September 9, 2005

Thomas G. Wagner, Forest Supervisor

White Mountain National Forest

719 N. Main Street

Laconia, NH 03246

Dear Mr. Wagner:

This letter responds to your August 1, 2005 letter requesting our review
of the Biological Assessment (BA) for the White Mountain National Forest
(WMNF) Revised Land and Resource Management Plan and concurrence on the
Forest Service's effects determinations for the following
federally-listed threatened (T) and endangered (E) species addressed in
the BA: Indiana bat (E), gray wolf (E), eastern cougar (E), Canada lynx
(T), small whorled pogonia (T); and the New England cottontail, a
species of concern. Our comments are provided in accordance with Section
7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1533).

The proposed revised WMNF Forest Plan does not identify site-specific
actions, but provides a framework for management actions and Forest-wide
Standards and Guidelines. Alternative 2 (the proposed action) proposes a
total annual timber sale quantity of 24 million board feet in each of
the first two decades of Forest Plan implementation. Management
activities, including timber harvest, wildlife management, recreational
activities, and designation of wilderness areas are addressed in the
revised plan. The Forest Plan direction for threatened and endangered
species provides program goals and objectives. The goals include
providing sufficient habitat and protection to preclude the need for
species listing under the ESA and the conservation and recovery of
current federally-listed species.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed a formal programmatic
consultation on the amended 1986 WMNF Land and Resource Management Plan
and provided a biological opinion, incidental take statement and
conference report to the WMNF on February 24, 2000 (USFWS 2000).
Implementation of the existing Forest Plan was determined: 1) to
directly adversely affect Indiana bats, although indirect effects
(habitat removal) were not likely to adversely affect this species; 2)
not likely to adversely affect the small whorled pogonia; and 3) not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the proposed (at that
time) threatened Canada lynx. No effects to the bald eagle, gray wolf,
Eastern cougar, Robbins' cinquefoil (E) and delisted peregrine falcon
were expected from the implementation of the Forest Plan. Since the
completion of the consultation, the Forest Service amended the Forest
Plan to include Standards and Guidelines that reflected the Reasonable
and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions provided in the Service's
Biological Opinion. Moreover, additional information on the range and
habitat requirements of the Indiana bat have been obtained, the Canada
lynx was formally listed as threatened in 2000, and the Robbins'
cinquefoil was delisted in 2002.

**Indiana bat**

The WMNF lies at the northeasternmost edge of the Indiana bat's range.
Only one Indiana bat has ever been documented from New Hampshire, and
that was on the WMNF. Although there is no genetic or photographic
verification of this capture, it is considered a valid sighting. Based
on this one record, the Service conducted a formal consultation on the
1986 Forest Plan. Our February 24, 2000 Biological Opinion concluded
that direct adverse effects on the Indiana bat could occur as a result
of forest-wide management activities that require the removal of trees
being used by Indiana bats. These actions included timber management,
wildlife habitat management, roads management, recreation management,
and fire management occurring during the non-hibernation season (mid-May
through August). Our Biological Opinion also determined that indirect
adverse effects of forest-wide management activities on Indiana bat
roosting habitat in the WMNF are expected to be insignificant (size of
the impact will never reach the scale where take occurs) due to the
large amount of available roosting habitat within the WMNF that will not
be affected at any given time.

Since the completion of the formal consultation on the 1986 Forest Plan,
additional information on the status of the Indiana bat, its range and
habitat has been collected. Preliminary data (USFWS, *in litt.* 2005)
indicate that the Indiana bat population has increased to the same
numbers as in 1990. Based on 2004/2005 hibernacula surveys, the Service
estimates that the Indiana bat population is approximately 458,332. The
increase in numbers may be attributed to discovery of additional
hibernacula as well as an increase in numbers at regularly monitored
hibernacula.

In the five years since the Biological Opinion was completed, five
radio-telemetry studies at three New York hibernacula were conducted in
an effort to determine the spring migratory routes and summer habitat of
Indiana bats wintering in New York. Seventy-six percent (72 of 94 bats)
were followed to their summer habitat, none traveled further than 40
miles from their hibernaculum. Moreover, the radio-tagged Indiana bats
clustered in four distinct areas: the Lake Champlain Valley of Vermont
(Rutland and Addison Counties), and Orange, Duchess and Jefferson
Counties in New York (Hicks 2004; M. Clark, New York Department of
Environmental Conservation, pers. comm. 2005). Additional surveys
indicate substantial numbers of Indiana bats occurring in these
counties. Based on preliminary genetic information and these studies, it
is possible that northeastern Indiana bats do not follow the same
migratory patterns or travel the great distances reported for southern
and mid-western Indiana bats (Gardner and Cook 2002; Kurta and Murray
2002).

Kurta (in press, 2004) analyzed 393 roost trees from 11 states
(including New York and Vermont) to determine roost tree and habitat
preferences for Indiana bats. At least 33 species of trees were used as
roosts, although 87% of the trees were comprised of ash (*Fraxinus*),
elm (*Ulmus*), hickory (*Carya*), maple (*Acer*), poplar (*Populus*) and
oak (*Quercus*) species. Roosts were most often in open sites in
agricultural areas with fragmented forests.

As described in the BA, there has also been considerable survey effort
in New Hampshire since 2000. Portions of the White Mountain National
Forest, the Connecticut River Valley, and central and coastal New
Hampshire have been mist-netted and acoustically surveyed for Indiana
and other bat species. To date, no Indiana bats have been captured or
acoustically documented using echolocation equipment (Anabat detectors).

The BA states that implementation of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2)
is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat because adverse
effects are discountable (not likely to occur). The determination was
based on the likelihood that Indiana bats would not be present on the
WMNF. The distance between the WMNF and the closest Indiana bat is at
least twice the distance between the known summer range for New York and
Vermont hibernating bats (the nearest source populations). The WMNF has
little if any suitable maternity roosting habitat. This conclusion is
based on recent research as well as surveys indicating that reproductive
female bats of any species are less likely to be found on the WMNF than
males or non-reproductive females. The most preferred live roost tree
species are not found on the WMNF \[hickory, black locust (as in New
York), elm\], although there appear to be sufficient snags and dead or
dying trees that could serve as roosts. However, the Forest Plan
direction reserves snags and other "wildlife" trees, further minimizing
the potential for roost habitat loss.

We concur with the WMNF determination that the preferred alternative for
the revised Forest Plan is "not likely to adversely affect" for the
Indiana bat This concurrence is based on the Standards and Guidelines
proposed for reserve trees in the Wildlife Section (not specific to
Indiana bats but applicable to all tree-roosting bats), the likelihood
that Indiana bats are not present on the WMNF, and the very limited
roosting habitat available to the occasional male that might (though it
is unlikely) occur on the WMNF. Implementation of the Wildlife Standards
and Guidelines for site-specific projects should be considered
sufficient for no effect determinations on timber harvest, wildlife
management and recreational management projects. However, in the event
that there is new information on Indiana bat occurrence on the WMNF, or
other circumstances are identified that warrant a "not likely to
adversely affect" determination for a particular project, we recommend
that the WMNF contact this office for a concurrence determination.

**Small whorled pogonia**

We concur with the finding of "not likely to adversely affect" for the
small whorled pogonia. Although there are known occurrences of this
species on the WMNF, the management direction and specific Standards and
Guidelines proposed in Alternative 2 will avoid adverse effects to the
small whorled pogonia. The potential for unknown populations to be
affected is discountable, given the required pre-timber management
surveys of potential habitat, as well as the previous surveys of
potential habitat that did not document additional populations. However,
we recommend that the WMNF develop site-specific management plans for
existing populations that appear to be declining due to canopy closure
and succession of their habitat in order to maintain and enhance these
populations.

With respect to the BA, no mention was made of the 1994 Memorandum of
Understanding for the Conservation of the Small Whorled Pogonia
(*Isotria medeoloides*). The continued implementation of the MOU will
ensure the conservation and recovery of this species on the WMNF and is
a further basis for our concurrence of the "not likely to adversely
affect" finding.

We concur with the \"No Effect\" findings for the bald eagle, gray wolf,
eastern cougar and Canada lynx. The best information currently available
indicates that the gray wolf, eastern cougar, and Canada lynx are
extirpated from both the Forest and the State of New Hampshire. There
are no nesting pairs of bald eagles and very limited wintering habitat
occurs on the WMNF.

The following are additional BA-related comments:

1\) Bald eagle

Page 20, Distribution - Bald eagles now also nest in Rhode Island and
two new territorial pairs have been discovered in the Connecticut River
Valley of south-central Vermont.

Page 23, Information Gaps - An additional information gap is the
presence of potential movement (migration) corridors through the Forest.
Knowledge of these corridors would be very useful in order to evaluate
the placement of new communication towers and wind turbine arrays.

2\) Gray Wolf

Page 35, Introduction (last sentence) - A formal proposal was published
in 65 FR 43450 to designate the gray wolf as a threatened species in
four northeastern states as a distinct population segment (DPS). The
northeastern DPS proposal was withdrawn in 68 FR 15804, which combined
the proposed northeastern DPS into a larger, threatened eastern DPS that
included the Great Lakes states. However, in a January 2005 Oregon
District Court ruling, the changes to the status of the gray wolf
listing promulgated in 68 FR 15804 were vacated and remanded to the
Service. In August 2005, the Brattleboro District Court in Vermont made
a similar ruling in a related case. Therefore, the gray wolf remains
listed as an endangered species, not threatened as indicated.

Page 39, Occurrences- The Service considers the Edinburg, NY 2001 canid
to be a documented gray wolf occurrence.

3\) New England Cottontail (NEC)

Page 64, Distribution- The \"disagreement regarding the taxonomic
status\" of the NEC is overstated. The species separation put forth by
Chapman et al. (1992) is accepted by most within the scientific
community and both species (*S. transitionalis* and *obscurus*) appear
on national checklists of mammals in the United States. While not all
biologists concur with Chapman\'s taxonomic split---see for example,
Litvaitis et al. (1997)---the scientific community is rarely of one mind
on these issues. However, the change in taxonomy and nomenclature
proposed by Chapman is accepted by the Smithsonian Institution (Chapman
in Wilson and Ruff, eds., 1999). Jones et al. (1997), in the revised
checklist of North American mammals, also recognizes both species as
valid.

Life History, Dispersal- The data for female home range size for
Maryland cottontails is for the sibling species, *Sylvilagus obscurus*,
not the NEC. It is still useful, but the distinction should be noted.

Page 65, Relationship with Other Species - This section is unclear. The
University of New Hampshire study cited found that New England
cottontails were not physically subordinate to eastern cottontails.
However, two species can be in competition without one species being
physically dominant over another. The prevailing view is that eastern
cottontails, because they are able to occupy a wider array of habitats,
can occupy disturbance patches sooner during succession, and once
eastern cottontails are well established, New England cottontails cannot
evict them.

Thank you for your cooperation, and please contact Susi von Oettingen at
603-223-2541, extension 22, and Michael Amaral, extension 23, if we can
be of further assistance.

Sincerely yours,

William J. Neidermyer Acting Supervisor

New England Field Office

Literature Cited

Chapman, J.A., K.L. Cramer, N.J. Dippenaar and T.J. Robinson. 1992.
Systematics and biogeography of the New England cottontail, Sylvilagus
transitionalis (Bangs 1895), with the description of a new species from
the Appalachian Mountains. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 105(4). pp 841-866.

Gardner, J.E. and E.A. Cook. 2002. Seasonal and geographic distribution
and quantification of potential summer habitat. *In* The Indiana bat:
biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J.
Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Hicks, A. 2004. Indiana Bat (*Myotis sodalis*): Protection and
Management in New York State. Endangered Species Investigations
Performance Report. Project Number W-166-E Segment 2003-2004 New York
Dept. of Environmental Conservation.

Jones, C., R.S. Hoffman, D.W. Rice, M.D. Engstrom, R.D. Bradley, D.J.
Schmidly, C.A. Jones and R.J. Baker. 1997. Revised checklist of North
American mammals north of Mexico, 1997. Occas. papers, museum of Texas
Tech Univ., no 173.

Kurta, A. and S.W. Murray. 2002. Philopatry and migration of banded
Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*) and effects of radio transmitters.
Journal of Mammalogy 83:585--589.

Kurta, A. In press. Roosting Ecology and Behavior of Indiana Bats
(*Myotis sodalis*) in Summer. *In* The Proceedings of the Indiana bat
and coal mining: a technical interactive forum (K.C. Vories and A.
Harrington, eds.). Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Alton, Illinois.

Litvaitis, M.K., J.A. Litvaitis, W-J. Lee and T.D. Kocher. 1997.
Variation in the mitochondrial DNA of the Sylvilagus complex occupying
the northeastern United States. Can. J. Zoo. 75:595-605.

USFWS. 2000. Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Land and Resource
Forest Management Plan and other Activities on Threatened and Endangered
Species in the White Mountain National Forest and Incidental Take
Statement. New England Field Office. Concord, NH. 39 pp.

Wilson, D.E. and S. Ruff. 1999. The Smithsonian Book of North American
Mammals. Institute Press. Washington and London.