BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1334
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
Jared William Huffman, Chair
SB 1334 (Wolk) - As Amended: May 10, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 23-12
SUBJECT : Natural Community Conservation Plans
SUMMARY : Requires Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP)
planning to include cooperation with local entities.
Specifically, this bill : Requires the Department of Fish and
Game (DFG), when it makes findings that an NCCP meets state law,
to specify that development of the NCCP included cooperation
with local agencies.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits the taking (i.e. hunting, pursuing, killing) of
species listed pursuant to the California Endangered Species
Act (CESA) without authorization from DFG.
2)Provides three avenues for authorizing take of CESA-listed
species: A "consistency determination," which is a finding by
DFG that a previously-issued authorization under the Federal
Endangered Species Act also meets CESA's requirements; a
permit issued by DFG pursuant to CESA; or, a permit issued by
DFG for species whose conservation and management is provided
for in an NCCP.
3)Allows DFG to enter into a planning agreement with any person
or public entity "for the purpose of preparing [an NCCP], in
cooperation with a local agency that has land use permit
authority over the activities proposed to be addressed in the
plan, to provide comprehensive management and conservation of
multiple wildlife species, including, but not limited to,
those species listed pursuant to [CESA]."
4)Requires DFG to approve an NCCP after making certain findings,
including that the plan was prepared "consistent with the
process identified in the planning agreement."
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
SB 1334
Page 2
COMMENTS :
According to the author's office, "this bill seeks to maximize
the successful implementation of NCCPs by encouraging early
participation of local land use entities. To ensure that DFG
involves the local planning entity, as required by existing law,
this bill requires DFG to make an affirmative finding that the
local entity has been cooperated with, prior to approving an
NCCP for implementation."
While earlier NCCPs typically only encompassed one county, the
Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) as well as the Desert
Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, two of the more recent NCCPs
in development, span multiple counties, highlighting the need to
coordinate with multiple local agencies. In the case of the
BDCP, the author's office has emphasized that they are not
interested in reopening the existing planning agreement and that
the five Delta counties (Yolo, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Contra
Costa, and Solano) do not necessarily want to be part of the
BDCP steering committee (i.e. signatories to the planning
agreement). However, for the plan to ultimately be successful,
the author's office believes the five Delta counties will need
to have a greater level of involvement with the planning process
than has occurred to date. For example, the BDCP documents
infer that the up to 80,000 acres of restoration will be
required for the BDCP and that this restoration will be linked
with the terrestrial conservation and restoration efforts taking
place in each of the counties. However, details of how that
cooperation is to be achieved have not been developed with the
participation f the counties and are mostly missing from the
planning effort. To date the Natural Resources Agency, which is
both chairing the BDCP Steering Committee in public meetings and
having separate private meetings with the counties, has not laid
out a clear path for integration.
The author's office states that, "While current law establishes
the need to involve local land use agencies in the planning
phase of NCCP development, current law does not provide a
specific check point to ensure that cooperation has taken
place." The author emphasizes that the proposed BDCP, for
example, includes large-scale land use changes in the Delta and
that the plan cannot be successful without the cooperation of
local land use agencies.
DFG, in general comments opposing the bill, states that it could
SB 1334
Page 3
"jeopardize existing flexibility to adjust to shifting
capabilities of the planning partners to make long-term NCCP
commitments. Some flux in degree of participation by local
agencies is to be expected. [This bill] limits flexibility in
the planning stage by forcing DFG to cooperate with a local land
use permitting authority?"
While there is no existing requirement for DFG to make a finding
that cooperation with local agencies has been achieved, it is
unclear how DFG can claim this bill will "force" it to cooperate
with local agencies when existing law states that NCCP planning
agreements, while voluntary, are to be entered into "in
cooperation with a local agency that has land use permit
authority over the activities proposed to be addressed in the
plan."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California State Association of Counties
Delta Counties Coalition
Planning and Conservation League
Solano County Water Agency
Opposition
Department of Fish and Game
Analysis Prepared by : Tina Cannon Leahy / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096