December 6, 2005

Mr. Charles L. Myers

Regional Forester

U.S. Forest Service, Southern Region

1720 Peachtree Road, NW.

Atlanta, Georgia 30367-9102

Dear Mr. Myers:

Subject: FWS #05-0396; Final Biological Opinion on implementation of the
2003 Ice Storm Recovery Project and it effects on the Indiana bat,
Morehead Ranger District, Daniel Boone National Forest, Rowan County,
Kentucky

This document sends the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service)
informal consultation and biological opinion based on our review of the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF) Morehead
Ranger District's (MRD) proposed implementation of the 2003 Ice Storm
Recovery Project (ISRP), and its effects on the Indiana bat (*Myotis
sodalis*) under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq*.). Your February 10, 2005 request
for formal consultation was received on February 14, 2005.

This informal consultation and biological opinion is based on
information provided in the February 10, 2005, Biological
Assessment/Evaluation (BAE) and the April 19, 2004 Land and Resource
Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the DBNF, other available literature,
personal communications with experts on federally listed species that
occur on the DBNF, and other sources of information. A complete
administrative record of this consultation is on file at this office.

**Introduction**

The Service has reviewed the BAE for implementation of the ISRP and all
of the above-referenced supporting and supplemental information. The BAE
evaluates the potential and actual effects of implementation of the ISRP
on 32 federally listed species and designated critical habitat for the
Cumberlandian combshell (*Epioblasma brevidens*), oyster mussel
(*Epioblasma capsaeformis*), and Cumberland elktoe (*Alasmidonta
atropurpurea*). This document represents our (A) concurrence with the
effects determinations stated in the BAE on 31 federally listed species
that could occur on the DBNF; (B) concurrence with the effects
determination stated in the BAE relating to adverse modification of
designated critical habitat units for federally listed freshwater
mussels; and (C) biological opinion on the effects of that action on the
endangered Indiana bat in accordance with Section 7 of the Act. The
Indiana bat was the only species for

which the MRD made a "may affect - likely to adversely affect"
determination.

The MRD considered potential effects to 31 additional listed species
that are currently known to occur on the DBNF or historically occurred
there. Assessment of effects to those species resulted in "no effect"
determinations for the following 26 species. The MRD's determination was
based on one or more of the following reasons: (1) the species has been
extirpated from the DBNF and its vicinity; (2) the species is not likely
to occur on the MRD; (3) records of the species' range do not occur on
the MRD; (4) suitable habitat for the species is not found on the MRD;
and/or (5) the proposed actions associated with the ISRP would have no
direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the species (Table 1):

**Table 1. Species that were evaluated where a "no effect" determination
was made for the proposed action.**

  ---------------------- ------------------------- ------------ -------- --------
  **Scientific Name**    **Common Name**           **Listing    **In     **Not in
                                                   Status**     Action   Action
                                                                Area**   Area**

  *Dromus dromas*        Dromedary pearly mussel   endangered            \+

  *Epioblasma florentina yellow-blossom pearly     endangered            \+
  florentina*            mussel                                          

  *Epioblasma sulcata    purple catspaw pearly     endangered            \+
  sulcata*               mussel                                          

  *Epioblasma torulosa   tuberculed-blossom pearly endangered            \+
  torulosa*              mussel                                          

  *Hemistena lata*       cracking pearly mussel    endangered            \+

  *Obovaria retusa*      ring pink                 endangered            \+

  *Picoides borealis*    red-cockaded woodpecker   endangered            \+

  *Pleurobema clava*     Clubshell                 endangered            \+

  *Pleurobema plenum*    rough pigtoe              endangered            \+

  *Etheostoma percnurum* duskytail darter          endangered            \+

  *Notropis albizonatus* palezone shiner           endangered            \+

  *Phoxinus              blackside dace            threatened            \+
  cumberlandensis*                                                       

  *Alasmidonta           Cumberland elktoe         endangered            \+
  atropurpurea*                                                          

  *Epioblasma brevidens* Cumberlandian combshell   endangered            \+

  *Epioblasma            oyster mussel             endangered            \+
  capsaeformis*                                                          

  *Epioblasma walkeri*   tan riffleshell           endangered            \+

  *Pegias fibula*        little-wing pearly mussel endangered            \+

  *Villosa trabalis*     Cumberland bean pearly    endangered            \+
                         mussel                                          

  *Arenaria              Cumberland sandwort       endangered            \+
  cumberlandensis*                                                       

  *Conradina             Cumberland rosemary       threatened            \+
  verticillata*                                                          

  *Cyprogenia stegaria*  Fanshell                  endangered            \+

  *Lampsilis abrupta*    pink mucket pearly mussel endangered            \+

  *Schwalbea americana*  American chaffseed        endangered            \+

  *Solidago albopilosa*  white-haired goldenrod    threatened            \+

  *Spiraea virginiana*   Virginia spiraea          threatened            \+

  *Epioblasma torulosa   northern riffleshell      endangered            \+
  rangiana*                                                              
  ---------------------- ------------------------- ------------ -------- --------

Based on the apparent extirpation of many of these species within the
DBNF, the lack of records that would substantiate their presence on the
DBNF, and/or the lack of suitable habitat within the MRD, the Service
concurs that implementation of the ISRP will have no effect on these 26
species and that additional section 7 consultation will not be necessary
for these species. However, the USFS's obligations under section 7 must
be reconsidered relative to these 26 species if any of these species are
subsequently identified within the MRD or in the vicinity of the MRD.

In addition, the BAE made "not likely to adversely affect"
determinations for the following species (Table 2):

**Table 2. Species that were evaluated where a "not likely to adversely
affect" determination was made for the proposed action.**

  ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------ -------- --------
  **Scientific Name**    **Common Name**          **Listing    **In     **Not in
                                                  Status**     Action   Action
                                                               Area**   Area**

  *Corynorhinus          Virginia big-eared bat   endangered   \+       
  townsendii                                                            
  virginianus*                                                          

  *Haliaeetus            bald eagle               threatened   \+       
  leucocephalus*                                                        

  *Helianthus eggertii*  Eggert's sunflower       threatened   \+       

  *Myotis grisescens*    gray bat                 endangered   \+       

  *Trifolium             running buffalo clover   endangered   \+       
  stoloniferum*                                                         
  ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------ -------- --------

These "not likely to adversely affect" determinations by the MRD were
based on several reasons discussed below. Although potential habitat for
the endangered running buffalo clover, threatened Eggert's sunflower,
and endangered gray bat exists within the MRD, no individuals or
populations have been found to date despite extensive surveying. With
regards to the threatened bald eagle, a nest and nesting pair was
confirmed along Cave Run Lake within the MRD in January 2004. However,
no activities proposed for the ISRP are located within the Primary
Management Zone of the nest. Three non-commercial treatment units
totaling 19 acres and one 0.5-acre commercial treatment unit are planned
within the Secondary Management Zone. However, the MRD has proposed to
only conduct planned ISRP-related actions in these units outside of the
bald eagle nesting season in order to avoid potential impacts to the
nesting pair. The designation of Primary and Secondary Management Zones
and the proposed avoidance measures are in accordance with the Service's
1987 "Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle". Finally, the
endangered Virginia big-eared bat has been documented in low numbers
from two caves within the MRD. These caves are 5.5 and 8.5-miles from
the closest ISRP treatment unit. Virginia big-eared bats reside in caves
year round and forage over a variety of habitats including, forested
areas associated with clifflines and old fields. The MRD has conducted
extensive surveying of other caves (both limestone and sandstone) and
suitable foraging habitat and have not documented the presence of
additional Virginia big-eared bats. In addition, the DBNF's 2004 Forest
Plan protects the area of land between 100-feet slope-distance from the
top and 200-feet slope distance from the dripline of all clifflines by
designation as a Cliffline Community Prescription Area. Based on these
reasons and additional information provided in the BAE related to these
five species, the Service concurs that implementation of the ISRP will
not likely adversely affect these five species.

The BAE also considered potential effects to four stream segments (Buck
Creek, Marsh Creek, Rock Creek, and Sinking Creek) occurring on or
adjacent to the DBNF that were designated as critical habitat for the
Cumberlandian combshell, oyster mussel, and/or Cumberland elktoe (Table
3).

**Table 3. Designated critical habitat areas where a "not likely to
adversely modify" determination was made for the proposed action.**

+----------------+----------------------------------+------------------+
| **Proposed     | **Species Associated With**      | **Critical       |
| Critical       |                                  | Habitat Area     |
| Habitat Area** | **Critical Habitat Area**        | Present In       |
|                |                                  | Action Area**    |
+----------------+----------------------------------+------------------+
| Buck Creek     | Cumberlandian combshell, oyster  | No               |
|                | mussel                           |                  |
+----------------+----------------------------------+------------------+
| Marsh Creek    | Cumberland elktoe                | No               |
+----------------+----------------------------------+------------------+
| Rock Creek     | Cumberland elktoe                | No               |
+----------------+----------------------------------+------------------+
| Sinking Creek  | Cumberland elktoe                | No               |
+----------------+----------------------------------+------------------+

The Service announced the designation of critical habitat for these
species in an August 31, 2004, *Federal Register* notice. The MRD
determined that the potential effects of the ISRP would not result in
the adverse modification of the critical habitat in those four stream
segments because none of the streams are found within the MRD or the
same river basin as the proposed action. Based on this, the Service
concurs that implementation of the ISRP will not result in the adverse
modification of designated critical habitat for these three listed
mussel species.

Further, the Service believes that the MRD has fulfilled its section 7
consultation requirements relating to the ISRP for these 31 species and
the designated critical habitat for the Cumberlandian combshell, oyster
mussel, and/or Cumberland elktoe. Therefore, this biological opinion
will not address those species or critical habitat areas.

**Consultation History**

A letter and National Environmental Policy Act scoping document
describing the proposed action and inviting comments was mailed to the
Service's Kentucky Field Office (KFO) on July 9, 2003.

As a result of this letter and scoping document, KFO and MRD biologists
and supervisors held a site inspection on October 30, 2003. The proposed
project actions were discussed and portions of the ISRP project were
reviewed in the field during this visit.

KFO and MRD biologists again discussed the project on March 16, 2004,
while discussing the proposed Rowan-Cranston Transmission Line Project
that is proposed for the same area. The Daniel Boone National Forest's
Endangered Species Biologist also discussed potential effects of this
project on the Indiana bat with KFO biologists on a number of other
occasions.

On October 12, 2004, a team of Forest Service personnel involved with
this proposed project met with the KFO to discuss possible effects of
the project on listed species and habitat for listed species at the USDA
Forest Service Office in the MRD. This BAE was sent in draft form to the
KFO for comment on a number of occasions. The KFO commented on drafts of
the BAE on October 15, December 12, and December 15, 2004. The MRD
discussed the comments with the KFO on each occasion and made changes to
the draft BAE.

On January 18, 2005, MRD and KFO staff met at the KFO to continue
discussions on the 2003 Ice Storm Recovery Project, and the BAE prepared
for the project, again making changes to the draft BAE.

On February 10, 2005, the MRD through their Regional Office submitted
the BAE for the 2003 ISRP to the KFO. The BAE requested the initiation
of formal consultation on the Indiana bat. This BAE was written to
provide an opportunity for the KFO to review a project of a scale that
was not anticipated nor included in the BAE prepared for the Land and
Resource Management Plan for the Daniel Boone National Forest that the
KFO reviewed in FWS #04-0227; Final Biological Opinion on implementation
of the revised Land and Resource Management Plan and its effects on the
Indiana bat, Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky (Biological
Opinion). Page 9 of the Biological Opinion states "Large-scale events
will be analyzed separately, are not part of the BA's analysis, and are
not considered in this biological opinion." The USFS and the KFO
consider this project to be one that has resulted from such a
large-scale event.

On February 22, 2005, the KFO notified Mr. Robert T. Jacobs (Regional
Forester), the DBNF, and the MRD that sufficient information to initiate
formal consultation had been received, and formal consultation was
initiated on that date.

This biological opinion is based on information provided in the February
10, 2005, BAE; meetings with Ben Worthington, DBNF Forest Supervisor;
Jim Bennett, DBNF Endangered Species Biologist; Richard Braun, DBNF
Wildlife Program Manager/Acting District Ranger, MRD; Dave Manner,
District Ranger, MRD; Tom Biebighauser, Wildlife Biologist, MRD; and
other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this
consultation is on file at the Service's Kentucky Field Office, 3761
Georgetown Road, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601; telephone 502/695-0468; fax
502/695-1024.

**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

#### **DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION**

As defined in the Service's section 7 regulations (50 CFR 402.02),
"action" means "all activities or programs of any kind authorized,
funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the
United States or upon the high seas." The "action area" is defined as
"all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action
and not merely the immediate area involved in the action." The direct
and indirect effects of the actions and activities must be considered in
conjunction with the effects of other past and present Federal, State,
or private activities, as well as the cumulative effects of reasonably
certain future State or private activities within the action area. This
biological opinion addresses only those actions for which the Service
believes adverse effects may occur. In their BAE, the MRD outlined those
activities in the proposed ISRP that are expected to result in adverse
effects on the Indiana bat. This biological opinion addresses whether
implementation of the ISRP is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the Indiana bat.

[Action Area]{.underline}

The action area for this biological opinion is located solely within the
MRD of the DBNF in Kentucky (see map in Appendix A). The MRD is the
northernmost district of the DBNF and is distributed across four
counties in northeastern Kentucky. Today, approximately 119,387 acres of
land is federally owned and managed by the USFS within the MRD. The
federally-owned tracts are discontinuous and scattered within the
proclamation boundary. Individual private landowners hold most of the
privately-owned land in varying sized tracts less than 500 acres in
size. The MRD lies within the interior uplands, adjacent to the Northern
Cumberland Plateau Section of the Eastern Broadleaf Forest (Oceanic)
Province. The Licking River drains the MRD. A earth and rock-filled dam
was constructed on the Licking River by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) in 1965 and began operations in 1974. Cave Run Lake is 8,270
acres in size and offers flood control, water supply, and many
recreational benefits to the surrounding communities. Water quality
within the MRD is generally good to excellent, although the construction
of Cave Run Lake by the Corps has impacted water quality within the
Licking River downstream of the dam. Some smaller streams are also
impacted by activities on private lands such as brine disposal from oil
and gas drilling and acid discharges from abandoned surface and deep
coal mines.

Forested lands of the MRD are generally classified as mixed mesophytic
forest and Appalachian oak forest. A wide variety of plant species
thrive in both the under- and over-stories, including more than 40
commercially valuable tree species. The MRD is a mosaic of various
developmental stages of ecological succession with mostly upland
hardwood types. Oak-hickory is the most common forest type.

The MRD provides habitat for a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic
fauna. Some of these species are relatively rare, including a number
that are federally listed as threatened or endangered. Most species are
relatively abundant, including huntable populations of white-tailed
deer, wild turkey, gray squirrel, and ruffed grouse. Game fish are
plentiful in Cave Run Lake and a number of streams are stocked annually
with trout.

#### 

#### Proposed Action

On February 15, 2003, below freezing air temperatures and heavy rain
combined to deposit up to two inches of ice on tree limbs across large
portions of central and eastern Kentucky. The weight of this ice caused
limb breakage and uprooting of trees on tens of thousand acres of
forest. On the MRD, the hardest hit area was in northern Rowan County
surrounding the community of Cranston with scattered and sporadic damage
occurring over most of the rest of the district. It is estimated that at
least 25,531 acres of forest on the MRD were damaged to some extent by
the ice storm.

As a result of this storm, the MRD is proposing a three part project
designed to functionally restore the area to its previous condition,
prepare the area for future disturbance events, and address new threats
resulting from the changes wrought by the storm. These project
components involve the treatment of severely damaged trees through
salvage/sanitation harvests and felling without removal, control of
non-native plants, and restoration of upland water sources. The specific
location of individual project units is shown on the map provided in
Appendix F.

The BAE provides a description and analysis of the three project
components, including the expected management actions, the anticipated
levels of activity, and the likely effects of those actions on Indiana
bats. Therefore, this biological opinion addresses the specific direct,
indirect, interrelated, interdependent, and cumulative effects of these
three management activities. The MRD has determined that these
activities may result in adverse effects on the Indiana bat if the
activities are implemented during the Indiana bat's summer roosting
period (April 1 to September 15).

[1) Removal of severely damaged trees]{.underline} - Includes the
cutting and commercial salvage/sanitation harvest of severely damaged
and downed trees on approximately 4,704 acres and cutting with no
commercial salvage/sanitation harvest of severely damaged trees on an
additional 7,828 acres (see Appendix F). A total of 12,532 acres are
proposed for tree cutting activity. The proposed commercial harvest and
non-commercial activity involves the cutting of approximately ½ of the
trees in each area to be treated. The severely damaged standing trees to
be cut are those where it is estimated that one-third or more of the
crown of the tree has been removed due to limb breakage or mortality. No
trees with less than one-third crown damage would be cut in commercial
harvest and non-commercial treatment units.

An average of 3 snags (dead trees) per acre would be left standing in
units where trees are cut. These snags would be equal to or greater than
9 inches diameter-at-breast-height (dbh), with one being 12 inches dbh
or greater, when available. Preference would be given to retaining those
snags most likely to be used by the Indiana bat.

An average of 5 severely damaged live trees per acre would be left
standing in units where trees are cut. Marking crews would choose the
severely damaged trees to be left standing from those that are best
suited for Indiana bat use. The trees considered best suited for Indiana
bat use are larger diameter (greater than 12 inches dbh and equal to or
greater than 10 feet in height), offer the Indiana bat protection from
rain, and are exposed to sunlight for at least part of the day. In
summary, a minimum of 8 live and dead trees suitable for Indiana bat
roosting would be left standing per acre in all tree cutting units.

Only trees marked with tracer paint applied by USFS personnel will be
cut in treatment units to be commercially harvested. Trees not marked,
such as potential roost trees, would be protected by specifications
contained in contracts administered in the field by the USFS. Those
potential roost trees to be retained in treatment units not commercially
harvested would be marked and protected from cutting by contract
specifications administered by the USFS.

Winching and cable logging methods would be used in commercial harvest
units on steep slopes to reduce erosion. In areas with slope stability
concerns, at least 15 live trees per acre would be left uncut and well
distributed across the unit. The commercial harvest of trees in areas
without steep slopes may also use cable-logging methods, when
appropriate. Skid roads would not be constructed within areas where
slope stability is a concern. Areas with slope stability concerns are
shown on USFS GIS maps and are identified to be where a slope exceeds 35
percent on the Borden geological formation.

Units where trees would be commercially harvested are generally located
in areas already accessible by USFS System, County, or State roads.
Temporary haul roads, skid roads, and log landings would be constructed
inside these commercial harvest units. Skid roads are expected to occupy
less than one percent of the area in each commercial harvest unit. A
maximum estimated total of 50 miles of skid road with an average width
of 8 feet covering 49 acres would be constructed within all of the
commercial harvest units. Temporary haul roads leading to log landings
would also be constructed within commercial harvest units. These haul
roads would have an average estimated width of 12 feet and an average
length of 0.1 miles within each commercial harvest unit. A maximum total
of 59 miles of temporary haul roads covering 86 acres would be
constructed for this project.

Skid roads and haul roads would be closed to vehicle traffic following
use, treated to reduce erosion by the placement of dips and water bars,
vegetated to grasses and then be allowed to revert back to forest. Where
soil texture and topography are suitable, a number of the water bars and
dips will be constructed to hold small puddles of water to provide
additional water sources for wildlife in the area.

One log landing with an average estimated size of 0.25 acres would be
constructed for each unit commercially harvested. Log landing
construction is estimated to occur on 147 acres dispersed throughout the
project area. Log landings will be sown to grasses following the
completion of the commercial harvest activity and then be allowed to
revert back to forest.

In areas where commercial harvest takes place, uprooted trees would also
be removed. However, regardless of stand condition and existing basal
area, at least five uprooted trees per acre would be left in place for
wildlife habitat and to maintain soil and water productivity.

Areas where trees are cut, but where no commercial harvest will occur,
are generally not accessible by roads, or have trees that are not of
commercial size or species. Up-rooted trees will be left undisturbed in
areas where trees are cut with no commercial harvest. Trees on these
areas would also not be cut between April 1^st^ and September 15^th^ of
each calendar year in order to avoid the possibility of impacting
roosting Indiana bats on these 7,828 acres.

Regardless of area condition, management proposal, and existing Basal
Area, on the average, at least three snags, five live damaged trees, and
five uprooted trees would be left in place per acre within commercial
and non-commercial tree cutting units. In addition, approximately ½ of
the trees within each unit are not considered "severely damaged" and
thus would not be impacted or felled and/or removed by the proposed
project. This project is expected to involve cutting trees on up to
12,532 acres of National Forest System land for six years from the
beginning of project implementation. Trees would be cut and commercially
harvested on up to 4,704 acres, and cut and left in place on
approximately 7,828 acres.

Resource management activities that disturb the soil and possibly affect
soil and/or water quality will follow applicable Kentucky Rules and
Regulations for Water Quality Control and Kentucky's Best Management
Practices for Forestry (BMP) as a minimum to achieve soil and water
quality objectives. When Forest Plan standards exceed Kentucky BMP's,
Forest Plan standards (DB-VEG-27) will take precedence.

The cutting and/or commercial harvest of trees associated with this
project would typically consist of the following activities:

*[Sale area layout/designation of timber to be harvested]{.underline}*:
A crew of 3-5 Forest Service employees would take periodic measurements;
test individual trees for soundness with a hand axe; apply small amounts
of paint to the stumps and the bole of designated trees; and record
data. Water based paint is used to mark trees, and marking would
generally be done when the leaves have fallen for increased visibility.
Marking trees this time of year will also help reduce impacts to the
Indiana bat.

*[Felling]{.underline}*: The cutting of trees is done by the contractor
or contractor's employees using a gasoline-powered chain saw and aided
by felling wedges and possibly cables with block and tackle rigs. Though
rarely used, other methods may include (but not limited to) feller
bunchers, sheers, handsaws and/or pushing.

*[Cable logging and winching]{.underline}*: On short sections with steep
slopes, a winch attached to a dozer or skidder would be used to move cut
trees from the stump to a skid road. The cable is walked thru the woods
then attached by the operator to the cut tree. On larger areas with
steep slopes, a long, overhead cable powered by a yarder would be used
to move logs up hill to a landing. The yarder is placed on top of a
ridge in a small constructed log landing. The high cable is anchored at
the bottom of the hill with side cables being used to move cut trees up
hill. The cable route results in a narrow path of cut trees running from
the top to the bottom of the hill.

*[Skidding]{.underline}*: Skid roads are generally constructed with a
dozer or a blade on a skidder. The movement of logs, by dragging, from
stump to a log landing is typically done using rubber-tire heavy
equipment or a small dozer along the constructed skid road. Cables are
attached to cut trees for transporting them along the skid road to a log
landing. The USFS Timber Sale Administrator approves the location of
skid roads for each commercial harvest unit based on direction contained
in Forest Service Manual (2450) and professional judgment concerning
slope, protection of streams, types of equipment used, and desired skid
road density. Skid roads are generally closed with dips, water bars, and
seeded to grasses following use. The Timber Sale Contract contains
requirements on how these skid roads will be closed.

*[Site preparation]{.underline}*: Site preparation involves returning to
units following commercial harvest for the purpose of cutting and
felling additional trees not removed by the contractor to better prepare
forested stands for regeneration. The trees cut during site preparation
may be of smaller diameter, may be damaged, and may not have commercial
value. A contract and contractor separate from the logger generally
completes site preparation work by using a chain saw to cut trees marked
by the USFS. However, in this case, all site preparation work associated
with this project would be completed by the contractor who performs the
commercial harvest, with no separate contracts being issued for site
preparation.

*[Log landings]{.underline}*: These are areas where logs are temporarily
stored before loading onto trucks for transport to a lumberyard or mill.
Landings are generally cleared of standing trees, stumps, and leveled
with a dozer or rubber tired skidder to form the equivalent of a small
parking lot for the commercial logging operation. Log landings are
accessible by roads and are generally large enough to park a log truck,
pickup truck, and have room for cut trees to be piled for loading onto
log trucks.

*[Temporary haul roads]{.underline}*: These are short roads constructed
to access log landings within harvest units when existing roads are not
available for use. They are generally constructed with a dozer and may
be graveled to reduce erosion. Culverts may also be installed to manage
runoff. Temporary haul roads are generally closed with dips, water bars,
and seeded to grasses following use.

[2) Control of non-native invasive plants]{.underline} - The ice storm
created conditions favorable for the establishment and expansion of many
species of non-native plants. The bare soil created by uprooted trees
and the increase in sunlight reaching the forest floor due to crown
damage can aid the spread of invasive plant species over several
thousand acres. The MRD plans to reduce the likelihood of successful
infestation of the project area by non-native invasive plants following
the ice storm through the eradication or control of populations of these
plants where they occur in storm damaged areas. Small, newly established
populations would be removed through manual grubbing. Manual grubbing
would require re-vegetation with native species following the treatment
to cover exposed soil. Larger or well-established populations would be
controlled using the appropriate herbicide for the species involved. The
information contained on the CD-ROM version of [Invasive plants of the
Eastern United States: Identification and Control]{.underline} will be
used to determine the species of concern and the appropriate treatment.
Control could potentially occur on any portion of the acres of National
Forest System land impacted by the storm. Based on field examination,
USFS personnel have found that non-native invasive plants do not grow on
every acre of the project area, and that treatment is needed on up to
1,000 acres. Areas identified for treatment would likely be small and
spread out across the 12,532-acre project area. Based on experience
treating non-native invasive plants it is predicted that each area would
need to be treated twice. Also based on field review combined with
experience, herbicide treatment is necessary on 700 of the 1000 acres to
control non-native invasive plants. It is possible that the second
treatment on many of these sites would not require the use of herbicide.

The herbicides to be used would be glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr
(ester). All areas identified for treatment will be surveyed for the
presence of threatened, endangered, sensitive, or conservation species
of plants prior to treatment. If any of these plants are found, a
60-foot buffer will be delineated around each location.

The control of non-native invasive plants would typically consist of the
following activities:

*[Plant control with hand tools]{.underline}*: Prior to the removal of
invasive plants, workers would be trained by the USFS in how to identify
listed species that could possibly be found in the area, so if found,
they could be protected. For areas where a small number of plants (e.g.,
less than one-half dozen per acre) have just become established,
grubbing of the plants using hand tools would be selected. USFS
employees and contractors would use shovels, rakes, and garden spades to
dig and remove the invasive plants. Dug plants would generally be placed
in plastic bags and disposed of appropriately.

*[Plant control with herbicide]{.underline}*: In areas with large
numbers of plants or areas where the plants were established prior to
the ice storm, the selective application of herbicide to plants would be
used. The USFS would make the determination of when and where herbicides
would be used to control invasive plants. Prior to the removal of
invasive plants, workers would be trained by the USFS in how to identify
listed species that could possibly be found in the area, so if found,
they could be protected. The herbicide application method would be
directed spray to target plants. Personnel would most likely carry and
use backpack tanks of herbicide with hand-held sprayers, or hand-held
spray bottles to selectively apply herbicide to target invasive species
according to standards outlined in the Forest Plan. The USFS would mix
herbicides prior to use and transport them to treatment sites in
5-gallon containers.

[3) Restoration of bat habitat]{.underline} - The purpose of cleaning
out and constructing new woodland ponds is to restore the availability
of these upland waters sources to pre-storm levels. Prior to the storm,
approximately 60 woodland ponds were available as water sources for bats
and other wildlife. Based on field surveys, it appears that 35 of these
ponds were filled and/or covered with woody debris to such an extent
that bats cannot access them for water. The MRD plans to remove woody
debris from 10 of these ponds. It is not reasonable to remove debris
from the 25 remaining ponds, because fallen trees have blocked vehicle
access to those ponds. Therefore, twenty-five new ponds will be built in
areas that are accessible by vehicle to replace those ponds that will
remain blocked by fallen trees.

The restoration of bat habitat would typically consist of the following
activities:

*[Removal of fallen trees from water sources]{.underline}*: A skidder or
small dozer would be used to remove fallen trees from existing water
sources when such water sources are accessible by existing roads. A
cable would be attached to the fallen tree and the heavy equipment used
to remove it from the water. Equipment would not be allowed to enter the
water. Some woody debris would be left in the water to provide loafing
sites for birds and reptiles, and breeding habitat for woodland
salamanders, but this debris would only be left where it would not
impede the flight of bats.

*[Establishment of water sources]{.underline}*: Locations for new water
sources, typically measuring 30 feet in diameter and 10-36 inches deep,
would be identified by MRD employees by first locating level, dry areas
on ridge tops within tree canopy gaps inside of commercial and
non-commercial treatment units. The presence of clay or silt loam soils
suitable for the establishment of water sources would be determined by
sampling soils with a one-inch diameter soil-auger. Colored plastic
ribbons would then be tied to shrubs and trees to mark locations
suitable for ridge top water establishment. A dozer and operator would
be hired at a later date and guided to the work-site for building the
water source, being supervised by the MRD. The dozer, with its blade
kept above the ground to avoid soil disturbance, would be guided around
trees to access worksites thereby avoiding the need to construct access
roads. It is possible that small diameter trees, generally under 4
inches in diameter, would be pushed over in order to construct water
sources. Trees left for bat roosting in commercial and non-commercial
units would not be cut or removed for pond construction. Since ponds
will be built following tree cutting activities, their location will be
adjusted to take advantage of tree gaps. Native grasses and wheat would
be sown on exposed soils and the area mulched by hand with straw to
control erosion. Natural rainfall would fill new water sources.

To summarize, the following actions are proposed:

1.  Tree cutting (estimated 12,532 acres)

2.  Tree removal (estimated 4,704 acres)

3.  Road construction (estimated 109 miles)

4.  Log Landing Construction (estimated 147 acres)

5.  Non-native invasive plant species treatment by grubbing/digging and
    herbicide application (estimated 1,000 acres)

6.  Pond construction and clearing (35 ponds)

In order to ensure the consideration of all potential direct, indirect,
and cumulative effects of the proposed actions on the Indiana bat, the
action area under consideration in this Biological Opinion will include
all individual project units, as delineated on the map in Appendix F,
and a five-mile buffer around each unit. The Service has described the
action area to include each individual unit plus the five-mile buffer
for reasons that will be explained and discussed in the "EFFECTS OF THE
ACTION" section of this consultation.

The above actions are designed and would be implemented following the
direction and standards contained in the DBNF Forest Plan (2004). All
Forest Plan standards associated with the Indiana bat, unless
specifically exempted in the Standard itself, will apply to harvest
actions associated with these projects. These exempted standards are
DB-WLD-1 and DB-WLD-7 as defined in the 2004 Forest Plan. Implementation
of the salvage sanitation harvest and cutting of damaged trees would
continue for six years from project implementation while the control of
non-native invasive species would continue for ten years from
implementation. These proposed actions are located outside of Cliffline
Community Prescription Areas, Significant Bat Cave Prescription Areas,
and Rare Community Prescription Areas as defined by the Forest Plan.

#### **STATUS OF THE SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT**

### 

The Indiana bat was 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)). It is currently included as
an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. Critical habitat was designated on September 24, 1976 (41 FR
41914), and included caves in Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, Indiana,
Missouri, and West Virginia. At the time of critical habitat
designation, the Service estimated that approximately 75 percent of the
known population of Indiana bats hibernated at the 13 sites that were
designated as critical habitat. Since routine surveys began in 1980,
populations of Indiana bats at hibernacula, including many of the
previously designated critical habitat caves, have witnessed a
significant decrease in numbers followed by recent stabilization and an
increase over the last decade. No summer roosting habitat has been
designated as critical habitat for the Indiana bat.

The primary objective of the 1980 Indiana Bat Recovery Plan is to remove
the Indiana bat from endangered status. The important features of the
recovery plan are: (A) to determine the cause(s) of observed declines
during both non-hibernation and hibernation seasons, and (B) to control
access to important Indiana bat hibernacula, thus protecting the bats
from human disturbance. In addition, summer foraging habitat must be
maintained, protected, and restored. Lastly, in order to evaluate the
success of protection efforts, a monitoring program is needed to
document changes in Indiana bat populations.

Criteria for reclassification from endangered to threatened status will
be based upon the status of the Indiana bat throughout its range, as
determined through a 12 year, two-stage process. The species will be
evaluated for reclassification following documentation of stable or
increasing populations for three consecutive census periods (six years)
and permanent protection \[i.e., public ownership or long- term
easement/lease, and gate/fence (where necessary and feasible)\] at all
Priority One hibernacula. To delist, the above criteria must be met, in
addition to protection and documentation of stable or increasing
populations for three consecutive census periods at 50% of the Priority
Two hibernacula in each state, and the overall population level must be
restored to that of 1980. This level is believed to be sufficient to
maintain enough genetic diversity to enable the species to persist over
a large geographic area and avoid extinction.

The Service (USFWS 1999) completed an agency draft of a revised recovery
plan for the Indiana bat. The recovery plan is being revised to: (A)
update information on the life history and ecology of the Indiana bat,
especially information on summer ecology gathered since 1983; (B)
highlight the continued and accelerated decline of the species; (C)
continue site protection and monitoring efforts at hibernacula; and (D)
focus new recovery efforts toward research in determining the factor or
factors causing population declines. The main recovery actions
identified in the revised recovery plan are to:

1.  Conduct research necessary for the survival and recovery of the
    Indiana bat.

2.  Obtain information on population distribution, status, and trends
    for the Indiana bat.

3.  Protect and maintain Indiana bat populations.

4.  Provide information and technical assistance outreach.

5.  Coordinate and implement the conservation and recovery of the
    Indiana bat.

To date, conservation efforts have concentrated on protection of winter
habitat, although there has been some research into the life history of
the Indiana bat. Active programs by state and federal agencies have led
to the acquisition and protection of a number of Indiana bat hibernation
caves. Of 127 caves/mines with populations greater than 100 bats, 54
(43%) are in public ownership or control. Most of the 46 (36%) that are
gated or fenced are on public land. Given the divergent population
trends throughout the range of the Indiana bat, however, it is evident
that these measures have not yet produced the desired result of recovery
of the species, although there has been some improvement in population
numbers.

[Threats]{.underline}

Indiana bats have been described as "once one of the most common mammals
in the Eastern

United States" (Tuttle et al 2004). Between 1960 and 2002, a 56 percent
population decline has been documented (Clawson 2002; see below). A
variety of factors have contributed to rangewide Indiana bat population
decline including flooding and ceiling collapse in winter hibernacula
(Service 1983). This often resulted in the adverse changes to the
hibernaculum microclimate by affecting temperature and humidity. Other
documented cases of Indiana bat declines include: (1) blocking cave
entrances or installation of gates that do not allow for bat ingress and
egress, or disrupt cave air flow; and (2) human disturbance during
hibernation. These changes resulted in either die-off during hibernation
due to freezing, or starvation as the higher temperatures increases the
bats metabolism. This can result in the utilization of limited fat
reserves that are required to survive hibernation and emergence in the
spring. In this situation, the Indiana bat does not have the ability to
awake from hibernation, leave the cave, forage for additional
sustenance, and return to the cave to complete its hibernation cycle. It
simply starves.

Because many known threats are associated with hibernation, protection
of hibernacula has always been a management priority; however,
disturbance to hibernacula continues to be a threat to the Indiana bat.
For example, the largest hibernacula in Indiana (50,941 Indiana bats in
2003) is not gated, and based on electronic monitors in the cave,
unauthorized visits to this cave occur. Also, at the only large
hibernacula in Ohio (9,436 Indiana bats in 2004 -- a decrease from the
previous two counts), there are still tours, as well as other commercial
and residential activities, taking place in and adjacent to the
Lewisburg Limestone Mine during the hibernation period.

Despite the protection of approximately half of the known major
hibernacula (Currie 2002), range-wide population declines continued
until recent years when numbers of hibernating Indiana bats stabilized
and then began showing an increase in numbers over the last few years.
In the last fifteen years, appropriately constructed bat gates have been
correctly installed in caves, allowing for protection of hibernating
bats and restoration of the microclimate. Although most of these efforts
were completed by 1990 and resulted in some recolonization of
traditional hibernacula, there have not been corresponding overall
population increases (Clawson 2002). Possible reasons for this are that
the species' reproductive capacity will take much longer than 10-20
years to show population gains, and other environmental factors continue
to negatively affect the species, or both.

Because of the migratory behavior of this species and other reasons
described below, it is not prudent to differentiate between different
geographical ranges with regard to wintering populations. The range-wide
declines that occurred have led some to conclude that additional
information on Indiana bat summer habitat is needed (3D/E 1995).

Land use practices have been identified as a suspected cause in the
decline of the Indiana bat, particularly because habitat in the Indiana
bats' maternity range has been changed dramatically from pre-settlement
conditions in the following ways: the vast majority of mature forests
have been harvested and remaining forests are fragmented to varying
degrees; fires have been suppressed; prairies have been replaced with
agricultural systems; native plants have been replaced with exotics; and
diverse plant communities have been simplified. These changes can have
profound effects through factors such as loss of suitable roosting
habitat caused by the removal of large trees, and by a reduction of the
diversity and abundance of insects on which the Indiana bats prey
(Service 1983; Kurta and Murray 2002; Kurta et al. 2002; McCracken 1988;
Racey and Entwistle 2003).

In addition to an increased focus on Indiana bat summer habitat,
attention has also being directed to pesticide contamination (Clark et
al. 1987; Clawson 1987; Garner and Gardner 1992; Callahan et al. 1997;
3D/E 1995; O'Shea and Clark 2002; Kurta and Murray 2002). 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 (Mohr 1972;
Reidinger 1972; Clark and Prouty 1976; Clark et al. 1978). The insect
diet and longevity of bats also exposes them to persistent
organochlorine chemicals that may bioaccumulate in body tissue; however
the use of organochlorine insecticides has decreased over the last 20
years (O'Shea and Clark 2002).

*Summary* - In general terms, the overall population decline of the
Indiana bat is the result of mortality exceeding recruitment (i.e.,
deaths are outpacing recruitment). The specific reasons for this dynamic
remain unknown. However, it is likely that higher mortality rates occur
during migration and hibernation due to the energy demands of these
events than during routine foraging and roosting activities in summer
habitat.

The annual cycle (for females) of hibernation, spring migration,
parturition, lactation, fall migration, mating, and hibernation can be
broken at any point, resulting in the loss of that female from the
population, and her remaining reproductive potential in the population.
Because of the reproductive limitations of the species, healthy females
are capable of producing only one pup per year. At some point(s) in this
annual cycle, the species experienced higher mortality rates or lower
recruitment than it did historically, causing the species' population to
decline steadily (i.e., a 19 percent decline was noted between 1990 and
2000). The vulnerable point(s) in this cycle may very well differ by
geographic area, and even within the same area. Ransome (1990) further
identifies the limiting factors that control overall bat population as
the number of maternity colonies and the proximity and quality of
foraging areas surrounding each maternity site. He also concludes that a
reduction in the number of maternity colonies contributing to a
hibernaculum is a prime factor that should be considered when evaluating
the causes of population declines in bats. The number of bats found in
individual caves is regulated by the number and sizes of maternity
colonies that contribute to those caves (Ransome 1990). MacGregor
(Service 2005) clarifies that many other factors affect cave
populations. Unless a change in these environments occurs to allow
recruitment to exceed mortality, the species will continue to decline.

[Distribution]{.underline}

The Indiana bat is a migratory species whose range encompasses much of
the eastern half of the

United States. As of January 2001, the Indiana bat had been recorded in
311 counties, scattered across 27 states (Gardner and Cook 2002).
Preliminary genetic studies indicate that, the species appears
genetically uniform throughout its range with the exception of New York
and Vermont as a distinct or unique population (Bob Currie, personal
communication**,** Service). The winter/summer populations in Vermont
and New York appear to be isolated in that the majority of individuals
followed from hibernacula appear to be migrating short distances to
establish maternity colonies in close proximity to the hibernacula.
Elsewhere throughout the range, rather than one large meta-population,
the Indiana bat functions as hundreds or thousands of smaller
sub-populations. Since mating takes place at the hibernaculum during
fall swarming, genetic exchange is a result of the contribution of many
smaller populations, or maternity colonies, congregating at one
hibernaculum (Service 1999b).

The distribution of Indiana bats is generally associated with limestone
caves in the eastern U.S. (Menzel et al. 2001). Within this range, the
bats occupy two distinct types of habitat. During winter, the Indiana
bat hibernates in caves (and occasionally mines) referred to as
hibernacula.

Less is known about the abundance and distribution of the species during
the summer maternity season, and even less is known about its migratory
habits and associated range.

[Indiana Bat Population Status]{.underline}

Due to the colonial nature of Indiana bats, conducting censuses of
hibernating bats is the most reliable method of tracking
population/distribution trends range-wide, and provides a good
representation of the overall population status and distribution. As
such, winter distribution of the Indiana bat is well documented.

For several reasons, interpretation of the census data must be made with
caution. First, winter census data is broken down by state due to the
nature of the data collection. As described below, each state does not
represent a discrete population center. Nevertheless, the range-wide
population status of the Indiana bat has been organized by state.
Second, as will be further discussed, available information specific to
the "reproductive unit" (i.e., maternity colony) of the Indiana bat is
limited. While winter distribution of the Indiana bat is well
documented, little is known as to the size, location and number of
maternity colonies for the Indiana bat. As described below, it is
estimated that the location of approximately 90 percent of the maternity
colonies are unknown.

Additionally, the relationship between wintering populations and
summering populations is not clearly understood. For example, while it
is known that individuals of a particular maternity colony come from one
to many different hibernacula, the source (hibernacula) of most, if any,
of the individuals in a maternity colony is not known. As discussed in
the "Spring Emergence/Migration" section, Indiana bats have been
documented to travel up to 300 miles from their hibernaculum to their
maternity areas (Gardner and Cook 2002). As such, the origin of the bats
(hibernacula) that comprise the maternity activity in the action area is
unknown. However, there are numerous hibernacula within the known
maximum migration range from the Rowan County project area.

*Range-wide Hibernacula Censuses*

Based on the 2005 winter census, Indiana has four Priority I hibernacula
and Kentucky and Missouri each contain three Priority I hibernacula.
Priority II hibernacula are known from the aforementioned states, in
addition to Arkansas, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and
West Virginia. Priority III hibernacula have been reported in 17 states,
including all of the aforementioned states. In the 2005 hibernacula
census, the total known Indiana bat population was 458,332, down from
approximately 880,000 bats in 1960 (Table 4), and approximately half of
these hibernated in eight Priority I hibernacula (excluding Dixon Cave,
Kentucky, which did not reach the Priority I threshold) (King, personal
communication, 2005). Censuses began in the late 1950s, and since then
many winter counts have decreased, especially in Kentucky and Missouri.
Overall, the population has declined 48 percent since the 1960s (King,
personal communication 2005). Caves in Kentucky suffered dramatic losses
because of changes in microclimate due to poor cave gate design in two
of the three most important hibernacula (Humphrey 1978), and Indiana bat
numbers in Kentucky hibernacula continued to decline until 2005 when a
increase was observed (King, personal communication 2005). Despite
recovery efforts, Indiana bats in Missouri caves have declined with a
loss of more than 80 percent of the population (Clawson 2002). The
ten-year population trend of the Indiana bat has steadily declined
(Table 4). It should be noted that the results of winter hibernacula
censuses completed in 2001, 2003, and 2005 all have shown population
increases. Therefore, the 2000-2010 trend may represent an improvement
in the range-wide population.

**Table 4. Ten-year, range-wide population trend for the Indiana bat.**

  ----------------------- -------------------- --------------------------
  **Approximate Time      **Population         **Approximate Percent
  Period**                Estimate**           Change**

  1960 -- 1970            883,300              N/A

  1980                    678,750              -23

  1980 -- 1990            473,350              -30

  1990 -- 2000            382,350              -19
  ----------------------- -------------------- --------------------------

Although slight increases in 2001 and 2003, as well as the more
substantial 2005 increase was seen in the range-wide population, we are
hesitant, at this time, to extrapolate long-term trends from changes
between individual survey periods, because the species' reproductive
capacity may take longer than 10-20 years to show sustained population
gains. Also, small fluctuations from year-to-year may be attributed to
such factors as weather affecting the success of reproduction for a
given year (Humphrey et al. 1977; Ransome 1990).

One known major cause of Indiana bat decline has been human disturbance
of hibernating bats during the decades of the 1960s through 1980s.
Direct mortality has been documented due to human vandalism between the
1960s and 1980s. Some hibernacula have been rendered unavailable to
Indiana bats by erection of solid gates in the entrances (Humphrey
1978). Although some hibernacula have been restored in order to support
future wintering populations, and Indiana bats have returned to
traditional hibernation sites, in some cases, population gains have not
yet materialized. It appears that by the 1990s, vandalism and improper
installation of cave gates had been reduced. Despite these efforts to
reduce threats and restore traditional hibernacula, the range-wide
population of Indiana bats continues to be well-below historic levels
with only recent signs of stabilization. A hypothesis for documented
early population declines is that warmer winter temperatures have
resulted in less conducive microhabitat conditions (warmer temperatures)
at hibernacula, particularly in the southern part of the species range
(Rick Clawson, personal communication, Missouri Department of
Conservation).

*Range-wide Maternity Colony Information*

Early researchers considered floodplain and riparian forest to be the
primary maternity roosting and foraging habitats for the Indiana bat,
and these forest types unquestionably are important (Humphrey et al.
1977). More recently, Indiana bats have been shown to use upland forests
for maternity roosting (Clark et al. 1987; Gardner et al. 1991b;
Callahan et al. 1997; Kiser et al. 2002; Apogee 2003); and upland
forest, old fields, and pastures with scattered trees have been shown to
provide maternity foraging habitat (Gardner et al.1991b).

The first Indiana bat maternity colony was found in the Midwest region.
As a result, the majority of studies of maternity colonies and their
associated habitats have been conducted in glaciated regions of the
Midwest region (southern Iowa, northern Missouri, northern Illinois,
northern Indiana, and southern Michigan). Remaining woodlands in this
glaciated region are mostly fragmented with small bottomland and upland
forested tracts of predominantly oak-hickory forest types and
riparian/bottomland forests of elm-ash-cottonwood associations. These
forested areas exist in an otherwise agricultural dominated
(non-forested) landscape (Forest Service 1997). Nevertheless, the small
amount of forested area in this region appears to have a relatively high
density of maternity colonies, especially when compared to the
unglaciated forested landscapes similar to the action area. While the
majority of maternity colonies have been discovered in the glaciated
areas of the Midwest, some have been discovered as far northeast as
Vermont's Lake Champlain valley and as far south as the Nantahala
National Forest in western North Carolina.

Despite the large expanse of forested habitat in the unglaciated
portions of the Midwest (southern

Missouri, southern Illinois, southern Indiana, and southern Ohio),
Kentucky and most of the eastern and southern portions of the species'
range (including Pennsylvania and West Virginia) appears to have fewer
maternity colonies per unit area of forest. However, such conclusions
may be premature, given the lack of search effort and large areas of
forested habitat in these areas. The recent discovery of maternity
colonies in these areas has led to expanded search efforts and habitat
studies.

Based on published literature and correspondence with Service or State
biologists throughout the range of the Indiana bat, maternity activity
has been documented at approximately 225-250 locations throughout the
species' range (Table 5) (Service 2004). The majority of confirmed
maternity areas are in the "core" of the range, in the glaciated Midwest
in pockets of remaining forested habitat within a predominantly
agricultural landscape in close proximity to known hibernacula. Because
the Indiana bat is philopatric, there is no evidence to suggest that
maternity colonies are located in optimal foraging and roosting habitat.
A possible explanation for the species' decline is that existing
maternity colonies are senescent (i.e. recruitment \< death). This could
be caused by pups being produced but not surviving their first
hibernation period; or maternity areas are no longer providing a
sufficient supply of suitable prey, resulting in an increase in the age
of first reproduction and increasing fecundity schedules. Proof of at
least several years of successful reproduction and recruitment would be
needed to verify long-term survival of the Indiana bat in these highly
altered and fragmented landscapes. Although data at a few maternity
sites indicate that reproduction is occurring (exit counts nearly double
a month after birth), long term monitoring of maternity sites is
limited. Long term monitoring has been conducted at a maternity colony
located near the Indianapolis Airport (Indianapolis Airport Authority
2003; Indianapolis Airport Authority 2004). This colony continues to
persist, and shows evidence of reproduction, although additional
monitoring is needed to make a determination regarding whether the
colony is stable, increasing, or decreasing at this site.

Monitoring data, including extensive exit counts to estimate maternity
colony population size and structure over more than one-year, is
available for only a few of the approximately 227-252 maternity colonies
discovered (Humphrey et al. 1977; Garner and Gardner 1992; Callahan
1993; Gardner et al. 1991b; Kurta et al. 1996; Indianapolis Airport
Authority 2003; Indianapolis Airport Authority 2004). Additionally,
because the vast majority of the Indiana bat maternity

**Table 5. Documented Indiana bat maternity areas (or maternity
activity).**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **State**                   **Number of Maternity Colonies^1^**
  --------------------------- -------------------------------------------
  Illinois                    38

  Indiana                     83

  Iowa                        21

  Kentucky                    23

  Michigan                    10

  Missouri                    17

  Ohio                        9

  Pennsylvania                1

  New Jersey                  1

  North Carolina / Tennessee  5

  Vermont / New York          7

  Virginia                    1

  West Virginia               2

  **TOTAL**                   **218 (227-252)**
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

^1^ Estimates are based on the capture of a reproductive female or
juveniles in a discrete area during the maternity season (15 May -- 15
August), or telemetry tracking reproductive females from hibernacula to
maternity roost sites. This number is based on correspondence through
the 2003 field season. In order to allow for new maternity colonies
discovered in 2004, it is assumed that approximately 227-252 maternity
colonies have been discovered.

colonies have not been discovered, let alone studied, what little
demographic data that is available, represent a fraction of the
range-wide maternity activity.

Because so little is known regarding the population size and structure
of maternity colonies, the Service used the same assumption as Whitaker
and Brack (2002) to determine the average maternity colony size to give
an approximation of the number of potential maternity colonies
range-wide for the Indiana bat. The Service recognizes that maternity
colonies are not static in size, and the numbers of individuals that
comprise a maternity colony likely vary widely as a colony adjusts to
current conditions, including the availability and quality of roosting
and foraging habitat, and variable climatic conditions. Therefore, these
figures should not be used to make extrapolations regarding the
densities or distribution of maternity colonies present within portions
of the species range (Racey and Entwistle 2003); however, these figures
do serve to provide a rough estimation regarding the number of maternity
colonies that might be present across the landscape. The "Maternity
Colony Size -- Population*"* section found in the "Life History" section
of this biological opinion provides more information with regard to the
size of a maternity colony.

Recognizing the inherent deficiency in such an assumption, these
calculations illustrate that the vast majority of maternity colonies for
the Indiana bat have not been documented **(**Table 6). The location of
most maternity colonies may always remain unknown because of the
difficulty in detecting maternity activity for the Indiana bat. This
places these colonies at risk when land use

**Table 6. Estimated number of Indiana bat maternity colonies
range-wide.**

+------------+-----------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| **Year     | **Pop     | **Per  | **Number  | **Number  | **Percent |
| Hib        | ulation** | cent** | of**      | of**      | of        |
| ernating** |           |        |           |           | known**   |
|            |           | **Ch   | **Ma      | **known** |           |
|            |           | ange** | ternity** |           | **ma      |
|            |           |        |           | **ma      | ternity** |
|            |           |        | **Colo    | ternity** |           |
|            |           |        | nies^1^** |           | **C       |
|            |           |        |           | **a       | olonies** |
|            |           |        |           | reas^2^** |           |
+------------+-----------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 1960/1970  | 883,300   |        | 5,500     | \-        | \-        |
+------------+-----------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| \~1980     | 678,750   | -23    | 4,200     | \-        | \-        |
+------------+-----------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| \~1990     | 473,550   | -31    | 2,900     | \-        | \-        |
+------------+-----------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
| 2003/2004  | 388,829   | -18    | 2,400     | \~        | \~10      |
|            |           |        |           | 227-252   |           |
+------------+-----------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

^1^ Total rounded to the nearest 100. Estimates of the number of
maternity colonies range-wide (Table 6) were developed based on the
following assumptions: 1) the known hibernating population is the source
of the entire summer population; 2) there is a 50:50 sex ratio (Humphrey
et al. 1977); 3) average maternity colony size of 80 adult females
(Whitaker and Brack 2002); and 4) the trend in decline of the total
number of maternity colonies follows that of the hibernating population.

^2^ This is the number of areas where reproductive females have been
captured during the maternity season.

practices, such as timber harvesting and development, are carried out.
Therefore, another likely cause for the decline of this species and the
level of activity occurring across the landscape is that maternity
colonies are being reduced in numbers, and in some cases extirpated,
prior to their discovery.

*Indiana Bat Status in Kentucky*

Several documented as well as other unverified Indiana bat records exist
for the last 60 years in Kentucky. According to records available to the
Service, the Indiana bat has been documented from 53 counties
distributed throughout the Commonwealth. Summer habitat for the species
is found throughout Kentucky. Two of the eleven caves, range-wide, that
are designated as Critical Habitat for the Indiana bat occur in Kentucky
\[Bat Cave (Carter County) and Coach Cave (Edmonson County)\]. In
addition to these caves, Dixon Cave (Edmonson County) is also listed as
a Priority I hibernacula (\> 30,000 individuals). There are also 21
Priority II hibernacula (\> 500 but \< 30,000 individuals) and 78
Priority III hibernacula (\< 500 individuals) documented from the
Commonwealth.

Historic hibernating population levels within Kentucky were estimated to
be at 241,335 individuals in the Agency Draft Indiana Bat Revised
Recovery Plan (USFWS 1999). Between 1960 and 1975, Kentucky had the
greatest Indiana bat hibernating population decline among the states, an
estimated 145,000 bats. Losses were attributable to exclusion and
changes in microclimate at two of the three most important hibernation
sites; most were caused by poorly designed cave gates (Humphrey 1978)
and by construction of a building over the upper entrance to one of the
hibernacula (John MacGregor, pers. comm., October 1996). Although not as
dramatic as earlier losses, many of the most important remaining
hibernating populations declined steadily from 1980 to 2003. However,
hibernacula survey data from 2005 indicate that things may be improving.
The winter of 2005 saw population numbers of hibernating Indiana bats
increase from 41,498 in 2003 to 63,339.

[Previous Incidental Take Authorizations]{.underline}

*Summary-* All previously issued Service biological opinions involving
the Indiana bat have been non-jeopardy. These formal consultations
(approximately 20-25) have involved (a) the Forest Service for
activities implemented under various Land and Resource Management Plans
on National Forests in the eastern United States (50-75%), (b) the
Federal Highway

Administration for various transportation projects (10-15%), (c) the
Corps for various water-related projects (5-10%), and (d) the Department
of Defense for operations at several different military installations
(20-30%). Additionally, an incidental take permit has been issued under
section 10 of the Endangered Species Act to an Interagency Taskforce for
expansion and related development at the Indianapolis Airport in
conjunction with the implementation of a Habitat Conservation Plan.

*National Forests*- Within the past several years, nearly all National
Forests within the range of the Indiana bat have requested formal
consultation in order to receive incidental take statements. This has
been a result of uncertainty due to agency inability to discount the
chance of take of the Indiana bat as a result of forest management
activities during the non-hibernation period. Consequently, the Service
has prepared non-jeopardy biological opinions and issued incidental take
statements for at least fifteen different National Forests throughout
the species' range. Despite incidental take authorization for these
National Forests, the confirmed loss of a maternity colony on a National
Forest has never been authorized because effects to known maternity
colonies have been avoided. These opinions analyzed continued
implementation of each of the respective forest's Land and Resource
Management Plans at the programmatic level. This established the
framework to undergo formal consultation more efficiently at the project
level.

Over 95 percent of previously authorized habitat loss on National
Forests is not permanent loss. Rather, it is varying degrees of
temporary loss (short-term and long-term) as a result of timber
management activities. The analysis found in the Service's biological
opinion for forest management and other activities authorized, funded,
or carried out by the Mark Twain National

Forest provides a thorough analysis as to the expected impacts on the
Indiana bat on several different National Forests (Service 1999a).
Although this analysis does not include all National Forests that, to
date, have received an incidental take statement, the concepts of the
analysis are consistent, regardless of the location. Conservation
measures provided by the USFS as part of the proposed action, as well as
reasonable and prudent measures provided by the Service to minimize the
impact of the annual allowable take for each of the National Forests,
have been designed to: (1) ensure an abundance of available remaining
Indiana bat roosting and foraging habitat on all National Forests; and
(2) ensure persistence of any known or newly discovered maternity
colonies to the maximum extent practicable.

Although Indiana bat presence has been verified on most, if not all,
National Forests within the range of the species, confirmation of
maternity activity on these lands is scant. There have been less than
five maternity colonies documented on National Forests. It must be noted
that maternity activity was confirmed for the first time on two national
forests (Monongahela National Forest \[West Virginia\] and Hoosier
\[Indiana\]) in 2004.

Incidental take has been authorized in the form of habitat loss because
of the difficulty of detecting and quantifying take of the Indiana bat
due to the bat's small body size, widely dispersed individuals under
loose bark or in cavities of trees, and unknown spatial extent and
density of their summer roosting population range within the respective
National Forests. For some incidental take statements, take has also
been extrapolated to include an estimated number of individual Indiana
bats. The estimate of the number of individual Indiana bats likely to be
incidentally taken has been wide-ranging and based on various
assumptions. Legal coverage has included the incidental take, by kill,
of individual Indiana bats; or incidental take, by harm through habitat
loss, or harassment.

*Other Federal Agencies or Non-federal Entities-* Several incidental
take statements (e.g., construction of a reservoir involving the Corps
in Marion, Illinois \[Service 1995\]; Fort Knox military operations
\[Service 1999c\]; Camp Atterbury military operations \[Service 1998\];
Newport Military Installation \[Service 1999d\]; I-69 Highway \[Service
2003\]) and an incidental take permit (e.g. Six Points Road Interchange)
have been issued to other federal agencies and a non-federal entity,
respectively. These projects actually involved impacts to known
maternity colonies. In other words, there was at least one known
maternity colony within the action area of the project. For these
projects (with the exception of Fort Knox; see below), conservation
measures, included as part of the proposed action, were designed to
minimize impacts to the colony with the goal of ensuring persistence of
the colony after implementation of the project.

These measures included: seasonal clearing restrictions to avoid
disturbing female Indiana bats and young; protection of all known
primary and alternate roost trees with an appropriate buffer; retention
of adequate roosting and foraging habitat to sustain the maternity
colony into the future; and permanent protection of areas and habitat
enhancement or creation measures to provide future roosting and foraging
habitat opportunities.

With the exception of Fort Knox, none of these biological opinions and
associated incidental take statements has authorized the loss of a
maternity colony. There are three examples in Indiana (Camp Atterbury,
Newport Military Installation, and Indianapolis Airport) where
monitoring has confirmed that the colony persisted through the life of
the project and continues to exist today, and recent unpublished
information at Fort Knox appears to indicate that the maternity colony
there has also persisted. However, the full extent of the anticipated
impacts may not yet have occurred and overall population trends are
difficult to discern. While several other biological opinions have been
prepared with the same ultimate goal of maintaining colony persistence,
project implementation is not complete. The Fort Knox biological opinion
\[1999c\] did authorize the loss of two potential maternity colonies and
8 Indiana bats although Indiana bat maternity activity had not been
confirmed in the action area. In subsequent surveys, maternity activity
was confirmed in two different areas at Fort Knox. The biological
opinion did not specify whether the \"take\" consisted of loss of the
colonies or take in the form of harm and harassment.[^1] The Army
prepared a biological assessment (BA) that outlined that known roost
trees would be cut and bats would be displaced from the habitat. The BA
also proposed conservation measures that included seasonal clearing
restrictions to avoid disturbing female Indiana bats and young;
retention of some known roost trees; maintaining riparian buffer zones
around waterways; creation and retention of snags; permanent protection
of adjacent areas to provide sufficient habitat to support Indiana bat
foraging and roosting; and monitoring of colonies in the area. However,
the Service has been unable to locate any records of monitoring being
conducted after construction of the project.

[INDIANA BAT LIFE HISTORY]{.underline}

Colonial roosting behavior and site fidelity are two important features
of Indiana bat behavioral biology to consider when analyzing the effects
of the modification of assumed summer and maternity Indiana bat habitat.
These behaviors allow the Indiana bat to maximize reproduction
opportunities given the reproductive limitations of this species
(healthy females are capable of producing only one pup per year, even
under ideal circumstances).

The Latin name "sodalis" means social and accurately portrays the social
nature of the Indiana bat. Indiana bats exhibit colonial behaviors in
nearly every stage of their life history. Such colonial traits may
substantially affect both survival and productivity. Maintenance of
functional colonies with relatively large numbers of bats may be
critical to thermoregulation at both the hibernaculum and the maternity
colony. It is probable that bat aggregation during winter hibernation
helps minimize the metabolic cost of thermoregulation during
hibernation. Another social aspect to clustering behavior occurs when
the same individuals return yearly to not only the same cave, but often
to the same discrete area of the cave ceiling (MacGregor, personal
communication, 2005). During work in Indiana at a major Indiana bat
hibernacula, towards the end of the hibernation season, several bats
appeared to warm up just long enough to move to the nearest cluster when
the departure of their cohorts left them alone. Swarming prior to
hibernation may play a role in the detection and/or attraction of mates,
so that low numbers of Indiana bats result in lower rates of successful
mating even at mixed-species hibernacula where overall bat numbers (all
species) are sufficient for thermoregulation. Migration for any species
is considered to be a vulnerable life stage. The Indiana bat is no
exception, particularly: in the spring when fat reserves are low; over
long distances; or for juveniles migrating for the first time in the
fall. While it is not known, successful migration for the Indiana bat
may depend on large numbers of conspecifics using the same routes at the
same time.

Reproductively active females return to and congregate at maternity
colonies to give birth and raise their young. While very little is known
about the social structure of these colonies, these groupings may allow
for better thermoregulation, predator avoidance, and foraging
efficiency.

Research has shown that members of the colony may communicate regarding
foraging areas (Murray and Kurta 2004). Thermoregulation provides a
physiological advantage to the raising of a pup. When lactating adult
female Indiana bats and pups congregate, both expend less energy.

Therefore, more energy can be expended on nurturing the pups and
enabling their young to achieve maturity faster.

Site fidelity for summer habitat has also been documented in male
Indiana bats in eastern Kentucky. Two studies (Gumbert 2001, Gumbert et
al. 2002) observed site fidelity in males for roost trees (primary and
alternate areas) and foraging areas. Social interaction between males
was also documented from these studies. For example, a single tree was
used as a primary roost for one individual and a secondary roost for a
separate individual. This dynamic of social interactions and loyalty to
a specific summer habitat area are key factors to consider when
evaluating the viability of colonies affected by the proposed action.

*Life Cycles*

The Indiana bat's annual life cycle consists of hibernation, spring
migration, birthing (parturition), raising of young by females
(lactation), fall migration, mating (swarming), and hibernation. Each of
these critical stages in this complex annual reproductive cycle is
integral to species survival and recovery (See Appendix E). While the
following information provides a general overview of the life cycle of
the Indiana bat, the "Life Stages" section provides additional
information.

During winter, Indiana bats are restricted to suitable hibernacula
(mostly caves, but also a few abandoned mines, and even a tunnel and
hydroelectric dam) that are located primarily in karst areas of the
east-central United States. Hibernation facilitates survival during
winter when prey

(i.e., insects) are unavailable. Indiana bats cluster and hibernate on
cave ceilings in densities of approximately 300-484 bats per square
foot. Clusters may protect central individuals from temperature change
and reduce sensitivity to disturbance.

During spring, Indiana bats emerge from hibernacula and move to their
summer habitat.

Females can migrate hundreds of miles from their hibernacula. Kurta and
Murray (2002) documented female Indiana bats migrating over 200 miles
from their hibernacula to their maternity area and Gardner and Cook
(2002) documented migratory distances in excess of 300 miles for females
traveling from hibernacula to maternity areas. Some male Indiana bats
have been documented to remain near hibernacula throughout the summer,
while other males have been captured throughout various summer habitats.
Female bats from different hibernacula are known to navigate to
maternity sites (Kurta and Murray 2002), at least in part by physical
cues on the landscape. Several species of North American bats, including
the Indiana bat, show high fidelity to maternity roosts (Kurta and
Murray 2002). Females form maternity colonies with other females to give
birth and raise young. Migration is stressful for pregnant Indiana bats
when their fat reserves and food supplies are low. In the northeastern
part of their range, female Indiana bats may migrate shorter distances
in order to maximize energy reserves by arriving at their summer habitat
quickly.

After grouping into maternity colonies, females give birth to a single
young in June or early July (Easterla and Watkins 1969, Humphrey et al.
1977). As will be further discussed, colonial behavior is well
documented for females at maternity colonies. This life history strategy
reduces thermoregulatory costs, which, in turn increases the amount of
energy available for birthing and the raising of young (Barclay and
Harder 2003). Studies by Belwood (2002) show asynchronous births among
members of a colony. This results in great variation in size of
juveniles (newborn to almost adult size young) in the same colony. In
Indiana, lactating females have been recorded from June 10 to July 29
(Whitaker and Brack 2002). Young Indiana bats are capable of flight
within a month of birth. Young born in early June may be flying as early
as the first week of July (Clark et al*.* 1987), others from mid- to
late July.

Indiana bats begin to return to their respective hibernacula as early as
August. Females from the same maternity colony do not necessarily go to
the same hibernaculum. Breeding takes place and fat reserves are
replenished as bats congregate at hibernacula and prepare for
hibernation. A particular ratio of fat to lean mass is normally
necessary for puberty and the maintenance of female reproductive
activity in mammals (Racey 1982). Racey (1982) suggests that the
variation in the age of puberty in bats is due to nutritional factors,
possibly resulting from the late birth of young and their failure to
achieve threshold body weight in their first autumn. Additionally, once
puberty is achieved, reproductive rates frequently reach 100 percent
among healthy bats of the family Vespertilionidae, as is the Indiana bat
(Racey 1982). Limited data suggest that young, healthy female bats can
mate in their first autumn so long as their prey base is sufficient to
allow them to reach a particular fat to lean mass ratio (Racey 1982).
Limited mating activity occurs throughout the winter and in late April
as the bats leave hibernation (Hall 1962).

*General Roosting Behavior*

While roosting behavior specific to the various life stages of the
Indiana bat is discussed in the

"Maternity colony -- roost tree selection*"* section, the following
information provides a general overview of Indiana bat roosting
behavior. Within the range of the species, the existence of Indiana bats
in a particular area may be governed by the availability of natural
roost structures, primarily standing dead or live trees with loose bark
(Carter 2003; Kurta et al. 2002; Kurta et al.

1993a; 3D/E 1995; Gardner et al 1991b). The suitability of any tree as a
roost site is determined

by: (1) its condition (dead or alive); (2) the quantity of loose bark;
(3) the tree\'s solar exposure and location in relation to other trees;
and (4) the tree\'s spatial relationship to water sources and foraging
areas. Indiana bats utilize interstitial spaces within trees, or parts
of trees as roost sites. For example, the following have been documented
as providing roosts for Indiana bats: tree cavities or hollow portions
of tree boles (Gardner et al. 1991a**;** Kurta et al. 1993b); a crevice
in the top of a lightning-struck tree (Gardner et al. 1991a); and splits
below splintered, broken tree tops (Kurta, et al. 1996; Callahan et al.
1997; Gardner et al. 1991b; Garner and Gardner 1992). Morphological
characteristics of the bark of a number of trees make them suitable as
roosts for Indiana bats; that is, when dead, senescent, or severely
injured (e.g., lightning-struck) the trees possess bark that springs
away from the trunk upon drying. Additionally, the shaggy bark of some
living hickories (*Carya* spp.) and large white oaks (*Quercus alba*)
also provide roost sites.

The most important characteristics of trees that provide roosts are not
species but structure: exfoliating bark with space for bats to roost
between the bark and the bole of the tree. The length of persistence of
peeling bark varies with the species of tree and the severity of
environmental factors to which it is subjected. Tree species reported to
be used as roosts by Indiana bats include: American beech (*Fagus
grandifolia*), ashes (*Fraxinus* spp.), black gum (*Nyssa*

*sylvatica*), black locust (*Robinia pseudo-acacia*), cottonwood
(*Populus deltoides*), elms (*Ulmus*

spp.), hickories, maples (*Acer* spp.), oaks (*Quercus* spp.), pines
(*Pinus* spp.), sassafras (*Sassafras*

*albidum*), sourwood (*Oxydendrum arboreum*), sweet birch (*Betula
lenta*), and yellow buckeye

(*Aesculus octandra*) (Cope et al. 1978; Humphrey et al. 1977; Gardner
et al. 1991a, b; Garner and Gardner 1992; Kurta et al. 1993a; 3D/E 1995;
Kiser and Elliott 1996; Kurta et al. 1996; Callahan et al. 1997).

*General Foraging Behavior*

While foraging behavior specific to the various life stages of the
Indiana bat is discussed in the

"Non-reproductive females and males" and "Maternity Colony foraging
behavior" sections, the following information provides a general
overview of Indiana bat foraging behavior. Because most Indiana bats
caught in mist-nets are captured over streams and other flyways at
heights greater than 6 ft (2 m) (Gardner et al. 1989), it is believed
that Indiana bats usually forage and fly within an air space from 6 -
100 ft (2 - 30 m) above ground level (Humphrey et al. 1977). Indiana
bats feed solely on emerged aquatic and terrestrial flying insects
(Brack and LaVal 1985; Kurta and Whitaker 1998; Belwood 1979; Service
1983). They are habitat generalists and their selection of prey items
reflects the environment in which they forage (LaVal and LaVal 1980).

Because of the large and variable distribution of the Indiana bat
(Gardner and Cook 2002; Brack et al. 2002), it is not surprising that
differences in foraging habitat have been recorded between different
parts of the summer range, or between bats on the maternity range and
near hibernacula.

For example, in the southern part of the range, terrestrial-based prey
(moths and beetles) are more common in the limited number of dietary
studies completed. This may be a result of Indiana bats predominantly
foraging near treetops in these areas (Brack and LaVal 1985). However,
none of the data collected to date was collected during peak emergence
periods for aquatic insects in Appalachia. Thus, it would be
inappropriate to infer that Indiana bats in the southern part of their
range would not select for aquatic insects during the peak summer
activity period when temperatures are greater than 60˚ F. In the
northern region where foraging areas are more limited to riparian zones,
aquatic-based prey are dominant in the diet. Diet varies seasonally and
variation is observed among different ages, sexes, and
reproductive-status groups (Belwood 1979). It is probable that Indiana
bats use a combination of both selective and opportunistic feeding to
their advantage (Brack and LaVal 1985). Reproductively active females
and juveniles exhibit greater dietary diversity than males and
non-reproductively active adult females, perhaps due to higher energy
demands. Studies in some areas have found that reproductively active
females eat more aquatic insects than do juveniles or adult males (Kurta
and Whitaker 1998), this may be the result of habitat differences (Brack
and LaVal 1985).

Differences in habitat availability and competition with other species
may be two explanations for such seasonal or geographic differences in
selection of foraging habitat (Sparks el al. in press). Preliminary
analysis of data collected in Pennsylvania (Butchkoski and Hassinger
2002), in Missouri (Romme' et al. 2002) and Indiana (Sparks et al. in
press) show no clear association between size of foraging area and sex,
age, or reproductive class (Sparks et al. in press). It is apparent that
Indiana bats show fidelity to foraging areas between years by bats in
different reproductive classes (Sparks et al. in press).

Moths (Lepidoptera) are major prey items identified in several studies
(Belwood 1979; LaVal and LaVal 1980; Brack and LaVal 1985), but
caddisflies (Trichoptera) and flies (Diptera) are also documented (Kurta
and Whitaker 1998). A fourth major prey group includes mosquitoes and
midges (Belwood 1979; Whitaker 2004), especially species that form large
mating aggregations above or near water (Belwood 1979). Other prey
include bees, wasps, and flying ants (Hymenoptera), beetles
(Coleoptera), leafhoppers (Homoptera), treehoppers (Homoptera),
stoneflies (Plecoptera), and lacewings (Neuroptera) (Whitaker 1972;
Belwood 1979; Whitaker 2004). Caddisflies are irregularly available, but
are apparently highly desirable for many bat species, since they appear
to be preferentially eaten when available (Whitaker 2004). This trend
may also be true of other aquatic insects that have concentrated
emergences. Brack and LaVal

\(1985\) examined fecal pellets of 140 male Indiana bats and identified
83 percent of the prey items from taxa from the genera Lepidoptera and
seven percent as Coleoptera.

Drinking water is essential when bats actively forage. Throughout most
of the summer range, Indiana bats frequently forage along riparian
corridors and obtain water from streams. However, natural and
anthropogenic ponds and water-filled road ruts in the forest uplands are
also used as water sources for Indiana bats in these regions.

*Longevity*

Mortality between birth and weaning has been estimated at eight percent
(Humphrey et al. 1977).

Humphrey et al. (1977) determined that female survivorship in an Indiana
population of Indiana bats was 76 percent for ages one to six years, and
66 percent for ages six to 10 years; for males, survivorship was 70
percent for ages one to six years, and 36 percent for ages six to 10
years. The maximum ages for banded individuals were 15 years for females
and 14 years for males.

There is limited data available regarding current survival rates, or
rates previously experienced by other groups of Indiana bats (Also, See
Appendix C).

*Life Stages*

As previously summarized, the Indiana bat's annual life cycle of
hibernation**,** spring migration**,** parturition**,** lactation**,**
fall migration, mating**,** and hibernation is further discussed below.

*Winter Hibernation*

A majority of bats of both sexes hibernate by the end of November (by
mid-October in northern areas) (Hall 1962; LaVal and LaVal 1980), but
hibernacula populations may increase throughout the fall and even into
early January (Clawson et al. 1980). Generally, Indiana bats hibernate
from October through April (Hall 1962; LaVal and LaVal 1980), depending
upon local weather conditions. They hibernate in large, dense clusters,
ranging from 300 to 484 bats per square foot (Clawson et al*.* 1980).
While it is generally accepted that Indiana bats, especially females,
are philopatric to hibernacula, meaning they return annually to the same
hibernation site, (LaVal and LaVal 1980), populations in several
hibernacula have doubled between subsequent surveys (two years). As
described in the *Indiana* *Bat Status in Kentucky* section above, this
is evidence that individuals do change hibernacula occasionally. Indiana
bats must store sufficient fat to support metabolic processes until
spring. Substantial risks are posed by events (e.g., human disturbance)
during the winter that interrupt hibernation and increase metabolic
rates, potentially leading to starvation.

The Indiana bat requires specific roost sites in caves or mines that
attain appropriate temperatures for hibernation (Tuttle and Taylor
1994). In southern parts of the bat's range, hibernacula trap large
volumes of cold air and the bats hibernate where resulting rock
temperatures drop; in northern parts of the range, however, the bats
avoid the coldest sites. In both cases, the bats choose roosts with a
low risk of freezing. Ideal sites are 50˚ F or below when the bats
arrive in October and November. Early studies identified a preferred
mid-winter temperature range of 39-46˚ F, but a recent examination of
long-term data suggests that a slightly lower and narrower range of
37-43˚ F may be ideal for the species (Hall 1962; LaVal and LaVal 1980;
LaVal et al. 1976). Only a small percentage of available caves provide
for this specialized requirement. Stable low temperatures allow the bats
to maintain a low rate of metabolism and conserve fat reserves through
the winter, until spring (Humphrey 1978; Richter et al. 1993).

Indiana bats will occasionally use sites other than caves or mines if
microclimate conditions are favorable. Kurta and Teramino (1994) found a
single Indiana bat roosting with a large colony of 15,000 bats (mostly
little brown and northern long-eared bats) at a hydroelectric dam in
Manistee County, Michigan, and noted that the temperature was about
40.5° F.

Relative humidity at roost sites during hibernation usually is above 74
percent, but below saturation (Hall 1962; Humphrey 1978; LaVal et al.
1976; Kurta and Teramino 1994), although relative humidity as low as 54
percent has been observed (Myers 1964). Humidity may be an important
factor in successful hibernation (Thomas and Cloutier 1992).

Specific cave configurations determine temperature and humidity
microclimates, and thus suitability for Indiana bats (Tuttle and
Stevenson 1978; LaVal and LaVal 1980). Indiana bats select roosts within
hibernacula that best meet their needs for cool temperatures; in many
hibernacula, these roosting sites are near an entrance, but may be
deeper in the cave or mine if that is where cold air flows and is
trapped (Tuttle and Stevenson 1978; Hall 1962; LaVal and LaVal 1980).
Indiana bats often hibernate in the same hibernacula with other species
of bats, and are occasionally observed clustered with or adjacent to
other species, including gray bats (*M.* *grisescens*), Virginia
big-eared bats (*Plecotus townsendii virginianus*), little brown bats,
and northern long-eared bats (Myers 1964; LaVal and LaVal 1980; Kurta
and Teramino 1994).

*Spring Emergence/Migration*

Female Indiana bats emerge first from hibernation in late March or early
April, followed by the males (Hall 1962). The timing of annual emergence
may vary across their range, depending on latitude and annual weather
conditions; however, most Indiana bats have left their hibernacula by
late April (Hall 1962). Indiana bats in the Barton Hill Mine
hibernaculum in northeastern New York have been observed to move in
clusters towards the entrance as they ready for emergence in early
April. During a two-year radio-telemetry study for spring emerging
Indiana bats, (Susi von Oettingen, personal communication, Service)
observed little cluster activity in the hibernaculum on April 1;
however, by April 9 clusters were observed near the mine entrance and
general emergence was estimated to occur within the week. By the end of
April no clusters were observed near the entrance and it was assumed
most females had left. Males have been observed leaving as late as the
end of May in the same hibernaculum (Susi von Oettingen, personal
communication). Approximately 200 miles south of the Barton Hill Mine,
at the Mt. Hope mine complex in New Jersey, peak spring emergence of
females was documented in early April. No females were captured in
mid-April and only a single female was captured at the end of April.
Emergence of males peaked at the end of April (Service 2000). Exit
counts from several hibernacula in southern Pennsylvania and Big Springs
Cave in Tucker County, West Virginia, suggest that peak emergence from
hibernation is mid-April for these two areas (Butchkoski and Hassinger
2002; Mark Ford, personal communication, 2004).

Indiana bats offset the process of mating from that of gestation through
delayed fertilization (Kurta in press). Shortly after emerging from
hibernation, females become pregnant via delayed fertilization from
sperm stored in their reproductive tracts through the winter (Hall 1962;
Cope and Humphrey 1977; LaVal and LaVal 1980; Ransome 1990). The period
after hibernation but prior to spring migration is typically referred to
as "staging." During this staging period, which can last for as little
as one day or as long as a few weeks, most female Indiana bats emerge,
and forage near their hibernaculum before migrating to their previous
summer roosting (maternity) areas to give birth and raise young. Data
collected during a two-year study tracking spring emerging females to
their summer roost sites in the Lake Champlain valley of New York and in
a separate Vermont study suggest that females do not remain in the area
surrounding the hibernacula after emerging from hibernation, but leave
for summer habitat soon after emergence from hibernation (Britzke et al.
2004).

Data indicate that the area within an approximate 5-mile radius of a
hibernaculum is important foraging and roosting habitat for the Indiana
bat at the time of spring emergence (staging) and prior to hibernation
(swarming), although males have been found almost 10 miles from the
hibernacula in Indiana (U.S.D.A 2000). Indiana bat tree roosts used in
the spring and fall are similar in physical structure to those selected
during the summer.

Little or no information is available to determine habitat use and needs
for the Indiana bat during migration. In the core of their range, most
pregnant Indiana bats migrate north for the summer (Gardner and Cook
2002). In the northeastern part of their range, Indiana bats may migrate
in other directions. In the Lake Champlain valley of New York and
Vermont, female Indiana bats migrated east and southeast to their summer
habitat. In Pennsylvania, Indiana bats migrated south-southwest to their
summer habitat (Butchkoski and Hassinger 2002). In general, a stronger
homing tendency has been observed along a north-south axis, rather than
east-west (Gardner and Cook 2002).

Females dispersing from a Kentucky hibernaculum in the spring moved 4-10
miles within 10 days of emergence, eventually traveling more than 300
miles from the hibernaculum to the maternity area (Gardner et al. 1996;
Gardner and Cook 2002). However, maternity colonies have been also
located within 10 to 25 miles of the hibernaculum (Butchkoski and
Hassinger 2002; Britzke et al. 2004). As previously discussed, migration
is stressful for pregnant Indiana bats, particularly in the spring when
their fat reserves and food supplies are low. In the northeastern part
of their range, female Indiana bats may migrate shorter distances in
order to maximize energy reserves by arriving at their summer habitat
quickly (Britzke et al. 2004).

Colder spring temperatures in the northeast may force the bats into
temporary torpor, although some females were observed switching roosts
when nighttime temperatures were below freezing.

Cold temperatures may also increase the likelihood of mortality. Adult
mortality may be highest in late March and April (Tuttle and Stevenson
1977). Springtime temperatures were unusually cold during a 2002 spring
emergence study in New York, and two Indiana bats were found dead in or
near their roosts (Britzke et al*.* 2004).

Less is known about the male migration pattern, but many males summer
near the hibernacula (Whitaker and Brack 2002). Some males disperse
throughout the range and roost individually or in small numbers in the
same types of trees and in the same areas as females.

*Summer*

*Non-reproductive Females and Males* - Upon emergence from hibernation
in the spring, some adult male Indiana bats form colonies in caves in
summer, but most are solitary and roost in trees. Males remaining near
hibernacula roost and forage in mature forest. Movements of 2.5-10 miles
have been reported in Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia (Gumbert et al*.*
2002; Hobson and Holland 1995; 3D/International 1996). Other males leave
the area entirely. Regardless, roosting habitat for non-reproductive
females and males is similar to that used by maternity colonies (Gardner
et al. 1991b). The exception is that these solitary individuals are not
as selective in trees used for roosting as that of reproductively active
females attempting to rear young (e.g., they may use smaller trees with
fewer crevices, less exfoliating bark, etc.), largely because of their
disassociation from raising young.

During summer, male Indiana bats that remained near their Missouri
hibernacula flew cross country or upstream toward narrower, more densely
wooded riparian areas during nightly foraging bouts, perhaps due to
interspecific competition with gray bats. Some male bats also foraged at
the edges of small floodplain pastures, within dense forest, and on
hillsides and ridgetops; maximum reported distance was 1.2 miles (LaVal
et al. 1976; LaVal et al*.* 1977; LaVal and LaVal 1980). In Kentucky,
MacGregor reported that the maximum distance males moved from their
hibernaculum in the summer was about 2.6 miles (Menzel et al. 2001). In
the fall, male Indiana bats tend to roost and forage in upland and
ridgetop forests, but may also forage in valley and riparian forest;
movements of 1.8 - 4.2 miles have been reported in Kentucky and Missouri
(Kiser and Elliott 1996; 3D/International 1996).

*Maternity Colony*

*Overview* - Females form maternity colonies with other females to give
birth and raise young. Females may arrive in their maternity habitat as
early as April 15 in Illinois (Gardner et al. 1991a, Brack 1983). Work
in the Lake Champlain valley of Vermont and New York showed similar
results (Britzke et al. 2004). Indiana bats were found at known
maternity areas by March 29 at a site in Indiana (John Whitaker,
personal communication, Indiana State University). Humphrey et al.
(1977) determined that Indiana bats first arrived at their maternity
roost in early May in Indiana, with substantial numbers arriving in
mid-May.

While there has been extensive effort to study the roosting ecology of
the Indiana bat during the maternity season (May 15 -- August 15), data
on spring (April 1 -- May 15) roosting in maternity areas are limited.
One recent study was conducted in the Lake Champlain valley of Vermont
and New York (Britzke et al. 2003) where one or more spring roosts were
identified for 15 radiotagged females. During emergence counts of roost
trees occupied by the radio-tagged female bats, additional untagged bats
were seen emerging from adjacent trees on a number of occasions (Britzke
et al. 2004). Data from this work and studies conducted in Indiana
suggest that some female Indiana bats start congregating in the same
area and eventually form a primary maternity area, or roost, by early to
late April (Indiana Airport Authority 2004; Britzke et al. 2003; Britzke
et al. 2004;). Follow-up surveys confirmed the presence of maternity
colonies at three of four spring roost sites. Moreover, based on
analysis of summer roosts from the Lake Champlain valley, and other
roost tree data, Britzke et al. (2003) determined that spring roost
trees were similar in structure and characteristics to those used during
summer (trees with exfoliating bark and high sun exposure).

After grouping into maternity colonies, females give birth to a single
young in June or early July (Easterla and Watkins 1969, Humphrey et al.
1977). This life history strategy reduces thermoregulatory costs, which,
in turn increases the amount of energy available for birthing and the
raising of young (Barclay and Harder 2003). There are no documented
occurrences in which a female Indiana bat has successfully given birth
and raised a pup alone without the communal benefits, particularly
thermoregulation, offered by establishment of a maternity colony. As
will be further discussed, colonial behavior is well documented for
females at maternity colonies. Studies by Belwood (2002) show
asynchronous births among members of a colony. This results in great
variation in size of juveniles (newborn to almost adult size young) in
the same colony.

In Indiana, lactating females have been recorded from June 10 to July 29
(Whitaker and Brack 2002). Young are capable of flight within a month of
birth. Young born in early June may be flying as early as the first week
of July (Clark et al*.* 1987), others from mid- to late July.

Roosting ecology of the Indiana bat when young become capable of flight
(early to late July) is similar to behavior in the early summer.
However, the maternity colony begins to disperse and use of primary
maternity roosts diminishes, even though bats stay in the area prior to
migrating back to their respective hibernacula. Bats become less
gregarious and the colony utilizes more alternate roosts, possibly
because there is no longer the need for the adult females to cluster to
thermoregulate and nurture the young (Indianapolis Airport Authority
2003 and 2004). Indiana bats spend the latter part of the summer
accumulating fat reserves for fall migration and hibernation. Indiana
bats begin to return to their respective hibernacula as early as August.
Females from the same maternity colony do not necessarily go to the same
hibernaculum. A particular ratio of fat to lean mass is normally
necessary for puberty and the maintenance of female reproductive
activity in the mammals (Racey 1982). Racey (1982) suggests that the
intrasexual variation in the age of puberty in bats is due to
nutritional factors, possibly resulting from the late birth of young and
their failure to achieve threshold body weight in their first autumn.
Additionally, once puberty is achieved, reproductive rates frequently
reach 100 percent among bats of the family Vespertilionidae, as is the
Indiana bat (Racey 1982). Limited data suggest that young, healthy
female bats can mate in their first autumn as long as their prey base is
sufficient to allow them to reach a particular fat to lean mass ratio
(Racey 1982). Limited mating activity occurs during winter and in late
April as the bats leave hibernation (Hall 1962).

*Social Structure*

The following information describing a fission-fusion society is taken
directly from Barclay and

Kurta (in press): Recurrent roost switching and fluctuating composition
of the group at any particular tree suggest the existence of a
fission-fusion society (Kurta et al. 2002). In this type of society,
members frequently coalesce to form a group (fusion), but composition of
that group is in perpetual flux, with individuals frequently departing
to be solitary or to form smaller groups (fission) for a variable time
before returning to the main unit. Individuals often preferentially
associate with some members of the larger group and may avoid
associating with other members.

This type of flexible social organization is common among cetaceans
(Conner 2000) and primates (McGrew et al. 1996; Terborgh and Janson
1986) but also occurs in other mammals, such as spotted hyenas (*Crocuta
crocuta*---Holekamp et al. 1997) and kinkajous (*Potos flavus*---Kays
and Gittleman 2001). In whales, all individuals in the society are
members of a pod, and in hyenas, this society is termed a clan; in bats,
however, members of the fission-fusion society collectively form what
biologists historically have called the "colony." Although many members
of a colony may reside in one tree at any one time, other members roost
elsewhere as solitary individuals or in small subgroups of fluctuating
composition. Such a fission-fusion society has been suggested for a few
species of forest bat (Kerth and König 1999; O'Donnell 2000; Kurta et
al. 2002; Willis and Brigham 2004), and further research may show that
this type of social organization is common.

For example, research has shown that members of the colony may
communicate regarding foraging areas (Murray and Kurta 2004). Short
bouts of solitary night roosting by an individual may also serve to
allow assessment of potential day roosts. In Michigan, when a tree used
by a maternity colony the year before had fallen over, many bats of the
colony shifted the center of their activity to a new tree approximately
2 km away that had previously been used as a night roost by a single
animal bearing a transmitter the summer before (Kurta et al. 2002). As a
result of colonial roosting behavior, thermoregulation provides a
physiological advantage to the raising of a pup. When lactating adult
female Indiana bats and pups congregate, both expend less energy.
Therefore, more energy can be expended on nurturing the pup and enabling
the young to achieve maturity faster.

*Colonial Roosting Behavior*

A capture of a reproductive (pregnant, lactating or post-lactating)
female indicates that a colony of females is in the area because Indiana
bats are obligate colonial roosters (Humphrey et al.

1977; Clark et al. 1987; Gardner et al. 1996, Britzke 2002). This means
female bats congregate together to raise their young. Maternity colonies
must have some special meaning for bats because "\...animals travel to
the colony from a wide geographical area and stubbornly persist in
returning to the same nursery roost for decades" (Neuweiler 2000).

Colonial behavior is well documented for females at maternity colonies.
As presented at a recent symposium regarding forest-dwelling bats,
Barclay and Kurta (2004) suggested four potential explanations to cause
female aggregation (establishment of maternity colonies) in the summer:
(1) roosts are limited; (2) foraging efficiency -- members of a colony
communicate regarding good foraging areas; (3) anti-predator mechanism;
and (4) thermoregulation. Although there are probably many advantages to
colonial roosting, the likely most important factor for Indiana bats is
for the thermoregulatory benefits (Humphrey et al. 1977; Kurta et al.
1996). Support for this is that pups and adults in late pregnancy are
poor thermoregulators (Speakman and Thomas, 2003), and pre- and
postnatal growth is controlled by rate of metabolism and body
temperature (Racey 1982). Without clustering together, the strict
thermal conditions needed to support prenatal and postnatal growth would
not be available. Thus, colonial roosting is a life history strategy
adopted by Indiana bats (like many other temperate zone bats) to improve
their reproductive success (Barclay and Harder 2003). There may be a
loss of these communal benefits below a threshold colony size (Racey and
Entwistle 2003). While the relationship between viable population size
and species colonality is poorly understood, it is an important
component of their behavior (Racey and Entwistle 2003; Callahan 1993;
Gardner et al. 1991b).

*Site Fidelity*

Indiana bats exhibit site fidelity to their traditional summer maternity
and foraging areas. This life history strategy is thought to provide an
advantage to the Indiana bat by increasing the probability of
successfully reproduction. In turn, site fidelity may also inhibit the
ability of

Indiana bats to pioneer new areas (Sparks *in* Service 2005). This
concept of philopatry is based on the documentation of female Indiana
bats returning to the same general area to establish maternity colonies
from year-to-year (Humphrey et al. 1977; Gardner et al. 1991a, b;
Callahan et

al. 1997; Indianapolis Airport Authority 2003, 2004; Kurta and Murray
2002; Butchkoski and

Hassinger 2002; Gardner et al. 1991a, Gardner et al. 1996) and the same
roost tree so long as that tree is available, given the ephemeral nature
of the roost trees. It is recognized that due to the ephemeral nature of
roosting sites, site fidelity is not limited to specific trees. Instead,
Indiana bats also exhibit site fidelity to their general maternity
roosting and foraging areas (Rick Clawson, personal communication,
Missouri Department of Conservation; Kurta in press).

Available data supports the hypothesis that individual Indiana bats are
faithful to their foraging areas between years. Gardner (1991a; 1991b)
observed that females returned to the same foraging areas between years
regardless of whether these bats were initially captured as juveniles
and then studied again as adults, or if these bats were adults during
both seasons they were tracked. In Michigan, Indiana bats have been
recaptured and tracked to the same sites where they were initially
captured (Kurta and Murray 2002; Murray and Kurta 2004). At the
Indianapolis Airport, data has been collected for the same bat in two
different years on one occasion. Roosting and foraging habitat were
remarkably consistent between years including occasional nocturnal
visits to a day roost on the opposite end of the colony's foraging
range, despite the fact that the bat was pregnant when tracked in 2003
and lactating in 2004 (Sparks et al. in press). Additionally, 43 bats
have been tracked at the Indianapolis Airport between 1997 and 2004; all
these bats foraged in the same general areas, although home ranges were
distinct (Sparks et al. in press). In this ongoing study, bats have been
found to move through their foraging habitat so predictable that
researchers have been able to move into an area prior to the bat
arriving (Sparks et al. in press). According to discussions at a recent
meeting (Service 2005), Kurta has experienced the same situation.

Gumbert et al. (2002) differentiated between roost tree and roost area
fidelity in Indiana bats, and found that bats are faithful to both areas
and particular trees within those areas. Indiana bats also show a high
degree of site fidelity to foraging ranges. Kurta and Murray (2002)
documented recapturing 41 percent of females when mist netting at the
same area in subsequent years.

Indiana bat maternity colonies in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and
Kentucky have been shown to use the same roosting and foraging areas
year after year (Gardner et al. 1991b; Humphrey et al. 1977; Kurta and
Murray 2002; Kurta et al. 1996, 2002). Telemetry studies of a maternity
colony in Indiana have shown that bats are still returning to areas that
were formerly part of their foraging range even after those areas are
cleared and in industrial use (John Whitaker, personal communication).
Roosting/foraging area fidelity may serve to maintain social
interactions between members of the population. Bats using familiar
foraging and roosting areas may have decreased susceptibility to
predators, increased foraging efficiency, and the ability to switch
roosts in case of emergencies or alterations surrounding the original
roost (Gumbert et al. 2002).

Due to the ephemeral nature of their roost trees, so long as adequate
roosting opportunities are available in the general area, bats are
probably not dependant on the continued suitability of a specific tree.
There is evidence that colonies are able to relocate after the loss of a
roost tree. In Michigan, the focal point of a colony's maternity
activity shifted 1.24 mile over a three-year period after the primary
roost tree fell down. The area that they shifted to had been previously
used by a single radio-tracked female for roosting during the summer
prior to loss of the roost tree (Kurta et al. 2002). This is consistent
with a number of other situations, where the bats moved to nearby roosts
but retained the same commuting corridors and foraging areas once a
primary roost tree of a maternity colony had been lost, (Humphrey 1977;
Service 2002).

All Indiana bat experts do not accept the notion of site fidelity
(Service 2005; see also "Bat Movements Among Maternity Roosts" section),
and some suggest that Indiana bats do not exhibit site fidelity in parts
of their range (Currie *in* Service 2005; Clawson *in* Service 2005).
Some experts suggest that maternity colonies have vanished from one year
to the next (MacGregor *in* Service 2005) despite no apparent changes to
the maternity habitat. In other words, survey efforts in subsequent
years after confirmation of Indiana bat presence have failed to capture
Indiana bats in the same area. For instance, four reproductive female
Indiana bats were captured on the Wayne National Forest in southern Ohio
during a presence-absence survey for the species (Kiser and Bryan 1997).
While the Service has not received any reports, it has been suggested
that there were intensive efforts the following year with no Indiana
bats captured (MacGregor, personal communication, 2005). At Blevins
Valley in Bath County Kentucky, presence of a maternity colony was
documented in 2000 (East Kentucky Power Cooperative 2000), but no
Indiana bats were captured during limited efforts (one night of netting)
in 2001 (Joe Settles, personal communication, East Kentucky Power
Cooperative). Also, according to personal communication with John
MacGregor, the following year, the roost tree was not used, and no
Indiana bats could be caught or recorded (Anabat II). On the south half
of the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee, a reproductive female
Indiana bat was captured. The following year, the area was netted
intensively in an effort to track Indiana bats to roost trees. While
efforts were unsuccessful in recapturing Indiana bats (John MacGregor,
personal communication), the Service has been unable to obtain a report
confirming negative data in follow-up surveys. At Picatinny Arsenal in
New Jersey, a post-lactating female Indiana bat was captured during the
first night of a survey for evidence of local reproduction. Efforts to
catch reproductive females at Picatinny Arsenal in subsequent years were
unsuccessful although male Indiana bats were captured (Annette Scherer,
personal communication, Service). These occurrences in which maternity
activity cannot be located despite confirmed or suspected presence of
reproductive female Indiana bat(s) do not negate the apparent site
fidelity of the Indiana bat in the use of maternity habitat. These cases
may indicate the difficulty involved in capturing Indiana bats. The mist
net guidelines indicate that there have been some situations when
additional effort above and beyond the level of effort described in the
guidelines was required to detect the presence of the species (Service
1999b). However in some cases listed above, follow up surveys were
conducted in sufficient numbers to meet the mist net guidelines. In
other cases, initial surveys did not gather information on the location
of roost trees that would have assisted in relocating the colony.

*Maternity Roosting Behavior*

*Roost Tree Selection*- Female Indiana bats prefer forests with old
growth characteristics, large trees, scattered canopy gaps, and open
understory (Gardner et al. 1991b; Callahan et al. 1997; Forest Service
2000). Roost trees are larger in diameter than near-by apparently
suitable trees (Kurta in press). Miller (1996) compared habitat
variables for sites in northern Missouri where surveys for Indiana bats
had been conducted and noted that significantly larger trees \[\>12
inches in diameter at breast height (dbh)\] were found where
reproductively active Indiana bats had been netted, than at sites where
bats had not been captured. The average diameter of trees used by
females is 36 percent greater that that of tree occupied by males (Kurta
in press).

A variety of suitable roosts are needed within a colony\'s traditional
summer range for the colony to continue to exist. One of the factors
that influence the suitability of an area for habitat is the
availability of individual roost trees within that area. Gardner et al.
(1991b), and Garner and Gardner (1992) suggested the optimal density of
roost trees within an area is 6.9 potential roost trees per acre in
uplands and 10.9 potential roost trees per acre in floodplains. Because
they are frequently associated with dead or dying trees (Kurta in
press), Indiana bat roosts are ephemeral.

Roost longevity may vary due to factors such as the bark sloughing off
or the tree falling down.

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. (1991b) 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. The presence of
smaller live roost trees within a forested area is important to the
long-term sustainability of the area as habitat.

Indiana bat colonies select roost trees based on structural
characteristics, diameter of the tree, solar exposure and position in
the canopy (Kurta et al. 2002; 3D/E 1995). Maternity roost trees in the
core of the range as well as at the edge of the range apparently share
these characteristics.

Roost tree structure is probably more important than the tree species in
determining whether a tree is a suitable roost site (Farmer et al.
1997). Maternity roosts are generally found in dead or dying trees with
exfoliating bark, or live trees of species known for exfoliating or
shaggy bark, such as hickories or white oaks. Occasionally, female
Indiana bats may roost in crevices or tree cavities, but maternity
colonies are rarely found in these situations (Menzel et al. 2001). Most
maternity roost trees generally receive a high amount of solar exposure,
either as larger canopy trees or trees located near forest edges or
openings with open canopy and an open understory (Callahan et al. 1997;
Menzel et al. 2001). Solar exposure at northeastern maternity colonies
may be a more important factor in roost tree selection than for colonies
in the core of the range. In Vermont, Palm (2003) determined that
maternity roost trees were more likely to be dominant in the canopy and
farther from the nearest large canopy tree than randomly selected
potential roost trees, and Kurta et al. (1996) documented roost trees in
unshaded wetlands in Michigan.

Indiana bat maternity roosts can be described as \"primary\" or
\"alternate,\" based upon the proportion of bats in a colony occupying
the roost site, and location in relation to forest canopy cover
(Callahan et al. 1997; Kurta et al. 1996). Maternity colonies have at
least one primary roost (up to five have been identified for a single
colony in Vermont) used by the majority of the bats throughout the
summer. Primary roosts must be able to provide a roosting site for many
female Indiana bats with young. A colony's alternate roost sites may be
used less frequently, and by smaller numbers of bats.

Primary roosts are located in openings or at the edge of forest stands,
while alternate roosts can be in the open or in the interior of forest
stands. Thermoregulatory needs may be a factor in roost site selection.
Primary roosts are generally in open canopy and can be warmed by solar
radiation, thus providing a favorable microclimate for growth and
development of young during normal weather. Alternate roosts tend to be
more shaded, frequently are within forest stands, and are selected when
temperatures are above normal or during periods of precipitation.
Shagbark hickories seem to be particularly good alternate roosts because
they provide cooler roost conditions during periods of high heat, and
their tight bark shields bats from the encroachment of water into the
roost during rain events (Callahan et al. 1997).

Most primary roosts are found in large, dead trees, generally ranging in
size from 12.2 to 29.9 inches dbh (3D/E 1995). In Vermont, maternity
roosts ranged from 19 inches to 36 inches dbh

(Palm 2003, Britzke et al*.* 2004). Alternate roost trees also tend to
be large, mature trees, but the range in size is somewhat wider than
that of primary roosts (7.1 to 32.7 inches dbh) (3D/E 1995).

The smallest documented alternate roosts utilized by a reproductively
active female Indiana bat ranged from 5.3 inches dbh to 10.5 inches dbh
(Apogee 2003).

*Bat Movements Among Maternity Roosts*

Bats move among roosts within a season and when a particular roost
becomes unavailable from one year to the next. Kurta et al. (1996)
studied a maternity colony in northern Michigan over a three-year
period, noting that roosting bats changed roost trees every 2.9 days,
and that the number of roosts used by the colony ranged from 5 to 18.
Other studies have shown that adults in maternity colonies may use as
few as two and as many as 33 alternate roosts (Humphrey et al.

1977; Gardner et al. 1991a; Garner and Gardner 1992; Callahan 1993;
Kurta et al. 1993a; 3D/E

1995).

Humphrey et al. (1977) observed that each night after the sunset peak of
foraging activity, the bats left the foraging areas without returning to
the day roosts, which indicated the use of "night" roosts. When young
are present but not yet volant (capable of flight), the female bats will
return occasionally throughout the night, presumably to care for the
young.

Maternity colony movements among multiple roosts, particularly from
primary roosts to alternate roosts, seem to depend on weather changes,
particularly solar radiation (Humphrey et al. 1977) or periods of
precipitation. Maternity movement between primary roosts from season to
season is dependent upon roost availability. Kurta et al*.* (1993a)
suggests movement between roosts may be the bats' way of dealing with a
roost sites as ephemeral as loose bark. A bat that is aware of alternate
roost sites is more likely to survive the sudden, unpredictable
destruction of its present roost than a bat that has never identified an
alternate roost (Kurta et al. 2002; Kurta and Murray 2002).

Due to the ephemeral nature of their roost trees, Indiana bats are not
dependant on the continued suitability of a specific tree. As such,
female Indiana bats have evolved to move over the landscape in response
to the ephemeral nature of maternity roosts (i.e., large, dead trees).
This coordinated relocation of a maternity colony is only known to occur
in a slow, methodical manner, into familiar habitat (Kurta et al. 2002).
In this Michigan study, the focal point of a colony's maternity activity
shifted 1.24 miles over a three-year period after the primary roost tree
fell down. The area that bats shifted to had been previously used by a
single radio-tracked female for roosting during the summer prior to loss
of the roost tree (Kurta et al. 2002). This is consistent with a number
of other situations where the primary roost tree of a maternity colony
had been lost and the bats moved to nearby roosts but retained the same
commuting corridors and foraging areas (Humphrey 1977; Service 2002).
Although Carter (2003) recognizes that female Indiana bats are faithful
to a colony site, he suggests that, in the long term, Indiana bat
maternity colonies must be "nomadic" because of their dependence on an
ephemeral resource such as large, dead trees. Despite this theory, there
is no evidence to suggest that bats are able to adapt to a sudden,
abrupt loss of familiar gathering places and familiar roosting and
foraging habitat. The availability and quality of adjacent habitat is
important to the maintenance of a maternity colony (Service 2005).

*Maternity Foraging Behavior*

After Indiana bats emerge from hibernation and migrate to their summer
maternity areas, fat stores are likely depleted. Fat stores in most bat
species decline rapidly during hibernation (Fleming and Eby 2003).
Migration subsequently can use between 10 and 25 percent of a bats' body
weight in fat reserves (Fleming and Eby 2003). Upon arrival at summer
maternity habitat, bats must restore their body weight and increase
their food intake to prepare for giving birth. Reproductively active
bats need to elevate biosynthesis in order to support pregnancy and
lactation (Speakman and Thomas 2003). For example, basal metabolism of
brown long-eared bats (*Plecotus auritus*) is nearly double for pregnant
and lactating bats as compared to non-reproducing individuals (Speakman
and Thomas 2003). However, the foraging efficiency of bats declines
during pregnancy: a time when energy demands increase (Barclay and
Harder 2003). Female little brown bats (*M. lucifugus*) spend 66 percent
of their daily energy on foraging (Barclay and Harder 2003).

Streams, associated floodplain forests, and impounded bodies of water
(e.g., ponds, wetlands, reservoirs) are preferred foraging habitats for
pregnant and lactating Indiana bats, some of which may fly up to 1.5
miles from upland roosts (Gardner et al. 1991*b*). In riparian areas,
Indiana bats primarily forage near riparian and floodplain trees (e.g.,
sycamore \[*Platanus occidentalis*\], cottonwoods \[*Populus spp*.\],
black walnut \[*Juglans nigra*\], black willow \[*Salix nigra*\], and
oaks

\[*Quercus spp*.\]), and along forest edge on the floodplain (Belwood
1979; Cope et al. 1978;

Humphrey et al. 1977; Clark et al. 1987; Gardner et al. 1991*b*). Within
floodplain forests where

Indiana bats forage, canopy closures range from 30 to 100 percent
(Gardner et al. 1991b). Cope et al. (1978) characterized woody
vegetation within a width of at least 30 yards of a stream as excellent
foraging habitat. Indiana bats also forage within the canopy of upland
forests, over clearings with early successional vegetation (*e.g*., old
fields), along the borders of croplands, along wooded fencerows, and
over farm ponds in pastures (Clark et al. 1987; Gardner et al. 1991b).
Seidman and Zabel (2001) documented the use of intermittent and
perennial streams by bats to forage. While this did not include Indiana
bats, four of the seven species studied were of the genus myotis. Sparks
et al. (in press) suggest that in heavily forested landscapes, the edges
of open spaces may provide important foraging habitats.

In a recent study in the Allegheny Mountains (habitat similar to that of
the Action Area), bat activity levels in non-riparian upland forest and
forests in which timber harvest had occurred were low relative to
forested riparian areas (Owen et al. 2004). Similar results have been
reported in the Southeast (Menzel 1998), New England (Krusic et al.
1996; Zimmerman and Glanz 2000) and the Pacific Northwest (Grindal et
al. 1999; Seidman and Zabel 2001). High levels of bat activity observed
in riparian areas elsewhere often were related to the increased foraging
efficiency associated with foraging in areas where insect abundances are
greater (Barclay 1991; Grindal et al. 1999). Owen et al. (2004)
speculates that the same is true in the Allegheny Mountains. The recent
work of Owen et al. (2004) illustrates and further supports the
biological importance of forested riparian habitats in the Appalachians.
While this study was not specific to maternity activity, it stands to
reason that riparian areas are all the more important for reproductive
Indiana bats to increase foraging efficiency.

*Maternity Colony Size*

It is difficult to depict the size (population and geographic area) of a
maternity colony, particularly if the Indiana bat maternity colony
exhibits the fission-fusion society as described in the "Social
Structure" section of this biological opinion. Nonetheless, the
following sections summarize the best available scientific data with
regard to the size of known maternity colonies.

*Area*

Indiana bats are known to occupy distinct home ranges during the summer
(Garner and Gardner 1992) and return nightly to their foraging areas
(Gardner et al. 1991b). Individual adult female Indiana bats in the same
maternity colony show site fidelity to foraging areas throughout the
summer and in subsequent years (Gardener et al. 1991b; Humphrey et al.
1997; Kurta and Murray 2002; Kurta et al. 1996 and 2002; Sparks el al.
in press). While limited data imply that adults are solitary in their
foraging activity (Kurta and Murray 2002; Murray and Kurta 2004), data
on foraging bats has been limited to a small number of individuals
relative the entire maternity colony.

Linear distances between roosts and foraging areas for females ranged
from between 0.3 miles to 5.2 miles, although most distances were less
then half that maximum distance (Murray and Kurta 2004; Sparks et al in
press). For example, the maximum distance listed above was reported for
one individual at a colony in Indiana. However, when 41 bats from this
colony were tracked, the mean distance was 1.86 miles. Given the large
and variable range of this species, it was not unexpected that there are
large differences in home ranges. Murray and Kurta (2004) and Sparks et
al (in press) speculated that the variations in distances to forage
areas were due to differences in habitat type, interspecific
competition, and landscape terrain. Therefore, studies from areas near
the action area and in forested or mountainous habitats (Canoe Creek,
PA) may be more representative of the bats' behavior in the action area.
In Canoe Creek, Pennsylvania, an area with significant changes in
elevation, reported distances between roosts and foraging areas ranged
from 1.5 miles to 2.8 miles, with an average distance of 2.1 miles
(Butchkoski and Hassinger 2002). During that study, no Indiana bats
traveled over adjacent mountains (Brush and Lock Mountains).
Seventy-eight percent of the area within the 2.8-mile radius was
forested, with all bats foraging in the largest block of contiguous
forest (3,212 acres). Areas of more fragmented habitat were not used.

Roosts occupied by individuals ranged from 0.33 miles to more than 1.6
miles from preferred foraging habitat, but are generally within 1.2
miles of water (e.g., stream, lake, pond, natural or man-made
depression). In Illinois, the mean nightly foraging distance from a
roost ranged from 0.34 miles to 0.65 miles (Garner and Gardner 1992).
Average foraging areas for individual Indiana bats varied from
approximately 70 acres (juvenile males) to over 525 acres (post
lactating adult females)(Andy King, personal communication). The
foraging area used by an Indiana bat maternity colony has been reported
to range from a linear strip of creek vegetation 0.5 miles in length
(Belwood 1979; Cope et al. 1978; Humphrey et al. 1977), to a foraging
area 0.75 miles in length, within which bats flew over the wooded river
or around the riverside trees. The mean foraging area of three
individual, reproductive female Indiana bats were 128 acres (pregnant),
232 acres (lactating), and 526 acres (post-lactating) (Garner and
Gardner 1992). In Illinois foraging area for a lactating female was
reported to be 850 acres, while a post-lactating female that had been
subject to timbering activities used 625 acres (Gardner et al. 1991a,b).

Maternity colonies have often been found within forests that are
streamside ecosystems or are otherwise within 0.6 miles of permanent
streams. Garner and Gardner (1992) suggested that suitable Indiana bat
roosting and foraging habitat be within 0.62 mile of water. Indiana bat
roosts in Illinois were less than 0.68 miles from perennial streams
(Gardner et al*.* 1991). Kurta et al*.* (2002) found that 38 roosts in
Michigan were on average 0.409 + 0.36 miles from lakes or ponds and
0.258 + 0.45 miles from perennial streams. These water sources and
associated forested riparian habitat, not only provide drinking water
and food items, but also serve as flight corridors to suitable foraging
habitat. A telemetry study in Illinois found most maternity roosts
within 1,640 feet of a perennial or intermittent stream (Hofmann 1996).
Bats in Illinois selected roosts near intermittent streams and far from
paved roads (Garner and Gardner 1992).

Foraging areas for six female Indiana bats in a Pennsylvania maternity
colony were 96.4-276.8 acres in size (Butchkoski and Hassinger 2002).
Core areas, where a bat spent 50 percent of its time while in main
foraging areas**,** were located along intermittent streams or within
hollows containing an intermittent stream. For the six female bats, only
two core areas overlapped.

Within the foraging areas (\< 2.8 miles) of radio-tagged bats in the
Pennsylvania study, there were "large amounts of riparian and lakeside
forests and especially forested mountainsides" (Butchkoski and Hassinger
2002). Indiana bats restricted foraging to within the largest island of
upland forest (3,038 acres) with slopes less than 10. Additionally,
these foraging areas had a southerly aspect and were located along
intermittent streams or within hollows containing an intermittent
stream. This study was the first to occur in an area with significant
changes in elevation, which is similar to the action area.

Sparks et al. (in press) suggest that the perfect foraging habitat for
the Indiana bat would include forested streams interspersed with
grasslands, croplands, or shrublands). 3D/E (1995) identified essential
summer habitat as including at least 30 percent forested cover on a
landscape scale.

Farmer et al*.* (1997) indicated that optimal summer habitat has 20-60
percent forest cover, and that areas with less than 5 percent forest
cover are not suitable for Indiana bats, while Garner and

Gardner (1992) indicate that if over 11 percent of the area within 0.6
miles of a roost site is strip mine or barren land then the area should
be considered unsuitable for the Indiana bat.

*Population*

A single Indiana bat maternity colony can vary greatly in size, and has
usually been discovered with the capture of just one or two
reproductively active female bats during the first year of survey
efforts. The number of bats comprising a maternity colony is difficult
to determine because colony members are dispersed among various roosts
(Kurta in press). While most of the documented maternity colonies have
contained 100 or fewer adult bats (Harvey 2002), as many as 384 bats
have been reported emerging from one maternity roost tree in Indiana
(Lori Pruitt, personal communication \[c\], Service). Recent counts at
well-studied colonies (with at least three years of data) in Indiana and
Vermont resulted in 104, and 200+ adult female individuals, respectively
(Indianapolis Airport Authority 2003; Susi von Oettingen, personal
communication). Based on twelve study results compiled by Kurta (in
press), the mean maximum emergence count after young began to fly is 119
bats. This information suggests 60- 70 adults in a primary roost at any
one time (Kurta in press). Whitaker and Brack (2002) indicated that
average maternity colony size in Indiana was approximately 80 adult
bats.

There are limited data available that provide estimates of the size of
maternity colonies in forested mountainous habitat similar to the action
area. It must be noted that an exit count is the minimum number of
individual Indiana bats that comprise a maternity colony. The following
discussion is based on exit count data from a roost(s) because this
represents the best available data. Gumbert (2001) observed 19 bats
emerging from a roost in eastern Kentucky. Two years later, a colony of
34 bats was documented in another area of the same county (Apogee
2004a). Britzke et al. (2003) recently located three maternity colonies
in the Nantahala National Forest in western North Carolina and Great
Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee. The maximum numbers of bats
exiting primary roosts were 28, 23 and 81 bats for the three different
colonies. The maternity colonies discovered in the Britzke et al*.*
(2003) study are at much higher elevations than that of the action area.
Consequently, the climatic regime during the maternity season,
especially mean minimum nighttime low temperature and maximum daytime
high temperature, may be cooler than that of the action area. One of the
confirmed maternity colonies in Kentucky is located in Hardin County on
Fort Knox and consists of approximately 300 adult females (James Widlak,
personal communication). The climate in this area is more similar to
that of the action area. Based on these conflicting data, we are unable
to make any conclusions regarding whether climatic or topographic
factors within the action area are likely to result in maternity
colonies that are consistently larger or smaller than the average colony
size.

*Summary*

In summary, there are four apparent advantages to site fidelity and
colonial roosting behavior: 1) maintains social interactions between
members of the population (members of a colony have an established area
to regroup each year to re-establish a maternity colony); 2) increases
foraging efficiency (site familiarity enables individuals to reduce
energy expenditure to forage); 3) decreases susceptibility to predators
and other catastrophic events by being familiar with a multitude of
roosting opportunities in a specific area; and 4) thermoregulation, as a
result of colonial roosting, provides a physiological advantage to the
raising of a pup.

These advantages increase the chance of survival for adults and young by
allowing the adult to expend more energy for gestation, which in turn
allows for more rapid development of fetuses, which increases the chance
of an adult successfully bearing a pup. Once young are born, so long as
the mother is nutritionally fit, she can expend more energy into
lactation and development of young which improves the chance of:
survival of young throughout the summer period and during migration back
to the hibernaculum; young reaching puberty and breeding in their first
fall and building appropriate fat reserves to survive hibernation. In
addition, increased foraging efficiency improves the fitness of the
adult at the end of the maternity period, which in turn, improves the
chance of: survival of the adult during summer and migration back to the
hibernaculum; breeding during the fall; and building appropriate fat
reserves to survive hibernation. Once site familiarity is altered, it is
not known how individuals of a maternity colony, let alone the entire
colony would react.

Although female Indiana bats have evolved to move over the landscape in
response to the ephemeral nature of maternity roosts (i.e., large, dead
trees), the coordinated relocation of a maternity colony is only known
to occur in a slow, methodical manner, into familiar habitat (Kurta et
al. 2002). While Carter (2003) recognizes that female Indiana bats are
faithful to a colony site, he suggests that, in the long term, Indiana
bat maternity colonies must be "nomadic" because of their dependence on
an ephemeral resource such as large, dead trees. Despite this theory,
there is no evidence to suggest that bats are able to adapt to a sudden,
abrupt, or large-scale loss of familiar gathering places and familiar
roosts and habitat.

Although maternity colonies continue to exist in highly fragmented
habitats, it is not known whether this suggests adaptability, or
conversely, the inability to move large distances over relatively short
time periods while maintaining cohesiveness of the maternity colony.
Given the dramatic and indeterminate population declines of the species,
there is little support that the Indiana bat is highly adaptable to
large landscape level changes to their maternity habitat. Murray and
Kurta (2004) observed that Indiana bats in a maternity colony never
crossed open areas (open wetland or agricultural fields), and followed
treelines or fencerows to reach foraging areas, even though it required
more energy and increased commuting distance by 55 percent. It is
apparent that a variety of roosts within a colony\'s occupied summer
range should be available to assure persistence of the colony in that
area (Kurta et al. 1993a, Callahan et al. 1997).

Limited evidence suggests that the Indiana bat may tolerate some degree
of habitat disturbance.

In northern Missouri, maternity roosts were found in areas that were
near disturbances such as residences or cattle pastures (Callahan 1993;
Miller 1996). Selective timber harvest activities neither directly
damaged known roosts nor discouraged bats from continuing to forage in
an area that had been harvested in Illinois (Gardner et al. 1991a) so
long as the currently used roosts were not removed and foraging habitat
remained intact. However, there were no data collected to evaluate
reproductive success before or after disturbance and given the
philopatric nature of this species, the continuing return of the Indiana
bat to an area does not translate to a viable maternity colony where
recruitment exceeds mortality.

If the summer range is modified such that females are required to search
for new roosting habitat or foraging areas, 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 (Kurta et al. 2002, Kurta and Murray 2002).
This, in turn, could affect the reproductive fitness and productivity of
the bats. It is not known what degree of disturbance female Indiana bats
can tolerate and continue to maintain a viable maternity colony. As
mentioned previously, a possible cause for the declining trend of this
species is that habitat alterations are causing reduced numbers of bats
within maternity colonies, and in some cases these maternity colonies
may be extirpated, prior to their discovery (Service 1983; Kurta and
Murray 2002; Kurta et al. 2002; McCracken 1988; Racey and Entwistle
2003).

*Fall Swarming*

Upon arrival at hibernation caves in August through September, Indiana
bats \"swarm,\" a behavior in which \"large numbers of bats fly in and
out of cave entrances from dusk to dawn, while relatively few roost in
the caves during the day\" (Cope and Humphrey 1977). Very little is
known about behavior and habitat use by Indiana bats during the fall
swarming period, and the little information that is known is based
primarily on studies conducted on males.

Swarming continues for several weeks (August through October) and mating
occurs during the latter part of the period. Fat supplies are
replenished as the bats forage prior to hibernation. Indiana bats tend
to hibernate in the same cave in which they swarm (LaVal et al. 1976),
although swarming has occurred in caves other than those in which the
bats hibernated (Cope and Humphrey 1977). Male Indiana bats may make
several stops at multiple caves during the fall swarming period. During
swarming, males remain active over a longer period of time at cave
entrances than do females (LaVal and LaVal 1980), probably to mate with
the females as they arrive. The time of highest swarming activity in
Indiana and Kentucky has been documented as early as September (Cope et
al. 1978). After mating, females enter directly into hibernation.

During the fall, when Indiana bats swarm and mate at their hibernacula,
male bats roost in trees nearby during the day and fly to the cave
during the night. In Kentucky, Kiser and Elliott (1996) found male
Indiana bats roosting primarily in dead trees on upper slopes and
ridgetops within 1.5 miles of their hibernaculum. During September in
West Virginia, male Indiana bats roosted within 3.5 miles in trees near
ridgetops, and often switched roost trees from day to day (Ford, et al.
2002). Fall roost trees tend to be exposed to sunshine rather than
shaded (Menzel et al. 2001).

*Indiana Bat Status Summary*

*Historic Conditions*- Prior to European settlement, deciduous hardwood
forest was the dominant land cover in the Eastern and Midwestern United
States, and "\...millions of now endangered Indiana and gray bats lived
in single caves, and their overall abundance likely rivaled that of the
now extinct passenger pigeon" (Tuttle et al. 2004). For example,
estimates based on staining in hibernacula suggest that as many as 9 to
13 million Indiana and/or gray bats may have hibernated in one
hibernaculum (Mammoth Cave System) historically (Tuttle 1997). An
Indiana bat colony in Bat Cave, Edmonson County, Kentucky, was
catastrophically eliminated by a flood event in the mid 1900's. Analysis
of bone deposits revealed remains of an estimated 300,000 individual
Indiana bats (Hall 1962).

Throughout the Indiana bat's range, a substantial amount of the forested
habitats that would have provided foraging and maternity sites for these
bats has been destroyed in the past 300 years. The region that includes
the Action Area lost about 60 percent of its forested habitat since
pre-Colonial times (Powell and Rappole 1986, see "Table 7"). Although
the amount of forest cover in the eastern United States stabilized from
1987 to 2002, and overall has increased since the low point of 1945,
lowland hardwoods in the east experienced their greatest declines
between 1963 and 2002, losing about 15 million acres of cover over this
39-year period (Heinz Center 2002).

**Table 7. Forest area in the United States by Region, from Pre-Colonial
Times to 1977 (in thousands of acres). Adapted from Powell and Rappole
1986.**

  ------------ ------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------------
  **Region**   **Pre-Colonial**   **1872**   **1920**   **1945**   **1963**   **1977**   **%Remaining**

  Central      421,500            200,100    148,710    171,170    173,150    167,290    40

  Mid Atlantic 172,000            60,310     70,865     84,658     86,924     96,413     56

  South        738,000            503,080    439,510    431,520    510,020    478,680    65
  ------------ ------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------------

Central Region includes: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, West Virginia,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Iowa, Missouri, eastern Kansas, and eastern
Nebraska; Mid Atlantic Region includes: New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland; South Region includes: Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
Arkansas, Louisiana, eastern Texas, and eastern Oklahoma.

In addition, the states within the historic distribution of Indiana bats
have also lost substantial portions of their wetlands, including
forested wetlands, since pre-Colonial times (Dahl 1990). West Virginia
lost about 24 percent of its wetlands between the 1780s and 1980s; Ohio
lost about 90 percent of its wetlands; Virginia lost about 42 percent;
Kentucky lost about 81 percent; and Illinois lost about 85 percent (Dahl
1990).

While we do not know precisely how many Indiana bats existed during the
pre-colonial period, limited information, as described above, suggests
that Indiana bats were numerous. However, we do not have information on
the population sizes and trends of Indiana bats that would allow us to
correlate changes in the total abundance of the bats, generally, or the
abundance at particular hibernacula, with changes in forest cover
throughout the bats' range. We also do not know whether or to what
degree Indiana bats have been affected by changes in forest cover
throughout their range.

*Current Conditions*

Bats comprise one-fifth of all mammal species and only rodents are more
numerous (Harvey et al. 1999). Several North American bat species,
including the little brown bat*,* Northern longeared bat (*M.
septentrionalis*), Eastern pipistrelle (*Pipistrellus subflavus)*, and
Brazilian (Mexican) free-tailed bat (*Tadarida brasiliensis)*, have
large geographic ranges and number in the tens or hundreds of millions.
Additionally, bats are the most gregarious of all mammals (Hill and
Smith 1986). For example, an estimated 100 million Mexican free-tailed
bats summer in central Texas, and this is a fraction of the species
range (Bat Conservation International 2004). While the Indiana bat
continues to have a large geographic range (27 states), the range-wide
population of the Indiana bat has declined 48 percent from approximately
883,300 Indiana bats in 1960/1970 to 458,332 in 2005 (King, personal
communication 2005). Although the most recent census (2005) shows a 17
percent population increase from the last monitoring period (2003)
(388,829 to 455,567) (King, personal communication 2005), we are
hesitant, at this time, to extrapolate long-term trends from changes
between individual survey periods because the species' reproductive
capacity will take much longer than 10-20 years to show population
gains. Also, population fluctuations from year to year can be attributed
to such factors as weather affecting the success of reproduction for a
given year (Humphrey et al. 1977; Ransome 1990) as well as the discovery
of new hibernacula.

*Outlook*

In an effort to provide context for evaluating the effects of actions
that impact the Indiana bat, we have graphed the range-wide population
trends from 1960 through 2005 (Figure 1). This allows us to visualize
the historic and current population growth/decline trends. As discussed
in the "Range-wide Hibernacula Censuses" section, care must be taken
when extrapolating survival rates from short-term or individual studies
as age structure and survival rates can vary greatly among hibernacula
and maternity colonies and from year to year (Ransome 1990; Humphrey and
Cope 1977). Also, population fluctuations from year to year can be
attributed to such factors as weather affecting the success of
reproduction for a given year (Humphrey et al. 1977; Ransome 1990) as
well as the discovery of new hibernacula. Therefore, trends over the
entire 45-year period, rather than between individual survey years must
be the focus of any discussion regarding the future outlook for the
species. As is evident on Figure 1, this data does include the upward
population trend that has been documented in 2001, 2003, and 2005;
however, this data should interpreted with caution since it has yet to
be tested for its statistical significance. Also, we do not have an
estimated confidence interval for the 2005 range-wide estimate (or
previous estimates) at this time, and there were some methodology
changes from 2003 to 2005. We hope to improve/further standardize the
winter survey protocol so that standard errors can be more easily
calculated and as a means of further reducing variability within and
among future hibernacula surveys.

**Figure 1. Indiana Bat Range-wide Population Trend (1960-2005).**

![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.49375in" height="3.8229166666666665in"}

Figure 1 clearly shows the long-term decline that occurred from the
1960/70's through the mid-1990's. Since this decline, Indiana bat
range-wide winter numbers appear to have increased or at least remained
stable. However, this stabilization/increase does not signify the
impending recovery of the species. In our opinion, it is premature to
make such predictions.

There are several reasons why the outlook for the Indiana bat may be
even more precarious than suggested by Figure 1:

1\. Indiana bats exhibit colonial behaviors in nearly every stage of
their life history. Such colonial traits may substantially affect both
survival and productivity. Unfortunately, accelerating declines in
survival or productivity due to collapse of these types of interactions
are usually impossible to detect until after the fact. While there is no
way to prospectively determine the risk of crossing a threshold, beyond
which population declines may be subject to rapid acceleration that are
increasingly difficult to reverse, this risk must be considered,
especially for such a social species (Racey and Entwistle 2003; Callahan
1993; Gardner et al. 1991b).

2\. The Indiana bat has a low reproductive rate and slow population
growth, which inhibit the opportunity to recover from population
declines (Racey and Entwistle 2003). Bats are the slowest reproducing
mammals on earth for their size with most producing only one young per
year.

3\. The declining trend in Indiana bat numbers through 1990 was both
long-standing and widespread. A sustained 30+ year decline over the four
states that once supported more than three-quarters of the entire
population likely cannot be attributed to short-term reversible
perturbations in species abundance or to local environmental conditions.

These issues are particularly important given the fact that basic bat
population dynamics indicate that if this species' numbers begin to
decline again, the opportunity for both survival and recovery in the
wild may be precluded.

[Conservation Needs of the Indiana Bat]{.underline}

*Species With Similar Life History Strategies*

Indiana bats are not unique in having wintering areas that are spatially
separated from summer, breeding habitats. Humpback (*Megaptera
novaeangliae)* and northern right whales (*Eubalaena* *glacialis*)
migrate between northern feeding areas and tropical rearing areas. In
the Atlantic Ocean, loggerhead sea turtles (*Caretta caretta*) will
migrate from the coast of Florida to the Mediterranean Sea and back to
complete their life cycles. In the Pacific Ocean, Pacific salmon

(*Oncorhynchus* sp.), migrate between freshwater spawning habitat and
marine rearing habitat to complete their life cycle. Monarch butterflies
(*Danaus plexippus)* migrate between wintering habitat in Mexico and
rearing habitats in temperate North America. Whooping cranes (*Grus
Americana*) migrate between wintering habitat along coastal Texas and
nesting habitat in northern Alberta and Northwest Territories in Canada.
Most North American songbirds (including endangered species like
golden-cheeked and Kirtland's warblers) and many species of shorebirds,
waterfowl and raptors migrate from wintering areas in Mexico, the
Caribbean, Central America, and South America to reproduce in temperate
North America. With all of these species, scientists have debated the
relative importance of the different habitats for the conservation of
these species (for examples, see "Hagan III and Johnston 1992",
"National Research Council 1996", "Rappole 1995", "Terborgh 1989"). When
puddle ducks and diving ducks declined by about 40 percent in Chesapeake
Bay between the 1950s and 1980s, many investigators blamed the declining
condition of the bay, which supports wintering populations of these
species, others blamed the loss of the wetlands in the Prairie Pothole
region in which large numbers of these species breed, while others
recognized that losses in both areas contributed to the decline
(Terborgh 1989). Similar debates have surrounded the decline of sea
turtles in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, whales, Pacific salmon,
shorebirds, raptors, and songbirds (Askins et al. 1990, Bohning-Gaese et
al. 1992, Finch 1990, Hagan III and Johnston 1992, Myers et al. 1987,
Rappole 1995, Robbins et al. 1989).

The Service has consistently recognized the necessity of protecting
species throughout their entire life cycle rather than focusing all
conservation efforts in one habitat for a particular life stage, over
all others. For almost three decades the Service has argued that, to
conserve the wild population of whooping cranes, it is necessary to
protect habitat along the Platte River where the cranes stop during
their migration. Similarly, the Service has several programs in place
(e.g., Western Hemisphere Convention, Partners in Flight, and the
Tripartite Agreement with Canada and Mexico) that are designed to
protect migratory species throughout their life cycles: wintering
habitat, migratory habitat, and summer habitat.

At least two fundamental principles underlie this strategy. First,
declines due to impaired survival and/or reproduction at one stage in
the life cycle do not preclude concurrent irreversible loss of habitat
functionality at other life stages that may ultimately become the major
determinant of a species survival and recovery. More immediately,
however, a species that is experiencing a serious decline is placed at
further risk by losses at any other stage in the life cycle. Indeed, a
serious on-going population decline requires immediate implementation of
available measures to increase survival and reproduction at all stages
in the life cycle or, at the very least, to avoid compounding the
downward trend.

*Indiana bat*

The annual cycle of hibernation, spring migration, summer activity
(e.g., foraging, parturition, lactation, fall migration, mating, and
hibernation can be broken at any point, resulting in the loss of that
individual from the population, and its remaining reproductive potential
in the population. The vulnerable point(s) in this cycle may very well
differ by geographic area, and even within the same area. Ransome (1990)
further identifies the limiting factors that control the overall bat
population as the number of maternity colonies and the proximity and
quality of foraging areas surrounding each maternity site. He also
concludes that a reduction in the number of maternity colonies
contributing to a hibernaculum is a prime factor that should be
considered when evaluating the causes of population declines in bats.
Unless a change in these environments occurs to allow recruitment to
exceed mortality, the species will continue to decline.

Many authors have established that protecting the Indiana bats' winter
hibernacula is necessary to prevent further declines of this species and
that the quality of these habitats can be limiting for the bats (for
example, see "Service 2005"; "Service 1983"; "Service 1999b"). This is
widely accepted largely because the declines can be readily observed
through hibernacula censuses. The response of Indiana bat populations to
changes in the availability of habitat that supports maternity colonies
and summer roost sites is not as clear (for example, see Service 2005;
Service 1983; Service 1999b), particularly because Indiana bats in
summer habitat are widely dispersed, difficult to track, and demographic
data is not readily collected. Despite this uncertainty, any impairment
of survival or reproduction will compound losses at the hibernacula.
Further, Racey and Entwistle (2003) suggest that an effective
conservation management unit for temperate bats should be at the
maternity colony level. Indiana bats show fidelity to summer habitat
areas, but there are questions about whether this habitat might be
limiting to Indiana bat populations and/or whether disrupting these
individuals and/or colonies comes at some cost to reproduction and/or
survival. Despite this uncertainty, protection of only one life stage
(hibernacula) is not adequate to ensure the survival and recovery of
this species. All other life stages, particularly the birth and care of
young**,** must be managed or protected as well to allow for adequate
recruitment. Given the magnitude of the destruction of forest cover
throughout the historic range of Indiana bats, if we assume that the
availability of the habitat necessary to support summer colonies for
these bats has had (and will continue to exert) no effect on the Indiana
bats' population trend (or the trend of some of the hibernacula, if not
all of them) and this assumption later proves false, we will have failed
to protect Indiana bats when protection was warranted and necessary to
prevent further declines. Worse, we will have precluded the species'
chances of recovering from endangerment.

Based on experiences with species of similar life history strategies as
the Indiana bat, this

Opinion assumes that preventing Indiana bats from becoming extinct will
require efforts that conserve the habitats that support the three major
stages of the bats' life cycle: winter hibernacula, summer habitat, and
the migratory habitats that connect the two. Adequate summer habitat
(e.g., roosts with appropriate microclimatic conditions for raising
young, adequate foraging area, etc.) is crucial to ensure successful
recruitment and reduce the mortality rate. Given the colonial nature and
site fidelity of this species, the capability for a female Indiana bat
to only give birth to one pup annually, and considering that summer
colonies and hibernacula form an interdependent meta-population, it is
imperative that summer maternity colonies are adequately protected or
managed to ensure their contribution to the population.

*Summary*

The debate over the relative importance of habitats that support one
portion of the Indiana bat's life history (winter hibernacula) over
another portion (summer habitat) of their life history is similar to
that of the aforementioned species with similar life history strategies
(Service 2005).

The reality is that Indiana bats evolved a life history strategy that
leads them to migrate from hibernacula to summer foraging habitat where
they gain the energy they need to reproduce and rear their young, then
they gain additional energy during the swarming period that helps them
survive the winter. As a result of natural selection, only the phases of
life history strategies that improve the species' chances of survival
are developed (Stearns 1992). To successfully complete its life cycle,
each bat needs to complete each stage of this life history strategy. The
probability of successfully completing this life cycle is the combined
probability of completing each component of the cycle; if an individual
bat has a low probability of success in one phase of its life cycle, it
has a low probability of successfully completing the entire, annual
cycle (Myers et al. 1987).

In order for the Indiana bat to have a reasonable chance for survival
and recovery, the current population must be initially stabilized and
then increased, and there is some evidence that this is occurring. The
only options available for stabilizing and increasing the population are
to increase its recruitment (birth and survival of young to breeding
age) or reduce its mortality rate. The resilience of Indiana bats to
adverse environmental conditions is severely limited by the species'
relatively low reproductive capability (Humphrey et al. 1977; Racey
1982; Barclay and Harder 2003; Racey and Entwistle 2003). Some species
that experience declines during unfavorable periods are capable of
quickly responding to improvements with rapid population growth.
However, the Indiana bat cannot. Even if survival at each life stage
increases dramatically, the Indiana bat population growth will be
constrained by a maximum fecundity of one pup per female per year
(Humphrey et al. 1977; Racey 1982; Barclay and Harder 2003; Racey and
Entwistle 2003). Thus, depleted populations are likely to remain
vulnerable for long periods of time.

### Analysis of the species/critical habitat to be affected

In the Introduction to this biological opinion, the Service concurred
with the MRD's determinations of effect on 31 listed species and four
critical habitat units that occur on or in the vicinity of the action
area. These concurrences were based on the fact that nine listed species
are likely extirpated from the action area and 22 species and four
critical habitat areas would either not be affected or may be affected
but not likely adversely affected by the proposed action. These 31
species will not be considered further. However, based on the MRD's need
to remove ice damaged trees and restore and construct bat watering
habitat during the summer roosting period of the Indiana bat and based
on the fact that conducting these activities during the summer roosting
period could result in the harm, harassment, or mortality of Indiana
bats, only the Indiana bat will be considered further in this biological
opinion.

**ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE**

Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, when considering the "effects of the
action" on federally listed species, the Service is required to take
into consideration the environmental baseline. The environmental
baseline includes past and ongoing natural factors and the past and
present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other
activities in the action area (50 CFR 402.02), including Federal actions
in the area that have already undergone section 7 consultation, and the
impacts of State or private actions that are contemporaneous with the
consultation in process. The environmental baseline for this biological
opinion considers all DBNF and MRD projects approved prior to the
initiation of formal consultation with the Service.

According to the known and suspected range of the Indiana bat (Service
1983), the species ranges over an area of approximately 580,550 square
miles in the eastern one-half of the United States. The DBNF's surface
land area is approximately 1,050 square miles, which represents less
than two-tenths of one percent (0.18 percent) of the total range of the
species. The MRD's encompasses 119,387 acres or approximately 17 percent
of the land owned and operated by the DBNF.

Status of the species within the DBNF and action area

The Indiana bat is known from throughout the DBNF, with over 90 records
forest-wide, mostly from hibernation caves which harbor anywhere from a
few occasional individuals to several thousand Indiana bats each winter.
Although the DBNF does not contain any designated critical habitat or
any Priority I hibernacula (defined as harboring 30,000 or more Indiana
bats since 1960), it does contain 8 Priority II winter caves (harboring
500 to 30,000 bats), 16 Priority III caves (with \< 500 bats) that
regularly support 100 or more through each winter, and approximately 30
more Priority III caves that contain fewer than 35 Indiana bats in
winter. Seven of the 8 Priority II caves and 7 of the top 16 Priority
III caves located within the proclamation boundary are on National
Forest System lands, and most of the others are on private tracts
immediately adjacent to the DBNF. The nearest designated critical
habitat, Bat Cave, is located about 12 miles east of the MRD, in Carter
County, Kentucky. Indiana bat winter populations are censused every 2nd
year in the hibernacula. Since 1985, the DBNF area has harbored 20 to 25
percent of the total known Indiana bat winter population in Kentucky.

Only small numbers of Indiana bats have been found on the MRD during the
winter hibernation season. Most of the hibernating populations of
Indiana bats found on the DBNF occur on the Stanton, London and Somerset
Ranger Districts. Two small caves are known to provide winter habitat
for the Indiana bat on the MRD. One is Murder Branch Cave, located in
Menifee County. Murder Branch Cave has been used as hibernacula by a
maximum of four Indiana bats. Three Indiana bats were last observed in
Murder Branch Cave on February 8, 1994. Murder Branch Cave is located
approximately 1 mile south of the five-mile buffer surrounding the
closest ISRP treatment unit as shown on the Bangor Topographic map. The
second hibernation site is Spaws Creek Sodalis Cave, located in Morgan
County. One Indiana bat was found hibernating in the cave on March 21,
1991. Spaws Creek Sodalis Cave is located approximately 2.5 miles south
of the five-mile buffer surrounding the closest ISRP treatment unit as
shown on the Bangor Topographic map. Neither one of these caves is
considered a *Significant Bat Cave*. The Forest Plan (USDA 2004) defines
a Significant Indiana Bat Cave as one containing 50 or more Indiana
bats. The closest Significant Indiana Bat Cave to the MRD is Little Amos
Cave, located on the Stanton Ranger District. Little Amos Cave is
located approximately 1.5 miles from the southern boundary of the MRD,
or 8 miles from the five-mile buffer surrounding the closest tree
cutting unit proposed for the ISRP.

Some of the Indiana bats that hibernate on the DBNF migrate to other
areas in summer. A female that had been banded at a maternity site in
extreme northern Indiana was observed during two winters at a Lee County
hibernaculum on the DBNF and a female banded in Michigan in July 1998
was recorded in a Rockcastle County hibernaculum in October 1999. Other
Indiana bats apparently remain on the DBNF year round. Summer maternity
colonies, consisting of females and their young, have been documented by
mist netting on the Morehead (2 sites), Somerset (1 site), and Redbird
(3 sites) Ranger Districts (RD), and might be expected to occur anywhere
on the DBNF where suitable habitat exists. An additional summer
maternity colony was documented in 2001 near the MRD, just off National
Forest System land, but well within the proclamation boundary. Summer
resident male Indiana bats have been captured or observed on the
Morehead, Stanton, London, Somerset, and Redbird RDs and a single
Indiana bat was found in an abandoned coal mine in Big South Fork NRRA
(near the Stearns RD) during the fall migration period.

On the DBNF, suitable winter habitat for Indiana bats is largely
confined to areas where limestone caves occur, which includes large
sections of the Stanton RD, the northern part of London RD, and smaller
portions of the Morehead, Somerset, Stearns, and Redbird RDs. Sandstone
caves (rock shelters with well developed dark zones), underground
workings in limestone quarries, and abandoned coal mines may also
provide suitable winter habitat and can be found in varying numbers on
all RDs.

In October 1996, following a 2-year study of autumn Indiana bat roosting
and foraging habitat that took place on the London RD (Kiser and Elliott
1996), the DBNF began monitoring roost tree use by Indiana bats during
the fall on the Somerset RD. The majority of the roost trees used by
Indiana bats during the autumn months were located in stands greater
than 50 years old with relatively closed canopies (80 to 93 percent
canopy cover), in natural canopy gaps that had been formed by the death
of one or more canopy trees (primarily from wind or ice damage), and in
areas subjected to prescribed burns which had been conducted primarily
for red-cockaded woodpecker habitat management. Indiana bats also
roosted extensively in 2-age shelterwood harvest areas within which
snags and other potential roost trees had been retained, and in
high-graded stands with many snags and culls. Similar roost tree use was
reported by Gumbert (2001) on the Somerset RD during the spring and
summer months.

Suitable roosting (See Appendix D) and foraging habitat and potential
maternity habitat for the Indiana bat occur throughout the DBNF and the
action area. At least a portion of the Indiana bats that spend the
winter in the large and medium-sized hibernacula on the Stanton, London,
and Somerset RDs remain in the vicinity of these areas through the
summer. For example, a female Indiana bat that was a member of the
maternity colony documented in 2001 and banded near the MRD in Bath
County was found in a hibernacula on the Stanton RD in 2005. Some of the
Indiana bats from hibernating sites on Pine Mountain (adjacent to the
Redbird RD), Carter Caves (not far from the Morehead RD), and caves in
Campbell and Fentress Counties in Tennessee (near the Stearns RD), and
perhaps from other areas, may also occur on the DBNF in summer. Recent
work in Missouri (Romme et al. 2002) and Kentucky (Kiser and Elliott
1996; Gumbert 2001) have found that Indiana bats range up to 5 miles
from hibernacula during autumn swarming and spring emergence activity
periods.

### [Factors affecting the species' environment within the action area]{.underline}

The DBNF owns and manages nearly 700,000 acres of the proclamation
area's over two million acres. Approximately 17 percent or 119,387 of
these acres are found within the MRD. The federally owned tracts are
discontinuous and scattered within the MRD. Individuals hold most of the
privately owned land within this boundary in varying tracts less than
500 acres in size. A number of activities occur on these private
in-holdings that may affect the Indiana bat. The most significant of
these activities include (A) timber harvest; (B) off-highway vehicle
recreational use; (C) recreational use of caves (potential hibernacula);
(D) rock climbing, and (E) development associated with road,
residential, industrial, and agricultural construction and activities.
Long-term land use and demographic trends may also play a key role in
any effects that may occur to the Indiana bat if these trends result in
destruction and/or modification of Indiana bat habitat.

Based on the information available, the Service is aware of two other
federal actions that are proposed to occur within the action area. The
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KTC) is proposing to construct a
four-lane highway across the MRD and private inholdings for the purpose
of connecting Interstate 64 (I-64) to U.S. Highway 60 (U.S. 60). The
highway project is identified as a system addition on the KTC's
"2005-2010 Recommended 6-year Highway Plan". In addition, East Kentucky
Power Cooperative (EKPC) has proposed to construct the Cranston-Rowan
Transmission Line within the next year. This new line would include an
additional seven miles of utility corridor through the MRD and private
inholdings and would involve the felling of an additional 65 acres of
suitable Indiana bat summer habitat. The Service is unaware of any
private actions that are proposed at the current time. However, actions
similar to those mentioned as A-E above are very likely to occur.

**EFFECTS OF THE ACTION**

**Analyses for effects of the action**

###### [Beneficial Effects]{.underline}

*General* - Some activities that have associated negative impacts may
also have commensurate beneficial effects. Management practices, like
the proposed action, that create small forest openings may foster the
development of suitable roosting and foraging habitat (Krusic and Neefus
1996). Activities that involve tree and sub-canopy vegetation removal,
which could adversely affect roosting habitat, may at the same time
improve foraging and/or roosting habitat conditions by opening the
canopy and exposing potential roost trees to a greater amount of
sunlight (see thermoregulatory needs in "Summer Habitats"). Romme *et
al*. (1995) reported that stands with closed canopy conditions (\>80%
canopy closure) provide less than optimal roosting habitat conditions.
Callahan (1993) stated that manmade disturbances unintentionally created
nine maternity roost trees suitable for Indiana bats. These were in
areas that had been heavily logged within the past 20 years and had been
used as a hog lot in recent years. Callahan also stated, "those
activities probably benefited Indiana bats by removing most of the
canopy cover and leaving behind many standing dead trees." Gardner *et
al.* (1991b) found that the selective harvesting of living trees did not
directly alter summer roosting habitat. Individual Indiana bats have
also been found roosting in trees within active timber harvest projects
adjacent to the MRD and on the DBNF (MacGregor, personal communication).
Gumbert (2001) found when comparing use with available forest habitat,
Indiana bats roosted more readily in shortleaf pine-oak forests, forests
greater than or equal to 70 years of age, and within two aged
shelterwood cuts on the DBNF. Thus, even active harvests may still serve
as suitable roosting habitat.

The development of infrequently used or closed logging (skid) roads and
small wildlife openings may also improve travel corridors and foraging
habitat conditions by providing narrow foraging corridors within a
larger network of mature closed canopy forest. Skid roads provide flight
paths thru dense forest that are routinely used by bats, including the
Indiana bat. These skid roads are used by bats years after tree cutting
has been completed in an area. The small puddles that are formed by
closing skid roads would increase the availability of water to Indiana
bats on dry ridge-top areas. These abundant, well-distributed water
sources would be of great value to pregnant and lactating Indiana bats.

The 2003 ice storm created a large number of roosts now suitable for
Indiana bat use by the breaking, killing, and splintering of potentially
millions of live trees. Approximately one-half of the acreage affected
by the ice storm would be treated by the proposed action, thus many of
the areas with a large number of suitable roost trees would remain
unaltered. The MRD has proposed to leave those trees most likely to be
used by Indiana bats standing uncut in treatment units. An average of 3
snags per acre would be avoided in treatment units, and these snags are
the most likely trees to be used by the Indiana bat currently. In
addition, an average of 5 severely damaged live trees per acre would be
left uncut in treatment units. The live trees being retained are also
those best suited for use by Indiana bats in the future. They are the
ones with a larger diameter, those that have exfoliating bark and other
features that would provide Indiana bats with protection from the rain.

Potential roosting habitat (i.e., forests with dead snags, damaged
trees, trees having exfoliating bark) and tree species of the size and
type Indiana bats are known to use exist across the MRD. Besides the
presence of suitable roosting habitat, it is possible that Indiana bats
may use the treatment areas for foraging following tree harvest as the
units would be more open with a lower density of standing trees.
Persistence of early successional habitats and forests with an open
understory and patchy overstory would create insect-rich foraging areas
and flight corridors leading to any potential roost trees. Biologists
from the MRD observed Indiana bats foraging between the scattered crowns
of trees left standing in a timber harvest area on private land in Bath
County, Kentucky in 2001. The bats began foraging immediately upon
leaving the maternity roost tree within the timber harvest area.
Salvage/sanitation harvests would produce a mosaic of regeneration areas
intermixed with mature and late successional forests. This will
indirectly benefit Indiana bats by providing feeding areas since bats
are known to forage within the canopy openings of upland forests, over
clearings with early successional vegetation, and over ponds, as well as
streams.

Previous and proposed woodland pond restoration/construction will
increase the number of upland water sources available for Indiana bats
within the action area. These ponds would also provide habitat to a
diverse array of insects that may be foraged upon by the Indiana bat. In
addition, the construction of a water source by heavy equipment may
eventually cause the death of a larger tree(s) located close to the
establishment site. Heavy equipment may damage tree(s) roots, resulting
in additional dead snags suitable for roosting close to the constructed
water source at a later date.

C*urrent USFS Indiana Bat Conservation Measures* - Conservation measures
represent actions pledged in the project description that the action
agency would implement to further the recovery of the species under
review. Such measures should be closely related to the action and should
be achievable within the authority of the action agency. The beneficial
effects of conservation measures are taken into consideration in our
conclusion of a jeopardy versus a nonjeopardy biological opinion and in
the analysis of incidental take. However, such measures must minimize
impacts to listed species within the action area in order to be factored
into our analyses.

The proposed action includes ongoing conservation measures that will be
implemented through standards and prescriptions outlined in the 2004
Forest Plan to reduce or minimize adverse effects on the Indiana bat.
The DBNF has designed Objectives, Standards, and Prescription Areas
specifically to protect, maintain, or enhance summer or winter Indiana
bat habitat or prevent impacts to Indiana bats roosting in trees. Thus,
impacts to Indiana bats resulting from the implementation of land
management activities, such as salvage/sanitation harvests, non-native
invasive species control, and restoration and construction of bat
watering ponds, may be coincidentally reduced through forest-wide
standards and/or the implementation of standards and prescriptions
specific to those activities.

The direction contained in the 2004 Forest Plan, particularly the
creation of several Prescription Areas, is expected to provide
programmatic, long-term benefits to Indiana bat populations on the MRD
and the DBNF. For example, the Cliffline Community, Riparian Corridor,
and Significant Bat Cave Prescription Areas were created, in part, with
habitat maintenance and/or improvements for Indiana bats in mind.
Generally, habitat management in these areas is limited and is primarily
designed to improve conditions for species associated with these
prescription areas. Therefore, in the long-term, management actions in
these areas should move the habitat conditions toward the desired future
condition and provide beneficial effects to the Indiana bat. Standards
within these Prescriptions Areas are also expected to provide additional
protective measures and/or habitat enhancement direction for the
species.

Additionally, the Habitat Diversity Emphasis Prescription Area is an
area of active forest management that should continue to provide for a
mosaic of habitats that can be occupied by Indiana bats within the
general forested community. Standards in the 2004 Forest Plan,
particularly those provided in Appendix B, are designed to retain and/or
create habitat conditions particularly suitable for the Indiana bat and
should provide long-term beneficial effects for the species. For
example, DB-WLF-2, 3, 13, and 15 focus on avoiding the cutting of trees
that are most likely to contain a maternity colony or a roosting bat.
Other Standards, particularly DB-VEG-7 through DB-VEG-21, are also
included to ensure that herbicides used to control non-native invasive
plants are applied in such a manner that potential effects to Indiana
bats are avoided and/or minimized.

Thus, the Standards may minimize negative impacts to and, in some cases,
potentially improve Indiana bat habitat. These Standards and
Prescription Areas were developed to meet specific resource objectives,
to serve as avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures, and to
provide for population viability for native wildlife species, including
the Indiana bat. The Standards applicable to the proposed project that
likely pertain to the Indiana bat are listed in Appendix B.

[Direct Effects of Salvage/Sanitation Harvests of Severely Damaged
Trees]{.underline}

#### During the non-hibernation season Indiana bats often roost in live, damaged, and/or dead trees with or without naturally exfoliating bark. These trees are defined as Potential Roost Trees in the 2004 Forest Plan and BAE. Of the 20 tree species commonly harvested on the DBNF, 13 are considered potential roost tree species. In an average timber harvest, these 13 species (e.g., mostly oaks, elm, and yellow poplar) make up approximately 89 percent of the trees cut. With regard to the damaged and/or dead trees proposed to be removed in the proposed action, it is the physical condition of the tree, rather than the tree species itself, that makes these trees suitable roosting habitat for the Indiana bat. Stochastic events, in part, distribute trees in this condition across the forest. When any of the previously mentioned units are selected for harvest operations, programmatically, the following effects can be expected.

In any salvage/sanitation harvest on the DBNF, a number of activities
that occur may cause direct or indirect effects to the Indiana bat. Some
of these activities, by themselves, may not result in the take of an
Indiana bat; however, when they are considered as one programmatic
action, take may occur. These interrelated or interdependent activities
include: (A) Sale Area Layout/Designation of Timber to be Harvested; (B)
Felling of Trees; (C) Skidding of Cut Trees; (D) Cable Logging and
Winching of Cut Trees; (E) Site Preparation of Units for Regeneration;
(F) Construction of Log Landings; and (F) Construction of Temporary Haul
Roads. These activities are listed in the order in which they typically
occur and are discussed in the BAE.

The direct effects that may occur will typically result from the
felling, skidding, cable logging and/or winching, site preparation
felling, decking/landing, and/or transport of trees. These effects can
be separated into the felling of a tree and the removal operations that
occur once the tree is on the ground. Trees are either felled through
the selection and subsequent dropping of that tree or the accidental
felling of an adjacent tree. Regardless of the felling method (i.e.,
direct or accidental), a maternity colony or individual Indiana bats
could be harmed or killed when the tree strikes the ground. While male
bats can fly away from a tree during the felling process, females may be
less likely to leave if they have flightless young present (usually
between May 1 and July 31). Flightless young in a maternity colony would
not leave their roost tree and may be killed. Once the young bats become
volant their likelihood of surviving the felling of a tree in which they
are roosting likely increases. Project level monitoring on the DBNF,
although limited, indicates that there is no known occurrence of Indiana
bat mortality associated with the felling of trees. Likewise, regardless
of the activity responsible for the removal of the felled tree (i.e.,
skidding, landing/decking, or transporting), it could result in take of
an Indiana bat that survived the felling operation and remained in the
log.

### 

Another direct effect that may occur is the disturbance of a roosting
bat that causes the bat to flush from the roost tree during daylight.
This type of effect could result from any of the activities mentioned
previously. Disturbing a roosting Indiana bat may alter its normal
behavioral pattern. The noise or disturbance is generated by a variety
of activities from the loud noises associated with the use of equipment
on or near the roosting bat (e.g., axes, chain saws, skidders, loading
equipment, and trucks). The flushing of an Indiana bat could result in
harm or harassment by altering its normal behavioral pattern and
possibly making it more susceptible to various predators during the
daylight hours or result in mortality. While these types of disturbances
can occur, they present a very minimal risk to the Indiana bat when
considered individually; however, programmatically these activities
could result in take of an Indiana bat.

With regard to the likelihood that non-target trees could be cut or the
selected tree could, in the process of falling, accidentally knock down
a non-target tree, the DBNF's monitoring over the last four years (2000
-- 2004) indicates that between 1 and 17 reportable roost trees are
accidentally felled on an annual basis. Reportable roost trees are
defined in the 2004 Forest Plan. Inspection of these trees has
determined that no known harm or mortality has occurred.

In salvage/sanitation sales, like the ISRP, it is the highly damaged
trees that are selected for removal and, thus make up the majority of
trees cut in a project area. These damaged trees usually meet the
physical condition of what have been defined in the 2004 Forest Plan and
protected through standard DB-WLD-7 as immediate roost trees. Thus,
salvage/sanitation harvest projects usually are designed to remove the
specific trees identified as desirable roosting sites for the Indiana
bat. If the stochastic event is severe enough or if enough time passes
prior to management action, as is the case for the ISRP, the resulting
trees within the salvage/sanitation project area may be dead (snags).
These trees have also been recognized, through Standard DB-WLD-1, as
potentially having characteristics that make them desirable for Indiana
bat roosting.

Specifically to the Indiana bat, the 2004 Forest Plan provides standards
to protect, maintain, and/or enhance Indiana bat habitat associated with
timber sale projects involving salvage/sanitation cutting (DB-WLD-2, 3,
13, and 15). Thus, suitable roosting habitat is retained within the
salvage/sanitation project areas and is generally not considered to be a
limiting factor for the Indiana bat on the DBNF.

The ISRP contains prohibitions preventing the cutting of damaged or dead
trees within 7,828 acres of non-commercial treatment units between April
1 and September 15, and another Forest Plan Standard prohibits cutting
within 5 miles of a hibernaculum during the fall swarming period.
However, the ISRP provides no prohibitions preventing the cutting of
damaged or dead trees within the 4,704 acres of commercial treatment
units, thus, this action may directly and/or indirectly affect the
Indiana bat on up to 4,704 acres of salvage/sanitation harvests for six
years from implementation of the proposed action. Most standing trees
selected for harvest in salvage/sanitation units may provide suitable
roosting habitat for the Indiana bat. While the probability of taking an
individual Indiana bat remains low, it is likely to be somewhat higher,
at least on a per acre basis, than that which occurs on other vegetation
management activities. Overall, the MRD or DBNF has no known occurrence
of taking an Indiana bat during tree felling or associated operations.

###### [Direct Effects of Non-Native Invasive Species Control]{.underline}

As proposed, the eradication or control of populations of non-native
invasive species of plants where they occur in storm damaged areas would
be completed utilizing two treatment methods. Small newly established
populations would be removed through manual grubbing, while larger or
well-established populations would be controlled using the appropriate
herbicide for the species involved.

The only potential effect to the Indiana bat that may occur as a result
of the manual grubbing of target plants would be from the noise
associated with workers digging and removing plants. This noise could
disturb a roosting Indiana bat, causing it to leave a tree during the
day and become more susceptible to predation. While this type of
disturbance can occur, this "noise" from talking, digging, and removing
plants is believed to present a minimal risk to the Indiana bat and
therefore is considered discountable. Furthermore, the invasive plants
being controlled do not provide roosting habitat for the Indiana bat and
activities would only occur at or near the ground, which would further
avoid and minimize potential affects to the Indiana bat. The MRD or DBNF
know of no instances where Forest Service Personnel or contractors have
disturbed or caused the mortality of Indiana bats by working with hand
tools to complete projects similar to the proposed action. Given this
information, the Service agrees that the manual grubbing of non-native
invasive plants within the action area would not likely adversely affect
the Indiana bat.

With regards to the use of herbicide treatment to control non-native
invasive plants, Indiana bats may be exposed to an applied herbicide
from direct spray, the ingestion of contaminated media (i.e., prey
species or water), grooming activities, or indirect contact with
contaminated vegetation. The only potential direct effect that the use
of herbicides could have on the Indiana bat is if a colony or individual
was directly sprayed with herbicide. However, direct contact is not
likely as herbicides would be applied to herbaceous plants at ground
level, not to trees suitable for roosting. Furthermore, the toxicity of
these chemicals (i.e., imazapyr, glyphosate, and triclopyr) to species
such as bats can be inferred from registration standards that were
developed under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
for the protection of humans and the environment. Four classes were
developed for humans to describe the effects on dermal and eye
irritation. The same level of precision was not required for animals.
The following data applies to dermal irritation for rats and rabbits as
the chief test animals: imazapyr and glyphosate: none to slight,
triclopyr: slight. Eye irritation was reported as follows: triclopyr:
none, glyphosate, imazapyr: none to slight (USFS 1989). Standards (See
DB-VEG-7 through 21 in Appendix B) controlling how these herbicides are
applied would also be included in all contracts for their use on the
proposed project and thus assist in avoidance of potential affects
through direct spraying of and contamination of water sources for the
Indiana bat. The MRD would conduct periodic onsite inspections to ensure
contractors are adhering to these standards. The MRD or DBNF knows of no
instances where Forest Service Personnel or contractors have disturbed
or caused the mortality of Indiana bats by using herbicide to complete
projects similar to the proposed action. Based on this information, the
application of these herbicides to control invasive plants would not
likely have a direct effect on the Indiana bat because they would not be
applied directly to bats, allowed to contaminate water sources, nor
would they be applied to trees that may be used by the Indiana bat.

[Direct Effects of the Restoration and Establishment of Bat
Habitat]{.underline}

As proposed the restoration and establishment of bat habitat within the
project area would be completed in one of two ways: (1) the removal of
fallen trees from existing woodland water sources and (2) the
construction of new woodland water sources.

Removing trees from and/or constructing new water sources may directly
affect the Indiana bat by disturbing them while roosting, altering
normal behavioral patterns. The noise or disturbance generated by
activities from loud noises associated with equipment operation may
cause a bat to flush. This flushing activity could result in harm or
harassment of the Indiana bat by altering its normal behavior pattern,
possibly making it more susceptible to predators during the daylight
hours, resulting in mortality. While this type of disturbance can occur,
it is believed to present a minimal risk to the Indiana bat as we know
of no instances on the MRD or DBNF where USFS Personnel or contractors
have disturbed or caused the mortality of Indiana bats by placing or
removing woody debris from ponds.

Removing trees from and/or constructing new water sources is not
expected to have any other negative effects on the Indiana bat. Trees
that are suitable for Indiana bat roosting would not be pushed over or
cut when building a pond. It is possible that the actual construction of
a water source by heavy equipment may eventually cause the death of a
larger tree located close to the establishment site. Heavy equipment may
damage trees roots, resulting in mortality of a tree close to
constructed water source at a later date. A large diameter dead tree may
then develop exfoliating bark and/or crevices that the Indiana bat would
then use for roosting, which would have a positive effect on the
species.

###### [Indirect Effects]{.underline}

The implementation of management activities that involve the felling
(commercial or non-commercial) of suitable roost trees has the potential
for adverse effects by removing these trees and reducing tree density
levels and subsequent canopy closure levels, which may result in less
than optimal or suitable summer roosting or foraging habitat conditions.
When these activities occur near known or potential maternity sites,
they could result in adverse stress to roosting bats. However, the
overall potential impact is somewhat lessened by at least five factors:
(A) approximately 50 percent of the forest on the MRD determined to be
damaged by the 2003 Ice Storm would be unaffected by the proposed
action; (B) a high percentage of the MRD is projected to provide at
suitable snag habitat conditions, with a projected increase in the
number of acres meeting suitable snag habitat conditions over the life
of the ISRP; (C) at projected harvest rates, the creation of roosts
through annual natural tree mortality will offset any subsequent loss of
live potential or dead roost trees; (D) the overall forest stand age of
the MRD is increasing, which indicates that as these stands get older
there will be a greater number of larger-diameter potential roost trees
available; and (E) the Standards in the DBNF's 2004 Forest Plan appear
to provide for more than adequate numbers of potential roost trees.

As mentioned in the analysis of direct effects, the treatment of
non-native invasive plants with herbicides could affect Indiana bats
through the ingestion of contaminated insects during nightly foraging
bouts. In a recent study completed for USFS Forest Health Protection
Staff for imazapyr, the ingestion of contaminated prey (insects) by
small (\~20 gram) mammals was assessed and determined that adverse
effects did not appear to be likely using typical or worst-case exposure
assumptions at the typical and maximum application rates of 0.45 and
1.25 lb/acre, respectively (SERA 2004). Based on these results and the
fact that direct spraying of all three of these chemicals has been
determined to be toxicologically insignificant, it is reasonable to
assume that effects of the ingestion of contaminated prey items would
also be insignificant on Indiana bats, especially when considering the
MRD only proposes to use this treatment method once annually for two
years within any small treatment unit. Therefore, we believe the use of
herbicide, as proposed in the BAE, would not likely adversely affect the
Indiana bat.

If the proposed action is implemented at the proposed maximum threshold,
approximately 4,704 acres would be impacted for six years from
implementation of the proposed action. However, we believe that this
overestimates potential impacts to Indiana bat habitat, because it
assumes that (A) all activities occur in forest types that can be
immediately occupied by Indiana bats, (B) all of the habitat within a
project area is potentially suitable and/or occupied habitat, and (C)
all activities are completely deleterious resulting in complete loss of
habitat values for Indiana bats and/or individual Indiana bats within a
project area. Obviously, this would not be the case, and, further, this
acreage would represent only four percent of the potentially suitable
habitat (119,387 acres) on the MRD.

#### Interrelated and Interdependent Effects

An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of the proposed
action and depends on the proposed action for its justification (USFWS
and National Marine Fisheries Service \[NMFS\] 1998). An interdependent
activity is an activity that has no independent utility apart from the
action under consultation (USFWS and NMFS 1998). A determination of
whether other activities are interrelated to, or interdependent with,
the proposed action under consultation is made by applying a "but for"
test. That is, it must be determined that the other activity under
question would not occur "but for" the proposed action under
consultation (USFWS and NMFS 1998). For example, private
timber-harvesting activities outside the DBNF would only be considered
as interrelated or interdependent if a determination was made that these
activities would not occur but for implementation of the ISRP. There is
no justification for claiming that other harvesting activities on
adjacent land would occur due to the implementation of the ISRP;
therefore, these actions outside the boundaries of the action area
cannot be considered as an interrelated or interdependent action that
should be considered in this biological opinion. Further, any unforeseen
activity that may occur on forest system lands as a result of the
proposed action would receive a second level, project-specific analysis
and subsequent section 7 consultation with the Service through the BAE
process.

**CUMULATIVE EFFECTS**

Cumulative effects include the combined effects of any future State,
local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur within
the action area covered 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 under section 7
of the Act. Additionally, any future Federal, State, local, or private
actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area, and
which are considered in this biological opinion (e.g., Rowan-Cranston
Transmission Line and I-64/SH-60 Connector Projects, will either be
carried out by, or will require a permit from, the USFS; they will,
therefore, require compliance with section 7 of the Act. Because the
Service is not aware of any future State, local, or private actions that
are reasonably certain to occur within the action area and which would
not be subject to USFS section 7 review, cumulative effects, as defined
by the Act, will not occur and will not be addressed further in this
biological opinion.

**CONCLUSION**

After reviewing the current status of the Indiana bat; the environmental
baseline for the action area; the effects of the proposed forest
management activities associated with the proposed action and the
cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that proposed
forest management activities associated with the proposed action, as
proposed, are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
Indiana bat. Critical habitat for the Indiana bat has been designated at
a number of locations throughout its range, however, this action does
not affect any of those designated critical habitat areas and no
destruction or adverse modification of that critical habitat is
expected.

This conclusion is based on the DBNF's stated commitment to protect and
conserve Indiana bat summer and winter habitat through implementation of
the 2004 Forest Plan and its protective Standards that benefit Indiana
bats and our analysis of the effects of the proposed action. These
effects show that Indiana bats may be incidentally taken during the
proposed action at levels that are unlikely to result in jeopardy to the
species. Furthermore, the expected outcome of the MRD's and DBNF's
proposed management direction under the 2004 Forest Plan would have
beneficial effects to Indiana bats and their habitat through the
protection of hibernacula, the improvement of summer roosting and
foraging habitat across the DBNF, and the continual replacement of
potentially suitable forested habitat on the DBNF (i.e., habitat
alteration/loss will not be permanent).

##### INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations under section 4(d) of the
Act prohibit the taking 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
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 such as 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 that 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
under the Act, 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 USFS so that they become binding conditions of any
grant, contract, or permit issued to an applicant, contractor, or
permittee, as proper, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The
USFS has the continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this
Incidental Take Statement. If the USFS (A) fails to assume and implement
the terms and conditions or (B) fails to require an applicant,
contractor, or permittee to adhere to the terms and conditions of the
Incidental Take Statement through enforceable terms that are added to
the grant, contract, or permit document, the protective coverage of
section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental
take, the USFS must report the progress of the action and its impact on
the species to the Service as specified in the Incidental Take
Statement.

#### **AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE ANTICIPATED**

The Service anticipates incidental take of the Indiana bat will be
difficult to detect for the following reasons:

1.  The individuals are small and occupy summer habitats where they are
    difficult to find;

2.  Indiana bats form small (i.e., 25-100 individuals), widely dispersed
    maternity colonies under loose bark or in the cavities of trees, and
    males and non-reproductive females may roost individually which
    makes finding the species or occupied habitats difficult;

3.  Finding dead or injured specimens during or following project
    implementation is unlikely;

4.  The extent and density of the species within its summer habitat on
    the MRD is unknown;

5.  Implemented actions will not affect all available habitat within a
    project area (i.e., implementation of protective Standards and
    avoidance and minimization measures that the MRD will implement on
    the ISRP will minimize the amount of incidental take);

6.  Most incidental take that could occur is expected to be non-lethal
    and undetectable.

However, incidental take of Indiana bats can be expected due to:

1.  Loss of occupied summer roosting trees (a direct effect);

2.  Loss of trees that exhibit the necessary characteristics that a
    Indiana bat could use for summer roosting habitat between April 1
    and September 15 (an indirect effect);

3.  Modification and alteration of occupied roosting trees (a direct
    effect);

4.  Modification and alteration of trees that exhibit the necessary
    characteristics that a Indiana bat could use for summer roosting
    habitat between April 1 and September 15 (an indirect effect);

5.  Modification and alteration of occupied foraging habitat (a direct
    effect);

6.  Modification and alteration of potential foraging habitat (an
    indirect effect);

7.  Modification and alteration of occupied travel corridor habitat (a
    direct effect);

8.  Modification and alteration of potential travel corridor habitat (an
    indirect effect);

9.  Harm and harassment of Indiana bats resulting from activities
    associated with the ISRP that will be conducted within potential
    and/or occupied Indiana bat habitat (an indirect effect); and

> 10\. Mortality associated with the loss, modification, and/or
> alteration of occupied roost trees, occupied foraging habitat, and
> occupied travel corridor habitat resulting from the ISRP that will be
> conducted within occupied Indiana bat habitat (a direct effect).

The level of incidental take identified below may result, because the
USFS anticipates that up to 4,704 acres of commercial removal of damaged
trees and restoration and creation of bat habitat may occur for six
years from project implementation during the summer roosting period of
the Indiana bat and because these activities will likely occur within
forest stands that contain potential and/or occupied habitat for Indiana
bats. Because of the difficulty in determining a level of incidental
take based on the number of Indiana bats that will be adversely
affected, the Service has decided that it is appropriate to base the
level of authorized incidental take on the acreage that will be affected
by the ISRP for six years from project implementation. Therefore, the
level of incidental take authorized in this biological opinion is 4,704
acres of commercial removal of damaged trees and restoration and
creation of bat habitat when accomplished during the summer roosting
period of the Indiana bat (April 1 to September 15).

This incidental take statement anticipates the taking of Indiana bats
only from the actions associated with the commercial removal of damaged
trees and restoration and creation of bat habitat activities as
described in the MRD's BAE. Incidental take of Indiana bats is expected
to be in the form of mortality, harm, and/or harassment and is expected
to occur as a result of timber harvest; temporary road, skid-trail, and
log landing construction and maintenance; restoration and creation of
bat habitat; disturbance from machinery used during the preparation and
implementation of these activities; and inter-related activities that
are necessary to plan and implement these activities. Although mortality
is the least likely form of take to occur, adult or juvenile Indiana
bats may be killed (A) during salvage/sanitation harvests due to the
felling of trees or (B) by other activities that are associated with
commercial removal of damaged trees and restoration and creation of bat
habitat. Harm may occur through the habitat alterations that are
anticipated to occur as a result of the action which include, but are
not limited to, removal of potential roost trees and the accidental
scarring or knocking down of potential or occupied roost trees by
personnel or equipment. Harassment may occur as a result of any number
of indirect effects outlined in previous sections of this biological
opinion. However, likely sources of harassment to Indiana bats include,
but are not limited to, noise and other disruptions (e.g., operations of
personnel and equipment) within occupied habitat. Potential foraging and
travel corridor habitat and potential summer roost trees for the Indiana
bat are believed to be well-distributed across the MRD. Thus, harassment
has the potential to occur in any treatment unit activity occurring
between April 1 and September 15.

The level of take identified above, in acres, is authorized for a period
of six years from project implementation or until information on adverse
effects and/or incidental take of Indiana bats arises that would cause
the re-initiation of the consultation on this action at an earlier date.
The Service believes that re-initiation of consultation on this action
may be necessary, because there is little specific information on the
amount of incidental take, other than the acreage of the proposed
action, that is likely to occur as a result of the action. In
particular, specific information is lacking that would estimate the
number of Indiana bats taken or the specific habitat elements (i.e.,
roost trees, foraging habitat, and travel corridor habitat) that would
be affected by the USFS's proposed management actions in Indiana bat
habitat. If available, these data would help estimate adverse effects to
Indiana bats or if habitat has been improved or degraded as a result of
the USFS's actions. Because of this, it is prudent for the USFS and the
Service to re-visit this action once the USFS has had an opportunity to
more specifically monitor the effects of the action as required by the
Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions below.

#### **EFFECT OF THE TAKE** 

In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this
level of expected take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the
Indiana bat or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

#### **REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES**

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are
necessary and proper to minimize incidental take of the Indiana bat
associated with the ISRP. These non-discretionary measures include, but
are not limited to, the USFS's implementation of the Standards found in
the 2004 Forest Plan and the terms and conditions outlined in this
biological opinion.

> 1\. The USFS must plan, evaluate, and implement the proposed
> management activities associated with the ISRP in a manner that is
> consistent with the Standards contained in the 2004 Forest Plan to
> protect the Indiana bat. Specific implementation of the measures
> designed to maintain, improve, or enhance habitat for Indiana bats
> will help avoid impacts to Indiana bats and their habitat and minimize
> incidental take of Indiana bats associated with the ISRP.
>
> 2\. The USFS must monitor its activities associated with the ISRP to
> determine if the 2004 Forest Plan Standards and the Terms and
> Conditions of this biological opinion are being implemented and
> provide an annual report of those activities to the Service.

#### **TERMS AND CONDITIONS**

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the
USFS must comply with the following Terms and Conditions, which carry
out the Reasonable and Prudent Measures described above and outline
required reporting/monitoring requirements for actions on the MRD
associated with the ISRP. These Terms and Conditions are
non-discretionary.

> 1\. The USFS will notify the Service by written letter when the ISRP
> is officially implemented.
>
> 2\. The USFS will implement the Standards in a manner that is
> consistent with the 2004 Forest Plan and as they apply to forest
> management practices associated with the ISRP that will be implemented
> for six years from project initiation on the MRD between April 1 and
> September 15 of each year:

a.  The USFS will make sure that roost trees (e.g., "currently suitable
    roost trees" and/or "snags with exfoliating bark") are available
    either within a proposed harvest unit or adjacent to a proposed
    harvest unit by conducting surveys of the available Indiana bat
    roosting habitat prior to implementation of the harvest. If roost
    trees are not available within a proposed harvest unit, or if roost
    trees will not be available within the harvest unit after treatment,
    or if roost trees are not and/or will not be available adjacent to a
    proposed harvest unit, the USFS must either create a minimum of
    three snags with exfoliating bark (e.g. girdle live trees) or
    install a minimum of three artificial structures (e.g. rocket-style
    bat boxes) per acre of proposed harvest unit. If created or
    artificial structures are used, these habitat improvements must be
    implemented at least one year in advance of the harvest and must be
    implemented as close as possible to the harvest unit, but must not
    be located within the harvest unit in order to avoid luring Indiana
    bats into areas that will be subsequently treated. This will ensure
    that roosting habitat is available if Indiana bats are displaced due
    to a proposed harvest and associated activities. The USFS should
    monitor the created roosting habitat at least three times each
    summer so that monitoring will occur during the Indiana bat's early
    summer dispersal period, the maternity roosting period, and the late
    summer-early fall swarming period. This monitoring should focus on
    identifying use of these created roost trees/artificial structures
    by Indiana bats for a period of five years beginning with the year
    of their installation.

b.  The USFS will make sure that the following Standards designed to
    protect and conserve the Indiana bat and its habitat are
    incorporated into each ISRP unit: DB-WLF-2, 3, 8, 13, and 15.
    Further, the USFS will make sure that all remaining 2004 Forest Plan
    Standards listed in Appendix B, which are designed to protect and
    conserve the Indiana bat and its habitat, are incorporated into each
    treatment unit.

c.  During implementation of the ISRP, the USFS will take necessary
    precautions to protect designated trees and snags that are to be
    retained as Indiana bat roosting habitat and any tree known to be
    occupied by one or more Indiana bats. Further, all known roost trees
    will be protected until such time as they no longer serve as an
    Indiana bat roost (e.g., loss of exfoliating bark and/or crevices,
    blown down, or decay). This does not apply to any tree (live or
    dead) considered to be an immediate threat to human safety.

d.  The USFS will develop specific guidelines for use by MRD personnel
    and contractors that provide guidance and instruction on marking or
    otherwise designating trees to be harvested, cut, and/or trees that
    will be retained in stands subject to the ISRP proposed action.
    These guidelines will focus on making sure that trees that are
    designated as immediate Indiana bat habitat are retained or created
    within affected forest stands and that known, occupied roost trees
    are protected.

> 3\. The USFS will monitor its implementation of the ISRP to make sure
> that the Standards are appropriately implemented and must provide the
> Service with an annual report of its monitoring activities by January
> 31 of each year:

a.  The USFS will monitor selected project areas for characteristics
    associated with suitable characteristics for Indiana bat roosting
    pre- and post-project implementation. Relative to Indiana bat roost
    trees, the USFS will develop a sampling protocol that will
    determine (i) if these roost trees are present within project
    areas, (ii) roost tree densities within project areas, and (iii)
    retention and creation rates of roost trees within project areas.
    Relative to habitat conditions and habitat quality, the USFS will
    develop a sampling protocol that will provide information on the
    canopy closure, tree species composition, and understory density,
    and the stand age and distance to water. This information is
    necessary to show that the Standards and related provisions of the
    2004 Forest Plan are having the expected effects on Indiana bat
    habitat by reducing the amount and effect of the take associated
    with Indiana bat summer roosting habitat. The information gathered
    will be provided to the Service in the annual report.

b.  For two summer activity seasons, the USFS will monitor, through the
    use of mist-net and Anabat surveys, 20 percent of the bat habitat
    ponds restored and/or created between April 1 and September 15 in an
    attempt to determine whether Indiana bats are utilizing these ponds
    as watering and/or foraging habitat. The USFS must coordinate survey
    study plans with the KFO for approval prior to any field work. This
    monitoring is necessary to determine if the effects of the
    anticipated incidental take were minimized. Since construction of
    the bat habitat ponds was proposed as a measure to minimize the
    effects of any incidental take that might result from implementation
    of the project, this would constitute monitoring the effect of the
    incidental take as specified in Service's Section 7 Consultation
    Handbook.

c.  The USFS will monitor, through the use of mist-net and/or Anabat
    surveys, skid and/or temporary haul roads in 10 percent of the 587
    commercially treated units to determine whether Indiana bats are
    utilizing these roads as foraging and/or travel corridor habitats.
    Surveys shall be undertaken either concurrently with the harvest
    treatment or following the completion of harvest activities within
    each particular harvest units. Sites selected for survey must be
    well distributed throughout the entire action area. The USFS must
    coordinate survey study plans with the KFO for approval prior to any
    field work. This monitoring is necessary to determine if the effects
    of the anticipated incidental take were minimized. Since
    construction of the roads was considered as a measure to minimize
    the effects of any incidental take that might result from
    implementation of the project, this would constitute monitoring the
    effect of the incidental take as specified in Service's Section 7
    Consultation Handbook.

d.  The USFS will annually monitor the number of acres that are
    subjected to the ISRP during the summer roosting season of the
    Indiana bat (April 1 to September 15). The USFS will then use these
    data to determine if the amount of authorized incidental take was
    exceeded. The USFS will use the following table and annually provide
    the Service with this table in the annual report:

**Table X. Estimate of Indiana bat incidental take that occurred during
\[Insert Year Monitoring Was Conducted\] as a result of the
implementation of the Morehead Ranger District's Ice Storm Recovery
Project**

[]{.mark}

+-------------------------------------+----------------+--------------+
| ### Species                         | ### Habitat    |              |
+-------------------------------------+----------------+--------------+
|                                     | Authorized     | Actual Level |
|                                     | Level of       | of Habitat   |
|                                     | Habitat        | Alteration   |
|                                     | Alteration     |              |
+-------------------------------------+----------------+--------------+
| Indiana bat -- Commercial Removal   | 4,704 acres    | \# of acres  |
| of Damaged Trees (April 1 to        |                |              |
| September 15)                       |                |              |
+-------------------------------------+----------------+--------------+
| Indiana bat -- Restoration or       | 35 waterholes  | \# of        |
| Creation of Bat Habitat (April 1 to |                | waterholes   |
| September 15)                       |                |              |
+-------------------------------------+----------------+--------------+

e.  The above-listed Terms and Conditions do not replace the other
    Standards listed in the 2004 Forest Plan but are considered in
    addition to them.

The USFS and its contractors must take care when handling dead or
injured Indiana bats or any other federally listed species that are
found in order to preserve biological material in the best possible
state and to protect the handler from exposure to diseases, such as
rabies. In conjunction with the preservation of any dead specimens, the
USFS and its contractors have the responsibility to ensure that evidence
intrinsic to determining the cause of death or injury is not
unnecessarily disturbed. The reporting of dead or injured specimens is
required in all cases to enable the Service to determine if the level of
incidental take authorized by this biological opinion has been reached
or exceeded and to make sure that the terms and conditions are
appropriate and effective. Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick
specimen of any endangered or threatened species, prompt notification
must be made to the Service's Division of Law Enforcement at 1875
Century Blvd., Suite 380, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (Telephone:
404/679-7057). Additional notification must be made to the Service's
Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office at 3761 Georgetown Road,
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 (Telephone: 502/695-0468).

The Reasonable and Prudent Measures, with their Terms and Conditions,
are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might
otherwise result from the proposed action. The Service believes that an
indeterminate number of Indiana bats will be incidentally taken as a
result of the proposed action, with incidental take occurring on no more
than 4,704 acres of treatment units for six years from project
implementation. If, during the course of the action, this level of
incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new
information requiring re-initiation of consultation and review of the
Reasonable and Prudent Measures provided. The USFS must immediately
provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review with the
Service the need for possible modification of the Reasonable and Prudent
Measures.

##### CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

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

> 1\. The USFS should pursue additional funding and partnership
> opportunities to complete any additional research, inventory, and
> monitoring work that is necessary to better understand the ecology of
> the Indiana bat on the MRD. In particular, project areas should be
> selected and monitored for Indiana bat roosting, foraging, and travel
> corridor habitat use prior to project implementation and after project
> completion, which will provide information to compare and evaluate the
> effects of management activities on Indiana bat habitat use of project
> areas compared to non-project areas.
>
> 2\. Where possible, the USFS should work with landowners, the public,
> and other agencies to promote education and information about
> endangered bats and their conservation.
>
> 3\. The DBNF hosts many visitors each year; therefore, the Service
> encourages the installation of informational/educational displays
> regarding all bats occurring on the DBNF. The Service believes that
> such information would be valuable in informing the public about the
> value of this misunderstood group of mammals. The Service also
> encourages the USFS to develop an educational slide program on Indiana
> bats and threats to its existence.
>
> 4\. The USFS should provide training for appropriate staff and
> contractors on the bats (including the Indiana bat) that occur on the
> DBNF. Training should include sections on bat identification, biology,
> habitat requirements, and sampling techniques (including instructions
> on applicability/effectiveness of using mist-netting surveys versus
> Anabat detectors to accurately determine the presence of various bat
> species). The proper training of USFS staff and contractors on bat
> identification and reliable methods for counting roosting bats will
> enable the USFS to better monitor the status of this species.
>
> 5\. The demolition or removal of buildings or other manmade structures
> that harbor bats should not occur. If public safety is threatened and
> the building must be removed while bats are present, a bat expert
> should examine the building to determine if Indiana bats are present.
> Consultation with the Service should be initiated if Indiana bats are
> found.
>
> 6\. The USFS should avoid converting occupied and/or suitable Indiana
> bat forest habitat to habitat that is unsuitable for Indiana bats.
>
> 7\. The USFS should undertake efforts to control the spread of
> invasive species where invasion of such species is likely to result in
> the loss of suitable Indiana bat habitat.

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 conservation recommendations
carried out.

##### REINITIATION NOTICE

This concludes formal consultation on the implementation of the ISRP for
the MRD and its effects on the Indiana bat. As stated in 50 CFR 402.16,
re-initiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary MRD
involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is
authorized by law) and if: (A) the amount or extent of incidental take
is exceeded, (B) new information reveals effects of the USFS's action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an
extent not considered in this consultation (e.g., range-wide monitoring
shows, over a five-year period, a decline in hibernating Indiana bats),
(C) the USFS's action is later modified in a manner that causes an
effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this
consultation, or (D) 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 until re-initiation.

For this biological opinion, the authorized incidental take would be
exceeded when the take exceeds 4,704 acres of commercial removal of
damaged trees and restoration and creation of bat habitat over the next
six years during the summer roosting period of the Indiana bat (April 1
to September 15), which is the amount of take that has been exempted
from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act by this biological
opinion. The Service appreciates the cooperation of the Morehead Ranger
District and the Daniel Boone National Forest during this consultation.
We would like to continue working with you or your staff on this
project.

If you have any questions concerning this consultation, please contact
me or Mr. Mike Armstrong at (502) 695-0468. This consultation was
assigned Project No. FWS 05-0396; please refer to this number in any
correspondence concerning this consultation.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="2.7083333333333335in"
height="0.7604166666666666in"} Sincerely,

Virgil Lee Andrews, Jr.

Field Supervisor

**LITERATURE CITED**

3/D International, Inc. 1995. Literature summary and habitat suitability
index model: components of summer habitat for the Indiana bat, *Myotis
sodalis*. Unpublished report submitted to Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Natural Resources, Bloomington, Indiana. 190p.

3/D International, Inc. 1996. Biological Assessment of the Master Plan
and Ongoing Mission, U.S. Army Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City
District. 226 pp. + Appendices.

Apogee Environmental Consultants, LLC. 2003. A summer survey for the
federally endangered

Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) at three proposed surface mines and an
amendment in Boone

County, West Virginia. (Permit No. S-5012-00, S-5024-01, and S-5028-98).
Final

Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Black Castle
Mining Company,

Uneeda, West Virginia. 21p.

Apogee Environmental Consultants, LLC. 2004a. A biological assessment
for the federally

endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) at a proposed surface mine
area in Boone

County, West Virginia. Unpublished report prepared for Black Castle
Mining Company,

> Uneeda, West Virginia; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Elkins,
> West Virginia. 26p. + appendices.

Askins, R. A., J. F. Lynch, and R. Greenberg. 1990. Population declines
in migratory birds in

> eastern North America. Pages 1 - 57 in D. M. Power, editor. Current
> ornithology. Plenum Press, New York, New York.

Barclay, R.M.R. 1991. Population structure of temperate zone
insectivorous bats in relation to

foraging behavior and energy demand. Journal of Animal Ecology.
60:165-178.

Barclay, R.M.R., and L.D. Harder. 2003. Life histories of bats: life in
the slow lane. Pages 209-

256\. *In* T.H. Kunz and M.B. Fenton (eds.), Bat ecology. University of
Chicago Press;

Chicago, Illinois.

Barclay, R.M.R. and A. Kurta. 2004. Day roosting ecology of bark and
cavity roosting forest

bats: a synthesis. 2nd Bats and Forest Symposium and Workshop, March
9-12, 2004.

Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Bat Conservation International. 2004. *Tadarida brasiliensis*, Mexican
free-tailed bat. Bat

> Conservation International, Austin, Texas. Available
> http://www.batcon.org/discover/species/tbrasil.html. (Accessed 12 May
> 2004).

Belwood, J.J. 1979. Feeding ecology of an Indiana bat community with
emphasis on the endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. M.S. Thesis,
Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL 103 pp.

Belwood, J. J. 2002. Endangered bats in suburbia: observations and
concerns for the future. *In*

Kurta A., and J. Kennedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology and management
of an

endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Bohning-Gaese, K., M. L. Taper, and J. H. Brown. 1992. Are declines in
North American

insectivorous songbirds due to causes on the breeding range?
Conservation Biology **7**:6 -

86\.

Brack, V. 1983. The nonhibernating ecology of bats in Indiana with
emphasis on the endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN. 280 pp.

Brack, V., and R.K. LaVal. 1985. Food habits of the Indiana bat in
Missouri. J. of Mammalogy, 66:308-315.

Brack, V., Jr., K. Tyrell, and K. Dunlap. 1991. A 1990-1991 winter cave
census for the Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) in non-priority 1
hibernacula in Indiana. Ind. Fed. Aid Proj. E-1-6, Study No. 18, Ind.
Dept. Nat. Resour., Indianapolis. 45 pp.

Brack, V. Jr., C.W. Stihler, R.J. Reynolds, C.M. Butchkoskie, and C.S.
Hobson. 2002. Effect of

climate and elevation on distribution and abundance in the midwestern
United States. *In*

Kurta A., and J. Kennedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology and management
of an

endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Britzke, E.R. 2002. Results of a survey for Indiana bats, *Myotis
sodalis*, in Addison County,

Vermont, during 2001. Unpublished report prepared for U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service;

Concord, New Hampshire.

Britzke, E.R., M.J. Harvey, and S.C. Loeb. 2003. Indiana bat, *Myotis
sodalis*, maternity roosts

in the southern United States. Southeastern Naturalist 2: 235-242.

Britzke, E.R., A.C. Hicks, S.L. von Oettingen, and S.R. Darling. 2004.
Description of spring

roosting ecology of female Indiana bats in the Lake Champlain Valley of
Vermont and

New York. In review.

Butchkoski, C. M. and J.D. Hassinger. 2002. Ecology of a maternity
colony roosting in a

building. *In* Kurta A., and J. Kennedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology
and management of

an endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Callahan, E.V., III. 1993. Indiana bat summer habitat requirements. M.S.
Thesis, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia. 74 pp.

Callahan, E.V., R.D. Drobney, and R.L. Clawson. 1997. Selection of
summer roosting sites by Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*) in Missouri. J.
of Mammalogy, 78:818-825.

Carter, T.C. 2002. Bat houses for conservation of endangered Indiana
myotis. The Bat House

Researcher. 10: 1-5.

Carter, T.C. 2003. Summer habitat use of roost trees by the endangered
Indiana bat (*Myotis*

*Sodalis*) in the Shawnee National Forest of southern Illinois.
Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation. Department of Zoology in the Graduate School, Southern
Illinois

University. Carbondale, Illinois.

Clark, B.L., J.B. Bowles, and B.S. Clark. 1987. Summer habitat of the
endangered Indiana bat in Iowa. American Midl. Nat. 118:32-39.

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.

Clark, D.R., Jr., and R.M. Prouty. 1976. Organochlorine residues in
three bat species from four localities in Maryland and West Virginia,
1973. J. of Pesticide Monitoring, 10:44-53.

Clawson, R.L., R.K. LaVal, M.L. LaVal, and W. Caire. 1980. Clustering
behavior of hibernating *Myotis sodalis* in Missouri. J. of Mammalogy,
61:245-253.

Clawson, R.L. 1987. Indiana Bats: Down for the Count. Endangered Species
Technical

Bulletin. Vol. XII No. 9.

Clawson, R.L. 2002. Trends in population size and current status. *In*
Kurta A., and J. Kennedy,

eds. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species.
Bat

Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Clawson, R.L. 15 April 2004. Personal communication. Wildlife Biologist.
Missouri

Department of Conservation. Columbia, Missouri.

Connor, R. C. 2000. Group living in whales and dolphins. Pp. 199--218
*in* Cetacean societies:

field studies of dolphins and whales (J. L. Mann, R. C. Connor, P. L.
Tyack, and H.

Whitehead, eds.). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Cope, J.B., and S.R. Humphrey. 1977. Spring and autumn swarming behavior
in the Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. J. of Mammalogy, 58:93-95.

Cope, J.B., A.R. Richter, and D.A. Searly. 1978. A survey of bats in Big
Blue Lake project area in Indiana. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 51 pp.

Currie, Robert. 2002. Response to Gates at Hibernacula. In Kurta A., and
J. Kennedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an
endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Currie, Robert. 28 April 2004. Personal communication. Wildlife
biologist. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. Asheville, North Carolina.

Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780s to 1980s.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service; Washington, D.C.

DeBlase, A.F., S.R. Humphrey, and K.S. Drury. 1965. Cave flooding and
mortality in bats in Wind Cave, Kentucky. J. of Mammalogy, 46:96.

East Kentucky Power Cooperative. 2000. Survey for Federally Endangered
Indiana Bat, *Myotis*

*sodalis,* for the Proposed Blevins Valley Substation and Tap, Bath
County, Kentucky.

Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 22p.

Easterla, D.A., and L.C. Watkins. 1969. Pregnant *Myotis sodalis* in
northwestern Missouri. J. of Mammalogy, 50:372-373.

Farmer, A., B. Cade, and D. Stauffer. 1997. A habitat suitability index
model for the Indiana bat

(*Myotis sodalis*). Unpublished report prepared for U.S. Department of
Interior,

Geological Survey, Mid-Continent Ecological Science Center, Fort
Collins, Colorado.

14p.

Finch, D. M. 1990. Population ecology, habitat requirements, and
conservation of neotropical

migratory birds. General Technical Report RM-205. U.S. Department of
Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; Fort
Collins,

Colorado.

Fleming, T.H., and P. Eby. 2003. Ecology of bat migration. Pages
156-208. *In* T.H. Kunz and

M.B. Fenton (eds.), Bat ecology. University of Chicago Press; Chicago,
Illinois.

Ford, W.M. 2004. Personal communication. Wildlife Biologist. U.S.D.A.
Forest Service,

Northeast Research Station. Parsons, West Virginia.

Ford, W.M., J.M. Menzel, M.A. Menzel, and J.W. Edwards. 2002. Summer
roost-tree selection

by a male Indiana bat on the Fernow Experimental Forest. USDA Forest
Service

Research Note NE-378. 7p.

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann. 1989. A portable mist
netting system for capturing bats with emphasis on *Myotis sodalis*
(Indiana bat). Bat Res. News 30(1):1-8.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1990. Combined progress reports: 1989 and 1990
investigations of *Myotis sodalis* (Indiana bat) distribution, habitat
use, and status in Illinois. Progress report for the U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. 19 pp.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1991a. Summer roost selection and roosting behavior of
*Myotis sodalis* (Indiana bat) in Illinois. Final report. Illinois
Natural History Survey, Illinois Dept. of Conserv.. Champaign, IL. 56
pp.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1991b. Summary of *Myotis sodalis* summer habitat studies
in Illinois: with recommendations for impact assessment. Special report.
Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois Dept. of Conserv. Champaign,
IL. 28 pp.

Gardner, J.E., J.E. Hofmann, and J.D. Garner. 1996. Summer distribution
of the federally

endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) in Illinois. Transactions of
the Illinois State

Academy of Science. 89: 187-196.

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.

Gardner, J.E., and E.A. Cook. 2002. Seasonal and geographic distribution
and quantification of

potential summer habitat. *In* Kurta A., and J. Kennedy, eds. The
Indiana bat: biology and

management of an endangered species. Bat Conservation International,
Austin, Texas.

253p.

Geluso, K.N., J.S. Altenbach, and D.E. Wilson. 1976. Bat mortality:
pesticide poisoning and migratory stress. Science 194:184-186.

Grindal, S.D., J.L. Morrissete, and R.M. Brigham. 1999. Concentration of
bat activity in

riparian habitats over an elevational gradient. Canadian Journal of
Zoology. 77:972-977.

Gumbert, M.W. 2001. Seasonal roost tree use by Indiana bats in the
Somerset Ranger District of the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky.
MS Thesis. Eastern Kentucky University. 134 pp.

Gumbert, M.W., J.M. O\'Keefe, and J.R. MacGregor. 2002. Roost fidelity
in Kentucky. Pages

143-152. *In* Kurta A., and J. Kennedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology
and management of

an endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.
253pp.

Hagan III, J. M., and D. W. Johnston, editors. 1992. Ecology and
conservation of neotropical

migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

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.

Harvey, M.J. 2002. Status and ecology in the southern United States.
*In* Kurta A., and J.

Kennedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered
species. Bat

Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Harvey, M.J., J.S. Altenbach, T.L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United
States. Arkansas Game and

Fish Commission; Arkansas.

The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the
Environment. 2002. The state of

the nation's ecosystems: measuring the lands, waters, and living
resources of the United

States. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the
Environment;

Washington. D.C.

Hill, J.E. and J.D. Smith. 1986. Bats, a natural history. University of
Texas Press; Austin,

Texas.

Hobson, C.R., and J.N. Holland. 1995. Post-hibernation and foraging
habitat of a male Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis* (Chiroptera:
Vespertillionidae), in western Virginia. Brimleyana 23:95-101.

Hofmann, J. 1996. Indiana bats in Illinois. Illinois Natural History
Survey. Available:

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/surveyreports/mar-apr96/bats.html
(Accessed: April

20, 2004.)

Holekamp, K. E., S. M. Cooper, C. I. Katona, N. A. Berry, L. G. Frank,
and L. Smale. 1997.

Patterns of association among female spotted hyenas (*Crocuta crocuta*).
Journal of

Mammalogy 78:55-64.

Humphrey, S.R. 1978. Status, winter habitat, and management of the
endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Florida Scientist 41:65-76.

Humphrey, S.R., and J.B. Cope. 1977. Survival rates of the endangered
Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. J. of Mammalogy, 58:32-36.

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

Indianapolis Airport Authority. 2003. Habitat conservation plan report
for monitoring year

2002\.

\-\-\-\-\--. 2004. Habitat conservation plan report for monitoring year
2003.

Johnson, S.A., V. Brack, Jr., and R.E. Rolley. 1998. Overwinter weight
loss of Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*) from hibernacula subject to
human visitation. Am. Midl. Nat. 139:255-261.

Kays, R. W. and J. L. Gittleman. 2001. The social organization of the
kinkajou *Potos flavus*

(Procyonidae). Journal of Zoology (London) 253:491-504.

Kerth, G., and B. König. 1999. Fission, fusion, and nonrandom
associations in female

Bechstein's bats (*Myotis bechsteinii*). Behaviour 136:1187--1202.

King. A. 12 February 2004. Personal communication. Biologist. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife

Service, Bloomington, Indiana Ecological Services Field Office.
Bloomington, IN.

King, A. 15 July 2005. Personal communication. Biologist. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service,

Bloomington, Indiana Ecological Services Field Office. Bloomington, IN.

Kiser, J. D., and H. D. Bryan. 1997. A survey for the federally
endangered Indiana bat (Myotis

sodalis) on the Athens and Ironton Ranger Districts Wayne National
Forest. Final report

submitted to the USDA-Forest Service, Wayne National Forest, Athens,
Ohio. 7 pp.

Kiser, J.D., and C.L. Elliott. 1996. Foraging habitat, food habits, and
roost tree characteristics of the Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) during
autumn in Johnson County, Kentucky. Final report, Kentucky Dept. of Fish
and Wildl. Resources, Frankfort, KY. 65 pp.

Kiser, J.D., C.L. Elliott, and J. MacGregor. 1996. The use of roost
trees by Indiana bats, *Myotis sodalis*, during autumn. Presented at the
6th colloquium on the Conservation of Mammals in the Southern and
Central United States.

Kiser, J.D., J.R. MacGregor, H.D. Bryan, and A. Howard. 2002. Use of
concrete bridges as

night roosts. *In* Kurta A., and J. Kennedy, eds. The Indiana bat:
biology and management

of an endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Krusic. R.A., M. Yamasaki, C.D. Neefus, and P.J. Pekins. 1996. Bat
habitat use in White

Mountain National Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management. 60:625-631.

Kurta, A. 1980. Status of the Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*, in
Michigan, Mich. Acad. 13:31-36.

Kurta, A. In Press. Roosting Ecology and Behavior of Indiana Bats
(*Myotis sodalis*) in Summer.

*In* The Proceedings of the Indiana bat and coal mining: a technical
interactive forum

(K.C. Vories and A. Harrington, eds.). Office of Surface Mining, U.S.
Department of the

Interior, Alton, Illinois.

Kurta, A., D. King, J.A. Teramino, J.M. Stribley, and K.J. Williams.
1993a. Summer roosts of the endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) on
the northern edge of its range. Am. Midl. Nat. 129:132-138.

Kurta, A., J. Kath, E.L. Smith, R. Foster, M.W. Orrick, and R. Ross.
1993b. A maternity roost

of the endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) in an unshaded, hollow,
Sycamore tree

(*Platanus occidentalis*). American Midland Naturalist. 130: 405-407.

Kurta, A., and J.A. Teramino. 1994. A novel hibernaculum and noteworthy
records of the Indiana bat and eastern pipistrelle (Chiroptera:
Vespertilionidae). Am. Midl. Nat. 132:410-413.

Kurta, A., and J.O. Whitaker, Jr. 1998. Diet of the endangered Indiana
bat (*Myotis sodalis*) on the northern edge of its range. Am. Midl. Nat.
140:280-286.

Kurta, A., K.J. Williams, and R. Mies. 1996. Ecological, behavioral, and
thermal observations of a peripheral population of Indiana bats (*Myotis
sodalis*). Pages 102-117 *in* Bats and Forests Symposium (R. M. R.
Barclay and R. M. Brigham, eds.). Research Branch, British Columbia
Ministry of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, Working Paper
23:1-292.

Kurta, A. and S.W. Murray. 2002. Philopatry and migration of banded
Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*) and effects of radio transmitters.
Journal of Mammalogy. 83: 585-589.

Kurta, A., S.W. Murray, and D.H. Miller. 2002. Roost selection and
movements across the summer landscape. *In* Kurta A., and J. Kennedy,
eds. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species.
Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

LaVal, R.K., R.L. Clawson, W. Caire, L.R. Wingate, and M.L. LaVal. 1976.
An evaluation of the status of Myotine bats in the proposed Meramec Park
Lake and Union Lake project areas, Missouri. Special Report. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, MO. 136 pp.

LaVal, R.K., R.L. Clawson, M.L. LaVal, and W. Caire. 1977. Foraging
behavior and nocturnal activity patterns of Missouri bats, with emphasis
on the endangered species *Myotis grisescens* and *Myotis sodalis*. J.
of Mammalogy, 58:592-599.

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

Lee, Y.F. 1993. Feeding ecology of the Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*,
and resource partitioning with *Myotis keenii* and *Myotis lucifugus*.
Unpubl. M.S. Thesis, the Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 146 pp.

MacGregor, J., J. Kiser, and M. Gumbert. 1996. The use of road ruts as
bat drinking water sources on the Cumberland Plateau of Eastern
Kentucky. Presented at Sixth Colloquium on the Conservation of Mammals
in the Southern and Central United States.

MacGregor, J. 1996. Personal Observation. Biologist. Kentucky Department
for Fish and Wildlife Resources, Wildlife Diversity Section. Frankfort,
Kentucky.

MacGregor, J. 2005. Personal Communication. Biologist. Kentucky
Department for Fish and Wildlife Resources, Wildlife Diversity Section.
Frankfort, Kentucky.

McCracken, G.F. 1988. Who's Endangered and What Can We Do? Bats. 6:5-9.

McFarland, C.A. 1998. Potential agricultural insecticide exposure of
Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*) in Missouri. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis, Univ.
of Missouri, Columbia. 256 pp.

McGrew, W. C., L. F. Marchant, and T. Nishida, eds. 1996. Great ape
societies. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Menzel, M.A. 1998. The effects of group selection timber harvest in a
southeastern bottomland

hardwood community on the roosting and foraging behavior of
tree-roosting bats. M.S.

Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 160p.

Menzel, M.A., J.M. Menzel, T.C. Carter, W.M. Ford and J.W. Edwards.
2001. Review of the

forest habitat relationships of the Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*). Gen.
Tech. Rep. NE-284.

Newton Square, PA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Northeastern

Research Station. 21p.

Miller, N.E. 1996. Indiana bat summer habitat patterns in northern
Missouri. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, Columbia,
MO. 100 pp.

Mohr, C.E. 1972. The status of threatened species of cave-dwelling bats.
Bull. Natl. Speleol. Soc. 34:33-37.

Murray, S.W., and A. Kurta. 2004. Nocturnal activity of the endangered
Indiana bat (*Myotis*

*sodalis*). Journal of Zoology. 262: 197-206.

Myers, R.F. 1964. Ecology of three species of Myotine bats in the Ozark
Plateau. Unpubl. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia,
Columbia, MO. 210 pp.

Myers, J. P., R. I. G. Morrison, P. Z. Antas, B. A. Harrington, T. E.
Lovejoy, M. Sallaberry, S. E.

Senner, and A. Tarak. 1987. Conservation strategy for migratory species.
American

Scientist 75:19 - 26.

National Research Council. 1996. Upstream: Salmon and society in the
Pacific Northwest.

National Academy of Sciences Press; Washington, D.C.

Neuweiller, G. 2000. The biology of bats. Translated by E. Covey. Oxford
University Press;

New York, New York.

O'Donnell, C. 2000. Cryptic local populations in a temperate rainforest
bat *Chalinolobus*

*tuberculatus* in New Zealand. Animal Conservation 3:287-297.

O'Shea, T.J., and D.R. Clark, Jr. 2002. An overview of contaminants in
bats, with special

reference to insecticides and the Indiana bat. *In* Kurta A., and J.
Kennedy, eds. The

Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. Bat
Conservation

International, Austin, Texas.

Owen, Sheldon F., Michael A. Menzel, John W. Edwards, W.M. Ford,
Jennifer M. Menzel,

Brian R. Chapman, Petra B. Wood, and Karl V. Miller. 2004. Bat Activity
in Harvested

and Intact Forest Stands in the Allegheny Mountains. Northern Journal of
Applied

Forestry. 21:154-159.

Palm, J. 2003. Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) summer roost tree
selection and habitat use in the

Champlain Valley of Vermont. M.S. thesis. Antioch New England Graduate
School.

Keene, New Hampshire.

Powell, G.V.N., and J.H. Rappole. 1986. The hooded warbler. Pages
827-853 *in* R.L. Di

> Silvestro, editor. Audubon Wildlife Report 1986. National Audubon
> Society. New York, New York.

Pruitt, L. 25 March 2004a. Personal communication. Biologist. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service,

Bloomington, Indiana Ecological Services Field Office. Bloomington, IN.

Pruitt, L. 9 April 2004b. Personal communication. Biologist. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service,

Bloomington, Indiana Ecological Services Field Office. Bloomington, IN.

Pruitt, L. 21 October 2004c. Personal communication. Biologist. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife

Service, Bloomington, Indiana Ecological Services Field Office.
Bloomington, IN.

Racey, P.A. 1982. Ecology of bat reproduction. Pages 57-104 *in* T. H.
Kunz (ed.), Ecology of bats. Plenum Press, New York, NY. 425 pp.

Racey, P.A., and A.C. Entwistle. 2003. Conservation ecology of bats.
Pages 680-744. *In* T.H. Kunz and M.B. Fenton (eds), Bat ecology.
University of Chicago Press; Chicago, Illinois.

Ransome, Roger. 1990. The Natural History of Hibernating Bats.
Christopher Helm Publishers;

London, England.

Rappole, J. H. 1995. The ecology of migrant birds. A Neotropical
perspective. Smithsonian

Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Reidinger, R.F. 1972. Factors influencing Arizona bat population levels.
Unpubl. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of Ariz., Tucson, AZ. 172 pp.

Richter, A.R., S.R. Humphrey, J.B. Cope, and V. Brack, Jr. 1993.
Modified cave entrances: thermal effect on body mass and resulting
decline of endangered Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*). Conserv. Bio.
7:407-415.

Robbins, C. S., J. R. Sauer, R. S. Greenberg, and S. Droege. 1989.
Population declines in North

American birds that migrate to the Neotropics. Proceedings of the
National Academy of

Sciences (U.S.) 86:7654 - 7662.

Romme, R.C., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack, Jr. 1995. Literature summary and
habitat suitability index model: components of summer habitat for the
Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Report submitted to the Indiana Dept. of
Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Bloomington, Indiana, by
3D/Environmental, Cincinnati, Ohio. Federal Aid Project E-1-7, Study No.
8, 38 pp.

Romme, Russell,C., Amy B. Henry, R. Andrew King, Thomas Glueck, and
Karen Tyrell. 2002. Home range near hibernaculum in spring and summer.
*In* Kurta A., and J. Kennedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology and
management of an endangered species. Bat Conservation

> International, Austin, Texas.

Scherer, Annette. 13 October 2004. Personal communication. Biologist.
U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, New Jersey Field Office. Pleasantville, New Jersey.

Seidman, Victoria M. and Cynthia J. Zabel. 2001. Bat Activity Along
Intermittent Streams In

Northwestern California. Journal of Mammalogy. 82(3):738-747.

Settles, Joe. 10 August 2004. Personal communication. Biologist. Eastern
Kentucky Power

Cooperative. Winchester, Kentucky.

Sparks, Dale W., John O. Whitaker, Jr., and Christopher M. Ritzi.
Foraging Ecology of the

Endangered Indiana Bat. Journal of Mammalogy. In press.

Speakman, J.R., and D.W. Thomas. 2003. Physiological ecology and
energetics of Bats. Pages

430-492 *In* Kunz, T.H., and M.B. Fenton. 2003. Bat Ecology. University
of Chicago

Press; Chicago, Illinois.

Stearns, S. C. 1992. The evolution of life histories. Oxford University
Press. New York, New

York.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). 2004. Imazapyr-
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment- Final Report. Technical
Report prepared for U.S.D.A., Forest Service, Forest Health Protection.
GSA Contract No. GS-10F-0082F.

Terborgh, J. 1989. Where have all the birds gone? Princeton, New Jersey.
Princeton University Press.

Terborgh, J. and C. H. Janson. 1986. The socioecology of primate groups.
Annual Review of

Ecology and Systematics 17:111-135.

Thomas, D.W. 1995. Hibernating bats are sensitive to non-tactile human
disturbance. J. of Mammalogy, 76:940-946.

Thomas, D.W., and D. Cloutier. 1992. Evaporative water loss by
hibernating little brown bats, *Myotis lucifugus*. Physiol. Zool.
65:443-456.

Thomas, D.W., M. Dorais, and J.M. Bergeron. 1990. Winter energy budgets
and cost of arousals for hibernating little brown bats (*Myotis
lucifugus*). J. of Mammalogy, 71:475-479.

Tuttle, M.D. 1997. A mammoth discovery. Bats. 15: 3-5.

Tuttle, M.D., and D.E. Stevenson. 1977. An analysis of migration as a
mortality factor in the

gray bat based on public recoveries of banded bats. American Midland
Naturalist. 97:

235-240.

Tuttle, M.D., and D.A.R. Taylor. 1994. Bats and mines. Research
Publication No. 2. Bat

Conservation International. Austin, TX. 42p.

Tuttle, M.D., M.B. Fenton, and E. Bernard. 2004. Ecological role of bats
in forest ecosystems. 2nd Bats and Forests Symposium and Workshop, March
9-12, 2004. Hot Springs, Arkansas.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Recovery Plan for the Indiana Bat.
Twin Cities, MN. 23 pp.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1995. Biological opinion on the effects construction of raw
water reservoir on Sugar Creek in Williamson and Johnson Counties,
Illinois, on the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Unpublished report
prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District,
Louisville, Kentucky.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1998. Biological opinion on the construction and operation
of the multi-purpose training range (MPTR) at the Camp Atterbury Army
National Guard Training Site. Edinburgh, Indiana. 21p.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1999a. Biological opinion of the application for an
incidental take permit for the federally endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis
sodalis*) for impacts of forest management and other activities to the
gray bat, bald eagle, Indiana bat, and mead's milkweed on the Mark Twain
National Forest, Missouri. 101p.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1999b. Agency Draft Indiana Bat (*Myotis sodalis*) Revised
Recovery Plan. Fort Snelling, MN. 53 pp.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1999c. Biological opinion for the proposed streambank
stabilization at the Yano Range and upgrade of the Wilcox Tank Range at
Fort Knox, Kentucky. 18p.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1999d. Biological opinion for the agricultural pesticide
application practices at the Newport Chemical Depot at Newport, Indiana.
25p.

\-\-\-\-\--. 2000. A survey for the federally listed endangered Indiana
bat (Myotis sodalis), Picatinny Arsenal, Morris County, New Jersey.
Unpublished report prepared for U.S. Army Tank, Automotive and Armaments
Command, Armament Research Development and Engineering Center. Picatinny
Arsenal, Morris County, New Jersey.

\-\-\-\-\--. 2002. Biological opinion of the application for an
incidental take permit for the federally endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis
sodalis*) for the Six Points Road interchange and associated
development. Bloomington Field Office. Bloomington, Indiana. 35p.

\-\-\-\-\--. 2003. Biological Opinion on the Construction, Operation,
and Maintenance of Alternative 3C of Interstate 69 (I-69) from
Indianapolis to Evansville for the Federally Endangered Indiana Bat
(*Myotis sodalis*) and the Federally Threatened Bald Eagle (*Haliaeetus
leucocephalus*) traversing portions of Gibson, Warrick, Pike, Daviess,
Greene, Monroe, Morgan, Johnson, and Marion Counties, Indiana. Submitted
to the Federal Highway Administration.

\-\-\-\-\--. 2004. Biological Opinion on the Impacts of the Laxare East
and Black Castle Contour Coal Mining Projects on the Indiana bat;
February, 2005. West Virginia Field Office, Elkins, West Virginia.

\-\-\-\-\--. 2005. Notes from Indiana bat meeting held at National
Conservation Training Center. 15-17 March 2005.

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.D.A. Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement for
Vegetation Management in the Applachian Mountains. USDA Forest Service,
Southern Region.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1997. Forest Resources of the United States. 1997. U.S.D.A.
Forest

Service, Forest Inventory and Analysis Program, North Central Research
Station, St.

Paul, Minnesota. Available

http://ncrs2.fs.fed.us/4801/fiadb/rpa_tabler/97_GTR_219_english_RPA.pdf

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Hoosier National Forest (HNF). 2000.
Programmatic Biological

Assessment: Land and Resource Management Plan. Unpublished Report
prepared for

Hoosier National Forest, Bedford, Indiana. 109 p.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF). 2004.
Forest Plan: Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Unpublished
Report prepared for DBNF, Winchester, KY.

Von Oettingen, S. 2004. Personal communication. Biologist. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service,

New England Field Office. Concord, New Hampshire.

Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1972. Food habits of bats from Indiana. Canadian J.
of Zoology, 50:877-883.

Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 2 April 2004. Personal communication. Professor.
Indiana State University.

Terre Haute, Indiana.

Whitaker, J.O., Jr., and V. Brack, Jr. 2002. Distribution and summer
ecology in Indiana. *In*

Kurta A., and J. Kennedy, eds. The Indiana bat: biology and management
of an

endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Widlak, J. 2004. Personal communication. Biologist. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service,

Cookeville Ecological Services Field Office. Cookeville, Tennessee.

Willis, Craig K. R., and R. Mark Brigham. 2004. Roost Switching, roost
sharing and social

cohesion: forest-dwelling big brown bats, *Eptesicus fuscus,* conform to
the fission-fusion

model. Animal Behaviour. 68: 495-505.

Zimmerman, G.S. and W.E. Glanz. 2000. Habitat use by bats in eastern
Maine. Journal of

Wildlife Management. 64:1032-1040.

APPENDIX A

![](media/image3.png){width="6.497916666666667in"
height="8.77361111111111in"}

######### APPENDIX B

**Daniel Boone National Forest Standards**

**(From 2004 Forest Plan)**

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Forest Plan Standards Related                              
  to the Proposed Activities**                                 
  ------------------------------- ------------- -------------- ---------------
  **Forest Plan Standard**        **Severely    **Control of   **Restoration
                                  damaged tree  non-native     of bat
                                  removal**     invasive       habitat**
                                                plants**       

  **All prescription areas**                                   

  **DB-ENG-4.** Restrict          X                            X
  motorized vehicle use in the                                 
  scour ephemeral stream zone to                               
  designated sites                                             

  **DB-WLF-2.** Retain or create  X                            
  at least three snags per acre                                
  equal to or greater than 9                                   
  inches DBH within all timber                                 
  harvest, regeneration,                                       
  sanitation, salvage, or                                      
  thinning project units when                                  
  available.                                                   

  **DB-WLF-3.** Retain enough     X                            
  live trees to provide partial                                
  shading of about one-third of                                
  all snags equal to or greater                                
  than 12 inches DBH and equal or                              
  greater than 10 feet in height                               
  that are suitable for roosting                               
  by the Indiana bats.                                         

  **DB-WLF-13.** Where caves      X             X              X
  exist outside Cliffline                                      
  Community Prescription Area a                                
  minimum zone of 200 feet is to                               
  be maintained around openings                                
  to caves and mines suitable for                              
  supporting cave --associated                                 
  species, as well as any                                      
  associated sinkholes and cave                                
  collapse areas, except for                                   
  designated recreation caves.                                 
  Prohibited activities within                                 
  this protective area include                                 
  use of motorized wheeled or                                  
  tracked equipment (except on                                 
  existing roads and trails),                                  
  mechanical site preparation,                                 
  recreation site construction,                                
  tractor-constructed fire lines                               
  for prescribed fire, herbicide                               
  application, and construction                                
  of new roads, skid trails, or                                
  log landings. Vegetation in                                  
  this buffer zone may be managed                              
  only to improve habitat for                                  
  PETS or Conservation species.                                

  **DB-WLF-15.** Create, or       X                            
  retain where available, at                                   
  least one snag 12 inches DBH or                              
  greater per acre in any area in                              
  which overstory trees are cut                                
  as part of habitat creation or                               
  maintenance, sanitation or                                   
  salvage.                                                     

  **DB-VEG-3.** Logging or site   X                            
  preparation equipment,                                       
  rubber--tired or tracked, is                                 
  not to be used on plastic soils                              
  when the water table is within                               
  12 inches of the surface or                                  
  when soil moisture exceeds the                               
  plastic limit.                                               

  **DB-VEG-5.** Determine         X                            
  location and designate landings                              
  and skid roads prior to                                      
  beginning of operations in each                              
  unit.                                                        

  **DB-VEG-6.** Do not permit the X                            
  use of stream channels for skid                              
  roads or trails.                                             

  **DB-VEG-7.** No class B, C, or               X              
  D chemical is to be used on any                              
  project, except with Regional                                
  Forester approval.                                           

  **DB-VEG-8.** Herbicides will                 X              
  be applied at the lowest rate                                
  effective in meeting project                                 
  objectives and according to                                  
  guidelines for protecting human                              
  and wildlife health.                                         

  **DB-VEG-9.** Monitor weather                 X              
  and suspend project if                                       
  temperature, humidity, or wind                               
  becomes unfavorable according                                
  to the Forest Plan criteria.                                 

  **DB-VEG-10.** Use only nozzles               X              
  the produce large droplets or                                
  streams of herbicides. Nozzles                               
  that produce fine droplets may                               
  be used only for hand                                        
  treatment, where distance from                               
  nozzle to target does not                                    
  exceed eight feet.                                           

  **DB-VEG-11.** Areas treated                  X              
  with herbicides are to be                                    
  clearly posted with notice                                   
  signs to inform visitors of the                              
  treatment.                                                   

  **DB-VEG-12.** No herbicide is                X              
  to be applied aerially.                                      

  **DB-VEG-13.** No soil-active                 X              
  herbicide will be applied                                    
  within 30 feet of the drip line                              
  of non-target vegetation                                     
  specifically designated for                                  
  retention within or next to the                              
  treated area.                                                

  **DB-VEG-14.** Do not apply                   X              
  triclopyr within 60 feet of                                  
  known occupied gray, Virginia                                
  big-eared, or Indiana bat                                    
  hibernacula or known maternity                               
  tree.                                                        

  **DB-VEG-15.** Do not apply                   X              
  2,4-D or 2,4-DP                                              

  **DB-VEG-16.** No broadcast                   X              
  treatment using herbicide is to                              
  be made within 60 feet of any                                
  known PETS plant species.                                    

  **DB-VEG-17.** No soil-active                 X              
  herbicide is to be applied                                   
  within 60 feet of any known                                  
  PETS plant species.                                          

  **DB-VEG-18.** Application                    X              
  equipment, empty herbicide                                   
  containers, clothing worn                                    
  during treatment, and skin are                               
  not to be cleaned in open water                              
  wells. Mixing and cleaning                                   
  water must come from a public                                
  water supply and be transported                              
  in separate, labeled                                         
  containers.                                                  

  **DB-VEG-19.** No herbicides                  X              
  shall be applied within 30                                   
  horizontal feet of lakes,                                    
  wetlands, perennial or                                       
  intermittent springs and                                     
  streams. However, herbicides                                 
  approved for aquatic use may be                              
  used when such treatment is                                  
  required to control invasive                                 
  plants.                                                      

  **DB-VEG-20.** Designated                     X              
  buffer zone areas must be                                    
  designated before making                                     
  herbicide treatments so                                      
  applicators can easily                                       
  recognize and avoid the buffer                               
  area.                                                        

  **DB-VEG-21.** Herbicide                      X              
  mixing, loading, or cleaning                                 
  areas in the field are not to                                
  be located within 200 feet of                                
  private land, open water or                                  
  wells, or other sensitive                                    
  areas.                                                       

  **DB-VEG-25.** Within a         X                            
  possible old-growth stand, do                                
  not initiate management that                                 
  could alter the stands                                       
  potential status as old-growth                               
  until the stand has been                                     
  inventoried for old-growth                                   
  criteria and its status                                      
  determined.                                                  

  **DB-VEG-26.** No more than 10  X                            
  percent of a harvest area                                    
  should be in landings, skid                                  
  roads, or exposed soil.                                      

  **DB-VEG-27.** Resource         X             X              X
  management activities that may                               
  affect soil and/or water                                     
  quality must follow applicable                               
  Kentucky Rules and Regulations                               
  for Water Quality Control and                                
  Kentucky's Best Management                                   
  Practices for Forestry (BMP) as                              
  a minimum to achieve soil and                                
  water quality objectives. When                               
  Forest Plan standards exceed                                 
  Kentucky BMP's or water, Forest                              
  Plan standards will take                                     
  precedence.                                                  

  **DB-VEG-28.** Within the       X                            
  scoured ephemeral zone, a                                    
  minimum of 15 square feet of                                 
  basal area will be left                                      
  following silvicultural                                      
  activities.                                                  

  **DB-VEG-29.** The removal of   X                            
  coarse woody debris from within                              
  the scoured ephemeral stream                                 
  zone will be allowed only if it                              
  poses a risk to public safety                                
  or water quality, degrades                                   
  habitat for aquatic or riparian                              
  associated species, or when it                               
  poses a threat to private                                    
  property or Forest Service                                   
  infrastructures.                                             

  **DB-VEG-30.** No herbicide may               X              
  be broadcast within 100 feet of                              
  private land or 300 feet of a                                
  private residence, unless the                                
  landowner agrees to closer                                   
  treatment.                                                   

  **Prescription Area: 1.C.                                    
  Cliffline Community**                                        

  **I.C-WLF-1.** Permit                         X              
  site-specific vegetative                                     
  manipulation only when its                                   
  purpose and need is to improve                               
  or sustain habitat for PETS                                  
  species or habitat for                                       
  Conservation species.                                        

  **Prescription Area: 1.E.                                    
  Riparian Corridor**                                          

  **1.E-VEG-1.** Cable corridors, X                            
  cable sets, and tail trees may                               
  be installed in this                                         
  Prescription Area only at                                    
  designated locations. Full                                   
  suspension will be required if                               
  logs are yarded across                                       
  perennial or intermittent                                    
  streams.                                                     

  **1.E-VEG-2.** All motorized    X                            X
  equipment must be serviced                                   
  outside of riparian corridors.                               

  **1.E-VEG-4.** Skid roads and   X                            
  skid trails used for management                              
  of adjacent Prescription Areas                               
  must not encroach upon the                                   
  riparian corridor.                                           

  **1.E-VEG-5.** The removal of                                
  coarse woody debris is allowed                               
  only if it poses a risk to                                   
  public safety or water quality,                              
  degrades habitat for aquatic or                              
  riparian-associated species, or                              
  when it poses a threat to                                    
  private property or Forest                                   
  Service infrastructure.                                      

  **Prescription Area: 1.K                                     
  Habitat Diversity**                                          

  **1.K-VEG-1.** When 9-inch      X                            
  snags are not available or                                   
  cannot be created to meet a                                  
  minimum of 3-snags per acre,                                 
  snags of at least 6 inches DBH                               
  may be retained or created to                                
  provide snag habitat.                                        
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

######## APPENDIX C

**Indiana Bat Life Table**

**(Estimated)**

  --------- ------------------ --------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------
                                                                **Age Weighted**  **Expectation**   

  **Age**   **Survivorship**   **Fecundity**   **Realized**     **by Realized**   **of Life**       **Reproductive**

  **(x)**   **(l~x~)**         **(m~x~)**      **(l~x~m~x~)**   **(xl~x~m~x~)**   **(E~x~)**        **(v~x~)**

  0         1.0000             0.000           0.000            0.000             2.993             8.73

  1         0.5200             0.500           0.260            0.260             3.833             9.45

  2         0.3947             0.500           0.197            0.395             3.733             8.85

  3         0.2996             0.500           0.150            0.449             3.601             8.22

  4         0.2274             0.500           0.114            0.455             3.427             7.55

  5         0.1726             0.500           0.086            0.431             3.197             6.82

  6         0.1310             0.500           0.065            0.393             2.895             6.07

  7         0.0864             0.500           0.043            0.303             2.871             5.54

  8         0.0571             0.500           0.029            0.228             2.835             5.01

  9         0.0377             0.500           0.019            0.169             2.781             4.45

  10        0.0249             0.500           0.012            0.124             2.698             3.87

  11        0.0164             0.500           0.008            0.090             2.573             3.24

  12        0.0108             0.500           0.005            0.065             2.383             2.55

  13        0.0071             0.500           0.004            0.046             2.096             1.77

  14        0.0047             0.500           0.002            0.033             1.660             0.83

  15        0.0031             0.500           0.002            0.023             0.000             0.50

                               7.5             0.9967           3.4656                              

                               (GRR)           (Ro)             \(T\)                               
  --------- ------------------ --------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------

**APPENDIX D**

### Table of Potential Indiana Bat Roost Trees on the Daniel Boone National Forest.

  ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------
  *Acer rubrum (red      *Fraxinus pennsylvanica  *Quercus imbricaria
  maple)*                (green ash)*             (shingle oak)*

  *Acer saccarinum       *Liriodendrum tulipifera *Quercus prinus
  (silver maple)*        (tulip tree)*            (chestnut oak)*

  *Acer saccharum (sugar *Nyssa sylvatica         *Quercus rubra (northern
  maple)*                (blackgum)*              red oak)*

  *Carya cordiformis     *Oxydendrum arboreum     *Quercus stellata (post
  (bitternut hick.)*     (sourwood)*              oak)*

  *Carya glabra (pignut  *Pinus echinata          *Quercus velutina (black
  hickory)*              (shortleaf pine)*        oak)*

  *Carya lacinosa        *Pinus vigida (pitch     *Robinia pseudoacacia
  (shellbark hick.)*     pine)*                   (black locust)*

  *Carya ovalis (red     *Pinus virginiana        *Sassafras albidum
  hickory)*              (Virginia pine)*         (sassafras)*

  *Carya ovata (shagbark *Platanus occidentalis   *Ulmus americana
  hickory)*              (sycamore)*              (American elm)*

  *Carya spp. (other     *Populus deltoides       *Ulmus rubra (slippery
  hickories)*            (east. cottonwood)*      elm)*

  *Fagus grandifolia     *Quercus alba (white     
  (Am. beech)*           oak)*                    

  *Fraxinus americana    *Quercus coccinea        
  (white ash)*           (scarlet oak)*           
  ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------

**APPENDIX E**

**Table for Indiana Bat Annual Chronology (from Service 1999b).**

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Both sexes:

[Hibernation]{.underline} [Hibernation]{.underline}

Females: [Emerge]{.underline} [Pregnant]{.underline}
[Swarming]{.underline}

\" [Lactating]{.underline}

Young: [Born]{.underline} [Flying]{.underline}

Males: [Emerge]{.underline} [Swarming]{.underline}

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

**APPENDIX F**

**Map of Proposed Treatment Units with 5-mile Buffer**

[^1]: "Harm" in the definition of "take" in the Act means an act which
    actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include
    significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually
    kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential
    behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
    "Harass" in the definition of take means an intentional or negligent
    act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife
    annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal
    behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding,
    feeding, or sheltering.