BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 1299 HEARING DATE: June 28, 2011
AUTHOR: Huffman URGENCY: No
VERSION: May 27, 2011 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Marine fisheries: forage species.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
1)It is the policy of the state to encourage the preservation,
conservation, and maintenance of wildlife resources in order
to maintain sufficient populations of all species and
necessary habitat; to provide for beneficial use and enjoyment
of wildlife by the citizens of the state; to perpetuate
wildlife for their intrinsic and ecological values; to
maintain recreational uses; and to provide for economic
contributions to the citizens of the state.
2)The Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) requires that marine
living resources be managed sustainably, through adaptive
management, on the basis of the best available science and
other information. It requires that fishery management plans
(FMPs) be prepared for all regulated fisheries, and
establishes a process, including public hearings, for review
and adoption of FMPs by the California Fish and Game
Commission (FGC). Regulations may also be adopted that impose
fishing limitations and conditions. The MLMA requires that
each FMP include available information on species population,
habitat, its role in the ecosystem, and economic and social
factors. It also requires adoption of a master plan setting
priorities for preparation of FMPs. The MLMA shifts the burden
of proof toward demonstrating that fisheries and other
activities are sustainable.
3)The MLMA provides management authority over the market squid
fishery to the FGC and requires the FGC to manage the fishery
under the guidelines of the MLMA. It requires the FGC to
adopt a market squid FMP. A Market Squid FMP (MSFMP) was
adopted by FGC and updated in 2005.
1
4)The MLMA provides that Pacific mackerel and sardines be
managed in conformance with federal fishery regulations.
Certain geographic and catch limit restrictions on the taking
of anchovies are imposed.
5)The MLMA prohibits commercial fishing for krill in California
waters.
6)A federal law known as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management
and Conservation Act regulates management of forage species
under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries
Service. Some forage species, specifically pacific mackerel,
pacific sardines, jack mackerel and northern anchovies, are
regulated under the Coastal Pelagic Species FMP.
7)Existing law creates the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) and
directs the OPC, among other things, to support state
agencies' use and sharing of scientific information, to assess
the needs of state agencies for information relevant to
ecosystem-based management, to work to increase baseline
scientific information needed for such management, and to
support agencies' collaborative management and use of
scientific information relative to ecosystem-based management.
PROPOSED LAW
1)States that it is the policy of the state to ensure the
conservation, sustainable use, and, where feasible,
restoration of California's forage species populations,
including their habitats and their habitats' water quality,
for benefit of the citizens of the state. The bill states the
objective of this policy is to achieve ecosystem-based
management of forage species that recognizes the ecological
services of forage species and the dependence of predator
species on forage species. The bill also establishes a state
policy to promote higher value uses of forage species for
human consumption.
2)Includes, as forage species, Pacific herring, Pacific sardine,
Pacific mackerel, jack mackerel, market squid, shortbelly
rockfish, smelts, silversides, lanternfish, American shad,
Pacific tomcod, Pacific hake, and other species as added by
the FGC provided that the FGC finds that a species comprises a
major component in the diets of fish, birds, mammals, or
turtles and contributes disproportionately to ecosystem and
functions and resilience due to its function as prey.
2
3)Requires, commencing January 1, 2012, new Fishery Management
Plans (FMPs) and amendments to FMPs that significantly affect
forage species to be consistent with the state policy on
forage species articulated in this bill. The bill also directs
the Fish and Game Commission (FGC) in implementing this
requirement to review best readily available scientific
information to identify specified elements relating to
ecosystem management.
4)Defines "ecosystem-based management."
5)States legislative findings and declarations regarding the
values of forage species to the marine ecosystem and human
health, the lack of baseline data for many forage species, and
the multitude of risks facing forage species, including ocean
acidification, pollution, fishing pressure, climate change,
and demand for feeds in the agriculture and aquaculture
industries. The bill further declares that DFG and the OPC
are encouraged to work together collaboratively to achieve the
policy objectives of this bill, consistent with DFG's and the
OPC's existing duties and responsibilities under the MLMA and
the Ocean Protection Act.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to Oceana, the sponsor of the bill, forage fish
commercial landings in California have increased 45 percent by
weight in 30 years, from 40 percent to 85 percent. In large
part, this increase reflects the decrease in the availability of
larger fish off the coast of California and elsewhere in the
ocean that are available for harvest.
The protection of forage species was identified in a finding of
the West Coast Governors' Agreement on Ocean Health: "ÝF]orage
species?are vital links in the food chain and play an essential
role in maintaining ecosystem health Ýand] precautionary
measures should be taken to ensure their protection."
The lack of forage species has been linked to declines in fall
run Sacramento Chinook salmon, seabirds, and mammals in
California waters over the last decade, according to the
sponsor, citing data from NOAA. A recent peer-reviewed study by
an economist from the National Marine Fisheries Service
indicates that forage species are often worth more to the
coastal economy if left in the water to bolster tourism,
recreational fishing, and other aspects of the state's $12
billion coastal economy.
3
The author and sponsor point to the lack of an official state
policy that recognizes the important ecological role of forage
species, which are not otherwise defined in state law.
Without commenting directly on AB 1299, a group of 25 ocean
scientists from leading universities issued a statement that the
management of forage species should be shifted to an ecosystem
based management approach because of the crucial role that these
species play in the marine environment.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The California Wetfish Producers Association (whose members
harvest and market sardines, anchovies, and squid) remains
concerned (see Comments) that the bill would eventually lead to
restrictions on forage fish landings in the state. It believes
that the direction to the FGC to rely on "best readily available
scientific information" will require more than 5 years of staff
time and will require more than $4.5 million. The association
states that the bill conflicts with federal management actions.
The association also asserts that California's forage species
are not overfished. In terms of the author's intent to move
toward ecosystem-based management to benefit these species, the
association argues that forage species use a larger portion of
the ocean than that which is defined as state waters and that
therefore a focus only on management actions in state waters is
short-sighted.
This association and other opponents such as the City of
Monterey object to the fact that the bill is not integrated with
the Marine Life Management Act or the Marine Life Protection
Act. For example, representatives of the squid fishery indicate
that as much of a third of their traditional fishing areas may
become off-limits through reserves designated pursuant to the
MLPA but that this bill does not take that into account.
Another opposition group, the California Marine Affairs and
Navigation Conference, a coalition of local governments and
special districts, believes that the bill bypasses the
collaborative processes now underway by various federal and
state agencies.
Herring fishermen oppose the bill because the harvest rate in
San Francisco Bay is 2-5% compared with a worldwide rate of up
to 20%. Participants in that fishery have provided DFG with
research funds and funds for equipment. Sardine fishermen state
that in their fishery, the harvest rate is a conservative 11
percent of available biomass.
4
The potential shift of economic activity away from California to
other western states and Pacific jurisdictions was cited by
several opponents who are concerned that California-based
regulations that are not in effect in these other jurisdictions
would mean a loss of California economic activity. If forage
fish are subject to more extensive management and regulation,
the opponents argue that it should be done on a regional basis
and not only in California.
Additional opposition from the Fishermen's Union of America
suggests that the Pacific Fishery Management Council is
developing its California Current Ecosystem Management Plan and
that therefore the bill is not necessary.
COMMENTS
1. In earlier hearings on this bill, the author and sponsor have
tried to respond to concerns raised by various parties although
there is still opposition. The Committee has not been informed
if any of the opposition from the Assembly versions of the bill
has been removed.
2. In its current form, the sponsor believes that the bill does
not openly conflict with federal fishery management by the
National Marine Fisheries Service or the Pacific Fishery
Management Council since the bill is limited to state-managed
forage species. The bill also does not impose any regulations on
forage fish landings although the opposition is concerned about
possible future regulations.
3. At its meeting on June 10, 2011, the Pacific Fishery
Management Council did not move forward with an Ecosystem
Fishery Management Plan to deal with the forage issue, and
instead decided to move forward with an "advisory plan" that
would not have management authority while it continues to obtain
additional scientific information. In any event, the Ecosystem
Management Plan, which has been underway since 2007, would not
have direct authority over state-listed forage species.
4. That few FMPs exist is largely a function of the decreased
resources available to the department over the last several
years. This bill, if implemented, will presumably add to the
backlog-however, the Committee may determine that establishment
of the conservation policies for forage fisheries outweigh that
consideration.
5
5. The bill clearly intends to adopt the fisheries management
plan protocol of the MLMA while adding additional criteria for
forage species fisheries management plans. Virtually all of the
existing language in the bill could be imported into the MLMA
which would alleviate at least one concern of the
opposition-that another law in addition to the MLPA and the MLMA
would be applicable to forage species.
6. If this approach is acceptable to the author and the
Committee, then the following amendments would be adopted:
A. Move the definitions of ecosystem-based management and
forage species into the appropriate definitional sections of the
MLMA.
B. Move the forage species policy into the existing policy
section of the MLMA.
C. Provide that in addition to the provisions in the MLMA
for fisheries management plans, that future fisheries management
plans for forage species shall contain the information currently
identified in the bill. This provision would be moved into the
MLMA beginning at Section 7089.
SUPPORT
Oceana (Sponsor)
Audubon California
California Coastkeeper
Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research and Education
Coastside Fishing Club
Defenders of Wildlife
Friends of the Earth
The Humane Society
Marine Conservation Biology institute
Marine Mammal Center
Monterey County
6
Monterey Fish Market
Ocean Revolution
The Otter project
Pacific Environment
Passionfish
The Pew Environment Group
Point Reyes Bird Observatory Conservation Science
Save Our Shores
Save the Whales
Sea Stewards
Sealife Conservation, Inc.
Sierra Club
The Sportfishing Conservancy of California
Turtle Island Restoration Network
OPPOSITION (including opposition from Assembly)
California Wetfish Producers Association
Fishermen's Union of America
Marine Recreation Association
California Yacht Brokers Association
Sun Coast Calamari
California Association of Harbor Masters and Port Captains
Moss Landing Harbor District
Ventura Port District
City of Morro Bay
Western Fishboat Owners Association
City of Monterey
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
Southern California Trawlers Association
Sportfishing Association of California
Recreational Fishing Alliance
Monterey Fish Company
State Fish Company
California Fisheries and Seafood Institute
Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries
2 individuals
7