**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

**FOR PROPOSED**

**STREAMBANK STABILIZATION AT THE YANO RANGE**

**AND**

**UPGRADE OF THE WILCOX TANK RANGE**

**AT FORT KNOX, KENTUCKY**

**Prepared by:**

**James C. Widlak**

**Ecological Services Field Office**

**446 Neal Street**

**Cookeville, Tennessee**

**April 1999**

**INTRODUCTION**

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the project
plans for the proposed streambank stabilization at the Yano
Multi-Purpose Tank Range and the upgrade and modernization of the Wilcox
Tank Range located at Fort Knox in Hardin and Meade Counties, Kentucky.
Your January 28, 1999, request for initiation of formal consultation was
received on February 2, 1999. This document represents the Service=s
biological opinion on the effects of those actions on the threatened
bald eagle (*Haliaeetus* *leucocephalus*) and the endangered Indiana bat
(*Myotis* *sodalis*) in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

0 [Consultation History]{.underline}

This biological opinion is based on information provided in the January
28, 1999, biological assessment; a telephone conversation on February 9,
1999, with Ms. Gail Pollock during which the Service recommended that
one of the actions for which formal consultation was requested be
withdrawn and that the Army initiate formal consultation for the bald
eagle; a letter dated February 19, 1999, from Colonel Philip M. Jones
implementing the Service=s recommendations; and other sources of
information. The original formal consultation request included three
proposed actions: construction of tent pads as Training Area 12,
streambank stabilization at the Yano Range, and upgrading the Wilcox
Tank Range. Upon review of the materials submitted with the request, the
Service determined that the construction of tent pads would not have
adverse effects to listed species if removal of trees required for the
construction of the tent pads was conducted before April 1.
Additionally, because of the magnitude of the proposed work at the
Wilcox Range, the Service felt that the bald eagle should be included as
part of the formal consultation. The Army agreed to the tree removal
restriction on Training Area 12, and subsequently requested withdrawal
of the tent pad construction from, and inclusion of the bald eagle in,
formal consultation. A complete administrative record of this
consultation is on file in the Cookeville Field Office, 446 Neal Street,
Cookeville, Tennessee 38501; telephone 931/528-6481.

**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

0 [Project Description]{.underline}

The proposed actions are stabilization of eroding stream banks at the
Yano Multi-Purpose Tank Range, and modernization and upgrade of the
Wilcox Tank Range. The proposed streambank stabilization will be
constructed on the Rolling Fork River on 1,500 linear feet of
streambank. Two target movers (M07 and M39) and one target berm (V35)
will eventually erode into the river if no action is taken to stabilize
the bank. The project is scheduled to begin in July 1999, and will be
accomplished in phases as funding becomes available. Phase I will
involve regrading and flattening 1,500 linear feet of the streambank to
a 4 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) slope and planting the area with reed
canary grass and annual rye grass from the toe of the slope to
approximately one-third of the way to the top. The upper two-thirds of
the slope will be planted with a mixture of endophyte tall fescue,
orchard grass, annual rye, shining sumac, and silky dogwood. In Phase
II, a stone shear key, approximately 320 linear feet in length, will be
constructed at the toe of the stabilized slope. This shear key will be
backfilled with 150-pound limestone riprap, and will be supplemented
with construction of 13 finger drains, each 2 feet wide by 5 feet deep,
from the shear key to the crest of the slope. No tree removal will be
required to complete Phases I or II.

Currently, the Wilcox Tank Range consists of approximately 550 acres
with a mixture of shrub cover. Upgrade of this range to a Multi-Purpose
Digital Training Range will include the construction of two firing lanes
and the installation of additional moving and stationary targets,
including 60 stationary and six armor moving targets, 100 stationary and
25 moving infantry targets, 25 hostile fire simulators, and six difilade
positions. Also, office and maintenance buildings, storage facilities,
and service roads will be constructed. This action will also commence in
July 1999, and will require clearing and grubbing of approximately 1,800
acres that are currently covered by mixed-age bottomland hardwood
forest.

0 [Background Information]{.underline}

> Indiana bat

The Indiana bat is a medium-sized member of the genus *Myotis*. Head and
body length of individuals ranges from 41 to 49 millimeters, and forearm
length is 35 to 41 millimeters (USFWS 1983). It is similar to the little
brown bat, but differs in several morphological characters. The Indiana
bat is a monotypic species that is known to occur in much of the eastern
half of the United States. Large hibernating populations are known to
exist in Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri; however, smaller populations
and individual records are also known from 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).

According to the known and suspected range of the Indiana bat presented
in the species= recovery plan (USFWS 1983), the Indiana bat ranges over
an area of approximately 580,550 square miles in the eastern one-half of
the United States. The surface land area of Fort Knox is approximately
170 square miles, which represents approximately three-hundredths of one
percent (0.029 percent) of the total range of the species. Fort Knox
also represents less than one-half of one percent (0.43 percent) of the
species= range in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Thus, more than 99
percent of the Indiana bat=s range, both in Kentucky and in its overall
range, will not be affected by the proposed actions addressed in this
biological opinion.

The Indiana bat was listed as an endangered species on March 11, 1967.
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; Bat Cave, Shannon County, Missouri; Cave 029,
Washington County, Missouri; and Hellhole Cave, Pendleton County, West
Virginia, have been designated as critical habitat for the Indiana bat.

Bat Cave in Carter County is approximately 200 miles east of Fort Knox
and Coach Cave in Edmonson County is approximately 70 miles south of
Fort Knox. Other caves known to support hibernating colonies of Indiana
bats have been discovered in closer proximity to Fort Knox; for example,
a hibernaculum containing approximately 1,300 Indiana bats was recently
discovered in Breckinridge County. Additionally, since the 1980\'s,
there have been documented records of maternity colonies in various
parts of the State, ranging from extreme western Kentucky (Carlisle and
Hickman Counties) to eastern Kentucky (Bath, Harlan, and Pulaski
Counties), although maternity colony trees have not yet been located in
the eastern part of the State. Indiana bats have also been captured
during the summer in Bullitt and Jefferson Counties. On Fort Knox, there
are substantial acreages of suitable habitat that could potentially be
used by females during the maternity season. However, no roosting
individuals or maternity colonies have been documented on the base to
date.

Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri are currently known to contain the
largest hibernating populations of Indiana bats. Although hibernating
populations are reported to be stable or increasing in some portions of
its range (e.g., in Indiana), Indiana bat numbers have continued to
decline range-wide and in many parts of Kentucky (USFWS 1983). Since
1987, however, hibernacula counts of Indiana bats conducted during the
winter on the Daniel Boone National Forest have revealed that the
population has increased from approximately 10,500 to over 15,000
individuals (John MacGregor, U.S. Forest Service, personal communication
1996). Numbers of hibernating Indiana bats continue to exhibit severe
declines, however. Causes of decline of these populations are not
presently known and have continued despite intensive efforts (i.e.,
gating, fencing, etc.) to protect the major known hibernacula.

Indiana bats hibernate in caves and mines that provide specific climatic
conditions; preferred hibernacula have stable winter temperatures below
10 degrees Celsius (optimal temperature is 4 to 8 degrees Celsius) and
relative humidity above 74 percent. Few caves or mine shafts provide
these conditions; therefore, approximately 85 percent of the species
hibernates in only seven caves or abandoned mine shafts (USFWS 1983).
Prior to hibernation, Indiana bats undergo swarming, an activity in
which the bats congregate around the hibernacula, flying into and out of
the cave, but roosting in trees outside. Swarming continues for several
weeks, during which time the bats replenish fat reserves prior to
hibernation (USFWS 1983). Depending on local weather conditions,
swarming may continue through October, or longer. 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 al. 1980).

During the summer, Indiana bats utilize two types of roosting habitat.
Females emerge from hibernation first, generally in late March or early
April, followed by the males. 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. Some males may roost in
caves during the summer, but recent data indicates that loose bark or
cavities in trees also provide suitable roosting habitat for male
Indiana bats.

In addition to replenishing fat reserves prior to hibernation, mating
occurs during the swarming period after which the females enter directly
into hibernation. Females become pregnant soon after emergence from the
hibernacula and form small maternity colonies under loose bark or in
cavities of snags or mature live trees in riparian or upland forest.
Each female gives birth to a single young in late June or early July,
and the young become volant (i.e., are able to fly) in approximately one
month. By late August, the maternity colonies begin to disperse. (USFWS
1983)

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
lower numbers of bats through 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 inches dbh (Romme et al. 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;
Callahan 1993; Romme et al. 1995). Alternate roost trees also tend to be
large, mature trees, but the range in size is somewhat wider than that
for primary roosts (7.1 to 32. 7 inches dbh \[Romme et al. 1995\]). 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, standing 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 forest (Humphrey et al. 1977). Recent
studies and survey results, however, indicate that upland forest
provides important maternity habitat for Indiana bats (Gardner et al.
1990; Romme et al. 1995). In addition, females are known to exhibit
relatively strong loyalty to summer roosting and foraging habitat
(Bowles 1981; Gardner et al. 1991a, 1991b). It was also found that
Indiana bats occupy distinct home ranges during the summer (Gardner et
al. 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 mile to over 1.6 miles
from the preferred foraging habitat, but are generally within 1.2 miles
of water (e.g., stream, lake, pond, natural or manmade water-filled
depression).

A habitat suitability index model was recently developed for the Indiana
bat (Romme et al. 1995) which identifies nine variables that comprise
the major components of summer habitat for the species. The model was
developed for use in southern Indiana, but it may also be applicable in
other areas within the species= range. Five variables considered
important for roosting habitat within analysis areas include the 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 include
the amount of overstory canopy and the percentage of trees in the 2.0 to
4.7 inch dbh class. Distance to water and percentage of the analysis
area with forest cover are also considered to be important habitat
variables. The habitat model classifies species of trees that may
provide roosts for Indiana bats. Class I (most favored) trees include:

> Silver maple Shagbark hickory Shellbark hickory Bitternut hickory
>
> Green ash White ash Post oak Red oak
>
> Eastern cottonwood 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 as roosting sites. Class
II trees were also identified (Romme et al. 1995), 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 of trees 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. Other tree species found to be utilized by Indiana
bats as summer roosts include red maple, yellow buckeye, sourwood,
chestnut oak, pignut hickory, American beech, black gum, sycamore, black
locust, scarlet oak, black oak, and other hickory species (John
MacGregor, U.S. Forest Service, personal communication 1996). These
species have similar bark characteristics, bark retention after tree
death or injury, and hollow bole development as Romme=s Class I species.

In southern Indiana where the habitat suitability index model was
developed, optimal Indiana bat roosting habitat consists of areas that
are located within 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) of open water and that contain
at least 30 percent forest cover which meets the following requirements:
(a) roosting habitat consisting of overstory canopy cover of 60 to 80
percent, overstory trees with an average dbh of 15.7 inches at a density
of at least 16 or more per acre, snags with a dbh of at least 8.7 inches
at a density of at least 6 snags per acre, understory cover (i.e., from
2 meters above the forest floor to the bottom of the overstory canopy)
of 35 percent or less; and (b) foraging habitat consisting of overstory
canopy cover of 50 to 70 percent, with 35 percent or less of the
understory trees in the 2 to 5 inch dbh size class (Romme et al. 1995).
Although optimal habitat values for the nine variables were developed
for southern Indiana, these optimal values may also be applicable to the
project area at Fort Knox.

A number of factors have been identified that have likely contributed to
the decline of the Indiana bat throughout its range, the most
significant of which are human disturbance of hibernating bats and
vandalism. Human entry into a hibernaculum during the winter causes
hibernating bats to awaken. Each time a bat awakens, it utilizes extra
amounts of the fat reserves it has accumulated for the winter. Frequent
disturbance likely causes the bats to use up all of their stored fat
reserves. They would then be forced to leave the cave too early in the
year (i.e., before emergence of insects) to search for food, and they
would likely die of starvation. Vandalism is also a serious problem that
has resulted in the deliberate destruction of entire bat colonies simply
because these animals are often viewed by the public as nuisances or
threats to human health.

Other causes of decline of Indiana bat populations include natural
disasters, alteration of habitat, and pesticide 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 cracks, crevices, or loose
bark, or as trees die and fall. In addition, Indiana bats frequently
change roost trees as particular trees become less unsuitable and others
become more 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 pesticide use on Indiana bats have not been studied, but
pesticides are thought to have contributed to the decline of other
insectivorous bats. Direct application of pesticides to roost trees may
cause mortality to single males or females, or to maternity colonies of
Indiana bats. However, it is more likely that pesticide use would have
indirect impacts on the Indiana bat by reducing vegetation and the
insect population numbers and diversity in the treatment area.

Indiscriminate collecting, handling, and banding by biologists are also
thought to have contributed to decline in Indiana bat population
numbers. During the winter, these activities cause hibernating bats to
awaken and utilize stored fat reserves; during the summer they may
disturb maternity colonies. Banding of bats collected by mist netting
during the maternity season, however, has negligible effects on the bats
(John MacGregor, U.S. Forest Service, personal communication 1996).
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 colonies, and impoundment of streams often results in
permanent or unseasonal flooding of caves (USFWS 1983).

Bald eagle

The bald eagle is a large North American raptor, attaining body lengths
of approximately three feet, with wingspans of almost seven feet. Adults
are easily identified by the distinct white plumage on the head and
tail. Juvenile birds may be mistaken for adult golden eagles, but can be
identified by the white feathers on the wing linings and the absence of
feathers on the legs (USFWS 1984).

Two subspecies of bald eagles are presently recognized: the northern
(*H.l. alascanus*) and southern (*H. l. leucocephalus*). However, the
distinction between the two may not be tenable because there is
apparently a continuous gradient in size and weight of birds
geographically from north to south. Nevertheless, for recovery and
Section 7 purposes, the Service recognizes five distinct
sub-populations, and this biological opinion will determine if the
proposed actions will jeopardize the continued existence of the
southeastern sub-population of bald eagles, the range of which includes
the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas (east of the 100^th^
meridian), and West Virginia (west of the 80^th^ meridian)(USFWS 1984).

Bald eagles historically occurred and nested throughout the southeastern
United States. The species was considered to be a common resident in
Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas, but
Kentucky did not historically have an abundant eagle population. Only
five to ten pairs were thought to have nested in the State as of the
1950\'s. Between the mid-1950\'s and the mid-1980\'s, there was no
confirmed nesting activity in Kentucky, but in 1986 a nest was
discovered in western Kentucky on the Ballard County Wildlife Management
Area. Two eggs hatched, but no young were fledged that year. Despite the
nest failure, four additional nests have been constructed since 1986,
and several eaglets have been fledged. Additionally, several nests have
been reported along the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers west of Ballard
County, at Land Between the Lakes, and at Laurel River Lake in eastern
Kentucky. Eagles are also known to winter along the Ohio and Mississippi
Rivers.

Although the bulk of the bald eagle=s diet consists of fish, the species
is opportunistic, feeding on a variety of prey depending on its
availability. Remains of catfish, turtles, coot, mullet, gallinule, and
small mammals have been observed in nests and apparently supplement the
eagle=s diet (USFWS 1984). The birds at Ballard feed primarily on fish
caught from the numerous sloughs adjacent to the Ohio River during the
early winter. Later in the season, however, as the sloughs freeze, the
birds begin to switch hunting areas, feeding on fish from the Ohio River
and waterfowl wounded during the annual hunting season.

Eagles begin to arrive at wintering areas in late October (depending on
the severity of the weather in the northern portions of the range) and
remain through March. Food availability may be the most important factor
in maintaining wintering populations, but suitable perching and roosting
sites also determine the degree of use. Preferred diurnal perch trees
tend to be near shore or within unobstructed view of the water and have
stout, horizontal branches and adequate open area to facilitate hunting.
Communal roost trees are protected from wind, may be bordered by open
area, and are not necessarily near open water. (USFWS 1984)

Nesting activity in the Southeast usually begins in early September
(USFWS 1984). At that time, pairs begin constructing nests or repairing
existing nests. The female completes much of the nest construction with
some help from the male. At times, however, eagles have been known to
take over the nests of other large birds (e.g., osprey, heron). Eggs are
laid between late October and December, and are incubated for
approximately 35 days. Clutch size is generally two, but sometimes three
eggs are hatched. Fledging takes 10 to 12 weeks, and parental care may
extend for an additional four to six weeks (USFWS 1984). Bald eagles
require roughly four to five years before reaching breeding age, and
mature adults generally return to the areas from which they were fledged
to establish territories. Eagles may use the same nest year after year,
or may construct several additional nests within their territories and
alternate use from one year to the next. Nesting territories may
encompass an area of up to one mile around the nest (however,
territories are not necessarily circular around the nest) and are
actively defended during the nesting season.

There appears to be significant variability among individual bald eagles
in their sensitivity to disturbance. Some birds occur in areas having
relatively high levels of disturbance, and these birds are generally
more tolerant of human activity than birds raised in isolated localities
with low levels of activity. Eagles wintering in the vicinity of Fort
Knox likely forage along the Ohio River and Salt River, and they may be
accustomed to barge and boat traffic and other activity on the rivers.
However, the communal roosts used by these birds at night are likely
located in protected, isolated areas. Disturbance of roosting eagles
could result in abandonment of the site; removal of trees for the
proposed action at the Wilcox Range will force the birds to seek
alternate roost sites.

Factors identified as reasons for decline in bald eagle numbers include
habitat alteration, shooting of birds, and environmental contaminants
(USFWS 1984). As the human population in the Southeast has increased,
there have been extensive changes in land use and increased habitat
alteration which has adversely affected the species. This is thought to
be the single most significant limiting factor inhibiting recovery of
the bald eagle at the present time (USFWS 1984).

Between 1961 and 1965, 62 percent of total reported bald eagle
mortalities were birds that had been shot. This percentage has decreased
steadily, dropping to 18 percent in the period from 1975 to 1981,
however, shooting mortality is still a problem. Shooting between 1961
and 1981 accounted for nearly 25 percent of bald eagle mortality (USFWS
1984).

The most significant declines in bald eagle population numbers likely
resulted from widespread use of organo-chlorine pesticides such as DDT,
DDE, and DDD (USFWS 1984). These chemicals suppressed calcium
deposition, which resulted in thinning of eggshells laid by eagles and
ultimately reduced reproductive success. Since a ban on the use of DDT
was instituted in 1972, bald eagle populations have slowly recovered.
Numbers of active bald eagle nests have risen and reproductive success
has increased to the point at which the Service downgraded the bald
eagle to threatened status on July 12, 1995; the Service is currently
considering removal of the bald eagle from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants and Animals.

0 [Environmental Baseline]{.underline}

Fort Knox encompasses 109,069 acres in north-central Kentucky. The
majority of the lands within the bounds of the base lie within Hardin
County; additional lands are located in adjacent Meade and Bullitt
Counties. Approximately 6,900 acres are used for a variety of activities
such as maintenance and industrial facilities, personnel housing,
commercial and service facilities, and administrative facilities. Thirty
acres are used for the U.S. Bullion Depository. Seventy live-fire ranges
on the base include an area of approximately 53,000 acres, and training
and maneuver areas take up another 48,000 acres. Managed areas and
recreation areas comprise 1,087 acres. Other base lands are used as
railroad easements, utilities easements, and highway easements.

In 1903, Fort Knox was used for large-scale army training; and in 1918,
the base was established as an artillery training center. Although it
was closed as a permanent installation in 1922, Fort Knox was used as a
training area for military units from other bases until 1932, at which
time it was used for mechanized cavalry training. In 1936, the U.S.
Bullion Depository was constructed on the base. Armored vehicle training
continued on the base through the 1940\'s, 1950\'s, 1960\'s, and
1970\'s. The current primary mission of Fort Knox is to train officers
and enlisted personnel in mounted warfare.

Of the total land area on Fort Knox, an estimated 101,000 acres are
considered to be available for management of fish and wildlife
resources. Of this, approximately 42,754 acres are designated as off
limits due to the presence of unexploded ordnance. The remaining 58,246
acres are managed for white-tailed deer, bobwhite quail, gray/fox
squirrel, cottontail rabbit, mourning dove, raccoon, turkey, woodcock,
and migratory waterfowl. Numerous non-game wildlife species occur on the
base as well and likely benefit from game management activities.

Approximately 30,565 acres of forest land at Fort Knox are subject to
active forest management and are used for timber production. An
additional 30,600 acres are located within the base=s firing range
impact areas and are not available for timber management or harvest.
However, since these lands are off limits to most base personnel, they
are largely undisturbed and likely provide suitable habitat for many
wildlife species.

0 [Direct/Indirect Effects]{.underline}

The proposed streambank stabilization activities at the Yano Range will
likely have no significant adverse effects to either Indiana bats or
bald eagles. The streambank is currently devoid of riparian vegetation
and is undergoing severe erosion. The proposed action may result in some
sedimentation of the Rolling Fork River. If the level of sedimentation
is high enough to effect fish or aquatic invertebrates, some effects to
one or both listed species could result.

Effects to the Indiana bat and bald eagle from the proposed upgrade of
the Wilcox Tank Range would occur primarily as a result of removal of
forested habitat. It is likely that some existing and potential future
Indiana bat roost trees will be permanently lost as a result of the
proposed action. If removal of these trees is conducted during the
maternity season (i.e., March 16, September 15), direct mortality to
individual bats or maternity colonies could occur. Indirect effects
would result if removal of trees resulted in loss of all available
suitable roosting sites in the immediate and surrounding area\--i.e., if
alternate roosts are not available within one square mile of the project
area or if overall forest cover within one square mile is reduced to
less than 30 percent. Even if the trees were removed during the
non-maternity season, extensive tree removal would force the bats to
search for new roosting habitat and would likely place additional stress
on the bats at a time when their energy reserves are already reduced.

Since there is no documented evidence that bald eagles currently nest in
the project impact area, the proposed upgrade at Wilcox Tank Range is
not likely to have adverse effects on nesting success, egg production,
or fledging success. However, bald eagles are known to be winter
residents in the area, primarily along the Ohio River. It is possible
that eagles may use some of the project area as winter roosting habitat.
Consequently, the extensive removal of forest proposed would permanently
remove those roosts and would force the birds to seek alternate roosting
sites at a time of year when food availability is reduced and inclement
weather conditions may be frequent. This could result in stress-related
mortality to individual birds.

0 [Cumulative Effects]{.underline}

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 the
ESA.

The proposed actions will be conducted within the boundaries of Fort
Knox, lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense (Army).
Any future actions proposed on these lands will be authorized, funded,
or carried out by the Army and will constitute Federal actions requiring
compliance with Section 7 of the ESA. Therefore, cumulative effects as
defined by the ESA will not occur.

0 [Conclusion]{.underline}

After reviewing the current status of the Indiana bat and the bald
eagle, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of
the proposed streambank stabilization and the Wilcox Tank Range upgrade,
and the cumulative effects, it is the Service=s biological opinion that
the streambank stabilization at the Yano Tank Range and the upgrade at
the Wilcox Tank Range, as proposed, are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the Indiana bat or the bald eagle, and are not
likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. No
critical habitat has been designated for the bald eagle, therefore, none
will be affected. Critical habitat for the Indiana bat has been
designated at the following locations:

***Tennessee***

White Oak Blowhole Cave - Blount County

***Kentucky***

> Bat Cave - Carter County Coach Cave - Edmonson County

***Missouri***

> Cave 021 - Crawford County Cave 009 - Franklin County
>
> Cave 017 - Franklin County Pilot Knob Mine - Iron County
>
> Bat Cave - Shannon County Cave 029 - Washington County

***West Virginia***

Hellhole Cave - Pendleton County

***Indiana***

> Big Wyandotte Cave - Crawford County Ray=s Cave - Greene County

***Illinois***

The Blackball Mine - LaSalle County

However, the proposed actions do not affect any of those areas and no
destruction or adverse modification of those critical habitats are
anticipated.

**INCIDENTAL TAKE**

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 behavior 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 non-discretionary, and must be
implemented by the agency so that they become binding conditions of any
grant or permit issued to any applicant, as appropriate, in order for
the exemption in Section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Army has a continuing
duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement.
If the Army (1) fails to require any applicant or other authorized
individual to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take
statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or
grant document, an/or (2) fails to retain oversight to ensure compliance
with these terms and conditions, the protective coverage of Section
7(o)(2) may lapse.

0 [Amount or Extent of Incidental Take]{.underline}

The Service anticipates incidental take of Indiana bats and bald eagles
will be difficult to detect for the following reasons: (1) there are
currently no records of Indiana bats at Fort Knox, (2) Indiana bats are
small, and finding a dead individual or maternity colony would be
extremely difficult, (3) there has been no quantitative estimate of the
winter population of bald eagles at Fort Knox, and (4) differences in
annual winter weather conditions may result in fluctuations in numbers
of bald eagles utilizing Fort Knox from year to year. However, the
following level of take of these listed species can be anticipated by
loss of 1,800 acres of mixed bottomland hardwood forest, within which
exists current and potential future roosting and foraging habitat for
Indiana bats and potential winter roosting habitat for bald eagles. Both
species utilize mature trees in bottomland and upland forest as roosting
sites, and female Indiana bats form maternity colonies in large live or
standing dead trees. During the winter, bald eagles roost communally in
large trees in areas protected from wind and severe winter weather
conditions. Loss of communal roosting habitat could easily result in
take of bald eagles by forcing the birds to seek alternate roosting
sites. Loss of summer roosting, foraging , and maternity habitat could
result in take of Indiana bats if the project area is used by the
species.

**NOTE:** The incidental take of bald eagles is not authorized by the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Therefore, such take is not
authorized by this incidental take statement.

0 [Effect of the Take]{.underline}

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

> 0 [Reasonable and Prudent Measures]{.underline}

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measure is
necessary and appropriate to minimize take of the Indiana bat:

! The proposed action will be conducted in such a manner as to avoid
direct mortality to Indiana bats.

> 0 [Terms and Conditions]{.underline}

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the ESA, the
Army must comply with the following terms and conditions, which
implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above. These
terms and conditions are non-discretionary.

! Tree removal required to accomplish the upgrade and modernization of
the Wilcox Tank Range will be accomplished during the non-maternity
season (September 15 to March 15). If the entire area needed for the
proposed upgrade can not be cleared during this period, all snags
(standing dead trees) and live trees 9 inches in diameter or larger will
be removed during the non-maternity season. Smaller trees and other
vegetation may then be removed at any time. This will ensure that direct
mortality to roosting Indiana bats and/or maternity colonies does not
occur.

Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick specimen of an endangered or
threatened species, initial notification must be made to the nearest
Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Office (Mr. Dave Cartwright,
Special Agent, 150 Metrocenter, 220 Great Circle Road, Nashville,
Tennessee; telephone, 615/736-5532). Care should be taken in handling
sick or injured specimens to ensure effective treatment and care and in
handling dead specimens to preserve biological materials in the best
possible state for later analysis of cause of death. In conjunction with
the care of sick or injured endangered species or preservation of
biological materials from a dead animal, the finder has the
responsibility to ensure that evidence intrinsic to the specimen is not
unnecessarily disturbed.

The reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and
conditions, are designed to minimize incidental take that might
otherwise result from the proposed action. With implementation of these
measures, the Service believes that no more than two maternity colonies
or eight individually roosting Indiana bats will be incidentally taken.
If, during the course of the action, this minimized level of incidental
take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new information
requiring review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The
Federal agency 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.

**NOTICE:** While the incidental take statement provided in this
consultation satisfies the requirements of the Endangered Species Act,
as amended, it does not constitute an exemption from the prohibitions of
take of listed migratory birds under the more restrictive provisions of
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

**CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS**

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities to further the purposes of the 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 carry out positive programs to benefit listed
species, and a number of recent court cases appear to support that
belief. Agencies have some discretion in choosing what
[types]{.underline} of programs will be initiated, but Section 7(a)(1)
places a mandate on agencies to implement some kind of program to
promote the conservation of endangered and threatened species.

1.  Develop educational materials for distribution to personnel and
    schools on and around the base that provide information about the
    benefits of protecting Indiana bats and other bat species. Such
    materials will be valuable in raising the awareness of the public
    about a misunderstood and disparaged group of animals.

2.  Conduct further mist net sampling to determine if Indiana bat
    maternity colonies exist on the base. Fort Knox is located in an
    area in which there is a high likelihood of finding Indiana bat
    maternity colonies in suitable habitats.

3.  Gather quantitative data about the use of Fort Knox by bald eagles.
    An attempt should be made to determine the extent of use of the base
    by eagles during the winter, if communal winter roosts exist on the
    base, and if any nesting activity is occurring on the base. Nesting
    by bald eagles has been increasing; several new nesting sites have
    been discovered in Kentucky since 1986. It is possible that suitable
    nesting habitat exists on Fort Knox. If roosting or nesting sites
    are discovered on the base, appropriate measures should be taken to
    protect them.

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

**REINITIATION - CLOSING STATEMENT**

This concludes formal consultation on the actions outlined in the formal
consultation request. 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 retained (or is
authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take
of Indiana bats is exceeded, or if incidental take of a bald eagle
occurs; (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 to include activities that cause an effect to the
listed species or critical habitat 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.

**REFERENCES**

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

Callahan, E. V., III. 1993. Indiana Bat Summer Habitat Requirements.
Master of Science Thesis. University of Missouri. Columbia, Missouri. 74
p.

Clawson, R. L., R. K. LaVal, M. L. LaVal, and W. Caire. 1980. Clustering
behavior of hibernating *Myotis* *sodalis* in Missouri. Journal of
Mammalogy 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 United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Twin Cities, Minnesota. 19 p.

Gardner, J. E., J. D. Garner, and J. E. Hofmann. 1991a. Summer Roosting
Selection and Roosting Behavior of *Myotis* *sodalis* (Indiana Bat) in
Illinois. Final Report. Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois
Department of Conservation. Champaign, Illinois. 56 p.

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 p.

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

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. 43 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Recovery Plan for the Southeastern
States Bald Eagle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 63
p (with appendices).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Recovery Plan for the Indiana Bat.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Twin Cities, Minnesota. 23 p (with
appendices).