BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 448
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   June 16, 2009

                   ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
                            Jared William Huffman, Chair
                     SB 448 (Pavley) - As Amended:  June 11, 2009

           SENATE VOTE  :   35-0
           
          SUBJECT  :   Safe Harbor Agreements

           SUMMARY  :   Enacts the California State Safe Harbor Agreement  
          Program Act.  Specifically,  this bill  :

          1)Authorizes the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to authorize  
            acts that would otherwise be prohibited as illegal takings  
            under the California Endangered Species Act through a safe  
            harbor agreement if the following conditions are met:
               a)     DFG receives an application containing specified  
                 information.
               b)     The take is incidental to an otherwise lawful  
                 activity.
               c)     DFG finds that the agreement is reasonably expected  
                 to provide a "net conservation benefit" to the species  
                 listed.
               d)     The take will not jeopardize the existence of the  
                 species.
               e)     The landowner agrees to avoid or minimize any  
                 incidental take, including returning to baseline.
               f)     DFG establishes or approves a monitoring program, as  
                 specified.
               g)     DFG determines there is sufficient funding to  
                 determine baseline conditions, and for management and  
                 monitoring.
               h)     The agreement is not in conflict with any existing  
                 conservation or recovery programs for the species  
                 covered.

          2)Requires that the application submitted by the landowner  
            include detailed information, as specified, including a  
            detailed map, the list of species for which take authorization  
            is requested, and detailed descriptions of the landowner's  
            land and water management practices that affect the habitat of  
            the covered species, proposed management and monitoring, and  
            the proposed duration of the agreement.









                                                                  SB 448
                                                                  Page  2

          3)Allows for a property enrolled in an agreement to be altered  
            or modified if the agreement is being properly implemented and  
            the alteration or modification returns the species to baseline  
            conditions.  

          4)Requires the landowner, subject to certain exceptions, to  
            notify DFG at least 60 days in advance of any expected  
            incidental take, of a plan by the landowner to return to  
            baseline at the end of the agreement, or of any plan to  
            transfer the landowner's interest in the land or water.   
            Requires the landowner to provide DFG with access to remove or  
            salvage the species, to develop the agreement, to determine  
            baseline conditions, and to monitor management.  Requires DFG  
            to provide notice to the landowner at least 7 days prior to  
            accessing the land or water, and allows the landowner to  
            object to the specific person selected by DFG to access the  
            property, subject to specified conditions.

          5)Allows an agreement to be amended by mutual consent.

          6)Provides for incidental take under a federal safe harbor  
            agreement if certain procedures are followed.

          7)Authorizes DFG to promulgate regulations to implement this  
            bill, and to adopt nonregulatory guidelines to clarify use of  
            this bill with regard to voluntary agricultural activities and  
            natural community conservation plans.

          8)Defines various terms for purposes of this bill, and states  
            legislative findings regarding the importance of habitat and  
            conservation efforts to recovery of endangered species, a  
            significant portion of which are on private lands.  States  
            that the purpose of this bill is to establish a program that  
            will encourage landowners to voluntarily manage their lands to  
            benefit endangered or threatened species without additional  
            regulatory restrictions.  

          9)States that this bill does not relieve landowners of any legal  
            obligation with respect to endangered, threatened or candidate  
            species existing on their land, and that the program is  
            designed to increase species populations, create new habitats,  
            and enhance existing habitats.  Further states that although  
            the safe harbor agreements may be temporary they shall not  
            reduce the existing number of species present at the time the  
            baseline is established.








                                                                  SB 448
                                                                  Page  3


          10)Allows neighboring landowners who own land that abuts  
            property enrolled in a safe harbor agreement to secure an  
            incidental take permit without undertaking the management  
            activities set forth in the safe harbor agreement if certain  
            specified conditions are met.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Provides under state and federal endangered species acts for  
            the listing and protection of species determined through  
            biological scientific analysis to be endangered or threatened  
            with extinction.

          2)Generally prohibits the take of species listed as threatened  
            or endangered unless authorized by an incidental take permit.

          3)Requires mitigation of adverse impacts to listed species as a  
            condition of receiving incidental take authorization.

          4)Under federal law, provides for voluntary safe harbor  
            agreements between landowners and wildlife agencies for  
            conservation of protected species.

          5)Under state law, authorizes locally designed voluntary  
            programs for routine and ongoing agricultural activities on  
            farms that encourage wildlife habitat.

          6)Under state law, exempts the accidental take of candidate,  
            threatened or endangered species that occurs in the course of  
            otherwise lawful routine and ongoing agricultural activities,  
            but only until January 1, 2011.   

          FISCAL EFFECT  :   According to the Senate Appropriation  
          Committee, unknown, probably less than $100,000 per year to DFG  
          to develop agreements (Fish and Game Preservation Fund).

           COMMENTS  :  This bill authorizes safe harbor agreements for  
          incidental take of species listed under the California  
          Endangered Species Act (CESA), similar to the safe harbor  
          agreements administered by federal wildlife agencies under  
          federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations.   Safe harbor  
          agreements are voluntary agreements between landowners and  
          regulatory agencies for conservation of protected species.   
          Unlike the federal ESA regulations, California law does not  








                                                                  SB 448
                                                                  Page  4

          explicitly authorize safe harbor agreements under CESA.

          According to the author, one of the challenges faced by the  
          state in protecting endangered, threatened or candidate plant  
          and animal species, is that much of the habitat for these  
          species is on private land.  For these species to recover, it is  
          essential for the state to be able to work cooperatively and  
          collaboratively with landowners to protect species and the  
          health of the state's biota on non-state lands.  Landowners,  
          however, can be discouraged from conservation efforts for fear  
          that such efforts will attract endangered, threatened or  
          candidate species and result in regulation or limits on the use  
          of their property.  The author has introduced this bill to  
          provide landowners with some assurance that they will not be  
          penalized for their conservation efforts. 

          Fish and Game Code Section 2086 authorizes voluntary programs  
          for routine and ongoing agricultural activities on farms or  
          ranches that encourage habitat for wildlife.  It could be argued  
          that this section provides limited authority for safe harbor  
          agreements, however, this section is limited to routine and  
          ongoing agricultural activities.  The author and sponsor agree  
          that Section 2086 provides limited authority to DFG to create  
          safe harbor agreements, but believe that legislation is needed  
          not only to provide certainty to landowners that DFG is acting  
          with complete authority, but also to establish a conservation  
          benchmark, or "net conservation benefit."  

          This bill states that its purpose is to establish a program that  
          will encourage landowners to manage their lands voluntarily to  
          benefit endangered, threatened, or candidate species, and not be  
          subject to additional regulatory restrictions as a result of  
          their conservation efforts.  The program is designed to increase  
          species populations, create new habitats and enhance existing  
          habitats, and provides that while the increase may be temporary  
          it shall not reduce the baseline number of the species.

          The obligations and benefits under the program are reciprocal.   
          Landowners achieve greater flexibility to manage lands, and are  
          granted incidental take authority and assurances that no further  
          regulatory requirements will be imposed.  On the other hand,  
          from a conservation perspective, the agreements require the  
          establishment of a scientific baseline, and require the  
          landowner to manage his or her lands over the duration of the  
          agreement in order to provide a "net conservation benefit" to  








                                                                  SB 448
                                                                  Page  5

          the species.  When the agreement is terminated, the species  
          should be in a condition that is at least as good as, and no  
          worse than, the baseline conditions.

          According to the author and the sponsor, it is important to  
          create an explicit authorization for a safe harbor program under  
          state law. While federal agencies are actively engaged in  
          working with landowners in California to create safe harbor  
          agreements for federally listed species, landowners and DFG are  
          handicapped by the silence of state law on this matter.  
          Landowners could benefit from the ability to work simultaneously  
          with state and federal wildlife agencies on safe harbor  
          agreements for species that may be listed under both statutes.

          Supporters of this bill note that safe harbor agreements were  
          created under federal regulations several years ago and have  
          become an important tool in promoting conservation on private  
          lands, with more than 4 million acres of land now enrolled in  
          these federal agreements.  They also note that while DFG has  
          relied on interpretations of CESA to issue take permits and is  
          in the process of developing the first Voluntary Landowners  
          Agreement, these existing mechanisms have not provided a good  
          fit with the federal safe harbor program.  Supporters believe  
          this bill will encourage landowners to take positive actions,  
          and will benefit both declining species and landowners.

          The California Farm Bureau supports this bill if amended.  The  
          Bureau is supportive of the concept and recognizes the need for  
          a California safe harbor program, but asserts that amendments  
          are needed to protect the confidentiality of information  
          provided by participants in the program and to protect  
          neighboring landowners.  The Bureau indicates they are working  
          with the author in an effort to craft amendments that will  
          create the necessary incentives for landowners to participate  
          and for the Bureau to support the bill.                

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

           Support 
           
          Defenders of Wildlife
          Audubon California
          Sustainable Conservation
          The Nature Conservancy
           








                                                                 SB 448
                                                                  Page  6

            Opposition 
           
          None on file.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)  
          319-2096