**Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Land and**

**Resource Forest Management Plan and other Activities on Threatened and
Endangered Species**

**in the White Mountain National Forest**

**and Incidental Take Statement**

**CONSULTATION HISTORY**

Formal consultation for the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) Land
and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was initially completed in
December, 1984. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issued a
biological opinion concluding that the Forest Plan would promote the
conservation of the peregrine falcon (*Falco peregrinus*) and the
Robbins= cinquefoil (*Potentilla robbinsiana*) and that consultation for
the bald eagle (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*), Eastern cougar (*Felis
concolor cougar*) and the gray wolf (*Canis lupus*) was not required
since these species were not known to occur on the WMNF. The Indiana bat
(*Myotis sodalis*) was not included in the consultation on the Forest
Plan since the WMNF was not considered to lie within the range of the
species at that time.

In 1992, the WMNF was surveyed for bats as part of a research project
conducted by the U.S. Forest Service=s Northeastern Forest Experiment
Station. One male Indiana bat was mist-netted in July of 1992. The
capture was not verified although it was documented in a paper published
in the [Journal of Wildlife Management]{.underline} in 1996 (Krusic *et
al*. 1996).

On December 18, 1997, New England Field Office (NEFO) staff organized a
meeting of state and federal agencies to discuss Indiana bat recovery in
New England. At that meeting, the participants agreed that the Forest
Service should consider consulting formally with the Service under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the WMNF Forest Plan if
it were determined that Forest Service management might affect the
Indiana bat.

NEFO staff met with WMNF and Green Mountain National Forest staff on
April 5, 1999 to discuss the potential effects of timber management on
the Indiana bat and to continue informal consultation on Forest Service
activities. On July 7, 1999, NEFO staff provided comments to the Forest
Service on the first draft of the Biological Assessment for Threatened
and Endangered Species in the White Mountain National Forest in the
States of Maine and New Hampshire (BA).

On September 21, 1999, the U.S. Forest Service requested that the
Service initiate formal consultation on the Forest Plan in an effort to
assess potential adverse effects on the Indiana bat as a consequence of
management activities on the WMNF.

On December 9, 1999, staff from the NEFO met with WMNF and Green
Mountain National Forest staff to discuss additional information needs
for the biological opinion. On January 7, 2000, staff from the WMNF and
the Green Mountain National Forest held a follow-up meeting to discuss
the draft Biological Opinion.

**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

**Description of the Proposed Action**

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 proposed action, as defined in the BA, is the implementation of the
WMNF Forest Plan and projects predicated upon it. The proposed action
includes ongoing projects as well as future site-specific projects. The
Forest Plan is a general programmatic planning document that provides
the framework for future activities that will create desired future
conditions on the WMNF. The Forest Plan activities assessed in this
Biological Opinion include timber sales, timber stand improvements,
wildlife habitat management, road and trail construction and
maintenance, and special uses (e.g., recreation, firewood permits).

In its BA, the WMNF outlined activities in the Forest Plan that may
adversely affect the Indiana bat, and requested concurrence on effects
determinations for the peregrine falcon, bald eagle, Eastern cougar,
gray wolf, Robbins= cinquefoil, small whorled pogonia (*Isotria
medeoloides*) and Canada lynx (a proposed species) (*Lynx canadensis*).
Because the Service has concurred with the Forest Service that continued
implementation of the WMNF Forest Plan is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the proposed threatened Canada lynx, and
concluded that a Ano effect@ determination is warranted for the bald
eagle, Eastern cougar and gray wolf, these species will not be
considered further in this Opinion. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
also concurs with the Forest Service=s determinations of Anot likely to
adversely affect@ the small whorled pogonia and Abeneficial effect@ for
the Robbins= cinquefoil (see accompanying letter to this Biological
Opinion). Additionally, since the peregrine falcon was delisted on
August 25, 1999, the Forest Service=s determination of Anot likely to
adversely affect@ is no longer necessary pursuant to Section 7 of the
ESA; thus this species will not be considered further in this Biological
Opinion. Therefore, this Biological Opinion only addresses adverse
effects on the Indiana bat and whether or not continued implementation
of the Forest Plan on the WMNF is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the Indiana bat.

The National Forest Management Act requires that the Forest Plan be
revised every 10 to 15 years. The WMNF Forest Plan is scheduled to be
revised by 2003. Therefore, for the purposes of this Biological Opinion
, 2003 will be considered to be the date of completion.

The Forest Plan sets the management direction and defines parameters for
achieving specified conditions on the WMNF. Land use allocations are
made, and outputs are projected, based upon the direction established in
the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan establishes multiple-use management
area prescriptions (including associated standards and guidelines) that
can be amended following monitoring and evaluation. Forest Service
personnel review all proposed project-level activities under the
National Environmental Policy Act and assess project effects on
federally-listed species in compliance with Section 7 of the ESA.

Forest Plan goals directly related to natural resources include: 1) soil
and water resources protection; 2) maintenance of a natural landscape;
3) ensuring quality recreation; 4) use of existing roads and trails; 5)
management for indigenous wildlife including threatened and endangered
species; 6) preservation of unique portions of the Forest; and 7)
management of northern hardwood forests over softwood forests. The
Forest Plan also identifies 11 geographic management areas, each with
associated goals, desired future conditions and a set of standards and
guidelines under which they are managed (Appendix 1).

Specific management actions identified in the Forest Plan include: 1)
wildlife habitat management; 2) timber management; 3) roads management;
4) energy production and minerals management; 5) recreation management;
and 6) fire management. Appendix 2 groups and summarizes planned and
completed Forest Plan activities (information taken from page 14 of the
BA, III-37 of the Forest Plan, and M. Whisler, U.S. Forest Service,
White Mountain National Forest, pers. comm. 2000). Each of these
management activities is described here, and will be evaluated for
potential effects to the Indiana bat.

[Wildlife Habitat Management]{.underline}

The Forest Plan prescribes timber harvest as the primary vegetative
management tool for managing wildlife habitat diversitywithin management
areas 2.1 and 3.1. Other wildlife habitat management activities include
the creation and maintenance of wildlife openings, apple tree orchard
pruning and restoration, the placement of natural structures in streams,
and waterfowl nesting habitat enhancement. Between 200 to 400 acres are
annually harvested using patch cut or small clear cuts in order to
create openings, of which 10 to 25 acres are converted to permanent
wildlife openings.

[Timber Management]{.underline}

Approximately 96 percent of the WMNF is forested habitat that is
classified into five broad categories: northern hardwoods (60% of the
WMNF), softwoods (25%), aspen and paper birch (10%), openings (4%), and
oak (0.6%). Forest age classes on the WMNF range from 0 years to older
than 100 years (Table 1). Of the 752,324 forested acres on the WMNF,
approximately 631,950 acres (84 percent) are considered to be saw-timber
sized (generally  8 inches dbh) and older than 60 years of age.
Forty-five percent (345,000 acres) of the forested acreage is allocated
as for timber harvest of which 10 percent (34,500) is maintained as over
mature. Timber harvesting through sales is the primary management
activity that alters and/or disturbs the greatest acreage of forested
habitat on the WMNF. Between 1987 and 1996, the average annual harvest
including non-timber management activities was approximately 5,000 acres
(BA, page 18).

Table 1. Forest age classes[^1]

+------------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| Age Class              | Acres               | Percent of WMNF       |
|                        |                     |                       |
| (years)                |                     |                       |
+------------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| 0 - 20                 | 38,479              | 5%                    |
+------------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| 21 - 40                | 30,786              | 4%                    |
+------------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| 41 - 60                | 29,904              | 4%                    |
+------------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| 61 - 80                | 131,293             | 17%                   |
+------------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| 81 - 100               | 274,293             | 35%                   |
+------------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| 101+                   | 255,175             | 32%                   |
+------------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+
| no age                 | 23,741              | 3%                    |
+------------------------+---------------------+-----------------------+

Timber management techniques used on the WMNF include even-aged and
uneven-aged stand management, reforestation and the cutting of firewood
(cutting of dead or down trees). The different treatment or harvest
techniques that could be used for specific management areas are
described below, as taken from the BA (pages 18 - 20).

> *Intermediate thinning* reduces the number of trees in stands with
> greater than 80 percent relative density ( 71 percent canopy closure)
> to approximately 60 percent relative density (approximately 54 percent
> canopy closure), generally by removing smaller trees. Open canopy
> conditions persist for 15 to 20 years following the thinning.
>
> *Shelterwood treatments* establish seedling regeneration through the
> application of one or two Apreparation or seed cuts@ (removing
> selected trees in order to allow Aseed trees@ to flourish), followed
> by the almost complete removal of overstory trees. Upon completion of
> the treatment, relative density is reduced from 80 percent or greater
> (71 percent canopy closure) to 30 to 40 percent relative density (less
> than 30 percent canopy closure).
>
> *Delayed-shelterwood treatments* establish seedling regeneration of
> shade-tolerant species (sugar maple, American beech, red maple) in
> areas where the second cut of a standard shelterwood treatment (see
> above) is delayed for 40 to 60 years. The relative density of 80
> percent is reduced to 30 to 40 percent canopy closure in the first cut
> of the shelterwood treatment.
>
> *Clear cut treatments* remove all trees in the stands. Existing
> seedlings are the basis for regeneration. Clear cut treatments are
> used primarily in northern hardwood stands, paper birch and aspen
> stands. Annually, approximately 300 acres are proposed for clear cut.
>
> *Improvement cut treatments* modify the age and size class by removing
> designated trees through commercial harvest.
>
> *Individual tree selection* regenerates a new age class of
> shade-tolerant species by removing individual, mature and lower
> quality trees and by salvaging trees that would otherwise die
> (diseased or injured trees). Individual tree selection opens the
> canopy by reducing the number of trees in stands of greater than 80
> percent relative density to approximately 60 percent relative density.
>
> *Group selection* removes clumps of trees (usually 3 to 1 acre) with
> the removal criteria similar to those for individual tree selection,
> although final relative density will be lower and may be as low as 50
> percent relative density.
>
> *Reforestation* techniques may incorporate any of the above
> treatments. Seedling regeneration generally occurs naturally on the
> WMNF.
>
> *Firewood* permits allow the cutting of dead, downed trees.
> Approximately 100 to 200 personal use firewood permits (averaging
> about two to three cords of wood per permit) are sold each year.
> Cutting firewood is not allowed in wilderness areas, scenic areas,
> research natural areas, experimental forests, developed recreation
> areas, Management Area 6.2 and portions of Management Area 2.1 and 3.1
> when closed due to active timber sales.

Forest Plan standards and guidelines were developed to minimize adverse
effects to forest wildlife and water quality that may result from timber
harvesting. Standards and guidelines address specific management
activities as well as make general recommendations for aquatic and
wildlife habitat.

> *Specific management guidelines*:

-   Clear cuts may be up to 30 acres in size with 3 to 2 acre of uncut
    stand retained for every 10 acres of clear cut.

-   A basal area of 1.25 to 2.5 square feet per acre in wildlife
    trees[^2] 18 inches dbh or larger for wildlife (roughly one to two
    trees) must be maintained.

-   Ten percent of the spruce/fir , oak/pine and northern hardwood
    communities will be retained as over mature (over mature) forests
    and rotated between 100 and 175 years, depending upon the community
    type for management areas 2.1 and 3.1. Fifteen percent of the
    hemlock community will be retained as over mature forest and rotated
    at 200 years.

-   All cavity trees, dead or alive, found in riparian areas 30 and
    35[^3] will be retained. Cavity trees in other areas will be
    retained when safety factors allow.

> The riparian width varies according to riparian type (steep,
> entrenched or bottomland streams) and in most cases is a minimum of 50
> feet. For uninventoried perennial streams, the riparian width is at
> least 100 feet.

-   At a minimum, at least 50 percent of the basal area will be retained
    within 50 feet of a stream or pond edge, unless site-specific
    prescriptions indicate otherwise.

-   No more than 25 percent of a total area will be clear cut within a
    10-year period on a 1,000-acre or larger watershed.

-   Habitat for endangered, threatened, or sensitive species will be
    protected during, or enhanced by, timber management practices.

*General management guidelines*:

-   Residual stems of mast trees (e.g. American beech, oak), as well as
    a specified number of snags and trees suitable for dens and cavity
    users will be retained. The number of trees retained is specified by
    WMNF staff and is based on site-specific information such as the
    evidence of wildlife use of an area. Thus, snag and mast tree
    retention varies.

-   Land management activities in riparian areas must protect water
    quality and the general aquatic ecosystem.

-   Riparian width and protection measures for lakes, ponds and wetlands
    are prescribed on a site-by-site basis by WMNF staff.

[Roads Management]{.underline}

Approximately 1,260 miles of road occur on the WMNF, although 491 miles
of road (approximately 40 percent) are either state-, town-, and
privately-owned. Based on 1987 to 1996 data, the WMNF constructs an
annual average of 2.6 miles of road.

[Energy Production and Minerals Management]{.underline}

Currently, there are a few sand and gravel operations on the WMNF, which
are generally small Aborrows@ used by the WMNF and local road agencies.
There is no evidence or history of mineral presence on the WMNF that may
be of interest for leasing for extraction. No energy production
activities, such as hydropower or wind power, are proposed in the near
future.

[Recreation Management]{.underline}

The WMNF receives approximately seven million visitors annually. Five
federally-designated Wilderness Areas, the Great Gulf, Presidential
Range/Dry River, Sandwich Range, Pemigewasset and Caribou-Speckled
comprise approximately **15** percent of the WMNF (114,932 acres) and
receive limited recreational use. Developed recreational facilities
include hiking trails (1,218 miles), cross-country ski trails (225
miles) and snowmobile trails (262 miles), campgrounds (23), picnic areas
(15), shelters (36), tent platforms (20), cabins (8) and developed ski
areas (10). Little new construction of campgrounds, picnic areas or
trails is planned within the next two years.

[Fire Management]{.underline}

Prescribed fire is used on the WMNF to create and maintain interior
forest openings. An average of 50 acres of openings is annually treated
with prescribed fire. Burns are conducted primarily in the spring (last
two weeks of April or first week of May) and occasionally in the fall
(October or November).

[Conservation Measures]{.underline}

Conservation measures are activities that the action agency will
implement as part of the proposed project to further the recovery of the
species under review. Conservation measures should be closely related to
the action and should be achievable within the authority of the action
agency. The beneficial effects of conservation measures are taken into
consideration in the Service=s conclusions regarding jeopardy, and in
the analysis of incidental take. However, such measures must minimize
impacts to listed species within the action area in order to be factored
into the Service=s analyses.

There are no standards and guidelines designed specifically to protect,
maintain, or enhance summer Indiana bat habitat, or to prevent impacts
to Indiana bats roosting in trees. However, impacts to Indiana bats
resulting from the various land management activities (e.g., timber
harvesting), may be incidentally minimized through the implementation of
Forest Plan standards and guidelines specific to those activities. For
example, the take of Indiana bats roosting and foraging on the WMNF
during the non-hibernation period would be minimized by the requirement
that most tree harvesting activities occur during the winter (harvest
time-of-year requirements are based on soil characteristics of the
stand). As a result of this standard and guideline, 70 percent of the
timber harvests on the WMNF occur during the Indiana bat=s hibernation
season (October through April).

**Status of the species/critical habitat likely to be affected**

Most of the information presented below on Indiana bat habitat
requirements, life history, status, and threats is taken from the
Service=s agency draft recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1999a) and the Mark Twain National Forest Biological Opinion (McKenzie
1999).

[Species Description]{.underline}

The Indiana bat is a medium-sized, monotypic species of bat (there are
no subspecies) of the genus *Myotis,* that occurs in much of the eastern
half of the United States. Head and body length range from 1 5/8 - 1 7/8
inches (41 to 49 millimeters) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).
This species is similar in appearance to both the little brown bat *(M.
lucifugus*) and the northern long-eared bat *(M. septentrionalis)*.
Indiana bats characteristically have a distinctly keeled calcar and
their hind feet tend to be small and delicate with fewer, shorter hairs
that do not extend beyond the toenails. The ears and wing membranes have
a dull appearance and flat coloration that does 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 (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a). On average, the Indiana bat weighs
between 0.2 and 0.3 ounces (6 - 9 grams) (Harvey *et al.*, 1999).

[Habitat Requirements]{.underline}

*Winter habitat* The Indiana bat requires specific roost sites in caves
or mines that attain appropriate temperatures for hibernation. In
southern parts of the species= range, Indiana bat hibernacula trap large
volumes of cold air and the bats tend to hibernate where resulting rock
temperatures drop. However, in northern parts of the range, the bats
avoid the coldest sites. In both cases, Indiana bats choose roosts with
a low risk of freezing. Ideal sites are 50^o^ F (10^o^ C) or colder when
the bats arrive in October and November (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1999a). Early studies identified a preferred mid-winter temperature
range of 39^o^ to 46^o^ F (4-8^o^ C); however, a recent examination of
long-term data suggests that a slightly lower and narrower range of
37^o^ to 43^o^ F (3-6^o^ C) may be ideal for the species (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999a). Only a small percentage of available caves
provides this special thermal requirement.

Stable, low temperatures allow the bats to maintain a low metabolic rate
and to conserve fat reserves through the winter (Humphrey 1978, Richter
*et al*. 1993). Indiana bats will occasionally use sites other than
caves or mines if microclimate conditions are favorable. Kurta and
Teramino (1994) found a single Indiana bat roosting with a large colony
of 15,000 bats (mostly little brown and northern long-eared bats) at a
hydroelectric dam in Manistee County, Michigan, and noted that the
temperature was about 36 F (4.7 C).

Relative humidity at roost sites during hibernation is usually greater
than 74 percent but less than saturation (Humphrey 1978, Kurta and
Teramino 1994, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a), although relative
humidity as low as 54 percent has been observed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1999a). Humidity may be an important factor in successful
hibernation (Thomas and Cloutier 1992).

Specific cave configurations determine temperature and humidity
microclimates, and thus suitability for Indiana bats. Indiana bats
select roosts within hibernacula that best meet their need for cool
temperatures. In many hibernacula, these roosting sites are near an
entrance, but may be deeper in the cave or mine if that is where cold
air flows and is trapped (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).

Indiana bats often hibernate with other species of bats, and are
occasionally observed clustered with, or adjacent to, other species,
including gray bats (*Myotis grisescens*), Virginia big-eared bats

(*Plecotus townsendii virginianus*), little brown bats, northern
long-eared bats (Kurta and Teramino 1994, Hicks 1999) and small-footed
bats (*Myotis leibii*) (Hicks 1999).

*Summer habitat* A full, well-integrated understanding of the summer
needs of this endangered species has yet to be reached. Early
researchers considered floodplain and riparian forest to be the primary
roosting and foraging summer habitats of the Indiana bat (Humphrey *et
al*. 1977), and these forest types unquestionably are important. More
recently, Indiana bats have been documented using upland forests for
roosting (Clark *et al*. 1987, Callahan *et al*. 1997); and old fields
and pastures with scattered trees for foraging (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1999a).

Indiana bats live in highly altered landscapes in the eastern United
States and use ephemeral, mostly dead and dying trees for roosting.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Indiana bat may, in fact, respond
positively to some degree of habitat disturbance. In northern Missouri,
maternity roosts were found in areas that were heavily disturbed
(McKenzie 1999). In some cases, timber management activities that
occurred within occupied Indiana bat habitat were reported to have no
effect on the bats. For example, Indiana bats continued to forage and
roost in an area that had been harvested in Illinois (Gardner *et al*.
1991). The species also has been found roosting in shelterwood cuts in
Kentucky (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).

It is possible that Indiana bats in the western portion of their range
may have evolved as a savannah species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1999a). Indiana bats appear to prefer open canopies, forests with an
open understory, and fragmented forest landscapes (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999a). This theory is supported by the analysis of
several maternity sites conducted by Romme *et al*. (1995), who found
that most Indiana bat roosts were located in areas that had a canopy
closure of 60 to 80 percent. Humphrey *et al.* (1977) hypothesized that
roost trees were usually located in openings within the forest because
they provided the necessary thermoregulatory characteristics.

Within the range of the Indiana bat, its presence within a particular
area may be governed by the availability of natural roost structures,
primarily standing dead trees with loose bark. The suitability of any
tree as a roost site is determined by 1) its condition (dead or alive);
2) the quantity of loose bark; 3) the tree\'s solar exposure and
location in relation to other trees; and 4) the tree\'s spatial
relationship to water sources and foraging areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1999a).

A number of tree species have been reported to be used as roosts by
Indiana bats. These include:

American beech (*Fagus grandifolia*), ashes (*Fraxinus* spp.), black gum
(*Nyssa sylvatica*), black locust (*Robinia pseudo-acacia*), cottonwood
(*Populus deltoides*), elms (*Ulmus* spp.), hickories (*Carya* spp.),
maples (*Acer* spp.), oaks (*Quercus* spp.), pines (*Pinus* spp.),
sassafras (*Sassafras albidum*), sourwood (*Oxydendrum arboreum*), sweet
birch (*Betula lenta*), yellow buckeye (*Aesculus octandra*) (Cope *et
al*. 1974, Humphrey *et al*. 1977, Gardner *et al*. 1991*,* Kurta *et
al*. 1993, Romme *et al*. 1995, Kiser and Elliott 1996, Kurta1996,
Callahan *et al*. 1997), and recently, hemlock (*Tsuga canadensis*) (R.
Currie, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Field Office, pers.
comm. 1999). The morphological characteristics of tree bark make certain
tree species more suitable as roosts for Indiana bats. Dead, senescent,
or severely injured (e.g., lightning-struck) trees that possess bark
that springs away from the trunk upon drying will provide niches or
crevices for roosting Indiana bats. The persistence of peeling bark
varies with the tree species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).
Additionally, the structure of the bark, such as the shaggy bark of some
living hickories and large white oaks (*Quercus alba*) also provides
roost sites. Therefore, the most important characteristic of trees is
not the tree species but rather the bark structure that provides space
for bats to roost between the bark and the bole of the tree.

Occasionally, tree cavities or hollow portions of tree boles and limbs
provide roost sites for Indiana bats (Gardner *et al*. 1991). Other
sites used for roosting include crevices in the tops of lightning-struck
trees (Gardner *et al*. 1991), and splits below splintered, broken tree
tops (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).

Recently, Indiana bats have been found roosting in artificial structures
including church steeples (C. Stihler, West Virginia Department of
Natural Resources, pers. comm. 1999) and telephone poles (P. McKenzie,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia, Missouri Field Office, pers.
comm. 1999). Bridges have been used as night roosts in West Virginia (W.
Tolin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, West Virginia Field Office, pers.
comm. 1999) and Kentucky (J. Kiser, Appalachian Technical Services,
pers. comm. 1999).

Indiana bat maternity colonies use multiple roosts in both dead and
living trees. Important factors in determining the suitability and use
of a roost tree are the tree=s exposure to sunlight and location
relative to other trees. Cool temperatures can delay the development of
fetal and juvenile young (Racey 1982), possibly making selection of
maternity roost sites critical to reproductive success. Dead trees with
east-southeast and south-southwest exposures may allow solar radiation
to effectively warm nursery roosts. Roosts in some species of living
trees \[e.g., shagbark hickory (*Carya ovata*)\], on the other hand, may
provide better protection from rain water and other unfavorable
environmental conditions. Their greater thermal mass retains more
favorable temperatures for roosting bats during cool periods (Humphrey
*et al*. 1977).

Most roost trees used by maternity colonies are closely spaced. The
spatial extent and configuration of a colony are probably determined by
the availability of suitable roosts. The distances between roosts
occupied by bats within a single maternity colony are documented to have
ranged from just a few yards to several miles. In Missouri, maximum
distances between roost trees used by bats from the same maternity
colony have ranged from 1.0 to 1.9 miles (McKenzie 1999). Kurta (1996)
documented a range of distances between roost trees, generally less than
0.6 mile (\<1 km), although one female traveled 3.4 miles (5.8 km)
between roost trees.

Indiana bat maternity roosts can be described as \"primary\" or
\"alternate\" based on the proportion of bats in a colony occupying the
roost site, and on the location of the roost site in relation to forest
canopy cover (Callahan *et al*. 1997, Kurta *et al.* 1996). Maternity
colonies have at least one primary roost (up to three have been
identified for a single colony) that may be used by the majority of the
bats throughout the summer. Colonies may also have multiple alternate
roosts that are used by small numbers of bats intermittently throughout
the summer (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a). Kurta *et al.* (1996)
studied a maternity colony in northern Michigan over a three-year period
and noted that roosting bats changed roost trees every 2.9 days and that
the number of roosts used by the colony ranged from five to 18. Other
studies have shown that adults in maternity colonies may use as few as
two and as many as 33 alternate roosts (Humphrey *et al*. 1977, Gardner
*et al.* 1991, Kurta *et al.* 1993, Romme *et al.* 1995).

Primary roosts are located in openings or at the edge of forest stands,
while alternate roosts can either be in the open or in the interior of
forest stands. Primary roosts are not surrounded by closed canopy and
can be warmed by solar radiation, thus providing a favorable
microclimate for growth and development of young during normal weather.
Alternate roosts tend to be more shaded, frequently are within forest
stands, and are preferred when temperatures are above normal or during
periods of precipitation. The selection of a roost site and its use may
differ between northern and southern parts of the species= range.
However, analyses have not yet been undertaken and more data are needed
to determine whether there are geographical differences.

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). 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 al.* 1995). Trees were significantly larger (12 inches dbh)
at sites in northern Missouri where reproductively active Indiana bats
were captured than at sites where they were not captured (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999a).

It is generally not possible to estimate the longevity of an individual
tree suitable for roosting by Indiana bats. Bark may slough off
completely or the tree may fall. Some tree species may only be habitable
for one to two years under Anatural conditions@ for some tree species
(Humphrey *et al*. 1977), while others with good bark retention such as
slippery elm, cottonwood, green ash (*Fraxinus pennsylvanica*), and
oaks, may provide roosting habitat for four to eight years (Gardner *et
al*. 1991, Callahan *et al*. 1997, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1999a).

Humphrey *et al.* (1977) suggested that previously-used summer roosts
may be important to the reproductive success of local Indiana bat
populations, and that if these roosts are lost or unavailable, adult
females may be faced with finding suitable maternity sites at a time
when they are already stressed from post-hibernation migration and the
increased metabolic energy costs of pregnancy. Bats move from one roost
to another within a season, when there are changes in environmental
conditions (temperature and precipitation), or when a particular roost
becomes unavailable due to being blown down or structurally damaged
(Gardner *et al*. 1991, Callahan *et al*. 1997). Thus, the species
appears to take advantage of the ephemeral habitat available to it.
Nonetheless, it is apparent that a variety of suitable roosts within a
colony\'s occupied summer range should be available to assure the
continuance of the colony in that area (Kurta *et al*. 1993, Callahan
*et al*. 1997).

Individual Indiana bats are known to occupy distinct home ranges during
the summer. Average home range sizes vary from approximately 70 acres
for juvenile males to over 525 acres for post-lactating adult females
(McKenzie 1999). Roosts occupied by individuals ranged from 0.33 mile to
over 1.6 miles from preferred foraging habitat, but are generally within
1.2 miles of water \[e.g., stream, lake, pond, natural or manmade
water-filled depression (McKenzie 1999)\].

Indiana bats exhibit varying degrees of site fidelity to summer colony
areas, roosts, and foraging habitat. Humphrey *et al*. (1977), Gardner
*et al*.(1991), Callahan *et al*. (1997) documented the use by female
Indiana bats of the same roosts from one year to the next. Kurta *et
al*. (1996), however, noted that individuals in a maternity colony in
northern Michigan Awere not highly faithful to a particular tree.@ In
Illinois, male Indiana bats exhibited some site fidelity to summering
areas they had occupied during previous years (McKenzie 1999).

*Fall and spring roosts* Indiana bats use roosts in the spring and fall
similar to those selected during the summer, although fall roost trees
more often tend to be exposed to sunshine rather than shade (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1999a). During the fall, when Indiana bats swarm
and mate at their hibernacula, male bats roost in trees nearby during
the day and fly to the cave during the night. In Kentucky, Kiser and
Elliott (1996) found male Indiana bats roosting primarily in dead trees
on upper slopes and ridgetops within 1.5 miles (2.4 km) of their
hibernaculum. In West Virginia, male Indiana bats roosted within 3.5
miles (5.6 km) of their hibernaculum in trees near ridgetops, and often
switched roost trees from day to day (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1999a).

Upon emergence from hibernation in the spring, some males remain within
the vicinity of their hibernacula, where they roost and forage in mature
forests; movements of 2.5 to 10 miles (4-16 km) have been reported in
Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia (Hobson and Holland 1995; McKenzie
1999). However, other males were reported to leave the area entirely
upon emergence in the spring.

*Foraging habitat and behavior* Indiana bats forage in and around the
tree canopy of floodplain, riparian, and upland forests. In riparian
areas, Indiana bats primarily forage around and near riparian and
floodplain trees \[e.g., sycamore (*Platanus occidentalis*), cottonwood,
black walnut (*Juglans nigra*), black willow (*Salix nigra*), and
oaks\], and solitary trees and forest edge on the floodplain (Cope *et
al*. 1974, Humphrey *et al*. 1977, Clark *et al*. 1987). Within
floodplain forests used by foraging Indiana bats, canopy closures range
from 30 to 100 percent (McKenzie 1999). Streams, associated floodplain
forests, and impounded bodies of water (e.g., ponds, wetlands,
reservoirs) are preferred foraging habitats for pregnant and lactating
Indiana bats, some of which may fly up to 12 miles (2.5 km) from upland
roosts. Indiana bats also forage within the canopy of upland forests,
over clearings with early successional vegetation (e.g., old fields),
along the borders of croplands, along wooded fence rows, and over farm
ponds in pastures (Clark *et al*. 1987).

Indiana bats usually forage and fly from 6 - 100 feet (2 - 30 m) above
ground level (Humphrey *et al*. 1977). Most Indiana bats caught in mist
nets are captured over streams and other flyways at heights greater than
6 feet (2 m) (Gardner *et al*. 1989).

During the summer, male Indiana bats that remained near their Missouri
hibernacula flew cross-country or upstream toward narrower, more densely
wooded riparian areas during nightly foraging bouts, perhaps due to
interspecific competition with gray bats (*M. grisescens*). Some male
bats also foraged at the edges of small floodplain pastures, within
dense forest, and on hillsides and ridge tops; the maximum reported
distance was 1.2 miles (2 km) (LaVal *et al.* 1977). In the fall, male
Indiana bats tend to forage in upland and ridgetop forests, but may also
forage in valley and riparian forest; movements of 1.8 - 4.2 miles
(2.5 - 6.8 km) have been reported in Kentucky (Kiser and Elliott 1996).

[Life History]{.underline}

Generally, Indiana bats hibernate from October through April (Hall 1981)
or from September through early May in northern areas (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999a), depending upon local weather conditions (see
Figure 1 for a depiction of the annual cycle). They hibernate in large,
dense clusters of up to 300 bats per square foot (3,230 bats/m^2^)
(Clawson *et al*. 1980; Clawson 1987). In New York, data collected over
a number of years indicate that Indiana bats demonstrate site fidelity
to and possibly within the hibernaculum (A. Hicks, New York Department
of Conservation, pers. comm. 1999).

Upon arrival at hibernating caves in August through September, Indiana
bats \"swarm,\" a behavior in which \"large numbers of bats fly in and
out of cave entrances from dusk to dawn@, although relatively few roost
in the caves during the day (Cope and Humphrey 1977). Swarming continues
for several weeks and mating occurs during the latter part of the
period. Fat supplies are replenished as the bats forage prior to
hibernation. Indiana bats tend to hibernate in the same cave in which
they swarm (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a), although swarming has
occurred in caves other than those in which the bats hibernated (Cope
and Humphrey 1977).

During swarming, males remain active over a longer period of time at
cave entrances than do females, most likely to mate with females as they
arrive (McKenzie 1999). After mating, females enter directly into
hibernation, followed by the males (Clawson 1987). A majority of bats of
both sexes hibernate by the end of November (by mid-October in northern
areas) (McKenzie 1999), but hibernacula populations may increase
throughout the fall and even into early January (Clawson *et al*. 1980).

Figure 1. Indiana bat annual chronology (from U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1999a)

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

Both sexes:

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

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

[Lactating]{.underline}

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

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

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

Adult females store sperm through the winter and become pregnant via
delayed fertilization soon after emergence from hibernation. Young
female bats can mate in their first autumn and have offspring the
following year, whereas males may not mature until the second year.
Limited mating activity occurs in the winter and into late April, as the
bats leave hibernation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).

Females emerge from hibernation ahead of males; males exit over a longer
period of time (Clawson 1987). Most wintering populations leave by early
May although they may emerge later in the northern portion of their
range. Indiana bats (3 percent of the mid-winter count) have been
documented roosting in a New York hibernaculum as late as May 29 under
fairly average springtime weather conditions (A. Hicks 1999). Some males
spend the summer near hibernacula, as has been observed in Missouri and
West Virginia (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).

Females have been observed at their summer habitats as early as April 15
in Illinois (Gardner *et al*. 1991). Humphrey *et al*. (1977) determined
that Indiana bats first arrived at their maternity roost in early May in
Indiana, with substantial numbers arriving by mid-May.

Female Indiana bats have never been documented in New Hampshire during
the summer. However, it may be expected, due to the fact that average
springtime temperatures are cooler in New Hampshire than in the center
of the Indiana bat=s range, that females would generally arrive later in
May. One of the primary factors in determining the arrival of female
Indiana bats (as well as males) may be temperature. In general,
insectivorous bats will not forage when temperatures fall below 50^o^ F
(P. Huber, U.S. Forest Service Huron-Manistee National Forests, *in
litt*. 1998). Furthermore, Humphrey *et al*. (1997) believed that cool
temperatures might prolong gestation and juvenile growth of Indiana
bats. Therefore, it is possible that Indiana bats arriving in late April
or early May in New Hampshire may be unable to forage, and any that do
arrive early may reproduce unsuccessfully.

During early spring, a number of roosts (e.g., small cavities) may be
used temporarily, until a roost with larger numbers of bats is
established. Parturition occurs in late June and early July (Easterla
and Watkins 1969; Humphrey *et al*. 1977) and young are able to fly
between mid-July and early August (Mumford and Cope 1958, Cope *et al*.
1974, Humphrey *et al*. 1977, Clark *et al*. 1987, Gardner *et al*.
1991*,* Kurta *et al*. 1996).

Most of the documented maternity colonies contained 100 or fewer adult
bats. After grouping into nursery colonies, females give birth to a
single young in late June or early July. Some males disperse throughout
the range and roost individually or in small numbers in the same types
of trees and in the same areas as females, while other males remain near
their hibernacula. Maternity colonies occupy roost sites in forested
riparian, floodplain, or upland habitats, and exhibit strong roost site
fidelity (Clark *et al* 1987, Gardner *et al.* 1991, Callahan *et al.*
1997, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).

Young Indiana bats are capable of flight within a month of birth. Young
born in late June may be flying as early as the first week of July
(Clark *et al.* 1987), and most young are flying between mid-to-late
July. Indiana bats spend the latter part of the summer accumulating fat
reserves for fall migration and hibernation.

Humphrey and Cope (1977) determined that female survivorship in an
Indiana population of Indiana bats was 76% for ages one to six years,
and 66% for ages six to 10 years; for males, survivorship was 70% for
ages one to six years, and 36% for ages six to 10 years. The maximum age
for banded individuals was 15 years for females and 14 years for males.
Mortality between birth and weaning has been estimated at 8% (Humphrey
*et al.* 1977).

Indiana bats feed only on flying insects, both aquatic and/or
terrestrial. They are habitat generalists and their selection of prey
items reflects the environment in which they forage. Diet varies
seasonally and among different ages, sexes, and reproductive-status
groups (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a). Reproductively active
females and juveniles exhibit greater dietary diversity than males and
non-reproductively active adult females, perhaps due to higher energy
demands. Reproductively active females eat more aquatic insects than do
adult males or juveniles (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a; McKenzie
1999).

Moths (Lepidoptera) are major prey items identified in several studies
(Brack and LaVal 1985, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a); however,
Kurta and Whitaker (1998) also documented caddisflies (Trichoptera) and
flies (Diptera) as major prey items. A third prey group includes flies
and midges (Clawson 1987). Other insect prey include bees, wasps, and
flying ants (Hymenoptera), beetles (Coleoptera), leafhoppers
(Homoptera), treehoppers (Homoptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and
lacewings (Neuroptera) (Whitaker 1972).

Male Indiana bats summering in or near a hibernacula feed preferentially
on moths and beetles. Additionally, caddisflies, flies, mosquitoes,
midges, stone flies, leafhoppers, treehoppers, and true bugs are
consumed, but in low percentages (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).
Brack and LaVal (1985) examined fecal pellets of 140 male Indiana bats
and identified 83 percent of the prey items as Lepidoptera and 7 percent
as Coleoptera.

Drinking water is essential when bats actively forage. Throughout most
of the summer range, Indiana bats frequently forage along riparian
corridors and obtain water from streams. However, natural and man-made
ponds and water-filled road ruts in forest uplands are also very
important water sources for Indiana bats, especially in parts of their
range where natural water sources are limited (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1999a).

*Status and distribution* The Indiana bat was listed as endangered by
the 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.

[Rangewide trend]{.underline}

Based on censuses taken at hibernacula, the total known Indiana bat
population in 1997 was estimated at 353,000 bats. Indiana bat
populations were first surveyed in the late 1950s (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999a). In the decades since then, additional colonies
of hibernating Indiana bats were discovered and knowledge of the
distribution and status of the species has been expanded.

However, the most recent population count demonstrated a 60 percent
decline in the range-wide population since regular surveys began in the
early 1980s.

*Winter range* Indiana bats are restricted to suitable hibernacula that
are primarily located in karst areas of the east-central U.S. More than
85 percent of the range-wide population occupies nine Priority One
hibernacula (hibernation sites with a recorded population \>30,000 bats
since 1960 when surveys first started), although two of these currently
have extremely low numbers of bats. Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri each
contain three Priority One hibernacula. During the period of 1983
through 1997, populations declined by 38 percent in eight of the nine
hibernacula (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).

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

The wintering status of the Indiana bat in the three states with the
largest hibernating populations is reviewed below (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999a):

Indiana: The known population in Indiana apparently dropped from the
earliest known surveys through 1980, but has increased steadily in
recent years. Indiana now contains half (182,500) of all Indiana bats in
existence.

Kentucky: This state has exhibited the most significant decline in
population numbers of Indiana bats, with the loss of an estimated
145,000 bats between 1960 and 1975. Losses at two of the major
hibernacula were attributed to microclimate changes due to a poorly
designed cave gate at one hibernation site (Humphrey 1978), and the
construction of a building over the upper entrance to another (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1999a). Although not as dramatic as earlier losses,
many of the major remaining hibernating populations have declined
steadily during the past 15 years. Populations in west-central,
northeastern, and extreme southeastern Kentucky declined between 1960
and 1975, while populations in east-central and western Kentucky
increased.

Missouri: Despite efforts to protect Indiana bats (e.g., the
construction of appropriate gates at cave entrances), populations of
hibernating Indiana bats in Missouri have declined steadily and
drastically since 1980. Colonies of Indiana bats in the two Priority One
caves that can be surveyed, as well as colonies of 12 of the 13 Priority
Two hibernacula in the state, have declined during this period. Since
1983, the overall Missouri population has shown a cumulative estimated
decline of over 250,000 bats, a loss of more than 80 percent of the
population. The current total estimated population of Indiana bats in
the state is less than 50,000 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).

Other states: Among the other states with regularly occurring
hibernating populations of Indiana bats, recent trends are mixed.
Population trends in Alabama, Illinois, Ohio, Tennessee, and Virginia
are either not known or poorly documented. Alabama, Illinois, Tennessee,
and Virginia do not have sufficient recent survey information for a
trend analysis, while the only known hibernaculum in Ohio was only
recently discovered in the winter of 1995/1996. The population of
Indiana bats is apparently declining in Arkansas. The species may be
increasing in Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, but complex cave systems
such as those at Hellhole Cave in West Virginia make surveying Indiana
bats difficult, and complicate population trend analysis. The species
appears to be steadily increasing in New York (Hicks 1999). During the
1988-1989 winter survey of all known Indiana bat hibernacula, 12,861
Indiana bats were counted; during the 1998-1999 winter survey,
approximately 22,000 Indiana bats were recorded (Hicks 1999).

A few Indiana bats have been documented in the winter in Connecticut,
Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi,
New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont, and
Wisconsin. However, because most of these records are from hibernacula
with less than 10 individuals, no regular hibernacula surveys are
conducted in most of these states. Connecticut and Vermont conduct
hibernacula surveys on a biennial basis, although the one known winter
site in Connecticut was not surveyed in 1999 because access to the site
was prohibited.

*Summer range* Although the number of band returns for the Indiana bat
is limited, certain migration patterns may be extrapolated from the
little information that does exist. Based on sparse band recovery
records, all of which are from the Midwest, it appears that females and
some males migrate north in the spring upon emergence from hibernation
(**Hassell and Harvey 1965**, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a),
although there also is evidence that movements may occur in other
directions. Most summer captures of reproductively active Indiana bats
(pregnant or lactating females) or juveniles have been made between
April 15 and August 15 in areas generally north of the major cave areas.

Summer habitats in the mid-Atlantic states have not been well
investigated, although it has been documented that both sexes of Indiana
bats occur scattered throughout these regions. Little is known about
Indiana bat summer habitat use in the Northeast. While observations
based on Indiana bats migrating from mid-western hibernacula indicate a
northward direction, bats in northern hibernacula may migrate in other
directions. For example, although there is an Indiana bat hibernaculum
in Watertown, New York near the Canadian border, Indiana bats have never
been observed in neighboring Ontario, Canada although extensive summer
surveys for many species of bats have been undertaken (A. Kurta, Eastern
Michigan University, pers. comm. 1999).

Most of the maternity records of the Indiana bat originated in the
Midwest (southern Iowa, northern Missouri, northern Illinois, northern
Indiana, southern Michigan, and western Ohio). The first maternity
colony was found in the Midwest and several studies of Indiana bat
maternity habitat have also been based in this region. Although
woodlands in this glaciated region are mostly fragmented, there is a
relatively high density of maternity colonies. Today, small bottomland
and upland forested tracts with predominantly oak-hickory forest types
and riparian/bottomland forests of elm-ash-cottonwood associations exist
in an otherwise agricultural-dominated (non-forested) landscape (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a). Unglaciated portions of the Midwest
(southern Missouri, southern Illinois, southern Indiana), Kentucky, and
most of the eastern and southern portions of the species= range appear
to have fewer maternity colonies per unit area of forest. However, such
conclusions may be premature, given the lack of search effort in these
areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).

Male Indiana bats may be found throughout the entire range of the
species. Males appear to roost singly or in small groups, except during
brief summer visits to hibernacula.

[Threats to the Species]{.underline}

Not all of the causes of the Indiana bat population decline have been
determined. Although several known human-related factors were
responsible for specific declines in the past, they may not be solely
responsible for recent declines. Several known and suspected causes of
decline are discussed below.

*Disturbance and vandalism* During the 1960s through the 1980s, human
disturbance at hibernacula was a primary cause of the decline of the
Indiana bat. Bats enter hibernation with fat reserves sufficient to last
only until spring. When a bat is aroused, as much as 68 days of fat
supply may be used in a single disturbance (Thomas *et al.* 1990).
Humans, including recreational spelunkers and researchers, passing near
hibernating Indiana bats can cause arousal (Humphrey 1978, Tuttle 1991,
Thomas 1995, Johnson *et al.* 1998). Disturbance depletes the bats= fat
reserves which may be exhausted before the bats are able to begin
foraging in the spring.

Direct mortality due to human vandalism has also been documented. The
worst known case occurred in 1960 when an estimated 10,000 Indiana bats
were killed in Carter Cave State Park, Kentucky, by three youths who
tore masses of bats from the ceiling and trampled and stoned them to
death. Another documented incident was reported from Thornhill Cave,
Kentucky, where at least 255 Indiana bats were killed by shotgun blasts
in January 1987 (BATS 1987; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).

*Improper cave gates and structures* Indiana bats were excluded from
some hibernacula by the erection of solid gates in the entrances
(Humphrey 1978). Exclusion of Indiana bats from caves and changes in air
flow were the major causes of Indiana bat declines or loss in Kentucky
\[an estimated 200,000 bats at three caves (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1999a)\]. Other cave gates modified the hibernacula climate to
the point that Indiana bats were unable to survive the winter. Changes
in air flow caused by the installation of the cave gates elevated
temperatures that in turn increased the metabolic rate and caused
premature use of fat reserves in Indiana bats residing in the
hibernacula (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).

Conversely, an Indiana bat population may be restored if an improper
gate is replaced with one of appropriate design, or if air flow is
restored. In Wyandotte Cave, Indiana, dramatic population increases
followed gate replacement and restoration of traditional air flow
(Richter *et al*. 1993). Improved air flow facilitated by the
enlargement of an upper level entrance was apparently responsible for a
three-fold increase in Indiana bat numbers in a cave in Indiana (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a). The recovery of hibernating
populations to historic levels, however, has not been as successful
elsewhere. At Hundred Dome Cave, Kentucky, predicted population gains
were never realized, even though air flow obstructions have been removed
and gates suitable for the species were installed (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999a).

*Natural hazards* Indiana bats in their hibernacula are subject to
natural hazards such as ceiling collapse and flooding, and temperature
changes.

In a number of documented cases, Indiana bats drowned when their
hibernacula were flooded (**DeBlase *et al*. 1965;** U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999a). In early March 1997, a severe flood occurred in
Bat Cave at Carter Caves State Park, Kentucky. Water reached the ceiling
in portions of the hibernation section of the cave and drowned an
estimated 3,000 Indiana bats (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).
Severe flood conditions in January 1996 apparently resulted in the loss
of approximately 450 hibernating Indiana bats (64 percent of the
censussed population in 1994) in a cave in New York. During a survey the
following January, investigators found carcasses of bats wedged in the
ceiling crevices of the flood-prone sections of the cave (Hicks 1999).

Since Indiana bats hibernate in cool portions of caves that tend to be
near entrances, or where cold air is trapped, some bats may freeze to
death during severe winters (Humphrey 1978, Richter *et al.* 1993).
Indiana bats apparently froze to death in Bat Cave (Shannon County,
Missouri) in the 1950s (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a), as well
as in the mid-1980s (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).

Conversely, should temperatures rise within a hibernaculum, Indiana bats
may be forced to abandon the site or may suffer mortality if the
temperature increases during hibernation. At Missouri=s Great Scott
Cave, average mid-winter temperatures appear to have risen 8^o^ F from
the mid-1980s through the present, compared to temperatures in the 1970s
and early 1980s. A major population loss was observed at this site
between the mid-1980s and 1998. Preliminary analysis of fall and winter
temperature data suggests that a similar trend has occurred in ambient
temperature outside the cave, and thus appears to have played a role in
these population losses (McKenzie 1999). \[Currently, Bat Conservation
International is conducting a study of temperature and humidity of 13
Indiana bat hibernacula (J. Kennedy, Bat Conservation International,
pers. comm. 1999).\]

Indiana bats are vulnerable to the effects of severe weather when
roosting under exfoliating bark during summer. For example, a maternity
colony was displaced when strong winds and hail during a thunderstorm
stripped the bark from their cottonwood roost and the bats were forced
to move to another roost (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).

*Microclimate effects* Changes in the microclimates of caves and mines
may have contributed more to the decline in population levels of the
Indiana bat than previously thought. Entrances and internal passages
essential to air flow may become larger, smaller, or close with
concomitant increases or decreases in air flow (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1999a). Blockage of entry points, even those too small to be
recognized, can be extremely important in hibernacula that require
chimney-effect air flow to function. As suggested by Richter *et al*.
(1993), changes in air flow can elevate temperatures which can cause an
increase in metabolic rate and a premature exhaustion of fat reserves.
Modifications that obstruct air flow or bat movement could adversely
affect the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).

Recent analysis of mid-winter temperature records obtained during
hibernacula surveys, especially of Priority One caves, suggests that
unacceptable deviations in roost temperatures may account for some of
the overall population decline (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).
The relatively little data available suggest that when populations roost
mostly at temperatures below 35^o^ F or above 47^o^ F (2^o^ C and 8^o^
C), they usually decline, and when roosting between 37^o^ F and 45^o^ F
(3^o^ C and 7.2^o^ C), they tend to grow.

*Land use practices* The Indiana bat=s maternity range has changed
dramatically since pre-European settlement times (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1999a). Most of the forest in the upper Midwest has been
fragmented, fire has been suppressed, and native prairies have been
converted to agricultural crops or to pasture and hay meadows for
livestock. Native species have been replaced with exotics in large
portions of the maternity range, and plant communities have become less
diverse. Additionally, numerous chemicals, in particular pesticides, are
regularly applied to the agricultural lands. Changes in the landscape
and use of chemicals may have reduced the availability and abundance of
the bats= insect forage base (McKenzie 1999).

In the eastern U.S., the area of land covered by forest has been
increasing in recent years. Whether or not this is beneficial to the
Indiana bat is unknown. The age, composition, and size class
distribution of woodlands will have a bearing on their suitability as
roosting and foraging habitat for the species outside the winter
hibernation season. An understanding of the factor(s) responsible for
the continued decline of the species is needed before it can be
accurately determined whether the loss of roosting habitat is limiting
regional or range-wide populations of the species (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999a).

*Chemical contamination* Pesticides have been implicated in the decline
of a number of insectivorous bats in North America (**Reidinger 1976**;
**Clark *et al*. 1978**; **Geluso *et al*. 1976;** U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999a). The effects of pesticides on Indiana bats have
yet to be studied. However, depressed levels of acetylcholinesterase
were observed on two sympatric bat species in Missouri, the little brown
bat and the northern long-eared bat, suggesting that bats there may have
been exposed to sublethal levels of organophosphate and/or carbamate
insecticides applied to agricultural crops (McKenzie 1999). Analysis of
tissue and guano samples of five species of bats at a site in Missouri
indicated that bats had been exposed to p,p=-DDE, heptachlor epoxide,
and dieldrin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999a).

*Other* Other documented sources of decline include indiscriminate
collecting, handling and banding of hibernating bats by biologists, and
flooding of caves due to rising waters in reservoirs (Humphrey 1978).

**Environmental Baseline**

[Status of the Species in New Hampshire, Vermont and New
York]{.underline}

There are no records of Indiana bats hibernating in New Hampshire. Godin
(1977) reported examining six Indiana bat specimens from three counties
in New Hampshire; however, of those specimens available for
re-examination, all were misidentified as *M. lucifugus* (T. French,
Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife, pers. comm. 1998). In 1992,
one Indiana bat was documented on the WMNF (Krusic *et al.*, 1996).
Surveys on the WMNF in 1999 (M. Yamasaki, U.S. Forest Service,
Northeastern Research Station, *in litt*. 2000) did not document Indiana
bats.

Surveys of hibernating bats in Vermont caves and mines date back to the
early 1930s (Trombulak and Parren, *in litt.* 1998). Between 1934 and
1946, Indiana bats were documented in low numbers (\<100) in the Ely
Copper Mine and Plymouth Caves, and in higher numbers (\<270) in
Dorset/Aeolus Cave and Nickwacket Cave. However, by 1994, Indiana bats
had disappeared from the Ely Copper Mine, Plymouth Caves and Nickwacket
Cave, and were found in very low numbers in Dorset/Aeolus Cave (one to
eight bats). Only one Indiana bat was found in the most recent survey
(1998) of Dorset/Aeolus Cave. No Indiana bats have been documented
during the summer in Vermont.

Systematic surveys of eight New York caves and mines that are known
hibernacula for Indiana bats began in 1982. Since then, there has been a
consistent, gradual increase in the wintering population of Indiana bats
in New York, occurring primarily in five of the eight hibernacula. In
1999, the year of the last survey, 21,875 Indiana bats were counted in
all eight hibernacula, of which 14,731 Indiana bats were counted in the
five eastern hibernacula nearest the New England states (Table 2). There
are no summer records of Indiana bats in New York, however, bats have
been infrequently and inadequately surveyed in the summer.

[Status of the species within the action area]{.underline}

In July 1992, one male Indiana bat was captured on the WMNF. However, no
additional Indiana bats were captured in surveys undertaken in 1999 (M.
Yamasaki, *in litt*. 2000). Based on a single record, the population
status of Indiana bats on the WMNF cannot be conclusively determined.

Table 2. Hibernacula Survey Results in New York, 1997 and 1999

  -------------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------
  Location: Site Name (County)           Year Surveyed    *Myotis sodalis*

  Barton Hill Mine (Essex)\*             1997             4,096

                                         1999             4,842

  Bennet Hill-Hitchcock Mine (Essex)\*   1997             5

                                         1999             17

  Glen Park Commercial Cave (Jefferson)  1997             2

                                         1999             0

  Glen Park Caves (Jefferson)            1997             2,535

                                         1999             3,129

  Hailes Cave (Albany)\*                 1997             246

                                         1999             345

  Jamesville Quarry Cave (Onondaga)      1997             3,035

                                         1999             4,015

  Main Graphite Mine (Warren)\*          1997             113

                                         1999             112

  Walter Williams Preserve (Ulster)      1997             8,537

                                         1999             9,415

  Total                                  1997             18,588

                                         1999             21,875
  -------------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------

\*Hibernacula in eastern New York located in counties within 140 miles
of New Hampshire.

**Effects of the action**

[Beneficial effects]{.underline}

Selected removal of trees, as well as prescribed fires, during a time
when Indiana bats are not present, may provide some beneficial effects
to the species by opening closed forest canopies and creating optimal
foraging and roosting habitat. Prescribed fires may also decrease dense
understory vegetation that can inhibit movements to foraging habitats
and roosting sites.

[Direct Effects]{.underline}

Direct adverse effects on Indiana bats would occur in the WMNF from
forest-wide management activities that result in the removal of trees
being used by bats. These actions include timber management, wildlife
habitat management, roads management, recreational management and fire
management. During the non-hibernation season (mid-May through August),
the primary potential direct effect to Indiana bats on the WMNF would
result from the removal of roost trees occupied by: 1) a maternity
colony (if such colonies indeed exist on the WMNF; no maternity colonies
have been documented in New England to date); 2) summering males; and/or
3) transitory bats during spring and fall migration. Additional adverse
effects would occur from prescribed fires if bats are present in roost
trees in or adjacent to a burn.

*Tree Removal* The felling of trees during a time when Indiana bats may
be present in the WMNF (non-hibernation period) may result in direct
mortality or injury to individual roosting bats or small groups of
roosting bats if undetected roost trees are included in the management
area (i.e., summer harvests, road maintenance, etc.). Other direct
adverse effects would result if tree harvesting activities cause bats in
a roosting or maternity colony to abandon a traditionally-used site if
the activities occur within or adjacent to the roosting habitat. Direct
effects resulting from the abandonment of a traditional roost site
during the spring or summer include additional stress and energy demands
on pregnant females and abandonment of occupied roosts by lactating
females that may result in lower survival of young.

*Fire Management* Prescribed fires conducted during the summer when
Indiana bats might be present would result in direct mortality,
particularly if non-flying young bats occur in roost trees within a burn
unit. Smoke inhalation might also cause the abandonment of a roost site.
The WMNF currently burns an average of 50 acres annually during the late
spring and fall when bats are migrating. Prescribed burning does not
occur during the summer. The WMNF practice of not conducting prescribed
burns during the summer will minimize potential direct adverse effects
to the species.

[Indirect effects]{.underline}

Indirect effects are defined as those that are caused by the proposed
action and are later in time, but still reasonably certain to occur (50
CFR 402.2). Indirect effects to the Indiana bat could be related to: 1)
a reduction in available roost trees; 2) a reduction in the forage base
due to the loss of foraging habitat; and 3) a loss of the prey base due
to water quality degradation of streams and rivers within the riparian
corridors where Indiana bats forage. The potential for these indirect
effects to occur as a result of Forest Plan implementation on the WMNF
is analyzed below.

Adverse effects on Indiana bat roosting habitat in the WMNF are expected
to be insignificant due to the large amount of available roosting
habitat within the WMNF that will not be affected at any given time.
There are approximately 3.1 million potentially suitable roost trees on
the WMNF (based on the WMNF estimate of 5 suitable roost trees per acre;
BA page 8), the vast majority of which will be available for Indiana
bats during any given year. Of the 627,171 acres of potentially suitable
Indiana bat habitat, annually less than one percent is affected by tree
removal activities. Moreover, habitat alteration as a result of timber
management activities may only be temporal; that is, as management
activities create less desirable or unsuitable roosting habitat, other
areas that were previously altered are evolving (or have evolved) into
suitable or even optimal habitat.

WMNF personnel reviewed post-harvest stands of commercial thinning and
improvement cuts and single tree selection cuts at a site-specific level
to determine whether or not adequate numbers of live and dead trees
remained to provide optimal roosting habitat (as defined by Romme *et.
al.* 1995; (M. Whisler, *in litt*. 1999). The analysis described site
conditions after the stands were harvested and concluded that the
post-harvest conditions for commercial thinning exceeded the criteria
for the number of potentially suitable roost trees required to maintain
optimal conditions, while the majority of single tree selection stands
met or exceeded the criteria for the optimal number of suitable trees.
Commercially thinned stands retained 25 or more suitable roost trees per
acre with an average of 17 to 19 inches dbh. Eight of 11 stands
harvested by single tree selection retained 18 or more trees with an
average of 17 to 19 inches dbh, although snags were not retained in
three stands. Based on this analysis, post-harvest conditions of
commercially thinned and single tree selection stands will continue to
provide optimal roosting habitat for Indiana bats.

In commercially managed areas (Management Areas 2.1 and 3.1), ten
percent of the acreage is retained as overmature forest (34,500 acres).
Overall, 54 percent of the WMNF is managed for late-successional/over
mature forest and riparian corridors (BA, page 39). Additionally,
partial harvests and Forest Plan standards and guidelines require the
retention of a number of large old trees (snags and wildlife trees) and
the protection of specified riparian corridors.

Forest management activities that either temporarily or permanently
reduce forest canopy closure to less than 30 percent (i.e., certain
types of timber harvest, new road construction or the creation of
wildlife openings) could potentially reduce the availability and/or
suitability of those areas as Indiana bat foraging habitat. However,
minor reductions in available foraging habitat in some areas could be
offset by the creation of suitable Indiana bat foraging habitat by other
forest management activities. For example, the opening of the forest
canopy in certain situations \[i.e., a mature forest where the canopy
closure is greater than the 60 to 80 percent recommended by Romme *et
al.* (1995)\] might be expected to increase habitat diversity and
therefore insect abundance.

It should be noted that the Indiana bat is considered to be a foraging
generalist and will take advantage of prey found in numerous types of
forest conditions. An abundance of insect prey is likely to be available
throughout the WMNF at most times of the year when Indiana bats might be
present. Research also indicates that this species forages over a wide
range of habitats, including riparian corridors, upland areas,
shelterwood cuts, and other disturbed areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1999a).

The abundance of aquatic insect prey is not expected to be significantly
reduced by management activities within riparian corridors. The Forest
Plan standards and guidelines require the implementation of actions that
minimize soil erosion and maintain good water quality, reducing the
potential for adverse impacts on the aquatic insect community.

[Cumulative Effects]{.underline}

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

Future federal, state, local or private actions that are reasonably
certain to occur within the action area, i.e., the WMNF, will either be
carried out by, or will require a permit from, the Forest Service. These
actions will therefore require a Section 7 consultation. The Service is
not aware of any future state, local or private actions that could occur
within the action area that would not be subject to a Section 7 review.
Therefore, cumulative effects, as defined in the ESA, are not expected
to occur within the action area and will not be addressed further in
this Opinion.

[Cumulative impact of incidental take anticipated by the Service in
previously-issued Biological Opinions]{.underline}

In reaching a decision on whether the continued implementation of
activities outlined in the Forest Plan for the WMNF is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat, the Service
considered previous biological opinions involving this species. Within
the past three years, the Fish and Wildlife Service has issued final,
non-jeopardy biological opinions for the following National Forests:
Cherokee, Daniel Boone, George Washington/Jefferson, Ozark/St. Francis,
Allegheny, Ouchita and Mark Twain. All opinions concluded that
incidental take was directly correlated with the number of acres of
roosting habitat being altered.

The implementation of the Forest Plans for the seven previously-issued
biological opinions would potentially affect approximately 4,009 Indiana
bats, or 1.1 percent of the entire population. However, only the Mark
Twain National Forest Biological Opinion provided an incidental take
statement that included a number of Indiana bats that might be taken as
a result of implementation of a forest plan (25 bats or one maternity
colony annually).

MacKenzie (1999) analyzed the impact of forest activities on roosting
and foraging habitat for five biological opinions issued prior to the
Mark Twain Biological Opinion and determined that there would be an
abundance of roosting and foraging habitat after implementation of the
respective Forest Plans. Based on the analyses of the impacts of habitat
alteration from implementation of Forest Plans for the Allegheny (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1999b) and Mark Twain National Forests, it is
still evident that there will be an abundance of available habitat for
Indiana bats in both National Forests.

Additional conservation measures provided by the Forest Service as well
as reasonable and prudent measures provided by the Service to minimize
the impact of the annual allowable take for each National Forest are
summarized below.

**Cherokee National Forest**: The annual incidental take of 1,300 acres
identified in the Service=s February 1997 Biological Opinion constitutes
approximately 0.25 percent of the total area of the Cherokee National
Forest (CNF) that is suitable for timber harvest. Based on calculations
provided by J. MacGregor (U.S. Forest Service), an estimated 200 Indiana
bats may be distributed throughout the Forest (McKenzie 1999).

The potential for incidental taking of Indiana bats and loss of suitable
habitat was significantly reduced by measures outlined in the CNF=s
September 3, 1996 Biological Assessment, as well as by terms and
conditions provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its
Biological Opinion. Measures provided in the Biological Assessment
included the retention of: 1) approximately 40-60 trees per acre in a
size class equal to or greater than 9 inches dbh (for the primary
harvest treatment); 2) at least 20 percent of harvestable timber 61
years or older within each compartment scheduled for management; and 3)
at least two snags, preferably large-diameter hardwood snags, in
harvested areas. In addition, 12,664 acres previously considered for
harvest were designated as over mature.

The primary term and condition associated with the reasonable and
prudent measures outlined in the Service=s Biological Opinion ensures
additional roosting habitat on the CNF by the retention of 20 to 40
Class 1 or Class 2 trees (as identified by Romme *et al.* 1995) per acre
of two-aged shelterwood treatments.

**Daniel Boone National Forest**: The annual incidental take of 4,500
acres provided in the Service=s Biological Opinion issued on April 4,
1997, constitutes approximately 0.75 percent of the total area of the
Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF) that is suitable for timber
production. Based on calculations provided by J. MacGregor (U.S. Forest
Service), an estimated 1,600 Indiana bats may occur on the DBNF
(MacKenzie 1999).

Measures that would significantly reduce impacts to Indiana bats and
their habitat were provided in the Forest Service=s October 6, 1996
Biological Assessment for the DBNF and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service=s Biological Opinion. Measures incorporated in the Biological
Assessment included: 1) the retention of all dead and dying suitable
Class 1 or Class 2 trees (after Romme *et al.* 1995) of 16 inches dbh or
greater; 2) the retention of all shagbark and shellbark hickory, and all
hollow or cull trees of other species where possible; 3) the retention
of at least 16 Class 1 and/or Class 2 trees with a dbh greater than 9
inches; 4) allowance of no more than 40 acres per square mile per decade
of regeneration harvest within a one-mile radius of each significant
cave or hibernaculum; and 5) the retention of residual trees with a
basal area of 50 square feet in strips or clumps.

Terms and conditions associated with reasonable and prudent measures in
the Service=s Opinion included: 1) the retention of at least three
natural or created snags with a dbh greater than 9 inches in each
harvest area; 2) the retention of appropriate numbers of live trees
within a 25-foot radius of one-third of all large snags with a dbh
greater than 12 inches; 3) the retention of clumps of trees in the
harvest area along with irregular strips of trees extending into the
harvest area; 4) the retention of all shagbark and shellbark hickories;
and 5) the retention of all additional reserve trees that have developed
exfoliating bark as the result of natural or man-made damage.

**George Washington and Jefferson National Forests:** The annual
incidental take of 4,500 acres provided in the Service=s Opinion issued
on September 16, 1997, constitutes approximately 0.3 percent of the
total area of the George Washington/Jefferson National Forests (GWJNFs)
that is suitable for timber production. McKenzie (1999) estimated that
300 Indiana bats may be using the GWJNFs during the spring-fall period.

The GWJNFs developed an Indiana Bat Recovery Strategy (John Wolflin,
USFWS, Annapolis, MD, *in litt*., September 16, 1997) and agreed to
implement the following: 1) a no disturbance primary buffer of at least
0.5 mile placed around each Indiana bat hibernaculum; 2) a limited
disturbance buffer of at least 1.5 miles placed around each Indiana bat
hibernaculum; within this buffer either a) a minimum of 20 trees per
acre in the 10-16 inches dbh class and 15 trees per acre with a dbh of
20 inches or greater must be retained, or b) 60 percent of the area must
be maintained in an age class of 70 years or older, and 40 percent of
oaks, hickories, and yellow poplar (*Liriodendron tulipifera*) must be
maintained in an age class of 80 years of age or older; 3) a 0.25-mile
no disturbance buffer placed around all known roost trees; 4) the
retention of all shagbark hickory and snags; 5) 40 percent of oaks,
hickories, and yellow poplar will be maintained in an age class of 80
years or older forest-wide; and 6) a minimum of 60 percent of the
acreage of all forest types combined on the GWJNFs will be maintained
over 70 years of age.

Terms and conditions associated with reasonable and prudent measures in
the Service=s Opinion above and beyond those agreed to by the GWJNFs
included: 1) the retention of at least six snags or cavity trees per
acre with a dbh of 9 inches or greater for all timber activities; and 2)
the retention of all shagbark hickories throughout the GWJNFs.

**Ozark-St. Francis National Forest**: The annual incidental take of
19,000 acres provided in the Service=s Opinion issued on June 25, 1998,
constitutes approximately 8.7 percent of the total area of the Ozark-St.
Francis National Forest (OSFNF) that is suitable for timber production.
An estimated 1000 Indiana bats may be distributed throughout the OSFNF
(McKenzie 1999).

The potential for loss of suitable habitat and incidental taking of
Indiana bats would be reduced through implementation of measures
outlined in the OSFNF Forest Plan and the Forest Service=s Biological
Assessment dated October 28, 1997. These measures include: 1) the
retention of at least two dead snags greater than 12 inches dbh (when
possible) per acre in all harvested areas; 2) the retention of all
standing dead trees with exfoliating or defoliating bark and den trees
within riparian corridors; and 3) the designation of approximately
147,364 acres as over mature (\~13 percent).

A non-discretionary measure described in the terms and conditions
requires the retention of at least six snags or cavity trees of 9
inches dbh (Class 1 or Class 2 trees as identified in Romme *et al.*
1995) per acre for all timber activities.

**Ouchita National Forest**: The annual incidental take of 43,000 acres
provided in the Service=s Biological Opinion issued on April 26, 1999,
constitutes approximately 4.8 percent of the total area of the Ouchita
National Forest (ONF) that is suitable for timber production. Nine
Indiana bats have been documented on the ONF.

The potential for loss of suitable habitat and incidental taking of
Indiana bats would be reduced through implementation of measures
outlined in the ONF Forest Plan: 1) the retention of large den trees
(18 inches dbh); 2) the retention of at least two snags per acre with a
minimum of 12 inches dbh; and 3) the retention of mature growth hardwood
habitat (100 years old) and mature pine habitat (80 years old) or the
development of such habitat within each project area at a rate of 5
percent. The non-discretionary measures described in the terms and
conditions of the Service=s Biological Opinion will ensure the
availability of additional suitable roost trees above and beyond those
measures provided by the ONF. These measures include: 1) a
no-disturbance buffer with a radius of 0.5 mile around each occupied
Indiana bat hibernaculum, and 2) a secondary buffer consisting of a
radius of 1.5 miles around each occupied Indiana bat hibernaculum where
limited management activities will occur.

**Allegheny National Forest**: The annual incidental take, as measured
indirectly by acreage, ranges from 7,456 to 14,287 acres and constitutes
approximately 1.6 to 3.0 percent of the total forested area (476,735
acres) on the Allegheny National Forest (ANF). Approximately 400 bats
are found in Pennsylvania hibernacula. The Service=s Biological Opinion,
dated June 1, 1999, assumed that the potentially-affected population
consisted of 400 bats found in the nearest hibernaculum.

The potential for loss of suitable habitat and incidental taking of
Indiana bats was determined to be significantly reduced through the
implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and the terms and
conditions provided in the Service=s Biological Opinion. Forest Plan
standards and guidelines require that an average of five to 10 snags,
and three to six den trees, per acre be left in areas subject to timber
harvesting. Non-discretionary measures described in the terms and
conditions include the retention of: 1) all shagbark and shellbark
hickories (live, dead, and dying), in partial and final harvest cutting
units; 2) all snags in both partial and final harvests in green units;
3) at least 8-15 live trees 9 inches dbh per acre in final harvest
units, and at least 16 live trees 9 inches dbh per acre in partial
harvest units; 4) five to 10 snags 9 inches dbh per acre for both
partial and final harvests in salvage units and clearcuts, and at least
16 live trees 9 inches dbh per acre and three live trees 20 inches dbh
per acre in partial harvest units; 5) at least 8-15 live trees 9 inches
dbh per acre, and one live tree 20 inches dbh per acre in final harvest
units and clearcuts. Other terms and conditions addressed the reduction
of canopy closure to maintain foraging habitat, protection of suitable
roost trees by providing living residual trees, and provision of future
suitable roost trees.

**Mark Twain National Forest**: The annual incidental take of 38,375
acres provided in the Service=s June 23, 1999 Biological Opinion
constitutes approximately 2.89% of the total forested area of the Mark
Twain National Forest (MTNF). The Service anticipated no more than 500
Indiana bats would be potentially adversely affected by the
implementation of the Forest Plan. Furthermore, the Service anticipated
that approximately 25 Indiana bats or one maternity colony could
potentially be taken during management activities resulting from the
accidental removal or disturbance of unknown, occupied roost trees.

The potential for incidental taking of Indiana bats was considered to be
significantly reduced through the implementation of Forest Plan standard
and guidelines, as well as the terms and conditions associated with the
reasonable and prudent measures described in the Biological Opinion for
the MTNF. Terms and conditions outlined in the MTNF Biological Opinion
include: 1) the retention of Aleave@ trees around large snags, large
live trees and den trees; 2) the retention of at least 25 basal area of
residual trees within clearcuts and seed tree harvests and a minimum of
15 basal area of reserve trees; 3) the maintenance of a minimum of 23
suitable roost trees per acre on forested acreage keeping dead trees 20
inches dbh and live trees 26 inches dbh whenever possible.

In view of the above, the Service concludes that potential adverse
impacts to the species have been sufficiently minimized to prevent a
significant, cumulative reduction in population numbers of the Indiana
bat from incidental take allowed under these seven consultations.

**Biological Opinion Conclusion**

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 WMNF (both direct and indirect); and previously-issued
Service biological opinions that allow various levels of incidental
take, it is the Service=s biological opinion that implementation of the
White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as
proposed in the Biological Assessment, is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the Indiana bat. Although critical habitat has
been designated for 13 Indiana bat hibernacula, this proposed action
does not affect those areas, nor is destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat anticipated. The non-jeopardy conclusion for the
proposed action is based on the following discussion.

The potential Indiana bat population in the action area (the WMNF) that
might be affected is insignificant. Any adverse effects on this small
portion of the rangewide population would not be likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of the species. In order to estimate the number
of Indiana bats that might potentially be affected by WMNF management
activities, the Service assumed that all Indiana bats hibernating in
caves and mines in New York that are nearest to the WMNF (ranging within
70 to 140 miles of the western border of the WMNF) migrate north and
east. In the 1999 winter survey, approximately 5,316 Indiana bats were
counted in Barton Hill Mine, Bennet Hill-Hitchcock Mine, Hailes Cave,
and Main Graphite Mine in Essex, Warren and Albany Counties, New York.

Furthermore, the Service could assume that the 5,316 bats are equally
distributed throughout the suitable, available habitat in the WMNF (this
excludes alpine and spruce/fir habitat), constituting approximately
627,171 acres. If uniformly distributed over the available habitat in
the WMNF, there would be one Indiana bat for each 118 acres of suitable
forested habitat[^4]. Approximately 355,000 acres (including the two
experimental forests) are available for harvest or other tree removal
activities. Therefore, approximately 3,008 Indiana bats[^5] (0.8 percent
of the species= population) may be present in the acreage that could
potentially have some harvest or tree removal activities. Of these 3,008
bats, only a very small portion could be subject to take during the
non-hibernation season, since annually 1,500 (estimated) acres are
harvested at that time.

However, there is no rational, scientific basis for assuming that all
Indiana bats in the four nearest hibernacula would summer only on the
WMNF. Similarly, it could be assumed that the WMNF Indiana bat
population consists of the single individual caught in the WMNF in July
1992. Alternatively, it could be assumed that there is some portion of
the wintering New York population that migrates to the WMNF. Since some
male Indiana bats do not migrate far from their hibernacula (see Life
History section), it is more likely that the actual population on the
WMNF is more than one individual and less than the 5,316 bats found in
the four nearest hibernacula.

**INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT**

Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act and federal regulations pursuant
to Section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take of endangered and
threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is
defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is
defined by the Service as an act that actually kills or injures
wildlife, and may be further defined as significant habitat modification
or degradation that

results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing
essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or
sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service as intentional or negligent
actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such
an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which
include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering.
Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the
terms of Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and
not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be a
prohibited taking under the Act, provided that such taking is in
compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take
Statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be
undertaken by the Forest Service so that they become binding conditions
of any grant, permit or contract issued to any applicant, as
appropriate, for the exemption in Section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Forest
Service has a continuing duty to regulate the activities covered by this
Incidental Take Statement. If the Forest Service 1) fails to assume and
implement the terms and conditions; or 2) fails to require applicants to
adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement
through enforceable terms that are added to permits, contracts and/or
grant documents, the protective coverage of Section 7(o)(2) may lapse.
In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the Forest Service
must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to
the Service as specified in the Incidental Take Statement \[50 CFR
\'402.14(I)(3)\].

**Amount or Extent of Incidental Take Anticipated**

Although, to the best of our knowledge, no Indiana bat maternity colony
or individually roosting Indiana bats have been incidentally taken on
the WMNF during tree removal or other habitat modifying activities
conducted to date, incidental take of this species is anticipated due to
the loss of active roost trees. Furthermore, the Service concludes that
if roosting individuals (or a maternity colony) are present in an area
proposed for timber harvest or other disturbance, even if the roost tree
were not removed, the resulting disturbance would result in incidental
take of Indiana bats through harm or harassment.

The Service anticipates that it will be difficult to quantify and detect
the incidental take of Indiana bats resulting from forest management
activities (e.g., timber management, recreational management, wildlife
management, or fire management) or other actions implemented on the
WMNF, due to the bat=s small body size, nocturnal behavior, formation of
small, widely dispersed colonies (i.e., 50 or fewer to 100 individuals)
under loose bark or in cavities of trees, and unknown areal extent and
density of roosting populations within the WMNF. Any incidental take of
Indiana bats is expected to occur only during the non-hibernation months
(mid-May through August) when the bats are present on the WMNF and will
be in the form of killing, harming, or harassing. Tree removal for
harvest or in preparation for other management activities during the
non-hibernation season may result in mortality (i.e., take) of
individual roosting Indiana bats (or of females and their young if in a
maternity colony[^6]) if a tree that is removed contains roosting bats
(or a maternity colony). If the bats using an occupied roost tree are
not killed during the removal, the roosting individuals (or colony)
would be forced to find an alternative tree, potentially expending a
significant amount of energy that would result in harm or harassment of
the individual.

Monitoring to determine take of individual bats within an expansive area
of forested habitat would be a complex and difficult task. Unless every
individual tree that is considered to be a suitable roosting tree is
inspected by a knowledgeable biologist before timber harvest begins, it
would be impossible to know if roosting Indiana bats (or possibly a
maternity colony) 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. Moreover, inspecting individual trees is
not considered to be a useful survey method and is not recommended by
the Service as a means to determine incidental take. Until better pre-
and post-harvest monitoring methods for Indiana bats are developed, the
level of take of this species can only realistically be anticipated by
the areal extent of suitable roosting habitat affected.

Depending upon the circumstances, the loss of a single roost tree might
adversely affect Indiana bats, but not result in take[^7], since these
circumstances may be similar to naturally occurring events. The Service
believes that there is a low probability that the removal or disturbance
of a roost tree will result in injury or death of an Indiana bat
utilizing a roost tree. There are an estimated 3.1 million potentially
suitable roost trees that may be available to Indiana bats on the WMNF.
However, less than 0.2 percent of potentially suitable roost trees (\~
7,500[^8]) will be removed annually during the non-hibernation period
when the bats may be present. Furthermore, the size of the harvested
timber stands is small enough (ranging from 5-acre patch cuts to 30-acre
clear cuts) that distances to alternate roost trees will be short and
generally should not result in injury to Indiana bats. Nevertheless,
over the duration of the consultation period (three years), it is still
possible that a take may occur.

The lack of records and information on the distribution and movements of
Indiana bats on the WMNF makes it extremely difficult to accurately
estimate the number of Indiana bats likely to be present and
incidentally taken through the continued implementation of the Forest
Plan. Since this probable incidental take cannot be determined due to a
lack of information on the non-hibernating activities of Indiana bats in
the Northeast, quantification of incidental take at this time, without
additional site-specific information, is not possible.

The Forest Plan addresses annual management activities for approximately
5,000 acres. This Incidental Take Statement anticipates the taking of a
presently unquantifiable number of Indiana bats from activities (e.g.,
tree removal associated with timber harvest; road and trail construction
and maintenance; recreational facility maintenance) occurring only
during the non-hibernation season (mid-May through August). During this
period, approximately 1,500 acres (30 percent of the actual annual
harvest of 5,000 acres) of suitable Indiana bat habitat are affected by
management activities that might result in take of Indiana bats.

Since the level of incidental take of Indiana bats cannot be adequately
determined, incidental take will be anticipated by the loss of roost
trees occupied by Indiana bats that are contained within a maximum of
1,500 acres annually harvested during the non-hibernation season.
However, implementation of the terms and conditions associated with the
reasonable and prudent measures provided below by the Service will
reduce the impact of the potential for incidental take on site-specific
projects. Operations on the WMNF that would increase the number of acres
harvested or otherwise affected by tree removal during the
non-hibernation season would be considered to affect this determination
and would require reinitiation of formal consultation.

**Effect of the Take**

The Service has determined that the level of anticipated take is not
likely to result in jeopardy to the Indiana bat.

**Reasonable and Prudent Measures**

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are
necessary and appropriate to further minimize impacts of incidental take
of Indiana bats on the WMNF:

13576. Proposed management activities shall be planned, evaluated, and
       implemented consistent with measures developed to protect the
       Indiana bat and reduce adverse impacts from the removal of
       potentially occupied roost trees.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  The Forest Service shall monitor the status of Indiana bats on lands
    managed by the WMNF during the non-hibernating season.

2.  The Forest Service shall monitor timber sales and other activities
    on the WMNF to determine whether Forest Plan standards and
    guidelines, and the terms and conditions of this Biological Opinion
    are being implemented.

**Terms and Conditions**

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the Act, the
Forest Service must comply with the following terms and conditions,
which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above and
outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and
conditions are non-discretionary. The terms and conditions associated
with the reasonable and prudent measures articulated in this Biological
Opinion will minimize the level of the incidental take identified for
the Indiana bat on both a programmatic and site-specific scale;
accordingly, the following protective measures are applicable, where
appropriate, to individual ongoing projects and projects yet to be
identified.

In order to reduce possible adverse impacts to Indiana bats, the Forest
Service shall do the following:

*Applicable throughout the year:*

18528. Develop and implement a management strategy for WMNF activities
       occurring within a two-mile radius of the site where the single,
       male Indiana bat was caught in July, 1992. The management plan
       must be completed within one year of the issuance of this
       Biological Opinion and should include, but not be limited to:
       quantification of potentially suitable roosting and foraging
       habitat, comparison of current forest stand conditions to
       conditions at time of capture, survey for presence of Indiana
       bats, and review of future management and its effects on
       surrounding habitat.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Retain all soft and hard snags[^9] in the 10-inch size class or
    above[^10] and wildlife trees[^11] (unless considered to be a safety
    hazard) within 300 feet of the following landscape features greater
    than five acres: permanent openings, ponds, lakes, beaver ponds and
    wetlands. If hard snags and wildlife trees are not available in
    these areas, leave at least six replacement[^12] trees per acre.

2.  Leave all soft and hard snags in the 10-inch size class or above and
    wildlife trees (unless considered to be a safety hazard) within 100
    feet of beaver ponds less than five acres. If hard snags and
    wildlife trees are not available in these areas, leave at least six
    replacement trees per acre.

3.  Protect all known roost trees on the WMNF until such time as they no
    longer serve as roost trees (e.g., loss of exfoliating bark or
    cavities, blown down or decayed). In the event that it becomes
    absolutely necessary to remove a known Indiana bat roost tree, the
    Service shall be consulted and such a removal will be scheduled
    during the hibernation season. Trees identified as immediate threats
    to public safety may be removed at any time following consultation
    with the Service.

In order to reduce possible adverse impacts to Indiana bats that would
result from the removal of potentially occupied roost trees during the
non-hibernation period (May 15 to August 30), the Forest Service shall
do the following:

*Applicable during the non-hibernation season:*

1\. Design skid trails to avoid the need to fell suitable roost trees
(as identified by Romme *et al*. 1995).

2\. Retain all soft snags in the 10-inch size class or above (unless
considered to be safety hazards), and at a minimum two hard snags, one
wildlife tree and one replacement tree per acre of harvest area. If
there are insufficient hard snags available to meet the above
requirement, two replacement trees must be left for each hard snag that
could be provided. The retained trees may either be clumped (preferred)
or scattered near the edge of the harvested area to minimize disturbance
from logging activities.

3\. Protect 1/3 of all large diameter (12 inches dbh) post-harvest
snags by retaining live residual trees adjacent to these snags to
minimize disturbance from logging activities or windthrow. Such reserve
trees shall be located in groups and along intermittent drainages to
provide foraging corridors into harvested areas, and where available,
shall be Class 1 or Class 2 trees (as identified by Romme *et al*.
1995), or other trees exhibiting or likely to develop characteristics
preferred by Indiana bats (e.g., exfoliating bark).

The Forest Service must initiate efforts to determine the use of the
WMNF by Indiana bats during the non-hibernation season. Information
obtained through the implementation of the following terms and
conditions will help the Service to assess the efficacy of the standards
and guidelines and the terms and conditions in protecting the Indiana
bat on the WMNF. The Forest Service shall implement the following terms
and conditions to address underlying assumptions about the Indiana bat=s
presence and use of the WMNF.

20432. Determine and monitor the extent of Indiana bat use on the WMNF
       to ascertain: a) their presence or absence, b) their habitat use
       and movements during the non-hibernation season, and c) the
       location of any potential maternity colonies. Comparative
       evaluations of the effectiveness of mist net surveys and Anabat
       detectors are strongly encouraged. If any Indiana bats (male or
       female) are netted, the Service recommends tracking them using
       radio-telemetry to identify and characterize roost trees and
       foraging habitat. These habitat parameters will be used to
       develop management strategies for the protection, maintenance,
       and promotion of Indiana bat habitat. A plan delineating the
       monitoring protocol should be developed in cooperation with the
       U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New Hampshire Fish and
       Game Department and shall be completed within two years of the
       issuance of this Biological Opinion.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  If monitoring activities result in the discovery of maternity sites
    on the WMNF, roost trees used by a maternity colony will be
    protected by establishing a zone centered on the maternity roost
    site. The actual area will be determined by a combination of
    topography, known roost tree locations, proximity of permanent water
    and a site-specific evaluation of the habitat characteristics
    associated with the colony. Protective measures shall be established
    by developing a management strategy in cooperation with the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service and the New Hampshire Fish and Game
    Department immediately upon discovery.

2.  Habitat use at all sites where Indiana bats are documented on the
    WMNF should be characterized and quantified at both the local and
    landscape levels.

Individual projects must adhere to the reasonable and prudent measures
provided in this opinion. In order to ensure compliance with the terms
and conditions, as well as determine the level of incidental take on a
project level, the following are necessary:

20948. The Forest Service will provide the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
       Service with compliance reports prior to project implementation
       including project-specific conditions, a biological evaluation
       and an effects analysis for all projects that may affect the
       Indiana bat.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  If the Forest Service determines that activities on a project level
    are likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat, further consultation
    will be necessary.

2.  Formal consultation must be reinitiated if an individual project, or
    if the annual projected total of all proposed projects, will result
    in exceeding the total of 1,500 acres annually affected by tree
    removal or disturbance during the non-hibernation season. However,
    site-specific projects proposed for the non-hibernation season may
    be surveyed for Indiana bats according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service protocols. If Indiana bats are not detected, it will be
    assumed that bats may be present in such low numbers that the
    project is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. In this
    case, the project will not be included in the annual allowable
    treatment of 1,500 acres.

3.  The number of acres of trees harvested during the non-hibernation
    season must be monitored on an annual basis. This information shall
    be provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service=s New England
    Field Office no later than April 1 following the previous year=s
    activities.

4.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will review site-specific
    projects, as appropriate, to ensure that there is strict adherence
    to the terms and conditions associated with the reasonable and
    prudent measures outlined in this Biological Opinion.

5.  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 condition. 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    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, prompt notification must be made to the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service=s Portsmouth=s Division of Law
    Enforcement, 80 Daniel Street, Room 415, P.O. Box 1101 (mailing),
    Portsmouth, NH (telephone: 603- 433-0502), or the Region 5 Division
    of Law Enforcement, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts
    01035-9589 (telephone: 413-253-8343).

**Conservation Recommendations**

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

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommends that the WMNF implement
the following conservation measures for the benefit of the Indiana bat:

21464. In cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
       New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, develop a plan to assess
       the number of suitable roost trees and the amount of preferred
       foraging habitat available to the species. Monitoring efforts
       should be centered within five miles of all known occupied
       Indiana bat hibernacula, within 3/4 mile of any Indiana bat
       maternity colony or roost tree used by a male Indiana bat and at
       selected sites (pre- and post-harvest).

2\. Provide training for appropriate WMNF employees on bats (including
the Indiana bat) occurring on the WMNF. Training should include bat
identification, biology, habitat requirements, and sampling techniques
(including instructions on applicability and effectiveness of using mist
net surveys vs. Anabat detectors to accurately determine the presence of
various bat species). The proper training of WMNF biologists on bat
identification and reliable methods for counting roosting bats will
enable the Forest Service to monitor the status of this species.

2.  Develop an outreach program specifically directed towards
    northeastern woodland bat species and their conservation needs. The
    program might include the development of a slide show, interactive
    display, and presentations or activities suitable for all ages of
    the public.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requests notification of the
implementation of any conservation recommendations, so that the Service
may better monitor actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects, or
benefitting listed species or their habitats.

REINITIATION NOTICE

This concludes formal consultation on the actions outlined in the Forest
Service=s September 21, 1999 initiation request. As provided in 50 CFR
402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where
discretionary federal agency involvement or control over the action has
been retained (or is authorized by law), and if: 1) the amount or extent
of incidental take is exceeded; 2) new information reveals consequences
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 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.

Sincerely yours,

Michael J. Bartlett

Supervisor

New England Field Office

LITERATURE CITATIONS

Anonymous. 1987. Vandals destroy hibernating Indiana bats. Bats Vol.5
No.2:5-8.

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

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

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

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

Clawson, R. L. 1987. Indiana bats: Down for the count. BATS. Vol 5, No.
2:3-5.

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.

Cope, J. B., A. R. Richter, and R. S. Mills. 1974. A summer
concentration of the Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*, in Wayne County,
Indiana. Proc. *Indiana Acad. Sci*. 83:482-484.

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

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

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

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

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann. 1991. 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.

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

Godin, A. J. 1977. Wild Mammals of New England. The Johns Hopkins
University Press. 304 pp.

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

Harvey, M. J., J. S. Altenbach, and T. L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United
States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 64 pp.

Hassell, M.D. and M.J. Harvey. 1965. Differential homing in *Myotis
sodalis*. *Am. Midl. Nat*. 74:501-503.

Hicks, A. C. 1999. Indiana bat protection and management in New York
State. Annual Report. Endangered Species Investigations 1998-99.
W-166-E. Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krusic, R. A., D.D. Neefus Yamasaki, and P. J. Pekins. 1996. Bat habitat
use in the White Mountain National Forest. J. Wildl. Manage.
60(3):625-631.

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

Kurta, A. 1996. Ecology and behavior of the Indiana bat in Southeastern
Michigan. A report to the Natural Heritage Grants Program, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources. 36 pp.

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

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

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

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

McKenzie, P. 1999. Biological Opinion on the Impacts of Forest
Management and other Activities to the Gray Bat, Bald Eagle, Indiana Bat
and Mead=s Milkweed on the Mark Twain National Forest Missouri. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Columbia, Missouri. 101 pp.

Mumford, R. E. and J. B. Cope. 1958. Summer record of *Myotis sodalis*
in Indiana. *Journal of Mammalogy* 39:586-587.

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

Reidinger, R. F. 1976. Organochlorine residues in adults of six
southwestern bat species. *Journal of Wildlife Management* 40:677-680.

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*). *Conservation
Biology* 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. Federal Aid Project
E-1-7, Study No. 8, 38 pp.

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

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

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

Tuttle, M.D. 1991. How North American bats survive the winter. BATS. Vol
9, No.3:7-12.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. Agency Draft Indiana Bat (*Myotis
sodalis*) Revised Recovery Plan. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 53pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Biological Opinion on the Impacts
of Forest Management an other Activities to the Bald Eagle, Indiana Bat,
Clubshell, and Northern Riffleshell on the Allegheny National Forest.
Pennsylvania Field Office, State College, Pennsylvania. 92 pp.

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

Appendix 1

Management Areas on the White Mountain National Forest[^13]

+---------+-----+-------------------------------------------+---------+
| Man     | S   | Description of Goals and Desired Future   | Percent |
| agement | ize | Condition (DFC)                           | of WMNF |
|         |     |                                           |         |
| Area    | (   |                                           |         |
|         | acr |                                           |         |
|         | es) |                                           |         |
+=========+=====+===========================================+=========+
| 2.1     | 1   | **Goals** - protect/enhance visual        | 15%     |
|         | 18, | quality, recreation, timber harvest, mix  |         |
|         | 000 | of wildlife habitat                       |         |
|         |     |                                           |         |
|         |     | **DFC** - mosaic of hardwood stands,      |         |
|         |     | noticeable human activity, roaded         |         |
+---------+-----+-------------------------------------------+---------+
| 3.1     | 2   | **Goals** - timber harvest (lg. volume of | 29%     |
|         | 27, | hardwood sawtimber), increase wildlife    |         |
|         | 000 | habitat diversity, recreation, grow small |         |
|         |     | diameter trees                            |         |
|         |     |                                           |         |
|         |     | **DFC** - mosaic of forested stands,      |         |
|         |     | openings of various sizes, noticeable     |         |
|         |     | human activity, roaded                    |         |
+---------+-----+-------------------------------------------+---------+
| 5.1     | 1   | **Goals** - Designated Wilderness,        | 15%     |
|         | 14, | preserve natural ecosystems, recreation   |         |
|         | 932 | compatible with wilderness                |         |
|         |     |                                           |         |
|         |     | **DFC** - natural succession              |         |
+---------+-----+-------------------------------------------+---------+
| 6.1     | 94, | **Goals** - semi-primitive non-motorized  | 12%     |
|         | 000 | recreation                                |         |
|         |     |                                           |         |
|         |     | **DFC** - Northern hardwoods dominate     |         |
|         |     | landscape, a few roads, area essentially  |         |
|         |     | free from evidence of human activity      |         |
+---------+-----+-------------------------------------------+---------+
| 6.2     | 1   | **Goals** - Protect/recognize alpine and  | 19%     |
|         | 51, | subalpine ecosystems, recreation          |         |
|         | 000 |                                           |         |
|         |     | **DFC** - roadless, evidence of human     |         |
|         |     | activity unnoticeable, stands of northern |         |
|         |     | hardwood/conifers (lower elevations) and  |         |
|         |     | conifers (higher elevations)              |         |
+---------+-----+-------------------------------------------+---------+
| 7.1     | 2,  | **Goals** - Recreation at alpine ski      | 0.3%    |
|         | 000 | areas                                     |         |
|         |     |                                           |         |
|         |     | **DFC** - vegetation intensively managed, |         |
|         |     | modified natural environment              |         |
+---------+-----+-------------------------------------------+---------+
| 8.1     | 26, | **Goals** - protect unique or outstanding | 3%      |
|         | 000 | areas                                     |         |
|         |     |                                           |         |
|         |     | **DFC** - areas predominantly in a        |         |
|         |     | natural or natural-appearing condition,   |         |
|         |     | human activity may or may not be evident  |         |
+---------+-----+-------------------------------------------+---------+
| 9.1     |     | **Goals** - recognize areas recommended   | 0%      |
|         |     | for wilderness study                      |         |
|         |     |                                           |         |
|         |     | **DFC** - Managed for wilderness          |         |
|         |     | characteristics                           |         |
+---------+-----+-------------------------------------------+---------+
| 9.2     | 2,  | **Goals** - potential ski expansion       | 0.3%    |
|         | 000 |                                           |         |
|         |     | **DFC -** adjacent to existing ski areas  |         |
+---------+-----+-------------------------------------------+---------+
| 9.3     | 3,  | **Goals** - recognize areas recommended   | 0.4%    |
|         | 000 | for Research Natural Areas, manage to     |         |
|         |     | protect eligibility                       |         |
|         |     |                                           |         |
|         |     | **DFC** - areas should be protected,      |         |
|         |     | human activity is unnoticeable, roadless  |         |
+---------+-----+-------------------------------------------+---------+

Appendix 2

Summary of Planned and Completed Forest Plan Activities

+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| **Activity**    | **  | **1987  | **19 | **19 | **     | **Annual |
|                 | Uni | -1996** | 97** | 98** | 1999** | average  |
|                 | t** |         |      |      |        | planned  |
|                 |     | *       | *    | *    | *      | for**    |
|                 |     | *annual | *com | *com | *compl |          |
|                 |     | average | plet | plet | eted** | **2000 - |
|                 |     | comp    | ed** | ed** |        | 2003**   |
|                 |     | leted** |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| **Recreation**  |     |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| Hiking          | mi  | 5       | 0    | 0    | \<1    | 0 - 5    |
| trails/ski      | les |         |      |      |        |          |
| trails          |     |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| Snowmobile      | mi  | 2       | 0    | 0    | 0      | 0 - 2    |
| trails          | les |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| Ca              | ac  | 4       | 0    | 0    | 5      | 5 - 10   |
| mpground/Picnic | res |         |      |      |        |          |
| sites (new)     |     |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| Maintena        | ac  | \<100   | \    | \    | \<100  | \<100    |
| nce/improvement | res |         | <100 | <100 |        |          |
| developed       |     |         |      |      |        |          |
| recreation      |     |         |      |      |        |          |
| sites[^14]      |     |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| Trail           | mi  | No data | 25   | 25   | 30     | 35       |
| restoration     | les |         |      |      |        |          |
| /reconstruction |     |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| Ski Area        | ac  | 135     | 0    | 0    | 0      | 2000: 15 |
| Expansions      | res |         |      |      |        |          |
|                 |     |         |      |      |        | 2001:    |
|                 |     |         |      |      |        | 0-600    |
|                 |     |         |      |      |        |          |
|                 |     |         |      |      |        | 2002:    |
|                 |     |         |      |      |        | 0-100    |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| **Roads**       |     |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| New             | mi  | 3       | 0    | 0    | 0      | 0 - 3    |
| construction    | les |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| Reconstruct     | mi  | no data | 4.4  | 2.2  | 0.9    | 3 - 10   |
| ion/restoration | les |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| Maintenance     | mi  | no data | 200  | 226  | 101    | 150 -    |
|                 | les |         |      |      |        | 250      |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| **Timber        |     | 5385    | 3875 | 5120 | 4005   | 4700     |
| Management      |     |         |      |      |        |          |
| (Total)**[^15]  |     |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| Uneven-age      | ac  | 2,467   | 2350 | 3200 | 2308   | 3000     |
| selection cut   | res |         |      |      |        |          |
| harvests        |     |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| Even-aged       | ac  | 2,418   | 1225 | 1620 | 1408   | 1350     |
| harvests        | res |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| \- Clearcut     | ac  | 730     | 375  | 345  | 242    | 300      |
|                 | res |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| \- Shelterwood  | ac  |         | 100  | 250  | 180    | 150      |
| regeneration    | res |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| \-              | ac  | 1688    | 750  | 1025 | 986    | 900      |
| In              | res |         |      |      |        |          |
| termediate[^16] |     |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| Precommercial   | ac  | 100     | 100  | 100  | 151    | 100      |
| thinning,       | res |         |      |      |        |          |
| weeding,        |     |         |      |      |        |          |
| release         |     |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| **Wildlife      |     |         |      |      |        |          |
| Habitat**       |     |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| Improvement     | ac  | 400     | 200  | 200  | 138    | 250      |
|                 | res |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| Improvement     | s   | 9       | 3    | 3    | 3      | 3        |
|                 | tru |         |      |      |        |          |
|                 | ctu |         |      |      |        |          |
|                 | res |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+
| Prescribed burn | ac  | No data | 50   | 50   | 5      | 100      |
|                 | res |         |      |      |        |          |
+-----------------+-----+---------+------+------+--------+----------+

[^1]: Information taken from Table 2 on page 16 of the BA.

[^2]: Trees that are living and have two or more main defects that can
    be used as cavities.

[^3]: Lower perennial streams (bottomland streams).

[^4]: To determine the number of acres over which an individual bat
    might be found, the number of available habitat acres is divided by
    the total number of wintering bats found in nearby hibernacula
    (i.e., 627,171  5,316) to get approximately 118 acres/bat.

[^5]: To arrive at 3,008 bats, the number of acres over which management
    activities occur is divided by 118 bat/acre (i.e., 355,000  118).

[^6]: To date there have been no Indiana bat maternity colonies
    documented in New England, nor evidence of Indiana bat reproduction
    (i.e., capture of juvenile bats or post-lactating females).

[^7]: The adverse effect must result in significant impairment of
    behavioral patterns (harm) or create the likelihood of injury to
    such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior (harass).

[^8]: 1,500 acres x 5 potentially suitable roost trees/acre if
    [all]{.underline} roost trees were removed.

[^9]: Snags are defined as dead trees at least 6 inches in dbh. Hard
    snags have essentially Asound@ exterior wood and may be marketable.
    Soft snags are trees in an advanced state of decay.

[^10]: As defined by U.S. Forest Service standardized size classes.

[^11]: Trees that are living and have two or more main defects that can
    be used as cavities.

[^12]: Replacement trees are considered to be Class 1 or Class 2 trees
    (including yellow birch specifically for the WMNF) 9 inches dbh as
    based on Romme *et al.* 1995.

[^13]: Information taken from Appendix B of the BA.

[^14]: Acres of maintenance and improvement of developed recreational
    site of a total of 500 acres.

[^15]: Includes tree removal for wildlife habitat improvement (via
    timber sales).

[^16]: Intermediate harvests consist of commercial thinning and
    improvement cuts (M. Whisler, pers. comm. 2000).