California Aquaculture Association » Action Center

Fish and Game ISOR about stocking

Michael — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:40:08 +0000

1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FISH AND GAME COMMISSION
INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR REGULATORY ACTION
(Pre-publication of Notice Statement)
Amend Section 238.5
Title 14, California Code of Regulations
Re: Stocking of Aquaculture Products
I. Date of Initial Statement of Reasons: May 10, 2010
II. Dates and Locations of Scheduled Hearings:
(a) Notice Hearing: Date: June 24, 2010
Location: Folsom, CA
(b) Discussion Hearing: Date: August 5, 2010
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
(c) Adoption Hearing: Date: September 16, 2010
Location: McClellan, 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:
On January 11, 2010, the Department of Fish and Game (Department)
certified the Final Hatchery and Stocking Program Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIR/EIS) on its fish
hatchery operations and fish stocking programs. The mitigation measures
in the Final EIR/EIS recommend certain changes to the Private Stocking
Permit in Section 238.5, Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR):
1) Ensure adequate Department review, assessment and monitoring
of all private fish stocking in California’s inland waters.
2) Address mitigation for potential biological impacts due to the
issuance of private stocking permits.
3) Address concerns about the potential biological impacts of private
stocking on regional fish and amphibian health issues, range
expansions of invasive species and threats to native species.
2
The Department proposal is to modify Section 238.5 to enact some of the
Final EIR/EIS recommendations.
Present Regulations
Current regulations specify that no person shall stock aquaculture
products except under a Private Stocking Permit issued pursuant to
Section 238.5, Title 14, CCR. This Section lists the general conditions,
provisions, and exceptions for legally reared or possessed aquaculture
product to be stocked into the waters of the state.
Proposed Regulations
The Department is proposing the following changes to Section 238.5:
1. Remove subsection 238.5(c) exception for a registered aquaculturist to
stock aquaculture products in publicly owned lakes covered by a
Department cooperative agreement and privately owned reservoirs,
lakes and ponds without a stocking permit.
a. This exception leads to stockings that have no Departmental
review, assessment or monitoring to ensure compliance with
Commission, State, and Federal stocking policies and fishery
management measures and the mitigation measures in the
Final EIR/EIS.
2. Add a new subsection 238.5(c) that all private stockings are evaluated
pursuant to the Pre-Stocking Evaluation Protocol in Appendix K of
Final EIR/EIS.
a. This addition ensures fish stockings that have adequate
Department review and assessment of impacts to native
species.
3. Modify subsection 238.5(d) for clarity as follows:
a. Remove the link to the old subsection 238.5(c).
b. Update subsection 238.5(d)(1) with the correct form revision
date for the Private Stocking Permit, FG 749.
c. Modify subsection 238.5(d)(1) language to require an annual
expiration date unless otherwise specified on the permit and
ensure all existing special permit notifications, requirements and
conditions are listed on the permit or attached pages.
d. Revise subsection 238.5(d)(5) and add (d)(6) and (7) to
standardize denial, revocation and appeal procedures for
permits.
e. Renumber subsection 238.5(d)(6) to (d)(8) and revise to ensure
a stocking permit is signed by a Department representative.
3
4. Remove the subsection 238.5(f) exception for planting mosquitofish for
purposes of mosquito control without obtaining a permit, except in
Inyo, Mono, San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial counties, where
the written concurrence of the DFG is required.
a. Elimination of this section could require a private stocking permit
to plant mosquitofish, throughout the state.
b. Mosquito Control Districts typically have their own independent
authority, based on public health and safety, to plant
mosquitofish in waters within their jurisdiction. Thus the need
for the existing exception in subsection 238.5(f) is unclear.
c. This exception leads to fish stockings that have no Department
review or assessment to ensure compliance with Commission,
State and federal stocking policies and fishery management
programs.
d. Eliminating this exception would be in alignment with the Pre-
Stocking Evaluation Protocol in Appendix K of the Final
EIR/EIS.
Additional minor changes are proposed to clarify the regulations and
reduce public confusion.
(b) Authority and Reference Sections from Fish and Game Code for
Regulation:
Authority: Sections 1050, 2363, 6401, 7701, 7708, 15005, 15200, 15202,
15501 and 15504, Fish and Game Code.
Reference: Sections 17, 45, 1050, 6400, 6400.5, 6401, 7701, 7702, 7703,
7706, 7707, 7708, 8371, 8435, 8436, 15005, 15200, 15202 and 15504,
Fish and Game Code.
(c) Specific Technology or Equipment Required by Regulatory Change:
None.
(d) Identification of Reports or Documents Supporting Regulation Change:
Department of Fish and Game. DFG Hatchery Operations, Final DFG
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, January
11, 2010.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/pubnotice/hatchery/
(e) Public Discussions of Proposed Regulations Prior to Notice Publication:
4
A series of seven public scoping meetings from Southern California to
Northern California were held prior to the notice publication. In addition,
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.
(b) No Change Alternative:
The no-change alternative would continue the present threat to California
native aquatic species from stocking of aquaculture products without
adequate Department review as required by the mitigation measures in
the Final EIR/EIS.
(c) Consideration of Alternatives:
In view of the information currently possessed, no reasonable alternative
considered would be more effective in carrying out the purposes for which
the regulation is proposed, or would be as effective and less burdensome
to affected private persons than the proposed regulation.
V. Mitigation Measures Required by Regulatory Action:
The proposed regulatory action will have no negative impact on the environment.
Therefore, no mitigation is necessary.
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. The
proposed changes are necessary for the continued preservation of the
5
resource and therefore the prevention of adverse economic impacts.
(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:
None.
(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.
(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.
6
Informative Digest (Policy Statement Overview)
On January 11, 2010, the Department of Fish and Game (Department) certified the
Final Hatchery and Stocking Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement (Final EIR/EIS) for its fish hatchery operations and fish stocking
programs. The mitigation measures in the Final EIR/EIS recommend the following
changes to the Private Stocking Permit in Section 238.5, Title 14, California Code of
Regulations (CCR):
1) Ensure adequate Department review, assessment and monitoring of all private
fish stocking in California’s inland waters.
2) Address mitigation for potential biological impacts due to the issuance of private
stocking permits.
3) Address concerns about the potential biological impacts of private stocking on
regional fish and amphibian health issues, range expansions of invasive species
and threats to native species.
The Department proposal is to modify Section 238.5 to enact some of the Final EIR/EIS
recommendations.
Present Regulations
Current regulations specify that no person shall stock aquaculture products except
under a Private Stocking Permit issued pursuant to Section 238.5, Title 14, CCR. This
Section listed the general conditions, provisions, and exceptions for legally reared or
possessed aquaculture product to be stocked into the waters of the state. Section
238.5 (c) specifically exempts 37 counties from the need to obtain a Private Stocking
Permit.
Proposed Regulations
The Department is proposing the following changes to Section 238.5:
1. Remove subsection 238.5(c) exception for a registered aquaculturist to stock
aquaculture products in publicly owned lakes covered by a Department cooperative
agreement and privately owned reservoirs, lakes and ponds without a stocking
permit.
a. This exception leads to stockings that have no Departmental review,
assessment or monitoring to ensure compliance with Commission, State, and
Federal stocking policies and fishery management measures and the
mitigation measures in the Final EIR/EIS.
2. Add a new subsection 238.5(c) that all private stockings are evaluated pursuant to
the Pre-Stocking Evaluation Protocol in Appendix K of Final EIR/EIS.
a. This addition ensures fish stockings that have adequate Department review
7
and assessment of impacts to native species.
3. Modify subsection 238.5(d) for clarity as follows:
a. Remove the link to the old subsection 238.5(c).
b. Update subsection 238.5(d)(1) with the correct form revision date for the
Private Stocking Permit, FG 749.
c. Modify subsection 238.5(d)(1) language to require an annual expiration date
unless otherwise specified on the permit and ensure all existing special permit
notifications, requirements and conditions are listed on the permit or attached
pages.
d. Revise subsection 238.5(d)(5) and add (d)(6) and (7) to standardize denial,
revocation and appeal procedures for permits.
e. Renumber subsection 238.5(d)(6) to (d)(8) and revised to ensure a stocking
permit is signed by a Department representative.
4. Remove the subsection 238.5(f) exception for planting mosquitofish for purposes of
mosquito control without obtaining a permit, except in Inyo, Mono, San Bernardino,
Riverside and Imperial counties, where the written concurrence of the DFG is
required.
a. Elimination of this section could require a private stocking permit to plant
mosquitofish, throughout the state.
b. Mosquito Control Districts typically have their own independent authority,
based on public health and safety, to plant mosquitofish in waters within their
jurisdiction. Thus the need for the existing exception in subsection 238.5(f) is
unclear.
c. This exception leads to fish stockings that have no Department review or
assessment to ensure compliance with Commission, State and federal
stocking policies and fishery management programs.
d. Eliminating this exception would be in alignment with the Pre-Stocking
Evaluation Protocol in Appendix K of the Final EIR/EIS.
Additional minor changes are proposed to clarify the regulations and reduce public
confusion.
1
Regulatory Language
Section 238.5, Title 14, CCR, is amended to read:
§238.5. Stocking of Aquaculture Products.
Upon stocking, aquaculture products are wild and therefore “fish” as defined by Section
45 of the Fish and Game Code, except when stocked into a registered aquaculture
facility. No person shall stock aquaculture products in this state except in accordance
with the following general terms and conditions:
(a) All aquaculture products stocked under these provisions must be legally reared or
possessed by an aquaculturist registered in this state. No person shall stock
aquaculture products which are parasitized, diseased or of an unauthorized species.
(b) Live aquaculture products shipped to Inyo or Mono counties must be certified by the
department as disease and parasite-free before being stocked in waters in those
counties.
(c) A registered aquaculturist producing or possessing rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus),
redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), Sacramento perch (Archoplites interruptus),
channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) and white catfish
(Ictalurus catus), may stock these species under the following terms and conditions.
Only publicly owned lakes covered by a cooperative agreement between the
department and the lake operator and privately owned reservoirs, lakes and ponds in
the following counties or portions thereof may be stocked without a stocking permit:
Alameda, Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Glenn, Imperial, Kern, except in the Kern River
drainage above Democrat Dam; Kings, Lake except in the Eel River drainage; Los
Angeles, Merced, Napa, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Bernardino,
San Diego, San Joaquin, Santa Barbara, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Ventura,
Yolo, Yuba; those portions of Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Mariposa, Nevada, Placer
and Tuolumne west of Highway 49; Fresno west of the Sierra and Sequoia National
Forest boundaries; Madera west of the Sierra National Forest boundary; and Tulare
west of the Sequoia National Forest and Sequoia National Park boundaries.
(c) All private stockings of fish must be evaluated pursuant to the private stocking permit
evaluation protocol in Appendix K of the DFG Hatchery Operations, Final DFG
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (January 11, 2010)
(incorporated by reference herein).
(d) Except for those species listed in Section 238.5(c) when planted into those specific
areas and waters covered in Section 238.5(c), nNo person shall stock aquatic plants
and animals except as follows:
(1) Each stocking of fish shall require a separate Private Stocking Permit (FG 749 (Rev.
5/931/09), which is incorporated by reference herein) issued by the department. A copy
of this permit shall accompany all shipments. However, a copy of the same permit (FG
749 (Rev. 5/931/09)) may be used for additional consignments of the same species
when stocked in the same water or waters, until cancelled by the department. Permits
issued under the provisions of this Section shall be valid for a term of one year from the
2
date of issue unless otherwise specified on the permit. Any special notifications,
requirements and conditions shall be attached to the permit on a separate page. See
subsection 699(b) of these regulations for the fee for this permit.
(2) Application for the private stocking permit shall be made to the regional manager of
the Fish and Game region in which the fish are to be stocked. An application will be
supplied to each applicant upon request.
(3) No person shall stock any species of fish in any water in which the stocking of such
fish is contrary to the fisheries management programs of the department for that water
or drainage, or in any water from which such fish might escape to other waters where
such fish are not already present. All applicants will be advised upon request of the said
departmental fisheries management programs.
(4) Permittee shall notify the regional office of the department not less than 10 days in
advance of stocking in order to make arrangements for inspection. Such inspection may
be waived at the discretion of the department. If, upon inspection, diseased or
parasitized fish or fish of unauthorized species are found by the department to be
present, they shall be disposed of by the permittee as directed by the department. The
department may require that the expense of any inspection made necessary by the
provisions of these regulations be borne by the permittee.
(5) A stocking permit may be cancelled or suspended by the department upon
conviction of a violation of these regulations by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Cancellation or suspension may be appealed to the commission.
(5) Denial.
(A) The department may deny the issuance of a permit or amendment of an existing
permit if:
(i) the applicant or permittee has failed to comply with terms and conditions of a permit
or any provision of the Fish and Game Code or regulations adopted pursuant thereto;
(ii) the applicant or permittee has failed to comply with any provision of any statute,
regulation, rule or ordinance existing in any other state or in any city, county, or other
local governing entity in any other state that is related to aquaculture activities described
in subparagraph (a), so long as the failure to comply would constitute a violation of the
Fish and Game Code or regulations adopted pursuant thereto if it had occurred in this
state or
(iii) the applicant or permittee has failed to comply with any provision of any federal
statute, regulation, or rule that is related to aquaculture activities described in
subparagraph (a), so long as the failure to comply would constitute a violation of the
Fish and Game Code or regulations adopted pursuant thereto if it had occurred in this
state.
(B) The department shall deny the issuance of a permit or amendment of an existing
permit if the applicant or permittee fails to demonstrate compliance with the conditions
of this section. Before denying an application for this reason, however, the department
shall notify the applicant that it has not received sufficient materials or information
pursuant to this section. The applicant may amend or supplement an application with
additional information or materials, but these supplemental materials shall be
postmarked no later than 30 days after the date of the proof of service accompanying
3
receipt (postmark) of the department’s notification. New applications may be submitted
at any time.
(C) All notifications, denials, or other correspondence sent from the department to an
applicant or permittee shall include a proof of service that consists of a declaration of
mailing, under penalty of perjury, indicating the date of mailing the department’s
notification, denial, or other correspondence.
(6) Revocation. Any permit issued pursuant to these regulations may be suspended or
revoked at any time by the department for failure to comply with the terms and
conditions of the permit or for failure to comply with any provision of the Fish and Game
Code or regulations adopted pursuant thereto. Unless the permittee has been convicted
in a court of competent jurisdiction of violating one of these provisions, the suspension
or revocation shall not take effect until the time to request an appeal pursuant to
subparagraph (5) has expired. A timely request for an appeal will stay the department’s
suspension or revocation if the permittee was not convicted of violating the Fish and
Game Code or regulations adopted pursuant thereto.
(7) Appeal. Any applicant or permittee who is denied a permit, an amendment to an
existing permit or has a permit suspended or revoked by the department pursuant to
these regulations may appeal that denial, suspension, or revocation by filing a request
for an appeal with the commission that is postmarked no later than 30 days after the
date of the proof of service accompanying the department’s notice of denial,
suspension, or revocation. The commission shall not consider a request for an appeal
with a postmark later than 30 days after the date of the proof of service accompanying
the notice of denial, suspension, or revocation.
(A) No later than 30 days after filing an appeal (as indicated by the postmark on the
request for an appeal), a person requesting an appeal (appellant) shall submit a written
statement to the commission that specifically identifies the legal and factual grounds for
challenging the department’s action. Upon a showing of good cause, the commission
may grant an appellant’s request for an additional 30 days to submit appellant’s written
statement provided the appellant’s request for additional time is received by the
commission no later than 30 days after the postmarked date of the request for appeal.
The appellant’s written statement shall be signed by the appellant under penalty of
perjury. Upon receipt, the commission shall forward to the department a copy of all
appeal-related materials it receives from the appellant, including, a copy of the request
for an appeal, any requests for additional time, and the appellant’s written statement.
(B) No later than 30 days after receipt of the appellant’s written statement, the
department shall submit a response to the commission, with a copy sent to the
appellant, along with any supporting documentary evidence and/or declarations under
penalty of perjury.
(C) No later than 15 days after receipt of the department’s response, the appellant may
submit a reply to the commission signed by the appellant under penalty of perjury, with
a copy sent to the department.
(D) The commission’s president may appoint a commissioner, a former executive
director of the commission, or a member of the state bar of California with at least 10
years experience in the active practice of law and determined qualified by the president,
4
to serve as a hearing officer. Following the appellant’s and the department’s submittals
on the appeal, the hearing officer may request additional information, including
testimony under oath, from either party, and may permit either party to present
additional information or rebuttal if the hearing officer determines such to be helpful in
reaching a correct decision.
(E) In any appeal of the department’s denial of an application for a permit or to amend
an existing permit, if the hearing officer determines the appeal is based upon new
evidence or factual information that was not included in the application or otherwise
submitted to the department prior to the department’s denial, the hearing officer shall
direct the applicant or permittee to file a new application or seek reconsideration by the
department, and the request for appeal shall be closed.
(F) No later than 60 days after receipt of all submittals and any additional information or
rebuttal permitted by the hearing officer under Subparagraph (6)(D), the hearing officer
shall prepare and submit a proposed decision to the executive director of the
commission. The decision shall contain proposed findings and reasons for the
commission’s action. Upon receipt, the executive director of the commission shall
provide both parties a copy of the hearing officer’s proposed decision.
A cover letter accompanying the proposed decision shall indicate the date when the
commission will consider the proposed decision and a deadline for the parties to
comment on the proposed decision. Copies of the proposed decision shall include a
proof of service indicating the date the proposed decision is mailed to the parties.
Each party may submit written comments on the proposed decision to the commission,
however, these comments shall not exceed two pages, and they shall not refer to or
introduce any new factual information or evidence that was not previously submitted to
the commission.
(G) At a meeting of the commission no later than 60 days after the hearing officer’s
proposed decision is mailed to the parties, the commission shall consider adoption of
the proposed decision, unless good cause exists to delay consideration of the proposed
decision. The commission may by order adopt, revise or reject the proposed decision.
The commission shall serve both parties a copy of the commission’s order and decision.
The order is final.
(H) A party may request judicial review by filing a petition for writ of mandate in
accordance with Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure within 30 days from the
date of service (postmark) of the order. The record of the proceedings as designated by
the petitioner shall be prepared by the commission and delivered to petitioner’s counsel
or, if appearing pro se, the petitioner within 30 days after petitioner’s request and upon
payment of the fee specified in Section 69950 of the Government Code.
(68) A stocking permit is valid only when signed by the applicant and the appropriate
Regional Manager or his/her designee.
(e) A registered aquaculturist selling and transporting aquatic plants and animals for the
purpose of stocking in this state shall retain copies of documents required by Section
15005(b) of the Fish and Game Code for a period of three years following stocking of
the fish. The documents shall be shown upon written demand by the director of the
department. The information contained in the documents is confidential except that such
5
information may be disclosed in accordance with a proper judicial order in cases or
actions instituted for enforcement of this section or for prosecution of violations of this
section.
(f) Except for Inyo, Mono, San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial counties,
mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) may be planted for purposes of mosquito control
without obtaining a permit otherwise required by these regulations. In Inyo and Mono
counties and in public waters of San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial counties,
mosquitofish may not be planted without the written concurrence of the department.
NOTE:
Authority cited: Sections 1050, 2363, 6401, 7701, 7708, 15005, 15200, 15202, 15501
and 15504, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 17, 45, 1050, 6400-6401, 7701-
7708, 6400, 6400.5, 6401, 7701, 7702, 7703, 7706, 7707, 7708, 8371, 8435, 8436,
15005, 15200, 15202 and 15504, Fish and Game Code.

Action Needed to Protect Aquaculture

Michael — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 15:39:46 +0000

CLEAR Legislation to Prohibit

Aquaculture Activities

The U.S. House of Representatives is considering major energy legislation called the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act of 2009 (CLEAR) bill, H.R.3534. While the main purpose is to establish new sources of energy, it contains a provision (Section 704) entitled Offshore Aquaculture Clarification that will prohibit the Department of Commerce, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or the several federal fishery management councils from approving a fishery management plan that authorizes aquaculture activities pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It also would invalidate any aquaculture-related permits that have been issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Act prior to this legislation.

On Friday, July 2 the NAA faxed a letter, attached, to the Nick J. Rahall, II, Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources and to the members of the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation opposing the Section 704 provision and requesting that the provision be deleted from the CLEAR bill.

It is imperative that NAA members contact their Congressional representatives today, especially if they serve on the House Committee on Natural Resources or the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, requesting that the Section 704 provision be stricken from the CLEAR bill. Committee listings are attached.

The following websites are available for emailing Congressional representatives:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Resistance on Feed Assistance Bill - Action Needed!

Michael — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 20:22:38 +0000

Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas was successful in getting $25 million for U.S. Aquaculture in the American Workers, State & Business Relief Act (H.R.4213). The bill is now back in the House Agriculture Committee. If the bill passes and is signed by the President we would have another feed assistance program very similar to the 2008 Aquaculture Grant Program.

However, the bill has encountered resistance and your help is needed. It is important you contact your Representative today requesting passage of the bill. The sooner the bill is passed the sooner funds will be released to farmers struggling with high feed prices.

Please click on the link below to go the House Ag Committee website. Check to see if your Representative sits on the Committee. If so, click on his or her name and you will be directed to their personal website containing email and phone contact information. Call or email today requesting their support of H.R. 4213. If your Representative does not sit on the House Ag Committee, it would still be a good idea to contact them informing them of the issue and requesting their support.

http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/members.html

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.