August 12, 2003

Mr. Michael Tollefson

Superintendent

Great Smoky Mountains National Park

107 Park Headquarters Road

Gatlinburg, Tennessee 37738

Re: FWS #03-1313

Dear Mr. Tollefson:

This document transmits the biological opinion of the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) based on our review of the proposed prescribed burning
activities on the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP) located in
Blount and Sevier counties, Tennessee; and Haywood County, North
Carolina. This biological opinion addresses the effects of the proposed
prescribed burning on the federally endangered 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.). Your April 16, 2003,
request for formal consultation was received on May 12, 2003.

National Park Service personnel have determined that prescribed burns in
the following areas on the GSMNP are not likely to adversely affect the
Indiana bat:

15768. Cades Cove Fields - completed in March 2003

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Bittercress - 0.25 acre in size; approximately 7 miles from the
    nearest known Indiana bat roost.

2.  Arbutus Ridge - completed in March 2003

3.  Tabcat - completed in April 2003

4.  Mids Branch - adjacent sites surveyed in 1999 and 2002; no Indiana
    bats captured

5.  Wash Ridge Spur - no records for Indiana bats

Based on the negative survey results at Mids Branch; the lack of records
at Wash Ridge Spur and Bittercress; and the pre-maternity season
completion dates at Arbutus, Tabcat, and Cades Cove; we concur that the
prescribed burns at those sites are not likely to adversely affect the
Indiana bat. These sites will not be addressed further in this
biological opinion. Only the proposed Gregory Ridge prescribed burn will
be addressed.

This biological opinion is based on information provided in the April
16, 2003, biological assessment and other sources of information. A
complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the
Tennessee Field Office, 446 Neal Street, Cookeville, Tennessee 38501;
telephone, 931/528-6481; fax 931/528-7075.

-   Consultation History

The National Park Service submitted a biological assessment to the Fish
and Wildlife Service=s Asheville, North Carolina, field office on April
16, 2003, with a request for initiation of formal consultation. The
biological assessment was forwarded to the Service=s Cookeville,
Tennessee, field office on May 7, 2003.

**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

-   Description of the Proposed Action

The proposed action consists of prescribed burning at Gregory Ridge in
Blount County, Tennessee, to restore table mountain pine and associated
biotic communities. In order to achieve the greatest ecological benefits
and the highest degree of table mountain pine regeneration, the
prescribed burn is proposed for the growing season (i.e., between April
and November). Control lines will consist of existing roads, trails, and
streams wherever possible. Hand tools will be used to construct control
lines where existing features are not available. The control lines will
be approximately three feet wide and will be dug to mineral soil. Some
trees less than nine inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) will be
felled, but the control line will be constructed around and between
larger trees. Standing snags which pose a hazard to personnel or which
may burn and fall across the control line will also be felled.

Conservation Measures

To avoid or minimize the potential for adverse effects to Indiana bats,
GSMNP personnel will implement the following measures as feasible:

16284. Every effort will be made not to conduct prescribed burns during
       the time when non-volant young are likely present in the
       maternity roosts, unless mist net surveys indicate that Indiana
       bats are not present in the tract proposed for burning or formal
       consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service is completed.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  Standing snags larger than 3 inches dbh or large live trees will be
    removed between October 15 and April 15 (November 15 through April
    15 if tract is within two miles of a known hibernaculum). If this is
    not possible, trees to be removed will be checked in the evening by
    qualified personnel to determine if the trees are being used as
    roosts by Indiana bats. If no bats are observed emerging from a
    tree, that tree may be removed. If bats are observed, consultation
    with the Service will be conducted prior to removal of the tree.
    Trees that pose safety hazards to personnel will be removed
    immediately.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  Known Indiana bat roost trees will be protected and managed until
    such time as they no longer provide suitable roosting habitat. The
    area to be protected will include the roost tree and a 402-meter
    buffer around the tree. If a maternity roost is found, a two-mile
    area around the tree will be protected. No activities that might
    result in taking of Indiana bats will be permitted within the
    buffer. Prescribed burning will be allowed during the non-maternity
    season, but all combustible material will be raked away from
    identified maternity roost trees prior to burning.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  Primary and secondary management areas will be established around
    all hibernacula. The primary buffer will be 0.5 mile around the cave
    to maintain the structural integrity of the cave and adjacent
    landscape. The secondary buffer will be a 1.5-mile area around the
    primary buffer to protect the pre-hibernation swarming habitat.
    Activities, including prescribed burning, which result in limited
    disturbance to the cave will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
    and may be allowed within the secondary buffer. Activities which may
    result in taking of Indiana bats will not be permitted within the
    primary buffer.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
5.  Public use of Blowhole, Bull, and Scott caves will be prohibited
    from August 15 through May 15.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
6.  Biannual monitoring of Blowhole Cave will continue to track the
    status of the hibernating Indiana bat colony.

-   Status of the Species

>  Indiana bat

The Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*, is a medium-sized bat, growing to
lengths of 41 to 49 millimeters, and having forearm lengths of 35 to 41
millimeters (USFWS 1983). It is similar to the little brown bat in
appearance, but differs in several morphological characters. The Indiana
bat is a monotypic species that is known to occur in much of the eastern
half of the United States. Large hibernating populations are known to
exist in Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri; smaller populations and
individual records are also known from Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin
(USFWS 1983).

The GSMNP is known to support winter and summer colonies of Indiana
bats. Historical and recent records indicate that White Oak Blowhole
Cave, Bull Cave, Scott Cave, and Kelly Ridge Cave in Blount County
contain or historically contained hibernating colonies. Bull and Scott
caves support hibernating colonies of 450 and 100 Indiana bats,
respectively. The hibernating colony in White Oak Blowhole Cave has been
declining in numbers; in 1974 approximately 6,100 Indiana bats were
counted. The numbers increased to 11, 287 in 1981, and have varied
since. The most recent count of hibernating Indiana bats in White Oak
Blowhole Cave, conducted in 2003, revealed that the hibernating colony
numbered 5,564 individuals. In 1997, GSMNP and Service personnel
assisted in construction of an entrance gate to reduce entry during the
hibernation season.

Until recently, no summer Indiana bat records were available for the
GSMNP. Mist net surveys conducted in the early 1990\'s and the discovery
of a maternity colony revealed that the GSMNP also provides important
summer roosting and maternity habitat for the Indiana bat. Between 1999
and 2002, 16 Indiana bats were captured on the Great Smoky Mountains
National Park during summer mist net surveys. Additionally, three
Indiana bat maternity colonies have been located on the GSMNP in Blount
County, Tennessee.

According to the known and suspected range of the species (USFWS 1983),
the Indiana bat ranges over an area of approximately 580,550 square
miles in the eastern one-half of the United States. The GSMNP=s surface
land area is approximately 800 square miles, which represents
approximately one-tenth of one percent (0.13 percent) of the total range
of the species.

The Indiana bat was listed as an endangered species on March 11, 1967
(USFWS 1998; 1992). Bat Cave in Carter County, Kentucky; Coach Cave in
Edmonson County, Kentucky; White Oak Blowhole Cave in Blount, County,
Tennessee; The Blackball Mine in LaSalle County, Illinois; Big Wyandotte
Cave, Crawford County, Indiana; Ray=s Cave, Greene County, Indiana; Cave
021, Crawford County, Missouri; Cave 009, Franklin County, Missouri;
Pilot Knob Mine, Iron County, Missouri; Bat Cave, Shannon County,
Missouri; Cave 029, Washington County, Missouri; and Hellhole Cave,
Pendleton County, West Virginia, have been designated as critical
habitat for the Indiana bat.

Ninety-five percent of the GSMNP consists of forested habitat, much of
which is likely suitable habitat that could potentially be used by
female Indiana bats during the maternity season. Recent mist netting
surveys have documented the presence of pregnant, lactating, and
juvenile female Indiana bats on the GSMNP, and three maternity colonies
were also found.

Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri are currently known to contain the
largest hibernating populations of Indiana bats. Although Indiana=s
populations are reported to be stable or increasing, numbers have
continued to decline in Missouri and in many parts of Kentucky (USFWS
1983). Numbers of Indiana bats in Tennessee have declined, but data are
currently insufficient to determine trends in the populations in that
state. Causes of decline of Indiana bat populations are not presently
known and the decline has continued despite intensive efforts to protect
the major known hibernacula (i.e., gating, fencing, etc.).

Indiana bats hibernate in caves and mines that provide specific climatic
conditions; preferred hibernacula have stable winter temperatures below
10 degrees Celsius (optimal temperature is 4 to 8 degrees Celsius) and
relative humidity above 74 percent. Few caves or mine shafts provide
these conditions; therefore, approximately 85 percent of the species
hibernates in only seven caves or abandoned mine shafts (USFWS 1983;
1992). Prior to hibernation, Indiana bats undergo swarming, an activity
in which the bats congregate around the hibernacula, flying into and out
of the cave, but roosting in trees outside. Swarming continues for
several weeks, during which time the bats replenish fat reserves prior
to hibernation (USFWS 1983). Depending upon local weather conditions,
swarming may continue through October, or longer. Males generally remain
active longer than the females during this pre-hibernation period, but
all Indiana bats are usually hibernating by late November (USFWS 1983).
Indiana bats typically hibernate in dense clusters, with bat densities
ranging in size from 300 to approximately 500 individuals per square
foot (Clawson et al. 1980).

During the summer, Indiana bats utilize two types of habitat. Females
emerge from hibernation first, generally in late March or early April,
followed by the males. Although most hibernating colonies leave the
hibernacula by late April, some males may spend the summer in the
vicinity of the hibernaculum. Those leaving the hibernaculum migrate
varying distances to their summer habitats. Some males may roost in
caves during the summer, and recent data indicates that loose bark or
cavities in trees also provide suitable roosting habitat for male
Indiana bats.

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

Indiana bat maternity sites generally consist of one to several primary
maternity roost trees (i.e., trees used repeatedly by relatively high
numbers of bats in the maternity colony during the maternity season) and
varying numbers of alternate roost trees (i.e., those trees used by
smaller numbers of bats through the course of the maternity season).
Primary roost trees that have been studied to date have ranged in size
from 12.2 to 29.9 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) (Romme et
al. 1995). Studies have shown that adults in maternity colonies may use
as few as two, to as many as 33, alternate roosts (Humphrey et al. 1977;
Gardner et al. 1991; Callahan 1993; Callahan et al. 1997; Romme et al.
1995). Alternate roost trees also tend to be large, mature trees, but
the range in size is somewhat wider than that for primary roosts (7.1 to
32.7 inches dbh \[Romme et al. 1995\]). In Missouri, maximum distances
between roost trees used by bats from the same maternity colony have
ranged from 1.0 to 1.9 miles (Callahan 1993; Callahan et al. 1997).
Snags (i.e., standing dead trees) exposed to direct solar radiation were
found to be used most frequently by Indiana bats as summer roosts,
followed by snags not fully exposed to solar radiation and live trees
not fully exposed (Callahan 1993; Callahan et al. 1997).

Until recently, most documented Indiana bat maternity colonies were
located in riparian or floodplain forest (Humphrey et al. 1977). Recent
studies and survey results, however, indicate that upland forest
provides important maternity habitat for Indiana bats (Gardner et al.
1990; Romme et al. 1995). In addition, females are known to exhibit
relatively strong loyalty to summer roosting and foraging habitat
(Bowles 1981; Gardner et al. 1991, 1991a). It was also found that
Indiana bats occupy distinct home ranges during the summer (Gardner et
al. 1990). Average home range sizes vary from approximately 70 acres
(juvenile males) to more than 525 acres (post-lactating adult females).
Roosts occupied by individuals ranged from 0.33 mile to over 1.6 miles
from preferred foraging habitat, but are generally within 1.2 miles of
water (e.g., stream, lake, pond, natural or manmade water-filled
depression).

A habitat suitability index model was recently developed for the Indiana
bat (Romme et al. 1995) which identifies nine variables that comprise
the components of summer habitat for the species. The model was
developed for use in southern Indiana, but may also be applicable in
other areas within the species= range. Five variables considered
important for roosting habitat within analysis areas include the amount
of overstory canopy, diameter of overstory trees, density of potential
live roost trees, density of snags, and the amount of understory cover.
Variables considered to be important foraging habitat components include
the amount of overstory canopy and the percentage of trees in the 2 to
4.7 inch dbh class. Distance to water and percentage of the analysis
area with forest cover are also considered to be important habitat
variables. The habitat model classifies species of trees that may
provide roosts for Indiana bats. Class I trees include:

> Silver maple Shagbark hickory Shellbark hickory
>
> Bitternut hickory Green ash White ash
>
> Eastern cottonwood Red oak Post oak
>
> White oak Slippery elm American elm

These species are likely to develop the loose, exfoliating bark as they
age and die that are preferred by Indiana bats as roosting sites.
However, several of these species are typical of bottomland hardwood
forest in areas where much of Romme=s research was done, and they do not
occur in significant numbers on the GSMNP. Romme also identified Class
II trees, including sugar maple, shingle oak, and sassafras as tree
species believed to be of somewhat lesser value for roosting Indiana
bat. Other species that are similarly suitable as roosts for Indiana
bats are red maple, yellow buckeye, sourwood, chestnut oak, pignut
hickory, American beech, black gum, sycamore, black locust, scarlet oak,
black oak, and other hickory species. These are considered to be
additional Class II species because they have similar bark
characteristics, bark retention after tree death or injury, and hollow
bole development as Romme=s Class I species. Class III trees are all
other species not included in the other two classes. Class II and III
trees are species that are less likely to provide optimal roosting
habitat, but may develop suitable cracks, crevices, or loose bark after
death. Recently, studies have shown that pine species also serve as
roost trees; Indiana bats have been found roosting in Virginia pine,
shortleaf pine, pitch pine, and other pine species (Harvey and Britzke
2002; John MacGregor unpublished).

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

A number of factors have been identified that have likely contributed to
declines in numbers of the Indiana bat in the eastern United States.
Disturbance of hibernating and summer maternity colonies by humans may
be the primary factor. Bats enter hibernation with only enough energy
reserves to last through the winter. When disturbed, the bats awaken and
use up some of these accumulated reserves. Each time a bat awakens, it
may expend as much as 20 to 30 days worth of its stored reserves.
Frequent disturbance would likely cause the bats to use up all of their
stored energy reserves and force them to emerge from hibernation too
early in the year to search for food. Since insect prey are scarce or
completely unavailable in late winter, the bats would likely die of
starvation.

Vandalism is also a serious problem that has resulted in the deliberate
destruction of many roosting bat colonies. Bats are generally viewed by
the public as nuisances or threats to public health and, as a result,
colonies containing thousands of bats have reportedly been destroyed.

Other causes of decline in numbers of Indiana bats include natural
disasters, alteration of habitat, and use of pesticides. Caves occupied
by this species occasionally flood or collapse, killing a few, to
thousands of individuals. Impoundment of rivers can have significant
effects on bats if the reservoir inundates the caves used by the bats. A
cave in central Kentucky that contains a large maternity colony of gray
bats during the summer is periodically flooded when reservoir levels are
high. Thousands of bat carcasses (including gray bats) have been
observed on the floor of the cave, indicating that the bats either
drowned or were trapped in the cave and starved (Mike Turner, Corps of
Engineers, personal communication). Recent flooding at Carter Caves
State Park in Kentucky resulted in the death of several thousand Indiana
bats. Timber harvest, water quality degradation, stream channelization,
and other actions can in some cases result in destruction or alteration
of actual or potential roosting and/or foraging habitat. Forested
habitat is especially important to Indiana bats. This species is known
to forage in riparian or upland forest canopy, and forms its maternity
colonies in trees. A particular tree does not provide permanent habitat,
thus, Indiana bats have likely adapted to searching for new roosting
sites periodically. However, large-scale removal of forested habitat
forces the bats to seek new roosting habitat at a time of year when they
are already expending significant amounts of energy.

Several studies have indicated that insectivorous bats are exposed to
agricultural pesticides and are adversely affected by them (Clark et al.
1978; Clark and Prouty 1976), and a recent study indicates that the
Indiana bat is among the species that may be affected (McFarland 1998).
Detectable levels of organo-chlorine, organo-phosphate, carbamate, and
pyrethroid pesticides have been found in the fur and tissues of several
species, including the little brown bat and northern long-eared bat.
Bats roosting in trees in the vicinity of agricultural fields may be
directly affected by pesticides if their roosting sites are incidentally
sprayed. Bats that roost in caves are not likely to be subjected to
direct application of pesticides, however, Indiana bats roost in trees
and may be directly affected by pesticide application to agricultural
crops. All species of bats may be indirectly affected as a result of
reduction in insect prey, or by ingesting contaminated insects.

Indiscriminate collecting, handling, and banding of bats by biologists
are also thought to have contributed to declines in Indiana bat
population numbers. When conducted during the winter, these activities
cause hibernating bats to awaken; during the summer they may disturb
sensitive maternity colonies. Banding of bats collected by mist netting
during the summer, however, likely has negligible effects on the bats
(John MacGregor, personal communication). Poorly designed or installed
cave gates restrict bat movement and alter air flow into caves. Air flow
alterations may change the climatic conditions within the cave and
render it unsuitable for hibernation. Furthermore, poorly designed gates
provide convenient perches that may allow predators to easily catch bats
as they emerge from the cave.

Siltation resulting from a variety of human activities may also
contribute toward the decline of endangered bats. Indiana bats are known
to forage over water, feeding on mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies.
Many species in these insect groups are sensitive to changes in water
quality; populations decline or disappear as water quality becomes more
degraded. Additionally, the Indiana bat occurs in areas in which there
is significant mining, construction, and agricultural activity. These
activities, if conducted without proper precautions, can result in
significant sedimentation of adjacent streams.

Indiana bats are extremely selective in their habitat requirements. Few
caves provide climatic conditions suitable to support a hibernating
colony. Given that, and given the species= extreme loyalty to
traditional caves and maternity habitats, destruction or alteration of
only one of the caves which the bats use could result in a substantial
and permanent reduction in that species= total numbers.

-   Environmental Baseline

The Great Smoky Mountains National Park, founded in 1934, is located in
eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina. It encompasses
approximately 800 square miles in the Southern Appalachian Mountains.
Elevations range from 875 feet to 6,643 feet above sea level, providing
a diversity of habitat types: five forest habitat types; mid- to
high-elevation balds; and coldwater and warmwater aquatic habitat. More
than 10,000 species of plants and animals have been documented on the
GSMNP.

Until 1996, the established policy at GSMNP was to suppress all wildland
fires. Although the frequency of wild fire has been reduced, this policy
has resulted in alteration of forest stand structure, favoring
fire-sensitive species and reducing survival of fire-tolerant species.
Some communities (e.g., table mountain pine, yellow pine) will
eventually be extirpated without periodic fire.

Recognizing the fact that fire played an important role in maintaining
the native vegetation that historically existed on the GSMNP, National
Park Service management policies now state that prescribed fire is the
preferred tool in achieving resource management objectives, and that
fire may be used to attain other objectives such as restoring or
maintaining historic settings, maintaining open spaces, and reducing
hazardous fuel accumulations. Research on the natural role of fire at
GSMNP is being conducted, and measures (including prescribed burning)
are being used to restore native ecosystems to natural conditions within
the constraints of human safety outside the Park. A Fire Management Plan
was completed in 1996.

The fire management program at GSMNP consists of prescribed burning on
4,000 acres per year, however, due to constraints, only 2,000 acres have
been burned to date. Consequently, over the next five-year period, Park
personnel propose to burn 10,000 to 20,000 acres. The majority of these
burns will be conducted during spring and early summer to mimic natural
fire cycles as closely as possible. Some burning may be done at other
times of the year, however, to achieve acreage goals.

Park personnel have consulted on various activities carried out on the
GSMNP. Actions which have undergone section 7 review include repair of
trails, bridge replacements, prescribed burning activities,
reconstruction of roads, completion of the Foothills Parkway,
development of the GSMNP general management plan, and planning for
improvements at Cades Cove.

-   Effects of the Action

Direct Effects

Prescribed burning and associated activities could directly affect
Indiana bats. Cutting live trees and snags during control line
construction could result in mortality to adult Indiana bats, but more
likely to non-volant young. Fire could directly kill individuals and
inhalation of smoke could result in adults abandoning traditional
maternity habitat and/or juveniles suffocating. Although the bats are
mobile, adult females are strongly tied to their maternity habitats.
Depending on when the burning occurs, disturbance which causes them to
abandon those habitats could result in stress-related mortality or
lowered reproductive success.

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects of prescribed burning could occur as a result of
physical changes to roosting and foraging habitat. Burning could destroy
existing and potential roost trees, forcing the bats to find new
roosting or foraging habitat. Density and abundance of insect prey could
be decreased as a result of burning, which would force the bats to fly
further between roosts and foraging habitat. It is not known how far
Indiana bats will fly to seek new roosting or foraging habitat if
traditional habitats have been destroyed or rendered unsuitable. If they
are forced to search for prolonged periods in the spring, this effort
could place additional stress on maternal females at a time when they
are already expending significant amounts of energy.

Indiana bats are likely adapted to the ephemeral nature of their
habitat. Standing snags that provide suitable roosting habitat
eventually fall; live trees ultimately die and fall. When traditional
roost trees are no longer available, the bats must search for new
roosting sites. We believe that this loss of roosting habitat-whether
due to natural causes or prescribed burning- would not cause undue
stress to the females provided that suitable roosting and foraging
habitat is available within close proximity to the traditional habitat.
Prescribed burning at GSMNP is not expected to result in adverse effects
to Indiana bats because adequate amounts of habitat are available. The
long-term results of prescribed burningBi.e., opening of the understory
and mid-story, creating new roosts, and providing diverse habitat
structure for insects-could actually result in overall beneficial
effects to the Indiana bat.

-   Cumulative Effects

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

The proposed prescribed burning activities will be carried out on the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, lands under the jurisdiction of the
National Park Service. Any future actions proposed on those lands will
be authorized, funded, or carried out by the National Park Service and
will undergo section 7 consultation as required by the Endangered
Species Act. Cumulative effects, as defined by the Endangered Species
Act, will therefore not occur.

-   Conclusion

After reviewing the current status of the Indiana bat, the environmental
baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed prescribed
burns, and the cumulative effects, it is our biological opinion that the
prescribed burning activities at Gregory Ridge on the GSMNP, as
proposed, are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
Indiana bat, and are not likely to destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat. Critical habitat for this species has been
designated at Bat Cave and Coach Cave (KY), White Oak Blowhole Cave
(TN), Blackball Mine (IL), Big Wyandotte Cave and Ray=s Cave (IN),
Hellhole Cave (WV), Cave 021, Cave 029, Cave 009, Bat Cave, and Pilot
Knob Mine (MO); however, this action does not affect those areas and no
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat is
anticipated.

**INCIDENTAL TAKE**

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of
the Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species,
respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to
attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined 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 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 intended 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 National Park Service so that they become binding
conditions of the project plans, as appropriate, for the exemption in
section 7(o)(2) to apply. The National Park Service has a continuing
duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement.
If the National Park Service fails to assume and implement the terms and
conditions, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In
order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the National Park
Service must report the progress of the action and its impact on the
species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement (50
CFR, section 402.14(i)(3)).

-   Amount or Extent of Take

We anticipate incidental take of Indiana bats will be difficult to
detect for the following reasons: (1) Indiana bats are small animals (41
to 49 millimeters in body length), (2) individuals roost under loose
bark or in crevices in trees; the chances of finding a roosting bat or
maternity colony in a particular tree in a tract of forest are virtually
nil, and (3) finding a dead or injured individual after a prescribed
burn or determining if a particular tree within the burn unit was used
by roosting Indiana bats would be very difficult. However, the following
level of take of this species can be anticipated by loss of suitable
roosting and/or foraging habitat.

The GSMNP comprises 800 square miles, or 512,000 acres. It is estimated
that 95 percent of this area, or 486,400 acres, consists of forest
habitat. Excluding developed areas, open agricultural and pasture lands,
and high-elevation spruce-fir forest that likely is not suitable habitat
for the Indiana bat, the GSMNP still contains several hundreds of
thousands of acres of forest habitat that could support roosting and
foraging Indiana bats, as well as maternity habitat. The proposed
Gregory Ridge prescribed burn comprises 467 acres, which is less than
one percent of the available suitable Indiana bat habitat on the GSMNP.
Pregnant female Indiana bats have been shown to have home ranges of
approximately 130 acres (Gardner et al. 1990). Lactating and
post-lactating females have approximate home ranges of 233 and 525
acres, respectively. Primary and alternate roost trees in a maternity
colony may be as far as two miles apart.

Mist netting in the vicinity of Gregory Ridge revealed that Indiana bats
are present. A roost tree was discovered approximately one mile from the
proposed burn site, and a maternity roost tree was found one-half mile
from the tract to be burned. The latter tree, identified as a primary
roost, was used in 2000, but has since fallen; however, available
information concerning maternity colony sites would suggest that the
area, including the entire Gregory Ridge site, is probably still used as
a maternity site.

It is impossible to determine how many non-reproductive female and/or
male Indiana bats may be using the Gregory Ridge site as roosting
habitat. Upon emergence from hibernation, the bats disperse widely over
the landscape. Additionally, these bats are not tied to a maternity site
and likely move throughout the course of the summer season.

Therefore, based on available information, incidental take of one
Indiana bat maternity colony is anticipated as a result of the proposed
Gregory Ridge prescribed burn. Personnel from GSMNP will implement
measures prior to initiating the burn to avoid adverse effects to
currently suitable and potential roost trees. Additionally, we
anticipate that burning will result in overall long-term beneficial
effects to the Indiana bat at Gregory Ridge by creating more open
understory conditions and likely increasing insect diversity on the
site.

-   Effect of the Take

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

-   Reasonable and Prudent Measures

We believe that the following reasonable and prudent measure is
necessary and appropriate to minimize take of Indiana bats:

26240. All stages of the proposed prescribed burn will be closely
       monitored to ensure that the objectives of action are met without
       causing unwanted destruction or alteration of the habitat.

-   Terms and Conditions

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the
National Park Service must comply with the following terms and
conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measure described
above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These
terms and conditions are non-discretionary:

1.  National Park Service fire management personnel will be onsite
    during all stages of the proposed burn. Within 24 hours prior to
    initiating the burn, climatic conditions will be evaluated. If
    temperature, wind, and/or humidity are such that the potential for
    the fire to burn hotter than expected or to get out of control and
    kill or stress trees not intended to be burned, the prescribed burn
    will be postponed until conditions are favorable to achieve desired
    results.

2.  During the burn, personnel will be on hand to monitor the fire to
    ensure that only that vegetation intended to be burned is burned.
    All efforts required to control or extinguish the fire will be
    employed immediately should conditions warrant.

3.  If suitable or potential roost trees (i.e., those trees with
    suitable exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, etc., that are suitable
    for Indiana bat roosts) must be removed for fireline construction, a
    biologist will observe the tree the evening prior to construction to
    determine if bats are using the tree. If no bats are observed, the
    tree may be removed. If bats are observed, this office should be
    contacted.

4.  If a dead or injured Indiana bat is found on the burn site, GSMNP
    personnel will contact Jim Widlak of the Cookeville Field Office
    (931/528-6481, ext. 202) and Steve Middleton of the Service=s Law
    Enforcement Division (615/736-5532).

With implementation of the protective measures described in the Project
Description section, and the Reasonable and Prudent Measure and Terms
and Conditions listed above, we believe that no more than one maternity
colony of Indiana bats (a maternity colony consists of the females and
young in the maternity roost) and no more than five individually
roosting male and/or non-reproductive female Indiana bats will be
incidentally taken as a result of the proposed action. 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. If, during the course of the action,
this level of incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take
represents 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.

**CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS**

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

We believe that personnel at GSMNP should consider implementation of the
following activities for the conservation of the Indiana bat:

1.  National Park Service personnel should initiate a study to monitor
    sites that have been burned to determine subsequent use by bats.
    Sites that supported roosting bats or are in the vicinity of known
    bat roosts and/or maternity colonies, and sites that were not known
    to support bats should be selected and monitored for at least five
    years following burning. Such a study would provide valuable
    information about the effects of fire on forest-dwelling bats;
    whether or not fire improves conditions or makes conditions
    unsuitable; how long following burning bats begin using the sites;
    whether or not maternity colonies return to burned sites; and
    whether or not bats begin to use previously unsuitable sites as
    roosting or foraging habitat after those sites are burned. Data from
    the study would be helpful in guiding future bat management/recovery
    activities throughout the range of the Indiana bat.

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

**REINITIATION NOTICE**

This concludes formal consultation on the action(s) outlined in the
request/reinitiation request. As provided in 50 CFR, section 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 agency
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or
to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is
subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed
species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new
species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by
the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take
is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending
reinitiation.

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> Lee A. Barclay, Ph.D., Field Supervisor Date

**REFERENCES**

Bowles, J. B. 1981. Final Report, 1980-81. Ecological Studies on the
Indiana Bat in Iowa. Final Report to the Iowa Conservation Commission.
Des Moines, Iowa. 24 pp. with Appendices.

Callahan, E. V. III, R. D. Drobney, and R. L. Clawson. 1997. Selection
of Summer Roosting Sites by Indiana Bats (*Myotis sodalis*) in Missouri.
Journal of Mammalogy 78(3):818-825.

Callahan, E. V. III. 1993. Indiana Bat Summer Habitat Requirements.
Unpublished Thesis. University of Missouri. Columbia, Missouri. 74 pp.

Clark, D. R., Jr., R. K. LaVal, and D. M. Swineford. 1978.
Dieldrin-Induced Mortality in an Endangered Species, the Gray Bat
(*Myotis grisescens*). Science 199:1357-1359.

Clark, D. R., Jr. and R. M. Prouty. 1976. Organochlorine Residues in
Three Bat Species from Four Localities in Maryland and West Virginia.
Journal of Pesticide Monitoring 10:44-53.

Clawson, R. L., R. K. LaVal, M. L. LaVal, and W. Caire. 1980. Clustering
Behavior of Hibernating [Myotis]{.underline} [sodalis]{.underline} in
Missouri. Journal of Mammalogy 61:245-253.

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

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. Illinois Natural History Survey,
Illinois Department of Conservation. Champaign, Illinois. 28 pp.

Gardner, J. E., J. D. Garner, and J. E. Hofmann. 1990. Combined Progress
Reports: 1989 and 1990 Investigations of *Myotis sodalis* (Indiana Bat)
Distribution, Habitat Use, and Status in Illinois. Progress Report
Submitted to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities,
Minnesota, and Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield,
Illinois. 19 pp.

Harvey, M.J. and E.R. Britzke. 2002. Distribution and status of
endangered bats in Tennessee. Final Report Prepared for the Tennessee
Wildlife Resources Agency. 44 pp.

Humphrey, S. R., A. R. Richter, and J. B. Cope. 1977. Summer Habitat and
Ecology of the Endangered Indiana Bat, [Myotis]{.underline}
[sodalis]{.underline}. Journal of Mammalogy 58:334-346.

McFarland, C. A. 1998. Potential Agricultural Insecticide Exposure of
Indiana Bats (*Myotis sodalis*) in Missouri. Unpublished Thesis.
University of Missouri. Columbia, Missouri. 256 pp.

Romme, R. C., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack, Jr. 1995. Literature Summary and
Habitat Suitability Index Model: Components of Summer Habitat for the
Indiana Bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Report Submitted to the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife. 43 pp.
with Appendices.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 50, Part 17, Sections 11
and 12. 56 pp.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Species
of the Southeast United States (The Red Book). Prepared by Ecological
Services, Division of Endangered Species. Southeast Region. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1,606 pp. (Two Volumes).

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Recovery Plan for the Indiana
Bat. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Twin Cities, Minnesota. 23 pp.
with Appendices.