Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFish-game 1-6-12COMMISS10Pf)CRS dirn Kellogg, President Discovery Bay Richard Rogers, Vice President Santa Barbara I4liclrael Sutton, Member Monterey Daniel W. Richards, Member Upland Jatk Baylis, Member Los Angeles January 6, 2012 EDM[Jl~ID G. BROWN, JR. '''. ~`s7o, Governor STATE OP CALIFORNLA Fish and Game Commission 5onlte IVlastrup EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR I4! 6 Ninth Street .box 944209 Sacrarnerr~o, Ci! 94244-2090 (9I6J 653-4899 (9I6J 653-5040 Fax fgcQfgc.ca.gov ~cARD aF SifP~}VlSO~S o~ovtl_~.~, ~ CAL[Fp{~N~ This is to provide you with a copy of the notice of proposed regulatory action rela#ive to Sections 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, and subsections 365(b) and 708.9.2(4), Title 14, California Code of Regulations, relating to Mamma! Hunting Regulations, which are published in the California Regulatory Notice Register on December 30, 2011. Please note the dates of the public hearings related to this matter and associated deadlines for receipt of written comments. Additional information and all associated documents may be found on the Fish and Game Commission website at www.fgc.ca.gay. Mr. Dan Yparraguirre, Wildlife Program Manager, Department of Fish and Game, phone {91fi} 928-6881, has been designated to respond to questions on the substance of the proposed regulations. „ram Analyst Attachment { { TITLE 14. Fish and Game Commission Notice of Proposed Changes in Regulations NOTICE !S HEREBY GIVEN that the Fish and Game Commission {Commission}, pursuan# to the authority vested by sections 200, 202, 203, 220, 33Z, 460, 1050, 1575, 3452, 3453, 4334, 4370, 4902 and 10502 of the Eish and Game Code and to implement, interpret or make specific sections 200, 202, 203, 203.1, 207, 332, 458, 459, 460, 713, 1050, 1575, 3452, 3453, 3950, 3951, 4334, 4370, 4902, 10500-and 10502 of said Code, proposes to amend Sections 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, and subsections 3fi5(b} and 708.12{d); Title 14, California Code of Regulations, relating to Mammal Hunting 2012-2013. ,; ;;;,.; ;~".; =t r ' ' ~ ~" `~ Informative DicestlPo[icy Statement Overview 360 a Exis#ing reg.ulatioris provide for the number of license tags available for the A, B, C, and D Zones. This reg~ilatory proposal changes the number of tags for al! existing zones to a series of ranges presented in the following table. These ranges are necessary, as the final number of tags cannot be determined un#il spring herd data are collected in MarchlApril. Because severe winter conditions can have an adverse effect on herd recruitment and over-winter adult survival, final tag quotas may fail below the proposed range into the "Low Kill" alternative identified in the 20071=nvironmental Document Regarding Deer Hunting. Deer: § 360(a} A, B, C, and D Zone Hunts Ta Allocations Zone Current Pro osed A 65,000 30,ao0-65,000 B 35,000 35,000-fi5,000 C 8,150 5,000-15,000 D3-5 ~ 33,000 30,000-40,000 D-6 10,000 6,000-18,000 D-7 9,000 4,000-10,000 D-a s,ooo 5,ooa-1o,oaa D-9 2,aoo 1,o0a-2,5oa D-10. 700 400-800 D-11 5,500 2,500-fi,000 D-12 950 100-1,500 D-13 4,000 2,000-5,000 D-14 3,000 2,000-3,500 D-15 1,500 500-2,000 D-16 3,000 1,000-3,500 D-17 500 100-800 D-19 1,500 500-2,000 360 b Existing regulations provide for the number of hunting tags for the X zones. The proposal changes the number of #ags for all existing zones to a series of ranges presented in the following table. These ranges are necessary, as the final number of tags cannot be determined until spring herd data are collected in MarchlApril. Because severe winter conditions can have an adverse effect on herd recruitment and over- winter adult survival, final #ag quotas may fall below the proposed range into the "Low Kill" alternative identified in the 2007 Environmental Document Regarding Deer Hunting.. Deer: § 36Q(b} X»Zone Hunts Ta Allocations Zone Current Pro osed X-1 1,275 1,000-6,000 X-2 180 50-500 X-3a 280 100-1,200 X-3b 935 200-3,000 X-4 355 100-1,200 X-5a 60 25-200 X-5b 140 50-500 X-6a 325 100-1,200 X-6b 315 100-1,200 X-7a 230 50-500 X-7b 140 25-200 X-8 24D 100-750 X-9a 650 100-1,200 X-9b ~ 325 100-600 X-9c 325 100-600 X-10 400 100-600 X-12 860 100-1,200 3sa G Existing reguia#ions provide for the number of hunting tags in the Additional Hunts. The proposal changes the number of tags for all exis#ing hunts to a series of ranges as indicated in the table below. The proposal provides a range of tag numbers for each hunt from which a final number will be determined, based on the past-winter status of each deer herd. These ranges are necessary, as the final number of tags cannot be determined until spring herd data are collected in MarchlApril. Due to this, the final recommended quotas may fall below the current proposed rarige into the "Low Ki[I" alternative identified in the 2007 Environmental Document Regarding Deer Hunting. Existing regulations for Additional Hunts G-8 (Fort Hunter Liggett Antlerless Deer Hunt) and .i-10 (Fort Hunter Liggett Apprentice Either-Sex Deer Hunt) provide for hunting to begin on October 1 and continue for two {2} consecutive days and reopen on October 8 and continue for three {3} consecutive days in order to accommodate for Base operations and other hunt opportunities. The proposal would modify the season to account for the annual calendar shif# by changing the season opening dates to October 6 and October 13, respectively, in order to accommodate for Base operations. Deer: § 3s0(c} Addi#ional Hunts Ta Allocations Hunt Number and Title Current Pro osed G-1 Late Season Buck Hunt for Zone C-4 2,710 500-5,000 G-3 Goodale Buck Hun# 35 5-50 G-6 Kern River Deer Herd Buck Hunt 50 25-100 G-7 Beale Either-Sex Deer Hunt 20 Milita * 20 Milita G-8 (Fort Hunter Liggett Antlerless Deer Hunt} 10 MiG#ary* & 10 Public 10 Military * and 10 Public G-9 {Camp Roberts Antlerless Deer Hunt) 15 Military* & 15 Public 0 Deer: § 360(c} Additional Hunts Ta Aliocatians Hunt Number and Title Current Proposed G-10 Cam Pendleton Either-Sex Deer Hunt 400 Miiita 400 Milita G-11 {Vandenberg Either-Sex Deer Hunt} 500 Military & ©OD** 500 Military *, DOD and as Authorized by the Installation Commander ** G-12 lira Lod a Shot un Either-Sex Deer Hunt 30 10-50 G-13 San Die o Antierless Deer Hunt 300 5fl-300 G-19 {Sutter-Yuba Wildlife Areas Either-Sex Deer Hunt 25 10-50 G-21 Ventana Wilderness Buck Hunt 25 25-100 G-37 Anderson Flat Buck Hunt 25 25-50 G-3$ X-10 Late Season Buck Hunt 300 50-300 G-39 Round Valle Late SeasarE Buck Hunt 5 5-150 M-3 Do le Muzzleloadin Rifle Buck Hunt 2U 10-75 M-4 Horse take Muzzleloadin Rifle Buck Hunt 5 5-50 M-5 East Lassen Muzzleloadin Rifle Buck Hun# 5 5-50 M-6 {San Diego Muzzleloading Rifle Either-Sex Deer Hunt 80 25-100 M-7 {Ventura Muzzieloading Rifle Either-Sex Deer Hunt 150 50-150 M-8 Bass HIII Muzzleloadin Rifle Buck Wunt 20 5-50 M-9 Devil's Garden Muzzleloadin Rifle Buck Hunt 10 5-100 M-11 (Northwestern California Muzzleloading Rifle Buck Hunt 20 . 20-200 MA-1 (San Luis Obispo Muzzleloading RiflelArchery Either-Sex peer Hunt 150 20-150 MA-3 (Santa Barbara Muzzleloading RiflelArchery Buck Hunt 150 20-150' J-1 Lake Sonoma A rentice Either-Sex Deer Hunt 25 10-25 J-3 Tehama Wildlife Area A rentice Buck Hunt 15 15-3fl J-4 Shasta Trini A rentice Buck Hunt 15 15-5fl J-7 Carson River A rentice Either-Sex Deer Hunt 15 10-5fl J-8 (Daugherty Hiif Wildlife Area Apprentice Either-sex Deer Hunt 15 10-20 J-9 {Little Dry Creek Appren#ice Shotgun Either-Sex Deer Hunt 5 5_10 J-10 (Fort Hunter Liggett Apprentice Either-Sex Deer Hunt 10 IVlilitary* & 75 Public 10 Military * and 75 public J-11 (San Bernardino Apprentice Either-Sex Deer Hunt 40 10-50 J-12 Round Valle A rentice Buck Hunt 9 U 10-20 J-13 Los An ales A rentice Either-Sex Deer Hunt 40 25-100 J-14 Riverside A rentice Either-Sex Deer Hunt 30 15-75 Deer: § 360(c} Additional Hunts Ta Allocations Hunt Number and Title Current Pro osed J-15 Anderson Flat A rentice Buck Hunt 10 5-30 J-1fi (Bucks Mountain-Nevada City Apprentice Either- Sex Deer Hunt 75 10-75 J-17 Blue Can on A rentice Either-Sex Deer Hunt 25 5-25 J-18 (Pacific-Grizzly Flat Apprentice Ei#her-Sex Deer Hunt 75 10-75 J-19 Zone X-7a A rentice Either-Sex Deer Hunt 25 10-40 J-20 Zone X-7b A rentice Ei#her-Sex Deer Hunt 24 5-20 J-21 Eas# Tehama A rentice Either-Sex Deer Hunt 50 20-80 * Specific numbers of fags are provided for military hunts Through a sysfem which restricts hunter access to desired levels and ensures biologically conservative hunfing programs. ** DOD = Departmenf of Defense and eligible personnel as authorized by The lnsfallatian Commander. 360 d Existing regulations provide for the sale of up to ten {10) fund-raising license deer tags annually. The proposed changes are to reflect the repeal of Section 708 and its replacement by Sections 708.1 -- 708.17, and the statutory modification of subsection 4332(e) to Section 3953, Fish and Game Code. Additionally, a change to reflect new contact information with the Departments Law Enforcement Division is proposed. 361 Existing regulations provide for the number of hunting tags for existing area-specific archery hunts. The proposal changes the number of tags for exis#ing hunts to a series of ranges presented in the table below. These ranges are necessary, as the final number of tags cannot be de#ermined untiE spring herd data are collected in MarchlApril. Because severe winter conditions can have an adverse effect on herd recruitment and over-winter adult survival, final tag quotas may fall below the proposed range into the "Low Kill" alternative identified in the 2007 Environmental Document Regarding Deer Hunting.. Archery Deer Hunting: § 361 Ta Allocations Hunt Number and Title Current Pra osed A-1 C Zones Arche Onl Hunt 1,945 150-3,000 A-3 Zone X-1 Arche Hunt 130 50-1,000 A-4 Zone X-2 Arche Hunt 20 5100 A-5 Zone X-3a Arche Hunt 35 10-300 A-fi Zone X-3b Arche Hunt 90 25-400 A-7 Zone X-4 Arche Hunt 135 25-400 A-8 Zone X-5a Arche Hunt 15 15-100 A-9~ Zone X-5b Arche Hunt 5 5-100 A-11 Zone X-fia Arche Hunt 55 10-200 A-12 Zone X=6b Arche Hunt 110 10-300 A-13 Zone X-7a Arche Hunt 50 10-200 A-14 Zone X-7b Arche Hunt 25 5-100 A-15 Zane X-8 Arche Hunt 50 5-100 Archery Deer Hunting.: § 361 Ta Allocations Hunt Numlver and Title Current Pro osed A-16 Zone X-9a Arche Hunt 140 50-500 A-17 Zone X-9b Arche Hunt 300 50-500 A-18 Zone X-9c Arche Hunt 350 50-500 A-19 Zone X-10 Arche Hun# 120 25-200 A-20 Zone X-12 Arche Hunt 190 50-500 A-21 Anderson Flat Arche Buck Hunt 25 25-100 A-22 San Die o Arche Either-Sex Deer Hunt 1,000 200-1,500 A-24 Montere Arche Either-Sex Deer Hunt 100 25-200 A-25 Lake Sonoma Arche Ei#her-Sex Deer Hunt 35 20-75 A-26 Bass Hill Arche Buck Hunt 30 10-100 A-27 Devil's Garden Arche Buck Hunt 5 5-75 A-30 Covelo Arche Buck Hunt 40 20-100 A-31 Los An eles Arche Ei#her-Sex Deer Hunt 1,000 200-1,500 A-32 (VenturalLos Angeles Archery Late Season Either- Sex Deer Hunt 250 50-300 A-33 {Fort Hunter Liggett Late Season Archery Either-Sex Deer Hun# 25 Military* & 25 Public 25 Military* & 25 Public Specific numbers of tags are provided for military hunts through a system which restricts hunter access to desired Levels and ensures biologically conservative hunting programs. 362 The existing regulation provides far limited hunting of 27 Nelson bighorn rams in specified areas of the Sta#e. The proposed change is intended to remove the `for 2011' column heading to continue the use of existing tag allocations. There is no recommendation to change existing tag allocations. The number of tags allocated far each of the nine hunt zones is based on the resul#s of the Department's estimate of the bighorn sheep population in each zone. Nelson Bigi~orn Sheep Hunt Zone Tag Allocation Zone 1 -Marble Mountains 4 Zone 2 -Kelso PeaklOld Dad Moun#ains '~ Zone 3 - ClarklKin ston Mountain Ran es 2 Zone 4 - Oraco is Mountains 1 Zone 5 -San Gor onio Wilderness 2 Zone 6 -Sheep Hv1e Moun#ains 2 Zone 7 -White Mountains 4 Zone $ -South Bristol Mountains 2 Zone 9 -- Cad Mountains 3 O en Zone Fund-Raisin Ta 1 MarbfelClipper/South Bris#ol Moun#ains Fund-Raising Tag 1 Kelso PeaklOld Dad Mountains Fund-Raising Tag 1 TOTAL 27 This proposal simply removes the year reference (2011 }from the table header in subsection (d). 363 Existing regulations provide far the number of pronghorn antelope hunting tags for each hunt zone. This proposed regulatory action would provide for tag allocation ranges for most hunt zones pending final tag quota determinations based on winter survey results that should be completed by March of 2012. The final tag quotas will provide for adequa#e hun#ing opportunities while allowing for a biologically appropriate harvest of bucks and does in specific populations. The proposed 2012 tag allocation ranges for the hun# zones are as set forth below. 2012 Pronghorn Antelope. Ta Allocation. Ran `es . ~~, Hun# Area Archery-Only Season General Season Period 1 Period 2 Buck Doe Buck Dae Buck Doe Zone 1 -- Moun# Dome 0-10 0-3 0-60 0-20 0 0 Zone 2- Cfear Lake ~ 0-10 0-3 0-80 0-25 0 0 Zone 3- Likel Tables 0-20 0-7 0-150 0-50 0-130 0-50 Zone 4-Lassen 0-20 0-7 0-150 0-50 0-150 0-50 Zone 5- Bi Valle 0-15 0-5 0-150 0-50 0 0 Zone 6 -Sur rise Valle 0-10 0 0-25 0-7 0 0 Bi Valle A rentice Hunt NIA 0-15 Either-Sex 0 Lassen A rentice Hunt NIA 0-15 Either-Sex 0 Surprise Valley Apprentice Hunt NIA 0-4 Either-Sex 0 Likes Tables A rentice Hunt NIA 0-5 Either-Sex 0 Fund-Raisin Hunt NIA 0-10 Buck 364 Existing regulations specify elk license tag quotas for each hunt. !n order to maintain hun#ing quality in accordance with management goals and objectives, it is periodically necessary to adjust quotas in response to dynamic environmental and biological conditions. This proposed amendment modifies e!k tag numbers to ranges of tags to adjust for fluctuations in population numbers. Periodic quota changes are necessary to maintain hunting quality in accordance with management goals and objectives. 2012 Pro ased Elk Ta Allocation Hunt Name.and T e Bul! Antlerless Either-Sex S ike A rentice Hunts Marbie Mountains 0-4 Northeastern CA _ 0-4 Cache Creek 0-2 La Panza Period 1 0-2 0-2 Bisho Period 2 0-10 0-30 Grizzl Island Period 1 0-2 0-2 Grizzl Island Period 2 0-2 Fort Hunter Li ett P1 0-4 Fort Hunter Li ett P2 0-4 Fort Hunter Li ett P3 0-2 Arche Onl Hunts Northeastern California Arche Onl 0-20 Owens Valle Multi le Zone Arche Onl 0-10 0-10 Lone Pine Arche Onl Period 1 0-10 0-30 Tinemaha Arche Onl Period 1 0-10 0-30 Whitne Arche Onl Period 1 0-10 0-30 Fort Hunter Li ett Arche Onl 0-1fl 0-6 Muzzleloader Onl Hunts Bisho Muzzleloader Onl Period 1 0-10 0-30 Inde endence Muzzleloader Onl Period 1 0-10 0-10 Fart Hunter Li ei# Muzzleloader Onl 0-6 MozzleloaderlArche Onl Hunts Marble Mountains MuzzieloaderlArche Onl 0-10 General Roosevelt Eik Hunts Siski ou 0-30 0-30 Bi La oon 0-10 0-10 Northwestern California 0-30 Klama#h 0-20 0-20 Del Narte 0-15 0-20 Marble Mountains 0-70 0-30 General Rac Mountain Elk Hunts Northeastern California 0-30 0-10 General RooseveitlTule Elk Hunts Mendocino 0-4 0-4 General Tule Elk Hunts Cache Creek 0-4 0-4 La Panza Period 1 0-12 0-10 La Panza Period 2 0-12 0-12 Bisho Period 3 0-10 0-30 Bisho Period 4 0-10 0-30 2012 Pro osed Elk Ta Allocation Hun# Name and T e Bull Antierless Either-Sex S ike Bisho Period 5 0-10 0-30 lnde endence Period 2 0-10 0-30 Inde endence Period 3 0-10 0-30 Inde endence Period 4 0-10 0-30 fnde endence Period 5 0-10 0-30 Lone Pine Period 2 0-10 0-30 Lone Pine Period 3 0-10 0-30 Lone Pine Period 4 0-10 0-30 Lone Pine Period 5 0-10 0-30 Tinemaha Period 2 0-10 0-3fl Tinemaha Period 3 0-10 0-30 Tinemaha Period 4 0-10 0-30 Tinemaha Period 5 0-10 0-30 West Tinemaha Period 1 0-10 0-30 West Tinemaha Period 2 0-10 0-30 West Tinemaha Period 3 0-10 0-30 West Tinemaha Period 4 0-10 0-30 West Tinemaha Period 5 0-10 0-30 Tinemaha Mountain Period 1 0-8 Tinemaha Mountain Period 2 0-8 Tinemaha Mountain Period 3 0-8 Tinemaha Mountain Period 4 0-8 Tinemaha Mountain Period 5 0-8 Whitne Period 2 0-4 0-'10 Whitne Period 3 0-4 0-10 Whitne Period 4 0-4 0-10 Whitne Period 5 0-4 0-10 Grizzl Island Period 1 0-3 0-12 0-S Grizzl Island Period 2 0-3 0-12 0-6 Grizzl Island Period 3 0-3 0-12 0-fi Grizzl Island Period 4 0-2 0-12 0-6 Grizzl Island Period 5 0-2 0-12 0-fi Fort Hunter Li eft Period 1 0-16 Fort Hunter Li ett Period 2 0-14 Fort Hunter Li ett Period 3 0-14 East Park Reservoir 0-4 0-8 San Luis Reservoir . 0-10 0-10 0-10 Bear Valle 0-4 0-2 Lake Pillsbu 0-4 0-4 Santa Clara 0-4 Alameda 0-4 Fund Raisin Ta s Mul#i-zone 1 Grizzl Island 1 Owens Valle 1 Mill#a Onl Elic Ta s Fort Hunter Li ett Milita Ear{ Season 0-2 0-2 Fort Hunter Li eft Milita Period 1 0-1 fi Fort Hunter Li ett Milita Period 2 0-14 Fort Hunter Li ett Milita Period 3 0-14 Fort Hunter Li ett Milita A rentice Period 1 0-4 Fort Hunter Li ett Milita A rentice Period 2 0-4 Fort Hunter Li ett Mili#a A rentice Period 3 0-2 Fort Hunter Li ett Mili#a Arche Onl 0-10 0-fi Fort Hunter Li ett Milita Muzzleloader Onl 0-6 The proposed amendment organizes and re-writes the verbatim in consistent order by subspecies and hunt type. 365(b) and 7Q8.12Ld) Existing subsection 3fi5(b), Title 14, California Code of Regulations references a regulatory subsection that was recently renumbered. Existing regulation in 3fi5(b} requires the Department to close the bear hunting season when the department determines that 1,700 bears have been taken pursuant to the reporting requirement in subsection 708{e}. Subsection 708{e} was recently repealed by regulatory action and replaced with subsection 708.12{e). The proposed change will reference the new section to ensure that the bear season is properly closed. Existing subsection 708.12(4), Title 14, California Cade of Regulations requires that ONLY Department employees are authorized to validate bear tags and requires the tag be countersigned before transporting such bear excep# for the purpose of taking it to the nearest person authorized to countersign the license tag on the route being followed from the point where taken. The proposed clarifrcation will allow a person to legally transport a bear with an unvalidated bear license tag when Department offices are closed. NOTICE IS GIVEN that any person in#erested may present statements, orally ar in wri#ing, relevant to this actian at a hearing to be held at the Mission Inn, 3649 Mission Inn Ave, Riverside, California, on Wednesday, March 7, 2012, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon #hereafter 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 in the Redwood Ballroom, Red Lion Hotel, 1929 4~' Street, Eureka, California, on Wednesday, April 11, 2012, at $:30 a.m., ar as soon thereafter as the mafter may be heard. It is requested, but not required, that writ#en comments be submitted on or before April 19, 2012 at the address given below, or by fax at (916) 653-5040, or bye-mail to FGC{a~fgc.ca.aov. Written comments mailed, faxed or e-mailed to the Commission office, must be received before 5:00 p.m. on April 10, 2012. All comments mus# be received na later than April 11, 2012, at the hearing in Eureka, 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 considers#ions and all information upon which the proposal is based {rulemaking file), are an file and available far public review from the agency representative, Sonke Mastrup, Executive Director, f=ish and Game Commission, 1416 Ninth Street, Bax 944209, Sacramento, California 94244-2090, phone (916) 653-4899. Please direct reques#s for the above mentioned documents and inquiries concerning the regulatory process to Sonke Mastrup or Jon Snellstrom at the preceding address or phone number. Brad Burkholder, Department of f=ish and Game, (916) 445-1829, 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 ac#ion shall be pasted an the Fish and Game Commission website at httpalwww.fgc.ca.gov. Availability of Modified Text If the regulations adopted by the Commission differ from but are sufficiently related to the actian proposed, they will be available to the public for at least 15 days prior to the date of adoption. Circumstances beyond the control of the Commission (e.g., timing of Federal regulation adoption, timing of resource data collection, Timelines do not allow, etc.) or changes made to be responsive to public recommendation and comments during the regulatory process may preclude full compliance with the 15-day comment period, and the Commission will exercise its powers under Sec#ion 202 of the Fish and Game Code. Regulations adopted pursuant #o this section are not subject to the time periods for adoption, amendrrrent or repeal of regulations prescribed in Sections 11343.4, 11346.4 and 11346.8 of the Government Code. Any person interested may obtain a copy of said regulations prior to the date of adoption by contacting the agency representative named herein. If the regulatory proposal is adopted, the final statement of reasons may be obtained from the address above when it Eras been received from the agency program staff. Impact of Regulatory Action The potential for significant statewide adverse economic impac#s #hat 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} Significan# Statewide Adverse Economic Impact Direcfly Affecting Businesses, Including the Ability of California Businessmen to Compete with Businesses in Other Sta#es. 360(a) -The proposed action 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 action adjusts tag quotas for existing hunts. Given the number of tags available and the area over which #hey are distributed, these proposals are economically neutral #o business. 360{b) -The proposed action 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 action adjusts tag quotas for existing hunts. Given the number of tags available and the area over which they are distributed, these proposals are economically neutral to business. 360{c} -The proposed actian will not have a significant s#atewide adverse economic impact directly 9 affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. The proposed action would adjust tag quotas for existing hunts and modify season dates for two hunts. Given the number of tags available and the area over which they are distributed, these proposals are economically neutral to business. 360(d) -The proposed action 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 action reflects editorial changes to eliminate inconsistencies between regulation and Fish and Game Cade. Given the number of tags available and the area over which they are distributed, these proposals are economically neutral to business. 361 -The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the abi[ity of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. The proposed action adjusts tag quotas for existing hunts. Given the number of tags available and the area over which they are distributed, these proposals are economically neutral to business. 362 -The proposed action 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 changes allow for the continued hunting of nelson bighorn sheep, there are no changes in the number of #ags issued from previous years; so this proposal is economically neutral. 363 -The proposed action 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. Considering the small number of tags issued over the entire state, this proposal is economically neutral to business. 3S4 -The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compe#e with businesses in other states. Considering the small number of tags issued over the entire state, this proposal is economically neutral to business. 365(b) and 708.12(d) -The proposed action will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact direct[y affecting business, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other skates. This regulation change is ministerial and is simply required to reflect recent changes to referenced subsections. {b} Impact on the Crea#ion 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. None: (c} Cost impacts on Private Persons. The agency is not aware of any cost impac#s that a representative private person would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. (d) Costs or Savings to State Agencies or Costs/Savings in Federal Funding to the State. None. (e} O#her Nondiscretionary CostslSavings 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 'ts Required #o be Reimbursed under Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4. None. ~o (h) Effect on Mousing Costs. None. Effect an 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 #o Government Code sections 11342.580 and 17 346.2(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 ac#ion is proposed or would be as effective as and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed action. FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Sanke Mastrup Dated: December 30, 2011 Executive Director IL