BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1114 Hearing Date: April 12,
2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Allen | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Version: |March 29, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|William Craven |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Commercial fishing: swordfish
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
The Fish and Game Code, beginning at section 8561, contains the
existing provisions of law regarding the drift gill net shark
and swordfish fishery. Those provisions establish criteria for
permits, transfers of permits, the information required for
permits, size of nets and other gear restrictions, restricted
areas for gill net fishing, as well as additional provisions.
In addition, the State of California has fishery policies to
protect endangered sea turtles and other marine life by
prohibiting commercial swordfish shallow-set longline fishing
within state waters and federal regulations currently prohibit
commercial longlining for swordfish within 200 miles of the
coast.
The California Ocean Protection Council has supported the
research and development of alternatives for catching swordfish,
most notably deep-set buoy gear. The gear works by dropping
weighted hooks as deep as 1,200 feet below the surface, where
swordfish tend to stay during the daytime. When an indicator
float drops below the surface, fishermen immediately pull in the
line.
According to the Department of Fish and Wildlife (department),
the department issued 71 drift gill net permits and 42 harpoon
permits in 2015. It considers 26 fishermen to be active drift
SB 1114 (Allen) Page 2
of ?
gill net fishers, and 5 harpoon fishers are also considered to
be active. In 2015, the fleet landed approximately 132 metric
tons of swordfish, shark and other marketable species, valued at
just under $800,000. Of that, 72.5 metric tons were swordfish,
with a value of $630,000. In comparison, the US imported nearly
11,000 metric tons of swordfish valued at nearly $90 million in
2015.
There are provisions under federal law for what are called
"federal exempted fishing permits." These allow activities that
may otherwise be prohibited and in the case of California
swordfish, these permits allow the use of modified drift gill
net gear in the Pacific Leatherback Turtle Conservation Area.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would do all of the following:
1. Findings and declarations include statements regarding
the environmental damage caused by drift gill nets to
non-target and often rare species such as whales, dolphins,
sharks, pinnipeds, and sea turtles. They also contain data
related to by-catch, and argue that California should set
the standard for sustainable swordfish fishing globally.
The findings also point to alternatives that have been
developed that are selective and sustainable, most notably
deep-set buoy gear. The findings set the stage for a phase
out of drift gill nets and for a transition, with economic
incentives, of the California swordfish fleet to the use of
lower impact fishing gear.
2. The bill, as of March 31, 2017, repeals the existing
section on transferring drift gill net swordfish permits
and replaces it with a new section that establishes
conditions for transfers that would become effective on the
same date: The permittee permanently retires the permit by
transferring the permit to an entity engaged in retiring
permits, or the permittee exchanges the permit for deep set
buoy gear permit. (Note: The entity engaged in retiring
permits is likely a nonprofit.)
3. The bill sunsets the current fee for drift gill net
permits ($330) and increases it to $1500.
SB 1114 (Allen) Page 3
of ?
4. The department would be prohibited from issuing new
drift gill net shark and swordfish permits after March 31,
2017. Permits for which the department has not been
notified of any landings for two successive fishing seasons
would be revoked. Permits that have been revoked or
surrendered or exchanged would not be transferred or
re-issued. Additionally, the bill defines "latent drift
gear net permit" as one for which no swordfish or thresher
shark landings were reported in at least 3 years between
2010 and 2015.
5. The bill defines an actively fished drift gill net
permit as one under which swordfish or thresher shark
landings were reported in at least 3 years between 2010 and
2015. It also establishes thresholds of risk and acceptable
take and provides options to the department to assess the
risk to protected marine wildlife based on available
information.
6. The bill authorizes the department to adopt regulations
for a deep-set buoy gear fishery for swordfish consistent
with the terms of the bill and federal law.
7. It authorizes the department to issue deep-set buoy gear
or similar gear to take swordfish pursuant to federal law
when that gear is authorized pursuant to federal law.
8. The bill establishes a protocol and incentives for the
issuance of the new permits, as follows:
a) To an active drift gill net permit holder pursuant
to Article 16 of the Fish and Game Code.
b) To a person who has fished with deep set buoy gear
under a federal exempted fishing permit since January 1,
2010.
c) To a person who holds a valid swordfish permit
pursuant to Section 8394.
d) Two additional deep-set buoy gear permits may be
issued to each actively fished drift gill who fished
pursuant to a federal exempted fishing permit if that
federal permit is surrendered within two years of a
future federal authorization to use deep-set buy gear or
similar gear.
e) One additional deep-set buoy gear permit may be
SB 1114 (Allen) Page 4
of ?
issued to each actively fished drift gill net permit
holder and each person who fished under a federal
exempted fishing permit if the drift gill permit is
surrendered within 4 years of the upcoming federal
authorization to use deep set buoy gear or similar gear.
f) One permit may be issued to a person who held a
latent drift gill permit prior to January 1, 2017.
g) No additional permits other than those mentioned in
(b)-(f), above, may be granted until 5 years after deep
set buoy hear or similar gear is authorized under federal
law. The department would be able to issue additional
permits to accommodate additional fishing effort and
demonstrated demand if no more than a negligible risk to
protected marine wildlife is shown.
1. The department is charged with the responsibility to
create measures and incentives to avoid and minimize the
incidence of derelict deep-set buoy gear left at sea which
may include provisions for registration and labeling gear
as well as incentives for the retrieval and retention of
gear.
2. A new fee shall be established at or below a rate
sufficient to cover the costs of the department and to
transfer the new permits.
3. The Ocean Protection Council (OPC) is directed to
provide funding for the innovation and adoption of
sustainable commercial fishing methods in the swordfish
fishery which may include assistance in purchasing deep-set
buoy gear for persons with an exempted fishing permit as of
January 1, 2016, issued by the National Marine Fisheries
Service and for the first 10 persons who exchange their
drift gill net permits for deep-set buoy gear. The OPC is
also directed to develop marketing and propose business
structures to support a high and stable price for swordfish
landed pursuant to these new provisions.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, California is the last state on the
West Coast that still allows the use of drift gill nets in its
swordfish fishery. California's drift gill nets kill or injure
approximately 7 times more whales and dolphins than all other
observed fisheries in California Oregon, Washington, and Alaska
combined, and 13 times more than any other single observed
fishery.
SB 1114 (Allen) Page 5
of ?
A coalition of marine environmental groups and other
conservation groups considers the drift gill net fishery for
swordfish "the most harmful fishing practice on the West Coast."
It supports the aspects of the bill that reduces the number of
drift gill nets and the incentives and transition to the more
sustainable deep-set buoy gear.
The coalition states that California is the last state on the
West Coast that still uses drift gillnets in the swordfish
fishery and that this gear type has been banned on the high
seas, in other states, and in many countries worldwide because
of the unavoidable by-catch.
Sperm whales (endangered) and Pacific leatherback turtles
(endangered) have been prominent victims of by-catch.
Two-thirds of the catch in drift gill nets is said to be
by-catch.
The alternative gear of deep-set buoy gear has had successful
trials in California achieved with partial funding from the
Ocean Protection Council. The coalition considers this
technology to be sustainable by which it means that 94 percent
of the catch from this gear can be kept and sold at market.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
Morro Bay Commercial Fisherman's Organization is in opposition
because the phase out of drift gill nets is likely to occur
through the regulatory process now underway by state and federal
fisheries agencies. Because all swordfish fishing is outside of
state waters, this group and most of the opposition believes
that there is little or no role for California statute to
regulate gear types.
The Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce believes the legislation
will destroy a healthy and sustainable California fishery. It
considers deep-set gear to be unproven technology and estimates
the value of the fishery at $14 million (far exceeding the
estimate from the department).
SB 1114 (Allen) Page 6
of ?
The California Fisheries and Seafood Institute believes that the
deep-set buoy gear is experimental and unproven and inadequate
to replace the income of the current participants in the
fishery. Contrary to the supporters, it states that 90 % of the
fish caught by nets in the West Coast swordfish fishery are
landed and enjoyed by consumers or released alive. It says that
only 3 sea turtle interactions have occurred in the last decade
and all three were recorded as being released alive by federal
observers. In California, it says there have been no sea turtle
mortalities observed since 1999 compared to 42,000 turtles that
were hunted and killed legally in 42 countries around the world
in 2013 alone.
COMMENTS
1. Assuming the bill moves forward, the author may want to
consider amplifying that other sustainable gear types in
addition to deep set gear are covered by the bill. The bill
contains an occasional reference to such an option which
could provide needed flexibility if in the future other
sustainable gear types become technically feasible and
commercially available.
2. The author may want to harmonize the two definitions of
"latent drift gill net permit" which, while perhaps not
inconsistent, are also not identical.
3. The provisions relating to the Ocean Protection Council
are perhaps understandably vague at this first hearing
pending discussions with the OPC. The provisions relating
to the development of a business model for marketing
sustainably harvested swordfish, in particular, could use
further development.
4. Although not stated affirmatively in the bill, it is
clear from the language that the bill does not affect the
legality of existing drift gill net permits. Those
fishermen would be able to hold those permits indefinitely
but their transfer to others would be covered by this bill.
5. There is no provision for hardship cases or new entrants
who would not have landed fish in 3 years, as set forth in
the bill.
6. While it is contained in the language of the bill, it is
clear the opposition has missed the provision on page 8,
line 8, that the department would not issue permits for
deep-set buoy gear until it is authorized by federal law.
SB 1114 (Allen) Page 7
of ?
Double-referral The Rules Committee referred this bill to both
the Committee on Natural Resources and Water and to the
Committee on Environmental Quality. Therefore, if this bill
passes this committee, it will be referred to the Committee on
Environmental Quality, which will consider the issues within
their jurisdiction.
SUPPORT
Turtle Island Restoration Network (sponsor)
American Cetacean Society SF Bay Chapter
Azul
BlueVoice.org
California Coastal Protection Network
California League of Conservation Voters
Climate Parents
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
Defenders of Wildlife
Environment California
Ghost Fishing
Hollywood Divers
Kurmalliance
Marine Animal Rescue
Ocean Defenders Alliance
Oceana
Public Interest Coalition
San Diego Coastkeeper
Save the Sea
Save the Turtles, Inc
Sierra Club California
Surfrider
The Leatherback Trust
The Otter Project
WILDCOAST
OPPOSITION
Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries
California Fisheries and Seafood Institute
Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen's Association
Santa Barbara Chamber
One individual
SB 1114 (Allen) Page 8
of ?
-- END --