June 25, 1998

Ms. Gloria Manning

Acting Regional Forester

U.S. Forest Service

Southern Region

1720 Peachtree Road, NW

Atlanta, Georgia 30367

Re: Formal Consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
for the Effects of Management Activities Conducted by Ozark-Saint
Francis National Forests on the Indiana Bat

Dear Ms. Manning:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the
programmatic biological assessment for the continued implementation of
forest-wide management activities on the Ozark-Saint Francis National
Forests, (OSFNF) Arkansas. The regional forester\'s request for formal
consultation dated October 28, 1997 was received on November 3, 1997 and
accompanied the biological evaluation. This document represents the
Service\'s biological opinion on the effects of those actions on the
federally endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) in accordance with
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

This biological opinion is based on information provided in the
programmatic biological evaluation that analyzed the effects of ongoing
management activities on the two National Forests A complete
administrative record of this consultation is on file in the Vicksburg
Field Office, 2524 South Frontage Road, Vicksburg, MS, Telephone (601)
629-6613.

The existing Ozark-Saint Francis Land and Resource Management Plan
(LRMP) provides broad goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines with
respect to meeting the needs of the Indiana bat. In addition, we are
aware that the Notice of Intent for revising the OSFNF LRMP, scheduled
for release in 1998, has been delayed due to the language in the 1998
Appropriations Act. We understand that it is the forest's intent to
release this notice as soon as Congress allows forest plan revisions to
continue, with a scheduled completion date in the year 2001. We
encourage and support your efforts to develop revised standards and
guidelines to meet the needs of the Indiana bat as well as other
endangered and threatened species. This Section 7 consultation focuses
only on the potential effects to the Indiana bat of the proposed action
which consists of continued forest management activities in accordance
with the existing OSFNF LRMP.

**[CONSULTATION HISTORY]{.underline}**

Since it was listed as an endangered species, the Indiana bat has
presented Service biologists with unique problems with regard to Section
7 consultation. Until recently, little was known about the summer
habitat requirements of this species other than the fact that small
maternity colonies occurred in mature, primarily riparian, forest
habitat. New information regarding summer habitat, evidence that some
Indiana bats may migrate shorter distances than previously thought, and
the apparent wide dispersal of individuals emerging from hibernation
makes consultation and the development of recommendations for protective
measures problematic since any tract of forest within the Indiana bat's
known range can now be considered to contain potential summer roost, and
possibly maternity habitat, and any upland forest area provides
potential foraging habitat.

In view of the recent new information about habitat use by Indiana bats,
Forest Service (FS) personnel determined that the continued forest
management activities may adversely affect the Indiana bat and,
therefore, they requested formal consultation by letter dated October
28, 1997 and submitted a biological evaluation with the request. The
Service concurred with the FS and in a letter dated November 24, 1997,
agreed to enter into formal consultation concerning the potential
impacts of continued forestry management practices on the OSFNF.

**[DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIONS]{.underline}**

As defined in 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
cumulative effects of reasonably certain future state or private
activities within the action area. The action area for this project
includes the entire OSFNF lands. The Ozark NF consists of 1,133,567
acres in Baxter, Benton, Conway, Crawford, Franklin, Johnson, Logan,
Madison, Marion, Newton, Pope, Searcy, Stone, VanBuren, Washington, and
Yell Counties, while the Saint Francis NF consists of 21,201 acres in
Lee and Phillips Counties, Arkansas.

*Proposed Actions*

This biological opinion addresses a variety of management directions and
associated activities that are planned, funded, executed, or permitted
by the OSFNF. These activities are implemented in accordance with the
provisions contained in LRMP. The LRMP is a general programmatic
planning document that provides management goals, objectives, standards,
and guidelines under which project level activities (e.g., timber sales,
wildlife habitat management, road construction, special uses, etc.) may
be planned and implemented to carry out the management direction of the
OSFNF. Land use allocations are made and outputs projected based upon
the direction established in the LRMP. All project level activities
undergo National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review by appropriate
Forest Service personnel when proposed, in addition to assessment of
project effects to federally listed species in compliance with Section 7
of the ESA. The LRMP establishes multiple use management area
prescriptions (including associated standards and guidelines) for future
decision making which are adjustable (via monitoring and evaluation)
through amendment and revision.

Specific proposed activities that are being considered in this
consultation include various even-age and uneven age timber harvest
techniques, sales, salvage and firewood sales, routine road
construction/reconstruction, herbicide applications, routine maintenance
and clearing of roads and small openings, prescribed fire, and mineral
exploration. Other activities that may require minor timber removal
include management of recreation areas, range management, and wildlife
management activities. Land exchanges are another FS activity that may
effect Indiana bats and their habitat. However, as any potential land
exchange would require an individual biological evaluation, this
activity is not considered in this consultation.

Timber sales, which include both regeneration cuts and salvage and
firewood sales, is one of the primary management activities which alters
and/or disturbs the greatest acreage of forest habitat on the OSFNF. For
the time period beginning in spring 1998 and continuing through the
completion of the LRMP revision, which is expected to be March 2001, the
OSFNF projects that timber management/harvest activities will not exceed
8,000 acres per year in hardwood forest types and 11,000 acres per year
in pine or pine/hardwood forest types (Table 1). These figures are based
on maximum acres sold in one year within the past ten years. Actual
harvest acres per year will probably be less. Average annual hardwood
acres sold in the past five years is 4,164 acres and 5,456 acres for
pine forest types. Timber management\\harvest activities on the OSFNF
currently do not include clear cutting, per direction from the Chief of
the Forest Service. Vegetation management options include seedtree and
shelterwood cuts, thinning, and single tree and group selection cutting
and salvage operations (Table 1). Regeneration through timber harvest
creates openings in the forest which allows for forest regeneration.

**TABLE 1**

Projected annual timber harvests planned for the period 1998 through
approval of the revised Land and Resources Management Plan (expected in
2001).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Total Regeneration Maximum Acres Percent of Latest 5 Year

(by method) Over Past 10 Years Total Harvest Average Acres

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Pine Seedtree 1,320 7.2 715

Pine Shelterwood 281 1.5 168

Hardwood Shelterwood 1,075 4.9 458

Pine Thinning 5,973 32.5 3,301

Hardwood Thinning 2,353 12.8 1,565

Hardwood Group Selection 4, 482 24.4 2,141

Pine Selection 2,895 15.7 1,272

Total Regeneration 18,379 100.0 9,620

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Regeneration by Forest

Community Type
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Oak-hickory 7,910 43.0 4,164

Shortleaf pine 10,469 57.0 5,456

Total Regeneration 18,370 100.0 9,620

The habitat type most likely to provide suitable roosting and foraging
habitat for Indiana bats is mature hardwoods. As stated above, the total
maximum annual harvest of hardwood forest is

projected to be 7,910 acres, (rounded to 8,000) which makes up
approximately 43 percent of the annual harvest. This acreage constitutes
0.7 percent of the total forest land base. For comparison purposes, if
this maximum harvest were conducted for 10 years (80,000 acres), it
would still be considerably less than the 218,266 acres of hardwoods
that is currently 71-80 years old that will move into the 80+ age class
during the same period. Even if a maximum harvest were maintained, the
OSFNF hardwood forest types will continue to age much faster than
regeneration rates. Therefore, increasing acreage within the OSFNF will
be mature hardwoods which will be available to Indiana bats.

Projected personal use firewood and salvage sales have two primary
objectives. The first objective is to make dead timber along forest
Service roads available for personal firewood uses. Occasionally, some
local operators purchase this wood for commercial use. These sales take
place in designated areas on each Ranger District\'s closed timber sale
units, and along forest developed roads. Firewood sales may occur
throughout the year, but are held primarily in the fall and winter.
Approximately 600 fuelwood permits were sold forest-wide in FY 96. Each
permit allows the individual purchaser to cut 2 cords of wood. Firewood
cutting is done on an individual tree basis and thus it is impossible to
assign an acres treated per year figure to this activity.

The second objective is to salvage trees for use as wood products
following natural disasters such as wind storms, tornados, heavy
snow/ice, and floods or insect outbreaks (e.g., gypsy moth, southern
pine beetle). The purpose of salvage sales are to 1) provide for public
service and safety; 2) restore ecosystems following natural disasters;
3) reduce fuels to prevent catastrophic wildlife fires, and 4) remove
dead and damaged timber to prevent insect and/or disease outbreaks which
could cause further loss of timber. Over the past two years, 8,000 acres
of oak-hickory and pine-hardwood forests have had damage, ranging from
extensive thinning to complete blowdowns. Developing a trend and
estimating annual acres of salvage operations is difficult, due to the
variable nature of natural disasters which create salvage needs. A best
estimate using the last two years would be 4,000 acres/year. Given that
63 percent of the Ozark NF is hardwood forest, this would equate to
approximately 2,520 acres of salvage per year in forest types considered
most suitable for Indiana bat roosting sites.

In general, road management for the forest entails the maintenance or
improvement of existing corridors (reconstruction) rather than
establishing new roadways (construction). Currently the OSFNF manages
5,282 miles of forest roads. The proposed action would involve
maintaining existing forest roads and constructing new roads. The latest
three year average for road reconstruction is 60.0 miles per year, while
the most recent ten-year average of new road construction is 4.3 miles
per year. Because less than half of these roads are likely to be built
in hardwood and hardwood/pine communities, the total loss of habitat in
these forest types is projected at less than 200 acres/year due to road
construction and reconstruction.

The OSFNF uses herbicides to accomplish several objectives including
timber stand improvement; site preparation; wildlife stand improvement;
exotic plant control; endangered, threatened, and sensitive species
vegetative habitat recovery; and rare plant community restoration.
Treatment application methods include streamline bark treatment (basal
stem), individual stem injection using the hack and squirt method (cut
method), direct foliar spray, and chainsaw slash-down and stump spray
(cut surface) using appropriate mitigation measures. The herbicides used
include imazapyr (Arsenal, Chopper), glyphosate (Rodeo, Accord,
Roundup), triclopyr amine (Garlon 3A), and Garlon 4. Only herbicides
evaluated and approved in the Final EIS, Vegetation Management in the
Ozark-Ouachita Mountains may be used. Other protective measures include:
a contract clause calling for operations to cease during periods of
rainfall and while stems are wet after rainfall; no application within
50 feet of a lake, stream, or other body of water; herbicides to be
mixed off site; empty containers and equipment will be triple rinsed at
the site of the application or at an approved location; and no herbicide
is applied around sink holes in known karst areas. The latest five year
average of total herbicide application on the OSFNF is 2,262 acres per
year.

Additional acreage of trees cleared annually on the OSFNF potentially
affecting Indiana bat summer habitat occur during routine maintenance or
creation of small openings. The objectives include: maintaining and
maximizing the benefits of linear openings for wildlife species,
maintaining safe public access within the forest, minimizing damage to
power transmission and other utility lines, and allowing reasonable use
and access to private lands within the forest proclamation boundary.
Proposed actions include cutting of encroaching woody vegetation to
provide openings for cool or warm season grasses for wildlife; removing
hazard trees for road right-of-way and power right-of-way maintenance;
removing hazard trees and expanding existing recreational areas and
trail construction for recreation/trail maintenance; permitting clearing
of proposed utility and communication line easements; and permitting the
clearing of proposed private road/driveway easements, which allows the
reasonable use of private lands within the forest proclamation boundary.
Approximately 20 right-of-way/easement clearings are permitted
forest-wide per year.

The latest five year average for prescribed fires on the OSFNF was 5,764
acres per year. These burns are conducted under prescribed conditions,
primarily during the winter and spring months when most bats are still
hibernating. Prescribed burns in winter/spring are conducted for fuel
reduction, wildlife and rare species management, site preparation, and
ecosystem restoration. However, summer (growing season) burns are also
used to control competition from small understory and midstory
vegetation. An increase in the prescribed burn program for fuel
reduction is anticipated due to increased forest health emphasis and
funding by Congress to lessen the likelihood of catastrophic fires. It
is anticipated that fuel reduction burns, which are generally conducted
during the period when Indiana bats are hibernating, will increase up to
30,000 acres per year. Control lines will generally consist of existing
roads, trails, and streams wherever possible. In areas where control
lines need to be constructed, methods will include use of hand tools
and/or bulldozer. Lines will consist of two to five foot wide strips dug
to mineral soil. Some smaller trees (\<9\" dbh) will be felled during
construction, but larger trees will usually be avoided with the line
going around and between them. Some standing snags near the line will be
felled if they pose a hazard to personnel or could burn and fall, thus
spreading fire across the line into areas not scheduled for burning.
Snags located within the burn area are occasionally lost due to fire.
However, this loss is offset by the creation of new snags that are the
result of an occassional tree dying due to the fire.

Other activities that may also result in minor amounts of timber
clearing include maintenance of recreation areas such as day use and
camping areas, range management and mineral exploration. Removal of
timber for maintenance of recreation areas and range management is
minimal. Gas well sites are usually less than five acres in size and
timber removal for this purpose is minimal. Table 2 summarizes the
maximum acres per year of potential Indiana bat habitat that could be
impacted as a result of continued forest management activities.

Land exchanges may result in the trading of land with potential Indiana
bat roost trees. However, land exchanges may also be beneficial due to
the possibillity of acquiring lands with hibernacula as in the case of
Wolf Creek cave in Newton County. A biological evaluation will be
completed prior to any proposed land exchange.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**TABLE 2**

Summary of Potential Indiana Bat Habitat Impacted by Forest Management
Activities

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Activity Maximum Acres Per year

Timber Harvest/Regeneration (hardwoods) 8,000

Timber Harvest/Regeneration (pine, pine/hardwood) 11,000

Firewood/Salvage Sales 4,000

Road Reconstruction/Construction 200

Herbicide Applications 2,262

Other Clearing-(Small Openings

Public Access Recreation Areas) 250

Prescribed Burning 30,000

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

*Existing Standards and Guidelines that Provide Protection of Indiana
Bat*

Current standards and guidelines within the existing OSFNF provide a
significant level of protection for Indiana bat hibernacula and habitat.
These existing standards and guidelines provide for a significant number
of secure summer and fall foraging areas, and a steady supply of
potential roost trees across the National Forest. In addition,
protection is afforded to known Indiana bat hibernacula through cave
protection standards. These standards and guidelines were developed with
the best information available at the time the forest plans were
completed.

Protection is afforded to known Indiana bat hibernacula through cave
protection measures. For example, the potential for Indiana bats and
other endangered bats to be disturbed during hibernation on the OSFNF
has been greatly reduced or eliminated at two sites with cave gating
projects now completed at Bonanza and Gustafson Caves. These cave gates
were designed and installed by recognized experts in the field.
Significant habitat alterations are prohibited within a 200 foot radius
around entrances to caves. Annual surveys are conducted for caves and
crevices that may be used by bats. When found, these sites are mapped
and accorded protection. If additional hibernacula are found, the OSFNF
will gate those caves, if necessary, to protect Indiana bats during the
critical hibernation period.

The LRMP standards and guidelines also provide direction for maintaining
snags and potential \"den\" or \"wildlife\" trees in areas that are
influenced by timber regeneration cuts. Standards developed to provide
hard mast will also result in maintenance of the oak and hickory tree
species typically utilized as roosts by Indiana bats. Riparian area
standards for streams, lakes, and ponds protect potential drinking water
sources for the Indiana bat while maintaining some overstory cover for
protection from avian predators while foraging.

During site preparation, active and potential \"den\" trees are retained
in clumps (at least ½ acre per 20 acres) if they are not provided in
adjacent stands not suitable for timber production, inclusions, or
streamside management zones. During timber and wildlife stand
improvements, and site preparation, an average of at least two standing
dead snags are retained per acre, in the form of large hardwood trees
(greater than 12\" dbh) when possible. Appropriate treatments are used
to create snags where natural snags are lacking

Prescribed burns are planned and executed to avoid damage to the habitat
of any threatened or endangered species. Prior to conducting burns, the
areas scheduled to be burned are inspected for features such as caves.
If caves housing bats are present in the prescribed burn area, they are
protected from fire by control lines which are placed well away (\>200
feet) from entrances. In addition, burns are only conducted on days when
temperatures and prevailing winds ensure smoke will be carried away from
caves or openings. These protective measures are implemented to avoid or
minimize adverse impacts to bats.

Riparian areas are managed to protect soil, water, vegetation, fish and
wildlife resources, giving special attention to the area within about
100 feet of perennial streams and lakes. At least 50 percent canopy
forest closure is maintained for 100 feet on each side of perennial
streams in riparian zones. Standing dead, existing and potential hollow
den and loose bark trees are left within riparian areas.

Old growth prescriptions are applied to about 13 percent of the OSFNF.
According to the LRMP, (page 4-7), the old growth prescription should
furnish the following characteristics: 1) two or more tree species with
a wide size and age range, often containing long lived shade tolerant
associations; 2) more than ten individual live trees per acre that are
over 120 years old, or that are over 22 inches at breast height; 3)
significant course woody debris including more that 10 snags per acre
over 20 feet tall; 4) at least four snags and logs per acre that have a
greater than 22 inch diameter and 30 foot length.

**[RANGEWIDE STATUS OF THE SPECIES]{.underline}**

*Species Description*

The Indiana bat is a medium sized, monotypic species (there are no
subspecies) of the genus *Myotis* that is known to occur in much of the
eastern half of the United States. Head and body length of individuals
range from 41 to 49 millimeters (mm) (1 5/8 - 1 7/8\"), and forearm
length of 35-41 mm (1 3/8 - 1 5/8\") (USFWS 1983). This species is
similar in appearance to both the little brown bat *(M. lucifugus*) and
the northern long-eared bat *(M. septentrionalis)*. The Indiana bat
often has a distinctly keeled calcar. The hind feet tend to be small and
delicate with fewer, shorter hairs (i.e., do not extend beyond the
toenails) than its congeners. The fur lacks luster (Barbour and Davis
1969, Hall 1981). The ears and wing membranes have a dull appearance and
flat coloration that do not contrast with the fur. The fur of the chest
and belly is lighter than the flat (not glossy), pinkish-brown fur on
the back, but does not contrast as strongly as does that of the little
brown or northern long-eared bat The skull has a small sagittal crest,
and the braincase tends to be smaller, lower, and narrower than that of
the little brown bat (Barbour and Davis 1969, Hall 1981).

The species was listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service pursuant to the Endangered Species Preservation Act on March 11,
1967. The following sites have been designated as critical habitat for
the Indiana bat: Bat Cave in Carter County, Kentucky; Coach Cave in
Edmonson County, Kentucky; White Oak Blowhole Cave in Blount County,
Tennessee; the Blackball Mine in LaSalle County, Illinois; Big Wyandotte
Cave, Crawford County, Indiana; Ray\'s Cave, Greene County, Indiana;
Cave 021, Crawford County, Missouri; Cave 009, Franklin County,
Missouri; Cave 017, Franklin County, Missouri; Pilot Knob Mine, Iron
County, Missouri; Bat Cave, Shannon County, Missouri; Cave 029,
Washington County, Missouri; and Hellhole Cave, Pendleton County, West
Virginia.

*Life History*

According to the known and suspected range of the Indiana bat presented
in the species\' recovery plan (USFWS 1983), the Indiana bat is a
migratory species that ranges over an area of approximately 580,550
square miles in the eastern half of the United States. Hibernating
populations are known to exist in Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Alabama,
Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin (USFWS 1983). More than 85 percent of the
rangewide population of the Indiana bat is known to occupy nine
"Priority One" hibernacula (i.e., hibernation sites with a recorded
population \>30,000 bats since 1960). Three Priority One hibernacula
occur in each of these states: Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri.

"Priority Two" hibernacula (recorded population \>500 but \<30,000 bats
since 1960) are known to occur in Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri as
well as Arkansas, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and
West Virginia. Priority Three hibernacula (recorded populations of \<500
bats or single hibernating individuals) have been reported in the above
states and also include Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, and
Wisconsin.

Indiana bats hibernate in caves and mines that provide specific climatic
conditions, preferring hibernacula with stable winter temperatures below
10 degrees Celsius (optimal temperature is 4-8 degrees Celsius) and
relative humidities above 74 percent (USFWS 1997). Stable low
temperatures allow the bats to maintain a low rate of metabolism and
conserve fat reserves through the winter until spring (Humphrey 1978,
Richter [et]{.underline} [al]{.underline}. 1993). Because few caves or
mine shafts provide these exacting conditions, approximately 85 percent
of the species hibernates in only seven caves or abandoned mine shafts
(USFWS 1983). Indiana bats undergo swarming prior to hibernation, an
activity which entails bats congregating around the hibernacula, flying
into and out of the cave, and roosting in trees outside (Kiser
[et]{.underline} [al]{.underline}. 1996). Swarming continues for several
weeks, during which time the bats mate and replenish fat reserves prior
to hibernation. Depending on local weather conditions, swarming may
continue through October or November. Males generally remain active
longer than the females during this pre-hibernation period, but all
Indiana bats are usually hibernating by late November (USFWS 1983).
Indiana bats typically hibernate in dense clusters, with bat densities
ranging in size from 300 to approximately 500 individuals per square
foot (Clawson [et]{.underline} [al]{.underline}. 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 the
cold air flows and is trapped (Tuttle and Stevenson 1978). Females
emerge from hibernation first (generally in late March or early April).
Although most hibernating colonies leave the hibernacula by late April,
some males may spend the summer in the vicinity of the hibernaculum.
Those leaving the hibernaculum migrate varying distances to their summer
habitats.

During the summer months, Indiana bats typically roost during the day
beneath loose or exfoliating bark in snags or living trees. To a limited
extent, tree cavities or hollow portions of tree boles and limbs also
provide suitable roost sites (Gardner [et]{.underline} [al]{.underline}.
1991a, Kurta [et]{.underline} [al]{.underline}. 1993b). In addition,
some adult males have been found roosting by day in some caves that are
also used as winter hibernacula.

Females store sperm through the winter and become pregnant via delayed
fertilization soon after emergence from the hibernacula. They then form
small maternity colonies under loose bark or in cavities of snags or
mature live trees in riparian or upland forests. Each female gives birth
to a single young in late June or early July and the young become volant
in approximately one month. By late August, the maternity colonies begin
to disperse. Indiana bat maternity sites generally consist of one to
several primary maternity roost trees (i.e., trees used repeatedly by
relatively high numbers of bats in the maternity colony during the
maternity season) and varying numbers of alternate roost trees (i.e.,
those trees used by smaller numbers of bats throughout the course of the
maternity season). Primary roost trees that have been studied to date
have ranged in size from 12.2 to 29.9\" dbh (Romme [et]{.underline}
[al]{.underline}. 1995). Studies have shown that adults in maternity
colonies may use as few as two, to as many as 33, alternate roosts
(Humphrey et al. 1977, Gardner et al. 1991a, Garner and Gardner 1992,
Callahan 1993, Kurta [et]{.underline} [al]{.underline}. 1993, Romme
[et]{.underline} [al]{.underline}. 1995 Kurta [et]{.underline}
[al]{.underline}. 1996). 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) (Romme [et]{.underline}
[al]{.underline}. 1995). In Missouri, maximum distances between roost
trees used by bats from the same maternity colony have ranged from 1.0
to 1.9 miles (Callahan 1993). Snags (i.e., dead trees) exposed to direct
solar radiation were found to be used most frequently by Indiana bats as
summer roosts, followed by snags not fully exposed to solar radiation
and live trees not fully exposed (Callahan 1993).

Until recently, most documented Indiana bat maternity colonies were
located in riparian or floodplain forests (Humphrey [et]{.underline}
[al]{.underline}. 1977). However, recent studies and survey results
indicate that upland forests provide important maternity habitat for
Indiana bats (Gardner [et]{.underline} [al]{.underline}. 1990; Romme
[et]{.underline} [al]{.underline}. 1995). In addition, females are known
to exhibit relatively strong loyalty to summer roosting and foraging
habitat (Bowles 1981, Gardner [et]{.underline} [al]{.underline}. 1991a,
1991b).

Indiana bats are known to occupy distinct home ranges during the summer
(Gardner [et]{.underline} [al]{.underline}. 1990). Average home range
sizes vary from approximately 70 acres (juvenile males) to over 525
acres (post-lactating adult females). Roosts occupied by individuals
ranged from 0.33 miles to over 1.6 miles from preferred foraging
habitat, but are generally within 1.2 miles of water (e.g., stream,
lake, pond, natural or manmade water-filled depression). A more detailed
description of the life history of the Indiana bat is provided in the
Indiana bat Recovery Plan (USFWS 1983) and the Preliminary Agency Draft
Indiana Bat Recovery Plan (1997).

A habitat suitability index model was recently developed for the Indiana
bat (Romme [et]{.underline} [al]{.underline}. 1995) which identifies
nine variables that comprise the components of summer habitat for the
species. The model was developed for use in southern Indiana, a core
area of the Indiana bat population. Therefore, caution must be applied
to peripheral areas within the species\' range, such as Arkansas and the
OSFNF. Five variables considered important for roosting habitat within
analysis areas included: amount of overstory canopy, diameter of
overstory trees, density of potential live roost trees; density of
snags; and the amount of understory cover. Variables considered to be
important foraging habitat components included the amount of overstory
canopy and the percentage of trees in the 2 to 2.7 inch dbh class.
Distance to water, and percentage of the analysis area with forest cover
were also considered to be important habitat variables: habitat with
distance to water of 0 to 0.93 miles and percent of forested land
[\>]{.underline} 30 percent received high use.

The habitat model classified species of trees that may provide roosts
for Indiana bats. Class I trees include:

Silver maple Shagbark hickory Shellbark hickory

Butternut hickory Green ash White ash

Eastern cottonwood Red oak Post oak

White oak Slippery elm American elm

These species are likely to develop the loose, exfoliating bark as they
age and die that is preferred by Indiana bats for roosting sites.
However, several of these species are typical of bottomland hardwood
forests in areas where much of Romme\'s research was done, and they do
not occur in significant numbers on the OSFNF. Romme also identified
Class II trees, which include sugar maple, shingle oak, and sassafras as
tree species believed to be of somewhat lesser value for roosting
Indiana bats. Class III trees are all other species not included in the
other two classes. Class II and III trees are species that are less
likely to provide optimal roosting habitat, but may develop suitable
cracks, crevices, or loose bark after death.

Preferred roost sites are in trees that are 9 inches or larger in dbh
and are located in forested habitat where the degree of overstory canopy
cover ranges from 60-80 percent. In general, the largest available trees
with suitable bark characteristics and at least some daily exposure to
sunlight are the most likely to be used by Indiana bats as maternity
roosts. The suitability of a given area as roosting habitat declines
slightly as canopy closure increases from 80-100 percent, and also
declines as canopy closure falls below 60 percent (Romme
[et]{.underline} [al]{.underline}. 1995).

Indiana bats prefer to forage within the upper canopy layers of forests
where the degree of overstory canopy cover ranges from 50-70 percent
(Romme [et]{.underline} [al]{.underline}. 1995). Foraging also takes
place over clearings with early successional vegetation, along the
forested borders of agricultural land, and along strips of trees
extending into more open habitats.

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 man-made
ponds and water-filled road ruts in the forest uplands are also very
important water sources for Indiana bats in those regions.

*Status of the Species Within its Range*

Based on censuses taken at hibernacula, the total known Indiana bat
population is estimated to be approximately 352,000 bats. However, many
hibernacula populations have been decreasing in numbers since monitoring
efforts were initiated. The most serious declines have occurred in two
of the three historically highest populated states for Indiana bats,
namely Kentucky and Missouri. Kentucky numbers declined by an estimated
145,000 bats between 1960-1975. Losses were attributed to exclusion and
changes in the microclimate of two of the three most important
hibernation sites in the state. More specifically, poorly designed cave
gates (Humphrey 1978) and construction of buildings over the upper
entrance to one of the hibernacula appeared to have caused great
declines. Many of the most important remaining hibernating populations
(west-central, northeastern, and extreme southeastern Kentucky) have
continued to decline steadily in the last 15 years. The populations in
north-central Kentucky appear to be remaining stable while western
Kentucky numbers have increased.

The colonies of Indiana bats in all of the 16 known Priority One and Two
hibernacula in Missouri have declined since 1980. Since 1983, despite
efforts such as cave gating, the overall Missouri population has
steadily and drastically declined by 250,000 bats. This loss represents
more than 80 percent of the Missouri population (USFWS 1997).

*Status of the Species in Arkansas*

Although known Indiana bat numbers appeared to have dropped from the
earliest known surveys through 1980, the population has been steadily
growing in recent years. In states with documented records of Indiana
bat winter occurrence, there are limited population trend data.
Populations in New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia appear to be
increasing but the population in Arkansas is apparently declining. The
Arkansas hibernating population declined by about 66 percent from
1983-1996, from about 6,000 to about 2,060. The 1996 estimate was 480
less than the winter of 1994-95 count. During the winter of 1980-81, the
population of the largest colony, located in Egdemon Cave on Buffalo
National River lands, numbered about 5,000. In 1996, the number dropped
to about 1,180. Thus the population in Edgemon Cave decreased by over 76
percent in 15 years. Specifically, on the Ozark National Forest, there
are eight caves which have been known to house hibernating Indiana bats.
Six of these are in Stone County including Hidden Spring Cave, Rowland
Cave, Amphitheater Cave, Barkshed Cave, Biology Cave, Gustafson Cave,
one, Wolf Creek Cave, is in Newton County, and a newly identified
unnamed cave in Franklin County. However, only three of these
(Amphitheater, Gustafson, and the unnamed cave in Franklin County) have
been identified as housing hibernating colonies consisting of 10 or more
individuals. Wolf Creek Cave appears to have been abandoned. Rowland
Cave, which appeared to have been abandoned, became active again in the
winter of 1997-98, sheltering over 300 Indiana bats Indiana bats are
also known from Devil's Den Crevice Cave in Washington County, located
in a state park adjacent to Ozark NF.

Proportional use of caves on the Ozark NF has increased in recent years.
Harvey (1996) reported a 32 percent decline in numbers of hibernating
Indiana bats from 1991-92 to 1995-96 (total for all caves in Arkansas).
During the same period, cave use on the forest remained fairly constant
(820 bats in 1991-92, 750 bats in 1995-96). During the years 1991 to
1993, Indiana bat numbers in NF caves were approximately 28 percent of
the total wintering Indiana bat population in Arkansas. During the years
1994-1996, this use was up to 36 percent, due mostly to declining
numbers in other caves. This comparison serves to show the increasing
importance of FS caves to this species. The current stable winter
populations indicate that forest management activities surrounding these
caves have not adversely impacted the Indiana bat populations.

Winter Indiana bat monitoring has been conducted on the Ozark NF since
1989 through challenge cost share agreements with Dr. Michael Harvey.
Prior to that, Dr. Harvey conducted independent monitoring since the
early 1970\'s. However, summer monitoring was initiated on the forest in
1996 after new information concerning the habits of Indiana bats was
discovered. Mist netting was conducted on 53 nights at 39 sites between
May 19- August 31, 1996. Five male Indiana bats were captured. No female
Indiana bats were captured. This may indicate that females are not
present in Arkansas in summer. No maternity sites for Indiana bats have
ever been identified in Arkansas.

There are no known occurrences of Indiana bats on the Saint Francis NF.
In fact, this forest is not in the summer range for male Indiana bats.
Since this forest is located over 150 miles southeast of the closest
hibernacula for Indiana bats and since it is thought that most Indiana
bats migrate north in spring, it is unlikely that any Indiana bats would
be found on the Saint Francis NF. However, since there is a remote
possibility that an Indiana bat may be present, the Saint Francis NF is
included in this consultation.

*Threats to the Species*

A number of identified factors have likely contributed to the decline of
the Indiana bat throughout its range with the most significant being
human disturbance of hibernating bats and vandalism. Human entry into a
hibernacula during the winter causes the bats to awaken. Each time a bat
awakens, it uses some of the fat reserves it has accumulated for the
winter. Frequent disturbance may cause the bats to use up all of their
stored fat reserves, forcing them to leave the cave too early in the
year to search for food likely resulting in starvation. Vandalism is
also a serious problem that has resulted in deliberate destruction of
many bat colonies simply because these animals are often viewed by the
public as nuisances or threats to human health.

Other possible causes of decline of Indiana bat populations include
natural disasters, alteration of habitat (summer maternity and winter
hibernacula), and chemical poisoning. Caves occupied by Indiana bats
(and other bat species) occasionally flood or collapse, killing a few,
to thousands of bats. Timber harvest, water quality degradation, stream
channelization, and other actions can, in some cases, result in
destruction or alteration of actual or potential roosting and/or
foraging habitat. However, it should be noted that the location of
suitable Indiana bat roost trees across the landscape changes over time
as various trees develop or lose bark, or as the trees die and fall. In
addition, Indiana bats frequently change roost trees as particular trees
become unsuitable and other become suitable as roosts. It is not
currently known how long or how far female Indiana bats will search to
find new roosting habitat if traditional habitats have been destroyed or
rendered unsuitable. If they are required to search for prolonged
periods of time after emerging from hibernation in the spring, this
effort may place additional stress on the females at a time when they
are already expending significant amounts of energy.

The impacts of herbicide use on Indiana bats have not been studied, but
insecticides are thought to have contributed to the decline of other
insectivorous species of bats (Clark 1981). Insecticides, particularly
those used for forest pests, could have both direct (potential of a bat
eating a contaminated insect) or indirect (loss of the species forage
base since most insecticides are not very host specific) effects. It is
possible that herbicide use (e.g., aerial application) could have
indirect impacts on the Indiana bat by potentially reducing vegetation,
and consequently the insect population numbers or diversity, in the
treatment area. This potential indirect effect, however, would not be
anticipated to be significant with irregular use of herbicides. In
addition, the exposure of bats to open oil pits in some states has
resulted in direct mortality of individuals (many unable to be
identified by species).

Historic collecting, counting, handling, and banding by biologists are
also thought to have contributed to declines in Indiana bat population
numbers. During the winter, these activities cause hibernating bats to
awaken and use stored fat reserves; during the summer they may disturb
sensitive maternity colonies. For this reason, winter counts are now
conducted on a biennial basis at some caves. Banding of bats collected
by mistnetting during the maternity season, however, is thought to have
negligible effects on bats.

Poorly designed and installed cave gates restrict bat movement and alter
air flow into caves. Air flow alterations may change the climatic
conditions and render the cave unsuitable for hibernation.
Commercialization of caves results in disturbance to summer or
hibernating bat colonies, and impoundment of streams result in permanent
or unseasonal flooding of caves (USFWS 1983).

*Recovery Goals and Accomplishments*

Recovery for the Indiana bat will depend to a large extent on
maintaining the ecological integrity of essential hibernacula and
protecting them from human disturbance (USFWS 1983). In addition,
foraging habitat (including riparian forest vegetation, dead trees) must
be maintained, protected, and restored. Lastly, in order to evaluate the
success of protection efforts, a monitoring program needs to be
established to document changes in Indiana bat populations.

Delisting will be considered when (USFWS 1983):

\(a\) criteria listed above are fulfilled; and

\(b\) protection and documentation of increasing or stable populations
occurs for three consecutive census periods at 50 percent of the
priority two caves in each state.

More specifically, the recovery outline entails the following:

1\. Prevent disturbance to important hibernacula by:

\(a\) preventing entry;

\(b\) preventing adverse modifications to winter and fall roost sites;

© protecting winter and fall roost sites.

2\. Maintain, protect, and restore foraging and nursery roosts by
preventing adverse modification to foraging area and nursery roost
habitat.

3\. Monitor population trends.

4\. Public education.

5\. Research needs.

Thirteen mines or caves have been designated as critical habitat for the
Indiana bat (found within Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri,
Tennessee, and West Virginia). In general, priority levels for
protection of hibernacula have been based on recorded populations of the
Indiana bat within each hibernacula. Since the priority designation, an
active set of programs at the state and federal levels have led to the
acquisition and protection of a number of Indiana bat hibernation caves.
Of 127 caves/mines with populations \>100 bats, 54 (43 percent) are in
public ownership or control. In addition, approximately 46 (36 percent)
hibernacula (most on public land) are gated or fenced (USFWS 1997).
Additional recovery criteria are currently being considered and a
revised Indiana Bat Recovery Plan is currently under review.

**[ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE]{.underline}**

The Ozark NF consists of 1,133,567 acres in fifteen counties in
northwest and north central Arkansas. This forest is located in the
Boston Mountains, Springfield, and Salem Plateaus, and the Arkansas
River Valley. Elevations range from 400 feet in the Arkansas River
Valley to 2,700 feet on top of Mt. Magazine. Dominate geology of the
area includes chert, sandstone, shale, and limestone.

The Saint Francis NF consists of 21,201 acres in Lee and Phillips
Counties, located on Crowley's Ridge and the Mississippi Alluvial Plain.
Dominant geology is Quaternary alluvial deposits in the Mississippi
bottomlands and Pleistocene loess soils on Crowley's Ridge. Elevations
range from 170 feet in the bottomlands to 380 feet on top of the ridge.

Indiana bats are known to occur in the Ozark NF but there have been no
records of Indiana bats occurring on the Saint Francis NF and it is not
likely that they would be found there due to the location of this
forest. However, the Saint Francis NF does contain trees that could be
suitable for Indiana bat roost habitat.

Populations of the Indiana bat hibernating in the OSFNF typify a
peripheral population in that they occur on the edge of their range. Two
of five caves listed by Harvey (1996) as housing hibernating colonies
(10 or more individuals) in Arkansas occur on the Ozark NF, Amphitheater
and Gustafson Caves. As discussed above, due to the declines in recorded
Indiana bat populations in caves off the Ozark NF since 1991, and the
stability of Indiana bat populations on the NF, the caves on the Ozark
NF are housing a larger percentage of Indiana bats that winter in
Arkansas. Land and forestry management practices on the OSFNF have been
guided by the LRMP since 1986. The standards and guidelines contained in
the LRMP to protect Indiana bats, including the use of buffer areas
around caves, leaving snags, protecting riparian zones, and applying old
growth prescriptions to about 13 percent of the forest have been
described previously in this document.

*Effects of the Action*

Direct Effects

Direct impacts to the Indiana bat could occur as the OSFNF continues to
implement their forest wide management activities. Direct impacts to the
Indiana bat may result in direct mortality or injury to individuals or
small groups of roosting bats when trees are cut that harbor undetected
roosts, or the accidental felling of occupied snags, shagbark hickories,
or damaged or hollow trees during timber harvest or site preparation.
The likelihood of cutting a tree containing a maternity colony or
individual roosting Indiana bat, however, is anticipated to be extremely
low because of the large number of suitable roost trees present on the
OSFNF, the rarity of the species, the wide dispersal of Indiana bats and
maternity colonies throughout the species' range, and the fact that
there have been no maternity colonies found in Arkansas. Other direct
effects could result if large tracts of hardwood and hardwood/pine
habitat are harvested, forcing the bats in a roosting or maternity
colony to abandon a traditionally used site, if there are such maternity
sites in Arkansas. Additional stress would be placed on pregnant
females. Further, lower reproductive success or lower survival of young
could also result from forced abandonment of lactating females.

However, implementation of the OSFNF's standards and guidelines will
minimize direct adverse effects to the Indiana bat by maintaining
suitable Indiana bat roosting and foraging habitat and protecting
Indiana bats from the potential effects of timber harvest and other
activities. Because Indiana bats gather near hibernacula in late summer
and autumn to swarm and forage, and because these bats require trees
suitable for roosting during the daylight hours near each site, the
OSFNF will continue to maintain an undisturbed buffer of at least 200
feet around cave entrances providing endangered bat habitat. .

Direct effects to the Indiana bat could also result from human activity
(disturbance and vandalism) during the winter in caves containing
hibernating Indiana bats. Bat disturbance may cause the bat's fat
reserves to become exhausted prior to spring, increasing the potential
for mortality. In addition, direct mortality due to humans killing
Indiana bats in caves has been documented (Mohr 1972). However, the
potential of Indiana bats to be disturbed during hibernation on OSFNF
has been greatly reduced with the construction of gates to protect
Gustafson Cave.

Prescribed burning during the summer season could result in direct
mortality of Indiana bats due to the actual roost tree being incinerated
or death caused by smoke inhalation. Although the OSFNF currently burns
approximately 5,764 acres per year under prescribed conditions, an
increase is anticipated over the next several years. Because the
majority of burns will occur during the winter or early spring when most
bats are hibernating, direct mortality of Indiana bats due to fire is
minimized. Further, as existing dense overstory and understory density
of vegetation inhibits free bat movement and foraging, prescribed
burning will provide restoration and maintenance of uncluttered open
understory foraging pathways for the bats, allowing them to easily reach
existing and potential roost trees. Increased insect populations
produced in burned areas is also likely to occur in successional years.

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects are defined as those that are caused by the proposed
action and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur
(50 CFR 402.02). Removal of living trees or snags which have the
potential to serve as roosts for maternity colonies or individual bats,
reduction of density of mature trees, and overstory canopy could result
in the loss or alteration of the summer (roosting and foraging) and
prehibernation (fall foraging) habitat. In addition, timber harvest
could alter insect species composition and may reduce or increase the
availability of insects on which bats feed, thereby causing them to
search for alternate foraging habitat.

Indirect effects to the Indiana bat due to herbicides are considered
minimal since they are infrequently used and have specific targets.
Direct application of herbicides to individual stumps, basal stem
treatment, hack and squirt, low pressure foliar spray, and cut surface
treatments are the usual methods of application used. Because these
methods target individual stems (versus general broadcast spraying),
direct application of these chemicals to bats is not likely. Situations
where broadcast application of herbicides are used include conversion of
cool season grass fields to warm season grasses and roadside vegetation
control. In these situations, although considered temporary, herbicide
treatment may cause a short term indirect effect to the Indiana bat by
reducing the amount of vegetation, and perhaps a reduction of insect
populations, after treatment of an area.

Cumulative Effects

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

This biological opinion only addresses activities authorized, funded, or
carried out on the OSFNF, which are under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Forest Service. Any future federal, state, local or private actions that
are reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in this
biological opinion will either be carried out by, or will require a
permit from, the Forest Service and will require compliance with Section
7 of the ESA. Therefore, cumulative effects, as defined by the ESA, will
not occur.

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

After reviewing the current status of the Indiana bat, the environmental
baseline for the action area, the effects of forest management and other
activities on the OSFNF, the biological assessment, and the cumulative
effects, it is the Service\'s biological opinion that forest management
and other activities authorized, funded, or carried out on the OSFNF,
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat.
Critical habitat for this species has been designated in Kentucky,
Tennessee, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and West Virginia. However, this
action does not affect those areas and no destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat will occur as a result of OSFNF
management activities.

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

Sections 4(d) and 9 of the ESA, as amended, prohibit taking (harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or
attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species of fish or
wildlife without a special exemption. Harm is further defined to include
significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or
injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns
such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined as actions
that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent
as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include,
but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Incidental take
is any take of listed animal species that results from, but is not the
purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the
federal agency or the applicant. 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 a prohibited taking provided that
such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this
incidental take statement.

The measures described below are nondiscretionary, and must be
implemented by the U.S. Forest Service (OSFNF) so that they become
binding conditions of any permit issued by the Forest Service or
incorporated into activities undertaken by the Forest Service in order
for the exemption of Section 7(o)(2) to apply. The U.S. Forest Service
(OSFNF) has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this
incidental take statement. If the U.S. Forest Service (OSFNF) (1) fails
to require an applicant to adhere to the terms and conditions of the
incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to
the permit, and/or (2) fails to retain oversight to ensure compliance
with these terms and conditions, the protective coverage of Section
7(o)(2) may lapse.

*Amount or Extent of Incidental Take*

The Service anticipates that incidental take of Indiana bats as a result
of forest management activities or other actions implemented on the
OSFNF will be difficult to quantify and detect due to the bat's small
body size, formation of small, widely dispersed colonies under loose
bark or in cavities of trees, and unknown areal extent and density of
their summer roosting populations range within OSFNF. However, any
incidental take of Indiana bats is expected to be in the form of
killing, harming, or harassing. Cutting trees during the non-hibernation
season for harvest or in preparation for other activities may result in
mortality to females and young, or to individually roosting Indiana
bats, if a particular tree which is cut contains a maternity colony or
roosting bats. If the bats are not killed, the colony (or roosting
individuals) will be forced to find an alternate roost or may be forced
to abandon a roost in the area, possibly leading to lower reproduction
or survival. Timber harvest also results in the removal of potential
roost trees, which decreases the available habitat in the harvest area.
Clearing an area for road construction or recreational development may
also result in alteration of roosting and/or feeding activities by the
bats (i.e., the bats may have to fly farther to forage, seek alternate
roosts, or they may be forced to abandon the area altogether). Clearing
an area for road construction or recreational use may result in the
direct mortality of an Indiana bat or in the loss of habitat in the same
ways as clearing of timber during harvest operations. In addition,
growing season prescribed burns may result in burning of occupied roost
trees. Smoke generated during prescribed burns could also cause roosting
bats discomfort or death. Burning may result in a maternity colony or
individual roosting bat to abandon a traditionally used maternity site.

Monitoring to determine take of individual bats within an expansive area
of forested habitat is a complex and difficult task. Unless every
individual tree that contains suitable roosting habitat is inspected by
a knowledgeable biologist before timber harvest begins, it would be
impossible to know if a maternity colony or roosting Indiana bats are
present in an area proposed for harvest. It would also be impossible to
evaluate the amount of incidental take of Indiana bats unless a
post-harvest inspection is immediately made of every tree that has been
cut or disturbed. Inspecting individual trees is not considered by the
Service to be a practical survey method and is not recommended as a
means to determine incidental take.

However, the level of take of this species can be anticipated by the
amount of potential roosting habitat affected. Although, to the best of
our knowledge, no Indiana bat maternity colony or individually roosting
Indiana bats to date have been incidentally taken on the OSFNF during
tree cutting or other habitat modifying activities, incidental take of
this species can be anticipated to result from loss of active and
potential roost trees. The Service believes if a maternity colony or
roosting individuals are present in an area proposed for timber harvest
or other disturbance, loss of suitable roosting habitat would result in
incidental take of Indiana bats. However, there are presently 218,266
acres of hardwoods that are 71-80 years old which provide the tree
species and tree size classes (9-16+" dbh) suitable as potential roost
sites for Indiana bats on the OSFNF.

This incidental take statement anticipates the taking of roost trees,
and potential roost trees from activities (e.g., timber sales, road
construction, prescribed burning, control line construction, development
and maintenance of recreational areas, special uses, etc.) conducted on
the OSFNF resulting in an annual loss of an undeterminate number of
roost trees and potential roost trees from no more than 8,000 acres per
year of hardwood forest habitat types, which are considered as the most
suitable potential Indiana bat habitat, or in a five year period, no
more than 40,000 acres, the removal of potential roost trees from 11,000
acres of pine and pine/hardwood forest types per year plus the
disturbance (prescribed burns) of no more than 30,000 acres of potential
Indiana bat habitat per year. This annual level (8,000 acres) of timber
harvest in hardwood timber types represents 0.7 percent of the total
area and 1.52 percent of the most suitable Indiana bat habitat of the
Ozark National Forest. While the Service believes that the OSFNF has
already taken a significant number of measures to reduce the probability
of direct mortality of the Indiana bats, we cannot rule out the
potential for take. Therefore, an undeterminable number of Indiana bats
that may be within the identified action areas provided for above may be
taken. Exceedence of incidental take of any one of the above would
require reinitiation of formal consultation.

*Effect of Take*

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

*Reasonable and Prudent Measures*

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

1\. Proposed management activities will be planned, evaluated, and
implemented consistent with measures developed to protect the Indiana
bat and maintain, improve, or enhance its habitat. These measures
include, but are not limited to, current standards and guidelines found
in the OSFNF LMRP, and terms and conditions outlined in this biological
opinion.

2\. The OSFNF will monitor timber sales and other activities to
determine if these measures are being implemented and if incidental take
occurs.

3\. The OSFNF will continue its efforts to determine use of the OSFNF by
Indiana bats during the hibernation, summer roosting, maternity, and
pre-hibernation seasons.

*Terms and Conditions*

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the ESA, the
U.S. Forest Service (OSFNF) must comply with the following terms and
conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures
described above and outline the required reporting/monitoring
requirements. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary.

> 1\. In order to promote potential summer roost trees and maternity
> sites for the Indiana bat throughout the OSFNF, timber harvest
> activities will leave, on average, a minimum of six roost trees,
> snags, or potential roost trees per acre. Potential roost trees are
> Class 1 and/or Class 2 tree species greater than 9 inches dbh.
>
> 2\. Any active roost trees identified on the OSFNF will be protected
> until such time they no longer serve as a roost (e.g., loss of
> exfoliating bark of cavities, blown down, or decay). Removal of known
> Indiana bat roost trees will be avoided, except as specified below. In
> the event that it becomes absolutely necessary to remove a known
> Indiana bat roost tree, such a removal will be conducted, through
> informal consultation with the Service, during the time period when
> the bats are likely to be in hibernation (November 15 through March
> 31). Trees identified as immediate threats to public safety may,
> however, be removed at any time.
>
> 3\. Monitoring of timber sales and other activities will be
> implemented as follows:
>
> \(a\) Timber sale administrators or biologists will conduct and report
> normal inspections of all timber sales on the OSFNF to ensure that
> measures defined in Terms and Conditions have been implemented. Timber
> sale administrators will conduct normal inspections of all timber
> sales to administer provisions for protecting residual trees.
> (Residual trees are those trees not designated for cutting under
> provisions of the timber sale contract.) Unnecessary damage to
> residual trees will be documented in sale inspection reports and
> proper contractual or legal remedies will be taken. The OSFNF will
> include this information in their annual monitoring reports. These
> will be made available to the Service, if requested.
>
> \(b\) Informal consultations between the Service and the OSFNF will
> occur as needed in order to review and determine any need to modify
> provisions of the biological opinion, and other issues regarding the
> Indiana bat.
>
> 4\. The OSFNF will continue its efforts to determine use of the OSFNF
> by Indiana bats during the hibernation, summer roosting/maternity, and
> pre-hibernation seasons by implementing the following monitoring
> procedures. Selection of sites for future monitoring and research will
> be left to the discretion of the OSFNF biologists. The Service
> believes that implementation of the following terms and conditions are
> necessary to evaluate the underlying assumptions made on Indiana bat
> presence and characterized use on the OSFNF. Implementation of these
> terms and conditions, in turn, will provide a more site-specific
> measure of the protective adequacy of the conservation measures for
> the Indiana bat on the OSFNF. These needs include the following:
>
> (a). Cave Site: Surveys of all Indiana bat hibernacula shall continue
> at least biennially following the protocol of the Indiana Bat Recovery
> Team. After any gating of a hibernacula, yearly surveys shall be
> conducted to determine the effects of the gates on all bat species.
> This effort will be conducted for the first three years and then
> continue with the biennial monitoring according to the Indiana bat
> Recovery Team;
>
> (b). Roost Trees: If any roost trees are found, they will be protected
> along with the associated foraging areas. The habitat at these sites
> will be characterized and quantified using information such as the
> USFS Continuous Inventory of Stand Condition (CISC). These habitat
> data will be used to modify the existing management plan;
>
> (c). Maternity Sites: If any maternity sites are found, they will be
> protected along with associated roosts and foraging areas. The habitat
> at these sites will be characterized and quantified using such
> information as the USFS CISC. These habitat data will then be used to
> assist in protecting existing sites and locating additional sites;
>
> (d). Summer Foraging Areas: Studies and monitoring activities shall
> continue to identify the forest types and structure used for foraging
> by Indiana bats. Habitat will be characterized and quantified at both
> the local and landscape levels using such information as the USFS
> CISC. These habitat parameters will be used to develop management
> strategies for the protection, maintenance, and promotion of foraging
> areas;
>
> (e). Fall Swarming and Foraging Areas: The identification of the areas
> used by the bats in the fall is warranted for the overall protection
> and maintenance of the wintering population. Monitoring shall be
> conducted around known hibernacula to identify the major foraging
> areas used by Indiana bats during the swarming period. The habitat
> used by the bats will be characterized and quantified using
> information such as the USFS CISC. Using these habitat parameters and
> actual foraging ranges, amended management strategies for protection
> of swarming areas may be identified and implemented.
>
> 5\. Prescribed burns will be conducted, whenever possible, during the
> winter and early spring when Indiana bats are hibernating. Standards
> and guidelines contained in the LRMP will be followed to protect any
> known hibernacula in the vicinity of the area to be burned.
>
> 6\. Care must be taken in handling dead specimens of listed species
> that are found in the project area to preserve biological material in
> the best possible state. In conjunction with the preservation of any
> dead specimens the finder has the responsibility to ensure that
> evidence intrinsic to determining the cause of death of the specimen
> is not unnecessarily disturbed. The finding of dead specimens does not
> imply enforcement proceedings pursuant to the ESA. The reporting of
> dead specimens is required to enable the Service to determine if take
> is reached or exceeded and to ensure that the terms and conditions are
> appropriate and effective. Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick
> specimen of an endangered or threatened species, initial notification
> must be made to the nearest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law
> Enforcement Office (Kevin Wood, Special Agent, 81 Post Office
> Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201).

The reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and
conditions, are designed to minimize incidental take that might
otherwise result from the proposed actions. With implementation of these
reasonable and prudent measures, in addition to the OSFNF LRMP, the
Service anticipates timber harvest on the OSFNF to result in loss of a
undererminate number of Indiana bats and in the loss of roost trees and
potential roost trees on no more than 8,000 acres annually of potential
Indiana bat habitat OR no more than 40,000 acres of potential Indiana
bat habitat (hardwood stands) within a five year period, harvest and
removal of roost trees and potential roost trees on no more than 11,000
acres of pine and pine/hardwood types annually, and burning of no more
than 30,000 acres per year of potential Indiana bat habitat. If, during
the course of the action, this level of incidental take is exceeded,
such incidental take represents new information requiring review of the
reasonable and prudent measures provided. The U.S. Forest Service
(OSFNF) must immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the
taking and review with the Service the need for possible modification of
the reasonable and prudent measures.

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

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

We believe that this provision of the ESA places an obligation on all
federal agencies to implement positive programs to benefit listed
species. Agencies have some discretion in choosing conservation
programs, but Section 7(a)(1) places a mandate on agencies to implement
some type of programs.

The Service, therefore, recommends that the OSFNF implement the
following conservation measures for the benefit of the Indiana bat:

1\. The OSFNF should initiate the development and implementation of
individual cave management plans for all active Indiana bat hibernacula
within the forests.

2\. Create drinking water sources for bats in areas with no reliable
water sources. This recommendation should not be implemented where it
would damage other wetlands and wetland dependent species (i.e., damage
to natural springs and seeps).

3\. Where appropriate, OSFNF biologists should conduct training for
employees regarding bats in the National Forests. Training should
include sections on bat identification, biology, habitat requirements,
and sampling techniques.

4\. If Indiana bat maternity colonies are located on OSFNF, biologists
are encouraged to conduct habitat suitability studies in the vicinity of
each colony site. This recommendation will be available for
implementation when the Indiana bat Habitat Suitability Index (HSI)
model (Romme [et]{.underline} [al]{.underline}. 1995) is reviewed and
revised by the Service and the Indiana Bat Recovery Team. When the new
draft HSI model is ready for field testing, these studies would
contribute toward validation of the model or reveal the need to modify
variables throughout the Indiana bat\'s range. Once the draft HSI model
is complete, the results could then be used by biologists during
biological evaluations or assessments conducted for future management
actions.

5\. The forest hosts many visitors each year, therefore, the Service
encourages the installation of informational/educational displays
regarding all bats occurring on the OSFNF. The Service believes that
such information would be invaluable in informing the public about the
value of this misunderstood group of mammals.

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 implementation of any
conservation recommendations.

**[REINITIATION - CLOSING STATEMENT]{.underline}**

This concludes formal consultation on forest management and other
actions conducted on the Ozark-Saint Francis National Forests. This
biological opinion will remain in effect and will constitute compliance
with the ESA\'s section 7 consultation requirements for future actions
carried out after the date of this BO and prior to revision of the
Ozark-Saint Francis National Forests\' Land and Resource Management
Plans, provided that those actions are carried out in compliance with
all of the requirements contained in this biological opinion, or until
one or more of the following conditions arise. As provided in 50 CFR
Sec. 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where
discretionary federal agency involvement or control over the action has
been maintained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or
extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals
effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3)
the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an
effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered
in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat
designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the
amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing
such take must cease pending reinitiation.

The Service will provide a copy of this biological opinion to the
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and the Arkansas Natural Heritage
Commission ten business days after the date this document is signed.

The Service appreciates this opportunity to work with the U.S. Forest
Service in fulfilling our

mutual responsibilities under the ESA. Please contact Marge Harney of
this office at (601) 629-6613 if you have any questions or require
additional information.

Sincerely,

Allan J. Mueller

Field Supervisor

cc:

Ozark Saint Francis National forest

Attn: Craig Hilburn

Ouachita National Forest

FWS, Tulsa, OK

Attn: Steve Hensely

FWS, Atlanta, GA

Attn: Dave Horning

FWS, Columbia, MO

Attn: Paul McKinzie

FWS, Ashville, NC

Attn: Bob Currie

FWS, Little Rock, AR

Attn: Melvin Tolbin

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

Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. Univ. Press of
Kentucky, Lexington. 286 pp.

Bowles, J.B. 1981. Ecological studies on the Indiana Bat in Iowa.
Central College, Pella, Iowa. 28 pp.

Callahan, E.V., III. 1993. Indiana bat summer habitat requirements.
Master of Science thesis, University of Missouri. Columbia, Missouri. 74
pp.

Clark, D.R., Jr. 1981. Bats and environmental contaminants: a review.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report. Wildlife No.
235. 27 pp.

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

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 Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities,
Minnesota. 19 pp.

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
Department of Conservation. Champlain, Illinois. 56 pp.

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 Department of Conservation. Champaign, Illinois.

28 pp.

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, Minnesota. 28 pp.

Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. Vol. I. John Wiley and
Sons, New York. 690 pp.

Harvey, M.J. 1996. Endangered Bats of Arkansas: Distribution, Status and
Ecology. Annual Report to Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.

Humphrey, S.R. 1978. Status, winter habitat, and management of the
endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. J. Mamm. 58:334-346.

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

Kiser, J., C. Elliott, and J. MacGregor. 1996. The use of roost trees by
Indiana bats,

*Myotis sodalis*, during autumn. Presented at the sixth colloqium on the
Conservation of Mammals in the Southern and Central United States.

Kurta, A.J., J. Kath, E.L. Smith, R. Foster, M.W. Orick, and R. Ross.
1993a. A maternity roost of the endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis
sodalis*) on the northern edge of its range. Am. Midl. Nat. 129:132-138.

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

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

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. Biol.
7:407-415.

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
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Bloomington,
Indiana by 3D/Environmental, Cincinnati, Ohio, 43 pp.

Tuttle, M.D. and D.E. Stevenson. 1978. Variation in the cave environment
and its biological implications. Pp 108-121. [in]{.underline} R. Zuber,
et al. (eds.). National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings.
Speleobooks Adobe Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 140 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Recovery plan for the Indiana bat.
USFWS, Twin Cities, Minnesota, 23 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Preliminary Agency Draft revised
recovery plan for the Indiana bat. USFWS, Region 3, Ft. Snelling,
Minnesota. 43 pp.