September 30, 2004

Janet Fraley, Acting District Ranger

Potosi-Fredericktown Ranger District

Mark Twain National Forest

P.O. Box 188

Potosi, Missouri 63664

Dear Ms. Fraley:

This letter is in response to your July 28, 2004, request for
site-specific review, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended, on the East Fredericktown Project on the
Potosi-Fredericktown Ranger District in St. Genevieve, St. Francois,
Madison, and Bollinger Counties, Missouri. On June 23, 1999, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issued a Programmatic Biological
Opinion (Programmatic BO) for the Mark Twain's National Forest (MTNF)
Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP). This Programmatic BO established a
two-tiered consultation process for LRMP activities, with issuance of
the programmatic opinion being Tier 1 and all subsequent site-specific
project analyses constituting Tier 2 consultations. When it is
determined that a site-specific project is likely to adversely affect
federally listed species, the Service will produce a "tiered" biological
opinion.

In issuance of the Programmatic BO (Tier 1 biological opinion), the
Service evaluated the effects of all U.S. Forest Service's actions
outlined in the LRMP for the MTNF, as well as a number of identified,
proposed site-specific projects that were attached as an appendix to
your biological assessment. The Programmatic BO evaluated the effects of
Forest Service management program activities, including timber
management and prescribe burning, on the bald eagle (*Haliaeetus
leucocephalus*), Curtis' pearly mussel (*Epioblasma florentina
curtisi*), Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*), gray bat (*Myotis
grisescens*), Meads milkweed (*Asclepias meadii*), pink mucket pearly
mussel (*Lampsilis abrupta*), running buffalo clover (*Trifolium
stoloniferum*), Topeka shiner (*Notropis topeka).* We concurred with
your programmatic determinations of "not likely to adversely affect" for
Curtis' pearly mussel, pink mucket pearly mussel, running buffalo
clover, and Topeka shiner. We also concurred with your programmatic
determination of "likely to adversely affect" for bald eagle, gray bat,
Indiana bat, and Mead's milkweed.

Your request for Service review of the proposed activities associated
with the East Fredericktown Project is a Tier 2 (site-specific)
consultation. We have reviewed the information contained in the East
Fredericktown Project Biological Assessment (BA), submitted by your
office on August 6, 2003 and a July 28, 2004, supplement to the BA,
describing the potential effects of the proposed project on the above
federally listed species. After receipt of the August 6, 2003, BA, the
USFWS informally requested a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) and also informally requested that additional surveys
for Indiana bats be conducted within the project area. The MTNF had not
yet completed the DEIS and the surveys could not be conducted until the
2004 maternity season. Therefore the MTNF asked the USFWS to delay
consultation on the project until the DEIS and the additional surveys
were completed. The July 28, 2004, BA supplement was needed to address
changes to the proposed action and new information that was gained after
completing bat surveys in and near the project area during this summer.
Additional protective measures for Indiana bats were submitted via
electronic mail in September 2004.

We concur with your conclusion that there are no additional effects to
federally listed species associated with the East Fredericktown Project
beyond those that were previously disclosed and discussed in the
Service's Programmatic BO of June 23, 1999. We also concur with your
determination that the only species that may occur within the project
area are Indiana bat, gray bat, Hine's emerald dragonfly, running
buffalo clover, Curtis' pearly mussel, Mead's milkweed and bald eagle.

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

The MTNF analyzed three alternatives for the proposed East Fredericktown
Project. Alternative 2 is the proposed action for consultation. The
following is a summary of proposed activities in alternative 2. A
complete description of these activities is contained within the DEIS
for this project.

Timber Harvest (Seedtree cut) 850 acres

Timber Harvest (Shelterwood cut) 1,482 acres

Timber Harvest (Sanitation/Salvage/Overstory removal cut) 963 acres

Timber Harvest (Selection with Groups cuts) 362 acres

Timber Harvest (Thinning) 1,077 acres

Release (pine saplings) 173 acres

Crop tree release 1,607 acres

Temporary roads constructed 24.3 miles

Roads reconstructed 9.5 miles

Existing roads decommissioned 45.8 miles

Prescribed burning 2,603 acres

Miles of dozer-constructed fireline 5.4 miles

Old growth designated 1,693 acres

Vernal ponds constructed 30 ponds

Permanent ponds maintained 4 ponds

Glades restored 33 sites

Dumps removed 11 sites

Trail reconstructed 0.6 miles

Areas with erosion control activities 19 stands

The MTNF has also agreed to implement the RPM's and TC's in the
Programmatic BO and other protective measures as outlined in the
Biological Evaluation for the East Fredericktown Project and additional
communications (electronic mail) from the MTNF. These protective
measures include the following measures to protect Indiana bats: no
burning during the main maternity season (May 15-August 15) and efforts
will be taken to protect known male Indiana bat roost trees from damage
during project activities. These efforts include marking on the ground a
no-cut zone that extends at least a tree and a half distance from each
roost tree (minimum of 75 feet). During prescribed burning activities,
efforts such as raking away fuels or maintaining a wet line around the
known roost trees will be taken to protect them from burning. If a roost
tree is completely on the ground, no protective efforts around that tree
are required.

Based on the site-specific information provided in the BA's and DEIS, we
concur with your determination that the East Fredericktown Project "may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" the gray bat, bald eagle,
Hine's emerald dragonfly, running buffalo clover, Mead's milkweed, and
Curtis' pearlymussel. As described in the Service's Programmatic BO, we
believe that adverse effects are likely to occur to the Indiana bat
through site specific effects.

## 

## Biological Opinion

[]{.mark}

The following biological opinion is based on likely adverse effects to
the Indiana bat from activities associated with the East Fredericktown
Project. In conducting our evaluation of the potential impacts of the
project on Indiana bat, our review focused on determining whether: (1)
this proposed project falls within the scope of the Programmatic BO
issued for MTNF's LRMP; (2) the effects of this proposed action are
consistent with those anticipated in the Tier 1 Programmatic BO; and (3)
the appropriate implementing terms and conditions associated with the
reasonable and prudent measures identified in the Tier 1 biological
opinion are adhered to. This Tier 2 Biological Opinion also identifies
the incidental take anticipated with the East Fredericktown Project and
the cumulative total of incidental take for the MTNF for the 2005-2009
planning seasons. It conforms to the Service's Programmatic BO (page 88)
pertaining to individual projects the Service reviews following the
issuance of the Programmatic BO.

[Status of the Species]{.underline}

Species description, life history, population dynamics, status and
distribution for the Indiana bat are fully described on pages 40-62 of
the Programmatic BO and are hereby incorporated by reference. Since
issuance of the Service's Programmatic BO, a biennial survey was
conducted on Indiana bat Priority 1 hibernacula. Approximately 105,420
Indiana bats were counted during surveys conducted in 2000 and 2001.
Surveys by Rick Clawson (Missouri Department of Conservation, email
March 14, 2003) in 2003 show 93, 955 Indiana bats in priority one caves
and other caves. Indiana bat populations were monitored in the two
Indiana bat hibernacula on the MTNF in 2004. The population at one cave
increased from 1 bat in the last survey to 33 Indiana bats in 2004; and
at the other cave, the population increased from 12 bats in the last
survey to 150 Indiana bats.

Mist net and Anabat surveys were conducted for bats on the Mark Twain
National Forest between 1997 and 2004. A summary of survey data
collected during this period indicates that 10 Indiana bats had been
captured near the National Forest (Lake Wappapello - USACE lands) and 4
captured on the National Forest. These surveys represented over 400 mist
net sites and over 2,500 hours of mist netting, plus over 300 Anabat
sites and over 3,500 hours of Anabat detection. Capture of Indiana bats
during field surveys is very uncommon, which indicates that Indiana bats
are not abundant in the areas that were surveyed.

Mist net and Anabat surveys were conducted in the project area in 2003
and 2004. Six species of bats were captured within the project area,
including an Indiana bat. One adult male was captured over an upland
forest pond in May 2004. The capture site is located within a stand
(overstocked pine plantation) that will be thinned under the proposed
action. The male was fitted with a radio transmitter and was tracked to
its roost tree daily for 10 days, when its transmitter was found on the
ground below the roost tree that the bat had been occupying for the
previous six consecutive days. This bat used four separate roost trees,
all on a pine-dominated ridgetop within the project area. No other
Indiana bats were captured or detected within the project area.

The nearest capture site of a reproductively active female is
approximately 12.5 miles west of the project area. That pregnant female
was captured in May 2003. Mist net and Anabat surveys in the same area
in 2003 (after the initial capture) and 2004 did not detect the presence
of any more Indiana bats. The nearest Indiana bat hibernation cave is
22.3 miles to the west of the project area.

[Environmental Baseline]{.underline}

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

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

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

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

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

[Effects of the Action]{.underline}

Based on our analysis of information provided in your August 6, 2003 BA
and a July 28, 2004 supplement to the BA for the East Fredericktown
Project, we have determined that the potential effects of the proposed
action are consistent with those addressed in the Programmatic
Biological Opinion and are hereby incorporated by reference. Migrating
and roosting Indiana bats could be potentially impacted from the
proposed activities. Adverse effects to the Indiana bat from this
project could occur from the removal of suitable roost trees in the
timber harvest areas and from temporary road construction, dozer line
construction, glade restoration, trail reconstruction and any prescribed
burning that would occur in the summer. Harm to Indiana bats could also
occur if the removal of suitable roost trees causes bats to abandon a
traditionally used roost site. The likelihood of cutting a tree
containing an individual roosting Indiana bat, however, is anticipated
to be extremely low because of the rarity of the species on this
district and the large number of suitable roost trees present on the
MTNF. Implementation of the additional resource protection measures will
also minimize potential adverse effects.

As mentioned above, the pine stand where the male Indiana bat roosted is
scheduled to be thinned under this proposal. The MTNF will implement
several protective measures in this stand and in all other stands to be
treated. Protective measures include retaining all unmerchantable dead
trees, and retaining all shagbark and shellbark hickories, sycamores and
lightening struck trees, unless they pose a human safety hazard. There
are also requirements for a minimum basal area of trees to be retained
throughout the cutting units (see the DEIS and 2003 BA for a detailed
description of protective measures). If male Indiana bats are loyal to
their summer roost trees, maintaining a buffer area around known male
roost trees as proposed will further minimize direct adverse effects.
These measures will ensure that any bats roosting in the project area
will have suitable roost trees available during and after project
implementation and decreases the risk of directly harming a roosting
Indiana bat during tree removing activities. In addition, thinning these
stands will likely create foraging opportunities within the stand. Radio
telemetry data from the male using this stand indicate that it was not
foraging in the stand; instead it was flying to a more open area to
forage.

The project will not have any direct or indirect effects on hibernating
or swarming Indiana bats, since there are no hibernacula in or very near
the project area. The project area is far enough from the hibernaculum
that smoke would have no effect on the Indiana bat. The prescribed
burns, some timber harvest prescriptions, crop tree and pine sapling
release, and glade restoration may also have a beneficial effect by
opening forest canopies and decreasing dense understory vegetation that
could inhibit bat movements to foraging habitats and roosting sites. The
creation of 30 vernal ponds and maintenance of 4 permanent ponds may
also benefit the Indiana bat by providing additional foraging and
watering opportunities.

A more complete discussion of these effects can be found in section D-
Effects of the action (direct and indirect effects), on pages 62-65 of
the Service's June 23, 1999 Programmatic BO.

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

[Conclusion]{.underline}

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

[Incidental Take Statement]{.underline}

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

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

[Conservation Recommendations]{.underline}

Section 7(a) (1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities to further the purposes of the Act 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 Programmatic BO outlines several conservation recommendations. The
following conservation recommendation for this project expands on
recommendation #1 (develop information) in the Programmatic BO.

There is limited scientific information on the response of summer
roosting Indiana bats (in this case, males) to forest management
activities. The collection and analysis of this information could be
beneficial in the future conservation of the Indiana bat. The capture of
a male roosting Indiana bat in the project area in 2004 provides an
opportunity to potentially gain information on this issue. Therefore,
the Service recommends that MTNF conduct during the summer bat season
mist netting surveys and radio telemetry studies in the project area
during and after project implementation, in the area where the male
Indiana bat was captured and tracked to in 2004. The MTNF should work
with the USFWS, North Central Experiment Station, and Missouri
Department of Conservation to determine the best methods for obtaining
useful data.

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

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

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

Sincerely,

/s/

> Charles M. Scott
>
> Field Supervisor

cc: Field Supervisor, Indiana ESFO, Bloomington, IN

Theresa Davidson, USFWS, Ava, MO

Jennifer Szymanski, USFWS, RO via electronic mail

/media/pszemraj/PeterTrove/project-files/DATA/ms-word-files/big-DOC/591708.doc

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

  ---------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------------------
                   **2005**    **2006**   **2007**   **2008**   **2009**   **Acres exempted
                                                                           annually**

  **Timber         **1000**    **1000**   **1000**   **1000**   **734**    **20000**
  Harvest**                                                                

  **Cumulative     **7210**    **5621**   **4974**                         
  Total**                                                                  

  **TSI**          **228**     **572**    **400**    **400**    **180**    **4000**

  **Cumulative     **3072**    **1622**   **700**                          
  Total**                                                                  

  **Prescribed     **1325**    **722**    **270**    **286**    **1325**   **12000**
  Burning**                                                                

  **Cumulative     **11162**   **9322**   **7380**                         
  Total**                                                                  

  **Road           **19**      **19**     **19**     **19**     **19**     **25**
  Construction**                                                           

  **Cumulative     **22**      **22**     **22**                           
  Total**                                                                  

  **Soil & Water   **0.3**     **0**      **0**      **0**      **0**      **150**
  Improvement**                                                            

  **Cumulative     **25**      **17**     **17**     **17**                
  Total**                                                                  

  **Wildlife       **3**       **9**      **12**     **11**     **4**      **2000**
  Habitat                                                                  
  Improvement**                                                            

  **Cumulative     **848**     **9**      **12**                           
  Total**                                                                  
  ---------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------------------

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}