SAN FRANCISCO — In a victory for environmentalists, the state Supreme Court has left intact a ruling indicating that the state cannot approve permits for developments that harm or displace endangered species.
But the state Department of Fish and Game is continuing to issue permits, and a department attorney on Thursday sought to downplay the significance of the ruling.
A lawyer for environmental groups suggested that the Supreme Court's decision on Wednesday could undermine a sweeping Orange County conservation plan signed last week, but state Fish and Game officials disagreed, calling the plan legally sound.
Fish and Game officials have allowed development projects that may incidentally kill species protected by California law, as long as the developer provides comparable wildlife habitat elsewhere.
About 110 such permits have been issued for developments statewide, according to Fish and Game officials.
But in April, the 4th District Court of Appeal said that such agreements appear to violate the California Endangered Species Act, which allows incidental killing of protected species only for scientific, educational and management purposes.
While ruling that environmentalists had waited too long to challenge a proposed residential development in Riverside County, the appellate court said it would have declared the permit invalid if properly challenged.
The state Supreme Court denied review of the Riverside County case Wednesday, with only Justice Marvin R. Baxter voting to grant a hearing.
More than 150 plants and animals are protected under the California Endangered Species Act that are not covered by federal law.
Kate Neiswender, a lawyer for environmental groups in the case, said that the ruling should be an incentive to change state law to require public comment before approval of developments that harm or displace protected species.
"What the environmental community wants is an incidental-take procedure similar to the federal procedure, where there are public hearings, appropriate mitigation [to protect wildlife and the environment] is developed and implemented, and you look to make sure the mitigation's worked," said Neiswender, whose clients include the San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society.
"What we've had to date is a back-room process totally within the discretion of Fish and Game."
Neiswender called the Supreme Court decision significant, saying it provides a means for environmental groups to sue to stop development projects.
