**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**

**Submitted to the Military Department of Indiana**

**December 4, 1998**

Prepared by:

Lori B. Pruitt

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Bloomington Field Office

620 S. Walker Street

Bloomington, IN 47403

\(812\) 334-4261 x 211

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

INTRODUCTION\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
1

CONSULTATION
HISTORY\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
1

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

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED
ACTION\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.... 2

STATUS OF THE
SPECIES\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
4

ENVIRONMENTAL
BASELINE\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
8

EFFECTS OF THE
ACTION\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
10

CUMULATIVE
EFFECTS\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
13

CONCLUSION\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
13

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

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF
TAKE\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
14

EFFECT OF
TAKE\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
14

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT
MEASURES\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\... 15

TERMS AND
CONDITIONS\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
16

**[CONSERVATION
RECOMMENDATIONS]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
19

**[REINITIATION
NOTICE]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
19

**[LITERATURE
CITED]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
20

**[FIGURE 1]{.underline}**: Location of the MPTR and associated features
at Camp Atterbury 22

**INTRODUCTION**

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\'s (Service)
biological opinion based on our review of the proposed Construction and
Operation of the Multi-Purpose Training Range (MPTR) at the Camp
Atterbury Army National Guard Training Site, located in Edinburgh,
Indiana (Bartholomew, Johnson, and Brown Counties), and its effects on
the Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) in accordance with section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.). This biological opinion is based on information provided in the
August, 1998 Biological Assessment: Effects to Indiana Bats and Bald
Eagles from Construction and Operation of the Proposed Multi-Purpose
Training Range (hereafter referred to as the biological assessment), the
August, 1998 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed
Upgrade of Training Areas and Facilities (FEIS) and additional sources
of information. These additional sources include telephone
conversations, meetings, and written correspondence with the staff of
the Military Department of Indiana (MDI) and the project consultants
3D/International, Inc., Environmental Group (3D/I). Field investigations
were also conducted. A complete administrative record of this
consultation is on file at the Service=s Bloomington, Indiana Field
Office (BFO).

**CONSULTATION HISTORY**

On April 1, 1997 BFO received a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Proposed Upgrade of Training Areas and Facilities
(DEIS) for Camp Atterbury, Indiana. Service comments on the DEIS were
sent to Atterbury on May 16, 1997. Specifically with reference to
endangered species, Service comments indicated that the DEIS did not
adequately address potential impacts to the Federally-endangered Indiana
bat. The Service noted that Camp Atterbury lies within the known summer
maternity range of the Indiana bat and provides suitable habitat for the
species; therefore, it was assumed that the species was present on the
base and that the proposed action required consultation under the
provisions of section 7 of the ESA.

A comprehensive bat survey of Camp Atterbury was conducted in August,
1997. This survey verified the presence of Indiana bats on the base.
Based on the distribution of reproductive female and juvenile bats
captured, it was estimated that the base supported a minimum of 5
Indiana bat maternity colonies (Montgomery Watson 1997). Adult male
Indiana bats were also captured. Based on the results of the survey, MDI
initiated plans for conducting an assessment of the effects to Indiana
bats from the construction and operation of the proposed MPTR. Staff
from MDI, 3D/I (MDI=s project consultant), and BFO worked cooperatively
to address concerns regarding potential project impacts on Indiana bats.
The final biological assessment and request for formal consultation from
MDI was received on August 14, 1998. On September 4, 1998, the Service
acknowledged receipt of your formal consultation request, and indicated
that information required to initiate consultation was included or
available; we indicated that this biological opinion would be provided
no later than Dec. 27, 1998.

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

**DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION**

The action considered in this biological opinion is the preferred
alternative identified in the FEIS (Science Applications International
Corporation 1998); the alternative is identified as ALTERNATIVE 2C
(MPTR). This is the only alternative which was considered in the
biological assessment (Montgomery Watson and 3D/I 1998). Detailed
descriptions of the proposed action are provided in Section 2 of the
biological assessment and in the FEIS; these descriptions are hereby
incorporated by reference. A summary follows.

Alternative 2C includes construction of the MPTR in the southwest
quadrant of Camp Atterbury with no maneuver corridors (Figure 1). The
proposed MPTR will support training for mounted troops and dismounted
infantry. Construction limits of the proposed MPTR encompass
approximately 190 hectares; within these limits 96 areas are identified
for development of firing areas, fixed and moving targets, tank and
service roads, and support facilities. Construction of the proposed MPTR
requires clearing all trees within the construction boundaries. The
action area also includes a Surface Danger Zone (SDZ) comprising 4,367
ha associated with the proposed MPTR. The SDZ delimits an impact area
for ammunition fired within the MPTR. Trees in the SDZ within 100 meters
of targets may be significantly damaged or destroyed by ammunition fired
from the MPTR. Trees greater than 100 meters from targets may
occasionally be struck by ammunition.

Proposed training in the MPTR will involve Abrams M1 Tanks, AH-1E/F
Attack Helicopters, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, TOW Launch Vehicles, and
dismounted infantry. Tanks and other vehicles will fire at both fixed
and moving targets. Simulators and colored smoke grenades will be used
in some training activities to simulate realistic battlefield
conditions. Only training practice rounds will be fired; no high
explosive or dud producing rounds will be fired within the MPTR.
Pesticides will be applied to small, localized areas of the MPTR for
routine maintenance.

**[Conservation Measures]{.underline}**

The following Project Design Features (PDFs) have been incorporated into
the project design by MDI; these PDFs are designed specifically to avoid
or minimize impacts of the proposed project to summering Indiana bats.
The Service has analyzed the effects of the proposed action based on the
assumption that all PDFs will be implemented. The detailed descriptions
of the PDFs in the biological assessment are hereby incorporated into
this biological opinion by reference; a summary follows:

1\. Protect selected forest stands to provide suitable Indiana bat
summer habitat. Construction and operation of the MPTR will remove 99.7
hectares of habitat suitable for summering Indiana bats. To minimize the
impacts of this habitat loss, Camp Atterbury will set aside 270
hectares, of which 201 hectares are forested, for Indiana Bat Management
Zones (Figure 1). Currently, stands in the Indiana Bat Management Zones
include mature and early successional forest, and areas vegetated with
shrubs and grasses. Indiana Bat Management Zones will be removed from
commercial timber rotation. Any silvicultural manipulation will occur
outside the Indiana bat summer season (April 15-September 15) and will
be limited to activities designed to improve the quality of the stands
as bat habitat. To the extent possible, Indiana Bat Management Zones are
located adjacent to the proposed MPTR to provide habitat for individual
bats that may experience habitat loss associated with the proposed
action. Military activities in the zones will remain at current levels
and will consist primarily of foot travel, bivouac areas, and SDZs
associated with existing ranges and the MPTR. Tracked vehicles will be
restricted to existing trails and roads and off-road maneuvering with
other vehicles will be minimized.

2\. Develop landscape-scale forest management policy. Development of a
landscape-scale forest management policy will assist in providing a
sustainable source of suitable summer habitat for the Indiana bat.
Within one year of the issue date of the biological opinion, Camp
Atterbury will describe a desired future condition for forested habitat
on the installation. Guidelines for forest management associated with
Indiana bat conservation will be described in an ESMP and incorporated
into the INRMP. Development of the ESMP and INRMP is the subject of an
ongoing section 7 consultation with the Service.

3\. Restrict use of training materials potentially causing toxic effects
to Indiana bats. Camp Atterbury proposed the use of 44 training
materials and four pesticides on the MPTR. An ecological risk assessment
(ERA) was conducted to assess which training materials and pesticides
may cause adverse effects to Indiana bats. The ERA indicated that the
use of AN-M8 smoke grenades may cause toxicological effects to roosting
and foraging Indiana bats; to avoid these effects, AN-M8 grenades will
not be used on Camp Atterbury. The ERA also indicated that chemicals
found in M18 colored smoke grenades may cause acute toxicological
effects; Indiana bats roosting within 36 meters of the deployed grenades
may inhale unsafe concentrations of M18 colored smoke during a
one-minute period following release. Camp Atterbury will minimize
effects to Indiana bats by avoiding, to the maximum extent practical,
release of M18 colored smoke grenades within 36 meters of trees between
15 April and 15 September. The ERA indicated that the four pesticides
will not affect summering Indiana bats unless used improperly. Camp
Atterbury will implement guidelines, detailed in the biological
assessment, to avoid toxicological effects from pesticides. Camp
Atterbury will provide an annual report to the Service to detail the use
of M18 grenades and pesticides. The number and location of M18 grenades
deployed during the year and during the period April 15-September 15
will be specified in the report. The report will also characterize
pesticide applications in terms of types of products used, amounts,
locations, dates of applications, and habitats affected by application.

4\. Develop and implement a radiotelemetry study. Camp Atterbury
conducted a radiotelemetry study to identify Indiana bat roosts and
roost habitat on the installation during the summer of 1998; the results
of the study are not yet available. The primary goal of the study was to
identify existing Indiana bat roost trees and to characterize habitat
surrounding existing roost trees. Results of the study will facilitate
integration of Indiana bat management into the installation INRMP.
Results will also be useful in developing management prescriptions for
the Indiana Bat Management Zones.

5\. Develop educational programs. Camp Atterbury will provide
educational materials and training for military trainers to improve
awareness of Indiana bat concerns on the installation. Environmental
Awareness training is a component of Camp Atterbury=s training program.
The Environmental Awareness program is a tool to educate soldiers about
the importance of natural resources and environmental compliance; the
program will be expanded to include instruction about the Indiana bat.

6\. Implement erosion control measures during construction. Camp
Atterbury will implement erosion control measures, as detailed in the
biological assessment, during construction of the proposed MPTR and
associated structures. These measures will minimize the movement of
sediment to streams that may provide insect prey for foraging Indiana
bats. All erosion and sediment control measures must be established
prior to construction or as the first step in construction. The Service
will be notified of erosion control measures implemented in the MPTR and
may inspect these measures if necessary. Camp Atterbury will monitor
erosion and sediment control measures at least once per week to verify
proper use. All areas disturbed by construction activities shall be
seeded and mulched or sodded and fertilized unless the area is to be
paved or built upon.

**STATUS OF THE SPECIES**

The Indiana bat was officially listed as an endangered species on March
11, 1967 (Federal Register 32\[48\]:4001) under the Endangered Species
Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 926; 16 U.S.C.
668aa\[c\]). The Endangered Species Act of 1973 extended full protection
to the species. The Service has published a recovery plan (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1983) which outlines recovery actions. Briefly, the
objectives of the plan are to: (1) protect hibernacula; (2) maintain,
protect, and restore summer maternity habitat; and (3) monitor
population trends through winter censuses. The recovery plan is
currently being updated to reflect new information concerning summer
habitat use.

Thirteen winter hibernacula (11 caves and two mines) in six states were
designated as Critical Habitat for the Indiana bat in 1976 (Federal
Register, Volume 41, No. 187). In Indiana, two winter hibernacula are
Designated Critical Habitat, including Big Wyandotte Cave in Crawford
County and Ray=s Cave in Greene County. Neither of these caves are in
the vicinity of Camp Atterbury; the closest, Ray=s Cave, is
approximately 65 kilometers (km) from Camp Atterbury.

Based on censuses taken at hibernacula, the total known Indiana bat
population is estimated to number about 352,000 bats. The most severe
declines in wintering populations have occurred in two states: Kentucky,
where 145,000 bats were lost between 1960 and 1975, and Missouri, where
250,000 Indiana bats were lost between 1980 and 1995. In Indiana
populations dropped by 50,000 between the earliest censuses and 1980,
but have rebounded to former levels in recent years. Currently, half of
all the hibernating Indiana bats in existence (approximately 176,000)
winter in Indiana.

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

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

**[Description and Distribution]{.underline}**

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

**[Life History]{.underline}**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE**

Camp Atterbury comprises 13,409 hectares (ha) in portions of Bartholomew
(11,397 ha), Brown (1,609 ha), and Johnson (402 ha) Counties, Indiana.
The percent of the land area in each of these counties classified as
Atimberland@ is 17%, 66%, and 10%, respectively (Smith and Golitz 1986).
The northern third of the installation was glaciated, and is now
relatively flat with gently rolling hills. The southern portion has
steep slopes and narrow valleys. Camp Atterbury lies within the
watershed of the East Fork of the White River, and is drained by Nineveh
Creek, Muddy Branch, Lick Creek, Catherine Creek, and Sugar Creek, as
well as many small seasonal drainages. Current land use on the
installation includes 265 ha of developed cantonment area, 2,474 ha
comprise the common impact area and ranges, and the remaining 10,670 ha
is divided into 7 training areas.

Approximately 10,927 ha of the base is forested. Forest stand age and
density vary, partially due to past land use; prior to construction of
the base in 1942, most of the land was used for farming and grazing.
Common tree species on the base include oak (*Quercus* spp.), hickory
(*Carya* spp.), beech (*Fagus grandifolia*), maple (*Acer* spp.), ash
(*Fraxinus* spp.), elm (*Ulmus* spp.), Eastern cottonwood, sycamore
(*Platanus occidentalis*), and willow (*Salix* spp.). In addition to the
primary function as training areas, forested portions of the
installation are managed for multiple uses, including commercial timber
harvest, wildlife habitat, protection of unique natural areas, watershed
protection, recreation, and aesthetics.

**[The Indiana Bat at Camp Atterbury]{.underline}**

In August 1997, a mist net survey of 22 sites at Camp Atterbury was
conducted to determine whether Indiana bats, as well as other bat
species, were present on the installation. A total of 208 bats,
representing 8 species, was captured, including 13 Indiana bats
(Montgomery Watson 1997).

Prior to recent surveys in southern Indiana, it was known that adult
male Indiana bats could be found throughout Indiana in summer, but it
was unclear if southern Indiana supported maternity colonies of Indiana
bats. Summer records of reproductive female or juvenile Indiana bats
provide evidence of a nearby maternity colony. There are relatively few
records of reproductive female Indiana bats or juveniles from the cave
region of Indiana during the summer (Brack 1983, Brack et al. 1987);
however, the number of records is growing. At Camp Atterbury, 2
reproductive female and 8 juvenile Indiana bats were captured in 1997.
At Jefferson Proving Ground, a closed Army ammunition testing facility
in southern Indiana, 9 of 14 Indiana bats captured between 1993-1995
were adult females or juveniles (Pruitt 1995). Whitaker (1994) captured
a lactating female Indiana bat in Jennings County. One reproductive
female was also captured at Crane Naval Weapons Support Center during
1998 (Amy Henry, 3D/I., pers. comm.). Tyrell and Brack (1990) reported
that there are records for reproductive females or juveniles in Knox,
Martin, and Ripley counties. Collectively, these records provide
evidence that southern Indiana is clearly within the maternity range of
the Indiana bat.

Based on the results of the Camp Atterbury bat survey, it was estimated
that the installation supports a minimum of 5 Indiana bat maternity
colonies; colonies are distributed across the base (Montgomery Watson
1997). Because Indiana bat maternity colonies may contain up to 100
females and their young, approximately 1,000 Indiana bats (reproductive
females and their young) may be present on Camp Atterbury during the
summer months. We can not estimate the number of adult males and
non-reproductive female bats that may be present. As noted by Montgomery
Watson (1997), the estimate of 5 maternity colonies is conservative;
additional surveys may yield evidence of additional colonies. Indiana
bats were captured at a rate of 0.36 bats per net night at Camp
Atterbury; these rates are comparable or higher than those from other
recent surveys. Capture rates can not be used to estimate population
size. However, the relatively high capture rates, and the fact that
capture sites were widely distributed across the installation suggest
that Camp Atterbury provides a concentration of suitable Indiana bat
summer habitat.

Tyrell and Brack (1990) note that the paucity of records of reproductive
female or juvenile Indiana bats in southern Indiana may be due to
historic land use practices (i.e. large-scale clearing of forested land)
which rendered the habitat unsuitable. They further note that if past
land use was responsible for the loss of Indiana bat maternity colonies
from the area, then reversion to forest might reverse that loss. The
presence of a relatively large concentration of Indiana bat maternity
colonies on Camp Atterbury is consistent with this theory. Prior to
settlement, the area which now makes up Camp Atterbury was forested, but
the majority of the forests were cleared and converted to agricultural
use. The land that comprises Camp Atterbury was acquired by the
Department of Army (Army), and the installation was constructed in 1942.
The installation has largely reverted to forest, even though patches of
non-forested vegetation occur throughout the base, while much of the
adjoining area remains in agricultural production.

The relatively large block of forested habitat available to Indiana bats
at Camp Atterbury is likely advantageous for the species. Callahan
(1993) noted: \"Larger forest tracts probably increase the chances that
a suitable range of roost trees will be present in the stand. Large
forest components also provide an additional benefit to a philopatric
species that uses an ephemeral resource (snags) for roosting.\" Kurta et
al. (1996) noted that a relatively large area is needed to meet the
roosting requirements of Indiana bats; young, highly fragmented forests,
typical in the Midwestern United States, can not meet these
requirements.

In addition to the size of forest stands, the size of the trees within
the stand is also an important consideration in the suitability of
habitat for Indiana bats. Large mature to over-mature hardwood trees are
the preferred roosting habitat for Indiana bats. The stands on Camp
Atterbury that are managed for commercial timber production are managed
on an approximately 120 year rotation (Ron Moore, pers. comm.). This is
a relatively long rotation, and allows trees to reach size classes that
provide suitable Indiana bat roost sites; however, the availability of
roost sites on Camp Atterbury has not specifically been evaluated.

For as long as Indiana bats have been present on Camp Atterbury, they
have been exposed to chemicals and sound generated by training
materials. They have also been exposed to other disturbances, such as
vehicle and foot traffic. Because the base is used intensively for
training, it is a reasonable assumption that the home ranges of all bats
on the base include at least a portion of an active training area and/or
impact area. Indiana bats were captured on active training ranges during
the 1997 survey; there is no evidence that Indiana bats abandoned
suitable habitat near active ranges. The results of the radiotelemetry
study conducted during 1998 may provide additional information on bat
movements and habitat use relative to training ranges.

**EFFECTS OF THE ACTION**

The biological assessment reports field, literature, and ecological risk
assessment (ERA) analyses undertaken by the Army to assess the effects
of the construction and operation of the MPTR on the Indiana bat. Three
general categories of potential effects were identified: 1) effects of
habitat modification; 2) toxicological effects of exposure to chemicals
in training materials; and 3) effects of sound generated by training
activities. Description of the effects of the action, as detailed in the
biological assessment and accompanying ERA, is hereby incorporated by
reference. A summary, which includes information from the biological
assessment and ERA as well as additional comments by the Service,
follows.

**[Effects of Habitat Modification]{.underline}**

Construction of the proposed MPTR will require clearing trees within
construction boundaries. Operation of the proposed MPTR may result in
significant damage from ammunition impacts to

trees in the SDZ within 100 meters of targets. Based on the analysis
conducted for the biological assessment, it is estimated that these
impacts will result in the permanent loss of approximately 99.7 ha of
suitable habitat for Indiana bats for summer roosting and/or foraging.

Cutting an Indiana bat roost tree when bats are present in the tree is
likely to result in bats being injured or killed. Camp Atterbury will
avoid killing or injuring roosting bats by removing trees in the MPTR
construction boundary between September 16 and April 14, when Indiana
bats are not known to be present on Camp Atterbury.

As previously noted, female Indiana bats establish traditional summer
ranges which they return to annually. It is anticipated that habitat
loss associated with the MPTR will result in the loss of some
traditional summer roost areas. Loss of traditional roost sites will
require females to expend energy locating new roosting habitat when they
arrive at Camp Atterbury after migrating from their winter hibernacula.
Weight loss and stress associated with hibernation, migration, and
pregnancy would be magnified. These stresses could potentially result in
lower reproductive success and/or lower survival of juvenile bats.
Clearing may also result in alteration of foraging habitat, forcing bats
to fly farther to forage. The quality of foraging habitat may also be
degraded due to erosion, and subsequent sedimentation of stream
corridors, associated with construction and operation of the MPTR.
Sedimentation could affect the production of insects associated with
aquatic habitats, which make up a portion of the prey base of Indiana
bats

Most of the loss of bat habitat associated with construction and
operation of the MPTR will be permanent. Bats which are displaced due to
clearing in the MPTR will either perish or will establish a new summer
home range. The availability of suitable habitat in areas immediately
adjacent to the MPTR should enhance the potential for displaced bats to
relocate to a new range. To minimize impacts to bats due to habitat
loss, Camp Atterbury will set aside 201 hectares of forested habitat
into Indiana Bat Management Zones in areas adjoining or in proximity to
the MPTR construction boundary. Silvicultural manipulation in Indiana
Bat Management Zones will be limited to activities which will enhance
the quality of habitat for Indiana bats. While there will be a net loss
of Indiana bat habitat associated with construction of the MPTR, habitat
quality in Indiana Bat Management Zones, as well as the Old Growth Area
and the Protected Natural Areas, should gradually increase over time.
Habitat in these areas will remain suitable for Indiana bats
indefinitely. Long-term habitat suitability for Indiana bats on Camp
Atterbury will also be enhanced through the development of an ESMP and
an INRMP which will incorporate Indiana bat management concerns.

**[Toxicological Effects of Exposure to Chemicals in Training Materials
and Pesticides]{.underline}**

Operation of the proposed MPTR will include use of training materials
and pesticides. Indiana bats may be exposed to training materials and
pesticides during the summer maternity season while roosting and
foraging. The biological assessment addresses the potential for
toxicological effects from exposure to training materials and
pesticides.

Information describing 44 training materials and four pesticides
proposed for use in the MPTR was gathered for the biological assessment.
Each training material and pesticide was evaluated to determine if a
complete exposure pathway existed between that item and Indiana bats.
Only those materials with complete exposure pathways were considered
stressors (i.e. biological or chemical agents that may cause an affect).
Exposure was evaluated by Indiana bat age class (adult, juvenile,
supplemental nursing pup, and nursing pup) for ingestion, inhalation,
and dermal absorption exposure pathways.

The ERA indicated that the four pesticides proposed for use will not
affect summering Indiana bats unless used improperly. Camp Atterbury
agreed to implement guidelines, detailed in the biological assessment,
to avoid toxicological effects from pesticides. With the incorporation
of pesticide use restrictions into the project description, effects to
Indiana bats are not anticipated.

After evaluating all training materials to be used on the proposed MPTR,
AN-M8 grenades and M18 grenades (yellow, green, red, and violet) were
identified as potential stressors. Acute and chronic toxicity values
were developed for these stressors. The ERA indicated that the use of
AN-M8 smoke grenades may cause toxicological effects to roosting and
foraging Indiana bats. The Army chose to avoid these effects, and
committed to not using AN-M8 grenades on Camp Atterbury. Therefore,
potential effects of AN-M8 grenades on bats will not be discussed.

The ERA also indicated that chemicals found in M18 colored smoke
grenades may cause acute toxicological effects; Indiana bats roosting
within 36 meters of the deployed grenades may inhale unsafe
concentrations of M18 colored smoke during a one-minute period following
release. Analyses were done based on the assumptions that two grenades
will be released on the MPTR on 75 occasions during the period April
15 - September 15 (i.e. a maximum of 150 M18 grenades deployed when bats
are present). Using these assumptions, it was concluded in the ERA that
the impacts to Indiana bats from exposure to smoke from M18 grenades
would be limited to minor, temporary tissue changes, and bats should
recover to normal condition within seven days following exposure. Camp
Atterbury will minimize effects to Indiana bats by avoiding, to the
maximum extent practical, release of M18 colored smoke grenades within
36 meters of trees between April 15 - September 15. The ERA is based on
the best information available, but it must be noted that assumptions
and uncertainties are inherent in the ERA process. AUncertainty factors@
were applied in attempt to account for some of the uncertainty in the
process. For example, the analysis is conservative in that the
assumption was made that all grenades would be deployed in the worst
possible atmospheric conditions. However, the possibility remains that
monitoring could reveal toxicological effects that are not anticipated
based on the ERA.

**[Effects of Sound Generated by Training Activities]{.underline}**

The effects of sound generated by training activities on Indiana bats
were analyzed in the biological assessment using 2 approaches: 1)
Existing data on the auditory capabilities of Indiana bats and similar
species were used to evaluate effects of sound generated by proposed
training; and 2) Characteristics of sound generated during proposed and
past training events were compared using available data.

The analysis in the biological assessment indicated that proposed
training in the MPTR will not expose Indiana bats on Camp Atterbury to
greater intensity or duration of sound than past training events on the
installation. It was assumed that sound intensity and duration
associated with past training events did not adversely affect Indiana
bats on Camp Atterbury. While this assumption has not been tested, it is
reasonable given the distribution of bats captured on the base. Results
of investigation of the effects of sound at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri
also suggest that sound generated by training events (simulated
artillery and small-arms fire) do not startle, frighten, or cause bats
to flee the area. Radiotelemetric monitoring of Indiana bats near active
night training ranges at the Missouri facility indicates that bats do
not avoid active ranges or alter foraging behavior during night-time
maneuvers (3D/I International, Inc. 1996). Based on the analyses
conducted in the biological assessment, it was determined that sound
generated by proposed training activities is not likely to adversely
affect the Indiana bat. Based on the best information available, we
concur with this conclusion.

**CUMULATIVE EFFECTS**

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or
private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area
considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are
unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section
because they require separate consulta­tion pursuant to section 7 of the
Act.

The Service is not aware of any specific State, tribal, local or private
actions likely to occur in the vicinity of Camp Atterbury which would
affect Indiana bats. The proposed actions would improve the training
experience of troops that train at Camp Atterbury rather than increase
the number of trainees. Therefore, there are no anticipated changes in
demand for off-post housing, public services, or utilities; if such
demand existed, this could result in construction in forested areas
which could remove roosting and foraging habitat for Indiana bats.

**CONCLUSION**

After reviewing the current status of the Indiana bat, the environmental
baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed MPTR, and the
cumulative effects, it is the Service\'s biological opinion that the
Construction and Operation of the MPTR, as proposed, is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat. No critical
habitat has been designated for the Indiana bat in the action area;
therefore, none will be affected.

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

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of
the Act prohibits the take of endangered and threatened species,
respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to
attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the
Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that
results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing
essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or
sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service as intentional or negligent
actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such
an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which
include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering.
Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the
terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental
to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be
prohibited taking under the 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 Army for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply.
The Army has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this
incidental take statement. If the Army fails to assume and implement the
terms and conditions the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may
lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the Army must
report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the
Service as specified in the incidental take statement \[50 CFR
\'402.14(i)(3)\].

**AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE**

The Service anticipates that incidental take of Indiana bats will occur
in the form of harm through habitat loss and potentially through
exposure to toxicological agents used in the operation of the MPTR.
Based on our knowledge of the ecology of Indiana bats, and the
distribution of Indiana bats on Camp Atterbury, we assume that the
habitat that will be lost will affect the roosting and foraging habitat
of 1 maternity colony of Indiana bats. We further assume that this
colony would be composed of approximately 200 bats (100 reproductive
female Indiana bats and 100 young of the year). Additionally, roosting
and foraging habitat would be impacted for an unknown number of adult
male and non-reproductive adult female Indiana bats.

It is unlikely that direct mortality of bats will be detected, that is,
we do not expect that dead or moribund bats will be found. Behavioral or
physiological effects which impair reproduction and recruitment, or
other essential behavioral patterns are anticipated; there is no
practical means to directly measure these impacts to bats. Therefore,
the anticipated level of take is expressed as the permanent loss of 99.7
ha of forest, as designated in the biological assessment, that is
currently suitable summer roosting and foraging habitat for Indiana bats
and that will be cleared for the construction and operation of the MPTR
at Camp Atterbury. Exposure to chemicals found in M18 colored smoke
grenades may cause acute toxicological effects to Indiana bats, but is
not expected to result in take if the reasonable and prudent measures
are implemented.

**EFFECT OF THE TAKE**

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

**REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES**

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are
necessary and appropriate to minimize take of Indiana bats:

**[Minimize Impacts on Indiana Bat Summer Roosting and Foraging
Habitat]{.underline}**

1\. Develop Indiana Bat Management Zones near areas to be cleared for
the MPTR. The availability of suitable habitat in areas near the MPTR
should enhance the potential for displaced bats to relocate to a new
range, thus minimizing the take of bats associated with the habitat that
will be lost.

2\. Implement erosion control measures during construction and operation
of the MPTR. Regarding potential for erosion during construction of the
MPTR, the FEIS states: ASedimentation could be severe enough such that
destruction of habitat for bottom-dwelling organisms and gravel-spawning
fish, and degradation of water quality are sufficient to cause extensive
acute mortality and jeopardize local populations of all aquatic biota.@
In addition, steep slopes within the MPTR create concerns regarding the
potential for erosion during operation of the MPTR.

3\. No trees will be felled within the MPTR construction boundaries
during the Indiana bat reproductive season (April 15 through September
15) to avoid injuring or killing bats by felling a roost tree when bats
are present.

4\. Develop a base-wide forest management plan which incorporates
Indiana bat management concerns. Base-wide management will enhance
long-term suitability of summer habitat on Camp Atterbury.

**[Minimize and Monitor Toxicological Effects of Training Materials on
Indiana Bats]{.underline}**

1\. AN-M8 smoke grenades will not be used on Camp Atterbury.

2\. Implement guidelines to minimize toxicological impacts of M18
colored smoke grenades on Indiana bats.

3\. Implement guidelines to minimize toxicological impacts of pesticides
used for maintenance of the MPTR on Indiana bats.

4\. Initiate investigation to assess the potential for M18 colored smoke
grenades to cause injury to Indiana bats at Camp Atterbury, if results
of biomonitoring of bats at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri indicate that
the grenades potentially have a greater impact on bats than predicted
based on the ERA.

**[Develop educational programs]{.underline}**

Camp Atterbury will provide educational materials and training for
military personnel to improve awareness of Indiana bat concerns on the
installation.

**TERMS AND CONDITIONS**

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

1\. Provide an annual report to the Service. MDI will provide an annual
report to the Service=s BFO detailing each year=s activities related to
implementation of the reasonable and prudent measures. Annual reports
will be provided by November 30 of each year, beginning in 1999. Some
required elements of the annual report (as detailed in the following
terms and conditions) include: a) an evaluation of habitat quality in
the Indiana Bat Management Zones and details regarding management
activities implemented in the zones; b) an update on the status of
erosion monitoring and control programs; c) details on the annual use of
M18 colored smoke grenades; d) a characterization of pesticide
applications; and e) an assessment of Camp Atterbury=s efforts to
incorporate materials related to Indiana bats into the Environmental
Awareness training program.

2\. Indiana Bat Management Zones. The Army has already incorporated the
designation of Indiana Bat Management Zones as a Project Design Feature
(PDF) of the proposed project; specific areas to be designated
(Figure 1) were indicated in the biological assessment. Silvicultural
manipulation in Indiana Bat Management Zones will be limited to
activities intended to enhance summer habitat for Indiana bats, and will
be developed in consultation with and approved by the Service. Every 3
years while the MPTR is in operation, the Army will evaluate Indiana bat
habitat quality in the Indiana Bat Management Zones. The first
evaluation period should take place before the MPTR becomes operational.
Procedures for evaluating bat habitat quality will be developed by the
Army and approved by the Service within 1 year of the receipt of this
biological opinion. The outcome of the habitat evaluation in the bat
management zones will be included in Camp Atterbury=s annual report to
the Service. Based on the evaluations, the Service and the Army will
cooperatively develop management prescriptions to be implemented in the
Indiana Bat Management Zones. Any management activities implemented will
be reported in the annual report

3\. Erosion control measures. During construction of the MPTR, Camp
Atterbury will implement the erosion control measures that were
designated in the biological assessment as a PDF. Camp Atterbury will
also develop procedures to monitor and control erosion during operation
of the MPTR. An erosion monitoring and control plan, approved by the
Service, should be in place at least 60 days prior to the MPTR becoming
operational.

4\. Base-wide forest management plan. Camp Atterbury is currently
developing a forest management plan designed to maintain or enhance the
quality of the Indiana bat habitat on the installation; this plan is
being developed in consultation with the Service. Until the plan is
complete, MDI will consult with the Service on a project-by-project
basis for any project involving manipulation of woody vegetation on the
base.

5\. Minimize toxicological impacts of M18 colored smoke grenades within
the MPTR. Implement guidelines within the MPTR to minimize toxicological
impacts of M18 colored smoke grenades on Indiana bats, including:

a\) As designated in the biological assessment, a maximum of 150 M18
grenades will be deployed (annually) during the Indiana bat reproductive
season (April 15 - September 15).

b\) As designated in the biological assessment, avoid to the maximum
extent practical the release of M18 colored smoke grenades within 36 m
of trees between April 15 - September 15.

c\) As designated in the biological assessment, Camp Atterbury will
provide an annual report to the Service which will indicate the number
and location of M18 colored smoke grenades deployed during the year and
during the period April 15 - September 15. Reporting on location should
include the approximate number of M18 grenades deployed within 36 m or
less of trees during the bat reproductive season.

d\) Newly formulated red and violet grenades (which will contain less
toxic dyes) are currently being developed. As soon as these newly
formulated grenades become available, Camp Atterbury will discontinue
use of current red and violet grenades and utilize the less toxic
alternatives.

e\) After using an M18 colored smoke grenade, the grenade canister and
any residual materials in the canister will be collected and disposed of
properly as soon as practical within the context of the training being
conducted.

6\. Camp Atterbury will use results of biomonitoring conducted at Fort
Leonard Wood, Missouri to evaluate potential toxicological effects of
M18 colored smoke grenades to Indiana bats. During January through March
1999-2003, Camp Atterbury will review results presented in annual
reports prepared by Fort Leonard Wood and submitted to the Service as
required by the Terms and Conditions in the Biological Opinion/Take
Statement for Base Realignment and Closure activities at Fort Leonard
Wood. Chemical analyses of surrogate bat tissue (whole body analyses),
gross anatomical and histopathological tissue analyses of surrogate bat
lung tissue, chemical analyses of guano, and chemical analyses of fish
and sediment shall be reviewed. If detectable amounts of terephthalic
acid (TPA) or lung damage are noted in samples collected at Fort Leonard
Wood, but not in samples collected at reference sites, Camp Atterbury
shall initiate an investigation to assess the potential for M18 colored
smoke grenades to cause injury to Indiana bats at Camp Atterbury. A
draft study plan for investigating effects of M18 colored smoke grenades
shall be submitted to and approved by the Service at least 60 days prior
to initiation of the proposed study.

7\. Implement guidelines, as detailed in the biological assessment, to
minimize toxilogical impacts of pesticides used for maintenance of the
MPTR on Indiana bats. Camp Atterbury will characterize pesticide
applications in terms of types of products used, amounts, locations,
dates of application, and habitats affected in the annual report
provided to the Service. No pesticides other than the 4 assessed in the
ERA (Roundup, Oust, Kibosh, Bactimos Briquets) will be used on the MPTR
without first assessing potential impacts to Indiana bats and consulting
with the Service.

8\. Camp Atterbury will provide educational materials and training for
military personnel to improve awareness of Indiana bat concerns on the
installation. The training program should be in place prior to the MPTR
becoming operational. To the maximum extent practical, all troops that
use the MPTR should be provided with information on Indiana bats. A copy
of written training materials relative to Indiana bats should be
provided to the Service, and a summary of training activities should be
included in the annual report provided to the Service.

9\. Any dead bats located on Camp Atterbury, regardless of species,
should be immediately reported to BFO \[(812) 334-4261\], and
subsequently transported on ice to that office. No attempt should be
made to handle any live bat, regardless of its condition; report bats
that appear to be sick or injured to BFO. BFO will make a species
determination on any dead or moribund bats found on the base. If an
Indiana bat is identified, BFO will contact the appropriate Service Law
Enforcement office.

In conclusion, the Service believes that no more than 99.7 ha of forest
that is currently suitable summer roosting and foraging habitat for
Indiana bats will be permanently lost in the area cleared for the
construction and operation of the MPTR at Camp Atterbury. In addition,
if a maximum of 150 M18 colored smoke grenades are used annually during
the period when bats may be present (April 15 - September 15), we
anticipate that the effects to Indiana bats from exposure to the
grenades will be limited to acute toxicological effects. The reasonable
and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are
designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise
result from the proposed action. If, during the course of the action,
this level of incidental take is exceeded (i.e. more than the 99.7 ha
designated in the biological assessment is cleared or more than 150
colored smoke grenades are used during the period April 15 - September
15), such incidental take represents new information requiring
reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent
measures provided. The Army 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]{.underline}**

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

The Service provides the following conservation recommendations for Camp
Atterbury; these activities may be conducted at the discretion of MDI as
time and funding allow:

1\. Conduct a radio telemetry study of Indiana bats within the action
area to assess the movements and habitat use of bats relative to
training.

2\. Expand on educational materials and management techniques related to
Indiana bats developed for Camp Atterbury, and coordinate with other
Army reserve force training areas to develop materials to be used at
facilities throughout the range of the Indiana bat. The purpose of this
effort would be to: 1) provide guidance for facilities on management
activities designed to enhance Indiana bat habitat on training areas,
and 2) develop educational materials to be used on military training
areas that will promote awareness of Indiana bats and lessen the
potential for adverse impacts to bats as a result of training
activities.

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

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

This concludes formal consultation on the Construction and Operation of
the Multi-Purpose Training Range (MPTR) at the Camp Atterbury Army
National Guard Training Site, as outlined in the biological assessment
received with your August 14, 1998 request. As provided in 50 CFR
\'402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where
discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has
been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent
of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of
the construction and operation of the MPTR may affect listed species in
a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the
construction and operation of the MPTR is subsequently modified in a
manner that causes an effect to listed species not considered in this
opinion, such as the addition of a training material which was not
considered in the ERA; or (4) a new species is listed or critical
habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances
where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any
operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation. Requests
for reinitiation, or questions regarding reinitiation, should be
directed to BFO.

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

3D/International, Inc. 1996. Biological assessment of the master plan
and ongoing mission, U.S. Army Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood.
Prepared for Kansas City Corps of Engineers.

Brack, V., Jr. 1983. The nonhibernating ecology of bats in Indiana with
emphasis on the endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Ph.D.
dissertation, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, Ind. 280pp.

Brack, V., T. Larkins, and S. Bell. 1987. The bats of Crane Naval
Weapons Support Center, Indiana. Report to Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Indianapolis.

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

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

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann. 1991[a]{.underline}.
Summer roost selection and roosting behavior of *Myotis sodalis*
(Indiana bat) in Illinois. Unpublished report, Illinois Natural History
Survey, Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect Identification. 51pp.

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann. 1991[b]{.underline}.
Summary of *Myotis sodalis* summer habitat studies in Illinois: with
recommendations for impact assessment. Unpublished report prepared for
the Indiana/Gray Bat Recovery Team Meeting, Columbia, Mo. Illinois
Natural History Survey, Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect
Identification. 28pp.

Garner, J.D, and J.E. Gardner. 1992. Determination of summer
distribution and habitat utilization of the Indiana bat (*Myotis
sodalis)* in Illinois. Final Report: Project E-3. Endangered Species Act
Section 6 Report, Illinois Dept. of Conservation.

Hall, J. 1962. A life history and taxonomic study of the Indiana bat,
(*Myotis sodalis*). Reading Public Museum and Art Gallery Publication
12:1-68.

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

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]{.underline} R.M.R. Barclay and R.M.
Brigham, eds. Bats and Forests Symposium. Research Branch, British
Columbia Ministry of Forests, Working Paper 23:1-292. Victoria, British
Columbia, Canada.

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

Montgomery Watson. 1997. Final survey of bat species: Atterbury Reserve
Forces Training Area, Edinburgh, Indiana. Report prepared for the
Military Dept. of Indiana: Contract #DAHA90-94-0013.

Montgomery Watson and 3D/International, Inc. 1998. Biological
assessment: effects to Indiana bats and bald eagles from construction
and operation of the proposed multi-purpose training range: Atterbury
Reserve Forces Training Area, Edinburgh, Indiana.

Pruitt. L. 1995. Summary of Jefferson Proving Ground bat surveys:
1993-1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington Field Office,
Unpublished report. 5pp.

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 to Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Federal Aid Project E-1-7, Study No. 8. 38pp.

Science Applications International Corporation. 1998. Final
environmental impact statement for the proposed upgrade of training
areas and facilities: Camp Atterbury, Indiana.

Smith, W.B. and M.F. Golitz. 1988. Indiana forest statistics, 1986.
North Central Forest Experiment Station Resource Bulletin NC-108. 139pp.

Tyrell, K. and V. Brack, Jr. 1990. A survey for the endangered Indiana
bat (*Myotis sodalis*) on Hoosier National Forest, Indiana. A report to
the Hoosier National Forest and the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources. 93pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Recovery plan for the Indiana bat.
Washington, D.C. 80pp.

Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1994. Survey of bats and search for endangered bat
species, particularly the Federally endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis
sodalis*) and the State endangered evening bat (*Nycticeius humeralis*),
in the area of the proposed Zenas Lake project along the Muscatatuck
River in Jennings County, Indiana. Report to Algonquin Consultants, Inc.
20pp.