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