June 9, 2006

Mr. Jose Sepulveda

Division Administrator

Federal Highway Administration

330 West Broadway

Frankfort, Kentucky 40601

Subject: FWS #06-0466; Final Programmatic Biological Opinion on minor
road construction projects in Kentucky and their effects on the Indiana
Bat.

Dear Mr. Sepulveda:

This document sends the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service)
informal consultation and programmatic biological opinion based on our
review of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) proposed
construction of minor road construction projects in Kentucky,
implementation of the April 2006 Indiana Bat Habitat Assessment Manual
(HAM), and their related 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 May 8, 2006, request for formal
consultation was received on May 9, 2006.

This informal consultation and biological opinion is based on
information provided in the

April 2006 Biological Assessment (BA) and the April 2006 HAM for the
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC), meetings (see consultation
history), other available literature, personal communications with
experts on the federally listed species considered in this biological
opinion, and other sources of information available to us and/or in our
files. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file
at the Service's Kentucky Field Office in Frankfort, Kentucky.

**Introduction**

The FHWA and KYTC are proposing to address section 7 consultation issues
related to the Indiana bat for minor road construction projects through
the use of a 2-tiered programmatic approach. Tier 1 involves the use of
the HAM to determine if habitat for Indiana bats is present within a
proposed project site. If habitat is not present within a proposed
project site (as determined by the process contained in Sections II,
III, and Appendix A of the HAM), the project would be considered to have
"no effect" on Indiana bats (Table 1). If potential summer roosting
habitat is present within the proposed project site, but the habitat is
marginal, project effects are discountable, or the habitat is unlikely
to be occupied by Indiana bats (as determined by the process contained
in Section IV and Appendix B of the HAM), the project effects would be
considered "not likely to adversely effect" Indiana bats (Table 2). The
process for making the

**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**

  *Myotis sodalis*       Indiana bat               endangered   \+       
  ---------------------- ------------------------- ------------ -------- --------

**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**

  *Myotis sodalis*       Indiana bat              endangered   \+       
  ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------ -------- --------

determinations in Tier 1 are provided in the HAM and are supported by
information contained in the BA and HAM developed by the FHWA and KYTC.
Tier 2 involves the use of this programmatic biological opinion to
account for adverse effects to Indiana bats that may occur in

association with proposed minor highway development projects where a "no
effect" or "not likely to adversely effect" determination cannot be made
during the project evaluations outlined in the Tier 1 analyses. This
biological opinion would, thus, provide KYTC with a streamlined option
for proceeding with the specific types of minor highway projects
identified in the BA where it is probable that adverse effects are
unavoidable.

The Service has reviewed the BA, HAM, and all of the supporting and
supplemental information that evaluates the effects of the proposed
action on the Indiana bat. This document represents our (a) concurrence
with the effects determinations stated in the BA for the Indiana bat
associated with the Tier 1 analysis; and (b) biological opinion on the
effects of the proposed action on the Indiana bat associated with the
Tier 2 analysis in accordance with Section 7 of the Act. The Indiana bat
was the only species for which the FHWA made a "may affect - likely to
adversely affect" determination.

According to the BA, Tier 1 review involves trained KYTC personnel
utilizing the HAM to determine if any habitat for Indiana bats is
present within a proposed project site. Sections I, II, and III of the
HAM, respectively, provide: a) suitable Indiana bat habitat descriptions
and examples; b) a specific list of projects that do not require
alteration of Indiana habitat; and c) procedures for determining if a
project requires the alteration of Indiana bat habitat. As determined by
the aforementioned Tier 1 process, only those projects where no Indiana
bat habitat was identified within the project site will be considered to
have "no effect" on the Indiana bat. Upon this determination, KYTC
personnel will document their finding by completing Appendix A of the
HAM. Therefore, the Service concurs that projects that (a) are reviewed
according to Sections II and III of the HAM and (b) lead to a documented
"no effect" finding in Appendix A of the HAM will have no effect on the
Indiana bat, because these projects will not involve the removal of
Indiana bat habitat or result in other potential adverse effects. As a
result, further consultation on these "no effect" projects is not
necessary.

For those projects that do not meet the criteria for a "no effect",
further analysis by trained KYTC personnel utilizing the HAM would be
conducted to determine (a) if the habitat present within the project
area is marginal and/or isolated and unlikely to be occupied by Indiana
bats or (b) if project effects would be discountable or insignificant.
This analysis would be conducted using Section IV and Appendix B of the
HAM and was developed to identify those situations where the Service
considers effects to not be reasonably likely to occur. As determined by
the process in Tier 1, only those projects that meet the specific
criteria in Section IV and Appendix B of the HAM will be considered to
be "not likely to adversely affect" the Indiana bat. Upon this
determination, KYTC personnel will document their finding by completing
Appendix B of the HAM.

The Service has reviewed the process for making and documenting a "not
likely to adversely affect" determination. Based on the information
contained in the BA, HAM, and the other information on the Indiana bat
that is available to the Service, the Service concurs with FHWA's
determination for projects that are reviewed in accordance with Section
IV of the HAM and that lead to a documented "not likely to adversely
affect" finding for the Indiana bat in Appendix B of the HAM, because
the potential adverse effects of these projects have been evaluated and
meet the criteria of Section IV of the HAM. As a result, further
consultation on these "not likely to adversely affect" projects is not
necessary.

Based on this, the Service believes that the FHWA has fulfilled its
section 7 consultation requirements relating to the implementation of
the Tier 1 process. However, the FHWA's obligations under section 7 of
the Act relative to the Indiana bat must be reconsidered for any "no
effect" or "not likely to adversely affect determination" made under the
HAM if (1) new information reveals impacts of the proposed action that
may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered, (2) the proposed action is subsequently modified to include
activities which were not considered during this consultation, or (3)
new species are listed or critical habitat designated that might be
affected by the proposed action.

**Consultation History**

January 2005 A meeting was held between the Service, FHWA, and KYTC to
discuss Indiana bat issues and other options of satisfying Section 7 for
small projects.

March 4, 2005 A meeting was held between the Service, FHWA, and KYTC to
discuss Section 7 consultation process and the ability of action
agencies to make "No Effect" determinations with consulting with the
Service.

December 15, 2005 A meeting was held between the Service, FHWA, and
KYTC. Discussions included ways to streamline the Section 7 process
regarding Indiana bats and what would be required during a programmatic
consultation process.

January 4, 2006 The Service sent a letter to KYTC and FHWA providing
technical assistance on what information would be needed in a
programmatic biological assessment that would support an Indiana bat
programmatic biological opinion for transportation projects

March 23, 2006 A meeting was held between the Service, FHWA, and KYTC to
discuss the need and development of a programmatic consultation to
address Indiana bat issues.

March 31 thru

May 8, 2006 The Service, FHWA, and KYTC worked to develop a Habitat
Assessment Manual and Programmatic Biological Assessment. Several
meetings were held in order to comment on the documents' contents,
implementation, and provide revisions. Specific meeting dates and draft
documents are on file in the administrative file located in the
Service's Kentucky Field Office.

May 9, 2006 The Service receives a request from the FHWA, dated May 8,
2006, to initiate formal consultation on the proposed action. The FHWA's
request includes the final BA dated March 31, 2005.

May 9, 2006 The Service sent a letter to the FHWA acknowledging that the
FHWA's May 8, 2006, request for initiation of formal consultation was
received, that the information contained in the BA and HAM was complete,
and that formal consultation had been initiated.

May 25, 2006 The Service sent a Draft Biological Opinion (BO) to the
FHWA for review via electronic mail.

June 6 & 7, 2006 The Service received comments regarding the draft BO
from KYTC and FHWA.

June 7, 2006 The Service receives a request from KYTC via electronic
mail to amend the formal initiation package to amend the HAM. This
amendment was noted and has been reflected in this biological opinion.

June 9, 2006 The Service provided the FHWA with the Final Biological
Opinion on the proposed action.

**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 BA, the FHWA outlined those
activities associated with minor road construction projects that may
result in adverse effects on the Indiana bat. This biological opinion
addresses whether minor road construction projects and the
implementation of Tier 2 of the programmatic analysis for these projects
is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat.

[Project Area]{.underline}

The KYTC maintains and constructs a wide variety of transportation
infrastructure needs within 120 counties in Kentucky that are identified
and scheduled in a master plan occurring in six year increments. Project
priorities and time schedules, within the six year plan, vary pending
several factors (i.e., purpose, safety, funding, etc.). However, one
factor remains consistant in that the proposed action area is located
within the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Kentucky is divided into six distinctive physiographic regions that
include the Appalachian or Cumberland Plateau, Knobs, Bluegrass,
Pennyroyal, Shawnee Hills, and the Coastal Plain. Mountain forests of
the eastern Cumberland Plateau extend westward to the Knobs, Bluegrass
and karst areas of the Pennyroyal of central Kentucky. The geography
then turns into the hilly uplands of the Shawnee Hills, which finally
reach the coastal plain of the Mississippi River known as the Jackson
Purchase region of west Kentucky. A wide range of habitat types are
found in Kentucky, including numerous wetlands and streams, deciduous
and evergreen forests, karst and cave features, and prairie habitat.

#### Land use in Kentucky varies across the state and includes: agricultural farmland, livestock farmland, forest, streams and wetlands, residential, industrial, mining for natural resources, infrastructure, urban development, and others. Today, much of Kentucky's natural habitat has been disturbed; however, about 2,070,434 acres land has been conserved to be publicly managed fish and wildlife habitat. The remaining 95 percent of Kentucky remains privately owned and plays an important role in the overall landscape of Kentucky providing natural and semi-natural habitats to support wildlife diversity. 

#### Proposed Action

The proposed action involves the construction of minor road projects
within the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Appendix B of the BA includes a
specific list and description of project types that are being considered
as part of this action. Various steps are involved in the development of
these types of projects, and these projects are conducted in phases that
are tied directly to funding authorization. The phases used for project
development are: Planning (P), Preliminary Design and Environmental (D),
Right-of-Way (ROW), Utilities (U), and Construction (C). The type of
funding source (state or federal) does not affect these phases of
project development.

Project development phases do not necessarily apply to every project.
For example, a Planning phase is typically reserved for those projects
where a large number of solutions for a transportation need may be
feasible. The Right-of-Way phase is only programmed where additional
land acquisition or easements would be required to complete the work.
Utilities phase is only necessary where relocation of existing utilities
is required for construction. A complete description of each project
phase is provided in the BA and is considered to be incorporated as part
of the proposed action.

As stated previously, FHWA and KYTC have developed an Indiana bat HAM to
support a two-tiered programmatic review process in order to address
potential adverse effects on the Indiana bat that result from specific
types and levels of transportation projects. A description of each tier
of this process relating to the proposed action is provided below.

[Tier 1 of the Programmatic Review Process]{.underline}

Tier 1 involves the use of the HAM during the preliminary design and
environmental phase to determine if habitat for Indiana bats is present
within a proposed project site. This process involves a Division of
Environmental Analysis (DEA) biologist or District Environmental
Coordinator(DEC) utilizing information available to them to determine if
any Indiana bat summer or winter habitat exists within a proposed
project area. If the DEA biologist or DEC determines that habitat is not
present within a proposed project site (as determined by the process
contained in Section II and III of the HAM), then the appropriate
documentation would be prepared and the project would be considered to
have "no effect" on Indiana bats. However, if habitat is present within
the proposed project site, a DEA biologist or DEC would use the
information necessary to conduct a further review. This additional
review of the project by the DEA biologist or DEC would include the data
used previously during the analysis in Section III of the HAM and the
analysis contained in Section IV of the HAM. If the DEA biologist or DEC
(whomever conducts the review) determines that the habitat is marginal,
project effects are determined to be discountable, or the habitat is
unlikely to be occupied by Indiana bats (as determined by the process
contained in Section IV and Appendix B of the HAM), then the project is
considered to "not likely to adversely effect" Indiana bats. The Service
has reviewed and concurred with these effects determinations previously
in this biological opinion; therefore, further consultation with the
Service would not be required and section 7(a)(2) responsibilities for
those projects would be fulfilled.

Two criteria within the Tier 1 review process would trigger additional
informal consultation with the Service. These criteria are described in
the HAM and involve situations where the proposed project may impact: a)
occupied and/or potential Indiana bat wintering habitat (i.e., caves,
mine adits, or other karst features exhibiting cave like
characteristics) or b) a known Indiana bat maternity colony. If any of
these two criteria exist during the review of a road construction
project, then KYTC would follow the process contained in Section V of
the HAM. The only exceptions would be for those projects found to have
"no effect" on the Indiana bat. If it is determined by KYTC, as defined
in Section V of the HAM, that a species survey is needed in order to
determine if the project would result in adverse effects to the Indiana
bat, then KYTC will coordinate the findings and effects determination
for concurrence with the Service.

[Tier 2 of the Programmatic Review Process]{.underline}

Tier 2 involves the use of this programmatic biological opinion to
account for adverse effects to Indiana bats that are likely to occur and
that do not result in a "no effect" or "not likely to adversely affect"
determination under Tier 1. If KYTC determines that a species survey or
other minimization factors are impractical for a project where it is
probable that adverse effects to the Indiana bat could occur, then KYTC
would use the incidental take provided in this biological opinion's
incidental take statement to account for adverse affects to the Indiana
bat. However, if a proposed project may impact Indiana bat wintering
habitat (i.e., caves, mine adits, or other karst features exhibiting
cave like characteristics) then a species survey and BA must be prepared
for coordination with the Service. In other words, Tier 2 would only
apply on specific projects that could affect Indiana bat summer habitat
outside of the range of a known maternity colony and where no potential
or occupied winter habitat occurs.

As discussed previously, if it is determined that a specific road
project listed in Appendix B of the BA does not meet the criteria of
Tier 1, then KYTC may account for adverse effects to Indiana bats by
utilizing the incidental take provided in this programmatic biological
opinion. However, impacts for road projects in Appendix B of the BA that
exceed 25 acres of summer habitat removal would not be considered for
authorization of incidental take. Projects of this scope would undergo
analysis in Section V of the HAM and would be coordinated with the
Service.

KYTC has analyzed project impacts from previous years to estimate
Indiana bat summer habitat losses. There are about 1,500 projects in the
KYTC Six Year Plan, an average of 250 projects per year. Of these
projects, about 80 percent (200) are considered "small" projects that
are sufficiently documented with a Categorical Exclusion during the NEPA
process. It is estimated that as many as half of these projects will
result in "no effect" or "not likely to adversely affect"
determinations. Of the remaining projects (100), it is estimated that an
average of five (5) acres of habitat removal may occur, resulting in a
net habitat loss estimate of 500 acres in 2006. Based on this analysis,
KYTC estimates that the amount of Indiana bat summer habitat loss in
2006 would not exceed 500 acres. It is anticipated that this projection
would increase 20 percent each year for the remaining duration of the
current six-year plan. At the end of the current six-year plan (FY
2010), KYTC's estimate of summer habitat losses would be reevaluated.
Therefore, the amount of incidental take requested for the current
six-year plan is 500 acres of Indiana bat summer habitat in FY 2006, 600
acres in FY 2007, 720 acres in FY 2008, 864 acres in FY 2009, 1,037
acres in FY 2010. The aforementioned figures will be based upon KYTC's
Fiscal Year beginning July 1 through June 30.

In order to ensure the consideration of all direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of the proposed actions on the Indiana bat, the
action area under consideration in this Biological Opinion will include
those areas within the right-of-way disturbance limits for each proposed
project, as described in Appendix B of the BA, within the Commonwealth
of Kentucky. The Service has described the action area to include the
previously described area for reasons that will be explained and
discussed in the "EFFECTS OF THE ACTION" section of this consultation.

#### **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 about 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 about 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/or other environmental factors continue to
negatively affect the species.

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 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.

Loss of breeding females can occur at any point in the annual cycle of
hibernation, spring migration, parturition, lactation, fall migration,
mating, and hibernation. 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
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 (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. Because mating takes place
randomly 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 about 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).

*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
about 880,000 bats in 1960 (Table 3), and about 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 3). 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 3. 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
and vandalism of hibernating bats during the decades of the 1960s
through 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 or population increases. 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 found was 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 Cherokee and
Nantahala National Forests in eastern Tennessee and western North
Carolina, respectively.

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 about 225-250 locations throughout the species'
range (Table 4) (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

**Table 4. Documented Indiana bat maternity areas (or maternity
activity).**

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

  Indiana                     83

  Iowa                        21

  Kentucky                    31

  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.

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 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 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 5). 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

practices, such as timber harvesting and development, are carried out.
Therefore, another possible 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.

**Table 5. 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 5) 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.

*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
(about 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 involved impacts to known maternity
colonies - 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 effect on this maternity
colony 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 are believed to improve Indiana bat reproduction success
by improving survivorship of the young (i.e., females are capable of
producing only one pup per year even under ideal circumstances).

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 colonial 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 potential 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 to 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.

*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 annual 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 about 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 use 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, but are not limited to:
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 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), 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). 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, because 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.

*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).
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. 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.

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 (Humphrey 1978; Richter et al. 1993). However, Indiana bats
will occasionally use sites other than caves or mines if microclimate
conditions are favorable.

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). 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.

*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). About 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.

*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 uses 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 may preferentially
associate with some members of the larger group and may avoid
associating with other members.

This type of colonial behavior is common among many other animals, such
as 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 about 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). Maternity
colonies must have some biological advantage 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.
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 interactions
between members of the colony. 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 site fidelity in Indiana bats
(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 older forests with
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 used 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 roosting and foraging habitat, but there is also
no evidence that shows that they cannot adapt quickly. However, the
availability and quality of adjacent habitat is certainly 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 about 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.

*Maternity Colony Size*

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 about 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 about 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) maintaining 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) increasing
foraging efficiency (site familiarity enables individuals to reduce
energy expenditure to forage); 3) decreasing susceptibility to predators
and other catastrophic events by being familiar with a multitude of
roosting opportunities in a specific area; and 4) providing
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 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 or are not able to adapt to a sudden,
abrupt, or large-scale loss of familiar gathering places and familiar
roosts and habitat. 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).

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
tree lines or fencerows to reach foraging areas, even though it required
more energy and increased commuting distance by 55 percent. This
behavior may also relate to increased foraging efficiency near the tree
lines or fencerows.

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 maintenance of a maternity colony.

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
in a maternity colony can, collectively, tolerate and continue to
maintain the 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 6"). 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).

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

**Table 6. 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.

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 about 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

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

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

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 because 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 and 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 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 colonial 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 decline of more than 30 years
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. 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

Because the proposed action is programmatic and not specific, listed
species other than the Indiana bat could occur within a project area. If
it is determined that other listed species may occur within an
individual project area, KYTC will conduct additional consultation with
the Service to address potential adverse affects to those species and/or
potential adverse modification of designated critical habitat for those
species.

This biological opinion considers the effects of the proposed action on
the Indiana bat. In this biological opinion, the Service has concurred
with the FHWA's "no effect" and "not likely to adversely affect"
determinations for the Indiana bat for actions that meet the
requirements of Tier 1 of the programmatic review process. Critical
habitat has been designated for the Indiana bat, and is within the
action area. However, measures contained in the HAM for both Tier 1 and
2 of the programmatic review process avoid modification of those
critical habitat areas. Therefore, no Indiana bat designated critical
habitat would be adversely modified as a result of the proposed action.

**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.

**Status of the species within action area**

The Indiana bat ranges over an area of about 580,550 square miles in the
eastern one-half of the United States (Service 1983). The Commonwealth
of Kentucky lies near the center of the species range and numerous
records of the species occupying summer and winter habitat within
Kentucky exist. Occurrences of the species are clearly tied to the
availability of the suitable summer and winter habitat. Potential winter
habitat is static in the landscape because the caves and other
underground features the species relies on for winter habitat do not
change locations. However, the species will move from one winter habitat
area to another to take advantage of better conditions in hibernacula,
to take advantage of new hibernacula (e.g., mines), or to abandoned
hibernacula that humans or other factors have altered or disturbed.
Populations of Indiana bats that use Kentucky hibernacula have
demonstrated population trends that are similar to the range-wide
trends, and the species has been observed using hibernacula in each of
the karst regions of Kentucky.

Conversely, Indiana bat summer habitat in Kentucky is typically
ephemeral and is affected by factors such as land use, forest age
structure, and other factors that deal with the quality, location, and
availability of potential summer habitat. Summer records for the species
occur across Kentucky, and 31 maternity colonies have been documented
along with a number of locations for solitary males. Based on this
distribution and the availability of summer habitat across Kentucky,
Indiana bats can be expected to occur at any location where its habitat
needs can be met. Further discussion on the status of the Indiana bat is
provided in the Status of the Species/Critical Habitat (Indiana bat
status in Kentucky) portion of this biological opinion.

### Factors affecting the species' environment within the action area

It is difficult to identify specific factors affecting the species
environment within the action area because the action area has been
defined as the entire state of Kentucky and this biological opinion is
based on analysis at a programmatic level rather than a specific project
level. However, we are able to determine that there are a number of
current and long-term land use and demographic trends could affect the
Indiana bat within the action area. As a result of these trends, an
increase in conversion of forested land to agricultural and/or
residential development would further fragment and eliminate forested
blocks of habitat used by the Indiana bat. In addition, natural factors
such as, but not limited to, loss and/or lack thereof suitable maternity
roost trees, reduction in the prey base, or loss and/or reduction in
foraging acreage due to invasive species could negatively affect the
Indiana bat. Further discussion on the factors affecting the species
environment within the action area is provided in the Status of the
Species/Critical Habitat (Threats) portion of this biological opinion.

We are aware of actions within the action area that are currently under
review by the Service that have the potential to negatively affect the
Indiana. However, these actions are undergoing individual review to
minimize and avoid potential negative effects to the Indiana bat. It is
not unreasonable to believe that further State and/or private actions
occur within the action area. However, when applicable, the Service also
provides technical assistance on those actions to minimize and avoid
potential negative effects to the Indiana bat.

**EFFECTS OF THE ACTION**

**Factors to be considered**

[Proximity of the action]{.underline}: As stated in the environmental
baseline, the Commonwealth of Kentucky lies near the center of the
species range and numerous records of the species occupying summer and
winter habitat within Kentucky exist. The proposed action (construction
of minor road projects) occurs within the entire state; therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that Indiana bats may use the habitat within a
specific project area being considered in this biological opinion. Due
to this, it is likely that the proposed project will have a variety of
effects on individual Indiana bats and/or Indiana bat maternity
colonies. In particular, the proposed project activities are expected to
(a) eliminate occupied and potential foraging and roosting habitat
through removal and/or conversion of that habitat (e.g., summer roost
trees, and foraging habitat); (b) alter habitat (e.g., fragmentation of
foraging habitat, modification of travel corridors; (c) alter and/or
modify normal Indiana bat behaviors (e.g., reproduction effects,
foraging effects, and sheltering behaviors); and (d) potentially cause
the mortality and/or injury of individual bats.

Again, this biological opinion considers only those actions that are in
Indiana bat summer habitat. As discussed in the Description of the
Proposed Action, there are two criteria within the review process of
Tier 1 that would trigger additional informal consultation with the
Service. These criteria are described in the HAM and would require
additional consultation when the proposed project may impact Indiana bat
wintering habitat, including designated critical habitat (i.e., caves,
mine adits, or other karst features exhibiting cave like
characteristics), or known Indiana bat maternity colonies, with the
exception of those projects found to have "no effect" on the Indiana
bat. If either of these two criteria exist during the review of a minor
road construction project, then KYTC will contact the Service for
further assistance in order to fulfill Section 7 responsibilities.

[Distribution]{.underline}: Based on the information contained in the
previous paragraph and in the Environmental Baseline, it is probable
that Indiana bats exist within and/or use the habitat within proposed
project areas across Kentucky (i.e., action area). Construction of minor
road projects occurs statewide; therefore, impacts to Indiana bat summer
habitat would likely occur statewide.

[Timing]{.underline}: Removal or destruction of habitat during the
summer roosting period would cause the removal of habitat during a time
that the species need and/or use the habitat. In addition, Indiana bats
have been shown to show some site affinity to their roosting trees, so,
if these trees are removed while the bats are not present, this is
anticipated to cause a modification in the behavior of any bats that
return to those areas. This could also cause those bats to use
additional energy to locate a new roost, which may affect reproductive
success.

Removal or destruction of habitat during the swarming period may also
result in adverse effects to the species. Typically, Indiana bats swarm
within a 5-mile radius of hibernacula, which is an area of over 50,000
acres. However, the maximum amount of habitat that could be removed for
one of these minor projects is 25 acres or less than one-tenth of one
percent of the potential acreage surrounding a hibernaculum. Therefore,
we have considered the removal of habitat on one of these minor road
projects that lies within a swarming area to be discountable as long as
other suitable foraging habitat is present within the swarming area.

[Nature of the effect]{.underline}: Construction of minor road projects
may cause the removal of occupied and/or potential roosting and foraging
habitat used by Indiana bats. In particular, the proposed project(s)
could remove suitable roost trees, including an undetermined number of
primary and secondary roosts. In addition, the proposed project(s) may
further fragment existing habitat, which could alter habitat
availability and quality.

[Duration]{.underline}: The proposed action will cause the permanent
destruction, alteration, and fragmentation of available summer habitat
for the Indiana bat in Kentucky at sites where the minor road projects
are constructed.

[Disturbance frequency]{.underline}: Due to the nature of the minor road
construction projects being considered in this biological opinion, the
disturbance per proposed project will likely be a one-time disturbance
that will likely occur during less than one summer roosting season.
After completion of the construction, the disturbance will be
continuous, because the habitat will be lost permanently.

[Disturbance intensity]{.underline}: The intensity of the disturbance is
difficult to estimate, because we do not know how much occupied habitat
will be removed, how the bats will adjust to the habitat removal, or if
the effects will cause changes in the population levels of the species.

[Disturbance severity]{.underline}: The disturbance severity cannot be
determined, because we do not have any idea about how Indiana bats will
respond to this level of habitat alteration and destruction and how that
response would affect the ability of the species to recover.

**Analyses for effects of the action**

[Beneficial effects]{.underline}: The only beneficial effect that we can
determine is the probable creation of an unknown number of potential
roost trees that would result from construction activities near the
periphery of the construction limits for the proposed projects.

[Direct Effects]{.underline}:

#### During the summer roosting (i.e., non-hibernation) season Indiana bats often roost in live, damaged, and/or dead trees with or without naturally exfoliating bark. The presence of these trees, especially those of high quality (e.g., large with exfoliating bark), within a bat's home range is important, especially for females because they group together to give birth and rear their young until the juveniles become volant in these trees. Construction of proposed highway projects that are covered by Tier 2 (i.e., this biological opinion) will result in the direct removal of roosting trees and other summer habitat (i.e., foraging habitat) that are used or may be used by Indiana bats in the future, which would cause the bats to modify their normal behavior patterns in order to locate and use new roosting trees. Also, construction activities will result in the fragmentation of the Indiana bat foraging habitat, possibly making individuals more susceptible to predation. The noise and other disturbances caused by the action will also harass any Indiana bats that would forage close to the construction corridor, which would also modify their foraging behaviors.

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

The proposed project could indirectly cause the alteration and/or
removal of additional Indiana bat habitat that results from residential
and/or commercial development that is supported by construction of
proposed Tier 2 projects. Also, placement of new highway improvements
within a bat's home range could result in mortality of those individuals
that attempt to cross the highway. However, these effects would likely
occur after construction of the proposed project.

**Species' response to a proposed action**

After full consideration of the effects of the proposed action, the
Service believes that any Indiana bats that would be adversely affected
by the proposed action may continue to use the remaining habitat and/or
relocate or shift to existing adjacent suitable habitat following
implementation of the proposed project. While Indiana bats, and
especially maternity colonies, have a strong roost affinity, it is not
unreasonable for loss of and/or alteration of maternity roost trees and
foraging habitat to occur naturally causing the mortality of adults
and/or young and the maternity colony to seek additional roost trees or
relocate to other forested areas. Considering that the habitat removed
as a result of the proposed action would occur during the time of year
when Indiana bats would occupy the area, it is reasonable to assume that
Indiana bats would be adversely affected, but we would expect that
Indiana bats would be able to identify new roosting areas nearby,
because other potential habitat it typically present throughout
Kentucky. There is a general lack of scientific information regarding
the locations of summer roosting Indiana bats and the ability of these
bats, especially maternity colonies, to respond to habitat disturbance,
either naturally or as a result of disturbance. This, coupled with our
limited knowledge of the locations of all maternity colonies in
Kentucky, makes it difficult to determine if the species would recover
to levels that approximate their present levels once a minor road
project is completed. However, due to the small size and scattered
distribution of these projects in Kentucky, we believe it is highly
unlikely that one or more of these projects would result in the loss of
a significant number of Indiana bats including maternity colonies.

**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.

Potential impacts on the Indiana bat should be considered due to the
potential for future development (i.e., residential, commercial, etc.)
occurring adjacent to a new or improved infrastructure. However, the BA
addresses only specific, minor road construction projects at a
programmatic level throughout Kentucky; this type of development is
generally associated with larger more complex new highway construction
but also occurs for smaller road projects. In either case, however, the
type and amount of additional impact on Indiana bats cannot be
determined. Further, it is difficult to determine if any future actions
are reasonably certain to occur because the action is programmatic
rather than a specific project. Therefore, we have determined that there
are no additional State, local, or private actions that are reasonably
likely to occur as a result of proposed minor road construction
projects.

**CONCLUSION**

After reviewing the current status of the Indiana bat; the environmental
baseline for the action area; the effects of the proposed minor road
construction projects; and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's
biological opinion that proposed project, as defined in Appendix B of
the BA, is 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.

##### 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 FHWA so that they become binding conditions on the
KYTC for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The FHWA has a
continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this Incidental Take
Statement. If the FHWA (A) fails to assume and implement the terms and
conditions or (B) fails to require the KYTC to adhere to the terms and
conditions of the Incidental Take Statement through enforceable
conditions, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In
order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the FHWA and/or KYTC
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 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 in
    the action area is unknown;

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

However, incidental take of Indiana bats can be expected as described in
the effects analysis that was provided in the BA. We have reviewed
FHWA's effects analysis and agreed that these are the effects of the
proposed action on the Indiana bat. These effects are listed below:

## 

## Right-of-Way (ROW) and Utilities Phases

Direct effects of right-of-way investigations on the Indiana bat for
each project will be the same and are listed below:

1.  Harm of Indiana bats due to removal and destruction of summer
    foraging habitat;

2.  Harm of Indiana bats due to removal and destruction of summer roost
    trees;

3.  Harm and/or mortality of roosting Indiana bats, especially
    non-volant young, due to the removal and destruction of roost trees;

4.  Harm of Indiana bats resulting from alteration of normal behavior
    patterns caused by the removal and destruction of summer habitat;
    and

5.  Harm of Indiana bats due to alteration of occupied travel corridor
    habitat.

The indirect effects of the right-of-way phase on the Indiana bat for
each project will be the same and are listed below:

1.  Harassment of nearby Indiana bats due to disturbances and noise
    generated by human presence and/or the operation of equipment
    necessary for investigations;

2.  Harm of Indiana bats due to predation or increased mortality as a
    result of disturbing its normal behavioral patterns;

3.  Harm of Indiana bats due to alteration of potential travel corridor
    habitat;

4.  Harm of Indiana bats due to loss of trees that exhibit the necessary
    characteristics that a Indiana bat could use for maternity roosting
    habitat; and

5.  Harm of Indiana bats due to loss of trees that exhibit the necessary
    characteristics that an Indiana bat could use for summer roosting
    habitat.

## Construction

The direct effects of road construction on the Indiana bat for each
project will be the same and are listed below:

1.  Harm of Indiana bats due to removal and destruction of summer
    foraging habitat;

2.  Harm of Indiana bats due to removal and destruction of summer roost
    trees;

3.  Harm and/or mortality of roosting Indiana bats, especially
    non-volant young, due to the removal and destruction of roost trees;

4.  Harm of Indiana bats resulting from alteration of normal behavior
    patterns caused by the removal and destruction of summer habitat;
    and

5.  Harm of Indiana bats due to alteration of occupied travel corridor
    habitat;

The indirect effects of road construction on the Indiana bat for each
project will be the same and are listed below:

1.  Harassment of nearby Indiana bats due to disturbances and noise
    generated by human presence and/or the operation of equipment
    necessary for construction;

2.  Harassment of Indiana bats due to disturbances and noise generated
    by vehicle traffic on proposed minor road projects that include new
    alignments;

3.  Harm of Indiana bats due to predation or increased mortality as a
    result of disturbing its normal behavioral patterns;

4.  Harm and/or mortality associated with future traffic mortalities

5.  Harm of Indiana bats due to alteration of potential travel corridor
    habitat

6.  Harm of Indiana bats due to loss of trees that exhibit the necessary
    characteristics that a Indiana bat could use for maternity roosting
    habitat

7.  Harm of Indiana bats due to loss of trees that exhibit the necessary
    characteristics that an Indiana bat could use for summer roosting
    habitat; and

8.  Beneficial effects from the creation of potential roost trees at the
    edge of the construction limits once construction is completed.

The level of take identified below may result, because the FHWA
anticipates that Indiana bat habitat would be removed as a result of
project implementation. Because of the difficulty in determining a level
of 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 Indiana bat summer habitat
acreage that will be affected by the proposed project. Therefore, the
level of take authorized in this biological opinion is for those wooded
areas of Indiana bat habitat within the construction limits of a
proposed project covered by Tier 2 during KYTC FY 2006 through KYTC FY
2010, which was determined to be 500 acres of Indiana bat habitat as
described in the HAM in KYTC FY06, 600 acres in KYTC FY07, 720 acres in
KYTC FY08, 864 acres in KYTC FY09, 1,037 acres in KYTC FY10.

Incidental take of Indiana bats is expected to be in the form of harm
(including mortality) and harassment and is expected to occur as a
result of the phases discussed above that are associated with a proposed
project. "Harm", as defined within the definition of "take" in the Act
means an act that actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts may
include significant habitat loss and/or alteration where the act
actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential
behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.
"Harass", as defined within the definition of "take" in the act means an
intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of
injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly
disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to,
breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Although mortality is the least likely
form of take to occur, adult or juvenile Indiana bats may be killed as a
result of removal of roosts trees and foraging habitat impairing natural
breeding, feeding or sheltering activities. Harm may also 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 foraging habitat. Harassment may also occur as a result of the
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.

The level of take identified above is authorized from Kentucky FY06 to
the end of KYTC FY10 []{.mark}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 is
necessary after the end of KYTC FY10, because there is little specific
information on the amount of incidental take 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 due to the proposed
action. If available, these data would help estimate adverse effects to
Indiana bats. Because of this, it is prudent for the FHWA and the
Service to re-visit this action.

KYTC has limited abilities to provide measures that would minimize the
effect of the anticipated take. Unlike many other state and federal
agencies that own land, KYTC's focus is not on management of natural
lands and/or habitats. KYTC owns very little land that would be suitable
for management of Indiana bats and does not have staff that are trained
and available to conduct management activities and other measures that
could minimize the effect of the take authorized by this biological
opinion. As a result, FHWA and KYTC have chosen to establish an Indiana
Bat Conservation Fund (IBCF) as the only incidental take minimization
measure associated with this programmatic consultation process. Funding
for the IBCF would come from each project that uses the incidental take
provided by this biological opinion and would be provided as specified
in the BA. The funding would then be used to implement projects across
Kentucky that would provide tangible conservation benefits to Indiana
bats or that would provide important information on the species that
would assist in management of the species.

#### **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 measure(s) are
necessary and proper to minimize the effect of incidental take of the
Indiana bat:

1.  The FHWA will ensure that any minor highway projects listed in
    Appendix B of the BA that are evaluated for effects on the Indiana
    bat using the Tier 1 and Tier 2 process will be evaluated according
    to the processes outlined in the HAM.

2.  The FHWA will ensure that the minimization measure outlined in the
    BA that would establish an Indiana Bat Conservation Fund associated
    with the Tier 2 process is accomplished and operated in the manner
    specified in the BA.

3.  The FHWA must monitor its activities associated with minor road
    construction projects to determine if the Terms and Conditions of
    this biological opinion are being implemented adequately in order to
    ensure that take is minimized 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
FHWA must comply with the following Terms and Conditions, which carry
out the Reasonable and Prudent Measures described above and outline
required reporting/monitoring requirements. These Terms and Conditions
are non-discretionary.

1.  The FHWA shall ensure that the staff responsible for conducting the
    evaluations in Tier 1 and Tier 2 are adequately trained to implement
    and document the process. An initial training session shall be held
    in KYTC FY06 and additional sessions shall be held as necessary to
    train new staff and/or to address any modifications to the process
    that may occur. This Term and Condition is associated with
    Reasonable and Prudent Measure 1.

2.  The FHWA shall use the formula and guidance contained in the BA to
    determine the amount of funding that will be provided to the Indiana
    Bat Conservation Fund. FHWA shall coordinate with KYTC and the
    Service to review the accuracy of the calculations used to determine
    Indiana Bat Conservation Fund funding on at least 10 projects
    annually. If fewer than 10 projects use the Indiana Bat Conservation
    Fund in any year, all calculations will be reviewed. This Term and
    Condition is associated with Reasonable and Prudent Measure 2.

3.  The FHWA shall ensure that the following monitoring and reporting
    requirements are met to demonstrate FHWA's and KYTC's compliance
    with the process. This Term and Condition is associated with
    Reasonable and Prudent Measure 3.

    a.  With respect to "no effect" projects in Section III of the HAM,
        the FHWA shall provide the information required by Section III,
        Item no. 9, in an annual report to be submitted by no later than
        January 31 for the previous calendar year of each year this
        biological opinion is in-effect.

    b.  With respect to "not likely to adversely affect" projects in
        Section IV of the HAM, the FHWA shall provide the information
        required by Section IV, Item no. 4, in an annual report to be
        submitted by no later than January 31 for the previous calendar
        year of each year this biological opinion is in-effect.

    c.  FHWA will require that KYTC maintain adequate records of each
        project that is subject to the programmatic consultation process
        through the end of KYTC FY10. If the project has not been
        constructed by the end of KYTC FY10, the records must be
        maintained until the project construction has been completed.
        Project records shall include, but not be limited to: (i) all
        completed, signed, and dated appendices from the HAM for the
        individual projects, (ii) any written descriptions and/or
        photographs of project sites and habitat conditions, and (iii)
        any relevant correspondence among the KYTC District offices,
        KYTC Division of Environmental Analysis, and the Service.

    d.  Annually, the FHWA will randomly select at least three (3),
        cleared "no effect" and at least three (3), cleared "not likely
        to adversely affect" projects from each KYTC district and the
        KYTC Division of Environmental Analysis (i.e., at least 78
        projects per year) and perform an audit of the determinations
        that were made to ensure compliance with the Tier 1 process. The
        audit shall be conducted jointly with KYTC and the Service. The
        annual audits may be suspended at the Service's sole discretion
        and only upon KYTC's satisfactory performance in implementing
        and documenting the programmatic consultation process.

    e.  With respect to "may affect" projects that are covered by Tier 2
        (i.e., this biological opinion), FHWA shall provide the
        following information - (i) KYTC item number, (ii) county
        (ies), (iii) project type, (iv) route number, (v) date of
        documentation utilizing incidental take, (vi) amount of
        incidental take used (i.e., in number of acres of habitat),
        and (vii) amount of required contribution to the Indiana Bat
        Conservation Fund -- in a report on a semi-annual, calendar year
        basis no later than July 30 and January 31, respectively, of
        each year this biological opinion is in-effect. Each semi-annual
        report will identify those projects that were cleared by Tier 2
        section 7 consultation during the previous 6-month period for
        which KYTC intends to use the incidental take of Indiana bats
        authorized by this biological opinion.

    f.  The reports in Term and Condition 3(a-c) above that are due on
        January 31 of each year can be submitted as one report. All
        reports shall include the Table below.

**Table X. Estimate of Indiana bat incidental take that occurred during
\[*Insert Year Monitoring Was Conducted*\] as a result of the
implementation of the \[*Insert Name of Project*\]**

[]{.mark}

+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| ### Species                        | ### Habitat    |                |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
|                                    | Authorized     | Actual Level   |
|                                    | Level of       | of Habitat     |
|                                    | Habitat        | Alteration     |
|                                    | Alteration     |                |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+
| Indiana bat -- Forest Habitat      | \[*Insert \#   | \[*Insert \#   |
| FY\[*Insert year*\]                | of*\] acres    | of*\] acres    |
+------------------------------------+----------------+----------------+

The FHWA, KYTC, and/or 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
FHWA, KYTC, and/or 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 about
500 acres of wooded, Indiana bat habitat within the project area in KYTC
FY06, 600 acres in KYTC FY07, 720 acres in KYTC FY08, 864 acres in KYTC
FY09, and 1037 acres in KYTC FY10. 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 FHWA 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.

The Service provides the following Conservation Recommendations to the
FHWA:

1\. The FHWA should undertake or fund additional research, inventory,
and monitoring work that is necessary to better understand the ecology
of the Indiana bat. In particular, project areas should be selected and
monitored for Indiana bat maternity roosting, foraging, and travel
corridor habitat use, which will provide information to compare and
evaluate the effects of future transportation activities on Indiana bat
habitat.

2.  The demolition or removal of manmade structures (e.g. bridges) that
    harbor bats should occur while bats are hibernating elsewhere. If
    public safety is threatened and the structure must be removed while
    bats are present, a bat expert should examine the structure to
    determine if Indiana bats are present. Consultation with the Service
    should be initiated if Indiana bats are found.

3.  The FHWA should explore ways to assist other agencies and
    organizations in the protection of Indiana bat summer and winter
    habitat through land protection, conservation, and management
    measures.

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 minor road construction projects
in Kentucky as defined in Appendix B of the BA and their effects on the
Indiana bat, as outlined in the May 8, 2006, FHWA request for formal
consultation. As stated in 50 CFR 402.16, re-initiation of formal
consultation is required where discretionary FHWA 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 FHWA's action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this
consultation, (C) the FHWA'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 500 acres of Indiana bat summer habitat
in KYTC FY 2006, 600 acres in KYTC FY 2007, 720 acres in KYTC FY 2008,
864 acres in KYTC FY 2009, 1,037 acres in KYTC FY 2010, as described in
this document, which is the amount of take that has been exempted from
the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act by this biological opinion. The
aforementioned figures are based upon KYTC's Fiscal Year beginning July
1 through June 30. The total amount of incidental take that is covered
for this period is 3,721 acres.

The Service appreciates the cooperation of the FHWA during this
consultation. We would like to continue working with you or your staff
on this project. For further coordination, please contact Mr. Phil
DeGarmo of this office at the address listed above or at (502) 695-0468.
This consultation was assigned Project No. FWS 06-0466; please refer to
this number in any correspondence concerning this consultation.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann 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

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann 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.

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:
Vespertilionidae), 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\.

Indianapolis Airport Authority. 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. American Midland Naturalist. 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.

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.

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. American Midland Naturalist.
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). American Midland Naturalist. 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.

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. .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Agency Draft Indiana Bat (*Myotis
sodalis*) Revised Recovery Plan. Fort Snelling, MN.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999c. Biological opinion for the
proposed streambank stabilization at the Yano Range and upgrade of the
Wilcox Tank Range at Fort Knox, Kentucky.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999d. Biological opinion for the
agricultural pesticide application practices at the Newport Chemical
Depot at Newport, Indiana.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 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.

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**

**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

[^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.