Rim Fire Salvage Temporary Restraining Order Denied

The district court decision of Sept. 16, 2014, includes much discussion of owl habitat and what the USFS did and didn’t say and do regarding its EIS. For example:

“…the Forest Service explained in the ROD that the 2014 owl survey did not produce significant new information warranting a SEIS since “both the EIS and this decision recognize that owls forage in burned forests, and the EIS analyzes the effects of the various alternatives based on this understanding; therefore the underlying point raised in the August 21, 2014 comment letter, that implementing the Rim Recovery Project may adversely affect spotted owls in the area, was already addressed in the EIS and factored into this decision.” JA A00038. Neither the 2014 owl survey results nor Bond’s subsequent analysis produced data rising to the level of significant new information. The Forest Service’s reasoned evaluation of the 2014 owl survey data is sufficient.”

3 thoughts on “Rim Fire Salvage Temporary Restraining Order Denied”

  1. Not to mention that both the owl and the woodpecker issues should have no effect on the roadside hazard tree work. The plaintiffs bemoan the idea that less-used roads will be made safe for humans, claiming that birds MIGHT want to roost in a snag, next to a road. I would bet that owls prefer to roost in green trees, rather than being exposed to predators when roosting in a snag.

    Anyway, a victory for common sense! HOORAY!

    • I tend to think that big wildfires in unmanaged and fuels-choked forests is not only bad for individual owls but, also bad for the species, as a whole. The loss of nesting habitat is a direct result of the “whatever happens” mindset of preservationists.


Leave a Comment

Discover more from The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading