PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINION

FOR THE

MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST

2006 FOREST PLAN REVISION

Prepared by:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

West Virginia Field Office

694 Beverly Pike

Elkins, West Virginia 26241

July 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[CONSULTATION HISTORY 4](#__RefHeading___Toc140045628)

[**BIOLOGICAL OPINION** 4](#__RefHeading___Toc140045629)

[DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 5](#__RefHeading___Toc140045630)

[**Overview** 5](#__RefHeading___Toc140045631)

[**Project Description** 6](#__RefHeading___Toc140045632)

[**Action Area** 13](#__RefHeading___Toc140045633)

[**RUNNING BUFFALO CLOVER** 13](#__RefHeading___Toc140045634)

[STATUS OF THE SPECIES 13](#__RefHeading___Toc140045635)

[**Distribution** 13](#__RefHeading___Toc140045636)

[**Population dynamics** 14](#__RefHeading___Toc140045637)

[**Threats** 14](#__RefHeading___Toc140045638)

[**Rangewide Status of the Species** 15](#__RefHeading___Toc140045639)

[**Status of the Species in West Virginia**
16](#__RefHeading___Toc140045640)

[**Rangewide Conservation Needs of the Species**
17](#__RefHeading___Toc140045641)

[**Previous Biological Opinions** 17](#__RefHeading___Toc140045642)

[ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 17](#__RefHeading___Toc140045643)

[**Status of Species within the Action Area.**
17](#__RefHeading___Toc140045644)

[**Conservation Needs of the Species within the Action Area**
18](#__RefHeading___Toc140045645)

[EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 19](#__RefHeading___Toc140045646)

[**Effects of the Forest Plan Goals on Running Buffalo Clover**
19](#__RefHeading___Toc140045647)

[**Effects of the Specific Management Actions on Running Buffalo
Clover** 20](#__RefHeading___Toc140045648)

[CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 26](#__RefHeading___Toc140045649)

[CONCLUSION 26](#__RefHeading___Toc140045650)

[INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 27](#__RefHeading___Toc140045651)

[**INDIANA BAT** 27](#__RefHeading___Toc140045652)

[STATUS OF THE SPECIES 27](#__RefHeading___Toc140045653)

[**General Biology and Life History of the Species**
27](#__RefHeading___Toc140045654)

[**Review of Endangered Species Information**
37](#__RefHeading___Toc140045655)

[ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 43](#__RefHeading___Toc140045656)

[**Summer Populations within the Action Area**
43](#__RefHeading___Toc140045657)

[**Winter Populations within the Action Area**
44](#__RefHeading___Toc140045658)

[**Habitat conditions within the Action Area**
45](#__RefHeading___Toc140045659)

[**Conservation Needs of the Species within the Action Area**
47](#__RefHeading___Toc140045660)

[EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 47](#__RefHeading___Toc140045661)

[**Effects of the Forest Plan Goals on the Indiana Bat**
47](#__RefHeading___Toc140045662)

[**Effects of the Specific Management Actions on the Indiana Bat**
51](#__RefHeading___Toc140045663)

[CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 61](#__RefHeading___Toc140045664)

[CONCLUSION 62](#__RefHeading___Toc140045665)

[INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 63](#__RefHeading___Toc140045666)

[**Level of Take** 63](#__RefHeading___Toc140045667)

[**Reasonable and Prudent Measures** 65](#__RefHeading___Toc140045668)

[CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 68](#__RefHeading___Toc140045669)

[REINITIATION NOTICE 68](#__RefHeading___Toc140045670)

[LITERATURE CITED 70](#__RefHeading___Toc140045671)

[Appendix A: 81](#appendix-a)

[**Appendix B:** 90](#__RefHeading___Toc140045673)

[**Appendix C** 94](#__RefHeading___Toc140045674)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045628 .anchor}CONSULTATION HISTORY

A previous formal consultation for the Forest Plan was completed in
March 2002. That BO addressed potential adverse effects to the Indiana
bat and set up a tiered consultation approach where the effects of the
overall Forest Plan goals were analyzed, and the effects of future
specific projects would be reviewed and analyzed and tiered back to the
programmatic BO. The Incidental Take Statement for the March 2002 BO
authorized the MNF to affect potentially suitable Indiana bat habitat by
conducting the following activities annually: timber harvests on up to
6,000 acres; road construction/reconstruction on up to 47 acres; mineral
development on up to 78 acres and prescribed burning on up to 300 acres.
In March 2004 a Forest Plan Amendment was completed that incorporated
all of the programmatic BO's terms and conditions into the Forest Plan.
Since issuance of the programmatic BO, the Service and the MNF have
completed tier II BOs on three major timber sale projects and a number
of smaller projects encompassing the alteration of approximately 2,870
acres of potentially suitable habitat for the Indiana bat. Informal
consultations, in accordance with the procedures established by the
programmatic BO and the Forest Plan Amendment, have also been completed
on several smaller projects.

The Service and the MNF engaged in numerous discussions regarding the
development of the FPR throughout all phases of the scoping and planning
process. These discussions allowed the agencies to identify measures
that could be used to improve the process, clarify the intent of the
Forest Plan, and provide enhanced protection of listed species. On
February 17, 2006 the Service and the MNF met to discuss the content of
the draft BA and make any necessary revisions. On March 30, 2006 the MNF
submitted the BA to the Service. In an attached letter the MNF also
requested that the Service concur with the "may affect" determinations
of the BA, and initiate formal consultation on the Indiana bat and
Running buffalo clover. In our letter dated May 16, 2006, the Service
concurred with the determinations of the BA and initiated formal
consultation as requested. On June 15, 2006 the MNF provided the Service
with copy of the proposed revisions to the threatened and endangered
species section of the FPR that were developed based on responses to
public comments and the results of our interagency coordination. This BO
assumes that the FPR will be implemented as proposed in that document. A
draft BO was provided to the MNF on June 19, 2006. The MNF provided
comments on the draft BO on June 28, 2006 and met with the Service to
discuss those comments on June 30, 2006.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045629 .anchor}**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

The Service will implement a tiered programmatic consultation approach
to the FPR. The MNF and the Service have successfully utilized a tiered
consultation approach since the completion of the 2002 Programmatic
Biological Opinion. The Service anticipates continuing this same
approach. The Tier 1 level is the review of how the overall goals and
prescribed management in the Forest Plan will impact listed species over
the life of the plan. The Tier 1 review will also assess the effects on
listed species of the management activities (i.e., harvest, burning,
etc.) the MNF will utilize to implement the FPR. No specific projects
are analyzed at this level. This programmatic biological opinion on the
FPR constitutes the Tier 1 level review.

The Tier 2 level is the review of how the site specific future actions
will affect listed species. As individual projects are proposed under
the Forest Plan, the MNF will provide the Service with project-specific
information that describes: 1) a description of the proposed action and
the area to be affected, 2) the species that may be affected and their
known proximity to the project area, 3) a description of how the action
may affect the species, 4) a project-specific determination of effects,
5) a cumulative total of incidental take that has been authorized
annually and to date, 6) a description of any additional actions or
effects, if any, not considered in the tier I consultation.
Site-specific projects should be planned to incorporate all applicable
standards and guidelines identified in the FPR and all of the terms and
conditions associated with the reasonable and prudent measures outlined
in this opinion. Site-specific biological assessments will tier to the
programmatic documents, as such; much of the information regarding the
life history of listed species and other information can be referred
back to the appropriate pages in the programmatic documents (Tier 1).
The status of the species on the MNF should be updated as appropriate.

The Service will review the information provided by the MNF for each
proposed project. During the review if it is determined that an
individual project is not likely to adversely affect listed species, the
Service will complete its documentation with a letter that refers to the
programmatic BO and specifies that the Service determined that the
project is not likely to adversely affect listed species. If it is
determined that a project is likely to adversely affect listed species,
the Service and Forest Service will engage in formal consultation for
the project. Formal consultation culminates with the Service providing a
tier II biological opinion with a project-specific incidental take
statement and reasonable and prudent measures, if take is reasonably
certain to occur.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045630 .anchor}DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED
ACTION

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045631 .anchor}**Overview**

The MNF currently comprises over 919,000 acres in eastern West Virginia.
The federally owned lands are interspersed with other private and state
ownerships within the 1,700,000 acres of land contained within the MNF's
proclamation boundary. The MNF is located primarily in Grant,
Greenbrier, Nicholas, Pendleton, Pocahontas, Randolph, Tucker, and
Webster Counties, with minor portions in Barbour and Preston Counties.

The geology of the area features steep north-south mountain ridges and
deep river valleys, with elevations ranging from 900 feet near
Petersburg to 4,863 feet atop Spruce Knob, West Virginia's highest
point. Temperatures can vary from near 100 degrees Fahrenheit in summer
to well below zero in winter. Annual precipitation ranges from about 60
inches on the west side of the Forest to about half that amount on parts
of the east side. The headwaters of six major rivers---the Cheat, Elk,
Gauley, Greenbrier, Potomac, and Tygart Valley rivers---are found on the
MNF, as well as four impounded lakes---Lake Sherwood, Lake Buffalo,
Summit Lake, and Spruce Knob Lake.

Due to its geographic location, elevation range, and complex geology,
the MNF has great ecological diversity. Over 60 species of trees are
known to occur within the MNF, mostly including hardwoods, but also
conifer species. Many of the tree species have high value for timber
sawlogs and other products. A number of rare plants and plant
communities exist, with some at their northern- or southern-most limit
of their ranges. Currently 4 plant species are listed by the Service as
threatened or endangered. Many of these rare plants and communities are
protected in Botanical Areas, National Natural Landmarks and other
similar areas. The MNF provides habitat for numerous animal species,
including fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals, and invertebrates.
Currently, 5 animal species are listed as threatened or endangered.

The MNF affords excellent opportunities for wildlife viewing, hunting,
fishing, and other outdoor recreational activities. The MNF also offers
and sells timber for harvest as a way to help achieve vegetation and
habitat objectives and support local and regional economies. About 7,000
acres are open to permitted livestock grazing. The MNF provides the
setting for 40-50 producing natural gas wells and additional wells
associated with a natural gas storage field, which are regionally
important energy sources. Other mineral resources include commercial
quantities of coal, limestone, and gravel. Limestone geologies also
contain numerous caves that are popular for recreation, and some that
provide habitat for rare species.

The MNF transportation network has an estimated 1,752 miles of
classified roads that range from paved highways to non-surfaced roads
designed for high clearance vehicles. Many of these roads are available
for pleasure driving, the removal of forest products, bicycling, and
scenic viewing. Others are closed for resource protection or management
reasons.

Major insect pests include the gypsy moth and hemlock wooly adelgid. The
major disease concern at present on the MNF is beech bark disease
complex.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045632 .anchor}**Project Description**

The Forest Service's Preferred Alternative is plan revision Alternative
2 Modified, which is referred to in this document as the FPR. The
majority of the changes to the Forest Plan, when compared with the
existing version, address vegetation management, backcountry recreation,
water and soils, and timberland supply. Some features of the FPR
represent little change or maintain the status quo relative to the
existing Forest Plan. The FPR converted several Management Prescriptions
(MPs) used to manage habitat for threatened and endangered species into
Forest-wide direction, which will be applied wherever such habitat
occurs, regardless of MP. In general, the direction contained in the
Threatened and Endangered Species Amendment to the Forest Plan has been
carried over into the FPR. The FPR also incorporates a number of new or
updated measures that will benefit threatened and endangered species
within the MNF. These measures include:

-   Developing a new Spruce Management Prescription (MP 4.1) to help
    restore and maintain spruce and spruce-hardwood ecosystems.

-   Revising the Wildlife Habitat Diversity Prescription (MP 6.1) to
    include an emphasis on restoration of oak-pine and oak-hickory
    communities, and an increased role for fire as a disturbance agent
    to help maintain desired conditions.

-   Updating Management Plan direction to address the emerging concern
    of non-native invasive plant species; and provide direction to
    maintain or restore rare plants and communities, including Regional
    Forester Sensitive Species.

-   Updating Riparian Management Guidelines that were developed in 1999
    to be used as project-specific mitigation on the MNF and
    incorporating them into the FPR.

-   Making additions to Forest-wide direction, MPs, and monitoring to
    address acid deposition and sedimentation concerns.

Table 1 provides a summary of the MPs used in the FPR and the acreage of
habitat assigned to each. More detailed descriptions of the proposed
action are provided in the BA, the draft Forest Plan Revision and
associated draft Environmental Impact Statement and are incorporated
here by reference.

**Table 1. Management Prescription acres for the Forest Plan Revision.**

  ------------ -------------------------------- ----------- ---------------
  **Number**   **Management Prescription**      **Acres**   **Percent of
                                                            Forest**

  3.0          Age Class Diversity              194,600     21.2

  4.1          Spruce and Spruce-Hardwood       153,600     16.8
               Management                                   

  5.0          Designated Wilderness            78,900      8.6

  5.1          Recommended Wilderness1          27,300      3.0

  6.1          Wildlife Habitat Diversity       277,600     30.3

  6.2          Backcountry Recreation           105,600     11.5

  8.0          Special Areas                    79,100      8.6
  ------------ -------------------------------- ----------- ---------------

1Recommendations for Wilderness are preliminary administrative
recommendations only. Any recommendation would receive further review
and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, the
Secretary of Agriculture, and the President of the United States.
Congress has reserved final decisions to designate Wilderness to the
National Wilderness Preservation System.

The FPR also describes specific types of activities that may be
conducted on the MNF, and where possible, sets goals or anticipates the
level of effort that may occur for each of the activity types, as
described below.

*Mineral Operations*

Active coal mining on the MNF ceased in the early 1990s. No coal mine
permit applications on NFS land are pending or known to exist. At
current and foreseeable coal prices, the MNF does not expect to see
major or extensive coal mine development, and very probably no leasing
and development of federally owned coal over the next 10-15 years.
However, some underground coal mine development is possible in
association with the exercise of privately owned coal rights.

Oil has never been found in commercial quantities on the MNF, and there
is only a low probability for its occurrence. Therefore, oil exploration
and development will not be considered further in this BO.

Natural gas leasing, exploration, recovery, and underground storage are
by far the most common forms of mineral development on the MNF. Typical
activities involve seismic exploration, drilling and operation of gas
wells, construction of access roads, and construction and operation of
pipelines. Including both production wells and wells associated with
underground gas storage, there are currently 71 existing, active gas
well sites on NFS land. On average, each well site is about 2 acres with
grassy ground cover, similar to hayfields. Access roads and associated
pipelines create narrow linear openings and may add up to an additional
14 acres of grassy or graveled area per well site. The total acreage of
surface modification is considerably less for many well sites because
they are served by existing roads or the associated pipelines are
co-located with roads.

A projection of Reasonably foreseeable gas development (RFD) was
prepared in May 1990 and updated and validated in 2003. The RFD projects
approximately 740 acres of total surface modification (wells, roads, and
pipelines) per decade, including all land ownerships in the
proclamation/purchase unit boundary, as well as both federal and
privately-owned gas. The actual area of surface modification to date has
been substantially below RFD projections due to lower than predicted
levels of development and development methods that reduce surface
disturbance (e.g., directional drilling from a central location,
co-locating roads and pipelines).

*Range Activities*

Range management on the MNF consists of livestock grazing by private
permittees on approximately 7,000 acres of pasture land. Activities
associated with range management can include construction and
maintenance of fences, loading chutes, water sources, and other small
structures; application of seed, lime, and fertilizer to pastures; and
control of competing vegetation by mowing or herbicide application.
Development of new range allotments is expected to be limited to newly
acquired land that is already pasture or hay land.

*Prescribed Fire*

Fire management activities on the MNF include suppression of wildfires
and the use of prescribed fire to meet vegetation management objectives.
The MNF has 10 or less reported wildfires each year, with the average
size less than an acre. Previously, prescribed fire has been used on
fewer than 300 acres of the MNF annually, and was limited to maintenance
of openings or brushy areas for wildlife habitat management. However,
historic records suggest that oak-hickory forest types are fire
dependent, and the FPR contains objectives to increase planned amounts
of prescribed fire to achieve ecosystem restoration and management
goals. It is anticipated that prescribed fire could be conducted on
between 10,000 and 30,000 acres of the MNF over the next decade.

Fire management activities can involve construction of fire lines using
hand tools and mechanized equipment, application of water or chemical
fire retardants, and use of incendiary devices to ignite prescribed
fires. Fire lines are rehabilitated promptly, using water bars and
revegetation where necessary to prevent erosion. Prescribed burning is
conducted under project-specific burn plans that address potential
effects on other resources.

*Road Related Activities*

The FPR does not contain objectives for mileage of road construction and
reconstruction because road needs are difficult to predict without
conducting site-specific, project-level planning. However, the FPR
contains a goal to provide developed roads to the density and
maintenance level needed to meet resource and use objectives. The
current Forest road system, not including temporary roads and woods
roads, is estimated at 1,752 miles. Road construction and reconstruction
is not expected to exceed 200 to 250 miles over the next 10 years. The
FPR contains an objective to decommission at least 30 miles of roads
over the next 10 years.

Road construction involves removal of vegetation along the road
alignment, cut-and-fill as necessary to create a level road bed,
installation of drainage structures, and grading of the road surface.
Gravel is applied to the surface of high-standard system roads. Gravel
may be applied to other roads if necessary to prevent erosion,
sedimentation, and road surface damage. Roads that receive heavy use by
the public may be paved. Road reconstruction is similar to construction,
but usually requires less cut-and-fill and grading work. Road
maintenance involves grading and adding gravel as necessary to maintain
a smooth travel surface, cleaning or replacing drainage structures when
necessary, and mowing or trimming encroaching vegetation.
Decommissioning of roads may involve restoring the road to original
contour (removing or placing of fill, and regrading), or more limited
measures such as regrading the road to redirect drainage patterns,
removing culverts, tilling the road surface, and other similar
activities.

*Recreation Activities*

The MNF hosts a wide variety of recreational activities, including
camping, hiking, backpacking, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing,
scenery viewing, mountain biking, horseback riding, picnicking, rock
climbing, spelunking, and driving for pleasure.

Several commercial outfitter/guides operate under recreational special
use permits. Such permits are also used to manage occasional recreation
events such as bicycle races.

Visitor use estimates indicate that the MNF receives over one million
visits annually.

Overall recreational use of the MNF is expected to increase in the
foreseeable future in conjunction with population increases in
metropolitan areas of the eastern U.S. No new major recreational
developments are expected in the foreseeable future, although existing
facilities may be rehabilitated or reconstructed to meet visitor
expectations and demands. Limited new construction of trails and other
dispersed facilities may occur in response to specific user needs;
however, a general expansion of the trail system and other facilities is
not expected. The FPR allows for all-terrain-vehicle use on designated
trails within specific Management Prescriptions. Currently the MNF does
not have any designated routes open to ATV use, although unauthorized
use occurs in scattered locations.

*Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Restoration Activities*

Watershed improvement activities include riparian area protection and
restoration, road obliteration to address sedimentation issues,
structural or vegetative bank stabilization, and efforts to revegetate
and stabilize exposed soils. The most extensive form of aquatic habitat
management on the MNF is the application of limestone sand to streams
that have been impacted by acid deposition. Aquatic habitat management
may also include construction of in-stream habitat structures, as well
as addition of large woody debris to streams that are deficient in that
habitat component.

The revised plan contains objectives calling for the removal of 30 to 50
passage barriers and the restoration of 30 to 50 linear miles of aquatic
and riparian habitat over the next decade. It is anticipated that
site-specific opportunities for achieving these objectives will be
identified during watershed and project-level planning. Activities are
expected to be scattered and small-scale in nature, and any vegetation
and soil disturbance is expected to be short-term and minor in extent.

*Wildlife Habitat Management*

The MNF cooperates with the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources
(WVDNR) in an active wildlife habitat management program. Currently,
most wildlife habitat management on the MNF consists of creating and
maintaining permanent herbaceous openings to benefit turkeys, grouse,
and a variety of other game and non-game species. Many of these openings
are small (\<2 acres) former log landings or closed roads that have been
seeded. Others are larger (10+ acres) savannas that contain scattered
residual trees. Many wildlife openings also contain small water holes.
The FPR contains objectives to construct a total of 2,000 to 4,000 acres
of wildlife openings in MPs 3.0 and 6.1 over the next 10 years. Other
MPs allow openings, but do not have quantitative desired conditions or
objectives.

Wildlife opening construction on log landings or closed roads involves
ripping the soil to reduce compaction, whereas savanna construction
involves clearing existing vegetation, removing roots and stumps, and
tilling the soil. The MNF may soon begin experimenting with savanna
establishment that leaves stumps in place, which involves less soil
disturbance and uses prescribed burning for maintenance instead of
mowing. In either case, soil preparation is followed by application of
seed, fertilizer, lime, and mulch. Seed mixtures include a variety of
native and non-native, non-invasive grasses and forbs. Fruit-producing
shrubs and trees may be planted within openings or around the edges.
Most openings are maintained by mowing, although the MNF may begin to
use more prescribed fire for opening maintenance, especially for the
larger savannas.

Spruce ecosystem restoration is another form of wildlife habitat
management on the MNF. While very little active spruce restoration has
been conducted to date, the FPR contains an objective to conduct 1,000
to 5,000 acres of active spruce restoration over the next decade. Active
spruce restoration would involve partial harvests, similar to thinning,
single-tree selection, group selection, or two-aged harvesting. The
specific silvicultural prescription would depend on site-specific
conditions. The harvesting is intended either to release spruce trees
established in the understory and midstory, or to encourage
establishment of spruce from seed provided by scattered overstory
spruce. The purpose is to reestablish spruce as an overstory component
while maintaining or enhancing vertical habitat structure.

Like spruce restoration, Indiana bat habitat enhancement has not been
extensive to date, but is expected to increase under the revised plan.
The revised plan contains an objective to conduct 3,000 to 7,000 acres
of Indiana bat habitat enhancement over the next decade. This habitat
enhancement would be concentrated within Indiana bat primary range (see
description below), most of which is within MP 6.1. Habitat enhancement
would involve partial harvests, similar to thinning, single tree
selection, group selection, two-aged harvesting, or modified shelterwood
harvesting. The specific silvicultural prescription would depend on
site-specific conditions. The intent of habitat enhancement is to create
the semi-open stand structure that the Indiana bat is believed to prefer
for roosting and foraging. To provide for potential roost trees, habitat
enhancement would be designed to retain snags and favor large trees with
sloughing bark.

*Salvage Activities*

Salvage logging may occur where timber stands have been damaged or
killed by natural forces such as insects, disease, wind, ice, or fire.
Natural disturbances on the MNF typically are small and scattered, and
usually do not reach a scale that would facilitate viable salvage sales.
Therefore, salvage logging does not represent a substantial component of
the total timber harvested in any given year. However, large-scale
salvage could occur in the event of a landscape-scale disturbance. The
amount of salvage is unpredictable due to the unpredictable nature of
natural disturbances.

*Timber Harvest*

The MNF harvests timber to provide a diversity of forest age classes and
to provide timber for local and regional wood-using industries.
Commercial timber harvesting is concentrated in suitable timberlands in
MPs 3.0 and 6.1, and to a lesser extent MP 4.1. Each of these MPs has
desired conditions for age class diversity on suitable timberland.
Combined across all suitable timberlands in MPs 3.0, 6.1, and 4.1, FPR
objectives call for a total of 20,000 to 40,000 acres of even-aged
regeneration harvesting in the next ten years. Approximately one-third
as much thinning is expected over the next decade, or approximately
7,000 to 13,000 acres. Therefore, the total amount of harvesting on
suitable timber lands for the next ten years is expected to be 27,000 to
53,000 acres. This harvesting is in addition to the harvesting for
spruce restoration and Indiana bat habitat enhancement. Uneven-aged
regeneration harvesting may occur, but is not expected to be extensive
and is not included in the acreage objectives.

The even-aged harvesting methods typically used on the MNF include
shelterwood, two-aged, clearcutting with reserve trees, and thinning.
The seed tree method is an available option, but is not used often
because most forest types on the MNF can be regenerated more efficiently
through other methods. The shelterwood method harvests the mature trees
in two or more removal cuts within 3 to 20 years after the initial cut.
The two-aged method harvests most of the trees in the older age class to
create a young age class. Harvest entries are usually scheduled 40 to 80
years apart to maintain two distinct age classes within the stand. Both
the two-aged method and the shelterwood method are preferred where
advanced regeneration is lacking or absent. The clearcutting with
reserves method harvests most of the trees within a stand in one
removal. Typically some reserve trees are left to meet wildlife habitat
or other resource needs. The thinning method is an intermediate cut that
prepares a stand for a regeneration harvest. This method removes high
risk, low quality, diseased, and over mature trees to increase the
health, development, and growth of the residual trees in a stand. One to
several intermediate cuts may be applied in a stand prior to the
regeneration harvest.

Uneven-aged harvest methods include single tree selection and group
selection. These methods are rarely used for timber management on the
MNF. However, they may be used to achieve non-timber objectives (see
descriptions of spruce restoration and Indiana bat habitat enhancement,
above). The single tree selection method harvests individual trees, both
large and small, favoring trees such as beech and sugar maple that are
tolerant of the shade of the residual forest canopy. The group selection
method removes all trees within a small area, generally at least ½ acre
but typically no larger than 2 acres, within the larger forested stand.
This method allows for the growth of some of the more shade intolerant
trees species within the uneven-aged stand, but is not used where deer
browse is a concern.

Timber harvest operations on the MNF may use ground-based yarding,
helicopter yarding, cable yarding, or some combination of these methods.
Ground-based yarding is the most economical and is used wherever soil
and water concerns allow it. For ground-based yarding, skid trails
(similar to low standard roads) are constructed into the stands to allow
skidders to drag logs to landings, where they are then loaded on trucks.
Helicopter yarding is used in sensitive areas, usually to reduce
potential damage to soil and water. In this system, helicopters are used
to transport logs to landings. Cable yarding is rarely used on the MNF,
but is an available option.

This method involves dragging logs to the landings using cables. All
yarding methods require system roads or temporary roads to allow
transport of logs via truck from the landing to the state highway
system.

In addition to timber harvesting, timber management also involves site
preparation and timber stand improvement activities. These activities
may include treating shrubs, vines, herbaceous vegetation, undesirable
tree species, and suppressed or poor-form trees. Depending on
site-specific silvicultural prescriptions, treatments may include using
manual or mechanical cutting, herbicides, prescribed fire, or some
combination of these methods. Planting tree seedlings is sometimes used
to increase the component of a desired species within a stand. Fencing
may also be used to protect areas with regenerating vegetation from
excessive deer browsing.

*Gypsy Moth Control*

Forest policy concerning gypsy moth defoliation is to treat only those
areas where defoliation effects would make achieving management
objectives difficult. Typically this approach does not result in blanket
treatment across the MNF. Future widespread treatment would be proposed
only if gypsy moth populations dramatically increased. Since 1991, only
biological insecticides have been sprayed on MNF lands. These include
Bt, a biological pesticide that kills moth and butterfly caterpillars in
the order Lepidoptera, and Gypchek, a biological pesticide specific to
gypsy moths. The last significant gypsy moth defoliation on the MNF
lasted from 1990 through 1995.

*Firewood Cutting*

Annually, 400-500 firewood permits authorize removal of 800-1000 cords
of firewood. Only dead and down trees may be cut for firewood. Firewood
is usually hand-carried from cutting location to the vehicle. Most
firewood is taken from within 150 feet of open roads throughout the MNF
or from landing sites on closed timber sales.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045633 .anchor}**Action Area**

The action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or
indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area
involved in the action. Areas within five miles of hibernacula are known
as swarming zones or Indiana bat primary zones. Indiana bats use the
area within five miles of their hibernacula for swarming, mating and
foraging prior to entering hibernation. Males may also be present within
these areas throughout the year. Activities on the MNF that are
conducted within a five mile radius of a hibernaculum could affect the
bats hibernating within those caves. Therefore, for the purposes of this
BO, the action area for the Indiana bat includes the proclamation
boundaries of the MNF, and any Indiana bat hibernacula located either
within or outside of the MNF, that has at least a portion of the MNF
proclamation boundary located within a five-mile radius (primary zone)
of the cave. A total of 26 hibernacula, as listed in the BA, are
included in the action area. Because running buffalo clover is a
sedentary species that is not likely to be affected by activities
conducted any distance away, the action area for running buffalo clover
is restricted to areas where it located within the MNF's proclamation
boundary.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045634 .anchor}**RUNNING BUFFALO CLOVER**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045635 .anchor}STATUS OF THE SPECIES

Running buffalo clover is a species that has shown great recovery
potential if habitat is protected and managed. Listed in 1987 when only
one population was known, today 120 populations of running buffalo
clover are known to exist. Many of these populations are very small and
vulnerable and display a cyclic pattern of decline and increase over
time. The Recovery Team for this species has indicated that even small
populations are valuable for the continued existence of running buffalo
clover due to high genetic diversity.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045636 .anchor}**Distribution**

Running buffalo clover occurs in mesic habitats with partial to filtered
sunlight, where there is a prolonged pattern of moderate, periodic
disturbance, such as mowing, trampling, or grazing. It is most often,
but not exclusively found in regions underlain with limestone or other
calcareous bedrock. It has been reported from a variety of habitats,
including mesic woodlands, savannahs, floodplains, stream banks,
sandbars (especially where old trails cross or parallel intermittent
streams), grazed woodlots, mowed paths (e.g. in cemeteries, parks, and
lawns), old logging roads, jeep trails, skidder trails, mowed wildlife
openings within mature forest, and steep ravines.

Running buffalo clover has been collected historically from Arkansas,
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio and West Virginia.
There were very few reports rangewide between 1910 and 1983. Prior to
1983, the most recent collection had been made in 1940 in Webster
County, West Virginia (Brooks 1983). Although thought to be extinct
(Brooks 1983), running buffalo clover was rediscovered in 1983 in West
Virginia. At the time of listing only one population was known to exist.
Soon after being listed in 1987, several additional populations were
discovered in Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Populations
were not rediscovered in the wild in Missouri until 1994.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045637 .anchor}**Population dynamics**

Running buffalo clover usually acts as a perennial species, forming long
stolons that root at the nodes. Plants produce erect flowering stems,
10-30 cm tall that send out long basal runners (stolons). The flowering
stems have 2 large trifoliolate leaves below a 9-12 mm round white
flower head (Gleason and Cronquist 1991). Running buffalo clover flowers
from mid-April to June; fruiting occurs from May to July (Brooks 1983).

Running buffalo clover is reported to be visited by bees (*Apis* sp. and
*Bombis* sp.) and is crosspollinated under field conditions (Taylor *et
al.* 1994). Franklin (1998) documented that although running buffalo
clover is genetically self-compatible, it cannot self-pollinate.
Self-compatibility provides plants reproductive assurance when
outcrossing opportunities are limited (such as in small populations).
Genetic studies of running buffalo clover suggested that to conserve
maximum levels of diversity in running buffalo clover, as many
populations as possible should be preserved across its range because
much of the total diversity resides among populations (Crawford et al.
1998). Small populations of running buffalo clover contribute as much
genetic diversity as large populations and exhibit unique banding
patterns, which is important for the species adaptability and genetic
stability.

Long-term monitoring data indicates that running buffalo clover
populations often display widely fluctuating population sizes. The cause
for changes in population size may be due to disturbance, weather
patterns, management strategy, or other unknown factors. Ohio's
population data indicate that the numbers of rooted crowns in a given
sub-population may vary widely over time, including variation within a
given growing season (Becus 1993). One population in Ohio had 235 rooted
crowns in 1992 and then disappeared for the next 3 years; in 2003, this
same population had 1,157 plants. Similarly, a West Virginia
sub-population consisting of 31 rooted crowns in 1990 and 1991,
disappeared in 1992, and returned the next year. Running buffalo clover
has not been observed at this location since 1993 and is now considered
extirpated at this site.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045638 .anchor}**Threats**

The primary threat to running buffalo clover is habitat alteration.
Factors that contribute to this threat include forest succession, and
subsequent canopy closure, competition by invasive plant species,
catastrophic disturbance such as development or road construction, and
may include the elimination of bison and other large herbivores. Without
some level of disturbance, an area will become too shaded to provide
enough sunlight for the species (Cusick 1989, Homoya et al. 1989).

Various researchers have supported the hypothesis that during
pre-settlement time running buffalo clover habitat was likely produced
through canopy gaps created by the natural felling of large, old-growth
trees (Madarish and Schuler 2002). Current logging practices may also
benefit running buffalo clover. At the Fernow Experimental Forest in
north-central West Virginia, running buffalo clover is most often
associated with skid roads in uneven-aged silvicultural areas (Madarish
and Schuler 2002). A study examining running buffalo clover abundance
before and after logging suggests that populations may initially
decrease after disturbance, but then rebound to higher than
pre-disturbance levels (Madarish and Schuler 2002).

Land development and the consequential loss of habitat is also a serious
threat to running buffalo clover. Cusick (1989) notes that running
buffalo clover was formerly relatively frequent in central and
southwestern Ohio, particularly in the vicinity of Cincinnati prior to
urban sprawl. Remnant populations have become even more isolated,
persisting in areas maintained by appropriate disturbance. Remnant
habitats may lead to small population sizes, inadequate seed dispersal,
and poor seed quality. It has been suggested that running buffalo clover
has a limited seed dispersal mechanism (Cusick 1989). Deforestation,
farming, and other human activities created many new habitats for the
species, but with the loss of bison after European settlement, Cusick
(1989) suggested that there were no effective means of dispersal
remaining for the species. Investigations into the influences of
white-tailed deer on running buffalo clover germination have shown that
although deer are viable vectors for running buffalo clover seed, the
rates of germination of ingested seeds are low (Ford *et al*. 2003).

Jacobs and Bartgis (1987) suggested that along with the destruction of
habitat, the introduction of non-native species may have contributed to
the decline of running buffalo clover. Non-native white clover
(*Trifolium repens*) may have invaded the habitat of running buffalo
clover, out-competing it for available resources (Jacobs and Bartgis
1987). Other invasive plants that currently threaten running buffalo
clover include Japanese stilt grass (*Microstegium* *vimineum*), garlic
mustard (*Alliaria petiolata*), Japanese honeysuckle (*Lonicera
japonica*), Amur honeysuckle (*Lonicera maackii*), wintercreeper
(*Euonymus fortunei*), and periwinkle (*Vinca minor*). Management of
invasive species through manual methods (pulling and mowing) have shown
to be effective in minimizing competition with running buffalo clover.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045639 .anchor}**Rangewide Status of the
Species**

Extant populations of running buffalo clover are known from 120
populations in three ecoregions: Hot Continental, Hot Continental
Mountainous, and Prairie Division (Bailey 1998). For recovery purposes,
the populations are divided into three regions based on proximity to
each other and overall habitat similarities. These regions are
Appalachian (West Virginia, and southeastern Ohio), Bluegrass
(southwestern Ohio, central Kentucky and Indiana), and Ozark (Missouri).
The majority of populations occur within the Appalachian and Bluegrass
regions. Kentucky has the most populations of running buffalo clover,
followed by West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana and Missouri. The largest
populations of running buffalo clover occur on the MNF in West Virginia.
In 2005, the total number of ranked populations included: 10 A-ranked,
23 B-ranked, 31 C-ranked, and 58 D-ranked (USFWS 2005d). A-ranked
populations are the largest (over 1,000 individuals) and occur in highly
suitable habitat, while D-ranked populations are the smallest (less than
30 individuals) and may occur in somewhat marginal habitat (see Draft
Revised Recovery Plan for full discussion of rankings).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045640 .anchor}**Status of the Species in West
Virginia**

Bartgis (1985) rediscovered running buffalo clover in West Virginia in
1983 and 1984 in Webster and Fayette counties. Both of these populations
occupy old river terraces of the New River and Back Fork of the Elk
River, in a dirt road and at the edge of a lawn beside a gravel road,
respectively. New interest in the status of this species developed among
researchers, and in 1989 they acquired search images of the species by
visiting populations in Kentucky and Ohio. Subsequent surveys on river
terraces, at old historical home sites, and in cemeteries proved
fruitless in West Virginia.

A small clump of plants was then discovered along an unpaved road on a
mountain ridge in Randolph County. The soil at the population location
was derived from limestone substrate. Surveys were launched throughout
the mountainous portions of the state resulting in 29 documented
populations. The West Virginia Natural Heritage Program has been
monitoring running buffalo clover through an annual census of rooted
crowns and flowering stems since 1989.

In West Virginia, running buffalo clover seems to prefer old logging
roads, off-road vehicle trails, hawthorne thickets, grazed woodlands,
jeep trails, railroad grades, game trails, and old fields succeeding to
mesic woodlands. The larger occurrences exist within a matrix of
mesophytic deciduous forest. All populations are associated with light
to moderate disturbance such as occasional off-road-vehicle traffic,
stream scour, grazing, or foot-traffic. Plants occur primarily in
regions underlain by limestone. To date, extant populations are located
in or near the Allegheny Mountains of central to eastern West Virginia:
Barbour, Fayette, Pendleton, Preston, Pocahontas, Randolph, and Tucker
counties. One additional population has been documented from Brooke
County in the Central Low Plateau of the Northern Panhandle. There are
currently 30 extant and three extirpated occurrences throughout the
state.

An estimated 76,000 plants were seen in West Virginia in 2003, down from
an estimated 77,800 seen in 1996. Among all populations in West Virginia
in 2003, four appear to be increasing and six appear to be dramatically
declining, whereas the rest have been fluctuating in numbers of rooted
crowns over an eight to ten year period of monitoring. However, the
Crouch Knob population, which is the largest population in the state, is
only surveyed intermittently. A total of 34,936 plants were counted
there during the most recent survey in 2004. The previous survey,
conducted in 1996, documented 64,998 plants. Less than half of all
populations are on federal or state land, and West Virginia has no
legislated protection of plant species beyond the federal ESA, nor does
it have a nature preserve system.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045641 .anchor}**Rangewide Conservation Needs
of the Species**

To achieve the recovery goals established within the Recovery Plan,
thirty-four viable populations should be protected and managed
throughout a majority of the species geographic range. Populations are
considered protected when there are permanent assurances that the
habitat will be managed. Management objectives for running buffalo
clover include 1) invasive species control, 2) reducing habitat
succession, and 3) defining population regulation factors. Additional
recovery objectives include 1) ensuring viability of protected
populations, 2) maintaining genetic diversity and germplasm, and 3)
promoting public understanding of the species (Service 2006).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045642 .anchor}**Previous Biological Opinions**

One previous BO was completed for the Forest Plan Revision on the Wayne
National Forest (WNF) in Ohio. The Revised Forest Plan for that forest
provides protection and habitat enhancement for running buffalo clover
were it occurs now and in other locations of the WNF if it should be
found there. The WNF is committed to maintaining viability of running
buffalo clover on the Forest. Only one small population currently exists
on the WNF, and the loss of this population was not anticipated. Thus,
that BO did not anticipate any detectable reductions in reproduction,
numbers or distribution of the species.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045643 .anchor}ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045644 .anchor}**Status of Species within the
Action Area.**

West Virginia Natural Heritage Program records (unpublished) show 14
recent element occurrences within the MNF proclamation boundary, many of
which consist of numerous subpopulations. Most occurrences are on the
Cheat Ranger District and the western part of the Greenbrier Ranger
District. Based on these data, the species appears to occur in a
substantial minority of the potential habitat. Eleven of the 14
occurrences are currently located on National Forest land. All of these
eleven occurrences on MNF were surveyed in either 2004 or 2005. These
surveys documented a total of 40,357 rooted crowns. Surveys at the three
occurrences within the proclamation boundary but on private land
documented an additional 119 plants in 2005. All three of these
locations have had fluctuating numbers of rooted crowns. Two of these
sites are subjected to camping and/or all-terrain-vehicle use. The
fluctuations may be attributable to the varying degree of disturbance
over time.

Occurrences of running buffalo clover within the Fernow Experimental
Forest are subject to a regularly scheduled regime of controlled
disturbance; as a result, long-term population trends are stable to
increasing (Schuler 2006). Activities conducted on the Fernow
Experimental Forest are addressed under a separate BO (Service 2005c)
and will not be covered further here.

The WVDNR 2005 Section 6 report provides the results of annual running
buffalo clover monitoring and notes the conditions at each site on the
MNF (WVDNR 2006). While numbers at some locations on the MNF are
increasing, most have fluctuating numbers or show a decreasing trend.
The report notes that management actions such as initiating minor
disturbance regimes or creating selected openings in the canopy may be
needed to improve habitat conditions at some locations on the MNF. The
WVDNR report also notes that invasive species such as multiflora rose
(*Rosa multiflora*), garlic mustard, Japanese stiltgrass, and wingstem
(*Verbesina sp.*) threaten some locations and recommends that control
measures be implemented.

Because most locations of running buffalo clover on the MNF are located
in or near Forest Service roads, old logging roads, or trails, they
receive some type of occasional disturbance. This can result in either
positive effects or negative effects to the populations depending on the
type, severity, and frequency of the disturbances. For example,
beneficial effects may have occurred at some sites as a result of
occasional horse traffic, and after a road was closed for two years
following one year of minor vehicle disturbance. Conversely, negative
effects occurred at one location when it was inadvertently graded when
closing an old logging road for erosion control. Additionally, a logging
road was built through another population in 1998. The area was
subsequently logged and the population has since declined.

In addition, sites located on Forest Service roads may be used by
private landowners to access their property. The activities of these
landowners can negatively impact running buffalo clover populations. For
example, between 1996 and 1997, the "A site" of the Upper John's Run
sub-element occurrence was heavily impacted by plowing, scraping, and
vehicular traffic by a private landowner. The population declined from
an estimated 1000 rooted crowns in June 1995 to 232 rooted crowns in
July of 1996, to 33 rooted crowns in June 1997 (WVDNR 1997). Currently,
only 14 rooted crowns exist at this location (WVDNR 2006).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045645 .anchor}**Conservation Needs of the
Species within the Action Area**

The Recovery Plan has determined that even small populations contain
genotypes important to overall genetic diversity of the clover.
Therefore, there is a need to protect and maintain running buffalo
clover populations at all known occurrence areas. Inherent in this is
the need to determine and implement appropriate disturbance regimes.
Habitat for running buffalo clover must include filtered sunlight. This
often means removal of competing vegetation (especially invasive plants)
and selective tree removal to prevent overshading. However, disturbance
regimes should be monitored and managed so that the level of disturbance
does not cause negative population trends. In order to make sure these
goals are achieved, the MNF should also continue to monitor known
populations and conduct surveys to locate additional populations. In
order to work towards long-term permanent recovery of the species, the
MNF should consider contributing towards seed storage efforts from
selected locations, and developing management agreements that would
remain in place if the species was delisted. Management agreements could
be developed with the Service, WVDNR, and/or other state or private
organizations.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045646 .anchor}EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

This programmatic consultation includes two levels of analysis. The
first level of the analysis considers how the overall FPR goals and
desired conditions will affect listed species. The second level of the
analysis will consider how the specific management actions that
implement the FPR will affect listed species.

The standards and guidelines that have been incorporated into the FPR to
avoid and minimize effects are provided in Appendix A. It is important
to emphasize that this effects analysis is predicated on the fact that
all standards and guidelines will be fully implemented. If not, this
analysis may no longer be valid and formal consultation may need to be
reintiatied.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045647 .anchor}**Effects of the Forest Plan
Goals on Running Buffalo Clover**

The MNF supports the considerable majority of running buffalo clover
that is known to occur throughout the state. In addition, out of the 10
known A-ranked populations throughout the species' range, three occur
within MNF property. The FPR specifies that the overall desired
condition for threatened and endangered species is to "maintain or
enhance populations consistent with established and approved Recovery
Plans" and that "effects from Forest programs or activities are at
levels that do not threaten the persistence of threatened and endangered
species populations." The FPR was also updated to address the emerging
concern of non-native invasive plant species, which have been identified
as a major threat to running buffalo clover populations. Measures to 1)
control existing areas of non-native invasives; 2) programmatically
reduce the spread of these species; and 3) ensure that project-level
actions do not contribute to the problem, have been developed.
Implementation of this guidance should substantially reduce existing
threats to running buffalo clover populations on the MNF.

The fact that a substantial number of running buffalo clover populations
are contained within a federally-owned area that is protected and
managed for running buffalo clover significantly benefits the species.
The MNF FPR has the potential to contribute to the long-term recovery of
the species on a regional as well as range-wide level. However, there
are substantial challenges associated with achieving the MNF's desired
conditions in relation to running buffalo clover. As noted throughout
this BO, running buffalo clover is a disturbance dependant species.
There is some research available that provides direction on how running
buffalo clover responds to specific frequencies and types of
disturbance. Caution must be used when extrapolating the conclusions of
those studies to other types of activities that may be conducted at
other locations. Similar management actions may have different results
depending on site-specific population levels and habitat conditions.
Furthermore, some disturbance regimes that have demonstrated long-term
beneficial effects to running buffalo clover will cause an initial
decrease in population numbers (Madarish and Schuler 2002). The
challenge is to provide enough disturbance to allow running buffalo
clover populations to thrive, while not allowing so much disturbance
that population numbers are significantly reduced or eliminated. Routine
monitoring of populations using methods described in the recovery plan,
following management activities will be required to distinguish between
these two alternative results. These challenges make it extremely
difficult to guarantee that adverse effects to populations will not
occur as a result of implementing good faith management efforts.
However, because this is a disturbance *dependant* species, failing to
implement management efforts could potentially result in more
significant population declines. In order to address this need, the FPR
proposes to develop a conservation plan that incorporates measures to
protect and/or enhance running buffalo clover populations to the extent
practicable; and to develop programmatic NEPA documentation that allows
implementation of minor disturbance at running buffalo clover sites in
order to maintain or enhance known or discovered populations (TE 68).
The FPR also proposes to coordinate with the Service, WVDNR, and/or
other state or private organizations to facilitate seed collection and
storage efforts for running buffalo clover (TE 69). This will ensure
that genetic diversity of the species is preserved, as has been
recommended in the Recovery Plan.

Continued population monitoring, coupled with the development of a
overall running buffalo clover conservation plan, pro-active seed
storage efforts, and increased invasive species management efforts
conducted under the direction of the FPR, should result in an overall
net benefit to the running buffalo clover populations on the MNF.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045648 .anchor}**Effects of the Specific
Management Actions on Running Buffalo Clover**

Due to the tendency of running buffalo clover to be located in habitats
such as forest roads and trails, the MNF has acknowledged that it may
not be possible to completely avoid adverse impacts to running buffalo
clover when implementing management actions. In addition, as noted
above, implementation of disturbance regimes intended to benefit the
species, may on occasion result in short-term adverse effects to the
species.

Many types of management actions covered in the FPR have the potential
to benefit the species if they are planned and executed with
consideration of the presence and management needs of the species.
However, if these activities are conducted in running buffalo clover
habitat without awareness that the species is there, or if they are not
carefully implemented, these actions could be detrimental to
populations. In order to address this issue, the FPR includes a standard
so that the MNF will to the extent practicable, avoid implementing
activities in areas that support running buffalo clover that have the
potential to eliminate or have long-term detrimental effects to
populations (TE71). The FPR also includes broad guidance that within
watershed planning units, the MNF will identify threatened and
endangered species habitat. The BA repeatedly states that projects would
be preceded by site-specific surveys for threatened and endangered
plants. The search period for running buffalo clover is June to July,
with some plants surviving in post-flowering stage through mid-August.
The FPR specifies that surveys will be conducted during appropriate time
periods and that these surveys should be conducted by personnel trained
specifically to identify running buffalo clover (TE 75). Appropriately
timed pre-project surveys and planning are key to avoiding and
minimizing adverse effects to the maximum extent practicable.

Procedures also need to be in place to carry planning-level decisions
through to implementation. Individuals who plan proposed activities are
most likely not the same individuals who will carry out the action. For
example, conditions set in place to protect running buffalo clover
during timbering operations would need to be implemented and/or adhered
to by the logging company. In order to address this issue, the FPR
includes measures to ensure that managers, contractors, permittees, or
cooperators are informed about avoiding or limiting management
activities in the immediate vicinity of running buffalo clover
populations within the project area. Projects will then be monitored to
ensure that populations are not detrimentally affected over the long
term (TE 77).

*Road Related Activities*

Because running buffalo clover tends to occur in forest roads and
trails, road related activities have a high chance of affecting the
species. Road construction involves clearing, grading, potential
filling, and soil compaction. Placement of fill and gravel, or paving
areas containing running buffalo clover could permanently eliminate
populations. However, these activities can generally be designed so that
running buffalo clover habitat is avoided (TE 71). Depending on the
activities conducted, road reconstruction and maintenance could be less
invasive than road construction. Maintenance mowing will be timed to
benefit the species by reducing competition from other plants while
avoiding periods of flowering and seed set (TE 78). Limited grading or
scraping should not be expected to cause permanent reductions in
populations if it was planned in accordance with species needs. In fact,
light ground scarification and redistribution of surface materials could
enhance plant growth and spread plant material into new areas that may
be suitable for colonization (Madarish and Schuler 2002). Conversely,
conducting these activities in wet conditions would increase compaction
of the soil, restricting future seed germination. Removing large amounts
of the top soil would remove the source of seeds and plants that could
recolonize the site after disturbance and leave substrates that were
unsuitable to support the species. Reconstructing roads may be
associated with planned changes or increases in road use, or with
previous heavy use. Increasing road use after ground disturbance may not
allow enough recovery time for the plants to re-establish in the area.

Removal and placement of fill, or regrading areas during the process of
road decommissioning could remove potential and existing running buffalo
clover habitat. Tilling roads to accelerate vegetative growth would
likely have short-term adverse effects, and could increase competition
from other species. Alternatively tilling could spread running buffalo
clover to adjacent areas. Movement of equipment to and from construction
areas could crush running buffalo clover plants, or could result in
enhancement of plant growth depending on the extent, duration, type of
disturbance, and how wet the road surface is at the time. Activities
associated with decommissioning road will vary along the length of the
road and are developed based on site-specific conditions. Activities
within areas containing running buffalo clover could be avoided or
limited as needed. In addition, because road related activities
generally have a limited duration, in most cases impacts would be
short-term. Pre-project surveys would allow areas of running buffalo
clover habitat to be identified and considered during project planning.
Implementation of the measures included in the FPR, as listed above,
will provide the mechansim to ensure that measures to protect and/or
enhance running buffalo clover populations are incorporated during
site-specific planning. Then, prior to initiating project activities,
running buffalo clover locations will be flagged so that construction
and maintenance crews are aware of running buffalo clover locations (TE
76).

Private landowners may seek access to their properties through roads on
MNF lands. Occasional or limited access associated with a landowner
driving to their property would generally not be expected to
significantly affect running buffalo clover populations. However, if the
landowner conducts maintenance activities on the road (grading, gravel,
snowplowing, widening, installing drainage control structures) or if
heavy construction equipment will be using the road, running buffalo
clover populations could be reduced or eliminated. During private
landowner access issues, the MNF will work cooperatively with the
landowner and the Service to minimize impacts to running buffalo clover.
They will also inform the landowner of the presence of endangered
species and the recommended actions to avoid impacts, and where
possible, will add conditions to Special Use Permits or develop written
management agreements with the landowner in order to protect the species
(TE 79). Special use permits occurring within occupied running buffalo
clover habitat may be authorized only if they are compatible with
population maintenance or recovery (TE 70). If necessary, the MNF will
also implement remedial avoidance measures, such as constructing
alternative access areas that will avoid impacts to running buffalo
clover, creating patches of potentially suitable habitat in adjacent
areas, and/or relocating plants or seeds (TE 79).

*Timber Harvest*

Due to the large scale of timber harvest activities, and the fact that
running buffalo clover tends to occur on old forest roads and skid
trails that could be used to access proposed timber areas, these types
of projects have a high chance of affecting running buffalo clover. The
range of potential impacts, as well as potential avoidance and
minimization measures, associated with using roads that support running
buffalo clover to access timber harvest areas are similar to those
discussed under road related activities. The effects associated with
timber harvesting itself, will vary depending on the type of harvesting
proposed and the extent and location of the running buffalo clover
population. Because running buffalo clover needs filtered sunlight,
creating occasional openings in the overstory may benefit the species.
Research on the Fernow Experimental Forest in Parsons, West Virginia,
demonstrated that disturbances associated with timber harvest
operations, such as cutting trees and using skid roads that contained
running buffalo clover, caused near-term declines followed by long-term
population increases (Madarish and Schuler 2002; Schuler, personal
communication). However, on the Fernow Experimental Forest skid roads
are not surfaced, or seeded following the activities. These roads are
only used about once per decade for one to several weeks. Disturbance
rates and conditions for projects conducted on the MNF may or may not be
similar. Based on the Fernow data, running buffalo clover populations
need a few years to successfully rebound from the more extensive
disturbances. If roads constructed for timbering activities remain open
post-construction, additional disturbances from recreational traffic may
restrict the ability of running buffalo clover to reestablish
populations in these areas. In addition, large scale clearing of the
overstory may alter microhabitat conditions on the ground so that the
area becomes less suitable to support running buffalo clover. It may
also stimulate increased understory and subcanopy growth which would in
turn restrict the growth of running buffalo clover. Leaving slash or
piling slash in running buffalo clover habitat would most likely
restrict plant growth and reduce populations. As a result of these
considerations, timber harvesting activities could have a detrimental
effect to running buffalo clover populations. For example, running
buffalo clover populations near Lower John's Run have declined after
timbering activities were conducted within the site during 1998 (WVDNR
2005). Also, timbering activities near running buffalo clover
populations at Upper Rock Camp Run were conducted by the MNF in 1994.
Populations at that site have fluctuated from 360 rooted crowns in 1996
to no rooted crowns being documented in 2005. When the MNF plans
timbering activities in areas of potential running buffalo clover
habitat, conservations measures as described for road related activities
should be implemented. The FPR includes measures to avoid and minimize
the potential for these impacts including stating that: piling slash
around running buffalo clover populations should be avoided (TE 80);
where possible, created or disturbed roads supporting running buffalo
clover should be closed to additional traffic after the project is
completed (TE 81); and that seeding/mulching plans should be coordinated
to restrict competition with running buffalo clover (TE 81). The use of

potentially invasive species, particularly non-native invasive species
known to compete with running buffalo clover such as European white
clover and red clover will also be avoided (TE 81).

*Mineral Operations*

As noted in the Project Description section, natural gas development is
expected to be the most common type of mineral operation on the MNF.
Development would include construction of roads and well sites, and
clearing/ditching areas for pipelines. The range of potential impacts as
well as potential avoidance and minimization measures associated with
mineral activities are similar to those described under road related
activities. Constructing new roads, well sites, and ditching for
pipelines in running buffalo clover habitat would potentially eliminate
populations within the affected area and should generally be avoided (TE
71).

The MNF has limited control over development of private mineral rights
within MNF boundaries. In these types of cases, it may be possible to
restrict or modify proposed activities as a result of pro-active
coordination and outreach, however the MNF does not have the legal
ability to strictly prohibit these activities. The strategy for
addressing development of private mineral rights should be similar to
that for private landowner access described under road related
activities above (TE 79).

*Wildlife Habitat Management*

As detailed in the Project Description section, there are a number of
types of activities that fall under the category of wildlife habitat
management, including creating wildlife openings, spruce restoration,
and Indiana bat habitat enhancement. As noted in the BA, most wildlife
openings are less than 10 acres in size, therefore disturbance
associated with constructing and maintaining these features would likely
be limited in scale. Activities involved in creating these clearings,
such as ripping the soil to reduce compaction, mowing, and limited
clearing have the potential to benefit the species, if these activities
are planned with the awareness that the species is there. There are also
opportunities to enhance running buffalo clover habitat by applying
techniques similar to those used for more traditional wildlife habitat
management. Consistent with the disturbance dependant nature of running
buffalo clover, these activities may have short-term negative effects.
Over the long-term, implementing beneficial management measures has the
potential to substantially increase running buffalo populations on the
MNF. The FPR provides for this by stating "If monitoring shows a
declining population trend or increased threats at an occurrence, (the
MNF will) implement habitat management measures such as creating
selective canopy openings, initiating controlled levels of disturbance,
controlling invasive species, or creating patches of potentially
suitable habitat in adjacent areas" (TE 73). The MNF will also
coordinate these measures with the Service and WVDNR prior to
implementation, and include pre and post implementation site
evaluations. As stated under timber harvest, the use of potentially
invasive species, particularly non-native invasive species known to
compete with running buffalo clover such as European white clover and
red clover, will be avoided (TE 81).

Since running buffalo clover habitat tends not to occur in high
elevation spruce forests, spruce restoration would generally not affect
running buffalo clover unless access roads needed to implement the
activity crossed running buffalo clover habitat. This is addressed under
the road related activities discussion. Effects associated with Indiana
bat habitat enhancements are consistent with those discussed under the
timber harvest section.

*Prescribed Fire*

Implementation of prescribed fire and creation of fire breaks may create
more suitable habitat for running buffalo clover throughout the MNF by
reducing understory growth and creating the filtered sunlight conditions
that running buffalo clover appears to need. Implementation of these
activities in areas adjacent to running buffalo clover populations may
allow populations to expand. However, implementation of these activities
in areas known to support running buffalo clover could eliminate
populations. The Recovery Plan does not recommend burning as an
effective management strategy. Because much of the plant structure is
above ground, fire would most likely kill plants growing on the site.
Creating fire breaks in running buffalo clover habitat would dig up the
substrate supporting the species, leaving potentially unsuitable
substrate materials behind. In addition, topsoil containing the plant
material and seed source could be submerged in piles that would restrict
future plant growth and recolonization of the site. These potential for
these adverse effects has been minimized by the inclusion of a standard
in the FPR specifying that prescribed burns and the construction of fire
breaks should not occur in occupied habitat, and that if prescribed fire
must be used in running buffalo clover habitat, populations should be
protected by wetting or removing fuel from the immediate area (TE 72).

*Range Activities*

Currently, there are no known populations of running buffalo clover
within existing range allotments. Because development of new range
allotments is expected to be limited, implementation of range activities
in accordance with the FPR would not affect running buffalo clover.
Surveys for running buffalo clover should be conducted prior to
developing any new allotments. If populations are found, allowing
limited grazing may benefit the populations. However, high levels of
grazing may reduce populations. Running buffalo clover does poorly in
full sunlight, so grazing allotments that are "savannah-like" but not
open might be acceptable to the species, while open grazing areas would
not be appropriate habitat. In order to address this issue the FPR has
incorporated a measure so that if running buffalo clover populations are
found within active grazing allotments, populations will be monitored to
determine any long-term effects from grazing. If populations are being
adversely affected by grazing activities, the allotment management plan
will be adjusted appropriately to reduce or eliminate effects (TE 82).

*Recreation Activities*

In most cases, implementation of Recreation Activities projects in
accordance with the FPR is not likely to adversely affect running
buffalo clover. Facility and trail maintenance would generally not alter
existing habitat. Maintenance mowing could be timed to benefit the
species by reducing competition from other plants will avoiding periods
of flowering and seed set (See Ohio Field Office Management
Recommendations for running buffalo clover). Surveys would allow new
trail or facility construction to avoid running buffalo clover habitat.
However, recreational truck or all-terrain-vehicle use on forest roads
and trails could adversely affect running buffalo clover if roads were
heavily or inappropriately used. The FPR allows for all-terrain-vehicle
use on designated trails within specific Management Prescriptions.
Currently the MNF does not have any designated routes open to ATV use,
although unauthorized use occurs in scattered locations. Monitoring by
the WVDNR has noted at least one running buffalo clover location on the
MNF where heavy recreational truck or unauthorized ATV use may be having
negative effects. Due to the limited amount of "authorized" areas for
ATV use in and around the MNF, any trail or road opened for ATV use
would be expected to receive heavy use to a degree that would be
incompatible with maintaining running buffalo clover populations. Prior
to changing access or use on roads or trails known to support running
buffalo clover, the MNF will estimate potential frequency, timing, and
severity of use and develop appropriate protection measures in
cooperation with USFWS and WVDNR (TE 74). Gating or restricting access
to open roads or trails will be implemented when monitoring of a running
buffalo clover population shows signs of excessive disturbance (TE 83),
and the MNF will also promptly investigate and address any reports of
excessive or unauthorized disturbance to running buffalo clover (TE 84).

*Other Projects*

Implementation of projects related to Watershed and Aquatic Restoration,
Gypsy Moth Control, Firewood Cutting, and Salvage Activities in
accordance with the proposed plan are not likely to adversely affect
running buffalo clover. These types of activities are either not likely
to occur in habitats that support running buffalo clover, or the
activities conducted within running buffalo clover habitat would be so
limited that they would not be expected to result in any adverse
effects. Additional supporting rationale for these determinations is
provided in the BA and is incorporated here by reference.

*Summary*

Implementation of timber harvests, mineral operations, recreational
activities, prescribed fire, and road related activities under the FPR
has the potential to adversely affect running buffalo clover. While, in
some cases projects have the potential to adversely affect the species,
other projects have the potential to benefit the species if they are
planned appropriately. Because the species is disturbance dependant, in
some cases the failure to implement actions may result in an adverse
effect. The FPR has incorporated measures to minimize the potential for
long-term adverse effects, as well as to provide for opportunities to
implement projects that may have long-term beneficial effects. The
Service concludes that all populations on the MNF will to be maintained
if the MNF conducts the following measures as proposed:

1.  Implement the "Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species" section
    of the Forest Plan Revision as proposed in the attached Appendix A;

2.  Continue to conduct or support annual monitoring of known
    populations, following guidelines outlined in the recovery plan; and

3.  Conduct surveys to determine whether the species is present and
    delineate the extent of the population, prior to implementing
    projects in potential running buffalo clover habitat,

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc140045649 .anchor}CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

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

Based on past trends, future non-federal actions within the action area
are anticipated in the form of private oil and gas development, road
construction and maintenance, residential and commercial development,
and timber harvest. It is unknown how many acres of suitable habitat for
running buffalo clover could be altered or lost by these future actions.
As noted in the baseline section, there are three known populations of
running buffalo clover that are within the proclamation boundary but are
currently on private land. The actions listed above could affect these
populations and would have varying degrees of effects on running buffalo
clover from no effect to adverse effects. Permanent conversion of
forested habitat to unsuitable habitat through residential or commercial
development would have the greatest potential impacts to running buffalo
clover. Other activities would have the same general effects as MNF
actions, providing they are implemented with similar methods. Overall,
we anticipate that suitable habitat for running buffalo clover within
the action area will increase (due to MNF habitat management) or remain
at similar levels to what currently exists over the next 10 years.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045650 .anchor}CONCLUSION

The FPR has incorporated broad goals to maintain and enhance threatened
and endangered species populations, and to provide for persistence of
populations when planning forest activities to be implemented under the
FPR. Measures to reduce and control the spread of non-native invasive
species that threaten running buffalo clover have also been provided.
These broad goals provide the basis for an overall beneficial effect to
running buffalo clover as a result of MNF management. At the
project-specific level, there is the potential to either enhance or
reduce populations of running buffalo clover as a result of projects
potentially implemented under the FPR. The FPR has incorporated a
substantial number of measures that will guide the planning and
implementation of site-specific actions on the MNF, so that the
potential for adverse impacts has been minimized. These measures,
combined with pre-project surveys and continued population monitoring
should ensure that all populations within the MNF can be maintained.

After reviewing the current status of running buffalo clover, the
environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed
FPR and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion
that the FPR, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of running buffalo clover. No critical habitat has been
designated for this species; therefore, none will be affected.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045651 .anchor}INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act generally do not apply to listed
plant species. However, limited protection of listed plants is provided
to the extent that the ESA prohibits the removal and reduction to
possession of Federally listed endangered plants or the malicious damage
of such plants on areas under Federal jurisdiction, or the destruction
of endangered plants on non-Federal areas in violation of State law or
regulation or in the course of any violation of a State criminal
trespass law.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045652 .anchor}**INDIANA BAT**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045653 .anchor}STATUS OF THE SPECIES

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045654 .anchor}**General Biology and Life
History of the Species**

The Indiana bat is a migratory species ranging throughout the eastern
U.S., from Oklahoma, Iowa, and Wisconsin, east to Vermont and south to
northwestern Florida (Hall 1962, Romme et al. 1995). The Indiana bat's
annual life cycle consists of hibernation, spring migration, birthing
(parturition), raising of young by females (lactation), fall migration,
mating (swarming), and hibernation. Each of these critical stages in
this complex cycle is integral to species survival and recovery. The
following discussion provides a general overview of the life cycle of
the Indiana bat, and the "Life Stages" section provides additional
information on this subject. An outline of the Indiana bats annual life
cycle is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Indiana bat annual life cycle.

![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.497916666666667in"
height="2.920138888888889in"}

*Fall swarming and mating*

Indiana bats return to their hibernacula in preparation for mating and
hibernation as early as late July (Brack, 1983), increasing in numbers
through August and peaking in September and early October (Cope and
Humphrey, 1977; Hawkins and Brack, 2004; Rodrigue, 2004; Hawkins et al.,
2005). Males may remain active through mid-October or later. Upon
arrival at a hibernaculum, Indiana bats \"swarm,\" a behavior in which
\"large numbers of bats fly in and out of cave entrances from dusk to
dawn, while relatively few roost in the caves during the day\" (Cope and
Humphrey, 1977). Swarming continues for several weeks during which
mating occurs, generally in the latter part of the period. Adult females
store sperm from autumn copulations throughout winter and fertilization
is delayed until soon after spring emergence from hibernation (Guthrie,
1933).

Male Indiana bats may make several stops at multiple caves during the
fall swarming period and remain active over a longer period of time at
cave entrances than do females. Males are most likely to mate with the
females as the latter arrive (LaVal and LaVal 1980). Nightly activity
may be correlated with temperature and precipitation, as bats and their
prey become constrained by falling temperatures, rain events and earlier
sunset as autumn progresses (V. Brack, Environmental Solutions and
Innovations, Inc., personal communication 2005). Swarming activity in
West Virginia has been documented in early October with little activity
after the middle of October and no activity after November 15 (Rodrigue,
2004).

Indiana bats must store sufficient fat to support metabolic processes
until spring. Fat supplies for male Indiana bats are replenished as they
forage in the vicinity of the hibernaculum during the fall swarming
period (Brack, personal communication 2005). Female Indiana bats
generally arrive in condition ready to hibernate. They spend little time
foraging near the hibernaculum since they enter hibernation soon after
mating (R. Clawson, Missouri Department of Conservation, personal
communication 2005). Occasionally, bats will leave the vicinity of the
hibernaculum or re-enter the hibernaculum on one or more occasions
(Gumbert, 2001). A possible explanation for male bat movements away from
the fall swarming area may be the need for these males to find prime
foraging habitat to replenish their energy reserves. Conversely, these
males could be traveling to other nearby hibernacula to mate (Brack,
personal communication 2005).

During autumn, when Indiana bats swarm and mate at hibernacula, male
bats roost in trees nearby during the day and fly to the cave or mine at
night. In Kentucky, Kiser and Elliott (1996) found male Indiana bats
roosting primarily in dead trees on upper slopes and ridgetops, within
1.5 mi of their hibernaculum. In West Virginia, some male Indiana bats
roosted within 3.5 mi of their cave, in trees near ridgetops, and often
switched roost trees from day to day (C. Stihler, West Virginia Division
of Natural Resources, pers. observ., October, 1996). One Indiana bat in
Michigan roosted 1.4 mi away from the hibernaculum during fall swarming,
and another chose trees at a distance of 2.1 mi (Kurta, 2000). Gumbert
(2001) found an average of 1.2 mi between roost trees and the
hibernaculum for 20 radio-tagged Indiana bats. Brack (personal
communication, 2005) found a range of 0.18 to 0.87 mi between roost
trees and a hibernaculum in Virginia, although he did not follow bats if
they left the "project area" and the range may actually be greater.

*Hibernation*

Indiana bats tend to hibernate in the same cave or mine at which they
swarm (LaVal et al., 1976; C. Stihler, pers. observation, October,
1996), although swarming has been observed at hibernacula other than
those in which the bats hibernated (Cope and Humphrey, 1977). It is
generally accepted that Indiana bats, especially females, are
philopatric, that is, they return annually to the same hibernaculum
(LaVal and LaVal, 1980). Most bats of both sexes enter hibernation by
the end of November (mid-October in northern areas---Kurta et al.,
1997). Indiana bats hibernate in large, dense clusters, ranging from 300
bats per square foot to 484 bats per square foot (Clawson et al., 1980;
Hicks and Novak, 2002).

Caves must posses certain characteristics to be suitable as Indiana bat
hibernacula. Raesly and Gates (1986) compared microhabitat and
microclimate variables between occupied and unoccupied caves and mines.
They found that Indiana bat hibernacula tended to have larger openings,
more cave passage length, and higher ceilings compared to unoccupied
sites. In addition, occupied hibernacula have noticeable airflow
(Henshaw 1965). Once Indiana bats enter hibernation, they require
specific roost sites in caves or mines that reach appropriate
temperatures (Tuttle and Taylor 1994). Indiana bats choose roosts with a
low risk of freezing. Stable low temperatures allow the bats to maintain
a low metabolic rate and conserve fat reserves until they are ready to
emerge in spring; thus, Indiana bats select roosts within hibernacula
that best meet their needs for cool temperatures. Indiana bat
hibernacula usually host other species of bats. Indiana bats are
occasionally observed clustered with or adjacent to other species,
including gray bats (*M. grisecens*), Virginia big-eared bats (*Plecotus
townsendii vriginianus*), little brown bats and northern long-eared
Myotis (Myers 1964, LaVal and LaVal 1980, Kurta and Teramino 1994).

*Spring Emergence and Migration*

Female Indiana bats emerge first from hibernation in late March or early
April, followed by the males (Hall, 1962). The timing of annual
emergence may vary across their range, depending on latitude and annual
weather conditions; however, most Indiana bats have left their
hibernacula by late April (Hall, 1962). Exit counts from several
hibernacula in southern Pennsylvania and Big Springs Cave in Tucker
County, West Virginia, suggest that peak emergence from hibernation is
mid-April for these two areas (Butchkoski and Hassinger, 2002; Rodrigue,
2004). Spring surveys of the interior of Barton Hill Mine in New York
documented substantial numbers of Indiana bats through April and into
mid-May, however, by the end of May only one-tenth of the population
remained (Hicks, in litt., 2005).

In spring when fat reserves and food supplies are low, migration is
probably hazardous (Humphrey et al., 1977; Tuttle and Stevenson, 1977,
Britzke et al., in press). Consequently, mortality may be high in early
spring, following emergence. Perhaps this is one reason why many males
do not migrate far from the hibernacula (Gardner and Cook, 2002;
Whitaker and Brack, 2002). Some males remain within the vicinity of
their hibernacula, where they roost and forage in open forests and
agricultural lands and other openings (Brack, personal communication
2005). Movements of 2.5--10 mi (4--16 km) by male Indiana bats were
reported in Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia (Hobson and Holland, 1995;
Rommé et al., 2002). However, other males leave the area entirely upon
emergence in spring and have been captured throughout various summer
habitats.

Indiana bat females can migrate hundreds of miles from their
hibernacula. Kurta and Murray (2002) documented female Indiana bats
migrating over 200 miles from their hibernacula to their maternity area
and Gardner and Cook (2002) documented migratory distances in excess of
300 miles for females traveling from hibernacula to maternity areas.
Conversely, recent radio-telemetry studies of spring emerging Indiana
bats (primarily females) from three New York hibernacula found that
these bats migrated less than 40 miles to their summer habitat (Hicks,
unpublished data; S. von Oettingen, USFWS, unpublished data), indicating
that migratory distance may not be consistent across the species range.

Female Indiana bats may leave immediately for summer habitat or linger
for a few days near the hibernaculum. Once enroute to their summer
destination, females have been documented to move quickly across the
landscape. One female released in southeastern New York was documented
to move 35 miles in approximately 85 minutes (Sanders et al., 2001).
Radio-telemetry studies in New York documented females flying between 10
to 30 miles after release from their hibernaculum, arriving at their
maternity sites within one night (Sanders et al., 2001; Hicks, 2004) and
in some cases reaching their summer destination within hours of the
release (C. Herzog, New York Department of Environmental Conservation,
personal communication, 2005). One radio-tagged bat released from Canoe
Creek Mine in Pennsylvania traveled approximately 60 miles in one
evening (C. Butchkoski, Pennsylvania Game Commission, per. comm., May,
2005).

Little information is available to determine habitat use and needs for
Indiana bats during migration, although recent spring emergence
telemetry studies in New York and Pennsylvania are beginning to document
migratory routes in the Northeast (Butchkoski personal communication,
2005; J. Chenger, Bat Conservation and Management, personal
communication, April, 2005; Hicks, personal communication, 2005). In the
core of their range, most pregnant females migrate north for the summer
(Gardner and Cook, 2002). In the northeastern part of their range,
Indiana bats migrate in all directions to summer habitat. In Watertown,
New York, Indiana bats migrated short distances (less than 10.6 mi or 17
km) north, west and south of their hibernaculum (M. Clark, New York
Dept. of Environmental Conservation, personal communication, 2005). In
the Lake Champlain Valley of New York and Vermont, female Indiana bats
migrated east and southeast of their hibernaculum (Hicks, 2004).

*Summer Life History and Behavior*

Upon arriving at their summer habitat, female Indiana bats form colonies
with primary and alternate roosts trees, give birth to young, raise pups
until they fly and are independent, forage intensively to restore
depleted fat reserves and depart in late summer and fall to migrate to
their hibernacula to mate and eventually hibernate. Less is known about
the male migration pattern; males may summer near the hibernacula
(Whitaker and Brack, 2002) or disperse throughout the range. Males roost
individually or in small numbers in the same types of trees and in the
same areas as females. Non-reproductive females may also roost
individually or in small numbers. Far less is known about the summer
habits of males and non-reproductive females; therefore, the following
section is primarily focused on summer life history aspects of
reproductive females.

Reproductive females arrive at their summer habitats as early as
mid-April in Illinois, New York and Vermont (Gardner et al., 1991a;
Britzke, 2003; Hicks, 2004). During this early spring period, a number
of roosts, including small cavities, may be used temporarily. Humphrey
et al. (1977) reported that Indiana bats first appeared at their
maternity roost sites in early May in Indiana, with substantial numbers
arriving in mid-May. Indiana bats from hibernacula in southern Indiana
and Kentucky enter southern Michigan as early as late April, although
most do not arrive until the middle or end of May (Kurta and Rice,
2002). Most Indiana bats from hibernacula in New York fly directly to
their summer range in Vermont and southeastern New York beginning
mid-April (Britzke, 2003; Hicks, 2003).

[Colony Formation]{.underline}

As the summer season progresses, female Indiana bats begin to congregate
and form colonies. A single Indiana bat maternity colony can vary
greatly in size and colony members may be dispersed among various roosts
at any given time (Kurta, in press). While most of the documented
maternity colonies contained 100 or fewer adult bats (Harvey, 2002), as
many as 384 bats have been reported emerging from one maternity roost
tree in Indiana (Lori Pruitt, USFWS, personal communication, 2004).
Recent counts at well-studied colonies (with at least three years of
data) in Indiana and Vermont resulted in maximum emergence counts of 104
and 270 adult females, respectively (Indianapolis Airport Authority
2003; K. Watrous, University of Vermont, unpublished data, 2005).
Whitaker and Brack (2002) indicated that average maternity colony size
in Indiana was approximately 80 adult bats. The mean maximum emergence
count after young became volant at 12 study areas was approximately 119
bats, indicating 60-70 adults in a primary roost at any given time
(Kurta, in press).

Barclay and Kurta (2004) suggested four potential explanations for the
establishment of maternity colonies in the summer: (1) roosts are
limited; (2) foraging efficiency -- members of a colony communicate
regarding good foraging areas; (3) anti-predator mechanism; and (4)
thermoregulation. Although there are probably many advantages to
colonial roosting, possibly the most important factor for Indiana bats
is thermoregulation (Humphrey and Cope, 1977; Kurta et al., 1996). This
theory is supported by the fact that pups and females in late pregnancy
are poor thermoregulators (Speakman and Thomas, 2003), and pre- and
postnatal growth is controlled by the rate of metabolism and body
temperature (Racey, 1982). Without clustering together, the strict
thermal conditions needed to support prenatal and postnatal growth would
not be available. Thus, colonial roosting is a life history strategy
adopted by Indiana bats (like many other temperate zone bats) to improve
their reproductive success (Barclay and Harder, 2003).

[Maternity Roosts]{.underline}

Indiana bat maternity roosts can be described as \"primary\" or
\"alternate\" based upon the proportion of bats in a colony consistently
occupying the roost site (Kurta et al., 1996, 2002; Callahan et al.,
1997). Maternity colonies typically use 10--20 trees each year, but only
one to three of these are primary roosts used by the majority of bats
for some or all of the summer (Callahan, 1993; Callahan et al., 1997).
Before the young are volant, the composition of a colony at a primary
roost is fluid, as individual bats leave and return (Barclay and Kurta,
personal communication, 2005). Kurta et al. (2002) observed that certain
maternity roost trees were occupied by a "quasi-stable number of Indiana
bats for days or weeks" at a time. During their observations of these
roost trees, individuals (based on radio-telemetry data) were found to
move consistently into and out of the trees.

Alternate roosts are used by individuals or a small number of bats and
may be used intermittently throughout the summer or used on only one or
a few days. Most roost trees (except live trees) eventually become
unusable by losing bark, falling over, or through competition with other
animal. Typically these events occur suddenly and without warning
(Gardner et al., 1991a; Kurta and Foster, 1995; Belwood, 2002). The use
of alternate roosts may be a way of discovering new primary roosts since
Indiana bats must maintain an awareness of suitable replacements in case
of an emergency (Kurta et al., 1996, 2002). Numerous studies documenting
roost trees used by individuals in a colony identified a range of
alternate roosts. For example, based on Callahan's (1993) primary roost
definition, Watrous (unpublished data, 2005) documented 12, nine, and 14
alternate roost trees for three different colonies in the Lake Champlain
Valley of Vermont and New York.

Kurta (in press) postulates that Indiana bats have a fission-fusion
society as demonstrated by frequent roost changing. Barclay and Kurta
(personal communication, 2005) further explain "that in this type of a
society, members frequently coalesce to form a group (fusion), but
composition of that group is in perpetual flux, with individuals
frequently departing to be solitary or to form smaller groups (fission)
for a variable time before returning to the main unit." It may be
plausible that some bats select individuals with whom to roost and avoid
roosting with others (Barclay and Kurta, personal communication, 2005).
Although many members of a colony may reside in one tree at any one
time, other members roost elsewhere as solitary individuals or in small
subgroups of fluctuating composition. Such a fission-fusion society has
been suggested for other species of forest bats, as well (Kerth and
König, 1999; O'Donnell, 2000; Kurta et al., 2002; Willis and Brigham,
2004).

On average, Indiana bats switch roosts every 2 to 3 days although the
reproductive condition of the female, the roost type and time of year
will affect switching behavior (Kurta et al. 2002; Kurta in press).
Lactating females may change roosts less often than pregnant or
post-lactating females. Bats roosting under exfoliating bark may change
more often than bats roosting in crevices (Kurta et al., 1996; Gumbert
et al., 2002; Carter, 2003; Kurta, in press). Roost switching occurs
less often in the spring, most likely due to colder night temperatures
that may induce extended torpor (Gumbert et al., 2002; Brizke et al., in
press).

[Roost Tree Selection]{.underline}

Tree species does not appear to be an important factor in roost site
selection. Tree structure, specifically the availability of exfoliating
bark with roost space underneath, is a critical characteristic for roost
trees. A majority of bat roosts have been located in dead or dying
trees, although some roost sites have been in living trees. Indiana bat
use of snags appears to be influenced by bark characteristics. The
ability of a tree species to produce exfoliating bark probably
influences Indiana bat use of that tree (Britzke et al. 2003, Callahan
et al. 1997).

Maternity colonies are rarely found in tree cavities, and most primary
maternity roosts have been located under exfoliating bark. However,
studies from Michigan and Missouri that have compared the amount of
exfoliating bark and Indiana bat use, and found snags with more
exfoliating bark may not be used more than snags with little exfoliating
bark (Kurta et al. 1996, Callahan et al. 1997). Indiana bats may pick
maternity roosts with high solar exposure to increase the roost
temperature, which may decrease the fetal development time and speed
juvenile growth (Callahan et al. 1997). However, because males are not
associated with maternity colonies and the need for high roosting
temperatures (Callahan et al. 1997), they may seek cooler roosts to
reduce their physiological expenditures. Callahan et al. (1997)
considered roosts to be either open (exposed to solar radiation) or
interior (\>50% canopy cover) and found that all primary roosts were in
open snags. Roost height may vary with canopy cover in order to maintain
a relatively constant level of solar exposure (Gardner et al. 1991b).

Most primary roosts are found in large, dead trees, generally ranging in
size from 12.2 to 29.9 inches dbh (3D/E 1995). In Vermont, maternity
roosts ranged from 19 inches to 36 inches dbh (Palm 2003, Britzke et
al*.* 2004). Alternate roost trees also tend to be large, mature trees,
but the range in size is somewhat wider than that of primary roosts (7.1
to 32.7 inches dbh) (3D/E 1995). The alternate roosts identified in the
action area range from 5.3 inches dbh to 10.5 inches dbh (Apogee 2003).
This is the smallest documented alternate roost tree utilized by a
reproductively active female Indiana bat.

[Reproduction]{.underline}

Females give birth to a single young in June or early July (Easterla and
Watkins, 1969, Humphrey et al., 1977) while in their maternity colonies.
As previously discussed, forming maternity colonies reduces
thermoregulatory costs, which, in turn increases the amount of energy
available for birthing and raising young (Barclay and Harder, 2003).
There are no documented occurrences in which a female Indiana bat has
successfully given birth and raised a pup alone without the communal
benefits offered by a maternity colony. Studies by Belwood (2002) show
asynchronous births extending over a period of 2 weeks within one
colony. This results in great variation in size of juveniles (newborn to
almost adult size young) in the same colony.

In Indiana, lactating females have been recorded from June 10 to July 29
(Whitaker and Brack, 2002). Young Indiana bats are capable of flight
(volant) within 3-5 weeks of birth (Mumford and Cope, 1958; Easterla and
Watkins, 1969; Cope et al., 1974; Humphrey et al., 1977; Clark et al.,
1987; Gardner et al., 1991a; Kurta and Rice, 2002; Whitaker and Brack,
2002). Young born in early June may be flying as early as the first week
of July (Clark et al., 1987), others from mid- to late July. Once young
Indiana bats are volant, the maternity colony begins to disperse. The
use of primary maternity roosts diminishes, although the bats may stay
in the maternity roost area prior to migrating back to their respective
hibernacula. Bats become less gregarious and the colony utilizes more
alternate roosts, possibly because there is no longer the need for the
adult females to cluster for thermoregulation and to nurture their young
(Indianapolis Airport Authority, 2003 and 2004).

Although the preceding discussion provides a seasonal framework for
Indiana bat reproduction, the timing of reproductive events is somewhat
weather-dependent (Grindal et al., 1992; Lewis, 1993; Racey and
Entwistle, 2003). Adverse weather, such as cold spells, increases
energetic costs for thermoregulation and decreases availability of
insect prey and hence, energy gain. Bats respond to a negative energy
balance by entering torpor; the resulting low body temperature slows
biochemical reactions associated with fetal and juvenile growth and milk
production and may cause annual variation when young are born and fly.

[Site Fidelity]{.underline}

Recent research indicates that Indiana bats exhibit site fidelity to
their traditional summer maternity and foraging areas. A number of
studies documented female Indiana bats annually returning to the same
general area to establish maternity colonies (Humphrey et al., 1977;
Gardner et al., 1991a, 1991b; Gardner et al., 1996; Callahan et al.,
1997; Butchkoski and Hassinger, 2002; Kurta and Murray, 2002;
Indianapolis Airport Authority, 2003, 2004). Gumbert et al. (2002)
differentiated between roost tree and roost area fidelity in Indiana
bats, and found that bats are faithful to both areas and particular
trees within those areas. Roost trees, although ephemeral in nature, may
be reoccupied by a colony for a number of years until the trees are no
longer available or suitable. Roost tree reoccupation of between two to
six years has been documented in a number of studies (Gardner et al.,
1991b; Gumbert et al., 2002; Watrous, unpublished data, 2005; Barclay
and Kurta, in press).

Individual Indiana bats appear to be faithful to their foraging areas
between years. Gardner et al. (1991a; 1991b) observed that females
returned to the same foraging areas between years, irrespective of
whether they were captured as juveniles and tracked as adults, or if
they were captured as adults and then followed. A long-term study of
Indiana bats at the Indianapolis Airport followed more than 40 bats
between 1997 and 2004; all these bats foraged in the same general areas,
although home ranges were distinct (Sparks et al., in press.). Bats were
found to move through their foraging habitat so predictably that
researchers with receivers were able to move into an area prior to the
bat arriving (Sparks et al., in press). On one occasion data was
collected for the same bat in two different years. Roosting and foraging
habitat were remarkably consistent between years including occasional
nocturnal visits to a day roost on the opposite end of the colony's
foraging range, despite the fact that the bat was pregnant when tracked
in 2003 and lactating in 2004 (Sparks et al., in press). In Michigan,
Kurta and Murray (2002) recaptured 41 percent of females when mist
netting at the same area in subsequent years. Further studies of this
colony reported a wooded fenceline as a commuting corridor for at least
9 years (Winhold et al., 2005; Kurta, in press).

[Food Habits]{.underline}

The Indiana bat feeds on flying insects, with only a very small amount
of spiders being included in the diet. Dietary studies indicate that
four orders of insects contribute most to the diet---Coleoptera,
Diptera, Lepidoptera, and Trichoptera (Belwood, 1979; Brack, 1983; Brack
and LaVal, 1985, Lee, 1993; Kiser and Elliot, 1996; Kurta and Whitaker,
1998; Murray and Kurta, 2002a). Various reports, however, differ
considerably in which of these orders are most important.
Terrestrial-based prey (moths and beetles) were more common in southern
studies, whereas aquatic-based insects (flies and caddisflies) dominated
in the north. Hymenopterans (winged ants) also are abundant in the diet
of Indiana bats, for brief, unpredictable periods corresponding with the
sudden occurrence of mating swarms. Although not as dramatic, seasonal
occurrence of Asiatic oak weevils in the diet indicates use of an
abundant resource available only for a limited part of the season. At
individual colonies, dietary differences exist between years, within
years by week, between pregnancy and lactation, and within nights
(Murray and Kurta, 2002a). Consistent use of moths, flies, beetles, and
caddisflies throughout the year at various colonies suggests that
Indiana bats are selective predators to a certain degree, but
incorporation of ants and weevils into the diet also indicates that
these bats can be somewhat opportunistic. Hence, Murray and Kurta
(2002a) suggest that the Indiana bat may best be described as a
"selective opportunist," as are a number of other Myotis species (Fenton
and Morris, 1976).

[Foraging Behavior]{.underline}

Indiana bats begin emerging from a roost to forage shortly after sunset,
although there is considerable variation in timing within a colony that
is not related to light level, ambient temperature, or number of bats
inside (Gardner et al., 1991a; Viele et al., 2002). Observations of
light-tagged animals and bats marked with reflective bands indicate that
Indiana bats typically forage in closed to semi-open forested habitats
and forest edges (Humphrey et al., 1977; LaVal et al., 1977; Brack,
1983). Radiotracking studies also indicate that foraging usually occurs
in various types of forest, including flood plain, riparian, lowland,
and upland forest (Garner and Gardner, 1992; Murray, 1999; Butchkoski
and Hassinger, 2002; Murray and Kurta, 2002b; Watrous, unpublished data,
2005). Indiana bats hunt primarily around, not within, the canopy of
trees, but they come down to subcanopy and shrub layers on occasion. In
riparian areas, Indiana bats primarily forage around and near riparian
and flood plain trees, solitary trees and the forest edge on the flood
plain (Belwood, 1979; Cope et al., 1974; Humphrey et al., 1977; Clark et
al., 1987). Murray (1999; Murray and Kurta, 2002b) identified 13
foraging areas used by pregnant and lactating Indiana bats in southern
Michigan: 5 were used only by pregnant bats; 4 used only by lactating
bats; and 4 used by both pregnant and lactating bats. Individual females
visited 1 to 4 foraging areas each night. When 2 or 3 bats were
radio-tracked simultaneously, they seldom used the same foraging area
and were found in different areas over three miles apart.

Foraging or commuting over open fields is uncommon (Brack, 1983; Menzel
et al., 2001). With respect to commuting, it is not known how wide a gap
must be before bats hesitate to cross it. Indiana bats consistently flew
over a 30-ft-wide road in Pennsylvania (Butchkoski and Hassinger, 2002)
and occasionally flew across a four-lane interstate in Indiana (D.
Sparks, Indiana State University, personal communication, March, 2005),
but they did not fly across fields that stretched for more than 0.6 mi
in Michigan (Murray and Kurta, 2002b). Rather, Murray (1999; Murray and
Kurta, 2002b) demonstrated that Indiana bats favored wooded corridors
when traveling between roosts and foraging areas, often adding many
kilometers to their nightly commute. These corridors often were as
simple as a single line of trees along a fencerow separating
agricultural fields.

[Home range]{.underline}

Indiana bats are known to occupy distinct home ranges, particularly in
the summer (Garner and Gardner, 1992). Home range size may vary between
the summer, spring and fall habitats, the sexes and the reproductive
status of the females. Kiser and Elliot (1996) identified minimum
foraging areas for 15 Indiana bats at a hibernaculum in Kentucky. Their
estimates ranged from approximately 28 hectares to 267 hectares
(excluding the cave in the estimate), with a mean of 156 ± 101 hectares.
Rommé et al. (2002) tracked 6 Indiana bats near hibernacula in Missouri
and calculated a mean home range of 667 ± 994 hectares for spring and
fall and 1,584 ± 1,424 hectares for fall home range. More recently,
Menzel et al. (2005) determined the mean summer home range size of 11
Indiana bats to be 144.7 hectares. Watrous (unpublished data, 2005) has
tentatively calculated approximately 287 hectares as a mean summer home
range for Indiana bats in Vermont.

In Canoe Creek, Pennsylvania, an area with significant changes in
elevation, reported distances between roost and foraging areas ranged
between 1.5 to 2.8 miles with an average distance of 2.1 miles
(Butchkoski and Hassinger, 2002). In West Virginia, female Indiana bats
have been documented traveling a maximum distances of 2.5 miles from
capture sites and roost trees at one location in Boone County
(Compliance Monitoring Inc. 2006). At another West Virginia maternity
colony, distances of up to 1.7 miles between roost areas and foraging
ranges were documented (Apogee 2006). Throughout the Indiana bat's
range, documented linear distances between roosts and foraging areas for
females have ranged from 0.3 to 5.2 miles, although most distances were
less than half the maximum distance (Murray and Kurta, 2004; Sparks et
al., in press). Murray and Kurta (2004) and Sparks et al. (in press)
speculate that the variations in distances to forage areas were due to
differences in habitat type, inter-specific competition, and landscape
terrain.

[Fall migration]{.underline}

Maternity colonies begin disbanding during the first 2 weeks in August,
although large colonies in southern areas may contain a steadily
declining number of bats into mid-September (Humphrey et al., 1977;
Kurta et al., 1993). Even in northern areas, such as Michigan, a few
Indiana bats may remain into late September and early October; these
late migrants may be young-of-the-year (Kurta and Rice, 2002). Members
of a maternity colony do not necessarily hibernate in the same cave, and
may migrate to caves that are over 190 miles apart (Kurta and Murray,
2002).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045655 .anchor}**Review of Endangered Species
Information**

The Indiana bat was listed as endangered by the Service on March 11,
1967 (32 Federal Register 4001). Listing was warranted based primarily
on large-scale habitat loss and degradation, especially at winter
hibernation sites, and significant population declines that continue
today. During winter, Indiana bats are restricted to suitable
hibernacula, mainly caves, throughout the karst regions of the
east-central U.S. As a result, conducting censuses of hibernating bats
is the most reliable method of tracking population/distribution trends
range-wide, and provides a good representation of the overall population
status and distribution. More than 85% of the range wide population
occupies nine Priority One hibernacula (hibernation sites with a
recorded population greater than 30,000) in Indiana, Kentucky, and
Missouri. Priority Two hibernacula (hibernation sites with a recorded
population greater than 500 but less than 30,000) are known from the
aforementioned states, in addition to Arkansas, Illinois, New York,
Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Hellhole in Pendleton
County, West Virginia, is a Priority Two cave with a winter (2004)
population of approximately 11,890 bats. Hellhole is officially
designated Critical Habitat by the Service. Priority Three hibernacula
(less than 500) are known from 17 states. The limestone region of West
Virginia in Preston, Tucker, Randolph, Pendleton, Pocahontas,
Greenbrier, Monroe and Mercer Counties contains approximately 28
hibernacula.

*Continued Threats*

Because disturbance to hibernacula is a major threat to the Indiana bat,
protection of hibernacula is a management priority. Arousal of the bats
following disturbance (e.g., spelunkers, scientists, predators) can be
detrimental (Hall 1962, Myers 1964, LaVal et al. 1976, Humphrey 1978,
LaVal and LaVal 1980). Therefore, entry into Indiana bat hibernacula
should be prohibited from September through mid-May (Humphrey 1978,
LaVal and LaVal 1980, Service 1999). Improperly designed cave gates that
alter cave airflow patterns (particularly trapping warm air) may reduce,
and in some instances destroy, hibernacula suitability (Humphrey 1978,
Richter et al. 1993, Tuttle and Kennedy 1999). In addition to population
threats from human disturbance, hibernating Indiana bats are also
vulnerable to natural disturbances, and destruction of any hibernacula
can have a tremendous impact on the population because of the limited
number of hibernacula (Hall 1962). While many hibernacula have been
protected, disturbance to hibernacula continues. For example, the
largest hibernacula in Indiana (50,941 Indiana bats in 2003) is not
gated, and based on data from electronic monitors in the cave,
unauthorized visits to this cave occur during critical life stage
periods. Also, at the only large hibernacula in Ohio (9,436 Indiana bats
in 2004), there are still tours, as well as other commercial activities,
taking place in the cave during the hibernation period.

Land use practices have also been identified as a suspected cause in the
decline of the Indiana bat, particularly because habitat in the bats'
maternity range has changed dramatically from pre-settlement conditions.
Indiana bats exhibit site fidelity to their traditional summer maternity
and foraging areas, and are known to return to the same general area to
establish maternity colonies from year-to-year (Humphrey et al. 1977;
Gardner et al. 1991a, b; Callahan et al. 1997; Indianapolis Airport
Authority 2003, 2004; Kurta and Murray 2002; Butchkoski and Hassinger
2002; Gardner et al. 1991a, Gardner et al. 1996). Roosting/foraging area
fidelity may serve to increase the probability of successful
reproduction, and to maintain social interactions between members of the
population. Bats using familiar foraging and roosting areas may have
decreased susceptibility to predators, increased foraging efficiency,
and an improved ability to switch roosts if impacts occur to the
original roost (Gumbert et al. 2002). In turn, site fidelity may also
inhibit the ability of Indiana bats to pioneer new areas (Sparks *in*
Service 2004). Due to the ephemeral nature of roosting sites, bats are
probably not dependant on the continued suitability of an individual
tree. However, landscape level alterations in traditional maternity
habitats may adversely affect Indiana bat survival and reproductive
success.

In addition to an increased focus on Indiana bat summer habitat,
attention has also been directed to investigate pesticide exposure
(Clark et al. 1987; Clawson 1987; Garner and Gardner 1992; Callahan et
al. 1997; 3D/E 1995; O'Shea and Clark 2002; Kurta and Murray 2002).
Insecticides have been known or suspected as the cause of a number of
bat die-offs in North America, including endangered gray bats in
Missouri (Reidinger 1972; Clark and Prouty 1976; Clark et al. 1978). The
insect diet and longevity of bats also exposes them to environmentally
persistent organochlorine chemicals that may bioaccumulate in body
tissue and cause sub-lethal effects such as impaired reproduction
(O'Shea and Clark 2002).

*Rangewide Status of the Species*

From the time that the species was listed, the range-wide population of
the Indiana bat has declined from approximately 883,300 Indiana bats in
1960/1970 to 387,301 in 2003/2004, or approximately 56 percent (Clawson
2002; Lori Pruitt, personal communication, 2004). Clawson found that the
decline was not evenly distributed across the winter range. The
population in the southern portion of the range decreased an estimated
80% in the 40 years from 1960 to 2001, with the largest declines
observed in Kentucky and Missouri hibernacula. In contrast, the
population in the northern Midwest and Northeast increased by 30%.

The results from the 2001 to 2005 biennial counts suggest that at least
for this period, the extreme decreases observed in each previous decade
may not have occurred during the first half of this decade. From 2001 to
2003 and 2003 to 2005, increases (4.2% and 16.7%, respectively) in the
estimated range-wide numbers were observed. These are the first
calculated increases in the range-wide population estimate since the
Indiana bat was listed and monitoring began. However, efforts are
currently underway to evaluate the variability between different survey
techniques and surveyors used throughout this period, and establish a
confidence interval around these reported results. As a result, there is
in sufficient information available at this time to determine current
population trends from these observed results. Therefore, although the
observed increases are encouraging, we are uncertain of the future
population trend.

*Status of the Species in West Virginia*

[Summer Populations]{.underline}

Prior to 2003, there were no documented areas of Indiana bat maternity
activity in the state. However, in the summer of 2003, two
post-lactating female Indiana bats were captured and tracked to roost
trees in Boone County, West Virginia. These captures represented the
first documented Indiana bat maternity activity in West Virginia.
Maternity activity at this site was again confirmed when additional
surveys were conducted in the summer of 2004. Surveys at this site
during 2005 located two primary roost trees and resulted in a maximum
emergence count of 73 bats. In the summer of 2004, a second maternity
colony of approximately 25 bats was confirmed through the capture and
tracking of a lactating female Indiana bat. This colony was located
adjacent to the MNF in Tucker County and is located within 2-miles of a
known Indiana bat hibernacula. That same summer, three male Indiana bats
were captured on another site on the MNF in Pendleton County. These bats
were tracked to a roost tree and subsequent emergence counts on that
tree revealed 23 bats. Although, maternity activity (through the
presence of female Indiana bats) was not confirmed at this site, data
suggest that this site may also support a maternity colony. A third
maternity colony was documented as a result of surveys conducted in 2005
near Kanawha State Forest in Boone County. Emergence counts at the two
identified primary roost trees documented a maximum count of 49 bats. In
addition to these captures near potential or confirmed maternity
colonies, individual male Indiana bats have been captured at numerous
locations throughout the state in the following counties: Clay,
Nicholas, Fayette, Randolph, Pendleton, Preston, Pocahontas, and
Raleigh.

These captures of both male and female bats confirm that the Indiana bat
uses forested habitats throughout the state for summer foraging and
roosting. The increase in recent captures may not reflect an actual
increase in densities of Indiana bats summering within the state, rather
these results may reflect the fact that survey efforts in relation to
project review and monitoring have increased in recent years.

[Winter Populations]{.underline}

While winter hibernacula monitoring shows Indiana bat populations were
decreasing in portions of their range in recent decades, estimated
winter populations in West Virginia have been increasing since the early
1980's (WVDNR, 2004). Since 1990, hibernating populations in West
Virginia have more than doubled from an estimated 6,500 to 13,698 in
2006 (WVDNR, 2006 -- unpublished). Increases in the number of bats
hibernating in Hellhole have accounted for most of this growth.
Protection measures limiting access to the cave occurred when the
entrance to Hellhole was fenced in 1985. Most other significant caves in
West Virginia have also been gated or fenced, to protect Indiana bat
populations.

It should be noted that the relationship between wintering populations
and summering populations is not clearly understood. It is known that
individuals of a particular maternity colony come from one to many
different hibernacula, therefore the summer location of most, if any,
individuals of any particular hibernacula is often not known. Indiana
bats have been documented to travel up to 300 miles from their
hibernaculum to their maternity areas (Gardner and Cook 2002).
Therefore, bats wintering or summering in West Virginia may come from a
number of surrounding states, and the status of Indiana bats within each
state's hibernacula may not reflect the status of that state's maternity
population.

*Rangewide Conservation Needs of the Species*

In order for the Indiana bat to have a reasonable chance for survival
and recovery, the current population must be stabilized and increased.
The only options available for stabilizing and increasing the population
are to increase its recruitment (birth and survival of young to breeding
age) or reduce its mortality rate. The annual cycle (for females) of
hibernation, spring migration, parturition, lactation, fall migration,
mating, and hibernation can be broken at any point, resulting in the
loss of that individual from the population, and her remaining
reproductive potential in the population. The vulnerable point(s) in
this cycle may very well differ by geographic area, and even within the
same area. Therefore, efforts to protect hibernacula from disturbances
need to continue. This should include implementing closure plans,
constructing and maintaining appropriately designed gates, and restoring
microhabitat conditions in hibernacula that have been altered. Efforts
should also be made to protect and restore adequate fall swarming
habitat within primary zones around hibernacula. Occupied maternity
habitat should be identified and maintained. Research to further
delineate the migratory relationship between summering and wintering
populations should also be pursued.

*Previous Incidental Take Authorizations*

Prior formal consultations involving the Indiana bat have involved (a)
the Forest Service for activities implemented under various Land and
Resource Management Plans on National Forests in the eastern United
States (b) the Federal Highway Administration for various transportation
projects, (c) the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection for various water-related and
coal mining projects, (d) the Department of Defense for operations at
several different military installations and (e) the National Park
Service for vegetation management and prescribed burn activities.
Additionally, an incidental take permit has been issued under section 10
of the ESA to an Interagency Taskforce for expansion and related
development at the Indianapolis Airport in conjunction with the
implementation of a Habitat Conservation Plan. A summary of these
consultations is provided in Appendix C -- Table C1.

It is important to note that in conducting many of these consultations,
survey information was unavailable. Often the Service relied on a host
of valid factors in helping the Federal agency determine whether Indiana
bats may be present. For example, many projects were expected to be
implemented over a number of years. If survey information indicated that
Indiana bats were present in nearby areas, the assumption may have been
made that Indiana bats had the potential to be present in the action
area at some point during the life of the project. To ensure the Federal
agency and the Service met the mandate of the section 7(a)(2), if the
best scientific and commercial data available indicated that
reproductively active Indiana bats may be present, a maternity colony
was generally assumed to potentially be present within the action area.
We believe this conservative approach fully accords with the intent of
Congress and the ESA of 1973, although it likely resulted in
over-estimating the number of individuals or colonies that may have been
impacted by Federal actions.

Previous consultations have addressed impacts to hibernating or swarming
bats, known maternity areas, or habitat that was assumed to be occupied.
Due to the various life stages affected, and conservative assumptions
made (as discussed above) and the difficultly in documenting actual take
to Indiana bats (as more fully described in each BO and the Incidental
Take Statement section of this current BO), different methods have been
used to estimate the amount of potential take. Depending on the
consultation, take has been measured either by estimating numbers of
affected roost trees, individual bats or maternity colonies, or acres of
potentially suitable habitat. The measure selected is based on the most
accurate and reasonable means available for each site-specific analysis.
For example, as shown in Table C1, BOs have exempted take to Indiana
bats on approximately 867,000 acres of potentially occupied habitat.
However, new information that became available after the issuance of
some of the BOs resulted in subsequent "not likely to adversely affect"
determinations for activities that affected 472,000 of those exempted
acres. In addition, over 75,000 acres of the total 867,000 acres of
exempted take have been superceded by new BOs, resulting in potential
double counting of the affected acres. Such as in the case of the BO for
the Northeast Research Station, where forest stands are harvested
multiple times over many years, with each entry being counted as a
separate acre of annual take (Service 2005c). Due to these factors, the
most appropriate measure of the effects of previous consultations is to
evaluate the ultimate outcome of the projects.

Thirteen National Forests and one Forest Service Research Station within
the range of the Indiana bat have recently completed consultation at the
programmatic level. Consultation under section 7 of the ESA is necessary
to ensure Federal agency actions are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or
modification of critical habitat of such species. The Service concluded
that the proposed Forest Plans were unlikely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the Indiana bat and issued biological opinions with
associated incidental take statements. Although these incidental take
statements anticipated the potential take of reproductive females, we
have not confirmed the loss of any maternity colonies on a National
Forest. The reasons for this are likely two-fold. First, notwithstanding
the conservative assumption that a maternity colony existed in the
action area, to date, only six maternity colonies have been actually
confirmed to exist on the affected National Forests. Additionally,
surveys to identify and confirm further colonies are ongoing. As
detailed in Table C2, the National Forests covered by these BOs
generally conduct some form of Indiana bat population monitoring,
including mist net surveys, acoustical monitoring, and hibernacula
surveys, as appropriate. These surveys have served to document either:
the continued presence of Indiana bats on the forests; the discovery of
new maternity colonies on the subject forest; or the continued lack of
presence of Indiana bats even though the conservative assumption of
potential presence was made. Second, each Forest Plan includes
conservation measures (i.e., standards and guidelines) and the
project-specific reasonable and prudent measures. These conservation
measures and reasonable and prudent measures are designed to protect all
known or newly discovered maternity colonies and to ensure an abundance
of suitable Indiana bat habitat on the National Forests. Based on the
results of the monitoring discussed above, it appears that these
measures have been effective at protecting known populations of the bat
within the National Forest system. Incidental take exempted on National
Forests is monitored and reported by acres of habitat lost or altered.
Based on the anticipated levels of take as described in Table C2, over
95% of these acres are affected by varying degrees of temporary loss
(short-term and long-term) as a result of timber management activities
or prescribed burns (Service 2005a). In order to ensure that the
anticipated level of take is not exceeded, each National Forest provides
annual reports of the actual level of take that has been implemented.
Although reported levels have not been compiled for all the Forests, for
many Forests, including the MNF, actual incidental take implemented has
been less than the level exempted in the BOs. If the compilation of
annual reporting indicates anything inconsistent with this evaluation,
further assessments will be made.

Several incidental take statements have been issued to other Federal
agencies conducting activities not likely to jeopardize the future
existence of the Indiana bat. Unlike those incidental take statements
issued for the National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans, some
of these other Federal agency actions were certain to impact known
occupied habitat. To minimize the effect of these projects, the Federal
action agencies agreed to implement various conservation measures. These
measures included: seasonal clearing restrictions to avoid disturbing
female Indiana bats and young; protection of all known primary and
alternate roost trees with appropriate buffers; retention of adequate
roosting and foraging habitat to sustain the maternity colony into the
future; and permanent protection of areas and habitat enhancement or
creation measures to provide future roosting and foraging habitat
opportunities. With the exception of three (Fort Knox, Great Smoky
Mountains National Park, and Laxare East and Black Contour Coal Mining
projects), none of the biological opinions and associated incidental
take statements issued for non-Forest Plan activities anticipated the
loss of a maternity colony. The Fort Knox biological opinion \[1999\]
exempted the take of two potential maternity colonies and individual
Indiana bats. However, the biological opinion did not specify whether
the \"take\" consisted of loss of the colonies or take in the form of
harm and harassment. Additional monitoring of the maternity colony
following the completion of the 2004 BO for the Laxare East and Black
Castle Contour projects, documented a colony much larger than previously
anticipated. Additional project modifications subsequent to that
discovery resulted in the retention of all known roost trees and
protection of some potential foraging areas. Reinitiation of that
consultation in 2006 concluded that while the colony would experience
adverse effects, the colony should be able to persist through the life
of the project. Required monitoring for three additional consultations
(Camp Atterbury, Newport Military Installation, and Indianapolis
Airport) has confirmed that the affected colonies persisted through the
life of the project and continue to exist today. We recognize that given
the philopatric nature of Indiana bats and the long lifespan, the full
extent of the anticipated impacts may not yet have occurred.
Nonetheless, these monitoring results and the lack of data to suggest
otherwise for the other projects, indicate that the conservation
measures to avoid and minimize the impacts of Federal projects appear to
be effective. Only with longer-term monitoring will we definitively be
able to determine the true effectiveness of our conservation measures.

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

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045656 .anchor}ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045657 .anchor}**Summer Populations within the
Action Area**

As shown in Table 2 below, over the past nine years, the MNF has
conducted Indiana bat surveys at over 440 mist net sites. These surveys
resulted in the capture of a total of 16 Indiana bats, only one of which
was female. One juvenile male was captured in 1999, which suggested that
there may be maternity activity in the area of the capture. However,
four years of intensive follow-up surveys failed to capture any other
Indiana bats within that area. This data in conjunction with other
factors such as climatic conditions, and the late-season timing of the
capture, led Service, WVDNR, and MNF biologists to conclude that this
capture was a migrating individual (Service 2005b). As a result of
informal and formal coordination between the Service and the MNF, and as
documented in the terms and conditions of the 2002 programmatic BO, the
MNF recently adapted Indiana bat monitoring efforts to focus on
detecting the presence of the bat in likely habitat, rather then
surveying locations prior to project clearance. The revised approach
should allow for improved protection for the species and more accurate
tracking and evaluation of potential maternity habitat within the MNF.
As demonstrated in the table, detection of the bat on the MNF has
increased since the revised approach has been implemented.

**Table 2: Overview of Recent Indiana Bat Mist Net Surveys on the MNF**

  ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- ----------------- ----------------------
  **Year**   **\#      **\# net  **Ibats    **M/F**   **Repro cond.**   **General Location**
             areas**   sites**   captd?**                               

  1997       7         70        no         \-        \-                \-

  1998       15        86        no         \-        \-                \-

  1999       9         41        yes        1/0       juvenile          under bridge near
                                                                        Richwood

  2000       2         24        yes        1/0       adult             Glady

  2001       5         47        yes        1/0       adult             Tygarts Valley

  2002       2         11        no         \-        \-                \-

  2003       9         51        yes        1/0       adult             recapture of Glady bat

  2004       4         55        yes        4/1       adult/lactating   Reeds Creek/Lower
                                                                        Glady

  2005       6         56        yes        7/0       adult             Reeds Creek, Lower
                                                                        Glady
  ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------- ----------------- ----------------------

The 2004 surveys provided the first solid evidence of maternity activity
within the MNF. A lactating female was caught near Lower Glady.
Subsequent tracking of the bat resulted in a roost tree being located on
private land just across the MNF boundary. As noted in the "*Status of
the Species in West Virginia"* section, emergence counts on that tree
documented a colony of at least 25 bats. The roost area being used by
the colony was subjected to a wildfire during the spring of 2002 which
created an abundance of dead tress and trees with sloughing bark (D.
Arling, USFS, pers. comm.). The site had also been extensively timbered
prior to the wildfire and is located within two miles of an Indiana bat
hibernacula. This combination of factors concentrated a large number of
potential roost trees in an area with open canopy conditions that was
easily accessible to the bats. Although the roost trees were not on MNF
property, it is likely that Indiana bats use the MNF for foraging and
potentially as a secondary roost area. Follow up surveys conducted in
2005 captured numerous male Indiana bats, but no females. However, field
investigators noted that the bark had fallen off the previously used
roost tree, suggesting that the bats may have moved to a new more
suitable roost tree within the vicinity. As noted in the "*Status of the
Species in West Virginia"* section, there is one other suspected
maternity colony on the MNF in Pendleton County. Follow-up surveys for
this area are planned for 2006.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045658 .anchor}**Winter Populations within the
Action Area**

As noted above there are 26 Indiana bat hibernacula located within the
action area. Six of these caves are located within the MNF. One of these
caves, Coal Run, had only one Indiana bat during the most recent survey
in 1993. However, surveys at the other five caves have been conducted in
the past two years, and documented a total of 478 Indiana bats. Most of
these bats occur in either Big Springs Cave or Cave Hollow/Arbogast
Cave. Overall population trends for these two caves are either stable or
increasing. The MNF and other partners have implemented protective
measures such as gating and seasonal cave closures, on these caves.

There are nine other Indiana bat hibernacula that occur within the
proclamation boundary but are not currently within the MNF. This
includes Hellhole, the largest hibernacula within the state. Population
trends at Hellhole are clearly increasing with 11,890 Indiana bats
documented during the most recent survey, which was conducted in the
2004-2005 winter season. This represents an almost 39% increase from the
previous surveys conducted during the 2000-2001 winter season. Recent
surveys at four other caves within the proclamation boundary documented
216 Indiana bats. Population trends at these caves are generally stable.
Three caves, Cass Cave, Simmons-Mingo, and Smokehole, have no recent
survey data.

Eleven additional hibernacula have entrances that occur outside the
proclamation but have a portion of the MNF proclamation boundary located
within a five-mile radius (primary zone) of the cave. Seven of these
caves have not been surveyed since 2000. The other four caves have been
documented to support a total of 725 Indiana bats in surveys since 2004.
Population trends are increasing for all but Martha's Cave.

In summary, the MNF provides swarming habitat for 26 recent or
historical hibernacula, and maintains the entrances for 6 of these.
Recent surveys have documented a total of 13,309 Indiana bats using
hibernacula within the action area. Overall, population trends for these
caves have been stable to increasing. Additional information on these
caves and the survey results through 2005 is presented in the BA, and is
incorporated here by reference.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045659 .anchor}**Habitat conditions within the
Action Area**

Of the approximately 919,000 acres of habitat currently within the MNF,
about 96% is forested. The MNF supports a number of different forest
types including spruce, mixed mesophytic and cove hardwoods, northern
hardwood, oak, and pine-oak forest. Some of these forest types are not
likely to be used by the Indiana bat. For example, spruce forests occur
in high elevation and have cool, moist conditions. These areas generally
would not be expected to provide the large hardwood snags and warm
conditions typical of maternity areas. Other forest types, such as cove
hardwoods and oak forests, provide the climatic conditions and tree
species typical of Indiana bat maternity areas, and therefore provide
potentially suitable habitat. Table 3 below outlines the amount of each
forest type that is currently available on the MNF.

**Table 3: Amount of Forest Habitat (Acres) by Type on the MNF**

  --------------------------------- --------------- ------------ ----------------- ------------
  **Forest Type**                   **Current MNF                **Proclamation    
                                    Lands**                      Boundary**        

  mixed mesophytic/cove hardwoods   360,000         39%          620,000           36%

  oak forest                        250,000         27%          370,000           22%

  northern hardwoods                170,000         18%          350,000           21%

  Spruce                            48,000          5%           51,000            3%

  other (hemlock, oak-pine,         91,000          10%          309,000           18%
  non-forest)                                                                      

  ***Total***                       ***919,000***   ***100%***   ***1,700,000***   ***100%***
  --------------------------------- --------------- ------------ ----------------- ------------

Of the overall forested habitat currently within the MNF, 58% is in the
\> 80 year old age class, while another 34% is in the 40-79 year old age
class. Most of the non-forested habitat consists of either savannas;
grassland; or aquatic habitats such as wetlands, ponds, streams, or
bogs. Indiana bats seem to use forested stream corridors as preferred
foraging and commuting areas (Humphrey et al. 1977; LaVal and LaVal
1980; Butchkoski and Hassinger 2002; Romme et al.1995). The large amount
of mature and potentially suitable forested habitat interspersed with
aquatic areas provides significant roosting and foraging opportunities
for the Indiana bat. It should be noted however, that even within forest
types, site-specific conditions may make certain areas more suitable for
the Indiana bat than others. These factors include number of suitable
snags, the percent overstory and understory canopy closure, and the
proximity to other suitable foraging and commuting areas. Information to
evaluate the overall suitability of habitat within the MNF on a
forest-wide basis has not been fully compiled. While site-specific
information may not be available for every important habitat parameter,
the Forest's stand database contains information on forest type, stand
age, dbh, species composition, etc. Also, the Forest's Ecological Land
Type data layer contains ecological community mapping that could help
identify potential areas of high quality habitat. This information has
not been summarized in a way that offers a concise picture of Indiana
bat habitat suitability on a Forest-wide basis, but it is available for
constructing site-specific descriptions of habitat quality at the
project level.

As noted above, there are 26 known Indiana bat hibernacula that have all
or part of their primary zones within the proclamation boundary of the
MNF. These primary zones are particularly important to the Indiana bat
during the fall when the bats use these areas for foraging and mating
prior to entering hibernation. Males are likely to be found within these
areas throughout the summer maternity period. In addition, the recent
discovery of a maternity colony within one of these primary zones
suggests that these areas have an increased potential to support
maternity activity as well. The MNF provides roughly 228,000 acres of
habitat within the primary zones of the 26 hibernacula that are within
or near the proclamation boundary. Although specific information on the
type and distribution of forested habitat throughout these primary zones
is not available, conditions are expected to be similar to conditions
found on MNF overall.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045660 .anchor}**Conservation Needs of the
Species within the Action Area**

The MNF provides habitat for swarming, hibernating, and summering
Indiana bats. Therefore, within the action area the conservation needs
include: 1) maintaining suitable conditions within hibernacula and
protecting them from disturbance; 2) providing suitable habitat
conditions for Indiana bat foraging and roosting within primary zones
and other areas of the Forest; and 3) documenting areas of Indiana bat
maternity activity and maintaining habitat conditions in those areas so
they continue to remain suitable.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045661 .anchor}EFFECTS OF THE ACTION

This programmatic consultation requires two levels of analysis. The
first level of the analysis considers how the overall FPR goals and
desired conditions will affect listed species. The second level of the
analysis will consider how the specific management actions that
implement the FPR will affect listed species.

The standards and guidelines that have been incorporated into the FPR to
avoid and minimize effects are provided in Appendix A. It is important
to emphasize that this effects analysis is predicated on the fact that
all standards and guidelines will be fully implemented. If not, this
analysis may no longer be valid and formal consultation may need to be
reintiatied.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045662 .anchor}**Effects of the Forest Plan
Goals on the Indiana Bat**

The FPR specifies that the overall desired condition for threatened and
endangered species is to "maintain or enhance populations consistent
with established and approved Recovery Plans" and that "effects from
Forest programs or activities are at levels that do not threaten the
persistence of threatened and endangered species populations." The FPR
also further elaborates upon these broad goals by providing standards
and guidelines specific to various types of Indiana bat habitat and life
stages, as described below.

*Indiana Bat Hibernacula*

Indiana bats tend to congregate together in caves and are particularly
sensitive to disturbance during the hibernation period. There are 26
Indiana bat hibernacula within the action area. Six of these are
currently on MNF property. The FPR includes specific standards and
guidelines that protect Indiana bat hibernacula. These include
restricting public entry during the hibernation period (TE 45);
installing and maintaining appropriate cave gates when necessary (TE
08-11); developing protection measures if any new hibernacula are found
(TE 28); establishing "key areas" consisting of at least 150 acres near
each hibernacula (TE 54/55); and restricting activities such as
vegetation management, construction, special use permits, and seismic
exploration that can occur within those key areas (TE 42-44; 47-52; 56).
Implementation of these measures should ensure that Indiana bats
hibernating within caves on the MNF are adequately protected from most
reasonably foreseeable threats, and that suitable habitat conditions are
retained. The proposed measures are substantially similar to those being
implemented under the current Forest Plan. Currently Indiana bat
populations in known hibernacula are monitored bi-annually. As noted in
the "Baseline" section, populations of Indiana bats within caves on the
MNF have generally been stable to increasing, suggesting that existing
measures are effective. As a result, the Service concludes that the FPR
should provide an overall *beneficial effect* to the species during this
most sensitive life stage. Continued bi-annual population monitoring of
known hibernacula should provide data to gauge the effectiveness of the
proposed measures.

*Indiana Bat Primary Areas*

The MNF provides roughly 228,000 acres of habitat within the primary
zones (five mile radius) of the 26 hibernacula that are within or near
the MNF proclamation boundary. The FPR refers to swarming zones as
Indiana bat "Primary Range" and includes goals, objectives, standards
and guidelines (TE 29 -- 41) that outline how these areas should be
managed. The overarching goal for these areas is to "manage naturally
occurring tree species composition to provide a continuous supply of
suitable roost trees and foraging habitat for Indiana bat. Achieve
vegetative diversity that maintains or improves Indiana bat habitat.
Where consistent with management prescription emphasis, use a variety of
silvicultural methods to create desired age class diversity". The FPR
also specifies that these areas will be managed to provide a continuous
supply of suitable roost trees by maintaining a minimum of 50 percent of
each primary range on MNF property in age classes greater than 40 years
old, and that management of vegetation 5 inches dbh or greater may only
be implemented if activities: a) maintain or improve Indiana bat or
other TEP or Sensitive species' habitat; b) address public or worker
safety concerns; or c) achieve research objectives. Additional standards
provide direction regarding retaining snags and tree species that are
preferred roost trees; and place restrictions on special use permits,
federal mineral exploration, and explosives.

When taken together, these measures should ensure that suitable habitat
conditions for Indiana bat foraging and roosting are provided within
affected primary zones. However, in order to determine the most
appropriate management activities that should be implemented within each
primary zone and to gauge consistency with the criteria listed above,
information on the baseline condition of each primary zone will be
required. As noted in the "Baseline -- Habitat Conditions within the
Action Area" section, data on the abundance of each habitat type and
forest age class distribution specific to each primary zone has not yet
been fully compiled. The Service recommends that information regarding
baseline habitat conditions be developed for all primary zones within
the MNF. Some primary ranges within the proclamation boundary contain
very little MNF land, while others lie largely in wilderness or remote
backcountry areas. As a result, the MNF's ability to implement
beneficial active management in these areas is limited. Priority should
be placed on developing baseline information on primary zones that have
high potential to implement active management. This information should
be used to evaluate and develop potential management activities within
each zone.

*Indiana Bat Maternity Areas*

The FPR includes standards and guidelines developed specifically to
address Indiana bat maternity areas. These include conducting
investigations to document maternity colonies where evidence of them
exists (TE 26); retaining all known roost trees (TE 25); and
establishing a buffer around the site and stating that site-specific
protective measures will be determined in cooperation with the Service
and the WVDNR when a maternity area is documented (TE 27). Other
standards and guidelines restrict activities such as vegetation
management, explosives, special use permits, federal mineral activities,
and seismic exploration that can occur within identified maternity areas
(TE 42, 48, 49, 50, 53 and 56). The effectiveness of these measures in
ensuring that maternity colonies on the MNF are protected and maintained
depends on two key factors: 1) whether current procedures are effective
in detecting and providing data on maternity activity within the MNF;
and 2) the nature of any site-specific measures that are developed.

As noted in the "Baseline" section, the MNF recently adapted Indiana bat
monitoring efforts to focus on detecting the presence of the bat in
likely habitat, rather then relying exclusively on surveying locations
prior to project clearance. The FPR does not require that this strategy
be continued, however the strategy is consistent with the terms and
conditions of the previous 2002 BO. Since the revised approach has been
implemented, detection of the bat on the MNF has increased and at least
one, and potentially two, maternity areas on the MNF have been
identified. If surveys using the current sampling strategy and frequency
continue, the MNF should be able to document the presence of maternity
colonies more comprehensively than if surveys were restricted to project
clearance areas. For example, under the previous approach many areas of
the MNF that were not the target of potential projects would not be
surveyed, leaving maternity colonies in those areas undetected. Also,
under the current approach, surveys are conducted annually on a
watershed basis targeting areas that have the highest potential to
support maternity habitat. Previously, surveys were required in order to
document the lack of maternity activity in a project area, and as a
result, surveys may have been necessarily conducted in sub-optimal
habitats. It should be noted that the current methodology is not
expected to identify every roost tree, foraging area, or maternity site
used by summering Indiana bats on the MNF. This would require
comprehensive, large scale and repeated surveys/radio telemetry over the
more than 900,000 acres that comprise the MNF; a task that would be
logistically and economically impracticable. Rather the Service
concludes that current strategy effectively provides a high probability
of detecting areas of maternity activity on the MNF, and recommends its'
continued implementation.

Once evidence of maternity area is identified, the FPR establishes a
protective management zone around the site, and specifies that any
needed protection measures within the zone shall be determined at a
site-specific level in cooperation with USFWS and WVDNR. Data from other
maternity colonies in West Virginia and throughout the species range
indicate that Indiana bats generally travel up to 2.5 miles between
capture sites, roost trees and foraging areas (Apogee 2006, Compliance
Monitoring 2006, A. King, personal communication; see also Life History
-- Home Range section). Therefore, establishing a 2.5 mile radius from
the discovery site (as proposed in the FPR) would encompass the area
most likely to be used by the maternity colony. However, the actual home
range of the colony is not likely to be uniform. Bats may travel a
greater or lesser distance in any one direction, depending upon habitat
conditions in the area. The FPR appropriately provides flexibility in
modifying this zone based on site-specific data.

As noted above, the nature of any site-specific measures that are
developed will determine the extent to which maternity colonies on the
MNF are protected and maintained. It would be extremely difficult to
develop detailed programmatic prescriptions as to appropriate management
techniques to be conducted within Indiana bat maternity areas,
particularly since some of these areas may currently be unidentified.
The abundance and distribution of different habitat types; the
availability and quality of foraging, roosting, and watering areas; and
the presence and orientation of migration and travel corridors should
all be considered when evaluating potential management actions.
Additionally, our understanding of maternity colonies' habitat
requirements and how they react to certain types of management actions
is likely to develop over time as new research and data is developed. At
the programmatic level, requiring site-specific coordination between
biologists familiar with the area and knowledgeable about the biology of
the bat provides an appropriate means of developing and evaluating
potential management actions within identified maternity areas.

In summary, implementation of the FPR at the programmatic level as
proposed, coupled with continued implementation of the current Indiana
bat sampling strategy, provides a reasonable means for detecting,
protecting, and managing for Indiana bat maternity activity on the MNF.
It is not expected that the proposed approach will be capable of
detecting, and therefore avoiding impacts to, all areas used by
summering Indiana bats. However, it is anticipated that the most
important areas will be identified and managed to maintain and support
maternity activity. The Service recommends continued implementation of
the established sampling strategy, unless new information suggests that
a different sampling strategy would be more effective for monitoring
maternity activity and summer habitat use.

*Other Areas of the Forest*

The FPR has included specific measures to protect habitat areas that
have the highest potential to be used by the Indiana bat during various
life stages, however Indiana bats may also occur outside these high
probability areas. Male Indiana bats often roost individually during the
summer, and may be transient throughout many areas of the MNF during the
summer. In addition and as noted above, is not practicable to identify
every roost tree, or habitat area used by summering Indiana bats on the
MNF. While the likelihood that an individual Indiana bat may be present
in other areas of the forest outside of the high probability areas is
reduced, the FPR includes forest-wide standards that serve to further
minimize the potential that an occupied roost tree will be affected.
Measures include retaining all shagbark hickory trees 5 inches in
diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater in harvest units except where
public or worker safety concerns or research opportunities exist (TE 23)
and retaining an average of at least 6 snags per acre that are 9 inches
dbh or greater within harvest units, except where public or worker
safety concerns exist (TE 24). The MNF will also create additional
snags, if needed, from the available leave trees to make up any
difference and prioritize snag retention and creation from the largest
to the smallest dbh (TE 24).

*Summary*

The MNF provides habitat for swarming, hibernating, and summering
Indiana bats. The FPR includes measures to protect and manage habitats
that support these three key life stages. Additional measures to
minimize impacts on other areas of the forest have also been
implemented. When combined, these measures should provide an appropriate
means to ensure that suitable habitat conditions are maintained and
potentially enhanced, on a forest-wide programmatic scale. Continued
population monitoring of hibernacula, continued implementation of
surveys to detect the presence of maternity areas, and development of
data regarding baseline conditions within primary zones would provide a
means to gauge the overall effectiveness of these measures and develop
appropriate management actions at the site-specific level.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045663 .anchor}**Effects of the Specific
Management Actions on the Indiana Bat**

Although the overall goals of the proposed action are expected to have
beneficial effects for the Indiana bat, the means by which the Forest
Service will achieve their goals may unavoidably cause adverse effects
to this species. Thus, this section assesses the likelihood and
magnitude of impacts that may result from the management actions
proposed. Generally the potential effects from implementing specific
management actions on the MNF fall into two categories: direct mortality
or harm resulting from the removal of trees or burning of occupied
habitats; and indirect effects associated with habitat modifications
that may disrupt breeding, feeding, or sheltering behaviors. The
potential severity of these adverse effects and the probability that
they will occur will vary based upon the location of the project in
relation to occupied Indiana bat habitats, the time of year in which the
activities are implemented, and the type and scale of the habitat
modification. The analyses below describe how each management activity
is expected to affect Indiana bats.

*Timber Harvest*

Timber harvest activities are expected to be the most widespread and
common type of managment activity to be implemented under the FPR. The
MNF estimates that they will implement timber harvest activities on a
total of between 33,000 and 69,000 acres over the next 10 years. This
includes a number of different harvest types including regeneration
harvest (20,000 -- 40,000 acres), thinning (7,000 -- 13,000 acres),
harvest to improve Indiana bat habitat within primary range (3,000
-7,000 acres), spruce restoration and enhancement (1,000 -- 5,000
acres), and harvest to create wildlife openings (2,000 -- 4,000 acres).

Timber harvests have the potential to remove Indiana bat roost trees.
Trees that have a dbh of greater than 5 inches are considered potential
Indiana bat roost trees. Trees with a dbh less than this have an
extremely low liklihood of being used by the Indiana bat (see Life
History - Roost Tree Selection section), and as a result, clearing these
small dbh trees should not adveresely affect the bat.

As discussed above, Indiana bats are expected to be concentrated in
certain areas of the forest during certain times of the year. Areas that
have a high probability of containing Indiana bats include primary
zones, known maternity areas, and hibernacula. However, Indiana bats
also have the potential to occur outside these high probability areas.
Conducting timber harvest activities in any area of the forest has the
potential to cause adverse effects to and/or take of the Indiana bat,
however the likihood of affecting an Indiana bat is increased in high
probability areas. The types of effects and the likihood of occurrance
are discussed in detail below.

Tree removal during the non-hibernation period (April 1 - November 14)
may result in mortality (take) of roosting Indiana bats, if a tree that
contains a roosting bat is removed. If a bat using a roost tree that is
removed is not killed during the removal, the roosting bat would be
forced to find an alternative tree, causing a significant loss of energy
that would result in harm or harassment of the individual. If the
affected roost tree is a primary roost tree used by an Indiana bat
maternity colony, adverse effects could include reduced colony cohesion;
increased stress; and increased energy demands from searching for new
roost areas, including decreased thermoregulatory efficiency. These
impacts can lead to reduced reproductive success (Kurta et al. 2002;
Kurta and Murray 2002; Gumbert et al. 2002; Kunz and Lumsden 2003;
Indianapolis Airport Authority 2003; Garner and Gardner 1992; Racey and
Entwistle 2003; Humphrey et al. 1977; Pierson 1998). Loss of an
inhabited primary roost tree is most likely to occur during the
maternity period (May 15 to August 15).

During the Indiana bat swarming period (August 16 through November 14),
bats are likely to be concentrated within the five mile radii around
established hibernacula (primary zones). As a result, there is an
increased chance that clearing trees within the primary zones during
this time period may result in the removal of an occupied roost tree.
Because Indiana bats tend to roost individually during swarming, any
mortality or harm that occurred under these circumstances would be
limited to individual bats and would not adversely affect colony
cohesion or reproductive success, as described above. As described in
the "Baseline" section, the hibernacula that occur within the action
area support Indiana bat populations ranging from one individual to
almost 12,000 individuals The probability that a bat would be present
within a tree that was removed would depend on which particular primary
zone was affected, and the number and type of trees that were being
removed. During the swarming period, bats may move around between the
primary zones of a number of different hibernacula. Therefore, it is not
possible to precisely predict the number of bats potentially present
within a specific primary zone. However, hibernacula that support larger
populations of bats are likely to have larger numbers of bats present
within the primary zones at any one time. Site-specific planning and
evaluation will be required to assess the potential effects to bats and
to develop appropriate avoidance and minimization measures. In addition,
the MNF anticipates that between 3,000 and 7,000 acres of habitat within
the primary zones will be affected by timber harvest activities over the
next decade; this represents less than 3% of the total amount of primary
habitat (228,000 acres) that is present on the MNF. So any impacts that
occur each year would be restricted to a small, localized area.

Because Indiana bats are not expected to be present in trees during the
hibernation period (November 15 and March 31), clearing trees during
this time period would avoid the potential for direct mortality and
harm. However, if established maternity roost tree is cut during the
winter, Indiana bats would be required to search for new roosting
habitat in the spring, and adult females would be faced with finding
suitable maternity sites at a time when "they are already stressed from
the rigors of hibernation, migration, and the increased energy costs of
pregnancy" (Garner and Gardner 1992). For these reasons, Gumbert et al.
(2002) suggest that managers should retain all roost trees used by
Indiana bats. However, it is likely that due to the ephemeral nature of
roost trees, the Indiana bat has evolved to be able to relocate to
replacement roosts when their previously-used roost trees become
unsuitable. Studies have shown that adults use multiple roosts (Humphrey
et al. 1977; Gardner et al. 1991a; Garner and Gardner 1992; Callahan
1993; Kurta et al. 1993; Romme et al.1995). Bats that are aware of
alternate roost sites are more likely to survive the sudden,
unpredictable destruction of their present roost than those bats which
have never identified alternate roosts (Kurta et al. 2002; Kurta and
Murray 2002; Gumbert et al. 2002). Therefore, even in the rare instance
that an individual established roost tree is cut, as long as other
established roosts remain in the vicinity of the project, impacts
associated with the loss of individual roost trees are likely to be
short-term.

As noted in the "Effects of the Forest Plan Goals on the Indiana Bat -
Indiana Bat Maternity Areas" section, it is not reasonable or
practicable to expect that every roost tree, foraging area, or maternity
site used by Indiana bats on the MNF could be identified. However, prior
to developing or implementing projects, pre-project surveys for Indiana
bats will be conducted at the watershed level. Results of these surveys
should increase the potential that roosting and foraging areas are
identified. The FPR requires retention of all known roost trees (TE 25)
and coordination with the Service prior to implementing activities in
known or suspected maternity areas (TE 25, 26). The FPR has also
incorporated numerous measures to reduce the potential that unidentified
Indiana bat roost trees will be removed. For example, the FPR has
standards that require retaining all shagbark hickories 5 inches DBH or
greater (TE 23); and retaining a minimum number of larger sized snags
per acre within all harvest units and creating additional snags where
necessary (TE 24). These measures ensure that the trees with the highest
probability of serving as roost trees are retained throughout the
forest. In addition, in areas that have the highest probability of
providing roost trees (e.g. primary zones and near hibernacula)
vegetation management of trees greater than 5 inches dbh can only be
conducted to maintain or improve Indiana bat habitat unless safety or
research concerns exist (TE 31, 43) . As a result, it is expected that
site-specific planning in these areas will ensure that high quality
roosting habitat is provided and retained. As a result of the measures
listed above, the Service concludes that while there is potential to
unknowingly remove an established Indiana bat roost tree during
implementation of timber harvest activities, in most cases this
likelihood will be small, and would be restricted to the removal of
single (rather than multiple) lower quality alternate roost trees. The
exception to this conclusion is discussed separately in the "Salvage
Harvest" section below.

[Effects of Timber Harvest on Habitat Suitability]{.underline}

The conditions created by thinning are not expected to decrease the
long-term suitability of treated areas as Indiana bat roosting habitat.
Thinning will create openings in the forest canopy. Indiana bat primary
roosts are usually not surrounded by closed canopy and are often warmed
by solar radiation, which provides a favorable microclimate for growth
and development of young during normal weather. Humphrey *et al.* (1977)
hypothesized that roost trees were usually located in openings within
the forest because they provided the necessary thermoregulatory
characteristics. This is supported by the analysis conducted of several
maternity sites by Romme et al. (1995) who found that most roosts were
located in areas that had a canopy closure of 60 to 80%. Thinning could
reduce the existing canopy closure levels to more optimal levels for
Indiana bat foraging and increase the solar exposure of the remaining
trees within the harvest area, thus potentially making them more
suitable for Indiana bat roosting habitat. While this beneficial effect
is the primary intent of harvest units within primary zones, the effect
is short-term, because canopy closure occurs in approximately 5-10 years
after thinning.

A more long-term effect of thinning is increased residual growth on the
remaining trees, creating larger diameter and more suitable roost trees.
Thinning would reduce vegetative competition and promote larger, older
trees and allow remaining hardwood trees to grow larger. As noted in the
"Life History" section, the exfoliating bark hardwood trees, such as
hickories and large oaks, often provide roost sites. The retention of
snags and other den trees will further increase the potential that a
substantial number of potential roost trees within the project area will
be maintained. Damage to residual trees during felling can also improve
roosting quality and quantity, as damaged areas that become cavities and
crevices are more likely to develop due to resulting pathogen and insect
attack at the injury point. In this instance, the opening up of canopy
cover should improve foraging as well as roosting conditions.

Regeneration harvests may involve two-aged, shelterwood, and clearcut
methods. All these methods have the potential to affect potential
foraging, roosting and migratory habitat by reducing canopy closure
below optimal levels (Romme et al.1995). In addition, potential roost
trees would be removed and future roost tree availability could be
reduced by the removal of most of the large trees. The effect of
potential roost tree loss would last several decades until trees in the
regenerated areas reach roost tree size. Two-aged and shelterwood
harvests would both remove more potential roost and maternity trees than
thinning, and would result in the potential reduced suitability of these

areas to support Indiana bats. However, the two-aged and shelterwood
regeneration harvest methods may be modified to achieve Indiana bat
management objectives as opposed to timber objectives. Trees slated to
be retained could be selected based on their large size, and potential
suitability for roost trees. The removal of tree species and snags known
to provide Indiana bat roost trees would be avoided, and fewer large
trees may be removed overall. In this case, after the initial short-term
disturbance, overall suitability may not be significantly reduced, and
may be enhanced over the long-term. Site-specific evaluation and
coordination will be required to ensure that management prescriptions
are appropriately designed to meet these objectives. Since clearcut
harvesting removes the majority of trees and results in a fully open
canopy, the effects of this harvest type are more severe and last for a
greater duration. Areas affected by this harvest type would become
unsuitable to support Indiana bats.

Uneven-aged harvest methods such as single tree selection and group
selection are used less frequently on the MNF than the other methods
discussed above. Group selection results in the removal of all trees
within an area generally at least 0.5 acre in size, and potentially up
to 2 acres. Because these methods generally result in much more
localized habitat alterations and leave surrounding forested areas
intact, they are not expected to substantially decrease overall habitat
suitability.

The FPR anticipates that between 1,000 and 5,000 acres of habitat will
be subject to spruce habitat restoration over the next decade. Active
spruce restoration would involve harvests similar to thinning, single
tree selection, group selection, or two aged regeneration, depending on
site-specific conditions. Therefore, impacts to habitat suitability
would be similar to those described above. However, it is anticipated
that most spruce restoration activities would be conducted in cooler,
moist, higher elevation forests that already have a spruce/conifer
component. Areas selected for spruce restoration area not expected to be
preferred Indiana bat habitats, and once spruce forest conditions are
established, the areas would most likely not be suitable Indiana bat
habitat.

The FPR anticipates between 2,000 and 4,000 acres of timber harvest to
create wildlife openings will be conducted over the next decade. Many of
these areas will be areas that are developed on log landings and
temporary roads that are constructed in order to conduct timber harvest
activities in surrounding areas, so the actual areas harvested
specifically for the creation of wildlife openings may be less than the
amount projected. However, the MNF will likely construct some larger
wildlife savannas that are not associated with lands and roads that will
require timber harvesting. Although most wildlife openings are small
(typically less than two but with some savannas greater than ten acres)
they may be contiguous with other disturbed areas. Since these areas
will have sparse tree cover and a largely open canopy, the effects of
this harvest type are similar to other types of regeneration harvests.
Generally, habitat suitability for the Indiana bat is expected to be
reduced due to removal of the tree canopy, but some foraging and
roosting could occur around the edges of openings and within areas that
have residual trees.

While Indiana bats may also forage in upland forests and the edges of
open spaces, the data appear to suggest that Indiana bats often
preferentially use forested riparian areas for foraging. (Belwood 1979;
Cope et al. 1978; Humphrey et al. 1977; Clark et al. 1987; Gardner et
al. 1991*b*). The recent work of Owen et al. (2004) illustrates and
further supports the biological importance of forested riparian habitats
to bats in the Appalachians. The FPR incorporates Riparian Management
Guidelines that restrict disturbances and establish vegetative buffers
around streams on the MNF. Thus, it is likely that regardless of the
type of timber harvest implemented, the Indiana bat's preferred foraging
habitat will be retained. In addition, many researchers suggest that the
ability of Indiana bats to adapt to habitat alterations within
established home ranges would depend upon whether there was a sufficient
amount of suitable forested (foraging and roosting) habitat in adjacent
areas for the bats to move into (Sparks, Kurta, Currie, Clawson, and
Gardner *in* Service 2004). As noted in the Baseline section, 96% of the
MNF is currently forested. The MNF anticipates that less than 1% of the
forest will be affected by projects in any one year. The 6,900 acres of
potential timber harvest activities conducted each year are likely to be
scattered over many areas of the forest, so that there will be ample,
unaffected forested habitat adjacent to any one treatment area.
Site-specific evaluations and Tier II biological opinions will provide
the mechanism to ensure that sufficient potentially suitable Indiana bat
habitat will remain post-project.

Salvage Activities

Timber salvage harvests would occur only after areas have already been
damaged or altered by natural disturbances, insect infestations, or
disease. Salvage operations on the MNF typically affect few acres in any
given year, and would be accommodated within the estimates of overall
habitat affected for timber harvests provided above. Areas potentially
subject to salvage operations would have large numbers of dead or dying
trees that would potentially provide abundant, high quality roosting
opportunities for the Indiana bat. These types of harvests have the
greatest potential to either remove multiple established roost trees, or
significantly reduce habitat suitability for the bat. Salvage activities
within known or suspected maternity areas would be particularly
detrimental, and would have significant potential to remove large
numbers of roosts, including primary roost trees. However, the
development of site-specific protective measures by the MNF, in
coordination with the Service and the WVDNR, would likely result in the
recommendation that this type of activity be avoided. Salvage in Indiana
bat primary range, which would include hibernacula and key areas on MNF
lands, would be unlikely to occur due to a requirement to retain all
snags over 5 inches in diameter within harvest units in Indiana bat
primary range (TE 32). The requirement that vegetation management in
primary range must be primarily for enhancement or maintenance of
Indiana bat habitat also would make salvage unlikely in primary range
(TE 31). However, salvage could occur elsewhere across the MNF and could
potentially affect undiscovered maternity sites or roosting individuals.

*Road Related Activities*

Over the next 10 years, the MNF expects to affect between 630 and 780
acres of habitat as a result of road related activities such as road
construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning. Indiana bats have
been known to forage and travel along narrow forest roads with good
canopy cover. Therefore, it is possible that road related activities
could affect Indiana bats, and that tree removal associated with these
activities could result in the removal of potential roost trees. The
potential for this to occur and the potential effects will vary based on
the location and timing of the proposed activitiy, in the same manner as
described under the "Timber Harvest" section. Potential impacts to
habitat suitability will vary depending on the type of activity. Paving
and widening exisiting roads may reduce canopy cover to the extent that
these areas would become unsuitable, similar to the effects described
for clearcuts. Maintaiing and repairing roads could result in temporary,
short-term disturbances that may not affect long-term habitat
suitability. Construction of small, new roads could create new traveling
and foraging corridors that would increase habitat suitability for the
bat. In most cases, the potential for removing established roost trees,
as well as the impacts to habitat suitability, are expected to be minor
since each individual project will most likely affect a small, linear
area. However, since road related activities often occur as part of
other projects such as timber harvests or mineral development,
cumulative effects could occur. The FPR includes measures, as listed
under the "Timber Harvest" section, to avoid and minimize effects
including retaining all known roost trees, and coordinating with the
Service prior to implementing activities in known or suspected maternity
areas. In addition, the FPR does not allow for any new road construction
within 200 feet of a hibernacula (TE 51).

*Mineral Operations*

Over the next 10 years, the FPR anticipates that 740 acres of land
within the MNF proclamation boundary may be affected by federal and
private mineral development activities. Most of these activities are
expected to be related to natural gas development, including the
construction of new wells, storage facilities, pipelines, and associated
access areas. Approximately one-third to one-half of this acerage could
result from developing federal gas. Most wells and storage facilities
would involve clearing approximately two acres of habitat. Potential
adverse effects, and the likelihood that these effects would occur,
would be similar to those described for wildlife openings, and related
to the timing and location of the activity as described under the
"Timber Harvest" section. The effects of constructing pipelines and
access areas are the same as those described under "Road Related
Activities." The FPR states that surface occupancy for federal mineral
activities is not allowed within 200 feet of a hibernacula, or within
key areas (TE 52), but may be allowed within primary zones and within
maternity area on a case-by-case basis if they are compatable with
Indiana bat management (TE 38, 53). In these situations, site-specific
planning and coordination will be required to determine if additional
avoidance and minization measures are available or appropriate.

Because the MNF does not control the development of private mineral
rights, effects associated with those potential activities are not
addressed under this BO, however, the the FPR does state that the MNF
will work with other state and federal permitting agencies to reduce
adverse effects to threatened and endangered species, in the event the
developement of private mineral rights was to occur (TE 06).

*Prescribed Fire*

The FPR anticipates that between 10,000 and 30,000 acres of habitat on
the MNF will be subject to prescribed fire or wildfire suppression
activities over the next decade. Prescribed fire activities include site
preparation work such as constructing fire breaks, as well as
implementing the actual burn. Impacts associated with site preparation
activities are similar to those discussed under road related activities
above. Similar to the discussion provided under the timber harvesting
section, the nature and extent of effects resulting from implementation
of the actual burn will depend on the timing and location of the fire.

Conducting prescribed burning outside the hibernation period could
result in direct mortality or injury to the Indiana bat caused by
burning or smoke inhalation, especially death to young bats that are not
able to fly. The likelihood of this happening, however, is reduced due
to the anticipated method and timing of the burning. Because activities
within a 2.5 radius around known or potential areas of Indiana bat
maternity activity will only be conducted after coordinating with the
Service and the WVDNR to develop site-specific protection measures, it
is anticipated that conducting prescribed fire activities in these known
sensitive areas during periods when Indiana bats might be actively using
the area would generally be avoided. In addition, prescribed fires would
generally only occur in the spring between March 1 and May 31, which is
prior to the time that most young are born, or in the fall between
November 1 and December 15, which is after all young are volant (Peter
Fischer, Fire Program Manager, MNF, personal communication, June 2006).
While little to no research is available to document the potential
direct effects of fire on Indiana bats, anecdotal information suggests
that Indiana bats might be capable of escaping burning roost trees when
necessary and if volant. In Tucker County, West Virginia, on MNF land, a
myotid bat flew out of a burning snag during a prescribed fire and into
an unburned forested area during the spring of 2001 (Rodrigue and
Schuler, personal communication). Additionally, two red bats (*Lasiurus
borealis*) were observed flying from another prescribed burn unit into
an unburned area during another prescribed fire (Rodrigue et al. 2001).
The MNF estimates that typical fire would move across the landscape at a
target speed of less that 1-5 ft/minute. Because the proposed burns will
be slow moving, most bats should have time to move out of the affected
area.

Conducting prescribed burning during the hibernation period would
generally not cause direct mortality or injury to Indiana bats, unless
the fire was conducted in proximity to a hibernaculum (e.g. within a
primary area). If smoke entered the cave, bats could be asphyxiated,
awakened, and caused to either flee or relocate. Casual monitoring of
smoke in or near caves on the Mark Twain National Forest and the Ozark
National Forest during prescribed burns has not shown any detectable
effect to hibernating bats (U.S. Forest Service 2005). There are no
documented cases of hibernating Indiana bats being harmed from smoke
from prescribed burning outside of the cave. Elder and Gunier (1981)
did, however, note mortality of hibernating gray bats from smoke from a
fire set inside a cave. Prescribed burns conducting within primary areas
could be planned to avoid or minimize smoke at or near the caves by
incorporating specific wind speed and direction, mixing height, and
other parameters into site-specific burn plans.

Prescribed burns could be conducted during the spring when Indiana bats
are emerging from hibernation, or during the late fall when the bats are
preparing to hibernate. At these times the bats are expected to be
concentrated in their primary zones. Conducting prescribed burns within
the primary zones when bats are expected to be concentrated in these
areas would disrupt foraging behavior and potentially fall mating
behavior and increase the number of bats potentially exposed to adverse
effects. Timing prescribed burns within the primary zones so that they
occur either early in the spring or in early winter when the bats would
be hibernating, or conducting smaller scale (300 acre or less) burns
within these areas would minimize the potential impacts.

Indirect effects in the form of harm or harassment of Indiana bats may
result from loss of potential roost trees, or by forcing the bats to
abandon active roost trees. Because the MNF estimates that fires would
generally only burn for one day, any potential harassment of bats would
be temporary and short-term. Although it is not known how long or if the
bats would continue to avoid these areas after they were burned. In
addition, female Indiana bats in the non-maternity season and/or males
typically have numerous suitable day-roosts available and they
frequently roost-switch; therefore in the event that a bat is forced to
flee from a burn area where it is roosting, other day-roosts are likely
present on the area nearby that are available for Indiana bats to use.
However, the extent to which roosting areas are disturbed will depend on
the size of the proposed burn. The MNF anticipates that on average
prescribed burns will cover approximately 300 acres, although larger
burns of up to 3000 acres are possible. Larger scale burns have the
potential to affect a greater proportion of potential roosting areas,
while the average size burn would likely leave other roosting areas in
the vicinity of the project intact.

While prescribed burns could have some negative effects on the Indiana
bat, as described above, overall prescribed fire will likely improve
Indiana bat foraging and roosting habitat. Prescribed burning most often
results in some degree of midstory mortality to small-diameter trees and
shrubs, producing more open understory conditions. Opening of the
midstory may improve foraging and roosting habitat conditions.
Individual mortality to trees would increase the number of snags and
create scattered canopy gaps, which would improve roosting. Increased
insect populations produced in burned areas for foraging is also likely
to occur in successional years. Carter et al. (2000) state that
additional potential roost cavities and snags can be created in forested
stands by utilizing prescribed fire, depending on fire intensity,
increase the availability of snags. Snags could be created either
directly by fire mortality or indirectly by making them more susceptible
to insect attacks or pathogens (Bull et al. 1997). Depending on the tree
species, live trees subsequently killed by fire activity would remain as
suitable potential roost trees until such a time that peeling/lost bark
renders them unsuitable as summer roost sites. The Indiana bat maternity
colony discovered in the summer of 2004 in Lower Glady, Tucker County,
West Virginia was located in an area subjected to a wildfire during the
spring of 2002 (D. Arling, USFS, pers. comm.). This site is located in
close proximity to an Indiana bat hibernacula, and to the MNF. It is
likely that Indiana bats are using this area as a maternity site as a
result of its close proximity to a hibernacula and the abundance of
roost trees that were created as a result of forest fires. Therefore,
the long-term indirect effects of prescribed fire activities on the MNF
may be beneficial to the Indiana bat.

In summary, direct effects from prescribed burns have been minimized by
conducting burns when young Indiana bats are expected to be volant.
Minimization of adverse effects from burns conducted around known
maternity areas, within primary zones, or near hibernacula will be
accomplished through development of site-specific management plans that
may address burn timing, size, and smoke control. Indirect adverse
effects in the form of harm and harassment of Indiana bats being forced
to flee from roosting and foraging areas may result from prescribed fire
on the MNF. However, these adverse effects are expected to be short-term
and localized. Long-term beneficial effects, in the form of habitat
enhancements may occur as a result of prescribed fire activities.

*Small Scale Projects*

Historically, under the previous Forest Plan, the MNF implemented a
limited number of projects that involve small scale tree clearing each
year. These projects have included work to: maintain trails; construct
or maintain right-of-ways; or access areas to cap abandoned gas wells.
Tree clearing activities on these projects has generally been restricted
to removal of selected individual trees and affected less than 1.5 acres
of forested habitat per project. These projects were not contiguous
with, or part of, other projects that were being implemented by the MNF.
It is anticipated that no more than ten individual, small scale projects
that involve less than 1.5 acres of tree removal will be implemented per
year. If these small scale projects occur outside of known Indiana bat
primary or maternity areas, and retain trees that have characteristics
of typical Indiana bat roost trees (i.e. shagbark hickories and snags as
described in the "Timber Harvest" section), it is extremely unlikely
that they would result in the removal of an occupied Indiana bat roost
tree, or that they would reduce the suitability of the overall area for
Indiana bat foraging or roosting. Therefore, the Service concludes the
chance that the individual implementation of these small-scale projects
would adversely affect an Indiana bat is discountable. However, at the
programmatic level, implementation of these types of projects may
contribute to the cumulative amount of habitat alternation occurring
throughout the forest. Annual monitoring of the amount of acreage
affected by these types of projects would ensure that cumulative effects
are not significant.

*Recreational Activities*

No large-scale development of new recreational facilities is planned
under the FPR, however, maintanance and renovation of existing
facilities may occur. It is expected that most of these activities will
not alter existing habitat suitability and either will not involve
clearing of any trees that could serve as potential roost trees (i.e.
trees greater than 5 inches dbh), or would only remove very few selected
individual trees. As a result, in general these activities are not
likely to advesely affect the Indiana bat.

Recreational spelunking is a popular activity on the MNF. Allowing
indivuals or groups to enter hibernacula for recreation purposes when
the bats are present could disturb hibernating bats, resulting in
increased energy expenditures, decreased fitness, and reduced chances of
survival. The FPR prohibits public entry into major hibernacula from
September 1 to May 15 (TE 45). Minor hibernacula may remian open if the
MNF, the Service and the WVDNR agree that public entry would be
extremely unlikely to cause harm or mortality to Indiana bats. As a
result, adverse effects from recreational caving activites are not
likely to occur.

*Watershed and Aquatic Restoration, Gypsy Moth Control, Firewood
Cutting, and Range Activities*

Implementation of projects related to Watershed and Aquatic Restoration,
Gypsy Moth Control, Firewood Cutting, and Range Activities, in
accordance with the proposed plan, are not likely to adversely affect
the Indiana bat. Watershed improvement activities, such as vegetative
bank stabilization and efforts to revegetate and stabilize exposed
soils, could enhance habitat characteristics along treated streams,
resulting in beneficial effects to potential Indiana bat foraging
habitats. The pesticides used for gypsy moth control are not known to
affect vertebrates. Treatments in areas known to support Indiana bats,
such as primary zones, would be restricted to use of Gypcheck, a
pesticide that is specific to gypsy moth. Indiana bats are not expected
to be present in hay fields or pasture areas affected by range
management activities, or in the dead and downed trees associated with
firewood cutting. Additional supporting rationale for these
determinations is provided in the BA and is incorporated here by
reference.

*Summary*

Implementation of timber harvests, mineral operations, and road related
activities under the FPR has the potential to adversely affect the
Indiana bat through the removal of occupied roost trees or by causing
changes in habitat suitability that could affect breeding, feeding and
sheltering behaviors. Removal of established roost trees could cause
direct mortality or injury of bats occupying the tree or cause
individual roosting bats significant loss of energy that would result in
harm or harassment of the individual. If the affected roost tree is a
primary roost used by an Indiana bat maternity colony, adverse effects
could include reduced colony cohesion; increased stress; and increased
energy demands from searching for new roost areas and decreased
thermoregulatory efficiency. These impacts can lead to reduced
reproductive success. The potential for these effects to occur is
related to the time of year that the trees are cut and the location of
the action in relation to areas of expected high Indiana bat
concentrations, such as known or suspected maternity areas and primary
zones. While the potential to unknowingly remove or damage an
established Indiana bat roost tree during implementation of these
activities can not be discounted, in most cases this likelihood will be
small, and would be restricted to the removal of single (rather than
multiple) lower quality alternate roost trees. Depending on the type of
activity, projects have the potential to increase habitat suitability,
have only minor or short-term effects, or to make areas unsuitable to
support the bats. Forested riparian corridors that provide preferred
foraging habitat, and significant amounts of adjacent forested habitat
that potentially provide roosting opportunities, will likely remain
after implementation of individual projects, thereby minimizing the
potential effects of any reduced habitat suitability. Regardless of
project type, the FPR has included measures to significantly avoid and
minimize the potential for adverse effects to occur. Adverse effects for
individual projects will be evaluated and further minimized on a
site-specific basis.

Similar to the projects discussed above, prescribed burns have the
potential to cause direct mortality or injury to bats or cause changes
to habitat suitability. Due to the method and timing of proposed burns,
the potential for direct mortality or injury has been minimized. It is
anticipated that disturbances related to prescribed burns will be
limited and short-term. Long-term effects may include increased habitat
suitability.

Projects associated with recreational activities, watershed and aquatic
restoration, gypsy moth control, firewood cutting, and range activities
are not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat either because they
do not affect habitats or landscape features that are used by the bat,
because they will occur on such a limited scale, or because avoidance
measures have been put in place.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045664 .anchor}CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects include the combined effects of any future state,
local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur within
the action area covered in this BO. 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. Of the 1,700,000 acres within the action area, 919,000 acres are
currently under MNF ownership. Any actions conducted on MNF lands will
require separate section 7 consultation. Therefore, cumulative effects,
as defined in the ESA, are not expected to occur within those lands.

Based on past trends, future non-federal actions within the action area
but on private lands are anticipated in the form of private mineral
development, road construction and maintenance, residential and
commercial development, and timber harvest. New windpower facilities may
also be developed. The Service is aware of a number of projects on
private lands that are reasonably certain to occur within the action
area. These projects include wind farm developments, limestone quarries,
and timber harvests. In all cases, the Service is actively coordinating
with private land owners and/or the state agencies responsible for
conducting or permitting these activities. When it is not possible to
avoid adverse effects, it is expected that impacts from these projects
will be evaluated under separate section 7 consultations, including
consultation on ESA section 10 permits. It currently unknown how many
acres of suitable habitat for Indiana bat could be altered or lost by
these future actions. The actions listed above would have varying
degrees of effects on listed species from no effect to adverse effects.
Permanent conversion of forested habitat to unsuitable habitat or
construction of windfarms in close proximity to large scale hibernacula
would have the greatest potential impacts to Indiana bat. To date, there
are no known instances of Indiana bats being killed by wind farms,
although no windfarms currently exist in primary zones and monitoring
data on migrating bats is limited. The Service is actively coordinating
with the Public Service Commission and private developers to avoid the
potential for adverse effects. Mineral development and most road
construction activities are either permitted or conducted by state
agencies that routinely coordinate with the Service to avoid impacts.
Other activities such as timber harvests would have the same general
effects as described for MNF actions. Under the FPR, lands on the MNF
are managed to primarily maintain healthy forested habitats. In
addition, caves and Indiana bat hibernacula are protected from
disturbance. These protections are not necessarily in place on private
lands. As a result, we anticipate that implementation of the FPR will
not significantly contribute to cumulative effects, and may offset the
negative effects of habitat loss and degradation that might occur on
adjacent private lands in the absence of these protections.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045665 .anchor}CONCLUSION

Individual projects implemented under the FPR have the potential to
adversely affect Indiana bats, through the loss of individual roost
trees or reduced habitat suitability. The FPR has included substantial
measures to ensure that these adverse effects are avoided and minimized.
Forest management actions that have the potential to adversely affect
the bat will annually affect less than 1% of MNF and a total of between
5% and 10% of the MNF over the next decade. Even when these impacts are
considered in conjunction with areas on the MNF that are currently not
forested, it is anticipated that the MNF will provide over 780,000 of
forested habitat that should be available to the bat. The MNF is known
to provide habitat for swarming, hibernating, and summering Indiana
bats. The FPR includes programmatic measures to protect and manage the
habitats that support these three key life stages. These measures should
provide an appropriate means to ensure that suitable habitat conditions
are maintained and potentially enhanced, on a forest-wide scale. It is
therefore anticipated that overall the FPR will not result in the
long-term or significant reduction of populations of the Indiana bat on
the MNF.

After reviewing the current status of the Indiana bat, the environmental
baseline, the effects of the proposed action and the cumulative effects,
it is the Service\'s biological opinion that implementing the MNF's
Forest Plan Revision as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the Indiana bat. Critical habitat has been
designated for this species, however none will be affected by this
action.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045666 .anchor}INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Section 9 of the ESA, and federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of
the ESA, 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 attempt to engage in any such conduct. \"Harm\" is further
defined by the Service to mean an act which actually kills or injures
wildlife, including significant habitat modification or degradation that
results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing
behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
\"Harass\" is defined by the Service to mean an intentional or negligent
act or omission that creates the likelihood of injury to listed species
to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral 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
conducted by the Federal agency or 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 to be prohibited
taking under the ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the
terms and conditions of the incidental take statement.

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be
undertaken by the MNF and any applicant or agent, as appropriate, for
the exemption of section 7(o)(2) to apply. The MNF has a continuing duty
to regulate the activity covered by this Incidental Take Statement. If
the MNF should (1) fail to assume and implement the terms and
conditions, or (2) fail to require an applicant to adhere to the terms
and conditions of the Incidental Take Statement through enforceable
terms that are added to any permit or grant document, the protective
coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of
incidental take, the MNF must report the progress of the action and its
impact on the species to the Service as specified in this Incidental
Take Statement \[50 CFR § 402.14(i)(3)\].

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045667 .anchor}**Level of Take**

Although, based on the best scientific and commercial data available,
there have been no documented cases of Indiana bats being incidentally
taken during previous activities on the MNF, the Service believes that
if Indiana bats are present or utilize an area proposed for timber
harvest, prescribed burn, or other disturbance, incidental take of
Indiana bats could occur. The FPR is a comprehensive plan level document
that allows and guides, but does not authorize site-specific actions to
occur. The standards and guidelines proposed substantially reduce the
potential for adverse effects and incidental take to occur as a result
of actions implemented under the FPR. Therefore, many projects completed
under the FPR that comply with all of the standards and guidelines and
other project commitments detailed in the BA would not adversely affect
the Indiana bat. In those instances no incidental take would occur.
However, other site-specific projects conducted under the FPR may result
in adverse effects to individual Indiana bats that rise to the level of
take. The potential for these effects to occur will be further evaluated
as individual projects are implemented.

The Service anticipates that actual incidental take of Indiana bats as a
result of the projects implemented under the FPR will be difficult to
quantify and detect due to the bat's small body size, widely dispersed
individuals under loose bark or in cavities of trees, and unknown areal
extent and density of their summer and fall roosting populations range
within the MNF. Monitoring to determine take of individual bats within
an expansive area of forested habitat is a complex and arduous task.
Unless every individual tree that contains suitable roosting habitat is
inspected by a knowledgeable biologist before management activities
begin, it would be impossible to know if a roosting Indiana bat is
present in an area proposed for harvest. Inspecting individual trees is
not considered by the Service to be a practical survey method and is not
recommended as a means to determine incidental take. However, the areal
extent of potential roosting and foraging habitat affected can be used
as a surrogate to monitor the level of take.

As detailed in Table 4 below, the Service anticipates that no more than
10,052 acres of potential Indiana bat habitat will be disturbed annually
as a result of all project activities on the MNF. This figure represents
an annual maximum, and it is anticipated that the actual level of
incidental take will be substantially less, as reflected in the
estimated range of take over the next decade. It is estimated,
therefore, that no more that 1% of the MNF will be disturbed each year,
and that over the next decade a total of between 5% and 10% of the MNF
will be subject to some type of project that may alter or disturb
potentially suitable Indiana bat habitat.

**Table 4. Estimated acreage of management activities on the MNF that
may contribute to take of Indiana bats during the first decade of the
planning horizon.**

+-------------------------------------+---------+---------------------+
| **Activity**                        | **      | **Total Estimated   |
|                                     | Maximum | Acreage During      |
|                                     | Annual  | First Decade**      |
|                                     | Ac      |                     |
|                                     | reage** |                     |
+-------------------------------------+---------+---------------------+
| Development of federal minerals     | 74      | 740                 |
+-------------------------------------+---------+---------------------+
| Prescribed fire and wildfire        | 3000    | 10,000 -- 30,000    |
| suppression                         |         |                     |
+-------------------------------------+---------+---------------------+
| Road construction and               | 78      | 630 -- 780          |
| reconstruction                      |         |                     |
+-------------------------------------+---------+---------------------+
| Small Scale Projects (\>1.5         | 15      | 150                 |
| acres)\*                            |         |                     |
+-------------------------------------+---------+---------------------+
| **Activities involving timber       |         |                     |
| harvest:**                          |         |                     |
+-------------------------------------+---------+---------------------+
| > Programmed regeneration harvest   | 4000    | 20,000 -- 40,000    |
+-------------------------------------+---------+---------------------+
| > Programmed thinning               | 1300    | 7,000 -- 13,000     |
+-------------------------------------+---------+---------------------+
| > Timber harvest to improve Indiana | 700     | 3,000 -- 7,000      |
| > bat habitat within primary range  |         |                     |
+-------------------------------------+---------+---------------------+
| > Timber harvest for spruce         | 500     | 1,000 -- 5,000      |
| > ecosystem restoration and         |         |                     |
| > enhancement in MP 4.1             |         |                     |
+-------------------------------------+---------+---------------------+
| > Timber harvest for wildlife       | 400     | 2,000 -- 4,000      |
| > openings                          |         |                     |
+-------------------------------------+---------+---------------------+
| **Timber harvest total**            | *       | **33,000 --         |
|                                     | *6900** | 69,000**            |
+-------------------------------------+---------+---------------------+
| **Total acreage of all activities   | **1     | **44,370 --         |
| that may contribute to take**       | 0,052** | 100,520**           |
+-------------------------------------+---------+---------------------+

\* The acreage impacts associated with these projects are not expected
to increase the total impacts over the levels estimated for other
project categories.

Implementation of the terms and conditions associated with the
reasonable and prudent measures will reduce further the impact of the
potential for incidental take. 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 MNF 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.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045668 .anchor}**Reasonable and Prudent
Measures**

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures
(RPMs) are necessary and appropriate to minimize incidental take of the
Indiana bat. In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of
the ESA, the MNF must comply with the following terms and conditions
which implement the RPMs and outline reporting/monitoring requirements.
These terms and conditions are non-discretionary. Each RPM is listed in
italics, followed by numbered terms and conditions that implement each
RPM.

*RPM 1: Proposed management activities shall be planned, evaluated, and
implemented consistent with measures developed to protect the Indiana
bat and to reduce adverse impacts*.

1.  The MNF shall implement the "Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed
    Species" section of the Forest Plan Revision as proposed in the
    attached Appendix A.

2.  The MNF shall develop information regarding baseline habitat
    conditions for all primary zones within the MNF. Where available,
    this information should include abundance and distribution of
    various habitat and land-use types, and forest age class
    distribution. Priority shall be placed on developing baseline
    information for primary zones with high potential for implementing
    beneficial management actions. This information shall be used to
    evaluate and develop potential management activities within each
    zone, in accordance with the criteria outlined in Appendix A. For
    each proposed project within a primary zone, pre- and post-project
    conditions shall be determined and included in site-specific
    biological evaluations as described in 3.2 below.

3.  Prior to implementing individual prescribed fire activities, the MNF
    shall coordinate with the Service to develop any appropriate
    site-specific measures to avoid and minimize impacts to potential
    Indiana bat habitats.

4.  Prior to implementing individual activities within an Indiana bat
    primary zone, the MNF shall coordinate with the Service to develop
    any appropriate site-specific measures to enhance and/or minimize
    impacts to potential Indiana bat habitats.

5.  Each year, the MNF may implement up to ten individual, small scale
    projects that 1) involve less than 1.5 acres of tree removal per
    project; 2) occur outside of known Indiana bat maternity or primary
    zones; and 3) retain shagbark hickories and snags to the extent
    practicable. It will be assumed that projects meeting these criteria
    are not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. The acreage of
    tree removal associated with these activities will be monitored and
    reported by the MNF as described in 3.1 and 3.2 below. The
    cumulative total acreage affected by these projects shall not exceed
    15 acres. If individual projects beyond this total are proposed, a
    not likely to adversely affect determination can not be assumed.

6.  Projects on the MNF may proceed without formal consultation if
    site-specific projects proposed for implementation are surveyed for
    Indiana bats according to protocols established by the Service, and
    no Indiana bats are detected. If the projects are not completed
    within three years of the Indiana bat surveys, the surveys must be
    updated. The MNF's standard watershed-based surveys typically cannot
    be relied upon for site-specific clearance. Protocols for clearance
    surveys must be established on a project-specific basis in
    consultation with the Service. When project-specific clearance
    surveys are conducted and Indiana bats are not detected, it will be
    assumed that the bats may be present, but in such low numbers that
    the project is not likely to adversely affect the bat. However,
    clearance surveys can not be used to avoid formal consultation for
    projects in primary range or within 2.5 miles of a maternity site,
    roost tree, or capture site. Project acres planned and implemented
    in this manner will not be counted against the annual allowable
    acres permitted under the programmatic incidental take statement.

7.  Projects implemented during the Indiana bat hibernation period
    (November 15 through March 31) may proceed without formal
    consultation, if informal consultation between the Service and the
    MNF concludes that these projects are not likely to adversely affect
    Indiana bats, and the proposed timing of project implementation is
    incorporated as a conservation measure of the proposed project.
    Projects planned and implemented in this manner will not be counted
    against the annual allowable acres permitted under the programmatic
    incidental take statement.

*RPM 2: The Forest Service, in cooperation with the Service and the
WVDNR, shall continue to monitor the status of the Indiana bat on the
MNF.*

1.  The MNF shall continue to cooperate with the WVDNR and the Service
    to conduct their bi-annual population monitoring of hibernacula
    within the action area.

2.  The MNF shall continue to seek identification of maternity sites and
    evidence of summer use on the MNF on a watershed basis. Unless
    otherwise agreed to by the Service, surveys shall be conducted
    annually using survey methods and frequencies that follow guidelines
    and protocols established by the Service. Proposed survey strategies
    and areas shall be coordinated with the Service and the WVDNR prior
    to initiating annual efforts. The Service and the WVDNR shall be
    notified within five days of the capture of an Indiana bat. If
    Indiana bats are captured, follow up surveys using radio telemetry
    or other Service-approved methods shall be used to identify
    potential roosting and foraging areas. The MNF shall provide the
    Service and the WVDNR with a report of all survey results by January
    1 of each year.

*RPM 3: The Forest Service shall monitor tree removal activities and
prescribed burning on the MNF to determine whether measures to protect
the Indiana bat, and the terms and conditions of the BO are being
implemented as required.*

1.  In order to track the amount of incidental take actually
    implemented, by November 15 of each year, the MNF will provide the
    Service with a report of the total amount of acres of tree removal
    and prescribed burning conducted during the prior fiscal year, and
    cumulatively to date. The report shall also provide a list of
    individual projects implemented that year and the amount of acres
    affected for each activity type of that project. Throughout the
    year, the MNF shall also monitor the amount of incidental take
    implemented and notify the Service if and when the cumulative total
    acreage for the year reaches or exceeds 80 percent of the annual
    allowance.

2.  To ensure that the exemption of incidental take is appropriately
    documented, the Service will implement a tiered programmatic
    consultation approach. As individual projects are proposed under the
    Forest Plan, the MNF shall provide project-specific information to
    the Service that (1) describes the proposed action and the specific
    area to be affected, (2) identifies the species that may be
    affected, (3) describes the manner in which the proposed action may
    affect listed species, and the anticipated effects, (4) specifies
    that the "anticipated effects from the proposed project are similar
    to those anticipated in the programmatic BO", (5) quantifies the
    cumulative total of take that has been authorized annually and to
    date, and (6) describes any additional effects, if any, not
    considered in the tier I consultation.

> The Service will review the information provided by the MNF for each
> proposed project. If it is determined during this review that a
> proposed project is not likely to adversely affect listed species, the
> Service will complete its documentation with a standard concurrence
> letter that refers to this BO (the tier I programmatic document), and
> specifies that the Service concurs that the proposed project is not
> likely to adversely affect listed species or designated critical
> habitat. If it is determined that the proposed project is likely to
> adversely affect listed species or designated critical habitat, then
> the Service will complete a tier II BO, including a project-specific
> incidental take statement. Each tier II BO will also calculate the
> cumulative total of incidental take authorized annually and to date.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045669 .anchor}CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA 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. The Service recommends the following activities:

1.  Collaborate with the Service on an outreach program specifically
    directed towards eastern woodland bat species and their conservation
    needs. The program would target federal, state, and private
    foresters, land managers and the general public.

2.  Retain or create ephemeral pools during log road abandonment, where
    appropriate, to provide additional sources of drinking water for
    forest bats. Such pools should be located such that they do not
    create a risk of erosion, sedimentation, or other adverse impacts on
    soil and water resources.

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

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045670 .anchor}REINITIATION NOTICE

This concludes formal consultation for the MNF proposed Forest Plan
Revision. As required by 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal
consultation is required when 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 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 is designated that may be affected by the action. In instances
where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any
operations causing such a take must cease, pending reinitiation of
consultation.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045671 .anchor}LITERATURE CITED

Apogee Environmental Consultants, LLC. 2006. Summer monitoring for the
federally endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) near known maternity
colony trees, Boone County, West Virginia. January 2006. Report
submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Black Castle Mining
Company, Uneeda, West Virginia. 44 pp. plus appendices and maps.

Bailey, R.G. 1998. Ecoregions map of North America: Explanatory Note.
Misc. Publ. 1548. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.

Barclay, R.M.R., and L.D. Harder. 2003. Life histories of bats: life in
the slow lane. *In* T.H. Kunz and M.B. Fenton (eds.), Bat ecology.
University of Chicago Press; Chicago, Illinois.

Barclay, R. M. R., and A. Kurta. In press. Ecology and behavior of bats
roosting in tree cavities and under bark. *In* Conservation and
Management of Bats in North American Forests (M. Lacki, J. Hayes, and A.
Kurta, eds). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Barclay, R.M.R. and A. Kurta. 2004. Day roosting ecology of bark and
cavity roosting forest bats: a synthesis. 2nd Bats and Forest Symposium
and Workshop, March 9-12, 2004. Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Bartgis, R.L. 1985. Rediscovery of Trifolium stoloniferum Muhl. ex A.
Eaton. Rhodora, 87:425-429.

Becus, M.S. 1993. Running buffalo clover monitoring in the Hamilton
County Park District, Ohio. A report to the Hamilton County Park
District.

Belwood, J. J. 1979. Feeding ecology of an Indiana bat community with
emphasis on the endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. M.S. thesis,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Belwood, J. J. 2002. Endangered bats in suburbia: observations and
concerns for the future. *In* The Indiana bat: biology and management of
an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation
International, Austin, Texas.

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

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

Britzke, E. R. 2003. Spring roosting ecology of female Indiana bats
(*Myotis sodalis*) in the Northeastern United States. Report prepared
for the New England Field Office, USFWS, Concord, NH 03301. 24 pp.

Britzke, E.R., A.C. Hicks, S. L. von Oettingen, and S. R. Darling. In
press. Description of spring roost trees used by female Indiana Bats
(*Myotis* sodalis) in the Lake Champlain valley of Vermont and New York.
American Midland Naturalist. 21 pp.

Brooks, R.E. 1983. *Trifolium stoloniferum,* running buffalo clover:
Description, distribution, and current status. *Rhodora* 85(842):
343-354.

Bull, E. L., C. G. Parks, and T. R. Torgersen. 1997. Trees and logs
important to wildlife in the interior Columbia River basin. USDA Forest
Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-391.

Butchkoski, C. M., and J. D. Hassinger. 2002. Ecology of a maternity
colony roosting in a building. *In* The Indiana bat: biology and
management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat
Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Callahan, E. V. 1993. Indiana bat summer habitat requirements. M.S.
Thesis. University of Missouri, Columbia.

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

Carter, T.C., W.M.Ford, and M.A. Menzel. 2000. Fire and bats in the
Southeast and Mid-Atlantic: more questions then answers? **In**:
Proceedings: the role of fire for nongame wildlife management and
community restoration: traditional users and new directions. September
15; Nashville, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-288. Newtown Square. PA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research
Station. 145 pp.

Carter, T. C. 2003. Summer habitat use of roost trees by the endangered
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in the Shawnee National Forest of southern
Illinois. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,
Illinois.

Clark, R.D., Jr., and R.M. Prouty. 1976. Organochloride residues in
three bat species from four localities in Maryland and West Virginia,
1973. Pesticide Monitoring Journal. 10: 44-53.

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

Clark, B. K., J. B. Bowels, and B. S. Clark. 1987. Summer status of the
endangered Indiana bat in Iowa. American Midland Naturalist 118:32--39.

Clawson, R. L., R. K. LaVal, M. L. LaVal, and W. Caire. 1980. Clustering
behavior of hibernating *Myotis sodalis* in Missouri. J. Mamm.
61:245-253.

Compliance Monitoring Labs Inc. 2006. Bat Species Inventory and Habitat
Utilization of Headwater Tributaries of Bull Creek, Boone County, West
Virginia. Report prepared for Hollow Mountain Resources. February 2006.

Crawford, D.J., E.J. Esselman, J.L. Windus, and C.S. Pabin. 1998.
Genetic variation in running buffalo clover (*Trifolium stoloniferum*:
Fabaceae) using random amplified polymorphic DNA markers. *Annals of the
Missouri Botanical Garden* 85:81-89.

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

Cope, J. B., A. R. Richter, and R. S. Mills. 1974. Concentrations of the
Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis, in Wayne County, Indiana. Proceedings of
the Indiana Academy of Science 83:482--484.

Cope, J. B., A. R. Richter, and D. A. Searly. 1978. A survey of bats in
the Big Blue Lake project area in Indiana. Unpublished report. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Louisville District, Louisville, Kentucky.

Cusick, A.W. 1989. Trifolium stoloniferum (Fabaceae) in Ohio: history,
habitats, decline and rediscovery. Sida, 13:467-480.

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

Elder, W. H., and W. J. Gunier. 1981. Dynamics of a gray bat population
MYOTIS GRISESCENS in Missouri, USA. American Midland Naturalist
105:193-5.

Fenton, M. B., and G. K. Morris. 1976. Opportunistic feeding by desert
bats (Myotis spp.). Canadian Journal of Zoology 54:526--530.

Franklin, C.J. 1998. Self-compatibility and variation in seed production
among Ohio populations of federally endangered *Trifolium stoloniferum*
(Fabaceae). M.S. Thesis. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Ford, W.M., D. Madarish, and T.M. Schuler. 2003. Influence of
white-tailed deer digestion on running buffalo clover (*Trifolium
stoloniferum*: Fabaceae Muhl. ex. A. Eaton). *American Midland
Naturalist* 149:425-428.

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann. 1991a. Summary of Myotis
sodalis summer habitat studies in Illinois: with recommendations for
impact assessment. Unpublished report prepared for Indiana/Gray bat
Recovery Team Meeting, Columbia, Missouri, March 1991. 28p.

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann. 1991b. Summer roost
selection and roosting behavior of Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat) in
Illinois. Unpublished report prepared for U.S. Department of Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Twin Cities, Minnesota. 56p.

Gardner, J. E., J. E. Hofmann, and J. D. Garner. 1996. Summer
distribution of the federally endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in
Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science
89:187--196.

Gardner, J. E., and E. A. Cook. 2002. Seasonal and geographic
distribution and quantification of potential summer habitat. *In* The
Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta
and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Garner, J. D., and J. E. Gardner. 1992. Determination of summer
distribution and habitat utilization of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
in Illinois. Unpublished report, Illinois Natural History Survey,
Champaign, Illinois.

Gleason, H.A. and A. Cronquist. 1991. *Manual of vascular plants of
northeastern United States and adjacent Canada*. 2^nd^ Edition. New York
Botanical Garden, Bronx.

Grindal, S. D., T. S. Collard, R. M. Brigham, and R. M. R. Barclay.
1992. The influence of precipitation on reproduction by Myotis bats in
British Columbia. American Midland Naturalist 128:339--344.

Gumbert, M.W. 2001. Seasonal roost tree use by Indiana bats in the
Somerset Ranger District of the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky.
M.S. thesis. Eastern Kentucky University. Richmond, Kentucky.

Gumbert, M. W., J. M. O'Keefe, and J. R. MacGregor. 2002. Roost fidelity
in Kentucky. *In* The Indiana bat: biology and management of an
endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation
International, Austin, Texas.

Guthrie, M. J. 1933. The reproductive cycles of some cave bats. Journal
of Mammalogy 14:199-216.

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

Harvey, M. J. 2002. Status and ecology in the southern United States.
*In* The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species
(A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin,
Texas.

Hawkins, J. A. and V. Brack, Jr. 2004. Habitat Conservation Plan: 2003
telemetry study of autumn swarming behavior of the Indiana bat (*Myotis
sodalis*). Report prepared for the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources. Indianapolis, IN. 23 pp.

Hawkins, J. A., J. Jaskula, A. Mann, and V. Brack, Jr. 2005. Habitat
Conservation Plan: 2004 telemetry study of autumn swarming behavior of
the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Report prepared for the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources. Indianapolis, IN. 25 pp.

Henshaw, R.E. 1965. Physiology of hibernation and acclimatization in two
species of bats (Myotis lucifugus and M. sodalis). Dissertation
Abstracts. 26:2837-2838.

Hicks, A., and P. G. Novak. 2002. History, status, and behavior of
hibernating populations in the Northeast. *In* The Indiana bat: biology
and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.).
Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Hicks, A. 2003. Indiana Bat (*Myotis sodalis*): Protection and
Management in New York State. Endangered Species Investigations
Performance Report. Project Number W-166-E Segment 2002-2003. New York
Dept. of Environmental Conservation.

Hicks, A. 2004. Indiana Bat (*Myotis sodalis*): Protection and
Management in New York State. Endangered Species Investigations
Performance Report. Project Number W-166-E Segment 2002-2003. New York
Dept. of Environmental Conservation.

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

Homoya, M.A., J.R. Aldrich, and E.M. Jacquart. 1989. The rediscovery of
the globally endangered clover, Trifolium stoloniferum, in Indiana.
Rhodora, 91:207-212.

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.

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

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

Indianapolis Airport Authority. 2003. Habitat conservation plan report
for monitoring year 2002.

Indianapolis Airport Authority. 2004. Habitat conservation plan report
for monitoring year 2003.

Jacobs, J. and R. Bartgis. 1987. The running buffalo clover. Pp. 439-445
*In* R.D. Silvestro (ed.) Audubon Wildlife Report. Academic Press,
Orlando, FL.

Kerth, G., and B. König. 1999. Fission, fusion, and nonrandom
associations in female Bechstein's bats (Myotis bechsteinii). Behaviour
136:1187--1202.

Kiser, J.D., and C.L. Elliott. 1996. Foraging habitat, food habits, and
roost tree characteristics of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) during
autumn in Jackson County, Kentucky. Unpublished report prepared for
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Nongame Program,
Frankfort, Kentucky. 65 p.

Kunz, T.H., and L.F. Lumsden. 2003. Ecology of cavity and foliage
roosting bats. Pages 3-89 *In* T.H. Kunz and M.B. Fenton (eds.), Bat
ecology. University of Chicago Press; Chicago, Illinois.

Kurta, A. 2004. Roosting Ecology and Behavior of Indiana Bats (Myotis
sodalis) in Summer. *In* The Proceedings of the Indiana bat and coal
mining: a technical interactive forum (K.C. Vories and A. Harrington,
eds.). Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Department of the Interior, Alton,
Illinois.

Kurta, A. 2000. The bat community in northwestern Lower Michigan, with
emphasis on the Indiana bat and eastern pipistrelle. Unpublished report.
United States Forest Service, Huron-Manistee National Forests, Cadillac,
Michigan.

Kurta, A., and R. Foster. 1995. The brown creeper (Aves: Certhiidae): a
competitor of tree-roosting bats? Bat Research News 36:6--7.

Kurta, A., and S. W. Murray. 2002. Philopatry and migration of banded
Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) and effects of radio transmitters. Journal
of Mammalogy 83:585--589.

Kurta, A., and H. Rice. 2002. Ecology and management of the Indiana bat
in Michigan. Michigan Academician 33:361--376.

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

Kurta, A., S. W. Murray, and D. Miller. 2002. Roost selection and
movements across the summer landscape. *In* The Indiana bat: biology and
management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat
Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Kurta, A., K. J. Williams, and R. Mies. 1996. Ecological, behavioral,
and thermal observations of a peripheral population of Indiana bats
(Myotis sodalis). *In* Bats and Forests Symposium (R. M. R. Barclay and
R. M. Brigham, eds.). Research Branch, Ministry of Forests, Province of
British Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Kurta, A., J. Kath, E. L. Smith, R. Foster, M. W. Orick, and R. Ross.
1993. A maternity roost of the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
in an unshaded, hollow, sycamore tree (Platanus occidentalis). American
Midland Naturalist 130:405--407.

Kurta, A., and J.A. Teramino. 1994. A novel hibernaculum and noteworthy
records of the Indiana bat and eastern pipistrelle (Chiroptera:
Vespertilionidae). American Midland Naturalist. 132: 410-413.

LaVal, R. K., and M. L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological studies and management
of Missouri bats, with emphasis on cave-dwelling species. Missouri
Department of Conservation, Terrestrial Series 8:1--52.

LaVal, R. K., R. L. Clawson, W. Caire, L. R. Wingate, and M. L. LaVal.
1976. An evaluation of the status of myotine bats in the proposed
Meramec Park Lake and Union Lake project areas, Missouri. Special
report. Unpublished report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis,
Missouri.

Lee. Y-. F. 1993. Feeding ecology of the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis,
and resource partitioning with Myotis keenii and Myotis lucifugus. M.S.
thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.

Lewis, S. E. 1993. Effect of climatic variation on reproduction by
pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus). Canadian Journal of Zoology,
71:1429--1433.

Madarish, D. and T.M. Schuler. 2002. Effects of forest management
practices on the federally endangered running buffalo clover (Trifolium
stoloniferum Muhl. ex A. Eaton) Natural Areas Journal, 22:120-128.

Menzel, J. A., W. M. Ford, M. A. Menzel, T. C. Carter, J. E Gardner, J.
D. Garner, and J. E. Hofmann. 2005. Summer habitat use and home-range
analysis of the endangered Indiana bat. J. Wildl. Manage. 69(1):2005.

Menzel, M. A., J. M. Menzel, T. C. Carter, W. M. Ford, J. W. Edwards.
2001. Review of the forest habitat relationships of the Indiana bat
(Myotis sodalis). USDA, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station,
General Technical Report NE-284:1--21.

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

Murray, S. W. 1999. Diet and nocturnal activity patterns of the
endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. M.S. thesis, Eastern Michigan
University, Ypsilanti, Michigan.

Murray, S. W., and A. Kurta. 2002a. Spatial and temporal variation in
diet. *In* The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered
species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International,
Austin, Texas.

Murray, S. W., and A. Kurta. 2002b. Nocturnal activity of the endangered
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Unpublished manuscript.

Murray, S. W., and A. Kurta. 2004. Nocturnal activity of the endangered
Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*). Journal of Zoology (London) 262:1-10.

Myers, R. F. 1964. Ecology of three species of myotine bats in the Ozark
Plateau. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.

O'Donnell, C. 2000. Cryptic local populations in a temperate rainforest
bat Chalinolobus tuberculatus in New Zealand. Animal Conservation
3:287-297.

O'Shea, T.J., and D.R. Clark, Jr. 2002. An overview of contaminants and
bats, with special reference to insecticides and the Indiana bat. Pages
237-253 *In* Kurta, A., and J.Kennedy, editors. The Indiana bat: biology
and management of an endangered species. Bat Conservation International,
Austin, Texas.

Owen, Sheldon F., Michael A. Menzel, John W. Edwards, W.M. Ford,
Jennifer M. Menzel, Brian R. Chapman, Petra B. Wood, and Karl V. Miller.
2004. Bat Activity in Harvested and Intact Forest Stands in the
Allegheny Mountains. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 21:154-159.

Pierson, E.D. 1998. Tall trees, deep holes, and scarred landscapes:
conservation biology of North American bats. Pages 309-325 In Kunz, T.H.
and P.A. Racey eds. Bat Biology and Conservation. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Raesly, R. L., and J. E. Gates. 1986. Winter habitat selection by north
temperate cave bats. The American Midland Naturalist, 118:15--31.

Racey, P.A. 1982. Ecology of Bat Reproduction. *In* Kunz, T.H. Ecology
of Bats. Plenum Publishing; New York, New York.

Racey, P.A., and A.C. Entwistle. 2003. Conservation ecology of bats.
*In* T.H. Kunz and M.B. Fenton (eds), Bat ecology. University of Chicago
Press; Chicago, Illinois.

Reidinger, R.F. 1972. Factors influencing Arizona bat population levels.
Tempe, AZ: University of Arizona. 172 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

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(2):407-415.

Rodrigue, J. L. 2004. Biological assessment, Fernow Experimental Forest.
USDA Forest Service. Parsons, WV. 105pp.

Rodrigue, J. L., T.M. Schuler, and M.A. Menzel. 2001. Observations of
bat activity during prescribed burning in West Virginia. Bat Research
News 42(2):48-49.

Rommé, R. C., A. B. Henry, R. A. King, T. Glueck, and K. Tyrell. 2002.
Home range near hibernacula in spring and autumn. *In* The Indiana bat:
biology and management of an endangered species (A. Kurta and J.
Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Rommé, 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*. Final Report for the Indiana Department
of Natural Resources; Federal Aid Project E-1-7, Study No. 8. 39 p.

Sanders, C.; J. Chenger and B. Denlinger. 2001. Williams Lake telemetry
study: New York Indiana bat spring migration tracking study. Report for
Bat Conservation and Management.
[[www.batmanagement.com]{.underline}](http://www.batmanagement.com/). 21
pp.

Sparks, D. W., C. M. Ritzi., J. E. Duchamp, and J. O. Whitaker. In
press. Foraging habitat of endangered Indiana Myotis (*Myotis sodalis*)
at an urban/rural interface. Submitted to Journal of Mammalogy.

Sparks, D. W., J. O. Whitaker, Jr., and C. M. Ritzi. 2004. Foraging
ecology of the endangered Indiana bat. *In* The Proceedings of the
Indiana bat and coal mining: a technical interactive forum (K.C. Vories
and A. Harrington, eds.). Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Department of
the Interior, Alton, Illinois.

Speakman, J.R., and D.W. Thomas. 2003. Physiological ecology and
energetics of Bats. *In* Kunz, T.H., and M.B. Fenton. 2003. Bat Ecology.
University of Chicago Press; Chicago, Illinois. Tuttle and Stevenson
1978.

Stihler, C. 1995. A radio telemetry study of female Virginia big-eared
bats (*Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii* *virginianus*) at a
maternity colony in Cave Mountain Cave, Pendleton County, West Virginia.
Report in fulfillment of a Challenge Cost Share agreement between the
WVDNR and USDA Forest Service, Monongahela National Forest, Elkins, WV.

Taylor, N.L., J.M. Gillett, J.J.N. Campbell, and S. Berger. 1994.
Crossing and morphological relationships among native clovers of eastern
North America. *Crop Science* 34(4): 1097-1100.

Tuttle, M. D., and D. E. 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.

Tuttle, M. D., and D. A. R. Taylor. 1994. Bats and mines. Resource
Publication No. 3, Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas 42pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Programmatic Biological Opinion
for the Mark Twain National Forest 2005 Forest Plan, Missouri. Missouri
Ecological Services Field Office, Columbia, MO.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. Tier II Biological Opinion and
Take Statement for the Monongahela National Forest, Desert Branch
Project. West Virginia Field Office, Elkins, WV

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005c. Biological Opinion on Fernow
Experimental Forest. Parsons, West Virginia. West Virginia Field Office,
Elkins, WV.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005d. Running buffalo clover
(*Trifolium stoloniferum*) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 65 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005e. Programmatic Biological Opinion
for the Wayne National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for the
Federally-listed Endangered Indiana Bat and Running Buffalo Clover. Ohio
Ecological Services Field Office, Reynoldsburg, OH.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Notes from Indiana bat meeting
held at National Conservation Training Center. 20-23 July 2004.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Indiana Bat Revised Recovery Plan
(Agency Draft). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 53
pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Cheat Mountain salamander
(*Plethodon nettingi)* recovery plan. Newton Corner, MA. 35 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Virginia Department of Game and
Inland Fisheries. 2001 Bald Eagle Protection Guidelines for Virginia.
Gloucester, VA 6pp.

U.S. Forest Service. 2005. Programmatic biological assessment for the
Mark Twain National Forest, Forest Plan Revision. Rolla, Missouri. 303p.

Viele, D. P., A. Kurta, and J. Kath. 2002. Timing of nightly emergence.
*In* The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species
(A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation International, Austin,
Texas.

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 2006. (Draft) Endangered
Species Federal Assistance Performance Report, Project E-2. WV Div. Nat.
Resources.

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 2004. Endangered Species
Federal Assistance Performance Report, Project E-1. WV Div. Nat.
Resources.

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 1997. July 1, 1997 letter
from Bernard F. Dowler, Chief Wildlife Resources Section to Charles
Meyers, Forest Supervisor, Monongahela National Forest.

Whitaker, J. O., Jr., and V. Brack, Jr. 2002. Distribution and summer
ecology in Indiana. *In* The Indiana bat: biology and management of an
endangered species (A. Kurta and J. Kennedy, eds.). Bat Conservation
International, Austin, Texas.

Willis, Craig K. R., and R. Mark Brigham. 2004. Roost Switching, roost
sharing and social cohesion: forest-dwelling big brown bats, Eptesicus
fuscus, conform to the fission-fusion model. Animal Behaviour. 68:
495-505.

Winhold, L., E. Hough, and A. Kurta. 2005. Long-term fidelity by
tree-roosting bats to a home area. Bat Research News. Volume 46:No. 1.

######### 

######### 

######### 

# 

# Appendix A:

**Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species Section**

**of the**

**2006 Forest Plan Revision**

Note: This text has been modified from that presented in the July 2005
Draft Environmental Impact Statement in order to address public
comments, and the results of consultation between the Service and the
MNF.

######### **Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species**

*Forest Service Manual and Handbook management direction for Threatened,
Endangered, and Proposed (TEP) species is in FSM 2600 -- Wildlife, Fish,
and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management, and in FSH 2609.13 -- Wildlife
and Fisheries Program Management Handbook. See FSM and FSH direction for
other appropriate resources in this section.*

Although all threatened, endangered, or proposed species on the Forest
may not be individually addressed in the Forest-wide management
direction, the Forest is obligated to provide sufficient habitat to
contribute to their survival and recovery. This obligation is spelled
out in more detail in the Endangered Species Act, Forest Service Manual
and Handbook direction, and various recovery plans, conservation
strategies and agreements, and Memoranda Of Understanding. In addition,
Section 7 consultation will occur at the project level for all proposed
actions that may affect these species or their habitat. The Forest Plan
does not authorize or implement specific actions and therefore cannot
predict potential effects from these actions. The actions and effects
would occur at the project level and will be addressed in consultation
at that level.

**DESIRED CONDITIONS**

Habitats for Threatened and Endangered Species are managed to maintain
or enhance populations consistent with established and approved Recovery
Plans. TEP management is coordinated with management of other resources
to contribute to species recovery and achieve multiple-use objectives.
Habitats for Proposed species are managed to help preclude listing as
Threatened or Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Effects
from Forest programs or activities are at levels that do not threaten
the persistence of TEP species populations.

+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **Mana |      |                                                      |
| gement |      |                                                      |
| Dir    |      |                                                      |
| ection |      |                                                      |
| for    |      |                                                      |
| TEP    |      |                                                      |
| Spe    |      |                                                      |
| cies** |      |                                                      |
+========+======+======================================================+
| ###### | **   | **Direction Description**                            |
|  Type  | Numb |                                                      |
|        | er** |                                                      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **G    |      |                                                      |
| eneral |      |                                                      |
| Direc  |      |                                                      |
| tion** |      |                                                      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Goal   | TE01 | Provide habitat capable of contributing to the       |
|        |      | survival and recovery of species listed under the    |
|        |      | ESA. Provide habitat that may help preclude Proposed |
|        |      | species from becoming listed.                        |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Goal   | TE02 | Integrate TEP habitat management with other resource |
|        |      | objectives.                                          |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Goal   | TE03 | Work with USFWS, WVDNR, and other appropriate        |
|        |      | personnel to identify and manage habitat for TEP     |
|        |      | species. Participate in recovery plan development    |
|        |      | for threatened or endangered species that occur on   |
|        |      | the Forest, or that may be influenced by Forest      |
|        |      | management activities.                               |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Goal   | TE04 | Within watershed-level planning units, identify TEP  |
|        |      | species habitat and opportunities to maintain,       |
|        |      | restore, or enhance habitat conditions. Design and   |
|        |      | implement management actions at the project level to |
|        |      | address opportunities and provide for ecological     |
|        |      | conditions, population viability, reproductive       |
|        |      | needs, and habitat components for TEP species.       |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Goal   | TE05 | Collaborate on outreach programs for TEP species and |
|        |      | their conservation needs.                            |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE06 | When proposed exploration or development of          |
| andard |      | privately owned mineral rights may adversely affect  |
|        |      | TEP species or habitat, the Forest shall work with   |
|        |      | state and federal mineral operation permitting       |
|        |      | agencies to reduce adverse effects.                  |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE07 | Special use permits may be authorized in TEP species |
| andard |      | habitat if the uses do not adversely affect          |
|        |      | populations or habitat. This standard does not apply |
|        |      | to Indiana bat or running buffalo clover. See        |
|        |      | special uses direction for these species, below.     |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **Cave |      |                                                      |
| H      |      |                                                      |
| abitat |      |                                                      |
| and    |      |                                                      |
| Spe    |      |                                                      |
| cies** |      |                                                      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE08 | Cave entry during closed periods for scientific      |
| andard |      | study and observation may be permitted by Forest     |
|        |      | Supervisor's written approval and permit from USFWS  |
|        |      | or delegated authority.                              |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE09 | Gates or fences installed at cave entrances shall    |
| andard |      | allow free entry and exit by TEP species and shall   |
|        |      | not restrict normal airflows.                        |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE10 | Gate installation that disturbs a cave feature or    |
| andard |      | floor must have an archaeological survey prior to    |
|        |      | disturbance.                                         |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE11 | Gates and fences shall be monitored and maintained.  |
| andard |      | Base monitoring frequency on past cave visits,       |
|        |      | access, and potential for disturbance. Maintenance   |
|        |      | and repair of gates shall be undertaken within a     |
|        |      | reasonable time frame from vandalism discovery.      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| *Addi  |      |                                                      |
| tional |      |                                                      |
| Fores  |      |                                                      |
| t-wide |      |                                                      |
| dir    |      |                                                      |
| ection |      |                                                      |
| to     |      |                                                      |
| a      |      |                                                      |
| ddress |      |                                                      |
| the    |      |                                                      |
| needs  |      |                                                      |
| of     |      |                                                      |
| sp     |      |                                                      |
| ecific |      |                                                      |
| TEP    |      |                                                      |
| s      |      |                                                      |
| pecies |      |                                                      |
| is     |      |                                                      |
| iden   |      |                                                      |
| tified |      |                                                      |
| b      |      |                                                      |
| elow.* |      |                                                      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| ####   |      |                                                      |
| ### ** |      |                                                      |
| Virgin |      |                                                      |
| ia Big |      |                                                      |
| -Eared |      |                                                      |
|  Bat** |      |                                                      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Goal   | TE12 | Within six miles of hibernacula, maternity colonies, |
|        |      | and bachelor colonies, create or maintain a          |
|        |      | diversity of open, herbaceous habitats where         |
|        |      | consistent with MP emphasis.                         |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE13 | Before taking actions on buildings that are within 6 |
| andard |      | miles of hibernacula, maternity colonies, or         |
|        |      | bachelor colonies, evaluate the buildings' potential |
|        |      | to serve as roosting habitat and take action to      |
|        |      | avoid or minimize impacts as necessary. Actions      |
|        |      | (disposal, construction, reconstruction, etc.) are   |
|        |      | allowed during the hibernation period (November      |
|        |      | 16--March 31) without roosting habitat evaluation.   |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE14 | Within 200 feet of hibernacula, maternity colonies,  |
| andard |      | or bachelor colonies, vegetation management shall    |
|        |      | only be conducted for:                               |
|        |      |                                                      |
|        |      | a)  Bat habitat maintenance or improvement,          |
|        |      |                                                      |
|        |      | b)  Public safety, or                                |
|        |      |                                                      |
|        |      | c)  Research.                                        |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE15 | New recreation facility construction is prohibited   |
| andard |      | within 200 feet of hibernacula, maternity colonies,  |
|        |      | or bachelor colonies.                                |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE16 | Prohibit public entry into caves and mines used as   |
| andard |      | major hibernacula from September 1 to May 15. Minor  |
|        |      | hibernacula that harbor very few individuals in most |
|        |      | years may remain open to the public if the Forest,   |
|        |      | USFWS, and WVDNR agree that public entry would be    |
|        |      | extremely unlikely to cause harm or mortality of     |
|        |      | Virginia big-eared bats.                             |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE17 | Prohibit public entry into caves and mines used as   |
| andard |      | maternity or bachelor colonies during the nursery    |
|        |      | season from April 1 to September 15.                 |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE18 | Surface occupancy is not allowed for mineral         |
| andard |      | operations on federal minerals that are within 200   |
|        |      | feet of hibernacula, maternity colonies, or bachelor |
|        |      | colonies.                                            |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE19 | Seismic exploration is prohibited within 200 feet of |
| andard |      | hibernacula, maternity colonies, or bachelor         |
|        |      | colonies unless it can be demonstrated that it would |
|        |      | not have an adverse impact on bat populations or     |
|        |      | habitat.                                             |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE20 | Explosives shall not be used within 200 feet of      |
| andard |      | hibernacula, maternity colonies, or bachelor         |
|        |      | colonies unless analysis can demonstrate that this   |
|        |      | activity will not have an adverse effect on bat      |
|        |      | populations or habitat. Explosives outside of this   |
|        |      | area shall not be used when such use has potential   |
|        |      | to damage the cave or disturb the bat.               |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE21 | New road or trail construction is prohibited within  |
| andard |      | 200 feet of hibernacula, maternity colonies, or      |
|        |      | bachelor colonies.                                   |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE22 | If any new Virginia big-eared bat hibernacula,       |
| andard |      | maternity colonies, or bachelor colonies are         |
|        |      | discovered on the Forest, the Forest shall develop   |
|        |      | appropriate protection measures in cooperation with  |
|        |      | USFWS and WVDNR. These measures could include        |
|        |      | closure orders, signs, fences, or gates.             |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| #####  |      |                                                      |
| ## **I |      |                                                      |
| ndiana |      |                                                      |
|  Bat** |      |                                                      |
|        |      |                                                      |
| The    |      |                                                      |
| fol    |      |                                                      |
| lowing |      |                                                      |
| terms  |      |                                                      |
| and    |      |                                                      |
| defin  |      |                                                      |
| itions |      |                                                      |
| (see   |      |                                                      |
| Glo    |      |                                                      |
| ssary) |      |                                                      |
| are    |      |                                                      |
| cr     |      |                                                      |
| itical |      |                                                      |
| to     |      |                                                      |
| u      |      |                                                      |
| nderst |      |                                                      |
| anding |      |                                                      |
| dir    |      |                                                      |
| ection |      |                                                      |
| for    |      |                                                      |
| I      |      |                                                      |
| ndiana |      |                                                      |
| bats:  |      |                                                      |
|        |      |                                                      |
| 1.  P  |      |                                                      |
| rimary |      |                                                      |
|        |      |                                                      |
|  Range |      |                                                      |
|        |      |                                                      |
| 2.     |      |                                                      |
|  Hiber |      |                                                      |
| nacula |      |                                                      |
|        |      |                                                      |
| 3      |      |                                                      |
| .  Key |      |                                                      |
|        |      |                                                      |
|  Areas |      |                                                      |
|        |      |                                                      |
| 4      |      |                                                      |
| .  Mat |      |                                                      |
| ernity |      |                                                      |
|        |      |                                                      |
|   site |      |                                                      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE23 | Retain all shagbark hickory trees 5 inches in        |
| andard |      | diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater in        |
|        |      | harvest units except where public or worker safety   |
|        |      | concerns or research opportunities exist.            |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE24 | After post-harvest treatments, retain an average of  |
| andard |      | at least 6 snags per acre that are 9 inches dbh or   |
|        |      | greater within harvest units, except where public or |
|        |      | worker safety concerns exist. Create additional      |
|        |      | snags, if needed, from the available leave trees to  |
|        |      | make up any difference. Prioritize snag retention    |
|        |      | and creation from the largest to the smallest dbh.   |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE25 | Retain all known roost trees until such time as they |
| andard |      | no longer serve as roost trees (e.g. lose their      |
|        |      | exfoliating bark or cavities, fall down, decay, or   |
|        |      | are no longer used by bats).                         |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE26 | Where evidence of maternity colonies (reproductively |
| andard |      | active females or juveniles prior to August 15) is   |
|        |      | discovered, the Forest shall establish a 2.5-mile    |
|        |      | radius buffer around the evidence site and search    |
|        |      | for actual maternity colonies within this management |
|        |      | zone. The radius may be adjusted if warranted by new |
|        |      | scientific information. The search shall continue    |
|        |      | for 3 field seasons or until a maternity site is     |
|        |      | confirmed, whichever occurs sooner. While the search |
|        |      | is ongoing, proposed actions in the management zone  |
|        |      | shall be reviewed in cooperation with USFWS and      |
|        |      | WVDNR to determine any site-specific protection      |
|        |      | measures that may be needed. If and when a maternity |
|        |      | colony is found, the management zone shall be        |
|        |      | adjusted as specified in TE27. If no other evidence  |
|        |      | of maternity activity is found for 3 field seasons,  |
|        |      | the management zone shall expire.                    |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE27 | If a maternity site is discovered, establish a       |
| andard |      | management zone centered on the site. The management |
|        |      | zone shall not exceed a 2.5-mile radius unless       |
|        |      | site-specific factors or new scientific information  |
|        |      | indicate that a larger zone is needed. The zone may  |
|        |      | be smaller than a 2.5-mile radius if an evaluation   |
|        |      | of topography, known roost tree locations, proximity |
|        |      | of permanent water, or other site-specific habitat   |
|        |      | characteristics indicates that a smaller zone is     |
|        |      | likely to satisfy the habitat needs of the colony.   |
|        |      | Needed protection measures within the zone shall be  |
|        |      | determined at a site-specific level in cooperation   |
|        |      | with USFWS and WVDNR.                                |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE28 | If any new Indiana bat hibernacula are discovered on |
| andard |      | the Forest, the Forest shall develop appropriate     |
|        |      | protection measures in cooperation with USFWS and    |
|        |      | WVDNR. These measures could include closure orders,  |
|        |      | signs, fences, or gates.                             |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **I    |      |                                                      |
| ndiana |      |                                                      |
| Bat    |      |                                                      |
| P      |      |                                                      |
| rimary |      |                                                      |
| R      |      |                                                      |
| ange** |      |                                                      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Goal   | TE29 | Manage naturally occurring tree species composition  |
|        |      | to provide a continuous supply of suitable roost     |
|        |      | trees and foraging habitat for Indiana bat. Achieve  |
|        |      | vegetative diversity that maintains or improves      |
|        |      | Indiana bat habitat. Where consistent with           |
|        |      | management prescription emphasis, use a variety of   |
|        |      | silvicultural methods to create desired age class    |
|        |      | diversity.                                           |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Obj    | TE30 | Provide a continuous supply of suitable roost trees  |
| ective |      | by maintaining a minimum of 50 percent of each       |
|        |      | primary range on NFS lands in any combination of mid |
|        |      | successional (40-79 years), mid to late successional |
|        |      | (80-120 years), and late-successional (\>120 years)  |
|        |      | age classes.                                         |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE31 | Management of vegetation 5 inches dbh or greater may |
| andard |      | only be implemented if activities:                   |
|        |      |                                                      |
|        |      | a)  Maintain or improve Indiana bat or other TEP or  |
|        |      |     Sensitive species' habitat, or                   |
|        |      |                                                      |
|        |      | b)  Address public or worker safety concerns, or     |
|        |      |                                                      |
|        |      | c)  Achieve research objectives.                     |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE32 | Retain all harvest unit snags greater than 5 inches  |
| andard |      | dbh except where public or worker safety concerns    |
|        |      | exist.                                               |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE33 | Leave at least 5 cull trees per acre, if             |
| andard |      | available---preferably shagbark hickory, bitternut   |
|        |      | hickory, red oak, white oak, sugar maple, white ash, |
|        |      | green ash, and/or sassafras. Prioritize cull         |
|        |      | retention from the largest to the smallest dbh.      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE34 | New livestock grazing areas shall not cause          |
| andard |      | maintained openings to exceed 5 percent of each      |
|        |      | primary range. Allotment Management Plans shall be   |
|        |      | modified, if needed, to ensure allotment management  |
|        |      | is compatible with Indiana bat habitat management.   |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE35 | When designing and implementing regeneration harvest |
| andard |      | units, the following direction shall be used to help |
|        |      | retain appropriate leave trees for Indiana bat       |
|        |      | habitat:                                             |
|        |      |                                                      |
|        |      | a)  Preferred residual trees for shelterwood and     |
|        |      |     two-aged regeneration harvests should include    |
|        |      |     the following species as available: shagbark     |
|        |      |     hickory, bitternut hickory, red oak, white oak,  |
|        |      |     sugar maple, white ash, green ash, and/or        |
|        |      |     sassafras. Prioritize residual trees from the    |
|        |      |     largest to the smallest dbh.                     |
|        |      |                                                      |
|        |      | b)  Retain clumps of live trees and shrubs at a rate |
|        |      |     of 1/3 an acre per 5 to 8 acres of regeneration  |
|        |      |     harvest area. Clumps should be co-located with   |
|        |      |     other retained features.                         |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE36 | Maintain a component of large over-mature trees, if  |
| andard |      | available, in all uneven-aged harvest units to       |
|        |      | provide suitable roosting habitat.                   |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE37 | Regeneration harvest shall not cause the early       |
| andard |      | successional (0-19 years) age class of forest stands |
|        |      | to exceed 10 percent of each primary range at any    |
|        |      | time.                                                |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE38 | Special use permits and federal mineral exploration  |
| andard |      | and development may be allowed within the primary    |
|        |      | range if they are compatible with Indiana bat        |
|        |      | management.                                          |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE39 | Explosives may be allowed within the primary range   |
| andard |      | if it can be demonstrated that this activity will    |
|        |      | not have an adverse effect on bat populations or     |
|        |      | habitat.                                             |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Gui    | TE40 | Shelterwood and two-aged regeneration harvests are   |
| deline |      | the preferred silvicultural methods. Alternate       |
|        |      | methods may be used to meet other vegetation or      |
|        |      | wildlife habitat objectives when compatible with     |
|        |      | Indiana bat habitat management. Thinning from below  |
|        |      | is the preferred management method for stands        |
|        |      | originating before 1905. Other appropriate or        |
|        |      | preferred measures to maintain or improve Indiana    |
|        |      | bat habitat within primary range may be developed    |
|        |      | under consultation with USFWS and WVDNR.             |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Gui    | TE41 | Without preventing the regeneration of desired tree  |
| deline |      | species, sufficient basal area should be retained in |
|        |      | even-aged harvest units to meet the habitat needs of |
|        |      | Indiana bats. Basal area determinations should be    |
|        |      | coordinated between the project silviculturist and   |
|        |      | wildlife biologist, based on site-specific           |
|        |      | vegetative conditions and habitat needs.             |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **I    |      |                                                      |
| ndiana |      |                                                      |
| Bat    |      |                                                      |
| Hibern |      |                                                      |
| acula, |      |                                                      |
| Key    |      |                                                      |
| Areas, |      |                                                      |
| and    |      |                                                      |
| Mat    |      |                                                      |
| ernity |      |                                                      |
| S      |      |                                                      |
| ites** |      |                                                      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE42 | Management of vegetation that is less than 5 inches  |
| andard |      | dbh generally may occur within 200 feet of the       |
|        |      | hibernacula, within key areas, or within 2.5 miles   |
|        |      | of known maternity sites during any time of the      |
|        |      | year, provided adverse disturbance to bats is        |
|        |      | avoided.                                             |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE43 | Management of vegetation 5 inches dbh or greater may |
| andard |      | only be implemented within 200 feet of hibernacula   |
|        |      | or within key areas to:                              |
|        |      |                                                      |
|        |      | a)  Maintain or improve Indiana bat, TEP, or         |
|        |      |     Regional Forester Sensitive Species habitat,     |
|        |      |                                                      |
|        |      | b)  Address public or worker safety concerns, or     |
|        |      |                                                      |
|        |      | c)  Achieve research objectives.                     |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE44 | No new recreational facilities shall be constructed  |
| andard |      | within 200 feet of hibernacula or within key areas.  |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE45 | Prohibit public entry into caves and mines used as   |
| andard |      | major hibernacula from September 1 to May 15. Minor  |
|        |      | hibernacula that harbor very few individuals in most |
|        |      | years may remain open to the public if the Forest,   |
|        |      | USFWS, and WVDNR agree that public entry would be    |
|        |      | extremely unlikely to cause harm or mortality to     |
|        |      | Indiana bats.                                        |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE46 | Construction or other permanent activities may only  |
| andard |      | occur in key areas if they maintain or improve       |
|        |      | Indiana bat habitat or provide for public safety.    |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE47 | Do not issue permits for special uses occurring      |
| andard |      | within 200 feet of hibernacula that would adversely  |
|        |      | affect Indiana bat populations or habitat.           |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE48 | Special use permits occurring within key areas and   |
| andard |      | within 2.5 miles of maternity sites may be           |
|        |      | authorized if they are compatible with Indiana bat   |
|        |      | population maintenance or recovery.                  |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE49 | Seismic exploration is not allowed within 200 feet   |
| andard |      | of hibernacula, within key areas, or within 2.5      |
|        |      | miles of maternity sites unless analysis can         |
|        |      | demonstrate it would not have an adverse impact on   |
|        |      | bat populations or habitat*.*                        |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE50 | Explosives shall not be used within 200 feet of      |
| andard |      | hibernacula, within key areas, or within 2.5 miles   |
|        |      | of active maternity sites, unless analysis can       |
|        |      | demonstrate that this activity will not have an      |
|        |      | adverse effect on bat populations or habitat.        |
|        |      | Explosives outside of these areas shall not be used  |
|        |      | when such use has potential to damage the cave or    |
|        |      | disturb the bat.                                     |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE51 | New road or trail construction is prohibited within  |
| andard |      | 200 feet of hibernacula.                             |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE52 | Surface occupancy for proposed federal mineral       |
| andard |      | operations is not allowed within 200 feet of         |
|        |      | hibernacula or within key areas.                     |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE53 | Surface occupancy for proposed federal mineral       |
| andard |      | operations within 2.5 miles of maternity sites shall |
|        |      | be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Any surface    |
|        |      | occupancy must be compatible with Indiana bat        |
|        |      | population maintenance or recovery.                  |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE54 | Establish and maintain a key area of at least 150    |
| andard |      | acres, if available, within each primary range.      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Gui    | TE55 | A key area should be contiguous and located as close |
| deline |      | to the cave as possible. Where available, this area  |
|        |      | should include 20 acres of late successional forest, |
|        |      | and an additional 130 acres of mid-to-late           |
|        |      | successional or late successional forest.            |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Gui    | TE56 | New road or trail construction should avoid key      |
| deline |      | areas and maternity sites.                           |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| *      |      |                                                      |
| *Cheat |      |                                                      |
| Mo     |      |                                                      |
| untain |      |                                                      |
| Salama |      |                                                      |
| nder** |      |                                                      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Goal   | TE57 | Identify opportunities to reduce fragmentation of    |
|        |      | populations and habitat.                             |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE58 | Prior to proposed vegetation or ground disturbance   |
| andard |      | in known or potential habitat, field surveys must be |
|        |      | conducted and occupied habitat must be delineated.   |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE59 | Ground and vegetation-disturbing activities shall be |
| andard |      | avoided within occupied habitat and a 300-foot       |
|        |      | buffer zone around occupied habitat, unless analysis |
|        |      | can show that the activities would not have an       |
|        |      | adverse effect on populations or habitat.            |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **Bald |      |                                                      |
| E      |      |                                                      |
| agle** |      |                                                      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE60 | Maintain 1,500-foot protection zones around nest     |
| andard |      | sites that have been active within the last three    |
|        |      | nesting seasons. Activities within this zone must be |
|        |      | compatible with bald eagle management. Compatibility |
|        |      | determinations shall be made on a case-by-case       |
|        |      | basis.                                               |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE61 | Seasonal closure orders may be used to control human |
| andard |      | disturbance in the vicinity of nests.                |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE62 | A nest and the tree or structure where it is located |
| andard |      | shall not be removed or damaged as long as any       |
|        |      | usable portion of the nest remains, regardless of    |
|        |      | the time elapsed since the nest was last used,       |
|        |      | unless there is a concern for public health or       |
|        |      | safety.                                              |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| ####   |      |                                                      |
| ### ** |      |                                                      |
| West V |      |                                                      |
| irgini |      |                                                      |
| a Nort |      |                                                      |
| hern F |      |                                                      |
| lying  |      |                                                      |
| Squirr |      |                                                      |
| el (WV |      |                                                      |
| NFS)** |      |                                                      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE63 | Suitable habitat shall be determined using maps      |
| andard |      | collaboratively produced by the Forest, USFWS, and   |
|        |      | WVDNR. These maps shall be reviewed during watershed |
|        |      | or project analysis and refined when Forest, USFWS,  |
|        |      | and WVDNR biologists determine that suitable habitat |
|        |      | is or is not present. All verified capture sites     |
|        |      | shall be included in the suitable habitat maps.      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE64 | Suitable habitat shall be considered occupied.       |
| andard |      | Vegetation management activities in suitable habitat |
|        |      | shall only be conducted after consultation with      |
|        |      | USFWS, and:                                          |
|        |      |                                                      |
|        |      | a)  Under an Endangered Species Act Section 10       |
|        |      |     research permit to determine the effects of an   |
|        |      |     activity on WVNFS or to determine activities     |
|        |      |     that would contribute to the recovery of the     |
|        |      |     species, or                                      |
|        |      |                                                      |
|        |      | b)  To improve or maintain WVNFS or other TEP        |
|        |      |     species habitat after research has demonstrated  |
|        |      |     the beneficial effects of the proposed           |
|        |      |     management, or                                   |
|        |      |                                                      |
|        |      | c)  When project-level assessment results in a no    |
|        |      |     effect or may affect, not likely to adversely    |
|        |      |     affect determination).., or                      |
|        |      |                                                      |
|        |      | d)  To address public safety concerns.               |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE65 | New developed recreation facilities, such as visitor |
| andard |      | centers or campgrounds, shall not be constructed in  |
|        |      | suitable habitat. Smaller facilities---such as foot  |
|        |      | trails, trailheads, picnic sites, ¼ acre             |
|        |      | vistas---may be constructed if they result in a no   |
|        |      | effect or may affect, not likely to adversely affect |
|        |      | determination.                                       |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE66 | Development of federal gas and oil is generally      |
| andard |      | allowed as long as: (a) it remains within the limits |
|        |      | projected in the 1991 Environmental Assessment Oil   |
|        |      | and Gas Leasing and Development and (b) protection   |
|        |      | measures for WVNFS are developed through             |
|        |      | consultation with the USFWS prior to Forest Service  |
|        |      | approval of operations.                              |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| *      |      |                                                      |
| *Shale |      |                                                      |
| Barren |      |                                                      |
| Rock   |      |                                                      |
| C      |      |                                                      |
| ress** |      |                                                      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE67 | Vegetation manipulation and ground-disturbing        |
| andard |      | activities are prohibited within shale barrens       |
|        |      | unless no feasible alternatives exist. Exceptions    |
|        |      | may be allowed for research or information-gathering |
|        |      | activities.                                          |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| **R    |      |                                                      |
| unning |      |                                                      |
| B      |      |                                                      |
| uffalo |      |                                                      |
| Cl     |      |                                                      |
| over** |      |                                                      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Goal   | TE68 | Develop a conservation plan that incorporates        |
|        |      | measures to protect and/or enhance running buffalo   |
|        |      | clover populations to the extent practicable.        |
|        |      | Develop programmatic NEPA documentation that allows  |
|        |      | implementation of minor disturbance at running       |
|        |      | buffalo clover sites in order to maintain or enhance |
|        |      | known or discovered populations.                     |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Goal   | TE69 | Coordinate with USFWS, WVDNR, and/or other state or  |
|        |      | private organizations to facilitate seed collection  |
|        |      | and storage efforts for running buffalo clover.      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE70 | Special use permits occurring within occupied        |
| andard |      | running buffalo clover habitat may be authorized     |
|        |      | only if they are compatible with population          |
|        |      | maintenance or recovery.                             |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE71 | To the extent practicable, avoid implementing        |
| andard |      | activities in areas that support running buffalo     |
|        |      | clover that have the potential to eliminate or have  |
|        |      | long-term detrimental effects to populations, such   |
|        |      | as placement of fill and gravel; paving;             |
|        |      | constructing new roads, well sites, or ditching for  |
|        |      | pipelines.                                           |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| St     | TE72 | To the extent practicable, avoid conducting          |
| andard |      | prescribed burns or constructing fuel breaks for     |
|        |      | prescribed burns through known running buffalo       |
|        |      | clover populations or habitat. If prescribed fire is |
|        |      | used within running buffalo clover habitat, protect  |
|        |      | known populations by wetting or removing fuel from   |
|        |      | the immediate area.                                  |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Gui    | TE73 | Where needed to help maintain or restore running     |
| deline |      | buffalo populations, the Forest should implement     |
|        |      | habitat management measures such as creating         |
|        |      | selective canopy openings, initiating controlled     |
|        |      | levels of disturbance, controlling invasive species, |
|        |      | or creating patches of potentially suitable habitat  |
|        |      | in adjacent areas. Measures should be coordinated    |
|        |      | with the USFWS and WVDNR prior to implementation,    |
|        |      | and include pre and post implementation site         |
|        |      | evaluations.                                         |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Gui    | TE74 | Prior to changing access or use on roads or trails   |
| deline |      | known to support running buffalo clover, estimates   |
|        |      | of potential frequency, timing, and severity of use  |
|        |      | should be made, and the Forest should develop        |
|        |      | appropriate protection measures in cooperation with  |
|        |      | USFWS and WVDNR.                                     |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Gui    | TE75 | Surveys for running buffalo clover should be         |
| deline |      | conducted June through no later than mid-August.     |
|        |      | Surveys should be conducted by personnel trained     |
|        |      | specifically to identify running buffalo clover.     |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Gui    | TE76 | Prior to initiating project activities, running      |
| deline |      | buffalo clover locations should be flagged so that   |
|        |      | managers, contractors, permittees, or cooperators    |
|        |      | are aware of running buffalo clover locations,       |
|        |      | unless it is determined on a case-by-case basis that |
|        |      | marking populations would have more potential to     |
|        |      | cause negative effects.                              |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Gui    | TE77 | Prior to initiating project activities, managers,    |
| deline |      | contractors, permittees, or cooperators should be    |
|        |      | informed about avoiding or limiting management       |
|        |      | activities in the immediate vicinity of running      |
|        |      | buffalo clover populations within the project area.  |
|        |      | Projects should be monitored to ensure that          |
|        |      | populations are not detrimentally affected over the  |
|        |      | long term.                                           |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Gui    | TE78 | Maintenance mowing should be timed to benefit the    |
| deline |      | species by reducing competition from other plants    |
|        |      | while avoiding periods of flowering and seed set.    |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Gui    | TE79 | When addressing private landowner access issues,     |
| deline |      | work cooperatively with the landowner and the USFWS  |
|        |      | to minimize impacts to running buffalo clover.       |
|        |      | Inform the landowner of the presence of endangered   |
|        |      | species and the recommended actions to avoid         |
|        |      | impacts. Where possible, add conditions to Special   |
|        |      | Use Permits or develop written management agreements |
|        |      | with the landowner in order to protect the species.  |
|        |      | If necessary, implement mitigation measures such as  |
|        |      | creating patches of potentially suitable habitat in  |
|        |      | adjacent areas, relocating plants or seeds, and/or   |
|        |      | constructing alternative access routes that would    |
|        |      | avoid long-term detrimental impacts to RBC.          |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Gui    | TE80 | Piling slash around running buffalo clover           |
| deline |      | populations should be avoided.                       |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Gui    | TE81 | Where possible, roads supporting running buffalo     |
| deline |      | clover that are created or disturbed during          |
|        |      | timbering operations should be closed to additional  |
|        |      | traffic after the project is completed.              |
|        |      | Seeding/mulching plans should be coordinated to      |
|        |      | avoid the use of potentially invasive species,       |
|        |      | particularly non-native invasive species known to    |
|        |      | compete with running buffalo clover such as European |
|        |      | white clover and red clover.                         |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Gui    | TE82 | If running buffalo clover populations are found      |
| deline |      | within active grazing allotments, populations should |
|        |      | be monitored to determine any long-term effects from |
|        |      | grazing. If populations are being adversely affected |
|        |      | by grazing activities, the allotment management plan |
|        |      | should be adjusted appropriately to reduce or        |
|        |      | eliminate effects.                                   |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| Gui    | TE83 | Gating or restricting access to roads or trails      |
| deline |      | should be implemented when monitoring of a running   |
|        |      | buffalo clover population shows signs of excessive   |
|        |      | disturbance from road or trail traffic.              |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+
| *See   |      |                                                      |
| also   |      |                                                      |
| Wi     |      |                                                      |
| ldlife |      |                                                      |
| and    |      |                                                      |
| Fish   |      |                                                      |
| Obj    |      |                                                      |
| ective |      |                                                      |
| WF09,  |      |                                                      |
| Fire   |      |                                                      |
| Mana   |      |                                                      |
| gement |      |                                                      |
| St     |      |                                                      |
| andard |      |                                                      |
| FM12,  |      |                                                      |
| Wi     |      |                                                      |
| ldlife |      |                                                      |
| and    |      |                                                      |
| Fish   |      |                                                      |
| St     |      |                                                      |
| andard |      |                                                      |
| WF14,  |      |                                                      |
| Mi     |      |                                                      |
| nerals |      |                                                      |
| Sta    |      |                                                      |
| ndards |      |                                                      |
| MG36   |      |                                                      |
| and MG |      |                                                      |
| 50,    |      |                                                      |
| Soil   |      |                                                      |
| and    |      |                                                      |
| Water  |      |                                                      |
| Gui    |      |                                                      |
| deline |      |                                                      |
| SW51,  |      |                                                      |
| Lands  |      |                                                      |
| and    |      |                                                      |
| S      |      |                                                      |
| pecial |      |                                                      |
| Uses   |      |                                                      |
| Gui    |      |                                                      |
| deline |      |                                                      |
| LS05*. |      |                                                      |
+--------+------+------------------------------------------------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045673 .anchor}**Appendix B:**

**Analysis of Potential Effects**

**to Other Threatened, Endangered, and Species**

This section documents the results of the Service's independent analysis
of the FPR's potential effects to threatened and endangered species
other than the Indiana bat and running buffalo clover that are likely to
occur on the MNF. In a letter to the MNF dated May 16, 2006, the Service
concurred with the Forest Service's "not likely to adversely affect"
conclusions regarding these species.

The following seven measures provide the general direction for
threatened and endangered species in the FPR, and apply to all species
on the MNF.

1.  Provide habitat capable of contributing to the survival and recovery
    of species listed under the ESA. Provide habitat that may help
    preclude proposed species from becoming listed.

2.  Integrate TEP habitat management with other resource objectives.

3.  Work with USFWS, WVDNR, and other appropriate personnel to identify
    and manage habitat for TEP species. Participate in recovery plan
    development for threatened or endangered species that occur on the
    Forest, or that may be influenced by Forest management activities.

4.  Within watershed-level planning units, identify TEP species habitat
    and opportunities to maintain, restore, or enhance habitat
    conditions. Design and implement management actions at the project
    level to address opportunities and provide for ecological
    conditions, population viability, reproductive needs, and habitat
    components for TEP species.

5.  Collaborate on outreach programs for TEP species and their
    conservation needs.

6.  When proposed exploration or development of privately owned mineral
    rights may adversely affect TEP species or habitat, the Forest shall
    work with state and federal mineral operation permitting agencies to
    reduce adverse effects.

7.  Special use permits may be authorized in TEP species habitat if the
    uses do not adversely affect populations or habitat. This standard
    does not apply to Indiana bat or running buffalo clover. See special
    uses direction for these species, below.

Application of these measures should ensure that the MNF actions are not
likely adversely affect listed species other than Indiana bat and
running buffalo clover. Additional protective measures and supporting
rationale for individual species are provided below.

[Virginia Big-eared Bat (*Corynorhinus townsendii
virginianus*)]{.underline}

The Virginia big-eared bat uses caves for both maternity habitat and
hibernacula. The Virginia big-eared bat forages in a variety of habitats
but in West Virginia, it appears to prefer pastures and open fields that
occur within six miles of the caves (Stihler 1995). As outlined in the
Biological Assessment, habitats on the MNF include 37 caves that are
used by the Virginia big-eared bat during either the maternity or winter
hibernation period and/or the foraging habitats that surround the caves.
The FPR includes numerous measures designed specifically to avoid and
protect habitats that support this species including: fencing or gating
caves known to support the species; restricting public entry to caves
during the periods that that are occupied; maintaining a diversity of
open, herbaceous habitats within six miles of Virginia big-eared bat
hibernacula, maternity colonies, and bachelor colonies; and restricting
activities that (such as vegetation management, mineral activities,
seismic exploration, explosives, and road /trail construction) that can
occur within 200 feet of occupied caves so that the potential to disturb
roosting bats is discountable . The implementation of these measures
should serve to ensure that disturbances and adverse effects to any
caves or foraging areas that support this species are avoided.

[West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel (*Glaucomys sabrinus
fuscus*)]{.underline}

The West Virginia northern flying squirrel occurs in high elevation
forests with a primarily red spruce component. Its range is restricted
to the central Appalachian Mountains in eastern West Virginia and
western Virginia. The FPR includes the following three measures designed
to identify and protect West Virginia northern flying squirrel habitat
on the MNF. Implementation of these measures should serve to ensure that
disturbances and adverse effects to this species and its habitats are
avoided:

-   Suitable habitat shall be determined using maps collaboratively
    produced by the Forest, USFWS, and WVDNR. These maps shall be
    reviewed during watershed or project analysis and refined when
    Forest, USFWS, and WVDNR biologists determine that suitable habitat
    is or is not present. All verified capture sites shall be included
    in the suitable habitat maps.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Suitable habitat shall be considered occupied. Vegetation management
    activities in suitable habitat shall only be conducted after
    consultation with USFWS, and:

    a.  Under an Endangered Species Act Section 10 research permit to
        determine the effects of an activity on WVNFS or to determine
        activities that would contribute to the recovery of the species,
        or

    b.  To improve or maintain WVNFS or other TEP species habitat after
        research has demonstrated the beneficial effects of the proposed
        management, or

    c.  When project-level assessment results in a no effect or may
        affect, not likely to adversely affect determination, or

    d.  To address public safety concerns.

In addition, the FPR includes a new management prescription developed to
maintain and restore spruce forests within the MNF. Implementation of
projects consistent with this prescription should provide a beneficial
effect by increasing the amount and quality of forests with habitat
qualities that are known to support the species.

[Cheat Mountain Salamander (*Plethodon nettingi nettingi*)]{.underline}

The Cheat Mountain salamander has a range that is limited to the high
elevation forests with a red spruce component that occur within the
Allegheny Mountains in northeastern West Virginia. The FPR includes the
following three measures designed to identify and protect Cheat Mountain
salamander habitat on the MNF. Implementation of these measures should
serve to ensure that disturbances and adverse effects to this species
and its habitats are avoided:

-   Identify opportunities to reduce fragmentation of populations and
    habitat.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Prior to proposed vegetation or ground disturbance in known or
    potential habitat, field surveys must be conducted and occupied
    habitat must be delineated.

-   Ground and vegetation-disturbing activities shall be avoided within
    occupied habitat and a 300-foot buffer zone around occupied habitat,
    unless analysis can show that the activities would not have an
    adverse effect on populations or habitat.

These survey procedures and buffer zones are consistent with the
recommendations made in the Cheat Mountain Salamander Recovery Plan
(Service 1991).

[Bald Eagle (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*)]{.underline}

There are currently two known bald eagle nests sites on the MNF. Both
sites occur within the Spruce Knob -- Seneca Rocks National Recreation
Area. Little to no active management is expected to occur near these
sites. The following three measures have also been included in the FPR,
and should serve to ensure that disturbances and adverse effects to any
nest sites are avoided:

-   Maintain 1,500-foot protection zones around nest sites that have
    been active within the last three nesting seasons. Activities within
    this zone must be compatible with bald eagle management.
    Compatibility determinations shall be made on a case-by-case basis.

-   Seasonal closure orders may be used to control human disturbance in
    the vicinity of nests.

-   A nest and the tree or structure where it is located shall not be
    removed or damaged as long as any usable portion of the nest
    remains, regardless of the time elapsed since the nest was last
    used, unless there is a concern for public health or safety.

These procedures and buffer zones are consistent with those recommended
in the Service's Bald Eagle Protection Guidelines (Service 2001).
Foraging habitat for the species occurs along a number of river, lakes,
and streams throughout the MNF. The FPR has incorporated riparian
guidelines (see FPR Soil and Water Resources -- Stream Channels, Lakes,
and Wetlands Section) that will restrict activities that may occur
within foraging habitats that may support this species.

[Shale Barren Rock Cress (*Arabis serotina*)]{.underline}

This species has specific habitat requirements and only occurs in shale
barrens in eastern West Virginia and Virginia. It is estimated that only
about 100 acres of this habitat type occurs on the MNF. Botanical
surveys conducted prior to implementing management actions would
identify any occurrences of this species or habitat type within proposed
project areas. The FPR prohibits vegetation manipulation and
ground-disturbing activities within shale barrens except for research or
when no feasible alternatives exist. If populations were found during
surveys, or any of the exceptions listed above were triggered, the MNF
would consult with the Service on a case-by-case basis to develop
measures to avoid impacts (see General Direction \# 3, 4, and 7).

[Small-whorled Pogonia (*Isotria medeoloides*)]{.underline}

There is only one known occurrence of this species within the action
area. This single, isolated and known occurrence of a threatened plant
is easily avoided at the project level. In addition, This site is
located within a stand that has been classified as having "very high
scenic integrity". As a result, programmed commercial harvest at this
location is considered unlikely. Botanical surveys conducted prior to
implementing management actions would identify any additional
occurrences on the MNF. If populations were found during surveys, the
MNF would consult with the Service on a case-by-case basis to develop
measures to avoid impacts (see General Direction \# 3, 4, and 7).

[Virginia Spirea (*Spiraea virginiana*)]{.underline}

Virginia spiraea generally grows along rocky, flood scoured banks of
high energy streams and rivers however, it has also been documented
along roadsides adjacent to wetlands and other flood prone areas. There
is one known location of this species on the MNF however, potential
habitat for Virginia spiraea occurs along a number of rivers within the
forest. Botanical surveys conducted prior to implementing management
actions would identify any occurrences of this species or habitat type
within proposed project areas. The FPR has incorporated riparian
guidelines (see FPR Soil and Water Resources -- Stream Channels, Lakes,
and Wetlands Section) that will restrict activities that may occur
within riparian habitats that may support this species such that impacts
would be avoided.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc140045674 .anchor}**Appendix C**

Table C1: Indiana bat biological opinions including form of incidental
take and amount exempted.

+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| **[P              | **[USFWS     | **          | **[TAKE EXEMPTED   |
| ROJECTS]{.mark}** | OFFICE AND   | [INCIDENTAL | or SURROGATE       |
|                   | DATE BO      | TAKE (IT)   | MEASURE TO         |
|                   | ISSU         | FOR         | MONITOR]{.mark}**  |
|                   | ED]{.mark}** | M]{.mark}** |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Shawnee National  | ILFO         | IT by       | 10 individual bats |
| Forest LRMP       |              | killing or  | from timber        |
|                   | April 30,    | injury      | harvest or timber  |
| []{.mark}         | 1992         |             | management         |
|                   |              |             | activities over 10 |
| Note: This BO has |              |             | years; 10 bats     |
| been superceded   |              |             | over 10 years from |
| by a December     |              |             | mist netting or    |
| 2005 BO.          |              |             | other monitoring   |
|                   |              |             | activities         |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Fort Leonard Wood | CMFO         | IT by       | Number not         |
| Master Plan,      |              | harming     | determined, no     |
| Ongoing Mission   | December 31, |             | measures given,    |
|                   | 1996         |             | however if RPM's   |
|                   |              |             | are implemented no |
|                   |              |             | take would occur   |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Cherokee National | TNFO         | IT by       | 1300 acres         |
| Forest LRMP       |              | killing     |                    |
|                   | January 1997 | harming or  |                    |
| Note: As a result |              | harassing   |                    |
| of new            |              |             |                    |
| information, this |              |             |                    |
| Forest is now     |              |             |                    |
| operating under a |              |             |                    |
| "not likely to    |              |             |                    |
| adversely affect" |              |             |                    |
| determination,    |              |             |                    |
| and this BO is no |              |             |                    |
| longer in effect. |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Relocation of US  | CMFO         | IT by       | 56 hibernating     |
| Army Chemical     |              | harming,    | bats from fog oil  |
| School & US       |              | harassing,  | and TPA smoke      |
| Military Police   |              | killing     | pots; summer bats  |
| School to Fort    |              |             | difficult to       |
| Leonard Wood,     |              |             | determine          |
| Missouri          |              |             | sub-lethal take    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Daniel Boone      | TNFO         | IT by       | 4500 acres         |
| National Forest   |              | killing,    |                    |
| LRMP              | April 1997   | harming, or |                    |
|                   |              | harassing   |                    |
| Note: This BO has |              |             |                    |
| been superceded   |              |             |                    |
| by a March 2004   |              |             |                    |
| BO.               |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Ozark-St. Francis | ARFO         | IT by       | Annual 8000 acres  |
| National Forest   |              | killing,    | of timber harvest  |
| LRMP              | June 25,     | harming or  | in hardwoods,      |
|                   | 1998         | harassing   | 11000 acres        |
| Note: As a result |              |             | harvest of pine    |
| of new            |              |             | and                |
| information, this |              |             | pine/hardwoods;    |
| Forest is now     |              |             |                    |
| operating under a |              |             | 30,000 acres of    |
| "not likely to    |              |             | prescribed burning |
| adversely affect" |              |             |                    |
| determination,    |              |             |                    |
| and this BO is no |              |             |                    |
| longer in effect. |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Construction of   | TNFO         | IT by       | 2000 acres         |
| New Training      |              | killing,    |                    |
| Facilities at     | October 1998 | harming or  |                    |
| Fort Knox, KY     |              | harassing   |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Construction of a | TNFO         | IT by       | 80 acres           |
| Qualification     |              | killing,    |                    |
| Training Range at | October 1998 | harming or  |                    |
| Fort Knox, KY     |              | harassing   |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Construction &    | INFO         | IT by harm  | 1 maternity colony |
| operation of the  |              | through     | (200 bats total)   |
| Multi-purpose     | December 4,  | habitat     | and 99.7 ha forest |
| training Range at | 1998         | loss and    |                    |
| the Camp          |              | exposure to |                    |
| Atterbury Army    |              | toxic       |                    |
| National Guard    |              | agents      |                    |
| Training Site-    |              |             |                    |
| Edinburgh Indiana |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Proposed stream   | TNFO         | IT by loss  | 1800 acres; 2      |
| bank              |              | of summer   | maternity colonies |
| stabilization at  | April 1999   | roosting,   |                    |
| Yano Range and    |              | foraging,   |                    |
| upgrade of the    |              | and         |                    |
| Wilcox Tank Range |              | maternity   |                    |
| at Fort Knox, KY  |              | habitat     |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Agricultural      | INFO         | IT by harm  | 2 maternity        |
| Pesticide         |              | through     | colonies with 74   |
| Application       | April 13,    | exposure to | bats total         |
| Practices at      | 1999         | pesticides  |                    |
| Newport Chemical  |              |             |                    |
| Depot, Newport IN |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Ouachita National | ARFO         | IT by       | 40,000 acres       |
| Forest LRMP       |              | killing,    | commercial         |
|                   | April 26,    | harming or  | harvest;           |
| Note: As a result | 1999         | harassing   |                    |
| of new            |              |             | 3,000 acres        |
| information, this |              |             | wildlife           |
| Forest is now     |              |             | management & road  |
| operating under a |              |             | construction.      |
| "not likely to    |              |             | reconstruction;    |
| adversely affect" |              |             |                    |
| determination,    |              |             | 24,000 acres       |
| and this BO is no |              |             | thinning; 200,000  |
| longer in effect. |              |             | acre prescribed    |
|                   |              |             | burning            |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Mark Twain        | CMFO         | IT by       | Timber harvest --  |
| National Forest   |              | killing,    | 20,000 acres per   |
| LRMP              | June 23,     | harming, or | year (py);         |
|                   | 1999         | harassing   | Prescribed fire -  |
| This BO has been  |              |             | 12,000 acres py;   |
| superceded by the |              |             | Wildlife habitat   |
| September 2005 BO |              |             | improvement -2000  |
|                   |              |             | acres py; Timber   |
|                   |              |             | stand improvement  |
|                   |              |             | -- 4000 acres py;  |
|                   |              |             | Soil & water       |
|                   |              |             | improvement -- 150 |
|                   |              |             | acres py; Range    |
|                   |              |             | management -- 50   |
|                   |              |             | acres py; Mineral  |
|                   |              |             | exploration        |
|                   |              |             |                    |
|                   |              |             | & development --   |
|                   |              |             | 50 acres py;       |
|                   |              |             | Wildfire fire      |
|                   |              |             | lines -- 50 acres  |
|                   |              |             | py; Special use -- |
|                   |              |             | 50 acres py; Road  |
|                   |              |             | construction -- 25 |
|                   |              |             | acres py           |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Impacts of Forest | PAFO         | IT by       | Within a 5-year    |
| Management and    |              | killing,    | period (1999 to    |
| Other Activities  | June 1999    | harming, or | 2003), the         |
| to the Bald       |              | harassing   | disturbance of     |
| Eagle, Indiana    |              |             | 45,594 acres       |
| Bat, Clubshell    |              |             |                    |
| and Northern      |              |             |                    |
| Riffleshell       |              |             |                    |
|                   |              |             |                    |
| on the Allegheny  |              |             |                    |
| National Forest,  |              |             |                    |
| Pennsylvania      |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| National Forests  | ALFO         | IT by       | No more than 100   |
| in Alabama        |              | killing,    | trees              |
|                   | December 10, | harming or  |                    |
| Note: As a result | 1999         | harassing   |                    |
| of new            |              |             |                    |
| information, this |              |             |                    |
| Forest is now     |              |             |                    |
| operating under a |              |             |                    |
| "not likely to    |              |             |                    |
| adversely affect" |              |             |                    |
| determination,    |              |             |                    |
| and this BO is no |              |             |                    |
| longer in effect. |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Supplement for    | TNFO         | IT by       | No more than 20%   |
| Proposed Bridges  |              | killing,    | of available       |
| & Alignments      | January 2000 | harming or  | suitable habitat   |
| Modifications to  |              | harassing   |                    |
| Kentucky Lock     |              |             |                    |
| Addition Project  |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Green Mountain    | NEFO         | IT by       | 300 acres          |
| National Forest   |              | harming or  |                    |
| LRMP              | 2000         | harassing   |                    |
|                   |              |             |                    |
| Note: As a result |              |             |                    |
| of new            |              |             |                    |
| information, this |              |             |                    |
| Forest is now     |              |             |                    |
| operating under a |              |             |                    |
| "not likely to    |              |             |                    |
| adversely affect" |              |             |                    |
| determination,    |              |             |                    |
| and this BO is no |              |             |                    |
| longer in effect. |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| White Mountain    | NEFO         | IT by       | 1,500 acres        |
| National Forest   |              | farming or  |                    |
| LRMP              | 2000         | harassing   |                    |
|                   |              |             |                    |
| Note: As a result |              |             |                    |
| of new            |              |             |                    |
| information, this |              |             |                    |
| Forest is now     |              |             |                    |
| operating under a |              |             |                    |
| "not likely to    |              |             |                    |
| adversely affect" |              |             |                    |
| determination,    |              |             |                    |
| and this BO is no |              |             |                    |
| longer in effect. |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Nantahala and     | 2000         | IT by       | 4,574 acres py     |
| Pisgah National   |              | killing,    |                    |
| Forests LRMP      |              | harming, or |                    |
| Amendment #5      |              | harassing   |                    |
|                   |              | (killing    |                    |
|                   |              | least       |                    |
|                   |              | likely)     |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Hazard Tree       | TNFO         | IT by loss  | No measure of take |
| Removal and       |              | of roosting | given              |
| Vegetation        | June 2000    | habitat,    |                    |
| Management        |              | direct      |                    |
| Program at        |              | mortality   |                    |
| Mammoth Cave      |              | or by       |                    |
| National Park     |              | forcing     |                    |
|                   |              | bats to     |                    |
|                   |              | abandon     |                    |
|                   |              | tree        |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Salvage Harvest   | TNFO         | IT by       | 3,100 acres        |
| Necessitated by   |              | killing,    |                    |
| 1998 Storm Damage | July 2000    | harming, or |                    |
| on the Daniel     |              | harassing   |                    |
| Boone National    |              |             |                    |
| Forest            |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| North East        | WVFO         | IT by       | 210 acres timber   |
| research Station  |              | potential   | harvest and 154    |
| -- Fernow         | November     | harm or     | acres prescribed   |
| Experimental      | 2000         | mortality   | burn               |
| Forest -- Five    |              | of roosting |                    |
| year plan         |              | bats        |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| National Forests  | ALFO         | IT by       | Level of take      |
| in Alabama        |              | killing,    | changed for        |
| Re-initiation     | January 23,  | harming or  | southern pine      |
|                   | 2001         | harassing   | beetle suppression |
| Note: As a result |              |             | areas -- upper     |
| of new            |              |             | limit of 65        |
| information, this |              |             | suitable roost     |
| Forest is now     |              |             | trees              |
| operating under a |              |             |                    |
| "not likely to    |              |             |                    |
| adversely affect" |              |             |                    |
| determination,    |              |             |                    |
| and this BO is no |              |             |                    |
| longer in effect. |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Hoosier National  | BFO          | IT by harm  | Pine clear cuts -- |
| Forest LRMP       |              |             | 578 acres; Pine    |
|                   | June 13,     |             | shelterwood cuts   |
| []{.mark}         | 2001         |             | -- 391 acres; Pine |
|                   |              |             | thinning -- 408    |
| Note: This BO has |              |             | acres; Hardwood    |
| been superceded   |              |             | group selection    |
| by a January 2006 |              |             | cuts -- 777 acres; |
| BO.               |              |             | HW single tree     |
|                   |              |             | selection cuts --  |
|                   |              |             | 100 acres; HW even |
|                   |              |             | aged salvage cuts  |
|                   |              |             | -- 518 acres;      |
|                   |              |             | Prescribed fire    |
|                   |              |             | treatment -- 7000  |
|                   |              |             | acres; Forest      |
|                   |              |             | openings           |
|                   |              |             | maintenance --     |
|                   |              |             | 3311 acres; Timber |
|                   |              |             | stand improvement  |
|                   |              |             | -- 2264 acres;     |
|                   |              |             | Special use        |
|                   |              |             | permits -- 286     |
|                   |              |             | acres; Wildfire    |
|                   |              |             | management -- 250  |
|                   |              |             | acres; road        |
|                   |              |             | construction -- 16 |
|                   |              |             | acres; hazard tree |
|                   |              |             | removal -- 100     |
|                   |              |             | trees; trail       |
|                   |              |             | construction -- 15 |
|                   |              |             | miles              |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Wayne National    | ROFO         | IT by harm  | Permanent loss of  |
| Forest LRMP       |              |             | habitat -- 2504    |
|                   | September    |             | acres; Alteration  |
| Note: This Bo has | 20, 2001     |             | of habitat 8102    |
| been superceded   |              |             | acres plus 125     |
| by a November     |              |             | trees              |
| 2005 BO.          |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Ozark-St. Francis | ARFO         | IT by loss  | Prescribed fire -  |
| National Forest   |              | of roost    | 153,000 acres py   |
| Prescribed Fire   | March 21,    | trees and   |                    |
| Plan (an          | 2002         | potential   |                    |
| amendment to June |              | roost trees |                    |
| 1998 LRMP BO)     |              |             |                    |
|                   |              |             |                    |
| Note: As a result |              |             |                    |
| of new            |              |             |                    |
| information, this |              |             |                    |
| Forest is now     |              |             |                    |
| operating under a |              |             |                    |
| "not likely to    |              |             |                    |
| adversely affect" |              |             |                    |
| determination,    |              |             |                    |
| and this BO is no |              |             |                    |
| longer in effect. |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| 1986 (as amended) | WVFO         | IT by       | A maximum of 6,125 |
| Monongahela       |              | killing,    | acres annually and |
| National Forest   | March 2002   | harming, or | prescribed burning |
| Land and Resource |              | harassing   | on a maximum of    |
| Management Plan   |              |             | 300 acres          |
| (Forest Plan)     |              |             | annually.          |
|                   |              |             |                    |
| (Note -- the      |              |             |                    |
| current BO will   |              |             |                    |
| supercede this    |              |             |                    |
| BO)               |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Huron-Manistee    | ELFO         | IT by       | 0-65 bats;         |
| National Forest   |              | killing,    |                    |
| LRMP              | June 13,     | harming, or | 3,150 ac (1,275    |
|                   | 2003         | harassing   | ha) of potential   |
| Note: This Bo has |              |             | Indiana bat        |
| been superceded   |              |             | habitat may be     |
| by a March 2006   |              |             | harvested and      |
| BO.               |              |             | 2,648 ac (1,071    |
|                   |              |             | ha) of habitat may |
|                   |              |             | be burned for fire |
|                   |              |             | management or      |
|                   |              |             | wildlife           |
|                   |              |             | habitatmanagement  |
|                   |              |             | activities for the |
|                   |              |             | duration of this   |
|                   |              |             | proposed action    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Great Smoky       | TNFO         | IT by loss  | One maternity      |
| Mountains         |              | of suitable | colony             |
| National Park     | August 12,   | roosting or |                    |
| Prescribed        | 2003         | foraging    |                    |
| Burning           |              | habitat     |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Construction,     | BFO          | IT by       | Summer action      |
| Operation, and    |              | harming,    | area: permanent    |
| Maintenance of    | December 3,  | killing     | direct & indirect  |
| Alternative 3C of | 2003         |             | loss of up to 1527 |
| Interstate 60     |              |             | acres of forested  |
| from Indianapolis |              |             | habitat and 40     |
| to Evansville     |              |             | acres of           |
|                   |              |             | non-forested       |
|                   |              |             | wetlands. Winter   |
|                   |              |             | action area:       |
|                   |              |             | permanent loss of  |
|                   |              |             | up to 947 acres of |
|                   |              |             | forest habitat     |
|                   |              |             | surrounding 10     |
|                   |              |             | known hibernacula. |
|                   |              |             | Death by vehicle   |
|                   |              |             | collisions: 10     |
|                   |              |             | Indiana bats py    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| 2003 Revised      | VAFO         | IT by       | 16,800 acres total |
| Jefferson         |              | killing,    | (15,000 fire;      |
| National Forest   | January 2004 | harming, or | 1,800 other        |
| Land and Resource |              | harassing   | habitat            |
| Management Plan,  |              |             | manipulations)     |
| Virginia, West    |              |             |                    |
| Virginia,         |              |             |                    |
| Kentucky          |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Daniel Boone      | KYFO         | IT by       | Green tree harvest |
| National Forest   |              | killing,    | -- 4000 acres;     |
| Revised LRMP      | March 20,    | harming, or | Salvage/sanitation |
|                   | 2004         | harassing   | -- 350 acres;      |
|                   |              |             | Prescribed burning |
|                   |              |             | during summer --   |
|                   |              |             | 50000 acres        |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Upper Mississippi | RIFO, Marion | IT by       | 511 acres of       |
| River -- Illinois | Suboffice, & | injury,     | forested habitat   |
| Waterway System   | TCFO         | death,      | annually for 50    |
| Navigation        |              | harming or  | years.             |
| Feasibility Study | August 2004  | harassing   |                    |
|                   |              |             | Less than 20 bats  |
|                   |              |             | per year.          |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Department of the | ROFO         | IT by       | 18 acres of high   |
| Army 88^th^       |              | harming or  | quality roosting   |
| Regional          | April 14,    | harassing   | and foraging       |
| Readiness         | 2005         |             | habitat            |
| Command, US Army  |              |             |                    |
| Reserve Center    |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Construction,     | ROFO         | IT by       | No more than 10    |
| Operation, and    |              | harming,    | Indiana bats       |
| Maintenance of    | April 15,    | death,      |                    |
| the U.S. 33       | 2005         | injury      |                    |
| Nelsonville       |              |             |                    |
| Bypass            |              |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Big Monon Ditch   | BFO          | IT by       | Permanent loss of  |
| Reconstruction    |              | harming and | 75 acres of        |
| Project           | May 24, 2005 | harassing   | occupied summer    |
|                   |              |             | habitat            |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Mark Twain        | MOFO         | IT through  | 10 occupied roost  |
| National Forest   |              | removal of  | trees over 10      |
|                   | September    | roost trees | years; 19,400      |
| 2005 Forest Plan  | 2005         |             | acres and 240      |
| , Missouri        |              |             | miles of fireline  |
|                   | (replaces    |             |                    |
|                   | previous BO  |             |                    |
|                   | completed    |             |                    |
|                   | June 1999)   |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Wayne National    | OHFO         | IT through  | no more than 4     |
| Forest Land and   |              | removal of  | occupied           |
| Resource          | November     | roost trees |                    |
| Management Plan   | 2005         |             | roost trees will   |
|                   |              |             | be incidentally    |
|                   | (replaces    |             | taken over the     |
|                   | previous BO  |             | next ten years;    |
|                   | completed    |             | Permanent Road     |
|                   | September    |             | Construction &     |
|                   | 20, 2001)    |             | Reconstruction -   |
|                   |              |             | 392 acres;         |
|                   |              |             |                    |
|                   |              |             | Temporary Road     |
|                   |              |             | Construction - 146 |
|                   |              |             | acres; Skid Trails |
|                   |              |             | and Log Landings - |
|                   |              |             | 740 acres; Utility |
|                   |              |             | Development - 50   |
|                   |              |             | acres; Fire        |
|                   |              |             | Lines - 74 miles   |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Shawnee National  | ILFO         | IT through  | First 10 Years of  |
| Forest LRMP       |              | harming,    | plan:              |
|                   | December 3,  | harassing,  |                    |
| []{.mark}         | 2005         | and killing | \-- 11,565 acres   |
|                   |              |             | of timber          |
|                   |              |             | harvest/mgt. and   |
|                   |              |             | minerals mgt.      |
|                   |              |             |                    |
|                   |              |             | \-- 5,630 acres of |
|                   |              |             | timber stand       |
|                   |              |             | improvement and    |
|                   |              |             | wetlands mgt.      |
|                   |              |             |                    |
|                   |              |             | Second 10 Years of |
|                   |              |             | plan:              |
|                   |              |             |                    |
|                   |              |             | \-- 21,255 acres   |
|                   |              |             | of timber          |
|                   |              |             | harvest/mgt. and   |
|                   |              |             | minerals mgt.      |
|                   |              |             |                    |
|                   |              |             | \-- 13,289 acres   |
|                   |              |             | of timber stand    |
|                   |              |             | improvement and    |
|                   |              |             | wetlands mgt.      |
|                   |              |             |                    |
|                   |              |             | Mortality of up to |
|                   |              |             | 2 individuals      |
|                   |              |             | during research    |
|                   |              |             | and monitoring.    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| North East        | WVFO         | IT by       | 124 acres timber   |
| research Station  |              | potential   | harvest and 466    |
| -- Fernow         | December     | harm or     | acres of           |
| Experimental      | 2005         | mortality   | prescribed burns   |
| Forest -- Five    |              | of roosting |                    |
| year plan         | (replaces    | bats        | (previous 210      |
|                   | previous     |             | acres timber       |
|                   | five year BO |             | harvest and 154    |
|                   | completed    |             | acres prescribed   |
|                   | November     |             | burn)              |
|                   | 2000)        |             |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Hoosier National  | BFO          | IT by       | no more than four  |
| Forest LRMP       |              | injury or   | (4) occupied roost |
|                   | January 2006 | death or    | trees/year and     |
| []{.mark}         |              | harassing   | between four (4)   |
|                   | (replaced    |             | and twelve (12)    |
| []{.mark}         | June 2001    |             | individuals        |
|                   | BO)          |             | injured or killed  |
|                   |              |             | each year.         |
|                   |              |             |                    |
|                   |              |             | 2956-acres; 60     |
|                   |              |             | hazard trees; 100  |
|                   |              |             | "accident" trees   |
|                   |              |             | per year           |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Huron-Manistee    | MIFO         | IT through  | for first 10 years |
| National Forest   |              | harming,    | of revised Forest  |
| LRMP              | March 2006   | harassing,  | Plan:              |
|                   |              | and killing |                    |
|                   |              |             | Thinning = 59,497  |
|                   |              |             |                    |
|                   |              |             | Clearcut = 45,144  |
|                   |              |             |                    |
|                   |              |             | Shelterwood =      |
|                   |              |             | 8,261              |
|                   |              |             |                    |
|                   |              |             | Selection = 0      |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+
| Biological        | WVFO         | IT in the   | No more than 17    |
| Opinion --        |              | form of     | adult females and  |
| Impacts of the    | March 2006   | harm due to | their pups; 912    |
| Laxare East and   |              | habitat     | acres of forested  |
| Black Castle      |              | loss,       | habitat and 5.0    |
| Contour Coal      |              | degradation | miles of stream    |
| Mining Projects   |              | and         |                    |
| on the Indiana    |              | fra         |                    |
| bat               |              | gmentation, |                    |
|                   |              | Harassment  |                    |
| (Reinitiation of  |              | during      |                    |
| February 2005 BO) |              | active      |                    |
|                   |              | mining,     |                    |
|                   |              | Permanent   |                    |
|                   |              | loss of     |                    |
|                   |              | foraging    |                    |
|                   |              | loss and    |                    |
|                   |              | roosting    |                    |
|                   |              | habitat,    |                    |
|                   |              | habitat     |                    |
|                   |              | fr          |                    |
|                   |              | agmentation |                    |
|                   |              | and         |                    |
|                   |              | d           |                    |
|                   |              | egradation, |                    |
|                   |              | permanent   |                    |
|                   |              | loss of     |                    |
|                   |              | streams and |                    |
|                   |              | their       |                    |
|                   |              | associated  |                    |
|                   |              | watering    |                    |
|                   |              | and prey    |                    |
|                   |              | base for    |                    |
|                   |              | Indiana     |                    |
|                   |              | bats, long  |                    |
|                   |              | term        |                    |
|                   |              | alteration  |                    |
|                   |              | of streams  |                    |
+-------------------+--------------+-------------+--------------------+

Table C2: Summary of Current Programmatic Incidental Take Exemptions for
the Indiana Bat on National Forests in Forest Service Regions 8 and 9.

+---------+-------+---------+------+---------+-------+---------------+
| **F     | **No. | **Take  | **   | **Pop   | **I   | **Comments**  |
| orest** | Known | Ex      | Take | ulation | nform |               |
|         | Mate  | emption | E    | Monit   | ation |               |
|         | rnity | --      | xemp | oring** | Sou   |               |
|         | Colon | Acres** | tion |         | rce** |               |
|         | ies** |         | --   |         |       |               |
|         |       |         | No.  |         |       |               |
|         |       |         | Ind  |         |       |               |
|         |       |         | ivid |         |       |               |
|         |       |         | uals |         |       |               |
|         |       |         | or   |         |       |               |
|         |       |         | Roos |         |       |               |
|         |       |         | ts** |         |       |               |
+=========+=======+=========+======+=========+=======+===============+
| Al      | None  | 8,394   | NA   | Not     | Brad  | Take          |
| legheny |       | total   |      | written | Ne    | categories    |
|         |       | acres   |      | into    | lson, | include trail |
| June    |       | per     |      | BO, but | Biolo | construction, |
| 1999    |       | year    |      | FWS     | gical | timber        |
|         |       |         |      | r       | and   | management,   |
|         |       |         |      | equires | Wate  | wildlife      |
|         |       |         |      | annual  | rshed | habitat       |
|         |       |         |      | mist    | Sci   | management,   |
|         |       |         |      | net     | ences | prescribed    |
|         |       |         |      | mon     | Pr    | fire, road    |
|         |       |         |      | itoring | ogram | co            |
|         |       |         |      |         | Co    | nstruction/re |
|         |       |         |      |         | ordin | construction/ |
|         |       |         |      |         | ator, | restoration,  |
|         |       |         |      |         | 6/    | and oil and   |
|         |       |         |      |         | 30/06 | gas           |
|         |       |         |      |         |       | development   |
+---------+-------+---------+------+---------+-------+---------------+
| Green   | None  | None    | None | Annual  | BE    | The GM/FL is  |
| M       |       |         |      | mist    | for   | operating     |
| ountain |       |         |      | netting | the   | under a "not  |
| /Finger |       |         |      | in      | final | likely to     |
| Lakes   |       |         |      | areas   | re    | adversely     |
|         |       |         |      | where   | vised | affect"       |
| F       |       |         |      | bats    | F     | determination |
| ebruary |       |         |      | are     | orest |               |
| 2006    |       |         |      | most    | Plan  |               |
|         |       |         |      | likely  |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | to      |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | occur   |       |               |
+---------+-------+---------+------+---------+-------+---------------+
| Hoosier | 2     | 2956    | 6.41 | Hibe    | Jason | A recent      |
|         |       | -acres; | fem  | rnacula | E     | salvage sale  |
| January |       | 60      | ales | s       | ngle, | of 1,500 to   |
| 2006    |       | hazard  | with | urveys, | Wil   | 2,000 acres   |
|         |       | trees;  | pups | Surveys | dlife | received a    |
|         |       | 100     | and  | of      | Biolo | pro           |
|         |       | "ac     | 1    | p       | gist, | ject-specific |
|         |       | cident" | 2.34 | roposed | 6/3   | take          |
|         |       | trees   | m    | project | 0/06; | statement for |
|         |       | per     | ales | areas   | Gary  | 22            |
|         |       | year    | per  |         | Di    | individuals.  |
|         |       |         | year |         | nkel, |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | Ecos  |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | ystem |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | Pr    |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | ogram |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | Ma    |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | nager |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | 7     |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | /7/06 |               |
+---------+-------+---------+------+---------+-------+---------------+
| Huron-M | None  | Total   | 4    | Survey  | Pr    |               |
| anistee | k     | for     | r    | hiber   | ogram |               |
|         | nown, | first   | oost | naculum | matic |               |
| March   | but   | 10      | t    | every 5 | BO    |               |
| 2006    | small | years   | rees | years.  |       |               |
|         | iso   | of      | co   | Summer  |       |               |
|         | lated | revised | ntai | surveys |       |               |
|         | col   | Forest  | ning | ac      |       |               |
|         | onies | Plan:   | up   | cording |       |               |
|         | consi |         | to   | to FWS  |       |               |
|         | dered | T       | 16   | p       |       |               |
|         | l     | hinning | ind  | rotocol |       |               |
|         | ikely | =       | ivid | every 3 |       |               |
|         |       | 59,497  | uals | years.  |       |               |
|         |       |         | over | Add     |       |               |
|         |       | C       | 10   | itional |       |               |
|         |       | learcut | y    | studies |       |               |
|         |       | =       | ears | as      |       |               |
|         |       | 45,144  |      | appr    |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | opriate |       |               |
|         |       | Shel    |      | on      |       |               |
|         |       | terwood |      | summer  |       |               |
|         |       | = 8,261 |      | pr      |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | esence, |       |               |
|         |       | Se      |      | fall    |       |               |
|         |       | lection |      | sw      |       |               |
|         |       | = 0     |      | arming, |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | and     |       |               |
|         |       | Total   |      | spring  |       |               |
|         |       | for     |      | s       |       |               |
|         |       | second  |      | taging. |       |               |
|         |       | 10      |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | years   |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | of      |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | revised |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | Forest  |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | Plan:   |      |         |       |               |
|         |       |         |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | T       |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | hinning |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | =       |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | 55,658  |      |         |       |               |
|         |       |         |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | C       |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | learcut |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | =       |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | 47,096  |      |         |       |               |
|         |       |         |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | Shel    |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | terwood |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | =       |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | 22,879  |      |         |       |               |
|         |       |         |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | Se      |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | lection |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | =       |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | 16,299  |      |         |       |               |
+---------+-------+---------+------+---------+-------+---------------+
| Mark    | Mul   | \--     | 10   | Annual  | Pr    | The BO        |
| Twain   | tiple | 15,000  | occu | mist    | ogram | defines       |
|         | --    | acres   | pied | netting | matic | "hazard tree  |
| Se      | diff  | of      | ro   | and     | BO;   | removal" to   |
| ptember | icult | salvage | osts | Anabat  | also  | include       |
| 2005    | to    | per     | over | surveys | BO    | recreation    |
|         | ex    | year    | 10   | prio    | su    | site          |
|         | tract |         | y    | ritized | mmary | maintenance,  |
|         | info. | \--     | ears | to      | pre   | trail         |
|         | from  | 4,400   |      | em      | pared | maintenance,  |
|         | BO.   | acres   |      | phasize | by    | road          |
|         | BA    | of      |      | likely  | Jody  | construction  |
|         | says  | "hazard |      | habitat | Eb    | and           |
|         | 1 on  | tree    |      |         | erly, | re            |
|         | MTNF  | r       |      |         | MTNF  | construction, |
|         | l     | emoval" |      |         | F     | and           |
|         | ands; | per     |      |         | orest | construction  |
|         | there | year    |      |         | Wil   | of temporary  |
|         | are   |         |      |         | dlife | roads and     |
|         | o     | \-- 240 |      |         | Biol  | skid trails.  |
|         | thers | mi. of  |      |         | ogist |               |
|         | on    | Rx fire |      |         | 9/    |               |
|         | pr    | line    |      |         | 20/05 |               |
|         | ivate | per     |      |         |       |               |
|         | land  | year    |      |         |       |               |
|         | in    |         |      |         |       |               |
|         | pr    |         |      |         |       |               |
|         | oclam |         |      |         |       |               |
|         | ation |         |      |         |       |               |
|         | boun  |         |      |         |       |               |
|         | dary. |         |      |         |       |               |
+---------+-------+---------+------+---------+-------+---------------+
| Mono    | 1     | For     | NA   | Annual  | Pr    |               |
| ngahela | conf  | March   |      | mist    | ogram |               |
|         | irmed | 2002    |      | netting | matic |               |
| Current | on    | BO:     |      | prio    | BO    |               |
| BO      | pr    |         |      | ritized | for   |               |
|         | ivate | \--     |      | to      | T&E   |               |
|         | land  | 6,000   |      | em      | amen  |               |
|         | in    | acres   |      | phasize | dment |               |
|         | the   | timber  |      | likely  |       |               |
|         | pr    | harvest |      | habitat |       |               |
|         | oclam | per     |      |         |       |               |
|         | ation | year    |      |         |       |               |
|         | boun  |         |      |         |       |               |
|         | dary. | \-- 47  |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | acres   |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | road    |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | constr  |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | uction/ |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | reconst |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | ruction |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | per     |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | year    |      |         |       |               |
|         |       |         |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | \-- 78  |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | acres   |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | mineral |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | deve    |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | lopment |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | per     |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | year    |      |         |       |               |
+---------+-------+---------+------+---------+-------+---------------+
| Shawnee | 2     | First   | \--  | \--     | Pr    | The take      |
|         |       | 10      | Up   | O       | ogram | allowed in    |
| D       |       | Years:  | to 2 | ccupied | matic | acres is      |
| ecember |       |         | Ind  | Ind.    | BO    | based on our  |
| 2005    |       | \--     | iana | bat     |       | proposed      |
|         |       | 11,565  | bats | hibe    |       | acres of      |
|         |       | acres   | may  | rnacula |       | management    |
|         |       | of      | be   | and     |       | during the    |
|         |       | timber  | ki   | ma      |       | next 2        |
|         |       | harve   | lled | ternity |       | decades.      |
|         |       | st/mgt. | du   | c       |       |               |
|         |       | and     | ring | olonies |       |               |
|         |       | m       | the  | on the  |       |               |
|         |       | inerals | pro  | SNF.    |       |               |
|         |       | mgt.    | ject |         |       |               |
|         |       |         | pe   | \-- The |       |               |
|         |       | \--     | riod | extent  |       |               |
|         |       | 5,630   | as a | of use  |       |               |
|         |       | acres   | re   | by Ind. |       |               |
|         |       | of      | sult | bats on |       |               |
|         |       | timber  | of   | the     |       |               |
|         |       | stand   | mo   | SNF.    |       |               |
|         |       | impr    | nito |         |       |               |
|         |       | ovement | ring | \--     |       |               |
|         |       | and     | and  | Habitat |       |               |
|         |       | w       | rese | use at  |       |               |
|         |       | etlands | arch | all     |       |               |
|         |       | mgt.    | act  | sites   |       |               |
|         |       |         | ivit | where   |       |               |
|         |       | Second  | ies. | Ind.    |       |               |
|         |       | 10      |      | Bats    |       |               |
|         |       | Years:  |      | are     |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | doc     |       |               |
|         |       | \--     |      | umented |       |               |
|         |       | 21,255  |      | should  |       |               |
|         |       | acres   |      | be      |       |               |
|         |       | of      |      | charac  |       |               |
|         |       | timber  |      | terized |       |               |
|         |       | harve   |      | and     |       |               |
|         |       | st/mgt. |      | qua     |       |               |
|         |       | and     |      | ntified |       |               |
|         |       | m       |      | at      |       |               |
|         |       | inerals |      | local & |       |               |
|         |       | mgt.    |      | la      |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | ndscape |       |               |
|         |       | \--     |      | levels  |       |               |
|         |       | 13,289  |      | using   |       |               |
|         |       | acres   |      | GIS.    |       |               |
|         |       | of      |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | timber  |      | \--     |       |               |
|         |       | stand   |      | Es      |       |               |
|         |       | impr    |      | timated |       |               |
|         |       | ovement |      | Ind.    |       |               |
|         |       | and     |      | Bat     |       |               |
|         |       | w       |      | habitat |       |               |
|         |       | etlands |      | av      |       |               |
|         |       | mgt.    |      | ailable |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | before  |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | and     |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | after   |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | site-s  |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | pecific |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | project |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | i       |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | mplemen |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | tation. |       |               |
|         |       |         |      |         |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | \--     |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | Number  |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | of      |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | s       |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | uitable |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | roost   |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | trees   |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | for     |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | Ind.    |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | bats    |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | using   |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | FIA     |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | data    |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | every 5 |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | years.  |       |               |
+---------+-------+---------+------+---------+-------+---------------+
| Wayne   | None  | 10-year | No   | Mist    | Pr    |               |
|         |       | totals: | more | net     | ogram |               |
| N       |       |         | than | surveys | matic |               |
| ovember |       | \-- 392 | 4    | co      | BO    |               |
| 2005    |       | acres   | ro   | nducted |       |               |
|         |       | of      | osts | most    |       |               |
|         |       | pe      | over | years   |       |               |
|         |       | rmanent | the  | since   |       |               |
|         |       | roads   | next | 1997;   |       |               |
|         |       |         | 10   | sites   |       |               |
|         |       | \-- 146 | y    | and     |       |               |
|         |       | acres   | ears | level   |       |               |
|         |       | of temp |      | of      |       |               |
|         |       | roads   |      | effort  |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | vary    |       |               |
|         |       | \-- 740 |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | acres   |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | of skid |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | trails  |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | and     |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | l       |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | andings |      |         |       |               |
|         |       |         |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | \-- 50  |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | acres   |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | of      |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | utility |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | deve    |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | lopment |      |         |       |               |
|         |       |         |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | \-- 74  |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | miles   |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | of fire |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | lines   |      |         |       |               |
+---------+-------+---------+------+---------+-------+---------------+
| White   | None  | None    | None | Mist    | Plan  | BE made a     |
| M       |       |         |      | netting | Rev   | NLAA          |
| ountain |       |         |      | for     | ision | d             |
|         |       |         |      | w       | BE;   | etermination. |
| Se      |       |         |      | oodland | Lei   | They used to  |
| ptember |       |         |      | bats    | ghlan | operate under |
| 2005    |       |         |      | every   | P     | a             |
|         |       |         |      | other   | rout, | programmatic  |
|         |       |         |      | year    | F     | take          |
|         |       |         |      |         | orest | statement,    |
|         |       |         |      |         | Wil   | but changed   |
|         |       |         |      |         | dlife | their         |
|         |       |         |      |         | Biolo | determination |
|         |       |         |      |         | gist, | during plan   |
|         |       |         |      |         | 7     | revision. The |
|         |       |         |      |         | /5/06 | local FWS     |
|         |       |         |      |         |       | office now    |
|         |       |         |      |         |       | believes that |
|         |       |         |      |         |       | the Indiana   |
|         |       |         |      |         |       | bat does not  |
|         |       |         |      |         |       | occur on the  |
|         |       |         |      |         |       | Forest.       |
+---------+-------+---------+------+---------+-------+---------------+
| Daniel  | None. | Annual  | N/A  | Mon     | Ri    | BO on file.   |
| Boone   | Lact  | take    |      | itoring | chard |               |
|         | ating | auth    |      | of      | Braun |               |
| March   | f     | orized: |      | acti    |       |               |
| 2004    | emale |         |      | vities, | F     |               |
|         | and a | \--     |      | roost   | orest |               |
|         | juv.  | 4000    |      | trees,  | Wil   |               |
|         | have  | ac.     |      | and     | dlife |               |
|         | been  | green   |      | art     | Bio.  |               |
|         | cap   | tree    |      | ificial |       |               |
|         | tured | harvest |      | stru    | 85    |               |
|         | but   |         |      | ctures. | 9.745 |               |
|         | no    | \-- 350 |      |         | .3173 |               |
|         | r     | ac.     |      |         |       |               |
|         | oosts | salv    |      |         |       |               |
|         | have  | age/san |      |         |       |               |
|         | been  | itation |      |         |       |               |
|         | ident |         |      |         |       |               |
|         | ified | \--     |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | 50,000  |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | pre     |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | scribed |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | burning |      |         |       |               |
+---------+-------+---------+------+---------+-------+---------------+
| Je      | None  | Annual  | N/A  | Mon     | Carol |               |
| fferson |       | Inc     |      | itoring | H     |               |
|         |       | idental |      | of      | ardy- |               |
| January |       | take:   |      | acti    | Croy  |               |
| 2004    |       |         |      | vities, |       |               |
|         |       | \-      |      | mist    | F     |               |
|         |       | -16,800 |      | netting | orest |               |
|         |       | acres   |      | based   | Wil   |               |
|         |       | total   |      | on      | dlife |               |
|         |       |         |      | s       | Biol  |               |
|         |       | -       |      | uitable | ogist |               |
|         |       |  15,000 |      | habitat |       |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | 54    |               |
|         |       |    fire |      |         | 0.265 |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | .5155 |               |
|         |       | -       |      |         |       |               |
|         |       |   1,800 |      |         | D     |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | ennis |               |
|         |       |   other |      |         | K     |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | rusac |               |
|         |       |    hab. |      |         |       |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | Endan |               |
|         |       |  manipu |      |         | gered |               |
|         |       | lations |      |         | Sp    |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | ecies |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | Speci |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | alist |               |
|         |       |         |      |         |       |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | USDA  |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | F     |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | orest |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | Ser   |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | vice, |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | Sou   |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | thern |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | R     |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | egion |               |
|         |       |         |      |         |       |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | 40    |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | 4-347 |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | -4338 |               |
+---------+-------+---------+------+---------+-------+---------------+
| George  | None  | Annual  |      | Mist-   | D     | Combined.     |
| Was     |       | inc     |      | netting | ennis | Draft for GW  |
| hington |       | idental |      | act     | K     | is in works.  |
| --      |       | take    |      | ivities | rusac | Final for     |
| Je      |       | auth    |      |         |       | Jefferson     |
| fferson |       | orized: |      |         | Endan | follows.      |
|         |       |         |      |         | gered |               |
| Se      |       | \--     |      |         | Sp    |               |
| ptember |       | 4,500   |      |         | ecies |               |
| 1997    |       | ac      |      |         | Speci |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | alist |               |
|         |       |         |      |         |       |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | USDA  |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | F     |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | orest |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | Ser   |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | vice, |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | Sou   |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | thern |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | R     |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | egion |               |
|         |       |         |      |         |       |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | 40    |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | 4-347 |               |
|         |       |         |      |         | -4338 |               |
+---------+-------+---------+------+---------+-------+---------------+
| NF of   | 1 on  | Annual  | N/A  | ??      | FSWeb | BO on file    |
| North   | Nant  | inc     |      |         |       |               |
| C       | ahala | idental |      |         |       |               |
| arolina |       | take    |      |         |       |               |
| --      |       | auth    |      |         |       |               |
| Na      |       | orized: |      |         |       |               |
| ntahala |       |         |      |         |       |               |
| and     |       | \--     |      |         |       |               |
| Pisgah  |       | 4,574   |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | ac.     |      |         |       |               |
| NFs     |       |         |      |         |       |               |
|         |       |         |      |         |       |               |
| April   |       |         |      |         |       |               |
| 2000    |       |         |      |         |       |               |
+---------+-------+---------+------+---------+-------+---------------+
| No      | None  | 124     | N/A  | Anabat  | B.    |               |
| rtheast |       | acres   |      | aco     | Do    |               |
| R       |       | timber  |      | ustical | uglas |               |
| esearch |       | harvest |      | moni    |       |               |
| Station |       | and 466 |      | toring, | WVFO  |               |
| --      |       | acres   |      | add     | end   |               |
| Fernow  |       | of      |      | itional | spp.  |               |
| Exper   |       | pre     |      | surveys | speci |               |
| imental |       | scribed |      | (mist   | alist |               |
| Forest  |       | burns   |      | net,    |       |               |
|         |       |         |      | hiber   |       |               |
| D       |       | (p      |      | nacula, |       |               |
| ecember |       | revious |      | sw      |       |               |
| 2005    |       | 210     |      | arming) |       |               |
|         |       | acres   |      | coor    |       |               |
|         |       | timber  |      | dinated |       |               |
|         |       | harvest |      | with    |       |               |
|         |       | and 154 |      | Service |       |               |
|         |       | acres   |      | a       |       |               |
|         |       | pre     |      | nnually |       |               |
|         |       | scribed |      |         |       |               |
|         |       | burn)   |      |         |       |               |
+---------+-------+---------+------+---------+-------+---------------+

/media/pszemraj/PeterTrove/project-files/DATA/ms-word-files/big-DOC/171266.doc