BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 2087 (Levine) - Regional conservation frameworks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: June 22, 2016 |Policy Vote: N.R. & W. 6 - 2 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 8, 2016 |Consultant: Narisha Bonakdar |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 2087 authorizes the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW) to approve Regional Conservation Frameworks
(RCF) to guide conservation of natural resources and
infrastructure planning.
Fiscal
Impact:
Approximately $675,000 in year one, and $987,000 annually
(special fund) to develop RCF guidelines and administer the
program, some or all of which may be recovered through fees.
Unknown, potentially significant savings to state agencies
using the RCF framework for conservation efforts,
infrastructure planning, or mitigation.
Background:1) CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and
management of fish and wildlife, native plants, and habitat
necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those
AB 2087 (Levine) Page 1 of
?
species. The California Endangered Species Act prohibits the
taking of an endangered or threatened species, except as
specified. The CDFW 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.
In 2015, AB 498 (Levine, Chapter 625, Statutes of 2015)
established a state policy to encourage voluntary actions to
protect wildlife corridors and habitat strongholds. Among other
findings, the 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.
Some state programs, such as the Natural Communities
Conservation Program (NCCP), are designed to provide
comprehensive regional conservation plans. However, NCCPs are
regulatory in nature and often take multiple years to prepare,
which can discourage participation in the program. The
frameworks established by this bill are intended to provide a
less rigorous, voluntary alternative to the NCCP that can serve
as a foundation for future actions, including the development of
more comprehensive plans such as an NCCP.
RCF Pilots. In early 2016, a new statewide conservation
initiative was launched to develop an RCF intended to fill the
gap in existing conservation planning statutes, and provide for
a more timely and cost-effective conservation planning process.
According to the sponsor, each pilot project was selected
because it demonstrates a different application of the RCF. In
each case, there is strong NGO and public agency involvement.
The current RCF pilots (below) will be ready for review in
Fiscal Year 2016-2017 with the first draft mitigation agreements
potentially submitted to by mid-2017.
Yolo County: Building on Yolo Habitat Conservancy's Local
Conservation Plan, this pilot RCF will serve as a complement
to the Yolo County NCCP/HCP and provide important guidance for
a high priority multi-agency flood control and habitat
restoration effort in the Yolo Bypass. If approved, this
project will be led by the Yolo Habitat Conservancy and have a
steering committee including the California Natural Resources
Agency, Yolo County, and others.
Antelope Valley: Builds on the work of the Desert Renewable
AB 2087 (Levine) Page 2 of
?
Energy Conservation Plan to facilitate siting and advance
mitigation for renewable energy facilities and transportation
projects, focusing on the Los Angeles County portion of the
Antelope Valley. This pilot has been convened by the Desert
and Mountains Conservation Authority and is guided by a
steering committee including Los Angeles County's Department
of Regional Planning and others.
Bay Area RAMP Pilot: In the Bay Area, a nine-county Regional
Conservation Assessment and two RCFs were launched earlier
this year, building on a commitment from the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) and State Coastal Conservancy
(SCC) to scope and implement a Regional Advance Mitigation
Plan for ultimate inclusion in MTC's Plan Bay Area 2040. The
Santa Clara County RCF is being led by the Santa Clara Valley
Open Space Authority in coordination with Valley
Transportation Authority. The East Bay RCF is being led by
The Nature Conservancy in conjunction with Caltrans and Contra
Costa Transportation Authority. The RCA and two RCFs will
facilitate advance mitigation for transportation projects.
Proposed Law:
This bill authorizes the CDFW to approve a regional
conservation framework, as specified, to enhance the long-term
viability of native species, habitat, and other natural
resources; to inform infrastructure planning; and to allow for
the creation of mitigation credits in certain circumstances.
Specifically, the bill:
1)Outlines numerous required components of an RCF. Among other
things, the RCF must include: (1) important habitat, and other
resource conservation elements within the framework area, and
an explanation of the criteria used to identify those
elements; (2) an explanation of the conservation purpose of
and need for the RCF; (3) a description of the prioritization
of the conservation actions and habitat enhancements
(enhancements); and (4) a description of how the framework's
conservation goals and objectives aid in climate adaptation.
2)Authorizes the CDFW to approve an RCF for an initial period of
up to 10 years, and allows for an additional 10 year
AB 2087 (Levine) Page 3 of
?
extension.
3)Allows an enhancement that measurably advances the
conservation objectives of an approved RCF to be used to
create mitigation credits, and outlines additional
requirements to use enhancements for mitigation credit, the
potential uses of the credits, and the process through which
these can be approved.
4)Authorizes the CDFW to collect a fee to offset costs relating
to the mitigation credit agreement or proposed RCF.
5)Authorizes the CDFW to adopt guidelines and criteria, and
requires that any guidelines and criteria are posted on its
website.
6)Outlines public notice and meeting requirements, stakeholder
feedback processes, and approval procedures, and requires CDFW
to post RCFs and other specified information on its website.
7)Makes findings and declarations regarding the benefits of
regional species and habitat conservation initiatives, and
states the intent to promote the voluntary conservation of
natural resources.
8)States that RCFs do not affect the authority or discretion of
any public agency, except as specified.
AB 2087 (Levine) Page 4 of
?
9)Defines several terms for the purposes of the bill.
Past/Related Legislation:
AB 1833 (Linder, 2016) creates an Advanced Mitigation Program in
the Department of Transportation (CalTrans) to implement
environmental mitigation measures in advance of future
transportation projects. The purpose of the program is to
accelerate project delivery and improve environmental outcomes
of environmental mitigation for transportation infrastructure
projects. AB 1833 was held in Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
SB 901 (Bates,2016), similar to AB 1833, creates an Advanced
Mitigation Program in CalTrans to implement environmental
mitigation measures in advance of future transportation
projects, and would require CalTrans to set aside certain
amounts of future appropriations for this purpose. Both bills
would also require CalTrans to establish an interagency
transportation advanced mitigation steering committee. SB 901
was set for hearing in the Senate Transportation and Housing
Committee, but was postponed.
AB 1321 (Eng, 2010) proposed to enact the Advance Infrastructure
Mitigation Program Act, which would have authorized the Natural
Resources Agency to adopt regional advance mitigation plans to
provide effective mitigation and conservation of natural
resources and natural processes on a landscape, regional, or
statewide scale, to expedite the environmental review of planned
infrastructure projects, and to facilitate the implementation of
measures to mitigate the impacts of those projects by
identifying and implementing mitigation measures in advance of
project approval. AB 1321 was held in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee. AB 2655 (Eng) of that same year would
also have enacted similar provisions and was also held in
Assembly Appropriations.
AB 2087 (Levine) Page 5 of
?
Staff
Comments:
Purpose. According to the author, regional conservation
frameworks are voluntary, non-regulatory tools to incentivize
pro-active conservation planning in advance of development
pressures. This bill establishes common standards for regional
conservation planning to guide investments by state, federal,
local land private entities.
Fiscal notes. According to CDFW, this bill would require six
additional staff during the first two years of implementation,
and will likely increase in the following years. Initially,
staff would coordinate with stakeholders and other regulatory
agencies, develop standards and guidelines, and develop
information technology infrastructure. Once ramped up, program
staff will provide technical assistance to applicants, review
and approve RCF applications, and negotiate the mitigation
agreements authorized under this bill. The CDFW anticipates
five RCF applications will be submitted each year, along with 10
mitigation agreements.
Given the regional nature of this program, CDFW will need staff
in each of its regional offices throughout the state to conduct
the technical review of the RCF, and the associated draft
mitigation agreements.
Staff notes that this bill will result in a significant cost to
the CDFW to develop RCF guidelines, to review and approve
regional applications, and to negotiate mitigation credits. The
bill authorizes CDFW to collect fees to offset all or a portion
of costs related to the proposed framework or mitigation credit
agreement. It is unclear whether the CDFW will be able to set
fees at a level necessary to recover fees without discouraging
participation. Staff notes that the Fish and Game Preservation
Fund is in a structural deficit. This bill may result in
additional pressure on the fund to the extent that the CDFW has
to absorb implementation costs.
Staff also notes potential savings or efficiencies created by
RCFs for state entities that capitalize on the RCF for
conservation efforts, infrastructure planning, or mitigation
requirements. In particular, agencies developing large
AB 2087 (Levine) Page 6 of
?
infrastructure projects, such as high Speed Rail and the
California Department of Transportation may experience reduced
mitigation costs or complexity due to the advance mitigation
allowed under this bill.
-- END --