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

Columbia Ecological Services Field Office

608 East Cherry Street, Room 200

Columbia, Missouri 65201

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

September 12, 2002

Mr. John C. Bisbee, District Ranger

Houston/Rolla/Cedar Creek Ranger District

Mark Twain National Forest

108 S. Sam Houston Blvd.

Houston, Missouri 65483

Dear Mr. Bisbee:

This letter is in response to your June 10, 2002, request for
site-specific review, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended, on the proposed Rams Horn Project on the
Houston/Rolla/Cedar Creek Ranger District (District) in Phelps and
Pulaski Counties, Missouri for the 2003 to 2012 planning period. 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 prescribe 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 Rams Horn Project is a Tier 2 consultation. We have reviewed
the information contained in the Rams Horn Project Biological Assessment
(BA), submitted by your office on June 10, 2002, and an addendum
received on August 15, 2002, describing the potential effects of the
proposed project on the above federally listed species. On February 11
and 12, 2002, Theresa Davidson, a biologist on my staff, visited the
proposed Rams Horn Project Area.

We concur with your conclusion that there are no additional effects to
federally listed species associated with the Rams Horn 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 (*Somatochlora
hineana*), Indiana bat, gray bat, scaleshell mussel (*Leptodea
leptodon*)

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 four alternatives for the Rams Horn Project. The
preferred alternative is alternative two. Alternative two includes the
following land management activities:

(34088) Wildlife Habitat Maintenance and Improvement

        a.  Maintain 200 acres of unique post oak savanna habitat by
            personal use firewood removal and prescribed burning;

        b.  Maintain 400 acres of unique post oak savanna habitat by
            prescribed burning;

        c.  Maintain existing open and semi-open habitat by utilizing
            prescribed fire on 450 acres (Note: see (5)(c) and (d) for
            additional information);

        d.  Maintain existing open and semi-open habitat by utilizing
            mechanical means such as brush hogging and/or prescribed
            fire on 450 acres;

        e.  Enhance the warm season grass component in existing open and
            semi-open habitat by planting 150 acres with warm season
            grasses such as Gamma grass;

        f.  Maintain and enhance habitat for old growth wildlife species
            by designating 1,600 acres of old growth;

        g.  Create 1,100 acres of 0-9 age class habitat (would be
            accomplished with: 150 acres of group selection harvest on
            1,400 acres, shelterwood harvest on 550 acres, clearcut
            harvest on 400 acres);

        h.  Create 2,200 acres of woodland habitat in oak, oak-pine, and
            pine which exhibits a condition of 20-30 percent forbs,
            grass, and shrub ground cover (would be accomplished with:
            group selection harvest on 1, 400 acres, commercial thinning
            on 150 acres, 250 acres of shelterwood removal and thinning
            on 400 acres of pine plantations to encourage oak
            regeneration)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) Reduction of Non-native Invasive Plants

    b.  Control non-native multi-flora rose on 100 acres through the use
        of herbicides.

(2) Watershed Rehabilitation

    x.  Improve bottomland riparian habitat by planting hardwoods on 50
        acres;

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    a.  Improve bottomland riparian habitat by removing existing river
        access sites and access roads;

    b.  Rehabilitate 20 miles of existing non-system roads;

    c.  Improve existing stream crossing (Spring Creek);

    d.  Relocate Road 1803 out of the Spring Creek riparian zone;

    e.  Stream bank stabilization projects along Spring Creek;

    f.  Place large woody material for fish habitat into the Big Piney
        River and Spring Creek;

    g.  Plant 50 acres to bottomland hardwoods along Spring Creek in the
        Wayman Allotment area; and

    h.  Clean up two existing dumpsites.

(3) **Other Resource Management**

    t.  Improve an existing river access site by providing additional
        parking facilities for canoeists;

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    a.  Relocate an existing river access site (would require the
        construction of 3 mile of new system road and a parking area);
        and

    b.  Pre-commercial thin 50 acres of existing white oak, to stimulate
        the growth rate of the remaining white oaks.

(4) Associated or Connected Actions

    a.  Construction and obliteration of 15 miles of temporary roads to
        accomplish some of the items listed in item 1 above;

    b.  Fire line construction;

    c.  250 acres of ecosystem reconstruction prescribed burns (Note:
        May be in conjunction and/or adjacent to item 1(a),(b) and (c)
        in order to reduce the amount of constructed fire line needed);

    d.  1200 acres of ecosystem reconstruction prescribed burns (Note:
        May be in conjunction and/or adjacent to item 1(a),(b) and (c)
        in order to reduce the amount of constructed fire line needed);

    e.  Mechanical and/or hand treatments to control state listed
        non-native invasive plant species; and

    f.  Reconstruct and relocate existing portions of FR-1667 (this
        includes relocating a portion of FR 1667 out of a riparian area)
        and FR 1762.

(5) Additional Resource Protection Measures

    a.  No burning would occur anywhere in the Rams Horn area if the
        wind is blowing out of the northeast, east, and southeast year
        long. In addition, if the area has already been ignited and the
        winds shift to an undesirable direction, all ignitions would
        cease as expeditiously as possible without compromising
        firefighter and public safety. This is to reduce and/or
        eliminate any potential disturbance from smoke to the bald
        eagle, gray bat, and Indiana bat.

    b.  No burning would occur anywhere within 3 air mile of the Big
        Piney River in the Rams Horn project area between the dates of
        January 1 and March 15. This is in order to reduce and/or
        eliminate any disturbance from smoke in the Big Piney River
        corridor, which is utilized by bald eagles during the winter
        months.

    c.  No activity associated with implementing the Rams Horn Project
        would occur within 3 air mile of a bald eagle nest site on
        adjacent Fort Leonard Wood between the dates of January 1 and
        July 15. This is to eliminate any disturbance at a potentially
        active bald eagle nest. *Note: if monitoring determines that
        there has been no bald eagle activity at the nest site for three
        consecutive years, this resource protection measure will no
        longer be required. However, monitoring would continue after
        three years to determine if this nest site would need the same
        protection in the future, if it becomes occupied again.*

    d.  There will be no cutting of sycamore trees with diameters of 18
        inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater, which can
        serve as potential nest trees for the bald eagle along the Big
        Piney River.

    e.  In order to reduce and/or eliminate any potential disturbance
        from smoke in the Big Piney River corridor, where the nearest
        gray bat transitory cave is located, no burning would occur
        within 3 air mile of the Big Piney River corridor in the Rams
        Horn project area between the dates of March 1 and October 15.

    f.  To the maximum extent possible and logistically practical,
        retain all dead trees \>= 20@ dbh and all live trees \>= 26@
        dbh, unless they are an immediate human safety hazard. This is
        to provide and retain potential Indiana bat roost sites.

    g.  In all harvest units retain all the shagbark hickory, shellbark
        hickory, and lightning struck trees \>= 9@ dbh. Also retain some
        (not all) dead and dying trees \>=9@ dbh with at least 10%
        exfoliating or defoliating bark. This is to provide and retain
        potential Indiana bat roost sites.

In addition to the 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 projects effects on the bald eagle and
gray bat.

[Bald eagle:]{.underline} 1) The project area is approximately 18 air
miles southeast from the nearest active nest site (there is a non-active
nest adjacent to the project area on the Fort Leonard Wood Military
Reservation); 2) the project area is approximately 75 air miles
northeast of the nearest known communal roost; 3) bald eagles do use the
Big Piney River in winter; 4) sediment produced by project activities
would not be of a magnitude where the prey base will be affected; 5)
herbicide use will not affect the bald eagle; 6) smoke from the
prescribed burns are not likely to displace bald eagles; and 7)
watershed improvements are likely to improve habitat for prey species.

[Gray bat:]{.underline} 1) The project area is less than 3 mile east of
the nearest gray bat cave; 2) there are perennial streams in the project
area that the gray bat may use; 3) gray bats were captured at the
confluence of Spring Creek and the Big Piney River in 2002; 4) smoke
from the prescribed burns are not likely to displace gray bats; 5)
herbicide use will not affect the gray bat; 6) riparian area
enhancements will improve habitat for the gray bat and; 7) any sediment
produced by the project activities would not be of a magnitude where the
prey base will be affected.

Based on the site-specific information above, we would concur with a
determination of Anot likely to adversely affect@ for the bald eagle and
gray bat. The Service also concurs with your determination that the
project will have Ano effect@ on the scaleshell mussel and Hine=s
emerald dragonfly.

## Biological Opinion

The following biological opinion is based on likely adverse effects to
the Indiana bat from activities associated with the Rams Horn 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 Ram=s Horn Project and the
cumulative total of incidental take for the MTNF for the 2002-2003
planning seasons. It conforms to 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 9 species during 594 hours of mist
netting, but no Indiana bats were captured.

Mist net and anabat surveys were conducted in and immediately adjacent
to the Rams Horn project area in 1998 and in 2002. No Indiana bats were
captured or detected. There are no Indiana bat hibernacula in the
project area. The project area is located approximately 6 air miles
northeast of the nearest Indiana bat hibernacula on the Fort Leonard
Wood Military Reservation. The project area is approximately 6 air miles
north of the nearest capture of a reproductive female Indiana bat (on
State land). The project area is approximately 130 air miles south of
the nearest maternity colony. The project area is not in an Indiana bat
area of influence (MTNF Management Area 3.5).

[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).

Missouri has experienced severe weather in the spring of 2002. Several
tornados in 2002 have damaged timber stands on both private and public
lands in Missouri. Flooding has occurred in many drainages, uprooting
trees and causing other structural damage. Some landowners are removing
the downed timber in many areas and many are burning the wood that is
unsuitable for other products (e.g. sawlogs, firewood, etc.). However,
not all landowners (both public and private) can remove all or most of
the downed timber. Once the wood dries out, an unnaturally high fuel
loading in Missouri forests will have been created, and the risk of
catastrophic fire will increase.

Another situation is causing concern for the health of forests in
Missouri and Arkansas. Thousands of acres are being affected by oak
decline. Many large northern red, southern red, black, and scarlet oaks
are declining and dying. The reason for this problem is complex and is
not linked to any one cause but trees that are old (70 to 90 years), are
on shallow, rocky soils, ridgetops and upper slopes, and that have been
stressed from drought, are predisposed to decline. There are other
factors that contribute to this oak decline: red oak borers, twolined
chestnut borers, armillaria root rot, and others (from brochure AWhy are
the oak trees dying??@ produced by the USDA Forest Service 2001). The
oak decline problem will create habitat for the Indiana bat, but could
also pose a risk from catastrophic wildfire.

[Effects of the Action]{.underline}

Based on our analysis of information provided in your June 10, 2002 BE
for the Rams Horn Project, 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. Migrating Indiana bats 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 in the
timber harvest areas and tree removal associated with temporary road
construction. Timber stand improvement activities entail cutting live
trees that are five inches in diameter or less. Indiana bats generally
roost in snags that are generally larger than five inches in diameter,
though some male Indiana bats have been found to roost in smaller snags.
Adverse effects to the Indiana bat from timber stand improvement
activities are not likely to occur. The prescribed burning will be
conducted in late winter or early spring when bats are still
hibernating. The burns will only be conducted using the above mentioned
resource protection measures, to push smoke away from the hibernaculum.
In addition, the project area is far enough from the hibernaculum that
smoke would have no effect on the Indiana bat. 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. Because surveys have been conducted in and
adjacent to the Rams Horn Project area with no Indiana bat detections,
and since all maternity colonies in Missouri have been found north of
the Missouri River or within the floodplain of the Mississippi River, it
is highly unlikely that a maternity colony exists in the project area. 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 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 Rams Horn 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
Rams Horn 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
Rams Horn 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: Theresa Davidson, FWS, Ava, MO

# References

# 

U.S. Forest Service. Fire Effects and Use; Haliaeetus leucocephalus;
found at

[http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/hale/fire_effects_and_use.html]{.underline}
accessed

on August 13, 2002.

**Table 1. Incidental take of Indiana bats for the Rams Horn 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.**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td><strong>2003</strong></td>
<td><strong>2004</strong></td>
<td><strong>2005</strong></td>
<td><strong>2006</strong></td>
<td><strong>2007</strong></td>
<td><strong>2008</strong></td>
<td><strong>2009</strong></td>
<td><strong>2010</strong></td>
<td><strong>2011</strong></td>
<td><strong>2012</strong></td>
<td><p><strong>ACRES</strong></p>
<p><strong>EXEMPTED</strong></p>
<p><strong>ANNUALLY</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Timber Harvest</strong></td>
<td><strong>2486</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>78</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>410</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>20000</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>Cumulative</strong></p>
<p><strong>Total</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>18633</strong></td>
<td><strong>10399</strong></td>
<td><strong>3374</strong></td>
<td><strong>2723</strong></td>
<td><strong>1207</strong></td>
<td><strong>410</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>______</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><strong>Prescribed</strong></p>
<p><strong>Fire</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>12000</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>Cumulative</strong></p>
<p><strong>Total</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>8095</strong></td>
<td><strong>10238</strong></td>
<td><strong>6582</strong></td>
<td><strong>5802</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>______</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Soil and Water Improvement</strong></td>
<td><strong>8</strong></td>
<td><strong>8</strong></td>
<td><strong>8</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>150</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>Cumulative</strong></p>
<p><strong>Total</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>16</strong></td>
<td><strong>50</strong></td>
<td><strong>16</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>______</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Timber Stand Improvement</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>4000</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>Cumulative</strong></p>
<p><strong>Total</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>3667</strong></td>
<td><strong>3860</strong></td>
<td><strong>3754</strong></td>
<td><strong>219</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>______</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><strong>Road Construction</strong></td>
<td><strong>4</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>25</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><strong>Cumulative</strong></p>
<p><strong>Total</strong></p></td>
<td><strong>13</strong></td>
<td><strong>2</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>0</strong></td>
<td><strong>______</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>