Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents: None.

(e) Benefits of the Regulation to Worker Safety:

The additionDRAFT of another weekday during June through October will give sea urchin divers greater flexibility in working around dangerous ocean conditions, and military training activities, thus providing greater safety to the divers.

(f) Benefits of the Regulation to the State's Environment:

The proposed capacity reduction actions are anticipated to be the most cost-effective way to ensure sustainability and viability of the red sea

16

urchin fishery.

(g) Other Benefits of the Regulation: None.

DRAFT

17

Informative Digest/Policy Statement Overview

Currently, subsection 120.7(d), Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) sets the total number of sea urchin diving permits at 300. Subsection 120.7(e) further prescribes a random drawing system for distributing new permits as they become available. Under the current system, applicants who have held a sea urchin crewmember permit for more than two years would have his/her name entered into the draw one additional time for each additional year he/she has held such permit. However, this advantage is very small in practice due to a maximum cap of five times that a name may be entered into a draw.

Establish a small fee in Section 705 for participating in the annual drawing for available permits.

SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

The proposed amendments to subsection (d) would decrease the sea urchin fishery’s capacity goal to 150 permittees. This capacity goal will be achieved by issuing one new permit only once 11 permits have been retired. This ratio was chosen to simplify the calculation in which new permits would be issued, taking in account the new permit that is added to the fishery.

The lottery system proposed in subsection (e) and (f) will ensure that the most qualified applicants would enjoy a realistic advantage over less-qualified applicants. Under the new system, most of the new permits would be given to applicants with the most experience in the fishery as crewmembers. The remaining percentage of the new permits would be distributed under a drawing system where every remaining applicant stands the same chance.

Other amendments to Section 120.7 include:

 Add one extra fishing day per week in the months of June to October in Southern California.  Clarify the requirements for authorization of an assistant for a sea urchin diver permittee.  Remove language that no longer has any effect and clarify other regulatory text. BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSEDDRAFT REGULATIONS The proposed amendments would significantly decrease the latent fishing capacity within the current sea urchin fishery due to a large number of unused permits. The changes would also strike a better balance for the future succession of the fishery by ensuring that the most qualified candidates would receive sea urchin diving permits in due course. At the same time, those who may not be as qualified but nonetheless are still willing and able would still have a chance of receiving one of these permits. 18

The additional dive days during the summer and fall months would allow divers to dive on days with the safest weather condition. The additional days would also help the industry meet the demand of Saturday dock markets and weekend demand. The added harvesting pressure is anticipated to be minimal, but the quality will be greatly enhanced to the consuming public.

CONSISTENCY WITH STATE REGULATIONS

The proposed regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing State regulations. Commission staff has searched the California Code of Regulations and statutes and has found no other State regulations related to the completion of landing receipt records and no other State agency with authority to promulgate regulations concerning landing receipt records.

DRAFT

19

REGULATORY TEXT

Section 120.7, Title 14, CCR, is amended to read as follows:

§ 120.7. Taking of Sea Urchins for Commercial Purposes. (a) Permit Required. (1) Any person taking or assisting in the taking of sea urchins for commercial purposes shall have obtained a valid sea urchin permit and shall be in possession of said permit when engaged in such activities. A sea urchin diving permit is not required to operate or assist in operating a vessel used to take sea urchins, however, no person without a valid sea urchin diving permit shall engage in diving from a vessel from which sea urchins are being taken or possessed for commercial purposes, unless authorized by the department's marine region regional manager or his or her designee for the purposes of sea urchin management or research. (2) To provide an economic incentive for cooperative sea urchin management and research activity, and notwithstanding any other portion of this section, the department may authorize the holder of a valid sea urchin diving permit to harvest (take, possess, land and/or sell) red sea urchins during a closed season or in a closed area, subject to such restrictions regarding date(s), location(s), time(s), size, poundage or other matters as specified by the department. Any data collected during such harvest activity shall be made available to the department. The form of this authorization shall be a letter from the department's marine region regional manager or his or her designee issued to the permittee and containing all conditions of use. (b) Classes of Permits. (1) Sea Urchin Diving Permit. Sea urchin diving permits will be issued to licensed commercial fishermen 16 years of age or older who have qualified for permits pursuant to subsection (c). (2) Sea Urchin Crewmember Permit. Sea urchin crewmember permits will be issued to licensed commercial fishermen 16 years of age or older who do not qualify for sea urchin diving permits. (c) Permit Renewal. (1) Applicants for renewal of sea urchin diving permits must have held a valid, unrevoked sea urchin diving permit in the immediately preceding permit year (April 1- March 31). (2) In 2008, applications for renewal of sea urchin diving permits shall be received by the department or, if mailed,DRAFT postmarked no later than June 30. In 2009, and thereafter, applications Applications for renewal of sea urchin diving permits shall be received by the department or, if mailed, postmarked no later than April 30. Late fees, late fee deadlines, and late renewal appeal provisions are specified in Fish and Game Code Section 7852.2. (d) Number of Permits. (1) All qualified prior sea urchin diving permittees shall be eligible to receive diving permits regardless of the number issued.

1

(2) If the number of diving permits issued to prior permittees is less than 300 150, the number of new sea urchin diving permits to be issued shall only be the difference between the number of diving permits issued to prior permittees in the immediately preceding permit year (ending March 31) and 300 150. If the number of permits issued to prior permittees is 300 or more, no new sea urchin diving permits shall be available. (3) While the number of diving permits issued to prior permittees is greater than 150, only one new sea urchin diving permit shall be available for every 11 permits that are retired pursuant to Fish and Game Code subsection 7852.2(c). (e) New Permittees Applications for New Permits: (1) Applications as specified in Section 705 for the issuance of any new sea urchin diving permits that may become available each year shall be received by the department or, if mailed, postmarked no later than June 30. Applications shall be submitted to the department's License and Revenue Branch office in Sacramento. If any new sea urchin diving permits are available for issuance, as provided in subsection (d)(2), they shall be issued to licensed commercial fishermen who held, for each of the two immediately preceding permit years, a valid sea urchin crewmember permit. (2) If there are more applicants for sea urchin diving permits than there are permits available, a drawing will be held to determine which applicants will be eligible to purchase permits. Any person who submits more than one application for a new sea urchin diving permit in any one permit year will be excluded from the drawing. Each applicant who meets the criteria in subsection (e)(1) shall be entered into the drawing once. In addition, each applicant shall be entered into the drawing one more time for each additional year, above the minimum required two years, that the applicant possessed a valid sea urchin crewmember permit. No applicant shall be entered more than five times for each drawing. The drawing will be held on the third Wednesday in August each year. Permits will be issued to successful applicants in the order drawn. Payment of the fee for the sea urchin diving permit must be received at the department's License and Revenue Branch office in Sacramento on or before September 25. (1) A drawing shall be held annually for any new sea urchin diving permits that become available for issuance. (2) Applications for new sea urchin diving permits shall be made available each year through the department's Automated License Data System, at department license sales offices, the department’s Internet Sales site, and at department’s license agents authorized to sell commercial fishing licenses. (3) Applicants shall apply by March 31 of each year. (4) Applicants shall possessDRAFT a valid Commercial Fishing License and a valid sea urchin Crewmember permit for each of the two permit years immediately preceding the permit year when drawing is done. (5) Applicants shall pay the nonrefundable processing fee as specified in Section 705 for each drawing application. (6) Each applicant shall receive a drawing receipt printed from the terminal or downloaded from the Internet. The receipt shall contain the applicant's name and permanent identification number, proof of entry into drawing, and their current preference points for the drawing.

2

(7) Applicants shall not submit more than one drawing application for the same license year. (f) Drawings for New Permits (1) The department shall award any new permits using a Modified-Preference Point drawing system. (2) The Modified-Preference Point drawing system shall award proportions of permit quota using the following drawing methods: (A) Preference Point Drawing: Permits in the preference quota are awarded based on the following order of priority: accumulated preference point totals (highest to lowest), and computer-generated random number (lowest to highest). (B) Random Drawing: Permits in the random quota are awarded according to computer- generated random number (lowest to highest), without consideration of accumulated preference points. (3) The available new permit quantity shall be split into separate quotas. Every fifth permit that becomes available shall belong to the random quota while all other permits shall belong to the preference quota. This four-to-one ratio for sorting will continue indefinitely. (4) Successful applicants and a list of alternates shall be determined by drawing within 20 business days following the application deadline date. If the drawing is delayed due to circumstances beyond the department's control, the department shall conduct the drawing at the earliest date possible. (5) Alternates shall be selected using a Preference Point Drawing. (6) Successful applicants will be notified as soon as practical. Successful applicants shall submit the fee for a Sea Urchin Diving Permit, as specified in Fish and Game Code Section 9055 to the department's License and Revenue Branch by 5:00 p.m. on or before or, if mailed, postmarked no later than May 15 each year. If the deadline to submit the fee falls on a weekend or holiday payment will be accepted until the close of business on the first state business day following the deadline to submit payment. (7) Should the available permit quota remain unfilled after that date, the alternate list shall be used to award any available permits. (8) An applicant shall earn one (1) preference point each time the applicant participates in a drawing for sea urchin diving permit. (9) Successful applicants or alternates that are issued a sea urchin diving permit shall lose all accumulated preference points for the drawing. (10) Preference points shall not be transferred to another person. (11) The department shall maintain records of preference points earned by each applicant based on the identification number assigned to each customer by the department's Automated License Data System. The customer's identification number, Get Outdoors ID (GODRAFT ID) will be printed on each drawing receipt issued by the Automated License Data System. Applicants shall notify the department's License and Revenue Branch in Sacramento in writing of any changes or corrections regarding name, mailing address, or date of birth. (12) Persons not applying in the sea urchin diving permit drawing for five (5) consecutive years starting in 2018 shall have their preference points for the sea urchin drawing reduced to zero (0). For the purposes of this subsection, persons whose

3

applications are disqualified from drawing shall be considered the same as persons not applying. (13) Eligible commercial fisherman that applied in the sea urchin diving permit drawing from 2006-2017 and were not awarded a sea urchin diving permit in any of these years shall be assigned one preference point for each year they applied in these drawings. (f) (g) Fee. The applicant for a sea urchin crewmember permit shall submit the fees and the completed application, as specified in Section 705, to the address listed on the application. (g) (h) Renewal Appeals. Late renewal appeal provisions are specified in Fish and Game Code Section 7852.2. (h) (i) Vessel Identification. When sea urchins are taken under these regulations, the vessel's commercial registration number shall be displayed on both sides of the boat. The number shall be black, at least 10 inches high, and on a white background. All permittees aboard the boat shall be mutually responsible for the proper display of the vessel's commercial registration number. (i) (j) Conditions of the Permit: (1) No person shall take or possess lobsters or abalone aboard any boat used to take sea urchins under these regulations on any day that sea urchins have been taken or are to be taken. (2) Hydraulic lifts and air lifts shall be used only in such a manner that no rocks or other mineral matter, aquatic plants, fish or other aquatic life except sea urchins, shall be removed from the bottom or otherwise disturbed. (j) (k) Revocation of Permits. Any permit may be suspended, revoked, or canceled by the commission upon breach or violation of any fish and game regulation pertaining to the take of sea urchins or abalone; or violation of the terms or conditions of the permit by the holders thereof, their agents, servants, employees or those acting under their direction and control. (k) (l) Exemption from Tidal Invertebrate Permit. A sea urchin diver or sea urchin crewmember operating under the provisions of this section is not required to possess a Tidal Invertebrate Permit, but is subject to the provisions of section 123, Title 14, CCR Section 123. (l) Fishing Season. (1) From November through May, the open season for red sea urchins is seven days per week. (2) From June through October, the open season for red sea urchins is Monday, (3) During any closed period, no red sea urchins may be possessed on any commercially registeredDRAFT vessel, except that any commercially registered vessel may transport red sea urchins after any closure goes into effect, provided that the vessel is in port no later than 0800 hours on the first day of the closed period. (m) Logbooks. Pursuant to Section 190 of these regulations, each permittee shall complete and submit an accurate record of all sea urchin fishing activities on a form (DFG-120.7 (2/08)), incorporated herein by reference, provided by the department before the sea urchins are landed. The completed daily records shall be sent to the department address specified on the logbook on or before the tenth day of each month following the month to which the records pertain.

4

(n) Fishing Season. (1) Red sea urchin shall not be taken for commercial purposes on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday north of the Monterey-San Luis Obispo county line from June 1 through October 31. (2) Red sea urchin shall not be taken for commercial purposes on Saturday and Sunday south of the Monterey-San Luis Obispo county line from June 1 through October 31. (3) During any closed period, no red sea urchins may be possessed on any commercially registered vessel, except that any commercially registered vessel may transport red sea urchins after any closure goes into effect, provided that the vessel is in port no later than 0800 hours on the first day of the closed period. (n) (o) Closed Areas. (1) Sea urchins shall not be taken for commercial purposes in state marine reserves or state marine parks. Specific regulations in state marine conservation areas may prohibit the commercial take of sea urchins as per subsection 632(b). (2) The Gerstle Cove area in Salt Point State Marine Conservation Area (Sonoma County) is closed to all commercial fishing for sea urchins. This area is delimited as all the ocean waters east of a line extending 180o true from the southernmost point of Salt Point (38o 33.92' N. lat. 123o 19.89' W. long.) and north of a line extending 270o true fro the westernmost point of land of the unnamed point at the southern end of Gerstle Cove (38o 33.6' N. lat. 123o 19.37' W. long.). (3) (2) The South Caspar Point area in Mendocino County is closed to all commercial fishing for sea urchins. This area is bounded on the north by a line extending 90o magnetic from sea to the mouth of Caspar Creek (north bank) in Caspar Cove, on the south by the northern boundary of the Point Cabrillo State Marine Conservation Area and its westward extension to the 120-foot depth contour, on the west by 120-foot depth contour line connecting the north and south boundary lines, and on the East by the mainland shore. The Point Cabrillo State Marine Conservation Area remains closed to the take of all forms of marine life except as permitted in subsection 632(b). (o) (p) Size Limit. (1) In southern California (south of the Monterey-San Luis Obispo county line) no more than thirty (30) red sea urchin urchins between one and one-half (1 1/2) and three and one-quarter (3 1/4) inches in shell diameter, not including the spines or any portion of their ball-and-socket attachment to the shell, per permittee per load, may be taken, possessed, sold, or purchased, except that not more than thirty (30) such red sea urchins per permittee per load may be taken, possessed, sold or purchased. (2) In northern California (north of the Monterey-San Luis Obispo county line) no more than thirty (30) red sea urchinDRAFT urchins between one and one-half (1 1/2) and three and one-half (3 1/2) inches in shell diameter, not including the spines or any portion of their ball-and-socket attachment to the shell, may be taken, possessed, sold or purchased, except that not more than thirty (30) such red sea urchins per permittee per load, may be taken, possessed, sold or purchased. (3) Red sea urchins less than one and one-half (1 1/2) inches in shell diameter shall not be considered as part of the thirty (30) undersized red sea urchins per permittee per load that may be taken, possessed, sold or purchased.

5

(4) (3) Every sea urchin permittee shall carry and use an accurate measuring device, to determine the size of red sea urchins being taken as specified in subsections (o)(1) and (o)(2) above herein, while diving for sea urchins for commercial purposes. (p) (q) Authorization of an Assistant for a Sea Urchin Diver Permittee. (1) Authorization by Department. The holder of a sea urchin diving permit, who, after entering the sea urchin fishery, becomes, due to a severe unforeseen or catastrophic long-term (expected to be for one year or longer) or permanent injury or disease, physically unable to dive, may designate a specific individual as an assistant, upon written approval from the department. The department may authorize, in writing, any one specific individual to be designated by the permittee as an assistant, providing the following conditions have been met: (1) The holder of a sea urchin diving permit may designate a licensed commercial fisherman as a sea urchin diver assistant upon written approval from the department, provided that: (A) The sea urchin diving permit has not been suspended or revoked; (B) The permittee has become physically unable to dive due to a severe unforeseen or catastrophic long-term (expected to be for one year or longer) or permanent injury or disease; and, (C) The injury or disease occurred after entering the sea urchin fishery. (2) The department may authorize, in writing, the particular licensed commercial fisherman to be designated by the permittee as a sea urchin diver assistant, providing the following conditions have been met: (A) the The permittee provides documentation within 90 days of the request to the department from a qualified physician that the permittee suffers from the a disease or injury and it will prevent the permittee from diving. Such conditions shall not include short or long-term common illnesses, conditions caused or primarily exacerbated by aging, or any other condition which appears to be marginal or common, such as routine back or neck problems; (B) the The permittee has no violations or pending violations for which his or her permit could be revoked; and, (C) the The proposed sea urchin diver assistant has a current valid California commercial fishing license and has not had any California commercial fishing license or permit suspended or revoked; has never been convicted, and no charges are pending for a violation of any provision of the Fish and Game Code or Title 14, California Code of Regulations. (2) (3) Special Provisions:DRAFT (A) The authorized sea urchin diver assistant may take or assist in the taking of sea urchin only when in the company of the permittee and only for the duration of the permit year in which the authorization is issued. (B) The permittee shall have no authority to, and shall not dive for sea urchin while a valid letter authorizing the permittee to designate an assistant exists, regardless of whether or not the assistant is actively diving. (C) The authorized sea urchin diver assistant shall have no right to ownership or transfer of the permit beyond that which is otherwise provided by law.

6

(D) The sea urchin diving permit, in addition to the sea urchin diver assistant authority shall be subject to revocation, suspension or other actions provided in law or regulation, upon violations committed by the sea urchin diver assistant, when acting under the authority of a sea urchin diver assistant. The assistant shall take no actions authorized pursuant to a sea urchin diver permit without the consent of the permittee. (E) The department shall review the authority authorized pursuant to this section at least once every year and may withdraw the authority if any of the conditions are not met. (3) (4) Fee Requirement. Any person authorized as a sea urchin diver assistant pursuant to this subsection shall annually pay a fee to the department equal to the amount required of permittees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 9055. The fee shall be submitted with the request for the assistant. (4) (5) Required Possession of Department Authorization. The sea urchin diver assistant shall carry the department's letter of authority whenever conducting activities authorized pursuant to the subsection. (5) The department shall report to the commission within 18 months of the enactment of these provisions on the merits of the program. The department shall make a recommendation to the commission to either continue or discontinue the program, based on achievements and problems associated with the administration of these provisions. Note: Authority cited: Sections 713, 1050, 9054 and 9055, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 713, 1050, 7850, 7852.2, 7857, 9054, and 9055, Fish and Game Code.

Section 705, Title 14, CCR, is amended to read:

§ 705. Commercial Fishing Applications, Permits, Tags and Fees.

... [No changes to subsections (a) through (c)(3)]

(4) 2013 Sea Urchin Diving Permit Drawing No Fee 4.38 Application FG 1440 (Rev. 1/13), incorporated by reference herein.

... [No changes to subsections (c)(5) through (d)] Note: Authority cited:DRAFT Sections 713 and 1050, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 713 and 1050, Fish and Game Code.

7

Marine Protected Area (MPA) Statewide Leadership Team Work Plan FY 15/16 – 17/18

The MPA Statewide Leadership Team California’s MPA Statewide Leadership Team (Leadership Team) was convened with the goal of increasing communication and collaboration among agencies and partners to ensure the state is effectively managing the statewide MPA network. The Leadership Team includes state and federal agencies and other partners that play a direct or key support role in management of the network. MPA management encompasses a wide range of partners and activities that require active collaboration and communication to implement successfully. The state has recognized that no one agency or group has the knowledge, capacity or resources to effectively manage the MPA network in isolation. The Leadership Team focuses on leveraging resources and breaking down traditional silos to collaboratively address MPA network management which cuts across jurisdictions and mandates.

Members of the MPA Statewide Leadership Team, led by the Ocean Protection Council (OPC), include: the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), DFW Law Enforcement Division (LED), Fish and Game Commission (FGC), California Coastal Commission (CCC), California State Lands Commission (CCSLC), Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), California Ocean Science Trust (OST), MPA Collaborative Network (CN), and West Coast Regional Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS).

Approach to the Work Plan The Leadership Team has identified the following focal areas as key to successful management of MPAs: Outreach and Education, Research and Monitoring, Enforcement and Compliance and Policy and Permitting. Active, sustained engagement in each of these focal areas is integral to achieve the goals of the Leadership Team. In practice, this means directing the work of the Leadership Team by identifying shared strategic priorities, key actions and outcomes. A key tool for this is the creation of a work plan that was identified as a key task in “The California Collaborative Approach: Marine Protected Areas Partnership Plan”1. The work plan covers a three year period beginning in 2015 and is a key tool in directing MPA management and holding members accountable for identified outcomes.

Work Plan Notations and Acronyms * Indicates responsible agency will contract or award a grant to lead efforts to complete key action “Agency” refers to federal, state, tribal, and local authorities. Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) Parks Online Resources for Teachers and Students (PORTS) California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act (MMAIA) California Seafloor and Coastal Mapping Program (CSCMP)2 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System’s Central and Northern California Ocean Observing System (CeNCOOS)3 U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System’s Southern California Ocean Observing System (SCOOS)4 Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP)5

1 http://www.opc.ca.gov/2010/03/mapping-californias-seafloor-2/ 2 http://www.opc.ca.gov/2010/03/mapping-californias-seafloor-2/ 3 http://www.cencoos.org/ 4 http://www.sccoos.org/ 5 http://www.sccwrp.org/Homepage.aspx Focal Area: Outreach and Education (page 1-3)

Strategic Priority 1 - Build support and durability of the MPA network goals and performance through improved public awareness Lead Completion Key Action Action Summary Outcome Required/ Performance Indicator Responsibility Responsibility Date 1.1.1 Engage MPA Partners (NGOs, tribes, MPA partners, including MPA Collaborative Network MPA Statewide agencies) in discussion of best practices in members, play an active role in ongoing development OPC, CN 2016 Leadership Team MPA messaging of messaging efforts and strategies MPA partners, including MPA Collaborative Network members, have online access to a comprehensive 1.1.2 Compile and maintain inventory of inventory of MPA messaging and available resources MPA Statewide MPA messaging and materials created by OPC*, CN 2016 (e.g. brochures, sign templates, etc.) developed by Leadership Team agency and non-agency partners state, federal and NGO partners and can easily contribute to the inventory 1.1 Create statewide MPA partners, including MPA Collaborative Network outreach and education 1.1.3 Identify priority audiences, audience- members, contribute and have access to MPA Statewide plan specific messages and outreach methods, OPC*, CN 2016 recommendations on how to maximize the Leadership Team and who will do the outreach effectiveness of their outreach to different audiences 1.1.4 Identify opportunities to insert Existing programs increase avenues for MPA messaging MPA Statewide messaging into related, non MPA-specific to a broad constituency without requiring additional OPC* 2016 Leadership Team efforts investment from MPA SLT members Agencies and external partners work from a coordinated education and outreach strategy, MPA Statewide 1.1.5 Implement outreach and education plan OPC* 2016 improving the reach and effectiveness of MPA outreach Leadership Team and education Agency partners work with the MPA Collaborative MPA Statewide Network members to continue producing locally OPC 2016 Leadership Team specific materials Printed materials are readily available at key locations MPA Statewide 1.2.1 Produce printed outreach materials used by consumptive users (e.g. harbors, tackle shops, DFW 2016 - 2018 Leadership Team etc.) 1.2 Create MPA- Printed materials are readily available at key locations focused outreach MPA Statewide used by non- consumptive users (e.g. aquaria, dive DFW 2016 - 2018 materials and host or Leadership Team shops, etc.) participate in events 1.2.2 Produce video/web/phone app-based Web and video material produced by partners is MPA non-agency OPC 2016 - 2018 materials promoted through Thank You Ocean and other venues partners 1.2.3 Hold or take part in outreach and Promote events through list-serves, Thank You Ocean MPA non-agency OPC 2016 - 2018 education events and other partner websites partners

1

Strategic Priority 2 - Create a broad understanding of regulations and increase compliance Lead Completion Key Action Action Summary Outcome Required/ Performance Indicator Responsibility Responsibility Date OPC, DFW, DPR, 2.1.1. Signage is properly permitted and Verification from grantee and contract manager of CCC and other OPC* 2015 2.1 Develop, install and installed in priority locations proper installation of signs non-agency maintain regulatory and partners interpretive signage OPC, DFW, DPR, 2.1.2 Develop and implement project to statewide Verification from grantee and contract manager of CCC and other install signs at remaining high and medium OPC* 2016 proper installation of signs non-agency priority locations partners 2.2.1 Regionally specific materials including Outreach materials reach both traditional and non- 2.2 Continue maps and booklets with regulations are DFW, FGC DFW 2016 -2018 traditional audiences production of DFW produced outreach materials 2.2.2 Continue to support production of focused on regulation additional products on different media Outreach materials reach both traditional and non- DFW, FGC DFW 2016 -2018 compliance (waterproof paper, mobile devices, etc.) to traditional audiences maximize reach and effectiveness 2.3 Coordinate with private companies that produce products 2.3.1 Regularly monitor products (e.g. GPS which provide layers, phone applications, etc.) to ensure Commonly used GPS systems accurately depict MPAs DFW, CN, LED DFW 2015-2018 information to the accurate information is being disseminated public about MPA regulations Strategic Priority 3 - Develop consistent messaging with state, federal and other partners Lead Completion Key Action Action Summary Outcome Required/ Performance Indicator Responsibility Responsibility Date DFW Partnership Guide is posted widely on the web 3.1 Create and 3.1.1 Expand on existing DFW MPA Outreach and provides specific detail on review process, DFW, OPC and other distribute DFW DFW 2016 Quick Reference Guide for partners available resources and roles of various partners non-agency partners Partnership Guide and agencies in review of outreach materials DPR website explains the department's history in identifying special underwater areas and how the 3.2 DPR effectively 3.2.1 Update webpage on "state underwater term "underwater park" is no longer applicable DPR, OPC DPR 2014 disseminates MPA parks" since the MMAIA. Also includes link to DFW MPA messaging and actively webpage engages in MPA management support OPC provides trainer and training materials 3.2.2 Provide MPA training to staff and developed in partnership with MPA partners and activities DPR, OPC DPR 2015 docents using a "train the trainer" model Collaborative members to coastal districts as requested

2

3.2.3 Develop MPA-specific curriculum for Parks Online Resources for Teachers and Existing coastal PORTS programs use MPA DPR, DFW, OPC DPR 2015 Students (PORTS) by leveraging existing curriculum which is currently under development materials 3.2.4 Engage with Division of Boating and Waterways staff to identify opportunities to MPA messaging is inserted in at least one ongoing DPR, OPC OPC 2016 - 2018 insert MPA messaging into existing outreach Boating and Waterways outreach campaign campaigns 3.3.1 Collect map layers of MPAs, Areas of Agencies and the public can view the distribution of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), DFW, DPR, OPC, OST, 3.3 Create and all protected areas in California in one place for the OST 2016 National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERRs), SWRCB distribute a map of first time National Marine Sanctuaries (NMSs), etc. California waters that 3.3.2 Determine and distribute map includes all protected showing state waters that receive full The state and public have a more complete areas (state and DFW, DPR, OPC, OST, protection (e.g., % coverage of SMRs) and understanding of the percentage of CA state waters OST 2017 federal) SWRCB some protection (i.e., % coverage of all other and coastal areas that are protected protected areas) Explanatory infographic or other messaging concept 3.4.1 Communicate and depict Federal/State 3.4 ONMS effectively is broadly distributed to state and federal agencies MPA Statewide jurisdictions to clarify their complementary OPC 2017 disseminates MPA as well as public audiences to ensure types of Leadership Team nature messaging and actively allowed use are clearly understood engages in MPA OPC provides trainer and training materials as management support 3.4.2 Provide MPA training to staff and requested to ensure ONMS staff and docents have ONMS, OPC OPC 2015 activities docents accurate and updated information about the state’s MPA network OPC website hosts or links to relevant documents MPA Statewide related to the design, designation, implementation OPC 2016 3.5.1 Update content and structure of OPC Leadership Team and management of the MPA Network website to better reflect current MPA OPC website describes OPC's current role in MPA programs and partnerships, ensuring management and highlights current and previous OPC OPC 2016 consistency with partner web pages by using MPA projects links where appropriate OPC website links to and describes partner agencies OPC OPC 2016 and organizations 3.5 Effectively CNRA website accurately describes current work of disseminate MPA 3.52 Update content on CNRA website OPC and other key management agencies including OPC, DFW, DPR OPC 2015 messaging through OPC DFW and DPR Thank You Ocean and MPA Collaboratives serve as OPC OPC 2015 - 2018 conduits of information regarding MPA efforts 3.5.3 Use Thank You Ocean Campaign to Thank You Ocean website links to OPC OPC 2015 update constituents about MPA mpacollaboratives.org Collaboratives and significant MPA events Relevant MPA news is included in monthly Thank You Ocean newsletter and shared via Thank You OPC OPC 2015 - 2018 Ocean social media platforms

3

Focal Area: Enforcement and Compliance (page 4)

Strategic Priority 1 - Increase capacity and effectiveness of enforcement Lead Completion Key Action Action Summary Outcome Required/Performance Indicator Responsibility Responsibility Date DFW implements an RMS to improve its ability to 1.1.1 Develop statewide Records collect, store, and query law enforcement data in DFW LED 2016-2018 Management System (RMS) to collect, the field organize and track citation data. DFW Submits AB 2402 report to the legislature on DFW DFW 2016 1.1 Use technology and a feasibility study for electronic data management other tools to increase 1.1.2 Identify enforcement priority areas effectiveness and based on poaching hotspots, seasonal trends, RMS allows accurate analysis of the enforcement efficiency of potential for resource impact, level of use, efforts/needs for specific MPAs DFW LED 2016-2018 enforcement resources and potential for violations in the field 1.1.3 Explore existing and emerging Regularly assess available technologies and deploy technologies and enforcement monitoring those with potential to enhance MPA DFW LED 2015-2018 systems to enhance MPA enforcement enforcement 1.2 Maintain and enhance cooperative 1.2.1 Promote interagency cooperation and Develop and facilitate MPA Collaborative enforcement efforts collaboration for more effective MPA Network programs for statewide MPA LED, CN CN 2015-2018 with local, state and enforcement enforcement federal agencies Develop MPA enforcement video and distribute LED, CN LED, CN 2016-2018 1.3 Increase judicial widely to court and enforcement officers system and law 1.3.1 Develop educational tools specifically Design and facilitate MPA training to be provided LED, CN LED, CN 2016-2018 enforcement officer for judges and district attorneys to the judicial system within all CA coastal counties awareness of the value Encourage designation of at least one LED, CN LED, CN 2016-2018 of MPAs and knowledge wildlife/marine specialist within each DA office of MPA regulations 1.3.2 Hold Enforcement Trainings for court Hold at least one training in each county and LED, CN LED, CN 2015-2016 officers conduct training effectiveness evaluations 1.4 Plan and conduct Identifying appropriate staffing levels and an LED Needs 1.4.1 Identify and address LED personnel equipment requirements for existing and DFW LED 2016 - 2018 Assessment to needs for MPA enforcement anticipated future needs, including recruiting determine if they have officers from diverse communities the resources to 1.4.2 Identify and address LED equipment Identify funding source(s) to purchase items effectively enforce DFW, OPC LED 2016 - 2018 needs for MPA enforcement needed for MPA enforcement MPA regulations

4

Focal Area: Research and Monitoring (page 5 – 8)

Strategic Priority 1 - Establish a benchmark of ecosystem and socioeconomic condition in all MLPA coastal regions that informs the initial five-year regional MPA network management reviews (management reviews) Lead Completion Key Action Action Summary Outcome Required/ Performance Indicator Responsibility Responsibility Date 1.1 Identify and pursue 1.1.1 Coordinate state and federal entities to CSCMP spatial data inform management reviews OST OST 2015 opportunities to bring incorporate relevant oceanographic and CeNCOOS, SCOOS, and other partners’ OST OST 2015 additional results to physical habitat data and results oceanographic data inform management reviews bear on establishing a 1.1.2 Coordinate with SCCWRP and member SCCWRP’s Bight Regional Monitoring Program data benchmark of agencies to incorporate relevant water quality OST, SCCWRP OST 2015-2018 inform management reviews conditions in each data and results region (i.e., projects and 1.1.3 Coordinate with agency, tribal, Relevant datasets from agency, academic, tribal and programs outside the academic and citizen scientists to ensure citizen scientists are incorporated as appropriate OST OST 2015-2018 official MPA monitoring relevant scientifically robust datasets are into management programs) incorporated Ensure that the monitoring programs and results are cohesive, align with program purposes, and DFW, OPC, OST OST 2015-2018 realize value beyond MPAs MPA monitoring results and reporting in the North 1.2.1 Synthesize results and explain DFW, OPC, OST OST 2017 1.2 Develop State of the Coast incorporate traditional ecological knowledge methodology of each baseline program and Region assessments to Build a more comprehensive understanding of other monitoring efforts in the regions to inform management ecosystem condition and trends to support build a snapshot of baseline conditions for DFW, OPC, OST, FGC OST 2015-2018 reviews management decisions and inform the approach to each region long-term monitoring Information sharing among agencies and tribal governments results in a common understanding of DFW, OPC, OST, FGC OST 2015-2018 ecosystem condition and trends 1.3.1 Share results of baseline monitoring Diverse constituencies, including scientists, fishing broadly through a variety of venues, including communities, tribes, and decision makers see DFW, OPC, OST, FGC OST 2015-2016 1.3 Engage with community meetings and the Western Society baseline monitoring results as credible, accessible, California’s diverse of Naturalists (WSN) Annual Meeting and useful for management ocean communities to 1.3.2 Maintain communication with Build trust in MPA monitoring results before and DFW, OPC, OST OST 2015-2018 share results from the California’s ocean community and tribes, after they are released baseline programs including through the MPA Collaboratives, Tribal governments are engaged in the monitoring and encourage contributions to DFW, OPC, OST OST 2015-2018 program oceanspaces.org

5

Strategic Priority 2 - Design and implement a partnership-based monitoring program that assesses MPA network performance and informs multiple mandates Lead Completion Key Action Action Summary Outcome Required/ Performance Indicator Responsibility Responsibility Date Evaluation of whether the two programs aim to 2.1.1 Compare goals for ASBS and MPA OST, SWRCB OST 2016 meet similar objectives or if there are discrepancies monitoring programs and identify potential Agencies involved in ASBS & MPA monitoring better areas of overlap OST, SWRCB OST 2016 understand goals of each other's programs Map illustrates where ASBSs and MPAs are co-

located and where data for each monitoring OST, SWRCB OST 2015-2016 2.1 Align marine and program has been collected water quality protected 2.1.2 At a regional scale, review monitoring Internal document identifies overlaps in area (i.e., ASBSs, MPAs) plans, reports and/or work plans to identify requirements, methodology, funding sources, and OST, SWRCB OST 2015-2016 monitoring programs to overlaps in program components personnel leverage resources, Highlight overlapping areas with potential for capacity and expertise OST, SWRCB OST 2015-2016 collaboration between the two programs across mandates and Deficiencies or problematic components in the two jurisdictions 2.1.3 Assess whether current structure of OST, SWRCB SWRCB 2016 programs are identified ASBS and MPA monitoring programs hinders Ways to address identified impediments are or limits progress in achieving program goals OST, SWRCB SWRCB 2016 identified 2.1.4 Develop and begin to implement interagency strategy to resolve any Agencies involved in ASBS and MPA monitoring inconsistencies between monitoring programs improve collaborative efforts OST, SWRCB OST 2016-2017 that hinder accomplishment of program goals 2.2.1 Prioritize and align data collection and Key indicators, metrics, and datasets that can inform

approaches that can inform both 1) essential both fisheries and MPA management at multiple DFW, OST, OPC DFW 2015-2016 2.2 Align fisheries and fisheries information needed for stock scales are identified MPA monitoring to assessments and fisheries management leverage resources, decisions, and 2) ecological information Focal MPAs where data collection could inform both capacity and expertise DFW, OST, OPC DFW 2016-2017 needed to assess the condition and trends of MPA and fisheries management are identified across mandates marine ecosystems 2.3 Develop and adopt a Adopted plan is cost-effective and feasible to 2.3.1 Work with data management experts DFW, OST OST 2015 comprehensive data implement to identify opportunities and develop a and information MPA monitoring data and results are easily written plan to leverage existing technology management plan for accessible and curated for long-term, public DFW, OST OST 2015-2018 solutions MPA monitoring that accessibility leverages existing technology solutions 2.3.2 Implement plan as part of long-term Plan is added as appendix to regional long-term DFW, OPC, OST OST 2015-2018 and ensures long-term, monitoring monitoring work plan public accessibility

6

2.4 Develop an MPA 2.4.1 Identify metrics that consider Monitoring metrics are based on the best available Monitoring Plan for the management and community priorities, and science and reflect management and community DFW, OST OST 2017 North Coast region to are informed by results from the North Coast priorities be submitted to the Fish MPA Baseline Program & Game Commission 2.4.2 Develop an inventory of short- and Monitoring program is designed to answer DFW, OST OST 2016-2017 for consideration as an long-term evaluation questions evaluation questions appendix to the MLPA 2.4.3 Conduct peer-review process of Monitoring approaches identified by plan are DFW, OST OST 2017 Master Plan technical components of plan scientifically rigorous and feasible 2.5 Diversify monitoring 2.5.1 Develop and begin to implement an Guiding document provides a framework for collaborations and approach for integrating multiple sources of integrating traditional ecological knowledge with OST OST 2015-2016 include multiple sources knowledge (e.g., traditional ecological other sources of information into long-term of knowledge (e.g. knowledge (TEK), ecological data, monitoring statewide agency, academic, socioeconomic data) Data use guidelines for North Coast baseline tribal, local) to broaden monitoring results are complete and can be applied OST OST 2015-2016 participation and to long-term MPA monitoring activities deepen understanding 2.5.2 Develop an inventory of relevant citizen Extent and capacity of existing citizen science of MPA network and science monitoring programs that exist monitoring programs informs approach to long- OST OST 2016-2018 relevant ocean statewide term monitoring in each region conditions Strategic Priority 3 - Develop an approach to statewide MPA network assessment (network assessment) that builds upon the monitoring framework to inform management decisions at a statewide scale Lead Completion Key Action Action Summary Outcome Required/ Performance Indicator Responsibility Responsibility Date 3.1 Increase alignment 3.1.1 Consider MPA network goals in state Deliberate consideration of statewide MPA network of research activities agency-contracted research on ocean issues goals in agency-contracted ocean/fisheries-related with state priorities, to and align research activities with these goals research MPA Statewide OST 2016-2018 increase usefulness for when feasible Leadership Team management decisions across agencies 3.2.1 Identify and pursue opportunities for MPA network assessment informs fisheries alignment of research activities with management DFW, OST DFW 2016 information needs for fisheries management 3.2.2 Incorporate monitoring approaches MPA and OAH monitoring activities are OPC, OST OPC 2016 3.2 Pursue MPA and strategies identified by the West Coast geographically and temporally aligned research and Ocean Acidification and Hypoxia (OAH) OAH research and modeling activities informs DFW,OPC SAT OST 2016-2018 monitoring activities Science Panel and are informed by MPA monitoring that have the potential 3.2.3 Engage regional experts to develop Long-term MPA monitoring produces data that to inform and/or align and recommend approaches for assessing contributes to our understanding of climate DFW, OPC, OST OST 2016-2018 multiple management impacts of climate change on ocean change impacts mandates and ecosystems and resources and evaluate MPA monitoring and network assessment help priorities how a changing climate may affect our determine climate change impacts to ecosystem OPC, OST OST 2016-2017 ability to meet MPA management and structure and function policy goals 7

3.3 Develop and OPC working group with DFW , DPR, FGC DFW, DPR, OPC, implement an convened to clarify roles and responsibilities in OPC 2016 FGC ecological impact SCP for marine areas adjacent to park units assessment tool to identify potential 3.3.1 Develop a framework for an cumulative impacts to automated ecological impact assessment to MPAs from research, help inform management decisions about Published manuscript that describes the monitoring and issuing SCPs assessment tool's purpose, function and DFW, OPC SAT DFW 2015-2016 education activities to components inform issuing Scientific Collecting Permits (SCP) 3.4.1 Clarify respective roles and purposes for Strengthened decision support for adaptive DFW, OPC, OST OST 2016 regional and statewide monitoring management Build efficiency into monitoring programs across DFW, OST OST 2015-2017 3.4 Develop a state mandates MPA monitoring data (ecological, socioeconomic) statewide monitoring 3.4.2 Develop guidelines for incorporating a approach document are considered together with oceanographic broad range of data into statewide that is distinct from monitoring and enforcement/compliance DFW, OST OST 2015-2017 monitoring including information on regional monitoring monitoring to build a more robust understanding of management, outreach, education and other plans and work plans the state of the network activities Fisheries, coastal zone and water quality management both inform and are informed by DFW, OST OST 2015-2017 MPA monitoring

8

Focal Area: Policy and Permitting (page 9 – 11)

Strategic Priority 1 - Improve governance of MPA network through adaptive management Lead Completion Key Action Action Summary Outcome Required/ Performance Indicator Responsibility Responsibility Date Members of the public can easily access information that clearly articulates how, if, and 1.1 FGC and PRC develop when FGC and PRC will receive and evaluate and convey process for 1.1.1 Post guidance on relevant agency MPA Statewide proposals and hear discussion about potential FGC, PRC 2017 receiving requests for websites detailing appropriate process Leadership Team changes to the MPA network, as well as the criteria changes to MPA network used to determine if action by either commission is warranted Regulatory ambiguities, inaccuracies, needs or 1.2 Oversee and maintain 1.2.1 Adopt regulations that are clear MPA Statewide FGC, DFW, DPR, enforcement challenges are addressed through the 2015 - 2018 effective MPA regulations accurate and enforceable Leadership Team PRC rulemaking process 1.3 Partner agencies Members of the MPA SLT raise emerging issues to 1.3.1 MPA SLT serves as a forum for agency identify emerging issues staff at partner agencies and elevate them when communication about emerging issues MPA Statewide and develop appropriate, including at the biannual “MPA FGC, PRC 2015 - 2018 identified by staff or constituents that may Leadership Team recommendations to Milestones” meetings that all MPA SLT agency require a response by more than one agency address them Directors attend Coastal Regulatory 1.4 Assess pending agency 1.4.1 Partner agencies provide informal Proposed new or revised regulations that could Agencies (CCC, CSLC, regulations for potential input to proposed regulations that may affect MPAs are brought to MPA SLT meetings for OPC 2015 - 2018 FGC, DFW, DPR, PRC, impacts to MPAs affect MPAs early in the process discussion prior to adoption SWRCB) Coastal Regulatory Commissions have access to a 1.5.1 Conduct review of original intent comprehensive inventory that captures existing regarding placement, design, and regulations FGC, CN, OPC, DFW FGC, DFW 2018 documentation regarding design considerations 1.5 Clarify MPA network of the MPA network for each MPA in the network objectives 1.5.2 Assess whether stated goals FGC identifies any MPAs that may be out of and objectives of MPAs are compatible with FGC, DFW FGC, DFW 2018 alignment with the adopted design considerations the design considerations Hold meetings with Tribal governments for the 1.6 Continue discussions 1.6.1 Respond to requests for information purpose of identifying areas of common ground with tribal governments DFW, FGC, OPC FGC, DFW 2015 - 2018 sharing and tribal consultations and areas of disagreement that will help inform about management further discussion. Strategic Priority 2 Integrate MLPA and MPA network goals, objectives and partnership-based management approach into relevant management documents Lead Completion Key Action Action Summary Outcome Required/ Performance Indicator Responsibility Responsibility Date 2.1 Update MLPA Master MLPA Master Plan update includes a clearly Plan (Master Plan) 2.1.1 Update language regarding MPA defined management review cycle that is explicitly DFW, OPC, FGC DFW 2015 management review cycle connected to adaptive management of the MPA network

9

Monitoring section of the MLPA Master Plan is 2.1.2 Align monitoring section with other aligned with the existing MPA monitoring DFW, OPC, OST, FGC DFW 2015 relevant documents framework and regional monitoring plans Relevant sections of the MLMA Master Plan update 2.2 Insert relevant content (such as development of FMPs, assessing impacts into MLMA Master Plan 2.2.1 Describe role and value of partnerships DFW, FGC, OPC DFW 2016 - 2018 on non-consumptive users, and public involvement update strategy) include language about partnerships

MLMA Master Plan update references MPA DFW, FGC, OPC, 2.2.2 Highlight value of MPA monitoring data DFW 2016 - 2018 monitoring data in relevant contexts OST 2.3 As SWRCB planning 2.3.1 Integrate considerations of the MPA Adopted amendment to SWRCB OTC Policy and policy documents are network during development of Once includes relevant references to MPA network OPC, SWRCB SWRCB 2016 updated, insert relevant Through Cooling (OTC) policy amendment goals, objectives, and partnership-based content where relevant management Relevant portions of the CSLC Strategic Plan 2.4.1 CSLC Strategic Plan update reflects reference MPAs and CSLC's specific role with OPC, CSLC CSLC 2015 CSLC commitments regarding MPAs 2.4 Insert relevant content respect to MPA management into agency Strategic Plan Relevant portions of the CCC Strategic Plan 2.4.2 CCC Strategic Plan update reflects CCC updates reference MPAs and CCC's specific role with OPC, CCC CCC 2018 commitments regarding MPAs respect to MPA management Strategic Priority 3 – Enhanced protection for MPA resources is provided in relevant resource agency authorizations Key Action Lead Completion Action Summary Outcome Required/ Performance Indicator Responsibility Responsibility Date White paper outlining and summarizing: legislative or policy foundations for special consideration of MPAs, current agency practices, and CSLC, CCC, SWRCB, OPC 2015 3.1 Create tools to recommendations to improve communication and OPC 3.1.1 Conduct inventory of existing improve and highlight coordination is created and distributed to agency interagency MPA coordination procedures inter-agency coordination staff Public document discussing how agencies coordinate is broadly distributed to relevant OPC OPC 2015 stakeholders 3.2.1 Develop internal interagency Interagency coordination document includes an coordination guidance document for staff OPC OPC 2015 – 2016 identified MPA point of contact for each agency use Develop guidance document for state agencies that 3.2.2 Guidance document for using CEQA for serve as lead for CEQA review which includes MPA Statewide OPC 2017 3.2 Improve consistency in MPAs broadly applicable suggestions on avoiding and Leadership Team approach to analyzing minimizing impacts to MPAs impacts of projects to CEQA guidelines require lead agencies to consider MPAs factors such as sediment re-suspension, invasive 3.2.3 Draft MPA-specific guidance for species introduction, substrate disturbance, noise MPA Statewide potential inclusion in next Office of Planning OPC/CNRA 2018 effects on living organisms, and water quality Leadership Team and Research CEQA guideline update impacts when determining the significance of project impacts to MPAs

10

Strategic Priority 4 - Identify marine resource enhancement/mitigation opportunities and impact avoidance strategies within or associated with MPAs Key Action Lead Completion Action Summary Outcome Required/ Performance Indicator Responsibility Responsibility Date

4.1.1 Review MPA monitoring results to Develop regional lists and/or maps that identify identify areas that may benefit from marine opportunities for marine resource enhancement, DFW, OST, OPC OST 2016 resource enhancement, mitigation, or mitigation, or impact avoidance strategies in the 4.1 Develop knowledge impact avoidance strategies MPA network base from existing data regarding marine resource 4.1.2 Consult with local MPA Collaboratives Regional lists and maps developed under 4.1.1 enhancement, mitigation, about opportunities for marine resource depict opportunities identified by local MPA DFW, OST, OPC, CN OPC and CN 2016 and impact avoidance enhancement, mitigation, or impact Collaboratives strategies pertinent to avoidance MPAs 4.1.3 Inventory projects related to marine Regional lists identify successful/unsuccessful resource enhancement, mitigation and DFW, DPR, SWRCB, projects as well as projects that require additional OPC 2016 impact avoidance strategies that could CSLC, OPC, OST, CCC funding to reach completion benefit the MPA network 4.2.1 Identify opportunities for marine 4.2 Use regulatory/policy resource enhancement, mitigation, or Create internal document summarizing relevant tools to carry out marine impact avoidance strategies in current regulatory/policy requirements relevant to marine DFW, CSLC, CCC, resource enhancement, OPC 2017 regulatory/policy requirements at resource enhancement, mitigation, or impact SWRCB, OPC mitigation, or impact participating MPA SLT agencies avoidance strategies avoidance strategies

State agencies on the Resources Agency Sea Grant 4.3 Identify and support 4.3.1. Utilize existing and promote new Advisory Panel (RASGAP) assert the importance of CSLC, CCC SWRCB, research projects on MPA research to evaluate MPA mitigation OPC 2016 - 2018 funding research proposals that assess potential DFW, OPC mitigation projects MPA mitigation strategies

11

Pacific Fisheries Management Council Agenda Item K.5.b Supplemental SWFSC PowerPoint 2 2014 Research Update March 2014

Development and Trials of Deep-set Buoy Gear in the Southern California Bight

Chugey Sepulveda, PhD Scott Aalbers, MS Craig Heberer, MS, NOAA PFMC 2014 Research Update Overview

Background on buoy gear (FL, South Pacific, Japan)

Project progression: Phases I, II, III, PLCA work

Describe 2013-2014 findings

Proposed game plan for 2014

Next Steps SPC vertical longline example Trial DSBG

Strike indicator float

2.2mm mono SCB Avg. thermocline ~71m mainline

8m-1.8mm gangions

Power light Depths fished 250 to 350m 4kg sinker Cefas PFMC 2014 Research Update Preston et al., 1998; Watt et al., 1998 DST PFMC 2014 Research Update SCB Research Overview Phase I PIER award to design and test deep-set buoy gear (DSBG) in Southern California (Saltonstall-Kennedy) Phase II Investigate alternative DSBG configurations that may increase efficiency and reduce potential for gear loss (Bycatch reduction and Engineering Program: 2013)

Phase III Testing DSBG with cooperative fishers in the SCB (Bycatch reduction and Engineering Program: 2013) PLCA Research Documenting depth distribution and testing DSBG within the PLCA CFR-West Program & NOAA Cooperative Research Program PFMC 2014 Research Update SCB-Phase I

Design and test deep-set buoy gear in Southern California Saltonstall-Kennedy Award, NOAA Environmental Assessment

Gear development

Initiate first fishing trials

Refine gear and set protocols based on tag deployments

Incorporate cooperative fisher involvement

Document feasibility of DSBG in SCB Gear design based on depth distribution of target and bycatch species Harpoon DGN DGN Thermocline

Proposed DSBG

Swordfish Daily Depth Distribution

5 am 10 am 3 pm 8 pm Time of Day Data modified from Sepulveda et al., 2010 Gear Experiments PFMC 2014 Research Update

8-lb lead

Below thermocline in <1 minute At depth in <4 minutes Time 19:12 20:24 21:36 22:48 0 Leader lengths 50 100 150 Light source 200

Depth 250 Buoy configuration 300 350 400 450 Gear Characteristics & Set Protocols Based on Florida fishery standards • 10 pieces of gear/set • 4-hr soak time • Gear is continuously monitored • Strike indication • Pulled upon strike

PFMC 2014 Research Update Catch Totals for 2011-2012 DSBG Trials PFMC 2014 Research Update • 54 4-hr sets • 540 pieces of gear deployed (2 hooks/piece) • 1,080 hooks soaked for 4hr • 4,320 hook-hours Total Catch Swordfish 14 Opah 2 SF Bigeye thresher 7 BET Common thresher 1 Opah blue shark Mola mola *Shallow hook 1 CT Blue Shark 2 2012 CA Swordfish Landings Harpoon was ~5 mt

DGN was ~72 mt

Experimental DSBG > than any CA harpoon vessel in 2012

60 50 PFMC 2014 Research Update 40

30

20 Metric Tons Metric 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 California Harpoon Landings Data from PacFIN, 2/20/2013 SCB-Phase II (2013-present)

Testing Modified Deep-Set Buoy Gear to Minimize Bycatch and Increase Swordfish Selectivity (Bycatch reduction and Engineering Program: 2013)

Objectives: Investigate alternative DSBG configurations within the SCB to: Increase efficiency Maximize target depth coverage Minimize potential for gear loss

Maintain ability to actively tend gear, visualize strikes and minimize time on the line

PFMC 2014 Research Update SCB-Phase II (2013)

Investigate alternative DSBG configurations within the SCB.

1. Reduce buoy count 2. Increase hook count 3. Maximize target depth coverage 4. Test different weighting regimes 5. Test the use of flashers and radar reflectors for nocturnal deployments Depth/temperature loggers used on all test sets

PFMC 2014 Research Update SCB-Phase II (2013) Two test configurations selected that: • Minimized tangling • Maximized water column coverage • Maintained ability to detect strikes • Maintained consistent depths • Maintained rapid sink rate PFMC 2014 Research Update SCB-Phase II (2013-present) Set information

Experimental trials (during periods of low swordfish harvest) 10 fishing days for 1,850 hook hours 3 Opah 3 Bigeye thresher sharks 1 Swordfish (lost at boat)

Fishing trials: 12 fishing days for 2,590 hook hours 1 Mako shark 1 Salmon shark 6 Blue sharks 11 Swordfish (3 lost at boat) PFMC 2014 Research Update SCB-Phase III Phase III Testing DSBG with cooperative fishers (Bycatch reduction and Engineering Program: 2014)

Test modified DSBG configuration with 3 vessels in 2014

Collect adequate set data to better assess feasibility, fisher acceptance and catch composition

Continue outreach to fishers, community and markets

PFMC 2014 Research Update DSBG Studies within the Pacific Leatherback Closure Area (PLCA)

Targeting Swordfish Deep During the Day to Reduce Bycatch

Collaborative Study: SWFSC, SWR & PIER

California Fisheries Research Program (CFR- West) NOAA Cooperative Research Award NOAA (Heidi Dewar, PhD, SWFSC) and PIER (Chugey Sepulveda, PhD).

PFMC 2014 Research Update PLCA studies

• Tag swordfish within the PLCA

• Document depth distribution

• Trial alternative gear types:

Deep-set Buoy Gear (PIER)

Deep-set Long Line (NOAA)

PFMC 2014 Research Update PIER swordfish research above Point Conception

• Six cruises to the PLCA (2012 & 2013)

• Tagged 13 swordfish (all with harpoon) • 11 with PSATs & 2 with SWFSC SPOT tags

DSBG trial results

Number of Total Total hook Species deployments hooks hours captured (10 pieces/set) deployed in PLCA 16 420 2,050 16 blue sharks 3 opah

PFMC 2014 Research Update PLCA Tag Data o Shallower daytime distribution o Trends are consistent with 2013 data o Inshore/bank oriented movements?

SCB Tag Data o Consistent daytime distribution o Trends are consistent across years and locations

PFMC 2014 Research Update Next Steps

Test DSBG in 2014 with cooperative fishers

Test Nocturnal fishing Shallow set BG (Florida) Nocturnal Harpooning

PFMC 2014 Research Update Acknowledgements Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program Cooperative Fisheries Grant Program NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center Bycatch Reduction and Engineering Program

California Fisheries Research Grant Program

Santa Monica Seafood

George T. Pfleger Foundation

Cooperative Fishers and Partners Donald Krebs Andrew White The Nature Conservancy Catalina Offshore Products Chesapeake Fish Company Gear Design

• Cost effective • Easy to use – 2.8mm mono mainline – 1.8mm gangions – 18/0 circle hooks – 46 lb float – 8 lb float – 8 lb float – Flag & radar reflector Total set-up cost for 10 sets of gear ~$5,500 June 2017

FAQs: West Coast drift gillnet (DGN) fishery & protected species west Current measures minimizing marine mammal and sea turtle coast entanglements, and NOAA Fisheries’ withdrawal of a proposed region rule for hard caps on interactions with protected species

How do drift gillnets work? Drift gillnets (DGN) are mesh nets that hang down into the ocean from floats on the surface. Nets used off California are large, 14-inch mesh designed to avoid entangling smaller species than the swordfish and other large fish that the fishery targets. The top of the nets hang from underwater lines, called net extenders, at least 36 feet beneath the surface, leaving room above the nets for non- targeted species to pass over them. At one time many whales and other protected species became entangled in drift gillnets, but such entanglements are far rarer today.

What action is NOAA Fisheries taking on the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s recommendation for hard caps on protected species interactions in the West Coast drift gillnet fishery? NOAA Fisheries has decided not to adopt a recommendation from the Council to put limits called “hard caps” on the number of certain marine mammals and sea turtles that could be entangled by drift gillnets. The Council’s proposed hard caps would have required the fishery to shut down for the rest of the season and even into the following season if the limits were reached. NOAA Fisheries is required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication when adopting fisheries conservation and management measures. The hard-cap proposal would have likely imposed significant new costs while also overlapping existing conservation measures that already protect those species. Therefore, NOAA Fisheries determined that the hard-cap proposal would not haveMMHSRP provided Permit significant#18786 additional conservation benefit.

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service | Page 1 FAQs: West Coast drift gillnet fishery & protected species

How often are protected species killed or injured in the DGN fishery? It has become unusual for turtles, large whales and other marine mammals to be injured or killed in the DGN fishery. Concerted efforts have reduced the high interaction rates of the 1990s, and today there are far fewer entanglements. NOAA Fisheries estimates the number of protected species that are injured or killed by the DGN fishery based on partial observer coverage. Gray whales are among the most- common whales off California ,but estimates show that only two gray whales have been killed or seriously injured since 2012. The most commonly entangled species is the short-beaked common dolphin; the number of short-beaked common dolphins injured or killed has dropped from more than 200 killed in some years in the early 1990s, to fewer than 10 injured or killed in 2015.

The latest estimates of mortality and serious injuries of protected species in the DGN fishery are described in a technical memorandum by NOAA Fisheries’ Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC). NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-568 Regression tree and ratio estimates of marine mammal, sea turtle, and seabird bycatch in the California drift gillnet fishery: 1990-2015

Technical Memorandum available at : Impacts on all beaked whales by the https://go.usa.gov/xNmJm California Alldrift Beaked gillnet fisheryWhales (1990-2015) 60

50 The number of 40

beaked whales 30

entangled in drift 20

gillnets has declined 10

sharply since the 0 Mortality / Serious injury (MSI) (MSI) injury Serious / Mortality Mortality and serious injury

early 1990s. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year

Impacts on short-beaked common dolphins by the

CaliforniaShort drift-beaked gillnet Common fishery Dolphin (1990-2015) Short-beaked 450 common dolphins 400

350 are the most

300 commonly entangled 250 species, but the 200 number entangled 150

Mortality / Serious injury (MSI) (MSI) injury Serious / Mortality is greatly reduced 100 Mortality and serious injury (MSI) 50 since the early

0 1990s. 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service | Page 2 FAQs: West Coast drift gillnet fishery & protected species

How does the DGN fishery compare to other fisheries in terms of interactions with protected species? In recent years, the DGN fishery has had similar or lower rates of interactions with protected sea turtles and marine mammals than other U.S. fisheries that target swordfish, including the Atlantic longline fishery that is certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. Compared to some foreign fisheries that target swordfish, it has comparable or fewer interactions with protected species.

How much swordfish does the DGN fishery catch? In 2015, 18 drift gillnet vessels landed 66 metric tons of swordfish worth $454,000. The fishery also lands some opah and sharks. In the same year, the United States imported 8,386 metric tons of swordfish from other countries, some of which record more interactions with marine mammals and sea turtles.

Do any laws protect sea turtles and marine mammals from impacts of the DGN fishery? Yes, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) both include provisions requiring NOAA Fisheries to examine and address impacts on these protected species. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that the fishery minimize bycatch to the extent practical and achieve optimum yield, which is the amount of harvest that provides “the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to food production and recreational opportunities and taking into account the protection of marine ecosystems.”

How do existing laws make the DGN fishery safer for protected species? NOAA Fisheries and its partners have taken many steps to greatly reduce the inadvertent catch of marine mammals and turtles in the DGN fishery. The Marine Mammal Protection Act provides for “take reduction teams” to develop strategies for reducing the catch (or “take”) of marine mammals and other protected species. In 1996 NOAA Fisheries convened the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team (POCTRT), which includes scientists, fishermen, representatives of environmental groups and scientific organizations, and representatives of fisheries and wildlife agencies. The POCTRT developed a Take Reduction Plan which includes strategies such as the use of sound- emitting devices called pingers to alert marine mammals to the presence of drift gillnets. and the use of net extenders that lower the nets beneath the surface where many marine mammals and turtles spend much of their time. In addition, NOAA Fisheries has examined the fishery’s impact on threatened and endangered species and has adopted additional safeguards to protect them.

Swordfish fishing vessel Sea Doxy, Moss Landing Harbor, California. Photo: NOAA Fisheries

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service | Page 3 FAQs: West Coast drift gillnet fishery & protected species

What actions have reduced impacts of the DGN fishery on protected species? In 1997 NOAA Fisheries adopted the recommendations of the POCTRT, requiring pingers, net extenders, and mandatory workshops for skippers in the DGN fleet. In 2001 NOAA fisheries also established two large conservation areas off the coast of California and Oregon to protect endangered loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. DGN fishing is prohibited in the conservation areas at times when sea turtles frequent the areas, thereby closing large areas to the fishery for a portion of the year. An annual closure extends from northern Oregon to Central California to protect leatherback turtles’ seasonal foraging areas, while another closure in the Southern California Bight is triggered during warmer-than-normal water temperatures to protect loggerhead sea turtles that may be present.

A large area of ocean off the coast of California and Oregon is off limits to drift gillnet fishing each year to protect endangered Leatherback leatherback sea turtles. Another Closure area off southern California is August 15 - closed during El Nino years (as November 15 Loggerhead Closure June 1 - August 31 determined by NOAA Fisheries) (El Nino years only) when water temperatures are warmer than average and loggerhead sea turtles are likely to be present.

Have existing regulations to protect marine mammals and sea turtles made a difference? Yes, in the 1990s the bycatch of protected species was a serious problem in the DGN fishery. However, the actions recommended by the TRT process, as well as other safeguards NOAA Fisheries has adopted in the course of ESA consultations, have dramatically reduced bycatch of protected species such that it is now relatively unusual for many large whales and turtles to become entangled.

Impacts on Leatherback Turtles by the Source: Carretta, J.V., J.E. Moore, and K.A. Forney. 2017. CaliforniaLeatherback drift gillnet Turtle fishery 18 NOAA Technical Memorandum,

16 NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-568. 83p.

14 Regression tree and ratio

12 estimates of marine mammal,

10 sea turtle, and seabird bycatch in the California drift gillnet 8 fishery: 1990-2015. 6

4 Mortality / Serious injury (MSI) (MSI) injury Serious / Mortality 2 Technical Memorandum available at : Mortality and serious injury (MSI) 0 https://go.usa.gov/xNmJm

MMHSRP1990 1991 1992 Permit1993 1994 #187861995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service | Page 4 FAQs: West Coast drift gillnet fishery & protected species

How do you know how many protected species are affected? NOAA Fisheries’ Observer Program deploys observers aboard some of the DGN vessels to monitor interactions with protected species. Observer coverage varies from year to year but generally observers monitor about 20 percent of the DGN fishing effort. NOAA Fisheries scientists then use the observer data and information on protected species populations to estimate the total bycatch of each species caught in the entire DGN fishery.

Can’t DGN vessels just fish for something else? An analysis by NOAA Fisheries found that most DGN fishery participants rely on the fishery for more than half their annual income. A potentially prolonged closure under the hard caps recommended by the Council could last into the next fishing year, imposing severe consequences and costs on participants. In addition, to fish in other fisheries, DGN fishery participants would have to buy permits for other fisheries and costing as much as $200,000 per permit. The Magnuson-Stevens Act calls for NOAA Fisheries to apply management and conservation measures that, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. The hard caps recommended by the Council would increase costs significantly and overlap existing protections that have already greatly reduced interactions with protected species.

Is the DGN fishery expanding? No, the number of vessels participating in the DGN fishery has dropped by about 90 percent since the 1990s to just 20 vessels last year. The decline is in part the result of limitations on the fishery to protect other species, such as prohibiting DGN fishing in the Pacific Leatherback Conservation Area, which was historically an area of high swordfish production.

Number of participating vesselsNumber in the California of vessels drift gillnet fishery (1990-2016) 160 141 140 129 124 121 120 118 120 112 109 99 100 86

80 72 61 60 52 44 39 40 39 36 38 35 40 26 22 20 17 18 15 17 20

0

Source: NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region Observer program records

U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration | National Marine Fisheries Service | Page 5

Commissioners STATE OF CALIFORNIA Valerie Termini, Executive Director Eric Sklar, President Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320 Saint Helena Sacramento, CA 95814 Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Vice President (916) 653-4899 McKinleyville Fish and Game Commission www.fgc.ca.gov Anthony C. Williams, Member Huntington Beach Russell E. Burns, Member Napa Peter S. Silva, Member El Cajon

Wildlife Heritage and Conservation Since 1870

August XX, 2017

Ms. Dorothy Lowman, Chair Pacific Fishery Management Council 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101 Portland, OR 97220

Barry Thom, Regional Administrator NOAA Fisheries, West Coast Region 7600 Sand Point Way NE Seattle, WA 98115

Subject: Request to consider the range of alternatives for deep-set buoy gear (DSBG) and linked buoy gear (LBG) and authorize use of these gear types

Dear Chair Lowman and Regional Administrator Thom:

It has come to the attention of the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) is developing permitting alternatives for new gear types for the West Coast swordfish fishery. I am writing on behalf of the Commission to request that you take action to consider these alternatives to open additional access for California fishermen to fish this healthy and sustainable fish stock. The Commission is aware that research on these alternative DSBG and LBG types has been ongoing and supports such research that could lead to the use of alternative gear types in the drift gillnet fishery.

Over the past twenty years, the number of U.S. West Coast, large-mesh drift gillnet swordfish fishery participants and landings have significantly declined, causing economic harm to fishermen and coastal communities, despite a healthy stock and high demand for swordfish. The decline in landings can be attributed in large part to regulations implemented to mitigate bycatch in the fishery. Through a combined effort of state, federal and private sector funding, the research and development of buoy gear resulted from an effort to design a gear type that would increase fishing opportunities by more selectively targeting swordfish while simultaneously reducing potential for interactions with protected species.

PFMC Chair Dorothy Lowman NOAA Regional Administrator Barry Thom August X, 2017 Page 2 of 2 DRAFT

One of the Commission’s goals is to support California’s sustainable coastal fishing communities. To maintain a robust coastal fishing economy, fisheries need both adaptive management and flexibility to fish a variety of gear types to maximize potential catch under varying oceanographic conditions. One of the objectives articulated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act for a healthy fishery such as West Coast swordfish, is to provide for opportunity and to ensure the economic viability of the swordfish fishery with sustained participation of West Coast fishing communities.

Results from collaborative research and experimental fishing permit trials of DSBG conducted thus far indicate that both configurations of this highly selective gear can minimize interactions with protected species and minimize finfish bycatch while expanding fishing opportunities, increasing domestic landings, and contributing to the profitability of the swordfish fishery.

The Commission asks that PFMC thoughtfully consider dual authorization of DSBG and LBG, while also providing an efficient mechanism for authorization to allow fishermen to sustainably harvest a high-quality, high-value product. Dual authorization of these gears helps to address many bycatch concerns, while helping achieve optimum yield of a healthy swordfish stock and maximizing socioeconomic benefits for fishermen and coastal communities.

Thank you,

Valerie Termini Executive Director ec: Members, California Fish and Game Commission Charlton Bonham, Director, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Craig Shuman, Marine Region Manager, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Marci Yaremko, State/Federal Marine Fisheries Program Manager, California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Commissioners STATE OF CALIFORNIA Valerie Termini, Executive Director Eric Sklar, President Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1320 Saint Helena Sacramento, CA 95814 Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Vice President (916) 653-4899 McKinleyville Fish and Game Commission www.fgc.ca.gov Anthony C. Williams, Member Huntington Beach Russell E. Burns, Member Napa Peter S. Silva, Member El Cajon

Wildlife Heritage and Conservation Since 1870

August X, 2017

Honorable Gavin Newsom, Lieutenant Governor Chair, California State Lands Commission 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South Sacramento, CA 95825

Via email to [email protected]

Re: Comments on Poseidon Resources’ proposed seawater desalination project at Huntington Beach (Poseidon Project)

Dear Lieutenant Governor Newson:

I am writing on behalf of the California Fish and Game Commission (FGC) to offer comments for consideration on proposed desalination projects in general, and the proposed Poseidon Project in Huntington Beach specifically. FGC provided comments to the California Coastal Commission on its consideration of the proposed Poseidon Project in February 20171, and appreciates the opportunity to convey similar comments to you now.

With ongoing concerns about long-term water availability for California and less snow pack as the climate warms, seawater desalination is proposed as one solution to the water needs of California communities. FGC understands the need to explore new and alternative measures to meet resource demands in a sustainable manner, and recognizes that seawater desalination has the potential to be a valuable tool in California’s water supply portfolio. FGC also recognizes that climate variability is an issue facing all resource management agencies, and that balancing the needs of human populations in the face of uncertain resource availability can be a difficult task.

At the same time, current seawater desalination technology also has the potential for significant detrimental impacts to California’s marine ecosystems. The mission of FGC is to ensure the long-term sustainability of fish and wildlife in California. Thus, FGC would like to emphasize that seawater desalination projects must be carefully considered and analyzed by all permitting agencies, and ultimately designed in a way to avoid or

1http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/Wastewater/Poseidon/Letter_CFG_2017_ 02_01.pdf

Lieutenant Governor Newsom August X, 2017 Page 2 of 4

minimize adverse effects to living marine resources and habitats in the marine environment to the greatest extent possible.

Of particular relevance, in an effort to preserve marine ecosystem functions, buffer against uncertainty, and complement species-specific management, FGC adopted the nation’s first coast-wide network of marine protected areas (MPAs). In place since 2012, California’s globally-significant MPA network was created to help ensure that the natural diversity, marine ecosystem functions, and marine natural heritage of the state were protected while also helping to improve recreational, educational and study opportunities.2 FGC, along with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and numerous other agencies and non-governmental organizations, has invested significant time and resources to ensure that MPAs are managed in a manner consistent with legislative guidance, FGC and stakeholder intent, and ensuring that the system of MPAs functions as a robust network.

I understand that there are at least nine active proposals for seawater desalination plants along the California coast that would join the ten existing plants3, some in close proximity to MPAs. FGC seeks to strengthen the shared commitment of our partner coastal management agencies to help maximize MPA network functionality by considering actions that subject the MPA network to limited human disturbance. FGC valued the opportunity to work with the California State Lands Commission (SLC) and its staff during the MPA planning process and would like to acknowledge SLC ‘s continued leadership in upholding standards for marine protection, specifically its role as a key member of the MPA Statewide Leadership Team convened by the California Ocean Protection Council. In particular, SLC committed in the leadership team’s adopted work plan4 to update SLC’s strategic plan to reflect commitments regarding MPAs, to assess pending agency regulations for potential impacts to MPAs, and to both consider data regarding and identify opportunities for mitigation and impact avoidance strategies in current regulatory/policy requirements pertinent to MPAs.

FGC reiterates its support of efforts to reduce impacts to marine resources by evaluating potential project impacts to individual MPAs, the MPA network as a whole, and site- specific marine resources during permitting and decision-making processes. As such, we urge SLC to require that proposals for seawater desalination facilities avoid or minimize impacts to MPAs and all marine resources through best available siting, design, and technology.

Minimizing impacts through thoughtful design is consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board’s recently-adopted Ocean Plan Amendment, which requires desalination plants to use the best available site, design, technology and mitigation

2 Marine Life Protection Act, Fish and Game Code § 2853(b) 3 http://pacinst.org/publication/key-issues-in-seawater-desalination-proposed-facilities/ 4 Marine Protected Area (MPA) Statewide Leadership Team Work Plan FY 15/16 – 17/18, Key Action Items 1.4, 2.4, and 4.3. Available at www.opc.ca.gov/programs-summary/marine-protected- areas/partnerships/

Lieutenant Governor Newsom August X, 2017 Page 3 of 4

measures feasible to minimize intake and mortality of marine life and identifies subsurface intakes as the preferred technology. 5 Additionally, the board’s policy contains requirements for protecting MPAs, including a prohibition on harmful intake and discharge structures within MPAs and a directive to site discharge and surface intakes at sufficient distances to minimize water quality and marine life impacts to protected areas.

Impacts to marine life from seawater desalination clearly can be avoided through current technology such as subsurface intakes, which pull ocean water through pipes beneath the seafloor rather than through an open pipe in the water column. Subsurface technology eliminates impacts to marine life from being impinged on an intake screen or entrained in the source water from an open ocean intake, impacts that can result in significant injury and death of marine species. Despite this, the policy within the Ocean Plan Amendment also provides flexibility for alternative intake and disposal methods, with greater impacts to marine life, if it can be demonstrated that preferred technologies are infeasible. Given that all subsurface technologies evaluated for this site were found to be technically or economically infeasible by the Independent Scientific Technical Advisory Panel jointly convened by the California Coastal Commission and Poseidon Water, FGC questions the appropriateness or necessity of siting the proposed desalination plant off Huntington Beach relative to the need for alternative sources of water to augment Orange County’s water supply arsenal at a high economic and environmental cost.

At a minimum, FGC urges SLC to make avoiding potential impacts to MPA effectiveness a priority and to consider additional science on best management measures for seawater intake. While new desalination projects with open ocean intakes will not be permitted within MPAs, facilities with open ocean intakes near MPAs can have a direct impact on marine resources; incidental take and the reduction of critical larval connectivity between MPAs occurs as marine life is pulled into a plant and removed from the ecosystem, including organisms originating from the MPAs that are necessary to support California’s marine life. Impacts from open ocean intake have the potential to undermine the ability of MPAs to function as a network, weakening the science-based framework on which they were created and potentially their ability to generate expected long-term benefits.

While in a July 2017 letter to FGC6 Poseidon stated that 91% of larvae estimated to be entrained by the proposed project are from fish that are not associated with the kelp and rocky reef habitat inside the southern California coastal MPA reserve network, FGC would like to emphasize that kelp and rocky reef habitat are only two of the many habitat types California’s MPAs are designed to protect. The network is designed to provide protection to all marine habitat types and their associated marine life, as mandated by the MLPA. Further, while Poseidon concludes that there is little or no likelihood that the

5 State Water Resources Control Board, Final Staff Report and Final Desalination Amendment, including the Final Substitute Environmental Documentation. Adopted on May 6, 2015. Available at: www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_decisions/adopted_orders/resolutions/2015/rs2015_0033_sr_apx.pdf 6 Fish and Game Commission meeting materials for June 21-22, 2017 meeting, Agenda Item No. 34, available at nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=145898&inline

Lieutenant Governor Newsom August X, 2017 Page 4 of 4

project’s potential entrainment could negatively affect any MPA or any network of MPAs, and that marine life effects due to entrainment are anticipated to be insignificant based on the 2010 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review relied upon by SLC, the 2010 CEQA review was completed before MPAs were designated as a network within the Southern California Bight. FGC requests that the supplemental CEQA review fully evaluate how the proposed open ocean intake as modified would adversely impact productivity and connectivity of the affected MPA system.

With a tidelands lease for desalination facilities poised for your consideration, it is critical to uphold protections for California’s MPA network, and to preserve the state’s significant investment in the resilience of our ocean. Seawater desalination can be a tool in our water supply portfolio, particularly when other less economically- and environmentally- costly options are exhausted, but it must be carefully analyzed and designed in a way to avoid or minimize adverse effects to the greatest extent possible. Siting desalination facilities away from MPAs (and other sensitive habitats and species), and requiring the use of subsurface intakes, will help ensure California’s ocean ecosystems are sustained in the long-term.

We urge you to require precautionary design, siting and technology for the Poseidon Project and any future seawater desalination projects along the California coastline.

Sincerely,

Eric Sklar President cc: Members, California Fish and Game Commission Honorable Betty T. Yee, California State Controller and member, California State Lands Commission Michael Cohen, Director of the California Department of Finance and member, California State Lands Commission Jennifer Lucchesi, Executive Officer, California State Lands Commission Jack Ainsworth, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission Felicia Marcus, Chair, State Water Resources Control Board David Noren, Chair, and members, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Dr. Terry Young, Chair, and members, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Dr. Jean Pierre Wolff, Chair, and members, Central Coast Reginal Water Quality Control Board Irma Munoz, Chair, and members, Los Angeles Reginal Water Quality Control Board William Ruh, Chair, and members, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Henry Abarbanel, Chair, and members, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board

Ashcraft, Susan@FGC

From: Susan Jordan Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 2:05 PM To: Eric Sklar Cc: FGC; Susan Jordan Subject: FGC Review of Proposed Brookfield Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant Attachments: Final Letter to FGC on Poseidon Desal.pdf; Final Desal Principles in OPPOSITION of Poseidon-HB.pdf; Poseidon Short Letter Statement - Appendix.pdf; Poseidon DSEIR_Comment_Ltr_072717.pdf

Dear Chair Sklar,

Please find the following documents attached below:

1. A cover letter from CCPN requesting the FGC to engage in review of the Brookfield Poseidon Seawater Desalination Plant as proposed.

2. The NGO Restatement of Principles on Seawater Desalination in California and Opposition to the Brookfield Poseidon Plant as Proposed and supporting Appendix:

3. The California Coastal Commission comment letter submitted to the State Lands Commission on July 27th, 2017 on the Supplemental DSEIR for the proposed project that is cited in our Cover letter:

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Best,

Susan Jordan

Susan Jordan, Executive Director California Coastal Protection Network 2920 Ventura Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93105

Ph: 805-637-3037 Email:[email protected] www.coastaladvocates.com

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” - Martin Luther King, Jr.

The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you.

1 Attachment 1

Attachment 2 Letter to Governor Brown, et al. Re: Brookfield/Poseidon Huntington Beach Desalination Project – OPPOSE

July 26, 2017

The Honorable Edmund G. Brown Felicia Marcus, Chair Governor, State of California State Water Resources Control Board c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173 1001 I Street, 24th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814

Dayna Bochco, Chair Gavin Newsom, Chair California Coastal Commission California State Lands Commission 45 Fremont Street #2000 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100-South San Francisco, CA 94105 Sacramento, CA 95825

William Ruh, Chair California Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside, California 92501-334

RE: Brookfield/Poseidon Huntington Beach Desalination Project – OPPOSE

Dear Governor Brown and Honorable Chairpersons:

We write in opposition to the Brookfield/Poseidon Huntington Beach seawater desalination facility as currently proposed (Project). Our organizations and our hundreds of thousands of members are dedicated to advancing freshwater sustainability, consumer protection, environmental justice, and coastal and marine conservation in California. Upcoming decisions regarding the Project are of precedential importance as California considers how to make its water supply more safe, resilient, equitable, and cost-effective into our collective long-term future. We oppose the Project as proposed because it is not consistent with these goals, and instead would: (1) Impose significant and unnecessary costs on Orange County water districts and ratepayers; (2) Set back California’s efforts to advance climate-smart water policy; (3) Fail to alleviate reliance upon, or impacts to, freshwater ecosystems, including the Bay-Delta; and (4) Fail to comply with California law and regulations that govern seawater desalination facilities.1

We should be clear that we remain open to the use of seawater desalination as a “last resort” element of a well-planned local or regional water supply portfolio that prioritizes investment in multi-benefit, cost-effective, climate-smart supplies. As recently explained

1 We provide information in support of these arguments in the attached appendix. Letter to Governor Brown, et al. Re: Brookfield/Poseidon Huntington Beach Desalination Project – OPPOSE by Stanford’s Water in the West Program, sustainable seawater desalination projects are those that “are smaller; that provide supply to meet a specific, clear local demand; that are located away from sensitive and valuable marine areas; and that are powered by renewable energy sources.”2 For example, the proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project,3 which includes a modestly-sized desalination facility as part of a portfolio of investments, follows many of the recommendations our organizations have put forth, such as prioritizing lower-impact water resources, seeking to “right-size” the facility, and using subsurface intakes in order to comply with the State Water Board’s Ocean Plan Desalination Amendment.

By contrast, large-scale seawater desalination facilities in California will have significant economic, energy, and opportunity costs that rarely justify their benefits. It would be far too easy for an expensive and inefficient large-scale facility to become a stranded asset – or, worse, an inescapable long-term liability – for local water districts and communities at the expense of more affordable, resilient, and environmentally sound alternatives.

We also reiterate our support for a rigorous regulatory process that ensures seawater desalination facilities are sited, scaled, and designed to meet demonstrated needs and to incorporate “best available” technologies that avoid or minimize adverse impacts on California’s productive coastal and marine ecosystems. At minimum, proposed facilities must comply with the State Water Resources Control Board’s 2015 regulations governing seawater desalination facilities and brine disposal (“Desalination Policy’). They should also use innovative designs and technologies, such as the use of renewable energy to power 100% of their operations; variable production schedules that allow facilities to take advantage of less expensive electricity rates at certain times of day; and sub-surface intakes to minimize marine life impacts, in contrast to open ocean intakes, the use of which is contrary to long-standing California policy and barred from use in other contexts.

In this case, after reviewing permit application materials and other documents associated with the proposed Project, as well as claims made by the Project’s agents and lobbyists, we believe the Project is not compatible with the common-sense approaches, policies, and regulations that California has established to guide its water investments and, more specifically, to guide the introduction of seawater desalination into the state’s water supply portfolio.

For these reasons, we urge you to deny the Project as proposed pursuant to your respective authorities. California should be showing the United States and the world how it will champion innovative water solutions, rather than enabling the Project’s proponent to lock Californians into long-term dependence on a project that is more costly than the alternatives and based on the use of outdated, harmful, and unsustainable technology.

Sincerely,

2 Leon Szeptycki, et al., Marine and Coastal Impacts of Ocean Desalination in California (Water in the West, Center for Ocean Solutions, Monterey Bay Aquarium, The Nature Conservancy, May 2016), available at http://stanford.io/2axdXE7. 3 See Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, https://www.watersupplyproject.org/. Letter to Governor Brown, et al. Re: Brookfield/Poseidon Huntington Beach Desalination Project – OPPOSE

Sean Bothwell Garry Brown Policy Director Executive Director California Coastkeeper Alliance Orange County Coastkeeper Inland Empire Waterkeeper

Susan Jordan Merle Moshiri Executive Director President California Coastal Protection Network Residents for Responsible Desalination

Damon Nagami Steven Johnson Director, Southern California Ecosystems Project Water Resources Policy Analyst Natural Resources Defense Council Heal the Bay

Kyle Jones Staley Prom Policy Advocate Legal Associate Sierra Club Surfrider Foundation

Marce Gutiérrez-Graudiņš Olga Reynolds Founder / Director Founder AZUL Orange County Earth Stewards

Marco Gonzalez Elizabeth Dougherty PhD Executive Director Director Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation Wholly H20

Conner Everts, Executive Director & Facilitator Oscar Rodriguez Executive Director & Facilitator Victor Valladares Environmental Water Caucus Directors Desal Response Group Oak View ComUNIDAD Southern California Watershed Alliance

Dan Silver Dan Jacobson Executive Director State Director Endangered Habitats League Environment California

Adam Scow Leslie Tamminen California Director Ocean Program Director Food & Water Watch Seventh Generation Advisors

Yenni Diaz Kira Redmond Project Director Executive Director Orange County Environmental Justice Santa Barbara Channelkeeper

Claire Robinson Colin Bailey Managing Director Executive Director & Managing Attorney Amigos de los Rios - Emerald Necklace The Environmental Justice Coalition for Water Attachment 3

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 VOICE (415) 904-5200 FAX (415) 904-5400 TDD (415) 597-5885

July 27, 2017

Alexandra Borack California State Lands Commission 100 Howe A venue, Suite 100-South Sacramento, CA 95825

VIA EMAIL: [email protected]

RE: Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("DSEIR") for the proposed Poseidon desalination project ("Poseidon Project") in Huntington Beach (SCH #2001051092)

Dear Ms. Borack:

This letter provides Coastal Commission staff comments on the above-referenced DSEIR. The DSEIR limits its review to just the proposed changes to the project's offshore components that occurred after the previous CEQA review was completed in 201 0 by the City of Huntington Beach and that are within the California State Lands Commission's ("CSLC's") tidelands lease. The DSEIR refers to these proposed changes, which include installation of wedgewire screens and a diffuser, as the Lease Modification Project ("LMP"). In response to the CSLC's Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Coastal Commission staff had requested that in addition to evaluating these newly proposed offshore LMP components, the CEQA analysis be broadened and modified to address onshore project changes, changed circumstances, and new information applicable to the Poseidon Project that have occurred or been developed since the EIR was certified by the City of Huntington Beach in 2010.

Coastal Commission staff's request was based on the Coastal Commission's obligation to comprehensively review both onshore and offshore components of the Poseidon Project. The CSLC' s review of solely the LMP means that this document will be of limited use for the Coastal Commission to rely on for evaluating conformity of the Poseidon Project to relevant provisions of the Coastal Act and the City of Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program. The Coastal Commission's evaluation of the Poseidon Project will need to address proposed project changes and changed circumstances that have occurred since 2010, the majority of which are not addressed in the DSEIR. For example, the Poseidon Project's projected operating life was originally 30 years, but Poseidon now proposes a 50-60 year operating life, which will extend the period of project effects on marine life and other coastal resources. The proposed site layout has also been modified and wetlands have been identified on site. These are issues that are not evaluated in the DSEIR, given its limited scope, but they will need to be considered by the Coastal Commission. Comments on Poseidon Draft SEIR (SCH #200 1051 092)

In addition, there is new information available today that was not available during the 2010 CEQA review. For example, there is new information and sources about projected sea level rise ("SLR") and new guidance on how to address SLR. 1 Since 2010, new information has been developed regarding increased seismic risks at and near the site, increased beach scour and erosion rates, and increased tsunami risks. The Coastal Commission will also need an evaluation of the project's effects on nearby Marine Protected Areas ("MP As"), which were established after completion of the 2010 EIR.

Specific Comments on the DSEIR (LMP Only)

Section 3.0- Cumulative Projects: The document's Table 3-1 briefly describes several nearby projects that could result in cumulative impacts along with the LMP. The table notes only that "Beach Nourishment Projects" occur on an approximately five-year cycle and that one or two such projects are expected within the term of the LMP over the next 10 years. We recommend that the DSEIR be revised to fully evaluate how the necessary beach nourishment will affect the LMP over its expected operating life and how the LMP will rely on beach nourishment in the face of increasing coastal erosion.

In reviewing the 2010 Project's effects related to beach scour and replenishment, the 2010 CEQA document noted only that project stability would rely "on ongoing and increased beach replenishment." It did not assess the amount or timing of beach replenishment needed to protect the facility. Since 2010, new information has been developed establishing that beach scour and erosion is likely to be more severe than previously known and that both the LMP and the Poseidon Project would need even greater volumes of sand to provide adequate protection, particularly over their full proposed operating lives. Over the past several years, the United States Geological Survey has applied the CoSMoS modeling system to identify locations along the California coast where sea level rise and future storm events are likely to cause coastal flooding and erosion. In 2015, the CoSMos process identified the likelihood of significant increases of up to 30% in storm and wave energy at beach locations adjacent to Poseidon's proposed site and increased frequency of extreme El Nino events. 2 As part of the 2015 Independent Science and Technical Advisory Panel ("ISTAP") conducted by Poseidon and

1 These include: 2013 California Ocean Protection Council State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document ("State Guidance Document"), which was based largely on a 2012 National Research Council report, Sea Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future, 2014 California Natural Resources Agency Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, 2015 Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance, 2016 California's Safeguarding California: Implementation Action Plans, 2017 State Water Board Resolution No. 2007-0059 directing staff to evaluate how to reduce vulnerability of water infrastructure to flooding, storm surge, and sea level rise, Coastal Storm Modeling System ("CoSMoS") 3.0 for Southern California, with expected SLR effects on Southern California beaches, expected 30% increases in wave and storm energies, etc. Several of these documents and efforts resulted in part from work of California's Coastal and Ocean Resources Working Group for the Climate Action Team, an interagency state effort that includes about twenty agencies, including the CSLC, State Water Board, and Coastal Commission.

2 See, for example, Cai et. al, ENSO and greenhouse warming, Nature Climate Change 5, 849-859, 2015, and Barnard et. a!, Coastal vulnerability across the Pacific dominated by El Nino/Southern Oscillation, Nature Geoscience 8, 801-807,2015.

2 Comments on Poseidon Draft SEIR (SCH #200 1051 092)

Coastal Commission staff, Poseidon provided documentation showing that the beach and surf zone near the proposed facility site could move up to about 1000 feet laterally due to erosion and accretion that results from seasonal sand movement and storm events, and that scour could remove up to about 30 vertical feet of sand from the nearshore area. 3 This amount of sand movement could expose portions of the LMP's offshore pipelines and associated pipeline manholes, some of which are elevated above the pipelines themselves. Poseidon's calculations were prepared prior to release of the above-referenced CoSMos results, so the effects identified during the IST AP are likely to be even greater than stated.

Increased storm and wave energy and higher rates of coastal erosion within state tidelands could result in exposure and possible damage to the intake and outfall structures, which in turn could affect public access, marine life, and other coastal resources. We recommend that the SEIR be revised to incorporate new information about expected increases in sea level rise and coastal erosion rates developed after 2010, including the potential that more frequent and higher volume beach replenishment projects may be needed to protect the LMP.

Section 4.0 -Environmental Setting and Impacts Analysis:

• Geology and Soils: The DSEIR acknowledges that the prior CEQA review found the 2010 Project may be subject to significant impacts or hazards from seismicity, faulting, unstable soils, liquefaction, and shallow groundwater conditions, though it also notes that these would be reduced through mitigation measures. However, the 2010 CEQA review of seismic- related effects evaluated just the project's onshore components and was based on a lower level of potential seismic activity than is currently expected for the project location. The 2010 review based its assessment on the underlying Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone ("NIFZ") experiencing a maximum 6.9 magnitude earthquake and a maximum ground acceleration of0.74g. More recent studies have identified the NIFZ as having the potential for earthquakes of7.4 or 7.5 magnitude earthquakes, which would presumably be accompanied by significantly higher potential ground accelerations. 4

The DSEIR further notes that CEQA generally requires that the impacts of existing hazards need to be evaluated only if a proposed project risks exacerbating existing hazards or conditions, such as exposing people or structures to loss, injury, or death, or being located on an unstable site. New information and changed circumstances since the 2010 CEQA review show that the LMP could result in these hazards or conditions. The area's relatively high seismic energy and potential ground movement could result in damage or collapse of the offshore structures, leading to adverse impacts to marine life, public access to the shoreline, recreational use, and/or to other coastal resources. We recommend the SEIR be revised to evaluate whether the LMP would cause adverse effects as a result of the relatively high potential for significant seismic events at and near the site.

3 See Jenkins, Scott, and Joseph Wasyl, Oceanographic and Sediment Transport Analysis of Optimal Siting ofa Seabed Infiltration Gallery (SJG) at the Huntington Beach Desalination Facility, May 19, 2014, and Jenkins, Scott, Updated Beach Gallery Reconsideration Memo, produced for Poseidon, February 6, 2015.

3 Comments on Poseidon Draft SEIR (SCH #200 1051 092)

The DSEIR includes a currently proposed mitigation measure (APM/APLC-1) that would have Poseidon contract with a structural or civil engineer to investigate the ability of the outfall pipeline to support the selected diffuser based on expected wave loading and currents and increased salinity. We recommend that this mitigation measure be revised to require that this investigation also evaluate the structural integrity of both pipelines and their ability to withstand the site's seismic characteristics.

• Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, and Product Water Quality: The proposed LMP would be subject to adverse effects of sea level rise and climate change, including those associated with increased wave and tide heights, increased storm and wave energy, higher rates of coastal erosion, increased frequency of flooding, and others. As indicated above, protecting the LMP from these phenomena will likely require changes to regional beach nourishment programs. We recommend the SEIR evaluate likely changes needed to this public service, along with the environmental effects of any infrastructure changes that would likely be necessary to protect the LMP and its associated components, and that the review incorporate new state and agency guidance on sea level rise, climate change, and infrastructure adaptability.

Section 4.1 Ocean Water Quality and Marine Biological Resources: Both the Poseidon Project and the LMP are expected to have extensive, long-term, and significant adverse effects on public trust marine biological resources due to the type and extent of the entrainment that would result from its use of a screened, open intake. As part of the formal consultation the Regional Board is conducting in its review of the Poseidon Project, we have prepared two technical memoranda that review and critique the Poseidon entrainment data and studies referenced in the DSEIR and that show substantially different and higher annual entrainment impacts than identified in the DSEIR. These productivity losses would also apply to the shorter- term LMP operating life being reviewed in this SEIR. Those memoranda also show that extending the existing intake to any of several different nearby locations would result in substantially lower entrainment rates than the currently proposed intake location. We recommend that the SEIR include a more comprehensive analysis of the potential entrainment effects of the LMP, based on the information available now that was not analyzed as part of the 2010 CEQA review.

We also recommend the DSEIR be revised to evaluate the LMP's ocean acidification effects. Global climate change is resulting in increasing acidification of California's offshore waters. 5 California has taken a number of steps to address this adverse impact to the state's coastal waters. 6 Desalination discharges are generally more acidic than ambient ocean water, and in

5 See, for example, Chan, et. al, Persistent spatial structuring of coastal ocean acidification in the California Current System, Scientific Reports 7, May 31, 2017, available at: http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-0 17-02777-y

6 See, for example, the state's involvement in the Pacific Coast Collaborative and West Coast Governors Alliance on Ocean Health, the West Coast Ocean Acidification and Hypoxia Science Panel, and the CSLC's 2016-2020 Strategic Plan that includes a specific provision to "Through lease terms and other mechanisms, develop strategies to address and, where possible avoid, shoreline armoring, ocean acidification, and generation of marine debris."

4 Comments on Poseidon Draft SEIR (SCH #200 1051 092)

fact, discharges from Poseidon's Carlsbad facility, which are expected to be similar to those of this Huntington Beach facility, generally has lower pH levels than ambient conditions. The LMP's ongoing discharge of 56 MGD of effluent more acidic than seawater is likely to adversely affect nearby public trust resources and may represent a cumulatively significant adverse impact. We recommend these adverse effects be evaluated in a revised SEIR.

Section 4.1.1.2- Marine Biological Resources: This section describes several of the marine species found in the project area and that rely on local habitat, including the federally-listed endangered western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). The DSEIR, however, does not evaluate known or expected impacts to the plover. Similarly, the 2010 CEQA review acknowledged the presence of plovers nearby but did not assess potential project impacts to the plover.7 After 2010, however, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published its final rule regarding designated critical habitat for the plover, which included nearby areas in Bolsa Chica and at the mouth of the Santa Ana River. There has been no CEQA evaluation of the effects of this change related to the Poseidon Project or the LMP, and we recommend the SEIR be revised to include the necessary evaluation.

Section 4.1.1.3- Marine Protected Areas: The 2010 CEQA review was completed before MP As were designated within the Southern California Bight. Several of these MP As are within source water bodies that would experience entrainment-related effects due to Poseidon's proposed use of the power plant intake. Although Poseidon has stated that the organisms originating in nearby MP As represent a very small percentage of all the organisms it expects to entrain, 8 it is not yet clear whether those organisms represent a much larger proportion of those originating in a particular MP A- that is, an MP A may provide a relatively small number of the roughly 100 million organisms Poseidon would entrain each year, but those entrained organisms may represent a relatively large proportion of the organisms exported from the MP A to support California's marine life ecosystems. We recommend the SEIR be revised to more fully evaluate how the LMP would adversely affect the intended productivity and connectivity of the affected MPA system.

Section 4.1.3- Marine Biological Resources, Significance Criteria: For evaluating the LMP's effects on marine biological resources, the document proposes to use similar significance criteria that were used in the 2010 CEQA review. For entrainment and impingement, the 2010 CEQA document used as its criterion "whether project-related impingement and entrainment impacts would substantially reduce populations of affected species such that the sustainability of those populations could not be maintained." Using this criterion in the SEIR, however, does not acknowledge changes that have occurred since the 2010 CEQA document was certified,

7 Additionally, the California Energy Commission's review of the power plant retooling (Application For Certification 00-AFC-13) included a September 8, 2006 letter from the California Department of Parks and Recreation that described the propose power plant's entrainment as one of several effects it considered significant under CEQA guidelines, due to degradation of the plover's foraging habitat and reduction of native fish. However, this issue was not addressed in that AFC review.

8 See Ten era Environmental, Assessment ofEntrainment Effects Due to the Proposed Huntington Beach Desalination Plant on State Marine Protected Areas, prepared for Poseidon, 2016.

5 Comments on Poseidon Draft SEIR (SCH #200 1051 092)

including the OPA Desai Amendment. The 2010 document explained part of its reasoning for using that criterion was that while "the primary issue of concern for the project relates to effects from impingement and entrainment ... [t]here is no specific regulatory guidance for determining the significance of these impacts for seawater desalination facilities." This is no longer the case, given the specific requirements established in the OPA's Desai Amendment regarding avoiding and minimizing entrainment, so we recommend the SEIR be revised to base its significance criteria on whether the proposed project would exceed that regulatory standard. This change would also be consistent with the other significance criterion the DSEIR adopted from the prior 2010 CEQA review- i.e., whether the project discharge "would exceed regulatory (NPDES permit) limits." We therefore recommend that the SEIR use as a significance criterion whether the LMP would be consistent with requirements of the OPA's Desai Amendment.

The DSEIR also cites the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15065(a)(l)) that an EIR be prepared when a project "has the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species ... " As acknowledged in the environmental documentation supporting the OPA's adoption, seawater is habitat.9 Poseidon's proposed intake volume of 106 MGD of seawater habitat represents a significant reduction of the habitat numerous species rely on to support their productivity. During each year of operations, the LMP would remove more than 3 8 billion gallons of habitat. 10 Although the water drawn into the intake comes from source water bodies that extend some distance up and down coast, this volume, if condensed into a single location, is the equivalent of losing, each year, all of the water along the entire 9.5 mile City of Huntington Beach shoreline and extending a mile offshore. 11 A land-based habitat effect of this magnitude would certainly be considered significant, and we recommend the SEIR also evaluate this proposed effect on seawater habitat as significant.

Section 4.1.4 -Marine Biological Resources, Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation: The DSEIR describes several conclusions reached in the 2010 CEQA review regarding the 2010 Project's less than significant impacts on nearby marine biological resources and benthic habitat and similarly evaluates the proposed LMP's impacts on those nearby resources. As noted above, we disagree with these conclusions with respect to entrainment- related impacts and recommend the SEIR reassess project-related effects within the expected source water areas.

Section 4.1.4.1 -Marine Biological Resources, Construction Impacts: The DSEIR addresses construction-related impacts primarily as they relate to the LMP's offshore activities, including

9 See Final Substitute Environmental Documentation for Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California, Adopted May 6, 2015.

10 The project would also discharge about half this volume as effluent that must be diluted before it can again serve as habitat.

11 106 MGD equals approximately 118,680 acre-feet per year. Assuming an average depth of20 feet within the first mile offshore of Huntington Beach, this volume of water would be equal to that "wedge" of water extending along the 9.5 mile Huntington Beach shoreline.

6 Comments on Poseidon Draft SEIR (SCH #200 1051 092) dredging up to about 3,300 cubic yards of sediment that would be transported by barge for upland disposal and placing about 1,300 square feet of riprap during intake screen installation and about 4,000 square feet ofriprap as part of the diffuser installation. These dredge and fill activities would be subject to Coastal Act Section 30233, which requires that such activities in coastal waters occur only when there is no less feasible alternative (including reducing the extent of dredged or filled areas) and that suitable dredged material be used for beach replenishment. We recommend the analysis evaluate whether the extent and volume of proposed dredging and fill can be reduced and whether the dredged material can be used for beach replenishment.

Section 4.6- Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The DSEIR evaluates offshore construction-related emissions of the LMP. Because the currently proposed project would involve additional construction-related emissions beyond those evaluated in the 2010 CEQA review, we recommend the upcoming review evaluate the increased emissions resulting from those activities. This issue area is of particular concern, given that the 2010 CEQA review identified the expected construction-related emissions as an "unavoidable significant impact," even after incorporating mitigation measures.

Section 4. 7- Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The DSEIR briefly acknowledges the potential for tsunamis at and near the LMP site, though similar to its statement regarding seismic risks, it notes that CEQA generally requires that the impacts of existing hazards need to be evaluated only if a proposed project risks exacerbating existing hazards or conditions, such as exposing people or structures to loss, injury, or death, or being located on an unstable site. With new information about tsunamis developed after the previous 2010 CEQA review, we recommend the SEIR evaluate the potential adverse effects of a tsunami on the LMP.

The 2010 CEQA review oftsunami-related hazards was based on the City's 1996 General Plan Environmental Hazards Element, which acknowledged the project's location within the City's Tsunami Runup Zone and stated that it was subject to low risk of tsunami runup elevations of no more than five feet (100-year recurrence) or 7.5 feet (500-year recurrence). The City's review did not incorporate the 2009 California Geological Survey's Tsunami Runup Map for Huntington Beach, which projected runups of up to 11 feet above mean sea level. An even more recent study suggests even greater inundation levels at the site of up to about 20 feet. 12 [Note: these runup elevations do not include the above-referenced recent SLR projections and would therefore be even higher than stated above.] There has been no evaluation of tsunami effects, at the earlier projections or at the current projections, on the LMP's offshore components. It is likely that the higher energy that would accompany a larger tsunami would create one or more "drops" in offshore elevations that could damage the LMP. We recommend the SEIR include these evaluations.

12 See Science Application for Risk Reduction (SAFRR) Tsunami Scenario, published in September 2013 by California's Natural Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, and Geological Survey and the United States Geological Survey and Department of Interior, which describes a tsunami scenario for the California coast that would result from a 9.1 earthquake in the Aleutians. While the study did not identify specific run up elevations along the Huntington Beach shoreline, it noted that tsunami elevations in adjacent Newport Beach could reach up to about 20 feet above mean sea level with velocities of up to about 60 feet per second (or roughly 45 miles per hour). 7 Comments on Poseidon Draft SEIR (SCH #200 1051 092)

The Hazards section of the DSEIR also cites concerns identified during the previous CEQA review regarding the power plant outfall's structural stability when subjected to back pressure resulting from Poseidon's proposed diffuser. The DSEIR states that several evaluations will likely be conducted in the future in order to determine the outfall's structural stability. We recommend, if the evaluations show the outfall does have the necessary structural integrity, that the review assess alternatives to using the existing structure, including the potential of "sliplining" the existing outfall to allow it to convey Poseidon's discharge and potentially avoid some construction-related impacts that would result if alternative structural improvements are required (see also our related comments on the intake and outfall's possible seismic instability).

Section 5.0 -Alternatives, and Section 6.0 -Other Required CEQA Sections and Environmentally Superior Alternative: The DSEIR describes several potentially feasible and less environmentally damaging alternatives that were considered but eliminated from review. Two of those alternatives would have involved extending the existing intake from about two to four kilometers further offshore to nearby locations that would result in lower project entrainment rates. The DSEIR acknowledges that extending the existing intake "would meet most project objectives and is potentially technically feasible." However, the DSEIR's Section 5.3.1.2, in providing the rationale for eliminating these two alternatives, states that Poseidon found that larval densities would either be significantly higher or would not be significantly different than those at the existing intake location, and that the additional construction-related effects of extending the intake would not be offset by meaningful reductions in entrainment effects. As noted above, we have prepared two technical memoranda that raise substantial questions about the study Poseidon conducted to reach its proposed conclusions. These memoranda also suggest that extending the intake to any of several nearby feasible locations would likely result in the Poseidon Project having a substantially lower entrainment rate than it would at the existing intake location. We recommend that the SEIR consider potential alternative intake locations, taking into consideration updated analyses of potential entrainment effects.

Additionally, although Poseidon has separately contended that the deeper offshore sites may not have sufficient "sweeping velocities" to keep the wedgewire screens clean, this potential shortcoming of those sites could be overcome with use of the self-cleaning screens described in the DSEIR's Section 6.0 and concluded to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Even if these self-cleaning screens initially require additional boat trips for inspection and therefore increase project-related emissions, this is a relatively minor impact compared to the substantial reduction in marine life mortality that would result from locating the intake at these deeper locations. We understand that this type of screen has been designed to meet fairly stringent criteria for fish protection and has been used in tidal environments. 13 We recommend the revised document continue to support this self-cleaning screen system as a feasible and environmentally superior alternative to the current proposed screens.

13 The company referenced on the DSEIR's page 5-13, Intake Screen, Inc., provides descriptions of a number of environmental settings where these screens have been installed and provides design criteria requirements from a number of agencies- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, etc. - that the screens are intended to meet.

8 Comments on Poseidon Draft SEIR (SCH #2001051092)

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have questions, please call me at 415- 904-5205 or Tom Luster at 415-904-5248.

Sincerely,

ALISON DETTMER Deputy Director

Cc: State Water Resources Control Board- Claire Waggoner Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board - Milasol Gaslan Poseidon Water - Scott Maloni Orange County Water District- John Kennedy

9 Letter to Governor Brown, et al. Re: Brookfield/Poseidon Huntington Beach Desalination Project – OPPOSE

APPENDIX

The Brookfield/Poseidon Huntington Beach Project (“Project”) would impose significant and unnecessary costs on Orange County water districts and ratepayers.

A recent analysis from the Pacific Institute found that when the full costs of construction and lifetime operation are calculated, seawater desalination is the most expensive “alternative” water supply option available, as compared to indirect potable reuse, direct reuse, brackish groundwater desalination, and stormwater capture, while conservation and efficiency can generate significant savings.1

In the case of the Brookfield/Poseidon Huntington Beach project, construction costs of the facility alone have been estimated at $1 billion; additional anticipated costs include up to $100 million to build and manage a new pipeline system to convey the water to customers; maintenance and repair costs resulting from siting the project in an area that is vulnerable to sea level rise, storm surge, tsunamis, and earthquakes; and the cost of re-treating any desalinated water that must be stored in groundwater aquifers. The Project will also be vulnerable to fluctuating energy costs in light of its dependence on high levels of electricity consumption.

Moreover, the proposed water purchase agreement between Brookfield/Poseidon and its potential customer, Orange County Water District (OCWD), guarantees that water produced by the Huntington Beach desalination project will not be cost competitive with imported water for at least the first 40 years of the project’s operation. Under the 2015 term sheet approved by OCWD, the “base price” of the Project’s water “will be tied to the treated full service rate cost of imported water provided by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD).” Additional guaranteed costs include “readiness to serve” and capacity charges required by MWD, plus a premium to cover the facility’s operating costs and an “agreed upon rate of return” for Brookfield/Poseidon.2 The premium will raise the cost of water generated by the Project as high as 20 percent above the combined cost of imported water and the MWD charges. The Project’s water can only achieve cost parity with imported water after the Project has been operating for 40 years, and even then, only if Brookfield / Poseidon is capturing its guaranteed rate of return.

Orange County does not need Brookfield/Poseidon’s water, and to the extent it does need additional local water supplies, it has better alternatives. Orange County’s existing water supply is anticipated to be sufficient to cover its anticipated needs through 2040, even in a multiple-year dry period. The Metropolitan Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), which, in coordination with OCWD, sells water at retail to local water districts throughout Orange County, recently published an urban water management plan showing that the water agencies in

1 Heather Cooley and Rapichan Phurisamban, The Cost of Alternative Water Supply and Efficiency Options in California (Pacific Institute, 2016), available at http://bit.ly/2dMKDcT. 2 Orange County Water Dist., Ocean Desalination Exploration Term Sheet Explained http://bit.ly/2r5NQaK.

{00362184.DOCX.2}1 Letter to Governor Brown, et al. Re: Brookfield/Poseidon Huntington Beach Desalination Project – OPPOSE

MWDOC’s service area have successfully used conservation to limit growth in water use, keeping retail water use relatively flat even as the County’s population has increased.3

Future growth in water demand in MWDOC’s service area will also be limited. By 2040, under normal conditions MWDOC expects total retail water demand in its service area to increase by only 3.27 percent, even as population grows by 10 percent.4 In both normal years and single dry years, MWDOC’s available water supply “will meet projected demand due to diversified supply and conservation measures.”5 Even in a multiple-year drought, “MWDOC is capable of meeting all retail agency demands with significant reserves held by [MWD] from 2020 through 2040 with a demand increase of 6 percent.”6 In a recent presentation to the MWDOC Board of Directors, MWDOC staff calculated only a 30 percent likelihood that available supplies may not meet demand in 2040; even then, they explained, a 10,700 acre-foot (AF) project would be sufficient to fill the anticipated gap. Staff also concluded that the Brookfield/Poseidon project “would supply more water than needed in most every year.”7

As it works to reduce its reliance on imported water over time, Orange County has cheaper and more sustainable alternatives to the Project. MWDOC’s Urban Water Management Plan describes many such options, including water recycling, stormwater capture, enhanced storage, and brackish groundwater desalination, as well as smaller seawater desalination projects. Collectively these projects could provide far more “new” water than the anticipated 56,000 AFY that the Brookfield/Poseidon project would produce. Specific examples8 include:

Metropolitan Indirect Potable Reuse Project (Carson City) 65,000 AFY Santa Ana River Conservation & Conjunctive Use Program 60,000 AFY Expansion of water recycling throughout Orange County 53,520 AFY Groundwater Replenishment System expansion 30,000 AFY Doheny Desalination Project (using subsurface intakes) 16,800 AFY West Orange County Enhanced Pumping Project 10,000 AFY Total potential production of alternatives shown here 235,320 AFY

3 Municipal Water District of Orange County, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan 2-1 (April 2016 Draft), available at http://bit.ly/2pb6C2M). 4 Id. at 2-2 and 2-5. 5 Id. at 3-47 and 3-48. 6 Id. at 3-49. 7 Municipal Water District of Orange County, OC Water Reliability Study Overview (February 6, 2017), available at http://bit.ly/2qSR1py. 8 Id. at 6-3 and 7-2.

{00362184.DOCX.2}2 Letter to Governor Brown, et al. Re: Brookfield/Poseidon Huntington Beach Desalination Project – OPPOSE

The Brookfield/Poseidon Project would set back California’s efforts to advance climate- smart water policy

State policies and climate change strategies such as the Governor’s Executive Order B-20-15 on Climate Change, the 2017 AB 32 Scoping Plan Update, Safeguarding California, and Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life aim to make California’s water supply and conveyance system less energy intensive, reduce its direct and indirect GHG emissions, and make it more resilient to climate impacts. These policies require “full life-cycle cost accounting,”9 and prioritize greater use of water conservation, efficiency, recycling, stormwater capture, and sustainable groundwater management.10 Similarly, the State Water Resources Control Board’s recent climate change resolution acknowledges the need to modify permits and other regulatory requirements to reduce the vulnerability of water infrastructure to flooding, storm surge, and sea level rise.11

By contrast, seawater desalination is the most energy-intensive water supply option available and, in the absence of an electricity supply that is based on renewable energy sources, will generate significant direct and indirect GHG emissions.12 The Brookfield/Poseidon Project is no exception. It will create significant new, unplanned energy demand in a region that is already electrically constrained.13 It will be fueled primarily by fossil fuels, generating more than 10,000 metric tons of GHGs in the course of its construction and nearly 70,000 metric tons of GHGs each year over anticipated lifetime.14 The Project is also vulnerable to flooding and inundation from sea level rise and storms within its anticipated lifetime.15

The best way to reduce GHG emissions is to avoid them in the first place, and the best way to avoid vulnerability to sea level rise is to develop new sources that are not in the ocean’s way. As noted above, Orange County has identified a range of less energy- and GHG-intensive options to

9 Executive Order B-30-15, Section 6 (April 29, 2015), available at http://bit.ly/1KmIVsi, (“State agencies shall take climate change into account in their planning and investment decisions, and employ full life-cycle cost accounting to evaluate and compare infrastructure investments and alternatives.”) 10 California Air Resources Board, 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (Jan. 20, 2017), available at http://bit.ly/2lQuFzb; California Natural Resources Agency, Safeguarding California Plan: 2017 Update (Draft, May 2017), available at http://bit.ly/1MgQd16; California Department of Water Resources, et al., Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life: Implementing Executive Order B-37-16 (April 2017), available at http://bit.ly/2oYfGZl. 11 State Water Resources Control Board, Resolution No. 2017-0012, Comprehensive Response to Climate Change (March 7, 2017), available at http://bit.ly/2r9nWqj. 12 H. Cooley and M. Heberger, Key Issues for Seawater Desalination in California: Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Pacific Institute, May 2013), available at http://bit.ly/2r9lUGF. 13 See Natural Resources Defense Council, Proceed with Caution II: California’s Droughts and Desalination in Context (March 2016), available at http://on.nrdc.org/2qofMHX. 14 Poseidon Resources, Huntington Beach Desalination Plant, Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (Nov. 6, 2017), available at http://bit.ly/2r91NZg. 15 California Coastal Commission, Poseidon Water Staff Report, Appeal No. A-5-HNB-10-225, pg. 75 (October 25, 2013); available at http://bit.ly/2rQZoiK. The Poseidon site and facility would be subject to flooding and tsunami runup, both of which would be exacerbated by expected higher sea levels during the life of the project.

{00362184.DOCX.2}3 Letter to Governor Brown, et al. Re: Brookfield/Poseidon Huntington Beach Desalination Project – OPPOSE secure new water. Orange County officials and California leaders should be encouraging those climate-smart alternatives to this Project.

The Brookfield/Poseidon Project would fail to alleviate reliance upon, or impacts to, freshwater ecosystems, including the Bay-Delta

Many of us have worked for decades to advance the long-term health and stewardship of the Bay-Delta as a critically important ecosystem and water supply. Many have also worked to improve local supplies in Southern California, as we know is necessary to make Southern California more self-reliant. However, seawater desalination is not a viable solution to this problem. As explained in a recent report from Stanford’s Water in the West program:

Ocean desalination will not, in the foreseeable future, significantly reduce stress on freshwater resources—particularly freshwater ecosystems. Even the highest total projected production of potable water from ocean desalination in California is so low that it will not meaningfully reduce stress on freshwater systems, such as, for example, exports from the Bay Delta system…. In addition, it is not clear the extent to which planned desalination facilities will provide the regions with supplemental supply and therefore work to reduce or replace existing demands on groundwater and surface water sources.16

Brookfield/Poseidon has not been able to identify any agreement or mechanism by which construction of its project would guarantee that water remains in the Bay-Delta or other surface water sources. Indeed, legal and practical barriers preclude any possibility that construction of this Project, or indeed any desalination facility in Southern California, would significantly reduce withdrawals from the Bay-Delta. The existing water supply contract between MWD and the State Water Project, which underlies exports to Orange County via MWD and MWDOC, prevents new local supplies in Southern California from limiting MWD’s ability to import or use its full State Water Project entitlement.17

The Brookfield/Poseidon project fails to comply with California law and regulations governing seawater desalination facilities

Since 1976, California law and policy have strongly discouraged the use of “open ocean” water intakes for industrial facilities because they entrain and kill organisms that are integral parts of California’s productive marine and coastal ecosystems.18 Under state law and the U.S. Clean Water Act, such intakes are no longer permissible for coastal power plants, which must use alternative cooling technologies to minimize their impacts or else (in the case of existing

16 Leon Szeptycki, et al., Marine and Coastal Impacts of Ocean Desalination in California (Water in the West, Center for Ocean Solutions, Monterey Bay Aquarium, The Nature Conservancy, May 2016), available at http://stanford.io/2axdXE7. 17 San Diego County Water Authority, SEAWATER DESALINATION PROGRAM AGREEMENT AMONG THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, et al., SDP Agreement No. 70025, Section 13: Metropolitan’s Imported Water Entitlements (Nov. 24, 2009). 18 California Water Code § 31342.5(b); California Public Resources Code §§ 30230-31.

{00362184.DOCX.2}4 Letter to Governor Brown, et al. Re: Brookfield/Poseidon Huntington Beach Desalination Project – OPPOSE facilities) achieve comparable harm reduction through other means.19 This clear emphasis on protecting California’s ecology and natural heritage is continued under the State Water Resources Control Board’s 2015 regulations governing seawater desalination facilities and brine disposal (“Desalination Policy”),20 which are intended to minimize the “significant intake and mortality” of marine life, and the associated “loss of biological productivity,” that is caused by the potential use of open ocean intakes at seawater desalination facilities.

The Desalination Policy establishes subsurface water intakes as the preferred technology for avoiding such harms. It requires the use of site selection, facility design (including but not limited to facility size), and control technologies to minimize environmental harms and, where such measures are demonstrably infeasible, requires mitigation to compensate fully for all unavoidable harms.21

The Brookfield/Poseidon project would fail to comply with the Desalination Policy, and fail to be consistent with California’s long-standing priorities, if assessed for compliance today. The Project’s current flaws include:

• Failure to identify a need for desalinated water that is sufficient to justify Brookfield/Poseidon’s proposed choice of facility site, design (including size), and control technologies. (See discussion of needs and alternatives, above.)

• Failure to complete an environmental impact report (EIR) of the Project and related activities and actions, including the likely uses of Project water and the potential impacts of those uses on the environment; alternative means and routes of transmitting Project water to anticipated customers; potential impacts to marine protected areas (MPAs); and any anticipated updates or changes to the Project’s site, design, and control technologies that would be required to secure a tidelands lease from the State Lands Commission and bring the project fully into compliance with all applicable state laws and policies.

• Continued use of the Huntington Beach Generating Station’s antiquated open-ocean intakes past the end of 2019, thereby perpetuating harms that will no longer be caused by the generating station itself – and indeed would no longer be lawful for the station itself to cause under California’s Once-Through Cooling (OTC) Policy.22

19 See State Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality Control Policy on the Use of Coastal and Estuarine Waters for Power Plant Cooling, as amended April 7, 2015 (“OTC Policy”), available at http://bit.ly/2qkJr6D; id., OTC Policy, Final Substitute Environmental Document (May 4, 2010), available at http://bit.ly/2qoCeAq. 20 State Water Resources Control Board, Resolution No. 2015-0033, Amendment to the Statewide Water Quality Control Plan for the Ocean Waters of California Addressing Desalination Facility Intakes, Brine Discharges, and to Incorporate Other Nonsubstantive Changes (“Desalination Policy”), May 6, 2015, available at http://bit.ly/2pOC6cm. 21 California Water Code § 13142.5(b); Desalination Policy, Part III.M.2.e (“Mitigation for the purposes of this section is the replacement of all forms of marine life or habitat that is lost due to the construction and operation of a desalination facility after minimizing intake and mortality of all forms of marine life through best available site, design, and technology.”) 22 OTC Policy § 3(E) (Huntington Beach Generation Station compliance deadline of December 31, 2020).

{00362184.DOCX.2}5 Letter to Governor Brown, et al. Re: Brookfield/Poseidon Huntington Beach Desalination Project – OPPOSE

• Use of 1 mm screens to attempt to reduce marine life mortality, despite Water Code requirements that new or expanded industrial facilities must “minimize” marine life mortality, as well as conclusions by the State Water Board and its Expert Review Panel on Desalination Plant Entrainment Impacts and Mitigation that a 1 mm screen would reduce marine life mortality by, at most, one percent. Indeed the State Water Board found that “fine meshed screens … still allow all small phytoplankton and zooplankton, and the majority of eggs, and fish and invertebrate larvae to pass through” the screens and be entrained.23 (By contrast, alternatives to full “Track 1” compliance with the OTC Policy must reduce mortality by 90 percent as compared to full compliance.24)

• Failure to demonstrate that alternative facility sites, including sites that would support the use of subsurface intakes, would not be feasible.

• Failure to demonstrate that alternative facility designs, including a combination of smaller facility sizes and alternative intake designs, including subsurface intakes, would not be feasible. The State Water Board has determined that “a design capacity in excess of the need for desalinated water … shall not be used by itself to declare subsurface intakes as not feasible.”25

• Failure to demonstrate, using a full life-cycle cost analysis, that the Project as proposed – as compared to the potential use of alternative sites, sizes, and designs for which subsurface intakes would be feasible – would be the only economically viable option for meeting the demonstrated need for the facility’s water.26

• Failure to demonstrate that the Project will not adversely impact nearby state marine protected areas (MPAs) or the ecological connectivity between those MPAs.27

Because of these serious outstanding shortcomings, it is imperative that California’s public trust and regulatory agencies undertake stringent analysis of the Brookfield/Poseidon project. If the Project cannot be brought into compliance, it must not be authorized to proceed.

23 State Water Resources Control Board, Final Staff Report Including Substitute Environmental Documentation for Amendment to California Ocean Plan Addressing Desalination Facility Intakes, Brine Discharges, and Incorporation of other Non-Substantive Changes 51, 56, 98 (2015) (“Desalination Policy SED”), available at http://bit.ly/2pN3qZ9. 24 OTC Policy § 2 (A)2). 25 Desalination Policy § M(2)(d)(1)(a). 26 Desalination Policy § M(2)(d)(1(a)(i); Executive Order B-30-15, Section 6. 27 See Public Resources Code §§ 36710 (stating that it is unlawful to “injure, damage, take, or possess” any living marine resource within a state marine reserve, and unlawful to “injure, damage, take, or possess” any living marine resource in a state marine conservation area for commercial or recreational purposes); Fish & Game Code § 2862 (requiring the Department of Fish and Wildlife to evaluate “proposed projects with potential adverse impacts to marine life and habitat in MPAs” and to “recommend measures to avoid or fully mitigate any impacts that are inconsistent with the goals and guidelines of [the Marine Life Protection Act] or the objectives of the MPA.”).

{00362184.DOCX.2}6 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO ADVANCE MANAGEMENT OF CALIFORNIA’S MARINE PROTECTED AREA NETWORK

I. OBJECTIVES

1.1 This Agreement outlines the purpose, roles, and partnership terms agreed upon by the Parties, as defined in Section II below, to advance the management of California's Marine Protected Area (MPA) Network. Parties represent state-, federal-, and local-level entities involved in California MPA management, including member agencies of the MPA Statewide Leadership Team (MSLT), the MPA Collaborative Network Staff, and the MPA Collaborative Network Members (described in Section III below). Representatives of the Parties worked together to develop the contents of the draft Agreement during a workshop in Sacramento on March 27-28th, 2017 and provided input throughout the subsequent Agreement development process.

1.2 The California Fish and Game Commission (Fish and Game Commission) recently adopted the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Master Plan, which outlines the State’s MPA Management Program and requires active engagement in four key focal areas: Outreach and Education, Enforcement and Compliance, Research and Monitoring, and Policy and Permitting. Since the inception of the statewide MPA Collaborative Network in 2013, its ability to aggregate local expertise to inform and support the management of the MPAs across the state has been critical to the success of the MPA Management Program. The MPA Collaborative Network is made up of 14 individual collaboratives generally associated with California’s coastal counties. The Parties recognize that as a partnership between the MPA Collaborative Network and the State has grown, there is a need to more clearly define the shared purpose, roles, and responsibilities of this partnership (Partnership). This Agreement seeks to allow the Partnership to continue and to formally recognize the MPA Collaborative Network’s significant contributions to the management of the State’s MPA Network. This Agreement seeks to formalize the working relationship that has already been established between the MPA Collaborative Network and the MSLT, and to increase the MPA Collaborative Network’s representation on the MSLT to better reflect local knowledge related to MPA management across the state.

II. PARTIES

2.1 This section describes the Parties to the Agreement and their roles within the Partnership. The Partnership will strive for an inclusive approach that incorporates input from all Parties as appropriate to inform California MPA management priorities.

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 2

2.2 The MSLT is an advisory body that promotes active and engaged communication among entities with significant authority, mandates, or interest in California’s MPA Network, and advises on the MPA Management Program. The MSLT also coordinates among the Parties to identify shared priorities for the MPA Management Program and coordinate with MPA collaboratives on locally-driven initiatives.

The MSLT consists of an Executive Committee and a Working Group. The Executive Committee, which includes the Secretary for Natural Resources and directors of member agencies and organizations, meets biannually to review progress and set priority work areas. The Working Group includes a representative from each member agency or organization and meets quarterly (with additional calls as needed) to complete tasks and projects identified by the Executive Committee and identify priority work areas for Executive Committee approval.

2.2.1 The process for establishing tribal and collaborative representation on the MSLT is ongoing. The Parties intend to include representation from California tribes and tribal communities, and intend to expand representation from local MPA collaboratives. This Agreement may be updated to describe tribal and collaborative participation as agreed by the Parties.

2.2.2 The Ocean Protection Council (OPC), consisting of the Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, Secretary for Environmental Protection, Chair of the State Lands Commission, two legislative members and two public members, was created by the California Ocean Protection Act of 2004. OPC is tasked with coordinating the activities of ocean-related agencies to improve the effectiveness of State efforts to protect ocean resources and establishing policies to coordinate the collection and sharing of scientific information related to coast and ocean resources.

2.2.3 The California Natural Resources Agency (Agency) is a State of California cabinet-level agency which seeks to restore, protect, and manage the state’s natural, historical, and cultural resources for current and future generations using creative approaches and solutions based on science, collaboration, and respect for all the communities and interests involved. The Agency oversees the policies and activities of 26 departments, boards, commissions, and conservancies.

2.2.4 The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) is a state department within the Agency that is the trustee for fish and wildlife resources in the State of California and has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. The Department is also responsible for management of specific lands and waters under their ownership. With respect to MPAs, the Department seeks to accomplish the objectives of the MPA Management Program through management of cooperative implementation of the coastwide MPA Network in a collaborative, cost-effective manner consistent with the policies of the MPA Management Program and the Department’s public trust responsibilities.

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 3

The Fish and Game Commission recently adopted the MLPA Master Plan, which outlines the State’s MPA Management Program, and requires active engagement in four key focal areas: Outreach and Education, Enforcement and Compliance, Research and Monitoring, and Policy and Permitting. The Department is a managing agency under the Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act (MMAIA).

2.2.5 The Fish and Game Commission is an independent, constitutionally-established state agency housed within the Agency whose mission is to ensure the long-term sustainability of California’s fish and wildlife resources. The Fish and Game Commission is responsible for establishing state hunting and fishing regulations and, among other things, oversees the establishment of wildlife areas, ecological reserves, and the designation of MPAs under the MLPA. The Fish and Game Commission is a designating entity under the MMAIA.

2.2.6 The California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) is a state department within the Agency whose mission is to provide for the health, inspiration, and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state’s extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high- quality outdoor recreation. As a trustee agency, State Parks is responsible for managing approximately one quarter of California’s coastline, including dune ecosystems, beaches, coastal wetlands, estuaries, and nearshore marine areas. State Parks is a managing agency under the MMAIA.

2.2.7 The State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) is a state agency within the California Environmental Protection Agency whose mission is to preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California’s water resources and drinking water for the protection of the environment, public health, and all beneficial uses, and to ensure proper water resources allocation and efficient use, for the benefit of present and future generations. The Water Board oversees nine California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards). The mission of the Regional Boards is to develop and enforce water quality objectives and implementation plans that will protect the State’s waters, recognizing local differences in climate, topography, geology, and hydrology.

2.2.8 The California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) is an independent, quasi-judicial state agency housed within the Agency. The Coastal Commission’s mission is to protect, conserve, restore, and enhance environmental and human-based resources of the California coast and ocean for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations. The Coastal Commission, in partnership with coastal cities and counties, plans and regulates the use of land and water in the coastal zone. Development activities, which are broadly defined by the Coastal Act to include (among others) construction of buildings, divisions of land, and activities that change the intensity of use of land or public access to coastal waters, generally require a coastal permit from either the Coastal Commission or the local government.

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 4

2.2.9 The California State Lands Commission is an independent, quasi-legislative state agency housed within the Agency that has exclusive control, jurisdiction, and administration authority over all ungranted tide and submerged lands and the reversionary and residual interest of the State as to public trust lands legislatively granted to local governments. The Commission serves the people of California by providing stewardship of the lands, waterways, and resources entrusted to its care through economic development, protection, preservation, and restoration. Its members include the Lieutenant Governor, the State Controller, and the Governor appointed State Director of Finance.

2.2.10 The California Ocean Science Trust (OST) is a non-profit organization established by the California legislature to support, advance, and coordinate science integration to California ocean policies and management. OST works to broaden participation in science and include diverse sources of knowledge to inspire involvement in and understanding of California’s MPA Network.

2.2.11 The Resources Legacy Fund (RLF) is an independent non-profit organization that supports and performs essential services to promote land, freshwater, and marine conservation. Consistent with its mission, RLF has developed and administered many strategic charitable programs, including one which is designed to achieve significant advances in coastal and marine conservation in California. RLF seeks to assist the Parties to achieve the implementation objectives of the MPA Management Program by providing funding, as available, and other assistance.

2.2.12 The United States National Park Service (Park Service) is a federal agency within the United States Department of the Interior whose mission is to preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resources conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world. There are several coastal California parks that conserve, restore, and manage diverse coastal and ocean resources. The National Park System of the United States now comprises 417 areas covering more than 84 million acres in 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands.

2.2.13 The United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a federal science agency whose mission is to understand and predict changes in Earth’s environment and conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to meet the nation’s economic, social, and environmental needs. The agency works to achieve five strategic goals: (1) protect, restore, and manage the use of coastal and ocean resources through an ecosystem approach to management; (2) understand climate variability and change to enhance society’s ability to plan and respond; (3) serve society’s needs for

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 5

weather and water information; (4) support the nation’s commerce with information for safe, efficient, and environmentally sound transportation; and (5) provide critical support for NOAA’s mission. Six line offices execute the programs required to achieve these goals: the National Weather Service; the National Marine Fisheries Service; the National Ocean Service; the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service; the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research; and the Office of Program Planning and Integration. The Office of National Marine Sanctuaries manages 13 national marine sanctuaries and Papahānaumokuākea and Rose Atoll marine national monuments. Three of the four national marine sanctuaries off the California Coast have jurisdictions that overlap with state waters and the network of California MPAs.

2.3 MPA Collaborative Network Staff acts as a conduit between the MPA collaboratives and the MSLT to help identify shared priorities and opportunities for the Parties to provide support to one another. The MPA Collaborative Network Staff directly supports the MPA Collaborative Network Members and is also a member of the MSLT. Due to this unique bridging role, the MPA Collaborative Network Staff is highlighted separately from the MSLT and the MPA Collaborative Network Members throughout this document.

2.3.1 In addition to liaising between the MPA Collaborative Network Members and the MSLT, the MPA Collaborative Network Staff facilitates sharing of best practices and lessons learned among MPA Collaborative Network Members. By spearheading the development of communications mechanisms and scheduling calls and meetings among the Parties, the MPA Collaborative Network Staff leads communication efforts among collaboratives as well as between collaboratives and the MSLT. The MPA Collaborative Network Staff consists of the Network Director and may grow to include additional staff.

2.4 The MPA Collaborative Network is composed of 14 member MPA collaboratives that provide a localized, comprehensive approach to ocean resource management by bringing together local experts and authorities in the areas of outreach and education, enforcement and compliance, and research and monitoring. MPA Collaborative Network Members represent community stakeholders involved in MPA management in California’s coastal counties. The role of the MPA collaboratives is to coordinate with local partners and share local priorities, reactions, and concerns to inform MPA management. In addition, the MPA collaboratives work with the Parties to enhance management of MPAs through locally and/or regionally organized projects. Each of the MPA collaboratives and their mission statements are listed below, in order from north to south.

2.4.1 Del Norte: Engaging diverse communities in support of MPAs and the resources they provide from Pelican Beach to Shelter Cove.

2.4.2 Humboldt: Engaging diverse communities in support of MPAs and the resources they provide from Pelican Beach to Shelter Cove.

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 6

2.4.3 Mendocino: The mission of the Mendocino MPA Collaborative is to enhance effectiveness and increase awareness of Mendocino County’s marine protected areas.

2.4.4 Sonoma: To connect and empower community stewards to promote the long-term sustainability of Sonoma Coast marine ecosystems.

2.4.5 Golden Gate: The Golden Gate MPA Collaborative is dedicated to community engagement to safeguard the ocean and coastal ecosystems of San Francisco and Marin Counties.

2.4.6 San Mateo: Enhance awareness and promote stewardship of MPAs as special, protected places and sources of ecological, recreational and commercial value through the coordinated activities of community partners.

2.4.7 Santa Cruz: Embedding awareness of marine protected areas into existing programs to increase community engagement in stewardship.

2.4.8 Monterey: Our mission is to use a collaborative approach to increase MPA literacy to facilitate respect and stewardship of our coastal marine environment.

2.4.9 San Luis Obispo: To inspire individuals to become ocean stewards by cultivating an understanding and appreciation of the value and purpose of our local MPA's through research, education and enforcement.

2.4.10 Santa Barbara Channel: Fostering diverse community engagement to assist in the management of Santa Barbara Channel MPAs.

2.4.11 Los Angeles: The Los Angeles MPA Collaborative channels broad and diverse perspectives to build ocean resilience and promote the cultural, recreational, and ecological value of Los Angeles County’s marine protected areas.

2.4.12 Orange County: The mission of OCMPAC is to collaborate at a regional level to assist and inform the public and partner agencies in order to support the effective management of Orange County marine protected areas.

2.4.13 Catalina: To act as grassroots stewards of Catalina’s marine protected areas through engagement of local stakeholders and island visitors.

2.4.14 San Diego: The San Diego MPA Collaborative is a federal, state, county, municipal, tribal, and community alliance that facilitates local communication and coordination to support the management of marine protected areas through; 1. Outreach and Education, 2. Enforcement and Compliance, and 3. Research and Monitoring.

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 7

III. RECITALS

3.1 The Parties recognize the importance and high priority of cooperative actions at local, regional, and statewide scales to manage the MPA Network created pursuant to the MLPA. Completed in 2012 following a science-based and stakeholder-driven planning process, the MPA Network now includes 124 MPAs and 15 special closures that encompass 16% of state waters and protect marine and coastal ecosystems between the borders of Oregon and Mexico. California recently adopted the MLPA Master Plan, which outlines the State’s MPA Management Program, and requires active engagement in four key focal areas: Outreach and Education, Enforcement and Compliance, Research and Monitoring, and Policy and Permitting. This Agreement formalizes the relationship among Parties and solidifies the Parties’ roles in advancing the MPA Management Program. The Parties will cooperatively undertake efforts to inform, support, and implement actions as part of the MPA Management Program. This Agreement provides a structure for aligning priorities to advance management of the MPA Network and lays the groundwork for seeking support and funding for those shared priorities.

3.2 The Partnership formalized through this Agreement will foster collaboration and create a platform for incorporating input from all Parties to advance the MPA Management Program. This Agreement confirms the role of MPA collaboratives, which provide valuable financial and human resource contributions to MPA management by providing local input to inform and help guide discussions among the Parties. This Agreement also reinforces the partnership among MSLT members and provides a platform for collaboration among the MSLT, MPA Collaborative Network Staff, and MPA collaboratives.

3.3 In keeping with the collaborative statewide approach to MPA management, the Parties are committed to a core value of diversity underlying all aspects of the partnership. The Parties seek inclusive participation in the MPA Management Program and the MPA Collaborative Network, involving all willing and able federal, tribal, state, and local governments as well as universities, coastal businesses, conservation organizations, fishing interests, fishery organizations, and other interested parties. The partnership honors and respects tribal government involvement, the right to government-to-government communications, and the ability of tribes to request formal consultations with agencies outside the MPA Collaborative Network framework.

IV. GENERAL TERMS

4.1 The Parties seek to manage California’s MPA Network in accordance with the MLPA by integrating diverse local and statewide perspectives and expertise.

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 8

4.2 Goals are attainable, measurable conditions that the Parties will strive to achieve in the coming five years. The following shared goals apply to all the Parties collectively.

4.2.1 Communication: Maintain and strengthen consistent communication, coordination, and information-sharing among Parties.

4.2.2 Direction and Priorities: Collaboratively identify and coordinate on shared priorities for the partnership to advance management of the MPA Network.

4.2.3 Funding and Staffing: Seek resources from the Parties and other diverse sources to support shared priorities.

4.3 The partnership will utilize the MSLT as the framework for facilitating collaboration among the Parties, including by using the existing MSLT meeting schedule to convene representatives from the Parties. Given that many Parties are current members of the MSLT, the partnership will augment the MSLT to build in representation of other Parties. In particular, the Parties are committed to adequate representation of the MPA collaboratives and tribes and tribal governments on the MSLT. The structure of the partnership and representation will evolve depending on the needs of the Parties and the resources available to the partnership.

4.4 The Parties recognize the value of evaluating collective achievements and shortcomings and implementing adaptive management to improve partnership functioning. Therefore, the Parties are committed to self-improvement, evaluation, and adaptive management of the partnership.

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 9

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______John Laird Date Chair, California Ocean Protection Council Secretary, California Natural Resources Agency

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 10

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Deborah Halberstadt Date Executive Director California Ocean Protection Council

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 11

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Charlton H. Bonham Date Director California Department of Fish and Wildlife

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 12

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Eric Sklar Date President California Fish and Game Commission

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 13

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Lisa Mangat Date Director California Department of Parks and Recreation

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 14

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Michael Lauffer Date Acting Executive Director State Water Resources Control Board

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 15

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______John Ainsworth Date Executive Director California Coastal Commission

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 16

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Jennifer Lucchesi Date Executive Officer California State Lands Commission

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 17

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Nancy Sutley Date Board Chair California Ocean Science Trust

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 18

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Michael Mantell Date President Resources Legacy Fund

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 19

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Laura Joss Date Regional Director, Pacific West Region United States National Park Service

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 20

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______William J. Douros Date West Coast Regional Director Office of National Marine Sanctuaries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service NOS Agreement Number: [TO BE PROVIDED BY NOAA UPON SIGNING]

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 21

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Calla Allison Date Director MPA Collaborative Network

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 22

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Rosa Laucci Date Co-Chair Del Norte MPA Collaborative

______John Corbett Date Co-Chair Del Norte MPA Collaborative

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 23

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Delia Bense-Kang Date Co-Chair Humboldt MPA Collaborative

______Beth Chaton Date Co-Chair Humboldt MPA Collaborative

______Joe Tyburczy Date Co-Chair Humboldt MPA Collaborative

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 24

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Theo Whitehurst Date Co-Chair Mendocino MPA Collaborative

______William Lemos Date Co-Chair Mendocino MPA Collaborative

______Anna Neumann Date Co-Chair Mendocino MPA Collaborative

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 25

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Suzanne Olyarnik Date Co-Chair Sonoma MPA Collaborative

______Michele Luna Date Co-Chair Sonoma MPA Collaborative

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 26

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Brian Baird Date Co-Chair Golden Gate MPA Collaborative

______David McGuire Date Co-Chair Golden Gate MPA Collaborative

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 27

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Rebecca Johnson Date Co-Chair San Mateo MPA Collaborative

______Carla Schoof Date Co-Chair San Mateo MPA Collaborative

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 28

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Rikki Eriksen Date Co-Chair Santa Cruz MPA Collaborative

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 29

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Patricia Clark-Gray Date Co-Chair Monterey MPA Collaborative

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 30

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Gordon Hensley Date Co-Chair San Luis Obispo MPA Collaborative

______Cara O’Brien Date Co-Chair San Luis Obispo MPA Collaborative

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 31

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Kristen Hislop Date Co-Chair Santa Barbara Channel MPA Collaborative

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 32

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Lauren Czarnecki-Oudin Date Co-Chair Catalina Island MPA Collaborative

______Hillary Holt Date Co-Chair Catalina Island MPA Collaborative

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 33

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Dana Roeber Murray Date Co-Chair Los Angeles MPA Collaborative

______Phyllis Grifman Date Co-Chair Los Angeles MPA Collaborative

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 34

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Carla Navarro Woods Date Co-Chair Orange County MPA Collaborative

______Jeremy Frimond Date Co-Chair Orange County MPA Collaborative

June 23, 2017 Memorandum of Understanding to Advance Management of California’s Marine Protected Area Network Page 35

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives.

______Zach Plopper Date Co-Chair San Diego MPA Collaborative

______Isabelle Kay Date Co-Chair San Diego MPA Collaborative

______Kathy Weldon Date Co-Chair San Diego MPA Collaborative

June 23, 2017 Ashcraft, Susan@FGC

From: Zubkousky-White, Vanessa (CDPH-DDWEM-EMB) Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 11:47 AM To: Jacque Smith; Jaytuk Steinruck; Ken Graves; Rosa Laucci; Tom Weseloh ([email protected]); Ramey, Kirsten@Wildlife; Martel, Melissa (HUMBOLDT COUNTY); McNally, Brian (Del Norte); Ray, James@Wildlife; Trevena, Eric (CDPH-EMB); Ashcraft, Susan@FGC; Kalvass, Peter@Wildlife; Klasing, Susan@OEHHA Subject: Razor Clam Domoic Acid Data, April 2017 Attachments: RazorClams_DA_Table.pdf

Hello,

Please see attached for the updated table of razor clam domoic acid results. CDFW collected recently from Humboldt County. The Clam Beach meat samples are individual clams and the Little River State Beach samples are pooled groups of 6 clams. The levels in the razor clams continue to be above the 20 ppm DA limit.

Thank you, Vanessa

Vanessa Zubkousky-White Senior Environmental Scientist California Department of Public Health Preharvest Shellfish Program 850 Marina Bay Pkwy., G165 Richmond, CA 94804 Phone (510) 412-4635 (new number) Fax (510) 412-4637 [email protected]

1

DOMOIC ACID LEVELS IN RAZOR CLAMS May 8, 2017

Collection Sample County Location Collecting Agency DA Date Type (parts per million)1

Crescent Beach 2/6/2016 Del Norte Health Dept Meat 60 Crescent Beach 2/6/2016 Del Norte Health Dept Meat 81 Crescent Beach 2/6/2016 Del Norte Health Dept Meat 60 Crescent Beach 2/6/2016 Del Norte Health Dept Viscera 55 Crescent Beach 2/6/2016 Del Norte Health Dept Viscera 68 Crescent Beach 2/6/2016 Del Norte Health Dept Viscera 55 Crescent Beach 4/3/2016 Del Norte Health Dept Meat 41 Crescent Beach 4/3/2016 Del Norte Health Dept Meat 47 Crescent Beach 4/3/2016 Del Norte Health Dept Meat 61 Crescent Beach 4/3/2016 Del Norte Health Dept Viscera 55 Crescent Beach 4/7/2016 Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation Meat 9.3 Crescent Beach 4/7/2016 Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation Meat 21 Crescent Beach 4/7/2016 Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation Meat 120 Crescent Beach 4/7/2016 Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation Viscera 38 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Meat 160 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Meat 170 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Meat 33 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Meat 16 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Meat 70 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Meat 47 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Meat 6.8 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Meat 100 Del Norte Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Meat 32 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Meat 94 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Viscera 110 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Viscera 120 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Viscera 25 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Viscera 8.7 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Viscera 35 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Viscera 8.9 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Viscera 61 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Viscera 18 Crescent Beach 4/10/2016 Volunteer Viscera 94 Crescent Beach 5/7/2016 Volunteer Meat 16 Crescent Beach 5/7/2016 Volunteer Viscera 17 Crescent Beach 5/7/2016 Volunteer Meat 13 Crescent Beach 5/7/2016 Volunteer Viscera 14 Crescent Beach 5/7/2016 Volunteer Meat 14 Crescent Beach 5/7/2016 Volunteer Viscera 9.1 Crescent Beach 6/5/2016 Volunteer Meat 85 Crescent Beach 6/5/2016 Volunteer Viscera 69 Crescent Beach 6/5/2016 Volunteer Meat 18 Crescent Beach 6/5/2016 Volunteer Viscera 28 Crescent Beach 6/5/2016 Volunteer Meat 35 Crescent Beach 6/5/2016 Volunteer Viscera 60

1 Federal action level is 20 parts per million. Page 1 of 4

Crescent Beach 6/5/2016 Volunteer Meat 43 Crescent Beach 6/5/2016 Volunteer Viscera 59 Crescent Beach 6/5/2016 Volunteer Meat 57 Crescent Beach 6/5/2016 Volunteer Viscera 67 Crescent Beach 6/21/2016 Volunteer Meat 68 Crescent Beach 6/21/2016 Volunteer Viscera 76 Crescent Beach 6/21/2016 Volunteer Meat 44 Crescent Beach 6/21/2016 Volunteer Viscera 38 Crescent Beach 6/21/2016 Volunteer Meat 160 Crescent Beach 6/21/2016 Volunteer Viscera 130 Crescent Beach 6/21/2016 Volunteer Meat 81 Crescent Beach 6/21/2016 Volunteer Viscera 52 Crescent Beach 7/5/2016 Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation Whole 190 Crescent Beach 7/20/2016 Volunteer Meat 110 Crescent Beach 7/20/2016 Volunteer Viscera 85 Crescent Beach 7/20/2016 Volunteer Meat 200 Crescent Beach 7/20/2016 Volunteer Viscera 170 Crescent Beach 7/20/2016 Volunteer Meat 97 Del Norte Crescent Beach 7/20/2016 Volunteer Viscera 94 Crescent Beach 7/20/2016 Volunteer Meat 170 Crescent Beach 7/20/2016 Volunteer Viscera 150 Crescent Beach 7/20/2016 Volunteer Meat 130 Crescent Beach 7/20/2016 Volunteer Viscera 110 Crescent Beach 7/20/2016 Volunteer Meat 230 Crescent Beach 7/20/2016 Volunteer Viscera 170 Crescent Beach 8/19/2016 Volunteer Meat 65 Crescent Beach 8/19/2016 Volunteer Viscera 61 Crescent Beach 8/19/2016 Volunteer Meat 43 Crescent Beach 8/19/2016 Volunteer Viscera 28 Crescent Beach 8/19/2016 Volunteer Meat 97 Crescent Beach 8/19/2016 Volunteer Viscera 97 Crescent Beach 8/19/2016 Volunteer Meat 67 Crescent Beach 8/19/2016 Volunteer Viscera 71 Crescent Beach 8/19/2016 Volunteer Meat 73 Crescent Beach 8/19/2016 Volunteer Viscera 67 Crescent Beach 11/13/2016 Volunteer Meat 58 Crescent Beach 11/13/2016 Volunteer Meat < 2.5 Crescent Beach 11/13/2016 Volunteer Viscera 22

Clam Beach, McKinleyville 6/4/2015 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Whole 11 Moonstone Beach 6/17/2015 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 13 Moonstone Beach 6/17/2015 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 7.2 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 7/3/2015 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 27 Moonstone Beach 8/14/2015 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Whole 340 Moonstone Beach 10/26/2015 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Whole 300 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 1/24/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 380 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 1/24/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 300 Humboldt Clam Beach, McKinleyville 1/24/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 140 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 1/24/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 120 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 1/24/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 280 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 1/24/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 210 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 1/24/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 92 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 1/24/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 80 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 1/24/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 10 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 1/24/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 9.8 Moonstone Beach 4/6/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 180 Moonstone Beach 4/6/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 150 Page 2 of 4

Moonstone Beach 4/6/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 120 Moonstone Beach 4/6/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 91 Moonstone Beach 4/6/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 54 Moonstone Beach 4/6/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 70 Moonstone Beach 4/6/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 100 Moonstone Beach 4/6/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 110 Moonstone Beach 4/6/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 72 Moonstone Beach 4/6/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 61 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 5/9/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 9.8 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 5/9/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 24 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 5/9/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera < 2.5 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 5/9/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat < 2.5 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 5/9/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 80 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 5/9/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 75 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 5/9/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 25 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 5/9/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 17 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 7/6/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 91 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 7/6/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 89 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 7/6/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 78 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 7/6/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 78 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 8/19/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 160 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 8/19/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 140 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 8/19/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 96 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 8/19/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 81 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 8/19/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 160 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 8/19/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 120 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 8/19/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 130 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 8/19/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 69 Humboldt Clam Beach, McKinleyville 8/19/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 80 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 8/19/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 61 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 8/19/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 190 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 8/19/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 130 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 8/19/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 34 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 8/19/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 30 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 11/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 210 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 11/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 84 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 11/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 8.6 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 11/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 34 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 11/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 57 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 12/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 78 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 12/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 44 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 12/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 82 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 12/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 92 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 12/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 39 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 12/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 23 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 12/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 32 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 12/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 99 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 12/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 99 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 12/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 18 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 12/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 220 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 12/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 57 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 12/13/2016 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 45 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 2/10/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 4.2 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 2/10/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 35 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 2/10/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 39 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 2/10/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 10 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 2/10/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 18 Page 3 of 4

Clam Beach, McKinleyville 2/10/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 15 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 3/9/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 30 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 3/9/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 8.5 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 3/9/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 18 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 3/9/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 49 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 3/9/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 55 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 3/9/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 41 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 3/9/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 45 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 3/9/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 82 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 3/9/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 25 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 3/9/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 7.8 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 3/9/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 42 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 3/9/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 47 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 3/9/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 51 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 3/9/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 42 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 3/9/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 36 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 4/27/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 19 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 4/27/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 4.2 Humboldt Clam Beach, McKinleyville 4/27/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 32 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 4/27/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 21 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 4/27/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 35 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 4/27/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 16 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 4/27/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 35 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 4/27/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 44 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 4/27/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 55 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 4/27/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 44 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 4/27/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 29 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 4/27/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 30 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 4/27/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 56 Clam Beach, McKinleyville 4/27/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 25 Little River State Beach 4/28/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 30 Little River State Beach 4/28/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 26 Little River State Beach 4/28/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 16 Little River State Beach 4/28/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 11 Little River State Beach 4/28/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Meat 50 Little River State Beach 4/28/2017 CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife Viscera 38

Page 4 of 4

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION DECISION LIST FOR MARINE PETITIONS FOR REGULATION CHANGE RECEIVED THROUGH JUN 22, 2017, FOR FGC ACTION Revised 07-27-2017

FGC - California Fish and Game Commission DFW - California Department of Fish and Wildlife WRC - Wildlife Resources Committee MRC - Marine Resources Committee

Grant: FGC is willing to consider the petition through a process Deny: FGC is not willing to consider the petition Refer: FGC needs more information before deciding whether to grant or deny the petition

Accept Tracking Date Subject of Code or Title 14 or Name of Petitioner Staff Recommendation FGC Decision No. Received Request Section Number Reject

2017-004 6/6/2017 A Robert Juntz Market squid 53.03, T14 Authorize a commercial open access fishing DENY; however, request item be considered during RECEIPT: 6/21-22/2017 Revised Caito Fishing Inc., North Coast opportunity for market squid in northern California next fisheries management plan review and potential ACTION: Scheduled 8/16/2017 version Fisheries Inc., and Ocean Fresh (north of Point Arena to the California/Oregon amendment. 6/8/17 LLC; border) under a seasonal quota of 950 tons and Dan Yoakum (F/V Casey III) daily boat limit of 5 tons Bill Forkner (F/V Shirley) 2017-005 6/6/2017 A Scott Hartzell Northern pink 120.2, T14 Create 20 new, non-transferrable permits with REFER to MRC; pink shrimp permit capacity topic RECEIPT: 6/21-22/2017 shrimp permits specified fees, annual renewal, modified currently scheduled for Nov 2017 MRC meeting. ACTION: Scheduled 8/16/2017 boundaries, and forfeiture conditions

X July 30, 2017 Mr. Eric Sklar, President Members of the Fish and Game Commission 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Agenda Item 26 ~ Action on petitions for regulation change I. Petition #2017-004 to authorize commercial access fishing opportunity for market squid in northern California

Dear President Sklar and Commissioners,

As you’re aware, CWPA represents a majority of fishermen and processors who land and process coastal pelagic species in California, including market squid. Unfortunately I am unable to attend the Commission meeting on September 16, so I would greatly appreciate your consideration of the following comments on behalf of the squid / wetfish industry at large, regarding Agenda Item 26, continuing discussion re: commercial access to the squid fishery in northern CA.

This issue has appeared on the Commission agenda periodically for several years in different iterations, but the gist has always been to allow exclusive opportunity for N.CA. fishermen to harvest squid outside the limits of the current restricted access policy. Over these years, CWPA, the wetfish industry and I personally have invested a lot of time, thought and discussion, considering potential alternatives that could be accomplished within the current regulatory framework or with surgical regulatory change that could apply across all fisheries, and without harming the existing wetfish industry, for whom the squid fishery is an essential part – and now virtually the only part – of their livelihood.

Our discussions triggered a flood of questions: What about the restricted access policy itself and the precedent that reversing it would set for all other fisheries? What about the rest of the State: why should northern CA. receive preferential treatment? What socio-economic harm would befall the existing limited entry squid fleet — the fishermen and processors who have invested millions of dollars to develop the fishery because restricted access policy limited overexploitation, and the fishery is now fully utilized, in light of capacity limits set in the Market Squid Fishery Management Plan (FMP).

In reviewing the most recent petition for regulation change, I realized that, despite countless hours of discussion with the proponents, they have not acknowledged nor addressed any of these concerns. Rather, I found misrepresentations in the rationale, for example the statement that the Commission approved an FMP that “unknowingly…gave the squid fishery to 55 fishers without taking into account the future needs and access of N.CA. fishing communities.”

The root of this petition, as with the earlier appeals, is to gain special access to a restricted-access fishery. The Commission approved the squid FMP and its restricted access policy for valid reasons. At the beginning of the last decadal squid “boom” in the late 1990s, the increasing value of squid on the international market drew heightened interest from fishermen, many from out of state. The Department enacted a moratorium on new permits in 1999, and initiated a multi-year, multi-million-dollar process to draft an FMP with the intent both to sustain the resource and stabilize the fishery, including its long-term economic viability.

Mr. Eric Sklar, President 2 Fish & Game Commission July 30, 2017 Page 2

Quoting from the Market Squid FMP: Sec. 2.2 Restricted Access (Sec. 2-21) Restricted access programs should: 1) contribute to sustainable fisheries management by providing a means to match the level of effort in a fishery to the health of the fishery resource and by giving fishery participants a greater stake in maintaining sustainability; 2) provide a mechanism for funding fishery management, research, monitoring, and law enforcement activities; 3) provide long term social and economic benefits to the State and fishery participants; and 4) broaden opportunities for the commercial fishing industry to share management responsibility with the Department. More specifically, the Commission’s purposes for restricting access or entry to a fishery are described as: 1) promote sustainable fisheries; 2) provide for an orderly fishery; 3) promote conservation among fishery participants; and 4) maintain the long term economic viability of fisheries. Restricted access programs may be instituted in order to carry out one or more of these purposes in a given fishery. Sec. 2.2.1 Limited Entry / Capacity Goals Establishing limited entry qualifying criteria is a first step in reducing fleet size from the 184 market squid vessels and 41 light boats currently permitted to achieve the selected capacity goal, provided the current number of vessels is in excess of the selected goal. Sec. 2.2.2 Initial Issuance of Market Squid Fleet Permits California has had a practice of giving preference to vessels of fishermen with past participation when issuing restricted access permits. Among fishermen or vessels with past participation in the squid fishery, preference for permits may be based on factors such as years of participation in the fishery or level of participation (landings).

The Commission approved a capacity goal of 55 seine permits, including three “experimental” permits in northern CA., along with a capacity goal of 34 light boat permits and 18 brail permits (a new category included as a subset of the light boat category to provide one lighting vessel per seiner, and enable a number of smaller vessels to scoop limited quantities of squid for specialty markets).

But prior to the FMP there were 184 squid vessel and 41 light boat permits in the fishery. Thus adoption of the FMP eliminated more than half of the then existing seine fleet, as vessels were required to qualify based on a prescribed number landings in the window period or history in the fishery. The total number of vessels that qualified to remain in the fishery exceeded the capacity goal, but the intent was to attain the capacity goal by attrition and permit stacking.

In 2016 the squid fleet numbered 45 transferable brail permits (up from the 14 issued in 2005 due to a one-time light boat to brail transfer authorized in regulation that inadvertently did not cap transfers at the capacity goal), 30 transferable light boat permits (down from the initial 41 due to the transfers) and 68 transferable seine vessel permits (down from the 77 issued in 2005). Although the seine fleet is working toward its capacity goal, the fishery as a whole has not reached it yet. Transferable seine and brail permits now cost $2,764.50 per year, among the most expensive commercial fishing permits in California, and fishermen must pay this fee annually to remain in the fishery, regardless of whether or not they go fishing. But the ‘good’ news is 113 permits are eligible for transfer, should someone wish to enter the squid fishery under the existing regulatory framework.

I recall the Commission’s initial intent when approving the “experimental” permit class in 2004 was to “develop a fishery in an area previously unfished”, but regulations established a time limit for those permits. Why were the three “experimental” squid permits issued at the beginning of the market squid FMP not used? The experimental permits acquired in 2005 were not renewed for a reason: For example, an article in the Eureka Times Standard, “Another ‘Freakish’ Squid Fishing Boom Unlikely” (dated 10/22/15), posted a telling sidebar: Yearly squid landings in the Eureka area since 2000: 2014: 4.8 million pounds* 2008: 87 pounds 2006: 300 pounds 2004: 95 pounds 2001: 255 pounds 2000: 1,645 pounds Source: California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Mr. Eric Sklar, President 3 Fish & Game Commission July 30, 2017 Page 3

*Please understand that the 4.8 million pounds landed in 2014 were landed by squid limited-entry fishery participants who had invested millions of dollars in vessels and infrastructure, including mobile pumps, to maximize the harvest and value of the squid resource during a decadal squid “boom”. This value was lauded by local businesses in ports like Eureka and Fort Bragg that benefited from the upsurge in economic activity. The current squid limited-entry fleet is mobile and capable of harvesting squid wherever they appear, in northern as well as southern California. However, the current lack of ice and cold storage facilities in northern CA have hampered local processing, and trucking will be required unless or until adequate infrastructure is built.

Everyone can support the goal of achieving sustainable harbor communities. But sustainability is an issue for all of California’s harbors, not just those in northern CA.

Many harbors are suffering. California’s wetfish fleet has little else to harvest besides squid now. The sardine fishery is closed; mackerel, although present, are not often concentrated into fishable schools in waters where the fleet operates; anchovy markets are limited and there are severe restrictions on tuna fishing.

Market squid is now the only economic driver in a historic industry that, until recent years, has contributed as much as 80 percent of California’s statewide fishery landings, representing 40 percent of total dockside value. We all feel the pain voiced by the proponents of this petition. We’ve participated in and paid close attention to the sustainable harbor community workshops that the Commission has sponsored, and we’ve encouraged the proponents to pursue the model advanced by the City of Monterey, which could include creating a co-op or foundation and purchasing some squid permits, along with permits for other fisheries.

Excerpting from CWPA’s earlier discussion document submitted to the Commission:

Potential Long-Term Solutions to achieve Sustainable Harbor Community Goals • Follow the precedent set by Monterey and Morro Bay – i.e. develop a Fishing Community Sustainability Plan, identify infrastructure needs and how to secure funding and political support for improvements and focus on securing landings from a diversity of fisheries, which translates to a diversity of gear types operating on a diversity of habitats and relying on a diversity of markets.

We’ve noted that these themes are repeated in the summary from the most recent sustainable community workshop in Smith River.

It is important to point out that Northern CA ports historically have relied on groundfish, Dungeness crab, salmon and Pacific Ocean “pink” shrimp. Fort Bragg also has had a viable sea urchin fishery until recent anomalous ocean conditions precipitated an explosion of purple urchins and loss of kelp. The abundance of squid in northern CA is transient, and certainly squid by itself cannot “save” fishing communities in northern CA.

After lengthy, serious discussion, a consensus of the wetfish industry continues to express grave concern over the petition now asking for “open access” permits in the squid fishery: • Squid fishermen and processors fear the harm caused by reversing restricted access policy to upset the economic sustainability of the existing limited-entry squid fishery and California’s wetfish industry. • They also point to the precedent set by issuing new permits to individuals who had not qualified for permits nor invested substantially to participate in the fishery. Employing similar logic, why not give squid fishermen Dungeness crab, salmon, spiny lobster or spot prawn permits during times of hardship? (A spot prawn permit recently sold for $1.1 million.) California’s wetfish fleet also needs help!

Market squid supports many fishing communities in California. Issuing new “open access” fishery permits in an existing limited-entry fishery would set the precedent for similar consideration in other fisheries and other areas, would jeopardize the value of existing limited-entry permits, would increase capacity in an already fully utilized fishery and would not be equitable to fishermen who worked hard and risked millions of dollars themselves to secure a place in the fishery initially.

• An important purpose of the restricted access program was to provide economic stability. Adding more permits would destabilize the existing limited entry squid fleet and wetfish industry.

Mr. Eric Sklar, President 4 Fish & Game Commission July 30, 2017 Page 4

I have engaged in many informal discussions with DFW fishery managers and Commission staff about this issue. On behalf of CWPA and the wetfish industry at large, I agree with recommendations of Marine Region Manager Craig Shuman, who suggested that before acting on any fishery-specific request for regulation change involving a restricted-access fishery, the Commission should consider its overarching restricted access policy and how that is applied across all fisheries. As noted above, given the dynamic, transient behavior of market squid, the squid fishery by itself is not going to save northern CA fishing communities. However, the squid fishery is now the lifeline for California’s historic wetfish industry.

CWPA supports the current management framework of the squid FMP, including the goals of the restricted access policy – in particular: 4) broaden opportunities for the commercial fishing industry to share management responsibility with the Department.

CWPA is pleased to serve as a partner of the Department of Fish and Wildlife in research and management. CWPA has assisted the Department in tracking squid fishery landings since 2013, after the fishery closed early during the “boom” in 2012, with about 11,000 tons remaining in the max cap, which caused a $20 million impact to the industry. We successfully coordinated voluntary participation with all major markets who emailed fish tickets daily to the Department, and fishermen voluntarily restricted fishing days after landings approached about 100,000 tons, stopping for a week to enable the Department to confirm the landings count, then proceeding one trip per day, two days per week, until landings approached the max cap. Fishermen stopped fishing voluntarily, before landings reached 118,000 tons. We are continuing this cooperative management agreement even though fishery landings have been sharply reduced during the 2015 El Niño and its aftermath.

We have also conducted a squid research program for many years, in cooperation with the Department and the Southwest Fisheries Science Center. I’m happy to announce that a paper reporting our supervising squid scientist’s research findings 2011-2016 was recently published in the journal Marine Ecology. I have attached highlights from that paper following our comment letter.

I have also included an infographic illustrating the importance of wetfish / squid to numerous harbor communities, as well as to California’s fishing economy.

We look forward to further cooperation in both fishery research and management, and will be happy to discuss market squid management policy at the appropriate time in the future.

In the meantime, thank you very much for considering our comments.

Best regards,

Diane Pleschner-Steele Executive Director

Mr. Eric Sklar, President 5 Fish & Game Commission July 30, 2017 Page 5

HIGHLIGHTS FROM VAN NOORD, ET AL Published 20 Jun 2017

Van Noord JE, Dorval E. Oceanographic influences on the distribution and relative abundance of market squid paralarvae (Doryteuthis opalescens) off the Southern and Central California coast. Mar Ecol. 2017;38:e12433. https://doi.org/10.1111/maec.12433

Summary

This study represents the most comprehensive, on-going effort to directly assess the relative abundance of market squid paralarvae in nearshore waters and the conditions that influence the variability in the stock, density and distribution. Warm temperatures pose ecological and physiological limitations on squid through feeding constraints and metabolic stress that alter the timing and location of spawning. We found that the densities and distribution of market squid paralarvae show a strong relationship to local sea surface temperatures and ocean productivity, where colder temperatures and moderate zooplankton displacement volumes promote greater paralarval densities, while warmer temperatures cause the population to spawn earlier, shift north, and contract. These findings indicate that squid abundance, distribution, and timing of spawning are largely driven by environmental forcing, while the effect from the fishing pressure is likely much less.

ENSO cycles control the abundance, distribution and maturity rate of market squid

• The abundance, distribution, and maturity rate (which controls the timing of spawning and recruitment to fishing grounds) of market squid are strongly influenced by warm and cool cycles of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

• During La Niña events the ocean temperature is cooler and the ecosystem is more productive than normal. During El Niño events the opposite is true, the ocean temperature is warmer and the ecosystem is unproductive compared to the long-term average.

• Warm oceanic conditions pose ecological and physiological challenges to market squid at multiple life-history stages. o Warm waters yield fewer zooplankton, resulting in reduced prey for squid o Warmer waters result in greater egg failure and less paralarvae hatching o Paralarvae are born with reduced egg-yolk (an initial and critical food source) o Metabolic rate is increased with greater ocean temperatures, requiring more food for sustaining growth o Maturation rate increases, which alters timing of spawning and can effect synchronicity with seasonal upwelling events. Mr. Eric Sklar, President 6 Fish & Game Commission July 30, 2017 Page 6

• The above time series shows the effect of an ENSO cycle (top panel showing the Oceanic Niño Index) on squid abundance, distribution, and timing of spawning (bottom panel): o Ocean conditions are cool and productive (La Niña) from late 2010 – 2013, commercial landings (shaded areas) and paralarval abundance (bars) are high, particularly in southern California (orange colors). o Ocean temperatures gradually rise in late 2013 (neutral conditions) and cause a temporal shift in spawning, squid mature early and recruit to the Southern California spawning beds during late spring and summer, instead of autumn and winter. o Continued warming causes a distributional shift, squid can be found recruiting further north (blue lines and bars) to Monterey Bay spawning beds. o As a near-record El Niño peaks in 2016, both commercial landings and paralarval abundance decrease to very low levels in the traditional spawning locations. Mr. Eric Sklar, President 7 Fish & Game Commission July 30, 2017 Page 7

Oceanographic variables explain variability in paralarval density

• Sea surface temperature (SST) and zooplankton displacement volume (ZPDV – a measure of zooplankton abundance and availability as prey) are strongly correlated with paralarval density. • The above figure shows the effect of SST and ZPDV on paralarval density. The solid lines indicate the estimated paralarval density at a measured SST or ZPDV measurement. A value of 0 on the vertical axis indicates no effect on paralarval density. A positive value indicates greater paralarvae, and a negative value indicates fewer. The dotted line is the 95% confidence interval. • The left panel shows greater paralarval densities associated with colder temperatures, and an adverse effect of warm temperatures (>17 C°) on paralarval density. • The right panel indicates zooplankton abundance and paralarval densities are positively correlated, when zooplankton abundance is low, paralarvae abundance is also low. As zooplankton abundance increases, paralarval densities increase as well. This trend continues until the ocean environment is saturated with enough zooplankton and there is no effect after ~200 ml displacement. • Sea surface temperature, zooplankton abundance, chlorophyll concentration, and geographic and temporal variables combined to explain 41% of the variability associated with paralarval densities (Van Noord & Dorval 2017). Mr. Eric Sklar, President 8 Fish & Game Commission July 30, 2017 Page 8

CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION DECISION LIST FOR MARINE, NON-REGULATORY REQUESTS RECEIVED THROUGH JUN 22, 2017, FOR FGC ACTION Revised 08-02-2017

FGC - California Fish and Game Commission DFW - California Department of Fish and Wildlife WRC - Wildlife Resources Committee MRC - Marine Resources Committee

Date Subject of Name of Petitioner Short Description Staff Recommendation FGC Decision Received Request

5/31/2017 Barbara Salzman and Phil Aquaculture leases Recommends FGC not approve any new DENY; review of new lease area applications can RECEIPT: 6/21-22/2017 Peterson aquaculture leases in Tomales Bay until an be accomplished through mandatory ACTION: Scheduled 8/16/2017 Marin Audubon Society ecological assessment is completed. environmental review purusant to the California Environmental Quality Act, which considers ecological baseline.

5/31/2017 Chris Markoff Experimental fishing Requests a box crab and California king crab REFER to DFW and MRC for further evaluation RECEIPT: 6/21-22/2017 permit experimental fishing permit. and recommendation. ACTION: Scheduled 8/16/2017

6/21/2017 Charlie Helms Rockfish regulations Requests DFW review rockfish data and revise the DENY; review of data and bag limits occurs RECEIPT: 6/21-22/2017 Crescent City Harbor bag limit. through the Pacific Fishery Management Council ACTION: Scheduled 8/16/2017 District (PFMC) process. Requestee referred to the PFMC process and encouraged to work with DFW representatives.

6/22/2017 James Ramsey, Crescent Rockfish regulations (1) Requests change in bag limit for rockfish to at (1) DENY; requestee referred to Pacific Fishery RECEIPT: 6/21-22/2017 City Harbor Commission, least the same as Oregon's bag limit. Management Council (PFMC) process and ACTION: Scheduled 8/16/2017 and Kenyon Hensel (2) Request FGC look into potential over-estimation encouraged to work with DFW representatives. of rockfish catch in model. (2) DENY; review of the model occurs through the PFMC process. Requestee referred to the PFMC process.

6/22/2017 Dan Yoakum Coastal fishing Request FGC continue coastal fishing communities GRANT; a series of coastal fishing communities RECEIPT: 6/21-22/2017 communities meetings. meetings are planned for 2017. ACTION: Scheduled 8/16/2017

6/22/2017 Bill James Commerical fees Requests DFW work more closely with fishermen to No FGC action required; requestee referred to RECEIPT: 6/21-22/2017 develop more reasonable commerical fishing fee DFW. ACTION: Scheduled 8/16/2017 proposals. Marin Audubon Society

P.O. Box 59 9 MILL VALLEY, CA ~494 2 -0599 MARr~AUDUBON.ORG

May 31, 2017

VIA EMAIL Valerie Termini, Executive Director CA Fish and Game Commission Members of the Fish and Game Commission

Dear Ms. Termini and Commissioners:

This is to convey Marin Audubon Society's concern about possible Co mmission approval of new aquaculture leases for oyster and geoduck farming on Tomales Ba y. We recommend that an environmental assessment be prepared before any further leases are approved . The assessment should recommend whether any leases, in addition to those that already exist, be approved.

As stated in Audubon California's April 13, 2013 letter on this subject, "Tomales Bay's intertidal hand subtidal habitats have extraordinary resource values for birds, com mercial fish and herring." Aquaculture farms are a monoculture that exclude the diversity of species that depend on Tamales Bay. Tomales Bay waters are essential habitat for migratory waterfowl particularly Black Brant which are only found along the coast and nowhere else in the San Francisco Bay Area. It is our understanding that the Black Brant population is showing signs of stress and that scientists t hink declining habitat quality along migratory routes and overwintering areas is the cause. Eelgrass is a valuable resources that supports many fish and bird species. Aquaculture directly impacts shorebird use of intertidal habitats. As identified in John Kelly's 2001 study, western sandpipers and dunlin avoid intertidal aquaculture areas. During their critical winter migratory period, waterbirds are disturbed by vessel traffic to maintain the aquaculture facilities. In addition, Lagunitas Creek, which empties into Tomales Bay, is a major spawning habitat for the endangered Coho and steelhead. Young of these species depend on wetlands and shallow waters of Tomales Bay as they make their way to the ocean.

A new 4S-acre aquaculture farm would cover intertidal habitat and affect water quality of the Bay. It is essential that any approvals for an activity that would have such significant influence on this marine ecosystem be approached with caution and study, and be based on understanding of the resources that it could impact. To ensure Tomales Bay and its resources are not damaged and destroyed, we recommend that:

• A biological assessment be prepared that provides basic information on the biological resources of Tomales Bay to inform the current and any future decision on aquaculture in the Bay. The assessment should identify the potential impacts of aquaculture farming the resources that could be impacted, the locations that are most vulnerable, and sensitive and those that should be avoided.

A Chapter oftht· NlltlOfI(zl Audllbon )ociery • A cumulative impact analysis that looks at current uses that already impact the resources, including aquaculture, boating, camping and agriculture, must be prepared.

• Suitable areas that would avoid or minimize impacts to biological resources should be identified, should it be determined that additional aquaculture farms cou ld be operated w ithout damage to the resources.

• A CEQA document must be prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the project

The goal of the environmental assessment, along with review and planning, should be to ensure that the resources of Tomales Bay are not adversely impacted. Whether or not to issue additio na l leases should be determined after the above assessment and planning efforts are completed.

Tank you for considering our input. The Marin Audubon is a 501(c) (3) organization and the chapter of National Audubon Society in which county To males Bay is located. We have approximately 2,000 members.

Si t~ / .~/ ~/ - , ( ( .' ~Il!(~ ~ Phi~ . eterson, Co-c air Conservat"- Conservation Co mmittee

cc: Craig Shuman, Director Marin Region CDFW Susan Ashcraft, Marine Advisor CFGC

Fish and Game Commission Potential Agenda Items for October Commission Meeting Revised August 8, 2017

The next FGC meeting is scheduled for October 11-12, 2017, at the SpringHill Suites by Marriott in Atascadero. This document identifies potential agenda items for the meeting, including items to be received from FGC staff and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW).

Wednesday, October 11: Non-Marine-related and administrative items Public forum Tribal Committee Wildlife Resources Committee Receive DFW’s 90-day evaluation report on Cascades frog Discuss: Sport fishing (annual) Discuss: Use of dogs for pursuit/take of mammals or for dog training Discuss: Commercial take of rattlesnakes Staff update and discussion on American bullfrogs and non-native turtles Approve amendments to Commission Designated Wild Trout Waters Policy Update on draft environmental impact report for Ballona Wetlands Restoration Plan Executive session Non-Marine items of interest from previous meetings Action on non-marine petitions for regulation change Action on non-regulatory requests from previous meetings Receive DFW informational items

Thursday, October 12: Marine-related and administrative items Public forum Marine Resources Committee Adopt: Nearshore and deeper nearshore fishing permits Discuss/Adopt: Commercial fisheries electronic reporting Discuss: Abalone certificate of compliance Discuss: Commercial sea urchin Adopt: Commercial sea cucumber Marine items of interest from previous meetings Action on marine petitions for regulation change Action on non-regulatory requests from previous meetings Receive DFW informational items Receive other information (staff report, legislative update)

1 California Fish and Game Commission – Perpetual Timetable for Anticipated Regulatory Actions (Dates shown reflect the date intended for the subject regulatory action.)

Updated: 8/4/17 2017 2018 ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CHANGE ARE SHOWN IN BLUE AUG SEP OCT OCT NOVDEC JAN FEB FEB MAR MAR APR APR MAY JUN JUN JUL For FGC Staff Use 16 13 10 11 12 9 6 7 11 6 7 8 6 15 12 18 19 17 19 20 21 17

ACTION DATE, TYPE AND LOCATION

REGULATORY CHANGE CATEGORY FGC FGC FGC FGC FGC FGC FGC FGC TC TC TC MRC MRC MRC VENTURA WRC WRC WRC LEAD SANDIEGO MARINA ATASCADERO SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO RIVERSIDE PETALUMA SANTA ROSA SANTA ATASCADERO SACRAMENTO SACRAMENTO TELECONFERENCE TELECONFERENCE FGC ANALYST LOS ALAMITOS LOS SAN CLEMENTE SAN DFWRU ANALYST File Notice w/OAL by 06/20/17 8/15/17 10/10/17 12/12/17 01/16/18 02/13/18 02/23/18 04/24/18 QUARTERLY EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE QUARTERLY Notice Published 06/30/17 8/25/17 10/20/17 12/22/17 01/26/18 02/23/18 03/02/18 05/04/18 Title 14 Section(s) KM JS FB Sport Fishing (Annual) 1.05 et al. NDAV E 3/1 R  SB ST HC Livermore Tarplant 670.2 E 10/1  MR JS WLB Falconry Clean-up 670 E 10/1 KM SF FB Klamath River Sport Fishing (Annual) 7.50(b)(91.1) E 8/? R N D A V KM MMH FB Central Valley Salmon Sport Fishing (Annual) 7.50(b) R N D A E5/17 V KM SF MR Ocean Salmon Sport Fishing (April 2018) (Annual) 27.80(c) N D A E 4/1 X KM SF MR Ocean Salmon Sport Fishing (May - November 2018) (Annual) 27.80(d) N D A E 5/1 X SB JS FGC Use of Dogs for Pursuit/Take of Mammals or for Dog Training 265 E 4/1 MR JS WLB Mammal Hunting (Annual) 360 et al. R N D AV E 7/21 MR JS WLB Deer Tag Reporting Requirements 708.5 E 10/1 MR JS WLB Waterfowl (Annual) 502 R N D AV E 7/21 MR JS WLB Upland (Resident) Game Bird (Annual) 300 E9/1 V R N D A Dungeness Crab and Lobster Recreational Gear Marking and  KM ST MR 29.80, 122 E 10/1 Commercial Lobster Harbor Restricted Fishing Areas ST WB Tricolored Blackbird Emergency - 180 Day 749.9 EE 9/7  KM ST WB Tricolored Blackbird 749.9 N D A X E 4/1 SB JS FGC Use of Dogs for Pursuit/Take of Mammals or for Dog Training 265 DA E 4/1 Process for Automatic Conformance to Federal Recreational Fishing KM SF 1.95 A E 11/1 Regulations  KM ST FB Commercial Take of Rattlesnakes 42, 43, 651, 703 D/A E 1/1  KM ST MR Nearshore and Deeper Nearshore Fishing Permits 150,150.01,150.02,705 DAE 1/1  MR ST MR Commercial Fisheries Electronic Reporting 197 D/A E 1/1  MR SF MR Commercial Sea Cucumber 128 DAE 1/1 KM ST MR Abalone Emergency - 180 Day 29.15 EE 9/28 KM ST MR Abalone Emergency - 90 Day 29.15 A EE12/27 KM ST MR Abalone Certificate of Compliance 29.15 NDA E 4/1  MR ST MR Commercial Sea Urchin (Phase II) 120.7 NDA E 4/1 RULEMAKING SCHEDULE TO BE DETERMINED  MR Kelp and Algae Harvest Management 165, 165.5, 704 V  Possess Game / Process Into Food TBD  OGC AZA / ZAA 671.1 Night Hunting in Gray Wolf Range 474 Shellfish Aquaculture Best Management Practices TBD VR WB Trapping Fees TBD SF FGC Tribal Take in MPAs 632  SF FGC Rockport Rocks Special Closure 632

EM = Emergency, EE = Emergency Expires, E = Anticipated Effective Date (RED "X" = expedited OAL review), N = Notice Hearing, D = Discussion Hearing, A = Adoption Hearing, V =Vetting, R = Committee Recommendation, WRC = Wildlife Resources Committee, MRC = Marine Resources Committee, TC = Tribal Committee