That's the entire reason the court stopped construction. It's in the public documents. The ESA was supposed to identify any plots of old growth native forests (especially stuff like bogs and streams). Google rushed to cut everything down to remove any evidence of old growth habitats but they claimed that they did their own internal assessment beforehand and preserved a few of those sites. The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (aka Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto) is the group that used satellite imagery to argue in court that they lied and that there were several native, protected strands that were NOT spared.
Which court stopped construction? I have not read that courts are involved at all yet, only that Finnish Supervisory Agency (Lupa- ja valvontavirasto LVV) has ordered Google to stop construction. I found a source [0] claiming that some areas that are important for biodiversity were first spared and then cut down, but this does not mean that they were old growth and the Muhos county official Mikko Kari states "[The areas] are not legally mandated to be protected."
Now, I'm not a fan of Google and I'd much prefer this whole project was scrapped, which is why I'm interested if there are sources that provide something that I've missed from the Finnish media.
