Timber industry's coho case flops

John Driscoll

The Times-Standard

February 15, 2008

The California Supreme Court has denied to hear a timber industry suit to remove state protections for coho salmon, effectively ending the case filed in 2005.

The court left in place a California appeals court ruling that set precedents in how the California Endangered Species Act is applied. The decision means that any project permitted by the state has to be reviewed by the agency in charge to see if it would harm coho salmon, and make up for that harm, said Tom Weseloh with California Trout, which intervened in the case.

”We've fought enough over the listing,” Weseloh said, “let's get on with restoration and recovery.”

California Trout first asked the California Fish and Game Commission to put two populations of coho salmon on the state endangered species list in 2000. When the commission determined that the fish should be deemed endangered from San Francisco Bay to Punta Gorda, and as threatened from Punta Gorda to the Oregon border, the California Forestry Association sued.

The forestry association claimed the listing was duplicative because the coho salmon was already federally protected. It also claimed that coho from hatcheries need to be included when considering their status, as well as populations of fish throughout its range -- including in Canada and Russia .

The Sacramento Superior Court ruled against the forestry association in June 2006, ruling that the state was correct to list the coho because federal protections weren't preventing the decline of the fish. That decision was backed up by the 3rd District Court of Appeal.

The courts' decisions also mean that individual segments of a species' population can be protected, Weseloh said, and that the state doesn't have to consider populations of a species outside its borders when deciding whether to protect it under the California Endangered Species Act.

”From our point of view we're hopeful to get ahead of all these listings,” said Neal Ewald, vice president for Green Diamond Resource Co., which owns more than 450,000 acres of timberland in Northern California.

Green Diamond and federal agencies recently signed off on a habitat conservation plan that covers several species of protected fish and amphibians, and three species that might be protected in the future. Ewald said that the company is working with state agencies to make sure the plan is consistent with state law, but that this week's ruling had no bearing on that process.  

Ewald said he is not sure how the court decision would impact timber operations.

John Driscoll can be reached at 441-0504 or jdriscoll@times-standard.com.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Source:  http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_8268982