Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFish and Game - Marine Protected Areas COMMISSIONERS Cindy Gustafson,President ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER JOHN CARLSON,JR. Tahoe City EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Jim Kellogg,Vice President 1416 Ninth Street Concord Box 944209 Richard Rogers,Member Sacramento,CR 94244-2090 Carpinteria (916)653-4899 Michael Sutton,Member (916)653-5040 Fax Monterey 4D Governor fgc cr fgc.cagov Daniel W.Richards,Member Upland STATE OF CALIFORNIA Fish and Game Commission 130ARD OF SUPFR\jjSORS May 1, 2009 OROV1Ll.E,CALIFORNIA TO ALL AFFECTED AND INTERESTED PARTIES: 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 Marine protected areas, which will be published in the California Regulatory Notice Register on May 1, 2009. Please note the dates bf the public hearings related to this matter and associated deadlines for receipt of written comments. Ms. Marija Vojkovich, Regional 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 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, 2861, and 6750, Fish and Game Code; and sections 36725(a) and 36725(e), Public Resources Code and to implement, interpret or make specific sections 200, 202, 203.1, 205(c) 219 220 1580, 1583, 2861, 5521, 6653, 8420(e), and 8500, Fish and Game.Code; and sections 36700(e), 36710(e), 36725(a) and 36725(e), Public Resources Code, proposes to amend Section 632, Title 94, California Code of Regulations, relating to Marine Protected Areas. Informative Dig st(POlicY Statement Overview The Marine Life Management Act(MLMA, Stats. 1998, ch. 1052) created a broad programmatic 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. AB 2800 (Stats. 2000, ch. 385) enacted the Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act (MMAIA), among other things, to standardize the designation of Marine Managed Areas (MMAs), which include MPRs. The overriding goal 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. The proposed regulation change is intended to meet the goals described in the Marine Life, Protection Act (MLPA, Stats. 1999, ch. 1015) within a portion of California's State waters. The area covered in this proposal is the north central coast region, defined as State waters between Alder Creek, near Point Arena (Mendocino County) and Pigeon Point (San Mateo County). The MLPA goals address an overall concept of ecosystem-based management and the intent to improve upon California's existing array of marine protected areas (MPAs). The MLPA specifically requires that the Department of Fish and Game (Department) prepare a master pian and that the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) adopt regulations based on the plan to achieve the MLPA goals. These goals are: • To protect the natural diversity and abundance of marine life, and the structure, function, and integrity of marine ecosystems. • To help sustain, conserve, and protect marine life populations, including those of economic value, and rebuild those that are depleted. • To improve recreational, educational, and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems that are subject to minimal human disturbance, and to manage these uses in a manner consistent with protecting biodiversity. • To protect marine natural heritage, including protection of representative and unique marine life habitats in California waters for their intrinsic value. • To ensure that California's MPRs have clearly defined objectives, effective management measures, and adequate enforcement, and are based on sound scientific guidelines. • To ensure that the State's MPAs are designed and managed, to the extent possible, as a network. 1 The Network Concept: Important in developing the proposed regulation was the consideration for the north central coast MPAs to form a component of a'statewide network. By definition in the MLPA, a network is applied to a biogeographical region. The revised draft Master Plan for MPAs adopted by the Commission recognizes two biogeographical regions in California, with a boundary at Point Conception. The biological network concept calls for connectivity between WAS through adult movements and larval transport of the species most likely to benefit from establishing MPAs. This includes marine plants, sedentary fishes and invertebrates, and species which are not highly mobile or migratory. This approach is consistent with the guidance provided in the MLPA [Fish and Game Code subsection 2853(b)(6)]. Networks may also be connected through consistency in the method of establishment, goals, objectives, and management and enforcement measures. The proposed regulation establishes a network component of MPAs designed to include all representative north central coast habitats and major oceanic conditions. Unique and critical habitats were considered separately to guarantee both representation and protection. From an ecological perspective, the proposed regulation creates a network component of MPAs consistent with the goals of the MLPA. From an economic and social perspective, the proposed regulation attempts to minimize potential negative socia-economic impacts and optimize potential positive socio-economic impacts for all users, to the extent possible. Implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act in the North Central Coast Region: Existing regulations (the no-project alternative) provide for 13 MPAs covering an area of approximately 26:8 square miles, representing approximately 3.5 percent of state waters within the north central coast region. Of this, less than one percent of the area is within no-take state marine reserves covering approximately 0.3 square miles or approximately 0.1 percent of state waters within the north central coast region. The proposed regulations (the Commission preferred alternative, i.e., the Integrated Preferred Alternative), along with alternatives 2 and 3, include one or more areas recommended by stakeholders as new state marine parks. However, because the Commission does not have statutory authority to establish state marine parks, the proposed regulation designates these areas as state marine conservation areas. These areas can later be designated as marine parks at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The proposed regulations also remove or retain, re-designate and redesign certain MPAs previously classified as state marine parks to an appropriate MPA designation consistent with the MMAIA. These retained areas can later be designated as marine parks at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Commission's preferred alternative includes a state marine recreational management area (SMRMA) in Russian River, Estero Americano, and Estero de San Antonio, to allow for continued waterfowl hunting where it traditionally occurred, while providing SMR-like protection subtidally. SMRMAs were recommended by the Department, to the NCCRSG and BRTF in its feasibility guidance and evaluations of MPA proposals, as the appropriate designation for proposed SMRs in estuarine areas where waterfowl hunting is currently allowed. This recommendation was to allow for continued waterfowl hunting while providing SMR-like protection subtidally. The BRTF, in its development of the Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA), applied the Department's designation recommendation and used a SMRMA designation for Estero Americano and Estero de San Antonio, two estuaries where waterfowl hunting was . known to occur. The BRTF did not use this designation for the proposed Russian River SMR due to Department understanding that development had precluded waterfowl hunting along the 2 estuary. Subsequent to BRTF submission of the IPA to the Commission, the Department became aware that waterfowl hunting did occur in a portion of the proposed Russian River SMR. Therefore, for the proposed regulation contained herein, and consistent with BRTF intention to follow Department guidance, the designation was changed to a SMRMA for Russian River. One of the three alternatives (alternative 2) to the proposed regulation includes proposed SMRMAs in three locations where waterfowl hunting traditionally occurs. This includes Russian River estuary, Estero Americano, and Estero de San Antonio. The remaining two alternatives to the proposed regulation propose SMRs where waterfowl hunting traditionally occurs. This includes Russian River estuary, Estero Americano and Estero de San Antonio in alternatives 1 and 3, and Tomales Bay in alternative 3. In Department feasibility guidance and evaluations of MPA proposals provided to the NCCRSG in crafting these alternatives, the Department recommended proposed SMRs in estuarine areas where waterfowl hunting is currently allowed to be re-designated as SMRMAs to account for waterfowl hunting while providing SMR-like protection subtidally. These recommendations were applied by NCCRSG members to alternative 2. However, NCCRSG members that crafted alternatives 1 and 3 chose to focus only on MPA designations and to defer to the Commission for consideration of other MMA designations that account for existing activities outside MLPA. To facilitate the Commission's consideration of this deferred decision, an option is provided in alternatives 1 and 3 to assign a SMRMA designation in these locations. Special closures were used in areas of significant importance to seabirds and marine mammals as part of the marine ecosystem. This special closure category works in conjunction with the MPA designation process and was used to provide further protections that would not otherwise be afforded by MPA designation within the same geographical location. This includes minimizing disturbance of seabirds and marine mammals at nesting, roosting, and haul-out sites, through special restrictions on boating and access in areas generally smaller than MPAs, either within an MPA or outside. Four to six special closures are proposed in the Commission's preferred proposal and alternatives (Attachment 11). PROPOSED REGULATION: Integrated Preferred Alternative IPA -The proposed regulation, also known as the Integrated Preferred Alternative (IPA) includes a total of 21 MPAs, three marine managed areas (SMRMAs) for the north central coast region (Table 1, Figure 1, and Attachment 2) and seven special closures (four along mainland; cluster of three at Farallon Islands; Attachment 11). Ten existing MPAs are included and/or have been expanded. Although the proposed regulation contains 21 new MPAs, 15 are directly adjacent to, or include portions of, existing MPAs and can be considered expansions of the area. In these 15 cases, the incorporation and/or additional expansion are within a marine protected area with some allowed take. Thus, the proposed regulation includes 9 MPAs that are in geographical areas previously not designated as MPAs. One proposed SMR provides sub-options for alternate names: Option 1) "Montara" refers to the adjacent geography, and Option 2) "Fitzgerald" is the locally-popular historic name of the existing intertidal MPA proposed for expansion in the IPA. There is no other difference between the sub- options. 3 Table 1. Proposed regulation (Integrated Preferred Alternative) for marine protected areas, marine managed areas and special closures in the north central coast, including proposed allowed take and Science Advisory Team (SAT) assigned level of protection. Areas arranged geographically from north to south. MPA Name Proposed Allowed Take SAT !errel of protection *Point Arena State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve *Point Arena State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited High Marine Conservation EXCEPT the recreational take of salmon by trolling Area and the commercial take of salmon with troll fishing gear *Sea Hon Cove The recreational and commercial take of all marine Mod-low State Marine invertebrates and marine aquatic plants is Conservation Area prohibited. Take of all other species is allowed Saunders Reef Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Mod-low State Marine EXCEPT: Conservation Area 1.The recreational take of salmon by trolling 2. The commercial take of salmon with troll fishing gear, and urchin Del Mar Landing Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High State Marine Reserve *Stewarts Point Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High State Marine Reserve .Salt Point State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Moderate- Marine Conservation EXCEPT: the recreational take of abalone and . low Areae finflsh4 Gerstle Cove State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve *Russian River State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Recreational except recreational hunting of waterfowl is allowed Management Area unless otherwise restricted by hunting regulations (sections 502, 550, 551, and 552) *Russian River State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Moderate Marine Conservation EXCEPT : Area 1. The recreational take of Dungeness crab by trap, and surf smelt by hand-held dip net or beach net. 2. The commercial take of Dungeness crab by trap Bodega Head State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve 4 MPA Name Proposed Allowed Take SAT level of protection Bodega Head State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Mod-high Marine Conservation EXCEPT: Area 1. The recreational take of pelagic finfish3 by trolling, Dungeness crab by trap and market squid by hand-held dip net 2. The commercial take of pelagic finfsh3 with troll fishing gear or round haul net, Dungeness crab by trap, and market squid by round haul net *Estero Americano Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High State Marine EXCEPT: the recreational hunting of waterfowl is Recreational allowed unless otherwise restricted by hunting Management Area regulations (sections 502, 550, 551, and 552) *Estero de San Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Antonio State EXCEPT: the recreational hunting of waterfowl is Marine Recreational allowed unless otherwise restricted by hunting Management Area regulations (sections 502, 550, 551, and 552) Point Reyes State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve Point Reyes State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited, Mod-high Marine Conservation EXCEPT: Area 1. The recreational take of salmon by trolling, and Dungeness crab by trap 2. The commercial take of salmon with trolling gear, and Dungeness crab by trap *Estero de Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Limantour State Marine Reserve Drakes Estero State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Low Marine Conservation EXCEPT: Area 1. The recreational take of clams 2. The commercial aquaculture of shellfish pursuant to a valid State Water Bottom Lease and stocking permit Duxbury Reef State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Moderate Marine Conservation EXCEPT: the recreational take of fnfish4 from Area' shore only, and the recreational take of abalone " Option 1: Montara Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High State Marine Reserve " Option 2: Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Fitzgerald State Marine Reserve 5 MPA Name Proposed Allowed Take SAT level of protection Pillar Point State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Mod-high Marine Conservation EXCEPT: Area 1. The recreational take of pelagic finfish3 by trolling, Dungeness crab by trap and market squid by hand-held dip net 2. The commercial take of pelagic finfish3 with troll fishing gear or round haul net, Dungeness crab by trap and market squid by round haul net North Farallon Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Islands State Marine Reserve Southeast Farallon Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Island State Marine Reserve Southeast Farallon Take of all living marine resources is prohibited High Island State Marine EXCEPT: the recreational take of salmon by Conservation Area trolling and the commercial take of salmon with troll fishing gear Special Closures Point Reyes 1000 ft closure; year round Headlands Special Closure Point Resistance 300 ft closure; year round Rock Special Closure Double Point/ 300 ft closure; year round Stormy Stack Rock Special Closure North Farallon 1000 ft closure at North Farallon Island and 300 ft Islands Special closure at the southern islets including the Isle of Closure St. James; year round. Boating restrictions and fishing activity modifications to reduce noise within 1 mile of all islands: 5.mph speed limit within 1000 feet of all islands; year round Southeast Farallon 300 ft closure at Southeast Farallon Island, except Island Special Fisherman's Bay and East Landing; year round Closure except for a seasonal closure on the southeast side of Saddle (Seal) Rock, from Dec 1 to Sep 14. Boating restrictions within 1 mile of all islands; 5 mph speed limit within 1000 feet of Southeast Farallon Island, fishing activity.modifications to reduce noise; year round Egg (Devil's Slide) 300 ft closure around island rocks and no transit in Rock to Devil's Slide area between Egg (Devil's Slide) Rock and Special Closure mainland; year round *New MPAs that are not direct expansion of an existing area. 6 A Sub-option exists for retaining the historic name of Fitzgerald, or the geographic reference of Montara. 'In order to analyze the differences between no-take reserves and limited take conservation areas and recommended parks, the SAT developed a ranking for level of protection described in the Master Plan based on impact of allowed uses on ecological and ecosystem structure. Levels of protection are modified for each study region for evaluation purposes; and are appended to the Master Plan upon adoption of MPA proposals (Attachment 10). 2 These areas, recommended by stakeholders to become state marine parks,will be designated as state marine conservation areas, and could subsequently be designated as state marine parks at.the discretion of the State Park and Recreation Commission. 3 Pelagic Finfish are defined in subsection 632(a)(3) as: northern anchovy(Engraulis mordax), barracudas(Sphyraena spp.), billfishes*(family Istiophoridae), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi),jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), Pacific mackerel (Scomberjaponicus), salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), blue shark(Prionace glauca), salmon shark (Lamna ditropis), shortfin mako shark(Isurus oxyrinchus), thresher sharks(Alopias spp.), swordfish (Xiphias gladius), tunas (familyScombridae), and yellowtail (Seriola lalandi). *Marlin is not allowed for commercial take. 4 Finfish are defined in subsection 632(a)(2)as: any species of bony fish or cartilaginous fish (sharks, skates and rays). Finfish do not include amphibians, invertebrates, plants or algae. The definition of finfish provided in Section 159 does not apply to this Section. 7 4rt00•te! 1?79'0'wL3•SO,]v`+ 123400*nV 1233U0W 123200M '23'1000 121'01M 1L'5C*X ='47Q'W 12Z'MW 722-2ww 123'100'1r! Pout# Point` Vena Marine Life Protection Act �r eua SIUR a o t a i Integrated PreferredAlkemative SeaLlon '%.Norte C.,b f Cant Study R.pbn Satln(ler� A n c h o r C 0 V e SMCA MlPropas.dspealilCWsan ReefSMCA $ aY ®Poepas.dStat.►Rsoh.Cuu%.W.HanAre.(SMCA) ®Rapos.d Stne Marhe R es ern(SMRJ S e a - -®Aropas.d Stst.Markro ReanaSonst M."g.—ntArea(SMR" DeII•Iaz, . n sh '.'L•wdn g'Sx Z V- -tie Ste.ti eta olra�ap�.cotilsh>edmm. Pouat S11IR Salt Core U tc Axpen MSUb,lScds 17.2W Pore# SDJR � S11iC� Rnssi�ii Russian Rn ei = Rrt-er Si1IC oSI�1R14L� d e g a Bodeo-a Heait —Estero Aw ericauo S>t-M-1A SA�t r o m a t e Txtero de San Antonio SIl-i12I1IA Bodega Head„ SN CA Ester ode ;'. ', Dr'd�es ES#e�o SI�iC� Lrniaettoirr p Point Re)es S114C tteaAiOriio ° tNaithP'azaIlou P i!]t � I.slaridC SMR � o _ rib;zn Rcef x ; SbIC A Sotutheiectbs�s�oa I'U�ILIOR .: IDlaid SI14C'� Foci(i c a Sotrtlieast I►Eontarh7)Fitzge i d '. Fai�llou Island SAtR Hr o o n s'a-y : SI1iR s Ponit SMCA- "These SMGAs(Salt Paint aE ii Duxbviy wrerl3 rscammertded by Erre BRTF for dastgn ort es state:manna parks they could subsequenEly tie designat8d as state manna parEss by tfta Sate P&k,and,Recreatiort:Commrssron attheir discretion North Central Cow4 Swdy Region California.Fisli and Game Commission Preferred.41ternative This marine protected area(MPA)proposal was selected on June 11,2008 bythe Califomia Fish and Game Commission(CFGC)as its preferred alternative. This proposal integrates elements Brom three proposals developed by the North Central Coast Norfh-CAnfraf coast , Regional Stakeholder Group(NCCSRG)(proposals 1-3,2-XA,end 4).These NCCRSG Stu�y-Ri3gibn, proposals were selected in their entirety as CFGC attemafives 1,2,and 3.Further information on each MPA proposal can be found in the associated text document with the same MPAproposal name. Figure 1. Marine protected areas in the proposed regulation (Integrated Preferred Alternative) 8 The 21 MPAs and three marine managed areas in the proposed regulation cover an area of approximately 153.3 square miles, representing approximately 20.1 percent of state waters within the north central coast region (Figure 2, Attachment 3). Of this, more than half the area is within no-take state marine reserves covering approximately 85.8 square miles or approximately 11.2 percent of state waters within the north central coast region (Figure 2). The remaining areas are primarily state marine conservation areas. Two of these SMCAs (Salt Point and Duxbury) were recommended for designation as state marine parks with restrictions consistent with this designation, and could subsequently be designated as state marine parks at the discretion of the State Park and Recreation Commission. Many of the SMCAs allow the take of either all pelagic finfish (defined above) or salmon and were considered by the SAT to offer high ecosystem protection (Figure 3). In some.state marine conservation areas, take of other species such as squid, abalone and urchin, are also allowed. With a few exceptions, the state marine conservation areas protect benthic fishes and invertebrates most likely to from area protection. Comparison of Existing MPAs, NCCRSG MPA Proposals, & Integrated Preferred Alternative by Designation seg ..._... :,.. .. 25`e .. �} G. T l •. "Zf ■SMCA 15� ■sMR C _ 10% 'NoW.These=4 5n m, yIlav vrereas S%Vs raacm@ - =. by ,.r7-tneycouldVie RRT; J m;- sut�umy be 6csignate- _ _ r _ d5� Park and 1t dssxz� ISSWn a. - , Asa.for purposes of:h;s Proposal Proposal Proposal Proposal IPA summary,areas vftln 5 1RhlAs has been inchsded 1-3 2—XA as under SMRs' Figure 2. Percent of the north central coast study region included in the proposed regulation (Integrated Preferred Alternative) as compared to existing MPAs in the No-Project Alternative (Proposal 0) and alternative proposals [alternative 1 (Proposals 1-3), alternative 2 (Proposal 2- XA), alternative 3 (Proposal 4) and the IPA]. SMP = state marine park, SMCA= state marine conservation area, and SMR = state marine reserve. Note that two state recreational management areas (Estero Americano and Estero de San Antonio) are included in the calculations as SMRs based on their relative level of protection. Note that SMCAs represented in yellow were recommended as SMPs by stakeholders and the BRTF. While they would be adopted as SMCAs, they could be subsequently designated also as SMPs by the Park and Recreation Commission at their discretion. 9 Comparison of Existing MPAs, NCCRSG MPA Proposals, & Integrated Preferred Alternative by Level of Protection 30% _ e ©Low O 25°h — i3 Moderate Cf ■Moderate 20% High N i gh 15% ■Very High :. +' is°i° _ = Note:Forthe level of protection :: # summary,area 5% "' within"Moderate- d = r IoW'has been included as under _ "Low.FW z1v " 0% Proposal Proposal Proposal Proposal IPA 1-3 2-XA Figure 3. Percent of the north central coast study region included in the proposed regulation (integrated Preferred Altenative) as compared to existing MPAs in the No-Project Alternative (Proposal 0) and alternative proposals [alternative 1 (Proposals 1-3), alternative 2 (Proposal 2- XA), alternative 3 (Proposal 4) and the IPA]. Level of protection (LOP) is noted as defined by the SAT in the Master Plan as modified by the SAT for refined evaluations of north central coast proposals. LOP rankings used for the north central coast will be appended to the Master Plan upon adoption of regulations. Note that two state marine recreational management areas (Estero Americano and Estero de San Antonio) are included in the calculations as SMRs based on their relative level of protection. ALTERNATIVES: Alternative 1 —This is the North Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group (NCCRSG) "Proposal 1-3", developed within RSG workgroups by constituents representing a variety of consumptive, non-consumptive, and environmental interests. It consists of 23 MPAs, with the sub-option three MPAs become marine management areas (SMRMAs) covering an area of approximately 164.6 square miles, representing approximately 21.6 percent of state waters within the north central coast region (Table 3 and attachments 3, 4, and 5) and seven special closures. Of this, over one half of the area is within no-take state marine reserves covering approximately 87.2 square miles or approximately 11.4 percent of state waters within the north central coast region (Figure 2). 10 Table 3. Alternative 1 proposal for marine protected areas, marine managed areas and special closures in the north central coast, including proposed allowed take and SAT assigned level of protection. Areas arranged geographically from north to south. MPA Name Proposed Allowed Take SAT level of protection' Point Arena State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve Point Arena State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited High Marine Conservation EXCEPT: the recreational take of salmon by trolling Area and commercial take of salmon with troll fishing gear Saunders Reef State Take of all living marine resources is.prohibited Mod-low Marine Conservation EXCEPT: Area 1. The recreational take of salmon by trolling, abalone, and finfish2 by hook and line or by spear from shore only 2. The commercial take of salmon with troll fishing gear, and urchin Del Mar Landing State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited, Mod-low Marine Conservation EXCEPT: the recreational take of finfish2 by hook Areas and line or spear Rocky Pt to Horseshoe Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Pt State Marine Reserve Gerstle Cove State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve "Russian River Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Option 1: State Marine Reserve "Russian River Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Option 2: State Marine except recreational hunting of waterfowl is allowed Recreational unless otherwise restricted by hunting regulations Management Area (sections 502, 550, 551, and 552) Russian River State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Moderate Marine Conservation EXCEPT: Area 1. The recreational take of Dungeness crab by trap, and surf smelt by hand-held dip net or beach net 2. The commercial take of Dungeness crab by trap Bodega Head State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve Bodega Head State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited, Mod-high Marine Conservation EXCEPT: the recreational take of pelagic#infish3 by Area hook and line except for recreational salmon take by trolling, and Dungeness crab by trap; and the commercial take of pelagic fnfsh3 by troll fishing gear and Dungeness crab by trap. "Estero Americano Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Option 1: State Marine Reserve 11 . MPA Name Proposed Allowed Take SAT level of protection ^Estero Americano Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Option 2: State Marine except recreational hunting of waterfowl is allowed Recreational unless otherwise restricted by hunting regulations Management Area (sections 502, 550, 551, and 552) ^Estero de San Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Antonio Option 1: State Marine Reserve ^Estero de San Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Antonio except recreational hunting of waterfowl is allowed Option 2: State Marine unless otherwise restricted by hunting regulations Recreational (sections 502, 550, 551, and 552) Management Area Point Reyes State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve Point Reyes State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Mod-high Marine Conservation EXCEPT: Area 1. The recreational take of salmon by trolling, and Dungeness crab by trap 2. The commercial take of salmon with troll fishing gear, and Dungeness crab by trap Drakes Estero/Estero Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High de Limantour State Marine Reserve Drakes Estero State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Low Marine Conservation EXCEPT: Area 1. The recreational take of clams 2. The commercial aquaculture of shellfish pursuant to a valid State Water Bottom Lease and stocking permit Double Point State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Moderate Marine Conservation EXCEPT: the recreational and commercial take of Area salmon, Dungeness crab by trap, halibut by hook and line, and coastal pelagic speciee except market squid by hook and line Duxbury Reef State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Moderate Marine Conservation EXCEPT: the recreational take of finfish2 by hook Area and line from shore only Fitzgerald State Marine Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Reserve Montara State Marine Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Moderate Conservation Area EXCEPT: 1. The recreational take of salmon by trolling, Dungeness crab by trap, coastal pelagic species and halibut by hook and line 2. The commercial take of salmon with troll fishing gear, Dungeness crab by trap, and coastal pelagic species and halibut by hook and line North Farallon Islands Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High State Marine Reserve 12 MPA Name Proposed Allowed Take SAT level of protection Southeast Farallon Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Island State Marine Reserve Southeast Farallon Take of all living marine resources is prohibited High Island State Marine EXCEPT: the recreational take of salmon by trolling Conservation Area and commercial take of salmon with troll fishing gear Special Closures Point Reyes 1000 ft closure; year round Headlands Special Closure Point Resistance Rock 500 ft closure; year round Special Closure Double Point/Stormy 300 ft closure; year round Stack Rock Special Closure North Farallon Islands 1000 ft closure at North Farallon Island and 300 ft Special Closure closure at the southern islets including the Isle of St. James; year round. Boating restrictions and fishing activity modifications to reduce noise within 1 mile of all islands: 5 mph speed limit within 1000 feet of all islands; year round Southeast Farallon 300 ft closure.at Southeast Farallon Island, except Island Special Closure Fisherman's Bay and East Landing; year round except for a seasonal closure on the southeast side of Saddle (Seal) Rock, from Dec 1 to Sep 14. Boating restrictions within one mile of all islands; five mph speed limit within 1000 feet of Southeast Farallon Island, fishing activity modifications to reduce noise, year round Egg (Devil's Slide) 1000 ft closure from any shoreline of the three Rock Special Closure rocks; year round Bean Hollow Special 300 ft closure; seasonal (Feb Aug) Closure ^Options exist for designation as a state marine reserve, or as a state marine recreational management area to allow recreational hunting of waterfowl to continue(sections 502, 550, 551, and 552). 9 In order to analyze the differences between no-take reserves and limited take conservation areas and recommended parks, the SAT developed a ranking for level of protection described in the Master Plan based on impact of allowed uses on ecological and ecosystem structure. Levels of protection are modified for each study region for evaluation purposes; and are appended to the Master Plan upon adoption of MPA proposals (Attachment 10). 2 Pelagic Finfish are defined in subsection 632(a)(3) as: northern anchovy(Engraulis mordax), barracudas (Sphyraena spp.), billfishes*(family Istiophoridae), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi),jack mackerel(Trachurus symmetricus), Pacific mackerel (Scomberjaponicus), salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), blue shark(Prionace glauca), salmon shark (Lamna ditropis), shortfin mako shark(Isurus oxyrinchus), thresher sharks (Alopias spp.), swordfish (Xiphias gladius), tunas(family Scombridae), and yellowtail (Seriola lalandi). *Marlin is not allowed for commercial take. 13 3 Finfish are defined in subsection 632(a)(2) as: any species of bony fish or cartilaginous fish (sharks, skates and rays). Finfish do not include amphibians, invertebrates, plants or algae. The definition of finfish provided in Section 159 does not apply to this Section. a Coastal Pelagic Species are defined in Section 1.39 as: northern anchovy (Fngraulis mordax), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus),jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), and market squid (Loligo opalescens). 5 These areas, recommended by stakeholders as state marine parks, will be designated as state marine conservation areas, and could subsequently be designated as state marine parks at the discretion of the State Park and Recreation Commission. Alternative 2 —This is the "NCCRSG Proposal 2-XA", developed both in RSG workgroups and groups external to the RSG process, by constituents representing commercial and recreational fishing interests along the north central coast. It consists.of 18 WAS and three marine managed areas (SMRMAs) covering an area of approximately 137.2 square miles, representing approximately 18.0 percent of state waters within the north central coast region (Table 4 and attachments 3, 4, and 6), and five special closures. Of this, approximately half of the area is within no-take state marine reserves covering approximately 68.1 square miles or approximately 8.9 percent of state waters within the north central coast region (Figure 2). Table 4.Alternative 2 proposal for marine protected areas, marine managed areas and special closures in the north central coast, including proposed allowed take and SAT assigned level of protection. Areas arranged geographically from north to south. MPAName Proposed Allowed Take SAT level of protection Pt Arena State Marine Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Reserve Take of all living marine resources is prohibited EXCEPT: the recreational take of pelagic finfish3 by Pt Arena State Marine hook and line (salmon by trolling only) and commercial take of pelagic finfish3 by hook and line High Conservation Area (salmon by troll fishing gear only), and coastal pelagic species4 except market squid, by round haul net Black Point State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve Take of all living marine resources is prohibited EXCEPT: the recreational take of pelagic finfish3 by Black Point State hook and line (salmon by trolling.only) and Marine Conservation commercial take of pelagic finfish3 by hook and line High Area (salmon by troll fishing gear only), and coastal pelagic species4 except market squid, by round haul net Gerstle Cove State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve Russian River Estuary Take of all living marine resources is prohibited State Marine except recreational hunting of waterfowl is'allowed Very High Recreational unless otherwise restricted by hunting regulations Management Area (sections 502, 550, 551, and 552) 14 MPA Name Proposed Allowed Take SAT level of protection Take of all living marine resources is prohibited EXCEPT: Russian River State 1. The recreational take of marine invertebrates and Marine Conservation finfish5 except for Chinook salmon Low Area 2. The commercial take of marine invertebrates except for abalone, and finfish$except for Chinook salmon Bodega Head State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve Take of all living marine resources is prohibited EXCEPT: Bodega Head State 1. The recreational take of pelagic finfish3 by Marine Conservation trolling, Dungeness crab by trap, and market squid Mod-high Area by hand-held dip net 2. The commercial take of pelagic finfish3 by troll fishing gear or round haul net, Dungeness crab by trap, and market squid by round haul net Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Estero Americano State except recreational hunting of waterfowl is allowed Very High Marine Recreational unless otherwise restricted by hunting regulations Management Area (sections 502, 550, 551, and 552) Estero de San Antonio All take of living marine resources is prohibited State Marine except recreational hunting of waterfowl is allowed Very High Recreational unless otherwise restricted by hunting regulations Management Area (sections 502, 550, 551, and 552) Point Reyes Headlands Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High State Marine Reserve Take of all living marine resources is prohibited EXCEPT: 1. The recreational take of pelagic finfish3 by hook Point Reyes Headlands and line (salmon by trolling only), and Dungeness Mod-high State Marine crab by trap Conservation Area 2. The commercial take of pelagic finfish3 by hook and line (salmon with troll fishing gear only), coastal pelagic species4 by round haul net, and Dungeness crab by trap Estero de Limantour Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High State Marine Reserve Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Drakes Estero State EXCEPT: Marine Conservation 1. The recreational take of clams bow Area 2- The commercial aquaculture of shellfish pursuant to a valid State Water Bottom Lease and stocking permit Duxbury State Marine Take of all living marine resources is pros ibited Moderate Conservation Areae EXCEPT: the recreational take of finfish from shore only, and the recreational take of abalone Montara State Marine Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Reserve 15 MPA Name Proposed Allowed Take SAT level of protection Take of all living marine resources is prohibited EXCEPT: 1. The recreational take of pelagic finfish3 by trolling, Pillar Point State Marine Dungeness crab by trap, and market squid by hand- Mod-high Conservation Area held dip net 2. The commercial take of pelagic finfish3 with troll fishing gear or round haul net, Dungeness crab by trap and market squid by round haul net North Farallon Islands Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High State Marine Reserve Southeast Farallon Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Island State Marine Reserve I Take of all living marine resources is prohibited EXCEPT: 1. The recreational take of pelagic finfish3 by hook Southeast Farallon and line (except for salmon by trolling only) and Island State Marine coastal pelagic speciee except for market squid by High Conservation Area hook and line 2. The commercial take of pelagic tinfish3 by hook and line (except for salmon with troll fishing gear only) and coastal pelagic speciee except market squid, by round haul net Special Closures Point Resistance Rock 300 ft closure; year round Special Closure Double Point/Stormy Stack Rock Special 300 ft closure; year round Closure 300 ft closure at North Farallon Island, and southern islets including the Isle of St. James; year.round. North Farallon Islands Special Closure Boating restrictions and fishing activity modifications to reduce noise within 1 mile of all islands: 5 mph speed limit within 1000 feet of all islands; year round 300 ft closure at Southeast Farallon Island, except between Fisherman's Bay and East Landing; year- round. Southeast Farallon Island Special Closure Boating restrictions within one mile of all islands; five mph speed limit within 1000 feet of Southeast Farallon Island, fishing activity modifications to reduce noise; year round Egg (Devil's Slide) Rock 300 ft closure from any shoreline of the three rocks; Special Closure . year round In order to analyze the differences between no-take reserves and limited take conservation areas,and recommended parks, the SAT developed a ranking for level of protection described in the Master Plan based on impact of allowed uses on ecological and ecosystem structure. Levels of protection are modified for each study region for evaluation purposes; and are appended to the Master Plan upon 16 adoption of MPA proposals (Attachment 10). 2 These areas, recommended by stakeholders to become state marine parks, will be designated as state marine conservation areas, and could subsequently be designated as state marine parks at the discretion of the State Park and Recreation Commission. 3 Pelagic Finfish are defined in subsection 632(a)(3) as: northern anchovy(Fngraulis mordax), barracudas (Sphyraena spp.), billfishes""(family Istiophoridae), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi),jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), Pacific mackerel (Scomberjaponicus), salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), Pacific sardine(Sardinops sagax), blue shark(Prionace glauca), salmon shark (Lamna ditropis), shortfin mako shark(Isurus oxyrinchus), thresher sharks(Alopias spp.), swordfish (Xiphias gladius), tunas (family Scombridae), and yellowtail (Seriola lalandi). *Marlin is not allowed for commercial take. 4 Coastal Pelagic Species are defined in Section 1.39 as: northern anchovy(Engraulis mordax), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), Pacific mackerel (Scomberjaponicus),jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), and market squid (Loligo opalescens). 5 Finfish are defined in subsection 632(a)(2) as: any species of bony fish or cartilaginous fish (sharks, skates and rays). Finfish do not include amphibians, invertebrates, plants or algae. The definition of finfsh provided in Section 159 does not apply to this Section. Alternative 3--This is the NCCRSG "Proposal 4," developed within RSG workgroups by constituents primarily representing non-consumptive and environmental interests along the north central coast. It consists of 28'MPAs with the sub-option that three MPAs become marine managed areas (SMRMAs) covering an area of approximately 204.9 square miles, representing approximately 26.9 percent of state waters within the north central coast region (Table 5 and attachments 3, 4, and 7) and seven special closures. Of this, more than half of the area is within no-take state marine reserves covering approximately 105.0 square miles or approximately 13.8 percent of state waters within the north central coast region (Figure 2). Table 5. Alternative 3 proposal for marine protected areas, marine managed areas, and special closures in the north.central coast, including proposed allowed take and Science Advisory Team (SAT) assigned level of protection. Areas arranged geographically from north to south. MPA Name Proposed Allowed Take SAT level of pro#ec#ion Point Arena State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve Point Arena State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Marine Conservation EXCEPT: the recreational take of salmon by trolling High Area only, and the commercial take of salmon with troll fishing gear only Sea Lion Cove State Commercial and recreational take of marine Mod-low Marine Conservation invertebrates and marine aquatic plants is Area prohibited. Take of all other species is allowed Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Saunders Reef State EXCEPT: Mod-low Marine Conservation 1. The recreational take of salmon by trolling Area 2. The commercial take of salmon with troll fishing gear, and.urchin Del Mar Landing State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve Stewarts Point State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve 17 MPA Name Proposed Allowed Take SAT level of protection Salt Point State Marine Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Moderate- Conservation Areae EXCEPT: the recreational take of finfish3 and low abalone Gerstle Cove State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve "Russian River Estuary Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Option 1: State Marine Reserve ^Russian River Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Estuary Option 2: State except recreational hunting of waterfowl is allowed Very High Marine Recreational unless otherwise restricted by hunting regulations Management Area (sections 502, 550, 551, and 552) Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Russian River State EXCEPT: Marine Conservation 1• The recreational take of Dungeness crab by trap, Very High Area and surf smelt by hand-held dip net or beach net from shore only 2. The commercial take of Dungeness crab by trap Bodega Head State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve Bodega Head State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Marine Conservation EXCEPT: the recreational take of salmon by trolling High Area only and the commercial take of salmon with troll fishing gear only "Estero Americano Option 1: State Marine Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Reserve ^Estero Americano Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Option 2: State Marine EXCEPT: recreational hunting of waterfowl is Very High Recreational allowed unless otherwise restricted by hunting Management Area regulations (sections 502, 550, 551, and 552) "Estero de San Antonio Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Option 1: State Marine Reserve "Estero de San Antonio Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Option 2: State Marine except recreational hunting of waterfowl is allowed Very High Recreational unless otherwise restricted by hunting regulations Managment Area (sections 502, 550, 551, and 552) ATomales Bay State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Option 1: Marine Reserve "Tomales Bay State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Option 2: Marine except recreational hunting of waterfowl is allowed Very High Recreational unless otherwise restricted by hunting regulations Management Area (sections 502, 550, 551, and 552) Point Reyes State Take of all living marine•resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve 18 MPA Name Proposed Allowed Take SAT level of protection Point Reyes State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Marine Conservation EXCEPT: Area 1. The recreational take of salmon by trolling, and Mod-High Dungeness crab by.trap 2. The commercial take of.salmon with troll fishing gear, and Dungeness crab by trap Drakes Estero State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve Drakes Estero State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited, Marine Conservation EXCEPT: The commercial aquaculture of shellfish Low Area pursuant to a valid State Water Bottom lease and stocking permit Double Point State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Marine Conservation EXCEPT: the recreational take of salmon by trolling Mod-High Area and the commercial take of salmon with troll fishing gear Take of all living marine resources is prohibited EXCEPT: Duxbury State Marine 1• The recreational take of salmon by trolling, Moderate Conservation Area Dungeness crab by trap, and finfish by hook and line from shore only 2. The commercial take of salmon with troll fishing gear, Dungeness crab by trap, and halibut Take of all living marine resources is prohibited EXCEPT: Agate Beach intertidal 1. The recreational take of salmon by trolling, Moderate State Marine Dungeness crab by trap, and finfish by hook and Conservation Area line from shore only 2. The commercial take of salmon with troll fishing gear, Dungeness crab by trap, and halibut Take of all living marine resources is prohibited, EXCEPT: Devil's Slide State 1•The recreational take of salmon by trolling, Marine Conservation Dungeness crab by trap, and coastal pelagic Mod-High Area species by hook and line 2. The commercial take of salmon with troll fishing gear, Dungeness crab by trap, and coastal pelagic species by round haul net Fitzgerald State Marine Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Reserve San Gregorio State Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Marine Reserve North Farallon Islands Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High State Marine Reserve Southeast Farallon Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Very High Island State Marine Reserve 19 MPA Name Proposed Allowed Take SAT level of protection Southeast Farallon Take of all living marine resources is prohibited Island State Marine EXCEPT: the recreational take of salmon by trolling High Conservation Area and the commercial take of salmon with troll fishing gear Special Closures Arched Rock Special 300 ft closure; year round Closure Gull Rock Special 300 ft closure; year round Closure Point Reyes Headlands Special Closure 1000 ft closure; year round Double Point/Stormy Stack Rock Special 300 ft closure; year round Closure 1000 ft closure around North Farallon Island and 300 ft closure around the southern islets including North Farallon Islands the Isle of St. James; year round. Special Closure Boating restrictions and fishing activity modifications to reduce noise within 1 mile of all islands: 5 mph speed limit within 1000 feet of all islands; year round 300 ft closure at Southeast Farallon Island, except Fisherman's Bay and East Landing; year round except for a seasonal closure on the southeast side Southeast Farallon of Saddle (Seal) Rock, from Dec 1 to Sep 14. Island Special Closure Boating restrictions within one mile of all islands; five mph speed limit within 1000 feet of Southeast Farallon Island, fishing activity modifications to reduce noise; year round Egg (Devil's Slide) Rock 1000 ft closure from any shoreline of the three Special Closure rocks; year round ^Sub-option exists for designation as a state marine reserve, or a state marine recreational management area to allow recreational hunting of waterfowl to continue(sections 502, 550, 551, and 552). 'In order to analyze the differences between no-take reserves and limited take conservation areas and recommended parks, the SAT developed a ranking for level of protection described in the Master Plan based on impact of allowed uses on ecological and ecosystem structure. Levels of protection are modified for each study region for evaluation purposes; and are appended to the Master Plan upon adoption of MPA proposals (Attachment 10). 2 These areas, recommended by stakeholders to become state marine parks, will be designated as state marine conservation areas, and could subsequently be designated as state marine parks at the discretion of the State Park and Recreation Commission. 3 Finfish are defined in subsection 632(a)(2) as: any species of bony fish or cartilaginous fish (sharks, skates and rays). Finfish do not include amphibians, invertebrates, plants or algae.The definition of fnfish provided in Section 159 does not apply to this Section. Coastal Pelagic Species are defined in Section 1.39 as: northern anchovy(Engraulis mordax), Pacific sardine(Sardinops sagax), Pacific mackerel (Scomberjaponicus),jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), and market squid (Loligo opalescens). 20 NOTICE IS GIVEN that any person interested may present statements, orally or in writing, relevant to this action at a hearing to be held in the Resources Building Auditorium, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California, on Thursday, May 14, 2009, 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 this action at a hearing to be held in the Yolo Fliers Club Ballroom, 17980 County Road 94B, Woodland, California, on Wednesday, August 5, 2009, 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 July 31, 2009 at the address given below, or by fax at (916) 653-5040, or by e-mail to FGCCQfgc.ca_go . Written comments mailed, faxed or e-mailed to the Commission office, must be received before 5:00 p.m. on August 3, 2009. All comments must be received no later than August 5, 2009, at the hearing in Woodland, CA. 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, John Carlson, Jr., Executive Director, Fish and Game 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 John Carlson, Jr., or Sherrie Fonbuena at the preceding address or phone number. Ms. Marlia Voikovich, Regional Manager, Department of Fish and Game, phone (805) 568-1246, 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. Availabilily 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 staff. 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 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. Each alternative may have negative short-term impacts on commercial and recreational fishing businesses. The impacts presented here do not 21 represent a complete socioeconomic impact analysis, but rather what is generally referred to as a Step 1 analysis or"maximum potential loss." This analysis simply sums up the activity that currently takes place within a given alternative and translates these activities into corresponding economic values. Maximum potential loss does not take into account other management strategies/regulations and human behavioral changes, such as moving to other areas or changing fishing gear, that may mitigate, offset, or make matters better or worse. In addition, maximum potential loss does not consider possible future benefits. The estimates of maximum potential impact shown here rely on the survey work and subsequent geographic information system (GIS) data analysis conducted by Ecotrust and reported in various documents to the SAT, RSG, and BRTI=. Ecotrust interviewed fishermen to determine both location of fishing activities and the relative importance of each location. Ecotrust's importance indices were combined with cost share information from secondary sources to measure the maximum potential impacts of prospective closures on expected net economic values from commercial fishing. The-methodology used to determine maximum potential impacts for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 as well as for the Proposed Regulation (IPA) are described in Attachment 8. The estimates of the maximum potential annual losses for the four alternatives considered here (in real 2006 dollars) are approximately: $465,153 (Alternative 1); $396,583 (Alternative 2); $696,094 (Alternative 3) and $525,865 (Proposed Regulation) (Table 6). These are relative to average annual real 2000-2006 baseline gross revenues of approximately$15,889,359 and net economic values of about$8,336,602. They represent maximum potential percentage reductions in net pre-MPA economic values of: 5.6 percent (Alternative 1); 4.8 percent (Alternative 2); 8.3 percent (Alternative 3) and 6.3 percent (Proposed Regulation) (Table 7). It should be noted, however, that due to the methodology and need to maintain 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 and may underestimate the maximum potential impact to individuals. That said, Ecotrust, as part of their assessment, was asked to provide summary information on any disproportionate impacts on individuals and/or particular fisheries. This was based on lessons learned in the central coast study region, where significant disproportionate impacts were only discovered in the implementation phase, leaving limited options to lessen these impacts. Of note in the North Central Coast Study region proposed regulations are potential disproportionate impacts to fishing areas of stated importance for one fishery and three individual fishermen. In Bodega Bay, the proposed regulation may experience a disproportionate impact on that fishery's closest and most valuable fishing grounds. Proposal IPA has a projected annual net economic impact there of$64,000, or a 43 percent reduction in profits. By contrast, the overall estimated net economic impact for the entire study region was only 6.3 percent. However, it should be noted that sea urchin landings in Bodega Bay have dropped dramatically due to market conditions, though they appear to be improving. Average landings over the last 5 years (2004-2008) have dropped to just 2.7 percent of the average landings from the 5 preceding years. Projected impacts from the Ecotrust evaluation assume a fully recovered market and landings at past levels. 22 Regarding potential individual impacts, Ecotrust evaluation results also show that there are three commercial fishermen who may be substantially and disproportionately impacted. One fisherman may be disproportionately impacted by all four proposals being considered. One hundred percent of the fisherman's income comes from fishing and the estimated annual impact is: • Proposal IPA: between 20-40% loss of ex-vessel revenue and > $20K loss • Alternative 1: between 20-40% loss of ex-vessel revenue and $15K-$20K loss •Alternative 2: between 20-40% loss of ex-vessel revenue and $15K-$20K loss • Alternative 3: between 40-60% loss of ex-vessel revenue and > $20K loss Additionally, two other individuals are estimated to be potentially disproportionately impacted by two proposals each. Individual 1 (100% of income from fishing): • Proposal 4: between 20-40% loss of ex-vessel revenue and > $20K loss • Proposal IPA: between 20-40% loss of ex-vessel revenue and > $20K loss Individual 2 (75% of income from fishing): • Proposal 4: between 20-40% loss of ex-vessel revenue and $15-201C loss • Proposal IPA: between 20-40% loss of ex-vessel revenue and $15-20K loss For the commercial deeper nearshore and nearshore rockfish fisheries, Ecotrust also evaluated the additional impacts that potentially occur when considering the existing fishery management area closures'and/or fishery exclusion zones, specifically the 2007 and 2008 Non-Trawl Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA) persistent.closure (30 fm - 150 fm) and the closure between the shoreline and 10 fm around the Farallon Islands (Southeast Farallon Island, Middle Farallon Island, North Farallon Island, and Noon Day Rock). Ecotrust also considered the proposed 2009 Non-Trawl RCA persistent closure (20 fm - 150 fm). Of particular note is the estimated impact on Bolinas deeper nearshore rockfish fishing grounds. Based on the 2008 RCA, 72.3 percent of the existing value (fishing grounds) was not available to the Bolinas rockfish fishermen and 81.8 percent is not available in 2009. Due to RCAs, just 20 percent of the original fishery value is available. Of the remaining 18.2 percent of their original deeper nearshore rockfish fishing grounds area, Proposal IPA will have an estimated 24 percent impact. Table 6. Estimated annual maximum potential net economic value losses' relative to base scenario. NCCRSG pro osal names are reflected in parenthesis Proposed Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Regulation Fishery (1-3)2 2-XA 2 (4)2 IPA California Halibut $4,7441 $5,750 $13,224 $5,749 23 Proposed Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Regulation Fishery (1-3)2 2-XA 2 (4)2 IPA Coastal Pela ics $64 $40 $63 $59 Squid $865 $736 $22,876 $653 Deep Nearshore Rockfish $15,638 $11,292 $18,796 $12,200 Nearshore Rockfish $21,510 $11,285 $26,703 $22,514 Urchin $68,950 $62,109 $136,040 $118,307 Dungeness Crab $218,139 $193,574 $331,896 $232,494 Salmon $135,242 $111,798 $146,497 $133,888 Total $466,153 $396,583 $696,094 $526,866 Losses are calculated in 2006 dollars. 2 NCCRSG proposal names are reflected in parentheses. Table 7. Estimated annual maximum potential net value losses in percentage terms. Proposed Alternative 1 . Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Regulation Fishery (1-3)2 2-XA 2 (4)2 IPA California Halibut 3.1% 3.8% 8.7% 3.8% Coastal Pela ics 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% Squid 0.7% 0.6% 18.8% 0.5% Deep Nearshore Rockfish 29.5% 21.3% 35.5% 23.0% Nearshore Rockfish 28.7% 15.1% 35.6% 30.1% Urchin 13.2% 11.9% 26.0% 22.6% Dungeness Crab 5.0% 4.5% 7.7% 5.4% Salmon 4.4% 3.6% 4.8% 1 4.4% Total 5.6% 4.8% 1 8.3% 1 6.3% It should also be noted, that, on average, the estimated percentage impact is greatest in Point Arena, the northernmost port and decreases as one moves north to south through the study region (see Figure 1). 24 . i fl. 15% E E d 10% E E i to 5% 0% Point Arena Bodega Bolinas San Half Moon Bay Fransisco Bay ■Proposal 1-3 p Proposal 2-XA M Proposal 4 0 Proposal IPA Ecotrust also analyzed the maximum potential loss to recreational fishing area in terms of percentage of the fishing grounds within the study region, and percentage of stated importance values of the fishing grounds within the study region. Estimates represent areas of stated importance and not level of effort. Similar to the commercial estimates of maximum potential loss, these estimates assume all fishing activity that previously occurred in a closed area is "lost" and not replaced by movement to another location. Little or no data was collected from recreational fishermen north of Bodega Bay. Subregions surveyed include Region 1 (Ocean Beach in San Francisco County), Region 2 (San Francisco Bay access points to Point Reyes), and Region 3 (Point Reyes north to Alter Creek). Among the three sub-regions surveyed for recreational fishing grounds within the study region, none of the alternatives had greater than a 32.5 percent impact for rockfish, 17.9 percent impact for salmon, 21.5 percent impact for Dungeness crab, or greater than a 22.6 percent impact for California halibut for the fishing modes surveyed (CPFV, private vessels, kayak anglers and pier/shore). None of the estimated impacts to areas of value to recreational fisheries grounds within the study region exceeded 35 percent among all modes and sub-regions surveyed. While not economic losses, if realized, the loss in recreational fishing activity could lead to decreases in revenues to recreational fishing dependent businesses. In the long term, the potential negative impacts are expected to be balanced by the 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 which prohibit bottom fishing for finfish, as well as through transport to distant sites. (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: Each alternative has potential impacts on the creation and elimination of jobs related to commercial and recreational fishing and non-consumptive activities. Estimates of the numbers of jobs eliminated as a direct result of the proposed action are difficult to 25 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 industries would be expected to increase over time by some unknown factor based on expected improvements in site quality and increased visitation to certain locations. (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 Costs/Savings 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. Funding for the Department of Fish and Game (Department) has already been impacted due to a state budget crisis and prospects for additional impacts are unknown. However, partnerships with state and federal agencies, academic institutions and non-profit organizations are likely to continue to play an important role in assisting with MLPA implementation in coming years. Current cooperative efforts with the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary have provided funding for some existing State costs, and contributions are expected to increase with the adoption of this regulation. In addition to agency partnerships, during planning and implementation of the first MLPA study region (i.e., central coast study region), substantial funding (in the millions) was contributed by private fund sources including MLPA Initiative partners, and through bond money distributed through the Ocean Protection Council (OPC). These contributions supported costs for baseline science and socioeconomic 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 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. While the actual costs to the Department to implement the proposed regulations in the north central coast are unknown, experience in implementing MPAs in the northern Channel Islands and the MLPA central coast region can inform prospective near-term expenditures using existing Department funds, and contributions from partners: • For the Northern Channel Islands, which was the first portion of the MLPA South Coast Study Region to adopt MPAs, the Department spent approximately$3.6 million on post-design one-time costs, and an additional $0.9 million per year since 2004 for implementation, management, and enforcement of the central coast MPAs. Partners contributed approximately$2.2 million in one-time costs, and $2.7 annually since the design phase was completed. • In the MLPA central coast study region, the Department spent approximately$4.5 million on post-design one-time costs, and an additional $0.4 million per year since 2007 for implementation, management, and enforcement of the central coast MPAs. Partners have contributed approximately$2.4 million since the design phase was completed. 26. The Department costs reference above utilized available funds to the Department at that time. Certainly, changes requiring additional enforcement, monitoring or management will increase the recurring costs to the Department as compared to the current efforts, and total state costs would increase as new study regions are designated and become operational. For the north central coast, the near-term cost to implement the proposed MPRs will include both one-time startup and baseline data collection costs, and recurring annual costs. A baseline data collection program methodology is currently being developed through the MPA Monitoring Enterprise. The costs associated with baseline data collection and future monitoring will be determined through that process and therefore cannot be estimated at this time. In light of uncertainty regarding the cost for monitoring, and the level of future funding from external partners, the estimated new funding requirements by the state for MLPA in the north central coast are unknown at this time. (e) Nondiscretionary 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 17.500) 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 91342.550 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 for which the action is proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action. FISH AND GAME COMMISSION John Carlson, Jr. Dated: April 21, 2009 Executive Director 27