BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1321
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 28, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 1321 (Eng) - As Amended: May 6, 2009
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:6-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes the Natural Resources Agency (NRA) to
develop a program to mitigate the effect of infrastructure
projects regionally or statewide and in advance of those
projects. Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines "infrastructure planning agency" to mean the
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Department of
Water Resources (DWR), a metropolitan planning organization, a
regional transportation planning agency, or other public
agency that implements infrastructure projects.
2)Authorizes NRA to (a) implement regional advance mitigation
plans (RAMPs) for planned infrastructure projects that
identify and implement mitigation measures before the relevant
projects are approved, (b) acquire, restore, manage, monitor,
and preserve lands, or fund those activities in accordance
with a RAMP, and (c), establish or fund the creation of
mitigation banks.
3)Use, or allow infrastructure planning agencies to use,
mitigation credits to fulfill the mitigation requirements of
planned infrastructure projects.
4)Creates an Advance Infrastructure Mitigation Fund (AIMF) for
receipt of reimbursement payments provided by infrastructure
planning agencies pursuant to this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time costs, ranging from $500,000 to $875,000 in 2009-10
AB 1321
Page 2
and 2010-11, to Department of Fish and Game (DFG), on behalf
of NRA, to implement the bill. Those costs include five new
Staff Environmental Scientists-four based regionally and one
in headquarters to determine the scope of workload and
identify areas of the state where RAMPs may occur. (Advance
Infrastructure Mitigation Fund (AIMF), created by this bill.)
2)Ongoing annual costs of as much as $875,000 to DFG, to the
extent RAMPs are developed and implemented. (AIMF)
3)Minor, absorbable costs to NRA.
AB 1321
Page 3
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends federal and state agencies,
working together before infrastructure projects reach
approval, can better identify regional mitigation
opportunities that will satisfy anticipated mitigation
requirements. The result, the author argues, will be avoided
project delay and increased cost effectiveness resulting from
early action and economies of scale.
2)Background .
a) Regional Advanced Mitigation . According to proponents
of regional advanced mitigation, RAMPs allow planning
agencies to estimate and combine impacts from multiple
projects in a similar region or watershed prior to
implementation, aggregate those impacts, and then mitigate
by restoring or acquiring larger or more cohesive habitat.
i) Ramping Up for RAMPs in California. Since 2008, a
working group of state and federal agencies, including
Caltrans, DWR, DFG, Parks and Recreation, U.S. EPA, Army
Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Nature Conservancy have been exploring the potential
for implementing regional advance mitigation in
California. A pilot program in the Central Valley will
begin this fall to assess whether certain DWR and
Caltrans projects share similar impacts that can be
mitigated in advance on a regional basis.
ii) Other State Have Ramped Up Too . North Carolina,
Georgia and Florida have implemented variations on the
RAMP concept. According to the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, 90% of its wetlands mitigation needs
have been fulfilled through its RAMP and no projects have
been delayed due to mitigation issues since the start of
the program.
b) Mitigation You Can Bank On . Mitigation or conservation
banking allows a project developer to purchase mitigation
credit instead of the developer undertaking the mitigation
him. The value of the mitigation credit is priced
according to the amount needed to undertake habitat
restoration or acquire acreage in an existing conservation
AB 1321
Page 4
project. Because mitigation banking transfers liability
for mitigation from the developer to the banker, it is
oftentimes preferred by developers. At the same time,
regulators frequently prefer mitigation banking because it
provides regulatory certainty in that money for mitigation
is secured and the mitigation projects are proven.
California state agencies already use mitigation banking.
According to the policy committee analysis of this bill,
the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CalFire) has approved roughly 35 public and private
mitigation and conservation banks in the state. Credits
can be purchased for impacts to wetlands, vernal pools,
burrowing owls, Giant Garter Snakes, Swainson's Hawk,
Red-legged Frogs, and San Joaquin Kit Fox. Caltrans also
is a bank developer, having approved a 67-acre wetland bank
in Sacramento County, and a purchaser of credits from
private banks.
c) Supporters , including the Nature Conservancy (sponsor)
and several other environmental organizations, cite the
purported advantages of RAMPs mentioned above-allowing
planning agencies to estimate and combine impacts from
multiple projects in a similar region or watershed prior to
implementation, aggregate those impacts, and then mitigate
by restoring or acquiring larger or more cohesive habitat.
There is no registered opposition to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081