**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

**of the**

**PROPOSED LAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN**

**HOOSIER NATIONAL FOREST, INDIANA**

**\~2006\~**

**Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service**

**July 1, 2005**

**\~\~\~\~\~\~\~\~**

**Biological Opinion submitted to the U.S. Forest Service**

**January 3, 2006**

Prepared by:

Michael J. Tosick

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Bloomington Field Office

620 S. Walker St.

Bloomington, IN 47403

812.334.4261 x 218

**[TABLE OF CONTENTS]{.underline}**

***[SECTION]{.underline}** **[PAGE]{.underline}***

**[INTRODUCTION]{.underline}**
.........................................................................
3

**[BFO CONSULTATION HISTORY]{.underline}**
.................................................... 4

**[BIOLOGICAL OPINION]{.underline}**
................................................................ 6

FOREST SERVICE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
..................................... 7

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION(S)
........................\...\...\...\...\... 8

FOREST SERVICE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES .............................. 9

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ACTION(S)
............................................... 12

STATUS OF THE SPECIES
...................................................\...\...\...\...\....
14

*Myotis sodalis* Description and Distribution
..............................\...\...\...\...\.... 14

Life History
.....................................................................\...\...\...\.....
15

Energy Balance
...........................................................................
17

Food Habits
.....................................................................\...\...\...\.....
18

Habitat Considerations
................................................................... 19

Previous Incidental Take Authorizations
.............................................. 23

Status
............................................................\...\...\...\...\...\...\...............
24

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
..............................................\...\...\...\...\... 26

*Myotis sodalis in the Action Area*
....................................................... 27

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
....................................................\...\...\...\.....
29

Timber Harvest
...........................................................................
34

Fire Management
.........................................................................
38

Construction, Upkeep & Permits
....................................................... 39

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
................................................................. 42

CONCLUSION
...............................................................................
44

**[INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT]{.underline}**
.................................................. 45

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE
...................................................... 45

EFFECT OF TAKE
..........................................................................
52

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES ........................................
52

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
.............................................................. 52

**[MONITORING REQUIREMENTS]{.underline}**
..........................................\...\...\...\.... 53

**[CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS]{.underline}**
......................................... 54

**[REINITIATION NOTICE]{.underline}**
................................................................ 55

**[LITERATURE CITED]{.underline}**
...\............................................................... 56

**[INTRODUCTION]{.underline}**

This document transmits the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's
(Service) biological opinion based on our review of the Hoosier National
Forest's 'Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan' (Forest Plan, or
Plan) and projects predicated upon it, and its effects on the Indiana
bat (*Myotis sodalis*) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The
Forest Plan was submitted by The USDA Forest Service, Hoosier National
Forest (HNF) and was received at the Service's Bloomington, Indiana
Field Office (BFO) on July 7, 2005 along with a letter requesting us to
initiate formal consultation regarding effects on the Indiana bat
(*Myotis sodalis*).

This Biological Opinion (BO) is prepared in accordance with section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.). This biological opinion is the culmination of formal section 7
consultation under the Act. The purpose of formal section 7 consultation
is to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the
Federal government is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat of such species. This BO covers the
actions of the HNF, as this federal agency will authorize, contract, and
oversee the salvage timber harvest and related activities associated
with this project.

This BO is based on information provided from the following sources:

(1) the Programmatic Biological Assessment of the Hoosier National
    Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (2006);

(2) the HNF's Land and Resource Management Plans (1985 and 2005 Draft
    Plan) and the 1991 Plan Amendment;

(3) the Hoosier-Shawnee Ecological Assessment (2004);

(4) maps, reports and scientific literature on Indiana bat research
    conducted in the action area and elsewhere; and

(5) meetings, phone calls, and written correspondence with the HNF
    staff.

BFO Biologist Michael Tosick also visited several of the planned timber
harvest areas, as well as several areas with known roost trees, in order
to better evaluate the proposed Forest Plan. A complete administrative
record of this consultation is on file at the Service's Bloomington,
Indiana Field Office.

The Service will implement an appended programmatic consultation
approach to the HNF Revised Forest Plan. Program-level consultation
analyzes the effects of the Forest Plan as a whole. Specifically, we
evaluate how the overall goals and objectives of the Forest Plan will
affect the landscape in terms of Indiana bat conservation, and the
anticipated impacts that may occur from implementing the proposed
management actions for future projects. The second level of consultation
will occur at the project level. For each project proposed, the Forest
Service and the Service will evaluate the specific impacts associated
with the project and tally any take that is anticipated to occur.

As future projects are developed, HNF will provide the Service with
project-specific information that:

(1) describes the proposed action, the area, and the species to be
    affected, including map(s) showing the proposed action area;

(2) identifies the applicable standards and guidelines that will be
    implemented;

(3) identifies the Forest's determination of effect on affected species
    for the proposed project and associated action area;

(4) includes a statement confirming whether this project is in full
    compliance with the standards and guidelines and other conservation
    commitments made in the Forest Plan; and

(5) includes a cumulative tally of incidental take that has occurred
    since the adoption of the 2006 Forest Plan, including a map showing
    the cumulative incidental take action areas.

Upon receiving this information, the Service will:

(1) confirm that all species that may be affected are identified,

(2) assess how the action may affect the species, including ensuring the
    level of effect is commiserate with the effects contemplated in the
    Program-level biological opinion, and

(3) verify the tally the cumulative total of incidental take that has
    occurred to date under the Forest Plan.

During the review if it is determined that an individual project is not
likely to adversely affect listed species, we will complete our
documentation with a concurrence letter that refers to the Program-level
biological opinion and specifies we concur that the project is not
likely to adversely affect listed species. If it is determined that a
project is likely to adversely affect listed species, the Service and
Forest Service engage in formal consultation for the specific project.
Project level formal consultation culminates with the Service providing
a biological opinion that is appended to the Program-level biological
opinion.

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

On September 14, 1984 the Service issued a Biological Opinion on the
Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan for the Hoosier National
Forest. A non-jeopardy opinion was included for the Indiana bat, gray
bat (*Myotis grisescens*), bald eagle (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*), and
peregrine falcon (*Falco peregrinus*), however no Incidental Take
Statement was included since it was concluded that no take would occur.

On July 30, 1990 the U.S. Department of Interior responded to the
Hoosier National Forest request for comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for proposed amendments to the Hoosier National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Within that response
was a discussion of the federally-endangered Indiana bat, gray bat, bald
eagle, and pink mucket pearly mussel (*Lampsilis orbiculata*). The
Peregrine falcon was not included because it did not occur within the
Hoosier National Forest at that time. It was concluded that the Forest
Plan had adequate measures to protect the bald eagle and pink mucket
pearly mussel. A number of guidelines where recommended for
implementation to avoid take of the Indiana bat and gray bat. The Forest
Plan amendment included those recommendations and stated that, "No
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat and no actions
likely to adversely affect any federally-listed species will occur as a
result of National Forest management decisions." The amendment and its
included recommendations concluded consultation.

On April 17, 2000 the BFO received the request from the Forest Service
initiating formal consultation for the continued implementation of the
Forest Plan, as amended. A Biological Assessment was included with that
request and it considered the federally-endangered Indiana bat, gray
bat, bald eagle, and eastern fanshell mussel (*Cyprogenia stegaria*).
The pink mucket pearly mussel was not included in that request because
species experts believe, and the Service concurs, that the mussel is
extirpated from within the proclamation boundary of the Hoosier National
Forest.

During meetings and telephone conversations in October 2000 the Service
advised the Hoosier National Forest that formal consultation under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act on the continued implementation
of the Forest Plan would not be necessary due to this statement in the
Forest Plan: "No destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
and no actions likely to adversely affect any federally-listed species
will occur as a result of National Forest management decisions."

On October 20, 2000, BFO received a letter from the Hoosier National
Forest stating that since the Forest Plan was amended in 1991 Indiana
bats have been captured on the Hoosier National Forest. That letter
concluded that: "Based on this new information, we have found in the
Biological Assessment that continued implementation of the Forest Plan
may affect - likely to adversely affect individual Indiana bats using
the Hoosier National Forest. We plan on amending the Forest Plan to
incorporate the reasonable and prudent measures we expect to be
developed from our formal consultation. When we amend the Forest Plan,
we will modify the above statement to make it consistent with the
Biological Assessment." Based on this information the Service agreed to
complete the Biological Opinion.

On December 29, 2000, the BFO submitted the Biological Opinion stemming
from the October 20, 2000 letter from the Forest Service. It was
determined that the proposed action items, including road maintenance,
trail maintenance and developed recreation facility management would not
result in the alteration of Indiana bat habitat except for the need to
remove hazard trees between April 15 and September 15. Hazard tree
removal results in one or very few trees being cut from any one location
within an otherwise forested landscape. It was determined that take of
Indiana bats from this activity can only occur if a tree is cut when
bats are present, between April 15 and September 15. Therefore, the
determination was made that if trees are removed outside the time period
when bats are present, the activity is not likely to adversely affect
the Indiana bat.

On July 7, 2005, the BFO received the request from the Forest Service
initiating formal consultation for the implementation of the newly
crafted Hoosier National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. A
Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) was included with the requests
and it considered the federally-endangered Indiana bat, gray bat, rough
Pigtoe pearly mussel (*Pleurobema plenum*), and fanshell mussel, along
with the federally-threatened bald eagle. Within the Forest Service's
BA, only the Indiana bat received a "may affect, and is likely to
adversely affect" determination; the other four species all received a
"is not likely to adversely affect" determination. BFO concurred with
these determinations for reasons described in the BA, and entered into
formal consultation with the Forest Service on the Indiana bat and the
proposed Hoosier National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. A
letter was sent on August 3, 2005 from the BFO notifying the Forest
Service of the initiation of formal consultation. Accordingly, a
deadline was set for November 20, 2005 (135 days from the date letter
was sent) for the BFO to complete a Biological Opinion on the Hoosier
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

On November 4, 2005, the BFO received additional correspondence from the
Forest Service requesting two major changes, and two clarifications in
regard to their draft plan. The two changes were: increasing the
hardwood even-aged management acreage from 5 to 10 acres per area in
Management Area 2.8 (total even-aged management acreage does not
change); and allowing mineral extraction and exploration with no surface
occupancy in Crawford Uplands and Brown County Hills Ecotypes in
Management Areas 2.8 and 3.3. The two clarifications were: defining snag
and leave trees; and clarifying between early successional forest and
early successional grass and shrublands. Initially, the BFO informally
requested a full-schedule restart (135 days) in order to incorporate the
changes into the Biological Opinion; however, in working together to
meet Forest Service deadlines, the BFO and the Forest Service agreed to
extend the due date for the BFO's Biological Opinion by five days
(November 25, 2005).

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

The action considered in this biological opinion is the implementation
of the newly developed Hoosier National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan. Detailed descriptions of the proposed actions are
provided in the Biological Assessment (Programmatic Biological
Assessment of the Hoosier National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan, January 26, 2005); these descriptions are hereby incorporated by
reference.

The purpose of the Forest Plan is to guide all natural resource
management activities on the HNF to meet the objectives of federal law,
regulations, and policy. The Forest Plan describes the landscape goals
for the Forest for the next 10 years. To achieve the desired future
conditions for the Forest and to reach these goals, various management
activities will be applied. Thus, the Forest Plan identifies and
describes the specific management actions that will be used. These
management actions will be paramount in achieving the eight (8) overall
goals identified within the Forest Plan. The management actions serve as
tools, or mechanisms, that will allow the goals to be achieved. In
effect, the goals are the "what", while the management actions are the
"how".

**FOREST SERVICE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES -- FOREST PLAN**

*Conservation of Threatened and Endangered Species' Habitat* --
Maintain, protect or improve the habitat for threatened and/or
endangered species by working toward the goals and objectives of Federal
recovery plans and management direction in the Forest Plan. One basic
goal, or strategy, is to design projects in a manner that ensures
management activities will not adversely affect habitat of threatened
and/or endangered species.

*Maintain and Restore Sustainable Ecosystems* -- The evolution of
natural ecosystems over time provides variety in our natural world, and
thereby provides the diversity needed in species and habitat to be
resilient in the face of environmental disturbances. To be sustainable,
each ecosystem must include viable populations of its component species.
The main goal within this section is to restore and maintain plant and
wildlife species and their habitat through varied resource management
methods, including: emphasis on native plants and animals; tree stand
maintenance focused on corridor availability and connectivity;
protection of cave resources; use of prescribed fire; improve hydrologic
connectivity and aquatic ecosystems; and the control and prevention of
non-native invasive species.

*Maintain and Restore Watershed Health* -- This goal reaffirms the
historic mission of the Hoosier National Forest, as one of the driving
forces in its establishment was to stabilize and restore eroding lands
and to protect watersheds form sediment. The Hoosier National Forest
will restore water quality and soil productivity to improve the
condition of those watersheds impacted by past land use practices.

*Protect Cultural Heritage* -- The goal of protecting heritage resources
in order to share their respective values with society, as well as
contributing relevant information and perspective to natural resource
management. Goal(s) will be carried out through: identification and
evaluation of resources; investigation, interpretation, and preservation
of resources; interactive recreation; and proactive law enforcement.

*Provide Visually Pleasing Landscapes* - Forest management activities,
roads, and facilities are to blend with their natural settings. With
design, timing and care, minimal disturbance and disruption of the
natural setting will occur. Long-term visual goals are not necessarily
negated by short-term disruption of visual character.

*Provide Recreation Use in Harmony with Natural Communities* -- The
Forest fills a much-needed niche in Indiana by offering recreational
experiences not readily available in a manner that is balanced with
protecting the Forest's natural resources. Tangible results of this goal
will be recreational opportunities such as long-distance trails for
hiking, biking, or horseback riding, wilderness access, and water-based
activities.

*Provide Useable Landbase* -- The Forest strives to provide a landbase
for biological diversity, recreational opportunities, management
efficiency, and increased public access. The Forest is committed to
acquisition and exchange programs to consolidate NFS lands and to
protect significant cultural resources, areas of historical interest,
and unique habitats.

*Provide for Human and Community Development* -- The Forest meets
certain individual, community and national needs such as clean water,
minerals, recreational opportunity, timber, and wilderness values. The
Forest contributes to local economies and provides commodities, products
and services to people and local communities. Components of this goal
will include: reduction of wildfires; provision of interpretive
services; provision of a balance of forest products; and support of
regional tourism development.

**DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS**

The Hoosier National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan includes
the following management activities that may cause Indiana bat habitat
modification and/or species harm and will occur over the next ten years:

**Figure 1.**

+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **MANAGEMENT          | **For | **DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY**          |
| ACTIVITY**            | ested |                                      |
|                       | Acres |                                      |
|                       | Affec |                                      |
|                       | ted** |                                      |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Timber Harvest**    | 1,020 | Hardwood clearcut harvest\*          |
|                       |       |                                      |
| (6,820 total acres)   |       |                                      |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
|                       | 1,000 | Pine clearcut harvest\*\*            |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
|                       | 760   | Hardwood shelterwood harvest         |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
|                       | 80    | Pine shelterwood harvest             |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
|                       | 2,850 | Hardwood group selection             |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
|                       | 1,110 | Hardwood single-tree selection       |
|                       |       | harvest                              |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
|                       | 600   | Hazard-tree removals (as             |
|                       | trees | required)\*\*\*                      |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Sanitation          | X     | As needed to protect forest          |
| Harvest**             |       | resources from potential pathogens   |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Hardwood Salvage    | 5,000 | Response to strong wind, tornado,    |
| Harvest**             |       | and other natural disturbance damage |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Pine Salvage        | 1,200 | Response to strong wind, tornado,    |
| Harvest**             |       | and other natural disturbance damage |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Timber Stand        | 4,500 | Includes grapevine removal; follows  |
| Improvement**         |       | initial harvest                      |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Prescribed Fire**   | 2     | Manage plant communities for         |
|                       | 0,000 | wildlife habitat improvement and     |
|                       |       | forest regeneration                  |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Wildfire            | 500   | Containment of naturally occurring   |
| Suppression**         |       | wildfires                            |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Forest Openings     | 825   | Harvest of single trees to maintain  |
| Maintenance**         |       | existing openings                    |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Trail Construction  | 2.5   | 65 miles of new and re-constructed   |
| / re-Construction**   |       | trails                               |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Special Use         | 300   | Utility right-of-ways; re-issues and |
| Permits**             |       | new\*\*\*\*                          |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **MANAGEMENT          | **For | **DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY**          |
| ACTIVITY**            | ested |                                      |
|                       | Acres |                                      |
|                       | Affec |                                      |
|                       | ted** |                                      |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Road Construction / | 267   | 147 linear miles; includes           |
| re-Construction**     |       | maintenance, new construction and    |
|                       |       | temporary roads                      |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Construction of     | 75    | Tree clearings for log landings in   |
| Landings**            |       | uneven-aged management               |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Parking Lot /       | 45    | Includes new construction and        |
| Trailhead             |       | re-construction                      |
| Construction**        |       |                                      |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Timber Operation    | 1,000 | Estimates 1,000 trees lost due to    |
| Accidents**           | trees | inadvertent circumstances; for       |
|                       |       | example, skidding of trees outside   |
|                       |       | designated area                      |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Wetland             | 25    | Levee or dike construction           |
| Construction**        |       |                                      |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Recreation Site     | 35    | Site expansion, vista clearing,      |
| Enhancement**         |       | maintenance, or utility line         |
|                       |       | installation                         |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+
| **Herbicide           | 4,000 | Control non-native/invasive species, |
| Treatment**           |       | re-establish native vegetation,      |
|                       |       | control vegetation at recreation     |
|                       |       | sites                                |
+-----------------------+-------+--------------------------------------+

\* Hardwood clearcut areas will be limited to a maximum of 10-acres in
MA 2.8.

\*\* All clearcut areas will be limited to a maximum of 10-acres, except
in Management

Area 3.3, where the maximum size is extended to 40-acre tracts.

\*\*\* Involves removal of hazard trees in the vicinity of trails,
roads, or recreation sites. Approximately 600 trees are estimated within
this management activity.

\*\*\*\* Tree removal will not reflect total acreage, as individual
permits involve limited acreage

over linear features that are typically sparsely forested, including
existing roads.

**FOREST SERVICE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES**

Within the Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan the Forest Service
has adopted standards and guidelines that will help in the protection of
the Indiana bat from both direct negative fitness consequences and
habitat loss.

***Standards*** -- Actions that *must* be implemented in order to
achieve Forest goals and objectives. Deviation from a standard requires
an amendment to the Forest Plan.

Standards relevant to ***conservation of threatened and endangered
species habitat*** include:

-   Evaluate lands affected by change of ownership and evaluate
    management activities to avoid or minimize effects on
    Federally-designated threatened and endangered species habitat.

-   Identify lands with known threatened or endangered species habitat
    as a top priority for acquisition.

Standards relevant to ***Indiana bat*** ***hibernacula*** include:

-   Establishment of quarter-mile radius zone around each known
    hibernacula within the Forest. The zone will be designed according
    to the specific area in order to take into account likely flight
    paths, foraging habitat and likely swarming areas. New construction
    is prohibited in this area.

-   Maintenance and promotion (considering private land ownership) of at
    least 70 percent forest canopy cover within a radius of one mile of
    known Indiana bat hibernacula. Timber harvest should be conducted
    within this zone strictly during hibernation and will utilize *only*
    single-tree or group selection techniques.

-   Implementation of prescribed fire within a five-mile zone around
    hibernacula will only occur when bats are not likely to be swarming
    or staging. Burns will be conducted only under conditions that will
    reduce or eliminate smoke dispersing into hibernacula.

-   Develop management goals and directives (conservation plan) for each
    known hibernaculum at micro-topographical level, taking into
    consideration current conditions and future restraints and/or
    challenges.

Additional ***cave*** and ***karst*** feature standards:

-   No timber harvest or prescribed burn within 200-feet of cave
    entrances, sink holes, swallow holes or streams flowing into such
    known areas.

-   No discharge of drilling mud into karst hydrological system(s).

-   No disturbance on slopes greater than 30% adjacent to cave entrances
    without the use of mitigation measures.

-   No promotion of caves for general use to public without protective
    measures.

-   No seismic surveys within 200 feet of known cave passages or
    conduits.

-   No disclosure of cave locations.

-   Cave management will be integrated into general land management
    practices.

-   Inventories and evaluations of caves will be performed in accordance
    with the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act.

-   All caves and karst features shall be excluded from leasing and
    mineral activities, and no drilling will occur within the boundaries
    of ant cave.

Standards relevant to ***Indiana bat*** ***maternal roosting habitat***
include:

-   Maintenance of large, mature trees in harvest areas. At least
    three (3) live trees per acre greater than 20 inches diameter at
    breast height (DBH) (leave trees will be located along edges of the
    harvest area or in clumps to maximize their benefit to bats) of
    these species: silver maple (*Acer saccharinum*); bitternut hickory
    (*Carya cordiformis*); shellbark hickory (*Carya laciniosa*);
    shagbark hickory (*Carya ovata*); white ash (*Fraxinus americana*);
    green ash (*Fraxinus pennsylvanica*); eastern cottonwood (*Populus
    deltoides*); white oak (*Quercus alba*); northern red oak (*Quercus
    rubra*); post oak (*Quercus stellata*); black locust (*Robinia
    pseudoacacia*); American elm (*Ulmus americana*); and slippery elm
    (*Ulmus rubra*).

-   If stand has no trees greater than 20 DBH, at least 16 live trees
    per acre will be retained through harvest, including the largest
    specimens of the preceding preferred species list.

-   Shellbark and Shagbark hickories will not be harvested or
    manipulated for the purpose of timber stand improvement, unless the
    density of trees of these two species combined exceeds 16 trees per
    acre. If present, at least 16 live shagbark and shellbark hickory
    trees (combined) greater than 11 inches DBH *must* be maintained per
    acre.

-   Retention of all hazard trees that have characteristics of a
    potential maternal roost tree unless they are a safety concern.

-   Consultation will occur with the USFWS any time a hazard tree is
    identified as being used by bats.

-   Firewood cutting permits will clearly state that standing dead trees
    must be identified in the Forest Service permit in order to be
    harvested. Standing dead trees *must* be identified and designated
    by Forest Service personnel to be included in the permit.

-   Demolition of any abandoned buildings will *only* occur after all
    buildings are inspected to confirm the absence of maternal roosts.
    If a roost is located, then all activity will be delayed until the
    roost is vacated and suitable roosting structures have been
    provided.

Standards relevant to ***Indiana bat*** ***foraging habitat*** include:

-   Maintenance of at least a 60 percent canopy cover (stand-by-stand
    basis) when conducting uneven-aged harvest or hardwood timber stand
    improvements. Design of boundaries will be irregular in shape so as
    to enhance foraging area for bats.

***Guidelines*** -- Actions that should be implemented in order to
achieve Forest Service goals and objectives. Deviation from a guideline
does not require an amendment to the Forest Plan, but the rationale must
be disclosed in the project decision documents.

Guidelines relevant to ***conservation of*** ***threatened and
endangered species habitat*** include:

-   Determine and implement management activities that will maintain and
    improve habitat features for threatened and endangered species.

-   Locate new activities away from areas that might jeopardize[^1] any
    threatened or endangered species or their habitat.

Guidelines relevant to ***caves*** and ***karst*** features:

-   Cease drill activities when voids are discovered within 300-feet of
    the surface.

-   Protect caves and karst features from road sediment.

-   Examine and inventory each cave and karst feature.

-   Restore cave and karst hydrological systems choked by non-natural
    causes.

-   Take corrective action if damage to karst or other resources exists
    and is likely to continue.

-   Cave entrance gates will only be used as last resort if no other
    protective alternative is practical and/or available.

-   No marking of caves so as to promote or dissuade use.

Guidelines relevant to ***Indiana bat maternal roosting habitat***
include:

-   When possible, the removal of hazard trees will be delayed until
    between September 15th and April 15th, the likely hibernating period
    of the Indiana bat.

-   All personnel tasked with the removal of hazard trees will attend
    training with a biologist to learn how to identify potential
    maternal roost trees.

-   When even-aged management is conducted, leave trees will be left
    along the edges of clearcuts or in large clumps (1/10th acre) to
    maximize their benefit to bats.

-   Assessment of the availability of suitable primary maternal roosts
    during the planning phase of single tree or group selected timber
    harvest. If potential primary roosts are located, gaps will be
    created at the tree's borders through harvest design to improve
    their suitability as roost trees.

-   When there are not at least three standing dead trees greater than
    11 inches DBH per acre during single-tree or group selection
    harvest, consider girdling live trees.

-   In the event that an occupied primary roost is located on Forest
    land, a zone will be designated extending in a radius of 300 feet
    from the known roost. Land management activities will be prohibited
    within this zone during the active period (April 15^th^ -- September
    15^th^) of the Indiana bat.

-   Restriction of prescribed burns within a one-mile radius of occupied
    roosts during active period.

Guidelines relevant to ***water resources*** include:

-   When conditions are favorable, creation of shallow water extensions
    of existing waterholes and ponds to enhance insect diversity and
    abundance for bats will be promoted.

-   Constructed ephemeral and vernal wetlands will be provided in
    forested uplands or along ridgetops to serve as additional water
    sources for bats. When possible, abandoned roadways that may serve
    as flight corridors will be utilized for the location of constructed
    upland wetlands.

**BRIEF ANALYSIS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO *MYOTIS
SODALIS***

***Timber Harvest** **-*** The Hoosier National Forest plans on using
both even-aged and uneven-aged harvest management to meet forest
objectives.

*Even-aged techniques* (including clearcutting) are appropriate where a
single-aged stand is desired, or to give desirable shade-intolerant
species, such as oaks and hickories, a competitive edge over
shade-tolerant species, such as beech and maple. Furthermore, even-aged
harvests may result in within-stand canopy closures of below fifty
percent, thereby creating early-successional forests (0-9 year age
class). Early-successional forests provide an abundance of herbaceous
annual and perennial plants which support varied insect communities, and
in turn provide an available food bank for a host of animals, including
bats. Cavity trees and standing dead trees (snags) are not removed under
even-aged harvest unless they pose a safety hazard to the public or to
timber harvest operators, thereby protecting primary, secondary, and
potential[^2] Indiana bat roosting habitat. Although the overall imprint
of even-aged management upon the landscape would be minimal, creation of
early-successional areas may result in the short term loss of potential
alternate roosts and the loss of potential foraging areas for the
Indiana bat.

The availability of alternate roosts is not a limiting factor within the
Hoosier National Forest, so this effect is not substantial. Primary
roost recruitment will be impacted within even-aged harvest areas,
although primary roost recruitment on the edges of these harvest units
may improve due to increase of solar exposure. Callahan (1997) and
MacGregor, et al (1999) both found that primary snag selection greatly
favored high solar exposure.

[]{.mark}

In regard to pine harvest, the primary objective of even-aged
management, specifically clearcuts, is to re-establish native hardwood
forest types. Pine harvests will remove most, if not all, of the pines
in a stand while leaving residual hardwoods, and snags. Specific to
bats, pine plantations provide poor foraging habitat when compared to
hardwood riparian areas, forest edges, and canopy gaps. Consequently,
the removal of pines is equivalent to the removal of relatively poor
foraging habitat for the purpose of re-establishing a forest type of
superior quality. Furthermore, pine snags, when compared to native,
deciduous snags, offer substantially less roosting habitat for Indiana
bats, especially when the ephemeral nature of pine snags is considered.
Kiser and Elliot found that, in Kentucky, roosts were located
predominately in medium-sized hardwood snags within small forest
openings or canopy gaps (1996). However, also in Kentucky, MacGregor, et
al. (1999) reported that male Indiana bats roosted in pine-dominated
forests during the autumn. []{.mark}

*Uneven-aged techniques* typically maintain the appearance of continuous
forest canopies and a gradient of tree ages within stands. The principal
objective of uneven-aged harvest will be to promote structural diversity
within hardwood stands. Contrary to even-aged harvest methods,
uneven-aged harvest will favor the regeneration of shade-tolerant
species such as American beech (*Fagus grandifolia*) and maple (*Acer
spp.*).

Uneven-aged techniques include group selection harvest and single-tree
harvest. Group selection harvests will be limited to 3-acres, or less.
The size of a group selection harvest is generally defined as
approximately twice the height of the surrounding trees; therefore,
harvest size will be determined at the site-specific project level.
Uneven-aged harvests, whether by single-tree method or group selection,
will reduce canopy closure, mimicking natural gap formation in old
growth forests, resulting in multiple age classes of trees within
stands. The creation of small canopy gaps, as a result of these harvest
techniques, will likely improve foraging habitat, as reduced crown
closure is considered suitable habitat for the Indiana bat. Although
harvest by either method will remove potential alternate roosts, the
availability of these roosts are likely non-limiting on the Hoosier
National Forest.

***Salvage & Sanitation Harvest --*** Salvage and sanitation harvests
are similar in that they are used in order to limit the spread of
disease and insect infestation, remove dead or damaged trees, and
respond to areas affected by fire and/or storm damage (wind, ice, etc.).
Salvage and sanitation harvest will likely reduce canopy closure,
thereby improving potential foraging habitat. Furthermore, potential
roost trees will likely be more available and abundant in these areas
since dead or damaged trees are often synonymous with snags.

***Prescribed Fire --*** The Hoosier National Forest proposes to conduct
prescribed burns over 20,000-acres within the initial decade of the
proposed Forest Plan. Prescribed fire will be used to improve wildlife
habitat, enhance forest regeneration, and to mange fuel loads. Burns are
conducted under conditions that result in low-intensity fires, generally
burning only ground cover, shrubs, and trees with dbh \< 2 inches.
Wildfire Suppression also involves burning sections of the forest in
order to contain the wildfire; 5,000-acres are proposed within the
initial decade. Although smaller in size, these smaller burn areas will
react in the same manner as the larger prescribed burn areas, and will
therefore have similar effects on Indiana bats and their habitat.

Use of prescribed fire may improve forage and roost habitat for forest
bats. Insect biomass, although initially reduced in burn area, will
subsequently increase as the re-growth of herbaceous vegetation occurs.
This is likely related to nutrient release and the resulting increase in
herbaceous forage quality. Roosting habitat will also likely improve in
the long-term, since few snags will be lost under low-intensity fires,
and a small number of new snags will be created.

**STATUS OF THE SPECIES -- (*Myotis Sodalis*)**

The Indiana bat is a species that continues to decline since being
listed as an endangered species in 1967. Recovery of this species faces
several challenges and there are multiple biological reasons why the
outlook for this species may be unfavorable. The well-documented
philopatric[^3] behavior of Indiana bats suggests that loss of roosting
habitat alone can have adverse consequences (Kurta and Murray 2002;
Gumbert et al. 2002). Healthy female bats start breeding their first
fall and can produce one pup per year for up to 14-15 years (Humphrey et
al. 1977). However, this current reproductive capacity has been
insufficient to offset mortality rates over the last 40+ years,
therefore, Indiana bat populations have plummeted.

***Description and Distribution*** - The Indiana bat is a medium-sized
bat (head and body length that ranges from 41 to 49 mm), closely
resembling the little brown bat (*Myotis lucifugus*) but differing in
coloration. There are no recognized subspecies. The Indiana bat has been
found in 27 states throughout much of the eastern United States (USFWS
1999). More specifically, NatureServe (2004) describes its range as
going from eastern Oklahoma, north to Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan,
east to New England and south to western North Carolina, Virginia, and
northern Alabama. It is virtually extirpated in the northeastern United
States. The Indiana bat is migratory, and the above described range
includes both summer and winter habitat. Major populations of this
species hibernate in Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri, with smaller
populations reported in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland,
Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. The majority of maternity
colonies are located in the glaciated Midwest. The winter range is
associated with regions of well-developed limestone caverns. Major
populations of this species hibernate in Indiana, Kentucky, and
Missouri. Smaller winter populations have been reported from Alabama,
Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West
Virginia. More than 85% of the entire known population of Indiana bats
hibernates in only nine caves.

***Life History* -** The average life span of the Indiana bat is 5 to 10
years, but banded individuals have lived up to 14 and 15 years (IDNR
unpublished, NatureServe 2002). Female survivorship in an Indiana
population was 76% for ages 1 to 6 years and 66% for ages 6 to 10 years.
Male survivorship was 70% for ages 1 to 6 years and 36% for ages 6 to 10
years (Humphrey and Cope 1977).

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

Females arrive in summer habitat as early as April 15. Temporary roosts
are often used during spring until a maternity roost with large numbers
of adult females is established. Indiana bats arrived at maternity
roosts in April and early May in Indiana, with numbers becoming
substantial by mid-May. Most documented maternity colonies have 50 to
100 adult bats (USFWS 1999). Fecundity is low; and female Indiana bats
produce only one young per year in late June to early July. Young bats
can fly between mid-July and early August, at about 4 weeks of age.
Mortality between birth and weaning was found to be about 8% (Humphrey
et al. 1977). Many males stay near hibernacula (i.e., caves and mines)
and roost individually or in small groups (Whitaker and Brack 2002). The
later part of the summer is spent accumulating fat reserves for fall
migration (USFWS 1999).

When arriving at their traditional hibernacula in August-September,
Indiana bats "swarm". Some male bats may begin to arrive at hibernacula
as early as July. Females typically arrive later and by September
numbers of males and females are almost equal. Swarming is a critical
part of the life cycle when Indiana bats converge at hibernacula, mate,
and forage until sufficient fat reserves have been deposited to sustain
them through the winter (Cope et al. 1977). Swarming behavior typically
involves large numbers of bats flying in and out of cave entrances
throughout the night, while most of the bats continue to roost in trees
during the day. Body weight may increase by 2 grams within a short time,
mostly in the form of fat (BLA 2003). Swarming continues for several
weeks and copulation occurs on cave ceilings near the cave entrance
during the latter part of the period. (USFWS 1999). The time of highest
swarming activity in Indiana and Kentucky has been documented as early
September (Cope et al. 1977). By late September many females have
entered hibernation, but males may continue swarming well into October
in what is believed to be an attempt to breed with late arriving
females. Additional studies of fall swarming behavior are warranted to
gain a better understanding of the bats' behavior and habitat needs
during this part of its annual life cycle (Rommé et al. 2002).

During swarming, males are active over a longer period of time at cave
entrances than females, probably to mate with females as they arrive.
Females may mate their first autumn, whereas males may not mature until
the second year (USFWS 1999). After mating, females soon enter into
hibernation. Most bats are hibernating by the end of November, but
hibernacula populations may continue to increase (USFWS 1999). Indiana
bats cluster and hibernate on cave ceilings in densities of
approximately 300-484 bats per square foot, from approximately October
through April. Hibernation facilitates survival during winter when prey
(i.e., insects) is unavailable. The season of hibernation may vary by
latitude and annual weather conditions. Clusters may protect central
individuals from temperature change and reduce sensitivity to
disturbance (NatureServe 2002). Like other cave bats, the Indiana bat
naturally arouses at intervals of 7-14 days (Dr. John Whitaker, Jr. --
personal communication) during hibernation (Sealander & Heidt 1990).
Arousals are more frequent and longer at the beginning and end of the
hibernation period (Sealander & Heidt 1990). Limited mating occurs
throughout Winter and in early April as bats emerge (USFWS 1999).

Research is needed to determine how far bats will forage in the fall.
Most bats tracked have stayed within 2 to 3 miles of the hibernacula,
but some have been found up to 4.2 miles away (Rommé et al. 2002).
Studies suggest that the majority of foraging habitat in spring and
autumn is within 2 miles of the hibernacula, but extends to 5 miles.
Therefore, it is not only important to protect the caves that the bats
hibernate in, but also to maintain and protect the quality and quantity
of roosting and foraging habitat within 5 miles of each Indiana bat
hibernaculum.

After hibernation ends in late March or early April, most Indiana bats
emerge, and forage for a few days or weeks near their hibernaculum
before migrating to their traditional summer roosting areas. Female
Indiana bats emerge first from hibernation in late March or early April,
followed by males. The timing of annual emergence may vary across their
range depending on latitude and annual weather conditions. Shortly after
emerging from hibernation, females become pregnant via delayed
fertilization from the sperm that has been stored in their reproductive
tracts through the winter (USFWS 1999). The period after hibernation but
prior to spring migration is typically referred to as "staging". Most
populations leave their hibernacula by late April. Migration is
stressful for the Indiana bat, particularly in the spring when their fat
reserves and food supplies are low. As a result, adult mortality may be
the highest in late March and April.

Most bats migrate north for the summer, although other directions have
been documented (USFWS 1999). A stronger homing tendency has been
observed along a north-south axis, than the east-west direction in
release studies (NatureServe 2002). Females can migrate hundreds of
miles north of the hibernacula. In spring staging, males have been found
almost 10 miles from their hibernacula (HNF 2000). Less is known about
the male migration pattern, but many males summer near the hibernacula
(Whitaker and Brack 2002).

***Energy Balance*** - Bats, like all animals, must maintain a positive
energy balance. Bats face energetic challenges in balancing their need
to regulate their body temperatures to remain active and build up fat
reserves for migration, reproduction, and hibernation against the costs
of maintaining a high body temperature. Factors that exacerbate these
energetic challenges can substantially impact reproductive success and
survival of individuals.

Maintaining their energy budget is exacting under normal conditions,
especially for reproductive females. Indiana bats must give birth, feed
their young, and obtain sufficient body mass to migrate back to their
hibernacula within a 4 month period. Increased energy is needed to
elevate biosynthesis[^4] to support processes such as pregnancy and
lactation. During pregnancy and lactation, changes to body composition
are needed (e.g., develop mammary tissue and increases in the size of
the stomach and liver to process increase in food intake). Also, both
pregnancy and lactation involve the direct transfer of energy from the
parent to offspring in the form of sugars, protein, and fats for growth.
Lactation, in particular, is costly in terms of energy consumption.
(Racey and Entwistle 2000).

Responses to unpredictable perturbations[^5] exacerbate the energy
demands of the exposed individuals beyond what is required to maintain
homeostasis during their normal activities. Animals have limited options
for meeting this increased energy demand and maintaining homeostasis.
Increasing food intake is a first response to increased energy needs.
However, sometimes it is not possible or energy-efficient to compensate
for the increase energy demand. In these situations, bats may enter into
torpor. While in a torpor state, the heart and metabolic rates decrease,
body temperature decreases, and chemical reactions within the body slow
thereby reducing energy and thermoregulatory needs.

Although torpor is a physiological state that allows bats to compensate
for adverse conditions, it has consequences. Slowing metabolic processes
retards reproductive processes such as milk production and
spermatogenesis, and as further explained below, delays in reproductive
stages may affect survival and reproductive potential of such
individuals. Additionally, during torpor, bats rely on stored fat to
maintain a lower body temperature (Lyman 1970). Fat reserves are
essential for successful migration, reproduction, and hibernation. If
torpor is prolonged, fat reserves will decline and the time available
for restoring these critical reserves is also reduced. Thus, torpor is a
mechanism to help bats cope with adverse conditions, but it must be used
judiciously.

Extended torpor periods ultimately lead to less time to forage, which
means less time to obtain fat reserves. Lower body mass may compromise
their ability to successfully migrate to their hibernacula and survive
hibernation. Torpor, which lowers body temperatures and slows metabolic
processes and chemical reactions (associated with maintaining adult
physiology and young development), reduces energy demand. Slowing these
processes, however, also slows embryonic growth, thus extending time to
parturition[^6] (Racey 1973). Similarly, torpor reduces milk production
(Wilde et al. 1995, Wilde et al. 1999), thereby reducing the nourishment
available for pups and slowing postnatal growth (Racey and Entwistle
2000). Both scenarios can limit the time available for maternal recovery
and fat accumulation post-weaning. Delays in migration departure could
subject bats (both young and adults) to unfavorable winter conditions
along the way.

Similarly, extended torpor periods severely limit the energy income that
bats require to maintain pre- and postnatal young. Delay in pre- and
postnatal development can also affect juvenile survival and reproductive
potential. Slowed growth rates during pregnancy and lactation may mean
later weaning dates and smaller young, both of which affect juvenile
survival (Ransome 1989). Later weaning dates leave less time for young
to perfect their flying and foraging skills, which in turn, affects
their ability to maintain their body condition and store fat and obtain
adequate strength to successfully migrate in the fall. Further, as a
minimum fat-to-lean mass ratio may be needed to successfully reproduce,
delays in weaning time may also, in a similar manner, affect the future
reproductive potential of juveniles.

To maintain homeostasis under extreme situations, females may be forced
to reabsorb or abort their embryos or to abandon their non-volant young.
Prenatal development and length of gestation in bats varies in response
to temperature and food availability (Racey 1973, Tuttle and Stevenson
1982). When food is insufficient to support a continued pregnancy, a
trade-off is necessary between maternal survival and her future
reproductive potential and that of her current offspring (Wasser and
Barash 1983).

***Food Habits* -** Indiana bats feed exclusively on flying aquatic and
terrestrial insects. Diet varies seasonally and variations exist among
different ages, sexes, and reproductive status (USFWS 1999). It is
probable that Indiana bats use a combination of both selective and
opportunistic feeding to their advantage (Brack and LaVal 1985).
Reproductively active females and juveniles show greater dietary
diversity perhaps due to higher energy demands. Studies in some areas
have found that reproductively active females eat more aquatic insects
than do juveniles or adult males (USFWS 1999), but this may be the
result of habitat differences (Brack and LaVal 1985).

Lepidoptera (moths), Coleoptera (beetles), and Diptera (midges and
flies) consititute the bulk of the diet (Brack and LaVal 1985). Moths
(Lepidoptera) have been identified as major prey items that may be
preferentially selected (Brack and LaVal 1985), but beetles (Coleoptera)
and flies (Diptera) were also found significant (Brack and Tyrell 1990).
Diptera taken are especially midges and other species that congregate
over water, but are seldom mosquitoes. Other prey include wasps and
flying ants (Hymenoptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), brown leafhoppers
and treehoppers (Homoptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and lacewings
(Neuroptera) (Brack and LaVal 1985). Male Indiana bats summering in or
near a hibernation cave eat primarily moths and beetles but feed on
other terrestrial insects in lower percentages (USFWS 1999). Indiana
bats use small impoundments as well as permanent and intermittent
streams for drinking water (HNF 2000). Water-filled road ruts may be
used for drinking water in uplands, more commonly in the eastern portion
of the range (Brack, Jr. per. comm.).

***Habitat: Winter Hibernacula Habitat* -** Indiana bats roost in caves
or mines with configurations that provide a suitable temperature and
humidity microclimate (Brack et al. 2003). In many caves, suitable
temperatures and therefore roosts are located near the cave entrance,
but roosts may be deeper where cold air flows and is trapped. When bats
arrive at hibernacula in October and November, they need a temperature
of 50º F (10º C) or below (USFWS 1999). Mid-winter temperatures range
from 39 to 46º F (4 to 8º C) (USFWS 1983b); however, recent data in
Indiana has recorded increased use of hibernacula ranging from 41 to
44.5º F (5 to 7º C) (Brack, Jr. per. comm.). Only a small percentage of
caves available meet these temperature requirements (Brack et al. 2003).
Stable low temperature allows bats to maintain low metabolic rates and
conserve fat reserves to survive the winter (USFWS 1999). Relative
humidity of roosts usually ranges from 74% to just below saturation,
although readings as low as 54% have been recorded. This may be an
important factor for successful hibernation (USFWS 1999). Hibernacula
often contain large populations of several species of bats. Other bat
species found in Indiana hibernacula include: little brown bats (*Myotis
lucifugus*) and eastern pipistrelles (*Pipistrellus subflavus*);
northern long-eared bats (*Myotis septentrionalis*); and gray bats
(*Myotis grisescens*), big brown bats (*Eptesicus fuscus*), and
silver-haired bats (*Lasionycteris noctivagans*) (Brack et al. 2003).

***Habitat: Female Summer Roosting Habitat* -** Indiana bats exhibit
strong site fidelity to their traditional summer colony areas and
foraging habitat, that is, they return to the same summer range annually
to bear their young. (Kurta et al. 2002, Garner and Gardner 1992).
Traditional summer sites that maintain a variety of suitable roosts are
essential to the reproductive success of local populations. It is not
known how long or how far female Indiana bats will search to find new
roosting habitat if their traditional roost habitat is lost or degraded
during the winter. If they are required to search for new roosting
habitat in the spring, it is assumed that this effort places additional
stress on pregnant females at a time when fat reserves are low or
depleted and they are already stressed from the energy demands of
hibernation, migration and pregnancy. Female Indiana bats generally
migrate northward from the hibernacula to summer roosting areas. Indiana
bat maternity colonies typically occupy multiple roosts in riparian,
bottomland, and upland forests. Roost trees nearly always have
exfoliating bark which allows the bat to roost between the bark and bole
of the tree and have a southeast or south-southwest solar exposure and
an open canopy. In trees, cavities may be rarely used and crevices are
occasionally used for roosting. Roost tree structure is probably more
important than the tree species in determining whether a tree is a
suitable roost site; and tree species which develop loose, exfoliating
bark as they age and die are likely to provide roost sites. Roost trees
are often located on forest edges or openings with open canopy and open
understory (USFWS 1999).

Maternity colonies have often been found within forests that are
streamside ecosystems or are otherwise within 0.6 mi (1 km) of permanent
streams. Most have been found in forest types similar to oak-hickory and
elm-ash-cottonwood communities. While these characteristics are typical,
research is showing adaptability in habitats used. Important summer
roosting and foraging habitat for the Indiana bat is often in floodplain
or riparian forests but may also be in more upland areas. A telemetry
study in Illinois found most maternity roosts within 1640 ft (500 m) of
a perennial or intermittent stream (Hofmann 1996). Bats in Illinois
selected roosts near intermittent streams and far from paved roads
(Garner and Gardener 1992). However, observations have revealed habitat
use nearer paved roads than previously thought (Brack, Jr. per. comm.).
Recent research has shown bats using upland forest for roosting and
upland forest, and pastures with scattered trees for foraging.

Indiana bats prefer old forests with large trees, scattered canopy gaps,
and open understories (USFWS 1999, HNF 2000). The Indiana bat may
persist in highly altered and fragmented forest landscapes for some
unknown period of time. Instances have been documented of bats using
forest altered by grazing, swine feedlot, row-crops, hay fields,
residences, clear-cut harvests, and shelterwood cuts (Garner and Gardner
1992). Several roosts have been located near lightly traveled, low
maintenance roads (HNF 2000), as well as near I-70 at the Indianapolis
Airport (USFWS 2002). Although, Indiana bats may be more adaptable than
previously thought, it still is not known how a maternity colony's
stability and reproductive success responds to increasing levels of
habitat alteration and fragmentation.

Suitability of a roost tree is determined by its condition (dead or
alive), suitability of loose bark, tree's solar exposure, spatial
relationship to other trees, and tree's spatial relationship to water
sources and foraging areas. Good roost trees are species whose bark
springs away from the tree on drying after dead, senescent, or injured;
living species of hickories and large white oaks with shaggy bark.
Cottonwoods are probably one of the best tree species for the purposes
of roosting. Many maternity colonies have been associated with
oak-hickory and elm-ash-cottonwood forest types. Tree cavities, hollow
portions of tree boles or limbs and crevice and splits from broken tops
have been used as roosts on a very limited basis, usually by individual
bats. Roost longevity is variable due to many factors such as the bark
sloughing off or the tree falling down. Some roosts may only be
habitable for 1-2 years, but species with good bark retention such as
slippery elm, cottonwood, Green ash, oaks, and hickories may provide
habitat 4-8 years (USFWS 1999).

Indiana bat roosts are ephemeral and frequently associated with dead or
dying trees. Most roost trees may be habitable for only 2-8 years
(depending on the species and condition of the roost tree) under natural
conditions. Gardner et al. (1991) evaluated 39 roost trees and found
that 31% were no longer suitable the following summer, and 33% of those
remaining were unavailable by the second summer. A variety of suitable
roosts are needed within a colony\'s traditional summer range for the
colony to continue to exist. Bats move among roosts within a season and
when a particular roost becomes unavailable from one year to the next.
It is not known how many alternate roosts must be available to assure
retention of a colony within a particular area, but large, nearby forest
tracts would improve the potential for an area to provide adequate
roosting habitat (Callahan 1993, Callahan et al. 1997). Indiana bat
maternity sites generally consist of one or more primary maternity roost
trees which are used repeatedly by large numbers of bats, and varying
numbers of alternate roosts, which may be used less frequently and by
smaller numbers of bats. Primary roosts are often located in openings or
at the edge of forest stands, while alternate roosts can be in either
openings or the interior of the forest stand. Primary roosts are usually
surrounded by open canopy and are warmed by solar radiation. Alternate
roosts may be used when temperatures are above normal or during
precipitation. Shagbark hickories are good alternate roosts because they
are cooler during periods of high heat and tight bark shields the bats
from rain (USFWS 1999). Weather has been found to have profound
influence on bat behavior and habitat use (Humphrey et al. 1977).

In addition to having exfoliating bark, roost trees must be of
sufficient diameter. Trees in excess of 16 in. diameter at breast height
(dbh) are considered optimal for maternity colony roost sites, but trees
in excess of 9 inches dbh are often used as alternate maternity roosts.
Male Indiana bats have been observed roosting in trees as small as 2.5
inches dbh (Gumbert et al. 2002). Female Indiana bats have been
documented using roost trees as small as 5.5 inches (USFWS 2002).

Exposure of trees to sunlight and location relative to other trees are
important to suitability. Cool temperatures can delay development of
fetal and juvenile young and selection of maternity roost sites may be
critical to reproductive success. Dead trees with a southeast and
south-southwest exposure allow warming solar radiation. Some living
trees may provide a thermal advantage during cold periods (USFWS 1999).
Maternity colonies use multiple roosts in both dead and living trees
that are grouped. Extent and configuration of a use area is probably
determined by availability of suitable roost sites. Distances between
roosts can be a few meters to a few kilometers. Maternity colony
movements among multiple roosts seem to depend on climatic changes,
particularly solar radiation (Humphrey et al. 1977). Kurta et al. (1993)
suggests movement between roosts may be the bats' way of dealing with a
roost site with characteristics as ephemeral as loose bark. The bat that
is aware of alternate roost sites is more likely to survive the sudden,
unpredictable, destruction of its present roost than the bat which has
never identified such an alternate.

Humphrey et al. (1977) observed that each night after the sunset peak of
foraging activity the bats left the foraging areas without returning to
the day roosts, which indicated the use of "night" roosts. Kiser et al.
(2002) found three concrete bridges on Camp Atterbury, 25 mi (40 km)
south of Indianapolis, Indiana, used by Indiana bats as night roosts and
to a limited extent as day roosts. Bat species using the bridges
included the big brown bat, northern myotis (*Myotis*
*septentrionalis*), little brown myotis, Indiana bat, and eastern
pipistrelle. The Indiana bat was the most common species, representing
51% of all bats observed, whereas the big brown bat was the second most
abundant at 38%. Clusters of Indiana bats were observed night roosting
under the bridges that were lactating, post-lactating, and newly volant
juveniles. Bridges used were concrete-girder (multi-beam) bridges with
deep, narrow expansion joints. The bridges ranged from 46 to 223 ft in
length and 26 to 39 ft in width. Average daily traffic ranged from less
than 10 vehicles per day to almost 5,000 vehicles per day. All used
bridges were located over streams bordered by forested, riparian
corridors that connected larger tracts of forest. Riparian forest did
not overhang the bridges allowing solar radiation to warm the bridges;
however, forest was within 9 to 16.5 ft of each bridge. Bat clusters
under bridges were located over land, near the ends of the bridges. Mean
ambient temperatures at night were consistently higher and less variable
under bridges than external ambient temperatures. The bridges apparently
act as thermal sinks. The warmer, more stable environment presumably
decreases the energetic cost of maintaining high body temperature, thus
promoting fetal development, milk production, and juvenile growth. Three
individuals were radio-tracked to their day roosts within 0.6 to 1.2
miles from their night roost (Kiser et al. 2002).

***Habitat: Male Summer Roosting Habitat* -** Many male Indiana bats
appear to remain at or near the hibernacula in summer with some fanning
out in a broad band around the hibernacula (Whitaker and Brack 2002).
Males roost singly or in small groups in two to five roost trees similar
to those used by females. Males may occasionally roost in caves.
Suitable roost trees typically have a large diameter, exfoliating bark,
and prolonged solar exposure with no apparent importance in regard to
the tree species or whether it is upland or bottomland (Whitaker and
Brack 2002). Because males typically roost individually or in small
groups, the average size of their roost trees tends to be smaller than
the roost trees used by female maternity colonies, and in one instance a
roost tree only 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) in diameter was used (Gumbert et al.
2002). Male bats have also been observed using trees as small as 3.1 in
(8 cm) dbh (USFWS 2002). Also, males are more likely than females to be
found in disturbed areas; possibly because the roost trees in those
areas are likely to be to small for colony use, but still suitable for
an individual roost (Brack, Jr. per. comm.). One individual was found
roosting on the Hoosier National Forest within the easement of I-64 (HNF
2000). Males have shown summer site fidelity and have been recaptured in
foraging areas from prior years (USFWS 1999). At Camp Atterbury in
Indiana, male bats were observed using the same bridges as females for
night roosts, but they roosted singly (Kiser et al. 2002).

***Autumn Swarming / Spring Staging Habitat* -** Indiana bats use roosts
in spring and fall that are similar to those used in summer (USFWS
1999). However, because habitat is used by individuals rather than
colonies, sites may be much smaller (Brack, Jr. per. comm.). Females use
smaller, more disturbed areas during swarming and staging than in summer
in maternity colonies (Brack, Jr. per. comm.). During fall, when bats
swarm and mate at their hibernacula, male bats roost in trees nearby
during the day and fly to the cave during the night. Studies have found
males roosting in dead trees on upper slopes and ridgetops within a few
miles of the hibernacula (USFWS 1999). In Jackson County, Kentucky,
research showed fall roost trees tend to be located in canopy gaps
created by disturbance (logging, windthrow, prescribed burning) and
along edges (HNF 2000). Fall roost trees are often exposed to sunshine
(USFWS 1999). Within-year fidelity to fall roosts has been observed,
where an individual bat uses an individual roost for an average of 2 to
3 days before moving to a new tree (Gumbert et al. 2002). Bats have been
observed moving among multiple roosts in an area using particular roosts
alternatively (Brack, Jr. per. comm., Gumbert et al. 2002).

In the spring, upon emergence, females and some males disperse from the
hibernacula. Migration within the core of the species' range is
generally northward to form colonies throughout Indiana, southern
Michigan, and adjoining Ohio and Illinois. Male Indiana bats remain at
or near the hibernacula, although some fan out in a broad band or zone
around the hibernacula (Whitaker and Brack 2002). Spring and autumn
habitat use is variable due to proximity and quantity of roosts, weather
conditions, and prey availability (Rommé et al. 2002). Several studies
support the idea that during the autumn and spring, bats primarily use
habitat within 5 miles (8 km) of the hibernacula (Rommé et al. 2002,
Brack, Jr. per. comm.). However, more studies of autumn and spring
habitat use are recommended due to low sample sizes and difficulties
with telemetry research techniques (USFWS 1999).

***Foraging Habitat* -** Indiana bats forage between dusk and dawn and
feed exclusively on flying insects, primarily moths, beetles, and
aquatic insects. They typically forage in and around tree canopy and in
openings of floodplain, riparian, and upland forests (USFWS 1999).
Optimum canopy closures are 50-70% with relatively open understory
(\<40% of trees are 2-4.7 in (5-12 cm) dbh) (HNF 2000). Woody vegetation
with a width of at least 100 ft (30 m) on both sides of a stream has
been characterized as excellent foraging habitat. Streams, associated
with floodplain forests and impounded water bodies, are preferred
foraging habitats for pregnant and lactating Indiana bats, some of which
may fly up to 1 ½ mi from upland roosts (Garner and Gardner 1992). Brack
and Tyrell (1990) found that in early summer, foraging was restricted to
riparian habitats. Foraging also occurs over clearings with successional
vegetation, along cropland borders, fencerows, and over farm ponds. Bats
have been documented routinely flying at least 1.25 mi (2 km) from the
roost to forage and some were tracked up to 3 mi (5 km) from the roost
(USFWS 2002). Foraging bats usually fly between 6 -- 100 feet above
ground level (USFWS 1999). In Illinois, Gardner et al. (1991) found that
forested stream corridors, and impounded bodies of water, were preferred
foraging habitats for pregnant and lactating Indiana bats, which
typically flew up to 1.5 miles (2.4 km) from upland roosts to forage.
However the same study reported the maximum distance that any female bat
flew (regardless of reproductive status) from her daytime roost to her
capture site was 2.5 miles (4.2 km). Females typically utilize larger
foraging ranges than males (Garner and Gardner 1992).

**[Previous Incidental Take Authorizations]{.underline}**

*Summary-* All previously issued Service biological opinions involving
the Indiana bat have been non-jeopardy. These formal consultations have
involved (a) the Forest Service for activities implemented under various
Land and Resource Management Plans on National Forests in the eastern
United States, (b) the Federal Highway Administration for various
transportation projects, (c) the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
for various water-related projects, and (d) the Department of Defense
for operations at several different military installations.
Additionally, an incidental take permit has been issued under section 10
of the Endangered Species Act to an Interagency Taskforce for expansion
and related development at the Indianapolis Airport in conjunction with
the implementation of a Habitat Conservation Plan.

It is important to note that in many of these consultations, survey
information was lacking. As Federal agencies are not required to conduct
surveys, often the Service relied on a host of valid factors in helping
the Federal agency determine whether Indiana bats may be present. To
ensure the Federal agency and the Service met the mandate of the section
7(a)(2), if the best available data indicated that Indiana bats may be
present, the assumption was made that a maternity colony (in most
instances) occurred within the action area. Although this approach, we
believe, fully accords with the intent of Congress and the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, it likely resulted in an over-estimate of the
number of individuals or colonies that may have been impacted by Federal
actions.

*National Forests*- Within the past several years, nearly all National
Forests within the range of the Indiana bat have requested formal
consultation at the programmatic level. Consultation under Section 7 of
the Act is necessary to ensure agency actions do not jeopardize the
continued existence of listed species. These consultations have led to
non-jeopardy biological opinions with associated incidental take
statements. Although some of these incidental take statements
anticipated the take of reproductive females, we have not yet confirmed
the loss of a maternity colony on a National Forest. The reasons for
this are likely two-fold. First, the conservation measures (i.e.,
standard and guidelines) and the project-specific reasonable and prudent
measures were designed to minimize maternity colony exposure to the
environmental impacts of Forest Plan actions. Specifically, these
measures ensured an abundance of suitable Indiana bat habitat on the
National Forests, and protected all known or newly discovered maternity
colonies. Second, monitoring has not been carried out to the extent that
the take of a maternity colony would likely be captured if it did occur.

*Other Federal Agencies or Non-federal Entities-* Several incidental
take statements have been issued to other Federal agencies. Unlike those
issued for the National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans, some
of these projects were certain to impact known occupied habitat. To
minimize the effect of these projects, the action agencies agreed to
implement various conservation measures. These included: seasonal
clearing restrictions to avoid disturbing female Indiana bats and young;
protection of all known primary and alternate roost trees with
appropriate buffers; retention of adequate roosting and foraging habitat
to sustain the maternity colony into the future; and permanent
protection of areas and habitat enhancement or creation measures to
provide future roosting and foraging habitat opportunities.

With the exception of three, none of these biological opinions and
associated incidental take statements anticipated the loss of a
maternity colony. Required monitoring for 3 of these projects (Camp
Atterbury, Newport Military Installation, and Indianapolis Airport) has
confirmed that the affected colonies persisted through the life of the
project and continue to exist today. We recognize that given the
philopatric nature of Indiana bats and the long life-span, the full
extent of the anticipated impacts may not yet have occurred.
Nonetheless, these monitoring results and the lack of data to suggest
otherwise for the other projects, indicate that the conservation
measures to avoid and minimize the impacts of Federal projects appear to
be effective. Only with long-term monitoring will we definitively be
able to determine the true effectiveness of our conservation measures.

In summary, we believe the take exempted to date via section 7
consultations has resulted in adverse effects to Indiana bat habitat
and, in limited circumstances, on Indiana bat maternity colonies. As
many of these consultations necessarily made assumptions about Indiana
bat presence, we are confident that the number of maternity colonies
actually exposed to the environmental impacts of the Federal actions is
far less than we have anticipated. Furthermore, although not definitive,
monitoring of several maternity colonies pre- and post-project
implementation preliminarily suggests that our standard conservation
measures, when employed in concert, appear to be effective in minimizing
adverse effects on the affected maternity colonies.

***Range-wide Status*** - Historically and currently, the Indiana bat
geographic range encompasses 27 states, with the majority of records
from the Midwest. Although there is no administrative record, it is
believed that the species was listed because of observed declines in
numbers. The data regarding Indiana bat abundance prior to Federal
listing are limited, but the information suggests that they were once
far more abundant than they were in the 1960s. Tuttle and colleagues,
for example, believe the overall abundance of Indiana bats likely
rivaled that of the now extinct passenger pigeon (Tuttle et al. 2004).
The basis for Tuttle's and others estimates of millions of Indiana bats
prior to European settlement is primarily based on historic accounts,
extensive staining left on the ceilings of several historic hibernacula,
and other paleontology-based evidence (Toomey et al. 2002). There is
also other evidence indicating that Indiana bat numbers were once much
higher. Based on a deposit of bones, it is estimated that a minimum of
300,000 Indiana bats were killed by a flood in Bat Cave, Edmonson
County, Kentucky in 1937 (Hall 1962). Although we are never likely to
know the true historical abundance of Indiana bats, it seems clear from
the evidence above that Indiana bats were much more abundant than
observed in 1960.

Hibernacula counts at a sample of known hibernacula began in 1960 and
were repeated at approximately 10-year intervals. Beginning in the early
1980s, biennial counts at several known hibernacula were conducted, and
in 2001, a concerted effort to track numbers at all known and accessible
Priority 1 and 2 and most of Priority 3 hibernacula began. In 2002, the
recovery team leader, using these data and host of assumptions (e.g.,
similar methodologies over time and among hibernacula, using current
densities to estimate past numbers at newly found caves, assuming
unchanged densities at hibernacula no longer accessible, etc.) compiled
population estimates at 10-year intervals. Despite the many limitations
associated with the dataset, Clawson's (2002) compilation shows a marked
decline in estimated numbers over time. Estimated Indiana bat numbers
declined each decade since 1960: \~883,300 Indiana bats in 1960/1970;
678,700 in 1980; 473,500 in 1990; 382,300 in 2000/2001. However,
population data compiled by King (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) shows
an increase in 2003 and 2005, as the range-wide population was estimated
at 392,893 and 458,332 for those years, respectively. Upon further
analysis, Clawson found that the decline was not evenly distributed
across the winter range. The population in the southern portion of the
range decreased an estimated 80% in the 40 years from 1960 to 2001, with
the largest declines observed in Kentucky and Missouri hibernacula. In
contrast, the population in the northern Midwest and Northeast increased
by 30%. Clawson also indicated that the last estimated inter-decadal
hibernation count suggests that the rate of decline has slowed. From
1960/1970 to 1980, the estimated population numbers decreased by 23
percent; from 1980 to 1990 by 30 percent; and from 1990 to 2001 by 19
percent.

The results from the 2001 to 2005 biennial counts suggest that at least
for this 5-year period, the extreme decreases observed in each previous
decade may not occur this decade. From 2001 to 2003 and 2003 to 2005,
increases (4.2% and 16.7%, respectively) in the estimated numbers were
observed (King). Although the observed increases are encouraging, we are
uncertain of what the future population trend will be and vulnerability
of the current population.

***Indiana Status*** - Historic hibernating population levels in Indiana
were comprehensive enough to estimate on a statewide level for the first
time in 1981, resulting in an estimate of 147,242 hibernating bats
(Andrew King, USFWS, personal communication).   Since that time, the
statewide estimate fell to a low of 97,503 bats in 1985, and then rose
steadily to 175,795 in 1993. After that year, the population estimate
fluctuated between 173,076 and 185,899 until the 2005 census, when it
rose to 206,610.   Declines in specific caves were attributed to
improperly designed cave gates and excessive visitation; as these
problems were rectified, the population of those caves increased.

In regard to summer populations, less is known since it is much more
difficult to locate a maternity colony, or a singly roosting male, when
compared to locating and counting bats within a hibernaculum.
Furthermore, it is very difficult to estimate population numbers from
singly captured individuals; it should be noted that the capture of a
pregnant, lactating or post-lactating female, or juveniles, is an
indication of reproduction in the immediate area. Brack et al (2004)
found that although wooded habitats are plentiful on the HNF, no
evidence of reproduction was found. They concluded that, although this
does not preclude the presence of maternity colonies on the HNF, they
are apparently less abundant than in other portions of the range. During
summer, adult males frequently remain geographically close to winter
hibernacula (Whitaker & Brack 2002), and Brack et al (2004) captured six
(6) adult males during summer netting on the HNF. It is likely that
these males also hibernate on or near the HNF.

Whitaker and Brack (2002) concluded that more Indiana bats hibernate in
Indiana than in any other state, and that it is likely that more Indiana
bats spend the summer in Indiana than in any other state. Females
disperse from hibernacula, generally northward, and form maternity
colonies throughout most of Indiana and southern Michigan, and possibly
in Ohio and Illinois, as well. Based on Whitaker and Brack's estimated
maternity colony size (80 adult females), there are enough females
hibernating in Indiana (103,305 +) to form 14 maternity colonies in each
of the 92 counties, if evenly distributed.

**ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE**

This section is an analysis of the past effects of State, tribal, local
and private actions already affecting the species within the Action Area
and the present effects within the Action Area that will occur
contemporaneously with the consultation in progress. It includes a
description of the known status of Indiana bats and their habitats
within or near the Hoosier National Forest.

The Action Area includes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly
by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the
action (50 CFR 402.02). The action area is defined by measurable or
detectable changes in land, air and water or to other measurable factors
that will result from the proposed action. The Action Area is not
limited to the "footprint" of the action, but rather encompasses the
biotic, chemical, and physical impacts to the environment resulting
directly or indirectly from the action.

The Action Area for the Forest Plan is the area that encapsulates the
reach of all the direct and indirect environmental impacts of the
project. That is, the area in which the biotic, chemical, and physical
impacts to the environment that are anticipated to occur. The Action
Area for the Forest Plan will encompasses the entire HNF proclamation
boundary plus lands one mile outside of the proclamation boundary for
HNF lands that abut the boundary.

The area directly affected by the action is the HNF property where all
management activities will occur. The HNF is comprised of 199,150 acres
within a 644,130 acre proclamation boundary in nine (9) southwestern and
southern Indiana counties: Brown, Monroe, Lawrence, Jackson, Martin,
Orange, Crawford, Dubois and Perry. The proposed Forest Plan only covers
management activities to occur on the existing 199,150-acres.

The area indirectly affected by the action includes the area affected by
noise, smoke and sediment transport from upland areas into streams that
occur in response to activities on the HNF property. Activities such as
timber harvest and road construction will generate noise. The level of
noise generated will vary depending upon the methods and equipment being
used or operated, but is not expected to reach outside the project
boundary. As an example, bulldozers and chainsaws run at full throttle
are expected to produce low frequency noise that at a half mile away is
detected at the decibel level of normal conversation (de Hoop and
Lalonde 2003). The proposed I-69 "new terrain" expansion, if
implemented, will be routed through a portion of the Action Area.
Prescribed fire will generate smoke that may drift short distances from
the project area. Smoke dissipates into the air column and detectable
levels are minimal at a distance of one mile from the fire. Similarly,
sediment originating on HNF lands and entering an aquatic system is
likely to be deposited a certain distance downstream, depending on
velocity and mean particle size (Ritter et al. 1995). Based on channel
morphology and velocity of streams on the HNF, sediment particles would
be expected to be deposited within one mile of the origination point
under normal flow conditions. Thus, the Action Area encompasses the
entire proclamation boundary and extends out 1 mile around the perimeter
of that boundary.

**[*Myotis sodalis* within the Action Area]{.underline}**

A potential Indiana bat maternity colony was discovered by a HNF
biologist in the Celina Lake Campground during an evening emergence
survey of a hazard tree (a dead American elm, *Ulmus Americana*) on 4
August 2005 (personal communication with Clark McCreedy, HNF 2005).
Approximately 30 bats were counted as they emerged from beneath sheaths
of loose bark on the snag. Some fecal pellets (i.e., guano) were collect
and submitted for fecal DNA analysis to determine what species of bat
was roosting in the tree. The DNA analysis was completed in November
2005, and it was discovered that these were Indiana bats. This snag was
located over a campsite and was later felled by Forest staff after
September 15^th^ as allowed within the current BO. This maternity colony
is located within Management Area 3.3, which will utilize even-aged
timber harvest techniques to convert this section of Forest from pines
to native hardwood species. It is likely that no direct harm was done to
this roosting population, or to individuals, since the tree was felled
after September 15^th^, and biologists conducted emergence counts up to
several days before the tree was felled, confirming that bats were no
longer using the tree as a roost.

Brack and Whitaker (2002) did find that evidence of reproduction
(pregnant, lactating, post-lactating females or juveniles) was spread
evenly amongst counties around the state, although the only county (out
of nine counties) where females were captured that contains portions of
the HNF was Martin County, with four occurrences. It is likely that
these females were part of the same maternity colony, since they were
all captured within close proximity to one another. Males were
distributed more in the southern counties of the state, and captured
within five (5) counties containing portions of the HNF (with 14
occurrences total): Monroe; Lawrence; Martin; Crawford and Perry. This
leads to the conclusion that in regard to summer habitat, the HNF might
be more limiting to female bats than to male bats.

Brack et al. (2004) recently summarized previous mist net surveys and
radio-tracking studies conducted on the HNF from 1981 to 2003, which had
captured small numbers of adult male Indiana bats and successfully
located several of the males' roost trees. The first reproductive
(post-lactating) adult female Indiana bat to be captured on the HNF was
captured during a 2004 mist net survey of 40 sites in the Buzzard Roost
Area of Tell City Ranger District in Crawford and Perry counties.
Radio-tracking of this bat lead to the discovery of the first Indiana
bat maternity colony and maternity roost trees on the HNF near the town
of Magnet in Perry County. Monitoring of the roost was conducted in 2004
from the date of its discovery until all bats had departed in the fall
of 2004. Nearly 90 bats were documented using this roost. (Clarke
McCreedy, pers. comm.) Monitoring was begun initially in the spring of
2005, but the tree was eventually lost in a windstorm in early summer
2005. Rocket boxes were installed as potential replacements by HNF
biologists.

Prior to these and other recent surveys in southern Indiana, it was
known that adult male Indiana bats could be found throughout Indiana in
summer, but it was unclear if southern Indiana supported maternity
colonies of Indiana bats. Summer records of reproductive female or
juvenile Indiana bats provide evidence of a nearby maternity colony.
There are relatively few records of reproductive female Indiana bats or
juveniles from the cave region of Indiana, which includes the Hoosier
National Forest, during the summer (Brack 1983, Brack et al. 1987);
however, the number of records is growing. At Camp Atterbury, Johnson
County, 2 reproductive female and 8 juvenile Indiana bats were captured
in 1997 (Montgomery Watson 1997). At Jefferson Proving Ground, a closed
Army ammunition testing facility in southern Indiana, 9 of 14 Indiana
bats captured between 1993 and 1995 were adult females or juveniles
(Pruitt 1995). Whitaker (1994) captured a lactating female Indiana bat
in Jennings County. One reproductive female was also captured at Crane
Naval Weapons Support Center during 1998 (3D/I 1998). Tyrell and Brack
(1990) reported that there are records for reproductive females or
juveniles in Knox, Martin, and Ripley counties. In 2004, extensive mist
netting along the proposed corridor for I-69 lead to the discovery of
approximately 13 "new" Indiana bat maternity colonies between
Indianapolis and Evansville. Collectively, these records provide
evidence that southern Indiana is clearly within the maternity range of
the Indiana bat.

Based on the capture of male and female Indiana bats on the Tell City
District of the HNF and other recent evidence of Indiana bat presence in
southern Indiana the Service concurs with the BA's conclusion that
Indiana bats may be present in all suitable habitat within the Hoosier
National Forest. Furthermore, the Service believes that based on the
evidence provided here, the relatively limited geographic coverage of
mist netting efforts on the HNF, and the expansive acreage of suitable
habitat on the Forest, that it is reasonable to assume that additional
maternity colonies of Indiana bats are present on the HNF and may be
utilizing roosting and foraging habitat throughout the Forest.

The Indiana Natural Heritage Database (July 2003), maintained by the
Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Division of Nature
Preserves, lists a total (hibernacula and summer roosts) of 57 recorded
Indiana bat occurrences within southwestern Indiana. These occurrences
range in time from 1896 to 2001, with a majority recorded after 1990.

Indiana bats hibernate in caves and mines (hibernacula) across their
range that meet their narrow temperature requirements (3 to 6°C). Within
the HNF, two caves, Bluff House Cave and Gypsy Bill Allen Cave, are
known to contain hibernating Indiana bats (Brack and Dunlap, 2003). In
2003, a single hibernating Indiana bat was found within Bluff House
Cave, and 250 hibernating Indiana bats were found within Gypsy Bill
Allen Cave. There is no designated critical habitat on the HNF. The
closest Priority One[^7] hibernacula are Ray's Cave in Greene County (18
miles from HNF) and Twin Dome Cave in Harrison County (10 miles from
HNF). Wyandotte Cave in Crawford County (8 miles from HNF) is a Priority
Two[^8] hibernacula. Ray's Cave and Wyandotte Cave are listed as
critical habitat for the Indiana bat. In addition, there are seven (7)
other Priority Two hibernacula between one (1) and ten miles form the
HNF. Since there are a number of Indiana bat hibernacula within ten
miles of the HNF, and the Indiana bat is a relatively wide-ranging
species, it is probable that many parts of the HNF are used by male
Indiana bats for roosting and foraging in the spring and fall.
Additionally, because a majority of the Action Are lies outside the HNF,
and is held and managed by private entities, it is not known how many
more hibernaculum exist within the Action Area on private property.
However, it is likely that since much of the area is similar
topographically, there are likely unknown hibernaculum within the Action
Area, outside the HNF.

**EFFECTS OF THE ACTION(S)**

The appended-programmatic approach incorporated herein incorporates two
levels of analysis. The first level of analysis evaluates the actions
and effects at the program level, or how the overall goals of the Forest
Plan will affect the species across the landscape and over the long
term. The second level of analysis evaluates the actions and effects at
the management level, or how specific future actions (projects) may
affect the species. Analysis will include a discussion of direct and
indirect effects of each management action to the listed species.

One factor that makes it difficult to analyze potential effects to
Indiana bats is the abundant uncertainty surrounding the species. There
is much that is unknown about the Indiana bat life history. Although we
know Indiana bats select hibernacula based on winter temperature ranges,
and roost trees mostly because of abundance of solar exposure, it is
still not known how readily adaptable they are when their selected
hibernacula or roosts are altered and/or degraded. Migration routes and
stop-over areas are also largely unknown. Home range sizes vary greatly
across the overall range of the species. Interspecific and intraspecific
competition for resources with other bats is also largely unknown,
although limited information exists, at least anecdotally. Threats from
pesticides and other chemicals are also uncertain. However, it is
possible to glean likely effects from certain forest management actions
by applying what we do know about roost selection, hibernacula selection
and activity periods, for instance.

**[Effects of the Implementation of the 2006 Forest Plan Goals and
Objectives]{.underline}**

The goals of the 2006 Forest Plan include: (1) conservation of
threatened and endangered species habitat; (2) maintain and restore
sustainable ecosystems; (3) maintain and restore watershed health; (4)
protect cultural heritage; (5) provide visually pleasing landscape; (6)
provide recreation use in harmony with natural communities; (7) provide
useable landbase; and (8) provide for human and community development.
These goals have been described in a previous section.

Maintaining, enhancing or restoring sustainable ecosystems, including
open woodlands, closed woodlands and upland forest will likely create
diverse habitats suitable for roosting and foraging Indiana bats.
Timpone (2004) suggests that Indiana bats may respond positively to
habitat enhancement that opens the canopy, increase forest edge, and
creates/maintains snags.

The protection and conservation of soils, watersheds and water quality
will likely benefit Indiana bats by providing clean water for drinking
and healthy aquatic systems that produce healthy aquatic prey items.
LaVal (1980) and Krusac and Mighton (2002) assert that Indiana bats need
drinking water that is not degraded. This management goal should provide
for clean water.

The remaining goals, protecting cultural heritage, providing visually
pleasing landscapes, providing recreation in harmony with natural
communities, providing a useable landbase, and providing for human and
community development, are all geared towards providing for multiple
uses and users across the Forest. All of these actions provide for the
maintenance or creation of a diversity of habitats that may become or
will remain suitable for roosting or foraging Indiana bats. Per the
Standards and Guidelines, suitable roosts must be maintained in all
harvests on the Forest including regeneration harvests (i.e. clearcut,
shelterwood, salvage, etc.).

We believe that the overall goals and objectives of the 2006 Forest Plan
for the HNF are consistent with the habitat needs of the Indiana bat.
Suitable roosting and foraging opportunities will be maintained across
the HNF with the implementation of this plan. However, there are effects
associated with implementing the Forest Plan that must be considered.

**[Effects of Implementation of the Types of Management Actions Proposed
to Accomplish Forest Plan Goals and Objectives]{.underline}**

Although the overall goals of the proposed action are expected to have
beneficial effects for the Indiana bat, the means by which the Forest
will achieve their goals may unavoidably cause short-term adverse
effects to this species. Direct and indirect effects to the Indiana bat
could occur with the implementation of the 2006 Forest Plan. Direct
effect is defined as actions that cause immediate negative response in
individuals, including, but not limited to, causing the death of
individuals. Indirect effect is defined as actions that cause a
secondary negative response in individuals, including rising to the
level of death of individuals. An example of direct take is a maternity
roost tree being felled with bats present, causing varied individual
responses, including death to individuals. An example of indirect take
is the felling of a maternity roost tree in the inactive season causing
varied individual responses; including returning migrating female bats
extension of too much energy in locating a new roost tree so as not to
have the required energy to support pregnancy, and therefore causing the
individual to abort the unborn pup. Each management action has been
analyzed separately as to its likely effects on Indiana bats and their
habitat and is included in this section.

While analyzing effects of the proposed action, the Service considered
the following factors:

-   [proximity of the action]{.underline} to known species locations and
    designated critical habitat;

-   [distribution of the disturbances]{.underline} and impacts (e.g. a
    linear corridor);

-   [timing of the effects]{.underline} in relation to sensitive periods
    in the species' lifecycle;

-   [nature of the effects]{.underline} -- how the effects of the action
    may be manifested in elements of a species' lifecycle, population
    size or variability, or distribution, and how individual animals may
    be affected;

-   [duration of effects]{.underline} - short-term, long-term,
    permanent;

-   [disturbance frequency]{.underline} - number of events per unit of
    time; and

-   [disturbance severity]{.underline} - how long would it take a
    population to recover?

In general, implementation of the Forest Plan management activities that
require the clearing or disturbance of trees will remove or alter
Indiana bat habitat. Indiana bat summer habitat consists of three
functional habitat elements: roosting areas, foraging areas and travel
corridors. Persistence and availability of all three is essential for
the continued viability of the individuals using the area.

Before analyzing the direct and indirect effects to Indiana bats
stemming from habitat modification, it is necessary to consider the
local topography and land-use patterns on some areas of the Hoosier
National Forest and on adjacent private lands. The HNF contains a
diversity of land types, including river bottoms, floodplains, ridges,
valleys, wetlands and lakes. The land type that we are most concerned
with in regards to Indiana bat habitat (roosting, foraging and travel
corridor) is broad forested stream valleys. These areas in South Central
Indiana have proven to be the most biologically productive on the HNF
and on adjacent private lands, as evidence from various wildlife surveys
(including Indiana bats) and the fact that these areas are heavily
developed agriculturally. An Indiana bat maternity colony has been
documented in a broad stream valley with a wide forested plain on
private land directly adjacent to the HNF. This existing condition of
fragmentation results in a delicate balance for the Indiana bat in
regard to available habitat and habitat needs. Any forest management in
existing forested stream valleys adjacent to non-forested private land
will need to be scrutinized as to their potential effects on Indiana
bats and their habitat. Only slight effects in these already heavily
fragmented landscapes could have direct (if undertaken in the active
season) and/or indirect effects rising to the level of individual take.

Cutting an Indiana bat roost tree when bats are present in the tree is
likely to result in some individuals being directly injured or killed
(direct take), however, to date, this has not occurred on the Hoosier
National Forest. Loss or alteration of habitat, whether it occurs in the
summer or winter, can also affect individuals (indirect take). Although
habitat alterations may result in long-term improvements to Indiana bat
foraging and roosting habitats, we will focus here on some of the likely
negative effects stemming from this practice. This is not an attempt to
discount the possible positive effects, but rather concentrate on those
possible effects that are likely to cause a negative response by Indiana
bats. As previously noted, female Indiana bats establish traditional
summer ranges which they return to annually (site fidelity). Habitat
loss or alteration may result in a change of some or all portions of
their traditional roosting areas, foraging areas or travel corridors.
Additionally, the specific demographics of the individuals exposed will
also affect the response. As explained in the life history section,
females form maternity colonies during the summer. These colonies depend
upon a fairly restrictive microhabitat (e.g., large roost trees with
sloughing bark, high solar exposure, diversity of microclimate options,
closely juxtapositioned to produce foraging areas, etc.). Males, on the
other hand, roost singly or in small groups, and thus not as confined.
As such, alterations and loss of habitat may more easily cause fitness
consequences for reproductive females and pups than male bats.

As stated before, many of the management activities proposed in the 2006
Forest Plan will likely have positive long-term effects on Indiana bats
and their habitat. Most of the activities focus on opening up small
forest gaps and clearing understory, both advantageous for bats in
regard to foraging habitat and roosting habitat. Also, since management
activities are limited in Management Area 2.4 (riparian corridors) to
forest-opening maintenance, single-tree harvest, group harvest,
prescribed fire and salvage and/or sanitation harvest, these areas will
likely remain as quality travel corridor habitat for bats. Furthermore,
the proposed Standards and Guidelines will protect trees exhibiting
roost-tree characteristics, as well as hickory species preferred as live
roosts for Indiana bats. However, short-term negative effects are still
plausible to male, female and juvenile bats.

If primary or high quality alternate roost sites are cut or degraded, we
would not anticipate reproductive or survival consequences for male
bats. However, loss of traditional roost sites may cause fitness
consequences for females and pups. As maternity colony individuals
require specific microclimate conditions, loss of suitable roost trees
means that they would need to locate new roost sites. This may not be
problematic in terms of their fitness if suitable alternate trees are
readily available within or close to their traditional summer range. If,
however, females are required to locate new roosts outside their
traditional summer area, fitness consequences could occur. As explained
in the life history section, the energy budget for reproductive females
is delicate, especially in early summer. If females need to locate new
roosting sites upon their return to the HNF after migrating from their
winter hibernacula, they will need to expend additional energy from an
already taxed energy budget. Weight loss and stress associated with
hibernation, migration and pregnancy would be, therefore, magnified.
This additional energetic stress could result in lower reproductive
success (i.e., cause females to abort young) or lower survival of
juvenile bats (i.e., substantially delaying parturition such that
sufficient time for storing fat is prohibited).

Similarly, loss of travel corridors may indirectly cause fitness
consequences to bats. Travel corridors that link foraging habitat to
roosting habitat are essential to Indiana bat viability in an area.
Kurta et al (2002) found that bats exhibited a preference to traditional
travel corridors, even when their activity centers (foraging areas,
roosting areas) changed; and using traditional travel corridors was
favored even when shorter routes were available. Two aspects of
corridors that seem to be particularly important are corridor cover and
length. Loss of habitat used by individuals to move from their roosting
habitat to their foraging habitat will require bats to find alternate
routes. This is not likely to induce fitness consequences if suitable
travel habitats are readily available. If, however, suitable travel
corridors are lacking, this could lead to abandonment of their roosting
or foraging area, which would lead to reproductive or survival
consequences for those individuals exposed. As noted previously, travel
corridors directly linked to riparian areas will be protected under the
2006 Forest Plan by limiting management activities to forest-opening
maintenance, single-tree harvest, group harvest, prescribed fire and
salvage and/or sanitation harvest. However, not all travel corridors are
directly linked to riparian areas; and, although the three (3)
management activities mentioned above are potentially less damaging to
roost tree availability and foraging habitat for bats than clearcuts and
similar large-scale management activities, they still have the potential
to cause short-term direct effects and long-term indirect effects to
bats.

Lastly, loss or alteration of foraging habitat can lead to fitness
consequences. Decreased foraging success can trigger a wide range of
responses, including: (1) increased time spent foraging which results in
increased risk of predation; (2) increased energy demand and a resulting
imbalance of energy, resulting in increase in adult torpor[^9] which can
in turn lead to increased risks to juvenile bat mortality and decreased
recruitment success; and (3) decreased adult body mass, which may cause
a decline in recruitment and an increase in adult and pup mortality. We
expect such responses to occur when traditional foraging habitat is lost
or substantively degraded and alternate foraging habitat is not readily
available. If other foraging habitat is available within close proximity
to their roosting areas, we would expect short-term reductions in
foraging success, but not to the extent that reproductive or survival
consequences would occur. In the long-term, enhanced foraging habitat
will benefit HNF bats as prey abundance will likely increase and bat
energy exertion in locating prey will therefore decrease.

It is also important to note that alterations or loss in one essential
habitat element could cause individuals to abandon an entire traditional
summer area. It is also possible that alterations or losses in an
essential habitat element that would not by itself induce fitness
consequences may do so if alterations or losses in a second essential
habitat element occur concurrently.

The quality of foraging habitat may be also be degraded due to erosion,
and subsequent sedimentation of stream corridors, associated with these
management activities. Sedimentation could affect the production of
insects associated with aquatic habitats, which make up a portion of the
prey base of Indiana bats. The likelihood and extent of these stressors
occurring for each management activity are analyzed below.

An important consideration of philopatry[^10], or site fidelity, related
to Indiana bats is that habitat suitability reductions may have
substantial effects on the physical and reproductive fitness of
individuals, and in turn the long-term viability of the species in a
given range. For instance, it is anticipated that individual bats, or
groups of bats, would abandon a traditional habitat if it were rendered
unsuitable (from natural occurrences or human caused disturbances).
However, it is not known how the bat(s) would respond if the quality or
availability of their traditional habitat were only reduced. It seems
likely that these traditional habitats would continue to be used,
although offering less resource availability for the bat(s) over time.
In these situations, the fitness of exposed individuals would likely
reduce, as well. Some effects likely to occur from this sequence of
events are: (1) reduction in either the quality or quantity of roosting
sites; (2) slowed natal development; (3) increase in age of first
reproduction; and (4) death. Furthermore, reduction in forage quality
(reduction in prey base, increased foraging distances, etc) may slow fat
accumulation for adults and young, thereby delaying migration and
ultimately affecting reproductive success and possibly survival.

Another important consideration of site fidelity is that Indiana bat
presence may not be indicative of individual or overall species
viability. As bats habitually return to their summer roosting and winter
hibernating sites, presence alone does not equate that optimal, or
perhaps even adequate, summer or winter habitat is available. Thus, we
need to be cautious in formulating our conclusions about long-term
viability for sites that have limited monitoring data.

***Timber Harvest***

Timber harvest is planned for up to 6,820-acres across the HNF over the
next ten (10) years (682-acres per year). This represents approximately
3.5% of the total forest available for harvest per decade. Of these
6,900-acres, 2,020-acres (\~1%) will be available for clearcuts,
920-acres (\~.05%) will be available for shelterwood cuts, 1,110-acres
(\~.05%) will be available for single-tree cuts, and 2,850-acres
(\~1.4%) will be available for group selection cuts. Currently, 7% of
the HNF (\> 14,000-acres) is either non-forested or early successional
(less than 9-years old). 48% (95,592-acres) of the HNF is old growth
forest, or over 80-years old.

All timber harvest activities have the potential to directly or
indirectly harm Indiana bats since the removal of an occupied (either
primary or alternate), or potential roost tree is possible. Direct harm
may occur by felling occupied roost trees. As indicated previously, bats
especially non-volant pups, may be injured or killed if their roost tree
is cut down. Indirect harm may occur when a maternity roost tree is cut
during the inactive season, or when an alternate roost tree, not
currently being used, is cut down during the active season. Site
fidelity, for both summer range and hibernaculum, is well documented for
Indiana bats (Brady et al. 1983, Kurta et al. 1993). Indiana bats are
most susceptible in the spring when returning to traditional roosting
and foraging areas, as their stored fat reserves are at the lowest
during spring emergence and migration. Any added stress, including
having to locate new roosts because of tree removal, degraded or
otherwise altered foraging habitat, or changes to existing travel
corridors can have negative consequences to both male and female Indiana
bats during spring emergence, including affecting the reproductive
success of females.

Although the Standards and Guidelines contained within the HNF Forest
Plan are designed to greatly reduce exposure, they cannot guarantee
complete elimination of exposure, and hence harm, either, directly or
indirectly. Therefore, we anticipate for *some* timber activities
(clearcut harvests, shelterwood harvests, hazard-tree removal, salvage
harvest and sanitation harvest) that direct negative fitness
consequences are possible during harvest activities conducted during the
bats' active period; or that the results of those timber activities, if
performed during inactive period, may have indirect fitness consequences
as bats return to traditional foraging and roosting habitats. It is not
anticipated that these direct and/or indirect effects will have fitness
consequences at the population level. Strict adherence to standards and
guidelines, pre-harvest surveys to determine roost availability and use,
and the appropriate timing of timber harvest would greatly minimize any
potential direct exposure of Indiana bats to injury and/or death from
these actions.

[Clearcuts]{.underline} -- The removal of essentially all trees in a
single operation. Within the HNF, clearcuts (2,020-acres total) will be
carried out within two (2) management areas totaling 102,097-acres.
Clearcut sizes are limited to 10-acres per occurrence in MA 2.8 and 40
acres in MA 3.3. Although open forest is not the preferred habitat of
Indiana bats, the relatively diminutive area associated with most
clearcut harvests (10-acres) will not likely degrade available habitat
within the HNF boundaries. Although larger clearcuts (40-acres) are
proposed for Management Area 3.3, this area comprises only 13,178-acres
of the entire HNF (6.6%). Management Area 3.3 is currently evenly
characterized by non-native pine species and native deciduous species;
Indiana bats do not typically favor pine species, compared to native
deciduous species. Also, all snags possessing roost-tree
characteristics, not deemed to be hazardous, will be retained in the
clearcut area, as well as trees defined within the Standards and
Guidelines section.

Over most of the species' range, Indiana bats have a preference for
forests with old growth characteristics (i.e. large trees, scattered
gaps and open understories) (Tyrell and Brack, 1990). Indiana bats tend
to forage in the open understory, using both riparian and non-riparian
woodlands. Although clearcuts remove aspects of old-growth forests, they
also create edge habitat that bats will typically use for foraging.
Brack (1983) observed most Indiana bat foraging occurred along habitat
edges. It is reasonably certain that the interior of these created
openings are not appropriate as Indiana bat foraging habitat, but the
land area to be maintained in early successional-forest across the
Hoosier National Forest is minimal (approximately 1.5%), and therefore
not limiting in regard to Indiana bats. According to the HNF Forest
Plan, old-growth forest ratio on the HNF will increase from 48%
currently to 81% over the next 150-years.

Additionally, conversion of non-native pines to native hardwoods will
ultimately, indirectly, benefit the Indiana bat. Currently, the
over-stocked pine plantations on the HNF lack roosts for summering
males, except where groups of pines have died and not yet lost their
bark. Only two individuals have been observed using snags within these
stands for roosts (HNF 2000). The conversion of pines to native
hardwoods over a period of years will create more open conditions for
foraging, produce more insects for feeding and provide more roost sites.

Due to the potential extent of habitat affected (10 -- 40-acres), and
the fact that the Standards and Guidelines do not prohibit this
management activity during the Indiana bats' active period, we expect
that both direct and indirect take is likely to occur; therefore, this
management activity will be included in the incidental take statement.

[Shelterwood Cuts]{.underline} - The removal of undesirable competition
to promote the regeneration of target/desired species. Shelterwood cuts
are proposed for 840-acres across the HNF, with 80-acres designated for
pine stands. Shelterwood cuts open up small gaps in the forest canopy,
allowing additional sunlight to reach the forest floor, as well as lower
segments of existing trees. Brack (1983) noted that net sites where
Indiana bats were captured had openings, or gaps, in the forest canopy,
which leads to the conclusion that forest gaps are favored by Indiana
bats when compared to closed canopy forests. This type of tree harvest
is designed to promote regeneration of target species, including oaks,
hickories and walnuts. Brack (1983) also observed that at the capture
sites oaks and hickories dominated. From these observations, it is
likely that shelterwood harvests will increase foraging habitat for the
Indiana bat. There is a slight possibility that singly occupied (or
small groups) roost trees will be felled, or that alternate roost trees
will be felled. We expect that some direct and indirect take is
anticipated for this management activity; and this management activity
will be included in the incidental take statement.

[Single-tree Cuts]{.underline} - The removal of single tree(s) in order
to mimic natural canopy gaps across 1,110-acres. Trees are removed from
all diameter classes and edges/openings are not maintained. Single-tree
harvests promote uneven-aged forest stands with both spatial and
vertical diversity. Studies have shown that Indiana bats have a wide
range in foraging height, anywhere from 2 meters to 30 meters (Humphrey,
et al 1977); however, there is no conclusive evidence that bats
selectively forage in specific strata within the forest canopy. It has
been shown that gap creation increases forage and potential roost
habitat for the Indiana bat (Brack 1983), so single-tree selective
harvests will likely have a positive effect on Indiana bat habitat in
the long-term. It is unlikely that this management activity, due to the
diminutive area impacted in regard to habitat alteration(s) and the
adherence to Standards and Guidelines, will result in direct or indirect
take. This management activity will not be included in the incidental
take statement.

[Group Selection Cuts]{.underline} - The removal of trees periodically
in small groups (less than 3-acres) across 2,850-acres in order to
encourage uneven-aged forest stands. This harvest method creates forest
openings, or gaps, which have been shown to be beneficial to Indiana
bats (Brack 1983). It is unlikely that this management activity, due to
the diminutive area impacted in regard to habitat alteration(s) and the
adherence to Standards and Guidelines, will result in direct or indirect
take. This management activity will not be included in the incidental
take statement.

[Hazard Tree Removals]{.underline} - The removal of trees that are
considered hazardous to forest resources (buildings, roads and trails,
Forest Service personnel, etc.) and/or forest visitors. Likely, these
are dead or dying trees that are within a campsite, along a road,
adjacent to a forest building or structure, or along a trail. Studies
have shown that Indiana bats consistently roost in dead or dying trees
(snags), or in live shagbark hickories (Humphrey, et all 1977). It is
therefore potentially harmful to remove dead and dying trees, especially
during the active period for the Indiana bat (April 15 to September 15).
It can also be potentially harmful to remove known roost trees that
become hazards outside the active period, since bats have demonstrated a
"homing" pattern of returning to the same summer breeding areas each
year (Gardner, et al 1991, 1996).

It is not known how Indiana bats rank snag characteristics, although
they favor snags with abundant loose bark and available solar exposure
for maternal roosts (Callahan, et al 1997). There is no targeted acreage
for this harvest type, as it will be implemented "as needed"; however,
600 trees are estimated for removal over the next ten (10) years. All
hazard trees are not potential roost tree, however. It is estimated that
of the 600 trees targeted for removal over the next ten (10) years, less
than 1% (\<60) would have roost potential (personal communication with
HNF wildlife biologist Cynthia Basile). The Standards and Guidelines
state that all hazard trees displaying maternity roost-tree
characteristics will be retained, unless they pose an immediate safety
concern.

On the HNF, only one tree in the last 15 years slated for hazard-tree
removal (approximate total of 1500 trees) has demonstrated
characteristics of a roost tree (sloughing bark, solar exposure,
cavities present) (personal communication with HNF wildlife biologist
Cynthia Basile). The one tree, however, not only demonstrated
characteristics of a roost tree, it was used as a roost tree by Indiana
bats (Celina Lake campground). This tree was removed after the September
15 "no-action" date.

Due to the fact that the Standards and Guidelines do not prohibit the
felling of hazard trees in the summer, when they might be occupied by
Indiana bats, some direct take and/or indirect take is expected from
this management activity.

[Sanitation Harvest]{.underline} - The removal of disease or
insect-ridden trees for the purpose of improving overall health and
quality of stand. This harvest type will most likely emulate single-tree
and group selection cuts, and should have similar effects. There is no
targeted acreage for this harvest type, as it will be implemented "as
needed". Due to the high degree of unpredictability and variability of
these events, the Service cannot complete an adequate analysis of the
effects of this activity prior to such an event. Therefore, sanitation
harvests will be evaluated on a case by case basis at the project level.
If anticipated effects are determined at that time to be consistent with
effects from other timber harvest practices evaluated in this BO, then
the Forest Service may deduct the sanitation harvest acreage from an
existing incidental take category.

[Salvage Harvest]{.underline} - The removal of dead, damaged or dying
trees after major natural occurrence, like a wind storm. 5,000-acres of
hardwood forest will be available as needed under this management
activity, while 1,200-acres of pine forest will be available. Major
natural occurrences, like windstorms or wildfire, create natural forest
gaps and encourage shade-intolerant tree specie regeneration.
Additionally, snags become more abundant after such occurrences.
Short-term negative effects are possible in the form of unknown roost
tree removal, foraging habitat alterations or travel corridor
alterations.

Due to the potential extent of habitat affected, and the fact that the
Standards and Guidelines do not prohibit this management activity during
the Indiana bats' active period, we expect that both direct and indirect
take is likely to occur; therefore, this management activity will be
included in the incidental take statement.

[Timber Stand Improvement]{.underline} - The removal of invasive species
or problematic species closely following initial timber harvest. This
management action covers 4,500-acres, but includes areas that have
already been harvested using other techniques listed above. This
management activity will have only minor additional effects beyond the
initial timber harvest. Due to the high degree of unpredictability and
variability of these events, the Service cannot complete an adequate
analysis of the effects of this activity prior to such an event.
Therefore, timber stand improvement will be evaluated on a case by case
basis at the project level. This management activity will be included in
the incidental take statement.

[Forest Opening Maintenance]{.underline} - The removal of single trees
or small groups of trees from existing forest openings. Areas where this
management practice will be carried out are currently open, so the
overall change to existing conditions will be minor. This management
practice may have short-term adverse effects on singly roosting Indiana
bats or their preferred habitat, if management activities are conducted
during the active period for bats. However, we do not feel this
management activity will have long-term negative effects at the
population level. It is unlikely that this management activity, due to
the diminutive area impacted in regard to habitat alteration(s) and the
adherence to Standards and Guidelines, will result in direct or indirect
take. This management activity will not be included in the incidental
take statement.

[Timber Operation Accidents]{.underline} -- It is anticipated that an
average of 100-trees per year will be damaged or knocked-over in
response to timber operation accidents (these tree are not accounted for
under any other planned timber management activity). Accidents can
result from multiple unintentional practices, including skidding trees
outside the timber harvest area, felling a target tree into a
non-targeted tree, or accidentally bumping a non-targeted tree with
harvest equipment. Of these 100-trees, it is reasonable to assume that a
small percentage will have roost potential, or actually contain roosting
bats. Although it is very difficult to predict how many trees will
likely contain roosting bats, or have roosting potential, it is
reasonable to assume that some take will occur. This management activity
will be included in the incidental take statement.

***Fire Management***

[Prescribed Fire]{.underline} - The use of fire as a management tool
across 20,000-acres to increase wildlife habitat availability and
promote forest regeneration. Historically, wild fires moved through
natural ecosystems and cleared understories in order to make room for
tree regeneration. Today, wild fires are not safe in most settings, but
the use of controlled burns can be just as effective in promoting tree
regeneration. In regard to bats, this management activity will create
some forest gaps, create snags and help in the regeneration of oaks and
hickories. As stated in previous sections, all three of these outcomes
will benefit Indiana bat habitat in the long run. However, short-term
effects are anticipated, in the form of foraging habitat modification,
travel corridor modification, increased predation of fleeing bats, and
smoke and/or fire affects. Foraging habitat and travel corridor changes
will occur both from direct response to burns (i.e., roost trees and
canopy burning) and from direct response to on-the-ground fire
management activities (i.e., removing trees for fire breaks and access
roads/lanes).

Indiana bats are very well-adapted to modifications to their habitat
(Gardner et al, 1991), and they have responded to naturally occurring
fires throughout their species' existence. It is reasonable to predict
that adult Indiana bats would successfully flee from burn areas.
However, there are several response-related negative direct effects that
need to be considered. First of all, fleeing bats from a burn area would
be susceptible to increased predation; secondly, if a maternity colony
was located within a burn area, the females and non-volant[^11] young
(from May through June) would be susceptible to smoke and flames; and
lastly, if burn area is located near hibernacula, smoke and noxious
gases could become trapped inside caves and harm hibernating Indiana
bats. Take is anticipated in response to the above listed likely
responses.

[Wildfire Suppression]{.underline} - The containment of naturally
occurring fires is planned over 500-acres (50-acres/year) on the HNF.
Possible effects to the Indiana bat from this management technique
include the loss of habitat from tree clearing for fire breaks. Those
potential effects described in the section above apply (prescribed fire)
to wildfire suppression, as well. Some indirect take is anticipated from
this management practice. Fire suppression involves creating fire breaks
by removing trees and clearing accumulated ground litter, as well as
burning out areas where the wildfire is anticipated to move. Indirect
take can be anticipated from loss or alterations to roosting habitat,
foraging habitat or travel corridors.

***Summary*** -- As stated before, there are positive effects expected
in the long-term in regard to Indiana bat habitat resulting from fire
management, such as increased solar exposure to roost trees and
decreased understory coverage. However, there are short-term negative
affects that must be considered, such as immediate decrease in prey base
(insects), exposure to flames and smoke and alterations to foraging
habitat, roosting habitat and travel corridors. In order to avoid
Indiana bat responses rising to the level of take, prescribed fires
should only be conducted when Indiana bats are not likely to be present
in the area. The accepted active period for Indiana bats within their
summer habitat is from April 15^th^ to September 15^th^; however, fall
swarming behavior and spring staging behavior are also active periods
for the Indiana bat. Fall swarming typically occurs from early September
to early November (Cope and Humphrey 1977). During this period, bats
begin to congregate near hibernacula, continuing to roost and forage at
night in the adjacent forest (within 5-miles). This is a very important
time for Indiana bats, as this is the time when the majority of the
year's copulations occur (Cope and Humphrey 1977); also, Indiana bats
forage in order to gain the extra weight needed for their winter
hibernation (Kiser and Elliot 1996). In the spring, bats begin to emerge
in early April and exhibit similar behavior before migrating to their
traditional summer roosts, including some late copulation. Male bats
have been documented staying near hibernacula for the duration of the
summer. It is imperative that prescribed burns do not occur within five
(5) miles of known hibernacula during fall swarming and spring staging
behavior (as stated in the Standards and Guidelines of the 2006 Forest
Plan), as this is a critical time for Indiana bats (Kerth et al 2003).
It is our opinion that prescribed fires occurring between April 15 and
September 15 in the entire Action Area, or within 5-miles of hibernacula
during fall swarming (September 1 to November 1) and spring emergence
(April 1 to May 15), may have direct negative effects to Indiana bats.

***Construction, Upkeep and Permits***

[Trail Construction/Reconstruction]{.underline} - This management
activity represents miles of trail construction or reconstruction that
require the removal of trees. Whenever possible, trails will be routed
so as to retain all large trees. This management activity is planned for
65 linear miles over the next ten years; an estimated 1,625 trees
greater than 3 inches DBH will likely be removed. This is roughly
equivalent to 2.5-acres of tree clearing over ten years, based on
approximate density of 681 trees per acre (Leatherberry, 2003).

Maintenance of trails beneath the forest canopy simulates conditions of
open travel corridors above streams for bats traveling between roosts
and foraging areas. This may marginally improve foraging habitat and
provide travel corridors. Relocating trails, including re-contouring and
re-vegetating the landscape, may locally reduce the number of sites for
drinking water for the bats. Water resources are widely scattered across
the HNF, so bats would likely expend little energy finding replacements
for those lost during trail construction and maintenance. The potential
loss of few potential roost trees along trails will cause bats to expend
some additional energy locating new roosts. Although initial activities
(tree removal) may cause short-term negative impacts to the Indiana bat
in the form of added energy consumption, long-term effects will benefit
the species through the provision of added travel corridors and
potential foraging habitat. No direct or indirect take is anticipated
from this management practice.

[Special Use Permits]{.underline} -- This management activity represents
forest acreage to be managed as right-of-ways for utilities, and
includes existing and new permits. Activities are planned for 300-acres
over the next ten (10) years (30-acres per year). Activities will mostly
involve tree removal to protect utility lines and the like.

Removal of potential roost trees could affect Indiana bats by
potentially directly harming bats roosting in those trees and by
reducing overall roosting habitat within the area; however, this would
have little to no effect to overall Indiana bat populations across the
HNF and affected bats would recover quickly. Other possible short-term
effects include added energy consumption of Indiana bats locating new
roost trees. No direct or indirect take is anticipated from this
management practice.

[Road Construction/Reconstruction]{.underline} -- This management
activity involves tree removal and grading of slopes, and will affect
267-acres over the next ten (10) years (26.7-acres per year). Road
construction may require the removal of a few potential roost trees,
which could directly harm Indiana bats roosting in those targeted trees
and by reducing overall roosting habitat in those areas affected. The
loss of a few potential roost trees during road construction and
maintenance will cause bats to expend some additional energy locating
new roosts. In the long-term, conditions and availability of roost trees
may be improved, by allowing increased sunlight for more suitable
temperature levels for roost trees. Re-locating roads, including
re-contouring and re-vegetating the landscape, may locally reduce the
number of sites for drinking water for bats. Water resources are widely
scattered across the HNF, so bats would likely expend little energy
finding replacements for those lost during road construction and
maintenance. Indiana bats may come into the road right-of-way for
improved foraging conditions and improved roost sites, and roads may
provide new travel corridors. No direct or indirect take is anticipated
from this management practice.

[Parking Lot, Tree Landing Area and Trailhead Construction]{.underline}
-- This management activity involves tree removal and possibly grading
of slopes, and will affect 120-acres over the next ten (10) years
(12-acres per year). Removal of potential roost trees will cause habitat
loss and may force Indiana bats to expend additional energy in locating
alternative roost trees. Additionally, direct harm might be a result as
bats might be occupying trees that are felled. In the long-term, this
management action is not likely to have a noticeable adverse effect on
the overall population of Indiana bats across the HNF. No direct or
indirect take is anticipated from this management practice.

[Wetland Construction]{.underline} -- This management activity involves
building low-profile berms to contain water, and flooding previously dry
areas, and will affect 25-acres over the next ten (10) years (2.5-acres
per year). This management activity will likely benefit the Indiana bat
by providing increased access to drinking water as well as increased
insect abundance and consequent increased foraging habitat. Potential
roost tree will likely develop at the edges and within created wetlands,
as the increased water levels will likely kill or damage existing trees.
No direct or indirect take is anticipated from this management activity.

[Recreation Site Enhancement]{.underline} -- This management activity
involves site expansion, vista clearing, maintenance or utility line
installation, and will affect 35-acres over the next ten (10) years
(3.5-acres per year). Removal of potential roost trees will cause
habitat loss and may force Indiana bats to expend additional energy in
locating alternative roost trees. Additionally, direct harm might be a
result as bats might be occupying trees that are felled. In the
long-term, this management action is not likely to have a noticeable
adverse effect on the overall population of Indiana bats across the HNF.
No direct or indirect take is anticipated from this management activity.

[Pesticides and Herbicides]{.underline} -- This management activity
involves applying pesticides and herbicides to HNF vegetation to manage
pests and weeds, and will affect 4,000-acres over the next ten (10)
years (400-acres per year). Local outbreaks of insects and diseases
causing mortality in trees may lead to short-term improvement in
foraging conditions and increase the number of available suitable
roosts. However, if harmful insects and diseases are not controlled
foraging and roosting habitat may become suboptimal leading to an
overall decline in Indiana bat populations. Furthermore, targeted
insects will include diurnal species such as wasps and bees, and will
not affect nocturnal insects (moths, etc.) targeted as food items by
Indiana bats. No take is anticipated from this management activity.

**[Summary]{.underline}**

The overall goals and objectives of the Revised Forest Plan are expected
to be beneficial for the Indiana bat. The Standards and Guidelines
proposed in the 2006 Forest Plan will greatly reduce potential exposure
and risk to Indiana bats and it is evident that the Forest Service is
dedicated to protecting both individuals and habitat on the HNF. There
is little question as to the intent of the Forest Plan as a strategy to
both enhance forest resources and protect the long-term viability of the
wildlife contained within. We are confident that all management
practices will be carried out with these intentions in mind. However,
even with the best intentions and measures in place to reduce exposure
and risk, some adverse effects to the Indiana bat through implementation
of the Plan may result from loss of unknown roost trees, loss of
potential roost trees, added stress to bats in locating alternative
roost trees, added predation, short-term loss of foraging habitat and
possible smoke damage to maternity roosts and hibernacula. We
anticipate, however, that the Standards and Guidelines will greatly
limit the extent to which these adverse effects will occur. We expect
that it is reasonably certain that occupied roost trees could be removed
during the summer period as a result of salvage harvest, hazard-tree
removal or sanitation timber harvests. These actions may result in
fitness consequences at the individual level (injury, death, etc.), but
are not expected to have negative population-level consequences.
Specifically, take of individual females is not anticipated to rise to
the level of affecting the fitness of the maternity colony due to the
few number of individuals to which exposure is anticipated. Likewise,
take of single males is not expected to be detected at hibernacula or at
the population level.

**CUMULATIVE EFFECTS**

Cumulative effects include the effects of local, state, tribal 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 under section 7 of the Act.

Reasonably foreseeable actions on other ownerships are difficult to
predict, since there are an abundance of owners within the nine-county
area. Other state landowners or managers include the Indiana Department
of Natural Resources and state Highway Departments. Each entity has a
different purpose and objectives for managing their lands, although
based on past management practices and planning documents, their
activities can be reasonably predicted.

While all have differing management objectives, the state land
management agencies all have conducted similar management activities
over the past years that are indicative of the types of reasonably
foreseeable future actions that could likely occur. These include forest
and openland management through prescribed burning, various types of
timber harvest, limited herbicide and pesticide use, provision of
recreational experiences.

However, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources recently issued its
Strategic Plan for 2005 through 2007. This plan states that efforts over
the next two years will be directed towards management of forest
resources for increased timber production and enhanced wildlife habitat.
If implemented, this could result in an increased timber harvest from an
estimated 3.4 million board feet per year to approximately 10 to 17
million board feet per year on State lands. This will increase the
amount of early successional habitats available on these lands, as well
as provide wood products and revenue to the state of Indiana and its
citizens.

The state Highway Departments regularly conduct road and highway
maintenance, as well as various road reconstruction and relocation
projects across the state. One major highway project that has been
proposed and is in the planning stage is the I-69 expansion from
Bloomington to Evansville. This project, other federal highway projects
and state highway projects that use federal monies would be subject to
Section 7 consultations and would not be included in the discussion of
cumulative effects as defined by the Act.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of private landowners who own
property within the nine-county area in which the HNF is contained.
However, past trends on private properties within these counties offer
some indication of reasonably foreseeable trends for the future.
Activities on private lands which may be reasonable to expect to occur
and which might have some impacts on Indiana bats or their habitat
include:

-   Commercial or private use of caves that Indiana bats use for
    hibernating/swarming;

-   Recreational use of occupied Indiana bat caves resulting in some
    disturbance;

-   Land clearing, road construction and other uses that may result in
    permanent loss of forest cover and large, dead trees and potential
    sedimentation of streams; and

-   Agricultural use of herbicides and pesticides.

In addition, private landowners also conduct burns on their land and
wildfires occur both on private land and National Forest land within the
proclamation boundary.

Any of these activities would have varying degrees of effects on Indiana
bats, ranging from no effect to adverse effects. Human disturbance in
hibernacula and permanent conversion of lands to unsuitable habitat
(urban and residential development, road construction, permanent pasture
with few or no trees, etc.) would have the greatest potential impact to
Indiana bats. Other activities would have the same general effects as
HNF activities would providing they are implemented with similar methods
and protective measures.

We can not accurately quantify how much forest land on private lands
will be converted to other habitat types, the extent of future timber
harvests on private lands, nor the amount of privately owned habitat
that will be developed for other purposes. However, we can look at the
trends state-wide and extrapolate assumptions as to how the private
lands within the Action Area will likely be managed in the foreseeable
future.

The following Indiana forest trends were highlighted within the North
Central Research Station's 2005 report, "Indiana Forests: 1999-2003,
Part A":

-   There are no major tree die-offs anywhere in the state; natural tree
    mortality appears evenly across the state.

-   The ratio of harvested tree volume to tree volume growth indicates
    sustainable management.

-   Diverse and abundant forest habitat (snags, coarse woody debris,
    forest cover and edges) support healthy wildlife populations across
    the state.

-   Indiana possesses a diversity of standing dead tree wildlife habitat
    with an abundance of recently acquired snags to replenish fully
    decayed snags as Indiana's forests mature.

-   Indiana's oak species continue to grow slower than other hardwood
    species.

-   The average private forest landholding dropped from 22-acres in 1993
    to 16-acres in 2003, indicating a continued "parcelization" of
    Indiana forests.

-   Introduced or invasive plant species inhabit a majority of
    inventories plots.

-   The amount of forest edge doubled from 1992 to 2001, indicating
    smaller forest plots.

-   Due to land use history and natural factors, the forest soils of
    southern Indiana are generally below-average in quality.

-   Although Indiana's overall forested land mass is increasing, the
    rate of increase has slowed over the past decade.

-   Indiana's forests continue to mature in terms of the number and size
    of trees within forest stands.

-   Tree-of-Heaven, a highly invasive species, has become well
    established in forests along the Ohio River and has the potential to
    spread farther into Indiana forests.

-   Increases in total volumes of oak species are less than those for
    most other hardwood species.

-   The advanced ages and inadequate regeneration of Indiana's oak
    forests may signal a successional shift from an
    oak/hickory-dominated landscape to one where other hardwood species,
    such as maples, occupy more forested areas.

-   Indiana's hardwood saw-timber resource continues to be at risk due
    to maturing of hardwood stands, loss of timberland to development
    and new pests (gypsy moth, emerald ash-borer, sudden oak death,
    beech-bark disease, and more).

-   Ownerships of Indiana forests have changed in the past decade,
    resulting in more parcelization and fragmentation.

While the data shows there has been loss of continuous forest, resulting
in smaller, fragmented stands, there is also an overall increase in
forested land across the state.

**CONCLUSION**

After reviewing the current status of the Indiana bat, the environmental
baseline for the action area, the effects of the 2006 Land and Resource
Management Plan for the Hoosier National Forest, and the likely
cumulative effects, it is the Service's *biological opinion* that the
2006 Forest Plan, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the Indiana bat. No critical habitat has been designated on
the HNF, although a maternity colony and two small hibernacula have been
discovered. The actions described herein, carried out with their
accompanying Standards and Guidelines, will not likely affect these
known areas in a destructive or degrading manner.

This conclusion is based on the following factors:

-   Hibernating Indiana bats on the HNF are not likely to be adversely
    affected with the implementation of the 2006 Forest Plan;

-   Approximately 250 Indiana bats are known to hibernate in caves on
    the HNF, and one of the caves had only one hibernating Indiana bat
    observed. The implementation of the Standards and Guidelines
    contained within the 2006 Forest Plan will greatly reduce or
    completely avoid the potential for adverse effects (i.e., injury,
    death or habitat loss) to occur within the Action Area;

-   The probability of unknown occupied roost trees being removed
    through salvage harvest or hazard tree removal with the
    implementation of the 2006 Forest Plan is very small. If a tree was
    cut that had an unknown maternity colony roosting in it, most of the
    bats would likely escape unharmed, including non-volant juveniles
    (Belwood 2002, Carter, et al 2002). Some individuals may be injured
    or killed. Since the HNF will not be cutting all of the suitable
    roost trees in any one area, it is likely that suitable (alternate
    and/or primary) roosts will remain available for the colony(s).

-   With the implementation of the 2006 Forest Plan, it is likely that
    more optimal roosting and foraging habitat will be created on the
    HNF.

-   In regard to male Indiana bats being harmed or killed while roosting
    in a tree targeted for harvest, the likelihood is very remote that
    this would ever occur. It is highly unlikely that a bat would remain
    in a tree being cut down, and if it did, the odds that the tree
    would fall exactly on the spot in the tree where the bat was
    roosting are remote. Furthermore, since male Indiana bats
    predominantly roost alone, there would be very little chance for
    multiple bats being taken if this very improbable scenario ever
    unfolded. Any predation risk is considered insignificant. The number
    of anticipated injuries and/or deaths to male Indiana bats is so
    small that no appreciable reductions in reproduction, numbers and
    distribution are expected within the Action Area.

-   The range-wide rate of decline for the Indiana bat has slowed, and
    recent counts have shown for the first time in 60-years an actual
    increase in overall population. However, at this time we are unable
    to interpret the meaning and/or causes of these increases in terms
    of current population trends.

-   The proposed action(s) will only reduce the fitness of individuals
    occurring within the Action Area, not the viability of hibernating
    populations in which these individuals belong. Therefore, the
    proposed action(s) are not likely to appreciably reduce the
    reproduction, numbers or distribution of Indiana bats range-wide.

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

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation under section 4(d) of the
Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species,
respectively, without exemption. Take is defined as harassment, harm,
pursuit, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing or
collecting, or attempting to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further
defined by the Service to include significant habitat modification or
degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by
significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including
breeding, feeding or sheltering. Harass is defined as by the Service as
intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to
listed species, to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal
behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding,
feeding or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is
incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise
lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2),
taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency
action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided
that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this
Incidental Take Statement.

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

**Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated**

In this incidental take statement, we are evaluating the incidental take
of Indiana bats that may result from the implementation of the 2006 Land
and Resource Management Plan for the Hoosier National Forest (loss of
roost trees and/or foraging habitat through various forest management
actions). The 2006 Forest Plan is a comprehensive plan level document
that allows and guides, but does not authorize site-specific actions to
occur. With the implementation of the 2006 Forest Plan (and all
Standards and Guidelines within), we expect that some adverse effects to
Indiana bats may occur. As such, *some* site-specific projects (i.e.,
salvage harvest, hazard-tree removal) conducted under the 2006 Forest
Plan may result in adverse effects to individual Indiana bats that rise
to the level of take. The Standards and Guidelines proposed
substantially reduce the potential for adverse effects and incidental
take to occur as a result of actions implemented under the 2006 Plan.
Projects completed under the 2006 Plan that comply with all of the
Standards and Guidelines and other project commitments detailed in the
BA in many cases would not adversely affect the Indiana bat and,
therefore, no incidental take would occur in those instances. However,
as described within the Effects section, an unknown occupied roost tree
could be removed, particularly during salvage harvest or hazard-tree
removal. The likelihood of such instances is strongly influenced by the
timing and the location of the activity within the HNF. At the program
level, where projects details are not known, it is difficult to
accurately predict how Standards and Guidelines will be applied.
However, at the project level, where details such as micro-topography
and specific harvest characteristics are know, application of all
pertinent Standards and Guidelines can more accurately be assessed.

Incidental take of Indiana bats is expected to be in the form of injury
or death or harassing. The intent of the Standards and Guidelines
sufficiently limit summer season activities so that only occupied
secondary roost or less important roost trees may be felled. These trees
are likely to be occupied by either singly roosting males or few
females. It is reasonable to assume that only a subset of these
individuals will be directly taken through injury or death (Bellwood
2002) and that most of the individuals in occupied roost trees will
escape. We anticipate that such a roost tree could be cut during any of
the activities described previously in this BO. Although very difficult
to predict with certainty, the occurrence of this, however, we believe
is likely to be less than once per activity. For instance, it is likely
that 60 hazard trees with roost tree characteristics will be targeted
for removal over the next ten (10) years; this would equate to roughly
6-trees per year. Thus, we can anticipate that no more than four (4)
occupied roost trees will be incidentally cut per year and between four
(4) and twelve (12) individuals injured or killed each year.

As explained previously, we will monitor incidental take of Indiana bats
as individual projects are completed where take is reasonably certain to
occur. At the project level we will more precisely know the Indiana bat
demographics within the project action area, how likely it is that they
will be exposed to the project impacts and how they will likely respond
to the exposure. Take will be tallied as the projects are implemented.
Prior to implementing each project, we will ensure that the cumulative
take does not exceed what was anticipated in the programmatic Incidental
Take Statement.

To ensure that the impacts of take associated with future projects are
appropriately minimized and that the exemption of incidental take is
appropriately documented, the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife
Service will implement an appended programmatic consultation approach.
Under that approach this programmatic Biological Opinion and Incidental
Take Statement will exempt incidental take that result from the
implementation of site-specific actions that result from the continued
implementation of the 2006 Forest Plan. However, individual projects
which have not yet been specifically identified and which impact Indiana
bat habitat must be individually reviewed to determine if they are
consistent with the programmatic Incidental Take Statement's reasonable
and prudent measures and associated terms and conditions, and to ensure
that once specific projects are identified, site-specific impacts of the
resulting incidental take are minimized. If an individual project is
found to be consistent with the programmatic consultation it will be
appended to this programmatic Biological Opinion and Incidental Take
Statement, along with any project-specific reasonable and prudent
measures and terms and conditions that are needed to fulfill the
requirements of section 7(a)(2).

For site-specific projects, the Forest Service will supply the Service's
Bloomington Field Office a description of the project that includes the
project location, type of activity, total acreage to be disturbed and
map(s) of the proposed project area with boundaries identified. When
reporting the type of activity, it must directly correspond to one of
the management activities outlined in the Incidental Take Statement
(Figure 2). Each project proposal must report how the individual project
increases the cumulative forested acres (or number of trees or miles)
affected within each of the management activities listed in Figure 2 and
report on the total acreage (or number of trees or miles) remaining in
each management activity. A map illustrating all previous site-specific
projects and accompanying incidental take should be included.

The letter requesting project-specific review must include the Forest
Service's determination that the proposed project is consistent with
this programmatic Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement and
request that the proposed project be appended to this programmatic
Biological Opinion.

Incidental take of Indiana bats is difficult to detect for the following
reasons:

-   The individuals are small and occupy summer habitats where they are
    difficult to find;

-   Males and non-reproductive females may roost individually, which
    makes locating the species or occupied habitats difficult;

-   Finding dead or injured specimens during or following project
    implementation is unlikely;

-   The extent and density of the species within its summer habitat on
    the HNF is limited based on a lack of substantial survey efforts and
    capture data;

-   Implementation will not affect all available habitats within the
    Action Area as a result of property (i.e., habitat, resources)
    management actions.

Since the number of Indiana bats that may be taken through the
implementation of the 2006 Forest Plan cannot be accurately monitored,
and it is unlikely that we would ever notice when an unknown occupied
roost tree was cut, it is necessary estimate the level of take that may
occur. We believe the level of take of this species can be monitored by
tracking the level of habitat modification and adherence to Standards
and Guidelines, and then estimating the number of individuals that will
be affected. Specifically, if the Standards and Guidelines are not fully
implemented, or if the current anticipated level of habitat loss is
exceeded, we expect the level of incidental take to increase as well.
Incidental take of individuals will be estimated using the number of
acres provided in the following table.

Figure 2. Annual estimated management activities on the HNF (expressed
in acres).

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **[Activity]{.mark}**               **[Measure]{.mark}**

  Hardwood Clearcut Harvest           102-acres

  Pine Clearcut Harvest               100-acres

  Hardwood Shelterwood Harvest        76-acres

  Pine Shelterwood Harvest            8-acres

  Hazard-tree Removal                 60 trees

  Hardwood Salvage Harvest            500-acres

  Pine Salvage Harvest                120-acres

  Sanitation Harvest                  As Needed\*

  Prescribed Fire                     2,000-acres

  Fire Suppression                    50-acres

  Timber Operation Accidents          100 trees

  **TOTAL YEARLY EXEMPTIONS**         2956-acres; 60 hazard trees; 100
                                      "accident" trees
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

\* Since this management activity is proposed "as needed", and harvest
will be documented and tracked under one of the other incidental take
categories.

**[Estimating Indiana bat Exposure and Take]{.underline}**

In 2005, 206,610 Indiana bats were documented to be hibernating in
Indiana. For the purposes of this estimation, we assume that this number
is evenly distributed between males and females. It is also assumed that
this same number of bats will be found utilizing Indiana for their
summer range (it follows that those bats which likely migrate from
Indiana will be evenly replaced with bats migrating to Indiana).

From these assumptions so far, we likely have 103,305 female Indiana
bats summering and forming roosting colonies in Indiana. The average
number of female Indiana bats in a maternity colony has been estimated
in previous literature (Whitaker and Brack 2002) to be 80, so, there are
likely 1291 maternity colonies in Indiana. Whitaker and Brack assume
equal distribution across all 92 counties in Indiana. However, this
assumption does not take into account county size. For a more accurate
distribution estimate, it is more valuable to quantify the average
maternity roost colony range in terms of acreage. To do this, we must
first convert the state of Indiana's land mass into acres. Indiana is
comprised of 36,420 square miles, or, at 640-acres-per-square mile,
23,308,800 acres. If we divide this number by the number of assumed
maternity colonies (1291), we will have the average distribution of each
maternity colony as 18,055 acres/colony. Now, by dividing the total area
of the Action Area (\~645,000) by this average colony acreage (18,055),
we can estimate the likely number of maternity colonies contained within
the Action Area. Based on these assumptions, we will likely find 36
maternity colonies within the Action Area. It is important to note here
that the actual acreage contained within the HNF is substantially
smaller, since the Action Area comprises the purchase boundary, or
forest "potential". The HNF is currently 199,150 acres; so, providing
the same assumptions, we will assume to have 11 colonies (199,150 /
18,055) dispersed throughout this current land configuration. Next, it
is useful to break down the acreage in terms of individual bats. As
noted above, there are typically 80 female bats in each maternity
colony. As female Indiana bats can reach sexual maturity in their first
year, we will assume that most of these 80 bats (70) will produce a pup
each year. Therefore, each maternity colony will support 150
individuals. So, within the 36 assumed maternity colonies, there are an
estimated 5400 bats in the Action Area. If we evenly distribute this
population over the entire Action Area, each bat will inhabit
approximately 119-acres (645,000 / 5400).

Unpublished Fish and Wildlife Service data suggests that female Indiana
bats avoid un-glaciated, dry ridge habitats when locating maternity
colonies. The HNF is predominantly un-glaciated. Maternity colonies in
the un-glaciated portions of the state and HNF, are typically found only
in stream valleys with broad forested floodplains such as in the case of
the two known maternity roosts within, or adjacent to, the HNF at Oil
Creek and Celina Lake. Therefore, when estimating presence on the HNF,
it is necessary to adjust the numbers based on the topographical
limitations in regard to maternity colonies. It is expected that a
maternity is half as likely (50%) to locate on the HNF, so it is
expected that on the HNF the *average distribution for females /
juveniles is 238-acres*.

For males, who typically summer roost near their respective hibernacula,
their preference for glaciated vs. un-glaciated topography is not as
pronounced. This is verified through past surveys where male Indiana
bats have been captured on both topographical regions. All the known
hibernacula in the state of Indiana are located below the "mid-section"
of the state; so in order to estimate male bat-density, we will only
look at the southern portion of the state. This assumption is further
validated through survey efforts showing a great scarcity of male
Indiana bats in the northern portion of the state. By dividing the
southern land mass (11,654,400 acres) by the number of male bats
(103,305), we can determine the *average distribution of males across
southern Indiana to be 113 acres/male*.

For management practices that are not expressed in terms of acreage, but
instead in number of trees harvested, as in hazard tree removal and
timber operation accidents, we will use a different approach. According
to testimony from HNF biologists, it is estimated that less than one
percent (1%) of targeted hazard trees will have roost-tree potential
(Cindy Basile); we will use 1% for estimation purposes. In regarding
timber operation accidents, it is reasonable to assume that this ratio
will be less, since the accidents will not target hazard trees, which
are more likely to have roost-tree potential. For timber operation
accidents, we will use one-half of one percent (.5%) as the ratio of
trees potentially having roost-tree characteristics.

The 2006 Forest Plan states that a total of 600 hazard trees (60 per
year) will be removed over the next ten years. Each year, by using the
1% ratio, we can assume that .6 trees (1% of 60 trees) with roost
potential will be removed. We cannot assume that every tree with roost
potential will actually contain bats, so we must reduce this number to
the likely number of potential roost trees that actually contain bats.
For this estimation, we will assume that half the trees with roost
potential actually contain bats. This equates to roughly one tree every
three years. Finally, we need to estimate the likely number of bats that
will negatively respond to the felling of their roost tree. Since the
Standards and Guidelines clearly state that all hazard trees with roost
tree potential will be left standing until after September 15^th^ (when
possible), it is unlikely that bats will be present when these trees are
felled. However, since it is possible that a few bats will remain behind
past the September 15^th^ date, we can assume that 3-6 bats will be
exposed to the felling of their roost tree; this number, expressed in
yearly terms, is 1-2 individuals.

The 2006 Forest Plan estimates that a total of 1000 trees (100 per year)
will be knocked down or otherwise damaged due to timber operation
accidents. Each year, by using the .5% ration, we can assume that .5
trees (.5% of 100 trees) with roost potential will be removed. Again, we
cannot assume that every tree with roost potential will actually contain
bats. We will assume that half the trees with roost potential contain
bats. This equates to one tree every four years. Since accidents cannot
be guaranteed to occur after September 15^th^ or after April 15^th^, we
will assume the potential number of bats present to be higher than in
the hazard-tree example. We will assume 12-16 bats will be exposed if
their roost tree is felled when they are present; this number, expressed
in yearly terms, is 3-4 individuals.

We can now use these figures to estimate exposure and possible risk of
take to individual bats, since all management activities are expressed
in terms of acres affected (these estimates do not take into
consideration possible long-term positive effects of these management
activities):

**Figure 3. Indiana bat Exposure Estimates**

  ------------------------- ------------- ---------------- ----------------
  **Management Activity**   **Acres       **Number of      **Number of
                            Affected (per Females/Pups     Males Exposed**
                            year)**       Exposed**        

  Hardwood Clearcut Harvest 102           0.43             0.90

  Pine Clearcut Harvest     102           0.43             0.90

  Hardwood Shelterwood      76            0.32             0.67
  Harvest                                                  

  Pine Shelterwood Harvest  8             0.03             0.07

  Hazard Tree Removal       60-trees      0.75             0.75

  Hardwood Salvage          500           2.10             4.42

  Pine Salvage              120           0.50             1.06

  Sanitation Harvest        as needed\*   1 per 238-acres  1 per 113-acres

  Prescribed Fire           2,000         8.40             17.70

  Fire Suppression          50            0.21             0.44

  Timber Operation          100-trees     1.75             1.75
  Accidents                                                

  **Total Yearly            2956-acres;   14.92; 1 per     28.66; 1 per
  Estimates**               160 trees     238-acres San.   113-acres San.
                                          Harvest          Harvest
  ------------------------- ------------- ---------------- ----------------

\*No acreage has been estimated for this management practice; will be
analyzed on a project by project basis.

The above table represents estimated bat exposure to management
practices, but does not address bat response and possible negative
effects. In order to estimate negative effects, it is first necessary to
determine all the potential responses, both negative and positive. There
are a range of responses generally agreed upon in regard to Indiana bats
and management activities that alter habitat:

1.  no response;

2.  startled, increased respiration/heart rate;

3.  death/injury of adults and/or offspring;

4.  abandonment of roost site(s);

5.  abandonment of forage area(s);

6.  shift of focal roosting and/or foraging habitat

7.  increased energy expenditures and decreased fitness (short-term);

8.  decreased energy expenditures and increased fitness (long-term);

9.  aborted pregnancy/reproduction failure (1 season);

10. increased torpor, delayed development/parturition, and/or delayed
    sexual maturation of young;

11. short-term reduction in colony reproductive rates (1-2 seasons
    post-management);

12. short-term reduction in colony size (2-3 seasons post-management);

13. long-term increase in colony reproductive rate;

14. long-term increase in colony size.

Of these fourteen (14) responses, six (6) of them are considered to be
negative responses rising to the level of take (from the above list,
numbers 3,7,9,10,11 and 12). In order to apply negative response to
exposure rates, it is necessary to compute the likelihood of a negative
response from the list presented above by dividing the full complement
of responses by the number of negative responses (14 / 6 = 43%). Now, by
multiplying the estimated number of bats exposed to a particular
management practice by the corresponding rate of negative response, it
is possible to estimate the likely number of bats that will be taken by
a particular management practice.

Figure 4. Indiana bat Take Estimates

  ------------------------- ------------- ---------------- ----------------
  **Management Activity**   **Acres       **Number of      **Number of
                            Affected (per Females/Pups     Males Taken**
                            year)**       Taken**          

  Hardwood Clearcut Harvest 102           0.18             0.39

  Pine Clearcut Harvest     102           0.18             0.39

  Hardwood Shelterwood      76            0.14             0.29
  Harvest                                                  

  Pine Shelterwood Harvest  8             0.01             0.03

  Hazard Tree Removal       60-trees      0.33             0.33

  Hardwood Salvage          500           0.90             1.90

  Pine Salvage              120           0.22             0.46

  Sanitation Harvest        as needed\*   1 per 102-acres  1 per 49-acres

  Prescribed Fire           2,000         3.61             7.61

  Fire Suppression          50            0.09             0.19

  Timber Operation          100-trees     0.75             0.75
  Accidents                                                

  **Total Yearly            2956-acres;   6.41; 1 per      12.34; 1 per
  Estimates**               160 trees     102-acres San.   49-acres San.
                                          Harvest          Harvest
  ------------------------- ------------- ---------------- ----------------

\*No acreage has been estimated for this management practice; will be
analyzed on a project by project basis.

**EFFECT OF THE TAKE**

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

The amount of incidental take allowed here (2956-acres per year), as
expressed in acres of habitat lost or altered, spread out over the
forested portion of the HNF (187,201-acres) represents only 1.6% of
affected habitat per year. This ratio decreases significantly when the
entire Action Area (including private forests -- 644,130-acres total) is
considered. It is likely that additional forest management will likely
occur on non-Forest Service properties within the Action Area; however,
it is difficult to estimate the amount of management and subsequent
habitat loss/alteration that will occur on non-Forest Service-managed
land. It is only reasonable here to comment on the effect of the take on
HNF property, since we have no assurance or presumption that non-Forest
Service property will be managed according to the 2006 Plan.

**REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES**

Within the Biological Assessment and the Forest Plan the land and
resource management standards and guidelines for the Hoosier National
Forest are documented. These standards and guidelines are sound forest
management practices and benefit a variety of wildlife species,
including the Indiana bat. However, the Service believes the following
reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to further
minimize take of Indiana bats:

1.  All tree removal activity will be closely monitored and reported on
    a project-by-project basis to ensure that impacts of incidental take
    associated with future proposed projects are appropriately
    minimized.

2.  Further minimize impacts to roosting habitat by adequately
    monitoring active roosts before and after management activities
    occurring nearby.

**TERMS AND CONDITIONS**

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

1.  To reduce the possible impacts to Indiana bats due to loss or
    degradation of roosting habitat, the following is necessary:

-   Develop management goals and directives (conservation plan) for each
    known maternity colony at micro-topographical level, taking into
    consideration current conditions and future restraints and/or
    challenges.

-   Perform emergence counts on all trees targeted for removal during
    the bats' active period (April 15 -- September 15) that exhibit
    maternity roost tree characteristics.

2.  Any dead bats located on the HNF, regardless of species, should be
    immediately reported to the BFO \[(812)334-4261\], and subsequently
    transported on ice to the BFO. No attempt should be made to handle
    any live bat, regardless of its condition; report bats that appear
    to be sick or injured to the BFO. The BFO will make a species
    determination on any dead bat or moribund bats found on the HNF.

3.  Include all Indiana bat Standards and Guidelines (2006 Forest Plan)
    into all contract language regarding timber harvest, transport or
    other activities associated with timber management activities or
    other tree-removal activities.

-   Conduct pre-harvest environmental meeting with contractors and their
    employees on-site before any activities associated with timber
    harvest and/or removal; emphasize strict adherence to Standards and
    Guidelines; discuss life history and habitat needs of Indiana bats;
    adequately describe roost tree characteristics and the critical role
    they play for bats, and the subsequent importance in avoiding these
    trees during harvest operations.

The reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and
conditions, are designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that
might otherwise result from the proposed action. The Service anticipates
that annually no more than 2956-acres of habitat will be lost or altered
in accordance with the Incidental Take Statement contained within. If,
during the course of action, this level of take is exceeded, such
incidental take would represent new information requiring reinitiation
of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent measures
provided. The Federal agency must immediately provide an explanation of
the causes of the taking and review with the Service the need for
possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures.

**[REQUIREMENTS FOR MONITORING]{.underline}**

To monitor the status of Indiana bats on the HNF and to monitor
anticipated levels of take, the following is necessary:

-   Monitor occupied Indiana bat hibernacula on the HNF to assess
    changes in population numbers, changes in microclimate, the
    effectiveness of protective structures currently in place, etc.

-   Habitat use at all sites where Indiana bats are documented on the
    HNF should be characterized and quantified at both the local and
    landscape levels using GIS and/or other advanced computer software.

-   Monitor the number of suitable roost trees available to the species
    on HNF using Forest Inventory Assessment (FIA) data once every
    five-years at a minimum.

-   Monitor all incidental take as identified in this Biological Opinion
    on an annual basis.

-   The results of all monitoring activities shall be provided to the
    BFO no later than January 31 of the following year.

-   Provide personnel of the BFO an opportunity to conduct site visits
    to all parcels of the HNF in order to evaluate compliance of
    monitoring requirements. Site visits will be scheduled by mutual
    consent of the Service and personnel of the HNF.

Monitoring over time will ensure that the Standards and Guidelines
incorporated into the Forest Plan are adequately protecting Indiana
bats. In the long run, such monitoring will allow the Forest Service to
evolve the Standards and Guidelines to be most effective; actions taken
that are not effective may be dropped in favor of those found to be most
effective. The overall goal of the Forest Plan in regard to Indiana bats
is to reduce, or eliminate, take. Monitoring the effectiveness of the
measures taken to do this will aid in developing future project actions
and greatly reduce take to the species.

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

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

The Service recommends that the HNF implement the following conservation
measures to benefit Indiana bats:

-   Monitor the extent of use by Indiana bats on the HNF. Such
    monitoring should include the employment of currently accepted
    techniques used to gather information on the Indiana bat on the HNF.
    Prioritize the surveying to areas that have a higher probability of
    having Indiana bat use or more optimal habitat conditions.

-   In order to develop information on the Indiana bat, cooperate with
    the Service, and any other interested agency(s), to complete studies
    on the effects of forest management activities on Indiana bats and
    their habitat. Once initiated, provide a copy of the annual results
    from this study to the Service's Bloomington Field Office.

-   For successful implementation of the 2006 Forest Plan, conduct a
    workshop, in coordination with the Service, which will inform Forest
    Service personnel (including but not limited to biologists,
    planners, technical/service personnel, and timber and fire
    personnel) on the practical application of all standards and
    guidelines applicable to the Indiana bat. This workshop should
    include a section on writing complete site-specific biological
    assessments that correlate to this programmatic biological opinion
    and the programmatic biological assessment. In addition, continue to
    conduct training for employees of the HNF on bats occurring on the
    National Forest. Training should include sections on bat
    identification, biology, habitat requirements and sampling
    techniques.

-   Conduct radio-telemetry study(s) of Indiana bats within the Action
    Area to assess their movements and habitat use relative to timber
    harvests.

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions for minimizing
or avoiding adverse effects or otherwise benefiting listed species or
their habitat(s), the Service requests notification of the
implementation of any conservation recommendations.

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

This concludes formal consultation on the implementation of the Hoosier
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and projects
predicated upon it, as outlined in the Biological Assessment. As
provided in 50 CFR §402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is
required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over
the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the
amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information
reveals effects of the continued implementation of the 2006 Forest Plan
(and subsequent amendments) and projects predicated upon it may affect
listed species in a manner or to an extent not considered in this
opinion; (3) the continued implementation of the 2006 Forest Plan and
projects predicated upon it is subsequently modified in a manner that
causes an effect to listed species 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. Requests for reinitiation, or questions regarding
reinitiation, should be directed to the BFO.

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

Belwood, J.J.; 2002; *Endangered bats in Suburbia: Observations and
Concerns for the Future*;

> *In* [The Indiana bat: Biology and Management of an Endangered
> Species]{.underline} (A. Kurta and J.. Kennedy eds.); Bat Conservation
> International; Austin, TX.

Brack, V. Jr.; 1983 *The Non-hibernating Ecology of bats in Indiana with
the emphasis on the endangered bat, Myotis sodalis*; Ph.D. dissertation;
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.

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

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

Brack, V. Jr., and Tyrell; 1990; *A model of the habitat used by the
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) during the summer in Indiana: 1990 field
studies*; Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and
Wildlife, Endangered Species Program, Project E-1-4, Study No. 8. 42pp.

Brack, V., Jr., S. A. Johnson, and R. K. Dunlap.; 2003; *Wintering
populations of bats in Indiana, with emphasis on the endangered Indiana
Myotis,* *Myotis sodalis*; Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of
Sciences 112:61-74.

Brack, V. Jr., Whitaker, J.O. and Pruitt, S.E.; 2004; *Bats of Hoosier
National Forest, Indiana*; Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of
Science; volume 113, pgs. 76-86.

Brady, J.T.; 1983; *Use of dead trees by the endangered Indiana bat*;
*In*: [Proceedings of the snag]{.underline}

[habitat management symposium]{.underline}; United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; pgs. 111-114.

Callahan, E.V., Drobney, R.D. and Clawson, R.L.; 1997; *Selection of
summer roosting sites by*

> *Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis)* *in Missouri*; Journal of Mammalogy;
> volume 78, pgs. 818-825.

Callahan, E.V.; 1993; *Indiana bat summer habitat requirements*;
Columbia, MO: University of Missouri; 74 pg. M.S. thesis.

Carter, T.C., Carroll, S.K., Hofmann, J.E., Gardner, J.E. and Feldhamer,
G.A.; 2002; *Landscape*

> *analysis of roosting habitat in Illinois*; *In* [The Indiana bat:
> Biology and management of an endangered species]{.underline} (A. Kurta
> and J. Kennedy eds.); Bat Conservation International; Austin, TX; pgs.
> 160-164.

Clawson, R.L.; 2002; *Trends in population size and current status*;
*In* [The Indiana Bat: Biology and Management of an Endangered
Species]{.underline} (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy eds.); Bat Conservation
International; Austin, Texas.

Cope, J. B. and Humphrey, S.R.; 1977; *Spring and Autumn Swarming
Behavior in the Indiana Bat, Myotis sodalis*; Journal of Mammalogy;
volume 58(1), pgs. 93-95.

De Hoop, C.F. and N.J. Lalonde; 2003; *Some measured levels of noise
produced by logging*

*equipment in 1998*; Louisiana Forest Products Development Center;
Working Paper #58.

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

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

[]{.mark}

Garner, J. D. and J. E. Gardner;1992; *Determination of summer
distribution and habitat utilization of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
in Illinois*; Final Report; Project E-3. Illinois Department of
Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage and Illinois Natural History
Survey, Center for Biogeographic Information; 25 pp.

Gumbert, M.W., J.M. O'Keefe and J.R. MacGregor; 2002; *Roost site
fidelity;* *In* [The Indiana]{.underline} [Bat: Biology and Management
of an Endangered Species]{.underline} (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy eds.);
Bat Conservation International; Austin, Texas.

Hall, J. S.; 1962; *A life history and taxonomic study of the Indiana
bat, Myotis sodalis*; Reading Public Museum and Art Gallery; Scientific
Publications; volume 12, pgs. 1--68.

[]{.mark}

Hofmann, J. 1996; *Indiana Bats in Illinois*; INHS Reports, March-April
1996; Illinois Natural History Survey; Available:
http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/surveyreports/mar-apr96/bats.html
(Accessed: February 5, 2003).

Humphrey, S. R., A. R. Richter and J. B. Cope; 1977; *Summer Habitat and
Ecology of the Endangered Indiana Bat, Myotis sodalis*; Journal of
Mammalogy; volume 58(3), pgs. 334-346.

[]{.mark}

Humphrey, S. R. and J. B. Cope; 1977; *Survival rates of the endangered
Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis;* Journal of Mammalogy; volume 58, pgs.
32-36.

Kerth, G., A. Kiefer, C. Trappman and M. Weishaar; 2003; *High gene
diversity at swarming sires suggest hot spots for gene flow in the
endangered Bechstein's bat*; Conservation Genetics; volume 4, pgs.
491-499.

Kiser, J.D., J.R. MacGregor, H.D. Bryan and A. Howard; 2002; *Use of
concrete bridges as nightroosts;* *In* [The Indiana Bat: Biology and
Management of an Endangered Species]{.underline} (A. Kurta and J.
Kennedy eds.); Bat Conservation International; Austin, Texas.

Kiser, J.D. and C.L Elliot.; 1996; *Foraging habitat, food habits, and
roost tree characteristics of*

*the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) during autumn in Jackson County,
Kentucky*; Final Rep. E-2; Frankfort, KY; Kentucky Department of Fish
and Wildlife Resources; 65 pgs.

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*; American Midland Naturalist; volume
129(1), pgs. 132-138.

[]{.mark}

Kurta, A., S. W. Murray and D. H. Miller; 2002; *Roost Selection and
Movements Across the Summer Landscape*; *In:* [The Indiana Bat: Biology
and Management of an Endangered Species]{.underline} (A. Kurta and J.
Kennedy eds.); Bat Conservation International; Austin, Texas.

Kurta, A.S., Williams, K.J. and Mies, R.; 1996; *Ecological behavior,
and thermal observations*

> *Of a peripheral population of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis)*; *In:*
> [Bats and forest symposium]{.underline} (Barclay, R.M.R. and Brigham,
> R.M. eds.); Victoria, B.C., British Columbia Ministry of Forests; pgs.
> 102-117.

Krusac, D.L. and Mighton, S.R.; 2002; *Conservation of the Indiana bat
on national forests:*

> *where we have been and where we should be going*; *In:* [The Indiana
> Bat: Biology and Management of an Endangered Species]{.underline} (A.
> Kurta and J. Kennedy eds.); Bat Conservation International; Austin,
> Texas; pgs. 55-65.

LaVal, R.K. and LaVal, M.L.; 1980; *Ecological studies and management of
Missouri bats, with*

> *emphasis on cave-dwelling species*; Missouri Department of
> Conservation; Terrestrial Series; volume 8, pgs. 1-52.

Leatherberry, E.C.; 2002; *The forest resources of the Hoosier National
Forest, 1998*; Resource Bulletin NC-210; St. Paul, MN: US Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station; 54 pgs.

Lyman, C.P.; 1970; *Thermoregulation and metabolism in bats*; Biology of
Bats (Wimsatt ed.); Academic Press, New York, NY; pgs. 301-330.

MacGregor, J. R., Kiser, J.D., Gumbert, M.W. and Reed, T.O.; 1999;
*Autumn roosting habitat of male Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in a
managed forest setting in Kentucky*. *In:* [Proceedings of the 12^th^
central hardwood forest conference, Lexington, Kentucky]{.underline} (J.
W. Stringer and D. L. Loftis, eds.); USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report SRS-24; pgs. 169-170.

Racey, P.A.; 1973; *Environmental factors affecting the length of
gestation in heterothermic bats*; Journal of Reproductive Fertility,
Suppl.; volume 19, pgs. 175-189.

Racey, P.A. and Entwistle, A.C.; 2000; *Life-history and Reproductive
Strategies of Bats*; Reproductive Biology of Bats (Crichton and Krutzsch
eds.); Academic Press, New York, NY; pgs. 363-401.

Ransome, R.D.; 1989; *Population changes of greater horseshoe bats
studied near Bristol over the last twenty-six years*; Biological Journal
of the Linnean Society; volume 38, pgs. 71-82.

Rommé, R.C., Tyrell, K. and Brack, V. Jr.; 1995; *Literature summary and
habitat suitability index model: components of summer habitat for the
Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis*; Report to Indiana Department of Natural
Resources; Federal Aid Project E-1-7, Study No. 8; 38 pgs.

[]{.mark}

Rommé, R. C., Henry, A. B., King, R. A., Glueck, T. and Tyrell, K.;
2002; *Home range near hibernacula in spring and autumn*; *In:* [The
Indiana Bat: Biology and Management of an]{.underline} [Endangered
Species]{.underline} (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy eds.); Bat Conservation
International; Austin, Texas.

Ritter, D. F., Kochel, R. C. and Miller, J.R.; 1995; *Process
Geomorphology;* Third Edition; Wm. C. Brown Publishers; Dubuque, IA.

Sealander J. A. and Heidt, G. A.; 1990; *Arkansas Mammals*; The
University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas; 308 pgs.

Timpone, J.C.; 2004; *Roost site selection of bats in northwest Missouri
with emphasis on the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)*; Masters
Thesis; Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri.

Toomey, R. S. III, Colburn, M. L. and Olson, R.A.; 2002*;
Paleontological evaluation of use of caves: a tool for restoration of
roosts*; *In*: [The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered
species]{.underline} (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.); Bat Conservation
International; Austin, Texas.

Tuttle, M. D., Fenton, M. B. and Bernard, E.; 2004; *Ecological role of
bats in forest ecosystems*; Abstract from the 2nd Bats and Forests
Symposium and Workshop, March 9-12, 2004; Hot Springs Arkansas.

Tuttle, M.D. and Stevenson, D.; 1982; *Growth and survival of bats*;
Ecology of Bats (Kunz ed.); Plenum Press, New York, NY; pgs. 105-150.

Wasser, S.K. and Barash, D.P.; 1983; *Reproductive suppression among
female mammals: implications for biomedicine and sexual selection
theory*; The Quarterly Review of Biology; volume 58(4), pgs. 513-538.

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

Whitaker, J.O. Jr., and Brack, V. Jr.; 2002; *Distribution and summer
ecology in Indiana*; *In:* [The Indiana Bat: Biology and Management of
an Endangered Species]{.underline} (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy eds.); Bat
Conservation International; Austin, Texas.

Wilde, C.J., Kerr, M.A., Knight, C.H. and Racey, P.A.; 1995; *Lactation
in vespertilionid bats*; Symposium of the Zoological Society, London;
volume 67, pgs. 139-149.

Wilde, C.J., Knight, C.H. and Racey, P.A.; 1999; *Influence of torpor on
milk protein composition and secretion in lactating bats*; Journal of
Exp. Zoology; volume 248, pgs. 35-41.

*Programmatic Biological Assessment of the Hoosier National Forest Land
and Resource Management Plan*; USDA Forest Service, Tell City Ranger
District, Hoosier National Forest;

2005\.

*Programmatic Biological Assessment of the Hoosier National Forest Land
and Resource Management Plan*; United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service, Tell City Ranger District, Hoosier National Forest;

2000\.

*Hoosier National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan*; United
States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Tell City Ranger
District, Hoosier National Forest; 1985, 2005.

*Hoosier National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Amendment)*;
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Tell City Ranger
District, Hoosier National Forest; 1991.

*Hoosier-Shawnee Ecological Assessment*; USDA Forest Service, North
Central Research Station; 2004.

*Draft Recovery Plan for the Indiana bat*; United States Fish and
Wildlife Service; 1999.

*Biological Opinion: Six (6) Points Road*; United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bloomington Field Office; 2002.

*Summary of Jefferson Proving Ground bat surveys: 1993-1995*; United
States Fish and Wildlife

Service, Bloomington Field Office, Unpublished report. 5pp.; Pruitt,
Lori; 1995

**Web Sites:**

Indiana Natural Heritage --
[www.state.in.us/dnr/naturepr/center.html](http://www.state.in.us/dnr/naturepr/center.html)

Nature Serve -- [www.natureserve.org](http://www.natureserve.org/)

[^1]: Quoted from the Forest Service's "Proposed Land and Resource
    Management Plan"; not necessarily the same meaning as taken from the
    Endangered Species Act

[^2]: Primary roosts are trees that are used by more than 30 bats on
    more than one occasion; alternate roosts are used by fewer
    individuals; potential roosts have the characteristics of primary or
    alternate roosts, but are not used. All three roost types are
    essential to meet maternity requirements of *Myotis sodalis*
    (Callahan, et al 1997).

[^3]: Characterized by staying put; offspring do not disperse;
    exhibiting site fidelity; the drive or tendency of an individual to
    return to, or stay in, its home area.

[^4]: Formation of a chemical compound by a living organism

[^5]: Small change in a physical system

[^6]: Act, or process, of giving birth

[^7]: Hibernation sites with recorded populations of more than 30,000
    bats.

[^8]: Hibernation sites with recorded populations between 500 and 30,000
    bats.

[^9]: Lethargy; inactivity; a state of mental or physical inactivity

[^10]: Returning to the same area, year after year

[^11]: Not yet able to fly