Forest treatments planned for 10,500 acres of Southern Oregon spotted owl habitat must be re-evaluated after wildfires tore through the area, according to a federal judge.
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken has ruled that federal wildlife biologists must again consult on species impacts from the two timber projects, which were approved shortly before 4,800 acres within their boundaries burned in 2019.
Federal officials argued another review was unnecessary because the original “biological opinion,” or BiOp, that assessed the projects was still valid despite fires that swept through spotted owl habitat.
While the government’s overall conclusions may remain unchanged, it’s still required to consider “new information concerning wildfires in and around the action area” under the Endangered Species Act, Aiken said.
Even before wildfires damaged the spotted owl’s critical habitat, the Poor Windy and Evans Creek projects weren’t properly studied by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the judge said.
Specifically, Aiken agreed with environmental advocates that federal officials arrived at conclusions that were contradicted by their own findings about competition between spotted owls and the more aggressive barred owls.
The BiOp laid out evidence that spotted owls are out-competed “with no known exception” in areas used for nesting, roosting and foraging, including 10,500 acres of habitat set to be reduced within the 16,000-acre project boundaries, the ruling said.
Despite these representations, the BiOP assumed without sufficiently explaining its reasoning that the negative influence of barred owls would be offset by untreated habitat that’s left available, the judge said.
“In offering an explanation counter to the evidence after considering important aspects of the problem, FWS ultimately minimized the effect of the action and its conclusions are not supported by the evidence,” Aiken said.
Likewise, the judge said that federal officials unlawfully authorized the projects based on factors that aren’t reasonably certain to occur, such as barred owl control efforts and the future development of desirable habitat.
The government’s determination that the projects will not cause any “incidental take” of spotted owls is undermined by its admission that 14 occupied sites would be adversely affected by planned forest treatments, she said.
“This constitutes error and is therefore arbitrary and capricious” under federal administrative law, Aiken said.
While it faults federal officials for falling short of legal requirements, the ruling does not block the forest treatments. A future judgment may include such remedies for violations identified in the ruling.
Sign up for our Top Stories newsletter
Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.
Error! There was an error processing your request.
