United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office 

2600 SE 9gth A venue, Suite 100 

Portland, Oregon 97266 

Phone: (503)231-6179 FAX: (503)231-6195 

Reply To: OlEOFW00-2017-F-0555 

File Name: WNF HabMod FYI 8.docx AUG 31 2017 TS Number: 17-64 7 

TAILS: OlEOFW00-2017-F-0555 

Doc Type: Final 

Tracy Beck 

U.S. Forest Service 

Forest Supervisor, Willamette National Forest 

3106 Pierce Parkway Suite D 

Springfield, OR 97477 

SUBJECT: FY 18 Proposed Projects for the Willamette Planning Province within the Willamette 

National Forest which are likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls and its critical habitat 

due to habitat modification and disturbance [FWS reference: OlEOFW00-2017-F-0555]. 

Dear Mr. Beck: 

This responds to your letter, dated August 4, 2017, requesting formal consultation under section 

7 ofthe Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) on the effects of the subject 

actions on the threatened northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina; spotted owl) and its 

designated critical habitat. Your letter and a Biological Assessment (BA) addressing the 

proposed actions were received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on August 9, 

2017. 

This letter transmits the Service's biological opinion addressing the subject actions based on our 

independent review of the analyses and findings presented in the BA, which is herein 

incorporated by reference (FS 2017) and included in our decisional file, to inform the ESA 

section 7(a)(2) determinations presented herein. As you are aware, the BA was jointly developed 

by the Forest Service and the Service to expedite the ESA section 7 compliance process through 

consideration of best available information and the construction ofreasoned analyses that align 

with the four standard components of a jeopardy analysis, and of a destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat analysis: (1) the status of each affected listed species or 

designated critical habitat; (2) the environmental baseline for each affected listed species or 

critical habitat; (3) the effects ofthe action on each affected listed species or critical habitat; and 
2 

(4) cumulative effects on each affected listed species or critical habitat. See the Biological 

Opinion section ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE JEOPARDY AND ADVERSE 

MODIFICATION DETERMINATIONS for a description ofthe analytical framework used by 

the Service to make ESA section 7(a)(2) determinations. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide technical assistance on the content of the BA. This 

biological opinion is based on the information, analyses, and findings presented in the BA, and 

the integration and synthesis analyses prepared by the Service and presented in the "Conclusion" 

section below. A complete decision record of this consultation is on file at the Service's Oregon 

Fish and Wildlife Office. 

The format and content ofthe BA not only align with the four standard components ofjeopardy 

and destruction or adverse modification analyses as described above, but also include the 

following standard sections of a biological opinion: Consultation History; Description ofthe 

Proposed Action; and Action Area. 

CONSULTATION HISTORY 

See page 25 of the BA under the section entitled "Consultation History." 

BIOLOGICAL OPINION 

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The proposed action contains eight proposed projects. See pages 25-31 ofthe BA under the 

section entitled "Description of the Proposed Action" and Appendices A and B. 

Action Area 

See page 31 ofthe BA under the section entitled "Action Area." 

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE JEOPARDY AND ADVERSE 

MODIFICATION DETERMINATIONS 

Effects of the action refer to the permanent or temporary direct and indirect effects of the action 

on the species and/or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are 

interrelated and interdependent with that action that will be added to the environmental baseline. 

Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action, occur later in time, but are still 

reasonably certain to occur. 

The Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook (USFWS & NMFS 1998, p. xvi), states a 

"may affect" determination is required when a proposed action may pose any effects to 

individuals of a listed species or to its designated critical habitat. When any adverse effects to 

individuals of a listed species or its critical habitat may occur as a direct or indirect result ofthe 

proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, a "may affect, likely to adversely 

affect" determination is appropriate. However, when effects to listed species or critical habitat 
3 

are expected to be discountable or insignificant, "may affect, is not likely to adversely affect" is 

the appropriate conclusion. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should never 

reach the level where potential injury to a spotted owl would occur. Discountable effects, as 

described in the consultation handbook, are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best 

judgment, a person would not: (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate 

insignificant effects; or (2) expect discountable effects to occur. 

Direct and indirect effects: Direct effects are the immediate consequences ofthe proposed 

action. Indirect effects are caused by the action, occur later in time and are reasonably certain to 

occur. 

Interrelated and interdependent actions: Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger 

action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Interrelated actions are related to 

the Federal action, but do not depend on the Federal action. Interdependent actions are those that 

might occur independently of the larger action, but which have no independent utility apart from 

the action under consideration. Interdependent actions depend on the Federal action and have no 

independent utility apart from the Federal action. 

Analytical Framework for the Jeopardy Determination 

The following analysis relies on four components to support the jeopardy determination for each 

ofthe species considered in this BO: (1) the Status ofthe Species, which evaluates the species' 

range-wide condition, the factors responsible for that condition, and its survival and recovery 

needs; (2) the Environmental Baseline, which evaluates the condition ofthe species in the action 

area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the role ofthe action area in the species 

survival and recovery; (3) the Effects ofthe Action, which determines the direct and indirect 

impacts of the proposed Federal action and the effects of any interrelated or interdependent 

activities on the species; and (4) Cumulative Effects, which evaluates the effects offuture, nonFederal activities in the action area on the species. 

In accordance with the implementing regulations for section 7 and Service policy, the jeopardy 

determination is made in the following manner: the effects ofthe proposed Federal action are 

evaluated with the aggregate effects of everything that has led to the spotted owl's current status 

and, for non-Federal activities in the action area, those actions likely to affect the spotted owl in 

the future, to determine if, given the aggregate of all ofthese effects, implementation ofthe 

proposed action is likely to cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of both the survival 

and recovery ofthe species in the wild. 

The following analysis places an emphasis on using the range-wide survival and recovery needs 

ofthe species and the role ofthe action area in meeting those needs as the context for evaluating 

the effects ofthe proposed Federal action combined with other relevant effects. In short, a nonjeopardy determination is warranted ifthe proposed action is consistent with maintaining the role 

of habitat and the species population in the action area for the species' survival and recovery. 

The jeopardy determination is made on the range-wide scale ofthe species. 
4 

Analytical Framework for the Adverse Modification Determination 

Section 7(a)(2) ofthe ESA requires that Federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to destroy or to adversely modify designated critical habitat. A 

final rule revising the regulatory definition of "destruction or adverse modification of critical 

habitat" was published on February 11, 2016 (USFWS and NOAA 2016). The final rule became 

effective on March 14, 2016. The revised definition states: "Destruction or adverse 

modification means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical 

habitat for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited 

to, those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species or 

that preclude or significantly delay development ofsuch features. " 

The destruction or adverse modification analysis in this biological opinion relies on four 

components: (1) the Status ofCritical Habitat, which describes the range-wide condition of 

designated critical habitat for a listed species in terms ofthe key components ofthe critical 

habitat that provide for the conservation ofthe listed species, the factors responsible for that 

condition, and the intended value ofthe critical habitat overall for the conservation/recovery of 

the listed species; (2) the Environmental Baseline, which analyzes the condition ofthe critical 

habitat in the action area, the factors responsible for that condition, and the value ofthe critical 

habitat in the action area for the conservation/recovery ofthe listed species; (3) the Effects ofthe 

Action, which determines the direct and indirect impacts ofthe proposed Federal action and the 

effects of any interrelated and interdependent activities on the key components of critical habitat 

that provide for the conservation ofthe listed species, and how those impacts are likely to 

influence the value ofthe affected critical habitat units for the conservation/recovery of the listed 

species; and (4) Cumulative Effects, which evaluate the effects offuture non-Federal activities 

that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area on the key components of critical habitat 

that provide for the conservation of the listed species and how those impacts are likely to 

influence the value of the affected critical habitat units for the conservation/recovery ofthe listed 

species. 

For purposes of making the destruction or adverse modification determination, the effects ofthe 

proposed Federal action, together with any cumulative effects, are evaluated to determine if the 

value of the critical habitat rangewide for the conservation/recovery of the listed species would 

remain functional or would retain the current ability for the key components ofthe critical 

habitat that provide for the conservation ofthe listed species to be functionally re-established in 

areas of currently unsuitable but capable habitat. 

Note: Past designations of critical habitat have used the terms "primary constituent elements" 

(PCEs), "physical and biological features" (PBFs) or "essential features" to characterize the key 

components of critical habitat that provide for the conservation ofthe listed species. The new 

critical habitat regulations (USFWS and NOAA 2016, p. 7216) discontinue use ofthe terms 

"PCEs" or "essential features" and rely exclusively on use ofthe term PBFs for that purpose 

because that term is contained in the statute. To be consistent with that shift in terminology and 

in recognition that the terms PBFs; PCEs, and essential habit features are synonymous in 

meaning, we are only referring to PBFs herein. Therefore, if a past critical habitat designation 

defined essential habitat features or PCEs, they will be referred to as PBFs in this document. 
5 

This does not change the approach outlined above for conducting the ''destruction or adverse 

modification'' analysis, which is the same regardless of whether the original designation 

identified PCEs, PBFs or essential features. 

STATUS OF THE SPECIES OR CRITICAL HABITAT 

This section characterizes: the current range-wide condition ofthe listed species or critical 

habitat; the factors responsible for or influencing that condition; and the conservation needs of 

the listed species or the recovery support function of the critical habitat. 

Spotted Owl 

See pages 32-44 ofthe BA under the section entitled "Status of Spotted Owls" and Appendix D. 

Spotted Owl Critical Habitat 

See pages 44-46 ofthe BA under the section entitled "Status of Spotted Owl Critical Habitat" 

and Appendix D. 

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 

This section characterizes: the current condition ofthe listed species or critical habitat in the 

Action Area; the factors responsible for or influencing that condition; and the role ofthe Action 

Area in the conservation ofthe listed species or the recovery support function ofthe critical 

habitat. 

Spotted Owl 

See pages 46-52 ofthe BA under the section entitled "Status ofthe Spotted Owl in the Action 

Area." 

Spotted Owl Critical Habitat 

See pages 52-54 ofthe BA under the section entitled "Status of Spotted Owl Critical Habitat." 

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 

This section analyzes the direct and indirect effects ofthe proposed action, inclusive of effects 

caused by interrelated or interdependent activities. 

Spotted Owl 

See pages 54-104 ofthe BA under the section entitled "Effects of the Proposed Action." 
6 

Effects of Activities to Territorial Spotted Owls 

The best available science was used to develop assumptions within a general analytical 

framework and determine the effects of proposed activities to known and potential sites. Uncited 

effects determinations below are the conclusions by the Level 1 team applicable only to the 

effects of proposed activities within the Willamette Planning Province. Unit biologists are 

responsible for, and have supplied, details on the rationale for effects determinations. 

Adverse effects are due to removal of suitable habitat, disruption, and/or negative impacts to 

known or potential spotted owl nest patches. Adverse effects from spotted owl habitat removal 

are likely to result in injury by impacting spotted owl survival and/or reproduction by: 

1. Reducing forage habitat below optimal levels, 

2. Further reducing forage habitat that is currently below adequate levels, 

3. Impacting the nest patch, such as removing suitable or dispersal habitat, this may cause 

injury to the spotted owl. 

Adverse effects from disruption are likely to result in harassment by impacting spotted owl 

survival and/or reproduction ifthe disturbance occurs within the disruption distance within one 

or more breeding seasons. Although harassment of breeding spotted owls is of short duration, 

especially compared to the timeframe needed to grow suitable habitat, the resulting adverse 

effects from disruption are additional adverse impacts to a spotted owl site which may have 

longer term adverse effects when combined with habitat changes. Adult spotted owls are 

expected to continue to survive with reduced reproduction or move to a new territory. Moving 

and searching for a new territory will potentially expose the adults to greater predation risk than 

a territorial spotted owl pair. Predation on spotted owls has not been directly observed, but is 

suspected by northern goshawks (Accipiter gentiles), cooper's hawks (Accipiter cooperi), redtailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), great horned owls (Bubo virginianus), and barred owls (Strix 

varia) (Courtney et al. 2004, page 2-8). 

Within this consultation, eight projects are proposed within four Ranger Districts ofthe 

Willamette National Forest (Willamette NF): Detroit Ranger District, Sweet Home Ranger 

District, McKenzie River Ranger District, and Middle Fork Ranger District. Five of these eight 

projects may affect 26 known spotted owl sites. Additionally, Three Sisters Risk Reduction 

Hazardous Fuels Treatment Project, McKenzie River Ranger District will affect core areas of 8 

spotted owl sites. All projects occur in the Western Cascades Physiographic Province for spotted 

owls. 

See pages 25-26 of the BA under the section entitled "Description ofthe Proposed Action" for a 

summary of the activities that will occur within each Ranger District. Also see pages 99-105 of 

the BA under the section entitled "Effects to specific known and potential spotted owl sites" and 

Table A-19 in Appendix A which summarizes the project effects to the 26 known spotted owl 

sites evaluated in this consultation. 
7 

Three Sisters Risk Reduction Hazardous Fuels Treatment Project, McKenzie River Ranger 

District: The project occurs within foraging, dispersal or non-habitat supporting 22 territories 

(see BA page 87-89, 104). Treatment would affect 10 acres (<2%) or less in eight core areas and 

will maintain habitat. Habitat functionality at the spotted owl sites would be maintained because 

of the protective measures to avoid nest patches, avoid disruption, and to conduct surveys in 

unsurveyed habitat. 

Highway 46, Detroit Ranger District: Foraging habitat would be removed in the core area 

and/or general home range in 11 known spotted owl sites (see Table A-19 in Appendix A ofthe 

BA for number of acres removed in each spotted owl site). However, the functionality of each 

site would be maintained because adequate levels of suitable habitat would remain post-project. 

No activities are proposed that would disrupt spotted owls. 

Trout Creek, Sweet Home Ranger District: Foraging habitat would be removed or 

downgraded outside the core area in four known spotted owl sites (see Table A-19 in Appendix 

A ofthe BA for number of acres removed in each spotted owl site). However, the functionality 

of each site would be maintained because adequate levels ofsuitable habitat would remain, or in 

the case of one site only a small amount of suitable habitat (1.5 acres) will be affected. No 

activities are proposed that would disrupt spotted owls. 

Q Thin, McKenzie Ranger District: Foraging habitat would be downgraded outside ofthe core 

area on two known spotted owl sites (see Table A-19 in Appendix A ofthe BA for number of 

acres removed in each spotted owl site). However, the functionality of one site would be 

maintained due to suitable habitat being at adequate levels to support spotted owls and the 

functionality ofthe other site is unlikely to be affected because this habitat is separated from the 

core area by a parcel ofprivate land that is non-habitat and is on the periphery ofthe 1.2-mile 

home range. No activities are proposed that would disrupt spotted owls. 

Lower South Fork McKenzie River Floodplain Restoration Project, McKenzie Ranger 

District: Foraging habitat would be removed outside the core area in two known spotted owl 

sites (see Table A-19 in Appendix A ofthe BA for number of acres removed in each spotted owl 

site). However, the functionality of each site would be maintained due to suitable habitat levels 

which are adequate to support spotted owls. No activities are proposed that would disrupt 

spotted owls. 

Bear Mountain Meadow Restoration, Middle Fork Ranger District: Underburning along the 

edge of nesting, roosting and foraging stands outside the nest patch in one known spotted owl 

site would maintain the habitat and not affect the functionality ofthe home range. No activities 

are proposed that would disrupt spotted owls. 

Effects of Activities to Dispersing Spotted Owls 

No projects are occurring in an area oflandscape concern for spotted owl dispersal. No projects 

are included in this consultation that would remove spotted owl habitat in areas where postactivity habitat conditions would create a barrier or strong filter to spotted owl movement and 
8 

survival across the landscape, in the opinion ofthe unit wildlife biologist (see page 68 ofthe 

attached BA). 

Combined Effects to Demographic Support at the Physiographic Province Scale 

Because the proposed actions do not impact the comprehensive function of occupied spotted owl 

territories or the ability of dispersing spotted owls to use the action area, the Physiographic 

Province is expected to continue to support spotted owls at a similar level as before treatments. 

Combined Effects to Demographic Support at the Listed Range 

Because no adverse effects are expected at the Physiographic Province scale to support the needs 

ofspotted owls for the reasons described above, the listed range is expected to continue to 

support spotted owls at a similar level as before treatments. 

Spotted Owl Critical Habitat 

See pages 54-104 ofthe BA under the section entitled "Effects ofthe Proposed Action." 

Effects of Activities to PBFs providing for the life history needs of Territorial Spotted Owls 

Ofthe eight projects, six have effects within critical habitat. These projects affecting PBFs that 

are currently at a spatial scale to support territorial spotted owls are described below: 

Three Sisters Risk Reduction Hazardous Fuels Treatment Project, McKenzie River Ranger 

District: The project occurs within PBFs supporting four territories with activity centers in 

critical habitat (see BA page 87-89, 104; Ruby Seitz pers. comm. 2017). Treatment would affect 

10 acres ( <2%) or less in core areas and will maintain habitat. Habitat functionality at the 

territories would be maintained because ofthe protective measures to avoid nest patches. 

Q Thin, McKenzie River Ranger District: The project occurs within PBFs supporting two 

territories with activity centers in critical habitat (see Table A-19 in Appendix A ofthe BA for 

number of acres removed in each territory). This action would maintain the functionality of both 

territories. Although one territory is below suggested levels for supporting a territory, the 21 

acres offoraging habitat being removed is separated from the core area by a parcel of private 

land that is non-habitat and is on the periphery of the 1.2-mile home range. 

Highway 46, Detroit Ranger District: Foraging or dispersal habitat would be removed in the 

core area and/or general home range in 13 territories with activity centers in critical habitat (see 

Table A-19 in Appendix A ofthe BA for number of acres removed in each territory). However, 

the functionality of each site would be maintained because adequate levels ofsuitable habitat 

would remain post-project. 

Trout Creek, Sweet Home Ranger District: Foraging habitat would be removed or 

downgraded outside the core area in three territories with activity centers in critical habitat (see 

Table A-19 in Appendix A of the BA for number of acres removed in each territory). However, 
9 

the functionality of each site would be maintained because adequate levels of suitable habitat 

would remain or in the case of one site only a small amount of suitable habitat (1.5 acres) will be 

affected. 

Lower South Fork McKenzie River Floodplain Restoration Project, McKenzie Ranger 

District: Foraging habitat would be removed outside the core area in one territory with an 

activity center in critical habitat (see Table A-19 in Appendix A ofthe BA for number of acres 

removed in the territory). However, the functionality of the territory would be maintained due to 

suitable habitat levels which are adequate to support a territory. 

Bear Mountain Meadow Restoration, Middle Fork Ranger District: Underburning along the 

edge ofnesting, roosting and foraging stands in one territory with activity centers in critical 

habitat would maintain the habitat and not affect the functionality ofthe territory. 

Effects of Activities to PBFs providing for the life history needs of Dispersing Spotted Owls 

No projects are occurring in an area of concern for PBFs providing for the life history needs of 

dispersing spotted owls. 

No projects are included in the proposed action that would remove PBFs in areas where postactivity remaining PBFs on the landscape would create a barrier or strong filter to dispersing 

spotted owls' movement and survival, in the opinion ofthe unit wildlife biologist. 

Special Management Considerations for Critical Habitat 

See pages 105-109 of the BA under the section entitled "Special Management Considerations for 

Critical Habitat." 

Effects to Critical Habitat Sub-units. 

Four ofthe projects will have impacts within critical habitat subunits West Cascades South 3 

(WCS 3): Highway 46, Trout Creek, Lower South Fork McKenzie River Floodplain Restoration, 

and Q Thin. These projects will remove 212 acres of dispersal habitat and 534 acres offoraging 

habitat. Additionally, 41 acres offoraging habitat will be downgraded. PBFs 3 and 4 will be set 

back up to 40 years before they provide stand conditions suitable for spotted owl dispersal and 

up to 25 to 80 years, depending on location and extent ofthe activities, before they once again 

provide conditions for foraging. Within critical habitat sub-unit WCS 3 on the Willamette NF, 

there are 184,954 acres of suitable habitat and 60,499 acres of dispersal habitat. Only 0.31 % of 

suitable habitat and 0.35% of dispersal habitat within critical habitat sub-unit WCS 3 will be 

affected by these projects. 

One project, Three Sisters Risk Reduction Hazardous Fuels Treatment, will have impacts in 

critical habitat sub-unit West Cascades South 4 (WCS 4). Fuel treatments in 880 acres of nesting 

and roosting habitat will affect the suitability ofthe habitat for spotted owl foraging by 

negatively affecting understory cover that support owl prey (PBF 3), however functionality will 

be maintained at the stand level. The ability ofthe treatment area to serve as foraging habitat 
10 

will be set back up to 30 years. Within critical habitat sub-unit WCS 4 on the Willamette NF, 

there are 234,697 acres of suitable habitat and 77,082 acres of dispersal habitat. Only 0.37% of 

suitable habitat within critical habitat sub-unit WCS 4 will be affected by these projects. 

The critical habitat sub-units WCS 3 and WCS 4 are expected to continue to provide for the life 

history needs ofthe spotted owls. The proposed action is not expected to create an alteration that 

appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat sub-units WCS 3 and WCS 4 for the 

conservation of spotted owls as adverse impacts will occur on only a very small portion (less 

than 1 percent) ofthese sub-units. 

Effects to Critical Habitat Units. 

No adverse impacts are expected at the scale of spotted owl critical habitat units, as only very 

minimal adverse effects are expected at the sub-unit scale. 

Effects to Critical Habitat Network 

No adverse impacts are expected at the scale of spotted owl critical habitat, as only very minimal 

adverse effects are expected at the unit scale. 

Consistency with the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) 

Large blocks of habitat for reproducing spotted owls. 

Under the NWFP, it is expected that land use allocations (LUAs) oflate successional reserves 

(LSR), adaptive management areas (AMA) and Congressionally Reserved areas will provide 

habitat to facilitate reproducing spotted owls. Four projects are occurring in these land use 

allocations: Highway 46, Trout Creek, Three Sisters Risk Reduction Hazardous Fuels Treatment, 

and Bear Mountain Meadow Restoration in LSR. All four projects will maintain spotted owl 

habitat at a spatial scale to support territory/breeding spotted owls post treatment (see Table A-16 

in Appendix A ofthe attached BA entitled "Proposed projects in Late Successional Reserves"). 

Connectivity between Reserve Land Use Allocations 

Under the NWFP, it is expected that LUA's outside ofLSRs, AMA and Congressionally 

Reserved areas will provide adequate habitat to facilitate spotted owl movement and survival 

between reserved LUAs (USDA/USDI 1994a). No project will impair the ability of the 

landscape to support dispersing spotted owls (see pg. 68 ofthe attached BA and Table 15 entitled 

"Known projects proposed by administrative units and their effects to spotted owls"). Therefore, 

the proposed actions will not reduce connectivity between reserve land use allocations for 

spotted owls. 
11 

Consistency with the Spotted Owl Recovery Plan 

Recovery Action 6 

In moist forests managed for spotted owl habitat, land managers should implement silvicultural 

techniques in plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger stands to accelerate the 

development of structural complexity and biological diversity that will benefit spotted owl 

recovery (USFWS 2011, page 111-19). The following projects include activities that meet 

Recovery Action 6 objectives: 

Highway 46: This is a large timber sale and restoration project in the Breitenbush 5th field 

watershed would treat about 4,091 acres with a combination ofHarvest Habitat Remove, Harvest 

Habitat Downgrade, Harvest Habitat Maintain, Harvest in Non-Habitat, Fuels Treatment, Special 

Habitat Restoration, Terrestrial Habitat Enhancement, and Road Construction. 

Trout Creek: This is a timber sale and restoration project would treat about 1,171 acres with a 

combination ofHarvest Habitat Remove, Harvest Habitat Downgrade, Harvest Habitat Maintain, 

Harvest in Non-Habitat, Special Habitat Restoration and Terrestrial Habitat Enhancement. 

Terrestrial Habitat Enhancement would under plant cedar in foraging habitat. 

Bear Mountain Restoration: This is a restoration project that will have Special Habitat 

Restoration on about 18 acres ofnesting and roosting habitat and 200 acres on non-habitat. 

Other projects do not include Recovery Action 6 objectives: 

Lower South Fork McKenzie River Floodplain Restoration: This is a floodplain restoration 

project that will treat about 103 acres with Harvest Habitat Remove to collect trees for stream 

restoration. 

Park Thin: This is a timber sale project. 

Q Thin: This is a timber sale project. 

Three Sisters Risk Reduction Hazardous Fuels Treatment: This fuel reduction project is not 

a restoration project. 

Road 24 Reroute: This Road Construction activity is not a restoration project. 

Recovery Action 32 

See pages 96-97 ofthe BA under the section entitled "Recovery Action 32." 

Recovery Action 10 

See pages 97-104 ofthe BA under the section entitled "Recovery Action 10." 
12 

Summary of Consistency with the Spotted Owl Recovery Plan 

The proposed action is consistent with the spotted owl recovery plan as it: 

• is implementing projects in moist forests to accelerate the development of structural 

complexity and biological diversity that will benefit spotted owl recovery (Recovery 

action 6), 

• has retained owl sites on the landscape to provide demographic support (Recovery action 

10), and 

• will have limited impacts to high-quality spotted owl habitat from fuels treatments that 

will simplify, but help protect a residential interface area (Highway 46), these stands and 

adjacent stands and lead to overall forest resiliency (Recovery action 10). 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

This section analyzes the effects offuture State, Tribal, local, or private actions that are 

reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area considered in this biological opinion. Future 

Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section 

because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. 

Spotted Owl and Critical Habitat 

See page 109 ofthe BA under the section entitled "Cumulative Effects." 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Numerous studies have documented changes in species distribution, movement, and demography 

associated with changing climatic conditions. In addition, changes in forest composition and 

structure as well as ecosystem structure and function resulting from climate change may impact 

availability.of habitat for spotted owls (see Appendix D ofthe BA, page 215-217 under the 

section entitled "Climate Change"). 

Five ofthe proposed projects on the Willamette NF may provide benefits to spotted owls in a 

changing climate scenario. The Highway 46 sugar pine restoration project may improve forest 

resiliency in the face of climate change as sugar pine should be resilient to climate warming at 

the northern extent ofits range, and will benefit spotted owl habitat in the very long-term by 

retaining unique forest biodiversity, including early seral habitat that supports prey species. The 

Park Thin and Q Thin are timber harvest thinning projects that will increase stand health. 

Healthier stands add resilience to spotted owl habitat in a changing climate. 

The Trout Creek timber harvest and fuel break project will also create early seral habitat, and 

both the Trout Creek project and the Three Sisters Risk Reduction Hazardous Fuels Treatment 

project will reduce the risk of wildfire spread. An increase in the risk of wildfire is a concern in 

relation to climate change in the Northwest and reducing high fire risk will benefit the retention 

of spotted owl habitat at the landscape level. 
13 

CONCLUSION 

Spotted Owl 

After reviewing the current status ofthe spotted owl, the environmental baseline for the action 

area, the effects ofthe proposed action, together with the cumulative effects, it is the Service's 

biological opinion that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

ofthe spotted owl. 

The Service reached this conclusion based on the following findings: 

The proposed project will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival or recovery for the 

spotted owl population at the scale ofterritories, the landscape, physiographic provinces or 

range-wide because impacts are not expected to rise to a level that would affect the biology of 

breeding spotted owls at a territorial scale nor dispersing spotted owls at a landscape scale. 

The conservation needs ofthe spotted owl will continue to be met at the provincial and rangewide scale because the proposed action will conform to the guidance and strategy ofthe NWFP. 

The Willamette NF will still provide for the function oflarge blocks ofhabitat for reproducing 

spotted owls and the ability ofthe landscape to support spotted owl movement between those 

blocks. 

The conservation needs ofthe spotted owl will continue to be met at the physiographic province 

and range-wide scale because the proposed action will conform to the guidance ofthe Recovery 

Plan for the spotted owl as currently interpreted. 

No known cumulative impacts changed the determinations made under the effects ofthe 

proposed action. 

No potential climate change interactions change the determinations made under the effects ofthe 

proposed action. 

Spotted Owl Critical Habitat 

After reviewing the current status of spotted owl critical habitat, the environmental baseline for 

the action area, the effects ofthe proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's 

biological opinion that the action, as proposed, is not likely to destroy or adversely modify 

spotted owl critical habitat. 

The Service reached this conclusion based on the following findings: 

There will not be a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical 

habitat for the conservation ofspotted owls. Specifically the conservation needs of the spotted 

owl will not be significantly impacted at the sub-unit, unit and range-wide scales. The proposed 

actions will not adversely affect the ability ofthe landscape to support dispersing spotted owls. 

While territories within the project area will have some removal of dispersal and or foraging 
14 

habitat, the treatments were specifically designed to maintain the functionality of all territories. 

Therefore, at the scale of sub-unit, unit, and range wide critical habitat, the Service believes the 

proposed project will not appreciably diminish the conservation value of critical habitat for both 

the survival or recovery of the spotted owl population. 

The proposed action will conform to the guidance ofthe Recovery Plan for the spotted owl as 

currently interpreted which will contribute the conservation needs ofthe spotted owl. 

No cumulative impacts that were reasonably certain to occur changed the determinations made 

under the effects of the proposed action. 

No potential climate change interactions changed the determinations made under the effects of 

the proposed action. 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined 

as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage 

in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat 

modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly 

impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is 

defined by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to 

listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which 

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take 

that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under 

the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2) of the Act, take that is incidental to and not 

intended as part ofthe agency action is not considered to be a prohibited taking under the Act 

provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take 

Statement. 

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by Forest Service 

so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to any applicant, as 

appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Forest Service has a continuing 

duty to regulate the activities covered by this Incidental Take Statement. If the Forest Service: 

(1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions; or (2) fails to require cooperators to 

adhere to the terms and conditions ofthe Incidental Take Statement through enforceable terms 

that are added to the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may 

lapse. In order to monitor the impact ofincidental take, the Forest Service must report the 

progress ofthe action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in this Incidental 

Take Statement. [50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)] 

Amount or Extent of Take anticipated 

Based on guidance from the solicitor's review of the Arizona Cattle Growers Association Case, 

the Service is to be reasonably certain of anticipated take (USFWS 2002, page 2). No take is 

1 
15 

reasonably certain to occur at this time because no known spotted owl territory will have 

significant impacts to the territory's functionality to support spotted owls. 

2 Effect of Take 

Not applicable as no take was anticipated. 

3 Reasonable and Prudent Measures 

Not applicable as no take was anticipated. 

Note: General Standards (above) includes monitoring ofprojects. 

4 Terms and Conditions 

Not applicable as no take was anticipated. 

If a dead, injured, or sick endangered or threatened species specimen is located, initial 

notification must be made to the nearest Service Law Enforcement Office, located at 9025 SW 

Hillman Court, Suite 3134, Wilsonville, Oregon 97070; phone: 503-682-6131. Care should be 

taken in handling sick or injured specimens to ensure effective treatment or the handling of dead 

specimens to preserve biological material in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of 

death. In conjunction with the care of sick or injured endangered and threatened species or 

preservation of biological materials from a dead animal, the finder has the responsibility to carry 

out instructions provided by Law Enforcement to ensure that evidence intrinsic to the specimen 

is not unnecessarily disturbed. 

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 

Section 7(a)(l) ofthe Act directs Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes 

ofthe Act by implementing conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened 

species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities designed to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or designated critical 

habitat, to assist in the implementation ofrecovery plans or to obtain information. The Service 

believes the following conservation recommendation will reduce the impact ofthe proposed 

action on nesting spotted owls within the action area: 

1. Continue to coordinate with the Service to fund and/or conduct research on removal 

of barred owls from Forest Service lands to evaluate subsequent response by spotted 

owls and inform future management decisions ofspotted owls and their habitat. 

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions that minimize or avoid adverse effects for 

the benefit oflisted species or their habitats, the Service requests notification regarding the 

implementation of any conservation recommendation. 
16 

REINITIATION NOTICE 

This concludes formal consultation on the proposed action. As provided in 50 CFR § 402.16, 

reinitiation of consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or 

control over the action has been retained ( or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or 

extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action 

that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this 

opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the 

listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or ( 4) a new species is listed or 

critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or 

extent ofincidental take is exceeded, any operation causing such take must cease pending 

reinitiation. 

If you have any questions regarding this biological opinion and incidental take statement, please 

contact Kim Garner at (503) 231-6962 or Paul Bridges at (541) 957-3404. 

Sine; f C0:cIO 

a Hen'Zl Ph.D. 

te Supervisor 
17 

LITERATURE CITED 

For sections incorporated by reference, see pages 110-115 ofthe BA 

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. 

Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutierrez, J.M. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific 

evaluation ofthe status ofthe northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. 

Portland, Oregon. September 2004. 

FS (Forest Service). 2017. Biological Assessment for Willamette Planning Province of Oregon 

for FY 2018 LAA Projects within the Willamette National Forest with a Potential to 

Modify Habitat and/or Disrupt Northern Spotted Owls. August 1, 2017. 272 pp. 

USFWS & NMFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fishery Service). 1998. 

Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook: Procedures for conducting section 7 

consultations and conference activities under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. March 1998 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Solicitor's Review of the Arizona Cattle 

Growers Association Case. Memorandum from the USFWS Director to the Regional Directors. 

June 25, 2002. 9 pp. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted 

Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. Xvi+258 pp. 

USFWS and NOAA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration). 2016. Definition of destruction or adverse modification of critical 

habitat. Fed. Reg. Vol. 81, No. 28. 7214-7226. 

PERSONAL COMMUNICATION 

Seitz, Ruby. 2017. Email RE: Need more info for LAA BO. August 24, 2017. 2 pp.