United States Department of the
Interior![](media/image1.png){width="1.4083333333333334in"
height="1.2083333333333333in"}![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.0576388888888888in"
height="1.2131944444444445in"}

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Missouri Ecological Services Field Office

608 East Cherry Street, Room 200

Columbia, Missouri 65201

Phone: (573) 876-1911 Fax: (573) 876-1914

March 21, 2002

Mr. Randy Moore, Forest Supervisor

Mark Twain National Forest

401 Fairgrounds Road

Rolla, Missouri 65401

Dear Mr. Moore:

This letter is in response to your December 20, 2001, request for
site-specific review, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended, on the proposed Oak Decline and Forest Health
Project on the Potosi and Salem Ranger Districts in Crawford, Dent,
Iron, Reynolds, Shannon, and Washington Counties, Missouri. On June 23,
1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issued a Programmatic
Biological Opinion (Programmatic BO) for the Mark Twain=s National
Forest (MTNF) Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP). This Programmatic BO
established a two-tiered consultation process for LRMP activities, with
issuance of the programmatic opinion being Tier 1 and all subsequent
site-specific project analyses constituting Tier 2 consultations. When
it is determined that a site-specific project is likely to adversely
affect federally listed species, the Service will produce a Atiered@
biological opinion.

In issuance of the Programmatic BO (Tier 1 biological opinion), the
Service evaluated the effects of all U.S. Forest Service=s actions
outlined in the LRMP for the MTNF, as well as a number of identified,
proposed site-specific projects that were attached as an appendix to
your biological assessment. The Programmatic BO evaluated the effects of
Forest Service management program activities, including timber
management and prescribed burning, on the bald eagle (*Haliaeetus
leucocephalus*), Curtis= pearly mussel (*Epioblasma florentina
curtisi*), Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*), gray bat (*Myotis
grisescens*), Meads milkweed (*Asclepias meadii*), pink mucket pearly
mussel (*Lampsilis abrupta*), running buffalo clover (*Trifolium
stoloniferum*), Topeka shiner (*Notropis topeka).* We concurred with
your determinations of Anot likely to adversely affect@ for Curtis=
pearly mussel, pink mucket pearly mussel, running buffalo clover, and
Topeka shiner. We also concurred with your determination of Alikely to
adversely affect@ for bald eagle, gray bat, Indiana bat, and Mead=s
milkweed.

Your request for Service review of the proposed activities associated
with the Oak Decline and Forest Health Project is a Tier 2 consultation.
We have reviewed the information contained in the Oak Decline and Forest
Health Project Biological Assessment (BA), submitted by your office
December 20, 2001, describing the potential effects of the proposed
project on the above federally listed species.

We concur with your conclusion that there are no additional effects to
federally listed species associated with the Oak Decline and Forest
Health Project beyond those that were previously disclosed and discussed
in the Service=s Programmatic BO of June 23, 1999. We also concur with
your determination that the only species that may occur within the
project area are Hine=s emerald dragonfly, Mead=s milkweed, running
buffalo clover, Indiana bat, gray bat, and bald eagle. As described in
the Service=s Programmatic BO, we believe that adverse effects are
likely to occur to the Indiana bat.

[Description of the Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative]{.underline}

The MTNF analyzed five alternatives for the Oak Decline and Forest
Health project. The analysis area for this project consists of
approximately 192,638 acres in National Forest ownership (Salem and
Potosi Ranger Districts). Each alternative affects a varying amount of
acres by different management actions. Alternative 2 is the proposed
action being analyzed in this consultation. Alternative 2 is proposed to
manage oak decline areas to improve species compositions that will have
a more resilient and sustainable mix; recover valuable sawtimber; reduce
the impacts of hazardous falling trees and fuel levels to improve safety
for forest users; and meet objectives for old growth in all management
prescriptions affected by this proposal. An additional 15,599 acres will
be designated as old growth within all management prescriptions,
including the Cave Hollow Cave area of influence (AOI). Firewood
gathering may also be allowed in selected areas following treatment.
Alternative 2 includes the following activities:

[Harvest Method]{.underline} [Acres]{.underline}

> Seed Tree 5337
>
> Shelterwood 6125
>
> Uneven Aged 4125
>
> Sanitation/Thin 5758
>
> Overstory Removal 77
>
> Final Harvest 500

[Reforestation]{.underline} [Acres]{.underline}

> Burn 688
>
> Natural 16235
>
> [Timber Stand Improvement]{.underline} [Acres]{.underline}
>
> Crop Tree Release 6476
>
> Release 929
>
> [Fuel Reduction/Savanna]{.underline} [Acres]{.underline}
>
> Prescribed Fire 4232

[Road Reconstruction]{.underline} [Miles]{.underline}

8.2

> [Old Growth Designation (new)]{.underline} [Acres]{.underline}

15599

The MTNF will also implement many measures to minimize or eliminate
adverse effects to heritage resources, air quality, soil and water
quality, vegetation, wildlife, visual quality, and minerals (see Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Oak Decline and Forest Health
project pages 2-8 through 2-14 for a complete list). The MTNF will also
implement the reasonable and prudent measures (RPM=s) and term and
conditions (TC=s) found in the Programmatic BO for all species. The BA
(pages 34 through 38) analyzes project compliance with Programmatic BO
RPM=s and TC=s.

In addition to MTNF=s implementation of the RPM=s and TC=s in the
Programmatic BO and other protective measures, the following information
was considered in determining the project=s effects on the bald eagle,
gray bat, Hine=s emerald dragonfly, Mead=s milkweed, and running buffalo
clover:

Bald Eagle: 1) The analysis area is approximately 40 miles from the
roost site on the Current River and approximately 40 miles from the nest
sites at Table Rock Lake and a site to the northwest; 2) none of the
permanent streams or Council Bluff Lake in the analysis area are major
wintering areas for the bald eagle; and 3) indirect effects to water
quality are not expected to occur.

Gray Bat: 1) There is approximately 700 acres of potential habitat for
gray bats within the analysis area (two caves within or adjacent to the
analysis area); 2) no management activities will take place in this
habitat; 3) activities proposed are not above any known cave passages;
and 4) indirect effects to water quality are not expected to occur.

Hine=s emerald dragonfly: 1) Barton Fen and Grasshopper Hollow Fen
(known occupied sites) are within the analysis area; 2) there are no
other known fens in the analysis area; 3) no management activities will
occur in or near these fens; and 4) indirect effects to the hydrology
and water quality of these fens are not expected to occur.

Mead=s milkweed: 1) the only known occupied site on the MTNF (Bell
Mountain Wilderness) is within the analysis area; 2) there are other
igneous glades within the analysis area; 3) there are 70 acres of
habitat within the analysis area; 4) no management activities will occur
in the Bell Mountain Wilderness; and 5) a 100-foot protection zone will
be established around all igneous glades containing open, grass
dominated patches, or continuous grass/herb cover.

Running buffalo clover: 1) there are no populations of the running
buffalo clover within the analysis area; and 2) no potential habitat has
been identified within the analysis area.

Based on the site specific information above, we would concur with a
determination of Anot likely to adversely affect@ for the bald eagle,
gray bat, Hine=s emerald dragonfly, Mead=s milkweed, and running buffalo
clover.

The following biological opinion is based on likely adverse effects to
the Indiana bat from activities associated with the Oak Decline and
Forest Health Project. In conducting our evaluation of the potential
impacts of the project on Indiana bat, our review focused on determining
whether: (1) this proposed project falls within the scope of the
Programmatic BO issued for MTNF=s LRMP; (2) the effects of this proposed
action are consistent with those anticipated in the Tier 1 Programmatic
BO; and (3) the appropriate implementing terms and conditions associated
with the reasonable and prudent measures identified in the Tier 1
biological opinion are adhered to. This Tier 2 Biological Opinion also
identifies the incidental take anticipated with the Oak Decline and
Forest Health Project and the cumulative total of incidental take for
the MTNF for the 2002-2005 planning seasons. It conforms with the
Service=s Programmatic BO (page 88) pertaining to individual projects
the Service reviews following the issuance of the Programmatic BO.

[Status of the Species]{.underline}

Species description, life history, population dynamics, status and
distribution for the Indiana bat are fully described on pages 40-62 of
the Programmatic BO and are hereby incorporated by reference.

Since issuance of the Service=s Programmatic BO, a biennial survey was
conducted on Indiana bat Priority 1 hibernacula. Approximately 102,870
Indiana bats were counted during surveys conducted in 2000 and 2001.
This compares to the 115,885 Indiana bats that were estimated in 1999 at
the same locations (Richard Clawson, Missouri Department of
Conservation, [in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}. 2001- as presented at
the Indiana Bat Symposium held in Lexington, Kentucky, March 29-31,
2001). Mist net surveys were conducted for bats on the Mark Twain
National Forest between 1997 and 2001. These surveys resulted in the
capture of 501 individual bats of nine species during 594 hours of
mist-netting, but no Indiana bats were captured.

Both Indiana bat hibernacula on the MTNF lands were surveyed during the
winter of 2000 - 2001. Five Indiana bats were found at Cave Hollow Cave
(within the analysis area), and one at White=s Creek Cave. These numbers
are lower than the previous surveys. Mist netting and harp netting was
done within the analysis area and adjacent to a known Indiana bat cave
in September 2001. No Indiana bats were captured. The analysis area is
approximately 30 miles from the nearest documented capture site of a
reproductively active female Indiana bat and over 150 miles south of the
nearest documented Indiana bat maternity colony. Because surveys that
utilize a combination of bat detection devices (e.g., Anabat) and mist
nets have apparently not been conducted within the project area and
suitable roosting habitat exists within the compartments scheduled for
management, the exact status of Indiana bat within the Oak Decline and
Forest Health Project area is unknown. However, since Indiana bats
continue to use caves in and adjacent to the project area, it is
reasonable to assume that Indiana bats will migrate through the project
area in the spring and fall, and that some males may summer in the area.

[Environmental Baseline]{.underline}

The environmental baseline for the MTNF was established and fully
described in detail on pages 7-16 of the Service=s June 23, 1999
Programmatic BO. Since issuance of the Service=s Programmatic BO, the
environmental baseline on the MTNF has changed. The percentage of trees
in the 50 years or older class has increased from 72% to 73% (956,841
acres to 970,131 acres) that includes a 4% increase of trees 90 years
old or older-old growth (159,474 acres to 212,631 acres). Additionally,
there has been a decrease of 11% to 9% in the 0-9 years old age class
(146,184 acres to 119,605). The relative percentages of the other two
age classes (20-49 years old and 10-19 years old) was unchanged. Other
changes relate to the decrease in timber harvest on the forest between
1996 and 2000. The average timber harvest on the MTNF has decreased from
an average annual harvest of 18,215 acres between 1986 and 1997 to
11,567 acres between 1997 and 2000. Between 1985 and 2000, the average
annual harvest volume on the MTNF was 55.3 million board feet of
commercial timber, which decreased to an annual harvest volume of 32
million board feet between 1998 and 2000.

Timber management practices utilized on the MNTF have also changed. Of
the 11,567 acres harvested annually on the MTNF between 1996 and 2000,
an average of 5,487 acres (47%) involved thinning, salvage, and
miscellaneous operations (e.g., firewood permits); 3,389 acres (29%)
included uneven-aged management (i.e., group selection, single tree
selection, and single tree selection with groups harvest technique); and
2,691 acres (23%) were associated with even-aged regeneration harvest
techniques (i.e., shelterwood, clearcut, and seedtree harvest methods).
Although approximately 9,300 acres of reforestation via natural
regeneration has occurred per year since 1986, the average of such
activities decreased to about 7,000 acres (\~25%) between 1998 and 2000.
Between 1986 and 1997, timber stand improvements (TSI) averaged about

3,850 acres per year. Since 1998, TSI activities averaged 1,938 acres
per year, a reduction of approximately 50%. Activities to benefit
wildlife (e.g., prescribed fires, tree planting in riparian corridors,
construction of ponds or waterholes, brushhogging, planting of food
plots, conversion of cool season grasses to native warm-season grasses,
etc.) decreased from an annual average of 9,000 acres between 1986 and
1997 to an annual average of approximately 6,000 acres (a reduction of
approximately 33%) between 1998 and 2000 (Jody Eberly, U.S. Forest
Service [in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}. August 13 and 22, 2001).

[Effects of the Action]{.underline}

Based on our analysis of information provided in your December 20, 2001
BE, we have determined that the potential effects of the proposed action
are consistent with those addressed in the Programmatic Biological
Opinion and are hereby incorporated by reference. Summering Indiana bats
that could occur within the project area or migrants could be
potentially impacted from the proposed activities. Adverse effects to
the Indiana bat from this project could occur from the removal of
potential roost trees. Adverse effects from prescribed burning may also
occur when bats are using trees for roosting or when prevailing winds
drift smoke into occupied hibernacula. There are three burn areas: 1) a
3,285 acre prescribed burn area 16 miles northeast of Cave Hollow Cave;
2) a savanna burn (493 acres) nine miles southwest of the cave; and 3) a
454 acres savanna burn two miles southwest of the cave. Of these three
burns, the one closest to the cave has the greatest potential to drift
smoke into the cave. However, the MTNF will consider the cave as a smoke
sensitive area, and resource protection measures would prohibit burning
with a north, northwest, or east wind to prevent smoke from drifting
into the cave entrance. The prescribed burns may also have a beneficial
effect by opening forest canopies and decreasing dense understory
vegetation that could inhibit bat movements to foraging habitats and
roosting sites. A more complete discussion of these effects can be found
in section D- Effects of the action (direct and indirect effects), on
pages 62-65 of the Service=s June 23, 1999 Programmatic BO.

Harm to Indiana bats could also occur if the removal of suitable roost
trees causes bats to abandon a traditionally used roost site. The
likelihood of cutting a tree containing an individual roosting Indiana
bat, however, is anticipated to be extremely low because of the rarity
of the species on this district and harm by habitat modification is
unlikely due to the large number of suitable roost trees present on the
MTNF.

Implementation of the terms and conditions associated with the
reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) provided on pages 75-81 in the
Programmatic Biological Opinion will minimize any potential adverse
effects to the Indiana bat by maintaining suitable Indiana bat roosting
and foraging habitat.

[Conclusion]{.underline}

The actions and effects associated with the proposed Oak Decline and
Forest Health Project are consistent with those identified and discussed
in the Service=s Programmatic BO. After reviewing the size and scope of
the project, the environmental baseline, the status of Indiana bat and
its potential occurrence within the project area, the effects of the
action; and any cumulative effects, it is the Service=s biological
opinion that this action is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the Indiana bat.

[Incidental Take Statement]{.underline}

The Service anticipates that the proposed actions associated with the
Oak Decline and Forest Health Project will result in the incidental take
of Indiana bat habitat (acres) as outlined in Table 1. The type and
amount of anticipated incidental take is consistent with that described
in the Programmatic BO and does not cause the total annual level of
incidental take (forested acres) in the Programmatic BO (page 74) to be
exceeded (Table 1).

The Forest Service must implement all pertinent reasonable and prudent
measures and implementing terms and conditions stipulated in the
Programmatic BO to minimize the impact of the anticipated incidental
take of Indiana bats, and to be exempt from the take prohibitions of
Section 9 of the Act. We have determined that no new reasonable and
prudent measures, beyond those specified in the Programmatic BO, are
needed to minimize the impact of incidental take anticipated for the Oak
Decline and Forest Health Project. Implementing the measures outlined in
your conservation program for federally listed species on the MTNF
(approved March 2000) will further reduce potential adverse effects on
the Indiana bat.

This fulfills your consultation requirements for this action. Should the
proposed project be modified or if the level of take identified above is
exceeded, reinitiation of consultation as outlined in 50 CFR 402.16, is
required.

We appreciate your continued efforts to ensure that this project is
consistent with all provisions outlined in the Programmatic BO. If you
have any questions regarding our response or if you need additional
information, please contact Theresa Davidson at (417) 683-4428 ext. 113.

Sincerely,

> Charles M. Scott
>
> Field Supervisor

cc: Regional Director, USFWS, Fort Snelling, MN (ES) Attn: Jennifer
Szymanski

**Table 1. Incidental take of Indiana bats for the Oak Decline and
Forest Health Project (forested acres affected annually) and its
contribution to the cumulative totals for the Mark Twain National Forest
as outlined on page 74 of the Service=s Programmatic Biological Opinion
of June 23, 1999.**

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

  ------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------
  **Action**         **FY 2002** **FY 2003** **FY 2004** **FY 2005** **Acres
                                                                     Exempted
                                                                     Annually**

  **Timber harvest** **7200**    **7200**    **7200**    **322**     **20000**

  **Cumulative**     **12185**   **9130**    **7755**    **730**     

  **Prescribed       **0**       **3337**    **684**     **521**     **12000**
  Burning**                                                          

  **Cumulative**     **7084**    **6042**    **2824**    **5665**    

  **Timber Stand     **1851**    **1851**    **1851**    **1852**    **4000**
  Improvement**                                                      

  **Cumulative**     **3865**    **3723**    **3641**    **3535**    

  **Road             **3**       **3**       **2.2**     **0**       **25**
  Reconstruction**                                                   

  **Cumulative**     **10**      **3**       **2.2**     **0**       
  ------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------