BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2087
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
2087 (Levine)
As Amended May 31, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Water |10-1 |Levine, Dodd, Eggman, |Harper |
| | |Cristina Garcia, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Gomez, Lopez, Medina, | |
| | |Salas, Williams | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |14-2 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang |
| | |Bonilla, Bonta, | |
| | |Calderon, Daly, | |
| | |Eggman, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Roger | |
| | |Hernández, Holden, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
AB 2087
Page 2
SUMMARY: Authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW)
to approve regional conservation frameworks (RCFs) to guide
conservation of natural resources and infrastructure planning.
Specifically, this bill:
1)States legislative findings and declarations regarding the
benefits of identifying habitat conservation initiatives on a
regional scale, including actions to address climate change,
protect wildlife corridors, and guide voluntary investments in
conservation, infrastructure, sustainable community
strategies, and compensatory mitigation for impacts to
species. States the purpose of this bill is to promote
conservation of natural resources, biodiversity and ecological
processes, and to identify conservation actions that promote
resiliency to the impacts of climate change and other
stressors.
2)Authorizes the DFW to approve an RCF proposed by DFW or any
other public agency. Specifies that the purpose of an RCF is
to provide voluntary guidance for one or more of the
following, as specified:
a) Identification of wildlife and habitat conservation
priorities, including actions to address impacts of
climate change and other stressors;
b) Investments in natural resource conservation;
c) Infrastructure planning;
d) Identification of conservation priorities for land
AB 2087
Page 3
use planning;
e) Identification of priority locations for
compensatory mitigation;
3)Identifies the elements that must be included in an RCF to be
approved by DFW. Requires the RCF to include a regional
conservation assessment that provides context at an
ecoregional scale for development of the RCF, as specified.
If an assessment has already been prepared it can be
incorporated by reference if it meets specified criteria.
Requires the RCF to include best available scientific
information and a brief analysis of existing gaps in
scientific information.
4)Requires a public agency preparing an RCF, prior to submitting
the RCF to DFW, to publicly notice and hold at least two
public meetings, at least one of which must be in the RCF
area, to allow interested persons to receive information early
in the preparation process and to have an opportunity to
provide written and oral comments. Requires that the board of
supervisors in each county within the geographical scope of
the RCF be notified and given an opportunity to comment at
least 60 days prior to submittal of the proposed RCF to DFW.
Requires DFW to make all RCFs available to the public on its
Internet Web site for public review and comment for at least
30 days, and to make all approved RCFs and any updates
available on its Internet Web site.
5)Clarifies that nothing in this bill increases the regulatory
authority or jurisdiction of DFW, and that an RCF or
mitigation credit agreement created pursuant to this bill does
not establish any presumption under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), does not prohibit or
authorize any project, does not create a presumption that a
AB 2087
Page 4
project will be approved or permitted, or that a project will
be disapproved or prohibited, does not alter or affect any
local general plan, and does not have a binding or mandatory
effect on any private landowners or project proponents.
6)Authorizes conservation actions or habitat enhancements that
measurably advance the conservation objectives of an approved
RCF to be used to create mitigation credits that can be used
to compensate for impacts to species, habitat, or other
natural resources, if the conservation action or habitat
enhancement is implemented in advance of the impacts. In
order to be used to create mitigation credits, an RCF must
include an adaptive management and monitoring strategy, a
process for updating scientific information and evaluating the
effectiveness of identified conservation actions and habitat
enhancements at least every five years, and identification of
an entity who will be responsible for those updates and
evaluations.
7)Specifies that a mitigation credit created in accordance with
an approved RCF may be used to: a) compensate for take or
other adverse impacts of activities authorized pursuant to the
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) within the RCF area,
b) reduce adverse impacts to fish and wildlife from authorized
streambed alteration activities within the RCF area to less
than substantial, and c) mitigate significant effects on the
environment within the RCF area pursuant to CEQA.
8)Requires that in order to create mitigation credits under this
bill a mitigation credit agreement shall be required with DFW.
The agreement shall establish the type and number of
mitigation credits created and the terms and conditions under
which the credits may be used. Specifies the information in
detail that must be submitted to DFW to enter into a
mitigation credit agreement.
AB 2087
Page 5
9)Clarifies that nothing in this bill is intended to limit or
impose additional conditions on the creation or sale of
mitigation credits by a conservation bank or mitigation bank
approved under existing law. Clarifies that creation of
mitigation credits under an RCF shall not duplicate or replace
mitigation requirements set forth in a natural community
conservation plan (NCCP).
10)Authorizes the DFW to collect fees from an entity that
proposes to enter into a mitigation credit agreement or that
proposes an RCF, to pay for all or a portion of DFW's costs.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes the DFW in the Natural Resources Agency. The DFW
has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and
management of fish and wildlife, native plants, and habitat
necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those
species.
2)Under the CESA, prohibits the taking of an endangered or
threatened species, except as specified. The DFW may permit
the take of listed species if the take is incidental to an
otherwise lawful activity and the impacts are minimized and
fully mitigated.
3)Establishes that it is the policy of the State to conserve,
protect, restore and enhance natural communities. Further
declares that it is the policy of the state to encourage,
wherever feasible and practicable, voluntary steps to protect
the functioning of wildlife corridors through various means.
AB 2087
Page 6
4)Recognizes the need for broad-based planning to provide for
effective protection and conservation of the state's wildlife
heritage while continuing to allow for appropriate development
and growth. Authorizes the development of NCCPs to provide
comprehensive management and conservation of wildlife,
pursuant to specified requirements.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Increased costs to DFW of approximately $750,000 over the
first two years to develop standards and guidelines for the
new program and provide technical review of the data and
analyses included in the proposed frameworks, potentially
offset by fees.
2)Likely unknown future costs savings and efficiencies for DFW
and other state agencies. DFW along with other state and
federal resource agencies and state infrastructure agencies,
have agreed through interagency initiatives that mitigation at
a regional scale and in advance of project impacts is more
efficient and less costly for project proponents, including
state infrastructure agencies, because it is identified,
budgeted, and carried out in advance of impacts. In addition
to cost savings, advanced mitigation may be more effective
because conservation actions or habitat enhancements used as
mitigation can contribute to a regional conservation strategy
rather than be carried out in a project-by-project, piecemeal
fashion.
COMMENTS: This bill authorizes a new conservation planning tool
to identify wildlife habitat conservation needs on a regional
scale, in order to help guide infrastructure planning and
development, improve the effectiveness of public expenditures
AB 2087
Page 7
for conservation, and identify potential advance mitigation
solutions for large public infrastructure projects.
The author indicates that RCFs will identify wildlife,
fisheries, and habitat conservation needs, including actions
needed to address climate change and protect wildlife corridors,
on a regional scale, in order to guide public investments in
conservation, infrastructure planning and development. RCF's
are voluntary, non-regulatory tools that will serve a number of
beneficial purposes including: 1) incentivizing pro-active
conservation planning in advance of development pressures, which
will help reduce conflict at the project stage, 2) establishing
common standards for regional conservation planning, which will
help in the sharing of data and providing a connected vision for
a resilient California that protects wildlife and habitats into
the future, and 3) facilitating broadly supported regional
conservation priorities to guide public conservation investments
by state, federal, local and private entities. RCFs can also be
used as a foundation for future action for communities that want
to go further and develop more comprehensive plans such as
development of an NCCP.
This bill seeks to provide an efficient, timely, and
standardized mechanism for regional, large-scale conservation
planning that will help identify priorities for habitat
conservation in regions, improve the effectiveness of public
investments in conservation, and at the same time assist in
guiding infrastructure projects and identifying appropriate
early mitigation. While there are currently some state programs
that seek to provide comprehensive regional plans for
conservation, such as the NCCP program, those programs are time
and resource intensive, take multiple years to prepare, and are
regulatory in nature. This bill would authorize public entities
to prepare voluntary, non-regulatory, regional conservation
frameworks that could serve as guides for conservation
AB 2087
Page 8
investments, and if specified criteria for science-based rigor
and conservation objectives are met, and the plans are approved
by DFW, could identify conservation actions which, if taken in
advance of a project's impacts, may provide mitigation credits
for projects.
With the advent of climate change, DFW and other conservation
entities have become more aware of the need for conservation
planning on a regional, landscape-level scale. The Legislature
recognized this with the passage of AB 498 (Levine), Chapter
625, Statutes of 2015, which established a state policy to
encourage voluntary actions to protect wildlife corridors and
habitat strongholds. Among other findings, that bill recognized
the importance of habitat connectivity to protect ecosystem
health and biodiversity, and to improve the resiliency of
wildlife and their habitats to climate change.
Supporters note this bill will allow local and state agencies to
develop frameworks to identify regional conservation goals and
objectives, including protection of wildlife corridors. This
bill furthers the goals of AB 498 (Levine) by encouraging a
regional approach to conservation and allowing state agencies to
engage early in identifying mitigation of large infrastructure
projects. Regional frameworks will allow for a more holistic
approach to conservation planning that can also help guide
public investments for better conservation outcomes. By
identifying habitat conservation goals at a landscape level,
this bill will ensure public expenditures are informed by best
available science as the state seeks to address climate change
and other stressors.
Opponents express agreement with the intent of this bill but
raise concerns about the interplay of RCFs and other existing
conservation and mitigation programs. In particular, opponents
are concerned about potential CEQA impacts and mapping of
priority conservation areas. It is unclear to what extent the
AB 2087
Page 9
latest amendments may have ameliorated some of these concerns.
Analysis Prepared by:
Diane Colborn / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096
FN:
0003305