HomeMy WebLinkAboutfish & gameCOMMISSEONERS
Daniel W, Richards, President ED~IJND C. BROWN, JR.
Upland
11'tichael Sultan, Vice President ~~1.: '~`
Monterey -
Jim Kellogg, Member
Discovery Hay
Richard Rogers, Member
Santa Barbara Governor
Jack Baylis, Member
Los Angeles
STATE DF CALIFORNIA
Fish and Game Commission
March 23, 2012
TO ALL INTERESTED AND AFFECTED PARTIES:
Sonke Mastrnp
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
1416 Ninth Sh•ee~ Room 1320
Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
{91 bJ b53-4899
(916) 653-5040 Fax
fgc(c~fgc.ca.gov
~~
. IKAR y 1 1012
~~
This.is to provide you with a copy of the notice of proposed regulatory action relative to
Section 632, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, relating to Central marine
protected areas, which will be published in the California Regulatory No#ice Register on
March 23, 2012.
Please note the dates of the public hearings related to this matter and associated
deadlines for receipt of written comments.
Ms. Marija Vojkovich, Manager, Marine Region, Department of Fish and Game,
(805) 568-1246, has been designated to respond to questions on the substance of
the proposed regulations.
Sincerely,
~~
Sherrie Fonbuena
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
Attachment
-~ ~ , to ~ :Jti?~
n_
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, 203.1, 205(c), 219, 220, 1590, 1591, 2860, 2869 and
6750 of the Fish and Game Code, and Sections 36725(a) and 36725(e), ofi the Public
Resources Code, and to implement, interpret or make specific Sections 200, 202, 203.9 , 205(c),
219, 220, 1580, 1583, 2861, 5521, 6653, 8420(e} and 8500 of the Fish and Game Code, and
Sections 36700(e), 36710(e}, 36725(x} and 36725(e)of the Public Resources Code, proposes to
amend Section 632, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, relating to marine protected areas.
Informative DigestlPolicy Statement Overview
Background
The Marine Life Management Act (MLMA, Stats. 1998, ch. 1052} created a broad programma#ic
framework for managing fisheries through a variety of conservation measures, including marine
protected areas (MPAs). The Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA, Stats. 1999, ch. 1015)
established a programmatic framework for designating such MPAs in the form of a statewide
network. The Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act (MMAIA, Stats. 2000, ch. 385)
standardized the designation of marine managed areas {MMAs), which include MPAs. The
overriding goo! of these acts is to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and restoration of
California's marine resources. Unlike previous laws, which focused on individual species, the
acts focus on maintaining the health of marine ecosystems and biodiversity in order to sustain
resources.
Existing regulations {the no-change alternative) consist of five MPAs covering an area of 3.1
square miles {sq mi), representing 0.3 percent of the state waters within the MLPA North Caas#
Study Region (NCSR). Sixty-six percent of the protected area is within no-take state marine
reserves covering 2.1 sq mi or 0.2 percent of the state waters within the MLPA NCSR.
The regulatory action is intended to meet the goals described in the MLPA within a portion of
California's State waters. The area covered in this regulatory action is the MLPA NCSR, defined
as State waters from the California-Oregon border to Alder Creek, near Point Arena in
Mendocino County. This region covers approximately 1,027 sq mi of state waters. The MLPA
goals focus on improving the connectivity and effectiveness of California's existing array of
MPAs to protect the State's marine life, habitats, and ecosystems. The MLPA specifically
requires that the Department of Fish and Game (Department) prepare a master plan and that the
Fish and Game Commission {Commission) adopt a Marine Life Protection Program and
regulations based on the plan to achieve the MLPA goals (Fish and Game Code Section 2855}.
The MLPA requires that the program, in part, contain an improved marine life reserve (now state
marine reserve} component [Fish and Game Cade subsection 2853{c){1)] and pro#ect the
natural diversity of marine life and the structure, function, and integrity of marihe ecosystems
[Fish and Game Code subsection 2853(b)(1)]. This protection may help provide sustainable
resources as well as enhance functioning ecosystems that provide benefits to both consumptive
and non-consumptive user groups. The program may include areas with various levels of
protection {L4P) through MPAs that may allow for specified commercial and recreational
activities. These activities include but are not limited to frshing for certain species but not others,
fishing with certain practices but not others, and kelp harvesting, provided these activities are
consistent with the objectives of the area and the goals and guidelines of the MLPA.
Regional Implementation of Marine Life Protection Act
Important in developing the Proposed Regulation was the consideration for the north coast
MPAs to form a component of a statewide biological network. The north coast is the fourth of
foe study regions to be implemented through the MLPA.
The Proposed Regulation establishes a network component of MPAs for the north coas#
designed to include all representative north coast habitats and major oceanic conditions.
Unique and critical habitats were considered separately to guarantee bo#h representation and
protection. From an ecological perspective, the Proposed Regulation creates a network
component of MPAs in the north coast consistent with the goals of the MLPA. The Proposed
Regulation attempts to minimize potential negative socio-economic impacts and optimize
poten#ial positive socio-economic impacts for all users, to the extent possible.
Proposed Regulation
The Proposed Regulation includes 19 MPAs, one MMA, and seven special closures for the
NCSR. Of the 19 MPAs, 15 are new and four are existing MPAs. Of the 15 new proposed
MPAs, eight MPAs include sub-options for boundaries or allowed take. The Proposed
Regulation also amends the boundaries and allowed take of the four existing MPAs to meet the
Department's feasibility guidelines and to facility#e public understanding. One existing MPA, the
Punta Gorda State Marine Reserve (SMR), would be removed and replaced by two proposed
nearby SMRs.
The three classifications of MPAs used in California to reflect differing allowed uses are SMR,
state marine conservation area (SMCA), and state marine park (SMP}. Public Resources Code
Section 36710 lists the restrictions applied in these classifications. Two of these classifications,
SMR and SMCA, are utilized in the Proposed Regulation. One MMA classification known as a
state marine recreational management area (SMRMA) is a component of the Proposed
Regulation. Public Resources Code Section 36700{e) lists the restrictions in this classification.
The Commission has the statutory authority to designate SMRs, SMCAs, and SMRMAs;
however, the third MPA classification, SMP, may only be created, modified, yr deleted under the
authority of the State Park and Recreation Commission [Public Resources Code Section
36725(b)].
Pre-existing activities and artificial structures including but not limited to utility cables, bridge
maintenance, maintenance dredging, and habitat restoration occur throughout the NCSR.
These activities may result in incidental take. However, the activities are regulated by other
federal, state, and local agencies, whose jurisdiction cannot be pre-empted through designation
of MPAs under the MLPA. Out of the 19 MPAs and one MMA in the Proposed Regulation, three
have been identified as having various existing activities regulated by other agencies. These
activities are specified within the proposed MPA regulations to make explicit that these regulated
activities are allowed to continue under current permits. The Department provided details
regarding these activities, and other unresolved issues requiring the Commission's input, at the
Commission's October 19, 2011 meeting.
Beginning in July 2009, the Department and Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPAI) staff
began discussions with north coast tribes and tribal communities regarding the MLPAI north
coast MLPA planning process. At the Commission's June 29-30, 2091 meeting, staff provided
three options developed to accommodate tribal take in MPAs on the north coast. The
Commission chose Tribal Option 1 to provide for specific non-commercial tribal uses by federally
recognized tribes. The Commission asked the federally recognized tribes to submit a factual
record of historic and current uses in specific geographies, other than SMRs, to the Commission
2
within 60 days. The Commission directed the Department to develop regulatory language
defining tribal take using specifiic criteria. The criteria the Commission identified required any
tribal member taking living marine resources #o possess an identification card issued by a
federally recognized tribe, a valid California fishing license for persons 16 years and older, and
any valid report card, validation, permit or any other entitlement that is required by applicable
federal, state, or local law. The Commission also decided that all tribal take must be consistent
with existing regulation. The Commission received six factual records representing twenty-four
federally recognized north coast tribes and tribal communities prior to the 60-day deadline. The
factual records identified eleven MPAs for tribal use with overlapping requests in some MPAs by
specific tribes. In addition to the factual records, the Commission received two letters calling
attention to intertribal agreements. These intertribal agreements are transactions between tribes
and tribal communities wishing to take resources within the ancestral territories of other tribes
and tribal communities, and need to be negotiated between those tribes. The regulations for the
NCSR MPAs will not be changed based on intertribal agreements but will reflect tribal take in
specific MPAs as they were listed in the factual records received by the Commission.
Take "from shore only" is currently proposed at Double Cone Rack SMCA and Big River Estuary
SMCA in the Proposed Regulation. Two existing MPAs outside of the study region also include
take restricted to shore only. Due to confusion over the interpretation of what it means to "take.
from shore only", the Proposed Regulation includes a general definition for take "originating from
shore" that would apply to the Proposed Regulation as well as other MPAs coastwide that allow
shore only fishing.
Regulatorv Sub-options
Regulatory sub-options are included far eight of the proposed MPAs within the Commission's
Proposed Regulation, to provide alternatives to either boundaries or take regulations in the
Proposed Regulation that address Department feasibility concerns, as requested by MLPA
Initiative staff or stakeholders.
PropOSed Regulation Details
The 19 MPAs, one MMA, and seven special closures in the Proposed Regulation encompass
geographically 136 sq mi, representing 13 percent of the approximately 1,027 sq mi of state
waters within the north coast region. No-take SMRs encompass 51 sq mi or five percent of state
waters within the north coast region. The remaining areas are primarily SMCAs and one
SMRMA that allow some fishing activity, covering an area of 85 sq mi or eight percent of state
waters within the MLPA NCSR.
Alternatives to Regulation Change
Alternatives to the Proposed Regulation were provided by the North Coast Regional
Stakeholders Group (NCRSG) and Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to meet the purposes of the
regulatory action but were not selected as the preferred alternative. Each alternative, with the
excep#ion of the no-change alternative, meets the goals and guidelines of the MLPA to varying
degrees, and attempts to adhere to the SAT guidelines in the draft master plan to the extent
possible.
Alternative 1 -This is the Enhanced Compliance Alternative (ECA}, developed by the BRT1=
using the NCRSG proposal and input by constituents representing a variety of consumptive,
non-consumptive, and environmental in#erests. It, consists of 21 proposed MPAs and seven
special closures covering an area of 13~ sq mi, representing 13 percent of the approximately
1,027 sq mi of state waters within the north coast region. No-take SMRs or "very high
protection" SMCAs that do not allow fishing encompass 51 sq mi or five percent of state waters
3
within the MLPA NCSR. The remaining MPAs encompass 83 sq mi or eight percent of sta#e
waters within the MLPA NCSR.
No-Change Alterna#ive
The no-change alternative would leave existing MPAs in state waters of the MLPA NCSR
unchanged. This alternative does not address the goals and requirements of the MLPA.
Benefit of_Proposed Regulation_
The benefit of the Proposed Regulation is the creation of a network component of MPAs in the
north coast consistent with the goals of the MLPA. From an economic and social perspective,'
the Proposed Regulation attempts to minimize potential negative socio-economic impacts and
optimize potential positive socio-economic impacts for all users, to the extent possible.
The proposed regulations are neither inconsistent nor incompatible with existing state
regulations. The California Department of Parks and Recreation {State Parks} provided input on
issues related to their concerns and jurisdiction during the development of the Proposed
Regulation. Pre-existing activities and artificial structures including but not limited to utility
cables, bridge maintenance, main#enance dredging, and habitat restoration occur throughout the
NCSR. These activities may result in incidental take. However, the activities are regulated by
other federal, s#ate, and local agencies, whose jurisdiction cannot be pre-empted through
designation of MPAs under the MLPA.
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 the Red Lion Hotel, 1929 4t~ S#reet, Eureka,
California, on Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 8:30 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 #his action at a hearing to be held at the Red Lian Hotel, 1929 4~' Street, Eureka,
California, on Wednesday, June 6, 2012 at 8:30 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
Friday, June 1, 2012 at the address given below, or by fax at {916} 653-5040, or by a-mail to
FGC a{~.fac.ca.gov. Written comments mailed, faxed or e-mailed to the Commission office, must
be received before 5:00 p.m. on Monday, June 4, 2012. All comments must be received no later
than June 6, 2012 at the hearing in Eureka, California. ff 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 Commission, 1416 Ninth
Street, Bax 944209, Sacramento, California 94244-2090, phone {916) 653-4899. Please direct
requests far the above mentioned documents and inquiries concerning the regulatory process to
Sonke Mastrup or Sherrie Fonbuena at the preceding address or phone number. Ms, Marija
Vojkovich, Manager, Marine Region, Department of Fish and Game, (805) 568-1246, has
been designated to respond to questions on the substance of the proposed regulations.
Copies of the Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR}, 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 httpalwww.fgc.ca.gov.. .
Availabilitv~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.
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 s#aff.
Impact of Regulatorv 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 Business, Including
the Ability of California Businesses to Compete with Businesses in Other States:
The Proposed Regulation 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 Regulation may }lave negative impacts on
commercial and recreational fishing operations and businesses.
The impacts presented here do not represent a complete socioeconomic impact
analysis, but rather what is generally referred to as a first order impact analysis, meaning
that it only assesses potential impacts up to the dock {i.e., for commercial, commercial
passenger fishing vessel and recreations! fisheries}. Furthermore, a key assumption of
this analysis is that estimates represent maximum potential impacts. An assumption
made in the analysis is that the Proposed Regulation completely eliminates fishing
opportunities in areas closed to specific fisheries and that fishermen are unable to adjust
or mitigate in any way. In other wards, all fishing in an area affected by a marine
protected area (MPA) is lost completely, when in reality it is mare likely that fishermen will
shift their efforts to areas outside the MPA. The effect of such an assumption is most
likely an overestimation of the impact, or a "worst case scenario.°
The estimates of maximum potential impacts shown here rely on the survey work and
subsequent geographic information system (GIS) data analysis conducted by MLPA
contractor Ecotrust, and either reported in various documents to the Science Advisory
Team (SAT), NCRSG, and BRTF or generated using the GIS data analysis tool created
by Ecotrust. Ecotrust interviewed fishermen to determine both locations of fishing
activities and the relative importance of each location. In other words, areas identified
were considered by the level of importance placed on those areas relative to total fishing
grounds, these are referred to as areas of "stated importance" in analyses. Ecotrust's
importance indices were combined with cost share information (gathered during the
interviews} to measure the maximum potential impacts of prospective closures on stated
and economic values for key commercial, commercial passenger fishing vessel, and
recreational harvesters. The methodology used to determine maximum potential impacts
for the Proposed Regulation are described in iSOR Attachment 3 {pp 91-96).
5
Commercial Harvesters
The maximum potential net economic impact {profit in real 2007 dollars) to commercial
harvesters under the Proposed Regulation {see Table 4) was estimated to be $278,177
per year. fn comparison, the estimated average annual baseline ex-vessel value for the
study region from 2000-2007 was estimated to be $23,865,216 and, based on business
cost estimates derived from interviews, the estimated corresponding baseline net profit
was $9,289,008. Using these values, the estimated maximum potential percentage
reduction per year under the Proposed Regulation was 3.0 percent.
Table 4. Estima#ed annual maximum potential net economic impacts to commercial harvesters by
fishery relative to the base for the Proposed Regulation in the North Coast Study Region.
Baseline proposed Regulation
Fishery Ex-Vessel
Value Baseline
profit Estimated
profit Loss
($) Estimated
Profit Loss
(%)
Anchavy/Sardine
(I~ampa~a Net} $44,428 $7,553 $506
, 6.7%
Dungeness Crab (Trap) $18,479,736 $6,852,874 $177,737 2.6%
Herring {Gillnet} $11;70;1 $4,915 $96 1.9%
Rockfish (Fixed Gear) $642,453 $296,189 $38,640 6.3%
Salmon_(Trolf) $3,{~27fi'{6 $'1,249,463 $32,366 2.6% -
Shrimp (Trap} $251,315 $93,286 $0 0.0%
u
Smelt (Br."ad-Dip Net)
$122!680 .
$48,358 ;
$Q
0 0%
Surfperch (Hook and
Line} $26,431 $12,167 $2,389 19.6%
Ur-cFiin (Dive Captain) $896;780 $!65,151` $2~J,C37 8.4%
Urchin (Walk-on Dive} $370,076 $259,053 $16,805 6.5%
All Fisheries $23,565;216 $9,289,UO,S $29$,177 3.0% '
The estimated maximum potential impact to commercial harvesters was also calculated
by port under the Proposed Regulation (Figure 2). In addition, it should be noted that the
potential impacts to specific fisheries also vary by port.
6
Due to the aggregation of data necessary to maintain the confidentiality of individual
fishermen's financial data, the average impacts across fisheries may not be
representative of the true maximum potential impact to an individual fisherman and may
actually underestimate the maximum potential impact to specific individuals.
That said, Ecotrust, as part of their assessment, was asked to provide summary
information on any disproportionate impacts on individual fishermen andlor particular
fisheries. This was based on lessons (earned in the MLPA Central Coast Study Region,
where significant disproportionate impacts were only discovered in the implementation
phase, leaving limited options to lessen these. impacts.
Ecotrust evaluated whether any port-fishery combinations may be disproportionately
affected by the Proposed Regulation. To assess these impacts, Ecatrust used a box plot
analysis to identify outliers within each fishery (calculated using estimated impac#s on the
stated value of total fishing grounds). In a box plot analysis, outliers are defined as
extreme values that deviate significantly from the rest of the sample. Box plot analysis
results can also inform convergence among MPA proposals within a fishery andlor
relative potential impacts between fisheries.. While no port-fishery combination is
disproportionately impacted at a static#ically significant level, the surFperch fiishery may be
disproportionately impacted relative to other fisheries. Similarly, while there are na
statistically significant outliers for urchin, surfperch, or herring, the bi-modal nature of the
potential impacts should be noted.
Recreational Harvesters
Ecotrust also analyzed the maximum potential impacts to commercial passenger fishing
vessel (CPFV) operators and recreational fishermen (dive, kayak, and private vessel
user groups only) in terms of percentage of the fishing grounds within the study region
and percentage of stated importance values of fishing grounds within the study region.
Estimated impacts represent impacts to areas of stated importance and not impacts on
7
Figure 2. Estimated annual maximum potential net economic impacts of the Proposed
Regulation to commercial harvesters by port.
level of effort or on spatial area of total fishing grounds. Similar to the commercial
estimates of maximum potential impact, these estimates assume all fishing activity that
previously occurred in a closed area is "lost" and not replaced by movement to another
location.
Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessels
Ecotrust calculated the maximum potential net economic impact for the CPFV fisheries
as the average percentage reduction in net economic revenue {i.e., profit) based on
stated importance for all five species considered (Table 5}.
Table 5. Estimated annual maximum potential net economic impacts #o commercial passenger
fishing vessel fisheries relative to the base.
`_ ~ a
~
~ `~
v, ~,
o
Q ~ ~ L _
V ~ nYi
vx ov ax ~m uy
Port
Crescent City p,d% 0.0% Qt}% .
,.: 0.0%a ' fl:0%
Trinidad 0.5°1° 0.0% a.a°r° 0.1% 1.7%
Eufeka fl.0% 0.0% . 3.0% 12:0% 1.9°/a
Shelter Cope 0.0 /°
° 0.0 /°
° 15.
3%
F~.9%
0.0%
1=trt.Bragg 0.0% 9.5% Q.0%' 6 2°/u: 11.6%
Other recreational harvesters
Recreational fisheries were s#ratified by port and user group (i.e., dive, kayak, and private
vessel). See Table 5 for additional details.
While not actual economic losses, a loss in recreational fishing areas could lead to
decreases in revenues to recreational fishing-dependent businesses.
Table 6. Estimated percentage of stated value of total recreational fishing grounds affected by
port and user group far the Proposed Regulation. ,
_
.L ~
~
~
C] 3 L
N ~=
O
~ ~ 'a
' ,
~ i
v V '~ Y ~ t=
Q ~_
U ~ a= o o
~ w
Port User Group ~ m
Crescent City Kayak --- --- --- -- -
. ,... ---
Private 3.1 % 0.0% 3:8% {?:1 % 0 4%':'
.Vessel .
Dlve 0.0°10 --- 0.0% ----- O.D% ----
Trinidad Kayak- {).Q% 0.0%,
Private ___ 0
0% 0
1 % 0
0% 3%
5 0
4%
VeSSe I . . . . .
~ Dive
~ O.i3% 0.4% : - - 15.8%
'Eureka Kayak -.. _.._ -_- -- _-- __
Prlvake Q;1% OA%: 0.$% 12
6% 1%,'
0
Vessel . .
Dive 0.0% --- 0.0% --- 0.0% --
Shelter Cove Kayak --- - - -
Private ___ 0.0% 0.0% 7
9% 8
9°/a 0.0°1°
Vessel . .
;Dive
:. 9.~1% -
_. OA% - ' 9.3%
_ -
Fort Braggy Kayak --- --- --- --- 6.8% D.7%
Albion Private '
Vessel" 17.8% 7.7% 22.9% 8.0% 4.3%.:
In the long term, the potential negative impacts may be balanced by potential positive
impacts of sustainable fisheries, non-consumptive benefits, and ecosystem function in
the reserve areas. In addition, potential benefits may be realized through adult fish
spillover to areas adjacent to marine reserves and state marine conservation areas that
prohibit bottom fishing for finfish, as well as through transport to distarit sites.
The impacts of Proposed Regulation are essentially the same as the impacts for the
Revised Round 3 North Coast Regional Stakeholder Group Marine Protected Area
Proposal {RNCP). Attachment 15 contains a comparison of the impacts of the RNCP
and the Enhanced Compliance Alternative.
(b) Impact on the Creation or Elimination of Jobs within the State, the Creation of New
Businesses or the Elimination of Exis#ing 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:
Each alternative has potential impacts on the creation and elimination of jabs related to
commercial, CPFV, recreational fishing, and non-consumptive activities. An estimate of
the number ofjobs eliminated as a direct result of the proposed action is difficult.to
9
determine. Commercial fishing operations are generally small businesses employing few
individuals and, like all small businesses, are subject to failure for a variety of causes.
Additionally, the long-term intent of the proposed action is to increase sustainability in
fishable stocks and subsequently the long-term viability of These same small businesses.
Jobs related to the non-consumptive tourism and recreational Indus#ries would be
expected to increase over time by some unknown factor based on expected
improvements in site quality and increased visitation to certain locations.
The benefit of the Proposed Regulation is the creation of a network component of MPAs
in the north coast, protecting and enhancing natural resources and improving natural
resources sustainability, consistent with the goals of the MLPA. From an economic and
social perspective, the Proposed Regulation attempts to minimize potential negative
socio~ecanomic impacts and optimize poten#ial positive socio-economic impacts for all
users, to the extent possible.
Non-monetary benefits to the health and welfare of California residents and to worker
safety are not anticipated.
(c) Cost Impacts on a Representative Private Person or Business:
The Commission 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 CostslSavings in Federal Funding to the State:
Additional costs to State agencies for enforcement, monitoring, and management of
MPAs are difficult to estimate and are dependent on not only the impacts of the
Proposed Regulation, but also other regulations and processes, expectations and
implementation needs. Further discussion is needed to clarify the needs and
expectations. Comprehensive DFG monitoring, management and enforcement for the
North Coast Study Region cannot be absorbed by existing DFG budgets, and will result
in significant funding and position needs.
The Department will incur casts associated with printing and installing new regulatory
signage, and developing and printing public outreach ma#erials. However, partnerships
with state and federal agencies, academic ins#itutions, and non-profit arganizatians are
likely to continue to play an important role in assisting with MLPA implementation in
coming years.
Current cooperative efforts with the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary,
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and Gulf of the Farallones National Marine
Sanctuary have provided funding for some existing State costs, and cooperative efforts
are expected to increase with the adoption of the proposed regulation. In addition to
agency partnerships, during planning and implementation of the MLPA study regions
{i.e., central coast, north cen#ral coast, and south coast), substantial funding in the
millions of dollars were contributed by private fund sources including MLPAI partners,
and through bond money distributed through the Ocean Protection Council. These
contributions supported costs for baseline science and socio-economic data collection,
signage, and outreach and education, among other things, and allowed for a greater
outcome than may have been possible with Department funding .alone. While it is
10
difficult to quantify the level of support that will be provided by partnerships in future
years, the Department will continue to actively pursue and maximize such assistance.
Changes requirfng additional enforcement, monitoring, or management will increase the
recurring costs to the Department, and total state casts would increase as new study
regions are designated and became operational. For the north coast, the near-term cost
to implement the proposed MPAs will include one-time startup, a baseline data cal[ection
program, and recurring annual casts. In light of uncertainty regarding the cost for
monitoring, funding due to the State's current fiscal crisis, and the level of future funding
from external partners, the estimated new funding requirements by the state for MI-PA in
the north coast are unknown at this time.
(e) Nondiscretionary CostslSavings to i-ocal Agencies: None.
(f) Programs Mandated on Local Agencies or Schaal Districts: None.
(g) Costs Imposed on any I-ocal 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).
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 far which the action is proposed, would be as effective
and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action, or would be mare
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: March 13, 2012 Executive Director
11