BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 165
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 165 (Beth Gaines)
As Introduced January 23, 2013
Majority vote
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 15-0 APPROPRIATIONS
17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Rendon, Bigelow, Allen, |Ayes:|Gatto, Harkey, Bigelow, |
| |Blumenfield, Bocanegra, | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian |
| |Dahle, Fong, Frazier, | |Calderon, Campos, |
| |Beth Gaines, Gatto, | |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, |
| |Gomez, Gray, Patterson, | |Hall, Holden, Linder, |
| |Yamada, Williams | |Pan, Quirk, Wagner, Weber |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Lifts the ban on sale and purchase of crayfish taken from
Lake Tahoe or the Lake Tahoe Basin and includes both legislative
findings and guidelines for any prospective regulations authorizing
commercial crayfish harvesting in Lake Tahoe or the Lake Tahoe
Basin. Specifically, this bill :
1)Deletes the Fish and Game Code Section barring the sale or
purchase of crayfish taken from Lake Tahoe or the Lake Tahoe
Basin.
2)States legislative intent that any commercial taking of crayfish
from Lake Tahoe or the Lake Tahoe Basin be for the primary purpose
of reducing and controlling the crayfish population. States
legislative intent that commercial taking of crayfish be allowed
only as is consistent with state goals for management of invasive
species and state environmental standards.
3)Requires the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to ensure that
its regulations for the taking of crayfish from Lake Tahoe or the
Lake Tahoe Basin for commercial purposes be consistent with the
Lake Tahoe Region Aquatic Invasive Species Management Plan.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits the sale or purchase of crayfish taken from Lake Tahoe
or the Lake Tahoe Basin.
AB 165
Page 2
2)Requires commercial fishing licenses, crayfish permits, and
commercial fishing vessel registration for commercial crayfish
harvest operations. Limits the size of crayfish traps to three
feet in greatest dimension and requires the immediate return of
other species taken in crayfish traps.
3)Confers authority to the Commission to set regulations for the
taking and possession of crayfish and to prohibit the use of
crayfish traps that will injure fish or create unnecessarily large
amounts of bycatch.
4)Prohibits by regulation the taking of crayfish for commercial
purposes from all lakes and reservoirs, and limits take in certain
California counties, including Placer and El Dorado Counties, to
areas west of Highway 49. Requires that crayfish legally caught
under a commercial license be used only for human consumption or
for aquaculture.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1)Minor one-time costs in the $30,000 range for the Department of
Fish and Wildlife (DFW) to develop the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) document and regulatory changes necessary to
establish a commercial crayfish fishery.
2)Minor on-going costs of approximately $25,000 for tracking the
impact of commercial fishing on the crayfish population and
increased warden patrols of Lake Tahoe.
COMMENTS : This bill would lift the ban in state statute in place
since 1970 on the harvest and sale of crayfish in Lake Tahoe. The
Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife Committee analysis on this bill
provides further background on the historical rationale for the ban.
The signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) is native to
freshwaters within the Pacific Northwest coast but are not native to
Lake Tahoe. The Truckee watershed was first seeded with crayfish in
the early 1900s. Some of the crustaceans were planted by anglers to
AB 165
Page 3
provide food for trout deposited in Lake Tahoe in the late 1800s,
and some were most likely planted as a food source for locals. For
years, crayfish were a dietary staple for nonnative trout and
kokanee salmon in Lake Tahoe, and the signal crayfish population was
kept relatively under control. In the 1960s, researchers from the
University of California at Davis estimated there were 56 million
crayfish in Lake Tahoe. However, around the same time as the
statutory ban on commercial crayfish harvesting was imposed, a
species of shrimp was released into Lake Tahoe. With the
opportunity for easier prey, the fish began feeding on the shrimp
instead of the newly protected crayfish. By 2001, scientists
estimated the crayfish population in Lake Tahoe had increased to 220
million. Current estimates for the Lake Tahoe crayfish population
range from 240 to 280 million. The dramatic population growth over
the past half century has been attributed to decreased predation due
to the shift in the lake trout's diet. Climate warming may also be
driving crayfish production.
Crayfish are still a major food resource for invasive, warm water
fish species, such as smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, and
bluegill. The increasing numbers of crayfish are believed to
contribute to the population growth of these species. Crayfish have
also been found to excrete nitrogen and phosphorus, which are
important stimulators of algae production. Thus, crayfish are
believed to contribute to the degradation of water clarity in Lake
Tahoe.
On the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe, commercial crayfish harvesting is
authorized. Nevada had a statewide ban on the taking of crayfish
for commercial purposes until 2011, when the Nevada Board of
Wildlife Commissioners amended its regulations to permit commercial
take of crayfish from Lake Tahoe for an annual permit fee of $500,
provided that the Nevada Department of Wildlife approves the time,
place, and manner of the operation, and determines that the
operation is not deleterious to fish or other wildlife indigenous to
Lake Tahoe or planted or propagated there at public expense. The
Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners amended its regulations again
in 2012 to explicitly allow the commercial sale of crayfish from
Lake Tahoe, both by a permitholder to a food wholesaler or
restaurant, and by a food wholesaler to a restaurant. At least five
businesses have received both commercial crayfish permits from the
Nevada Department of Wildlife and commercial permits from the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). These businesses must also work
AB 165
Page 4
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Nevada Division of
State Lands to obtain appropriate clearances. At this time, one
business, the Tahoe Lobster Company, is harvesting crayfish from
Lake Tahoe.
This bill is substantially similar to AB 2504 (Beth Gaines) of 2012
which was held on the Assembly inactive file.
The author states that this bill will help control Lake Tahoe's
invasive crayfish population and help address concerns over both
lake clarity and invasive species. In addition to environmental
benefits, the author states allowing the buying and selling of
crayfish from Lake Tahoe will help stimulate the state and local
economy. The author notes that, under current law, even California
restaurants near Lake Tahoe must import crayfish from out of the
region or out of the state.
TRPA, the bi-state planning and regulatory agency with jurisdiction
over the Lake Tahoe region, supports lifting California's current
statutory ban on commercial harvest of crayfish. TRPA states that
commercial crayfish harvesting from Lake Tahoe may allow the control
of this species by engaging the private sector to accomplish what
otherwise would not be possible given the limited public funding for
controlling invasive species. TRPA also states that it will conduct
an environmental analysis on the commercial boating associated with
each individual harvest operation in order to ensure that any
resulting commercial operation is consistent with its standards and
ordinances.
Removal of crayfish through commercial harvest may have both
positive and negative ecological impacts. For these reasons, some
fishery scientists have urged that any prospective commercial
fishery involve careful planning and monitoring. Issues raised
regarding the establishment of a responsible commercial harvesting
program for Lake Tahoe include avoidance of bycatch, avoidance of
spreading signal crayfish to other ecosystems, limiting the areas of
AB 165
Page 5
harvest to protect invertebrate habitat, maximizing cooperation
among agencies and scientists, inter-agency cooperation, and
tracking and analyzing commercial harvest and ecosystem data.
This bill does not in itself authorize commercial crayfish harvest
in Lake Tahoe. Nor does it require the Commission to amend its
regulations to allow such commercial crayfish operations.
The Commission would still have to amend its regulations, including
those barring commercial crayfish harvest in any lake or reservoir
and in Placer and El Dorado Counties east of Highway 49, before a
commercial crayfish harvest operation at Lake Tahoe would be
authorized. The Commission's amendment of its regulations would be a
discretionary action potentially subject to CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA,
the Commission may be required to conduct an initial study and to
prepare appropriate environmental documentation based upon the
potential environmental impact of the project. Additionally, DFW
would likely have to devote some additional time and resources
toward designing, implementing, and enforcing any potential
commercial harvest program in Lake Tahoe. The Assembly
Appropriations Committee analysis notes these costs are recoverable
through fees on annual commercial permits. The State of Nevada
currently allows commercial permits and charges $500 annually. In
contrast, the current commercial permit fee for crayfish in
California is $41.97. DFW assumes that initially eight commercial
fishing companies would apply for permits based on information from
Nevada. In order to cover all Commission and DFW costs, initial
permits could exceed $7,000 if the one-time CEQA compliance cost is
factored in. Fees that do not recover CEQA costs but provide
enough funding for the ongoing costs would be a little over $3,000
per year. If the Commission chose not to propose fees sufficient to
cover costs, DFW would have to absorb any one-time and ongoing costs
that are not recovered through the fee.
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0000345
AB 165
Page 6