April 11, 2007

Mr. Dan L. Lentz, District Ranger

U.S. Forest Service

Shawnee National Forest

521 N. Main Street

Jonesboro, Illinois 62952

Dear Mr. Lentz:

This letter is in response to your February 13, 2007, request for
site-specific review, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended, of the proposed Prescribed Fire for Improvement
of Wildlife Habitat and/or Urban Interface Fuel Conditions Project
(Prescribed Fire Project) on the Mississippi Bluffs Ranger District, in
Alexander, Jackson and Union Counties, Illinois. On December 3, 2005,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issued a programmatic
biological opinion for the Shawnee National Forest (SNF) 2006 Land and
Resource Management Plan (LRMP). This programmatic biological opinion
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 the event of a "may affect" but "not likely to
adversely affect" determination, we will provide written concurrence and
Section 7(a)(2) consultation will be considered completed for that
project.

In issuing the programmatic biological opinion (Tier 1 biological
opinion), we evaluated the effects of all Forest Service actions
outlined in your Biological Assessment and the LRMP on the federally
listed Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*), Mead's milkweed (*Asclepias
meadii*), gray bat (*Myotis grisescens*), bald eagle (*Haliaeetus
leucocephalus*), least tern (*Sterna antillarum*), pallid sturgeon
(*Scaphirhynchus albus*), fanshell mussel (*Cyprogenia stegaria*), fat
pocketbook pearly mussel (*Potamilus capax*), pink mucket pearly mussel
(*Lampsilis abrupta*) and orange-footed pearly mussel (*Plethobasus
cooperianus*). We concurred with your determinations of "not likely to
adversely affect" for the gray bat, bald eagle, least tern, pallid
sturgeon, fanshell mussel, fat pocketbook pearly mussel, pink mucket
pearly mussel and orange-footed pearly mussel. We also concurred with
your determination of "likely to adversely affect" for the Indiana bat.
We did not concur with your determination of "not likely to adversely
affect" for the Mead's milkweed. The federally listed Price's potato
bean (*Apios priceana*) was not evaluated in the Tier 1 biological
opinion as this species is considered extirpated in Illinois.

Mr. Dan Lentz 2.

Your current request for Service review of the Prescribed Fire Project
is a Tier 2 consultation under the December 3, 2005, programmatic
biological opinion. We have reviewed the information contained in the
Prescribed Fire Project biological evaluation submitted by your office
on February 13, 2007, describing the effects of the proposed project on
federally listed species. We concur that the proposed action will have
no effect on Price's groundnut (*Apios priceana*), Mead's milkweed,
least tern and pallid sturgeon. We also concur that the proposed action
is not likely to adversely affect the gray bat and bald eagle. No
further consultation is required for these species. We do not, however,
concur with your determination that the action is not likely to
adversely affect the Indiana bat.

In conducting our evaluation, our review focused on determining whether
(1) this proposed project falls within the scope of the programmatic
biological opinion issued for SNF's LRMP, (2) the effects of this
proposed action are consistent with those anticipated in the Tier I
programmatic biological opinion, and (3) the appropriate Terms and
Conditions associated with the Reasonable and Prudent Measures
identified in the Tier I biological opinion are adhered to. This letter
serves as the Tier 2 biological opinion for the proposed Prescribed Fire
Project on the Mississippi Bluffs Ranger District. As such, the 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 the programmatic biological opinion.

[Description of the Proposed Action]{.underline}

Page 2 and pages 6-7 of your biological evaluation include the location
and a description of the proposed action. The biological evaluation
analyzes the impacts of four proposed actions. The proposed action with
the greatest potential for environmental impact is Alternative 4. This
alternative involves prescribed burning and timber stand improvement
(TSI) that includes thinning of mesophytes on ridgetops and upper slopes
on south and southwestern aspects within 200 meters of existing roads to
release shade intolerant oaks and hickories and associated understory
plants. Approximately 23,800 acres of prescribed burning and 3,700 acres
of TSI of understory hardwoods and overstory pines in pine plantations
are proposed. Trees selected for TSI work would be less than 10 inches
diameter breast height.

The proposed project will occur over a 30 year planning period. The
proposed project will incorporate the appropriate standards and
guidelines from the 2006 LRMP and appropriate Terms and Conditions in
the programmatic biological opinion.

Mr. Dan L. Lentz 3.

The proposed project will occur in five project sites. The project
sites, total forested acres in each unit, the total SNF forested acres
proposed for prescribed fire in each unit and the amount of TSI within
those units are identified in Table 1.

**TABLE 1**: Identification of prescribed fire units, forested acres and
amount of timber stand improvement for the Prescribed Fires for
Improvement of Wildlife Habitat and/or Urban Interface Fuel Conditions
Project within the Mississippi Bluffs District of the Shawnee National
Forest.

  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  Prescribed Fire   Total Forested    Total Forest      Total Timber
  Unit              Acres             Service Forested  Stand Improvement
                                      Acres             

  Kinkaid Lake      6493.3            5700.9            1027

  Cedar Lake        5901.0            4942.0            461

  Pine Hills        3654.8            2600.6            448

  Ripple Hollow     7026.8            5436.2            927

  Big Ranch         6052.6            5092.6            774

  Total Project     29,128.5          23,772.3          3,637
  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

[Status of the Species]{.underline}

Indiana bat species description, life history, population dynamics,
status and distribution and threats are fully described on pages 43-53
of the programmatic biological opinion and are hereby incorporated by
reference.

[Environmental Baseline]{.underline}

The environmental baseline for the Indiana bat was fully described on
pages 55-59 of the programmatic biological opinion and is hereby
incorporated by reference.

[Effects of the Action]{.underline}

Based on our analysis of information provided in your February 13, 2007
Prescribed Fire Project biological evaluation, we have determined that
the adverse effects of the proposed action are consistent with those
contemplated in the programmatic biological opinion. These adverse
effects are fully described on pages 66-71 of the programmatic
biological opinion. Adverse effects to the Indiana bat from this project
could occur due to the removal of an unknown occupied roost tree,
specifically in conjunction with timber stand improvement activities.
Although impacts may not be avoided, implementation of the 2006 Forest
Plan standards and guidelines provided on pages 93-97 of the
programmatic biological opinion will minimize adverse effects. The SNF
will adhere to standards and guidelines that protect and/or enhance
suitable roosting, foraging and hibernation habitat for the Indiana bat
now and into the future.

Mr. Dan L. Lentz 4.

[Conclusion]{.underline}

We believe the proposed Prescribed Fire for Improvement of Wildlife
Habitat and/or Urban Interface Fuel Conditions Project in the
Mississippi Bluffs District is consistent with the programmatic
biological opinion. After reviewing the site-specific information,
including 1) scope of the project, 2) the environmental baseline, 3) the
status of the Indiana bat and its potential occurrence within the
project area, 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 3,700 forested acres. This anticipated level brings
the cumulative total of incidental take for the SNF to 3,700 acres. This
level is well below the 17,195 total forested acres anticipated during
the first 10 years of Forest Plan implementation. 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 SNF to date under the LRMP, is not likely to result in jeopardy
to the species.

We understand that the Forest Service is implementing all pertinent
Indiana bat Reasonable and Prudent Measures and implementing Terms and
Conditions stipulated on pages 88-90 of the programmatic biological
opinion. As explained in the programmatic biological opinion, these
measures will minimize the impact of the anticipated incidental take. In
addition to the Terms and Conditions in the programmatic biological
opinion, the following project specific Term and Condition for
implementing Reasonable and Prudent Measure \# 2 is appropriate to apply
to this project:

*Project Specific Term and Condition*

*Provide a yearly report to the Service which identifies the total
number of acres prescribed burned in each unit, the total number of TSI
acres in each unit, the amount of forested habitat burned (blackened)
within 2.5 miles of each Indiana bat hibernacula, and the amount of
forested habitat burned (blackened) within 2.5-5.0 miles of each Indiana
bat hibernacula located within the project area.*

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
this regulation, 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)

Mr. Dan L. Lentz 5.

new information reveals effects of the continued implementation of the
Shawnee National Forest LRMP 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 Shawnee National Forest
LRMP and projects predicated upon it are 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 is
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.

We appreciate your efforts to ensure that this project is consistent
with all the provisions outlined in the 2006 Forest Plan and
programmatic biological opinion. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact me at 618/997-3344, ext. 340.

Sincerely,

*/s/ Joyce A. Collins*

Joyce A. Collins

Assistant Field Supervisor

cc: IDNR (Kruse, Shimp)