**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

on the

**LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN WAYNE NATIONAL FOREST, OHIO**

*Prepared by:*

Angela L. Boyer

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

6950 Americana Parkway, Suite H

Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068

September 20, 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

CONSULTATION HISTORY 1

BIOLOGICAL OPINION 3

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 3

STATUS OF THE SPECIES 11

Indiana Bat 11

Bald Eagle 14

American Burying Beetle 17

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 18

Indiana Bat 19

Bald Eagle 21

American Burying Beetle 21

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 22

Indiana Bat 22

Bald Eagle 28

American Burying Beetle 31

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 33

CONCLUSION 33

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 34

[Indiana Bat]{.underline}

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE 35

EFFECT OF TAKE 36

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES 36

TERMS AND CONDITIONS 37

[Bald Eagle]{.underline}

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE 40

EFFECT OF TAKE 40

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES 41

TERMS AND CONDITIONS 41

[American Burying Beetle]{.underline}

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE 43

EFFECT OF TAKE 43

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES 43

TERMS AND CONDITIONS 43

REINITIATION NOTICE 43

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 44

Indiana Bat 44

Bald Eagle 45

American Burying Beetle 45

APPLICABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL OPINION TO SITE SPECIFIC PROJECTS 47

LITERATURE CITED 48

LIST OF TABLES

> Table 1. Wayne NF estimates the following management activities that
> could modify Indiana bat habitat modification may occur over the next
> five years 4

Table 2. The anticipated level of take of Indiana bat habitat that may
occur the next five years on the Wayne NF with the continued
implementation of the Forest Plan. . 35

0

**INTRODUCTION**

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\'s (Service)
biological opinion based on our review of the continued implementation
of the Wayne National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as
amended (Forest Plan) and projects predicated upon it, and its effects
on the Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*), bald eagle (*Haliaeetus
leucocephalus*), and American burying beetle (*Nicrophorus americanus*),
in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). This biological opinion is
based on information provided in the March 12, 2001 Wayne National
Forest Programmatic Biological Assessment Land and Resource Management
Plan. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file
at the Service=s Reynoldsburg, Ohio Field Office (ROFO).

**CONSULTATION HISTORY**

In 1986, the Wayne National Forest (NF) initiated informal consultation
on their Forest Plan with ROFO, under the ESA. At that time, the
management standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan stated that there
were, \"no Federally-listed endangered, threatened, or proposed species
in the vicinity of the Wayne National Forest which might be affected by
management activities on the forest\" (USFS 1986). In July 1992, the
Forest Plan was amended to recognize the presence or possible presence
of four Federally-listed threatened or endangered species in the
vicinity of the Wayne NF (Indiana bat, bald eagle, peregrine falcon and
Kirtland\'s warbler) (USFS 1986). Until initiation of formal
consultation on April 4, 2001, the effects of proposed actions on
Federally-listed species have been addressed by the Wayne NF through
informal consultation with the Service on a project-by-project basis.

In 1998, the Indiana bat was discovered on the Wayne NF. This new
discovery, along with reports of several other Federally-listed species
occurring near Wayne NF, prompted the Wayne NF to begin the process of
amending their Forest Plan. On June 7, 2000, Wayne NF contacted ROFO
with a letter from the Wayne NF Supervisor, requesting that informal
consultation continue on Federally-listed species occurring on or near
the Wayne NF. Nine Federally-listed species were identified in the June
7, 2000 letter as being present on or near the Wayne NF. The nine
species identified were the Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*), bald eagle
(*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*), American burying beetle (*Nicrophorus
americanus*), northern wild monkshood (*Aconitum noveboracense*),
running buffalo clover (*Trifolium* *stoloniferum*), small whorled
pogonia (*Isotria medeoloides*), Virginia spiraea (*Spiraea
virginiana*), fanshell mussel (*Cyprogenia stegaria*), and the pink
mucket pearly mussel (*Lampsilis abrupta*).

Subsequent meetings and telephone conversations took place between the
Service and the Wayne NF to discuss the format of the pending biological
assessment (BA) addressing Federally-listed species under the current
Forest Plan. The Service has been provided with review copies of the
numerous drafts of the BA.

On February 14, 2001, the Service met with the Wayne NF Supervisor and
Wayne NF biologists to discuss the formal consultation process. On March
15, 2001, representatives of the Service and Wayne NF met at the
Service=s Regional Office at Fort Snelling, Minnesota to discuss the
formal consultation process with the Service. The final BA was completed
by the Wayne NF on March 12, 2001 and received by the Service at the
March 15, 2001 meeting.

In response to the Wayne NF=s June 7, 2000 letter, the Service sent a
letter dated March 18, 2001 to the Wayne NF stating that we concur with
the list of species noted in Mr. Zambrana=s letter. In this letter, the
Service identified six species that could be addressed through the
informal consultation process. These six species are northern wild
monkshood, running buffalo clover, small whorled pogonia, Virginia
spiraea, fanshell mussel, and pink mucket pearly mussel. In the
Service=s March 18, 2001 letter, three species, the Indiana bat, bald
eagle, and American burying beetle, were identified as species for which
the Wayne NF should address through formal consultation with the
Service.

In its request for formal consultation received by the Service on April
6, 2001, the Wayne NF determined that activities outlined in the Forest
Plan are likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*)
and are not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle (*Haliaeetus
leucocephalus*), American burying beetle (*Nicrophorus americanus*),
northern wild monkshood (*Aconitum noveboracense*), running buffalo
clover (*Trifolium* *stoloniferum*), small whorled pogonia (*Isotria
medeoloides*), Virginia spiraea (*Spiraea virginiana*), fanshell mussel
(*Cyprogenia stegaria*), and pink mucket pearly mussel (*Lampsilis
abrupta*).

The Wayne NF further requested our concurrence on these effect
determinations. In a letter dated April 19, 2001, the Service: (1)
concurred with the Wayne NF=s determination that certain actions to
implement the Forest Plan would be likely to adversely affect the
Indiana bat, (2) indicated that the initiation package associated with
the Forest Service=s request for formal consultation was adequate, and
(3) announced that formal consultation between the two agencies had
begun. In the same letter, the Service concluded that activities
outlined in the Forest Plan were also likely to adversely affect the
bald eagle and American burying beetle.

The Service provided a draft biological opinion to the Forest Service on
July 12, 2001 for review. The Service learned through discussions with
the Wayne NF, that the Forest Service comments on the draft biological
opinion would be received by the Service on August 20, 2001. Because the
135-day formal consultation period would conclude on August 17, 2001,
the Service sent a letter dated August 8, 2001 to the Forest Service
requesting an 30-day extension to the formal consultation period. On
August 22, 2001, the Service received a letter from the Forest Service
agreeing to the request for a 30-day formal consultation extension.

On August 20, 2001, the Service met with the Wayne NF Supervisor and
Wayne NF biologists to receive and discuss the Wayne NF=s comments on
the draft biological opinion. A revised draft biological opinion was
provided to the Wayne NF on September 7, 2001. On September 11, 2001,
the Service met with the Wayne NF Supervisor and Wayne NF biologists to
receive and discuss additional comments.

**[BIOLOGICAL OPINION]{.underline}**

**DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION**

The action considered in this biological opinion is the continued
implementation of the existing Wayne NF Forest Plan, as amended. The
goal of Forest Plan is to provide for multiple-use and a sustained yield
of products and services in a way that maximizes long-term net public
benefits in an environmentally sound manner (USFS 1986). The Wayne NF
will undertake a host of management actions to achieve this goal.
Detailed descriptions of the proposed actions are provided in the
Programmatic Biological Assessment Land and Resource Management Plan
(BA); these descriptions are hereby incorporated by reference.

Wayne NF estimates the following activities may benefit the Indiana bat
and its habitat:

-   Timber harvest

-   Reforestation/Timber stand improvement

-   Prescribed fire

-   Special Area and Research Natural Areas

-   Land exchange/purchase

-   Creation of lakes, ponds and marshes

-   Closing of underground entrances (gating and fencing)

Wayne NF estimates the following activities may affect but are not
likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat and its habitat:

-   Prescribed fire

-   Land exchange/purchase

-   Special used (agriculture permits and utility corridors)

-   General recreation use

-   Pesticide use

Wayne NF estimates the following activities may adversely affect the
Indiana bat and its habitat:

-   Timber harvest

-   Creation of wildlife openings

-   Special Areas and Research Natural Areas

-   Mineral development

-   Road construction , maintenance and use

-   Recreation facility/trail construction, maintenance and use

-   Closing of Underground Entrances (backfilling)

Wayne NF estimates the following activity would have no effect on the
Indiana bat and its habitat:

-   Maintenance of wildlife openings

-   Grazing

Table 1. Wayne NF estimates the following management activities that
could modify Indiana bat habitat modification may occur over the next
five years.

  -------------------------- ------------ -----------------------------------
  **MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY**    **Forested   **DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY**
                             acres        
                             affected**   

  -------------------------- ------------ -----------------------------------

+--------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
| Timber harvest           | 2250   | hardwood thinning and uneven-aged |
|                          |        | cuts                              |
| (2,500 total acres)      |        |                                   |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
|                          | 250    | pine thinning and uneven-aged     |
|                          |        | cuts                              |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
| Timber stand improvement | 2500   | treatments to improve the         |
|                          |        | composition, structure, health    |
|                          |        | and vigor of the trees in a stand |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
| Prescribed fire          | 2500   | management of plant communities   |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
| Road construction        | 32     | permanent road construction       |
|                          |        |                                   |
| (94 total acres)         |        |                                   |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
|                          | 37     | temporary road construction       |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
|                          | 25     | oil/gas well road construction    |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
| Trail construction       | 160    | hiking, horse, and ORV trails     |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
| Creation of wildlife     | 352    | forest openings construction      |
| openings                 |        |                                   |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
| Mineral development      | 25     | oil/gas well development          |
|                          |        |                                   |
| (2125 total acres)       |        |                                   |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
|                          | 2100   | Strip mining                      |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
| Special Use Permits      | 125    | utility corridors and special use |
|                          |        | roads                             |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
| Hazard Tree Removal      | 125    | hazard trees that must be cut     |
|                          | **t    | between April 15 and September    |
|                          | rees** | 15.                               |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+
| Closing Underground      | 250    | Closing subsidence openings and   |
| Entrances                |        | old mine portals                  |
+--------------------------+--------+-----------------------------------+

  -------------------------- ------------ -----------------------------------
  **TOTAL ACRES**            **10,606**   10,606 acres + an additional 125
                                          hazard trees

  -------------------------- ------------ -----------------------------------

According to the Wayne NF Forest Plan, 5 dead or dying trees are to be
left standing per acre when any timber is cut. Of these 5 trees, one is
to be at least 18 inches in diameter or larger, two are to be 14 inches
or larger and the remaining three are to be greater than 6 inches in
diameter. In addition, 10 hickory trees between 2 and 6 inches dbh are
to remain standing. Approximately 3,400 acres or 1.7 percent of the
forest was harvested between 1988 and 1997, leaving the vast majority of
the Wayne NF untouched.

In the next five years, the Forest Service estimates that prescribed
fire may occur at the rate of 500 acres per year on the Wayne NF for the
restoration of native communities. Fire may create additional snags for
roost trees by killing large trees without completely burning them to
the ground or removing all of their bark. These newly created snags
could be useful to males for roosting (USFS 1998). Snags created through
burning may also be used by female Indiana bats for maternity colonies.
The trees must have a large diameter and contain the majority of their
bark cover.

The Wayne NF currently has 8 designated Special Areas. The total acreage
of Special Areas on the forest is 2,835 acres. The Wayne NF also has two
designated Research Natural Areas (RNA). Reas Run RNA, located in the
Marietta Unit, is 78 acres. Reas Run consists of an approximately
35-acre mature Virginia Pine stand surrounded by oak-hickory and
maple-beech-birch stands, intermixed by younger, smaller Virginia Pine
(USFS 1987). These areas would provide a substantial amount of large,
mature trees and snags for male and maternity colony roosting during
summer months. Depending on the density of the forest areas, these
mature trees may not have the amount of sun exposure necessary for
proper fetal and juvenile bat development.

Acquisition of land by the Forest Service, creating larger, contiguous
areas of public ownership, would reduce potential disturbance to
roosting or hibernating Indiana bats from private owner actions. These
areas could then be monitored and surveyed for bat activity as well as
managed to provide more advantageous forest conditions for the Indiana
bat.

According to the Forest Plan monitoring reports, reforestation was
conducted on 7,839 acres in the forest between 1988 and 1996. Between
1,000 and 1,500 acres of reforestation are projected to occur each year
in the future. Reforestation and timber stand improvement would
eventually create roosting and foraging habitats for the Indiana bat as
the trees mature and create canopy cover.

Construction of approximately one acre of small lake, marsh or pond
habitat per year is permitted by the Forest Plan in the future. Also,
the standards and guidelines state that two waterholes per

square mile may be created on the Wayne NF.

Mineral exploration and development is on-going throughout the forest.
The Wayne NF has controlling interest on approximately 28 percent of the
mineral estates on the forest (USFS 1987). Currently, there are
approximately 800 oil and gas wells on the forest in various stages of
development, production, or abandonment. Per Forest Plan standards and
guidelines, all surface-disturbing activities must assure that
mitigation measures for protected species are complied with. In
addition, an assessment of impacts to species must be completed before
commencement of any specific forest activity.

The following measures are proposed by the Forest Service to minimize
adverse effects from Wayne NF activities to the Indiana bat or its
habitat on the Wayne NF (USFS 2001a). These measures are not in the
current Forest Plan.

1\. Protect hibernacula:

> a\. Prevent unauthorized entry to hibernacula using methods and
> designs approved by the Service.

b\. Properly sign all sites.

> c\. Deter human access to areas surrounding hibernacula by closing or
> relocating trails that lead to or pass within easy viewing distance of
> hibernacula.
>
> d\. Retain, depending on local circumstances, one-quarter mile of
> undisturbed forested buffer surrounding all hibernacula on Wayne NF
> land.
>
> e\. When developing prescribed burn plans, ensure smoke management in
> the vicinity of hibernacula.

2\. Protect potential roost trees:

> a\. Protect any known roost trees and coordinate with the Service if
> the tree must be removed for any reason.
>
> b\. During non-hibernation season, retain all standing dead trees
> greater then 9 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) unless they are
> a safety hazard or under special circumstances after coordination with
> a Wayne NF biologist.
>
> c\. Demolish buildings or other structures that can harbor bats only
> during the hibernation season or after coordination with a forest
> biologist, unless there in an immediate safely hazard.
>
> d\. During the non-hibernation season, retain all shagbark and
> shellbark hickory trees over 6 inches dbh and all trees over 6 inches
> dbh with large areas of loose bark, that are hollow, have major
> splits, or have broken tops unless they are a safety hazard or under
> special circumstances after coordination with a Wayne NF biologist.

3\. Protect water sources:

> a\. Do not repair road ruts or natural depressions where water
> collects unless they are contributing to soil erosion or sedimentation
> problems or public safety is compromised.

The following measures are proposed by the Forest Service to further the
conservation and recovery of the Indiana bat or its habitat on the Wayne
NF (USFS 2001a). These measures are not in the current Forest Plan.

1\. Make the purchase of area with known hibernacula and willing sellers
a high priority.

2\. During timber harvest:

a\. Retain at least three snags per acre over 9 inches dbh, girdling
live trees if necessary to achieve the minimum number.

b\. Retain enough live trees around large snags (over 12 inches dbh) to
provide partial shading and to protect from wind throw.

> c\. Retain at least 10 to 15 square feet of basal area per acre of
> suitable roost trees (6 inches dbh or greater). A Wayne NF wildlife
> biologist will be informed if any of these trees are accidentally
> felled.
>
> d\. Leave all standing dead trees greater then 22 inches dbh and at
> least 8 standing dead trees per acre between 9 and 20 inches dbh
> during salvage harvests, where the majority of trees are dead or
> dying.
>
> 3\. To improve foraging habitat, reduce canopy closure to 60 to 80
> percent with thinning or uneven age harvests.

4\. Inventory, monitoring, research, and outreach:

a\. Continue to monitor Indiana bats and document their habitat needs.

b\. Promote overall awareness of the species and its habitat
requirements.

Wayne NF estimates that all activities permitted under the Forest Plan
will have no effect on nesting Bald eagles based on the fact that there
are no known nesting populations of the Bald eagle within the Wayne NF.
However, the Forest Service recognizes that some Wayne NF activities
could have an impact on potential Bald eagle habitat.

Wayne NF estimates the following activities may benefit Bald eagle
potential habitat:

-   Reforestation and timber stand improvement

-   Land exchange/purchase

-   Lake/pond/marsh construction/maintenance

Wayne NF estimates the following activities may affect but are not
likely to adversely affect Bald eagle potential habitat:

-   Timber harvest

-   Prescribed fire

-   Land exchange/purchase

-   Road construction, maintenance and use

-   Recreation facility and trail construction, maintenance and use

-   General recreation

-   Mineral development

-   Pesticide use

-   Agricultural permits and utility corridors

Wayne NF estimates the following activity would have no effect on Bald
eagle potential

habitat:

-   Creation and maintenance of wildlife openings

-   Livestock grazing

There are no known bald eagle nests within the proclamation boundaries
of the Wayne NF. Habitat for the eagle is present throughout the forest
and would increase over time as forest stands mature, so long as
sufficient foraging areas remain present. The Wayne NF has a forest
cover of more than 95 percent or 201,214 acres. Of that forested
acreage, mature hardwoods (80 years or older) are found on approximately
30 percent or approximately 63,000 acres (USFS 1987, USFS 2000a). These
mature forest areas exist along the Ohio River, Little Muskingum River,
Hocking River, Lake Vesuvius, and Timbre Ridge Lake. Large riparian
corridors with open water are limited on the Wayne NF. The Little
Muskingum River could potentially be used by the bald eagle, but the
Ohio River, Hocking River, Lake Vesuvius, Timbre Lake, or Burr Oak
Reservoir would be more likely.

Reforestation activities would provide additional habitat in the future,
as the new trees mature. Standards and guidelines are in place to
protect the stands surrounding these sites and all riparian resources
where the bald eagle would likely roost and hunt. All snags and den
trees will also be left in place in accordance with established
guidelines. Although these requirements vary by management area, an
average of 5 dead or dying trees per acre with a minimum snag size of 6
inches in diameter are to remain following timber harvest and timber
stand improvement. Of these five trees, two per acre are to be of 14
inches in diameter or larger and one for every two acres is to be 18
inches or greater in diameter. Prior to conducting activities which
would remove trees, an assessment will be conducted by the Wayne NF to
ensure no adverse impacts to protected species would occur. If bald
eagles or indications of eagle use are present on the site, coordination
with the Service would occur to prevent impacts to the species.

Ridgetop waterholes and floodplain wetlands have been created in the
Wayne NF and are projected to continue at a rate of one acre per year in
the future. These waterholes and wetlands aid in the settling of
sediment eroded from surrounding areas. Several standards are listed in
the Wayne NF=s Forest Plan that create and protect marshes, waterholes,
fish habitat and fish populations as well as preserve water quality
(USFS 2001a). These standards would increase the bald eagle=s food
supply and perhaps create a more attractive environment for eagles to
roost and nest in the future.

Land exchange or purchase could be beneficial to the bald eagle. Forest
Service acquisition of land from other owners could contain potential
habitat for the species and create more consolidated areas of public
ownership. The larger areas of ownership would afford the Forest Service
the opportunity to manage these areas more efficiently for wildlife
objectives.

The following measures are proposed by the Forest Service to further the
conservation and recovery of the Bald eagle or its habitat on the Wayne
NF (USFS 2001a). These measures are not in the current Forest Plan.

> 1\. Wayne NF will cooperate with the Service the Ohio Department of
> Natural Resources (ODNR) on any reintroduction efforts that affect the
> Wayne NF.

2\. Should the bald eagle be found on the Wayne NF, populations would be
monitored and managed as directed by the species recovery plan.

3\. Potential habitat for the bald eagle, if identified, would be
managed to minimize activities that would threaten the habitat.

> 4\. Continue and improve cooperation with State and private owners to
> conserve water quality and ensure healthy fish populations.

Wayne NF estimates that all activities permitted under the Forest Plan
will have no effect on the American burying beetle since the beetles are
not currently found on the forest. However, the Wayne NF recognizes that
some Wayne NF activities could have an impact on potential American
burying beetle habitat.

Wayne NF estimates the following activities may benefit potential
habitat for the American burying beetle:

 Land purchase

 Maintenance of wildlife openings

Wayne NF estimates the following activities may affect but are not
likely to adversely affect the potential habitat for the American
burying beetle:

-   Timber harvest (site preparation)

-   Reforestation/timber stand improvement (site preparation)

-   Prescribed fire

-   Land exchange

-   Road construction and maintenance

-   Recreation facility and trail construction

-   Mineral development

-   Pesticide use

-   Special uses (agricultural permits and utility corridors)

Wayne NF estimates the following activity would have no affect on
potential habitat for the American burying beetle:

-   Creation of wildlife openings

-   Livestock grazing

-   General recreation

-   Creation of lakes, ponds and marshes

-   Closing of underground openings

Even though the American burying beetle is not currently found on the
Wayne NF, a reintroduction occurred at a nearby site bordering the
Athens Ranger District. Since the beetle is heavily dependent upon the
availability of carrion, activities that would improve habitat for their
primary carrion source, the wild turkey, would be beneficial. The wild
turkey prefers upland hardwood and mixed

forest habitats. The Wayne NF works with the ODNR to maintain upland
wildlife habitats as

early successional maintenance, which benefits the wild turkey and
ruffed grouse (King 2000c).

Land purchase could be beneficial to the American burying beetle. Wayne
NF acquisition of land from other owners could contain potential habitat
or better habitat for the species and create more consolidated areas of
public ownership. The larger areas of ownership would afford the Wayne
NF the opportunity to manage these areas more efficiently for wildlife
objectives.

The following measures are proposed by the Forest Service to further the
conservation and recovery of the American burying beetle or its habitat
on the Wayne NF (USFS 2001a). These measures are not in the current
Forest Plan.

1\. Should the American burying beetle be found on the Wayne NF,
populations would be monitored and managed as necessary to perpetuate
the species.

2\. Wayne NF will cooperate with the Service and the ODNR on any
reintroduction efforts that affect the Wayne NF.

3\. Potential habitat for the American burying beetle would be managed
to minimize activities which would threaten the habitat, or threaten
populations of potential carrion for the species.

To assess the landscape effects of the proposed actions and to
facilitate Wayne NF=s section 7(a)(2) responsibilities, a tiered
programmatic consultation approach will be implemented. As individual
projects are proposed under the Forest Plan, Wayne NF shall provide
project-specific information to ROFO that (1) describes the proposed
action and the specific area to be affected, (2) identifies the species
that may be affected, (3) describes the manner in which the proposed
action may affect listed species, and the anticipated effects, (4)
specifies that the Aanticipated effects from the proposed project are
similar to those anticipated in the programmatic biological opinion,@
(5) a cumulative total of take that has occurred thus far under the tier
I biological opinion, and (6) describes any additional effects, if any,
not considered in the tier I consultation.

The Service will review the information provided by the Wayne NF for
each proposed project and this project-specific review is appropriately
documented. During this review if it is determined that an individual
proposed project is not likely to adversely affect listed species, the
Service will complete its documentation with a standard concurrence
letter that refers to this BO, the tier I programmatic document (i.e.,
it Atiers@ to it), and specifies that the Service concurs that the
proposed project is not likely to adversely affect listed species or
designated critical habitat. If it is determined that the proposed
project is likely to adversely affect listed species or designated
critical habitat, then the Service completes a tier II biological
opinion with a project-specific incidental take statement.

The Service has determined that action area for this consultation
includes the entire Wayne NF lands. This biological opinion addresses
only those actions for which the Service believes adverse effects may
occur.

**STATUS OF THE SPECIES**

**[Indiana Bat]{.underline}**

The Indiana bat was officially listed as an endangered species on March
11, 1967 (32 FR 4001) under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of
October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 926; 16 U.S.C. 668aa\[c\]). The Endangered
Species Act of 1973 extended full protection to the species. The Service
has published a recovery plan (USFWS 1983b) which outlines recovery
actions. Briefly, the objectives of the plan are to: (1) protect
hibernacula; (2) maintain, protect, and restore summer maternity
habitat; and (3) monitor population trends through winter censuses. The
recovery plan is currently being updated to reflect new information
concerning summer habitat use.

Thirteen winter hibernacula (11 caves and two mines) in six states were
designated as critical habitat for the Indiana bat in 1976 (41 FR 187).
Based on censuses taken at hibernacula, the total known Indiana bat
population is estimated to number about 352,000 bats. The most severe
declines in wintering populations have occurred in two states: Kentucky,
where 145,000 bats were lost between 1960 and 1975, and Missouri, where
250,000 Indiana bats were lost between 1980 and 1995. In Indiana,
populations dropped by 50,000 between the earliest censuses and 1980,
but have rebounded to former levels in recent years. On the Wayne NF,
one abandoned mine, specifically a limestone mine, provides a winter
hibernaculum for approximately 150 Indiana bats (USFS 2001a).

A variety of factors have contributed to Indiana bat population declines
(USFWS 1983b). Sometimes their winter hibernacula are flooded, ceilings
of the hibernacula collapse, or cold temperatures kill the bats through
hypothermia. Exclusion of bats from hibernacula through blocking of
entrances, installations of gates that do not allow for bat ingress and
egress, disruption of cave air flow, and human disturbance during
hibernation have been documented causes of Indiana bat declines. Because
many known threats are associated with hibernation, protection of
hibernacula has been a management priority.

Despite the protection of most major hibernacula, population declines
have continued. Continued population declines of Indiana bats, in spite
of efforts to protect hibernacula, have led scientists to the conclusion
that additional information on summer habitat is needed (Romme *et al.*
1995). In addition to increased focus on summer habitat, attention is
also being directed to pesticide contamination. Insecticides have been
known or suspected as the cause of a number of bat die-offs in North
America, including endangered gray bats in Missouri (Clark *et al.*
1978). The insect diet and longevity of bats also exposes them to
persistent organochlorine chemicals which may bioaccumulate in bat
tissue and cause sub-lethal effects such as impaired reproduction.

[Description and Distribution]{.underline}

The Indiana bat is a medium-sized bat with a head and body length that
ranges from 41 to 49 mm. It is a monotypic species that occupies much of
the eastern half of the United States, from Oklahoma, Iowa, and
Wisconsin east to Vermont, and south to northwestern Florida. The
Indiana bat is migratory, and the above described range includes both
winter and summer habitat. The winter range is associated with regions
of well-developed limestone caverns. Major populations of this species
hibernate in Kentucky, Indiana, and Missouri. Smaller winter populations
have been reported from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland,
Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. More than 85 percent of the
entire known population of Indiana bats hibernates in only nine caves.

[Life History]{.underline}

Generally, Indiana bats hibernate from October through April (Hall 1962,
LaVal and LaVal 1980), depending upon local weather conditions. Bats
cluster on cave ceilings in densities ranging from 300-484 bats per
square foot. Hibernation facilitates survival during winter when prey
are unavailable. However, the bat must store sufficient fat to support
metabolic processes until spring. Substantial risks are posed by events
during the winter that interrupt hibernation and increase metabolic
rates.

After hibernation ends in late March or early April, most Indiana bats
migrate to summer roosts. Female Indiana bats emerge from hibernation in
late March or early April, followed by the males. The period after
hibernation but, prior to migration, is typically referred to as
staging. Most populations leave their hibernacula by late April.
Migration is stressful for the Indiana bat, particularly in the spring
when their fat reserves and food supplies are low. As a result, adult
mortality may be the highest in late March and April.

Summering Indiana bats roost in trees in riparian, bottomland, and
upland forests. Roost trees generally have exfoliating bark which allows
the bat to roost between the bark and bole of the tree. Cavities and
crevices in trees also may be used for roosting. A variety of tree
species are known to be used for roosts including (but not limited to)
silver maple (*Acer saccharinum*), shagbark hickory (*Carya ovata*),
shellbark hickory (*Carya laciniosa*), bitternut hickory (*Carya
cordiformis*), green ash (*Fraxinus pennsylvanica*), white ash
(*Fraxinus americana*), Eastern cottonwood (*Populus deltoides*),
northern red oak (*Quercus rubra*), post oak (*Quercus stallata*) ,
white oak (*Quercus alba*), shingle oak (*Quercus imbricaria*), slippery
elm (*Ulmus rubra*), American elm (*Ulmus americana*), sassafras
(*Sassafras albidum*), and sugar maple (*Acer saccharum*) (Romme *et
al.* 1995). Structure is probably more important than the species in
determining if a tree is a suitable roost site; tree species which
develop loose, exfoliating bark as they age and die are likely to
provide roost sites. Male bats disperse throughout the range and roost
individually or in small groups. In contrast, reproductive females form
larger groups, referred to as maternity colonies.

Maternity colonies, which may be occupied from mid-May to mid-September,
usually contain 100 or fewer adult female bats. Females each give birth
to a single young in late June or early July . Young Indiana bats are
capable of flight within a month of birth. They spend the latter part of
the summer foraging to accumulate fat reserves for the fall migration
and hibernation. Maternity colonies occupy roost sites in trees in
forested riparian, flood plain, or upland habitats (Romme *et al.*
1995). Female Indiana bats exhibit strong site fidelity to summer
roosting and foraging areas, that is, they return to the same summer
range annually to bear their young. Traditional summer sites are
essential to the reproductive success of local populations. It is not
known how long or how far female Indiana bats will search to find new
roosting habitat if their traditional roost habitat is lost or degraded.
If they are required to search for new roosting habitat, it is assumed
that this effort places additional stress on pregnant females at a time
when fat reserves are low or depleted and they are already stressed from
the energy demands of migration.

Indiana bat roosts are ephemeral and frequently associated with dead or
dying trees. Most roost trees may be habitable for only 2-8 years
(depending on the species and condition of the roost tree) under natural
conditions. Gardner *et al.* (1991a) evaluated 39 roost trees and found
that 31 percent were no longer suitable the following summer, and 33
percent of those remaining were unavailable by the second summer. A
variety of suitable roosts are needed within a colony\'s traditional
summer range for the colony to continue to exist. Indiana bat maternity
sites generally consist of one or more primary maternity roost trees
which are used repeatedly by large numbers of bats, and varying numbers
of alternate roosts, which may be used less frequently and by smaller
numbers of bats. Bats move among roosts within a season and when a
particular roost becomes unavailable from one year to the next. It is
not known how many alternate roosts must be available to assure
retention of a colony within a particular area, but large, nearby forest
tracts appear important (Callahan 1993). In addition to having
exfoliating bark, roost trees must be of sufficient diameter. Trees in
excess of 40 cm dbh are considered optimal for maternity colony roost
sites, but trees in excess of 22 cm dbh appear to provide suitable
maternity roosting habitat. Male Indiana bats have been observed
roosting in trees as small as 8 cm dbh.

In Illinois, Gardner *et al.* (1991b) found that forested stream
corridors, and impounded bodies of water, were preferred foraging
habitats for pregnant and lactating Indiana bats, which flew up to 2.4
km from upland roosts to forage. Females typically utilize larger
foraging ranges than males (Garner and Gardner 1992). Bats forage at a
height of approximately 2-30 meters under riparian and flood plain trees
(Humphrey *et al.* 1977). They forage between dusk and dawn and feed
exclusively on flying insects, primarily moths, beetles, and aquatic
insects. Riparian habitat is occupied by Indiana bats from mid-April to
mid-September. Romme *et al.* (1995) cite several studies which document
that Indiana bats also forage in upland forests.

After the summer maternity period, Indiana bats migrate back to
traditional winter hibernacula. Some male bats may begin to arrive at
hibernacula as early as July. Females typically arrive later and by
September numbers of males and females are almost equal. Autumn
Aswarming@ occurs prior to hibernation. During swarming, bats fly in and
out of cave entrances from dusk to dawn, while relatively few roost in
the caves during the day. By late September many females have entered
hibernation, but males may continue swarming well into October in what
is believed to be an attempt to breed late arriving females.

Swarming is important to the life history of the bat as most copulation
occurs during this time. Females store sperm through the winter and
fertilization occurs in the spring. Females are pregnant when they
arrive at the maternity roost. Fecundity is low; female Indiana bats
produce only one young per year.

**[Bald Eagle]{.underline}**

The bald eagle was officially listed as endangered throughout the lower
48 states, except in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Oregon, where
it was designated as threatened, on February 14, 1978 (43 FR 6233). On
June 12,1995, the Service published a final rule reclassifying the
status of the bald eagle from Federally endangered to threatened
throughout the lower 48 states (60 FR 36000). No critical habitat has
been designated for the species. Currently, the Service has published a
proposed rule to remove the bald eagle in the lower 48 states from the
Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife. A final decision on
the delisting has not yet been made and may not occur until mid-2001, or
later. If delisting should occur, the bald eagle would continue to be
protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1962, as
amended, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and the Lacey Act of
1900.

The bald eagle was listed under the ESA due to population losses caused
by pesticide pollution, hunting, and habitat destruction. The use of DDT
as a pesticide from 1940 through the 1960=s caused the drastic decline
in the bald eagle. Consumption of DDT contaminated prey resulted in
eggshell thinning and nesting failures. With the banning of DDT and
strong enforcement of recovery measures, the eagle has successfully
recovered. However, two major threats to the bald eagle remain: habitat
loss and contaminants. Even though the widespread elimination of DDT and
reduction of other pesticides has been greatly successful, other
contaminants exist on a localized level although these contaminants are
not believed to cause widespread suppression of the population. Their
habit of returning to the same nesting and winter roosting sites, as
well as their tendency to congregate makes each site of great importance
to the entire population of bald eagles. Shootings, disease, human
disturbance, electrocution and vehicle collisions are also continuing
threats to the eagle.

Five recovery regions (Pacific, Southwestern, Southeastern, Chesapeake
Bay, and Northern States) have been designated for the eagle in the
lower 48 states. Ohio is within the Northern States Recovery Region. The
Service published the Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan in 1983.
Major recovery steps outlined in the plan include: (1) determine current
population and habitat status; (2) determine population and habitat
levels needed to achieve recovery; (3) protect, enhance, and increase
bald eagle populations and habitats; and (4) establish and maintain
communication to coordinate and conduct recovery efforts.

In Ohio specifically, the two problems that continue to threaten the
bald eagle are the loss of wetlands and swamp forests, among the
preferred nesting and staging areas for the eagle, and damage to the
State=s waters. Channelization, erosion, and water pollution all
adversely affect the water resource and its inhabitants, which
potentially impact the eagle=s food source (ODNR no date (1)).

[Description and Distribution]{.underline}

The bald eagle is a large, long-lived bird of prey that occurs only in
North America. The adults have brown bodies with white heads and tails.
The young are all brown, and can be distinguished from young golden
eagles by their lower bare legs (golden eagles have feathered legs all
the way to their feet). They do not take on the coloring of the adults
or reach sexual maturity until age four (USFWS 1983a).

In Ohio, the highest numbers of bald eagles occur in the marsh region of
western Lake Erie. Nesting pairs also occur in northeast Ohio, along the
Sandusky River, and in north-central Ohio (ODNR no date (1)). Counties
listed as harboring bald eagles are: Ashtabula, Delaware, Coshocton,
Erie, Geauga, Hamilton, Henry, Hocking, Holmes, Huron, Knox, Lake,
Licking, Lorain, Lucas, Mercer, Mahoning, Marion, Muskingum, Noble,
Ottawa, Portage, Sandusky, Seneca, Stark, Summit, Trumbull, Wood, and
Wyandot; of which Hocking and Noble contain Wayne NF property. Three
additional counties containing bald eagle nests were found in 2000. They
are Harrison, Ross and Wayne counties (ODNR 2000b). According to the
USFWS (1983a), areas associated with large bodies of water should be
studied closely for eagle nests and wintering roosts. If a
previously-used site is located or the potential for eagle habitat
exists in the absence of eagles, the area should still be considered for
protection, because bald eagles are now re-occupying old territory and
new habitat as their numbers grow. The bald eagle=s numbers in Ohio have
grown significantly since the early 1980=s. In 1982, there were 7 known
nesting pairs in Ohio; in 1998 there were 47 documented nesting pairs,
and just one year later an additional 16 nesting pairs were counted
(ODNR 2000c). In January 2000, a record 193 wintering bald eagles were
counted in the 29 counties noted above (ODNR 2000a). Figure 7-3 shows
the Ohio range for the bald eagle.

[Life History]{.underline}

The bulk of the bald eagle=s diet is fish, however they will also feed
on waterfowl, small mammals, and carrion, especially in winter (USFWS
1983a)**.**

It is believed that eagles mate for life, but there is little
documentation to substantiate this claim. In the event that the mates
are separated, new mates likely are found. Pairs of eagles usually raise
one to two young per season, originating from one to three eggs. The
entire breeding cycle from initial breeding activity to fledging is
about six months.

Many do not breed for the first time until they are six years of age or
older. The time period before sexual maturity is a time of significant
mortality, and many eagles do not reach two years of age. After the
first couple of years, chances for survival improve, and eagles are
thought to live up to thirty years (USFWS 1983a).

Eagles usually nest near large bodies of water (within one-half mile),
although they will occasionally have nests in upland areas where there
is good access to food. Bald eagles tend to return to the same breeding
area, and often the same nest sites, each year. Although there are
reports of nests on the ground or on cliff faces, the majority of eagles
build their nests in supercanopy trees with large diameters and canopies
(USFWS 1983a). The nests typically occur in live coniferous or dead
trees (USFS 1998). They construct the nests of sticks and add to them
each year (USFWS 1983a). The nest tree is usually within one-half mile
of water and have a clear flight path to water (USFS 1998). Suitable
nest site characteristics are found throughout the Wayne NF.

When the nesting period is over, the wintering period begins. At this
time, the eagles generally leave their nest site for more protected
locales with abundant food supplies. According to the 1981 eagle count
done by the National Wildlife Federation, during the months between
November and March, bald eagles make their way into all of the
contiguous 48 states. As with their nests, the eagles revisit many of
the same wintering sites. The sites are chosen for their shelter from
the wind to reduce energy use. The wintering population of eagles is
split between large groups that congregate at recurring communal sites,
and those that have smaller gatherings. Both the large and small
wintering meeting and roosting sites are equally important to the
survival of the species. In addition to shelter from the weather, roost
sites provide isolation from humans. When human disturbance of a night
roost occurs, eagles may abandon the location (USFWS 1983a).

Survival of individual bald eagles, particularly those in their first
year of life, depends heavily on conditions they encounter during the
wintering period. In previous studies, it was thought that their
reproduction rate was the most important dynamic for the preservation of
the species, but it is now believed that their survival rate may play a
more crucial role. It appears likely that eagle populations may be more
successful with lower reproduction rates and higher survival rates, than
vice versa (USFWS 1983a).

During winter, night roost trees are used by an individual bald eagle or
group of eagles for protection from wind and harsh weather. These trees
are also thought to aid in mate location and communication of food
sources. Night roost trees have a large diameter, dense canopy cover in
wind-protected areas and may be located either adjacent to foraging
areas or at distances up to 17 miles away (USFS 1998).

Daytime roosts are usually located near foraging areas within 100 feet
of shoreline and are used for eating, resting and hunting. Tall dead
trees or mature trees with strong branches are the eagle=s preference.
The availability of prey is the most important characteristic of
wintering sites used by bald eagles (USFS 1998).

**[American Burying Beetle]{.underline}**

The American burying beetle was officially listed as endangered,
pursuant to the ESA, throughout its historic range on 13 July 1989 (54
FR 29652). The Service has published a recovery plan (USFWS 1991) which
outlines recovery actions for the beetle. Briefly, the objectives of the
plan are to: (1) protect and manage extant populations, and (2) maintain
captive populations for reintroduction.

There has been considerable controversy about the cause of the American
burying beetle decline. It has been pointed out that the extirpation of
the species in most areas preceded the widespread use of pesticides. An
unknown disease vector specific to the beetle cannot be totally ruled
out, but no other species of the genus are affected. The prevailing
theory is that because they are the largest species in the genus, and
require the largest carcasses, they have been more adversely affected
than other members of their genus by habitat fragmentation. As stated in
the recovery plan, Afragmentation of large areas of natural habitat that
historically supported high densities of indigenous species (exacerbated
by the direct taking of birds and other vertebrates) may have been a
contributing factor in the decline of the beetle by changing the species
composition and lowering the reproductive success of prey species
required for optimum reproduction.@ In locations where the American
burying beetle has been extirpated or greatly reduced in population,
other species of the genus *Nicrophorus* have increased. It has been
noted that some of the species that once probably provided important
carcasses for the beetle are now rare. The passenger pigeon is extinct,
and greater prairie chicken is much less common than they once were.
Scavengers including dogs, cats, and coyotes always increase at forest
edges and where civilization occurs and now compete with the American
burying beetle for prey. With increasingly localized populations, the
American burying beetle=s genetic variability that is important for
adapting to changing habitat would have been further reduced by genetic
drift. The lack of optimal sized carcasses for reproduction of the
species is now seen as the primary cause for the species precipitous
decline (USFWS 1991, USFWS 1994).

[Description and Distribution]{.underline}

The American burying beetle is the largest member of the group of
beetles that breed and raise their larvae on carcasses of vertebrates
(mammals and birds). It is 25 to 45 mm in size with a shiny black body
and is the only one of the genus *Nicrophorus* with an orange-red
marking on the first thoracic segment (pronotum). Each of the front
wings (elytra) has two scalloped orange-red markings and the antennae
are red-orange tipped. It is often covered with phoretic mites with
which it shares a symbiotic relationship (USFWS 1991).

The range of the American burying beetle has decreased to less than 10
percent of the species historic range. Historic records for the American
burying beetle include 150 counties in 35 states in the eastern United
States and southern Canada. It ranged from Nova Scotia to Montana and
Nebraska, but was poorly documented from the Appalachians and the lower
Coastal Plain (USFWS 1991). In 1991, there were several new discoveries
of the beetle, which now list wild populations in Rhode Island,
Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Arkansas (USFWS 1994). A captive breeding and
introduction program is underway using the Block Island, Rhode Island
populations from the Roger Williams Park Zoo.

[Life History]{.underline}

The American burying beetle uses larger carrion, both birds and mammals
of 100 to 200 grams in weight, on which to raise their broods. A pair of
beetles will stake a claim to a carcass and defend it against congeneric
beetles and other competitors, such as flies. After the pair buries the
carcass, the female lays 36 to 42 eggs in a side chamber near the
carcass. The eggs hatch in six days and the larvae require 12 to 16 days
to develop. Both parents initially defend and guard the eggs, and
usually the female will remain with and feed the larvae until pupation.
The male typically leaves within 10 to 15 days (Keeney 2001, USFWS
1991).

The adults themselves feed on carrion and also consume live prey. They
are nocturnal and active only when the temperature is above 60 degrees
Fahrenheit, usually from April to September. The beetle spends the
winter months below ground. They lay their eggs on the buried carcass in
June or July. They are univoltine (have a single yearly brood) animals
and usually live only about a year. Prey carcass size is more important
than prey species. The carcass must be of the optimal size and weight to
raise a maximum brood. American burying beetles will raise a brood on
carcasses as small as 35 grams, but research has shown them to raise a
smaller number of larvae on the reduced food supply (USFWS 1991).

American burying beetles have been found in pastures, pasture/forest
transition areas, old fields, open woodland and forests, specifically
oak-hickory forests, and grasslands (USFWS 1991). The beetle does prefer
upland ridgetop areas versus riparian areas, since carrion found in the
uplands are typically warmer and have a greater odor plume for locating
carrion (Keeney 2000). The availability of carcasses of sufficient size
appears to be the most important factor in their habitat requirements.
Also, their habitat must have soils capable of excavation for the burial
of carcasses. Level topography, well-drained soils and a well-formed
detritus layer are characteristics noted at American burying beetle
sites (USFWS 1991).

**ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE**

This section is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and
natural factors leading to the current status of species, its habitat,
and ecosystem within the action area.

The Wayne NF proclamation boundary encompasses 833,990 acres in twelve
Ohio counties. Within the Wayne NF proclamation boundary, 229,749 acres
are currently managed by the Forest Service (USFS 1992). Approximately
95 percent, or 218,000 acres, of the Wayne NF lands are forested (USFS
2001a). Wayne NF has two Ranger Districts: the Athens Ranger District,
comprised of the Athens Unit and the Marietta Unit, and the Ironton
Ranger District, comprised of the Ironton Unit. The Athens Unit is
comprised of properties in five Ohio counties (Perry, Hocking Vinton,
Athens, and Morgan counties). The Marietta Unit is comprised of
properties occurring in three Ohio counties (Washington, Noble, and
Monroe County). The Ironton Unit is comprised of properties occurring in
four Ohio counties (Scioto, Jackson, Lawrence, and Gallia counties).

The Wayne NF consists of 14 different management areas. A management
area is an area of the Wayne NF that has common management direction,
with one management prescription applied to achieve the desired future
condition of the land. Selection of a management prescription to create
a desired future condition requires matching its suitability and
capability to produce a mix of goods, services, and desired uses. The
assignment of management areas on the Wayne NF best reflects a wide
variety of vegetative conditions and recreation opportunities (USFS
1987). These management areas are further described in Section 3.2 and
in Appendix E of the BA and are hereby incorporated by reference.

All watercourses on the Wayne NF are tributaries to the Ohio River.
There are 27 major streams on the Wayne NF, totaling 343 miles in length
(USFS 1987). Wayne NF water resources are owned by the state of Ohio and
are bordered by Wayne NF lands. In addition, many miles of stream within
Wayne NF boundaries are bordered by private land. Neither the Ohio River
nor the Muskingum River mainstem is within the proclamation boundaries
of the Wayne NF. However, all of the Wayne NF is within the Ohio River
watershed. The Muskingum River watershed does not currently include any
National Forest lands (USFS 2001a).

The Wayne NF is intermixed and surrounded by private and State owned
lands. Of the 833,990 acres comprising the Forest Purchase Unit for the
Wayne NF, only 229,749 acres (about 25 percent of the area) are National
Forest Service (NFS) lands managed by the Forest Service. The landscape
of the Wayne NF, including both NFS lands and other ownerships, is
fragmented by roads, farms, mines and quarries, industrial developments,
towns, and utility corridors. The scattered pattern of Forest Service
ownership, including ownership of subsurface mineral rights, has
resulted in numerous access roads and utility lines being built across
NFS lands for privately-owned mineral access (USFS 1992).

Most private lands within the Wayne NF proclamation boundary are used
for rural activities, such as cropland, pasture, rural structures, and
recreation (USFS 1987, USFS 1992). Nearly all of these lands are now in
woodland or other rural use, cultivated, pastured, or residential (USFS
1992)

**[Indiana Bat]{.underline}**

Mine surveys and mist netting done in 1979-80 did not detect the Indiana
bat on the Wayne NF (Bookhout and Lacki 1981). Mist net surveys were
conducted during the summer of 1998 at 11 sites in the Bluegrass Ridge
portion of the Ironton Ranger District, but failed to capture the
Indiana bat (Eco-Tech 1998). Additional surveys and netting done during
the summers of 1997, 1999, and 2000; however, did find the bat on the
Athens and Ironton Districts of the Wayne NF. Males, young of the year,
and lactating females were found. Fall swarming surveys have also been
conducted in the Athens and Ironton units annually since 1997. A passive
survey for observation was conducted in September 1998 and a harp trap
survey was conducted at the same location one month later in October.
During the October 1998 harp trap survey, the first Indiana bat
discovered on the Wayne NF, a male, was caught and released, indicating
that Indiana bats may have been using the mine for hibernation. In
February of 1999, Indiana bat presence was confirmed when the limestone
mine was entered and approximately 150 Indiana bats were found. This
mine has since been designated as a Priority 3 hibernaculum
(hibernaculum with \< 500 Indiana bats). Bat gates were installed during
June 2001on three portals of the mine. One male Indiana bat was netted
at an abandoned mine approximately one half mile from the known
hibernaculum in 1999. This mine has not yet been confirmed as an Indiana
bat hibernaculum (USFS 1999b). Other mines were entered in February of
2000, but no Indiana bats were found (Flegel 2000).

Radiotelemetry was used during surveys on the Athens and Ironton Ranger
Districts during the summer of 1999 to track three male Indiana bats.
Bats were tracked as long as battery life lasted, usually 10 to 21 days.
The Ironton survey found five Indiana bats \-- three males, a
post-lactating female and a young-of-year male. These findings indicate
that reproduction is occurring within the Wayne NF and Lawrence County,
Ohio. These bats were found in an area dominated by chestnut oak,
northern red oak, scarlet oak, white oak, and shagbark hickory. An adult
male was found on the Athens Ranger District in Hocking County. It was
caught in an area dominated by black oak, chestnut oak, northern red
oak, and shagbark hickory (ATS 1999). Since the Indiana bat has been
found both in the summer and winter, it is likely using the Wayne NF
year-round, for hibernation and breeding.

Numerous mines are located throughout the Wayne NF on each of the ranger
districts, however the majority of limestone mines are found in the
Ironton Ranger District. These mines may provide additional hibernacula
for Indiana bats; however, surveys have not yet found any of this
species. Characteristics of mines that may become Indiana bat
hibernacula in the future include a large, unobstructed opening, air
movement, and no signs of flooding such as sticks and debris in the
ceiling of the mine (Andrews 2000). Microclimate is not currently
monitored on the Wayne NF.

During June and July 2000, three male Indiana bats were captured on the
Wayne NF. Two of the bats were found on the Athens units and the other
was found on the Ironton unit just outside the known Indiana bat
hibernaculum (Schultes 2000).

Maternity colonies have not been found on the Wayne NF. However,
lactating and post-lactating females have been found during summer
surveys, which indicate the presence of at least one maternity colony.
About 82 percent or 164,995 acres of the Wayne NF is in hardwood stands.
Of this, 106,106 acres is an oak-hickory forest type. Oak-maple forest
constitutes 1,240 acres of the Wayne NF. Pine and pine-hardwood forest
types are found on 25,778 acres of the Wayne NF. These areas provide
suitable habitat for Indiana bats. Open fields, grass, and water areas
are found on 7,847 acres.

Indiana bats use small impoundments including ponds and small lakes, as
well as road ruts and streams for drinking water (USFS 1998). There are
approximately 410 acres of lakes, marshes and ponds on the Wayne NF. In
addition, 27 major streams with a total length of 343 miles are located
on the Wayne NF.

Based on the results of Indiana bat captures on both Ranger Districts of
the Wayne NF, the Service concurs with the BA conclusion that Indiana
bats may be present in all suitable habitat on the Wayne NF. Further,
the Service believes that maternity colonies of Indiana bats are present
on the Wayne NF based on the evidence provided by the recent mist-net
studies .

**[Bald Eagle]{.underline}**

There are no known bald eagle nests within the proclamation boundaries
of the Wayne NF. Habitat for the eagle is present throughout the Wayne
NF and would increase over time as forest stands mature, so long as
sufficient foraging areas remain present. The Wayne NF has a forest
cover of more than 95 percent or 201,214 acres. Of that forested
acreage, mature hardwoods (80 years or older) are found on approximately
30 percent or approximately 63,000 acres (USFS 1987, USFS 2000a). These
mature forest areas exist along the Ohio River, Little Muskingum River,
Hocking River, Lake Vesuvius, and Timbre Ridge Lake. Large riparian
corridors with open water are limited on the Wayne NF. The Little
Muskingum River could potentially be used by the bald eagle, but the
Ohio River, Hocking River, Lake Vesuvius, Timbre Lake, or Burr Oak
Reservoir would be more likely.

Bald eagles have been occasionally sighted on or near the Wayne NF,
mostly in the winter along the Ohio River in the Marietta unit, and Burr
Oak Reservoir. During summer months, bald eagles are sighted along the
Ohio River near the Ironton and Marietta units. At this time, bald
eagles occurring on the Wayne NF are probably migrating through or
wintering there. The bald eagle is expanding its nesting range, however,
and has made one known unsuccessful nesting attempt within a few miles
of the Wayne NF Marietta unit on Blennerhassett Island on the Ohio River
near Parkersburg, West Virginia. This is the first bald eagle nest to be
built along the upper Ohio River in recent years.

The Little Muskingum River in the Marietta unit also provides winter
roosting habitat for the bald eagle, and also the larger watercourses of
the Athens and Ironton units including the Hocking River, Pine Creek,
Symmes Creek, and Burr Oak. Lake Vesuvius and Timbre Ridge Lake may also
provide adequate wintering habitat for the eagle. Based on the presence
of nesting and roosting habitat and nearby occurrences, the Service
believes the bald eagle could be affected by the Wayne NF=s activities.

**[American Burying Beetle]{.underline}**

In Ohio, Athens, Hocking, and Vinton counties have current, recent
(within 25 years) known or possible occurrences of the American burying
beetle. The beetle has been reintroduced to Athens County. The last
known naturally-occurring collection was a single beetle near Old Man=s
Cave in Hocking County in 1974 (Keeney and Horn 1998). The species was
reintroduced in 1998 in an area in Athens County, Ohio within a few
miles of the Wayne NF. (ODNR no date (2)). This reintroduction was
successful in that a follow-up trapping found 2 newly-emerged
individuals (one male and one female) (Keeney 1998). On June 9, 1999, 20
pairs and 16 single females were released in a recently mowed field near
bordering woods at the same location as the 1998 reintroduction and also
at one-half mile distances from that location. Within 2 weeks,
approximately 66 larvae were found (Keeney 1999). There was a release of
36 pairs of beetles in 2000. A single large male was captured on October
3, 2000. The populations will be monitored annually for the foreseeable
future. There will possibly be other releases to other areas in the
future (Keeney 2001).

Although there are no known populations of the American burying beetle
within the proclamation

boundaries of the Wayne NF, given the general preferences of the
American burying beetle, potential habitat may exist throughout the
forest in each of the three Wayne NF units. The reintroduction sites are
adjacent to the Athens unit. Since American burying beetles have the
capability to travel two to four miles on an average day and the known
record for beetle travel is 10 miles within a 24-hour period, it is
possible for the beetle to become established on the forest. The large
population of wild turkey within the Wayne NF would provide ideal
carrion, since juvenile turkeys are within the correct weight range for
a substantial period of time. These juveniles also tend to experience a
high degree of mortality due to circumstances other than predation, such
as temperature changes (Keeney 2000).

Horn et.al. (1998) stated that ATwo essentials for the American burying
beetle=s survival are a ready source of fresh whole items of
carrionY..and relatively loose, porous, deep soil in which to bury the
carrion. In 1999, the American burying beetle was released in Athens
County on Wellston silt loam soil with two different slopes; WdB at 3-8
percent and WdC at 8-15 percent slope. Both have a 1-3 percent organic
matter content. They are also well-drained with moderate permeability,
moderate available water capacity, good tilth, medium to strong acidity,
moderately low organic matter and medium natural fertility.

Comparing the soil type at the release site to other silt loam soils in
Athens, Hocking and Perry counties there were a total of 17 soil types
that were considered close matches to the soil type and slopes used at
the reintroduction site (Andrews 2001). The American burying beetle is
known to have successfully reproduced at the reintroduction sites but
further work is needed as to evaluating the overwintering success or
distribution from the sites.

Within a 10-mile radius of the site of reintroduction, there is
approximately 23,998 acres of National Forest lands. Within this acreage
approximately 1502 acres, or 6.3 percent, of the land is considered of
high potential for American burying beetle reintroduction or are of
similar characteristics to the soil and slope types found at the
reintroduction site (Andrews 2001).

**EFFECTS OF THE ACTION**

This section includes an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of
the proposed action on the species and/or critical habitat and its
interrelated and interdependent activities.

The remainder of this document deals only with those activities that
have been identified as may affect the Indiana bat, Bald eagle, or the
American burying beetle. The Service accepts and agrees to the
activities listed by the Wayne NF as having \"No Effect\".

**[Indiana Bat]{.underline}**

[Introduction]{.underline}

Of the 229,749 acres of Wayne NF land, about 95 percent is forested
(USFS 2001a). About 50 percent of these forested acres are oak-hickory
forest. The other 50 percent of the forested acres are comprised of
lowland and upland hardwoods, pine, mixed pine-hardwoods, yellow poplar,
and

beech-maple. These forested lands are in various stages of succession
(USFS 2001a). Little change in the amount and composition of the
forested lands on the Wayne NF is expected within the next five years.
It is anticipated, however, that additional forested lands, in some
phase of succession, and some water sources could be added to the Wayne
NF through land acquisition and/or land exchange (Ewing 2001b).

While individual actions necessary to implement the Forest Plan may
result in adverse effects to the species over the next five years, the
amount of suitable habitat available for the species on the Wayne NF
will be approximately the same. By implementing the tiered consultation
approach, the adverse impacts of individual actions will be minimized by
utilizing conservation measures identified in this tier I biological
opinion and tier II opinions to be developed for individual projects
that are likely to adversely affect the species.

Implementation of Forest Plan management activities that require or
allow the loss of trees have the greatest potential to affect the
Indiana bat. Cutting of trees that alters Indiana bat habitat may have a
beneficial or negative effect on the habitat and/or individual bats.
Cutting of trees relates to any Wayne NF activity requiring or allowing
cutting trees, not just commercial timber sales. Disturbance is of
concern only during the non-hibernating season and it mainly related to
management activities that would disturb an occupied roost tree. A
description of those management activities, as detailed in the BA is
hereby incorporated by reference.

Cutting an Indiana bat roost tree when bats are present in the tree is
likely to result in bats being injured or killed. Cutting of trees
during the Indiana bat hibernation season may result in the loss of some
traditional summer roost trees, including maternity trees. As previously
noted, female Indiana bats establish traditional summer ranges which
they return to annually. Loss of traditional roost trees through Wayne
NF management activities will require females to expend more energy
locating new roosting habitat than they would have expended had the
management activity not occurred. Weight loss and stress associated with
hibernation, migration, and pregnancy would be magnified. These stresses
could potentially result in lower reproductive success and/or lower
survival of juvenile bats.

Cutting trees may alter foraging habitat. The cutting may improve
foraging habitat, such as by opening-up a stand with a closed
understory, or it may degrade the foraging habitat, forcing bats to fly
farther to forage. The quality of foraging habitat may also be degraded
due to erosion, and subsequent sedimentation of stream corridors,
associated with Wayne NF management activities. Sedimentation could
affect the production of insects associated with aquatic habitats, which
make up a portion of the prey base of Indiana bats. The Wayne NF has
standards and guidelines in place in the Wayne NF Forest Plan to protect
and conserve riparian areas. These requirements would minimize
sedimentation and the inadvertent degrading of foraging habitat used by
Indiana bats.

Disturbance of suitable roost trees is of concern only during the
non-hibernating season. Disturbance near or in known hibernacula is of
concern during the fall swarming and hibernating season. Disturbance may
be caused by Wayne NF management activities that happen in close
proximity to roost trees and known hibernacula. Disturbance can cause
alteration of normal migration, hibernation, foraging, and maternity
activities of the bat, causing the same or similar effects as described
for the loss of traditional roost trees.

Other Wayne NF management activities that may affect Indiana bats or
Indiana bat habitat are discussed in more detail later in this section.

[Permanent Removal of Habitat]{.underline}

Based on the analysis conducted for the BA, approximately 2,504 acres of
suitable habitat for Indiana bats for summer roosting and/or foraging
may be permanently removed over the next five years. That total is the
sum of five management activities: minerals development, 2,100 acres;
road construction, 94 acres; trail construction, 160 acres; oil and gas
well development, 25 acres; and special use permits, 125 acres. and.
These four management activities are discussed in more detail later in
this section.

[Hardwood Timber Harvest]{.underline}

A total of 2,250 acres of hardwood timber harvest is proposed over the
next five years. That harvest will be completed using two management
practices, including of group selection and commercial thinning. These
types of timber harvesting do not result in the removal of a significant
proportion of the canopy, resulting in only minor and short-term Indiana
bat foraging habitat impacts. Timber harvesting using uneven-aged
management and commercial thinning can, in many instances, improve
foraging habitat for the Indiana bat. The Wayne NF has indicated that
hardwood timber harvests will not include clearcuts. The Wayne NF has
also indicated that during harvest, an average of 5 dead or dying trees
per acre will be left standing with minimum dbh of 6 inches. Of these
trees, at least 2 per acre will be 14 inches dbh and at least one per 5
acres will be 18 inches dbh (USFS 2001a).

The most patent effect of hardwood timber harvest is the loss of current
or future male roost trees and maternity colony trees. Most management
areas call for a percentage of the Wayne NF to remain over 100 years old
at all times. Those mature forest areas may rotate on the ground through
the harvest schedule, but a percentage would remain mature forest. Under
the maximum projected timber harvest, there would be a loss of 2,500
acres of suitable habitat. This loss, however, as explained above, is
unlikely to affect the population status of the species on the Wayne NF.
These conservation measures will help insure that an adequate number of
roost trees are maintained on the forest.

[Pine Timber Harvest]{.underline}

A total of 250 acres of pine timber harvest is proposed over the next
five years. That harvest will be completed using two management
practices, including of group selection and commercial thinning. These
types of timber harvesting do not result in the removal of a significant
proportion of the canopy, resulting in only minor and short-term Indiana
bat foraging habitat impacts. Timber harvesting using uneven-aged
management and commercial thinning can, in many instances, improve
foraging habitat for the Indiana bat. The Wayne NF has indicated that
pine timber harvests will not include clearcuts. The Wayne NF has also
indicated that during harvest, an average of 5 dead or dying trees per
acre will be left standing with minimum dbh of 6 inches. Of these trees,
at least 2 per acre will be 14 inches dbh and at least one per 5 acres
will be 18 inches dbh (USFS 2001a). These conservation measures will
help insure that an adequate number of roost trees are maintained on the
forest.

[Timber Stand Improvement]{.underline}

Timber stand improvement (TSI) over the next five years is proposed on
2,500 acres of the Wayne NF. TSI is a treatment made to improve the
composition, structures, condition, health, and/or growth of trees in a
stand. TSI activities can occur before, during and after commercial
timber sales, and they can occur in areas unrelated to timber sales. TSI
does not include the commercial removal of trees. Examples of types of
TSI that may occur on the Wayne NF include: control of grape vines,
cutting or girdling trees to favor crop trees, pruning, and prescribed
burning. The Wayne NF has indicated that during timber stand
improvements, an average of 5 dead or dying trees per acre will be left
standing with minimum dbh of 6 inches. Of these trees, at least 2 per
acre will be 14 inches dbh and at least one per 5 acres will be 18
inches dbh (USFS 2001a). These conservation measures will help insure
that an adequate number of roost trees are maintained on the forest.

[Prescribed Fire]{.underline}

The Wayne NF proposes to conduct up to 2,500 acres of prescribed fires
over the next five years. Prescribed fire is used to manage plant
comminutes for wildlife habitat improvement and forest regeneration.
Burns are conducted under conditions that generally result in low
intensity under burns, that is, only ground cover, shrubs, and trees
less than two inches in diameter are burned. Under these conditions very
few snags are lost; while at the same time a small number of snags are
created by the fire. The burns are conducted in late winter and early
spring. The Indiana bat habitat changes that result from these
prescribed burns are very minor and may be beneficial in cases where the
under story is reduced in mature hardwood stands. Romme *et al.* (1995)
found that Indiana bats preferred foraging in forests with a reduced
understory component. During preparations for prescribed fires, snags
near the edge of the burn area may be felled to eliminate the hazard to
personnel and to prevent fire from climbing the tree and throwing sparks
outside the planned burn area. This preparation work normally occurs
during the Indiana bat hibernation season. If burns occur after April 15
there is a chance that direct take could occur if an occupied roost tree
is destroyed.

Maternity colonies may also be adversely impacted by prescribed fire.
Adults bats would be capable of fleeing smoke, however if a maternity
colony of flightless young were inundated with smoke, it may severely
injure or kill the young. Since Wayne NF burns usually take place in the
spring and occasionally in the fall, young bats will not likely be
present. However, the Forest Plan does not restrict summer burns;
therefore, the potential for incidental take of an Indiana bat does
occur and this activity is likely to adversely affect the species. The
Forest Plan does not make any projections of the average area to be
prescribed burned each year. However, the Wayne NF anticipates that up
to 2,500 acres may need to be prescribed burned over the next five years
(USFS 2001a).

Smoke generated during a fire could injure or kill Indiana bats, if a
substantial amount of smoke enters a hibernaculum during fall or winter.
When a prescribed burn is planned, wind direction and the likely
movement of smoke will be considered by the Wayne NF in relation the
known or suspected bat hibernacula. The affects of the smoke from a
prescribed fire are generally short lived; however, if the smoke enters
a cave/old mine it remains and can be smelled for days or weeks. In the
open air, the smoke is most intense for the few hours while the burn is
actually taking place. Some smoke may linger in the area of a prescribed
burn but usually does not last more than two days. Coordination with the
Wayne NF wildlife biologist will be necessary prior to commencement of
any burn; therefore, known hibernacula would not be impacted.

[Road and Trail Construction]{.underline}

The Wayne NF proposes to construct approximately 19 miles of new
permanent and temporary roads within the next five years. Wayne NF has
also estimated that an additional 12.5 miles of oil well access roads
will be constructed during the next five years. According to the Forest
Plan annual monitoring reports, the total lengths of permanent and
temporary roads constructed or reconstructed from 1988 to 1996 were 5.00
and 14.19 miles, respectively. Temporary and permanent road construction
and reconstruction is projected to be between 10 and 15 miles per year
in the future. The average clearing width for roads constructed in the
Wayne NF is 30-feet (Gianniny 2001). The total forested area that will
be affected by road construction activities on the Wayne NF for the next
five years is estimated to be 94 acres.

From 1988 to 1996, approximately 130 miles of trails were constructed or
reconstructed. Over the next five years, it is estimated that 160 miles,
or approximately 160 acres, of trails (hiking, horse, and ORV) could be
constructed or reconstructed on the Wayne NF (Ewing 2001a).

Impacts to foraging habitat from road and trail construction should be
minimal due to the acreage of individual projects. That is, while the
overall acreage lost might appear substantial if it was all in one
contiguous block, each individual project is typically small, linear,
and would only remove a small portion of an otherwise forested
landscape*.*

[Wildlife Habitat Improvement]{.underline}

Wildlife openings on the Wayne NF are usually created through the
acquisition of new lands which have existing openings, where no
additional trees need to be cleared. However, creation of wildlife
openings through timber cutting is permitted by the Forest Plan at a
rate of 352 acres over the next five years. If the forest does clear
timber for wildlife openings, this activity may result in the loss of a
potential roost trees. The Wayne NF has stated that an average of two to
three standing dead trees per acre will be retained in each wildlife
opening.

[Mineral Development]{.underline}

Mineral exploration and development is on-going throughout the forest.
Since most of the minerals under NFS lands are owned by others, the
Forest Service has controlling interest on only about 28 percent of the
mineral estates (USFS 1987). Currently, there are approximately 800 oil
and gas wells on the forest in various stages of development,
production, or abandonment. The 2,100 acres of potential coal strip
mining are privately held rights under Wayne NF lands. Because these
mineral resources could be mined with the Wayne NF only being able to
influence the reclamation and off-site impacts, the Service considers
these acres as potentially permanent loss of habitat areas. Coal strip
mining permits are also found on approximately 700 acres of the forest,
and another 2,100 unpermitted acres have been established for coal
strip-mining. These development and production activities will continue
as long as the demand for coal, oil, and gas remains high. Mineral
development in the forest may inadvertently remove potential roost trees
during construction of well pads, pipeline corridors, or access roads,
which are not restricted from summer construction. Incidental take of
one or more Indiana bats may result from the removal of a roost tree.

Forested riparian areas, which are used by Indiana bats for foraging,
may be lost during activities including strip mining and oil and gas
development (USFS 1987). Per Forest Plan standards and guidelines, all
surface-disturbing activities assure that mitigation measures for
protected species are complied with. In addition, an assessment of
impacts to species must be completed before commencement of any specific
forest activity. These activities are not expected to affect the Indiana
bats usage of riparian foraging areas. The clearing of trees for these
activities may open forest canopies to a level that is preferred by the
Indiana bat, since dense areas with greater than 70 percent canopy cover
are used less frequently (USFS 1998).

Runoff from production wells may contaminate nearby ponds, waterholes or
natural collections of water, such as in road ruts, which may be used by
the bat for drinking sources. Established Forest Plan standards require
replacement of any waterholes that are destroyed during mineral
development activities with equal or larger-sized non-acid waterholes.
Also, no surface occupancy is permitted for USA-owned minerals on
several management areas including Wayne NF=s Management Areas 6.2, 7.1,
8.1, 8.2, and 9.2, which would reduce disturbance of existing or
potential future roosting trees. Surface occupancy for private mineral
rights require mitigation measures including seasonal restrictions, road
construction and maintenance requirements, setbacks from streams,
marshes and ponds, noise abatement, wildlife coordination, and visual
resource coordination. Mineral development activities are likely to
cause an adverse impact to Indiana bat from the potential for incidental
take during tree removal during the non-hibernating period of April 15
through September 15.

[Special Uses]{.underline}

Special uses including utility corridors could adversely affect the
Indiana bat through the inadvertent removal of a current or potential
future roost tree or maternity colony tree. However, as previously
noted, the long-term landscape goal will facilitate the persistence of
the Indiana bat on the Wayne NF. With the amount of suitable habitat
found on the Wayne NF remaining relatively stable, it is unlikely that
the removal of trees for utility corridors would affect the bat=s usage
of the Wayne NF. New utility corridors that are developed in the future
would be required to complete mitigation measures.

[Hazard Tree Removal]{.underline}

When live or dead trees pose an imminent safety concern, the Wayne NF
removes the specific tree or trees causing concern in an activity called
hazard tree removal. Hazard tree removal most typically takes place in
developed recreation areas, along trails and roads, and along utility
corridors, but it may occur any place where a tree or trees are causing
an imminent safety hazard to the public or to employees. Hazard tree
removal is most frequently carried out during the early spring or late
fall, when Indiana bats would not be present, but on occasion may occur
during the late spring and summer months, when Indiana bats may be
present, if these trees pose an imminent safety concern. The Wayne NF
estimates that over the next five years, up to 125 hazard trees may need
to be removed on Wayne NF lands during the non-hibernation period when
Indiana bats may be present.

[Closure of Underground Entrances]{.underline}

The closing of underground entrances, like that of a mine, is conducted
on the forest to protect human safety and to improve water quality
through reducing acid mine drainage. These openings are dangerous but
offer unique habitat features for the Indiana bat on the forest.
Backfilling and obstruction of the openings prevents bats and other
wildlife species from utilizing the underground feature. This type of
closure can have a direct impact on bats, depending on the time of year
this type of closure is implemented, by entombing bats within the
underground structure or can indirectly affect Indiana bats by changing
the airflow, temperature and humidity at the opening in question or
possibly one in close proximity rendering it unsuitable for bat use. The
Wayne NF also closes some of these openings by fitting them with gates
and/or fencing which ensures human safety and also allows for continued
use of the underground structure by the Indiana bat. Currently, there
are seven bat-friendly gates on underground mines on the forest.

[Land Exchange]{.underline}

The removal of Indiana bat habitat from Federal ownership could have
adverse impacts to the species. Although Indiana bats are protected
wherever they occur, private landowners do not have a mandate to further
the conservation of Federally-listed species. Thus, transfer of Indiana
bat habitat to private ownership could lessen the conservation
protection provided to such habitat. However, plant and animal surveys
will be conducted on lands affected by land exchange, and consultation
with the Service would occur if these activities would impact known
locations of species of concern or sensitive species, riparian zones,
existing wetlands or other open water, rock shelters or faces, open
sandy sites, intermittent and perennial stream terraces, hardwood stands
over 100 years old, or other uncommon or unique sites.

[Pesticide Use]{.underline}

Pesticides may be used on certain areas of the Wayne NF, but only after
analysis of alternative methods has determined that their use is
essential to meet the Wayne NF management goals. Herbicides are used on
utility corridors that have outstanding rights. Herbicide application by
hand-held squeeze bottles may sometimes be used on the forest. This
method involves the direct application of a very small quantity of
herbicides to the newly cut stem ensuring good coverage with no
overspray. The use of the biological, species-specific insecticide,
Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) may be necessary in the future if a gypsy
moth outbreak arises (King 2000a). Established standards and guidelines
for the proper use of B.t. and other pesticides are provided in the
Forest Plan and would minimize adverse impacts to the species. No known
pesticides are used on agriculture permits (Greatorex 2001).

**[Bald Eagle]{.underline}**

[Timber Harvest]{.underline}

Timber harvest activities of both even-aged and uneven-aged management
could remove potential nesting and roosting trees within the forest as
well as create noise and human disturbance. Between 1988 and 1997, 2.94
million board feet (MMBF) per year of hardwoods were harvested from the
forest and 0.27 MMBF per year of pine were harvested, which is
approximately1.7 percent of the total forest cover. These activities are
projected to continue in the future, although at a decreased rate
between 1998 and 2002. Per Amendment 11, 1.80 and 0.20 MMBF per year of
hardwoods and pine, respectively are projected for the time period from
1998 to 2002. Given the minimal amount of harvesting, the potential for
removal of a bald eagle tree is present, however slight and remote.
Assessment of an area prior to timber harvest, as well as the
requirement to allow 5 dead or dying trees per acre to remain after
harvest would reduce the chances of accidental habitat removal.

[Prescribed Fire]{.underline}

Use of prescribed fire on the forest in the past has been minimal with
an average of approximately 80 to 90 acres being burned per year. Smoke
generated from fires may cause eagles to temporarily flee their nesting
or roosting areas. The affect of the smoke from a prescribed fire is
short lived. It is most intense for the few hours while the burn is
actually taking place. Some residual smoke may linger in the area of a
prescribed burn but usually does not last more than two days. Forest
management, law enforcement, and wildfire suppression activities may
accidentally displace bald eagles depending on the length and intensity
of human presence. Repeated disturbance could cause eagles to abandon a
nest or roost (Flegel, 2000). Most Wayne NF management actions would
take place during the day, with the exception of emergency situations;
therefore, any previously unknown night roosts on the forest would not
likely be disturbed. The Forest Plan does not make any projections of
the average area to be prescribe burned each year. It is anticipated
that the prescribed burning program will increase with up to 2,500 acres
being prescribed burned in the next five years.

[Road Construction]{.underline}

According to the Forest Plan annual monitoring reports, the total
lengths of permanent and temporary roads constructed or reconstructed
from 1988 to 1996 were 5.00 and 14.19 miles, respectively. Temporary and
permanent road construction is projected to be between 10 and 15 miles
per year in the future. Noise would be created by road construction and
maintenance, which may also disturb bald eagles in nearby areas. The
construction impacts would be temporary and based on the season and
location in which they are conducted, may not constitute an adverse
impact to eagles in the area.

[Mineral Development]{.underline}

Mineral development including strip mining, underground mining and oil
and gas production would create noise and human disturbance that may
disrupt eagle activities. Acid mine drainage from these activities may
also degrade water quality in downstream areas used by the eagle. Under
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, each state must prepare a list of
waters that are not meeting water quality standards. Several sections of
streams and rivers on the Athens and Ironton units have been classified
as impaired waters. Surface occupancy for private mineral rights require
mitigation measures including seasonal restrictions, road construction
and maintenance requirements, setbacks from streams, marshes and ponds,
noise abatement, wildlife coordination, and visual resource
coordination. These mitigation measures would minimize the amount of
runoff and sedimentation to forest watersheds. Noise created from the
construction of access roads and well pads as well as the operation of
the well itself may cause eagles to relocate. All drilling and
exploration activities must be coordinated with the Wayne NF wildlife
biologist to ensure that no adverse impacts to protected species will
occur.

[Special Uses]{.underline}

Special uses including agriculture permits and construction of pipeline
corridors could also impact the bald eagle depending on the extent of
human disturbance. In accordance with Forest Plan standards and
guidelines, plant and animal surveys will be conducted on lands affected
by surface-disturbing activities and consultation with the Service would
occur if these activities would impact known locations of
Federally-listed species, species of concern or sensitive species.

[Land Exchange]{.underline}

Exchanging National Forest lands with other owners may adversely affect
the bald eagle if land is transferred out of federal ownership that
contains potential habitat for the species. However, plant and animal
surveys will be conducted on lands affected by land exchange,
surface-disturbing activities, or timber harvesting, and consultation
with the Service would occur if these activities would impact known
locations of Federally-listed species, species of concern or sensitive
species, riparian zones, existing wetlands or other open water, rock
shelters or faces, open sandy sites, intermittent and perennial stream
terraces, hardwood stands over 100 years old, or other uncommon or
unique sites.

[Recreational Facility Construction and Maintenance]{.underline}

Noise would be created by Wayne NF recreational facility construction
and maintenance, which may also disturb bald eagles in nearby areas.
From 1988 to 1996, approximately 1.5 million recreation visitor days of
developed recreation facilities were added to the Wayne NF. These
activities are projected to continue in the future at a similar rate.
The construction impacts would be temporary and based on the season in
which they are conducted, may not constitute an adverse impact to eagles
in the area.

[Recreational Activities]{.underline}

General recreation activities throughout the forest may affect the bald
eagle depending on the level and season of human disturbance. From 1988
to 1996, approximately 130 miles of trails were constructed or
reconstructed. Over the next five years, it is estimated that
approximately 160 acres of trails (hiking, horse, and ORV) could be
constructed or reconstructed on the Wayne NF. Hiking and horseback
riding are not typically disruptive activities. Noise from cars, trucks,
motorcycles and/or ORVs might cause temporary disturbance to roosting
eagles or interrupt feeding. Public access to Lake Vesuvius, Timbre
Ridge Lake, Burr Oak Reservoir and the Ohio, Hocking, and Little
Muskingum Rivers for recreation may also disturb daytime activities of
the bald eagle. Since this type of recreation is temporary and of a low
frequency, bald eagles are not expected to be permanently displaced from
their riparian roosts. Nighttime roosting may be disturbed from the use
of these areas for night fishing and overnight camping. Recreation
activities are not new on the forest and with the successful recovery of
the species throughout its range, many bald eagles have become
accustomed to these activities. However, repeated disturbance could
cause eagles to abandon a nest or roost (Flegel 2000).

[Pesticide Use]{.underline}

Pesticides (including herbicides and insecticides) may be used on
certain areas of the Wayne NF, but only after analysis of alternative
methods has determined that their use is essential to meet the Wayne NF
management goals. Although selective vegetation management is preferred
for utility or other rights-of-way or easements, broadcast use of
herbicides may be permitted on a case-by-case basis. Herbicides may be
used on utility corridors that have outstanding rights on the Wayne NF.
Most special use permits for utility corridors would contain provisions
for all herbicide use (King 2000b). If all standards and guidelines for
herbicide usage are followed on the Wayne NF, the potential for
herbicides to affect water quality and bald eagle food sources would be
low.

The insecticide B.t. is not currently used on the Wayne NF, but is
permitted for emergencies as in the case of a gypsy moth outbreak (King
2000a). This biologic control affects any species in Order Lepidoptera
that feeds on leaves during the time it is sprayed (USFS 2000b). Fish
species would not be affected by B.t. spraying, since it does not harm
aquatic species and only a minimal amount of the chemical would pass
through the canopy (USFS 1995). Standards and guidelines have been
established in the Forest Plan to protect surrounding resources during
insecticide use are included in Appendix C of the BA and are hereby
incorporated by reference. These activities would not be likely to
adversely affect the water quality or food sources of the bald eagle.

**[American Burying Beetle]{.underline}**

The Service recognizes that in Ohio, the American burying beetle only
occurs in Athens, Hocking, and Vinton counties so the following
incidental take statement for American burying beetle is limited to
those counties.

[Timber Harvest]{.underline}

Timber harvest, reforestation and timber stand improvement is permitted
on Management Areas 3.3, which is the closest Wayne NF property to a
known beetle population. While the removal or planting of trees would
not directly impact the American burying beetle, site preparation tasks
including soil ripping may disturb or destroy underground beetle broods
or hibernating beetles during the winter months. In addition, the
equipment activity and removal of hardwood and mixed forest trees by
commercial thinning and uneven-aged management would displace wild
turkey to adjacent or nearby stands.

[Construction Activities for Roads, Trails, and Recreational
Facilities]{.underline}

The Wayne NF proposes to construct approximately 19 miles of new
permanent and temporary roads within the next five years. Wayne NF has
also estimated that an additional 12.5 miles of oil well access roads
will be constructed during the next five years. According to the Forest
Plan annual monitoring reports, the total lengths of permanent and
temporary roads constructed or reconstructed from 1988 to 1996 were 5.00
and 14.19 miles, respectively. Temporary and permanent road construction
and reconstruction is projected to be between 10 and 15 miles per year
in the future. The average clearing width for roads constructed in the
Wayne NF is 30-feet (Gianniny 2001). The total forested are that will be
affected by road construction activities on the Wayne NF for the next
five years is estimated to be 94 acres.

During the same time period, approximately 1.5 million of recreation
visitor days of developed recreation facilities were added to the Wayne
NF and 130 miles of trails were constructed or reconstructed. The Wayne
NF allows the construction or reconstruction of up to 160 miles of
trails in the next five years. This would equate to impacting
approximately 160 acres of ground.

Site preparation, construction, maintenance and use of these areas for
roads, trails and facilities may adversely affect the beetle, if subsoil
disturbance occurs or small amounts of habitat are permanently removed
from availability.

[Prescribed Fire]{.underline}

Use of prescribed fire on the forest in the past has been minimal with
an average of approximately 80 to 90 acres being burned per year. It is
anticipated that the prescribed burning program will increase with up to
2,500 acres being prescribed burned in the next five years. If as yet
undetected beetles were present in a fire area, the fire could overtake
individual beetles; however, most would fly to safety or be below ground
and remain unharmed.

[Mineral Development]{.underline}

Mineral development in areas where surface occupancy is not permitted
including Management Areas=s 6.2, 7.1, 8.1, 8.2, and 9.2 would not be
expected to adversely impact the beetle. However, in areas where surface
occupancy is permitted, site preparation activities could disrupt or
destroy the beetle. These surface occupancy areas involving private
mineral rights require mitigation measures including seasonal
restrictions, road construction and maintenance requirements, setbacks
from streams, marshes and ponds, noise abatement, wildlife coordination,
and visual resource coordination. Acid mine drainage may also affect the
beetle by altering soils characteristics along impacted streams.

[Special Uses]{.underline}

Special uses, including agriculture permits and pipeline corridors,
could also impact the beetle

depending on the extent of soil disturbance. In accordance with Forest
Plan standards and guidelines, plant and animal surveys will be
conducted on lands affected by surface-disturbing activities, land
exchange or timber harvesting, and consultation with the Service would
occur, if these activities would impact known locations of
Federally-listed species, species of concern or sensitive species. A
complete list of standards and guidelines applicable to the American
burying beetle are found in Appendix C of the BA and are hereby
incorporated by reference.

[Land Exchange and Acquisition]{.underline}

Between 1988 and 1997, the Wayne NF acquired 48,451 acres of land.
Purchasing, acquisition and exchange of land are projected to continue
in the future at a rate of 2,900 acres per decade. Exchanging National
Forest lands with other owners may adversely affect the American burying
beetle, if land is transferred out of Federal ownership that contains
potential habitat for the species.

[Pesticide Use]{.underline}

Pesticides may be used on certain areas of the Wayne NF, but only after
analysis of alternative methods has determined that their use is
essential to meet the Wayne NF management goals. Although selective
vegetation management is preferred for utility or other rights-of-way or
easements, broadcast use of herbicides may be permitted on a
case-by-case basis. Aerial spraying of herbicides is conducted on
utility corridors that have outstanding rights on the Wayne NF. Most
special use permits for utility corridors would contain provisions for
all herbicide use (King 2000b). If all standards and guidelines for
herbicide usage are followed on the Wayne NF, the potential for
herbicides to affect potential American burying beetle habitat would be
low.

The insecticide B.t. is not currently used on the Wayne NF, but may be
necessary in the future if a gypsy moth epidemic arises (King 2000a).
Even if this pesticide were used in the area of the American burying
beetle, it would not be expected to harm the species, since B.t. is a
biological insecticide that affects only Order Lepidoptera. Established
standards and guidelines for the proper use of pesticides are provided
in the Forest Plan and would minimize any unexpected adverse impacts to
the species.

[Summary]{.underline}

At the landscape level, no adverse impacts are expected as the extent
and arrangement of suitable habitat will remain amenable to Indiana bat,
bald eagle, and American burying beetle conservation. However,
implementation of the landscape strategy will have adverse effects on
all three species. The extent of these actions will be minimized by
proposed conservation measures, and are unlikely to negatively affect
the population status of the species.

**[CUMULATIVE EFFECTS]{.underline}**

Cumulative effects include the effects of future 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.

Future Federal, State, local or private actions that are reasonably
certain to occur on Forest Service lands, actions will either be carried
out by, or will require authorization from the Forest Service, and which
are deemed to be outside the scope of this biological opinion, will
require a separate section 7 consultation (For example, the
Nelsonville-U.S. 33 bypass could potentially occur on Wayne NF lands).
The Service is not aware of any future state, local or private actions
that could occur within the action area that would not be subject to a
section 7 review. Therefore, cumulative effects, as defined in the ESA,
are not expected to occur with the action Area and will not be addressed
further in this opinion.

**[CONCLUSION]{.underline}**

After reviewing the current status of the Indiana bat, the bald eagle,
the American burying beetle, the environmental baseline for the action
area, the effects of the continued implementation of the existing Forest
Plan, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service\'s biological
opinion that the continued implementation of the existing Wayne NF=s
Forest Plan is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
Indiana bat, bald eagle, and American burying beetle. No critical
habitat has been designated for these three species in the action area;
therefore, none will be affected.

The amount of suitable Indiana bat habitat found on the Wayne NF will
remain relatively stable over the next five years. Only a small fraction
of the Wayne NF=s forested acres will be altered over the next five
years by the continued implementation of the Forest Plan. Over the next
five years, an estimated 10,606 acres of habitat, plus an additional 125
hazard trees, might be temporarily or permanently lost due to a variety
of activities that are expected to occur on the forest. The estimated
total acreage affected by the proposed action is approximately 5 percent
of the Wayne NF=s forested acreage and most of the activities only alter
Indiana bat habitat, not eliminate it. At the same time the Wayne NF
will be adding new forested acres through reforestation, land purchase,
and land exchange. The proposed activities are not anticipated to reduce
the status of Indiana bats on the Wayne NF, and thus, the implementation
of the Forest Plan will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of
survival and recovery of the Indiana bat.

Bald eagles have been occasionally sighted on or near the Wayne NF,
mostly in the winter along the Ohio River in the Marietta unit, and Burr
Oak Reservoir. During summer months, bald eagles are sighted along the
Ohio River near the Ironton and Marietta units. No nests have been found
in the area. Thus, at this time, bald eagles on the Wayne NF are
probably migrating through or wintering on the forest. The bald eagle is
expanding its nesting range, however, and has made one known,
unsuccessful nesting attempt within a few miles of the Wayne NF. There
is a chance, although it is slight, that a few birds may be adversely
affected on the Wayne NF by the implementation of the Forest Plan. Thus,
the implementation of the Forest Plan will negligibly affect the bald
eagle and will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and
recovery of the species.

There are no known populations of American burying beetles within the
proclamation boundaries of the Wayne NF. Due to the recent
reintroduction effort which occurred only a few miles from the Wayne NF
in Athens County, the American burying beetle is being considered in
this biological opinion. The implementation of the Forest Plan will
negligibly affect the species and will not appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery of the American burying beetle.

**[INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT]{.underline}**

Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of
the ESA prohibits 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 to
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, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the
terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental
to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be
prohibited taking under the ESA, 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 the Wayne NF for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to
apply. The Wayne NF has a continuing duty to regulate the activity
covered by this incidental take statement. If the Wayne NF fails to
assume and implement the terms and conditions, the protective coverage
of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of
incidental take, the Wayne NF must report the progress of the action and
its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental
take statement \[50 CFR \'402.14(i)(3)\].

**[Indiana Bat]{.underline}**

**[AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE]{.underline}**

The Service anticipates that incidental take of Indiana bats will occur
in the form of harm through habitat loss. Based on our knowledge of the
ecology of Indiana bats, and the distribution of Indiana bats on the
Wayne NF, we assume that the habitat that will be lost will affect the
roosting and foraging habitat of Indiana bats.

It is unlikely that direct mortality of bats will be detected; that is,
we do not expect that dead or moribund bats will be found. Behavioral or
physiological effects, which impair reproduction and recruitment, or
other essential behavioral patterns are anticipated; there is no
practical means to directly measure these impacts to bats. Therefore,
the anticipated level of take for the next five years is expressed as
10,606 acres (permanent loss of 2,504 acres of forest and the alteration
of 8,102 acres of forest) plus the loss of an additional 125 hazard
trees, as designated in the Biological Assessment, that is currently
suitable summer roosting and foraging habitat for Indiana bats and that
may be cleared for the activities listed in Table 2.

Table 2. The anticipated level of take of Indiana bat habitat that may
occur the next five years on the Wayne NF with the continued
implementation of the Forest Plan.

+-----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
| **Type of Incidental  | **Activity**           | **Acres**           |
| Take**                |                        |                     |
+-----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
| Permanent loss of     | coal strip mining      | 2,100               |
| habitat               |                        |                     |
|                       |                        |                     |
| (2,504 total acres)   |                        |                     |
+-----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
|                       | road construction      | 94                  |
+-----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
|                       | trail construction     | 160                 |
+-----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
|                       | oil and gas wells      | 25                  |
+-----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
|                       | special use permits    | 125                 |
+-----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
| Alteration of habitat | timber harvest         | 2,500               |
|                       |                        |                     |
| (8,102 total acres +  |                        |                     |
| 125 trees)            |                        |                     |
+-----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
|                       | timber stand           | 2,500               |
|                       | improvement            |                     |
+-----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
|                       | prescribed fire        | 2,500               |
+-----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
|                       | creation of wildlife   | 352                 |
|                       | openings               |                     |
+-----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
|                       | closing underground    | 250                 |
|                       | entrances              |                     |
+-----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
|                       | hazard tree removal    | 125 **trees**       |
+-----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+

**[EFFECT OF THE TAKE]{.underline}**

The Service has determined that the level of anticipated take of Indiana
bats is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species. The amount of
suitable Indiana bat habitat found on the Wayne NF will remain
relatively stable over the next five years. Only a small fraction of the
forested acres will be altered over the next five years by the continued
implementation of the Forest Plan. Furthermore, most of the activities
only alter Indiana bat habitat, not eliminate it. The proposed
activities are not anticipated to reduce the status of Indiana bats on
the Wayne NF, and thus, the implementation of the Forest Plan will not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the
Indiana bat.

**[REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES]{.underline}**

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are
necessary and appropriate to minimize take of Indiana bats. The terms
and conditions listed in the next section are specific actions on how
the reasonable and prudent measures must be met.

1\. Maintain adequate canopy cover in hardwood stands (depending on the
size of the stands) to provide Indiana bat foraging habitat.

2\. Provide roosting habitat by preserving shagbark hickory (*Carya
ovata*) or shellbark hickory (*Carya laciniosa*) trees.

3\. No snag removal (snags with a dbh 6 inches), except where they pose
an imminent threat to human safety.

4\. Maintain a component of large, over-mature trees, in hardwood
stands, when possible. These trees will ensure a continuous supply of
large roost trees for the bat.

5\. Tree removal activity will be closely monitored and reported on a
project-by-project basis to ensure that impacts of incidental take
associated with future proposed projects are appropriately minimized.

6\. Protect all known Indiana bat hibernacula on the Wayne NF.

[**TERMS AND CONDITIONS**]{.underline}

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the
Wayne NF must comply with the following terms and conditions, which
implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above and
outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and
conditions are non-discretionary.

1\. When conducting hardwood timber harvests and completing TSI within
hardwood stands, maintain at least 60 percent canopy cover whenever
possible.

2\. Shagbark hickory or shellbark hickory trees shall not be cut during
TSI activities, unless the density of trees of these 2 species,
combined, exceeds 16 trees/acre. If present, at least 16 live shagbark
and shellbark hickory (combined) greater than 11 inches dbh must be
maintained per acre.

3\. Snags that are potential Indiana bat habitat shall not be removed
for TSI purposes. Firewood cutting permits should clearly state that
standing dead trees may not be taken.

4\. To maintain a component of large, over-mature trees, at least 3 live
trees per acre \> 20 inches dbh should be maintained in the stand. The 3
trees should be any of the preferred species listed below or a
combination of the species listed below. (A tree with \< 10 percent live
canopy should be considered a snag and would not count towards the 3
trees to be left). These must be among the largest trees of these
species remaining in the stand. An additional 6 live trees per acre \>
11 inches dbh (of the species listed below) must also be maintained.
(The \"per acre\" requirement can be expressed as the average per acre
on a stand-wide basis, depending on the definition of a stand).

shagbark hickory (*Carya ovata*)

> shellbark hickory (*Carya laciniosa*)
>
> bitternut hickory (*Carya cordiformis*)
>
> silver maple (*Acer saccharinum*)
>
> green ash (*Fraxinus pennsylvanica*)
>
> white ash (*Fraxinus americana*)
>
> eastern cottonwood (*Populus deltoides*)
>
> northern red oak (*Quercus rubra*)
>
> post oak (*Quercus stallata*)
>
> white oak (*Quercus alba*)
>
> slippery elm (*Ulmus rubra*)
>
> American elm (*Ulmus americana*) (This list is based on review of
> literature and data on Indiana bat roosting
>
> black locust (*Robinia pseudoacacia*) requirements. Possibility of
> adding other species as identified)

If there are no trees \> 20 inches dbh to leave standing, 16 live trees
per acre must be left, and these must include the largest specimens of
the preferred species remaining in the stand.

5\. During non-hibernation season, Wayne NF will retain all shagbark and
shellbark hickory trees over 6 inches dbh and all live trees, of any
species, over 6 inches dbh that are hollow, have major splits, or have
broken tops, unless they are a safety hazard. Additionally, the Wayne NF
will retain a minimum of 12 live trees per acre over 6 inches dbh, of
any species, with large areas of loose bark, unless they are a safety
hazard. Harvesting of shagbark and shellbark hickory is allowed on the
forest during the Indiana bat hibernating season (after September 15 and
before April 15) except as might be restricted by the preceding terms
and conditions #2 and #4.

6\. To ensure that the exemption of incidental take is appropriately
documented, the Service will implement an tiered programmatic
consultation approach. As individual projects are proposed under the
Forest Plan, Wayne NF shall provide project-specific information to ROFO
that (1) describes the proposed action and the specific area to be
affected, (2) identifies the species that may be affected, (3) describes
the manner in which the proposed action may affect listed species, and
the anticipated effects, (4) specifies that the Aanticipated effects
from the proposed project are similar to those anticipated in the
programmatic biological opinion,@ (5) a cumulative total of take that
has occurred thus far under the tier I biological opinion, and (6)
describes any additional effects, if any, not considered in the tier I
consultation.

The Service will review the information provided by the Wayne NF for
each proposed project and this project-specific review is appropriately
documented. During this review if it is determined that an individual
proposed project is not likely to adversely affect listed species, the
Service will complete its documentation with a standard concurrence
letter that refers to this BO, the tier I programmatic document (i.e.,
it Atiers@ to it), and specifies that the Service concurs that the
proposed project is not likely to adversely affect listed species or
designated critical habitat. If it is determined that the proposed
project is likely to adversely affect listed species or designated
critical habitat, then the Service completes a tier II biological
opinion with a project-specific incidental take statement.

Because habitat manipulation acreage is being used to monitor levels of
incidental take, for each proposed individual project, within the tree
removal activities listed below, provide ROFO with a description of the
project that includes the location, type of activity, and total acreage
to be disturbed by individual project. When reporting the type of
activity it must correspond to one of the following management
activities:

 Hardwood thinning and uneven-aged cuts 2250 acres

 Pine thinning and uneven-aged cuts 250 acres

 Timber stand improvement 2500 acres

 Prescribed fire 2500 acres

 Permanent road construction 32 acres

 Temporary road construction 37 acres

 Oil and gas wells road construction 25 acres

 Trail construction (hiking, horse and ORV) 160 acres

 Creation of wildlife openings 352 acres

>  Mineral development 2125 acres

 Special use permits (roads and utility corridors) 125 acres

>  Hazard tree removal 125 **trees**
>
>  Closing of underground entrances 250 acres

Each project proposal must report how the individual project increases
the cumulative forested acres (or number of trees) affected within each
of the above management activities and report on the total acreage (or
number of trees) remaining in each management activity. Your letter
requesting the project specific review must include your determinations
that the proposed project is consistent with this programmatic
biological opinion and incidental take statement and request that the
proposed project be tiered to this programmatic biological opinion.

7\. Any dead bats located on the Wayne NF where the species
determination is unclear, should be immediately reported to ROFO \[(614)
469-6923\], and subsequently transported on ice to that office. No
attempt should be made to handle any live bat, regardless of its
condition; report bats that appear to be sick or injured to ROFO. ROFO
will make the final species determination on any dead or moribund bats
found on the Wayne NF. If an Indiana bat is identified, ROFO will
contact the appropriate Service Law Enforcement office. (The handling
part of this term and condition does not apply to those specific
individuals who are permitted, as agents of the State, for conducting
work on Federally listed bat species.)

8\. If additional Indiana bat hibernacula are discovered on the Wayne
NF, bat-friendly gates shall be installed, as funding allows, to prevent
unauthorized entry. Human access to areas surrounding the known
hibernacula will be deterred by closing or relocating trails that lead
to or pass within easy viewing distance of known hibernacula. A
one-quarter mile of undisturbed forested buffer should be retained
surrounding all known hibernacula where the Forest Service has
jurisdiction. Undisturbed forested buffer is defined as an area where
trail and road construction and tree harvesting activities are
prohibited. Prescribed fires should not occur within one-quarter mile of
all known hibernacula on the Wayne NF, where the Forest Service has
jurisdiction, during the fall swarming and hibernation period of the
Indiana bat. When developing prescribed burn plans, Wayne NF personnel
should ensure that smoke management in the vicinity of known hibernacula
will prevent smoke from entering into the known hibernacula.

9\. Before backfilling any mine openings, such as a portal entrance or
subsidence depression with a developed opening, a survey for potential
bat presence will be required during the fall swarming period. This
period usually falls between mid-August to mid-October. The survey is
optional if the closure will be accomplished by installing a
bat-friendly gate.

[Summary]{.underline}

In conclusion, the Service believes that no more than 10,606 acres of
forest that is currently suitable summer roosting and foraging habitat
for Indiana bats will be lost over the next five years. Coal strip
mining, road construction, trail construction, oil and gas wells, and
special use permits may remove up to 2,504 acres of suitable summer
roosting and foraging habiat. Further, the Service believes that the
alteration of currently suitable summer roosting and foraging habitat
for Indiana bats will be limited to 8,102 acres for pine thinning and
uneven-aged cuts, hardwood thinning and uneven-aged cuts, TSI,
prescribed fire, creation of wildlife openings, and closing of
underground entrances. Additionally, up to125 hazard trees (25 per year)
may be removed from the Wayne NF during the period from April 15 to
September 15.

The Service believes that the reasonable and prudent measures outlined
above will significantly reduce the impacts of incidental take of
Indiana bats on the Wayne NF and that these measures are reasonable and
fall within the Forest Service=s responsibilities to conserve
Federally-listed species as outlined in sections 2(c)(1) and 7(a)(1) of
the ESA.

**[Bald Eagle]{.underline}**

**[AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE]{.underline}**

The Service anticipates that incidental take of bald eagles as a result
of forest management activities or other actions implemented from the
Forest Plan on the Wayne NF (including timber management operations,
human disturbance, prescribed fires, and indirect effects) will be
difficult to quantify and detect for the following reasons: 1) there is
an abundance of roost trees available to eagles throughout the forest;
it would therefore, be difficult to document that the harm or harass
provisions of take resulted from the loss of a particular tree when
numerous, alternative roosts are available for roosting, 2) eagles have
become acclimated to some level of human activity on the Wayne NF (USFS
1998), 3) the Service is unaware of any study that has accurately
identified the degree of impact to bald eagles from drifting smoke that
originated from prescribed fires adjacent to occupied areas, and 4) it
is unlikely that activities that could adversely impact the water
quality of rivers, lakes, creeks, and streams where the species forages
would be of such magnitude to appreciably decrease this species forage
base.

**[EFFECT OF THE TAKE]{.underline}**

The Service has determined that the level of unquantifiable, anticipated
take of bald eagles is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species.
Bald eagles have been occasionally sighted on or near the Wayne NF. At
this time, bald eagles are not nesting on the forest but are migrating
through or wintering there. While timber harvest activities could remove
potential nesting and roosting trees within the forest as well as create
noise and human disturbance, the proposed activities are not anticipated
to reduce the status of bald eagles on the Wayne NF. Therefore, the
implementation of the Forest Plan will not appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery of the bald eagle.

**[REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES]{.underline}**

Although the Service has determined that the level of incidental take
for this species is unquantifiable, the following reasonable and prudent
measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize any adverse impacts
to bald eagles on the Wayne NF:

1\. Reduce the potential of removing unknown communal night roosts.

2\. Discourage continuous and/or repeated human disturbance where
wintering eagles (November 15 and March 15) are known to have communal
night roosts or form daily congregations \[as defined in the Northern
States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1983a)\] on all lands or waters
managed by the Wayne NF.

3\. Use appropriate smoke management techniques to minimize potential
impacts of smoke inversion to occupied communal night roosts, daytime
concentrations, or occupied breeding territories.

4\. In association with the predicted removal of this species from the
list of endangered and threatened wildlife, assist the Service and the
Ohio Division of Wildlife in monitoring the status of the species on the
Wayne NF up through the five years following delisting, according to
requirements outlined in the ESA.

The Service believes that the reasonable and prudent measures outlined
above will significantly reduce the impacts of incidental take of bald
eagles on the Wayne NF and that these measures are reasonable and fall
within the Forest Service=s responsibilities to conserve
Federally-listed species as outlined in sections 2(c)(1) and 7(a)(1) of
the ESA.

[**TERMS AND CONDITIONS**]{.underline}

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the
Forest Service (Wayne NF) must comply with the following terms and
conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures
described above and outline the required reporting/monitoring
requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary.

In order to decrease the potential of removing of unknown communal night
roosts, the following is necessary:

1\. Conduct a minimum of three annual winter (early, middle, and late)
searches, as funds are available, (aerial and/or ground) to locate any
previously unknown communal night roosts or eagle concentrations on
areas of the Wayne NF where actions are being planned that may affect
the species following criteria outlined in the Northern States Bald
Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1983a). Searches will focus on areas eagles
are known to frequent, where congregations of eagles have been
previously documented, or where there are concentrated food sources
(such as poultry farms, hog lots, aquiculture facilities, etc.) near
lands or waters managed by the Wayne NF.

2\. Any bald eagle communal night roosts and concentrations (including
nests), discovered during winter surveys or during any additional field
surveys of proposed project areas, shall be protected following
guidelines outlined in the Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan
(USFWS 1983a).

3\. Any bald eagle nests discovered on Wayne NF lands shall be
immediately reported to ROFO and the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Wildlife (ODNR-DOW).

4\. By June 1 of each year, provide an annual report to ROFO and the
ODNR-DOW, that includes the following information: (1) results of any
winter searches for communal night roosts and concentrations, including
mid-winter surveys conducted in cooperation with the Service/ODNR-DOW,
and (2) discovery of any nesting territories on lands managed by the
Wayne NF. If no surveys have been conducted and no nesting territories
discovered on Wayne NF lands during an annual reporting period, an
annual report should be submitted with a statement to this effect.

In order to decrease human disturbance, the following is necessary:

5\. Protect super-canopy (Tyrell *et al.* 1998) or other identified
congregation roost trees along major river corridors, lakes and lands
managed by the Wayne NF, in addition to adhering to

standards and guidelines outlined in the Forest Plan for riparian
corridors.

In order to minimize potential impacts of smoke inversion to occupied
communal night roosts, daytime concentration sites, or occupied breeding
territories, it is necessary to:

6\. Consider all bald eagle communal night roosts, daytime concentration
sites, or breeding sites (if and when discovered on the Wayne NF) as
occupied bald eagle sites. Prescribed fires should not be conducted
within 2 mile of occupied bald eagle sites. In order to prevent smoke
inversion from occurring at all occupied bald eagle sites, Wayne NF
should conduct any planned prescribed fire (in areas outside the 2 mile
radius of occupied sites) only when the following have been considered:
wind direction, speed, mixing height and transport winds needed in burn
planning and implementation, to minimize smoke from drifting toward and
occupied sites.

7\. By June 1 of each year, provide an annual report to ROFO, that
includes any documented case of a prescribed fire that behaved contrary
to predicted movement patterns and which resulted in a confirmed adverse
impact to bald eagles.

8\. For any prescribed fire that could potentially impact Bald eagles,
provide ROFO with the opportunity to review burn plans with Wayne NF
Fire Management Officer prior to the burn plan being approved.

In order to assist with the Service and Ohio Division of Wildlife in
monitoring the status of the species on the Wayne NF up through the five
years following delisting according to requirements outlined in the ESA,
it is necessary to:

9\. Should the bald eagle be found on the Wayne NF, populations should
be monitored and managed as directed by this biological opinion and the
species delisting monitoring plan for a period of five years after
delisting.

**[American Burying Beetle]{.underline}**

**[AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE]{.underline}**

The Service recognizes that in Ohio, the American burying beetle only
occurs in Athens, Hocking and Vinton counties so the following
incidental take statement for American burying beetle is limited to
those counties. The Service does not anticipate the continued
implementation of the Forest Plan will incidentally take any American
burying beetles.

**[EFFECT OF THE TAKE]{.underline}**

The Service has determined that no incidental take is anticipated and
therefore the continued

implementation of the Forest Plan is not likely to result in jeopardy to
the species.

**[REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES]{.underline}**

The Service has determined that no incidental take for this species is
anticipated, therefore, no reasonable and prudent measures are necessary
and appropriate to minimize incidental take of American burying beetles
on the Wayne NF.

**[TERMS AND CONDITIONS]{.underline}**

Terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent
measures, are not required because the Service believes that incidental
take of American burying beetles on the Wayne NF will not occur.

**[REINITIATION NOTICE]{.underline}**

This concludes formal consultation on the continued implementation of
the Wayne National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended)
and projects predicated upon it, as outlined in the Biological
Assessment. As provided in 50 CFR \'402.16, reinitiation of formal
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 continued implementation of the Wayne
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (as amended) and
projects predicated upon it may affect listed species in a manner or to
an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the continued
implementation of the Wayne National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan (as amended) and projects predicated upon it is subsequently
modified in a manner that causes an effect to Federally-listed species
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 of incidental take is exceeded, any
operations causing such take must cease, pending reinitiation. Requests
for reinitiation, or questions regarding reinitiation, should be
directed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service=s Reynoldsburg, Ohio
Field Office.

**[CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS]{.underline}**

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out
conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency
activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on
listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or
to develop information.

The Service provides the following conservation recommendations for the
Wayne NF; these activities may be conducted at the discretion of the
Wayne NF as time and funding allow. The Service requests notification of
the implementation of any conservation recommendations that minimize or
avoid adverse effects or provide a benefit to Federally-listed species
or their habitats.

**[Indiana Bat]{.underline}**

The Service recommends that the Wayne NF implement the following
conservation measures for the benefit of the Indiana bat:

1\. Conduct a mist netting and radio telemetry study of Indiana bats on
the Marietta unit of the Wayne NF, as funds are available.

2\. In consultation with the Service, continue to identify and support
Indiana bat studies to gain a better understanding of the bat on the
Wayne NF and throughout the range. The Wayne NF, in cooperation with the
Service, has recently provided funding to a multi-year study concerning
diurnal roost tree usage on the forest. We encourage continued
participation between our agencies in the future as an aid to the
recovery of the species.

3\. In consultation with the Service and the ODNR-DOW, conduct training
for employees of the Wayne NF on bats (including Indiana bat) occurring
on the Wayne NF. Training should include sections on bat identification,
biology, habitat requirements, and sampling techniques (including
instructions on applicability and effectiveness of using mist net
surveys vs. Anabat detectors to accurately determine the presence of
various bat species). The proper training of Wayne NF biologists on bat
identification and a reliable methods for counting roosting bats will
enable the Wayne NF to continue to monitor the status of this species
independently of other agencies and research institutions.

4\. Create upland waterholes for Indiana bats, as funding allows.

5\. A quarter mile of undisturbed forested buffer should be retained
surrounding all openings that are known Indiana bat fall swarming sites,
where the Forest Service has jurisdiction. Undisturbed forested buffers
should be maintained by reducing or eliminating human disturbances
whenever possible.

**[Bald Eagle]{.underline}**

The Service recommends that the Wayne NF implement the following
conservation measure for the benefit of the bald eagle:

1\. Provide field training for new Wayne NF employees so they will be
able to recognize bald eagle signs at night roosts, even when eagles are
absent.

Note: the Service will not refer the incidental take of any bald eagle
for prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended
(16 U.S.C. \'\' 703-712), or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of
1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. \'\' 668-668d), if such take is in
compliance with the terms and conditions specified in this opinion.

**[American Burying Beetle]{.underline}**

The Service recommends that the Wayne NF implement the following
conservation measures for the benefit of the American burying beetle:

1\. New road construction, within 10 air miles of known occupied
American burying beetle habitat, could be planned in such a way as to
involve the least amount of ground disturbance, measured in terms of the
area compacted to the point it is no longer American burying beetle
habitat, and designed with the minimum safe width necessary for planned
use of the road.

2**.** We recommend that ground disturbance during the reconstruction
and maintenance of existing roads be kept to a minimum within 10 air
miles of known occupied American burying beetle habitat. Width of road,
ditches, and surface materials could be the minimum necessary to allow
safe movement of all permitted vehicular traffic.

3\. To limit American burying beetle habitat loss, we recommend that
improved areas, such as campgrounds, recreation area, and trails, should
be planned for and constructed outside areas with known American Burying
beetle populations.

4\. We recommend that the wildlife and forestry management practices for
the Wayne NF continue to incorporate the principals of forest ecosystem
management and that management for the American burying beetle be
included among the high priority species and goals of the Wayne NF.
Forestry management should implement activities which benefit the
American burying beetle, when this is compatible with the overall
productivity and vitality of the Wayne NF.

5\. Develop and carry out a monitoring strategy to evaluate the
reintroduction of the American burying beetle, as funding allows. The
monitoring strategy should follow approved American burying beetle
monitoring guidelines, and focus of the monitoring should be within 10
air miles of the release site where the Forest Service has jurisdiction.

6\. Because of the sensitivity of most insects to chemical applications,
use of pesticides could be restricted within the known range of the
American burying beetle on the Wayne NF. Restriction could be in the
method of application, the location, and the type of pesticide or
herbicide used.

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions for minimizing
or avoiding adverse effects or benefitting Federally-listed species or
their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation
of any conservation recommendations.

**[APPLICABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL OPINION TO SITE SPECIFIC
PROJECTS]{.underline}**

The Service believes that scope of effects for specific projects
developed through the continued implementation of the Forest Plan on the
Wayne NF falls under the umbrella of this consultation for the following
reasons:

 The terms and conditions associated with the reasonable and prudent
measures outlined in

this opinion will minimize the impact of the incidental take identified
for the Indiana bat, bald eagle, and American burying beetle on both a
programmatic and site specific level; the protective measures outlined
herein for the entire Wayne NF are applicable to individual projects yet
to be identified.

 If, after adhering to the terms and conditions associated with the
reasonable and prudent measures provided in this opinion, the Forest
Service determines that activities on a project level are likely to
adversely affect the Indiana bat, bald eagle, and American burying
beetle, the Service would request that formal consultation be initiated.

 Any individual project that results in the level of incidental take
identified in this opinion to be exceeded would necessitate the
reinitiation of formal consultation as outlined above.

 The Forest Service will continue to conduct site-specific project
analyses to ensure that each individual action follows recommendations
set forth in this opinion.

 The Service will continue to review all site-specific projects to
ensure that there is strict adherence to the terms and conditions
associated with the reasonable and prudent measures outlined in this
opinion and that incidental take levels identified in this opinion are
not exceeded.

**[LITERATURE CITED]{.underline}**

Andrews, Lynda. U.S. Forest Service, Wayne National Forest. September 8,
2000. Personal communication with The Mangi Environmental Group.

Andrews, Lynda. U.S. Forest Service, Wayne National Forest. September
12, 2001. Personal communication to Angela Boyer, USFWS, biologist,
Reynoldsburg, Ohio Field Office.

Appalachian Technical Services, Inc. August 1999. A mist net survey and
radio-telemetry study for the Federally endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis
sodalis*) on the Athens and Ironton Ranger Districts of the Wayne
National Forest.

Bookout, T. and M. J. Lacki. March 1981. A Survey of Bats in Wayne
National Forest.

Callahan, E.V., III. 1993. Indiana bat summer habitat requirements. M.S.
Thesis. University of Missouri Columbia. 84pp.

Clark, D.R., Jr., R.K. LaVal, and D.M. Swineford. 1978. Dieldrin-induced
mortality in an endangered species, the gray bat (*Myotis grisescens*).
Science 199:1357-1359.

Eco-Tech, Inc. October 1998. A Survey for the Federally endangered
Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) in the Bluegrass Ridge and Markin Fork
Areas of the Ironton Ranger District, Wayne National Forest.

Ewing, Rebecca. U.S. Forest Service, Wayne National Forest. September
12, 2001a. Personal communication to Angela Boyer, USFWS, biologist,
Reynoldsburg, Ohio Field Office.

Ewing, Rebecca. U.S. Forest Service, Wayne National Forest. September
13, 2001b. Personal

communication to Angela Boyer, USFWS, biologist, Reynoldsburg, Ohio
Field Office.

Fazio, B. B., USFWS, March 18, 2001. Letter to Mary O. Reddan, USFS,
Forest Supervisor, Wayne National Forest, Athens, Ohio.

Flegel, K. U.S. Forest Service, Wayne National Forest. 2000. Written
communication with The Mangi Environmental Group.

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner and J.E. Hofmann. 1991a. Summer roost
selection and roosting behavior of *Myotis sodalis* (Indiana bat) in
Illinois. Final report. Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois
Department of Conservation. Champlain, Illinois. 56 pp.

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner and J.E. Hofmann. 1991b. Summary of *Myotis
sodalis* summer habitat studies in Illinois: with recommendations for
impact assessment. Special report. Illinois Natural History Survey,
Illinois Department of Conservation. Champaign, Illinois.

> 28 pp.

Garner, J.D. and J.E. Gardner. 1992. Determination of summer
distribution and habitat utilization of the Indiana bat (*Myotis
sodalis*) in Illinois. Unpubl. Report. Endangered Species Coordinator,
Region 3, USFWS, Twin Cities, MN 28 pp.

Gianniny, B., Wayne NF. April 18, 2001. Personal communication to Angela
Boyer, USFWS, biologist, Reynoldsburg, Ohio Field Office.

Greatorex, R. U.S. Forest Service, Wayne National Forest. 2001. Written
communication with The Mangi Environmental Group.

Hall, J. S. 1962. A life history and taxonomic study of the Indiana bat,
*Myotis sodalis*. Reading Publ. Mus. Art., Gallery Publ. 12:1-68.

Horn, D. J., G. D. Keeney, F. F. Purrington. June 25, 1998. American
burying beetle management recomendations. Dept. of Entomology, Ohio
State Univ.

Humphrey, S.R., A.R. Richter, and J.B. Cope. 1977. Summer habitat and
ecology of the endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Journal of
Mammalogy 58:334-346.

Keeney, G. Autumn 1998. First generation American burying beetle
recovered from Ohio reintroduced site. The Ohio Coleopterist. Vol. 5,
No. 3.

Keeney, G. and D. Horn. Spring 1998. American burying beetle returning
to Ohio. The Ohio Coleopterist. Vol. 5, No. 1.

Keeney, G. Summer 1999. 1999 Reintroduction of American burying beetle.
The Ohio

Coleopterist. Vol. 6, No. 2.

Keeney, G., Ohio State University, Department of Entomology. September
11, 2000. Personnal communication with Lee Bigger of The Mangi
Environmental Group.

Keeney, G., Ohio State University, Department of Entomology. January 4
2001. Written correspondence with Lee Bigger of The Mangi Environmental
Group.

King, T. U.S. Forest Service, Wayne National Forest. 2000a. Email
communication with The Mangi Environmental Group.

King, T. U.S. Forest Service, Wayne National Forest. 2000b. Personnel
communication with The Mangi Environmental Group.

King, T. U.S. Forest Service, Wayne National Forest. 2000c. Personnel
communication with The Mangi Environmental Group.

LaVal, R.K. and M.L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological studies and management of
Missouri bats, with emphasis on cave-dwelling species. Missouri Dept. of
Conservation Terrestrial Series 8:1-53.

McKenzie, P. M. June 23, 1999. USFWS biological opinion on the impacts
of the forest management and other activities to the gray bat, bald
eagle, Indiana bat, and Mead=s milkweed on the Mark Twain National
Forest, Missouri. 100pp.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 26 January 2000a. Web page. Record
number of bald eagles wintering in Ohio. Date accessed: April 18, 2001 .
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/odnr/wildlife/news/weekly/jw112600.html

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. March 23, 2000b. Web page.
Wildlife news: Ohio eagles welcoming spring with eaglets. Date accessed:
April 18, 2001.
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/odnr/wildlife/news/weekly/mh32300.html

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 15 June 2000c. Web page. Wildlife
news: Ohio=s bald eagles still soaring. Date accessed: April 18, 2001.
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/odnr/wildlife/news/weekly/mh61500.html

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. Web page. No
date provided (1). Date accessed April 18, 2001. Wildlife notes: bald
eagle.
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/odnr/wildlife/publications/wildnotes/eagle.html

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. Web page. No
date provided (2) Date accessed: May 4, 2001. American burying beetle
spotlight.

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/odnr/wildlife/diversity/projects/beetle/beetle.html

Romme, R. C., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack, Jr. Indiana Department. of
Natural Resources. 1995. Literature summary and habitat suitability
index model: components of summer habitat for the Indiana bat, *Myotis
sodalis*. Federal Aid Project E1-7. 172pp.

Schultes, Katrina. November 2000. Indiana bat project B Wayne National
Forest. Summary of activities for summer 2000. Unpublished report to the
Wayne National Forest.

Tierney, J. 2001 Carter Caves State Park Naturalist. Written
correspondence with Lee Bigger of The Mangi Environmental Group.

Tyrell, L.E., G.J. Nowacki, T.R. Crow, D.S. Buckley, E.A. Nauertz, J.N.
Niese, J.L. Rollinger, and J.C. Zasada. 1998. Information about old
growth for selected forest type groups in the eastern United States.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-197, St. Paul, MN- USDA, Forest
Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 507pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983a. Northern states bald eagle
recovery plan. USFWS, Twin Cities, Minnesota, 76 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983b. Recovery plan for the Indiana
bat. USFWS, Twin Cities, Minnesota, 80pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. American burying beetle
(*Nicrophorus americanus*) recovery plan. Newton Corner, Massachusetts.
80pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. January 10, 1994. Biological opinion for
forest management practice effect on the American burying beetle in the
Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests in Arkansas and
Oklahoma.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 1997. Biological opinion on the
impacts of forest management and other activities to the Indiana bat on
the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. June 23, 1999. Biological opinion on the
impacts of forest management and other activities to the gray bats, bald
eagle, Indiana bat, and Mead=s milkweed on the Mark Twain National
Forest, Missouri.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. May 2000. Biological opinion on the Land
and Resource Management Plan and the proposed special habitat needs and
silviculture amendment, Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July 31, 2001. Biological opinion on the
Land and Resource Management Plan, Hoosier National Forest, Indiana.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service.
1998. Endangered species consultation handbook - procedures for
conducting consultation and conference activities under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Forest Service. 1986. Wayne National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan, Wayne National Forest.

U.S. Forest Service. 1987. Draft environmental impact statement, land
and resource management plan, Wayne National Forest.

U.S. Forest Service. August 1992. Record of decision and final
supplemental environmental impact statement for oil and gas resources,
Wayne National Forest, land and resource management plan, amendment #8.

U.S. Forest Service.1995. Gypsy moth management in the United States: a
cooperative approach: environmental impact statement.

U.S. Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. September
1998. Mark Twain National Forest programmatic biological assessment.

U.S. Forest Service. 1999a. Fall swarming and mine entry data sheets.

U.S. Forest Service, Wayne National Forest. 1999b. Forest summary bat
report.

U.S. Forest Service. 2000a. Wayne National Forest combined data system.
Forest vegetation database. Age class data.

U.S. Forest Service. 2000b. Environmental assessment for gypsy moth
treatment. Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia.

U.S. Forest Service. 2001a. Wayne National Forest programmatic
biological assessment.

> Nelsonville, Ohio. 162 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. April 4, 2001b. Formal consultation request letter
to Kenneth C. Lammers, USFWS, Acting Field Supervisor, Reynoldsburg,
Ohio Field Office.

Zambrana, J. A., June 7, 2000. Letter to Kent E. Kroonemeyer, USFWS,
Field Supervisor, Reynoldsburg, Ohio Field Office.