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