\(614\) 469-6923/FAX (614) 469-6919

25 February 2005

Gloria Chrismer

Ironton Ranger District

Wayne National Forest

6518 State Route 93

Pedro, OH 45659

Dear Ms. Chrismer:

This letter is in response to your February 4, 2005 request for
site-specific review of Plant and Wildlife Biological Evaluations (BEs),
pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended,
of the potential effects of the Darby Creek Prescribed Burn (N 38 39.57'
W 82 38.84') on the Ironton Ranger District of the Wayne National Forest
(WNF). The WNF, proposes to burn 479 acres every three to five years
over the next 10 years to reduce fuel loads and wildfire threat to
nearby homes.

On September 20, 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
issued a programmatic biological opinion for the Wayne National Forest
(Forest) Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). This
programmatic biological opinion (PBO) established a two-tiered
consultation process for Forest Plan activities, with issuance of the
PBO being Tier 1 and all subsequent site-specific project analyses
constituting Tier 2 consultations. Under this tiered process, the
Service will produce "tiered" biological opinions when it is determined
that site-specific projects are likely to adversely affect federally
listed species. When "may affect" but "not likely to adversely affect"
determinations are made, we will provide written concurrence and section
7(a)(2) consultation will be considered completed for those
site-specific projects.

In issuing the programmatic biological opinion (Tier 1 biological
opinion), we evaluated the effects of all Forest Service actions
outlined in your March 12, 2001 Biological Assessment on 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*). We concurred
with your determinations of "not likely to adversely affect" for
northern 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*). We also concurred with your determination of "likely to
adversely affect" for Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*), bald eagle
(*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*), and American burying beetle (*Nicrophorus
americanus*).

Your current request for Service review of the proposed Handley Branch
Prescribed Burn on the Ironton Ranger District of the WNF is a Tier 2
consultation under the September 20, 2001, PBO. We have reviewed the
information contained in the BEs, submitted by your office on September
30, 2004, describing the effects of the proposed project on the above
federally listed species. We agree that the proposed action will have no
effect on the fanshell mussel (*Cyprogenia stegaria*), pink mucket
pearly mussel (*Lampsilis abrupta*), Virginia spiraea (*Spiraea
virginiana*), and American burying beetle (*Nicrophorus americanus*),
and thus, no further consultation is required for those species. We
concur that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the
bald eagle (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*), running buffalo clover
(*Trifolium stoloniferum*), northern monkshood (*Aconitum
noveboracense*), and small whorled pogonia (*Isotria medeoloides*). We
also concur with your determination that the action may adversely affect
the Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*). As such, this review focuses on
determining whether: (1) this proposed site-specific project falls
within the scope of the Tier 1 PBO, (2) the effects of this proposed
action are consistent with those anticipated in the Tier 1 PBO, and (3)
the appropriate terms and conditions associated with the reasonable and
prudent measures identified in the Tier 1 PBO are adhered to.

That is, this letter serves as the Tier 2 biological opinion for the
proposed prescribed burning for habitat restoration at Darby Creek. As
such, this letter also provides the level of incidental take that is
anticipated and a cumulative tally of incidental take that has been
authorized and exempted under our March 8, 2004 revision of incidental
take for fire and thinning projects.

[Description of the Proposed Action]{.underline}

Pages 1-3 of your Wildlife BE and pages 3-5 of your Plant BE include the
location and a thorough description of the proposed action. The action
as proposed involves prescribed burning 479 acres of mature oak forest,
young mixed hardwoods, and unreclaimed (but forested) strip mines on the
Ironton Ranger District, at intervals of three to five years over the
next 10 years. The proposed project would use existing roads, trails,
and streams for fire control lines when possible. Fire line construction
involves clearing the ground to mineral soil. Although no tree cutting
is planned, a small number of dead or dying trees may need to be cut
along the fire line for safety reasons. When the burning is completed
the fire lines will be stabilized with waterbars and seeded and mulched
if needed. Although repeated burns are planned for this site, they will
not occur before 2006 (when the current BO and ITS expire).

[Status of the Species]{.underline}

Species descriptions, life histories, population dynamics, status and
distributions are fully described on pages 11-14 for the Indiana bat in
the PBO and are hereby incorporated by reference. Since issuance of the
Service's PBO, a February 2003 survey of the abandoned limestone mine in
Lawrence County recorded 208 Indiana bats using the mine. A February 23,
2005 survey indicated that 333 Indiana bats were using the mine. The
hibernacula is approximately ½ mile northeast of the proposed Darby
Creek burn area. Rangewide status estimates of the Indiana bat based on
hibernacula censuses in 2003 are up slightly from 2001 at about 387,000
bats.

[Environmental Baseline]{.underline}

Since the issuance of the PBO, the environmental baseline has only
changed minimally. On the WNF 5,334.98 acres have been applied towards
your incidental take, of which only 647.43 acres are for projects that
have been implemented. Most of this anticipated incidental take is for
prescribed fire projects that are planned to be completed before 2006.

The entire Wayne NF is considered potential habitat for the Indiana bat
and suitable habitat exists within and surrounding the project area. The
closest summer bat capture occurred ¼ of a mile from the burn area and
over 300 Indiana bats are known to hibernate ½ mile from the proposed
Darby Creek burn area.

In February 2003, a major ice storm damaged over 47,000 acres of the
Wayne NF in the Ironton District. The storm damage to trees included:
uprooting, splitting in two, and entire tree tops breaking off. The ice
storm created a tremendous amount of new Indiana bat roosting habitat
through creation of crevices and splits and through increased
exfoliating bark through tree death; therefore, use of the area by
Indiana bats is expected to remain stable or increase into the future.
This fuels reduction fire project is in response to the 2003 ice storm
damage.

[Effects of the Action]{.underline}

Based on our analysis of the information provided in your BEs for the
Darby Creek Burn, we have determined that the adverse effects of the
proposed action are consistent with those contemplated in the PBO.

Since all burning will occur during the hibernation period (September
15-April 15), bats should not be directly affected. None of the proposed
project areas are within a quarter mile of a known Indiana bat
hibernacula, as required for the PBO to minimize impacts from smoke.
Regardless, no smoke should be allowed to drift within 90 degrees of
northeast. **If the wind shifts toward the hibernacula during the burn,
the fire should be stopped as quickly as possible.** Direct impacts to
the Indiana bat could occur if burning is not conducted within the
hibernation period. If this is the case, smoke or fire could directly
impact roosting bats, especially nonvolant young. In addition, snag
trees along the fire line may need to be cut if deemed a hazard (and
applied towards the ITS). This may result in direct mortality or injury
to individuals or small groups of roosting bats during the felling of
hazard trees that may harbor undetected roosts. Additional impacts may
occur to foraging habitat, both adverse for short term foraging needs,
and beneficial for long term improvement of foraging habitat. Although
direct impacts may not be avoided, implementation of the terms and
conditions associated with the reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs)
provided on pages 36-40 in the programmatic biological opinion will
minimize adverse effects.

[Conclusion]{.underline}

We believe the proposed Darby Creek Burn is consistent with the PBO and
March 8, 2004 incidental take revision letter. After reviewing site
specific information, including 1) the scope of the project, 2) the
environmental baseline, 3) the status of the Indiana bat and its
potential occurrence within the project area and surrounding Wayne NF
land, 4) the effects of the action, and 5) any cumulative effects, it is
the Service's biological opinion that this project is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat.

[Incidental Take Statement]{.underline}

The Service anticipates that the proposed action will result in the
incidental take of 479 forested acres of potential Indiana bat habitat
through prescribed fire. This anticipated level brings the cumulative
total of incidental take for the implementation of the Wayne NF's Forest
Plan to 4,132 acres for prescribed fire. This level is well within the
9,527 acres of incidental take anticipated and exempted for prescribed
fire through September 2006 in the March 8, 2004 revised incidental take
statement letter. As explained above, we determined that this level of
anticipated and exempted take of Indiana bats from the proposed project,
in conjunction with the other management actions taken by the Wayne NF
pursuant to the PBO to date, is not likely to result in jeopardy to the
species (for further information, see pages 22-28 in the PBO and the
March 8, 2004 letter of revised levels of incidental take).

We understand that the Forest Service is implementing all pertinent
Indiana bat RPMs and implementing Terms and Conditions stipulated on
pages 36-40 of the PBO. As explained in the PBO, these measures will
minimize the impact of the anticipated incidental take.

This fulfills your section 7(a)(2) requirements for this action;
however, should the proposed project be modified or the level of take
identified above be exceeded, the Forest Service should promptly
reinitiate consultation as outlined in 50 CFR 402.16. 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.

We appreciate your continued efforts to ensure that this project is
consistent with all provisions outlined in the PBO. If you have any
questions regarding our response or if you need additional information,
please contact Sarena Selbo at extension 17.

> Sincerely,
>
> Mary M. Knapp, PhD
>
> Supervisor