BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2193|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2193
Author: Gordon (D)
Amended: 8/22/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER COMMITTEE : 9-0, 6/24/14
AYES: Pavley, Cannella, Evans, Fuller, Hueso, Jackson, Lara,
Monning, Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-0, 8/14/14
AYES: De Le�n, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 5/28/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Act
SOURCE : Sustainable Conservation
DIGEST : This bill enacts the Habitat Restoration and
Enhancement Act (Act) which requires the Director of the
Department of Fish and Wildlife (Director) to approve a habitat
restoration and enhancement project, as defined, if specified
conditions are met as determined by the Director.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/22/14 provide another option for
applicants to use the bill's permit streamlining approach for
small scale restoration projects by adding that projects could
be eligible if they have received certification by the State
Water Resources Control Board (Board) and meet other specified
CONTINUED
AB 2193
Page
2
criteria.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1.Establishes the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) as 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 the California
Endangered Species Act (CESA) unless authorized by DFW.
2.Requires DFW authorization if an action could affect an
endangered or rare native plant unless it fits into an
exemption for agricultural activities, timber operations or
mining.
3.Provides DFW with an expedited mechanism to approve specific
types of voluntary on-the-ground habitat restoration projects
that benefit Coho salmon. Projects eligible for the approval
are limited 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. Eligible projects are also limited to projects
that are less than five acres in size or 500 linear feet.
This bill:
1.Allows a project proponent may submit a written request to
approve a habitat restoration or enhancement project to the
Director if the project has not yet received certification
pursuant to the Board's Order for Clean Water Act Section 401
General Water Quality Certification for Small Habitat
Restoration Projects (Projects), or its current equivalent at
the time the project proponent submits the writing request.
2.Requires a written request to approve a habitat restoration or
enhancement project to contain specified information
including, but not limited to:
A. The name, address, title, organization, telephone
number, and email address of the natural person or persons
who will be the main point of contact for the project
proponent.
CONTINUED
AB 2193
Page
3
B. A full description of the habitat restoration and
enhancement project that includes the designs and
techniques to be used for the project, restoration or
enhancement methods, an estimate of temporary restoration-
or enhancement-related disturbance, project schedule,
anticipated activities, and how the project is expected to
result in a net benefit to any affected habitat and
species, as specified.
C. An assessment of the project area that provides a
description of the existing flora and fauna and the
potential presence of sensitive species or habitat.
D. A geographic description of the project site including
maps, land ownership information, and other relevant
location information.
E. A description of the environmental protection measures
incorporated into the project design, so that no
potentially significant adverse effects on the environment,
as defined, are likely to occur with application of the
specified environmental protection measures.
F. Substantial evidence to support a conclusion that the
project meets the requirements set forth in this bill.
G. A certifying statement that the project will comply with
the California Environmental Quality Act, which may
include, but not limited to, specified requirements.
1.Provides that within 60 days after receiving a written request
to approve a habitat restoration or enhancement project, the
Director shall approve a habitat restoration or enhancement
project if the Director determines that the written request
includes all of the required information and the project meets
all of the following requirements:
A. The project purpose is voluntary habitat restoration and
the project is not required as mitigation.
B. The project is not part of a regulatory permit for a
nonhabitat restoration or enhancement construction
activity, a regulatory settlement, a regulatory enforcement
action, or a court order.
CONTINUED
AB 2193
Page
4
C. The project meets the eligibility requirements of the
Board's Projects, or its current equivalent at the time the
project proponent submits the written request, but has not
yet received certification pursuant to that order, or its
current equivalent.
D. The project is consistent with, or identified in,
sources that describe best available restoration and
enhancement methodologies, as specified.
E. The project will not result in cumulative adverse
environmental impacts that are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past, current, or probable
future projects.
1.Specifies if the Director determines that the written request
does not contain all of the information or fails to meet the
requirements set forth in this bill, the Director shall deny
the written request and inform the project proponent of the
reason or reasons for the denial.
2.Requires the project proponent to submit a notice of
completion to the DFW no later than 30 days after the project
approved is completed. The notice of completion shall
demonstrate that the project has been carried out in
accordance with the project's description. The notice of
completion shall include a map of the project location,
including the final boundaries of the restoration area or
areas and postproject photographs. Each photograph shall
include a descriptive title, date taken, photographic
monitoring point, and photographic orientation.
3.Requires the project proponent to submit a monitoring report
describing whether the restoration project is meeting each of
the restoration goals stated in the project application. Each
report must include photographs, as specified. The monitoring
reports for Section 401 Water Quality Certification or waste
discharge requirements of the Board or a regional water
quality control board, or for the DFW or federal voluntary
habitat restoration programs, including, but not limited to,
the Fisheries Restoration Grant Program, may be submitted in
lieu of this requirement.
CONTINUED
AB 2193
Page
5
4.Allows a project proponent to submit a written request, as
specified, to approve a habitat restoration or enhancement
project to the Director if the project has received
certification pursuant to the Board's Projects, or its current
equivalent at the time the project proponent submits the
written request.
5.Requires the Director, upon receipt of the specified notice,
to immediately have the receipt of that notice published in
the General Public Interest section of the California
Regulatory Notice Register (Register).
6.Requires the Director, within 30 days after the Director has
received the notice of applicability, to determine whether the
written request accompanying the notice of applicability is
complete. If the director determines within that 30-day
period, based upon substantial evidence, that the written
request is not complete, then the project may be authorized,
as specified. The Director shall then immediately publish the
determination pursuant to the Register.
7. Requires the project proponent to submit the monitoring
plan, monitoring report, and notice of completion to the DFW
as required by the Board's Projects, or its current
equivalent at the time the project proponent submits the
written request. The order or its current equivalent may
include programmatic waivers or waste discharge requirements
for small scale restoration projects.
8. Provides that the Director's approval of a habitat
restoration or enhancement project shall be in lieu of any
other permit, agreement, license, or other approval issued by
the DFW, as specified.
9. Provides that if the Director determines at any time that
the project is no longer consistent with provisions set forth
in this bill, as applicable, due to a material change between
the project as submitted and the project being implemented or
a change in the environmental circumstances in the area of
implementation, the Director shall notify the project
proponent in writing and project implementation shall be
suspended. Written notice from the director shall be
delivered in a specified manner, and shall specify the
reasons why approval of the project was suspended. The
CONTINUED
AB 2193
Page
6
approval for a project shall not be revoked unless it has
first been suspended.
10.Authorizes, within 30 days of receipt of a notice of
suspension, the project proponent to file an objection with
the Director. Any objection must be in writing and state the
reasons why the project proponent objects to the suspension.
11.Authorizes the Director to revoke approval or lift the
suspension of project approval within 30 days after receiving
the project proponent's objection.
12.Creates the Habitat Restoration and Enhancement Account
within the Fish and Game Preservation Fund and authorizes the
DFW to enter into an agreement to accept funds to achieve the
purposes of the Act and deposit those funds into that
account.
13.Requires the DFW to assess an application fee for a project
submitted to the DFW consistent with specified fees adopted
by the DFW, but prohibits the application fee from exceeding
reasonable administrative and implementation costs of the DFW
relating to the project.
14.Provides that monies in the account will be available to the
DFW, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purposes
of administering and implementing the Act.
15.Requires the DFW to submit a report on the implementation of
the Act to the Legislature no later than December 31, 2020,
and repeals the Act on January 1, 2022.
16.Includes legislative findings and declarations regarding the
need for small-scale ecosystem restoration projects to
benefit listed species and the need for more efficient and
expedited processes for willing landowners and local
governments to obtain necessary regulatory approval and
permits for such projects. Findings are included that also
advocate for substantial permitting efficiency to encourage
increased implementation of voluntary, environmentally
beneficial small-scale habitat restoration projects that
provide an individual and cumulative net environmental
benefit, incorporate measures to protect against any adverse
change, and follow applicable preexisting state and federal
CONTINUED
AB 2193
Page
7
agency permits, certifications and exemptions.
Background
Under CESA, DFW 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
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 may establish 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
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.
CONTINUED
AB 2193
Page
8
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/25/14)
Sustainable Conservation (source)
Alameda County Resource Conservation District
Association of California Water Agencies
Audubon California
Cachuma Resource Conservation District
California Association of Professional Scientists
California Association of Resource Conservation Districts
California Council of Land Trusts
California Forestry Association
California Invasive Plant Council
California Native Plant Society
California Watershed Network
Defenders of Wildlife
Ducks Unlimited
Environmental Defense Center
Environmental Defense Fund
Gold Ridge Resource Conservation District
Heal the Bay
Humboldt County Resource Conservation District
Inland Empire Resource Conservation District
Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County
Marin Resource Conservation District
Mendocino and Humboldt Redwood Company
Mendocino County Resource conservation District
Napa County Resource Conservation District
Peninsula Open Space Trust
Placer Resource Conservation District
Point Blue Conservation Science
Prunuske Chatham, Inc.
Resource Conservation District of Monterey County
Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains
Resource Conservation District of Ventura County
Resource Conservation District Santa Cruz County
San Mateo County
San Mateo Resource Conservation District
Save The Bay
Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District
Sierra Business Council
Solano Resource Conservation District
Solano Resource Conservation District
CONTINUED
AB 2193
Page
9
Sonoma Resource Conservation District
South Coast Habitat Restoration
Tahoe Resource Conservation District
Tehama County Resource Conservation District
Upper Salinas-Las Tablas Resource Conservation District
Ventura County Resource Conservation District
Yolo County Resource Conservation District
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Supporters of this bill, who include
groups that work with farmers, ranchers, water districts, local
governments and nonprofits on ecosystem restoration strategies,
assert that important habitat restoration work to benefit
vulnerable wildlife species in California could be significantly
ramped up to meet the demand and need for this work if a new,
consolidated environmental permitting process were developed for
small-scale voluntary ecosystem restoration projects.
Supporters assert this bill will simplify the permitting process
at DFW for landowners, state and local governments, and
conservation organizations proposing to implement small-scale
environmentally beneficial projects, while also ensuring
compliance with necessary environmental protections.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 77-0, 5/28/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Beth
Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray,
Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal, Maienschein,
Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian,
Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, John A. P�rez, V.
Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas,
Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner, Waldron,
Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Donnelly, Frazier, Vacancy
RM:nl 8/25/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
CONTINUED
AB 2193
Page
10
**** END ****
CONTINUED