AFRC Joins County Coalition in Challenging Federal Overreach in Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Designation

The American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) along with a coalition of counties in Washington, Oregon and California and the Association of O&C Counties filed a legal challenge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) November 2021 decision to withdraw critical habitat exclusions for the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) on federal lands in California, Oregon and Washington.

The lawsuit contends the federal agency ignored sound science, legal precedent, and economic requirements under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) when it reversed course on a prior January 2021 Rule that rightfully excluded 3.5 million acres that are not habitat for the NSO.

AFRC says the NSO's critical habitat designation restricts the use of active forest management tools that help reduce the risks of severe wildfires-the kind that burned over 560 square miles of suitable nesting and roosting NSO habitat in Oregon in 2020.

"Designating critical habitat for the spotted owl must be based in science and follow the law. The science tells us the greatest risks to the survival of the spotted owl are competition with the barred owl and catastrophic wildfires, not logging. The law is clear in directing the government to protect only critical habitat for the species. For the spotted owl to survive, we need a 21^st Century forest and species conservation strategy to address modern challenges and stressors, not double down on the failed approaches of the last 30 years," said AFRC President Travis Joseph.

Background

The coalition's lawsuit challenges the November 2021 Rule, which restored most of the 2012 critical habitat designation to 9.3 million acres-nearly twice the size of New Jersey-after the agency rescinded its own January 2021 Rule that had rightly excluded non-habitat, economically vital forestlands, and areas impacted by severe wildfire. In its November 2021 Rule, USFWS elected only to exclude 204,294 acres from designation and did not complete the economic analysis required by Section 4(b)(2) of the ESA.

In its complaint, the coalition says the agency ignored the best available science by designating millions of acres as critical habitat, despite the growing body of evidence that the primary threat to the NSO is competition from the invasive barred owl-not responsible forest management.

The designation also includes vast areas that are not actual owl habitat, violating the Supreme Court's ruling in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 586 U.S. 9 (2018), which made clear that only habitat-not potential future habitat-can be designated as critical habitat.

The ESA requires the federal government to take "into consideration the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat." The coalition argues the USFWS violated this law by failing to consider any negative effects from designating areas that aren't used by the NSO and never will be.

A 2020 study found the 2012 critical habitat designation cost Pacific Northwest communities over a billion dollars and over a thousand family-wage jobs, while providing little benefit for species conservation. The November 2021 Rule threatens jobs, reduces domestic timber supply, increases reliance on imports, and impedes active forest management that can help protect communities in a region already devastated by historic wildfires.

AFRC and its partners, including multiple counties in Washington, Oregon, and California, are asking the court to reinstate the January 2021 Rule, which provided a balanced approach to species conservation while supporting efforts to reduce wildfire risks and boosting economic stability for rural communities.