An act to amend Sections 3511 and 4700 of, and to add Section 2081.13 to, the Fish and Game Code, relating to protected species.
Summary
AB 697 creates a narrow statutory authorization allowing the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to permit incidental take of four fully protected species—the salt-marsh harvest mouse, California Ridgways rail, California black rail, and white-tailed kite—when the take results from impacts of the Sears Point to Mare Island Improvement Project on State Route 37. The new section added to the Fish and Game Code applies only to that specified project corridor in Sonoma, Napa, and Solano counties and only if the department determines the project meets the California Endangered Species Act’s incidental take permit requirements and related conservation standards.
The bill also amends the fully protected bird and mammal provisions of the Fish and Game Code to expressly recognize Section 2081.13 as an exception to the general prohibition on taking or possessing fully protected species. It requires avoidance of take to the maximum extent possible, department-approved monitoring and adaptive management, mitigation sufficient to meet conservation standards, and payment of the applicable permit fee. The bill states that it does not exempt the project from any other law, so other environmental, permitting, and regulatory requirements remain in place.
Impact
AB 697 modifies the Fish and Game Code by adding a project-specific exception to California’s otherwise strict protections for fully protected species and by cross-referencing that exception in the bird and mammal take prohibitions. In practical terms, it gives the Department of Fish and Wildlife authority to approve incidental take for the State Route 37 Sears Point to Mare Island Improvement Project, but only under conditions tied to incidental take permitting, mitigation, monitoring, and adaptive management. The bill affects the project applicant, the department, and the listed species, while leaving other state and local laws applicable to the project.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the legislative process. The recorded votes were unanimous at each stage shown, including committee and floor votes in both houses, with no recorded opposition. That voting pattern suggests general agreement that the measure was a targeted, project-specific wildlife permitting fix rather than a broader policy change.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s creation of a special carve-out for a single transportation project to allow incidental take of species that are ordinarily fully protected. Environmental and wildlife advocates could view that as weakening protections or setting a precedent for project-specific exceptions, while supporters would emphasize that the authorization is tightly limited, conditioned on mitigation, and still subject to all other laws. Another possible issue is whether the monitoring and adaptive management requirements are sufficient to ensure full mitigation of impacts to the listed species.
An act to amend Sections 51178 and 51181 of the Government Code, and to amend Sections 4202 and 4204 of the Public Resources Code, relating to land use.
An act to amend Sections 2301 and 2302 of, and to add Section 2303 to, the Fish and Game Code, to add and repeal Section 515 of the Food and Agricultural Code, to amend Sections 675, 676, and 676.