BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
AB 2193 (Gordon) - Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Act.
Amended: August 4, 2014 Policy Vote: NR&W 9-0
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: August 14, 2014 Consultant:
Marie Liu
SUSPENSE. AS AMENDED.
Bill Summary: AB 2193 would allow individual permits required
under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), streambed
alteration statutes, and the Native Plant Protection Act to be
combined into a single permit application for a habitat
restoration or enhancement projects if the project meets
specified criteria.
Fiscal Impact (as approved on August 14, 2014):
Minor and absorbable costs to the Habitat Restoration and
Enhancement Account within the Fish and Game Preservation
Fund (special) to DFW for increased and expedited permit
review.
Unknown fee revenues, but likely minor, to the Habitat
Restoration and Enhancement Account.
Background: Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA),
the Department of Fish and Wildlife is the trustee for the fish
and wildlife resources of the state. CESA prohibits any act
which could directly or indirectly harm threatened or endangered
species unless authorized by DFW. Regulations generally require
that CESA reviews occur within 90 days.
The Native Plant Protection Act requires DFW authorization for
actions that could affect an endangered or rare native plant
unless an exemption applies for agricultural activities, timber
operations or mining.
Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits the substantial
diversion or obstruction of the natural flow of any river,
stream, or lake without approval from DFW. If DFW determines
that an activity may have a substantially adverse effect
existing fishing or wildlife resources, DFW may require
AB 2193 (Gordon)
Page 1
necessary measures to protect the resource as part of a
streambed alteration agreement. Streambed alteration agreements
are required to be acted upon within 90 days. Under �1609, the
director of DFW may established a schedule of fees for a
streambed alteration activities that are sufficient to pay the
total costs incurred by DFW in administering and enforcing the
chapter up to an inflation adjusted cap of $5,000.
The California Environmental Quality Act has a categorical
exemption for small habitat restoration projects for fish,
plants or wildlife that do not exceed five acres in size.
Proposed Law: This bill, titled the habitat Restoration and
Enhancement Act, would allow DFW to approve a habitat
restoration or enhancement project in lieu of any other permit
or other approval issued by DFW including, but not limited to
permits issued under CESA, the Native Plant Protection Act, and
the streambed alternation requirements.
Eligible projects would be required to meet specified
requirements that include, among other things, that the project
is a voluntary and not required mitigation, that the project
does not exceed five acres in size, and that the project will
not result in cumulative negative environmental impacts. This
bill would specify certain information that must be included in
an application for a habitat restoration or enhancement project.
DFW would have 60 days to approve a habitat restoration or
enhancement project.
This bill would establish a process for the director to suspend
project implementation should the project no longer meet
necessary requirements.
This bill would establish the Habitat Restoration and
Enhancement Account within the Fish and Game Preservation Fund.
DFW would be authorized to establish a fee schedule to recover
all reasonable administrative and implementation costs of the
department.
The bill's provisions would sunset on January 1, 2022.
Staff Comments: This bill would create a single new permit for a
habitat restoration or enhancement project that could be
obtained in lieu of at least three other permits. This permit
AB 2193 (Gordon)
Page 2
streamlining reduces the number of permits to be processed for a
particular process, but does not necessarily reduce the amount
of review that would need to be conducted by DFW under existing
law. However, the review would have to occur within 60 days,
which is expedited compared to the existing 90 day deadline for
streambed alteration agreements and CESA permits which would
result in additional costs to DFW.
Staff notes that it is the intent of the author that the
eligibility requirements for the habitat restoration or
enhancement project are such that if projects meet the
eligibility requirements, the project by nature will necessitate
minimal, if any, review. For such small projects, DFW should
incur minimal, if any, additional costs as a result of the
shortened timeline. However, the bill currently could allow
large projects with potential environmental impacts to be
eligible for a habitat restoration or enhancement permits, such
as wetland restoration and removal of fish passage barriers.
As indicated by the bill's findings, the author anticipates that
this new permit process would increase the amount of projects
performed because of an eased permitting process. Should that be
the case, DFW would experience increased workload. The actual
increase is unknown as it would depend on the actual increase in
restoration activity and the size of the project.
The estimated staffing needs as a result of additional projects
being conducted and expedited review of large projects could be
up to $1.2 million depending on the scope of projects that
actually apply for the newly created permit.
The bill allows DFW to establish a fee schedule for the new
restoration permit, which would occur through the adoption of
regulations. Staff notes that DFW only has the authority to
charge an administrative fee for streambed alternation permits
under existing law. There is no fee for permits issued under
CESA or the Native Plant Protection Act. Because the same review
work needs to be done, this fee provision would essentially
allow DFW to recover administrative costs for review under CESA
and the Native Plant Protection Act. However, in the case of
larger projects, it is unlikely that full cost recovery will
occur because if the new restoration permit costs are too high,
applicants are likely to apply for permits in the traditional
route where CESA and Native Plate review costs are unfunded.
AB 2193 (Gordon)
Page 3
Therefore it is unknown how much of DFW's costs will likely be
recovered through fees.
Author Amendments:
Limits eligibility for the streamlined permits to projects
that are also eligible for the State Water Resource Control
Board's General Water Quality Certification for Small Habitat
Restoration Projects, or its equivalent.
Deletes other specified eligibility requirements.
Specifies that no further authorization is needed if a project
activities have been authorized under a Certification Order
for Clean Water Act Section 401 General Water Quality
Certification for Small Restoration Projects.