California Aquaculture Association » Action Center

Call for Public Comments from White House IOAP Task Force

Michael — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:37:37 +0000

NIFA
INVESTING IN SCIENCE | SECURING OUR FUTURE

The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (White House) is seeking public input on its work with a focus on several key areas. This is an opportunity for individuals and organizations to provide thoughtful and constructive comments on the important role of “sustainable” aquaculture development in coastal and ocean waters. Any forthcoming recommendations on aquaculture can benefit from strong voices with facts and accurate information that increase the understanding of the needs and opportunities for integrating commercial aquaculture into a new national ocean/coastal policy. The forum is set for national input and an opportunity for aquaculture to have strong representation on its compatibility for future development and economic growth in marine waters.

To provide your input go to: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/oceans/submit

National Aquatic Animal Health Plan Open for Comment

Michael — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:33:12 +0000

National Aquatic Animal Health Plan Open for Comment Until October 20

The National Aquatic Animal Health Plan http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/animal_dis_spec/aquaculture/downloads/naahp.pdf is available for public review and comment until October 20, 2009. The plan was developed by a Task Force led by the U.S. Department Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, and NOAA Fisheries Service. Once finalized, this plan will provide a framework for the development of programs that address the health of aquatic animals such as finfish, crustaceans, and mollusks. Guidance on submitting public comments is provided in the Federal Register notice http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-19702.htm

For more information contact the NOAA Aquaculture Program’s National Aquatic Animal Health Coordinator, Kevin.Amos@noaa.gov.

More CAA Testimony to F & G Commission - 6/09

Michael — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:02:57 +0000

1
June 23, 2009
President Cindy Gustafson
California Fish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Ms. Gustafson:
The California Aquaculture Association (CAA) writes to express our interest and concern regarding agenda Item #15 “RE: MARKING AND INSPECTION OF LIVE FISH TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES AND INSPECTIONS OF AQUACULTURE FACILITIES” scheduled for a discussion hearing at the June 25 meeting of the Commission in Woodland. We have a specific concern about the identification of vehicles used to bring live fish into California from other states. This subject matter overlaps in part with agenda Item #18 “RE: NEW RESTRICTED SPECIES PERMITS AND REQUIREMENTS”, for which we have provided separate comment.
CAA has consistently supported identifying its member‟s delivery trucks as a means of identifying them as legal operations conducted by registered aquaculturalists. We are concerned about importation of fish from other states that do not comply with California regulations, including those regarding banned and restricted species. Sections 240 and 238 appear to provide an exemption to this labeling requirement. “A vehicle registered to a common carrier, seafood business, or pet trade business is not required to be labeled with the words “LIVE FISH” if that vehicle is not transporting a load that by weight, number, or monetary value consists of fifty percent or more of live aquatic plants and animals.” This exemption is vague and permits evasion of the intent of the regulation. Anyone can claim to be a „seafood business‟ and anyone carrying, in addition to their live fish load, a box filled with numerous items might plausibly claim exemption. Out of state importers that come from regions where quagga mussels, VHS, and CCV are endemic are exactly the vehicles that should be scrutinized by the Department. This loophole provides them ample means to evade identification that is used to create inspection opportunities. We submit that this is an unacceptable exception that should be revised or stricken from the regulation. All importers should follow exactly the same regulations as California producers.
As a matter of practical importance, we advise the Department that invoices for live fish shipments are usually based on weights determined at the point of sale. Often live fish deliveries involve multiple deliveries to several customers and that is impossible to create an accurate invoice until all of the customers have weighed out their portions of fish. Generally the driver of the delivery truck will have a loading record to estimate the gross weight of the shipment that is close to the total estimated weight ordered by the several customers. Strictly speaking, the regulation requires “sales invoice, waybill or bill of lading” that would imply an accurate weight of the fish delivered to each customer. In practice, the invoice and sales receipt are completed simultaneously at the point of delivery when the weight is determined. This practice is in part required by registration as a weigh master to insure the accurate delivery weight to the customer at the point of sale. We hope that these normal fish delivery practices and documentation are satisfactory under the proposed regulation.
For all of these reasons, we recommend that the language providing an exception to the labeling requirement be struck from the revisions. We further recommend that regulatory language regarding invoicing and bills of lading be brought into consistency with actual practice. We offer our assistance to the Commission in developing appropriate language.
Sincerely,
_________________________________ _______________________________
Mark Drawbridge, President

California Aquaculture Association

Anthonie M. Schuur, Vice President

CAA Government Affairs

CAA Testimony to F & G Commission Meeting - 6/09

Michael — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:59:47 +0000

1
June 23, 2009
President Cindy Gustafson
California Fish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Ms. Gustafson:
The California Aquaculture Association (CAA) writes to express our interest and concern regarding proposed revisions of Section 671 in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, now scheduled for a discussion hearing at the June 25 meeting of the Commission in Woodland.
We are pleased that the Department is suggesting a (dramatic) change in its policy from a complete prohibition of barramundi aquaculture in California to allowing barramundi farming under appropriate conditions. We feel that the proposed 671 revisions may provide a welcome opportunity and a precedent for aquaculture production of non-native species in California. With that said, the Department’s dramatic reversal in policy and the process used to get us to this point has been perplexing and therefore concerning, relative to immediate and future actions. The comments and recommendations we provide here are intended to improve the proposed regulation changes for barramundi and the process used in the future for any new species being considered for listing under Section 671.
CAA’s overarching premise is that California’s umbrella of regulations must allow its aquaculture producers a reasonable opportunity to work. This premise is paramount to our industry’s survival. Aquaculture production in California is presently contracting, at least in part, because the sum of all the state, local, and federal regulations makes it increasingly difficult to compete and succeed. Anyone familiar with the barramundi issue at hand will appreciate our high level of concern with the current regulatory process (for those not familiar with the issue, we provide a brief summary in Appendix I). If the present 671 revisions are adopted, live fish will be imported and sold live in California markets years before they can be brought to market by lawful California producers, including one producer who applied for a permit to farm barramundi more than two years ago! We hope to avoid such inequitable situations in the future.
Embodied in CAA’s premise are the following specific concerns related to the proposed changes to 671 regulations.
1. The regulatory process must be clearly defined, especially as it evolves.
It appears that the status of restricted species in California has changed dramatically to include any and all exotic and non-native species that are not established in California. Rather than its original focus towards truly ‘noxious’ and ‘invasive’ species, 671 now uses the term ‘detrimental’ and evidently any species not established in California fulfills that definition. The terms ‘non-native’ and ‘detrimental’ are neither equivalent nor synonymous. We recommend that the 671 language be revised to reflect the actual policy.
2. The basis for regulation must be supported and documented by the best available science and the process must be more transparent.
The process of establishing regulations for the culture and importation of barramundi has been plagued by poor communication, and a lack of science and transparency in
decision making. The lack of documented scientific evidence for decision making is the most problematic matter. Without supporting scientific documentation, it is difficult to comprehend the Department’s dramatic change in position related to the farming and importation of live barramundi. What has changed? One must logically assume that the initial review of scientific information was flawed or some new, very important information has been made available. Without appropriate documentation, interested parties are left confused and potentially suspicious. We recommend that the Department provide a written biological opinion document for barramundi and any new species proposed for listing under 671.
To facilitate this recommendation, we have provided a biological synopsis in Appendix II. This synopsis focuses on the risk of barramundi establishing anywhere in California based on the biology of the species. We have also provided a detailed assessment of the information provided in FishBase because it is our understanding that the Department has used FishBase as a primary reference in its decision making process.
3. Regulatory burdens must be equitable within the state to the fullest extent practicable.
As written, we feel that the 671 regulations are unnecessarily biased toward production and sales of barramundi in Northern California. Firstly, as evident from the biological information we provide in Appendix II, the risk of barramundi escaping and establishing breeding populations in California is negligible. Appropriate water temperatures do not occur in the north or south of the state. Even if water temperatures were warm enough in the south, permanent river systems required for reproduction do not exist. We recommend that markets for barramundi be opened state-wide.
Secondly, two separate inspection fee schedules are proposed for northern and southern California. We believe this is inequitable because operators have no control over their relative distance from Sacramento and they should not be penalized for living in the south. We recommend either striking the fee provision or creating a statewide flat fee.
4. Regulatory requirements must be extended to out-of-state producers to the fullest extent practicable.
California’s regulatory structure is among the most rigorous in the nation. Ensuring that California safe-guards are met by imported aquaculture products should be a clear component of the regulatory process. In addition to the environmental implications to the state, a balanced playing field is a necessity for California producers to remain competitive. It is unclear in the proposed regulations how this is being addressed. For example, relative to inspections of imported barramundi or barramundi facilities, there is no explicit language. The regulations state that the Department “may” inspect the imported fish, but there is no mandatory requirement for inspection and certification of fish or facilities. We recommend that the regulations clearly identify the key elements of the Department’s risk management plan for barramundi and how they are being addressed in and out of state.
In closing, we urge the Commission to consider the recommendations we have offered here. Moreover, we offer our resources and counsel to the Commission as it continues the revision process from this point. If we are included in the process from an early point, we can provide valuable information about the impact of proposed changes from those most intimately acquainted with aquaculture in California.
Sincerely,
_________________________________ _______________________________
Mark Drawbridge, President Anthonie M. Schuur, Vice President
California Aquaculture Association CAA Government Affairs
3
APPENDIX I - RECENT BACKGROUND ON BARRAMUNDI AND 671 REGULATIONS
Much of our present apprehension originates from a series of events conducted in an atmosphere of misunderstanding and very poor communication between the aquaculture industry and the Department during 2007-2008, which was a period when the position of Aquaculture Coordinator was vacant.
A brief review of those events from this perspective includes:
1. Late in 2006, Blue Beyond Fisheries represented by Mark Eglington, prepared and submitted to the Department, application for a permit to grow barramundi, which at that time was not a restricted species. His application was opposed by the Department and rejected by action of the Commission on February 1, 2007, on the grounds that barramundi is a potentially invasive species in California and that it that might transmit dangerous viral disease to native species. Mr. Eglington refuted these objections at the time without effect.
2. Within the next few months the Department recommended to the Commission the addition of barramundi to the restricted species list because of its invasive potential. At a discussion hearing before the Commission on October 12, Mr. Rogers, President of the Commission at that time, instructed the Department to continue gathering information on barramundi.
3. During and prior to the Commission meeting on November 1, 2007, Mr. Eglington and the CAA presented testimony before the Commission, wrote letters, and submitted supporting materials sharply disagreeing with the Department’s opinion supporting restricted species status.
4. Despite our efforts to avert the new listing, the Commission adopted the Department’s recommendation. However, the Commission did respond to the aquaculture position with a compromise that we readily endorsed. It instructed the Department to review and revise Section 671 with the purpose of providing regulations that would reasonably allow the commercial culture of a restricted species such as barramundi. That instruction culminates with the present proposed 671 revisions that are to be discussed on June 25 at the Commission Meeting in Woodland.
4
APPENDIX – II Barramundi Life Cycle and Reproduction The Department’s evaluation of barramundi as an invasive threat lacks a scientific basis and is not supported by any written documentation. The Department’s evaluation overlooks substantial evidence that the probability of barramundi reproduction and subsequent survival in California waters is negligibly low. Once again, we submit the following information from well-documented sources:
1. Barramundi spawn in seawater of 26-34C, with the range of 28-30C being best. The salinity range for spawning is 28-36ppt with 30-32 being best (Tucker, 20061). These conditions do not exist along the coast of southern California.
2. Similarly, barramundi larvae require temperatures of 26-30C, with the range of 27-28C being best. The salinity range for larvae is 20-35ppt with 25-31 being best (Tucker, 2006). These conditions do not exist along the coast of southern California.
3. Barramundi is a diadromus species whose life cycle includes protandrous hermaphrodism, whereby young male fish live in fresh water for five to six years before returning to seawater estuaries where they change into females that breed with males. There are no permanent river estuaries (that are essential to their life cycle) in southern California.
FishBase Barramundi Information We recently learned that the Department cites FishBase (a global fish information source sponsored by the FAO) materials as justification for the unacceptable risk of live barramundi sales in southern California. Ironically, on close inspection we find the FishBase website reference contradicts the Department’s assertion and fails to provide any grounds for an unacceptable risk. The FishBase ‘satisfactory habitat’ map is an attempt to correlate a few physical criteria for the typical barramundi habitat that are limited to average sea surface temperature, salinity, depth, primary productivity, distance from land, and percentage ice cover from 152 typical barramundi habitats within their natural range. Note that none of the biological factors that characterize barramundi are among these variables. Values from these 152 sites are compared to those from more than six thousand around the world and assigned a probability of 0.01 to 1.00. The probabilities assigned to the ten sites nearest southern California waters are 0.01 to 0.03. None of the 6,513 data comparison points are within 150 miles of the California coast. The New Jersey coast has a much higher probability for satisfactory barramundi habitat than southern California. It should also be pointed out that the nearest of the 152 sample sites is about 93 degrees of longitude or about 6,000 miles from California. Certainly FishBase maps have a useful purpose. One such purpose might be to identify coastal waters with very high probabilities that would be suitable for barramundi aquaculture. California would not rank among even the poorest marginal selections. Another purpose might be to determine the probability that a barramundi might survive if it were accidentally released into the ‘suitable’ habitat. In the small range on the map that reaches the southern extreme coast of California, it would be very poor. California’s cold coastal currents guarantee that spring-winter-late fall temperatures are far below barramundi’s critical low temperature (15 C) and that any opportunity to become established or even survive more than a brief period, in California waters is nil. FishBase maps indicate that the Department’s assertion of risk that barramundi might prove to be an invasive species is far less plausible than the opposite opinion. Sales of the fish to terminal markets in southern California present a very small risk that a barramundi might be carried to natural waters by an illegal conspirator seeking to establish the fish in California. The chance that fish would survive, much less reproduce, is essentially non-existent.
1 John W. Tucker, Jr., D. John Russell, and Michael A. Rimmer. (2006). Barramundi culture. In “Aquaculture in the 21st Century”. Edited by Anita M. Kelly and Jeffrey Silverstein. A publication of the American Fisheries Society, Symposium 46, 643 pages.

CAA Watch List for California Legislation

Michael — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 20:56:36 +0000

CAA is monitoring the following legislation in the California Legislature. At its meeting on April 14, 2009, the Board of Directors adopted positions on each Bill and urges the members and friends of our association to take action accordingly. As legislation is amended, our positions may change. Please watch this space for updates!

California Aquaculture Legislative Status Report
As of 4/13/2009

AB 489

(Huffman) Commercial fishing. (I-02/24/2009)

Status:03/12/2009-Referred to Com. on W.,P. & W.

Current Location:03/12/2009-A W.,P. & W.

Calendar Events:04/28/09 9 a.m. - Room 437 ASM WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE

Summary:

Existing law regulating commercial fishing imposes, or authorizes the imposition of, various license, permit, and registration fees. Existing law requires specified persons to pay landing taxes quarterly, based on a rate schedule applicable to specified aquatic species. This bill would require payment of landing taxes quarterly, based on that rate schedule, or pursuant to a rate as determined by the Fish and Game Commission.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*OPPOSE*

AB 557

(Caballero) California Organic Products Advisory Committee: membership. (I-02/25/2009)

Status:03/12/2009-Referred to Com. on AGRI.

Current Location:03/12/2009-A AGRI.

Calendar Events:04/29/09 1:30 p.m. - Room 126 ASM AGRICULTURE

Summary:

Existing law establishes the Department of Food and Agriculture under the control of the Secretary of Food and Agriculture and sets forth the powers and duties of the department and the secretary. Existing law, the California Organic Products Act of 2003, requires the secretary to establish the California Organic Products Advisory Committee for the purpose of advising the secretary regarding his or her responsibilities under the act and sets forth the membership and duties of the committee. This bill would change the membership of the committee from 15 to 16 and would require that the additional member be a certifier accredited by the United States Department of Agriculture.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*SUPPORT*

AB 804

(Hall) Invasive aquatic species: mussels. (I-02/26/2009)

Status:03/26/2009-Referred to Coms. on W.,P. & W. and JUD.

Current Location:03/26/2009-A W.,P. & W.

Calendar Events:04/14/09 9 a.m. - Room 437 ASM WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE

Summary:

Existing law, until January 1, 2012, 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 Game or his or her designee to engage in various enforcement activities. Existing law exempts a public or private agency that operates a water supply system from those enforcement activities, if the operator of the facilities has prepared and implemented a prescribed plan to control or eradicate dreissenid mussels. This bill would provide that an operator of water delivery and storage facilities, who has prepared and implemented a plan to control and eradicate dreissenid mussels in accordance with the above existing provisions of law, would not be subject to any civil or criminal liability for the introduction of dreissenid mussel species as a result of operations of those facilities. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*WATCH*

AB 883

(Huffman) Department of Fish and Game. (I-02/26/2009)

Status:02/27/2009-From printer. May be heard in committee March 29.

Current Location:02/26/2009-A PRINT

Calendar Events:

Summary:

Existing law establishes the Department of Fish and Game within the Natural Resources Agency, and generally charges the department with the administration and enforcement of the Fish and Game Code. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would enhance the effectiveness, accountability, and capacity of the department to fulfill its public trust mission, take steps necessary to fulfill specified policy goals, and identify changes in organizational structure or statutory authorities that would enable the department and the state to more efficiently and effectively provide for the protection, conservation, and management of the state’s fish and wildlife.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*WATCH*

AB 1187

(Huffman) Safe, Clean, Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010. (I-02/27/2009)

Status:03/26/2009-Referred to Com. on W.,P. & W.

Current Location:03/26/2009-A W.,P. & W.

Calendar Events:

Summary:

Under existing law, various measures have been approved by the voters to provide funds for water protection, facilities, and programs. This bill would enact the Safe, Clean, Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 which, if approved by the voters, would authorize, for the purposes of financing specified water supply reliability and water source protection programs, the issuance of bonds in the amount of $10,035,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. This bill contains other existing laws.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*WATCH*

AB 1217

(Monning) Ocean Protection Council: sustainable seafood. (I-02/27/2009)

Status:03/31/2009-Referred to Com. on W.,P. & W.

Current Location:03/31/2009-A W.,P. & W.

Calendar Events:04/28/09 9 a.m. - Room 437 ASM WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE

Summary:

The California Ocean Protection Act establishes the Ocean Protection Council in state government and provides that the council consists of the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, the Secretary for Environmental Protection, the Chair of the State Lands Commission, and 2 public members appointed by the Governor. The act requires the council, among other things, to coordinate activities of state agencies that are related to the protection and conservation of coastal waters and ocean ecosystems and to establish policies to coordinate the collection and sharing of scientific data related to coast and ocean resources between agencies. This bill would require the council, by September 30, 2010, to develop and consider the adoption of criteria to certify local, sustainable California seafood and to develop procedures, a marketing emblem, and an organizational structure to implement the certification program with specified goals. The bill would also authorize the council to implement the certification program in cooperation with a qualified marketing association to promote the consumption of seafood sustainably caught or raised within the state.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED*

AB 1253

(Fuller) Striped bass. (I-02/27/2009)

Status:03/31/2009-Referred to Com. on W.,P. & W.

Current Location:03/31/2009-A W.,P. & W.

Calendar Events:04/28/09 9 a.m. - Room 437 ASM WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE

Summary:

Existing law regulating fishing imposes various restrictions on the take, transport, and sale of specified fish, including striped bass. This bill would prohibit a person from possessing, importing, shipping, or transporting in the state, or placing, planting, or causing to be placed or planted in any water within the state, striped bass. The bill would subject any person who violates that prohibition, or who resists, delays, obstructs, or interferes with its implementation, to a civil penalty of not less than $500 and not more than $10,000. The bill would require the Department of Fish and Game to adopt regulations to carry out those provisions. The bill would delete striped bass from various existing provisions restricting the take, transport, and sale of specified fish. The bill would delete the striped bass fishery from the fisheries for which Bay-Delta Sport Fishing Enhancement Stamp revenues are to be used. This bill contains other existing laws.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*OPPOSE*

AB 1442

(Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife) Fish and game: oil spills: wildlife rehabilitation. (A-04/02/2009)

Status:04/02/2009-From committee chair, with author’s amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on W.,P. & W. Read second time and amended.

Current Location:04/02/2009-A W.,P. & W.

Calendar Events:04/28/09 9 a.m. - Room 437 ASM WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE

Summary:

Existing law generally requires the Director of Finance to approve every gift or dedication to the state of personal property, or every gift to the state of real property in fee or in any lesser estate or interest, unless the Legislature specifically provides that approval is not required. This bill would authorize the Department of Fish and Game to seek and accept grants and donations from private and public organizations and agencies for the purpose of administering the Canine (K9) Program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*WATCH*

AB 1481

(Anderson) Fisheries restoration. (I-02/27/2009)

Status:03/02/2009-Read first time.

Current Location:02/27/2009-A PRINT

Calendar Events:

Summary:

The Keene-Nielsen Fisheries Restoration Act of 1985 funded Department of Fish and Game expenditures in fiscal years 1991-92 to 1993-94, inclusive, for the construction, operation, and administration of various projects designated in the plan developed by the department in accordance with the Salmon, Steelhead Trout, and Anadromous Fisheries Program Act, and projects designed to restore and maintain fishery resources and their habitat damaged by past water diversions and projects and other development activities. This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes in that funding provision.

Organization

Assigned

Position

Priority

Subject

Groups

CAA

WATCH

SB 241

(Runner) Retail food facilities. (I-02/24/2009)

Status:04/03/2009-Set for hearing April 22.

Current Location:03/09/2009-S HEALTH

Calendar Events:04/22/09 1:30 p.m. - John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203) SEN HEALTH

Summary:

The California Retail Food Code provides for the regulation of health and sanitation standards for retail food facilities, including mobile food facilities and satellite food service, as defined, by the State Department of Public Health. Under existing law, local health agencies are primarily responsible for enforcing this code. A violation of these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would revise this definition to include the shell egg of an avian species, as specified, except a balut and an egg product. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*SUPPORT*

SB 286

(Aanestad) Department of Fish and Game: scientific collector’s permits. (I-02/24/2009)

Status:03/27/2009-Set for hearing April 14.

Current Location:03/09/2009-S N.R. & W.

Calendar Events:04/14/09 9 a.m. - Room 112 SEN NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Summary:

Existing law authorizes the Department of Fish and Game to issue permits, subject to restrictions and regulations that the Fish and Game Commission determines are desirable, to take or possess, in any part of the state, for scientific, educational, or propagation purposes, mammals, birds and the nests and eggs thereof, fish, amphibians, reptiles, or any other form of plant or animal life. Violation of these provisions is a crime. This bill would authorize the issuance of a permit, on the payment of a specified fee, for scientific purposes to a California-certified small business, an aquarium accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, or other appropriate institution, in the name of a principal scientific investigator or the permitted entity. The bill would authorize the department to approve individual temporary employees or volunteers to work under the permit, after receiving notification from the permittee. The bill would make it a misdemeanor for a permittee to allow a temporary employee or volunteer to work under a permit without approval from the department, creating a new crime, and thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED*

SB 301

(Florez) Water Supply Reliability and Ecosystem Recovery and Restoration Act of 2009. (I-02/25/2009)

Status:03/09/2009-To Coms. on N.R. & W. and EQ.

Current Location:03/09/2009-S N.R. & W.

Calendar Events:

Summary:

Under existing law, various measures have been approved by the voters to provide funds for water protection, facilities, and programs. This bill would enact the Water Supply Reliability and Ecosystem Recovery and Restoration Act of 2009, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize, for the purposes of financing specified water supply reliability and ecosystem recovery and restoration programs, the issuance of bonds in the amount of $15,000,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. The bill would provide for submission of the bond act to the voters at the next statewide election. This bill contains other related provisions.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*WATCH*

SB 371

(Cogdill) Safe, Clean, Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2009. (I-02/25/2009)

Status:03/09/2009-To Coms. on N.R. & W. and EQ.

Current Location:03/09/2009-S N.R. & W.

Calendar Events:

Summary:

Under existing law, various measures have been approved by the voters to provide funds for water protection, facilities, and programs. This bill would enact the Safe, Clean, Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2009 which, if approved by the voters, would authorize, for the purposes of financing specified water supply reliability and water source protection programs, the issuance of bonds in the amount of $9,980,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. The bill would provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters at the next statewide election. This bill contains other related provisions.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*WATCH*

SB 416

(Florez) Antibiotics. (I-02/26/2009)

Status:03/27/2009-Set for hearing April 21.

Current Location:02/26/2009-S F. & A.

Calendar Events:04/21/09 9:30 a.m. - Room 113 SEN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

Summary:

The Pupil Nutrition, Health, and Achievement Act of 2001 requires a school to follow the Enhanced Food Based Meal Pattern, Nutrient Standard Meal Planning, or Traditional Meal Pattern developed by the United States Department of Agriculture or the Shaping Health as Partners in Education (SHAPE) Menu Patterns developed by the state in order to qualify for reimbursement for free and reduced-price meals sold or served to pupils. The act additionally prescribes nutrition standards for snacks sold to pupils in middle, junior, or high school with certain exceptions, and prohibits the sale of certain beverages to a pupil at an elementary school, except as specified. Existing law, commencing July 1, 2009, prohibits schools from making available to pupils food containing artificial trans fat, as specified. This bill would prohibit, commencing January 1, 2012, a school or school district from serving poultry and meat products treated with antibiotics to pupils, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*WATCH*

SB 456

(Wolk) Safe, Clean, Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010. (I-02/26/2009)

Status:03/12/2009-To Coms. on N.R. & W. and EQ.

Current Location:03/12/2009-S N.R. & W.

Calendar Events:

Summary:

Under existing law, various measures have been approved by the voters to provide funds for water protection, facilities, and programs. This bill would enact the Safe, Clean, Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 which, if approved by the voters, would authorize, for the purposes of financing specified water supply reliability and water source protection programs, the issuance of bonds in the amount of $9,805,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law. This bill contains other related provisions.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*WATCH*

SB 539

(Wiggins) Salmon and steelhead trout: California Ocean Protection Trust Fund. (A-04/02/2009)

Status:04/02/2009-From committee with author’s amendments. Read second time. Amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

Current Location:04/02/2009-S RLS.

Calendar Events:

Summary:

The California Ocean Protection Act establishes the Ocean Protection Council in state government and provides that the council consists of the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, the Secretary for Environmental Protection, the Chair of the State Lands Commission, and 2 public members appointed by the Governor. The act requires the council, among other things, to coordinate activities of state agencies that are related to the protection and conservation of coastal waters and ocean ecosystems, and to establish policies to coordinate the collection and sharing of scientific data related to coast and ocean resources between agencies. The act also establishes the California Ocean Protection Trust Fund and authorizes moneys in the trust fund to be expended, upon appropriation by the Legislature, and upon authorization by the council, for grants or loans to public agencies, nonprofit corporations, or private entities for, and direct expenditures on, various projects and activities related to the protection of coastal and ocean resources. This bill would additionally include among the projects and activities eligible for funding from the trust fund specified projects and activities related to restoration of native salmon and steelhead trout populations and restoration of the state’s salmon fishery.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*WATCH*

SB 609

(Hollingsworth) Importation of crocodile and alligator parts. (I-02/27/2009)

Status:04/01/2009-Set for hearing April 28.

Current Location:03/19/2009-S N.R. & W.

Calendar Events:04/28/09 9 a.m. - Room 112 SEN NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Summary:

Existing law makes it a crime to import into California for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell any part or product of the dead body of a crocodile or alligator. This bill would delete the above crime, thereby making it legal to engage in those acts relating to the importation into California of crocodile and alligator parts.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*WATCH*

SB 735

(Steinberg) Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010. (I-02/27/2009)

Status:03/19/2009-To Coms. on N.R. & W. and EQ.

Current Location:03/19/2009-S N.R. & W.

Calendar Events:

Summary:

Under existing law, various measures have been approved by the voters to provide funds for water supply and protection facilities and programs. This bill would enact the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $9,785,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a water supply reliability and water source protection program. This bill contains other related provisions.

Organization	Assigned	Position	Priority	Subject	Groups
CAA		*WATCH*

Changing the Fish and Game Code, Title 671 to allow aquaculture of non-native and exotic species.

Webmaster — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:13:02 +0000

The DFG is revising section 671 of Title 14 (California Code of Regulations) that deals with importation and use of restricted species. Much of section 671 was written long ago as a means to control exotic wildlife (e.g. zoo animals) and is inappropriate for the aquaculture sector. Additionally present regulations for aquaculture importation and transportation are more restricted than importation of aquatic species for non-aquaculture purposes, such as terminal sales and private trade. The Department seeks to remedy this and needs to develop an effective process and regulations to review, track, authorize and provide disease control of importation of aquatic non-native species and aquatic restricted non-native species for all purposes pursuant to existing Fish and Game Code.

In light of the fact that California aquaculturists wish to farm some restricted species, it will be necessary to establish or revise regulations and permit requirements (protocols and guidelines) in sections of Title 14 (671) that ensure adequate bio-security while allowing the industry to farm restricted species in an environmentally sound and economically viable manner. Permits must set conditions that protect native wildlife, agriculture interests, animal welfare, and human health/safety.

CAA members are working with Devin Bartley, State Aquaculture Coordinator, ADC and DFG to revise this section. It is expected that a draft revision will be circulated to the ADC around December, 2008.

Delay in producing Inland and Marine Aquaculture PEIR documents.

Webmaster — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:12:31 +0000

After some delays, due in part to several key people in the process leaving, Devin Bartley explained at the recent CAA board meeting that the production marine Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) is back on track. A renewed call for the PEIR was included in SB201 the Sustainable Oceans Act which passed in 2006. The PEIR should serve as a Tier 1 CEQA document and greatly facilitate the permitting process as well as help define best management practices and aquaculture sites. A draft document will be given to the Aquaculture Development Committee (composed of many CAA members) in advance of the public comment period. The current time line provided by the consulting company of Jones and Stokes has a draft document going to the ADC formally in late November, however specific sections will be distributed to appropriate members as they are available. The public review for the Marine PEIR will be Mid-Feb 2009, with end of April 09 for the comment period; ADC will remain in the process during this time for review. The process is scheduled for completion in November 2009.

What is a “PEIR”?

The PEIR is being prepared in accordance with the CEQA, which requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects.

A PEIR is a first-tier document that is prepared for an agency program or series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. A PEIR is often the appropriate document for agency plans, policies or regulatory programs. A PEIR analyzes the broad environmental effects of the program with the acknowledgment that site-specific environmental review may be required for particular aspects of portions of the program, when those aspects are proposed for implementation.

Once a PEIR has been prepared, subsequent activities within the program must be evaluated to determine whether an additional CEQA document needs to be prepared. However, the lead agency may not need to prepare a new CEQA document if the environmental effects of the subsequent activities were covered in the PEIR. A PEIR is a public information document that assesses potential environmental effects of a proposed project and identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to the project that could reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts.

The PEIR is an informational document used in the planning and decision-making process. It is not intended to recommend either approval or denial of a project. Consistent with CEQA requirements, the purpose of the PEIR is to:

identify potential direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Program;
identify its potential contributions to cumulative regional impacts in the Program area;
evaluate the potential for growth inducement due to the Program;
describe mitigation measures that would avoid any potentially significant impacts or reduce them to a less-than-significant level; and
discuss potential alternatives that would avoid or reduce one or more of the identified significant impacts for the Program.

This draft PEIR is also intended to supply the information necessary to support related permit applications and review processes. As described below, the draft PEIR will be made available for public review and comment.

Senate Bill 201 Defines Marine Aquaculture PEIR

Senate Bill 201, the Sustainable Oceans Act describes conditions for the use of California’s marine waters for aquaculture, however the bill focused on marine finfish. Environmental protections in the bill operate through two primary mechanisms. The bill lays out a possibility for rigorous assessment of the potential environmental effects of marine finfish aquaculture through a PEIR for the leasing program that takes into consideration the following factors:

Appropriate sitting to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on marine resources and users of marine resources;
Effects on sensitive habitats;
Effects on human health, marine life, fishing, and other ocean uses;
Cumulative effects of multiple fish farms on marine ecosystems;
Effects of the use of fishmeal and fish oil on marine ecosystems;
Effects of escaped farm fish on wild fish and the marine environment; and
Design of facilities to minimize adverse environmental impacts.

Secondly, no person may engage in finfish aquaculture without a lease from the Fish and Game Commission. The Commission’s lease and regulations for marine finfish aquaculture must meet the following standards:

The site must have been judged appropriate in the PEIR;
The lease must not unreasonably interfere with fishing or other uses of the ocean, disrupt wildlife and marine habitats, or harm the ability of the marine environment to support “ecologically significant flora and fauna;”
A lease shall not have “significant adverse cumulative impacts;”
Use of fishmeal and fish oil shall be minimized, and alternatives to these feed ingredients shall be utilized where feasible;
Lessees must develop and implement best management practices to ensure environmental protection and compliance with the law;

The California Fish and Game Commission may take action to prevent or stop damage to the marine environment and must take “immediate remedial action to avoid or eliminate significant damage, or the threat of significant damage, to the marine environment.” Measures that may be taken to mitigate environmental damage include:

Removing fish stocks,
Closing facilities, or
Terminating a lease;
Fish number and density must be limited to what can be safely raised while protecting the marine environment;
The use of drugs and chemicals shall be minimized and shall be used only as approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration for marine aquaculture use;
All farmed fish must be marked, tagged, or otherwise identified unless the Commission determines this is not necessary for the protection of wild stocks;
Facilities and operations shall be designed to prevent the escape of farmed fish and lessees are responsible for damage to the marine environment caused by more than de minimus escapement; and
Lessees shall meet all applicable requirements imposed by state and federal water quality laws.

The initial term of a lease for finfish aquaculture is 10 years. The Commission has the authority to determine whether the lessee may renew the lease or whether the lease should be awarded to the highest responsible bidder. To terminate the lease, the lessee must remove all structures and restore the area to its original condition. The Commission requires surety bonds, credit or trust funds to assure that such restoration is completed.