**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

**ON THE IMPACTS OF FOREST MANAGEMENT AND**

**OTHER ACTIVITIES TO THE INDIANA BAT**

**ON THE**

**DANIEL BOONE NATIONAL FOREST**

**KENTUCKY**

**Prepared by:**

**James C. Widlak**

**U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service**

**Ecological Services Field Office**

**446 Neal Street**

**Cookeville, Tennessee**

**April 1997**

**INTRODUCTION**

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the biological
evaluation for forest-wide activities on the **Daniel Boone National
Forest** (DBNF) located in **Bath, Bell, Clay, Estill, Harlan, Jackson,
Knox, Laurel, Lee, Leslie, Madison, McCreary, Menifee, Morgan, Owsley,
Perry, Powell, Pulaski, Rockcastle, Rowan, Wayne, Whitley, and Wolfe
Counties, Kentucky**. The Regional Forester=s October 9, 1996, request
for formal consultation was received on October 16, 1996. This document
represents the Service=s biological opinion on the effects of those
actions on the federally endangered **Indiana bat (*Myotis* *sodalis***)
in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

The Service concurs with your biological evaluation that the existing
DBNF **Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP**) provides broad goals,
objectives, standards and guidelines with respect to meeting the needs
of the Indiana bat. We are aware that the Notice of Intent for revising
the LRMP was issued on June 21, 1996, and that the final revised LRMP is
scheduled to be completed by June 1998. Consequently, we encourage and
support your efforts to develop a process to best meet the needs of the
Indiana bat until the revision process is completed. These efforts
include identifying the new information available concerning Indiana bat
habitat requirements, identifying the management requirements to protect
the species, and identifying appropriate recovery objectives applicable
to the DBNF. Thus, this Section 7 consultation focuses only on the
potential effects to the Indiana bat of continued implementation of the
existing LRMP, under current management and monitoring requirements set
forth in the document, and the additional prudent conservation measures
recently developed by the DBNF to protect Indiana bats.

0 [Consultation History]{.underline}

Since it was listed in 1967 as an endangered species, the Indiana bat
has presented Service biologists with unique problems with regard to
Section 7 consultation. Until recently, little was known about the
summer habitat requirements of this species other than the fact that
small maternity colonies occurred in mature, primarily riparian, forest
habitat. New information regarding summer habitat usage by the Indiana
bat, evidence indicating that some Indiana bats may migrate much shorter
distances between hibernacula and summer habitat than originally
thought, and the apparent wide dispersal of individuals emerging from
hibernation makes consultation and development of appropriate
recommendations for protective measures problematic since any large
tract of forest within the species= known range can now be considered to
contain potential maternity or foraging habitat for Indiana bats.
Consequently, areas such as the DBNF which were once thought to have
limited possibility to support Indiana bat summer colonies (because the
bats that hibernated in Kentucky caves were thought to migrate long
distances to summer maternity sites) are now considered to contain
potentially high-quality summer roosting and foraging habitat. In
addition, recent captures by DBNF biologists of lactating and
post-lactating female, and young-of-year male, Indiana bats on the
Daniel Boone National Forest have confirmed the fact that the DBNF (at
least on the Morehead, Somerset, and Redbird Ranger Districts) supports
Indiana bat maternity colonies.

In February 1996, Lee Barclay, the Service=s Cookeville Field Office
(CFO) Field Supervisor; Doug Winford, CFO Assistant Field Supervisor;
and Jim Widlak, CFO Endangered Species Specialist, met with Mark Bosch,
Forest Service Regional Endangered Species Coordinator; Ben Worthington,
DBNF Forest Supervisor; several DBNF District Rangers; and DBNF
biologists to discuss new information regarding summer habitat use by
the Indiana bat and the potential impacts that various management and
development activities conducted on the DBNF might have on the species
and its habitat. At that time the Service recommended that, because the
DBNF is known to support Indiana bat maternity colonies, future
biological evaluations prepared by DBNF biologists include a statement
that proposed actions would incorporate provisions of the management
strategy for Indiana bat summer habitat that had been developed by John
MacGregor, the DBNF Endangered Species Biologist; and that the DBNF
initiate a programmatic formal consultation with regard to its forest
management activities as well as other actions that alter forest
habitats.

This biological opinion is based on information provided in the October
9, 1996, biological evaluation, the February 1996 meeting, and other
sources of information. A complete administrative record of this
consultation is on file in the Cookeville Field Office, 446 Neal Street,
Cookeville, Tennessee 38501; telephone 615/528-6481; fax 615/528-7075.

**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

0 [Project Description]{.underline}

This biological opinion addresses a variety of actions and activities
that are planned, funded, executed, or permitted by the DBNF. These
activities are implemented in accordance with the provisions contained
in the Daniel Boone National Forest=s LRMP. Measures to protect Indiana
bats and to maintain suitable summer habitat contained in this section
are not recommendations made by the Service, but rather are measures
proposed by the DBNF.

Beginning in Fiscal Year 1997, and extending through the date of
completion of revision of the DBNF=s Land and Resource Management Plan,
the DBNF plans 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 Forest
Service 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 Forest Plan sets out management
prescriptions and standards and guidelines for future decision making,
and is adjustable, using monitoring and evaluation, through amendment
and revision.

Timber harvest is a primary activity which alters and/or disturbs the
greatest acreage of forest habitat on the DBNF. The goal of the DBNF
timber program is to produce the vegetation species and size mixtures
needed to support many combinations of uses across the Forest.
Approximately 596,000 acres (92 percent) of the DBNF=s land is
classified as tentatively suitable for timber production. Average annual
harvest for sawtimber and small roundwood (i.e., pulpwood) is seven
million board feet, however, small roundwood has been produced at much
lower levels than allowed by the LRMP, and in recent years, sawtimber
production has been less than half of projected LRMP levels.
Regeneration of pine forest is accomplished by shelterwood cutting with
subsequent planting of seedlings as needed. Hardwood forest is
regenerated by two-aged shelterwood or select cutting, and allowing the
site to regenerate naturally; reproduction on this forest type is
generally from root and stump sprouting. The desired future condition of
the DBNF, utilizing mixed forest management types is: 40 to 45 percent
upland hardwood, 25 to 30 percent cove hardwood, 10 to 12 percent yellow
pine, 1 to 2 percent white pine, and 15 to 20 percent mixed
pine/hardwood-hardwood/pine . It should be noted that by national
direction the DBNF has reduced the amount of clearcutting formerly
conducted on the DBNF for several years; and by policy, the DBNF has
prescribed irregular (i.e., two-aged) shelterwood cutting in pine and
hardwood forest types. In addition, the DBNF will maintain hollow trees,
snags, and shaggy-barked hickories in all harvested areas.

Two activities related to timber harvest are salvage and firewood sales.
The objectives of salvage and firewood sales include removal of hazard
trees along DBNF roads and trails; to remove downed trees after damaging
storms; to recover value of dead/damaged trees; and to provide the
public with a source of heating fuel. Actions included in these
categories include: collection of dead standing and downed timber on the
DBNF, and removal of trees that are blocking DBNF roads or those classed
as hazard trees. Firewood is usually cut from trees and tree tops in
timber harvest areas, storm-damaged areas, or along National Forest
system roads. Removal of hazard or downed trees for firewood is
permitted, but vehicles are not allowed to operate off the road.
Dead/dying standing trees proposed for salvage sale would include trees
suitable for Indiana bat roosts because of the tree species, size, or
bark characteristics of these trees, however, firewood sales ordinarily
would not involve potentially suitable Indiana bat roost trees.

The DBNF road management program maintains, reconstructs, and constructs
National Forest system roads to help meet objectives in the Daniel Boone
National Forest LRMP. The goal of this program is to manage the
transportation system for increased cost-effectiveness and efficiency to
meet resource management needs. Roads are constructed to provide
transportation corridors through the DBNF and to provide access to
timber harvest and recreational use areas. There are over 1,300 miles of
roads in the DBNF=s Forest Development Road system. This includes over
1,000 miles of county and State roads that pass through the DBNF.
Approximately 100 acres of trees are cleared annually during road
management activities on the DBNF.

The DBNF utilizes herbicides to accomplish several objectives.
Herbicides are applied to control species composition and density of
trees in particular stands, to implement non-commercial thinning, to
prepare a site prior to planting, or to release desirable overstory tree
species from competition. Treatment is also used to control undesirable
exotic tree species, to create snags or to release mast-producing trees,
or to remove undesirable species that compete with rare/endangered plant
species. Herbicides used are only those which have been evaluated,
approved, and included in the final environmental impact statement for
Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains. These chemicals are
applied by various methods such as streamline bark treatment (basal
stem), individual stem injection (cut surface), and chainsaw slashdown
and stump spray.

Additional acreages of trees cleared annually on the DBNF, and
potentially affecting Indiana bat summer habitat, occur from creation of
small forest openings and waterholes to benefit wildlife, linear
openings to maintain safe public access and parking within the DBNF,
corridors maintained for power transmission and utility lines, and to
allow for reasonable use of privately owned inholdings within the DBNF
proclamation boundary. In addition, prescribed burns with
multiple-resource objectives, and management of shade-tolerant proposed,
endangered, threatened, or sensitive species may affect potential
Indiana bat roosting trees. Activities included in this category are the
creation of wildlife openings which release cool or warm season grasses
from shading by woody vegetation; maintenance of road or power line
rights-of-way (i.e., removal of hazard trees); maintenance of recreation
areas or trails; and permitting of clearing for private road/driveway or
utility line easements.

To avoid impacts to Indiana bat hibernating colonies, the DBNF will
continue to conduct systematic inventories of caves on the DBNF, and
will continue to monitor known hibernacula to determine the status of
those populations. DBNF staff will also continue to evaluate the need to
construct cave gates, to acquire lands with known Indiana bat
hibernacula, and to acquire tracts which are located near significant
hibernacula that must be carefully managed to protect the winter bat
populations. In addition, the DBNF will continue to implement and
strictly enforce implementation of activities on the Forest in
compliance with provisions contained in its LRMP.

The DBNF has already implemented measures to protect Indiana bats during
the winter season. Although not all of the known Indiana bat hibernacula
on the DBNF have been protected, caves known to support significant
hibernating populations and thought to be subject to human impacts have
been gated or signed to prevent disturbance of the bats. Biologists
conduct biennial surveys of these hibernating populations to determine
if the populations are stable, increasing, or declining.

Wildlife enhancement measures such as retaining snags and den trees in
timber harvest areas are prescribed in the DBNF=s Land and Resource
Management Plan and provide benefits for Indiana bats. However,
additional measures specifically designed to protect, maintain, or
enhance summer habitat or prevent impacts to Indiana bats roosting in
trees were not identified in the 1985 LRMP because there were no
documented records at that time of Indiana bats using roost trees or
establishing maternity colonies on the DBNF. Consequently, with the
advent of new information regarding summer habitat requirements of the
Indiana bat, and the capture of reproductive females and young-of-year
males on the DBNF during the summer, DBNF biologists developed prudent
measures to minimize or eliminate potential adverse effects to the
Indiana bat and its summer habitat during timber harvest activities, to
protect and enhance summer roosting and foraging habitat on the DBNF,
and to avoid adverse effects to the bats in the vicinity of known
hibernacula during the pre-hibernation season. Prudent measures
recommend that: (a) all dead and dying potential primary roost trees
(Class I and Class II trees 16 inches dbh, or larger) and all dead
hardwood snags (with the exception of those that pose hazards to human
safety) be retained in all harvest units; (b) live Class I and Class II
trees 9 inches dbh or larger be retained at a density of 16 or more
trees per acre in all harvest units when available. All shagbark and
shellbark hickories, and all hollow trees and cull trees of other
species be retained in all harvest units, where possible; (c) live trees
be designated to provide partial shade to about one-third of all large
diameter snags (12 inches dbh or larger) with splits, cracks, or
exfoliating bark; (d) harvest area borders be irregular (i.e.,
feathered); (e) some of the residual trees in the harvest areas be left
in 50 basal area strips and clumps to provide travel and foraging
corridors for Indiana bats; and (f) seasonal and permanent water sources
be conserved and/or constructed to provide upland water sources where
these are determined by DBNF biologists to be in short supply. The
measures should also include instruction that biologists involved in
evaluating projects that include timber harvest consider forest
conditions in stands that lie adjacent to those scheduled for harvest,
in order to document that the analysis area that includes each stand
(greater than or equal to 75 acres total, as stated in Romme et al.
1995) meets essential habitat requirements for Indiana bat summer
habitat after the harvest has been completed. These Indiana bat summer
habitat management measures were coordinated with the Service, and they
have been implemented on all DBNF Ranger Districts.

0 [Background Information]{.underline}

Indiana bat

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

According to the known and suspected range of the Indiana bat presented
in the species= recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983), the
Indiana bat ranges over an area of approximately 580,550 square miles in
the eastern one-half of the United States. The Daniel Boone National
Forest=s surface land area is approximately 1,050 square miles, which
represents less than two-tenths of one percent (0.18 percent) of the
total range of the species. The range of the Indiana bat on the DBNF
also represents less than three percent (2.6 percent) of the species=
total range in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Thus, more than 97 percent
of the Indiana bat=s range in Kentucky, and more than 99 percent of its
overall range, will be unaffected by the proposed actions addressed in
this biological opinion.

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

Bat Cave is in Carter County, approximately 10 miles east of the DBNF
and Coach Cave is located in Edmonson County, approximately 75 miles
west of the DBNF. In addition, there are a number of other caves in
Kentucky that are known to support hibernating colonies of Indiana bats;
and since the 1980\'s, there have also been documented records of
maternity colonies in various parts of the State, ranging from extreme
western Kentucky (Carlisle and Hickman Counties) to eastern Kentucky
(Bath, Harlan, and Pulaski Counties), though maternity colony trees have
not yet been located in the eastern part of the state. On the DBNF,
there are substantial acreages of suitable habitat that could
potentially be used by females during the maternity season and, not
surprisingly, there are recently documented records for summer colonies
on the DBNF. Recent mist netting surveys have documented the presence of
pregnant, lactating, and post-lactating females and newly volant young
Indiana bats on the DBNF. Although actual maternity roosts have not been
located, it is a certainty that maternity colonies of Indiana bats exist
on the DBNF.

Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri are currently known to contain the
largest hibernating populations of Indiana bats. Although hibernating
populations are reported to be stable or increasing in Indiana, numbers
have continued to decline in Missouri and in many parts of Kentucky
(USFWS 1983). Since 1987, however, winter hibernacula counts of Indiana
bats on the DBNF have risen from approximately 10,500 to over 15,000
(John MacGregor, U.S. Forest Service, personal communication). Causes of
decline of the other populations are not presently known and have
continued despite intensive efforts (i.e., gating, fencing, etc.) to
protect the major known hibernacula.

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

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

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

Indiana bat maternity sites generally consist of one to several primary
maternity roost trees (i.e., trees used repeatedly by relatively high
numbers of bats in the maternity colony during the maternity season) and
varying numbers of alternate roost trees (i.e., those trees used by
smaller numbers of bats through the course of the maternity season).
Primary roost trees that have been studied to date have ranged in size
from 12.2 to 29.9 inches 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 (7.1 to 32.7 inches dbh
\[Romme 1995\]). 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 mile to over 1.6 miles
from preferred foraging habitat, but are generally within 1.2 miles of
water (e.g., stream, lake, pond, natural or manmade water-filled
depression).

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

Silver maple Shagbark hickory Shellbark hickory

Bitternut hickory Green ash White ash

Eastern cottonwood Red oak Post oak

White oak Slippery elm American elm

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

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

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. 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 decline in Indiana bat population
numbers. During the winter, these activities cause hibernating bats to
awaken and utilize stored fat reserves; during the summer they may
disturb sensitive maternity colonies. Banding of bats collected by
mistnetting during the maternity season, however, has negligible effects
on the bats. 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
permanent or unseasonal flooding of caves (USFWS 1983).

0 [Environmental Baseline]{.underline}

The Daniel Boone National Forest is located in eastern Kentucky and
covers approximately 670,000 acres, forming a narrow strip 140 miles
long along the western edge of the Cumberland Plateau; one tract of the
DBNF, the Redbird Purchase Unit, is located in the eastern part of the
Cumberland Plateau. The northern boundary of the DBNF is located on the
Rowan County/Lewis County line, and the southern boundary is on the
Kentucky/Tennessee border. The DBNF is comprised of seven ranger
districts; Morehead, Stanton, Berea, London, Somerset, Stearns, and
Redbird. The majority of the DBNF lies within the Cumberland Mountain
Section, Cumberland Plateau Section, and Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau
Section of the Appalachian Plateau Province. Topography on the DBNF is
generally rugged, characterized by steep slopes, narrow valleys, and
precipitous clifflines; elevations range from approximately 400 feet to
over 2,000 feet above sea level.

Data on forest types contained in the DBNF=s Land and Resource
Management Plan indicate that approximately 328,000 acres (49 percent)
of the DBNF contain upland hardwood forest habitat, composed primarily
of various combinations of white oak, chestnut oak, northern red oak,
black oak, scarlet oak, southern red oak, hickories, and scattered
pines. Approximately 161,000 acres (24 percent) contain cove hardwood
forest, consisting mostly of northern red oak, white oak, basswood,
yellow poplar, hemlock, sugar maple, and beech. Approximately 101,000
acres (15 percent) contain yellow pine forest, consisting primarily of
shortleaf pine; however, stands in this forest type also contain pitch
pine and Virginia pine, with some planted areas of loblolly pine.
Approximately 80,000 acres (12 percent) are mixed pine/hardwood or
hardwood/pine, consisting primarily of scarlet oak, chestnut oak, black
oak, white oak, and hickory mixed with yellow pine or white pine.

The DBNF lies within three major river drainages; the Cumberland River,
Kentucky River, and Licking River. Annual water production from the DBNF
is over 1 million acre-feet, 97 percent of which meets state water
quality standards. Associated with riverine habitat, there are
approximately 12,500 acres of riparian habitat on the DBNF.

Karst formations exist on most districts of the DBNF. Surveys of caves
on the DBNF for possible use by bats have revealed that the DBNF
currently supports approximately 15,000 hibernating Indiana bats
annually, primarily on the Stanton and Berea Districts (MacGregor,
personal communication). Colonies of hibernating Indiana bats range from
a few individuals to as many as 5,000. Other caves on the DBNF that have
not yet been surveyed may contain Indiana bat winter colonies. In
addition to surveys of hibernacula, summer surveys to locate Indiana bat
maternity colonies have been conducted for the past five years. Results
of these surveys indicate that Indiana bat maternity colonies exist on
at least three of the seven ranger districts. The DBNF will continue to
survey suitable areas to determine where summer colonies and associated
foraging habitat occur.

The DBNF has consulted with the Service on numerous actions on all of
the Ranger Districts, primarily timber sales. Consultations were also
conducted with regard to development of various types of recreational
facilities, construction of waterlines across DBNF lands, construction
of access roads, and land transfers. These actions could have had
adverse effects on the Indiana bat and, consequently, this species has
been considered during project planning for many actions. However, past
evaluation of potential impacts to the Indiana bat has been restricted
to consideration of impacts to hibernating populations and summer males.
Since the recent discovery of reproductive female and juvenile Indiana
bats on the DBNF, however, biologists have included evaluations of
potential impacts of various activities to Indiana bat maternity habitat
during preparation of biological evaluations.

Based on data from biennial counts of Indiana bats in hibernacula on the
DBNF, it appears that the Indiana bat population on the DBNF has
increased in numbers, despite implementation of various forest
management activities and other activities on the DBNF since winter
counts began. However, all of the bats that hibernate on the DBNF
probably do not spend the maternity season on the DBNF; conversely, some
of the Indiana bats that spend the maternity season on the DBNF probably
hibernate in caves off of the DBNF. Timber sales, road construction,
site preparation (application of herbicides), wildlife management, and
other activities conducted on the DBNF may result in adverse effects to
Indiana bats and their roosting and foraging habitat, but these actions
apparently have not caused the significant declines in overall
population numbers as has occurred in other portions of the species=
range.

0 [Direct/Indirect Effects]{.underline}

Timber harvest; salvage/firewood sales; growing-season prescribed
burning; road construction; maintenance of roads and powerline
rights-of-way; wildlife management activities; development, utilization,
and maintenance of recreation areas and trails; cave management; and
clearing for private road or utility line easements could potentially
have direct and indirect adverse effects on the Indiana bat. 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 DBNF, 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 DBNF avoids the cutting of
those trees which are most likely to contain a maternity colony or
roosting bat. This is supported by a recent telemetry study conducted
for three weeks on the DBNF during the pre-hibernation season in 1996.
Trees used by radio-tagged Indiana bats during the study included: 86
snags (i.e., dead trees), 2 living oaks (one with extensive lightning
damage to the bark), and 1 live shagbark hickory. If a timber harvest
were proposed for that study area, implementation of the prudent
conservation measures would result in retention of at least 87 (97.7
percent) of those trees.

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 the
DBNF (see *Project Description*), forest management activities and other
activities conducted on the DBNF may have indirect adverse effects to
the Indiana bat as a result of alteration of the species= summer and
pre-hibernation habitat. Removal of mature trees may alter the
suitability of an area as roosting or foraging habitat for the Indiana
bat. According to the Indiana bat habitat suitability index model (Romme
1995), optimal canopy cover in foraging habitat is 50 percent 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, U.S.
Forest Service, personal communication). After an initial period of
vigorous growth, as the size of regenerating trees (and thus the
overstory canopy) in the harvest area increases, its suitability as
Indiana bat habitat likely increases. 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. A recent telemetry study conducted on the DBNF showed that
a lactating female Indiana bat foraged, and drank from a waterhole,
located in a 4-year old shelterwood harvest area. In addition, it has
been shown that many species of bats (including *Myotis* species) feed
in regeneration areas because these areas apparently produce higher
numbers of flying insects than adjacent uncut tracts of forest. 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
(i.e., even-aged management) are implemented.

Herbicide use will not have direct effects on Indiana bats as a result
of individual bats being directly treated since direct application to
individual stumps, basal stem treatment, hack and squirt, and cut
surface treatment are the only methods of application used. 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. 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.

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. 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
or 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. 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).

The DBNF now implements prudent conservation measures to maintain
suitable Indiana bat roosting and foraging habitat, and to protect
Indiana bats from the potential effects of timber harvest and other
activities. These measures minimize direct and indirect adverse effects
to the Indiana bat. Hickories and other tree species that have
exfoliating bark are retained in timber harvest areas. Large (9 inches
dbh and larger) snags that are potential roosts, and large living trees
(16 per acre) that can provide future roosting sites, are retained in
harvest areas when available. Timber harvest is conducted in such a way
as to leave forested travel corridors for the bats, shade for some
snags, and an adequate number of trees to provide suitable foraging
conditions (i.e., overstory canopy) for Indiana bats. Permanent and
seasonal ponds are created in areas where water may be limiting to
provide bats (and other wildlife) with a source of drinking water.

0 [Cumulative Effects]{.underline}

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

This biological opinion only addresses activities authorized, funded, or
carried out on the Daniel Boone National Forest, lands which are under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service. Any future Federal, 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 Endangered Species Act, will not occur.

0 [Conclusion]{.underline}

The Service has reviewed the current status of the Indiana bat, the
environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of forest
management and other activities on the Daniel Boone National Forest, the
Prudent Conservation Measures presented in the DBNF=s biological
evaluation, and the cumulative effects. It is the Service=s biological
opinion that forest management and other activities authorized, funded,
or carried out on the Daniel Boone National Forest, incorporating the
additional prudent conservation measures developed by the DBNF for
Indiana bats, are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the Indiana bat, and are not likely to destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat for this species. In the Cookeville Office
work area, critical habitat for the Indiana bat has been designated at
White Oak Blowhole Cave in Blount County, Tennessee; Bat Cave in Carter
County, Kentucky; and Coach Cave in Edmonson County, Kentucky. The
proposed action does not affect any of those areas, therefore, no
destruction or adverse modification of those critical habitats will
occur as a result of DBNF management activities.

**INCIDENTAL TAKE**

Sections 4(d) and 9 of the ESA, as amended, prohibit taking (harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or
attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species of fish or
wildlife without a special exemption. Harm is further defined to include
significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or
injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns
such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined as actions
that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent
as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but
are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is
any take of listed animal species that results from , but is not the
purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the
Federal agency or a grant/permit, applicant. Under the terms of Section
7(b)(4) and Section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not
intended as part of the agency action is not considered a prohibited
taking provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and
conditions of this incidental take statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be
implemented by the Forest Service (Daniel Boone National Forest) so that
they become binding conditions of any action proposed by the DBNF, or of
any grant or permit issued to applicants or contractors, as appropriate,
in order for the exemption in Section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Forest
Service (Daniel Boone National Forest) has a continuing duty to regulate
the activities covered by this incidental take statement. If the Forest
Service (Daniel Boone National Forest) (1) fails to require applicants
or contractors to adhere, or itself fails to adhere, to the terms and
conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms
that are added to project plans, permits, or grant documents, and/or (2)
fails to retain oversight to ensure compliance with these terms and
conditions, the protective coverage of Section 7(o)(2) may lapse.

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

The Service can not, at this time, estimate how many Indiana bats could
be taken as a result of forest management activities or other actions
implemented on the DBNF, because some of the bats that hibernate on the
DBNF likely migrate to other areas during the maternity season while
some Indiana bats that hibernate in caves off of the DBNF probably
migrate to the DBNF for the summer. However, activities (i.e., timber
sales, road construction, development and maintenance of recreational
areas, etc.) conducted on the DBNF result in an annual removal of or
disturbance to potential **Indiana bat summer roosting and foraging
habitat of approximately 4,500 acres** (roughly two-tenths of one
percent \[0.2 percent\] of the total area of the DBNF). It is
anticipated that all suitable roost trees (and any Indiana bats using
those trees as roosts) within that acreage could potentially be taken by
forest management and other activities.

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.
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. If other herbicide application methods
are to be used (e.g., aerial application, spraying from ground-mounted
equipment, etc.), the Service should be contacted to determine if
additional measures are needed to minimize the potential for incidental
take.

The Fish and Wildlife 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 individually roosting
Indiana bats have been incidentally taken on the DBNF during tree
cutting or other habitat-modifying activities, incidental take of this
listed species can be anticipated by loss of suitable roost trees or
foraging habitat. The Service believes that if a 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 potential
for loss of suitable habitat, and consequent take of Indiana bats, is
significantly reduced through implementation of the prudent conservation
measures developed by the DBNF.

0 [Effect of the Take]{.underline}

In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that
incidental take of Indiana bats on the DBNF is not likely to result in
jeopardy to the Indiana bat or destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. However, implementation of the prudent conservation
measures described in the biological evaluation and the reasonable and
prudent measures (with implementing terms and conditions) presented
below should minimize the potential for incidental take of Indiana bat
maternity colonies and individually roosting bats. Take in excess of the
minimized level of incidental take presented below is considered to be
an adverse effect which will require reevaluation of this incidental
take statement and discussion of the need for reinitiation of
consultation.

0 [Reasonable and Prudent Measures]{.underline}

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

> 1\. The DBNF will continue to evaluate potential impacts of proposed
> actions to the Indiana bat 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 the
> Indiana bat and its habitat.
>
> 3\. Measures will be implemented to maintain, improve, or enhance
> Indiana bat habitat on the DBNF.
>
> 4\. The DBNF will continue its efforts to determine use of the DBNF by
> Indiana bats during the hibernation, maternity, and pre-hibernation
> seasons.
>
> 5\. The DBNF will monitor timber sales and other activities to
> determine if incidental take occurs.

0 [Terms and Conditions]{.underline}

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

> 1\. The DBNF will continue to prepare biological evaluations and
> biological assessments with resultant determinations of Ano effect,@
> Amay affect,@ Anot likely to adversely affect,@ or Alikely to
> adversely affect@ the Indiana bat, for individual proposed actions.
> Those future actions for which Amay affect@ or Alikely 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 bat habitat and consistent with the DBNF
> Land and Resource Management Plan=s Standards and Guidelines, the
> Prudent Conservation Measures contained in the DBNF=s biological
> evaluation, and this Biological Opinion will have a Anot likely to
> adversely affect@ determination (for the Indiana bat only). In such
> instances, this Biological Opinion will constitute compliance with the
> Section 7 consultation requirements for the Indiana bat only. As new
> information about the Indiana bat and its habitat and results of
> future surveys on the DBNF become available, this condition may
> require modification.
>
> 2\. 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. For non-harvest activities, every effort will be made
> to avoid removal of known and suitable roost trees. If removal is
> unavoidable, the DBNF will informally consult with the Service and
> known roost trees and all potential roost trees will be removed during
> the above-stated time period whenever possible. 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.
>
> 3\. Work involving perennial streams or other water sources will
> include measures to prevent water quality degradation or excessive
> disturbance to riparian vegetation.
>
> 4\. Prior to conducting vegetation management or other activities
> which may adversely affect Indiana bat habitat, an evaluation of the
> habitat will be done within the project area and on adjacent lands.
> Summer habitat suitability will be evaluated within a 75-acre
> (minimum) analysis window that includes any proposed cutting unit.
> 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. If suitable Indiana bat roosting habitat is not
> available outside of the project area, the DBNF will coordinate with
> the Cookeville Office.
>
> 5\. Project decisions for timber sale operations will contain a
> requirement that an average of at least 3 natural or created snags
> (i.e., those greater than 9 inches dbh) per acre will be left standing
> in the harvest area. 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
> 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.
>
> 7\. Timber sale project decisions will contain a requirement that all
> live shagbark and shellbark hickories be left in the harvest area,
> regardless of size. As many other large, live trees as possible that
> will provide suitable future roosting sites (i.e., preferably Class I
> and II species) will also be left.
>
> 8\. Opportunities will be sought to include creation of drinking water
> sources into project plans whenever possible in areas where no
> reliable sources of drinking water are available.
>
> 9\. Further surveys of caves and abandoned mines on the DBNF will be
> conducted to document winter use by Indiana bats and to monitor
> existing colonies in known hibernacula. In addition, efforts will
> continue to locate maternity colonies on the DBNF. Selection of sites
> for future mist net surveys will be left to the discretion of the
> DBNF=s Endangered Species Biologist.
>
> 10\. In addition to those trees included in the DBNF=s Prudent
> 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 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 DBNF 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 Conditions 2 and 3. After the first incidence of a reserve
> tree being felled, appropriate DBNF personnel will, in coordination
> with the Service, determine if additional protective measures are
> needed to avoid future losses of reserve trees. Any measures deemed
> necessary will be implemented in future activities.
>
> 11\. The DBNF will meet with the Service and other appropriate parties
> as needed, but at least annually to review and discuss activities
> conducted on the DBNF during the year, results of surveys, the need to
> modify provisions of this biological opinion, and other issues
> regarding the Indiana bat. If significant issues arise during the
> course of a year that warrant immediate attention or discussion,
> additional meetings may be necessary.

Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick specimen of an endangered or
threatened species, initial notification must be made to the nearest
Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement Office (Mr. Dan Pooler,
Special Agent, Louisville, Kentucky; telephone 502/582-5989). Care
should be taken in handling sick or injured specimens to ensure
effective treatment and care and in handling dead specimens to preserve
biological materials in the best possible state for later analysis of
cause of death. In conjunction with the care of sick or injured
endangered species or preservation of biological materials from a dead
animal, the finder has the responsibility to ensure that evidence
intrinsic to the specimen is not unnecessarily disturbed.

The reasonable and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and
conditions, are designed to minimize incidental take that might
otherwise result from the proposed actions. With implementation of these
reasonable and prudent measures in addition to the Prudent Conservation
Measures contained in the DBNF=s biological evaluation, the Service
anticipates **that no more than 100 reserve trees** will be incidentally
taken on the DBNF in any year. Reserve trees are those that provide
currently suitable or high potential as future Indiana bat roosting
sites, not necessarily just trees that are currently known to be roost
trees or those that have been identified as occupied Indiana bat roosts.
Implementation of the above-listed reasonable and prudent measures (with
implementing terms and conditions) and the DBNF=s Prudent Conservation
Measures will result in retention of tens of thousands of reserve trees
throughout the DBNF. Because of the large number of suitable roost trees
available, the rarity of the Indiana bat, and the wide dispersal of the
species during the maternity season, the majority of reserve trees on
the DBNF are likely not used by Indiana bats as roosting sites. In
addition, because reserve trees are clearly marked, the Service believes
that the potential for incidental take of reserve trees is low and that
the number of reserve trees that are actually taken in any given year
will be well below the minimized level presented above.

If, during the course of the action, this minimized level of incidental
take are exceeded, such incidental take represents new information
requiring review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The
Forest Service (Daniel Boone National Forest) 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. Informal consultation should be reinitiated with the Service
after the first occurrence of incidental take.

**CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS**

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

We believe that this provision of the ESA places an obligation on all
Federal agencies to 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 programs.

The Service therefore recommends that the Daniel Boone National Forest
implement the following conservation measures for the benefit of the
Indiana bat:

> 1\. Daniel Boone National Forest biologists should conduct training
> for new employees (biologists, foresters, recreation specialists,
> etc.) regarding bats in the Southeast. Training should include
> sections on bat identification, biology, habitat requirements, and
> sampling techniques.
>
> 2\. Informational/educational displays located in District Ranger
> Offices on the DBNF 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 the DBNF,
> district biologists should conduct habitat suitability studies in the
> vicinity of each colony site, using the HSI 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 DBNF should consider the following tree species as Class II
> Indiana bat roost tree species:
>
> Pignut hickory Scarlet oak Red maple
>
> Black oak Sourwood Chestnut oak
>
> Shortleaf pine Virginia pine
>
> The Indiana bat habitat suitability index model (Romme 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 or crevices after death.
> A number of species that are included on Romme=s list do not commonly
> occur on the DBNF. Recent telemetry studies conducted on the Berea
> Ranger District in October-November 1995 and on the Somerset Ranger
> District in October 1996 provide evidence that Indiana bats also
> utilize the above-listed trees as roosts. 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.
>
> 5\. The DBNF should, in coordination with the Service, develop a
> process for monitoring timber sales for potential incidental take of
> Indiana 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 bats
> during revision of the LRMP. This monitoring could then be included in
> the revised Forest Plan.

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

**REINITIATION - CLOSING STATEMENT**

This concludes formal consultation on forest management and other
actions conducted on the Daniel Boone National Forest. This biological
opinion will remain in effect, will provide the basis for Anot likely to
adversely affect@ findings for the Indiana bat, and will constitute
compliance with the Endangered Species Act=s Section 7 consultation
requirements for future actions carried out prior to revision of the
Daniel Boone National Forest=s Land and Resource Management Plan,
provided that those actions are carried out in compliance with all of
the requirements contained in this biological opinion, or until one or
more of the following conditions arise. As provided in 50 CFR Sec.
402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where
discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over an 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 biological opinion; (3)
the agency action is subsequently modified to include activities that
cause an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered
in this biological 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.

**REFERENCES**

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

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

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

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

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann. 1991b. Summary of *Myotis*
*sodalis* Summer Habitat Studies in Illinois: with Recommendations for
Impact Assessment. Special Rep. IL Nat Hist Sur, IL Dept of Cons.
Champaign.

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann. 1990. Combined Progress
Reports: 1989 and 1990 Investigations of *Myotis* *sodalis* (Indiana
Bat) Distribution, Habitat Use, and Status in Illinois. Progress Report
for U. S. DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN.

Humphrey, S.R., A.R. Richter, and J.B. Cope. 1977. Summer Habitat and
Ecology of the

> Endangered Indiana Bat, *Myotis* *sodalis*. Journal of Mammalogy, 58:
> 334-346.

MacGregor, J. U.S. Forest Service, Daniel Boone National Forest. 1996.
Personal Comm.

Romme, R. C., K, Tyrell, and V. Brack, Jr. 1995. Literature Summary and
Habitat Suitability Index Model: Components of Summer Habitat for the
Indiana Bat, *Myotis* *sodalis*. Report submitted to the IN Dept of Nat
Resour, Div of Wild, Bloomington.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Recovery Plan for the Indiana Bat.
Twin Cities, MN.