BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 1961 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 1961 (Huffman) As Amended May 25, 2012 Majority vote WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 12-0APPROPRIATIONS 17-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Huffman, Halderman, Bill |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey, | | |Berryhill, Campos, Fong, | |Blumenfield, Bradford, | | |Beth Gaines, Gatto, Roger | |Charles Calderon, Campos, | | |Hernández, Hueso, Jones, | |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto, | | |Lara, Yamada | |Ammiano, Hill, Lara, | | | | |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, | | | | |Solorio, Wagner | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Allows the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), in order to prevent the extinction of Coho salmon, an expedited mechanism to approve restoration projects that meet specific criteria. Specifically, this bill : 1)Makes legislative findings regarding the decline of Coho salmon and the need to prevent their extinction and creates the Coho Salmon Habitat Enhancement Leading to Preservation Act (Coho HELP Act). 2)Limits the geographic scope and type of enhancement projects that are eligible for approval by the DFG director (director) under the Coho HELP Act to projects within a region described in an adopted state or federal Coho salmon recovery plan that do one or more of the following: restore stream banks, modify water crossings, or place wood to enhance habitat or increase stream complexity. 3)Specifies that an eligible Coho HELP Act project must be: a) Consistent with fish passage guidelines and Coho salmon recovery plans; b) Voluntary; c) Less than five acres in size or 500 linear feet, measured by calculating the direct area of impact; AB 1961 Page 2 d) Complete within five years; and, e) Less than significant in terms of any negative environmental effects, including cumulative effects. 4)Provides that the director's approval of a Coho HELP Act project is in lieu of any other permit, license or approval issued by DFG including, but not limited to, a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) permit, Native Plant permit, or Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA). 5)Acknowledges the director's approval of a Coho HELP Act project is an action taken by a regulatory agency to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for the protection of the environment. 6)Requires the entity requesting approval of a project under the Coho HELP Act provide the director with detailed information including, but not limited to, project design criteria, implementation methods, project schedule, environmental protection measures, and details as to how the project will result in a net benefit to Coho and other species. 7)Requires the director to approve a Coho HELP Act project within 60 days after receiving a complete written request if there is substantial evidence that the Coho HELP Act project meets all specified criteria. 8)Allows the director to rescind approval of a Coho HELP Act project, after specified notice to the project proponent and an opportunity for objection, if there is a material change between the project as submitted and the project being implemented or a change in the environmental circumstances of the area of implementation. 9)Allows DFG, in order to implement the Coho HELP Act, to receive funds from any public agency, person, or business entity and to adopt emergency regulations. Allows DFG to impose a schedule of fees for projects, based on the cost of a project, sufficient to recover all reasonable administrative and implementation costs of the department relating to the project, but not to exceed fees adopted by DFG for standard lake or streambed alteration agreements. AB 1961 Page 3 10)Repeals the Coho HELP Act on January 1, 2018. EXISTING LAW : 1)Establishes that DFG is the trustee for the fish and wildlife resources of California and prohibits any act which could directly or indirectly "take" threatened or endangered species listed under CESA unless authorized by DFG. 2)Requires DFG authorization if an action could affect an endangered or rare native plant unless the entity fits into one of the exemptions for agricultural activities, timber operations, or mining. 3)Requires a LSAA with DFG in order to protect and conserve fish and wildlife resources if an activity could change the bed, bank or channel of a stream or lake. 4)States that specified activities to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource, including small habitat restoration projects for fish, plants or wildlife that do not exceed five acres in size, are categorically exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act. FISCAL EFFECT : The Assembly Appropriations Committee estimates: 1)One-time costs of approximately $50,000 to $75,000 to DFG in 2012-13 to develop emergency regulations. (Fish and Game Preservation Fund (FGPF).) 2)Potential annual costs of an unknown amount, but ranging from approximately $250,000 (equivalent to two positions) to $1 million (equivalent to five positions), to DFG to review written requests, approve projects and monitor implementations. (FGPF.) (DFG indicates it cannot anticipate the number of project requests AB 1961 Page 4 it will receive each year, but the department provided cost estimates associated with a range of annual project applications.) 3)Annual fee revenue of an unknown amount, but presumably sufficient to cover DFGs to develop emergency regulations and to review written requests, approve projects and monitor implementations. (Coho Salmon Recovery Account with the FGPF.) 4)Potential revenue of an unknown amount to DFG resulting from voluntary contributions, to be used to fund Coho salmon recovery. (Coho Salmon Recovery Account with the FGPF.) COMMENTS : On August 16, 2011, the Joint Legislative Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture held an oversight hearing entitled "Coho on the Brink." During that hearing DFG stated that the estimated population high for this species in California during the 1940s was between 250,000 to 500,000 fish but that, currently, population numbers are at their lowest levels of a few thousand fish only. DFG stated that recovery Coho salmon could not only benefit the fishery but also the economy if recreational fishing becomes viable again. Helping Coho salmon could also reduce the need for the regulatory measures that, while necessary to protected fragile Coho populations, indirectly impact ocean and river fishing for other healthier species. Finally, DFG recognized that recovery and restoration activities for Coho salmon could directly infuse millions of dollars into local communities. DFG's Recovery Strategy for Coho Salmon contains recommendations that are both range-wide and area-specific to help restore Coho salmon populations. These include, but are not limited to, increasing fish passage by modifying culverts and other stream crossings, restoring and enhancing riparian areas, restoring habitat connectivity, improving stream channels to add complexity, and placing wood in-stream to provide shade, refuge, food sources, and other Coho salmon benefits. Supporters state that each of California's Coho salmon populations is at risk of permanent extirpation from the very watersheds that AB 1961 Page 5 once teemed with fish. They assert that a situation where less than 1% of California's historic Coho salmon fishery remains is unacceptable not only to each of us, but to California's tribes, local water agencies, watershed landowners, and the public at large. Supporters add that while our on-the-ground landowner, local agency, and resource conservation district partners stand by to help with their expertise and financial resources, the need for restoration projects is overwhelming the ability of the state to sanction them and that urgent action is necessary to give the state and its restoration partners new tools to help ensure the efficient approval and implementation of Coho habitat restoration projects. In the absence of this bill Coho salmon restoration projects would be required to pay LSAA fees because the activities occur in stream and riparian zones. This bill was amended in the Assembly Appropriations Committee to authorize DFG to charge up to that same level of fees as a standard LSAA for the review required under this program. It is assumed that project review will be similar but should benefit from this bill's streamlining provisions, such as the requirement that applicants provide very specific information up front. This bill has no opposition. Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916) 319-2096 FN: 0003877