**December 10, 1999**

Elizabeth Estill, Regional Forester

U. S. Department of Agriculture

**Forest Service**

Southern Region

1720 Peachtree Road NW

Atlanta, GA 30367-9102

Dear Ms. Estill:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the
Programmatic Biological Assessment on **Indiana (*Myotis sodalis*)** and
**gray (*Myotis grisescens*)** bats on **National Forests** in Alabama
for forest management activities in **Alabama**. Your June 9, 1999
request for formal consultation was received on June 14, 1999. This
document represents the Service\'s ***Biological Opinion*** on the
effects of that action on Indiana and gray bats in accordance with
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.).

This biological opinion is based on information provided in the June,
1999 biological assessment, telephone conversations of February 16-22,
1999 with Messrs. Earl Stewart, Jim Widlak, and Robert Currie; field
investigations conducted March 23-24, 1999 and July 21-22, 1999; and
other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this
consultation is on file in this office.

Should you have questions or need further information/clarification,
please contact Lori Wilson of this office at the above address, by phone
at 334-441-5181, ext. 29, or by e-mail at
**[lori_m_wilson@fws.gov]{.underline}** .

Sincerely,

Larry E. Goldman

Field Supervisor

**Biological Opinion On**

**The Impacts Of Forest Management**

**And Other Activities To**

**Indiana And Gray Bats**

**On National Forests In Alabama**

**Prepared By:**

**Lori M. Wilson**

**Ecological Services Field Office**

**Daphne, Alabama**

**December, 1999**

**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

[Description of Proposed Action]{.underline}

This biological opinion addresses a variety of actions and activities
that are planned, funded, executed, or permitted by the National Forests
of Alabama (NFAL) beginning in Fiscal Year 1999. The NFAL are beginning
the process of revising the National Forest (NF) Land and Resource
Management Plan (LRMP). This biological opinion will remain in effect
until such time that it is replaced with the biological opinion on the
revised LRMP (which will include all federally listed threatened and
endangered species on NF lands). The measures of this biological opinion
will be incorporated into management by the use of a Forest Plan
Amendment to the existing LRMP. The LRMP revision process is anticipated
to be complete during FY 2001 (March). The documented occurrence of
Indiana and gray bats on Bankhead National Forest, located in Lawrence
and Winston Counties, Alabama, prompted the initiation of formal Section
7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act. This resulted from a
determination of Amay affect, likely to adversely affect@ with regard to
impacts of standard forest management and/or harvest activities on
Indiana bats. This biological opinion covers actions which might have an
adverse effect on Indiana bats and, where habitat use by gray bats may
also occur, discussions cover gray bats in an effort to eliminate any
confusion in the implementation of conservation practices which might
affect either/both species. These activities are implemented in
accordance with the provisions contained in the NF LRMP for Alabama.
While the only known inhabited caves occur on the Bankhead NF, other
mines and caves are known to occur on the Talladega Division of the
Talladega NF and the Conecuh NF. The USFS has presented a Programmatic
Biological Assessment for NFAL which includes measures and practices to
be implemented on all the proclaimed National Forests in Alabama,
including the Bankhead, Conecuh, Talladega, and Tuskegee NF.

Beginning in Fiscal Year 1999, and extending through the date of
completion of revision of the NFAL

=s LRMP, the NFAL plan to conduct a variety of timber harvest
activities, as well as other forest management and development
activities. The LRMP is a general programmatic planning document that
provides management goals, objectives, and standards and guidelines
under which project level activities (e.g., timber sales) may be planned
and implemented to carry out the management direction of the LRMP. Land
use allocations are made and outputs projected based upon the
constraints imposed by the LRMP direction and guidelines. All project
level activities will undergo National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
review by appropriate FS personnel when proposed, as well as an
assessment of project effects to federally listed species in compliance
with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The LRMP sets out
management prescriptions and standards and guidelines for future
decision-making, and is adjustable, using monitoring and evaluation,
through amendment and revision.

The LRMP provides for multiple-use coordination in the management of
outdoor recreation, timber, watershed, minerals, wilderness, and
wildlife and fish (including threatened and endangered species), which
results in sustained yields of goods and services for the benefit of the
American people. It conserves soil resources and protects water quality.
The LRMP also provides broad direction for dealing with applications and
permits for occupancy and use of the NF by the public. Permits,
contracts and other instruments for the use and occupancy of NF System
lands will conform with the LRMP by the earliest possible date. The
major activities on the Forests include pine and hardwood timber
management, recreational use, hunting and fishing, wilderness use,
grazing, watershed protection, and mineral leasing.

Continuous Inventory of Stand Condition (CISC) data from NFAL for 1999
shows nearly 610,000 acres of forested land (this data does not include
developed areas such as roads, etc., wilderness areas, and/or land
classifications other than forested lands). Additional habitat is
provided through wilderness areas (where no timber harvest or vegetation
management is conducted) encompassing approximately 33,000 acres on
NFAL. Also, it is anticipated that an additional 9,200 acre wilderness
area (Dugger Mountain) will be declared on the Talladega Division of the
Talladega NF. The NFAL occur in 16 counties in the State of Alabama
(Figure 1). This acreage is in four separate proclaimed National Forests
B Bankhead, Conecuh, Talladega, and Tuskegee. The Forests are located in
Northwest, Northeast, West Central, East Central, and South Alabama. The
Bankhead is located within the Cumberland Plateau. The Conecuh and
Tuskegee area located within the Coastal Plain. The Talladega Division
of the Talladega NF is located within the Piedmont and the Appalachian
Ridge and Valley Provinces, while the Oakmulgee Division is located
within the Upper Coastal Plain. Elevations range from 100 feet in the
Coastal Plain to 2,200 feet in the Appalachians. Slopes vary from nearly
flat to moderate to very steep. The climate is mild with an average
annual precipitation of 52 inches.

According to NFAL 1999 CISC data, the Bankhead NF consists of 142,840
acres of forested lands, the Conecuh NF consists of 89,468 acres of
forested lands, the Talladega NF consists of 368,147 acres of forested
lands, and the Tuskegee NF consists of 9,437 acres of forested lands.
CISC data shows that, for all NFAL, the 0-10 age class area decreased
from 17% to 7% between 1983 and 1999, with all forest types decreasing
except Longleaf, which increased significantly and could be contributed
to efforts to restore the native longleaf ecosystem to areas where it
had been converted to other forest types. The 60+ age class increased
from 24% to 54% of the total acres between 1983 and 1999. Longleaf pine
forest increased significantly between 1983 and 1999, while other yellow
pine types decreased. The data suggests that currently LRMP objectives
for regeneration and a more balanced age class distribution have not
occurred. The trend appears to be toward less regeneration and an
unbalanced age class distribution (over 40% of the total area is in the
60+ age class).

Included in the NFAL Biological Assessment are measures to protect
Indiana and gray bats, along with their roosting and foraging habitats.
These measures were developed by USFS (either independently or in
conjunction with the Service) and were reviewed/accepted by the Service
for use by the USFS. Where the LRMP Goals, Objectives, Standards and
Guidelines are overly broad or general with respect to meeting the needs
of specific species such as the Indiana bat, the following measures were
proposed by USFS:

> Upland water sources that are of real or potential value to the
> Indiana bat are to be conserved and managed during project planning
> and implementation. When designing timber sales, or when planning
> management activities to benefit bats near hibernacula, where suitable
> water sources are not available, water sources are to be developed in
> open understory upland forest. Other areas, deemed to be suitable
> (i.e., shelterwood cuts with reserves), can also be provisioned with
> water and with flight corridors created, where needed, to permit
> long-term suitability. Ponds or other man-made water sources will only
> be constructed when it is determined, in consultation with the
> Service, that water is needed and necessary on USFS administered units
> with known Indiana and/or gray bat occurrence. The constructed water
> sources will be located within 1 mile of rare bat caves or hibernacula
> and designed to preclude any adverse affects on aquatic systems.
>
> Caves and cavelike features which are known to harbor Federally listed
> threatened and/or endangered bats during the winter months are to be
> protected using approved designs, activities or actions which meet
> USFWS recommendations (currently no activity within 2 mile unless
> specifically authorized by USFWS). In addition, caves or cavelike
> features which provide winter temperatures and relative humidity
> ranges that indicate that they are suitable for occupation by Indiana
> bats, are to be managed by protecting the cave systems, entrances, and
> other associated Karst features from alteration or closure, and by
> avoiding activities in the vicinity of caves which might alter the
> winter cave microclimate to the detriment of the bats or which could
> increase the flow of surface runoff or debris into underground
> passageways.
>
> Because Indiana and gray bats gather near hibernacula in fall (to
> swarm) and because Indiana bats use trees suitable for roosting during
> the daylight hours, regeneration should be minimized. Due to increased
> fall use by bats, regeneration harvests should occur on no more than
> the Forest Plan minimum level (38.4 acres per square mile per decade,
> equals 6%) within 1-mile radius of each cave or hibernaculum occupied
> by rare bats. The 10-mile radius includes about three square miles of
> land, and thus translates to the harvest of approximately 120 acres
> every 10 years within this area. Residual trees greater than 9 inches
> dbh should be Class 1 or Class 2 species, where available. Otherwise,
> hardwoods should be selected over pines due to more persistent bark.
>
> Roads and travelways not needed for public access that pass within 3
> mile of Indiana bat and gray bat hibernacula or caves are to be closed
> to vehicular use wherever possible to reduce the threat of human
> disturbance and vandalism at these sites. Currently, both Armstrong
> and Backward/Confusion Caves are protected by such a measure due to
> closure of access roads to wildlife openings (Armstrong) and soil and
> water protection measures (Backward/Confusion). The closest open road
> to Armstrong Cave is approximately 1.1 miles. The closest open road to
> Backward/Confusion Cave is approximately 0.3 miles. These byways
> remain open for foot travel or dispersed human use; however, actions
> listed below apply. Necessary steps are taken at the project and
> forest level to protect hibernacula. Included here are such actions as
> constructing cave gates, half-gates, or fences and/or installing
> warning/interpretive signs within the entrances to protect sensitive
> bat colonies from human disturbance. In addition, a Forest Supervisor
> Closure Order is in place (effective March 1999) to prevent unapproved
> access to the entrances of the caves or within the caves, to allow law
> enforcement the authority to arrest and convict violators.
>
> For general Forest Plan level monitoring, the following actions will
> take place utilizing approved/qualified individuals: Sites are to be
> monitored by regularly inspecting cave gates and signs, Conducting
> biennial population censuses in hibernacula (note: annual censuses in
> 1998-99 and 1999-2000, biennially afterwards), Regularly evaluating
> the frequency and degree of human disturbance at hibernacula, Annually
> measuring and tracking cave microclimate parameters, Investigating
> reports of new bat colonies, and Using night vision equipment, mist
> nets, and harp traps to identify potential swarming areas. In
> addition, monitoring of Indiana and gray bat summer use by mist net
> and/or harp trap sampling at cave entrances and streams will be
> conducted.
>
> Retain all dead and dying primary roost trees \[preferred species of
> 16@ diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater\] for Indiana bats
> during the harvest of all timber stands. Maintain dead hardwood snags
> throughout harvest units (except where these would be hazards to human
> safety). In timber sales, trees to be retained are designated to
> partially shade about 1/3 of all large diameter (12@ dbh or greater)
> snags and live trees with splits, cracks, or exfoliating bark (this
> pertains to live trees retained in SMZs, hardwood inclusion areas
> within pine stands, and/or key wildlife areas, and does not refer to
> the 2 snags per acre required by the LRMP). Retain all shagbark or
> shellbark hickory (if available and present), and all hollow trees and
> cull trees of other species, particularly in uplands, where possible.
> Class 1 trees (following Romme *et al*., 1995, and additions made by
> Daniel Boone NF, Kentucky) include: 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*), chestnut oak
> (*Quercus montana*), red oak (*Quercus rubra*), post oak (*Quercus
> stellata*), American elm (*Ulmus americana*), and slippery elm (*Ulmus
> rubra*). Class 2 trees include: red maple (*Acer rubrum*), sugar maple
> (*Acer saccharum*), yellow buckeye (*Aesculus octandra*), sweet birch
> (*Betula lenta*), pignut hickory (*Carya glabra*), other hickories
> (*Carya spp.*), American beech (*Fagus grandifolia*), black gum
> (*Nyssa sylvatica*), sycamore (*Platanus occidentalis*), black locust
> (*Robinia pseudoacacia*), scarlet oak (*Quercus coccinea*), shingle
> oak (*Quercus imbricaria*), black oak (*Quercus niger*), and sassafras
> (*Sassafras albidum*). During field trips and meetings conducted
> during formal Section 7 consultation, sourwood (*Oxydendrum
> arboreum*), dead shortleaf pine (*Pinus echinata*), and dead Virginia
> pine (*Pinus virginiana*) were added to the list of Class 2 trees for
> NFAL. Due to the vast difference in tree species composition and
> structure between the various physiographic regions and USFS
> administrative units in Alabama, it is recommended that the snag
> retention guidelines be different for the various units. These
> retention guidelines for the different units are as follows: *Gulf
> Coastal Plain Forests (Conecuh NF, Oakmulgee Division of the Talladega
> NF, and Tuskegee NF)* B Create 2 snags per acre in regeneration areas
> and, when available, strive to designate for retention 4 additional
> live trees along the edge of the regeneration unit (in SMZs,
> inclusions, or key wildlife areas) to provide future roosting sites
> for bark roosting bats and other snag dependent species. Selection of
> trees for snag creation and live tree retention should be for
> hardwoods, preferably, and trees above 9@ dbh, or the largest trees
> available on the sites.*Cumberland Plateau (southern section) and
> Appalachian Ridge and Valley Forests (Bankhead NF B South of Hwy 278
> and Talladega Division of the Talladega NF)* B Create 2 snags per acre
> in regeneration areas and designate for retention 4 additional live
> trees within or alongside the regeneration unit (SMZs, inclusions, key
> wildlife areas) to provide future roosting sites for bark roosting
> bats and other snag dependent species. Selection of trees for snag
> creation and live tree retention should be for hardwoods, preferably,
> and trees above 9@ dbh, or the largest trees available on the
> sites.*Cumberland Plateau (northern section) (Bankhead NF B North of
> Hwy 278)* B Create 6 snags per acre in regeneration areas and
> designate for retention 10 additional live trees within or alongside
> the regeneration unit (SMZs, inclusions, key wildlife areas) to
> provide future roosting sites for bark roosting bats and other snag
> dependent species. Selection of trees for snag creation and live tree
> retention should be for hardwoods, preferably, and trees above 9@ dbh,
> or the largest trees available on the sites.
>
> Trees scheduled for retention in shelterwood cuts should be left in
> strips or clumps of about 50 basal area (BA), rather than trees evenly
> distributed across the harvested units. This provides an arrangement
> of potential roost trees and travel/foraging habitat corridors that is
> more likely to be used by bats than an open stand with evenly
> distributed residual trees. These strips and clumps are to be
> designated in the field and on general sketch maps, and efforts are
> made to retain higher densities ([\>]{.underline}50%) of Class 1 and
> Class 2 tree species, at least some of which measure 16 A dbh or
> greater, where present. If not present, the largest diameter hardwoods
> should be selected. The main reason to group many of the residual
> trees into strips and clumps is to provide travel corridors for
> Indiana bats to and from roost trees and to create foraging access for
> Indiana bats into regeneration units where insect production is high.
>
> Since most maternity trees that have been discovered to date have been
> 16@ or larger in diameter, it would be preferable if at least some of
> the retained trees in each harvest unit were of this size. The
> retention of three trees per acre, each of which is 9@ or greater in
> diameter, meets the general needs of the Indiana bat for roosting
> habitat, however emphasis should be placed on selecting Class 1 and 2
> tree species which are preferably over 16@ dbh.
>
> During the field review of Armstrong and Backward/Confusion caves
> during March, 1999, it was felt by Robert Currie (the Service) and
> John MacGregor (USFS) that sufficient water was available (primarily
> due to streams, road ruts, ephemeral pools). Thus, caves with rare bat
> species will be evaluated to determine if sufficient water sources
> exist and if not, propose, via a site-specific analysis, the need for
> construction or maintenance of water sources.
>
> In insect and/or disease control situations, such as insect
> infestation by southern pine beetle (SPB), an immediate or quick
> response will protect forest stands and preclude large-scale loss of
> pine species. An attack by SPB can have a dramatic impact in pine
> stands that are suppressed or lack the competitive advantage to
> persist on a site. It usually starts at a single point (potentially
> 1-5 pine trees) and spreads in a windward fashion at a rapid pace.
> Although it may be dormant for weeks, with suitable conditions and
> insect abundance, it may enlarge at a rapid rate, overwhelming and
> killing hundreds of pine trees. However, when found quickly, its
> enlargement is slow enough to allow protection of the remaining
> segment of the stand by cutting a buffer around the spot. The end
> result may be shaped like a donut with the center present and the
> buffer cut out in a concentric circle. Typically, the SPB spot starts
> small and increases in size as the insect numbers climb and expand
> into adjacent trees. Trees under attack start out green, begin to
> yellow, turn from orange to red, and then die with needles dropping
> off. The bark is tight on green and yellow trees and may remain tight
> on many red trees. However, by death the bark will have begun to
> loosen and the tree may become suitable for a few months for bark
> roosting bats. Control of SPB and other insect or disease pests will
> be handled by cutting a buffer around the core area or central insect
> or disease starting point. Implementation of SPB control strategy for
> Indiana bats should include the protection/retention of all
> blacktopped trees (without needles) and any red-topped trees with
> loose or sloughing bark [(at the time of marking)]{.underline}.
> Through this formal consultation issues related to SPB control have
> been addressed. For this reason, the restriction that suppression
> actions be completed within 60 days of marking are no longer an issue.
> Thus, the blacktopped and redtopped (with loose bark) trees designated
> for retention at the time of marking [will not]{.underline} have to be
> re-visited if the suppression action takes more than 60 days. In
> addition, since the pines are attacked and the hardwoods left alone by
> SPB, all hardwoods should be left inside SPB control areas, including
> the buffer zone.

[Status of the Species]{.underline}

*Indiana Bat*

The Indiana bat is a medium-sized, monotypic species (there are no
subspecies) of the genus *Myotis*. Head and body length of individuals
ranges from 1.6 to 1.9 inches (in) \[41 to 49 millimeters (mm)\]
(Schwartz and Schwartz, 1981; USFWS, 1999), and forearm length is 1.4 to
1.6 in (35 to 41 mm) (USFWS, 1999). It is similar to the little brown
bat (*Myotis lucifugus*) and the northern long-eared bat (*M.
septentrionalis*), but differs in several morphological characters.
Schwartz and Schwartz (1981) present identification tips which include
general coloration and the following combination of characteristics: 1)
wing membrane reaches base of toes, 2) hind foot is greater than 0.25 in
long, 3) distinctive keel on the calcar, 4) hairs on toes are short and
sparse, and 5) the ears do not project more than 0.063 (1/16) in beyond
the nostrils when laid forward. Fur of the back is a dull grayish brown
to nearly black, and when parted, a faint three-colored pattern is
discernable. The pattern generally includes cinnamon brown tips with a
narrow grayish band leading into brownish black bases on the parted
hairs of the back (Schwartz and Schwartz, 1981). Fur of the underside is
usually lighter than that of the back, but does not contrast as strongly
as does that of the little brown bat or northern long-eared bat. The
ears and wing membranes have a dull appearance and flat coloration (not
glossy) that do not contrast with the fur (USFWS, 1999). The skull has a
small sagittal crest, and the braincase tends to be smaller, lower, and
narrower than that of the little brown bat (Barbour and Davis, 1969;
Hall, 1981).

The Indiana bat was officially listed as an endangered species on March
11, 1967 (*Federal Register* 32\[48\]:4001) under the Endangered Species
Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 \[80 Stat. 926; 16 U. S. C.
668aa(c)\]. Critical Habitat was designated for the Indiana bat on
September 24, 1976 (41 *FR* 41914); 11 caves and two mines in six states
were listed as critical habitat: Illinois - Blackball Mine (LaSalle
Co.); Indiana - Big Wyandotte Cave (Crawford Co.), Ray=s Cave (Greene
Co.); Kentucky - Bat Cave (Carter Co.), Coach Cave (Edmonson Co.);
Missouri - Cave 021 (Crawford Co.), Caves 009 and 017 (Franklin Co.),
Pilot Knob Mine (Iron Co.), Bat Cave (Shannon Co.), Cave 029 (Washington
Co.); Tennessee - White Oak Blowhole Cave (Blount Co.); and West
Virginia - Hellhole Cave (Pendleton, Co.).

The Indiana bat is a migratory species known to occur in much of the
eastern half of the United States. More than 85 percent of the range
wide population occupies nine Priority One hibernacula (hibernation
sites with a recorded population \>30,000 bats since 1960). Large
hibernating populations are known to exist in Indiana, Kentucky, and
Missouri, with each state containing three Priority One hibernacula.
Priority Two hibernacula (recorded population \>500, but \<30,000 bats
since 1960) are known from Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Missouri, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Priority Three hibernacula (recorded population \<500 bats since 1960)
are known to occur in 26 states; including those mentioned above, in
addition to Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin (USFWS,
1999).

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, 1999). Depending on local weather conditions,
swarming may continue through October, or longer. In addition to
replenishing fat reserves prior to hibernation, mating occurs during the
swarming season after which the females enter directly into hibernation.
Adult females store sperm while hibernating through the winter and
become pregnant soon after emergence from hibernation. Males generally
remain active longer than the females during this pre-hibernation
period, but all Indiana bats are usually hibernating by late November
(USFWS, 1999). 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).

Indiana bats hibernate in caves and mines that provide specific climatic
conditions; preferred hibernacula have temperatures at or below 10
degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit) when the bats arrive in October
and November. Optimal temperature during winter is 3 to 6 degrees
Celsius (37 to 43 degrees Fahrenheit)\]. Only a small percentage of
available caves provide for this specialized requirement. In southern
parts of the bat=s range, hibernacula trap large volumes of cold air and
the bats hibernate where resulting rock temperatures drop; in northern
parts of the range, however, the bats avoid the coldest sites (USFWS,
1999). Stable low temperatures allow the bats to maintain a low rate of
metabolism and conserve fat reserves through the winter, until spring
(Humphrey, 1978; Richter *et al.*, 1993). Relative humidity at roost
sites during hibernation usually is above 74 percent, but below
saturation (Hall, 1962; LaVal *et al.*, 1976; Humphrey, 1978), although
relative humidity as low as 54 percent has been observed (Myers, 1964).
Humidity may be an important factor in successful hibernation (Thomas
and Cloutier, 1992).

Specific cave configurations determine temperature and humidity
microclimates, and thus suitability for Indiana bats (Tuttle and
Stevenson, 1977; LaVal and LaVal, 1980). Indiana bats select roosts
within hibernacula that best meet their needs for cool temperatures; in
many hibernacula, these roosting sites are near an entrance, but may be
deeper in the cave or mine if that is where cold air flows and is
trapped (Tuttle and Stevenson, 1977).

During the summer, Indiana bats utilize two types of roosting habitat.
Females (which have stored sperm over winter) emerge from hibernation
first, generally in late March or early April, followed by the males.
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 in approximately one month. By late August, the maternity
colonies begin to disperse. Although most hibernating colonies leave the
hibernacula by late April, some males may spend the summer in the
vicinity of the hibernacula. Those leaving the hibernacula 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 (USFWS, 1999).

A complete understanding of the summer needs of Indiana bats has not
been attained. Early researchers considered flood plain and riparian
forest to be the primary roosting and foraging habitat types used in the
summer by Indiana bats (Humphrey *et al.*, 1977), and these forest types
unquestionably are important. More recently, upland forest has been
shown to be used by Indiana bats for roosting (Clark *et al.*, 1987;
Gardner *et al.*, 1991b; Callahan *et al.*, 1997; MacGregor, unpublished
data). Upland forest, old fields, and pastures with scattered trees have
also been shown to provide foraging habitat (Gardner *et al.*, 1991b;
MacGregor, unpublished data).

Indiana bats live in highly altered landscapes and use an ephemeral
resource (dead and dying trees, mature trees, and hollow trees) as roost
sites. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Indiana bat may, in fact,
respond positively to habitat disturbance. Maternity roosts have been
found where hog lots have killed overstory trees and removed understory
trees in Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri (Gene Gardner, Missouri
Department of Transportation; Jim Cope, Earlham College (retired); and
Clawson, respectively, pers. observ. October 1996 as reported by USFWS,
1999). Timber harvest activities neither directly damaged known roosts
nor discouraged bats from continuing to forage in one harvested area
that was studied in Illinois (Gardner *et al.*, 1991a), and Indiana bats
have been found roosting in shelterwood cuts in Kentucky (MacGregor,
unpublished data). A couple of maternity colonies, including the first
discovered maternity roost in Indiana, were found when a tree was cut
down and the bats moved to another tree. These observations suggest that
the Indiana bat may be a more adaptable species than previously thought
(USFWS, 1999).

Within the range of the species, the existence of Indiana bats in a
particular area may be governed by the availability of natural roost
structures, primarily standing dead trees with loose bark. The
suitability of any tree as a roost site is determined by: 1) its
condition (dead or alive), 2) the quantity of loose bark, 3) the tree=s
solar exposure and location in relation to other trees, and 4) the
tree=s spatial relationship to water sources and foraging areas (USFWS,
1999). Morphological characteristics of the bark of a number of trees
make them suitable as roosts for Indiana bats; that is when dead,
senescent, or severely injured (e.g., lightning-struck), these trees
possess bark that springs away from the trunk upon drying. Additionally,
the shaggy bark of some living hickories (*Carya* spp.) and large white
oaks (*Quercus alba*) also provide roost sites. The most important
characteristics of trees that provide roosts are not species, but
structure: exfoliating bark with space for bats to roost between the
bark and the bole of the tree. The length of persistence of peeling bark
varies with the species of tree and the severity of environmental
factors to which it is subjected (USFWS, 1999).

Indiana bat maternity colonies use multiple roosts, in both dead and
living trees. Exposure of roost trees to sunlight and location relative
to other trees are important factors in suitability and use (USFWS,
1999). Because cool temperatures can delay the development of fetal and
juvenile young (Racey, 1982), selection of maternity roost sites may be
critical to reproductive success. Dead trees with east-southeast and
south-southwest exposures may allow solar radiation to effectively warm
nursery roosts. Roosts in some species of living trees (e.g., shagbark
hickory \[*Carya ovata*\]), on the other hand, may provide better
protection from rain water and other unfavorable environmental
conditions. Their greater thermal mass holds more favorable temperatures
for roosting bats during cool periods (Humphrey *et al.*, 1977).

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 ranged in size from
12 to 20 inches dbh (Romme *et al.*, 1995). Studies have shown that
adults in maternity colonies may use as few as two, to as many as 33,
alternate roosts (Humphrey *et al.*, 1977; Gardner *et al.*, 1991a;
Garner and Gardner, 1992; Callahan, 1993; Romme *et al.*, 1995).
Alternate roost trees also tend to be large, mature trees, but the range
in size is somewhat wider than that for primary roosts (7 to 33 in dbh
\[Romme *et al.*, 1995\]). In Missouri, maximum distances between roost
trees used by bats from the same maternity colony have ranged from 1.0
to 1.9 miles (Callahan, 1993). Snags (i.e., dead trees) exposed to
direct solar radiation were found to be used most frequently by Indiana
bats as summer roosts, followed by snags not fully exposed to solar
radiation and live trees not fully exposed (Callahan, 1993).

Until recently, most documented Indiana bat maternity colonies were
located in riparian or floodplain forest (Humphrey *et al.*, 1977).
Recent studies and survey results, however, indicate that upland forest
provides important maternity habitat for Indiana bats (Gardner *et al.*,
1990; Romme *et al.*, 1995). In addition, females are known to exhibit
relatively strong loyalty to summer roosting and foraging habitat
(Bowles, 1981; Gardner *et al.*, 1991a, 1991b). It was also found that
Indiana bats occupy distinct home ranges during the summer (Gardner *et
al.*, 1990). Average home range sizes vary from approximately 70 acres
(juvenile males) to over 525 acres (post-lactating adult females).
Roosts occupied by individuals ranged from 0.33 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 (additional
species added by Daniel Boone National Forest and/or during formal
consultation between Daniel Boone NF and USFWS):

Silver maple (*Acer saccharinum*)

Bitternut hickory (*Carya cordiformis*)

Eastern cottonwood (*Populus deltoides*)

White oak (*Quercus alba*)

Shagbark hickory (*Carya ovata*)

Green ash (*Fraxinus pennsylvanica*)

Red oak (*Quercus* spp.)

Slippery elm (*Ulmus rubra*)

Shellbark hickory (*Carya laciniosa*)

White ash (*Fraxinus americana*)

Post oak (*Quercus stellata*)

American elm (*Ulmus americana*)

Chestnut oak (*Quercus montana*).

These species are likely to develop the loose, exfoliating bark as they
age and die that are preferred by Indiana bats as roosting sites.

Class II trees include:

Red maple (*Acer rubrum*)

Sugar maple (*Acer saccharum*)

Yellow buckeye (*Aesculus octandra*)

Sweet birch (*Betula lenta*)

Pignut hickory (*Carya glabra*)

Other hickories (*Carya* spp.)

American beech (*Fagus grandifolia*)

Black gum (*Nyssa sylvatica*)

Sycamore (*Platanus occidentalis*)

Black locust (*Robinia pseudoacacia*)

Scarlet oak (*Quercus coccinea*)

Shingle oak (*Quercus imbricaria*)

Black oak (*Quercus niger*)

Sassafras *(Sassafras albidum*)

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.

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

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

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

The impacts of herbicide use on Indiana bats have not been studied, but
herbicides are thought to have contributed to the decline of other
insectivorous species of bats. Direct application of herbicides to roost
trees may cause mortality to single males or females, or to maternity
colonies of Indiana bats, when chemicals are applied at heights where
bats would be found roosting or by aerial application. However, it is
more likely that herbicide use would have indirect impacts on the
Indiana bat by reducing vegetation, and consequently the insect
population numbers or diversity, in the treatment area.

Indiscriminate collecting, handling, and banding by biologists are also
thought to have contributed to declines in Indiana bat population
numbers. Bats enter hibernation with only enough fat reserves to last
until spring. When a bat is aroused by humans conducting biological
studies, as much as 68 days of normal fat supply is used in response to
a single disturbance (Thomas *et al.*, 1990). During the summer, humans
carrying out inappropriate biological studies may disturb sensitive
maternity colonies. Poorly designed and installed cave gates restrict
bat movement and alter air flow into caves. Air flow alterations may
change the climatic conditions and render the

cave unsuitable for hibernation. Commercialization of caves results in
disturbance to summer or hibernating bat colonies, and impoundment of
streams often results in flooding of caves (USFWS, 1999).

*Gray Bat*

The gray bat is a large-sized, monotypic species of the genus *Myotis*.
Head and body length of individuals ranges from 1.9 to 2.0 in (48 to 51
mm) (Schwartz and Schwartz, 1981), and forearm length is 1.6 to 1.8 in
(40 to 46 mm) (USFWS, 1982). It is easily distinguished from all other
bats within its range by its unicolored dorsal fur. All other eastern
bats have distinctly bi- or tri-colored fur on their backs. Following
molt in July or August, gray bats are dark gray, but they often bleach
to chestnut brown or russet between molts (especially apparent in
reproductive females during May and June). The wing membrane connects to
the foot at the ankle rather than at the base of the first toe, as in
other species of Myotis (USFWS, 1982).

Most gray bats migrate seasonally between hibernating and maternity
caves. The distance traveled by individual colonies varies depending on
geographic location; some migration distances range from several miles
to 200 miles (Clawson *et al.*, 1992). On arrival at hibernating caves,
adults copulate and females immediately begin hibernation. Some mate and
enter hibernation as early as the first of September, and nearly all do
so by early October. Females store sperm over the winter hibernation
period. Following mating, males remain active for several weeks, during
which time fat supplies depleted during breeding are replenished.
Juveniles of both sexes and adult males tend to enter hibernation
several weeks later than adult females, but most are in hibernation by
early November. Stored fat reserves must last for at least six to seven
months (Tuttle, 1976a; Tuttle and Stevenson, 1977).

Adult females emerge in late March or early April, followed by juveniles
of both sexes and adult males. Most juveniles and adult males leave
between mid-April and mid-May (Tuttle, 1976a). Migration is hazardous,
especially in spring when fat reserves and food supplies are low.
Consequently, adult mortality is especially high in late March and in
April (Tuttle and Stevenson, 1977).

Each summer colony occupies a traditional home range that often contains
several roosting caves scattered along as much as 70 km of river or
reservoir borders. Adult females store sperm through the winter and
become pregnant soon after emergence from hibernation (Guthrie and
Jeffers, 1938). They give birth to a single young in late May or early
June. At that time, the reproductively active females congregate in a
single, traditional maternity cave (usually the warmest one available),
while males and non-reproductive females congregate in smaller groups in
more peripheral caves within the colony home range (Tuttle, 1976a).
Maternity caves are usually located close to rivers or lakes where the
bats feed.

Reproductive females must maintain high body temperatures at their
relatively cool roosts, especially during the period of lactation from
late May to early July. This requires larger amounts of energy, and
during the period of peak demand, when young are roughly 20-30 days old,
individual females sometimes feed continuously for more than seven hours
during a single night. For newly volant young, growth rates and survival
are inversely proportional to the distance from their roost to the
nearest over-water foraging habitat (Tuttle, 1976b). Although mothers
continue to nurse their young for a brief period after the young learn
to fly, juveniles are apparently left to learn how and where to hunt on
their own (Tuttle and Stevenson, 1977).

During peak insect abundance in early evening, many gray bats feed in
slowly traveling groups. When insect numbers drop, 1.5 to 2 hours after
sundown, gray bats become territorial. Depending upon prey abundance,
foraging territories may be occupied by from one to as many as 15 or
more bats. Territories seem to be controlled by reproductive females and
are located in the same places and used by the same individual bats from
one year to the next (Tuttle and Stevenson, 1978).

Newly volant young gray bats often feed and take shelter in forest
surrounding cave entrances. Also, whenever possible, gray bats of all
ages fly in the protection of forest canopy between caves and feeding
areas. Such behavior provides increased protection from predators such
as screech owls. Forested areas surrounding caves and between caves and
over-water feeding habitat clearly are advantageous to gray bat survival
(Tuttle, 1979). Additionally, gray bat feeding areas have not been found
along sections of river or reservoir where adjacent forest has been
cleared (LaVal *et al.*, 1977; Tuttle and Stevenson, 1977).

In summer, gray bats select only a few caves, which must be located near
rivers or reservoirs (Tuttle, 1976b). They hibernate in deep, vertical
caves that have unusually low (6 to 11 C) temperature. As a
consequence of their combined thermoregulatory and other habitat
requirements, gray bats congregate in larger numbers and in fewer
hibernating caves than any other North American bat. The concentration
of such a large proportion of the known gray bat population into such
few caves poses great risk to continued population existence should
natural or human-induced catastrophes result in destruction of one or
more cave populations at any given time (Mohr, 1972).

Tuttle (1979) reported human disturbance in caves to be a primary cause
of decline and demonstrated a close relationship between decline and
frequency of disturbance. Although any repeated disturbance of roosts is
harmful, disturbance from late May through mid-July at maternity caves
and from mid-August through April at hibernating caves is especially
detrimental. In the first period, flightless young are on roosts, and
thousands may die from a single disturbance. In the second, each human
entry causes all gray bats within range of sound or light to arouse at
least partially, and usually completely, from hibernation (USFWS, 1982).
A limited number of arousals is natural and necessary, but each arousal
from hibernation is energetically expensive, and energy reserves (in the
form of fat) cannot be replaced before spring emergence. Simple arousal
and movement to a new roosting place probably costs an average gray bat
as much energy as 10 to 30 days of undisturbed hibernation (USFWS,
1982).

Insecticide application may adversely affect gray bat populations by
reducing insect prey populations (Mohr, 1972; Reidinger, 1972, 1976;
Clark and Prouty, 1976; Geluso *et al.*, 1976; Clark *et al.*, 1978). A
further possible cause of decline may involve chemical pollution or
siltation of waterways over which gray bats forage. The majority of gray
bat prey insects are quite sensitive to aquatic pollution (USFWS, 1982).
Problems involving the effects of both chemical and silt pollution on
aquatic insects upon which gray bats depend need more investigation.

Regeneration cut areas near cave entrances and between caves and rivers
or reservoirs where gray bats feed may have affected them detrimentally
(USFWS, 1982). During exceptionally cold spring weather, Tuttle (1979)
observed that gray bats sometimes forage in forested areas near their
caves. Also, during evening emergence gray bats usually fly in the
protection of forest canopy enroute to rivers or reservoirs where they
feed (Tuttle, 1976b). Gray bats often travel considerably out of their
way in order to take advantage of even scattered trees along fencerows.
Screech owls capture emerging gray bats but are less successful when the
bats are able to take cover in forest canopy (Tuttle, 1979).

Gray bat preference for caves near rivers has made their roosts
particularly vulnerable to inundation by manmade impoundments. The
initial effect of long-established impoundments, such as the Tennessee
Valley Authority reservoir system, is difficult to evaluate due to a
lack of pre-impoundment data. The little information available indicates
that many important caves, and probably their bat populations, were
extirpated. An account by McMurtrie (1974) describes a cave in Alabama,
since flooded by a reservoir, which was Ainhabited by countless
thousands of bats@ and had guano piles 4.5 meters deep. Long-time
residents have told of many other such caves now submerged. Timing of
the initial flooding may be a critical factor in whether the flooded
populations are destroyed immediately. The bats= strong site attachment
and narrow ecological requirements, however, make survival of displaced
populations questionable even if they escape initial destruction.

Cave flooding is, by far, the most important natural calamity faced by
gray bats, and it is becoming increasingly important as they retreat
farther back into inaccessible places to avoid human disturbance. Summer
colonies often retreat to roosts located over deep water within the
caves in order to avoid disturbance by humans. In some caves, this is a
successful avoidance strategy; but in others, such roosts become death
traps during flooding (Tuttle, 1979).

Some of the largest gray bat colonies ever known have been extirpated as
a result of cave commercialization. In fact, the largest remaining gray
bat summer colony would have been destroyed by commercialization if
USFWS had not intervened (Tuttle, 1979). Some responsible owners of
commercial caves have protected sections of their caves that were
critical to gray bats, and those bats may have benefitted from
commercial enterprises.

In several cases, entire gray bat colonies, especially at maternity
caves, have been lost as a result of the well-meaning efforts of poorly
informed conservationists who build improperly designed gates for the
bats= protection (Tuttle, 1977). Any modification of cave entrances that
affects bat movements, cave microclimate, or facilitates predation
should be avoided (USFWS, 1982).

An additional problem involves cave entrance closure. On rare occasions,
cave-ins or gradual fill-in of sinkhole entrances render a cave
entrance, or an important passage, too small for a large colony to pass
through without greatly increasing the danger of predation (USFWS,
1982).

[Environmental Baseline]{.underline}

*Status of the Species within the action area*

Because the locations of many Indiana bat winter hibernacula were
unknown before the 1970s, the population status of Indiana bats was
poorly understood. Furthermore, the counts that were conducted were made
irregularly and inconsistently. Drobney and Clawson (1995), using
Priority 1 hibernacula, established a benchmark of nearly 450,000 bats
in a 1975 census. ASince 1983 the number of bats tallied has declined
significantly, reaching a low of 347,890 during the most recent census
in 1993\" (Drobney and Clawson, 1995).

Indiana bat population trends have not been consistent across the
species= winter range. While the national trend indicates a 22 percent
decline during the past ten year, Missouri has seen a 34 percent
decline. In Kentucky, the population has remained relatively stable, and
has increased somewhat in Indiana (Drobney and Clawson, 1995).

Drobney and Clawson (1995) caution that effective recovery efforts will
not be realized until summer habitat requirements and factors affecting
survival and reproduction are better understood. Furthermore, Aeven if
the factors that are negatively influencing Indiana bat populations are
removed, recovery will occur slowly because this species has a low
reproductive rate@ (Drobney and Clawson, 1995).

Gray bats occupy a limited geographic range in limestone karst areas of
the southeastern United States. Populations are found mainly in Alabama,
northern Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee, but a few occur in
northwestern Florida, western Georgia, southeastern Kansas, southernmost
Indiana, southern and southwestern Illinois, northeastern Oklahoma,
northeastern Mississippi, western Virginia, and possibly western North
Carolina (Barbour and Davis, 1969; Tuttle, 1979). Distribution within
the range was always patchy, but fragmentation and isolation of
populations is increasing. Prior to recent major declines, individual
hibernating populations of gray bats contained from 100,000 to 1,500,000
or more bats. Approximately 95 percent of the entire known population
hibernates in only nine caves each winter, with more than half in a
single cave. Undisturbed summer colonies in Tennessee and Alabama
contain from 5,000 to 250,000 or more bats each, with most numbering
10,000 to 50,000 (Tuttle, 1979).

Populations of both Indiana and gray bats have declined over the last 2
to 3 decades. Primary causes for these declines can generally be
attributed to: 1) habitat destruction/alteration of summer and winter
habitats; 2) human disturbance of the bats; 3) cave commercialization;
and 4) natural, and possibly human-induced, sources of mortality.

The Indiana bat was located in two caves on the Bankhead NF on February
13 and 14, 1999. Cave surveys indicated the presence of 12 Indiana bats
in Backward/Confusion Cave and 18 to 20 in Armstrong Cave. This was the
first documented occurrence of Indiana bats in Lawrence County, Alabama.

Four gray bats were found in Armstrong Cave on the Bankhead NF during
the February 13 and 14, 1999 surveys. This was the first documented
occurrence of gray bats in Lawrence County, Alabama.

*Effects of the Action*

Timber harvest; salvage/firewood sales; growing-season prescribed
burning; road construction, maintenance of roads and power line
rights-of-way; wildlife management activities; development, utilization,
and maintenance of recreation areas and trails; cave management; and
clearing for private or utility line easements could potentially have
direct and indirect adverse effects on the Indiana bat. Firewood, or
fuelwood, collection permits only allow for the collection of Adead and
down@ wood (e.g., no dead or live standing trees are allowed to be
taken). The LRMP is currently being revised and will include
consideration of Indiana and gray bat needs. It should be noted that
this biological opinion covers all National Forests in Alabama (4 NF
made up of 6 Ranger Districts). There is no way to cover all possible
management and/or harvest situations without making this document too
complex and lengthy. Therefore, most discussions will center on routine
timber harvest, stand management, insect and disease control, wildlife
management, threatened and endangered species protection, recreation,
and private or utility easements. These actions result in removal of
living trees or snags that could serve as roosts for maternity colonies
or individual bats, reduce density of mature trees, and reduce overstory
canopy. Direct mortality or injury to individual Indiana bats might
occur as a result of cutting a particular tree with a maternity colony
or individually roosting bat present. Prescribed burning during the
Indiana bat maternity season could result in direct mortality as a
result of a maternal roost tree burning (direct effect), or smoke
generated during the burn could cause the bats to abandon a maternal
roost tree or maternity site (indirect effect). However, the likelihood
of cutting a tree containing a maternity colony or individually roosting
Indiana bat is anticipated to be low because of the large number of
suitable roost trees present on the NFAL, the rarity of the species, and
the wide dispersal of Indiana bats and Indiana bat maternity colonies
throughout the species= range. In addition, implementation of the
prudent conservation measures for protection of the Indiana bat and its
summer habitat on the NFAL avoids the cutting of those trees which are
most likely to contain a maternity colony or roosting bat (i.e., snags
and/or damaged trees which do not pose a human safety concern). Direct
effects to Indiana bats could also result from human activity during the
winter in caves containing hibernating Indiana bats. However,
installation of signs and construction of gates at known hibernacula
avoids, or significantly reduces, the potential for human disturbance of
hibernating Indiana bat colonies.

In the absence of the prudent conservation measures developed by NFAL,
forest management activities and other activities conducted on the NFAL
might have indirect adverse effects to the Indiana bat as a result of
alteration of summer and pre-hibernation habitat. Removal of mature
trees might alter the suitability of an area as roosting or foraging
habitat for the Indiana bat by altering temperatures of potential roost
trees through changes in sunlight exposure, by potential, indirect
changes to insect type and/or abundance through changes in vegetative
components, and by changing canopy cover which would protect bats from
nocturnal predators. According to the Indiana bat habitat suitability
index model (Romme *et al.*, 1995), optimal canopy cover in foraging
habitat is 50 to 70 percent; suitability declines as canopy closure
increases from 70 percent to 100 percent. The suitability of roosting
habitat reaches its optimal level as canopy cover reaches 60 percent,
and begins to decline at 80 percent. Subsequent growth of new vegetation
after timber harvest was not addressed in the model, however, harvested
areas may provide foraging habitat for Indiana bats until the understory
becomes too dense for the bats to maneuver through effectively (John
MacGregor, unpublished data). Although a clearcut area may not provide
optimal roosting or foraging habitat for 30 years or more, other harvest
methods (i.e., shelterwood) may result in retention of adequate amounts
of overstory to maintain suitable foraging conditions for Indiana bats.
Many species of bats (including *Myotis* spp.) feed in regeneration
areas because these areas apparently produce higher numbers of flying
insects than adjacent uncut tracts of forest (John MacGregor,
unpublished data). These are preliminary data, but they indicate that
direct and indirect impacts to Indiana bats following timber harvest may
be tempered to some degree, or even negligible, if adequate roosting and
foraging habitat is available in the surrounding area , is left in the
disturbed area, and if management methods designed to maintain Class I
and Class II trees (Romme *et al*., 1995) are implemented.

Herbicide use will not have direct effects on Indiana bats since direct
application to individual stumps, basal stem treatment, hack and squirt,
and cut surface treatment are the only methods of application used.
These methods would place herbicides at or below breast height (below
the usual roosting height of these bats). Direct application of
herbicides to bats is much less likely to occur if these methods are
used because these methods target individual stems and do not result in
general broadcasting of herbicides to the surrounding area (i.e., aerial
applications). Indirect effects of herbicide treatment to Indiana bats
may occur as a result of reduction in numbers of insect populations,
however, this effect is expected to be temporary, as insect populations
would likely recover within a short period of time after treatment of an
area. Bats may have to forage in different areas, temporarily, until
insects are able to repopulate an area.

If the actions described above are conducted without consideration for
the protection of the Indiana bat, direct and indirect effects of the
actions could result in mortality to adult and juvenile Indiana bats.
Harvest of large tracts of hardwood and hardwood/pine habitat could
force the bats in a maternity colony to abandon a traditionally used
maternity site due to maternity trees being removed or their desirable
qualities being altered (i.e., temperature regime, protection from
weather, close proximity to food and water, etc.). This would place
additional stress on pregnant females that are already expending energy
or on lactating females that are caring for their young, possibly
leading to lower reproductive success of lower survival of juveniles.
Timber harvest could also reduce the availability of insects on which
the bats feed, causing them to search for alternate foraging habitat
which might be further from roost trees. Reduction in forage
availability could then lead to starvation and subsequent population
declines in the local area. Removal of live trees could reduce the
number of potential future roosting sites, which would render a site
unsuitable until trees regenerated (30 years or more).

*Cumulative Effects*

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

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

[Conclusion]{.underline}

After reviewing the current status of Indiana and gray bats; the
environmental baseline for the action area; the effects of the proposed
action; the cumulative effects; the prudent conservation measures
developed in consultation with USFS= NFAL Supervisors Office, Bankhead
NF, and Daniel Boone NF and USFWS= Daphne, AL office, Cookeville, TN
office, and Asheville, NC office; and the cumulative effects, it is the
Service\'s biological opinion that forest management and other
activities authorized, funded, or carried out on NFAL, as proposed, are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Indiana and gray
bats. Critical habitat for these species has been designated, however,
this action does not affect that area and no destruction or adverse
modification of that 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 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 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]{.underline}**,
and must be undertaken by the USFS (NFAL) so that they become binding
conditions of any contract or permit issued to an applicant, as
appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The USFS has
a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental
take statement. If the USFS: 1) fails to assume and implement the terms
and conditions, or 2) fails to require USFS, or an 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 USFS must report the progress of the
action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the
incidental take state. \[50 CFR δ402.14(I)(3)\]

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

The Service cannot, at this time, estimate how many Indiana and/or gray
bats could be taken as a result of forest management activities or other
actions implemented on NFAL, because some of the bats that hibernate on
NFAL lands likely migrate to other areas during the maternity season
while some Indiana and/or gray bats that hibernate in caves off of NFAL
lands may migrate onto these lands for the summer. According to 1999
CISC data, NFAL lands include nearly 610,000 wooded acres which are
continually inventoried and managed. This figure excludes certain land
classes, such as wilderness, developed recreation sites, wild and scenic
river corridors, and other non-commercial lands. The current USFS
proposal is to allow a maximum of 6% of any given NF=s forested acres to
be treated by regeneration cuts within a 1-mile radius of known occupied
(by Indiana and/or gray bats) caves. This would allow for a total of
only 38.4 acres per square mile per decade, and would translate to the
harvest of approximately 120 acres every 10 years within this 1-mile
radius area. When the LRMP is revised, this figure may change, but will
be thoroughly evaluated at that time when formal consultation is again
entered into by the Service and USFS, and will be covered by another
biological opinion. Additionally, human disturbance of hibernacula, and
maternity sites, pose a very real threat to Indiana and/or gray bat
population continued existence by contributing to potential reductions
in populations, and/or reproductive success, related to possible
starvation due to bats being awakened during the hibernation period or
by loss of young due to disturbance of maternity colonies. While USFS
efforts to render caves more protected through the graduated use access
limitations, interpretive signs, fences around cave entrance areas, and
gates or half-gates installed in cave entrances is certainly desirable,
it cannot ensure that humans do not enter caves during the hibernation
and/or maternity seasons. Human entry into shared hibernacula during
hibernation could adversely affect both Indiana and gray bats by causing
the bats to awaken prematurely and use stored energy reserves. It is
anticipated that Indiana and gray bats could potentially be taken by
forest management and other activities that result in the reduction of
the insect prey base due, indirectly, to siltation and/or water quality
degradation resulting from various activities on NFAL. While this is
unlikely to happen across the entire NFAL, it could temporarily
adversely affect local populations by requiring individuals to forage
greater distances to find adequate amounts of forage.

Incidental take of Indiana bats is expected to be in the form of
killing, harming, or harassing. Cutting trees during the non-hibernation
season for harvest or in preparation for other activities may result in
mortality to females and young, or to individually roosting Indiana
bats, if a particular tree which is cut contains a maternity colony or
roosting bats. If the bats are not killed, the colony (or roosting
individuals) will be forced to find an alternate roost or may be forced
to abandon a roosting area. Clearing an area for road construction or
recreational development may also result in alteration of roosting
and/or feeding activities by the bats (i.e., the bats may have to fly
farther to forage, seek alternate roosts, or they may be forced to
abandon the area altogether). Growing-season prescribed burns may result
in burning of occupied roost trees. Smoke generated during prescribed
burns could also cause roosting bats to abandon trees, or may result in
a maternity colony abandoning a traditionally used maternity site/cave.
Treatment of areas with herbicides is not expected to result in
incidental take of Indiana bats since individual stem treatments are the
only application methods used.

The Service anticipates incidental take of Indiana bats will be
difficult to detect for the following reasons: Indiana bats are
relatively small and they form small (i.e., 50 or fewer to 100
individuals), widely dispersed colonies under loose bark or in cavities
of trees; or a particular tree may harbor a single roosting individual.
Detection of a roosting colony or individual bats in a timber harvest
area would, therefore, be difficult. Although, to the best of our
knowledge, no Indiana bat maternity colony or roosting individuals are
present in an area proposed for timber harvest or other disturbance,
loss of suitable roosting and/or foraging habitat could result in
incidental take of Indiana bats. However, the following level of take of
this species can be anticipated by loss of trees designated to be
retained as potential roost trees. The only reference would be the daily
diary of the timber sale administrator.

The Service believes that no more than 100 trees designated for
retention 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.

[Effect of the Take]{.underline}

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

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

> 1\. The NFAL will continue to evaluate potential impacts of proposed
> actions to Indiana
>
> and/or gray bats on a project-by-project basis.
>
> 2\. Timber sales and other proposed actions will be planned and
> implemented consistent
>
> with measures developed for protection of Indiana and/or gray bats,
> and their habitat.
>
> 3\. Measures, as provided in the Biological Assessment provided by
> NFAL, will be implemented to maintain, improve, or enhance Indiana
> and/or gray bat
>
> habitat on NFAL.
>
> 4\. The NFAL will continue its efforts to determine use of FS lands by
> Indiana and gray
>
> bats during hibernation, reproductive, and pre-hibernation seasons so
> that forest management decisions can be made to minimize effect on
> Indiana and/or gray bats. This will apply mainly to caves and will
> focus on confirmation of Indiana and/or gray bat use of caves,
> monitoring of temperature/relative humidity in selected caves and
> continued survey of new cave sites. Timber sale acres will be
> evaluated by district biologists to determine habitat suitability for
> Indiana and/or gray bats.
>
> 5\. The NFAL will monitor timber sales and other activities to
> determine if incidental take occurs. If bats are observed leaving
> trees that are being cut, or nearby trees, harvest operations will be
> ceased until district biologists can further evaluate the site. Also,
> the Service (USFWS) will be notified immediately.

[Terms and Conditions]{.underline}

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

> The NFAL will continue to prepare biological evaluations and
> biological assessments
>
> with resultant determinations of Ano effect@, Amay affect, not likely
> to adversely affect@, or Amay affect, likely to adversely affect@ the
> Indiana bat, for individual proposed actions. Those future actions for
> which Amay affect, likely to adversely affect@ determinations are
> made, and those actions not consistent with this Biological Opinion,
> will be submitted to the Service for appropriate consultation. All
> proposed actions potentially affecting known or potential Indiana
> and/or gray bat habitat and consistent with the NFAL LRMP Standards
> and Guidelines, the Prudent Conservation Measures contained in the
> NFAL biological assessment, and this Biological Opinion will have a
> Anot likely to adversely affect@ determination (for Indiana bats
> only). In such instances, this Biological Opinion will constitute
> compliance with the Section 7 consultation requirements for Indiana
> bats only. As new information about Indiana and gray bats and their
> habitat, and results of future surveys on NFAL become available, this
> condition may require modification.
>
> 2\. Streamside Management Zone Guidelines will be followed when work
> involves perennial streams or other water sources in order to prevent
> water quality degradation or excessive disturbance to riparian
> vegetation.
>
> 3\. Removal of known Indiana bat roost trees will be avoided, except
> as specified below. In the event that it becomes absolutely necessary
> to remove a known Indiana bat roost tree, such a removal will be
> conducted, through informal consultation with the Service, during the
> time period when the bats are most likely to be in hibernation (i.e.,
> November 15 through March 31). When available, 16 or more Class I or
> Class II trees per acre with high potential to eventually be used as
> roosts by Indiana bats will be marked so as not to be removed during
> timber harvest. These trees do not have to evenly distributed across
> the entire harvest area (as in the case of the LRMP-required 2 per
> acre), but can be located in groups or clumps and would not require
> individual marking (as long as the clumps or groups were well marked
> or defined). Trees identified as immediate threats to public safety
> (e.g., trees leaning over a trail or public road that could fall at
> any time) may, however, be removed at any time. Known Indiana bat
> roost trees that are determined to be hazard trees may be removed
> after informal consultation with the Service on a case-by-case basis.
>
> 4\. Prior to conducting vegetation management or other activities
> which may adversely affect Indiana and/or gray bat habitat, an
> evaluation of the habitat will be done within the project area and on
> adjacent lands, when possible. Potential winter habitat (e.g.,
> limestone or sandstone caves, abandoned mines) will be evaluated
> within a one kilometer radius (0.6 mile) of any proposed cutting unit
> and any connected construction (e.g., road construction). This will be
> done as part of the biological evaluation process.
>
> 5\. Retain all dead and dying primary roost trees \[preferred species
> of 16@ diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater\] for Indiana bats
> during the harvest of all timber stands. Maintain dead hardwood snags
> throughout harvest units (except where these would be hazards to human
> safety). In timber sales, trees to be retained are designated to
> partially shade about 1/3 of all large diameter (12@ dbh or greater)
> snags and live trees with splits, cracks, or exfoliating bark (this
> pertains to live trees retained in SMZs, hardwood inclusion areas
> within pine stands, and/or key wildlife areas, and does not refer to
> the 2 snags per acre required by the LRMP). Retain all shagbark or
> shellbark hickory (if available and present), and all hollow trees and
> cull trees of other species, particularly in uplands, where possible.
> Class 1 trees (following Romme *et al*., 1995, and additions made by
> Daniel Boone NF, Kentucky) include: 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*), chestnut oak
> (*Quercus montana*), red oak (*Quercus rubra*), post oak (*Quercus
> stellata*), American elm (*Ulmus americana*), and slippery elm (*Ulmus
> rubra*). Class 2 trees include: red maple (*Acer rubrum*), sugar maple
> (*Acer saccharum*), yellow buckeye (*Aesculus octandra*), sweet birch
> (*Betula lenta*), pignut hickory (*Carya glabra*), other hickories
> (*Carya spp.*), American beech (*Fagus grandifolia*), black gum
> (*Nyssa sylvatica*), sycamore (*Platanus occidentalis*), black locust
> (*Robinia pseudoacacia*), scarlet oak (*Quercus coccinea*), shingle
> oak (*Quercus imbricaria*), black oak (*Quercus niger*), and sassafras
> (*Sassafras albidum*). During field trips and meetings conducted
> during formal Section 7 consultation, sourwood (*Oxydendrum
> arboreum*), dead shortleaf pine (*Pinus echinata*), and dead Virginia
> pine (*Pinus virginiana*) were added to the list of Class 2 trees for
> NFAL. Due to the vast difference in tree species composition and
> structure between the various physiographic regions and USFS
> administrative units in Alabama, it is recommended that the snag
> retention guidelines be different for the various units. These
> retention guidelines for the different units are as follows:*Gulf
> Coastal Plain Forests (Conecuh NF, Oakmulgee Division of the Talladega
> NF, and Tuskegee NF)* B Create 2 snags per acre in regeneration areas
> and, when available, strive to designate for retention 4 additional
> live trees along the edge of the regeneration unit (in SMZs,
> inclusions, or key wildlife areas) to provide future roosting sites
> for bark roosting bats and other snag dependent species. Selection of
> trees for snag creation and live tree retention should be for
> hardwoods, preferably, and trees above 9@ dbh, or the largest trees
> available on the sites. *Cumberland Plateau (southern section) and
> Appalachian Ridge and Valley Forests (Bankhead NF B South of Hwy 278
> and Talladega Division of the Talladega NF)* B Create 2 snags per acre
> in regeneration areas and designate for retention 4 additional live
> trees within or alongside the regeneration unit (SMZs, inclusions, key
> wildlife areas) to provide future roosting sites for bark roosting
> bats and other snag dependent species. Selection of trees for snag
> creation and live tree retention should be for hardwoods, preferably,
> and trees above 9@ dbh, or the largest trees available on the sites.
> *Cumberland Plateau (northern section) (Bankhead NF B North of Hwy
> 278)* B Create 6 snags per acre in regeneration areas and designate
> for retention 10 additional live trees within or alongside the
> regeneration unit (SMZs, inclusions, key wildlife areas) to provide
> future roosting sites for bark roosting bats and other snag dependent
> species. Selection of trees for snag creation and live tree retention
> should be for hardwoods, preferably, and trees above 9@ dbh, or the
> largest trees available on the sites. Snags will be created by
> girdling only if an adequate number of natural snags is not available
> in a harvest area. Those snags identified to be immediate safety
> hazards may be removed; those identified as hazards, but not immediate
> hazards, may be removed during the hibernation season (i.e., November
> 15 through March 31). Appropriate numbers of live trees will be left
> within a 25-foot radius of one-third of all large snags (those greater
> than 12 inches dbh) to provide some shading.
>
> 6\. Timber sale project decisions will contain a requirement that all
> live shagbark and shellbark hickories, over 9 inches dbh, be left in
> the harvest area.
>
> 7\. Timber sale project decisions will contain a requirement that,
> when possible, harvest area boundaries be irregular in configuration,
> with clumps of trees left in the harvest area and irregular strips of
> trees extending into the harvest area to maintain forested travel
> corridors between the harvest area and surrounding areas.
>
> 8\. Upland drinking water sources will be created whenever necessary
> in areas where no reliable sources of upland drinking water are
> available, or to protect and enhance existing water sources. This will
> follow USFS Conservation Measures (discussed previously).
>
> 9\. Further surveys of caves and abandoned mines on NFAL will be
> conducted to document winter use by Indiana and/or gray bats and to
> monitor existing colonies in known hibernacula. In addition, efforts
> will continue to locate maternity colonies on NFAL lands. Selection of
> sites for future mist net surveys will be left to the discretion of
> the USFS NFAL Threatened and Endangered Species Biologist. This will
> follow USFS NFAL Conservation Measures (discussed previously).
>
> 10\. In addition to those trees included in the USFS NFAL Conservation
> Measures, timber marking crews will mark for retention all additional
> trees that have developed exfoliating bark or crevices as a result of
> natural or man-made damage, thus making them suitable as immediate
> Indiana bat roosts. Timber in units that have already been marked but
> not sold, and are located within 2 mile of caves known to be occupied
> by rare bats, will be re-cruised by timber markers to mark these
> additional reserve trees. Timber sale administrators or harvest
> inspectors will conduct normal inspections of all timber sales and
> will, along with normal inspection duties, ensure that reserve trees
> have not been harvested or inadvertently felled. If one or more
> reserve trees are felled during timber harvest, the appropriate
> District Biologist and the NFAL Threatened and Endangered Species
> Biologist will be notified, and the Service will be informed. Removal
> of such trees during non-harvest activities will follow requirements
> indicated in Terms and Condition 3. After the first incidence of a
> reserve tree being felled, appropriate NFAL personnel will, in
> coordination with the Service, determine if additional protective
> measures are needed to avoid future losses of reserve trees.
>
> 11\. Areas of timber near known gray bat hibernating and/or maternity
> caves will be protected when implementing timber harvest and/or
> management activities. These areas should be a *minimum* of 10 acres
> around cave openings and should include riparian areas used for
> foraging by gray bats.
>
> 12\. The NFAL will meet with the Service and other appropriate parties
> as needed, but at least annually to review and discuss activities
> conducted on NFAL during the year, results of surveys, the need to
> modify provisions of this biological opinion, and other issues
> regarding Indiana and/or gray bats. If significant issues arise during
> the course of a year that warrant immediate attention or discussion,
> additional meetings may be necessary.
>
> 13\. Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick specimen of an endangered
> or threatened species, initial notification must be made to the
> nearest Service Law Enforcement Office (334-285-9600 in Montgomery,
> AL). Care should be taken in handling sick or injured specimens to
> ensure effective treatment and care, and in handling dead specimens to
> preserve biological materials in the best possible state for later
> analysis of cause of death. In conjunction with the care of sick or
> injured endangered species or preservation of biological materials
> from a dead animal, the finder has the responsibility to ensure that
> evidence intrinsic to the specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed.

**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 this provision of the ESA places an obligation on all
Federal agencies to implement positive programs to benefit listed
species, and a number of recent court cases appear to support that
belief. Agencies have some discretion in [choosing]{.underline}
conservation programs, but Section 7(a)(1) places a mandate on agencies
to implement some type of program.

The Service, therefore, recommends that NFAL implement the following
conservation measures for the benefit of the Indiana and gray bats:

> 1\. NFAL biologists should conduct training for new employees, in
> known areas of occurrence, (biologists, foresters, recreation
> specialists, etc.) regarding bats in the Southeast. Training should
> include sections on bat identification, biology, habitat requirements,
> sampling techniques, and techniques for project implementation.
>
> 2\. Informational/educational displays located in District Ranger
> Offices of NFAL should be expanded to include materials about bats.
> The Service believes that such displays would be invaluable in
> informing the public about the value of this misunderstood and often
> disliked group of animals.
>
> 3\. When Indiana bat maternity colonies are found on NFAL lands,
> district biologists should conduct habitat suitability studies in the
> vicinity of each colony site, using the HIS model developed by Romme
> *et al.* (1995). These studies would contribute toward validation of
> the model, or reveal the need to modify some variables. The results
> might then be used by biologists during biological evaluations
> conducted for future actions.
>
> 4\. The NFAL should consider the following tree species as Class II
> Indiana bat roost tree species: Sourwood; Shortleaf pine (dead);
> Virginia pine (dead)
>
> The Indiana bat habitat suitability index model (Romme *et al.*, 1995)
> includes lists of trees considered to be Class I or Class II species,
> based on their bark characteristics (i.e., loose or exfoliating) while
> alive or their development of suitable bark conditions of crevices
> after death. A number of species that are included on Romme=s list do
> not commonly occur on NFAL. Implementation of the Terms and Conditions
> contained in this biological opinion regarding protection or retention
> of Class I and Class II species should therefore apply to these
> additional species. Additionally, all species listed in the NFAL
> Conservation Measures should also be considered here.
>
> 5\. The NFAL should, in coordination with the Service, develop a
> process for monitoring timber sales for potential incidental take of
> Indiana and/or gray bats. This would provide a measurable and
> defensible means of determining if take occurs during timber harvest.
> Once developed, this process should be included as a protective
> measure for Indiana and/or gray bats during revision of the LRMP.

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

**REINITIATION - NOTICE**

This concludes formal consultation on forest management and other
actions conducted on NFAL lands. 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 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 of consultation.

**LITERATURE CITED**

Barbour, R. W., and W. H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. Univ. Press of
KY, Lexington, KY.

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

Callahan, E. V., III. 1993. Indiana Bat Summer Habitat Requirements.
Master of Science Thesis. Univ. of MO. Columbia.

Callahan, E. V., R. D. Drobney, and R. L. Clawson. 1997. Selection of
Summer Roosting Sites by Indiana Bats (*Myotis sodalis*) in Missouri. J.
of Mammalogy 78:818-25.

Clark, B. L., J. B. Bowles, and B. S. Clark. 1987. Summer Habitat of the
Endangered Indiana Bat in Iowa. Am. Midl. Nat. 118:32-39.

Clark, D. R., Jr., and R. M. Prouty. 1976. Organochlorine Residues in
Three Bat Species from Four Localities in Maryland and West Virginia,
1973. J. of Pest. Monitoring 10:44-53.

\_\_\_, R. K. LaVal, and D. M. Swineford. 1978. Dieldrin-induced
Mortality in an Endangered Species, the Gray Bat (*Myotis grisescens*).
Science 199:1357-59.

Clawson, R. L., R. K. LaVal, M. L. LaVal, and W. Caire. 1980. Clustering
Behavior of Hibernating *Myotis sodalis* in Missouri. Journal of
Mammalogy 61:245-53.

\_\_\_, R. Titus, D. Figg, L. Burger, C. Hauser, T. French, and D.
Beffa. 1992. Management Plan for the Indiana Bat and the Gray Bat in
Missouri. Unpub. Rep., MO Dept of Cons., Jefferson City.

Drobney, R. D., and R. L. Clawson. 1995. Indiana Bats. Pages 97-98
*[In]{.underline}* LaRoe, E. T., G. S. Farris, C. E. Puckett, P. D.
Doran, and M. J. Mac (eds.), 1995, Our Living Resources: A Report to the
Nation on the Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U. S. Plants,
Animals, and Ecosystems. U. S. DOI, Nat. Biol. Service, Washington, D.
C.

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 Rep. of U.
S. DOI, Fish and Wild. Serv., Twin Cities, MN.

\_\_\_, \_\_\_, and \_\_\_. 1991a. Summer Roost Selection and Roosting
Behavior of *Myotis sodalis* (Indiana Bat) in Illinois. Final Rep. IL
Nat. Hist. Sur., IL Dept of Cons. Champaign.

\_\_\_, \_\_\_, and \_\_\_. 1991b. Summary of *Myotis sodalis* Summer
Habitat Studies in Illinois: with Recommendations for Impact Assessment.
Special Rep. IL Nat. Hist. Sur., IL Dept of Cons. Champaign.

Garner, J., and J. Gardner. 1992. Determination of Summer Distribution
and Habitat Utilization of the Indiana Bat in Illinois. Unpublished
Report, IL Dept. of Cons., Springfield, IL.

Geluso, K. N., J. S. Altenbach, and D. E. Wilson. 1976. Bat Mortality:
Pesticide Poisoning and Migratory Stress. Science 194)184-86.

Guthrie, M. J., and K. R. Jeffers. 1938. A cytological study of the
ovaries of the bats *Myotis lucifugus* and *Myotis grisescens*. Journal
of Morphology 62:528-57.

Hall, E. R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. Vol. 1. John Wiley and
Sons, NY, NY.

Hall, J. S. 1962. A Life History and Taxonomic Study of the Indiana Bat
(*Myotis sodalis*). Reading Publ. Mus. Art., Gallery Publ. 12:1-68.

Humphrey, S. R. 1978. Status, Winter Habitat, and Management of the
Endangered Indiana Bat (*Myotis sodalis*). Florida Scientist 41:65-76.

Humphrey, S. R., A. R. Richter, and J. B. Cope. 1977. Summer Habitat and
Ecology of the Endangered Indiana Bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Journal of
Mammalogy 58:334-46.

LaVal, R. K., R. L. Clawson, M. L. LaVal, and W. Caire. 1977. Foraging
Behavior and Nocturnal Activity Patterns of Missouri Bats, With Emphasis
on the Endangered Species *Myotis grisescens* and *Myotis sodalis*.
Journal of Mammalogy 58:592-99.

\_\_\_, \_\_\_, W. Caire, L. R. Wingate, and M. L. LaVal. 1976. An
Evaluation of the Status of Myotine Bats in the Proposed Meramac Park
Lake and Union Lake Project Areas, Missouri. Special Report. U. S. Army,
Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, Missouri.

\_\_\_, and M. L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological Studies and Management of
Missouri Bats, with Emphasis on Cave-dwelling Species. Terrestrial Ser.
8. MO Dept of Cons, Jefferson City.

McMurtrie, W. 1874. Bat-excrement. American Chem., March: 339.

Mohr, C. E. 1972. The Status of Threatened Species of Cave-dwelling
Bats. Bulletin of the National Speleological Society 34:33-47.

Myers, R. F. 1964. Ecology of Three Species of Myotine Bats in the Ozark
Plateau. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of Missouri-Columbia,
Columbia.

Racey, P. A. 1982. Ecology of Bat Reproduction. Pages 57-104
*[In]{.underline}* T. H. Kunz (ed.), Ecology of Bats. Plenum Press, NY,
NY.

Reidinger, R. F. 1972. Factors Influencing Arizona Bat Population
Levels. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.

\_\_\_. 1976. Organochlorine Residues In Adults of Six Southwestern Bat
Species. J. of Wildlife Management 40:677-80.

Richter, A. R., S. R. Humphrey, J. B. Cope, and V. Brack, Jr. 1993.
Modified Cave Entrances: Thermal Effect on Body Mass and Resulting
Decline of Endangered Indiana Bats (*Myotis sodalis*). Conservation
Biology 7:407-15.

Romme, R. C., K Tyrell, and V. Brack, Jr. 1994. Literature Summary and
Habitat Suitability Index Model: Components of Summer Habitat for the
Indiana, *Myotis sodalis*. Report submitted to the IN Dept of Nat.
Resources, Div. of Wild., Bloomington.

Schwartz, C. W., and E. R. Schwartz. 1981. The Wild Mammals of Missouri.
Univ. of MO Press, Columbia.

Thomas, D. W., and D. Cloutier. 1992. Evaporative Water Loss by
Hibernating Little Brown Bats (*Myotis lucifugus*). Physiological
Zoology 65:443-56.

Thomas, D. W., M. Dorais, and J. M. Bergeron. 1990. Winter Energy
Budgets and Cost of Arousals for Hibernating Little Brown Bats (*Myotis
lucifugus*). J. of Mamm. 71:475-79.

Tuttle, M. D. 1976a. Population Ecology of the Gray Bat (*Myotis
grisescens*): Philopatry, Timing, and Patterns of Movement, Weight Loss
During Migration, and Seasonal Adaptive Strategies. Occas. Papers of the
Mus. of Nat. Hist., Univ. of KS, Lawrence.

\_\_\_. 1976b. Population Ecology of the Gray Bat (*Myotis grisescens*):
Factors Influencing Growth and Survival of Newly Volant Young. Ecology
57:587-595.

\_\_\_. 1977. Gating as a Means of Protecting Cave-dwelling Bats. Pages
77-82 In National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings, 1976. T. Aley
and D. Rhodes (eds.), Speleobooks, Albuquerque, NM.

\_\_\_. 1979. Status, Causes of Decline, and Management of Endangered
Gray Bats. Journal of Wildlife Management 43:1-17.

Tuttle, M. D., and D. M. Stevenson. 1977. An Analysis of Migration as a
Mortality Factor in the Gray Bat Based on Public Recoveries of Banded
Bats. American Midland Naturalist 97:235-240.

\_\_\_, and \_\_\_. 1978. Variation in the Cave Environment and its
Biological Implications. *[In]{.underline}* Zuber, R., *et al*. (eds.),
Nat. Cave Manage. Symp. Proc., 1977. Speleobooks, Adobe Press,
Albuquerque, NM.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Gray Bat Recovery Plan. Twin
Cities, MN.

\_\_\_. 1999. Agency Draft Indiana Bat Revised Recovery Plan. Ft.
Snelling, MN.