throbber

`
`Filed 5/31/22
`
`
`
`CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
`
`
`
`IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
`
`(Sacramento)
`
`----
`
`C093542
`
`(Super. Ct. No.
`34201980003216CUWMGDS)
`
`
`
`ALMOND ALLIANCE OF CALIFORNIA et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`FISH AND GAME COMMISSION et al.,
`
`
`
`XERCES SOCIETY FOR INVERTEBRATE
`CONSERVATION et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs and Respondents,
`
`Defendants and Appellants;
`
`Interveners and Appellants.
`
`
`APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, James P.
`
`Arguelles, Judge. Reversed.
`
`Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Robert W. Byrne, Senior Assistant Attorney
`
`General, Eric M. Katz, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Jeffrey P. Reusch and
`Adam L. Levitan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Appellants California
`Fish and Game Commission and California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
`
`Environmental Law Clinic, Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School, Deborah
`A. Sivas, Matthew J. Sanders, and Stephanie L. Safdi, for Intervenors and Appellants
`Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for Food
`Safety.
`
`Nossaman, Paul S. Weiland, Robert D. Thornton, Benjamin Z. Rubin, and
`Samantha Savoni, for Plaintiffs and Respondents Almond Alliance of California et al.
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The California Endangered Species Act (Act) (Fish & G. Code,1 § 2050 et seq.)
`
`directs the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) to “establish a list of endangered
`
`species and a list of threatened species.” (§ 2070.) The issue presented here is whether
`
`the bumble bee, a terrestrial invertebrate, falls within the definition of fish, as that term is
`
`used in the definitions of endangered species in section 2062, threatened species in
`
`section 2067, and candidate species (i.e., species being considered for listing as
`
`endangered or threatened species) in section 2068 of the Act. More specifically, we must
`
`determine whether the Commission exceeded its statutorily delegated authority when it
`
`designated four bumble bee species as candidate species under consideration for listing as
`
`endangered species.
`
`We first reaffirm and expand upon our conclusion in California Forestry
`
`Association that section 45 defines fish as the term is used in sections 2062, 2067, and
`
`2068 of the Act, by application of section 2. (California Forestry Assn. v. California
`
`Fish & Game Commission (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1535, 1552 (California Forestry
`
`Assn.).) That means the Commission has the authority to list an invertebrate as an
`
`endangered or threatened species. We next consider whether the Commission’s authority
`
`is limited to listing only aquatic invertebrates. We conclude the answer is, “no.”
`
`Although the term fish is colloquially and commonly understood to refer to aquatic
`
`species, the term of art employed by the Legislature in the definition of fish in section 45
`
`is not so limited.
`
`We acknowledge the scope of the definition is ambiguous but also recognize we
`
`are not interpreting the definition on a blank slate. The legislative history supports the
`
`liberal interpretation of the Act (the lens through which we are required to construe the
`
`Act) that the Commission may list any invertebrate as an endangered or threatened
`
`
`
`1
`Undesignated section references are to the Fish and Game Code. References to
`the code are to the Fish and Game Code.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`species. We thus agree with the Commission, the California Department of Fish and
`
`Wildlife (Department), and intervenors Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation,
`
`Defenders of Wildlife, and Center for Food Safety (collectively public interest groups)
`
`that the trial court erred when it reached a contrary conclusion.2 We accordingly reverse
`
`the judgment.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3
`
`I
`
`The Definition Of Fish In Section 45
`
`Section 45 is located in chapter 1, “general definitions” (bolding and capitalization
`
`omitted), of division 0.5, “general provisions and definitions” (bolding and capitalization
`
`
`
`2
`Petitioners Almond Alliance of California, California Association of Pest Control
`Advisers, California Citrus Mutual, California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association,
`California Farm Bureau Federation, Western Agricultural Processors Association,
`Western Growers Association, and The Wonderful Company LLC (collectively
`petitioners) named both the Commission and the Department as respondents in their writ
`petition. Petitioners, however, sought relief against only the Commission and later
`stipulated the Department be designated a real party in interest.
`
`3
`The parties filed several requests for judicial notice. We granted one such request,
`filed by the public interest groups, in an October 2021 order. We deferred ruling on three
`additional requests, filed by petitioners, the public interest groups, and the Commission
`and Department, respectively. We now grant those requests because they contain
`relevant statutory law (Evid. Code, § 451, subd. (a)), regulations or legislative enactments
`(id., § 452, subd. (b)), official acts of legislative and executive departments, including
`administrative agencies, of the United States and California (id., § 452, subd. (c); Post v.
`Prati (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 626, 634 [legislative history falls within § 452, subd. (c)]),
`and documents not reasonably subject to dispute and capable of immediate and accurate
`determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy (Evid. Code,
`§ 452, subd. (h)). On the eve of oral argument, petitioners further requested we take
`judicial notice of Assembly Bill No. 559 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 559) and
`various legislative history documents analyzing the bill. We granted the request but
`admonish petitioners’ counsel for not presenting the documents to the trial court in the
`first instance and waiting until the eve of oral argument to present the documents to this
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`omitted) of the code. Prior to 1969, section 45 defined fish as “wild fish, mollusks, or
`
`crustaceans, including any part, spawn or ova thereof.” In 1969, the Legislature amended
`
`section 45 via Senate Bill No. 858 (1969 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 858) to add
`
`invertebrates and amphibia to the definition of fish. (Stats. 1969, ch. 689, § 1.)
`
`Section 45 has been amended only once since 1969 -- in 2015 (effective January 1,
`
`2016), when the Legislature made nonsubstantive stylistic changes, modifying the
`
`definition to read “ ‘[f]ish’ means a wild fish, mollusk, crustacean, invertebrate,
`
`amphibian, or part, spawn, or ovum of any of those animals.” (Stats. 2015, ch. 154, § 5.)
`
`When Senate Bill 858 was moving through the Legislature, the Department and
`
`Natural Resources Agency submitted an enrolled bill report in support of the bill, stating
`
`“[t]he expanded definition of fish will permit closer control and monitoring of the harvest
`
`of species such as starfish, sea urchins, sponges and worms, and the . . . Commission will
`
`be authorized to make regulations deemed necessary for proper protection and
`
`management of these species.” (Dept. Fish & Game and Natural Resources Agency,
`
`Enrolled Bill Rep. on Senate Bill 858, July 24, 1969.) The Department of Finance also
`
`submitted an enrolled bill report regarding Senate Bill 858. The Department of Finance
`
`therein stated: “By expanding the definition of fish as proposed in this bill, it will be
`
`possible for the . . . Commission to regulate the taking of amphibians (frogs) and
`
`invertebrates, such as starfish, sea urchins, anemones, jellyfish and sponges.” (Dept.
`
`Finance, Enrolled Bill Rep. on Senate Bill 858, Aug. 1, 1969.)
`
`
`court and thereby eliminating any opportunity for the other parties to provide a written
`analysis regarding the documents’ applicability to the issue presented.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Section 2 in the same chapter as section 45 provides the definition of fish governs
`
`the code and regulations adopted under the code, “[u]nless the provisions or the context
`
`otherwise requires.”4
`
`II
`
`The 1970 Endangered And Rare Animals Legislation
`
`“California has been at the forefront of enacting legislation to protect endangered
`
`and rare animals -- first doing so in 1970.” (California Forestry Assn., supra, 156
`
`Cal.App.4th at p. 1540.) The 1970 endangered and rare animals legislation (1970
`
`Legislation) provided “[n]o person shall import into this state, or take, possess, or sell
`
`within this state, any bird, mammal, fish, amphibia or reptile, or any part or product
`
`thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered animal or rare animal,
`
`except as otherwise provided in this chapter.” (Former § 2052; see Stats. 1970, ch. 1510,
`
`§ 3.) Former section 2051 defined “ ‘[e]ndangered animal’ ” as “an animal of a species
`
`or subspecies of birds, mammals, fish, amphibia, or reptiles, the prospects of survival and
`
`reproduction of which are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss
`
`of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease”; and
`
`“ ‘[r]are animal’ ” as “an animal of a species or subspecies of birds, mammals, fish,
`
`amphibia or reptiles that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is in such
`
`
`
`4
`When the Act was enacted in 1984, former section 2 provided: “Unless the
`provisions or the context otherwise requires, these definitions, rules of construction, and
`general provisions shall govern the construction of this code and all regulations made or
`adopted under this code.” (Stats. 1959, ch. 994, § 1.) Section 2 was amended in 1998
`and now provides: “Unless the provisions or the context otherwise requires, the
`definitions in this chapter govern the construction of this code and all regulations adopted
`under this code.” (Stats. 1998, ch. 1052, § 3.) The statute thus has not materially
`changed for purposes of determining whether section 45 applies to define fish, as the
`term is used in sections 2062, 2067, and 2068 of the Act.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment
`
`worsens.” (Former § 2051; see Stats. 1970, ch. 1510, § 3.)
`
`III
`
`Pertinent Listing History Under The 1970 Legislation
`
`On June 27, 1980, the Commission unanimously passed an amendment to
`
`California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 670.5 to include as endangered animals
`
`the Lange’s metalmark butterfly and the El Segundo blue butterfly, and as rare animals
`
`the Smith’s blue butterfly and the Trinity bristle snail. The Trinity bristle snail is a
`
`terrestrial gastropod that is both a mollusk and an invertebrate.
`
`The minutes from the meeting state the Commission’s executive secretary reported
`
`the Commission had received a letter from Deputy Attorney General Denis Smaage,
`
`“which justified the Commission’s authority to classify insects as rare or endangered,”
`
`and reaffirmed the Commission had the authority to designate invertebrates as rare and
`
`endangered animals.
`
`The Commission submitted the June 1980 adopted California Code of
`
`Regulations, title 14, section 670.5 amendment to the Office of Administrative Law for
`
`approval and publication.5 The Office of Administrative Law disapproved the request on
`
`the ground the 1970 Legislation could not “be construed to include insects within the
`
`definition of ‘birds, mammals, fish, amphibia, or reptiles.’ ” The Commission asked for
`
`reconsideration, to which the Office of Administrative Law responded the Commission’s
`
`remedy was to appeal the decision to the Governor, but the time to do so had lapsed.
`
`
`
`5
`The Office of Administrative Law decides whether to approve or disapprove
`certain regulations submitted to it by other administrative agencies after making
`determinations of, among other things, the submitting agency’s authority in taking the
`action and the action’s consistency with the law. (Gov. Code, §§ 11349.1, subd. (a),
`11349.3, subd. (a).)
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`At a meeting on August 1, 1980, the Commission considered whether to refile the
`
`rejected amendment “re: list of rare and endangered species of birds, mammals, fishes,
`
`insects, crustaceans, reptiles and mollusks.” (Capitalization omitted.) The meeting
`
`minutes note the Commission’s executive secretary “stated that the Commission had
`
`received a letter from Gene Livingston, Director of the Office of Administrative Law,
`
`which took exception to the Deputy Attorney General’s opinion regarding the definition
`
`of insects as fish was in error. Mr. Livingston contended that insects are not fish and that
`
`the Commission lacked authority to list insects as endangered or rare species.” The
`
`Commission’s executive secretary requested authorization “to refile the order with the
`
`insects deleted from the list, and to then respond to concerns of Mr. Livingston with
`
`regard to the listing [of] insects.” The Commission unanimously approved the executive
`
`secretary’s request.
`
`On September 6, 1980, the Trinity bristle snail was added to California Code of
`
`Regulations, title 14, section 670.5 as a rare animal. It was listed as a mollusk, which
`
`falls only within the definition of fish in section 45 as a species then protected under the
`
`1970 Legislation. In other words, it did not otherwise qualify as a bird, mammal,
`
`amphibian, or reptile in former section 2051. (See Stats. 1970, ch. 1510, § 3.)
`
`By 1984, the Commission had listed 65 endangered and rare animals under the
`
`1970 Legislation. The Trinity bristle snail was one of the listed rare animals. The list
`
`also included two crustaceans -- the California freshwater shrimp as an endangered
`
`animal and the Shasta crayfish as a rare animal.
`
`IV
`
`The Act’s Legislative History
`
`
`
`In 1984, the 1970 Legislation was repealed and replaced with the Act. (California
`
`Forestry Assn., supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 1540.) In contrast to the 1970 Legislation’s
`
`“[e]ndangered animal” and “[r]are animal” terminology, the Act defined and applied to
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`“[e]ndangered species” and “[t]hreatened species.” (Stats. 1984, ch. 1162, § 6;
`
`Stats. 1984, ch. 1240, § 2.)
`
`As originally introduced, Assembly Bill No. 3309 (1983-1984 Reg. Sess.)
`
`(Assembly Bill 3309) would have amended (rather than repealed) the 1970 Legislation,
`
`and both the endangered species and threatened species definitions would have expressly
`
`included invertebrates as species and subspecies subject to protection, in addition to
`
`birds, mammals, fishes, amphibians, and reptiles. (Assembly Bill 3309, as introduced
`
`Feb. 16, 1984.) Shortly thereafter, the bill was amended to repeal the 1970 Legislation
`
`and replace it with the Act, but the proposed inclusion of invertebrate within the
`
`endangered and threatened species definitions remained unchanged. (Assem. Amend. to
`
`Assembly Bill 3309, Apr. 23, 1984.) The Assembly also added plants to the definition of
`
`threatened and endangered species. (Ibid.)
`
`Assembly Bill 3309 was amended twice in the Senate in June 1984. The first
`
`amendment is immaterial to this appeal; invertebrates were still expressly included within
`
`the definitions of endangered or threatened species. (Assem. Amend. to Assembly Bill
`
`3309, June 11, 1984.) Addressing this version of the bill, the Department and the Natural
`
`Resources Agency, on June 26, 1984, submitted a bill analysis in support of the bill,
`
`stating: “[Assembly Bill] 3309 . . . would change the designation categories of
`
`‘endangered’ and ‘rare’ to ‘endangered’ and ‘threatened,’ and would extend the
`
`provisions of the Act to plants. Also, by adding the term ‘invertebrates’ to the definitions
`
`of endangered and threatened species, this bill would reaffirm the Commission’s
`
`authority to include invertebrates among the groups of animals that may be designated as
`
`endangered or threatened.” (Dept. Fish & Game and Natural Resources Agency,
`
`Analysis of Assembly Bill 3309, June 26, 1984.) They further explained, “[s]ince 1970,
`
`the . . . Commission ha[d] declared 65 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians,
`
`fishes, and invertebrates to be endangered or rare.” (Ibid.)
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`As to their position regarding invertebrates, the Department and the Natural
`
`Resources Agency continued: “The [1970 Legislation] defined species as birds,
`
`mammals, fishes, reptiles, and amphibians. Although, technically, these terms name only
`
`vertebrate classes of animals, it was the Department’s understanding of legislative intent
`
`that the [1970 Legislation] was to extend to invertebrates as well. It was not believed
`
`necessary to include the term invertebrate in the original legislation because ‘fish’ is
`
`defined in the Fish and Game Code to include ‘invertebrates’ (Section 45, General
`
`Provisions and Definitions). This was supported by the fact that the Department has had
`
`a long history of regulation and management of numerous classes of invertebrates. In
`
`fact, three species of invertebrates are currently designated as endangered or rare by the
`
`. . . Commission. [¶] Specifying invertebrates in the definitions of endangered and
`
`threatened species, as proposed by [Assembly Bill] 3309, would serve to remove any
`
`doubts as to the Commission’s authority to designate insects as endangered or threatened,
`
`a doubt raised by the Office of Administrative Law in 1981 when it challenged the
`
`Commission’s designation of four species of butterflies as endangered. Although the
`
`Attorney General affirmed the Commission’s authority, the designation was not pursued
`
`because the period for appeal had expired.”6 (Dept. Fish & Game and Natural Resources
`
`Agency, Analysis of Assembly Bill 3309, June 26, 1984.) The Department and the
`
`Natural Resources Agency stated their view that “[i]nclusion of the term invertebrates in
`
`the definitions of endangered and threatened species would help eliminate confusion on
`
`the part of [the Office of Administrative Law] over the Commission’s authority under the
`
`
`
`6
`It appears the Department and Natural Resources Agency meant to refer to the
`Office of Administrative Law’s 1980 decision. We are unaware of any other decision by
`the Office of Administrative Law in 1981 regarding the Commission’s decision to list
`species of butterflies as endangered or rare animals under the 1970 Legislation.
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Act, but does not add any new authority to that which the [Attorney General] indicates
`
`already exists.” (Ibid.)
`
`
`
`On June 25, 1984, the day before the Department and the Natural Resources
`
`Agency submitted the foregoing bill analysis, Assembly Bill 3309 was amended to
`
`remove invertebrate from the proposed definitions of endangered and threatened species.
`
`(Sen. Amend. to Assembly Bill 3309, June 25, 1984.) That amendment also added to the
`
`definitions of endangered and threatened species that any species determined to be
`
`endangered or rare animals by the Commission under the 1970 Legislation on or before
`
`January 1, 1985, would be endangered or threatened species under the Act. (Ibid.) The
`
`bill was further amended to add the following as section 3: “The department shall
`
`participate fully and actively in the review of invertebrate [sic] native to this state for
`
`listing as endangered or threatened species by the United States Department of the
`
`Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (16
`
`U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.). [¶] The department shall report to the Legislature on or before
`
`May 15, 1985, its recommendations relating to the necessity and feasibility of including
`
`invertebrates in the California Endangered Species Act.” (Sen. Amend. to Assembly Bill
`
`3309, June 25, 1984, italics omitted.)
`
`Addressing the June 25, 1984, version of the bill, the Senate Committee on
`
`Natural Resources wrote “[s]ixty-five species of animals (excluding invertebrates) have
`
`been designated as endangered or rare by the . . . . Commission.” (Sen. Com. on Natural
`
`Resources, Analysis of Assembly Bill 3309, as amended June 25, 1984.)7 The committee
`
`explained Assembly Bill 3309 would incorporate “[s]everal concepts from federal law . .
`
`
`
`7
`We note the Senate Committee on Natural Resources’ analysis states it was
`analyzing Assembly Bill 3309 as “amended in the Senate June 26, 1984.” (Sen. Com. on
`Natural Resources, Analysis of Assembly Bill 3309, as amended June 25, 1984.) The
`correct amendment date was June 25, 1984, as no amendment was made to the bill on
`June 26, 1984.
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`. into state law.” (Sen. Com. on Natural Resources, Analysis of Assembly Bill 3309, as
`
`amended June 25, 1984.) It qualified, however: “Unlike federal law, the bill would
`
`exclude all invertebrates from eligibility for listing as threatened or endangered species.
`
`Federal law permits the listing of any invertebrate except any insect that poses an
`
`‘overwhelming or overriding risk to man’. The Department would, however, be required
`
`to participate in the consideration of the listing of threatened or endangered invertebrates
`
`native to California by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Additionally, the Department
`
`would be required to report by May 15, 1985, on the necessity and feasibility of including
`
`invertebrates in [the Act].” (Ibid.)
`
`The Senate again amended the bill twice in August 1984. On August 6, 1984, the
`
`Senate, in pertinent part, removed the requirement that the Department participate in the
`
`review of California native invertebrates for listing under the federal Endangered Species
`
`Act. (Sen. Amend. to Assembly Bill 3309, Aug. 6, 1984.) On August 22, 1984, the
`
`Senate, in pertinent part, further struck the requirement that the Department “report to the
`
`Legislature on or before May 15, 1985, its recommendations relating to the necessity and
`
`feasibility of including invertebrates in [the Act].” (Sen. Amend. to Assembly Bill 3309,
`
`Aug. 22, 1984.)
`
`The Assembly Office of Research prepared a report in advance of the Assembly
`
`considering whether to concur in the Senate’s amendments to Assembly Bill 3309.
`
`(Assem. Office of Research Rep. on Assembly Bill 3309, Aug. 29, 1984.) In discussing
`
`the bill as passed in the Assembly on June 13, 1984, the Assembly Office of Research
`
`made no mention of invertebrates. It instead stated the bill, as passed in the Assembly,
`
`repealed the provisions of the 1970 Legislation and “[d]efined ‘threatened species’ and
`
`‘endangered species,’ including plants.” (Assem. Office of Research Rep. on Assembly
`
`Bill 3309.) In discussing the Senate’s amendments, the Assembly Office of Research
`
`again did not mention invertebrates. (Ibid.) It explained the Senate amended the bill to
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`provide that any species listed by the Commission as an endangered or rare animal prior
`
`to January 1, 1985, would be endangered and threatened species under the Act. (Ibid.)
`
`
`
`In September 1984, the Department and the Natural Resources Agency submitted
`
`an enrolled bill report on Assembly Bill 3309. (Dept. Fish & Game and Natural
`
`Resources Agency, Enrolled Bill Report on Assembly Bill 3309, Sept. 12, 1984.) They
`
`explained the “bill was last analyzed following amendments in the Assembly on June 11”
`
`and, “[s]ince that time, several substantive and minor changes ha[d] occurred.” (Ibid.)
`
`The Department and the Natural Resources Agency considered the deletion of
`
`invertebrate from the definitions of endangered and threatened species to be a minor
`
`change, albeit one that “merits discussion,” explaining: “It was thought that adding this
`
`term to the definitions would clarify the Commission’s authority to include invertebrates
`
`among the animals that it listed as endangered and threatened, but after further
`
`consideration, the Department has concluded that sufficient authority currently exists and
`
`that adding the term invertebrates in the legislation would only serve to confuse the
`
`matter. For example, to have included the term would have required that, for
`
`consistency, all other references in the Fish and Game Code to the various groups of
`
`animals be amended to add the term invertebrates, as necessary.” (Ibid.) As background,
`
`the Department and the Natural Resources Agency noted: “Since 1970, the . . .
`
`Commission has declared 65 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, and
`
`invertebrates to be endangered or rare.” (Ibid.)
`
`V
`
`The Act Generally
`
`“In [the Act], the Legislature found and declared that certain species of fish,
`
`wildlife and plants have been rendered extinct as a consequence of man’s activities; that
`
`other species of fish, wildlife and plants are in danger of or threatened with extinction
`
`because their habitats are threatened with destruction, adverse modification or severe
`
`curtailment, or because of overexploitation, disease, predation, or other factors; and that
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`these species are of ecological, educational, historical, recreational, esthetic, economic,
`
`and scientific value to the people of California, and the conservation, protection and
`
`enhancement of them and their habitat is of statewide concern. (§ 2051.)” (Natural
`
`Resources Defense Council v. Fish & Game Com. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1104, 1111.)
`
`The Legislature further found and declared in the Act “the policy of the state to conserve,
`
`protect, restore, and enhance any endangered species or any threatened species and its
`
`habitat.” (§ 2052.)
`
`It is the Commission’s duty to “establish a list of endangered species and a list of
`
`threatened species,” and to “add or remove species from either list if it finds, upon the
`
`receipt of sufficient scientific information . . . that the action is warranted.” (§ 2070.)
`
`The Act identifies the species subject to protection as “native species or subspecies of a
`
`bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant.” (§§ 2062, 2067 & 2068.)8 “Under [the
`
`Act], ‘a native species or subspecies’ qualifies as ‘endangered’ if it ‘is in serious danger
`
`of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or
`
`more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation,
`
`competition, or disease.’ (§ 2062.)” (Central Coast Forest Assn. v. Fish & Game Com.
`
`(2017) 2 Cal.5th 594, 598 (Central Coast Forest Assn. I).) When it enacted the Act, the
`
`Legislature further declared, “[a]ny species determined by the [C]ommission as
`
`‘endangered’ on or before January 1, 1985, is an ‘endangered species.’ ” (§ 2062.)
`
`“A ‘native species or subspecies’ qualifies as ‘threatened’ if it is ‘not presently
`
`threatened with extinction,’ but ‘is likely to become an endangered species in the
`
`foreseeable future in the absence of . . . special protection and management efforts.’
`
`(§ 2067.)” (Central Coast Forest Assn. I, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 598.) When it enacted
`
`the Act, the Legislature also declared, “[a]ny animal determined by the [C]ommission as
`
`
`
`8
`These three statutes (§§ 2062, 2067 & 2068) have not been amended since being
`enacted in 1984.
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`‘rare’ on or before January 1, 1985, is a ‘threatened species.’ ” (§ 2067.) The
`
`Commission’s list of endangered and threatened species appears in section 670.5, title 14
`
`of the California Code of Regulations. (Central Coast Forest Assn. I, at p. 598.)
`
`“Any ‘interested person may petition the [C]ommission to add a species to, or to
`
`remove a species from’ these lists. (§ 2071.) A multi-step process exists for processing
`
`these petitions. First, the Department . . . , upon a referral from the Commission
`
`(§ 2073), ‘evaluate[s] the petition on its face and in relation to other relevant information
`
`the [D]epartment possesses or receives,’ and prepares a ‘written evaluation report’ that
`
`includes a recommendation as to whether the Commission should ‘reject[]’ the petition or
`
`‘accept[] and consider[]’ it, depending on whether ‘there is sufficient information to
`
`indicate that the petitioned action may be warranted.’ (§ 2073.5, subd. (a), italics added.)
`
`During this evaluation, any ‘person may submit information to the [D]epartment relating
`
`to the petitioned species.’ (§ 2073.4, subd. (a).) Second, the Commission, after
`
`‘consider[ing] the petition, the [D]epartment’s written report, [and] written comments
`
`received,’ determines whether the petition ‘provides sufficient information to indicate
`
`that the petitioned action may be warranted.’ (§ 2074.2, subd. (e)(2), italics added;
`
`see id., subd. (e)(1).) Upon finding that the petition does not provide such information,
`
`the Commission rejects it. (§ 2074.2, subd. (e)(1).) Upon finding that the petition does
`
`provide such information, the Commission ‘accept[s]’ it ‘for consideration.’ (§ 2074.2,
`
`subd. (e)(2).) Third, as to an accepted petition, the Department then conducts a more
`
`comprehensive ‘review of the status of the [petitioned] species’ and produces a written
`
`report, ‘based upon the best scientific information available to the [D]epartment, which
`
`indicates whether the petitioned action is warranted.’ (§ 2074.6, italics added.) Finally,
`
`after receiving the Department’s report, the Commission determines whether the
`
`petitioned action ‘is warranted’ or ‘is not warranted.’ (§ 2075.5, subd. (e).)” (Central
`
`Coast Forest Assn. I, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 598.)
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`The Act defines “ ‘[c]andidate species’ ” as “a native species or subspecies of a
`
`bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the [C]ommission has formally
`
`noticed as being under review by the [D]epartment for addition to either the list of
`
`endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the
`
`[C]ommission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either
`
`list.” (§ 2068.) Like the 1970 Legislation, the Act does not contain a definition of fish.
`
`(See §§ 2060-2089.25.)
`
`VI
`
`1998 Published Attorney General Opinion
`
`
`
`In 1998, the Attorney General published an opinion in response to a request from
`
`an assemblymember, in pertinent part, addressing “whether insects are eligible for listing
`
`as a threatened or endangered species under [the Act].” (81 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 222, 224
`
`(1998).) The Attorney General quoted the definitions of endangered species in
`
`section 2062, threatened species in section 2067, and candidate species in section 2068,
`
`and then stated: “These definitions limit the application of [the Act] to birds, mammals,
`
`fish, amphibians, reptiles, and plants. Insects do not fall within any of these categories.
`
`In zoological terms, insects comprise the Insecta class of the phylum Arthropoda.
`
`(Webster’s Third New Internat. Dict. (1971) p. 1168.) Since they are not within the
`
`governing definitions contained in [the Act], insects are not eligible for listing as
`
`threatened or endangered species thereunder. While the last sentence of section 2062 and
`
`of section 2067 ‘grandfather’ certain designations made prior to 1985, no insects were so
`
`designated. Therefore, we need not inquire whether insects were eligible for listing prior
`
`to 1985.”9 (81 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. at pp. 224, 225, fn. omitted.) In footnote 5, the
`
`
`
`9
`As explained post, the Attorney General, however, did not consider that the
`Commission had listed at least one invertebrate under the Act and insects are
`invertebrates.
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`Attorney General noted: “By comparison, the Federal Endangered Species Act explicitly
`
`includes ‘any member of the animal kingdom, including, without limitation any . . .
`
`arthropod or other invertebrate . . . .’ ” (Id. at p. 225, fn. 5.) The Attorney General
`
`concluded “that insects are ineligible for listing as a threatened or endangered species
`
`under [the Act].” (Id. at p. 225.)
`
`VII
`
`The Current Dispute
`
`In October 2018, the public interest groups petitioned the Commission to list four
`
`species of bumble bee as endangered species: the Crotch bumble bee, the Franklin
`
`bumble bee, the Suckley cuckoo bumble bee, and the Western bumble bee (collectively
`
`the four bumble bee species).
`
`
`
`In April 2019, the Department issued a report, in which it recommended “the
`
`Commission accept the Petition for further consideration under [the Act]” because “the
`
`Petition provide[d] sufficient scientific information to indicate [listing the four bumble
`
`bee species] may be warranted.” On June 12, 2019, the Commission “accepted for
`
`consideration the petition submitted to list [the four bumbl

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket