CA Supreme Court gives new protection to endangered species

The California Supreme Court gave new protection to the state's endangered species on July 17, ruling unanimously that developers, loggers and other commercial interests may be required to compensate for unforeseen wildlife losses. The ruling, which affects both public works and private development, threw out a long-term logging plan approved by the state for 200,000 acres in Humboldt County, a plan that lower courts put on hold several years ago. The state high court said the Department of Forestry had approved an "unidentifiable" plan that was still a work in progress and then delegated its completion to the logging company. Justice Carlos R. Moreno, writing for the court, called the Forestry Department's action illegal and an abrogation of its duties. The decision grew out of lawsuits that followed the historic Headwaters Agreement, a 1996 pact between Pacific Lumber Co. and the state and federal governments. It was designed to resolve litigation and disputes over the logging of old-growth forests. The battle between loggers and environmentalists centered on land that had been in timber production for 120 years and was home to the marbled murrelet, an endangered bird. After Pacific Lumber was acquired by Maxxam Inc. in 1996, Pacific began cutting down old-growth redwoods at a faster rate to offset Maxxam's debt. The deforestation led to litigation and huge protests. The pact required Pacific Lumber to sell part of its land to the government for conservation and to obtain environmental permits. The new ruling ends a long-running battle over those permits but is not expected to unravel the pact. The decision established rules that the state must follow in approving large-scale logging plans or any major development that might endanger wildlife facing extinction. Environmentalists and labor groups praised the ruling, saying it would help make the state more vigilant before granting permits for environmentally sensitive work. The court said permits allowing companies to kill endangered and threatened species during the course of development should not make the industry immune from having to take future measures to compensate for unexpected wildlife losses. Although companies need not compensate for species killed in natural disasters out of the industry's control, they must mitigate for wildlife losses when the company's conduct contributed to them or when a natural disaster makes the commercial activity more threatening to endangered wildlife, the court said.