SB1063 sets a detailed permitting framework for projects that would take (remove, encroach on, or relocate) western Joshua trees. It requires a tree census by size class, mandates avoidance and minimization measures, authorizes relocation under department protocols, and allows permittees to satisfy mitigation obligations either by carrying out mitigation actions or by paying into a centralized mitigation fund under a two-tiered fee schedule.
The bill also creates expedited, no-fee permit authority for actions tied to life-sustaining services, establishes criteria and reporting requirements for delegating permit authority to counties and cities, and exempts development of departmental relocation and survey protocols from the usual state administrative rulemaking process. For developers, local governments, and conservation planners, the bill replaces ad hoc mitigation with predictable fees and standardized procedures — while raising questions about relocation efficacy, fee adequacy, and local enforcement capacity.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires applicants to submit a size-class census and to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to western Joshua trees; authorizes relocation under department protocols; offers a fee-in-lieu option with two geographic fee tiers; and allows the department to delegate permitting to counties or cities under conditions.
Who It Affects
Project proponents building single- and multi-family residences, accessory structures, and public works projects in Joshua tree range; counties and cities that opt into delegation agreements; the Department of Fish and Wildlife for oversight; and conservation organizations that may receive mitigation funds or implement relocation projects.
Why It Matters
The bill replaces case-by-case mitigation with a standardized permit-and-fee structure and formalizes relocation as an authorized mitigation tool, which changes how development proposals are evaluated and how mitigation funding is collected and deployed across the species’ range.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB1063 creates a permit process that lets the Department authorize the taking of western Joshua trees when applicants meet specific conditions. Applicants must provide a census and photographs that categorize each tree into one of three size classes.
They must avoid and minimize impacts when practicable, and the department will require mitigation measures roughly proportional to the authorized impacts. Instead of implementing mitigation on-site, applicants may pay defined fees into a state mitigation fund.
The bill formalizes relocation as an explicit permit condition: the department can require relocation, specify size classes eligible for relocation, and requires on-site oversight by a desert native plant specialist. The department must adopt guidelines and relocation protocols “based on the best available science” and is expressly exempted from Chapter 3.5 of the Government Code when developing those materials, meaning the protocols can be adopted without the normal state administrative rulemaking steps.For projects tied to “life-sustaining services,” the department may issue permits without requiring fees or mitigation; those requests must be decided quickly (30 days, or 10 days when addressing an immediate threat to health or safety) and, if granted, the permittee has 60 days to complete the authorized take unless the department extends that period.
The bill treats any stem or trunk arising from the ground as an individual tree for mitigation and fee purposes, which affects how many trees a project is considered to take.Counties and cities may enter into agreements to authorize takes for single-family and multifamily projects and public works projects if they adopt an ordinance enforcing the chapter’s requirements, follow standardized survey methods, collect fees and remit them quarterly, and file quarterly reports. Under those agreements, localities can authorize up to 10 individual tree takes for private residential projects and up to 40 for public works projects, with additional department concurrence required for certain higher-public-works takes.
The bill also sets two fee tiers: one for projects inside a broadly defined corridor in the inland southern Central Valley–Mojave area and a higher tier for projects within two miles of Joshua Tree National Park or elsewhere outside that corridor; fee amounts vary by size class.Finally, the bill allows the department to reduce fees when a project proponent conserves compensatory habitat land otherwise required for the project, and it clarifies that landowners who voluntarily accept relocated trees generally will not be liable for their continued survival or required to change existing land uses to protect those trees, absent a written agreement to the contrary.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines three size classes for western Joshua trees and requires a project-site census with photographs that categorize every tree into those classes before a permit is issued.
Permittees may satisfy mitigation obligations by paying a fee-in-lieu: a lower tier (e.g.
$1,000; $200; $150 per tree by size) applies inside a defined inland corridor, while a higher tier (e.g.
$2,500; $500; $340) applies within two miles of Joshua Tree National Park or elsewhere outside the corridor.
The department may issue no-fee, expedited permits for takes tied to life-sustaining services, with a 30-day decision deadline (10 days for urgent health/safety requests) and a 60-day window to complete the authorized taking.
Counties and cities can be delegated permit authority for residential and public works projects if they adopt an ordinance, follow standardized survey methods, remit fees quarterly, and limit takes to 10 trees for private homes and up to 40 for public works (20–40 requires department concurrence).
The statute counts each stem or trunk arising from the ground as an individual tree for mitigation and fees, and it shields landowners who accept relocated trees from ongoing liability or maintenance obligations unless they sign a written agreement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Census, avoidance/minimization, and proportional mitigation or fee-in-lieu
These subsections require applicants to submit a full on-site census with size-class photos and to demonstrate avoidance and minimization measures before the department will authorize any take. The mitigation obligation must be roughly proportional to the impact, but the bill explicitly allows permittees to instead pay into a fund following the fee schedules in subdivisions (d) and (e). Practically, this replaces bespoke, project-level mitigation plans with either department-approved mitigation actions or standardized monetary compensation calibrated by tree size.
Relocation authority, oversight, and protocol development
The department can require relocation as a permit condition and must impose measures to assist relocated trees’ survival, including timing, orientation, and on-site oversight by a desert native plant specialist. The bill directs the department to adopt relocation guidelines based on best available science and exempts that guidance from the state’s usual administrative rulemaking process. That speeds adoption but narrows formal public notice and judicial-review pathways for those protocols.
Life‑sustaining services exemption and expedited timelines
When a proposed take is related to maintenance, operation, or construction of a life-sustaining service, the department may grant permits without fees or mitigation. The bill imposes strict decision deadlines—30 days for standard requests and 10 days for imminent threats to health or safety—and gives a 60-day window to complete the authorized take, extendable at the department’s discretion. Those timelines prioritize rapid action for essential services but limit the department’s discretion to condition permits with time-consuming mitigation.
Counting stems as individual trees
The statute treats each stem or trunk arising from the ground as an individual western Joshua tree for mitigation and fee calculations. This mechanical rule will increase counted takes on multi-stem clumps and directly affects fee liabilities and mitigation obligations without allowing case-by-case biological assessments of clonal or multi-stemmed individuals.
Local delegation of take authorization and reporting requirements
The department may enter agreements to delegate permitting to counties and cities for residential developments and public works, but only if the locality adopts an ordinance requiring compliance with the chapter, uses department-standardized survey methods, collects and remits fees quarterly, and files detailed quarterly reports. The agreement allows local issuance up to numeric caps (10 trees for private residences; up to 40 for public works) and permits the department to suspend or revoke delegation for noncompliance or conservation concerns. The requirement for annual local population assessments and standardized methods sets up a centralized data flow but creates administrative workloads for local governments.
Two-tiered fee schedule tied to geography and size classes
Subdivision (d) sets a fee schedule for projects inside a defined corridor bounded by specified highways; subdivision (e) applies higher fees to projects within two miles of Joshua Tree National Park or to projects outside the corridor. Fees are explicit by size class and provide an express option to satisfy mitigation via payment. The bill also authorizes fee reductions where proponents conserve compensatory mitigation land, creating a predictable, if simplified, market mechanism for funding mitigation.
Fee reductions for conserved land and liability for relocated trees
The department may reduce fees when the project proponent conserves compensatory mitigation land, allowing some interchangeability between on-the-ground conservation and fee payments. The permittee remains responsible for measures to help relocated trees survive, but private landowners who accept relocated trees are generally shielded from ongoing liability or management obligations unless they agree otherwise in writing. This reduces barriers to accepting translocated trees but could shift long-term maintenance responsibilities to permittees or the mitigation fund.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Project proponents and developers: gain predictable compliance pathways (census + fee schedule) and an option to pay a fixed fee instead of designing and implementing individualized mitigation projects.
- Counties and cities that opt into delegation: receive local control to approve residential and public works projects concurrently with project permits and may collect reasonable administrative fees.
- State conservation programs and NGOs: receive dedicated fee revenue for a fund that can be used for compensatory habitat, restoration, or centralized mitigation projects.
- Permittees needing urgent life-sustaining services: benefit from expedited, no-fee permits and short departmental decision timelines for health-and-safety cases.
- Landowners accepting relocated trees: receive an explicit liability shield from ongoing maintenance or survival obligations unless they agree otherwise in writing.
Who Bears the Cost
- Private developers and public project proponents: face new per-tree fees or the cost of implementing proportional mitigation and relocation measures, with fees scaled by tree size and location.
- Local governments that accept delegation: must adopt ordinances, perform annual population assessments, collect and remit fees, and prepare quarterly reports—adding administrative and enforcement responsibilities.
- The Department of Fish and Wildlife: must develop relocation and survey protocols, oversee delegated programs, review censuses and mitigation plans, and potentially enforce compliance—tasks that will require staff time and resources.
- Permit applicants that relocate trees: bear the cost and operational responsibility for on-site survival measures and must fund specialists and implementation.
- Conservation managers and ecologists: may inherit the technical burden of designing effective relocation and mitigation projects funded by fees—if the fee fund’s purchases are used for meaningful conservation on the ground.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between creating a fast, administrable system to allow development and essential services to proceed (including no-fee, expedited permits) and ensuring that mitigation — whether by relocation or fee-funded conservation — actually preserves the species’ ecological value; the bill trades case-by-case biological judgment for predictability and speed, but predictability may come at the cost of conservation effectiveness and scientific transparency.
The bill substitutes monetary fees and standardized procedures for site-specific mitigation decisions. That creates administrative predictability but risks mismatching monetary values to ecological losses: a fee schedule tied only to height classes cannot fully capture ecological function, age, reproductive value, or landscape connectivity.
Where fees are lower (the inland corridor) the fund’s purchasing power may be insufficient to secure equivalent habitat elsewhere.
Relocation is elevated as an acceptable mitigation tool, but the biological success of translocating desert trees is uncertain and highly site-specific. The exemption of relocation and survey protocols from the state’s administrative rulemaking process accelerates deployment but reduces formal public vetting and the procedural safeguards that normally allow stakeholders to critique methodology.
Counting each stem as an individual tree simplifies enforcement but can inflate take counts for multi-stem individuals, altering fee liabilities and incentivizing mechanical pruning or other actions that could worsen outcomes. Finally, the bill’s life-sustaining services exemption and the department’s discretion on what qualifies are not tightly defined, creating room for differing interpretations and potential overuse of the expedited, no-fee pathway.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.