Opinion ID: 2585012
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Violations of the Public Trust Doctrine

Text: EPIC contends that the Incidental Take Permit constituted abandonment of the DFG's public trust obligation to protect the natural resources of this state by virtue of the no surprises clauses, discussed above, and because of improper delegation to Pacific Lumber to determine which northern spotted owl sites will receive protection and which will be eliminated. (18) As the Court of Appeal recognized, there are two distinct public trust doctrines invoked by EPIC. First is the common law doctrine, which involves the government's affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources.... ( National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 446 [189 Cal.Rptr. 346, 658 P.2d 709].) The second is a public trust duty derived from statute, specifically Fish and Game Code section 711.7, pertaining to fish and wildlife: The fish and wildlife resources are held in trust for the people of the state by and through the department. ( Id., subd. (a).) There is doubtless an overlap between the two public trust doctrinesโthe protection of water resources is intertwined with the protection of wildlife. (See National Audubon Society, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 447.) Nonetheless the duty of government agencies to protect wildlife is primarily statutory. Fish and Game Code section 1801, which declares that it is the policy of the state to encourage the preservation, conservation, and maintenance of wildlife resources under the jurisdiction and influence of the state, also declares in subdivision (h) that [i]t is not intended that this policy shall provide any power to regulate natural resources or commercial or other activities connected therewith, except as specifically provided by the Legislature. Generally speaking, therefore, we will look to the statutes protecting wildlife to determine if DFG or another government agency has breached its duties in this regard. In the previous part of this opinion we concluded that DFG breached its duty to require full mitigation of the impacts of an authorized take of a listed species under section 2081(b)(2) by the no surprises provisions in the HCP and Implementation Agreement. Its violation, therefore, is not of some general public trust duty, but of a specific statutory obligation. Moreover, we find no support in the record for EPIC's second claim, that in the Incidental Take Permit DFG improperly delegated to Pacific Lumber which northern spotted owl sites should be preserved. Rather, the relevant documents reveal that DFG has maintained its authority to review Pacific Lumber's site-specific decisions regarding preservation of northern spotted owl habitat. We therefore conclude the Incidental Take Permit did not violate a common law public trust duty.