HomeMy WebLinkAboutF&G - Freshwater Sport Fishing (2) Commissioners STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sonke Mastrup,Executive Director
Jack Baylis,President Edmund G.Brown Jr,Governor 1416 Ninth Street,Room 1320
Los Angeles Sacramento,CA 96814
Jim Kellogg,Vice President (916)653-4899
Discovery Bay Fish and Game Commission
Jacque Hostler-Carmosin,Member www.fgc.ca.gov
McKinleyville
Eric Sklar,Member
Saint Helena
Anthony C.Williams,Member (.X)UN'FY
Huntington Beach ADMiNFI,IT.XRON(
2 2
Wildlife Heritage and Conservation AUGIf 015
Since 1870 ORffiJ 0? ALh:0kNH,,1
August 20, 2015
TO ALL INTERESTED AND AFFECTED Pao TIES:
This is to provide you with a copy of the notice of proposed regulatory action relative to
amend Sections/ (subsections) 1.05, 1.53, 1.36, 2.00, 5,60, 5.80, 5.81, 7,00,
7.50r(b)(1 56.5), and (b)(180.6), 27.00, and 230; and Add Sections 1.57 and 5.41, Title
14, California Code of Regulations, relating to Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations,
which will be published in the California Regulatory Notice Register on August 21, 2015.
Please note the date of the public hearing related to this matter and associated
deadlines for receipt of written comments.
Ms. Karen Mitchell, Department of Fishand Wildlife, phone 916-445-0826, has
been designated to respond to questions on the substance of the proposed
regulations.
Sincerely,
ne Istro
Associa over ental Program Analyst
Attachment
TITLE 14. Fish and Game Commission
Notice of Proposed Changes in Regulations
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Fish and Game Commission (Commission),
pursuant to the authority vested by Sections 200, 202, 205, 215, 220, 240, 315, 316.5,
and 2003, Fish and Game Code and to implement, interpret or make specific Sections
200, 205, 206, 215, 220 and 316.5 of said Code, proposes to amend Sections/
(subsections) 1.05, 1.53, 1.86, 2.00, 5.60, 5.80, 5.81, 7.00, 7.50(b)(156.5) and
(b)(180.6), 27.00, and 230; and Add Sections 1.57 and 5.41, Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, relating to Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations.
Informative Diciest/Policy Diciest/PolicyStatement Overview
This Department proposal combines Department and public requests for changes to
Title 14, California Code of Regulations (CCR), for the 2015 Freshwater Sport Fishing
Regulations Review Cycle. This proposal will clarify regulations for snagging,
landlocked salmon, San Francisco and San Pablo Bays, Solano Lake, and reptiles, to
reduce public confusion and improve regulatory enforcement. Additionally, this
proposal will add a new fishing restriction_ to protect sturgeon, and increase fishing
opportunities on the Sacramento River.
The Department is proposing the following changes to current regulations:
Snagging Definition
Subsection 2.00(b) would be amended to further define snagging. Currently, the
snagging definition states that it is illegal to impale a fish in any part of its body other
than the mouth. This makes it legal for anyone to keep a fish that has been hooked on
the outside of the mouth, such as a hook that enters from the lower jaw into the mouth
or nose into the mouth. The proposal is to reword the definition to say other than
inside the mouth. Subsections 2.00(b) and (c), and Section 1.05 will need to be
amended for consistency.
Proposal: Amend Section 1.05, Angling, and subsections (b) and (c) of Section 2.00,.
Fishing Methods - General
Amend the regulations to clarify that it is illegal to take a fish not hooked on the inside of
the mouth.
Landlocked Salmon Definition
Current regulations incorporate kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) into the definition of
"Trout," and stocked, landlocked Chinook salmon into the definition of"Salmon," which
includes anadromous forms of salmon. Scientific evidence, including life history
variation and behavioral differences, suggests the need for differing management
strategies for these species. They should be separately defined and addressed in the
freshwater sport fishing regulations. In addition, these new species definitions need to
have associated bag and possession limits.
Proposal: Amend Section 1.86 Trout, Section 7.00 District General Regulations; add
sections 1.57 and 5.41, Landlocked Salmon
Create a new definition for landlocked salmon which will include kokanee and
landlocked Chinook salmon. New daily bag and possession limits for landlocked
salmon are proposed in a new Section 5.41. The new bag limit will be 5 fish and the
possession limit will be 10 fish. Amend the District General Regulations in Section 7.00
to revise the references to trout and salmon to just trout except for daily bag and
possession limits which means the total number of trout or landlocked salmon in
combination. This change is proposed to reduce public confusion with landlocked
salmon versus anadromous salmon that are allowed only in the Section 7.50 Special
Regulations since the General District Regulations has the take of anadromous salmon
closed statewide.
Reptile Regulation Correction
A numbering error has been identified in Section 5.60, specifically subsections (b)10
through (b)14. The regulation incorrectly reads, "Species No. 9-13 have a limit of
twenty-five (25) in the aggregate." It should read, "Species No. 10-14 have a limit of
twenty-five (25) in the aggregate." Correcting the numbering mistake will alleviate
confusion amongst sport fisherman and wildlife officers.
Proposal: Amend subsection (b) of Section 5.60,.Reptiles
Correct the numbering errors in this section to reduce public confusion and enforcement
issues.
Sturgeon Fishing Closure
Green sturgeon and white sturgeon (subadults and adults) are often stranded for long
periods in the Yolo Bypass as well as the Toe Drain and Tule Canal upstream of Lisbon
Weir. Some of those fish escape when environmental conditions change but others are
rescued or succumb. Through catch-and-release, legal harvest, and poaching, anglers
could take both species when stranded. The legal fishery on stranded fish is not
sporting, reduces the benefit of rescue efforts, and reduces population spawning
potential. Because green sturgeon is a threatened species and white sturgeon is a
substantial management concern, addressing this issue is relatively urgent. Therefore,
the Department is proposing to prohibit the take and possession of sturgeon in the Yolo
Bypass as well as the Toe Drain and Tule Canal upstream of Lisbon Weir at any time.
Current regulations in subsection (d) of Section 5.80 state that a sturgeon must
voluntarily take the bait or lure in its mouth. This language is proposed to be revised to
read inside its mouth, to be consistent with proposed revisions to the snagging definition
in Section 2.00.
Proposal: Add subsection (i) to Section 5.80 and amend subsection (d),White
2
Sturgeon, Methods of take.
Prohibit fishing for sturgeon in the Yolo Bypass Flood Control System to protect green
and white sturgeon.
Amend the regulations to clarify that it is illegal to take a fish not hooked on the inside of
the mouth for alignment with the proposed snagging definition changes to Section 2.00.
Green Sturgeon Revision for Brevity
Take and possession of green sturgeon is prohibited by law. Section 5.81, Green
Sturgeon, subsection (d) designates a special fishing closure for sturgeon in the Sierra
and Valley District. This special fishing closure is also provided under Section 5.80,
White Sturgeon. Because fishing for green sturgeon is prohibited, this regulation is not
needed in the regulations for Green Sturgeon.
Proposal: Remove subsection (d) from Section 5.81_, Green Sturgeon.
Fishing for green sturgeon is prohibited. Therefore, the special fishing closure
regulation for sturgeon is not need in Section 5.81,
Red Bluff Diversion Dam
Current regulations restrict fishing from 500 feet upstream to 150 feet below Red Bluff
Diversion Dam (RBDD). RBDD is no longer operated as an irrigation diversion so the
current restrictions about fishing near a dam are no longer needed. Boaters, and
recreationists, and fish are free to pass up and downstream of the area at will. The
angling public is very interested in angling in the immediate vicinity of the RBDD now
that it is no longer in operation and the Sacramento River is not impounded by its gates.
The proposal is to allow shore and boat angling above and below RBDD on the
Sacramento River.
Proposal: Amend Special Fishing Regulations subsection (b)(156.5), Sacramento River
Remove the current fishing restriction above and below RBDD on the Sacramento River
to increase angling opportunities in Tehama County.
Solano Labe
The proposal is to add Solano Lake to Section 7.50, Alphabetical List of Waters with
Special Fishing Regulations. The original intent was for Solano Lake to be included in
the Putah Creek special fishing regulations. That regulation applies to the stream reach
from Solano Lake to Monticello Dam and does not include Solano Lake. Therefore, a
new subsection needs to be added to Section 7.50.
Proposal: Add subsection (b)(180.6), Solano Lake, to the Special Fishing Regulations
Add a new regulation for Solano Lake to the Special Fishing Regulations, The daily bag
3
and possession limit will be 0 (zero).
San Francisco and San Pablo Bays Clarification
Currently there are three sections dealing with the Ocean and San Francisco Bay
District which describe regulations in different manners causing confusion for anglers
and making enforcement of the regulations more difficult:
• Section 27.00 defines the Ocean and San Francisco Bay District as waters of the
open coast and includes San Francisco and San Pablo Bays "plus aft their tidal
bays, tidal portions of their rivers and streams, sloughs and estuaries"between
the Golden Gate Bridge and the Carquinez Bridge.
• Section 1.53 defines inland waters as all fresh, brackish and inland saline waters
of the state, including lagoons and tidewaters upstream from the mouths of
coastal rivers and streams. Inland waters exclude the waters of San Francisco
and San Pablo Bays downstream from the Carquinez Bridge, the tidal portions of
rivers and streams flowing into San Francisco and San Pablo Bays, and the
waters of Elkhorn Slough, west of Elkhorn Road between Castroville and
Watsonville.
Section 28.65(a) (which describes gear restrictions for fin fish). Defines the area
as San Francisco and San Pablo Bays between the Golden Gate Bridge and the
west Carquinez Bridge, where only one line with not more than three hooks may
be used.
The different definitions of the same geographic area cause confusion as to applicable
method of take as well as which set of regulations apply to the waters being fished.
An angler is allowed to use any number of hooks and lines in the ocean waters (Section
28.65). In Inland waters only one closely attended line with no more than three hooks
may be used (Section 2.00). Under current regulations, a person could argue that tidal
portions of the Napa River were not Inland Waters and since Section 28.65(a) did not
include the tidal portions of river flowing into San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. Under
this interpretation, they could use any number of lines and hooks to fish in the Napa
River. This would restrict waters of San Francisco and San Pablo Bay to one line, then
allow unlimited lines in the Napa River waters which were tidally influenced even though
all inland waters are restricted to one line.
In addition, fishing regulations for Ocean Waters defined in Section 27.00 are different
from Inland Waters as defined in Section 1.53. Since tidal influence cannot easily be
determined, it is almost impossible to know which set of regulations apply in the tidally
influenced waters. For instance is an undersized sturgeon caught in the Napa River a
4
violation of section 5.80 or Section 27.90?
To simplify the regulations and make all of the regulations consistent, all three sections
must use the same reference.
The proposal is to amend sections 27.00 and 1.53 to align with Section 28.65(a) and
remove the reference to tidal bays and tidal portions of rivers and streams from these
two sections. As a result, inland waters will now include the tidal portions of rivers and
streams flowing into San Francisco and San Pablo Bays which will be subject to the
gear restrictions for inland waters where only one closely attended rod and line with no
more than three hooks may be used.
Proposal: Amend Section 1.53, Inland Waters, and Section 27.00, Ocean and San
Francisco Bay Definition
Amend the two regulations that define the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays to be
consistent, reducing public confusion and enforcement issues. Remove capitalized text
before the note which is a printing error.
Fishing Contest Draw Dates
The current wording of subsection 230(b)(1)(A) designates specific dates for a drawing
that is conducted annually by Department personnel to allocate Type A fishing contest
permits in a fair manner. Dates are the second Friday of July for bodies of water north
of the Tehachapi Mountains and the third Friday of July for waters south of the
Tehachapi Mountains.
Specific designation of these dates can conflict with major fishing-related events that
contest sponsors often need to attend (e.g., International Convention of Allied Sport
fishing Trade– ICAST). Sponsors who must attend the ICAST show—an international
conference of fishing gear manufacturers, media, and many others—cannot
simultaneously attend the contest drawing, hindering the conflict resolution process for
which the drawing is held.
The Department is proposing to amend the regulations to state that the contest
drawings will be conducted in July and the dates will be determined by Department
staff.
Proposal: Amend subsection (b)(1)(A) of Section 230, Issuance of Permits for Contests
Offering Prizes for the Taking of Game Fish
Amend the regulations to change the current contest drawing dates to unspecified dates
in July which will be determined by Department staff.
Minor Editorial Corrections for Clarity
Additional editorial corrections are proposed to correct typographical errors and to
5
improve regulation clarity.
Benefits of the Proposed Regulations
It is the policy of this state to encourage the conservation, maintenance, and utilization
of the living resources of the ocean and inland waters under the jurisdiction and
influence of the state for the benefit of all the citizens of the State. In addition, it is the
policy of this state to promote the development of local California fisheries in harmony
with federal law respecting fishing and the conservation of the living resources of the
ocean and inland waters under the jurisdiction and influence of the State. The
objectives of this policy include, but are not limited to, the maintenance of sufficient
populations of all species of aquatic organisms to ensure their continued existence and
the maintenance of a sufficient resource to support a reasonable sport use. Adoption of
scientifically-based trout and salmon seasons, size limits, and bag and possession limits
provides for the maintenance of sufficient populations of trout and salmon to ensure
their continued existence.
The benefits of the proposed regulations are concurrence with Federal law, sustainable
management of California's trout and salmon resources, and promotion of businesses
that rely on recreational sport fishing in California.
Evaluation of Inconsistency/incompatibility with Existing State Regulations
The Commission has evaluated the proposed regulation and has determined that these
are the only regulations dealing with inland sport fishing. Therefore, the proposed
regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state regulations.
NOTICE IS GIVEN that any person interested may present statements, orally or in
writing, relevant to this action at a hearing to be held at Embassy Suites — LAX North,
9801 Airport Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, on Thursday, October 8, 2015, at 8:00
a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.
NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN that any person interested may present statements, orally or
in writing, relevant to this action at a hearing to be held in the Town and Country Resort
and Convention Center, 500 Hotel Circle North, San Diego, California, on Thursday,
December 10, 2015, at 8:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. It
is requested, but not required, that written comments be submitted on or before
November 24, 2015, at the address given below, or by e-mail to FGC(cD_fac.ca.aov.
Written comments mailed or e-mailed to the Commission office, must be received
before 12:00 noon on December 4, 2015. All comments must be received no later than
December 10, 2015, at the hearing in San Diego, California. If you would like copies of
any modifications to this proposal, please include your name and mailing address.
The regulations as proposed in strikeout-underline format, as well as an initial statement
of reasons, including environmental considerations and all information upon which the
proposal is based (rulemaking file), are on file and available for public review from the
agency representative, Sonke Mastrup, Executive Director, Fish and Game
6
Commission, 1416 Ninth Street, Box 944209, Sacramento, California 94244-2090,
phone (916) 653-4899. Please direct requests for the above mentioned documents and
inquiries concerning the regulatory process to Sonke Mastrup or Jon Snellstrom at the
preceding address or phone number. Karen Mitchell, Department of Fish and
Wildlife, phone 916-445-0826, has been designated to respond to questions on
the substance of the proposed regulations. Copies of the Initial Statement of
Reasons, including the regulatory language, may be obtained from the address above.
Notice of the proposed action shall be posted on the Fish and Game Commission
website at http://www.fgc.ca.gov.
Availability of Modified Text
If the regulations adopted by the Commission differ from but are sufficiently related to
the action proposed, they will be available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the
date of adoption. Circumstances beyond the control of the Commission (e.g., timing of
Federal regulation adoption, timing of resource data collection, timelines do not allow,
etc.) or changes made to be responsive to public recommendation and comments
during the regulatory process may preclude full compliance with the 15-day comment
period and the Commission will exercise its powers under Section 202 of the Fish and
Game Code. Regulations adopted pursuant to this section are not subject to the time
periods for adoption, amendment or repeal of regulations prescribed in Sections
11343.4, 11346.4 and 11346.8 of the Government Code. Any person interested may
obtain a copy of said regulations prior to the date of adoption by contacting the agency
representative named herein.
If the regulatory proposal is adopted, the final statement of reasons may be obtained
from the address above when it has been received from the agency program staff.
Impact of Regulatory Action/Results of the Economic Impact Analysis
The proposed regulations will revise and update inland sport fishing regulations starting
in 2016. Currently, the seasons, size limits, and bag and possession limits for sport
fishing are periodically reviewed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the
Commission. This set of amendments will clarify regulations for snagging, landlocked
salmon, San Francisco and San Pablo Bay, Solano lake, and reptiles, to reduce public
confusion and improve regulatory enforcement. Additionally, this proposal will add a
new fishing restriction to protect sturgeon, and increase fishing opportunities on the
Sacramento River.
Inland sport fishing regulation's affected parties include recreational anglers,
commercial passenger fishing vessels and a variety of businesses that support anglers.
The economic impact of regulatory changes for sport fisheries are estimated by tracking
resulting changes in fishing effort, angler trips and length of stay in the fishery areas.
Distance traveled affects gas and other travel expenditures. Day trips and overnight
trips involve different levels of spending for gas, food and accommodations at area
businesses as well as different levels of sales tax impacts. Direct expenditures ripple
through the economy, as receiving businesses buy intermediate goods from suppliers
7
that then spend that revenue again. Business spending on wages is received by
workers who then spend that income, some of which goes to local businesses.
Recreational fisheries spending, thus multiplies throughout the economy with the
indirect and induced effects of the initial direct expenditure.
The adoption of scientifically-based regulations provides for the maintenance of
sufficient populations of inland sport fish to ensure their continued existence and future
sport fishing opportunities that in turn support businesses related to the fishery
economy.
The most recent 2011 U.S. Fish and Wildlife national survey of fishing, hunting, and
wildlife associated recreation for California reports about 1.35 million resident and
nonresident inland sport fish anglers contributed about $1.2 billion in trip and equipment
expenditures to the State's economy. Adding the indirect and induced effects of this
$1.2 billion direct revenue contribution the total economic benefit to California's
economy is estimated to be about $2.03 billion. This corresponds with about$960
million in total wages to Californians and about 16,000 jobs in the State annually.
This regulatory action may impact businesses that provide services to sport fishermen
but these effects are anticipated to range from none to small positive impacts,
depending on the regulations ultimately adopted by the Commission. Sport fishing
business owners, boat owners, tackle store owners, boat manufacturers, vendors of
food, bait, fuel and lodging, and others that provide goods or services to those that sport
fish in California may be positively affected to some degree from increases to business
that may result under the range of proposed regulations. These anticipated impacts
may vary by geographic location. Additionally, economic impacts to these same
businesses may result from a number of factors unrelated to the proposed changes to
inland sport fishing regulations, including weather, fuel prices, and success rates in
other recreational fisheries that compete for angler trips.
(a) Effects of the Regulation on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs Within the State:
The cumulative effects of the changes statewide are estimated to be neutral to job
elimination and potentially positive to job creation in California. No significant
changes in fishing effort and sport fishing expenditures to businesses are expected
as a direct result of the.proposed regulation changes.
(b) Effects of the Regulation on the Expansion of Businesses Currently Doing
Business Within the State:
The cumulative effects of the changes statewide are expected to be neutral to
positive to the expansion of businesses currently doing business in California. No
significant changes in fishing effort and inland sport fishing expenditures to
businesses are expected as a direct result of the proposed regulation changes.
8
(c) Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of California Residents:
The Commission anticipates benefits to the health and welfare of California
residents. Trout and salmon are a nutritious food source and increasing inland
sport fishery opportunities encourages consumption of this nutritious food. Sport
fishing also contributes to increased mental health of its practitioners as fishing is a
hobby and form of relaxation for many. Sport fishing also provides opportunities
for multi-generational family activities and promotes respect for California's
environment by younger generations, the future stewards of California's natural
resources.
(d) Benefits of the Regulation to Worker Safety:
The proposed regulations are not anticipated to impact worker safety conditions.
(e) Benefits of the Regulation to the State's Environment:
It is the policy of the state to encourage the conservation, maintenance, and
utilization of the living resources of the inland waters under the jurisdiction and
influence of the state for the benefit of all its citizens and to promote the
development of local California fisheries. The objectives of this policy include, but
are not limited to, the maintenance of sufficient populations of all species of aquatic
organisms to ensure their continued existence and the maintenance of a sufficient
resource to support a reasonable sport use, taking into consideration the necessity
of regulating individual sport fishery bag limits in the quantity that is sufficient to
provide a satisfying sport. Adoption of scientifically-based inland trout and salmon
seasons, size limits, and bag and possession limits provides for the maintenance
of sufficient populations of trout and salmon to ensure their continued existence.
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 is not anticipated to have a significant statewide adverse
economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California
businesses to compete with businesses in other states because the expected
impact of the proposed regulations on the amount of fishing activity is anticipated to
be minimal relative to recreational angling effort statewide.
9
(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; Benefits of the Regulation to the Health and Welfare of
California Residents, Worker Safety, and the State's Environment:
The expected impact of the proposed regulations on the amount of fishing activity is
anticipated to be minimal relative to recreational angling effort statewide. therefore
the Commission does not anticipate any impacts on the creation or elimination of
jobs, the creation of new business, the elimination of existing business or the
expansion of businesses in California.
The Commission anticipates benefits to the health and welfare of California
residents. Providing opportunities for a salmon and trout sport fishery encourages
consumption of a nutritious food.
The Commission does not anticipate any non-monetary benefits to worker safety.
The Commission anticipates benefits to the environment by the sustainable
management of California's sport fishing resources.
(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) Non discretionary 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.
Effect on Small Business
It has been determined that the adoption of these regulations may affect small business.
The Commission has drafted the regulations in Plain English pursuant to Government
Code Sections 11342.580 and 11346.2(a)(1).
10
Consideration of Alternatives
The Commission must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the
Commission, or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the
Commission, would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the action is
proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than
the proposed action, or would be more cost effective to affected private persons and
equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of law.
FISH AND GAME COMMISSION
Sonke Mastrup
Dated: Executive Director
11