**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

**ON THE IMPACTS OF FOREST MANAGEMENT AND**

**OTHER ACTIVITIES TO THE GRAY BAT, BALD EAGLE,**

**INDIANA BAT, AND MEAD=S MILKWEED**

**ON THE**

**MARK TWAIN NATIONAL FOREST**

**MISSOURI**

![](media/image3.png){width="1.4979166666666666in"
height="1.1555555555555554in"}

![](media/image4.png){width="1.5013888888888889in"
height="1.0611111111111111in"}

**Prepared by:**

**Paul M. McKenzie, Ph.D.**

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

**608 E. Cherry Street, Room 200**

**Columbia, Missouri 65201-7712**

**June 23, 1999**

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES iii

LIST OF FIGURES iv

[I. CONSULTATION HISTORY]{.underline} 1

II\. BIOLOGICAL OPINION 2

Description of the proposed action 2

Environmental baseline 6

Past management and cultural practices influencing the environmental
baseline 10

Specific proposed actions implemented from the LRMP that affect the
environment 11

Analysis of the species/critical habitat likely to be affected 16

Gray bat 16

Species/habitat description/life history 16

Status and distribution 17

Status of the species within the action area 19

Effects of the action (direct and indirect effects) 20

Cumulative effects 22

Conclusion 22

Incidental take statement 22

Amount or extent of incidental take anticipated 23

Effect of the take 23

Reasonable and prudent measures 23

Terms and conditions 24

Conservation recommendations 26

Bald eagle 26

Species/habitat description/life history 26

Status and distribution 28

Status of the species within the action area 31

Effects of the action (direct and indirect effects) 33

Cumulative effects 35

Conclusion 36

Incidental take statement 36

Amount or extent of incidental take anticipated 36

Effect of the take 37

Reasonable and prudent measures 37

Terms and conditions 37

Conservation recommendations 39

Indiana bat 40

Species/habitat description/life history 40

Habitat requirements 41

Life history 46

Status and distribution 48

Current status and population trends in hibernacula 52

Reasons for decline 54

Previous surveys conducted in Missouri to determine the distribution of
Indiana bats 58

Status of the species within the action area 60

Effects of the action (direct and indirect effects) 62

Cumulative effects 65

Potential interrelated and interdependent actions 65

Cumulative impact of incidental take anticipated by the Service in
previously issued biological opinions 66

Conclusion 71

Incidental take statement 72

Amount or extent of incidental take anticipated 72

Effect of the take 75

Reasonable and prudent measures 75

Terms and conditions 76

Conservation recommendations 81

Mead=s milkweed 82

Species/habitat description/life history 82

Status and distribution 83

Status of the species within the action area 85

Effects of the action (direct and indirect effects) 85

Cumulative effects 86

Conclusion 86

Conservation recommendations 86

III\. REINITIATION NOTICE 87

IV\. APPLICABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL OPINION TO SITE SPECIFIC PROJECTS 88

V. LITERATURE CITED 88

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Bald eagle nesting territories, productive territories, and
number of young

fledged in Missouri between 1984 and 1998 31

Table 2. Numbers of bald eagles observed in Missouri during MDC=s annual
mid-winter

count between 1981 and 1999 32

Table 3. Summary of hibernating Indiana bat populations by State, based
upon estimates

nearest to year indicated (from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). 52

Table 4. Number of sites, Indiana bat captures, hours of effort,
bats/hour, and bats/site for surveys conducted at caves and non-cave
locations in Missouri between 1964 and

1998 (MDC unpublished data). 60

Table 5. Annual allowed incidental take (acres), estimated number of
Indiana bats potentially affected, and acres of suitable roosting and
foraging habitat, and number of suitable roost trees remaining following
tree removal as identified in biological opinions previously issued by
the Service involving five National Forests in the eastern

United States. 68

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Indiana bat annual chronology 46

Figure 2. Counties with current and historical records of Indiana bat
hibernacula 50

Figure 3. Counties with records of reproductively active (females at
maternities or

juveniles) and non-reproductively active (males, non-maternal females,
or

transients) Indiana bats 51

Figure 4. Locations of Indiana bat captures (reproductively active and
non-reproductively

active females, males), known Indiana bat maternity roost trees, and
sites where no bats were captured during surveys conducted in Missouri
between 1964 and 1998 59

Figure 5. Locations of active Indiana bat hibernacula on the Mark Twain
National Forest, Missouri. 61

iv

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

In 1984, the Forest Service requested formal consultation with the
Service on the LRMP for the MTNF. On August 8, 1985, the Service issued
a non-jeopardy biological opinion for seven species: bald eagle, Indiana
bat, gray bat, Ozark big-eared bat (*Corynorhinus townsendii ingens*),
Curtis= pearly mussel, pink mucket pearly mussel, and the Higgins= eye
pearly mussel (*Lampsilis higginsi*).

In May 1998, MTNF provided a draft Programmatic Biological Assessment
(DPBA) as part of a reinitiation of informal consultation to this office
on the potential effects of actions outlined in the LRMP to all
federally-listed species in Missouri. The need for reinitiation of
consultation was based on Acontinued research and inventory of TE
species populations on the forest, as well as a refinement of our
knowledge of these species= habitat requirements@ (U.S. Forest Service
1998). Our office reviewed the DPBA and provided comments back to the
MTNF dated May 27, 1998. Following incorporation of many of the comments
provided by this office, the MTNF resubmitted a second draft
Programmatic Biological Assessment on June 18, 1998. In August 1998, our
office provided additional comments on the second draft of the
Biological Assessment to the MTNF. On August 18, 1998, representatives
of the Service and Forest Service met at the Mark Twain National
Forest=s headquarters to discuss the Service=s comments. In a letter to
the project file dated August 31, 1998, the Forest Service addressed
concerns raised by the Service. In a letter dated September 8, 1998, the
Forest Service submitted a revised and final Biological Assessment (BA).
In their BA, the Forest Service concluded that ceratin actions to
implement the LRMP would be likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat,
gray bat, bald eagle, and Mead=s milkweed. They also determined that the
adverse effects identified in the BA could not be removed through
informal consultation. Consequently, the submission of a final BA was
accompanied by a request by the Forest Service for formal consultation
on the potential effects of actions outlined in the LRMP on the Indiana
bat, gray bat, bald eagle and Mead=s milkweed.

In a letter dated February 10, 1999, the Service requested an extension
of 20 days for delivery of the draft biological opinion. This request
was granted by the Forest Service in a letter dated February 24, 1999.
The Service delivered an initial draft biological opinion directly to
personnel of the MTNF on March 8, 1999. On March 12, March 22, March 30,
and April 19, the Service discussed with staff of the MTNF the terms and
conditions associated with the reasonable and prudent measures, and
conservation recommendations outlined in our initial draft biological
opinion, and written comments received from the Forest Service dated
March 17, March 24, and April 1, 1999. After considering comments
received from your agency regarding the Service=s March 8 draft
biological opinion, we prepared and delivered a second draft to
personnel of the MTNF on April 26, 1999. On May 14, 1999, the Service
discussed the April 26, 1999 draft with personnel of the MTNF. We
received written comments from the Forest Service on the April 26, 1999
draft dated May 14, May 21, and May 24, 1999. After considering comments
the Service received from the Forest Service regarding our April 26,
1999 draft, we prepared and delivered a final draft biological opinion
to personnel of the MTNF on June 2, 1999. We received comments on our
June 2, 1999, final draft from Garry Houf of the MTNF during a telephone
conversation with Dr. Paul McKenzie of our staff on June 8, 1999.

In their request for formal consultation of September 8, 1998, the
Forest Service determined that activities outlined in the LRMP would not
likely adversely affect the Topeka shiner (*Notropis topeka*), Hall=s
bulrush (*Schoenoplectus hallii*), running buffalo clover (*Trifolium
stoloniferum*), Tumbling Creek cavesnail (*Antrobia culveri*), Curtis=
pearly mussel (*Epioblasma florentina curtisi*), and pink mucket pearly
mussel (*Lampsilis abrupta*). The Forest Service further requested our
concurrence on these effect determinations. In a letter dated October 5,
1998, the Service: 1) concurred with the Forest Service=s determination
that certain actions to implement the LRMP would be likely to adversely
affect the Indiana bat, gray bat, bald eagle, and Mead=s milkweed, 2)
indicated that the initiation package associated with the Forest
Service=s request for formal consultation was adequate, and 3) announced
that formal consultation between the two agencies had begun. In the same
letter, the Service concluded that activities outlined in the LRMP were
not likely to adversely affect running buffalo clover or the Tumbling
Creek cavesnail and stated that a Ano effect@ determination was
appropriate for Topeka shiner, Curtis= pearly mussel, pink mucket pearly
mussel, and Hall=s bulrush. Our rationale for these determinations were
discussed at length in our October 5, 1998 correspondence. Because the
Ozark big-eared bat (*Corynorhinus townsendii ingens)* and the Higgins=
eye pearly mussel (*Lampsilis higginsi*) are both considered by the
Service and the Missouri Department of Conservation to be extirpated
from the state, they are no longer considered in this opinion.

The Service requested additional information to clarify activities on
the MTNF or to clarify comments made in the Forest Service=s Biological
Assessment by telephone on February 1, 4, 5, 8, 16, 23, 27; March 2, 3,
5, 8; and April 20, 22,1999. This information was received by facsimile
from Jody Eberly (Forest Service- MTNF) on February 1, 4, 5, 8, 16; and
March 2, 3, 5, 8, 1999 ([in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}.), by
facsimile from Garry Houf (Forest Service- MTNF) on February 5 and April
23,1999 ([in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}.); by electronic mail from
Houf on February 8, 22, and 29, 1999 ([in]{.underline}
[litt]{.underline}.), and by telephone on April 20, 1999 (Houf pers.
commun. April 20, 1999).

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

**[Description of the proposed action]{.underline}**

As defined in 50 CFR 402.02, \"action\" means all activities or programs
of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by
Federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas. 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. The direct and indirect effects of the actions
and activities from the federal action must be considered in conjunction
with the effects of other past and present Federal, State, or private
activities, as well as cumulative effects of reasonably certain future
state or private activities within the action area. The Service has
determined the action area for this project includes the entire MTNF
lands. This biological opinion (opinion) addresses only those actions
for which the Service believes adverse effects may occur. In their BA,
the Forest Service outlined those activities in the LRMP that would
adversely affect the Indiana bat, gray bat, bald eagle, and Mead=s
milkweed. The Service concurs with this determination and the following
biological opinion addresses whether continued implementation of the
LRMP on the MTNF is likely or not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of these species.

This biological opinion addresses a variety of management directions and
associated activities that are planned, funded, executed, or permitted
by the MTNF. These activities are implemented in accordance with the
provisions contained in the LRMP. The LRMP is a general programmatic
planning document that provides management goals, objectives, and
standards and guidelines under which project level activities (e.g.,
timber sales, stand improvement, wildlife habitat management, road
construction, special uses, etc.) may be planned and implemented to
carry out the management direction on the MTNF. Land use allocations are
made and outputs projected based upon the direction established in the
MTNF=s LRMP. All project level activities undergo National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) review by appropriate Forest Service personnel when
proposed, as well as assessment of project effects to federally listed
species in compliance with Section 7 of the ESA. The LRMP establishes
multiple use management area prescriptions (including associated
standards and guidelines) for future decision making which are
adjustable (via monitoring and evaluation) through amendment and
revision. The proposed action includes all individual projects currently
ongoing, as well as all specific actions implemented from the LRMP in
the future.

Under the LRMP, the direction of forest management on MTNF is based on
several forest management goals as outlined in the forest plan.
Management goals receiving consideration include multiple use,
recreation, wilderness, wildlife, timber, range, transportation system
(i.e., road construction, maintenance, and management), minerals, fire,
soil, water, and air management goals; and land adjustment program goals
(i.e., land exchanges, increased public access, etc.) (U.S. Forest
Service 1986). Of these, the primary current emphasis (34% of activities
on the MTNF) is devoted to the management of wildlife habitat to
Amaintain and enhance populations of native and desired non-native
vertebrates@ (U.S. Forest Service 1986). Under this emphasis, habitat is
to be provided not only for Anative and non-native vertebrates@, but for
Aindicator species@, Aconsumptive and nonconsumptive fish and wildlife
use@, and Awildlife species requiring specialized habitat including
those recognized by both Federal and State authorities as being
threatened, endangered, rare, or sensitive.@ (U.S. Forest Service 1986).

Following wildlife habitat (34%- 508,200 acres), other current
management emphases on the MTNF in decreasing order of abundance are:

-   the management of shortleaf pine within its natural, historic range
    (29%- 439,200 acres);

-   semi-primitive, motorized (i.e., some road access to areas allowed),
    recreational opportunities made available through the Amanagement of
    natural vegetative communities and their successional stages@-
    achieved through various types of timber, wildlife, and range
    management objectives (17.8%- 265,800 acres);

-   semi-primitive, non-motorized (road access prohibited), recreational
    opportunities made available through the Amanagement of natural
    vegetative communities and their successional stages@- achieved
    through various types of timber, wildlife, and range management
    objectives (5%- 71,600 acres);

-   intensive management of hardwood species capable of yielding high
    value hardwoods- achieved through various types of timber, wildlife,
    and range management objectives and allows for road access for
    recreational opportunities (4.4%- 65,800 acres);

-   wilderness designation (4%- 63,200 acres)- managed solely by Athe
    forces of nature@, except that prescribed fire can be used to Aaid,
    maintain, or restore natural plant communities or threatened and
    endangered species@ if approved by the Chief of the Forest Service;

-   Alands not needed to meet projected demands for the next 50 years or
    to lands that are currently uneconomical for resource investment@
    (i.e., lands that are Alow in output capability or have an
    unfavorable benefit-cost relationship@)- Aplant and animal diversity
    and successional stages are determined primarily through the forces
    of nature@, and such lands are considered unsuitable for timber
    production (1.7%- 25,900 acres);

-   a variety of Aspecial areas@ other than Wilderness that provide
    Aprotection of unusual environmental, recreational, cultural, or
    historical resources, and for scientific or educational studies@
    (1%- 15,800 acres);

-   Amanagement of natural vegetative communities and their successional
    stages to produce moderate resource outputs from a managed forest
    environment@- achieved through various types of timber, wildlife,
    and range management objectives (0.9%- 13,500 acres);

-   grassland management for the production of cattle- achieved mainly
    through range and wildlife management objectives (0.9%- 13,000
    acres); and

-   those areas temporarily managed for the potential of being
    designated as a Aspecial area@ other than wilderness- such areas
    Areflect public issues or management concerns for protection of
    unusual environmental, recreational, cultural, and historical
    resources and for areas valuable for scientific or educational
    studies-includes candidate areas for national river status@ (0.8%-
    12,600 acres) (U.S. Forest Service 1986, 1998; Eberly,
    [in]{.underline}. [litt]{.underline}., February 1999).

Most of the management prescriptions outlined above involving timber and
wildlife management also include the following additional objectives
within the various landtype associations:

-   woodland habitat in the 0-9 year age class;

-   woodland habitat in old growth condition;

-   woodland habitat in oak and oak-pine types over 50 years of age;

-   woodland habitats in pole and saw timber size classes with crown
    closure over 80%;

-   25-35% (40-50%) of the sawtimber component of the woodland in oak,
    oak-pine, and pine that exhibits a condition of 20-30% forbs, grass,
    and shrub ground cover;

-   woodland habitat in oak type over 50 years of age with a dense
    understory;

-   open and semi-open habitats;

-   permanent water sources per square mile; and

-   recommended numbers of cavity tree and snag objectives (U.S. Forest
    Service 1986).

Recommended percentages for each objective listed above is based on
several factors associated with each landtype association (U.S. Forest
Service 1986). Timber management objectives are accomplished through
timber stand improvement activities (e.g., thinning, salvage operations)
(46%), uneven-aged harvest (34%), and even-aged harvest (20 %) (U.S.
Forest Service 1998).

Specific proposed activities involve various timber management
activities including:

-   timber harvest (both even-aged and uneven-aged management);

-   salvage (damage caused by wind storms, tornadoes, floods, and
    lighting or human induced wild fires) and firewood sales;

-   timber stand improvement via thinning;

-   tree plantings and routine creation/maintenance of small clearings
    to benefit wildlife;

-   removal of hazard trees that are potentially injurious to human
    health and safety;

-   the removal of trees associated with the construction and
    maintenance of roads and utility corridors; and

-   and the felling of occasional trees for fish structures.

Other activities under the scope of the proposed action include:

-   the construction and maintenance of recreation areas (i.e.,
    campgrounds; picnic areas; and hiking, horseback riding, motor bike,
    and all-terrain vehicle trails);

-   range management/grazing and associated treatments for forage
    improvements (e.g., application of fertilizers; grass seeding;
    prescribed fires) or converting pastures from cool to warm season
    species;

-   pesticide and herbicide applications; prescribed fires and
    associated fireline construction;

-   soil and water resource management (mostly water barring and other
    soil erosion control operations);

-   the creation of brush piles for small and non-game species;

-   the prospecting and extraction of minerals; and

-   special use permits primarily involving the construction and
    maintenance of utility rights-of-way or road access to private lands
    adjoining Forest Service land.

**[Environmental baseline]{.underline}**

The MTNF encompasses 1,493,198 acres and is comprised of seven Ranger
Districts (District) in 29 Missouri counties. Six of the seven districts
are south of the Missouri River in the southern, south central,
southeastern, and southwestern portions of the state. The Cedar Creek
District is the sole district located north of the Missouri River. The
Doniphan/Eleven Point District embodies 331,441 acres in Carter, Oregon,
Ripley, and Shannon counties. The Ava/Cassville/Willow Springs District
consists of 314,720 acres scattered in Barry, Christian, Douglas,
Howell, Ozark, Stone, and Taney counties. The Potosi/Fredericktown
District embraces 282,196 acres in portions of Bollinger, Crawford,
Iron, Madison, Reynolds, St. Francois, Ste. Genevieve, and Washington
counties. Approximately 197,237 acres within parts of Laclede, Phelps,
Pulaski, Texas, and Wright counties are encompassed within the
Houston/Rolla District. The Salem District contains 193,494 acres and
includes land in Crawford, Dent, Iron, Reynolds, and Shannon counties.
The Poplar Bluff District is comprised of 156,430 acres throughout
portions of Butler, Carter, and Wayne counties. The smallest district,
Cedar Creek, consists of 15,270 acres within parts of Boone and Callaway
counties.

Numerous topographical, geological, climatological, ecological, and
evolutionary factors and features outline the landscape of the MTNF. The
Forest is characterized by three distinct geological areas. The Cedar
Creek District in the extreme northern portion of the Forest is where
geological surface materials consist of glacial till formed following
the recession of the Kansas glaciation. Kansas glacial till and the
Loveland Peoria Loess of the Wisconsin age cover portions of the Salem
Plateau and the Dissected Till Plains (McNab and Avers 1994).

The majority of the MTNF has Ordovician and Cambrian-aged sedimentary
surface material consisting of cherty dolomites and sandstones.
Elsewhere, there are areas where younger Mississippian limestone is
present on ridgetops. The Mississippian formation is found predominantly
in the extreme western sections of the Forest. In the eastern portion of
the Forest, the St. Francois Mountains stand apart by virtue of the
Precambrian igneous rocks which are exposed. In some areas, they occur
only at higher elevations, and rocks of Cambrian age occupy valley
floors. The forest landscape is deeply dissected, with smaller areas of
gently rolling landscapes and small plains on upland plateau remnants.
Geological structure is abundant. Forest-wide, the thickness of the
residuum varies from less than 1 foot to around 100 feet. A thin mantle
of loess caps the residuum on the higher and more flattened ridges.
Elsewhere the loess has been eroded. Across the Forest, elevations above
sea level range from 350 to 1450 feet. A major portion of the MTNF is
part of the Ozark Highlands (McNab and Avers 1994).

The Missouri Ozarks are characterized by a well represented karst
topography, with well-eroded rolling hills, deep hollows, springs,
caves, sinkholes, losing streams, natural bridges, and tunnels. Over
5,000 caves have been identified throughout the state. Of these, 416
have been documented on the MTNF and range from small, shallow rock
shelters to complex caves with over 1 mile of passage. Although caves
can be found on all National Forest districts, they are especially
prevalent within the Ozark and Ozark Border Natural Divisions as
described by Thom and Wilson (1980). Many of the forest=s caves have
permanent streams, but others are completely dry (U.S. Forest Service
1998).

Parts of the MTNF are found within the glaciated plains, Ozark, and
Ozark border natural divisions of Missouri (Thom and Wilson 1980). By
far, the largest acreage of the MTNF falls within the Ozark natural
division and encompasses portions of the White River, Lower Ozark, St.
Francois Mountains, and Upper Ozark subdivisions. All districts south of
the Missouri River fall within the Ozark Natural Division. This division
is a large, unglaciated region of greater relief and elevation than the
surrounding areas.

Geologically, the Ozarks are one of the oldest regions in the United
States and it encompasses nearly 40 % of the state. It is characterized
by thin, often stony, residual soils, with loess being very thin or
absent. Elevation above sea level ranges from about 400 feet to almost
1,800 feet, and local relief of 300 or more feet is not uncommon.
Topography ranges from being very steep to nearly level and the area is
characterized by numerous caves, springs, and bluffs. Streams are high
gradient, clear-flowing, and have numerous meanders. Limestone and
dolomite of Ordovician age underlie most of the area, but sandstone,
shale, chert, and igneous rocks also occur. Bedrock is commonly exposed
along streams and ridges. Deciduous, pine-oak, and pine forests were the
predominant vegetation in presettlement times. Glades are common where
bedrock surfaces and calcareous wet meadows (often termed Afens@) with
distinct plant communities are characteristic along many of the streams.

Extensive areas of prairie and savanna historically existed in the
Springfield Plateau subsection while isolated areas occurred elsewhere.
Currently, scattered remnant stands of prairie and especially savannahs
are being managed and restored by the Forest Service, the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources, and the Nature Conservancy throughout
the Ozark Division. Bottomland deciduous forest and gravel bar
communities are common along many Ozarkian streams. Karst features are
common throughout the division except for the St. Francois Mountains
subsection. Geologically the Ozark Division is part of an ancient
uplifted plain that has long been exposed to the dissecting action of
its streams. The great age and physiographic diversity of the Ozarks
make it the region of greatest diversity in Missouri with a distinct
biota including numerous endemic plants and animals. The six subsections
of the Ozark Division are defined by geologic history, stream drainages,
soils, characteristic flora and fauna, and presettlement vegetation
(Thom and Wilson 1980).

The Cedar Creek District of the MTNF encompasses portions of the Ozark
Border and Glaciated Plains natural divisions (Thom and Wilson 1980).
The Ozark Border Natural Division is characterized by: 1) rugged, highly
dissected hills with deep, relatively productive soils, 2) sandstone
cliffs, limestone cliffs, and pinnacles above major rivers, 3) caves,
sinkholes, springs, and bluffs, and 4) rolling hills, gently sloping
ridgetops, and valley bottoms scattered throughout. This section is
drained by streams flowing into the Missouri River. Although this
division shares many characteristics with the Ozark Natural Division and
is often lumped physiographically with part of the Ozark Plateau
Province (Fenneman 1938), it serves as transition zone between the
Ozarks and the Glaciated Plains natural divisions.

The Glaciated Plains Natural Division is characterized by soils and
topography that resulted from the influence of the Kansan stage of
Pleistocene glaciation. Soils were formed from loess, glacial till, or
alluvium (Thom and Wilson 1980). Prior to presettlement, about 55% of
the division was covered with upland deciduous forest, while the
remaining 45% was comprised of native tall grass prairie. Much of the
Cedar Creek District is covered with deciduous forest but pasture,
glades, and cedar thickets are scattered throughout. Bottomland timber
and floodplain habitat exist along the larger streams that dissect and
drain the division.

About 89% of the MTNF is covered with forest and the remaining 11% is in
open-land habitats. The major forest type is oak-hickory that covers
about 66% of the MTNF. Another 15% is oak-pine, 9% is shortleaf pine,
with other forest types combined encompassing the remaining 10%.

Age composition of trees on the MTNF in descending order of magnitude
are:

-   50 years old or older (72%: 956,841 acres- this includes 12% or
    159,474 acres of trees 90 years old or older- old growth);

-   0-9 years old (11%: 146,184 acres);

-   20-49 years old (10%: 132,895 acres); and

-   10-19 years old (7%: 93,026 acres).

Water is abundant throughout the MTNF and there are currently about
3,500 acres of permanent streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds scattered
throughout the Forest. Additionally, the abundant karst topography has
resulted in the formation of 500 perennial springs, some of which have
the largest volume output of any springs in the United States (Vineyard
and Feder 1974).

Each district of the MTNF is within easy driving distance of major
metropolitan areas and provides various types of recreational
opportunities. In addition to other recreational activities, Table Rock
Lake and the adjacent Roaring River State Park provide numerous fishing
opportunities for visitors to Branson and Springfield. Major rivers or
streams within the Houston/Rolla District include the Gasconade and Big
Piney Rivers, and Roubidoux Creek. This district is near the cities of
Houston, Rolla, Waynesville, St. Robert, and borders the Fort Leonard
Wood Military Installation. Montauk State Park is also nearby.

Portions of Huzzah Creek flow through the Salem District and this
district is adjacent to the Current River and the Ozark National Scenic
Riverways. The towns of Salem and Steelville are within easy driving
distance of these areas. The Doniphan/Eleven Point District is not only
the largest district of the MTNF in acreage (331,441), but is also one
of the most scenic areas in North America. Centered around the small
towns of Winona, Alton, Doniphan, and Van Buren, this district
encompasses portions of the Current and Eleven Point rivers that include
parts of the Ozarks National Scenic Riverways and the Eleven Point
National Scenic River. An area with rich biological diversity, the area
is home to some of the largest springs (in volume of output) in the
United States and is adjacent to Big Spring State Park. Recreational
activities (especially canoeing) on the Current and Eleven Point rivers
provide numerous jobs to local residents.

The Poplar Bluff District provides easy access to Lake Wappapello, the
Black and St. Francis rivers, and Cane Creek. The district is adjacent
to Poplar Bluff as well as Lake Wappapello State Park and the Service=s
Mingo National Wildlife Refuge. The Fredericktown District embodies
parts of the St. Francis and Twelve Mile rivers, and it is within easy
driving distance from Fredericktown, Ironton, Farmington, and St. Louis.
It is also adjacent to some of the most picturesque state parks in
Missouri (i.e., Elephant Rock, Tom Sauk).

Portions of Curtois Creek and the headwaters of the Big River flow
through the Potosi District and are near the small towns of Potosi and
Centerville. Johnson Shut-Ins State Park is within easy driving distance
of the district. The Cedar Creek district drains sections of Cedar Creek
which is a tributary to the nearby Missouri River. This district is near
Rock Bridge Memorial State Park and provides numerous recreational
opportunities to residents of Columbia, Ashland, and Fulton. In addition
to the state parks mentioned above, all districts of the MTNF are within
easy access to numerous MDC Conservation Areas, and a few state forests
and The Nature Conservancy preserves.

The thousands of acres of forest and the numerous rivers, streams,
ponds, hiking trails, horseback riding trails, picnic grounds, and
camping facilities on the MTNF provide recreational opportunities for
thousands of visitors a year. Unlimited opportunities exist for hunting,
fishing, hiking, camping, canoeing, boating, swimming, wildlife
photography, bird watching, horseback riding, and picnicking. In a 1997
study of recreational use on the MTNF, hours of use were estimated for
the following activities (in descending order of frequency):

-   camping (4,879,044);

-   auto travel (4,853,268);

-   hunting (3,321,888);

-   boating and canoeing (2,695,608);

-   swimming (1,775,064);

-   fishing (1,678,332);

-   miscellaneous- includes nature study, bird watching, outdoor games,
    etc. (1,578,876);

-   hiking (1,129,524);

-   gathering- includes mushrooms, nuts, and wild berries (843,540); and

-   biking (25, 416).

Combined, a total of 26,683,176 hours were expended by visitors to the
MTNF in 1997 to enjoy the numerous, available recreational opportunities
(Forest Service statistics provided by Eberly, [in]{.underline}.
[litt]{.underline}., February 1999).

**[Past management and cultural practices influencing the environmental
baseline]{.underline}**

Past management and cultural practices of inhabitants using land within
the boundaries of the MTNF since presettlement times have greatly
influenced the current condition of Missouri=s forests, prairies,
glades, savannahs, waters, and other natural communities. Although
concentrating primarily on the potential impact of historical land use
changes on stream disturbance in the Ozark Plateaus, Jacobson and
Primm=s (1997) analysis provides an excellent summary of factors that
have influenced the current condition of Missouri=s landscape throughout
the state.

Missouri=s landscape today is totally different than what was observed
by Schoolcraft when he traveled across the state in 1818 and 1819
(Schoolcraft 1819, 1821; Ladd 1991). Much of the forests were
savanna-like in appearance, were much more open than they are now, and
had a graminoid understory. Nelson (1985) estimated that as many as 13
million acres of savanna occurred in Missouri prior to settlement. The
openness of Missouri=s woodlands observed by Schoolcraft was maintained
due to the frequent use of fire by Native Americans (Ladd 1991) who used
this management technique to improve grazing habitat for big game, to
aid in hunting, or to harass enemies (Barrett, 1980). By examining the
fire scars of aged cedars and post oaks, Guyette & McGinnes (1982), and
Guyette & Cutter (1991), determined that fires recurred on the average
of 3.2 years from 1730 to settlement in the 1830\'s. After settlement,
however, fire frequency decreased to an average of one fire every 22
years. The suppression of fires following settlement had such an effect
on the landscape that Marbut (1914) commented that large, Atreeless
grassy plains@ completely disappeared within 30 years following the
Civil War. Sauer (1920) noted that the combination of fire suppression,
timber cutting, and over grazing caused open hills with a grass
understory to become nearly extinct.

Most of the Ozarks were cut following settlement, with the peak
occurring between 1880 and 1920 (Jacobson and Primm 1997). Since 1920,
many of the areas cut over in the Ozarks have regrown to form extensive
stands of mature, primarily oak-hickory forests. This is supported by
forestry inventory data which indicates that the percent forest cover
and sawtimber volume in the Missouri Ozarks increased significantly
between 1972 and 1989 (Spencer *et al*. 1992; Hansen *et al*. 1992).
Additionally, the continued suppression of fires, however, has
contributed to a forest that is much less open than occurred prior to
settlement (Ladd 1991).

**[Specific proposed actions implemented from the LRMP that affect the
environment]{.underline}**

The following programs (in average number of acres managed annually in
the last 10 or five years and in decreasing order of abundance)
summarize the various specific proposed actions implemented from the
LRMP (as identified by U.S. Forest Service 1998):

[Timber harvest/ management]{.underline}

Timber sales, which include both regeneration cuts and salvage and
firewood sales, is one of the primary management activities which alters
and/or disturbs the greatest acreage of forest habitat on the MTNF.
Between 1986 and 1997, the average annual harvest of timber on the MTNF
was 18,215 acres and within the last 5 years, the Forest Service has
averaged the harvest of 18,100 acres of timber annually. Of these, 8,291
acres (46%) involved thinning, salvage, and miscellaneous operations
(e.g., firewood permits); 6,167 acres (34%) involved uneven-aged
management (i.e., group selection, single tree selection and single tree
selection with groups harvest techniques; and 3,642 acres (20%) involved
even-aged management (i.e., shelterwood, clearcut, and seedtree harvest
techniques).

Within the last five years, the following annual average acreage of
uneven-aged management harvest were employed on the MTNF (in descending
order of abundance): group selection with improvement (2,813),
uneven-aged improvement (2,060), group selection (673), and individual
tree selection (383) (Eberly, [in]{.underline}. [litt]{.underline}.,
February, 1999). Within the last five years, the following annual
average acreage of even-aged harvest were employed on the MTNF (in
descending order of abundance): shelterwood (1,810), clearcut (1,034),
and seedtree (798). Timber harvest on the Cedar Creek District is
restricted to uneven-aged management using single tree selection or
fire-wood thinning, and the annual harvest within this unit is
approximately 75-125 acres (U.S. Forest Service 1998).

The MTNF has averaged about 59 million board feet of commercial timber
each year since 1986, ranging from a high of 73 million board feet in
1987 to a low of 48.6 million board feet in 1990. An average of
approximately 9,800 acres of reforestation via natural regeneration have
been accomplished per year since 1986, and timber stand improvements
have been conducted on an average of 3,750 acres per year in the past 10
years. Reforestation by natural regeneration is accomplished on an
average of 9,800 acres per year and about 3,750 acres per year are
dedicated to timber stand improvement (i.e., releasing young trees by
removing competing vegetation).

[Prescribed fires]{.underline}

An average of 7,100 to 13,000 (an average of 9,515 acres in the last
five years) acres are managed annually through the use of prescribed
fires. Prescribed fires are used to create, maintain, or improve
wildlife habitat, to reduce hazardous fuels, and is an important tool in
restoring and managing pine and oak/pine savannahs, glades, prairies,
native grasslands, and wildlife openings.

[Wildlife management]{.underline}

In addition to the use of prescribed fires as mentioned above to improve
an annual average of 9,000 acres of wildlife habitat, other activities
are employed to benefit fish and wildlife. These include tree planting
in riparian corridors, the construction of ponds or waterholes,
brushhogging, planting of food plots, converting non-native fescue to
native warm-season grasses, seeding of native legumes, fish stocking,
lake fertilization, and fish shelters. An average of an additional 660
acres of habitat improvement work per year is used to directly benefit
threatened and endangered species.

[Wildfire (non-prescribed)]{.underline}

The deliberate or accidental setting of fires by forest visitors or
lightning results in the impact to and annual average of approximately
4,500 acres per year. Although such fires may create habitat for
wildlife and plants, they can also negatively impact the flora and fauna
of the Forest if ignited during the growing season.

[Land exchanges]{.underline}

Land acquisition of private property and exchanges for the same account
for an annual average of 3, 930 acres per year. An annual average of
2,800 acres involve land acquisition, and 1,130 acres involve exchange
of Forest Service land into private ownership.

[Range management]{.underline}

Currently, 51,325 acres of open land are available for grazing. Of this
acreage, approximately 19,500 acres per year are managed as allotments
for cattle grazing and an estimated 2,000 acres per year are treated for
forage improvement by prescribed burning, seeding, converting pastures
from cool to native warm season grasses, and through the direct
application of lime and fertilizers.

[Soil and water resource management]{.underline}

Within the last five years, an annual of average of approximately 154
acres have been treated to provide benefits to soil and water resources.
Such treatments include the waterbarring of roads and trail sections to
reduce soil erosion, cleaning of garbage dumps, revegetation of
bottomland hardwoods by planting trees in old fields within riparian
corridors, streambank stabilization procedures to halt soil erosion, the
elimination and revegetation of illegal ATV trails, and the protection
of riparian areas through the designation of filter strips which prevent
sediment run off into streams and springs that could be potentially
displaced during harvest operations, timber stand improvement
activities, prescribed fires, and road construction or repair.

[Pesticide use]{.underline}

The use of pesticides on the MTNF has decreased drastically within the
last 12 years, and there has been no aerial application of herbicides or
insecticides on the MTNF since the late 1960\'s. From 1986-89, the
average annual application rate on the Forest was approximately 6,850
acres. Use dropped to an average of 860 acres per year between 1991 and
1995. Within the last five years, the average has decreased even further
to 350 acres per year and the annual average was 120 acres in 1997 and
1998. Between 1986 and 1990, herbicides were mainly used for the release
of young pines (i.e., by controlling competing vegetation), site
preparation, right-of-way maintenance, and wildlife habitat improvement.
Herbicide use currently is restricted to noxious weed control,
conversion of non-native fescue grasses to native, warm-season species,
utility and railroad right-of-way maintenance and the control of poison
ivy around administrative and recreational sites.

Herbicides currently in use for utility right-of-way maintenance are
Glyphosate (*Accord*), Triclopyr (*Garlon 3A, Garlon 4*), and Imazapyr
(*Chopper*). Glyphosate (*Roundup, Rodeo, Accord*) is used around
buildings, for noxious weed control, and for fescue control. Railroad
right-of-ways are maintained with Diruon/Sulfometuron Methyl. Chemicals
are applied to individual, target plants. The aerial application of
herbicides or insecticides is prohibited on the MTNF, Aunless it is has
been approved by the Forest Supervisor and documented as the only
environmentally sound and biologically effective method practicable@
(U.S. Forest Service 1986, 1998).

[Mineral exploration and extraction]{.underline}

Mineral production on the MTNF includes the removal of lead, copper,
zinc, and silver, with lead being the largest commodity extracted. In
1996, the MTNF estimated that over half of all the lead mined in the
United States originated from ore bodies located underneath the Forest.
The main lead deposit underlying the MTNF is within the Viburnum trend
in the Salem and Potosi Districts. Currently, there are 36 mineral
leases, six prospecting permits, and seven prospecting permit
applications filed with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) who has
oversight authority for all mineral leases. Mineral prospecting and
development involves site preparations and associated activities with
exploratory drilling.

**Note: because mineral extraction associated with current ongoing
leases involves numerous complex issues (e.g., BLM has oversight
authority, mineral extraction is accomplished from mining operations on
private property outside Forest Service boundaries, etc.), this opinion
covers only those activities connected with exploratory and
developmental drilling conducted from the surface of the MTNF (includes
surface disturbance associated with site preparation and subsurface
drilling operations). Further consultation is necessary to assess the
impacts of mineral extraction on federally-listed species that could be
impacted by the 36 leases currently in operation.**

Exploratory drilling impacts an average of approximately 20 surface
acres a year on the MTNF. Associated activities include the construction
of temporary roads when necessary to exploratory drill sites, site
preparation involving the clearing of ca. 1/4 acre of vegetation, the
insertion of surface casings, and above ground drilling operations which
are conducted from standard truck-mounted rotary and diamond core drill
rigs. Subsurface disturbance involves case and core drilling to a depth
of 2,200 to 2,300 feet. Water, a biodegradable foaming agent, and an
expanding clay may be used during drilling operations to cool drill bits
and prevent the collapse of the sides of drill holes. Following
drilling, all holes are plugged with a commercial grout, and drill sites
and temporary access roads (if necessary) are reclaimed (Eberly,
[in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}. February 8, 1999).

[Recreation management]{.underline}

The MTNF currently has 74 developed recreation areas that include
campgrounds, picnic areas, and river and stream accesses. Approximately
740 miles of hiking and/or horseback riding trails, 20 miles of
all-terrain vehicle trails, and 125 miles of a motor bike trail are also
provided. Management and maintenance of these areas is primarily
restricted to existing campgrounds, picnic sites and access roads, but
does involve the removal of hazard trees, and the removal and trimming
of trees within trail corridors.

[Road construction and maintenance]{.underline}

Approximately 2,350 miles of road are maintained by the MTNF. In the
past 10 years, only 1.5 miles of new permanent roads have been
constructed. Temporary roads are constructed to provide access to
exploratory drill sites and to timber management activities.

[Special designated areas]{.underline}

Several areas on the MTNF are under special designation. Management on
these areas outside of natural forces is either prohibited, requires
approval by the Chief of the Forest Service, or is extremely limited.
The MTNF contains seven federally-designated Wildernesses totaling
63,160 acres (in descending order based on total acreage)(U.S. Forest
Service 1986, 1998):

-   1\) Irish Wilderness in the Doniphan/Eleven Point District- 16,600
    acres,

-   2\) Hercules Glades Wilderness in the Ava District- 12,314 acres,

-   3\) Bell Mountain Wilderness in the Potosi District- 8,777 acres,

-   4\) Piney Creek Wilderness in Cassville District-7,927 acres,

-   5\) Paddy Creek Wilderness in the Houston District- 6,728 acres,

-   6\) Devil=s Backbone Wilderness in the Willow Springs District-
    6,595 acres, and

-   7\) Rock Pile Mountain Wilderness in the Fredericktown District-
    4,159 acres.

Other than prescribed fire on the Hercules Glades Wilderness to maintain
the area=s biological diverse glade community, and occasional trail
maintenance, all other activities including motorized or mechanized
vehicles or equipment are prohibited from all designated wilderness
areas (U.S. Forest Service 1998).

An additional 1,040 acres of Irish Wilderness Aexcluded lands@ adjacent
to the Irish Wilderness on the Doniphan/Eleven Point District have been
set aside for special designation. Initially this area was to be managed
as a federally-designated wilderness area with the exception that
mineral exploration was to be allowed. Due to the potential impact to
the Irish Wilderness and the Eleven Point National Scenic River,
exploratory drilling in the Doniphan/Eleven Point District area has been
a source of considerable debate for several years. Although a permit for
exploratory drilling had been issued for the Aexcluded lands@ and a few
holes were drilled under the permit, the time frame for accepting
exploratory drilling permit applications for this area has since
expired, and no further exploratory drilling is anticipated in this
area. Consequently, exploratory drilling is now prohibited from the
Irish Wilderness and adjacent Aexcluded lands@

(Eberly, pers. commun. February 17, April 26, 1999)

Additionally, on October 26, 1998, the Doe Run Mining Company withdrew
three new, one extension, and one old exploratory drilling permit
applications outside of the Irish Wilderness and the excluded lands
mentioned above, but within the Doniphan/Eleven Point District (Eberly,
[in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}. February 8; Eberly, pers. commun.
April 26, 1999).

Approximately 44.4 miles encompassing 8,021 acres of the Eleven Point
River has been designated as the Eleven Point National Scenic River in
the Doniphan/Eleven Point District. Management within this area is
restricted to habitat manipulation to benefit endangered and threatened
species and unique natural communities; the removal of hazard trees to
protect human safety; salvage operations to remove trees damaged by
catastrophic events (e.g., windstorm, lightning strikes, wild fires,
etc.); trail maintenance; and the maintenance or management of
recreation sites (U.S. Forest Service 1998).

The Greer Spring Special Management Areas contains approximately 4,098
acres adjacent to the Eleven Point National Scenic River on the
Doniphan/Eleven Point District. Management and habitat manipulation
within this area includes: trail maintenance; maintenance of the two
access roads to the area; the control of insects and/or disease; and the
removal of hazard trees to protect human safety, and uneven-aged timber
harvest using the single tree selection method when practical (U.S.
Forest Service 1998).

Sixteen miles of the lower Current River within the Doniphan/Eleven
Point District has been designated as a Forest Special Area and consists
of 2,040 acres. Within this area, the main management objective is to
Aprotect and enhance the recreation experience of river users@ (Forest
Service 1998). Management within this area is restricted primarily to:
habitat manipulation to benefit endangered and threatened species and
unique natural communities; the removal of hazard trees to protect human
safety; and salvage operations to remove trees damaged by catastrophic
events (e.g., windstorm, lightning strikes, wild fires, etc.) (Forest
Service 1998).

Seven rivers or creeks within the MTNF have been identified as
candidates for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System:
Big Piney River (\~81.5 miles) in the Houston/Rolla District, Cedar
Creek (\~29 miles) in the Cedar Creek District, Curtois Creek (\~18
miles) in the Potosi District, Gasconade River (\~56 miles) in the
Houston/Rolla District, Huzzah Creek (\~28 miles) in the Salem District,
St. Francis River (\~17 miles) in the Poplar Bluff District, and the
North Fork of the White River (\~ 30 miles) in the Willow Springs Unit
of the Ava./Cassville/Willow Springs District. The perpetuation of the
Acurrent condition@ within a 0.25 mile zone along each side of candidate
rivers/creeks is the primary management objective for waters so
designated. When necessary to meet management objectives, only
uneven-aged management is allowed within the zones identified.

Eighteen areas encompassing 5,824 acres on the MTNF have been designated
as State Natural

Areas. They range in size from 2 acres to almost 3,000 acres. The
primary management objective for such areas is to perpetuate the special
attributes and habitat features unique to each. Limited timber
management and/or the use of prescribed fire may be necessary to
maintain and perpetuate the attributes of each area.

**[Analysis of the species/critical habitat likely to be
affected]{.underline}**

This opinion considers the potential affects of the continued
implementation of the LRMP of the MTNF on those species for which the
Service concurs with the Forest Service are likely to be adversely
affected. As previously discussed, these are the gray bat, bald eagle,
Indiana bat, and Mead=s milkweed. Because the Service has concurred with
the Forest Service that continued implementation of the LRMP of the MTNF
is not likely to adversely affect running buffalo clover (*Trifolium
stoloniferum*) or the Tumbling Creek cavesnail (*Antrobia culveri*), and
concluded that a no effect determination is appropriate for the Topeka
shiner (*Notropis topeka*), Curtis= pearly mussel (*Epioblasma
curtisi*), pink mucket pearly mussel (*Lampsilis abrupta*), and Hall=s
bulrush (*Schoenoplectus hallii*), these species will not be considered
further in this opinion.

**[Gray bat]{.underline}**

**A. Species/habitat description/life history**

Gray bats are medium sized with a wingspan of 10-11 inches, and are the
largest *Myotis* species in the eastern United States. They have
grayish-brown fur are the only *Myotis* species whose wing membrane
connects to the ankle instead of the base of the first toe. Gray bats
are a monotypic species that occupy a limited geographic range in
limestone karst areas of the southeastern and central United States.

Gray bats migrate each year between winter and summer caves. Migration
distances range from several miles to 200 miles (Clawson *et al*. 1992).
Mating occurs at winter caves during September. After copulation,
females enter hibernation but males and juveniles continue feeding for
several weeks. By early November, most gray bats are hibernating. Adult
females begin to emerge in late March, followed by juveniles and adult
males. Females store sperm in the winter and become pregnant after
emerging in the spring. A single offspring is born in late May or early
June. Young become volant 20 to 25 days after birth.

Gray bats have very specific cave requirements (Tuttle 1974, 1979). As a
result, less than five percent of available caves are suitable.
Different caves are utilized during summer and winter, and multiple
caves may used by a single colony during the summer (Tuttle 1974,
1976a). Winter caves must be very cold with a range in temperature
between 42 and 52 F. Winter caves are deep with vertical walls and act
as cold air traps (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982). Summer caves
must be warm (55-77 F), or with restricted rooms that can trap the
body heat of roosting bats. Migrating gray bats appear to travel in
groups and may stop for several days in Atransient@ caves while
migrating in the spring and fall. Mortality during migration, especially
for juveniles, is not uncommon (Tuttle, 1976b). Annual survival rates
are about 60% (Clawson *et al*. 1992).

Summer caves used by females are termed Amaternity@ caves and are
located close to rivers or lakes where the bats feed. Most males,
non-reproductively active females, and juveniles inhabit non-maternity
caves during the summer. Unlike Indiana bats, gray bat females do not
become reproductively active until their second year of life. Large
maternity colonies usually have 10,000-50,000 bats. Typically, summer
caves are within 0.6 miles of a river or lake. Most foraging occurs
within seven miles of roosts (LaVal *et al*. 1977), but gray bats may
range up to 12 miles nightly. Gray bats are insectivorous and prefer to
forage over water (Tuttle 1974). Because gray bats forage over water,
their diet consists primarily of emergent forms of aquatic insects.
Individual bats are loyal to their colony home range, but may use
several caves within the home range (3D/International Inc. 1996). Gray
bats must deposit fat for survival during winter hibernation. This is
accomplished in the fall immediately prior to entering hibernation
(Tuttle 1976b). In July and August, adult females and their young rejoin
the bachelor males and non-reproductive females (Clawson *et al*. 1992).
This group migrates to the hibernacula between August and October.

**B. Status and distribution**

The gray bat was listed as federally endangered on April 28, 1976
*(Federal Register* 41:17740). No Critical Habitat has been designated
for this species. The gray bat recovery plan was published on July 1,
1982, and outlines the following broad recovery actions: (1) acquire and
protect important caves; (2) control foraging habitat destruction; (3)
educate the public and private cave owners; and (4) continue research
and monitoring of populations.

Gray bats are a monotypic species that occupy a limited geographic range
in limestone karst areas of the southeastern United States. Populations
are found mainly in Alabama, northern Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and
Tennessee. Small populations inhabit northwestern Florida, western
Georgia, and southeastern Kansas, southern Indiana, southern and
southwestern Illinois, northeastern Oklahoma, northeastern Mississippi,
western Virginia, and possibly western North Carolina.

Historically, individual hibernating populations of gray bats contained
100,000 to 1.5 million or more bats (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1982). About 95 percent of the bats hibernated in only nine caves with
more than one-half in a single cave.

Estimation of range-wide gray bat population size is difficult ( U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1982). Censussing of the nine major
hibernacula between 1977 and 1982 resulted in a total population of
1,575,00 bats. Nineteen percent (300,000) of the population occurred in
the three major hibernacula located in Missouri. However, censussing for
the species was not standardized until the 1980\'s (Clawson *et al*.
1992). In the mid-1980\'s, the total population at major hibernacula in
Missouri was estimated to be around 500,000, while the number of gray
bats counted at maternity sites was approximately 500,000+ (Clawson *et
al*. 1992). The count obtained at maternity sites can only be viewed as
a rough estimate, however, because observations were not made the same
year and such calculations do not take into account the annual
fluctuations that occur at individual caves.

Precipitous declines occurred in gray bat populations starting in the
early 1960\'s. By 1976, Tuttle (1979) estimated that gray bat
populations had declined 76% in 22 Alabama and Tennessee summer colonies
from maximum levels recorded prior to 1968. Reductions in Missouri
maternity caves paralleled the apparent decrease in Alabama and
Tennessee declining by 72% by 1978 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1982). In Kentucky, bat populations declined 88% over the same period.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1982), cited five primary causes for
the decline in gray bat populations: 1) human disturbance to the bats,
2) human disturbance to the environment, 3) cave destruction from
impoundments, 4) cave commercialization, and 5) natural sources of
mortality. Human disturbance between late May and mid-July at maternity
caves, and between mid-August and late April at hibernacula is
especially harmful. Flightless young are vulnerable to disturbance
during the spring and early summer, and hibernating colonies are easily
aroused by disturbances during winter. Tuttle (1979) linked much of the
decline in the Alabama and Tennessee colonies to human disturbance.
Exposure to toxins, including pesticides and their by-products, such as
dieldrin (Clark *et al*. 1978, Clawson 1984) have caused gray bat
mortalities, and may also be an important threat to survival and
recovery of gray bat populations.

Since the 1980\'s, gray bat populations rangewide are stable or
increasing (Rick Clawson, Missouri Department of Conservation, pers.
comm.). This is supported by McGimsey and Johnson (1994) who surveyed 66
Missouri caves historically used by gray bats but ones which had not
been surveyed in recent years prior to their study. They confirmed the
presence of gray bats in 22 caves; six caves were found to serve as
maternity sites, 12 were transient use sites, and the type of use was
undeterminable for four caves. Approximately 64,790 gray bats were
observed at maternity sites, 7,683 were counted at transient sites, and
16,150 were noted in caves were use (i.e., maternity or transient) was
undeterminable. The fact that a total of 88,623 bats were counted in 22
historical caves that had not been surveyed in recent years provides
additional evidence that this species is continuing to rebound in
Missouri. Although the reasons for this turn-around have not been
determined, it is likely due to increased protection measures provided
for many gray bat caves in recent years. Some caves have been acquired
and protected by the installation of new and/or improved cave gates .
Also, use of many persistent pesticides and their byproducts (DDT, DDD,
DDE, heptachlor epoxide etc.), and other liophilic toxins (e.g., PCBs)
was eliminated or severely curtailed after the 1970\'s.

**C. Status of the species within the action area**

There are approximately125 caves in Missouri where this species has been
documented, and of these, 14 occur on the MTNF. However, the species has
been documented in only 11 Forest Service caves within the last 25 years
(Missouri Department of Conservation 1997; Forest Service 1998). Of
these, six have been used as maternity caves and five have been used as
transient sites. Gray bats have not been recorded in two caves since
1980 and one since 1976. Because censussing of gray bats in non-priority
1 maternity caves and hibernacula in Missouri (including those on the
MTNF) have not been conducted on a regular, systematic basis (Missouri
Department of Conservation 1997; Forest Service 1998), and population
numbers fluctuate widely from year to year, it is extremely difficult to
obtain an accurate picture of trends of this species for all occupied
caves on the National Forest. Nonetheless, sufficient information exists
to outline trends for seven caves.

The species appears to be increasing dramatically at four caves.
Estimates of gray bats at maternity cave ORE-G1 have increased from
7,000 bats in 1978 to 15,000 individuals in 1998; from 124 bats at
maternity cave ORE-G3 in 1979 to 13,600 individuals in 1997; from 1,400
individuals at maternity cave ORE-G5 in 1980 to 4,250 bats in 1990; and
from 5,000 bats at maternity cave OZA-G1 in 1979 to 27,200 individuals
in 1994. Data for maternity cave OZA-G1 should be carefully analyzed,
however, as the species actually decreased from a high of 33,250
individuals in 1983 to 16,450 bats in 1991, before rebounding to the
27,200 recorded in 1994.

Recent estimates suggest that gray bats are decreasing at two caves: at
maternity cave ORE-G5, the population increased from 7,500 bats in 1981
to 9,450 individuals in 1988, but then decreased to 7,750 individuals in
1990 and 3,400 bats in 1994. Similarly, at maternity cave REY-G1, the
population increased from 7,000 bats in 1978 to 13,000 in 1983, but then
decreased to 6,850 individuals in 1989 and 4,800 bats in 1991. Gray bats
have apparently disappeared entirely from one transient cave, CFD-G1. In
1976, 7,000 bats were estimated but no individuals were observed when
this cave was surveyed in 1994.

As with studies conducted by McGimsey and Johnson (1994) for other areas
in Missouri, there is also recent data that suggest that gray bats are
possibly using areas on the MTNF where the species had previously never
been recorded. In late April/early May 1997, 500 gray bats were observed
using cave PUL-GI (Missouri Department of Conservation 1997; Forest
Service 1998). While it is not yet known whether these individuals were
using the cave as a maternity or transient site, the observations may
provide further evidence that gray bat populations are increasing in
some areas of the MTNF and expanding into new caves.

Gray bats apparently use cave MAD-1 solely as a transient site. In 1980,
200 individuals were observed but the species has not been documented
there since. The exact status of gray bats in cave ORE-G2 is not yet
fully understood. In 1994, 12 gray bats were observed using this cave as
a transient site. Recent studies by members of the Cave Research
Foundation, however, suggest that this cave may be also used as a
hibernaculum and as a maternity site. In 1997, they estimated that
10,000 gray bats were using this cave as a maternity site but also noted
that probably A100\'s@ of individuals occupied the site as a
hibernaculum (Forest Service 1998).

The four protected caves on the MTNF were gated during the following
years: OZA-G1 (1973, but repaired and locked in 1994); ORE-G1 (1994);
ORE-G6 (1994); and REY-G1 (1996) (Houf, pers. commun., February 23,
1999). Because of the manner in which gray bat caves throughout the
state have been surveyed (i.e. not all caves surveyed in the same year,
nor at the same regularity- Forest Service 1998), including those on the
MTNF, and because population numbers have fluctuated widely during those
years when surveys were conducted, it is extremely difficult to estimate
the total population on the National Forest. Nonetheless, the data that
does exist suggests that the maximum population is between 50,000 and
60,000 individuals. This would constitute about 12-15% of Missouri=s
population and about 3-4% of the population in the United States.

**D. Effects of the action (direct and indirect effects**)

**Direct effects**

The main potential direct effects to the gray bat would be human
disturbance to hibernating bats during the winter season or to maternity
colonies during the summer. Because only four of the 14 caves used by
gray bats on the MTNF are gated, human disturbance is possible. The
Forest Service (1998) concluded that Ahuman disturbance at maternity
caves and hibernacula is probably the major cause of past declines in
specific gray bat caves on the forest.@ Additionally, there have been
instances of even the gated and fenced caves on the MTNF of being
vandalized and allowing entrance to gray bat sites (Forest Service
1998).

Additional analysis of the trend in one gated cave on the MTNF may
provide further evidence that human disturbance of gray bat caves has
been a problem on the Forest, and has contributed to the decline of the
species there. Cave OZA-G1 was gated in 1973 and numbers fluctuated from
5,000 in 1979; to 33,250 in 1983; to 19,200 in 1989; to 16,450 in 1991.
After this cave=s gate was repaired and locked in 1994, however, the
population increased to 27,200 bats (Forest Service 1998).

The largest population decline observed in any cave on the MTNF occurred
between 1990 and 1994 in ORE-G5 when gray bat numbers decreased by 4,350
individuals, or an average of 870 bats per year. Although there is an
additional possibility that the drop in numbers in ORE-G5 was due to
gray bats moving from ORE-G5 (which may have only been used as a
transient site- Eberly [in]{.underline}. [litt]{.underline}. May 24,
1999) to ORE-G3, which exhibited a dramatic increase in numbers between
1979 and 1997, there is no solid evidence that such a shift in roosting
between the two caves took place. Consequently, the possibility that the
drop in numbers in ORE-G5 was due to human disturbance can not be ruled
out. Disturbance of hibernating gray bats could cause them to arouse and
exhaust stored fat reserves prematurely (Daan, 1973). While the Forest
Service has been successful in protecting some of the gray bat caves on
the MTNF by installing various protective measures, other caves remain
unprotected and are subject to human disturbance by recreational cavers
and other visitors.

The MTNF annually conducts prescribed fires on about 7,100-13,000 acres
throughout the forest.

Gray bats could be directly impacted from drifting smoke that enters the
cave from adjacent burns. Smoke that comes in contact with gray bat
could adversely impact the species due to smoke inhalation (Elder and
Gunier, 1981).

**Indirect effects**

Indirect effects are defined as those that are caused by the proposed
actions and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur
(50 CFR 402.02). The main potential indirect effects to the gray bat on
the MTNF would be; 1) loss of the species= prey base due to the
degradation of water quality of streams, rivers, and lakes that could
negatively impact the emergence of the aquatic insects that the species
forages on, and 2) loss of foraging habitat due to the alteration of
riparian corridors over which the species forages.

The U.S. Geological Survey conducted an extensive water quality study of
the Ozark Plateaus in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri (including basins that
cover National Forest land in most districts of the MTNF), and Oklahoma
between 1992 and 1995, and concluded that the water quality was well
within acceptable levels for several parameters established by EPA
(Petersen *et al.* 1998). Sedimentation, however, was not included in
their analysis.

The impacts of siltation on aquatic insects, as it relates to the
production of prey items for gray bats, has not been thoroughly studied.
Nonetheless, Tuttle (1979) noted that none of the five gray bat colonies
that he studied whose population numbers remained stable between 1970
and 1976 foraged over heavily silted waterways. Contrary to conclusions
stated by the Forest Service in their 1998 Biological Assessment, the
Service believes that sedimentation from activities on the MTNF could
potentially adversely impact streams, rivers, and lakes on the MTNF
where the species forages, even if the standards and guidelines outlined
in the LRMP for the National Forest are followed. Ground-disturbing
forest management activities, such as some timber harvesting, road
construction and maintenance, prescribed fires, overgrazing, ATV and
motor bike use, and trampling from livestock have the potential for soil
to move off site. The Service would predict, however, that potential
adverse impacts from siltation is likely to be minimal because very
little management is undertaken within riparian corridors, and standards
and guidelines outlined in the LRMP for the MTNF provide recommendations
that minimize soil erosion and maintain good water quality. Nonetheless,
sediment transport into aquatic systems from activities upslope of
riparian corridors is possible.

**E. 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 biological opinion. Future Federal
actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in
this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to
Section 7 of the ESA. Additionally, any future Federal, State, local, or
private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area,
and which are considered in this biological opinion, will either be
carried out by, or will require a permit from, the Forest Service; they
will, therefore, require compliance with Section 7 of the ESA. Because
the Service is not aware of any future State, local, or private actions
that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area and which
would not be subject to Forest Service Section 7 review, cumulative
effects, as defined by the ESA, will not occur and will not be addressed
further in this opinion.

**F. Conclusion**

After reviewing the current status of the gray bat; the environmental
baseline for the action area; the effects of forest management and other
activities on the MTNF (both direct and indirect); additional measures
identified in the Forest Service=s BA to assist in the protection,
management, and recovery of the species; and any possible cumulative
effects, it is the Service=s biological opinion that forest management
and other activities authorized, funded, or carried out by the MTNF
through the implementation of the LRMP, are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the gray bat. Because critical habitat has not
been designated for this species, none will be adversely affected by the
continued implementation of the LRMP.

**G. Incidental take statement**

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of
the Act, prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species,
respectively, without special exemption. Take is definded 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 include 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 the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create
the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal 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. Under the terms of Section
7(b)(4) and Section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not
intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited
taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the
terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.

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

**H. Amount or extent of incidental take anticipated**

The Service anticipates that incidental take of gray bats may occur as a
result of continued implementation of the LRMP on the MTNF due to human
disturbance. Specifically, the Service anticipates that incidental take
of gray bats may occur due to human disturbance at the four ungated
caves where the gray bats have been documented during the last surveys
conducted on the MTNF (i.e., 1994 and 1997): ORE-G2, ORE-G3, ORE-G5, and
PUL-G1. Although incidental take in the form of harass and harm may
occur in these four, ungated caves, the number of gray bats anticipated
to be taken is difficult to estimate due to the manner that this species
was surveyed on the MTNF and due to annual population fluctuations that
occur for reasons that are still poorly understood. Nonetheless, there
is evidence that human disturbance in ungated caves may have contributed
to the decline of the species on the MTNF, and the Service anticipates
that as many as 4,350 bats (the largest population decline observed
between 1990 and 1994 in ORE-G5) was lost within a five-year period or
an average of 870 bats per year.

Given that another ungated cave has shown a decrease in the numbers of
gray bats in the past (i.e., ORE-G3), and others have only been
censussed for one year, (i.e., MAD-G1 and PUL-G1), it is possible that
additional bats would be taken due to human disturbance. Although the
Service acknowledges that some of these caves are difficult to access
and little human disturbance has been documented when visited by
personnel of the MTNF (Forest Service 1998), an additional
unquantifiable level of take of bats per year is anticipated.
Consequently, the Service anticipates that a minimum of 870 bats may be
taken in ungated caves on the MTNF due to human disturbance.

Additionally, the Service anticipates that an unquantifiable level of
incidental take is possible due to: 1) adverse effects to bats due to
smoke inhalation when smoke from prescribed fires drift into caves
occupied by the species, and 2) loss of the bats= insect prey base due
to siltation from various activities on the MTNF. However, the Service
believes that the potential incidental take from smoke inhalation and
the loss of the species= forage base is extremely remote.

**I. Effect of the take**

The Service has determined that the level of anticipated incidental take
of gray bats is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species.

**J. Reasonable and prudent measures**

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

-   Discourage human visitation to MTNF gray bat caves with more than
    500 gray bats within the last 10 years with proven techniques
    appropriate to each individual cave.

-   Following the guidelines outlined in Clawson et al. (1992), conduct
    regular monitoring of the status of gray bats in all MTNF caves with
    documented populations of more than 500 gray bats within the last 10
    years.

-   Implement appropriate smoke management techniques to minimize
    potential smoke effects to occupied gray bat caves.

The Service believes that the reasonable and prudent measures outlined
above will significantly reduce the impacts of incidental take of gray
bats on the MTNF and that these measures are reasonable and fall within
the Forest Service=s responsibilities to conserve federally listed
species as outlined in Sections 2(c)(1) and 7(a)(1) of the Act.

**K. Terms and conditions**

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

In order to decrease human disturbance, the following is necessary:

-   By January 2001, determine the appropriate protective measures for
    caves ORE-G2, ORE-G5, and ORE-G3 to minimize human visitation during
    periods of gray bat use. Such efforts must be coordinated with the
    Service, MDC, Bat Conservation International, and/or others, as
    appropriate.

-   Implement protective measures in cooperation with the Service and
    MDC within 3 years after completion. Any protective measures
    implemented must be reviewed and approved by Service and MDC cave
    protection experts prior to construction.

-   Provide an annual report to the Service=s Columbia, Missouri Field
    Office and MDC cave/bat specialists by December 31 of each year.
    This report will include: a) results of any population monitoring
    completed that year, b) any documented human disturbance, c)
    identification of protective measures needed to protect ORE-G2,
    ORE-G5, and ORE-G3, d) completion of any protective measures (i.e.,
    gate, signs, fences, etc.) installed, and f) any documented
    incidental take as a result of human disturbance in gray bat caves
    on the MTNF.

-   If human disturbance is documented and results in the take of gray
    bats that exceed the level of incidental take listed above (\> 870),
    reinitiation of formal consultation is required (see Reinitiation
    Notice below).

In order to meet cave monitoring requirements, it is necessary to:

-   Coordinate with the Service and MDC to insure that occupied MTNF
    gray bat caves are regularly and consistently monitored by
    individuals experienced in identifying gray bats and their sign.

-   Provide a schedule for monitoring to the Service=s Columbia,
    Missouri, Ecological Services Field Office and MDC by December 31,
    1999.

In order to minimize impacts to gray bats from prescribed fires, it is
necessary to:

-   Increase the area of old growth forest (old growth) around caves
    with current populations of gray bats to a minimum of 20 contiguous
    acres; this area will include the cave entrance, the area above any
    known cave passage, the foraging corridor from cave to nearest water
    source, and ridgetops/side slopes above the cave.

-   Consider all occupied gray bat caves as smoke sensitive areas.
    Conduct any planned prescribed fire in the vicinity of occupied gray
    bat cave [only]{.underline} when the following have been considered:
    wind direction, speed, mixing height and transport winds needed in
    burn planning and implementation to minimize smoke drifting toward
    or into occupied gray bat caves and to prevent any night-time smoke
    inversions around the cave.

-   Prior to the employment of any prescribed fire, provide the
    Service=s Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office with
    the opportunity to review burn plans that could potentially impact
    gray bats.

-   Provide an annual report to the Service=s Columbia, Missouri Field
    Office and MDC cave/bat specialists by December 31 of each year, on
    any documented case of a prescribed fire that behaved contrary to
    predicted movement patterns and which resulted in a confirmed
    adverse impact to roosting gray bats.

The Service believes that approximately 870 gray bats could be
incidentally taken per year as a result of the proposed action (i.e.,
implementation of the LRMP on the MTNF). The reasonable and prudent
measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are designed to
minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from
the proposed action. If, during the course of the action, this level of
incidental take is exceeded, such incidental take represents new
information requiring reinitiation of consultation (see Initiation
Notice below) and review of the reasonable and prudent measures
provided. In such an event, the Forest Service (MTNF) must immediately
provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and participate with
the Service in reviewing the need for possible modification of the
reasonable and prudent measures.

**L. Conservation recommendations**

Sections 2(c)(1) and 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to
utilize their authorities to further the purpose 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 that the MTNF implement the following
conservation measures for the benefit of the gray bat:

-   Continue to monitor and document any significant soil movement as a
    result of various management activities undertaken by the Forest
    Service. Cooperate with other agencies and/or universities in
    ongoing or new studies which would help determine if activities on
    the MTNF contribute to sediment deposition into streams, rivers, and
    lakes. Cooperate in any studies regarding potential effects of
    excess sedimentation on aquatic insects on which the gray bat feeds.
    Provide monitoring results to the Service=s Columbia, Missouri
    Ecological Services Field Office no later than December 31 of each
    year.

-   In consultation with the Service and MDC, develop an educational
    brochure and slide program that includes information on: ways to
    minimize human disturbance to gray bat maternity colonies or
    hibernacula; the status of the species in the eastern United States,
    Missouri, and on the MTNF; various aspects of its life history and
    habitat requirements; the ecological benefits of bats, etc. When
    opportunities exist, work with adjacent cave owners, the general
    public, and other agencies to promote education and information
    about gray bats and their conservation.

-   In consultation with the Service and MDC, conduct training for
    employees of the MTNF on bats (including gray bat) in the National
    Forest; training should include sections on bat identification,
    biology, habitat requirements, and sampling techniques; the proper
    training of MTNF biologists on bat identification and a reliable
    method for counting roosting bats will enable the Forest Service to
    monitor the status of this species independently of other agencies;
    such freedom should ensure that all caves are monitored during the
    same year and that counts are conducted in a regular and consistent
    fashion.

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

**[Bald eagle]{.underline}**

**A. Species/habitat description/life history**

The bald eagle is a large, powerful brown bird with a white head and
tail. Young eagles are mostly dark brown until four to six years of age
and may be confused with the golden eagle. Bald eagles are the only sea
eagles regularly occurring on the North American continent, and range
from central Alaska and Canada to northern Mexico. Adult male birds
weigh 8-10 pounds and may grow to 3 feet, head to tail; females may
weigh up to 14 pounds and grow to 3.5 feet (Gerrard and Bortolotti
1988).

Bald eagles are strongly associated with aquatic environments throughout
most of its range (Gerrard and Bortolitti 1988; Millar 1995), but will
use upland areas when water is frozen over (Stenhof *et al*., 1980).
Nesting eagles are associated almost exclusively with lakes, rivers, or
sea coasts (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983a) and are usually no
farther than two miles from water (McEwan and Hirth 1979; Gerrard and
Bortolotti 1988). Although fish predominate in the typical diet of
eagles, many other types of prey are also taken, including waterfowl
(Munro 1938; Swisher 1964; Griffin *et al*. 1982) and small mammals
(Edwards 1969; Platt 1976), depending on location, time of year, and
population cycles of prey species (Steenhof 1978; Millar 1995). Gizzard
shad (*Dorosoma cepedianum*) has been identified as a major fish prey
item in some areas (Southern 1963, 1964; Grewe 1966; Jonen 1973; Lish
and Lewis 1975; Hopkins 1988; Martrell 1992). Lincer *et al*. (1979)
also documented that carrion are also taken when available, especially
in wintering areas.

Both nesting and wintering habitats must have adequate perching,
roosting, and nesting sites, generally trees, and an adequate food base
to support eagles. Nesting birds build their nests in mature trees, on
cliffs, or rock outcrops where large trees are not available (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1983a). Nest sites are usually in large trees along
shorelines in relatively remote areas (Millar 1995) or where there is
reduced human activity (Andrew and Mosher 1982). Outside the nesting
season, bald eagles usually prefer areas away from human disturbance
(Lish and Lewis 1975; Buehler *et al*. 1991), but are tolerant of
limited activity in some situations

(Stenhof 1978; Martell 1992). In some studies, however, human
disturbance, especially of night roosts, can overburden the daily energy
budget of wintering eagles causing a significant increase in
physiological stress (Stalmaster and Newman 1978; Stalmaster and
Gessaman 1984).

Generally, trees with diameter-at-breast height greater than 11 inches
and within 100-600 feet of water are preferred perching sites (Vian
1971; Lish and Lewis 1975; Steenhof 1976, 1978). Eagles tend to roost on
the tallest trees (\> 63\') (Lish and Lewis 1975; Stalmaster and Newman
1979). Where they occur throughout the range, cottonwood (*Populus
deltoides*) trees are often selected over other trees for perching and
roosting (Lish and Lewis 1975; Stenhof 1978; Osterfeld 1988). Larger
more open-branching trees are also favored by wintering eagles for night
roosts (Stenhof 1978). Sheltered timber stands are important as
alternative night roosts during severe winter weather because of the
thermal protection they provide (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983a;
Osterfield 1988; Martrell 1992). This is probably less important,
however, at lower latitudes within the species range where temperatures
are less severe. Distance of communal night roosts from foraging areas
varies between 0.5 and 17.8 miles (Stenhof 1978).

At this latitude, wintering birds typically occur between November 15
and March 1. Nest initiation activities may begin as early as January
with incubation and rearing of young from March through mid-May. Females
lay one to three eggs depending on environmental conditions and the
fitness of the female. Incubation lasts about 35 days, and young fledge
10-14 weeks after

hatching. Most young fledge from June 1 to mid-July in Missouri.

**B. Status and distribution**

Bald eagles south of the 40^th^ parallel were listed as endangered under
the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668aa-668cc)
on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001). In 1978, the Service listed the species
throughout the lower 48 states as endangered, except in Michigan,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Oregon, where it was designated as threatened.
(43 FR 6233, February 14, 1978). On June 12, 1995, the Service published
a final rule reclassifying the status of the bald eagle from federally
endangered to threatened throughout the lower 48 states (60 FR 36000).
Currently, the Service is drafting a proposed rule to remove the bald
eagle in the lower 48 states from the Federal list of endangered and
threatened wildlife (Jody G. Millar, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Rock Island, Illinois, [in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}. January 29,
1999). No Critical Habitat has been designated for the species.

Five recovery regions (Pacific, Southwestern, Southeastern, Chesapeake
Bay, and Northern States) have been designated for the eagle in the
lower 48 states. Missouri is within the Northern States Recovery Region.
The Service published the Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan in
1983. Major recovery steps outlined in the plan include: (1) determine
current population and habitat status; (2) determine population and
habitat levels needed to achieve recovery; (3) protect, enhance, and
increase bald eagle populations and habitats; and (4) establish and
maintain communication to coordinate and conduct recovery efforts.

The bald eagle occurs throughout most of the United States and Canada
where it nests near water. It is the only species of sea eagle native to
North America. Historically, the species ranged throughout much of North
America, nesting along both coasts from Florida to Baja California in
the south, and from Labrador to the western Aleutian Islands, Alaska, in
the north (Gerrard and Bortolotti 1988). Currently, bald eagles continue
to thrive in Alaska, coastal British Columbia, and in the boreal forests
and maritime provinces of Canada. In the lower 48 states, eagle
populations in the northwest, Great Lakes, northeast and Florida have
expanded considerably and areas that were previously void of nesting
eagles are now repopulated throughout much of the eagle=s historic
range.

Reasons for this species previous decline have been well documented.
These include: 1) environmental contamination, particularly
organochlorine insecticides like DDT which caused egg-shell thinning and
reproductive failure, and the illegal use of pesticides, 2) human
disturbance of eagle nests and night roosts, 3) intentional killing by
shooting or poisoning, and 4)

the degradation and alteration of roosting and nesting habitat (U.S .
Fish and Wildlife Service 1983a; Millar 1995). Illegal shooting
continues to threaten the species in some parts of the country,
particularly in some western states. Between 1985 and 1990 the National
Wildlife Health Research Center in Madison, Wisconsin had diagnosed over
150 bald eagle deaths due to gun shot (Millar 1995).

The ban on use of DDT and other organochlorine insecticides in the
1970\'s and 80\'s has profoundly benefited bald eagle recovery.
Nonetheless, pesticide poisoning of eagles has continued.
Organochlorines have been replaced by organophosphates and carbamates
which are much less persistent in the environment (Stinson and Bromley
1991). However, these compounds are acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and
can be extremely toxic to birds and mammals. The National Wildlife
Health Research Center has diagnosed over 100 cases of contaminant
poisoning over the past 15 years. Poisonings have been attributed to
phorate, carbamate, fenthion, and famphur, mostly in the western states.
Secondary poisonings of bald eagles have increased in the Plains and
Rocky Mountain regions from pesticide-laced carcasses used to kill
predators. Eagle reproduction in the Great Lakes is still impaired by
persistent contaminants such as PCBs. Heavy metals such as mercury and
lead have also been implicated in the poisoning deaths of bald eagles
and may have severe chronic effects on reproduction. Secondary lead
poisoning has been associated with eagles ingesting lead shot while
feeding on crippled waterfowl. As was the case with organochlorine
insecticides, this problem should be abating because of bans on lead
shot for waterfowl hunting (Millar 1995).

Steps to reduce continued threats to the bald eagle have been undertaken
by all levels of government and numerous private conservation groups
nationwide. Increased protection of nesting habitat and winter roost
sites has occurred in many areas throughout the country. Guidelines have
been developed in many areas to minimize human disturbance around
nesting and winter roost sites. Many harmful pesticides implicated in
the death of bald eagles in the past have been banned and the levels of
some persistence organochlorines or their metabolites have decreased in
areas where the species is highly susceptible to contamination (Wiemeyer
1993; Millar 1995; Millar [in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}. January
22, 1999). The species has also benefitted from several years of captive
propagation, reintroduction, and transplanting programs as well as
numerous public outreach and education efforts throughout the country.

Since the bald eagle was listed in 1978, populations have clearly
increased in number and expanded in range throughout the United States
and the recovery objectives outlined in several region recovery plans
have been greatly exceeded. In 1963, the National Audubon Society
reported that only 417 active nests occurred in the lower 48 states,
with an average of 0.59 young produced per active nest. By 1994, about
4,450 occupied breeding areas were reported by the states with an
estimated average young per occupied territory (n= 4,110 territories) of
1.17. Compared to 1974, the number of occupied breeding areas has
increased 462 percent, and since 1990, there has been a 47% increase. As
a result of the significant increase in numbers of nesting pairs,
increased productivity and greatly expanded distributions, the species
was reclassified in the lower 48 states from endangered to threatened
where it had not already been so designated (Millar, [in]{.underline}
[litt]{.underline}. January 22, 1999).

Recovery of the bald eagle in the lower 48 states is continuing at an
impressive rate. In the past 10 years, the bald eagle=s nesting
population has increased at an average rate of about 9 percent per year.
The current nesting population is more than tenfold larger than the
level reported by the National Audubon Society in 1963. In 1997, the
Service estimated that the breeding population of the bald eagle
exceeded 5,290 pairs. The species= population numbers have approximately
doubled every 7-8 years for the past 30 years.

Population increases in the Northern States Recovery Region and Missouri
parallel national trends. In 1994, there were 1,772 known occupied
territories distributed over 21 states in the recovery region with an
estimated 1.26 young per occupied territory. Since 1990, productivity
has hovered around 1.00 young per territory per year. Delisting goals
for this region call for 1,200 occupied territories distributed over a
minimum of 16 states with an average annual productivity of at least 1.0
young per occupied nest.

Delisting goals were accomplished in 1991 with 1,349 occupied
territories distributed over 20 states and an estimated average
productivity exceeding 1.1 young per occupied territory. Although
Missouri has not yet achieved its year 2000 recovery goal of 50 occupied
breeding territories (defined as Aproductive territories by MDC- Wilson,
[in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}. September 17, 1998), it has
exceeded the Region=s goal of 1.0 young per occupied nest. In 1998,
occupied breeding territories in the state yielded 2.0-2.2 young per
occupied nest.

In Missouri, bald eagles apparently nested along several of the state=s
rivers and in the southeastern swamps prior to 1850. By 1900, however,
the species nearly disappeared as a breeding species in the state
(Robbins and Easterla 1992). In recent years, bald eagles have shown a
remarkable recovery in the state and both nesting and wintering records
have increased dramatically (Tables 1 and 2.). In 1984, only one bald
eagle breeding territory was documented in the state and it was
unproductive. In 1985, there were two productive territories and four
young were fledged. The number of eagles nesting in the state increased
gradually and by 1998, 36-39 productive territories produced between 65
and 70 young (Table 1).

The number of bald eagles wintering in the state has also gradually
increased from 955 in 1981 to 2,621 in 1997 (Table 2). Percentages of
immatures in the wintering population has ranged between 30% and 43%
(Robbins and Easterla 1992; Wilson, [in]{.underline}
[litt]{.underline}., February 8, 1995). Fewer numbers observed within
the last two winters are probably attributable to the relatively mild
winters of 1997-98 and this year.

Large concentrations of eagles occur at aquatic habitats scattered
across the state in areas where there is either an abundance of fish
(e.g., the locks and dams on the Mississippi River, Table

Rock Lake, Lake Wappapello), and waterfowl concentrations (e.g., Squaw
Creek NWR, Iatan Power Plant). Some concentrations, however, occur in
upland areas where dead chickens or

piglets associated with animal husbandry operations have been discarded.
During the December

19, 1978 Squaw Creek NWR Christmas Bird Count, 417 individuals were
counted (291 adults and 126 immatures). During MDC=s mid-winter bald
eagle survey of January 5-9, 1998, major concentrations were observed
along the Missouri River in Atchinson County (180 between Highway 136
and the Iowa border), on the Osage River in Miller County (124), in
western Barry County (193) and on Table Rock Lake in Stone County (129)
(Jim D. Wilson, MDC, [in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}. February 23,
1998). Concentrations observed in 1999 were at the Iatan Power Plant in
Platte County (127), on the Osage River in Miller County (119) and in
the Washburn area of Barry County (63) (Wilson, [in]{.underline}
[litt]{.underline}. February 18, 1999).

Table 1. Bald eagle nesting territories, productive territories, and
number of young fledged in Missouri between 1984 and 1998 (Jim D.
Wilson, MDC, [in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}. September 17, 1998).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Year Total Territories Productive Territories Number of Young Fledged

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

1984 1 0 0

1985 2 2 4

1986 2 2 5

1987 4 2 4

1988 6 5 7

1989 6 4 5

1990 11 4 8

1991 13 8 13

1992 11 10 21

1993 14 10 18

1994 14 13 25

1995 24 19 38

1996 27 22 37-44

1997 36 28-30 56-64

1998 45 36-39 65-70

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Known night roosts are also scattered across the state with recent
records from Atchinson, Barry, Cape Girardeau, Chariton, Clark, Holt,
Jefferson, Lewis, Livingston, McDonald, Oregon, St. Charles, and Ste.
Genevieve counties (MDC Natural Heritage Database 1997). The largest
concentrations involve 104 birds on the Elk River in McDonald County, 63
birds at Roaring River State Park in Barry County, and 52 birds at a
roost along the Mississippi River in Lewis County (MDC Natural Heritage
Database, 1997).

As with their improved status throughout the lower 48 states, the bald
eagle has recovered in Missouri. It is expected that the number of
nesting and wintering individuals in the state will continue to
increase.

**C. Status of the species within the action area**

Most of the bald eagles sighted on the Mark Twain National Forest have
been wintering individuals seen singly or in small groups (Houf, pers.
comm., February 28, 1998). Water bodies on the forest which receive the
most consistent use are Table Rock Lake, Lake Wappapello, and the Eleven
Point and Current rivers. Other lakes and streams on the forest also
support some eagles during the winter. Eagles also use private lands and
other ownerships intermixed with National Forest lands, particularly
near hog lots, poultry farms, fish hatcheries and other steady food
sources.

Table 2. Numbers of bald eagles observed in Missouri during MDC=s annual
mid-winter count

between 1981 and 1999 (Wilson, [in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}.
February 18, 1999).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Year Number of bald eagles observed

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

1981 955

1982 779

1983 908

1984 975

1985 758

1986 977

1987 1,070

1988 966

1989 1,011

1990 1,654

1991 1,815

1992 1,700

1993 2,394

1994 2,054

1995 2,398

1996 2,616

1997 2,621

1998 2,009

1999 2,363

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

None of Missouri=s seventeen overwintering night roost sites occur on
Mark Twain National Forest lands (MDC, Natural Heritage Database, 1997).
The nearest site is the Bailey Chapel night roost on private land in
Oregon county. This site is within 1.5 miles of the Mark Twain National
Forest boundary and is approximately five miles from the nearest point
of the Eleven Point National Scenic River Zone. In 1994, this location
was a site for a feeding aggregation and night roost of 14 eagles; 8
adults and 6 immatures (MDC, Natural Heritage Database, 1997).

The large night roost on the Elk River in McDonald County previously
discussed is on private property and is over 40 miles from the Forest
boundary of the Cassville District. Another roost at Big Sugar Creek
State Park in McDonald County (with 2-32 birds) (MDC Natural Heritage
Database 1997) is about 30 miles from National Forest land. The large
roost at Roaring River State Park is directly adjacent to the Ava
District of the MTNF ). The only known bald eagle roost occurring on the
MTNF is a daytime roost at Loften Hole, Table Rock Lake, Stone County
(Forest Service 1998).

Although there are no known bald eagle nest locations currently on the
MTNG, a few are located within 1.5-6 miles of the National Forest land
boundaries. One active site under private ownership is located on the
Gasconade River approximately two miles from National Forest land and
another inactive, privately owned site is on a tributary stream of
Beaver Creek adjacent to the Hercules Glade Wilderness Area (MDC Natural
Heritage Database 1997). Two active nests at Lake Wappapello and the
Mingo National Wildlife Refuge are approximately 1.5 and 6.0 miles,
respectively from National Forest land on the Popular Bluff District.
All active nests are beyond the Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary
protective zones recommended in Appendix E of the Northern States Bald
Eagle Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983a), and outside
the 1320 feet restrictive buffer zone identified in the standards and
guidelines (pg. IV-50) of the LMRP for the MTNF for Forest Service
management activities during nesting season.

Small numbers of wintering bald eagles are scattered along the rivers,
creeks, streams, and lakes within the MTNF (e.g., Current River, Eleven
Point River, Big Piney River, Gasconade River, Black River, St. Francis
River, Cedar Creek, Courtois Creek, Huzzah Creek, Table Rock Lake, Lake
Wappapello). Given the continued increase in the wintering population of
bald eagles in the state and the fact that the species frequents upland
areas where dead chickens or piglets associated with animal husbandry
operations have been discarded, it could possibly be encountered
anywhere on the MTNF.

**D. Effects of the action (direct and indirect effects**)

**Direct effects**

The only potential direct effects to bald eagles on the MTNF would
be: 1) the removal of unknown night roosts, 2) human disturbance, and 3)
adverse impacts from smoke inhalation during prescribed fires. The
Service estimates that the chances of incidental take due to the removal
of known perching trees or unknown night roosts to be extremely remote
for the following reasons:

 All units scheduled for harvest, thinning, or site improvement
operations are visited several times by various Forest Service personnel
prior to any habitat alterations being performed, and searches for eagle
sign are conducted (Forest Service 1998); consequently, any unknown
night roosts would likely be discovered;

 The Forest Service has indicated that Aif night roosts were located
during field inspections, the project would be altered to protect the
roost site@ according to standards and guidelines outlined in the LRMP
(IV-50) (U.S. Forest Service 1998:14- bald eagle);

-   Specific standards and guidelines in the LRMP for riparian
    corridors, floodplain forests, and specially designated or proposed
    specially designated areas (e.g., Eleven Point National Scenic
    River, Lower Current River, Cedar Creek, Big Piney River, Courtois
    Creek, Gasconade River, Huzzah Creek, St. Francis River) (LRMP:
    IV-46, 53-55, 189-190, 201-205; 221-215) provide buffer zones that
    restrict most types of management activities; and

 There is an abundance of suitable perching and roosting trees within
all areas of the MTNF where eagles have been observed.

Removal of trees used for perching or roosting could occur during timber
management activities (i.e. harvesting, thinning, salvage operations),
road construction and maintenance, exploratory drilling, range
improvement, recreation site maintenance, and special use administration
(e.g., firewood removal, utility corridor maintenance, etc.). Because no
known night roosts have been discovered to date on upland areas of the
MTNF and Forest Service personnel search areas scheduled for management
prior to operations, it is highly unlikely that eagle perch or roost
trees would be removed. The greatest potential would be when these
activities are undertaken in riparian corridors or along lake shores.
Although there are several standards and guidelines in the LRMP for the
MTNF that provide protection for riparian corridors (see above), a
minute amount of riparian/bottomland hardwoods have been harvested in
the last 10 years (i.e., 442 acres or an average of ca. 44.2 acres per
year- U.S. Forest Service 1998). No standards and guidelines have been
specifically written for lake shores ( U.S. Forest Service 1986).

The greatest potential of incidental take would be those activities on
Forest Service land at Table Rock Lake and Lake Wappapello where the
largest numbers of eagles have been observed on the MTNF. However, even
here it is highly unlikely that eagle perch or roost trees would be
removed because the majority of land on the MTNF encompassing Table Rock
Lake and Lake Wappapello frontage is managed as recreational areas
(pers. commun., Houf, February 26, 1999).

Human disturbance associated with forest management activities and other
operations on the MTNF, or recreational users on the Forest could cause
bald eagles to flush from a specific perch but it is doubtful that such
activities would be at a magnitude to constitute take. Additionally,
eagles have become acclimated to small levels of human activity ( U.S.
Forest Service 1998).

Prescribed fires conducted on the MTNF, especially those conducted near
Table Rock Lake, Lake Wappapello, and the rivers, creeks, and streams
where eagles forage may directly impact perching or foraging eagles due
to smoke inhalation if prevailing winds drift smoke into occupied areas.
Such potential impacts would probably be minimal, however, for the
following reasons: 1) prescribed fires are not conducted in riparian
corridors (U.S. Forest Service 1998), the majority of land on the MTNF
encompassing Table Rock Lake and Lake Wappapello frontage is managed as
recreational areas where the use of this management tool is not
anticipated (pers. commun., Houf, February 26, 1999). Nonetheless, smoke
from prescribed fires conducted on areas adjacent to these water bodies
could drift to locations occupied by eagles.

**Indirect effects**

Indirect effects are defined as those that are caused by the proposed
actions and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur
(50 CFR 402.02). The main potential indirect effects to the bald eagle
on the MTNF would be: 1) the loss of the species= prey base due to the
degradation of water quality of streams, rivers, and lakes that might
negatively impact the fish populations that provide a forage base for
eagles, and 2) loss of future roosting habitat due to the alteration of
riparian corridors and lake shore habitat. It is believed, however,
that, adverse impacts to the species due to indirect effects is expected
to be remote for the following reasons.

The U.S. Geological Survey conducted an extensive water quality study of
the Ozark Plateaus in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri (including basins that
cover National Forest land in most districts of the MTNF), and Oklahoma
between 1992 and 1995, and concluded that the water quality was well
within acceptable levels for several parameters established by EPA
(Petersen *et al.* 1998). Sedimentation, however, was not included in
their analysis, and it is likely that it would be the main contributing
factor to water degradation on the MTNF. Contrary to conclusions stated
by the Forest Service in their 1998 Biological Assessment, the Service
believes that sedimentation from activities on the MTNF could
potentially adversely impact streams, rivers, and lakes on the MTNF
where the species forages, even if the standards and guidelines outlined
in the LRMP for the National Forest are followed. Ground-disturbing
forest management activities, such as some timber harvesting, road
construction and maintenance, prescribed fires, overgrazing, ATV and
motor bike use, and trampling from livestock have the potential for soil
to move off site. The Service would predict, however, that potential
adverse impacts from siltation is likely to be minimal because: 1) very
little management is undertaken within riparian corridors and along the
lake shore of Table Rock Lake and Lake Wappapello because these areas
are managed primarily as recreational areas (Houf, [in]{.underline}
[litt]{.underline}. March 1, 1999), and 2) standards and guidelines
outlined in the LRMP for the MTNF provide recommendations that minimize
soil erosion and maintain good water quality. Nonetheless, sediment
transport into aquatic systems from activities upslope of riparian
corridors is possible.

**E. 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 biological opinion. Future Federal
actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in
this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to
Section 7 of the ESA. Additionally, any future Federal, State, local, or
private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area,
and which are considered in this biological opinion, will either be
carried out by, or will require a permit from, the Forest Service; they
will, therefore, require compliance with Section 7 of the ESA. Because
the Service is not aware of any future State, local, or private actions
that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area and which
would not be subject to Forest Service Section 7 review, cumulative
effects, as defined by the ESA, will not occur and will not be addressed
further in this opinion.

**F. Conclusion**

After reviewing the current status of bald eagle; the environmental
baseline for the action area; the effects of forest management and other
activities on the MTNF (both direct and indirect); additional measures
identified in the Forest Service=s BA to assist in the protection,
management, and recovery of the species; and any potential cumulative
effects, it is the Service=s biological opinion that forest management
and other activities authorized, funded, or carried out by the MTNF, are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the bald eagle.
Because critical habitat has not been designated for this species, none
will be adversely affected by the continued implementation of the LRMP.

**G. Incidental take statement**

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of
the Act, prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species,
respectively, without special exemption. Take is definded 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 include 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 the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create
the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal 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. Under the terms of Section
7(b)(4) and Section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not
intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited
taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the
terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.

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

**H. Amount or extent of incidental take anticipated**

The Service anticipates that incidental take of bald eagles as a result
of forest management activities or other actions implemented from the
LRMP on the MTNF (including timber management operations, human
disturbance, prescribed fires, and indirect effects) will be difficult
to quantify and detect for the following reasons: 1) there is an
abundance of roost trees available to eagles throughout the forest; it
would therefore, be difficult to document that the harm or harass
provisions of take resulted from the loss of a particular tree when
numerous, alternative roosts are available for roosting, 2) eagles have
become acclimated to some level of human activity on the Forest (U.S.
Forest Service 1998), 3) the Service is unaware of any study that has
accurately identified the degree of impact to bald eagles from drifting
smoke that originated from prescribed fires adjacent to occupied areas,
and 4) it is unlikely that activities that could adversely impact the
water quality of rivers, lakes, creeks, and streams where the species
forages would be of such magnitude to appreciably decrease this species
forage base.

**I. Effect of the take**

The Service has determined that the level of unquantifiable, anticipated
take of bald eagles is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species.

**J. Reasonable and prudent measures**

Although the Service has determined that the level of incidental take
for this species is unquantifiable, the following reasonable and prudent
measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize any adverse impacts
to bald eagles on the MTNF:

-   Reduce the potential of removing unknown communal night roosts.

-   Discourage continuous and/or repeated human disturbance where
    wintering eagles (November 15 and March 15) are known to have
    communal night roosts or form daily congregations \[as defined in
    the Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service1983a)\] on all lands or waters managed by the MTNF.

-   Use appropriate smoke management techniques to minimize potential
    impacts of smoke inversion to occupied communal night roosts,
    daytime concentrations, or occupied breeding territories.

-   In association with the predicted removal of this species from the
    list of endangered and threatened wildlife, assist the Service and
    MDC in monitoring the status of the species on the MTNF up through
    the five years following delisting according to requirements
    outlined in the ESA.

The Service believes that the reasonable and prudent measures outlined
above will significantly reduce the impacts of incidental take of bald
eagles on the MTNF and that these measures are reasonable and fall
within the Forest Service=s responsibilities to conserve federally
listed species as outlined in Sections 2(c)(1) and 7(a)(1) of the Act.

**K. Terms and conditions**

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

In order to decrease the potential of removing of unknown communal night
roosts, the following is necessary:

-   Conduct a minimum of 3, annual winter (early, middle, and late)
    searches (aerial and/or ground) to locate any previously unknown
    communal night roosts or eagle concentrations following criteria
    outlined in the Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service1983a). Searches will focus on areas eagles are
    known to frequent, where congregations of eagles have been
    previously documented, or where there are concentrated food sources
    (such as poultry farms, hog lots, aquaculture facilities, etc.) near
    lands or waters managed by the MTNF.

-   Any bald eagle communal night roosts and concentrations discovered
    during winter surveys or during any additional field surveys of
    proposed project areas shall be protected following guidelines
    outlined in the Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service1983a).

-   Provide an annual report, by June 1 of each year, to the Service=s
    Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office, and MDC, that
    will include the following information: 1) results of any winter
    searches for communal night roosts and concentrations, including
    mid-winter surveys conducted in cooperation with the Service/MDC,
    and 2) discovery of any nesting territories on lands managed by the
    MTNF.

In order to decrease human disturbance, the following is necessary:

-   Designate, on National Forest System Lands, a 1/4 mile wide old
    growth corridor along the waters edge of traditional bald eagle
    wintering areas such as Table Rock Lake and Lake Wappapello..

-   Provide an annual report, by June 1 of each year, to the Service=s
    Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office, and MDC, any
    documented case of incidental take of bald eagles on lands and
    waters managed by the MTNF.

-   Protect super-canopy (Tyrell, et al. 1998) or other identified
    congregation roost trees along major river corridors, lakes, and
    lands managed by the MTNF, in addition to adhering to standards and
    guidelines outlined in the LRMP for riparian corridors and specially
    designated rivers such as the Eleven Point and Lower Current rivers.

In order to minimize potential impacts of smoke inversion to occupied
communal night roosts, daytime concentration sites, or occupied breeding
territories, it is necessary to:

-   Consider all occupied eagle communal night roosts, daytime
    concentration sites, or breeding sites (if and when discovered on
    the MTNF) as smoke sensitive areas. Conduct any planned prescribed
    fire in the vicinity of occupied bald eagle site [only]{.underline}
    when the following have been considered: wind direction, speed,
    mixing height and transport winds needed in burn planning and
    implementation to minimize smoke from drifting toward an occupied
    roost site. Prevent smoke inversion from occurring at roost sites.

-   Provide an annual report, by June 1 of each year, to the Service=s
    Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office, and MDC, any
    documented case of a prescribed fire that behaved contrary to
    predicted movement patterns and which resulted in a confirmed
    adverse impact to bald eagles.

-   Prior to the employment of any prescribed fire, provide the
    Service=s Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office with
    the opportunity to review burn plans that could potentially impact
    bald eagles.

In order to assist the Service and MDC in monitoring the status of the
species on the MTNF up through the five years following delisting
according to requirements outlined in the ESA, it is necessary to:

-   Continue cooperation with the Service and MDC on mid-winter eagle
    surveys to monitor eagle numbers and identify communal night roosts
    on all lands and waters managed by the MTNF.

**L. Conservation recommendations**

Sections 2(c)(1) and 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to
utilize their authorities to further the purpose 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.

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

The Service recommends that the MTNF implement the following
conservation measures for the benefit of the bald eagle:

 In cooperation with the Service, the Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
MDC, and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), explore
the possibility of the development of a study to determine the impact of
recreational activities on Table Rock Lake and Lake Wappapello to the
large concentration of eagles wintering there; provide the results of
such a study to the Service=s Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services
Field Office and to MDC by June 1 of the year following the completion
of the analysis.

-   Continue to monitor and document any significant soil movement as a
    result of various management activities undertaken by the Forest
    Service. Cooperate with other agencies and/or universities in
    ongoing or new studies which would help determine if activities on
    the MTNF contribute to sediment deposition into streams, rivers, and
    lakes. Cooperate in any studies regarding potential effects of
    excess sedimentation on forage fish on which the bald eagle feeds.
    Provide monitoring results to the Service=s Columbia, Missouri
    Ecological Services Field Office and to MDC no later than December
    31 of each year. This study should be done in conjunction with the
    conservation recommendation outlined above for the gray bat.

-   In consultation with the Service and MDC, develop and provide an
    educational brochure to recreational users of all rivers, streams,
    creeks, and lakes where the bald eagle occurs that outlines steps to
    minimize potential impacts to the species.

-   In consultation with the Service and MDC, develop an educational
    slide program on the status of the bald eagle in the lower 48
    states, Missouri, and on the MTNF; reasons it was listed; and
    reasons for its recovery and eventual delisting. This program should
    be made available to all districts of the MTNF, but especially to
    the Ava and Poplar Bluff districts due to the high relatively
    concentration of eagles at Table Rock Lake and Lake Wappapello and
    the large number of visitors to the two areas. Such a program should
    be developed in cooperation and coordination with personnel of the
    Army Corps of Engineers, and Missouri Department of Natural
    Resources at Table Rock Lake and Lake Wappapello State parks.

-   Provide field training for new Forest Service employees so they will
    be able to recognize bald eagle sign at night roosts, even when
    eagles are absent.

-   Continue cooperation with MDC to provide good fish habitat on
    streams, rivers, and lakes of the MTNF.

Note: the Service will not refer the incidental take of any bald eagle
for prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended
(16 U.S.C. \'\' 703-712), or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of
1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. \'\' 668-668d), if such take is in
compliance with the terms and conditions specified in this opinion.

**[Indiana bat]{.underline}**

**A. Species/habitat description/life history**

The Indiana bat is a medium-sized, monotypic species of the genus
*Myotis*. Its forearm length is 1^3^/~8~ - 1^5^/~8~ inches \[in\] (35 to
41 millimeters \[mm\]). The head and body length ranges from 1^5^/~8~ -
1^7^/~8~ in (41 to 49 mm). This species closely resembles the little
brown bat (*M. lucifugus*) and the northern long-eared bat (*M.
septentrionalis*). The Indiana bat usually has a distinctly keeled
calcar. The hind feet tend to be small and delicate with fewer, shorter
hairs (do not extend beyond the toenails) than its congeners. The fur
lacks luster (Hall, 1981; Barbour and Davis, 1969). The ears and wing
membranes have a dull appearance and flat coloration that do not
contrast with the fur. The fur of the chest and belly is lighter than
the flat (not glossy), pinkish-brown fur on the back, but does not
contrast as strongly as does that of the little brown bat or northern
long-eared bat, for example (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). The
skull has a small sagittal crest, and the braincase tends to be smaller,
lower, and narrower than that of the little brown bat (Hall, 1981;
Barbour and Davis, 1969).

[Habitat requirements]{.underline}

1\. [Winter habitat]{.underline}. Indiana bats require specific roost
sites in caves or mines (Tuttle and Taylor 1994) that attain appropriate
temperatures to hibernate. In southern parts of the bat=s range,
hibernacula trap large volumes of cold air and the bats hibernate where
resulting rock temperatures drop; in northern parts of the range,
however, the bats avoid the coldest sites. In both cases, the bats
choose roosts with a low risk of freezing. Ideal sites are 50^o^F
(10^o^C) or below when the bats arrive in October and November. Early
studies identified a preferred mid-winter temperature range of 39-46^o^F
(4-8^o^C), but a recent examination of long-term data suggests that a
slightly lower and narrower range of 37-43^o^F (3-6^o^C) may be ideal
for the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). Only a small
percentage of available caves provide for this specialized requirement.
Stable low temperatures allow the bats to maintain a low rate of
metabolism and conserve fat reserves through the winter, until spring
(Humphrey, 1978; Richter *et al*., 1993). Indiana bats will occasionally
use sites other than caves or mines if microclimate conditions are
favorable. Kurta and Termanio (1994) found a single Indiana bat roosting
with a large colony of 15,000 bats (mostly little brown and northern
long-eared bats) at a hydroelectric dam in Manistee County, Michigan and
noted that the temperature was about 4.7  C.

Relative humidity at roost sites during hibernation usually is above 74%
but below saturation (Hall, 1962; Humphrey, 1978; LaVal *et al*., 1976;
Kurta and Teramino 1994), although relative humidity as low as 54% has
been observed (Myers, 1964). Humidity may be an important factor in
successful hibernation (Thomas and Cloutier, 1992).

Specific cave configurations determine temperature and humidity
microclimates, and thus suitability for Indiana bats (Tuttle and
Stevenson, 1978; LaVal and LaVal, 1980). Indiana bats select roosts
within hibernacula that best meet their needs for cool temperatures; in
many hibernacula, these roosting sites are near an entrance, but may be
deeper in the cave or mine if that is where cold air flows and is
trapped (Tuttle and Stevenson, 1978; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1999).

Indiana bats often hibernate in the same hibernacula with other species
of bats, and are occasionally observed clustered with or adjacent to
other species including gray bats (*Myotis grisescens*), Virginia
big-eared bats (*Plecotus townsendii virginianus*), little brown bats,
and northern long-eared bats (Myers 1964; LaVal and LaVal 1980; Kurta
and Teramino 1994).

2\. [Summer habitat]{.underline}. A full, well-integrated understanding
of the summer needs of this endangered species is yet to be attained.
Early researchers considered flood plain and riparian forest to be the
primary roosting and foraging habitats used in the summer by the Indiana
bat (Humphrey *et al*., 1977), and these forest types unquestionably are
important. More recently, upland forest has been shown to be used by
Indiana bats for roosting (Clark *et al*., 1987; Gardner *et al*.,
1991*b*; Callahan *et al*., 1997; John MacGregor, Daniel Boone National
Forest, Kentucky, [in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}. April 14, 1997);
and upland forest, old fields, and pastures with scattered trees have
been shown to provide foraging habitat (Gardner *et al*., 1991*b*;
MacGregor, [in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}. April 14, 1997).

Indiana bats occupy highly altered landscapes in many areas in the
eastern United States and use ephemeral, mostly dead and dying trees for
roosting. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the Indiana bat may, in fact,
respond positively to some degree of habitat disturbance. In northern
Missouri, maternity roosts were found in areas that were heavily
disturbed (Callahan 1993; Miller 1996). Timber harvest activities
neither directly damaged known roosts nor discouraged bats from
continuing to forage in an area that had been harvested in
Illinois(Gardner *et al*., 1991*a*), and the species has been found
roosting in shelterwood cuts in Kentucky (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1999).

Analysis of landscape changes in Missouri, especially in the Ozarks
provides strong, convincing evidence that Indiana bats evolved in an
open to semi-open savanna-like environment, at least in the western part
of the species= range ( Marbut 1914; Sauer 1920; Schroeder 1981;
Giessman *et al*. 1986; Ladd 1991; Nigh *et al.* 1992; Jacobson and
Primm 1997). 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%. Humphrey *et
al.* (1977) hypothesized that roost trees were usually located in
openings within the forest because they provided the necessary
thermoregulatory characteristics.

Within the range of the species, the existence of Indiana bats in a
particular area may be governed by the availability of natural roost
structures, primarily standing dead trees with loose bark. The
suitability of any tree as a roost site is determined by (1) its
condition (dead or alive), (2) the quantity of loose bark, (3) the
tree\'s solar exposure and location in relation to other trees, and (4)
the tree\'s spatial relationship to water sources and foraging areas.

A number of tree species have been reported to be used as roosts by
Indiana bats. These include:

American beech (*Fagus grandifolia*), ashes (*Fraxinus* spp.), black gum
(*Nyssa sylvatica*), black locust (*Robinia pseudo-acacia*), cottonwood,
elms (*Ulmus* spp.), hickories (*Carya* spp.), maples (*Acer* spp.),
oaks (*Quercus* spp.), pines (*Pinus* spp.), sassafras (*Sassafras
albidum*), sourwood (*Oxydendrum arboreum*), sweet birch (*Betula
lenta*), and yellow buckeye (*Aesculus octandra*) (Cope *et al*., 1974;
Humphrey *et al*., 1977; Gardner *et al*., 1991*a, b;* Garner and
Gardner 1992; Kurta *et al*., 1993*a*; Romme *et al*. 1995; Kiser and
Elliott, 1996; Kiser *et al*., 1996; Kurta *et al*., 1996; MacGregor,
[in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}., September 3, 1996; Callahan *et
al*., 1997; MacGregor [in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}. April 14,
1997). Morphological characteristics of the bark of a number of trees
make them suitable as roosts for Indiana bats; that is, when dead,
senescent, or severely injured (e.g., lightning-struck) trees possess
bark that springs away from the trunk upon drying. Additionally, the
shaggy bark of some living hickories (*Carya* spp.) and large white oaks
(*Quercus alba*) also provide roost sites. The most important
characteristics of trees that provide roosts are not species but
structure: exfoliating bark with space for bats to roost between the
bark and the bole of the tree. The length of persistence of peeling bark
varies with the species of tree and the severity of environmental
factors to which it is subjected.

Occasionally, tree cavities or hollow portions of tree boles and limbs
provide roost sites for Indiana bats (Gardner *et al*., 1991*a*; Kurta
*et al*., 1993*b*). A crevice in the top of a lightning-struck tree
(Gardner *et al*., 1991*a*), and splits below splintered, broken tree
tops have also been used as roosts (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1999).

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

Most roost trees used by a maternity colony are close together. The
spatial extent and configuration of a colony\'s regular use area is
probably determined by the availability of suitable roosts. The
distances between roosts occupied by bats within a single maternity
colony have ranged from just a few meters for nearest distance to
another roost to several kilometers (km) and, in one case, five km for
furthest distance between roosts (Callahan *et al*., 1997; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999). Miller (1996) compared habitat variables for
sites in northern Missouri where surveys for Indiana bats had been
conducted and noted that significantly larger trees \[\> 30 centimeters
(cm) (12 in) diameter breast height (dbh)\] were found where
reproductively active Indiana bats had been netted, than at sites at
where bats had not been captured.

Indiana bat maternity roosts can be described as \"primary\" or
\"alternate\" based upon the proportion of bats in a colony occupying
the roost site, and location in relation to forest canopy cover
(Callahan *et al*., 1997; Kurta *et al.*, 1996). Maternity colonies have
at least one primary roost (up to three have been identified for a
single colony) that is used by the majority of the bats throughout the
summer. Colonies also use multiple alternate roosts that are used by
small numbers of bats intermittently throughout the summer (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1999). Kurta *et al.* (1996) studied a maternity
colony in northern Michigan over a three-year period and noted that
roosting bats changed roost trees every 2.9 days and that the number of
roosts used by the colony ranged from five to 18.

Primary roosts are located in openings or at the edge of forest stands,
while alternate roosts can be in either the open or the interior of
forest stands. Thermoregulatory needs may be a factor in roost site
selection. Primary roosts are not surrounded by closed canopy and can be
warmed by solar radiation, thus providing a favorable microclimate for
growth and development of young during normal weather. Alternate roosts
tend to be more shaded, frequently are within forest stands, and are
selected when temperatures are above normal or during periods of
precipitation. Shagbark hickories seem to be particularly good alternate
roosts because they provide cooler roost conditions during periods of
high heat and their tight bark shields bats from the encroachment of
water into the roost during rain events (Callahan *et al*., 1997). Roost
site selection and use may differ between northern and southern parts of
the species= range, but to date, such analyses have not been undertaken.

Because roost trees used by Indiana bat roosts are ephemeral, it is not
possible to generalize or estimate roost longevity due to the many
factors that influence it. Bark may slough off completely or the tree
may fall over. Although roosts may only be habitable for one to two
years under Anatural conditions@ for some tree species (Humphrey *et
al*. 1977), others with good bark retention such as slippery elm,
cottonwood, green ash (*Fraxinus pennsylvanica*), and oaks, may provide
roosting habitat four to eight years (Gardner *et al*., 1991*a*;
Callahan *et al*., 1997; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). Hickories
also retain bark well.

Indiana bats exhibit varying degrees of site fidelity to summer colony
areas, roosts, and foraging habitat. Females have been documented
returning to the same roosts from one year to the next (Humphrey *et
al*., 1977; Gardner *et al*., 1991*a,b*; Callahan *et al*., 1997). Kurta
*et al*. (1996), however, noted that individuals in a maternity colony
in northern Michigan Awere not highly faithful to a particular tree.@ In
Illinois, male Indiana bats exhibited some site fidelity to summering
areas that they had occupied during previous years (Gardner *et al*.,
1991*b*).

The Indiana bat may be more adaptable with regard to roosts than
previously believed. Humphrey *et al.* (1977) suggested that previously
used summer roosts may be important to the reproductive success of local
Indiana bat populations; that if these roosts are lost or unavailable,
adult females may be faced with finding suitable maternity sites at a
time when they are already stressed from post-hibernation migration and
the increased metabolic energy costs of pregnancy. Others, (e.g., Kurta
*et al*. 1996) however, have more recently noted that Indiana bats will
use multiple roost sites within a maternity colony area. Bats move from
one roost to another within a season, in addition to responding to
changes in environmental conditions (temperature and precipitation), and
when a particular roost becomes unavailable (Gardner *et al*., 1991*a*;
Callahan *et al*., 1997). Thus, the species appears to be an adaptable
animal that takes advantage of the ephemeral habitat available to it.
Nonetheless, it is apparent that a variety of suitable roosts within a
colony\'s occupied summer range should be available to assure the
continuance of the colony in that area (Kurta *et al*., 1993*a*;
Callahan *et al*., 1997).

3\. [Fall and spring roosts]{.underline}. Indiana bats use roosts in the
spring and fall similar to those selected during the summer. During the
fall, when Indiana bats swarm and mate at their hibernacula, male bats
roost in trees nearby during the day and fly to the cave during the
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 (2.4 km) of their hibernaculum. During September in West
Virginia, male Indiana bats roosted within 3.5 miles (mi) (5.6 km) in
trees near ridgetops, and often switched roost trees from day to day
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). Fall roost trees more often tend
to be exposed to sunshine rather than being shaded (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999).

Upon emergence from hibernation in the spring, some males remain within
the vicinity of their hibernacula, where they roost and forage in mature
forest; movements of 2.5 - 10 mi (4 - 16 km) have been reported in
Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia respectively (MacGregor, pers. commun.,
December 1998; Hobson and Holland, 1995; 3D/International, 1996).
However, other males leave the area entirely upon emergence in the
spring. Females dispersing from a Kentucky hibernaculum in the spring
moved 4- 10 mi (6.4- 16 km) within 10 days of emergence (MacGregor,
pers. commun., December 1998).

4\. [Foraging habitat and behavior]{.underline}. Indiana bats forage in
and around tree canopy of flood plain, riparian, and upland forest. In
riparian areas, Indiana bats primarily forage around and near riparian
and flood plain trees (e.g., sycamore \[*Platanus occidentalis*\],
cottonwood, black walnut \[*Juglans nigra*\], black willow \[*Salix
nigra*\], and oaks), and solitary trees and forest edge on the flood
plain (Belwood, 1979; Cope *et al*., 1974; Humphrey *et al*., 1977;
Clark *et al*., 1987; Gardner *et al*., 1991*b*). Within flood plain
forests where Indiana bats forage, canopy closures range from 30 to 100%
(Gardner *et al*., 1991*b*). Cope *et al*. (1978) characterized woody
vegetation with a width of at least 30 yards (\~ 30 m) on both sides of
a stream as excellent foraging habitat. Streams, associated flood plain
forests, and impounded bodies of water (e.g., ponds, wetlands,
reservoirs) are preferred foraging habitats for pregnant and lactating
Indiana bats, some of which may fly up to 12 mi (2.5 km) from upland
roosts (Gardner *et al*., 1991*b*). Indiana bats also forage within the
canopy of upland forests, over clearings with early successional
vegetation (e.g., old fields), along the borders of croplands, along
wooded fencerows, and over farm ponds in pastures (Clark *et al*., 1987;
Gardner *et al*., 1991*b*).

The extent of foraging area used by an Indiana bat maternity colony has
been reported to range from a linear strip of creek vegetation 0.5 mi
(0.8 km) in length (Belwood, 1979; Cope *et al*., 1974; Humphrey *et
al*., 1977), to a foraging area 0.75 mi (1.2 km) in length, within which
bats flew over the wooded river or around the riverside trees (Cope *et
al*., 1978). Indiana bats return nightly to their foraging areas
(Gardner *et al*., 1991*b*).

Indiana bats usually forage and fly within an air space from 6 - 100 ft
(2 - 30 m) above ground level (Humphrey *et al*., 1977). Most Indiana
bats caught in mist nets are captured over streams and other flyways at
heights greater than 6 ft (2 m) (Gardner *et al*., 1989).

During summer, male Indiana bats that remained near their Missouri
hibernacula flew cross-country or upstream toward narrower, more densely
wooded riparian areas during nightly foraging bouts, perhaps due to
interspecific competition with gray bats (*M. grisescens*). Some male
bats also foraged at the edges of small flood plain pastures, within
dense forest, and on hillsides and ridgetops; maximum reported distance
was 1.2 mi (2 km) (LaVal *et al*., 1976; LaVal *et al.* 1977; LaVal and
LaVal, 1980; MacGregor,). In Kentucky, MacGregor ( pers. commun.,
December 1998) reported that the maximum distance males moved from their
hibernaculum in the summer was about 2.6 mi (4.2 km). In the fall, male
Indiana bats tend to roost and forage in upland and ridgetop forests,
but also may forage in valley and riparian forest; movements of 1.8 -
4.2 mi (2.5 - 6.8 km) have been reported in Kentucky and Missouri (Kiser
and Elliott, 1996; 3D/International, 1996; MacGregor, [in]{.underline}
[litt]{.underline}. June 1997).

[Life history]{.underline}

1\. [Behavior.]{.underline} Generally, Indiana bats hibernate from
October through April (Hall, 1962; LaVal and LaVal, 1980) (September -
May in northern areas \[U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999 \]),
depending upon local weather conditions (Figure 1) for a depiction of
the annual cycle). They hibernate in large, dense clusters, ranging from
300 bats per square foot (3,230 bats/m^2^) (Clawson *et al*., 1980) to
484 bats per square foot (5,215 bats/m^2^) (Clawson, pers. observ.,
October 1996). Indiana bats are very loyal to their hibernacula (LaVal
and LaVal, 1980).

Upon arrival at hibernating caves in August-September, 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 and mating occurs during the latter part of the period.
Fat supplies are replenished

as the bats forage prior to hibernation. Indiana bats tend to hibernate
in the same cave in which they swarm (LaVal *et al*., 1976; Stihler,
pers. observ., October 1996), although swarming has occurred in caves
other than those in which the bats hibernated (Cope and Humphrey, 1977;
MacGregor, pers. observ., October 1996).

During swarming, males remain active over a longer period of time at
cave entrances than do females (LaVal and LaVal, 1980), probably to mate
with the females as they arrive. After mating, females enter directly
into hibernation. A majority of bats of both sexes hibernate by the end
of November (by mid-October in northern areas \[Kurta, pers. observ.,
June 1997\]), but

hibernacula populations may increase throughout the fall and even into
early January (Clawson *et al*., 1980).

Figure 1. Indiana bat annual chronology (from U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1999).

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Both sexes:

[Hibernation]{.underline} [Hibernation]{.underline}

Females: [Emerge]{.underline} [Pregnant]{.underline}
[Swarming]{.underline}

A [Lactating]{.underline}

Young: [Born]{.underline} [Flying]{.underline}

Males: [Emerge]{.underline} [Swarming]{.underline}

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

Adult females store sperm through the winter and become pregnant via
delayed fertilization soon after emergence from hibernation. Young bats
can mate in their first autumn and have offspring the following year,
whereas males may not mature until the second year. Limited mating
activity occurs throughout the winter and in late April as the bats
leave hibernation (Hall, 1962).

Females emerge from hibernation ahead of males; most winter populations
leave by early May. Some males spend the summer near hibernacula in
Missouri (LaVal and LaVal, 1980) and West Virginia (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999). In spring when fat reserves and food supplies
are low, migration is probably hazardous (Tuttle and Stevenson, 1977).
Consequently, mortality may be higher in the early spring, immediately
following emergence.

Females may arrive in their summer habitats as early as April 15 in
Illinois (Gardner *et al*., 1991*a*; Brack, 1979). During this early
spring period, a number of roosts (e.g., small cavities) may be used
temporarily, until a roost with larger numbers of bats is established.
Humphrey *et al*. (1977) determined that Indiana bats first arrived at
their maternity roost in early May in Indiana, with substantial numbers
arriving in mid-May. Parturition occurs in late June and early July
(Easterla and Watkins, 1969; Humphrey *et al*., 1977) and the young are
able to fly between mid-July or early August (Mumford and Cope, 1958;
Cope *et al*., 1974; Humphrey *et al*., 1977; Clark *et al*., 1987;
Gardner *et al*., 1991*a;* Kurta *et al*., 1996).

Most of the documented maternity colonies contained 100 or fewer adult
bats. After grouping into nursery colonies, females give birth to a
single young in late June or early July. Some males disperse throughout
the range and roost individually or in small numbers in the same types
of trees and in the same areas as females, while other males remain near
their hibernacula. Maternity colonies occupy roost sites in forested
riparian, flood plain, or upland habitats, and exhibit strong roost site
fidelity (Cope *et al*., 1978; Clark *et al*, 1987; Gardner *et al.*
1991*a*, *b*; Brack, 1983; Callahan *et al*, 1977; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999).

Young Indiana bats are capable of flight within a month of birth. Young
born in late June may be flying as early as the first week of July
(Clark *et al.*, 1987), others from mid- to late July. Indiana bats
spend the latter part of the summer accumulating fat reserves for fall
migration and hibernation.

Humphrey and Cope (1977) determined that female survivorship in an
Indiana population of Indiana bats was 76% for ages one to six years,
and 66% for ages six to 10 years; for males, survivorship was 70% for
ages one to six years, and 36% for ages six to 10 years. The maximum
ages for banded individuals were 15 years for females and 14 years for
males. Mortality between birth and weaning has been estimated at 8%
(Humphrey *et al.* 1977).

2\. [Food habits]{.underline}. Indiana bats feed solely on aquatic and
terrestrial, flying insects. They are habitat generalists and their
selection of prey items reflects the environment in which they forage
(LaVal and LaVal 1980). Diet varies seasonally and variation is observed
among different ages, sexes, and reproductive-status groups (Belwood,
1979; Lee, 1993). Reproductively active females and juveniles exhibit
greater dietary diversity than males and non-reproductively active adult
females, perhaps due to higher energy demands. Reproductively active
females eat more aquatic insects than do adult males or juveniles (Lee,
1993).

Moths (Lepidoptera) are major prey items identified in several studies
(Belwood, 1979; LaVal and LaVal 1980; Brack and LaVal, 1985; Lee, 1993;
Gardner and Virgil Brack (BHE Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio)
(unpubl. data), but caddisflies (Trichoptera) and flies (Diptera) are
major prey items documented in another (Kurta and Whitaker, 1998).
Another major prey group includes mosquitoes and midges (Belwood, 1979;
Gardner and Brack, unpubl. data), especially species that form large
mating aggregations above or near water (Belwood, 1979). Other prey
include bees, wasps, and flying ants (Hymenoptera), beetles
(Coleoptera), leafhoppers (Homoptera), treehoppers (Homoptera),
stoneflies (Plecoptera), and lacewings (Neuroptera) (Whitaker, 1972;
Belwood, 1979; Gardner and Brack, unpubl. data).

Male Indiana bats summering in or near a hibernation cave feed
preferentially on moths and beetles. Additionally, caddisflies, flies,
mosquitoes, midges, stone flies, leafhoppers, treehoppers, and true bugs
are consumed, but in low percentages (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1999). LaVal and Brack (1985) examined fecal pellets of 140 male Indiana
bats and identified 83% of the prey items as Lepidoptera and 7% as
Coleoptera.

**B. Status and distribution**

The Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) was officially listed as an
endangered species on March 11, 1967 (*Federal Register* 32\[48\]:4001)
under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (80
Stat. 926; 16 U. S. C. 668aa\[c\]). Critical Habitat was designated for
the Indiana bat on September 24, 1976 (41 FR 41914); 11 caves and two
mines in six states were listed as critical habitat: Illinois -
Blackball Mine (LaSalle Co.); Indiana - Big Wyandotte Cave (Crawford
Co.), Ray=s Cave (Greene Co.); Kentucky - Bat Cave (Carter Co.), Coach
Cave (Edmonson Co.);

Missouri - Cave 021 (Crawford Co.), Caves 009 and 017 (Franklin Co.),
Pilot Knob Mine (Iron Co.), Bat Cave (Shannon Co.), Cave 029 (Washington
Co.); Tennessee - White Oak Blowhole Cave (Blount Co.); and West
Virginia - Hellhole Cave (Pendleton Co.).

The Fish and Wildlife Service (1999) is nearing completion of an agency
draft of a revised recovery plan for the Indiana bat. Reasons for
updating the plan are: 1) to update the recovery plan with information
on the life history and ecology of the Indiana bat, especially
information on summer ecology, that has been gathered since 1983; 2) to
highlight the continued and accelerated decline of the species; 3) to
continue site protection and monitoring efforts at hibernacula; and 4)
to focus new recovery efforts towards research to determine the factor
or factors causing population declines. Main recovery actions identified
in the revised plan are:

-   Conduct research necessary for the survival and recovery of the
    Indiana bat, including studies on ecology and life history; summer
    habitat requirements; genetics; potential chemical contamination;
    and assessments of temperature profiles and hibernation
    microclimates of major hibernacula.

-   Obtain information on population distribution, status, and trends.

-   Protect and maintain Indiana bat populations.

-   Provide information and technical assistance outreach.

-   Coordinate and implement the conservation and recovery of the
    Indiana bat.

The Indiana bat is a migratory species found throughout much of the
eastern half of the United States (Figures 2 and 3; Table 3). During
winter, Indiana bats are restricted to suitable hibernacula (mostly
caves, but also a few abandoned mines, and even a tunnel and a
hydroelectric dam) that primarily are located in karst areas of the
east-central U. S. (Figure 2). More than 85 percent of the range wide
population occupies nine Priority One hibernacula (hibernation sites
with a recorded population \>30,000 bats since 1960 - although two of
these currently have extremely low numbers of bats). Indiana, Kentucky,
and Missouri each contain three Priority One hibernacula. Priority Two
hibernacula (recorded population \>500 but \<30,000 bats since 1960) are
known from the above mentioned states, in addition to Arkansas,
Illinois, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Priority Three hibernacula with

recorded populations \<500 bats or records of single hibernating
individuals have been reported in 17 states, including all of the above
mentioned states.

Hibernacula with recorded populations of \<500 bats (Priority Three
hibernacula) or records of single hibernating individuals have been
reported in the above mentioned states plus Alabama, Connecticut,
Florida, and Georgia.

Although the number of band returns for the Indiana bat are limited,
certain migration patterns

may be inferred from what little information that does exist. Based on
sparse band recovery records, all of which are from the Midwest, it
appears that females and some males migrate north

in the spring upon emergence from hibernation (Hall, 1962; Myers 1964;
Hassell and Harvey 1965; Barbour and Davis, 1969; Kurta, 1980; LaVal and
LaVal, 1980; Bowles, 1982), although

there also is evidence that movements may occur in other directions.
However, summer habitats in the eastern and southern United States have
not been well investigated; it is possible that both

sexes of Indiana bats occur throughout these regions. Very little is
known about Indiana bat summer habitat use in the southern and eastern
United States, or how many Indiana bats may

migrate to form maternity colonies there. Most summer captures of
reproductively active Indiana bats (pregnant or lactating females or
juveniles) have been made between April 15 and August 15 in areas
generally north of the major cave areas (Figures 2 and 3). While these
observations suggest that many or most female Indiana bats in the
Midwest migrate north in the spring and south in the fall, other
individuals may potentially migrate in other directions (LaVal and LaVal
1980). Additional work is especially needed to better understand Indiana
bat summer distribution.

Most of the maternity records of the Indiana bat originated in the
Midwest (southern Iowa, northern Missouri, northern Illinois, northern
Indiana, southern Michigan, and western Ohio). The first maternity
colony was found and several studies of Indiana bat maternity habitat
were

Figure 2. Counties with current and historical records of Indiana bat
hibernacula (from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).

Figure 3. Counties with records of reproductively active (females at
maternities or juveniles) and non-reproductively active (males,
non-maternal females, or transients) Indiana bats (from U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999).

Table 3. Summary of hibernating Indiana bat populations by State, based
upon estimates nearest to year indicated^1,2^ (from U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999).

[Estimated Population]{.underline}

State Historic Level When Regular Surveys Most Recent

(1960 or Earliest #) Began (\~1980) Survey (1995-1997)

Alabama 300 300 300

Arkansas 14,930 14,830 2,700

Illinois 4,140 3,990 4,530

Indiana 177,885 124,080 182,510

Kentucky 241,335 96,235 61,370

Missouri 323,120 302,915 47,135

New York 7,805 7,805 14,990

Ohio \-- \-- 9,300

Pennsylvania 65 65 270

Tennessee 19,305 19,305 16,580

Virginia 5,620 5,620 1,840

West Virginia [4,700]{.underline} [4,675]{.underline}
[11,660]{.underline}

Total 808,505 589,120 353,185

^1^Due to inconsistent records, population estimates for a particular
period were extrapolated from the nearest survey prior to or subsequent
to the year displayed in the table; therefore, all caves are represented
in each period.

^2^States with records of fewer than 100 hibernating Indiana bats are
not listed.

conducted in the Midwest region. Although the woodland in this glaciated
region is mostly fragmented, it has a relatively high density of
maternity colonies. Today, small bottomland and upland forested tracts
with predominantly oak-hickory forest types and riparian/bottomland
forests of elm-ash-cottonwood associations exist in an otherwise
agriculturally dominated (nonforested) landscape (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1999).

Unglaciated portions of the Midwest (southern Missouri, southern
Illinois, southern Indiana), Kentucky, and most of the eastern and
southern portions of the species= range appear to have

fewer maternity colonies per unit area of forest. However, such
conclusions may be premature, given the lack of search effort in these
areas.

Male Indiana bats may be found throughout the entire range of the
species. Males appear to roost singly or in small groups, except during
brief summer visits to hibernacula.

[Current status and population trends in hibernacula]{.underline}

Based on censuses taken at hibernacula, the total, known Indiana bat
population in 1997 was estimated at 353,000 bats (Table 3). Indiana bat
populations first were first surveyed in the late 1950s (Hall, 1962). In
the decades since then, additional colonies of hibernating Indiana bats
were discovered and our knowledge of the distribution and status of the
species has expanded.

Many hibernacula populations have decreased in number since monitoring
began, especially in Kentucky and Missouri.

More than half of the current population of the Indiana bat hibernates
in the nine Priority One hibernacula. Eight of the nine have been
surveyed every two years from 1983 to 1998. Due to the previously
reported unsafe conditions at Pilot Knob Mine in Iron County, Missouri,
this site had not been surveyed for many years. In July 1998, personnel
from Bat Conservation International (BCI) in Austin, Texas, conducted an
on site inspection of the mine to determine if it was stable enough to
conduct a survey for Indiana bats. Although BCI determined that the mine
was dangerous, they concluded that it was not hazardous enough to
prevent a survey of Indiana bats in some portions of the mine (Schmauch
and Tuttle 1998). In February 1999, personnel from BCI returned to the
site and conducted a survey for Indiana bats. Only 303 Indiana bats were
counted in accessible portions of the mine (Kennedy and Ducummon 1999).
Although certain parts of the mine were inaccessible, the low count
suggests that the species may be declining at this site as well as
elsewhere in Missouri and other areas in the eastern United States.
During the period 1983 through 1997, the populations in these caves
declined by 38%.

The status of the Indiana bat in the three states with the largest
hibernating populations is reviewed below:

[Indiana]{.underline}: The known population in Indiana apparently
dropped from the earliest known surveys through 1980, but has increased
steadily in recent years (Table 3). Indiana now contains half (182,500)
of all Indiana bats in existence.

[Kentucky]{.underline}: This state has exhibited a significant decline
in population numbers of Indiana bat with the loss of an estimated
145,000 bats between 1960 and 1975 (Table 3). Losses at two of the major
hibernacula were attributable to microclimate changes due to a poorly
designed cave gate at one hibernation site (Humphrey 1978), and the
construction of a building over the upper entrance to another (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1999). Although not as dramatic as earlier losses,
many of the major remaining hibernating populations have declined
steadily during the past 15 years. For reasons not totally understood,
populations in west-central, northeastern, and extreme southeastern
Kentucky declined between 1960 and 1975, while the populations in
east-central and western Kentucky increased.

[Missouri]{.underline}: Despite efforts such as the construction of
appropriate gates at cave entrances, populations of hibernating Indiana
bats in Missouri have declined steadily and drastically since 1980
(Table 3). The colonies of Indiana bats in the two Priority One caves
that can be surveyed and 12 of the 13 Priority Two hibernacula in the
state have declined during this period. Since 1983, the overall Missouri
population has shown a cumulative estimated decline of over 250,000
bats, a loss of more than 80% of the population. The current total
estimated population of Indiana bats in the state is less than 50,000
(MDC Natural Heritage Database 1997).

[Other states]{.underline}: Among the other states with regularly
occurring hibernating populations of Indiana bats, recent trends are
mixed (Table 3). Population trends in Alabama, Illinois, Ohio,
Tennessee, and Virginia are either not known or are not well documented.
Alabama, Illinois,

Tennessee, and Virginia do not have enough recent survey information for
a trend analysis, and the only known hibernaculum in Ohio was not
discovered until the winter of 1995/1996. The population of Indiana bats
is apparently declining in Arkansas. The species may be increasing in
New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, but complex cave systems such
as those at Hellhole Cave in West Virginia and several caves in New York
caves make surveying Indiana bats difficult and complicate population
trend analysis.

A few Indiana bats have been documented in the winter in Connecticut,
Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Vermont, and Wisconsin (Table 3). However, because most of these records
usually involve less than 10 individuals, no regular hibernacula surveys
are conducted in these states.

Not all of the causes of Indiana bat population declines have been
determined; the decline of the species at its current rate is unknown.
Although several known human-related factors have caused declines in the
past, they may not solely be responsible for recent declines.

Active programs by state and federal agencies have led to the
acquisition and protection of a number of Indiana bat hibernacula. Of
127 caves/mines with populations \>100 bats, 54 (43%) are in public
ownership or control, and most of the 46 (36%) that are gated or fenced
are on public land. Although such conservation efforts that have been
successful in protecting Indiana bats from human disturbance, they have
not been sufficient to reverse the downward trend in many populations.

[Reasons for decline]{.underline}

1\. [Documented causes]{.underline}.

a\. [Disturbance and vandalism]{.underline}. A serious cause of Indiana
bat decline has been human disturbance of hibernating bats during the
decades of the 1960s through the 1980s. Bats enter hibernation with only
enough fat reserves to last until spring. When a bat is aroused, as much
as 68 days of fat supply is used in a single disturbance (Thomas *et
al.*, 1990). Humans, including recreational cavers and researchers,
passing near hibernating Indiana bats can cause arousal (Humphrey, 1978;
Thomas, 1995; Johnson *et al.* 1998). If this happens too often, the
bats= fat reserves may be exhausted before the species is able to forage
in the spring.

Direct mortality due to human vandalism has been documented. The worst
known case occurred in 1960 when an estimated 10,000 Indiana bats were
killed in Carter Cave State Park, Kentucky by three youths who tore
masses of bats from the ceiling and trampled and stoned them to death
(Mohr, 1972). Another documented incident was reported from Thornhill
Cave, Kentucky, where at least 255 Indiana bats were killed by shotgun
blasts in January 1987 (Anon., 1987).

b\. [Improper cave gates and structures]{.underline}. Some hibernacula
have been rendered unavailable to Indiana bats by the erection of solid
gates in the entrances (Humphrey, 1978). Since the 1950\'s, the
exclusion of Indiana bats from caves and changes in air flow are the
major cause of loss in Kentucky (an estimated 200,000 bats at three
caves) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). Other cave gates have so
modified the climate of hibernacula that Indiana bats were unable to
survive the winter because changes in air flow elevated temperatures
which caused an increase in metabolic rate and a premature exhaustion of
fat reserves (Richter *et al.*, 1993; Merlin Tuttle, Bat Conservation
International, [in]{.underline}. [litt]{.underline}. 1998).

Conversely, an Indiana bat population may be restored if an improper
gate is replaced with one of appropriate design, or if air flow is
restored. In Wyandotte Cave, Indiana, dramatic population increases
followed gate replacement and restoration of traditional air flow
(Richter *et al*. 1993). Improved air flow facilitated by the
enlargement of an upper level entrance was apparently responsible for a
threefold increase in Indiana bat numbers in Ray=s Cave, Indiana (Brack
*et al*. 1991). The recovery of hibernating populations to historic
levels, however, have not been as successful elsewhere. At Hundred Dome
Cave, Kentucky, predicted population gains have never been realized,
although air flow obstructions have been removed and gates suitable for
the species installed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).

c\. [Natural hazards]{.underline}. Indiana bats are subject to a number
of natural hazards. River flooding in Bat Cave, Mammoth Cave National
Park, drowned large numbers of Indiana bats (Hall, 1962). Other cases of
hibernacula being flooded have been recorded by Hall (1962), DeBlase *et
al*. (1965), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1999). A case of
internal cave flooding occurred when tree slash and debris (produced by
forest clearing to convert the land to pasture) were bulldozed into a
sinkhole, blocking the cave=s rain water outlet and drowning an
estimated 150 Indiana bats (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). One
case of flash flooding compounded by cave gates occurred in 1997: in
early March, a severe flood occurred in Bat Cave at Carter Caves State
Park, Kentucky. Debris that had accumulated on the gate at the upper
entrance impounded rain water until pressure destroyed the gate,
allowing a surge of water through the cave system where it was backed up
again at the gate in the lower cave entrance. Water reached the ceiling
in portions of the hibernation section of the cave and drowned an
estimated 3,000 Indiana bats (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).

Bats hibernating in mines are vulnerable to ceiling collapse (Hall,
1962), and this is a concern at Pilot Knob Mine in Missouri, once the
largest known Indiana bat hibernating population. To a lesser extent,
ceiling collapse in caves is also possible.

Another hazard exists because Indiana bats hibernate in cool portions of
caves that tend to be near entrances, or where cold air is trapped. Some
bats may freeze to death during severe winters (Humphrey, 1978; Richter
*et al.*, 1993). Indiana bats apparently froze to death in Bat Cave
(Shannon County, Missouri) in the 1950s (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1999). The population at this site was 30,450 in 1985, when the bats
were observed roosting on a high ceiling, presumably to escape severe
cold at their traditional roosting ledges 7-9 ft above the cave floor.
In a subsequent 1987 survey, the population had plummeted to 4,150 bats,
and the cave floor was littered with bat bones, suggesting that the bats
died during hibernation, apparently freezing to death (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999).

At Missouri=s Great Scott Cave, average mid-winter temperatures appear
to have risen 8^o^F (4.4^o^C) from the mid 1980s through the present,
compared to temperatures in the 1970s and early 1980s; a major
population loss occurred between the mid 1980\'s and 1998. Preliminary
analysis of fall and winter temperature data suggests that a similar
trend has occurred in ambient temperature outside the cave, and thus
appears to have played a role in these population losses (Clawson, pers.
observ., July 1998). A much more detailed analysis is needed, along with
detailed temperature profiles of this and other hibernacula, to better
understand the relationship(s) between climate, air flow, and
hibernation microclimates within important hibernacula.

Indiana bats are vulnerable to the effects of severe weather when
roosting under exfoliating bark during summer. For example, a maternity
colony was displaced when strong winds and hail produced by a
thunderstorm stripped the bark from their cottonwood roost and the bats
were forced to move to another roost (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1999).

d\. [Other]{.underline}. Other documented sources of decline include
indiscriminate collecting, handling and banding of hibernating bats by
biologists, and flooding of caves due to rising waters in reservoirs
(Humphrey 1978).

2\. [Suspected causes]{.underline}.

a\. [Microclimate effects]{.underline}. Changes is the microclimates of
caves and mines may have contributed to the decline in population levels
of the Indiana bat than previously estimated (Tuttle, [in]{.underline}
[litt]{.underline}., August 4, 1998). Entrances and internal passages
essential to air flow may become larger, smaller, or close altogether,
with concomitant increases or decreases in air flow. Blockage of entry
points, even those too small to be recognized, can be extremely
important in hibernacula that require chimney-effect air flow to
function. As suggested by Richter *et al*. (1993) and Tuttle
([in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}., August 4, 1998), changes in air
flow can elevate temperatures which can cause an increase in metabolic
rate and a premature exhaustion of fat reserves.

Hibernacula in the southern portions of the Indiana bat=s range may be
either near the warm edge of the bat=s hibernating tolerance or have
relatively less stable temperatures. Hibernacula in the North may have
passages that become too cold. In the former case, bats may be forced to
roost near entrances or floors to find low enough temperatures, thus
increasing their vulnerability to freezing or predation. In the North,
bats must be able to escape particularly cold temperatures. In both
cases, modifications that obstruct air flow or bat movement could
adversely impact the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).

Recent analysis of mid-winter temperature records obtained during
hibernacula surveys, especially of Priority One caves, suggests that
unacceptable deviations in roost temperatures may account for some of
the overall population decline (Tuttle, [in]{.underline}
[litt]{.underline}., August 4, 1998). Although scanty, the data suggest
that when populations roost mostly at temperatures below 35^o^F or above
47^o^F (2^o^C and 8^o^C), they usually decline and when roosting between
37^o^F and 45^o^F (3^o^C and 7.2^o^C) they tend to grow.

To test the hypothesis that changes in the microclimates of Indiana bat
hibernation sites may be contributing to the recent downward trend in
this species, a project was initiated in the summer of 1998 to
investigate the temperature and relative humidity of 13 of the major
hibernacula in Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia.
Each cave was surveyed and 37 data loggers were installed between July
19 and 29 1998. Investigations revealed that crucial air flow had been
interrupted at some sites and the air temperature had risen a few
degrees above normal in others, providing additional initial evidence
that changes in microclimates may be contributing to this species
drastic decline (Tuttle, [in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}., August 4,
1998). Additional years of monitoring at these sites will be necessary
to further evaluate any changes in hibernation conditions.

b\. [Land use practices]{.underline}. The Indiana bats= maternity range
has changed dramatically since pre-settlement times (Schroeder 1981;
Giessman *et al*. 1986; MacCleery 1992; Nigh *et al.* 1992). Most of the
forest in the upper Midwest has been fragmented, fire has been
suppressed, and native prairies have been converted to agricultural
crops or to pasture and hay meadows for livestock. Native species have
been replaced with exotics in large portions of the maternity range, and
plant communities have become less diverse than occurred prior to
settlement. Additionally, numerous chemicals are applied to these
intensely cropped areas. The changes in the landscape and the use of
chemicals (McFarland 1998) may have reduced the availability and
abundance of the bats= insect forage base.

Conversely, regions surrounding hibernacula in the Missouri Ozarks and
elsewhere are now more densely forested than they were historically
(Marbut 1914; Sauer 1920; Ladd 1991; Nigh *et al.* 1992; Jacobson and
Primm 1997). Consequently, the open, savanna-like conditions important
to the species maternity habitat (Romme *et al.* 1995) is much less
abundant today than occurred historically (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1999).

In the eastern U. S., the area of land covered by forest has been
increasing in recent years (MacCleery 1992). Whether or not this is
beneficial to the Indiana bat is unknown. The age, composition, and size
class distribution of the woodlands will have a bearing on their
suitability as roosting and foraging habitat for the species outside the
winter hibernation season. A clearer picture of the relationship between
the Indiana bat and its summer habitat requirements is urgently needed.
An understanding of the factor or factors responsible for the continued
decline of the species is needed before it can accurately be determined
whether the loss of roosting habitat is limiting to regional or range
wide populations of the species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).

c\. [Chemical contamination]{.underline}. Pesticides have been
implicated in the declines of a number of insectivorous bats in North
America (Mohr, 1972; Reidinger, 1972, 1976; Clark and Prouty, 1976;
Clark *et al*., 1978; Geluso *et al*., 1976; Clark, 1981). The effects
of pesticides on Indiana bats have yet to be studied. McFarland (1998)
studied two sympatric species, the little brown bat (*Myotis lucifugus*)
and the northern long-eared bat (*M. septentrionalis keenii*) as
surrogates in northern Missouri and documented depressed levels of
acetylcholinesterase, suggesting that bats there may be exposed to
sublethal levels of organophosphate and/or carbamate insecticides
applied to agricultural crops. McFarland (1998) also demonstrated that
bats in northern Missouri are exposed to significant amounts of
agricultural chemicals, especially those applied to corn. BHE
Environmental, Inc. (1999) collected tissue and guano samples from five
species of bats at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and documented the
exposure of bats to p,p=-DDE, heptachlor epoxide, and dieldrin.

[Previous surveys conducted in Missouri to determine the distribution of
Indiana bats]{.underline}

Numerous Indiana bat studies have been undertaken in Missouri other than
the regularly occurring counts conducted at primarily Priority One and
Two hibernacula during the winter hibernation season (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999). Considerable effort has also been undertaken
throughout the state to document the presence of Indiana bats through
surveys conducted at potential maternity sites, or at hibernacula during
spring and fall (e.g., Myers 1964; Easterla and Watkins 1969; LaVal *et
al.* 1976; LaVal *et al.* 1977; LaVal and LaVal 1980; Clawson *et al.*
1986; 3/D International, Inc. 1996; Callahan *et al.* 1997). Myers
(1964) banded 21, 321 Indiana bats within the Ozark Plateau, but in
addition to the southern Missouri Ozarks, his study area included
portions of northwestern Arkansas, northeastern Oklahoma, and west
central Illinois. LaVal and LaVal (1980), however, banded approximately
12,000 Indiana bats within the Meramec River Basin.

The magnitude of other surveys conducted, however, is not accurately
reflected in the literature because many studies that yielded negative
data have not been published (Rick Clawson, pers. commun. February
1999). Although MDC has access to most of the raw data, no previous
attempt has been made to enter it into a database where it can be used
to depict areas pictorially or to calculate the amount of effort
extended.

Recently, data on all known surveys conducted in the state were entered
into a database and then exported into a GIS file where they could
visually portrayed. Locations of Indiana bat captures, maternity roost
trees, and areas where no bats where captured are shown in Figure 4.
Surveys have been conducted in every county north of the Missouri River
with the exception of St.

Charles and Warren counties. Efforts south of the Missouri River to date
have concentrated in the Big River/Meramec River basins, Fort Leonard
Wood, and on the Houston/Rolla and Doniphan/Eleven Point districts of
the MTNF. All known Indiana bat maternity roost trees and 71% of all
known records of reproductively active females (i.e., either lactating
or post lactating individuals) have been recorded in the northern three
tiers of counties in the state (Figure 4). The presence of five records
of reproductively active females in Iron, Jefferson, Pulaski, and
Washington counties, suggest that maternity colonies are possible in the
Ozark region of the state (Figure 4). Additionally, some male Indiana
bats are likely to remain during the summer months at most hibernacula
in the state and are possible probably throughout much of the state
during spring and fall migration (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999)
as documented in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Locations of Indiana bat captures (reproductively active and
non-reproductively active females, males), known Indiana bat maternity
roost trees, and sites where no bats were captured during surveys
conducted in Missouri between 1964 and 1998 (MDC unpubl. data).

Catch per unit effort for surveys were calculated by dividing the total
amount of time in hours by the total number of bats captured. The number
of bats captured per site were calculated by dividing the total number
of bats captured by the number of sites. Because it would be much easier
to catch an Indiana bat with a mist net at the entrance of a known
hibernaculum compared to over a stream, catch per unit effort and catch
per site were calculated separately for cave and non-cave sites. Results
are presented in Table 4.

Surveys conducted at 19 cave entrances yielded 23.01 bats/hr and 279.90
bats/site. The fact that bats were more difficult to capture at the 265
non-cave sites (Figure 4) scattered across the state, as expected, is
reflected in the low capture rate of 0.12 bats/hr and 0.57 bats/site
(Table 4).

Table 4. Number of sites, Indiana bat captures, hours of effort,
bats/hour, and bats/site for surveys conducted at caves and non-cave
locations in Missouri between 1964 and 1998

(MDC unpublished data).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Number Number of Indiana Effort

Type of Site Of Sites Bats Captured (hrs.) Bats/hr. Bats/site

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Non-cave^1^ 265 151 1,224 0.12 0.57

Cave 19 5,318 231 23.01 279.90

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

^1^ Mostly over stream and/or river corridors but includes a few upland
non-riparian corridor sites.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**C. Status of the species within the action area**

The only two active (i.e., with records within the last 25 years)
hibernacula on the MTNF are Cave Hollow Cave in Iron County and White
Creek=s Cave in Oregon County (Figure 5). During the most recent census
(1998), 21 Indiana bats were recorded in White Creek=s Cave and 79
individuals were counted in Cave Hollow Cave (Clawson, pers. commun.
1998).

In 1997 and 1998 mist nets and harp traps were used to survey Indiana
bats on portions of the Houston/Rolla and Doniphan/Eleven Point
districts. In 1997, no Indiana bats were captured during 95 hours of
effort between June 7 and August 6. No Indiana bats were caught using
mist nets during 123.5 hours of effort between June 12 and August 8,
1998. Harp traps were used at

Cave Hollow Cave September 9, 10, and September 30 (12.5 hours of
effort) and 3 male Indiana bats were captured on September 30. Three
hours of effort using a harp trap at White Creek=s Cave on October 14,
1998 yielded one male Indiana bat (Eberly, [in]{.underline}
[litt]{.underline}. March 3, 1999).

Although no reproductively active female Indiana bats have been found to
date on the MTNF, the

Figure 5. Locations of active Indiana bat hibernacula on the Mark Twain
National Forest, Missouri.

capture of two reproductively active females on Fort Leonard Wood
adjacent to the MTNF in Pulaski County in 1995 by 3D/International, Inc.
(1996) suggests that maternity colonies are still possible on National
Forest land. Using the largest population counts ever recorded for White
Creek=s Cave (1990) and Cave Hollow Cave (1988), the U.S. Forest Service
(1998) estimated that a maximum of approximately 300 Indiana bats
occurred in these two hibernacula. Given the fact that: 1) male Indiana
bats may remain near other occupied hibernacula on lands adjacent to
MTNF and could forage on nearby National Forest lands, 2) two records of
reproductively active females (with a potential of two colonies at
approximately 100 bats per colony) on Fort Leonard Wood suggest that
surrounding National Forest land may possibly be used by additional
Indiana bats, and 3) the Cedar Creek District is north of the Missouri
River and contains potential maternity habitat, the Service would
predict that up to an additional 200 Indiana bats could potentially use
National Forest land between the spring-fall period. If such a
hypothesis was correct, the 500 bats would constitute about 1.06% of the
total population of Indiana bats in Missouri and about 0.14% of the
entire population in the United States.

**D. Effects of the action (direct and indirect effects**)

**Direct effects**

Direct impacts to the Indiana bat could occur as the MTNF continues to
implement its forest-wide management activities. The main potential
direct effects to Indiana bats on the MTNF would be: 1) the removal of
potential roost trees used by a maternity colony (if such colonies do in
fact occur on National Forest Land), summering males adjacent to active
hibernacula, migrants during spring and fall migration, or males and
females during the fall swarming period, and 2) adverse impacts from
prescribed fires on the occasions listed above when bats are using trees
for roosting, or when prevailing winds drift smoke into occupied
hibernacula.

Direct impacts to the Indiana bat may result in direct mortality or
injury to individuals or small groups of roosting bats during the
felling of trees that may harbor undetected roosts, or the accidental
felling of occupied snags, shagbark hickories, or damaged or hollow
trees during timber harvest or other tree removal activities. The
likelihood of cutting a tree containing a maternity colony or individual
roosting Indiana bat, however, is anticipated to be extremely low
because of the large number of suitable roost trees present on the MTNF,
the rarity of the species, and the wide dispersal of Indiana bats and
maternity colonies throughout the species= range. Other direct effects
could result if the harvesting of hardwood and hardwood/pine habitat
cause bats in a roosting or maternity colony to abandon a traditionally
used site. Additional stress could be placed on pregnant females that
are already expending energy. Lower reproductive success or lower
survival of young could also result with forced abandonment of lactating
females from occupied roosts.

However, implementation of the terms and conditions associated with the
reasonable and prudent measures provided below by the Service, will
minimize direct adverse effects to the Indiana bat by maintaining
suitable Indiana bat roosting and foraging habitat and protecting
Indiana bats from the potential effects of timber harvest and other tree
removal activities.

Prescribed fires conducted during the Indiana bat summer season could
result in direct mortality due to the actual roost tree being
incinerated (especially non-volant young at a maternity colony) or
adverse effects caused by smoke inhalation (Elder and Gunier, 1981). The
MTNF currently burns approximately 4,500 acres per year and prescribed
fires usually occur during the spring and fall when Indiana bats are
migrating, using habitat adjacent to White Creek=s and Cave Hollow
caves, or using habitat in areas adjacent to locations in Pulaski County
where data currently suggests that a maternity colony may be present.
Implementation of the terms and conditions associated with the
reasonable and prudent measures provided below by the Service, however
will minimize potential direct adverse effects to the species.

Additionally, prescribed fires will provide some beneficial effects to
the species by opening closed forest canopies, and by decreasing dense
understory vegetation that can inhibit movements to foraging habitats
and roosting sites.

The greatest potential for impact to the species would be in areas near
the two active Indiana bat hibernacula (i.e., White Creek=s Cave and
Cave Hollow Cave- Figure 5), areas of the MTNF near other occupied
hibernacula on land adjacent to the MTNF, areas on the MTNF in Pulaski
County that surround locations of two reproductively active females
captured on Fort Leonard Wood, and National Forest land on the Cedar
Creek District north of the Missouri River that contains potential
maternity habitat. Impact from timber harvest undertaken on the Cedar
Creek District, however, is likely to be minimal for the following
reasons: 1) only uneven-aged management is used, 2) on average only
about 75-125 acres are harvested annually, and 3) the Forest Service has
agreed to: a) retain all shagbark and shellbark hickory trees regardless
on size, and b) retain all trees greater than 9\" dbh that have 10% or
more exfoliating bark.

Because both White Creek=s Cave and Cave Hollow Cave have protective
gates and are monitored by personnel of the MTNF during hibernation
season to detect unauthorized entry (U.S. Forest Service 1998), any
direct effects from human disturbance at these caves are not
anticipated.

Implementation of the terms and conditions associated with the
reasonable and prudent measures provided below by the Service, will
ensure an abundance of roosting and foraging habitat.

**Indirect effects**

Indirect effects are defined as those that are caused by the proposed
actions and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur
(50 CFR 402.02). The main potential indirect effects to the Indiana bat
on the MTNF would be: 1) a potential reduction in the species= forage
base due to the loss of foraging habitat, and 2) loss of the species=
prey base due to the degradation of water quality of streams and rivers
within riparian corridors over which the species forages that could
negatively impact the emergence and abundance of insects within such
corridors.

Forest management activities which (either temporarily or permanently)
reduce forest canopy closure to less than 30% (i.e., certain types of
timber harvest, new road construction, and new utility corridors) could
potentially reduce the availability and/or suitability of those areas as
Indiana bat foraging habitat. It is believed, however, that potential
adverse impacts to the species due to indirect effects is expected to be
remote for the following reasons:

-   Standards and guidelines outlined in the LRMP for the MTNF provide
    significant protection for riparian corridors on the National
    Forest. Management activities in these areas are either limited or
    prohibited. The lack or restriction of management activities within
    riparian corridors will enable the ecological integrity of these
    areas to be maintained into the foreseeable future.

-   The minor reductions in available foraging habitat in some areas
    would be offset by the creation of suitable Indiana bat foraging
    habitat through other forest management activities.

-   Extensive research indicate that this species forages over a wide
    range of habitats including riparian corridors, upland areas,
    fields, shelterwood cuts, and other disturbed areas (U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service 1999).

-   The species is considered a foraging generalist that will take
    advantage of prey from numerous types of forest conditions; an
    abundance of insect prey is likely to be available throughout the
    MTNF during the spring-fall periods for the few Indiana bats that
    have been documented on the MTNF

-   The opening of the forest canopy in certain situations \[i.e. mature
    forest where the canopy closure is greater than the 60-80%
    recommended by Romme et al. (1995)\] would undoubtedly increase
    habitat diversity and therefore insect abundance.

The U.S. Geological Survey conducted an extensive water quality study of
the Ozark Plateaus in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri (including basins that
cover National Forest land in most districts of the MTNF), and Oklahoma
between 1992 and 1995, and concluded that the water quality was well
within acceptable levels for several parameters established by EPA
(Petersen *et al.* 1998). Sedimentation, however, was not included in
their analysis.

Although the impacts of siltation on aquatic insects has not been
thoroughly studied, Tuttle (1979) noted that none of the five gray bat
colonies that he studied that remained stable between 1970 and 1976
foraged over heavily silted waterways. Excess sedimentation in streams,
rivers, and lakes on the MTNF could originate from several sources: 1)
timber harvest operations, 2) road construction and maintenance, 3)
runoff following prescribed fires, 4) overgrazing which could accelerate
erosion, and disturbance from ATVs, motor bikes, cattle, and horses,
especially within riparian corridors. Adverse impacts from siltation is
likely to be minimal because very little management is undertaken within
riparian corridors, and standards and guidelines outlined in the LRMP
for the MTNF implement steps that minimize soil erosion and maintain
good water quality.

It is highly unlikely that the use of herbicides on the MTNF contributes
to the potential loss of prey base for Indiana bats for the following
reasons: 1) use is extremely limited and is only applied to
approximately 120 acres per year, 2) what limited application that is
done is conducted in areas that receive little use from Indiana bats
(i.e., around buildings, open fescue fields), 3) application is
constrained near bat caves and riparian corridors, and 4) host specific
herbicides would have negligible effects on insects utilized by Indiana
bats because herbicides are usually applied directly to a target plant
and any impact to non-target insects during application would be minimal
and short lived; additionally, if applicable, the application of
herbicides would impact a minute amount of vegetation that could serve
as food for larval stages of insects that this species forages on.

The incorporation of the terms and conditions associated with reasonable
and prudent measures requested by the Service below will further
minimize the impacts of any potential adverse direct and indirect
effects.

**E. 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 biological opinion. Future Federal
actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in
this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to
Section 7 of the ESA. Additionally, any future Federal, State, local, or
private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area,
and which are considered in this biological opinion, will either be
carried out by, or will require a permit from, the Forest Service; they
will, therefore, require compliance with Section 7 of the ESA. Because
the Service is not aware of any future State, local, or private actions
that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area and which
would not be subject to Forest Service Section 7 review, cumulative
effects, as defined by the ESA, will not occur and will not be addressed
further in this opinion.

**F. Potential interrelated and interdependent actions**

The Service is aware of the suggestions of some that the operation of
chip mills outside of the boundaries of the MTNF should be included in
an analysis of interrelated and/or interdependent actions associated
with the proposed action. An interrelated activity is an activity that
is part of the proposed action and depends on the proposed action for
its justification (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service 1998). An interdependent activity is an activity that
has no independent utility apart from the action under consultation
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
1998). An analysis of whether other activities are interrelated to, or
interdependent with, the proposed action under consultation should be
conducted by applying a Abut for@ test. That is, it must be determined
that the other activity under question would not occur Abut for@ the
proposed action under consultation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service 1998). In the case of the chip mills
mentioned above, a determination would need to be made that chip mills
would not have come into existence had it not been for the presence of
adjacent Forest Service land, before such actions could be considered as
interrelated or interdependent, and therefore, considered in this
opinion. However, since there is no justification for claiming that chip
mills came into existence due to the presence of the MTNF, their
operation outside the boundaries of the National Forest can not be
considered as an interrelated or interdependent action that should be
considered in this opinion.

Some have also argued that the Abut for@ analysis is applicable in the
present example because the loss of forest land outside the boundaries
of the Mark Twain National Forest due to chip mill operations using
timber on private property would place a greater demand for timber
harvest on Forest Service land. The Service disagrees with this
assertion, however, because incidental take involving Indiana bats in
this opinion is partially in the form of acreage, and any harvest above
that level would necessitate the reinitiation of formal consultation.
Because such reinitiation would result in the cessation of all
activities until the completion of formal consultation (see Reinitiation
Notice below), it is unlikely that this would occur. Consequently, the
Service concludes that it is inappropriate to consider the operation of
chip mills outside the boundaries of the MTNF as interrelated or
interdependent actions associated with the proposed action.

**G.**.**Cumulative impact of incidental take anticipated by the Service
in previously issued biological opinions**

In reaching a decision whether the continued implementation of
activities outlined in the LRMP on the MTNF is likely or not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat, the Service must
factor into its analysis previous biological opinions issued involving
the species, especially for those opinions where incidental take was
presented as the number of acres impacted. Although there have been a
few previously issued biological opinions that involve the loss of
riparian corridors or foraging and roosting habitat for the Indiana bat
(e.g., construction of a reservoir involving the Army Corps of Engineers
in Marion, Illinois- John Blankenship, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Fort Snelling, Minnesota, [in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}. 1995),
most involve activities implemented from Land Resource Management Plans
on National Forests in the eastern United States. Additionally, such
opinions also involve the potential impact to the largest acreage of
Indiana bat roosting and foraging habitat. All previously issued Service
biological opinions involving the Indiana bat have been non-jeopardy. In
assessing the potential cumulative effects of such previously issued
opinions, the following must be included in the analysis:

-   The annual removal (in acres) of potential roost trees and/or
    foraging habitat on the National Forest under review,

-   An estimate on the number of Indiana bats likely to be impacted
    within the action area,

-   The amount of acreage remaining of suitable roosting and foraging
    habitat for Indiana bats following removal- such habitat must be of
    sufficient age (usually \> 50-70 years, depending on growth rates,
    site characteristics, etc.), size (9-16\" + dbh), have those species
    of trees which have been proven to consistently be suitable for
    roosting, and an acceptable canopy closure for suitable foraging (as
    summarized in Romme *et al*. 1995).

To date, the Service has issued final non-jeopardy biological opinions
for the following National Forests:

Cherokee, Daniel Boone, George Washington/Jefferson, Ozark/St. Francis,
and Ouachita.

Parameters mentioned above for the five National Forests where
biological opinions have been finalized are provided in Table 5.

The cumulative impact of an annual allowable incidental take of 72,300
acres on these five National Forests and its potential impact to Indiana
bat must be estimated within the context of:

1\) the remaining surrounding landscape that provides suitable foraging
and roosting habitat for the species, 2) the conservation measures
incorporated into a particular Forest=s management plan to minimize the
impact of tree removal, 3) the terms and conditions associated with the
reasonable and prudent measures provided by the Service in their
non-jeopardy biological opinions for each perspective forest that
minimize the impact of incidental take, and 4) what percent of the
rangewide population is predicted to be impacted by the proposed
actions.

The degree that the remaining surrounding landscape provides suitable
foraging and roosting habitat for the Indiana bat may be analyzed by
estimating the average number of suitable roost trees per acre \[i.e.,
the number of snags, dead or dying trees with at least 10% exfoliating
or defoliating bark with a dbh of  9-16\" dbh and those which are Class
1 or Class 2 trees as summarized by Romme *et al.* (1995), den or cull
trees, lightning struck or otherwise injured trees 9\" dbh, live shell
bark and shagbark hickories 9\" dbh, and live trees 26\" dbh\], and
the number of acres of suitable foraging habitat. Based on the
information from several sources (e.g., Shifley *et al.* 1997; Houf,
pers. commun., March 1999; MacGregor, pers. commun, March 1999; Randy
Jensen, MDC, Ellington, Missouri, [in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}.
March 8, 1999), it has been estimated that the average forest in the
eastern United States \> 50 years old, would contain at least 20 trees
per acre that provide suitable roosting habitat for Indiana bat.

The 3,109 ^3^ (Table 5) Indiana bats estimated above would constitute
approximately 7/8 of 1%

(i.e., 0.87%) of the entire population in the eastern United States.
Although a much smaller percentage of the 3,109 individuals would be
present during the summer, many of these bats

could be present on these National Forests during spring and fall
migration. Assuming that the

bats listed above are possibly dispersed throughout the five National
Forests for the which final

opinions have been issued, and in the absence of any conservation
measures provided by the Forest Service or reasonable and prudent
measures provided by the Service, the amount of acres of suitable
habitat and the number of suitable roost trees available to each bat on
each National Forest are provided in Table 5. The figures indicate that
the number of suitable roost trees available to each individual Indiana
bat on the five National Forests ranges from a low of 8,440 trees on the
Daniel Boone to a high of 1,810,640 trees per bat on the Ouachita
National Forest.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

^3^Actual numbers are much lower- this estimate was partially determined
based on predictions made by MacGregor, pers. commun, March 3, 1999.

Table 5. Annual allowed incidental take (acres), estimated number of
Indiana bats potentially affected, and acres of suitable roosting and
foraging habitat, and number of suitable roost trees remaining following
tree removal as identified in biological opinions previously issued by
the Service involving five National Forests in the eastern United
States.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

> Number of
>
> Acres of Number of
>
> Estimated Suitable Suitable roost
>
> Number of Acres of Habitat Trees
>
> Indiana bats Suitable Available Available
>
> Incidental Potentially Habitat To each To each

Forest Take (acres) Affected Remaining Bat Bat

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Cherokee 1,300 \~ 200^1^ 513,250 2,566 51,320

Daniel Boone 4,500 \~ 1,600^1^ \~675,000 422 8,440

George Washington/ 4,500 \~ 300^2^ 1,433,974 4,780 95,600

Jefferson

Ozark-St. Francis 19,000^3^ \~ 1,000 862,400^3^ 862 17,240

Ouachita 43,000 \~ 9 814,792^3^ 90,532 1,810,640

Totals 29,300 \~ 3,109 ?? 4,299,416

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

^1^MacGregor, pers. commun., March 3, 1999

^2^ Estimate based on MacGregor=s predictions for the number of Indiana
bats that may occur on

the Cherokee and Daniel Boone NF=s.

^3^This includes hardwoods, pines, and pine/hardwoods- all of which can
provide suitable roosting

habitat for Indiana bat.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

The figures provide strong evidence that an abundance of roosting
habitat will be available to each individual bat that occurs on each
National Forest, even following the annual incidental take of acreage as
outlined in the Service=s biological opinions. Because the species is
known to forage over a wide range of habitats, the acreage available to
each bat as provided in Table 5 would also provide an abundance of
suitable foraging habitat.

Additional conservation measures provided by the Forest Service or
reasonable and prudent measures provided by the Service in its
biological opinion to minimize the impact of the annual

allowable take for each National Forest is summarized below.

**Cherokee**: the annual incidental take of 1,300 acres identified in
the Service=s biological opinion issued in February 1997, is one-fourth
of one percent (0.25 %) of the total area of the Cherokee

National Forest (CNF) that is suitable for timber harvest. Although
there are no documented

records of either wintering or summering individuals on the CNF, the
Forest is within the

migrational range of colonies that hibernate in nearby caves and there
is an abundance of suitable

roosting habitat that could be used by Indiana bats during the
spring-fall period. Consequently,

MacGregor believes that as many as 200 Indiana bats are possibly
distributed throughout the Forest (MacGregor, pers. commun., March 3,
1999).

The following activities outlined by the CNF=s biological assessment of
September 3, 1996

provides additional suitable roosting habitat for Indiana bats within
areas scheduled for management: 1) the primary harvest technique is a
two-aged shelterwood method that leaves

a typical residual basal area of 15 to 35 square feet per acre, or
approximately 40-60 trees per acre in a size class equal or greater than
9\" dbh, 2) 12,664 acres previously considered for harvest were
designated as old growth to benefit the black bear, 3) at least 20% of
harvestable timber 61 years or older must be retained within each
compartment scheduled for management, and 3) the retention of at least
two snags, preferably large diameter hardwood snags, in areas harvested.

The primary term and condition associated with reasonable and prudent
measures outlined in the Service=s opinion that ensure additional
roosting habitat on the CNF is that the retention of 20-40 trees per
acre of two-aged shelterwood consist of Class 1 or Class 2 trees as
identified by Romme *et al.* (1995).

**Daniel Boone**: the annual incidental take of 4,500 acres provided in
the Service=s biological opinion issued on April 4, 1997 constitutes
approximately three-fourths of one percent (0.75 percent) of the total
area of the Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF) that is suitable for
timber production. MacGregor (pers. commun., March 3, 1999) estimates
that as many as 1,600 Indiana bats may occur on the DBNF. In their
biological evaluation (Forest Service [in]{.underline}
[litt]{.underline}. October 6, 1996) which was the basis for initiating
formal consultation with the Service, the DBNF agreed to implement
several prudent measures that would provide roosting and foraging
habitat for the Indiana bat. Included in these were: 1) the retention of
all dead and dying potential AClass 1 or Class 2\" trees (after Romme
*et al.* 1995) of 16\" dbh or greater, 2) the retention of all shagbark
and shellbark hickory, and all hollow or cull trees of other species
where possible, 3) the retention of at least 16 Class 1 and/or Class 2
trees with a dbh greater than 9\", 4) allowance of no more than 40 acres
per square mile per decade of regeneration harvest within one-mile
radius of each significant cave or hibernaculum, and 5) the retention of
residual trees with a basal area of 50 in strips or clumps.

Terms and conditions associated with reasonable and prudent measures in
the Service=s opinion included: 1) the retention of at least three
natural or created snags with a dbh greater than 9\" in each harvest
area, 2) appropriate numbers of live trees will be left within a 25-foot
radius of one-third of all large snags with a dbh greater than 12\" dbh
to provide shading for potential roosts, 3) clumps of trees are to be
left in the harvest area and irregular strips of trees extending into
the harvest area to maintain forest travel corridors between the harvest
area and surrounding areas, 4) retention of all shagbark and shellbark
hickories, and 5) the retention of all additional reserve trees that
have developed exfoliating bark as the result of natural or man-made
damage.

**George Washington and Jefferson:** the annual incidental take of 4,500
acres provided in the Service=s biological opinion issued on September
16, 1997 constitutes approximately three-tenths of one percent (0.30
percent) of the total area of the George Washington/Jefferson National
Forests (GWJNFs) that is suitable for timber production. Although to
date only seven summer  away from hibernacula on the GWJNFs have been
located, one was a juvenile  captured on July 28, 1992, suggesting the
possibility of a maternity colony on or adjacent to National Forest
land. Recently, only 70-90 Indiana bats have been documented at
hibernacula on the GWJNFs, but a number of hibernacula are adjacent to
National Forest land. Thus, it is possible that as many as 300 Indiana
bats could use the GWJNFs during the spring-fall period.

In an attempt to address new information collected on the this species=
habitat requirements during the spring-fall non-hibernating period, the
GWJNFs developed an Indiana Bat Recovery Strategy (IBRS) (John Wolfin,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD, [in]{.underline}
[litt]{.underline}. September 16, 1997). In their IBRS, the GWJNFs
agreed to provide the following: 1) a no disturbance primary buffer of
at least 0.5 miles will be placed around each Indiana bat hibernaculum,
2) a limited disturbance buffer of at least 1.5 miles will be placed
around each Indiana bat hibernaculum; within this buffer either: a) a
minimum of 20 trees per acre in the 10-16\" dbh class and 15 trees per
acre with a dbh of 20\" or greater must be retained, or b) 60% of the
area must be maintained in an age class of 70 years or older; and 40% of
oaks, hickories, and yellow poplar (*Liriodendron tulipifera*) must be
maintained in an age class of 80 years of age or older, 3) a 1/4 mile no
disturbance buffer would be placed around all located roost trees, 4)
all shagbark hickory and snags will be retained on the GWJNFs for
non-cave roosts, 5) 40% of oaks, hickories, and yellow poplar must be
maintained in an age class of 80 years of age or older for non-cave
roosts forest wide, and 6) a minimum of 60% of the acreage of all forest
types combined on the GWJNFs will be maintained over 70 years of age.

Terms and conditions associated with reasonable and prudent measures in
the Service=s opinion

above and beyond those agreed to by the GWJNFs included: 1) the
retention of at least six snags or cavity trees per acre with a dbh of
9\" or greater for all timber activities, and 2) the retention of all
shagbark hickories throughout the GWJNFs.

**Ozark-St. Francis**: the annual incidental take of 19,000 acres (8,000
acres of hardwoods and 11,000 acres of pine and pine/hardwood forest
types) provided in the Service=s biological opinion issued on June 25,
1998 constitutes approximately 8.7 % of the total area of the Ozark-St.
Francis National Forest (OSFNF) that is suitable for timber production.

The following activities outlined by if the LRMP for the OSFNF and the
biological assessment of October 28, 1997 provides additional suitable
roosting habitat for Indiana bats within areas scheduled for
management: 1) at least two dead snags greater than 12\" dbh (when
possible) per acre are retained in all harvested areas, 2) all standing
dead trees with exfoliating or defoliating bark and den trees are
retained within riparian corridors, and 3) approximately 147,364 acres
are designated old growth (\~ 13 %) that have more than 10 individual
live trees per acre that are over 120 years old or that are over 22\"
dbh.

The primary term and condition associated with reasonable and prudent
measures in the Service=s biological opinion that ensures the
availability of suitable roost trees above and beyond those agreed to by
the OSFNF is the retention of at least six snags or cavity (Class 1 or
Class trees as identified in Romme *et al.* 1995) trees per acre with a
dbh of 9\" or greater for all timber activities.

**Ouachita**: the annual incidental take of 43,000 acres provided in the
Service=s biological opinion issued on April 26, 1999 constitutes
approximately 4.8 % of the total area of the Ouachita National Forest
(ONF) that is suitable for timber production.

The following activities outlined by if the LRMP for the ONF provides
additional suitable roosting habitat for Indiana bats within areas
scheduled for management: 1) large den trees (18\" dbh) will be
retained wherever they occur, 2) retain at least two snags per acre,
with a minimum of 12\" dbh with an objective of 16\" dbh in
regeneration areas, and 3) retain or develop mature growth hardwood
habitat ( 100 years old) and mature growth pine habitat (  80 years
old) within each project area at a rate of 5 % each. Above and beyond
the standards and guidelines outlined in the LRMP for the ONF, the
following terms and conditions associated with the reasonable and
prudent measures provided in the Service=s non-jeopardy biological
opinion will afford additional foraging and roosting habitat for the 9
Indiana bats documented on the National Forest: 1) provide a no
disturbance buffer consisting of a radius of 0.5 miles around each
occupied Indiana bat hibernaculum, and 2) provide a secondary buffer
consisting of a radius of 1.5 miles around each occupied Indiana bat
hibernaculum where limited management activities will occur.

As with the other National Forests where the Service has issued
non-jeopardy biological opinions, an abundance of suitable roosting and
foraging habitat will be available to the few Indiana bats using the
Ouachita National Forest.

Given: 1) the conservation measures outlined in a National Forest=s
LRMP, biological assessment, biological evaluation, or recovery strategy
developed for the Indiana bat, 2) the additional terms and conditions
associated with the Service=s biological opinion, 3) the abundance of
available, roost trees on the National Forests discussed above, and 4)
the small percentage of the overall population of the species likely to
be affected from the annual, allowable level of incidental take, the
Service believes that potential impacts to the species have been
sufficiently minimized to prevent a significant, cumulative reduction in
population numbers of the Indiana bat.

**H. Conclusion**

After reviewing the current status of Indiana bat; the environmental
baseline for the action area; the effects of forest management and other
activities on the MTNF (both direct and indirect); additional measures
identified in the Forest Service=s BA to assist in the protection,
management, and recovery of the species; previously issued Service
non-jeopardy biological opinions that allow various levels of incidental
take; any potential interrelated and interdependent actions associated
with the proposed action; and any potential cumulative effects, it is
the Service=s biological opinion that forest management and other
activities authorized, funded, or carried out by the MTNF, are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat. Of the
six caves in Missouri designated as critical habitat, none are owned by
the MTNF and none will be adversely affected by the continued
implementation of the LRMP.

**I. Incidental take statement**

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of
the Act, prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species,
respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or
attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the
Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that
results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing
behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass
is defined the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create
the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal 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. Under the terms of Section
7(b)(4) and Section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not
intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited
taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the
terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.

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

**J. Amount or extent of incidental take anticipated**

The Service anticipates that incidental take of Indiana bats as a result
of forest management activities or other actions implemented on the MTNF
will be difficult to quantify and detect due to the bat=s small body
size, formation of small (i.e., 50 or fewer to 100 individuals), widely
dispersed colonies under loose bark or in cavities of trees, and unknown
areal extent and density of their summer roosting populations range
within the MTNF. However, any incidental take of Indiana bats is
expected to be in the form of killing, harming, or harassing. Tree
removal during the non-hibernation season for harvest or in preparation
for other activities may result in mortality to females and young, or to
individually roosting Indiana bats, if a particular tree which is
removed contains a maternity colony or roosting bats. If an occupied
roost tree is accidentally removed and the bats using it were not killed
during removal, the colony (or roosting individuals) would be forced to
find an alternate roost. Depending on the circumstances (e.g., alternate
roosts are not available or bat/s are required to fly significant
distances to locate additional, suitable roost sites), the loss of a
single, occupied roost tree could possibly adversely affect the species.
Tree removal associated with road construction, utility right-of-way
maintenance, or recreational development may also result in alteration
of roosting and/or feeding activities by the bats (i.e., the bats may
have to fly farther to forage, seek alternate roosts, or they may be
forced to abandon the area altogether). In addition, growing-season
prescribed fires may result in burning of occupied roost trees. Smoke
generated during prescribed burns could also cause roosting bats
discomfort or death. Burning may cause a maternity colony or individual
roosting bat to abandon a traditionally used roost tree.

Monitoring to determine take of individual bats within an expansive area
of forested habitat is a complex and difficult 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 maternity colony or roosting Indiana bats are
present in an area proposed for harvest or other types of tree removal.
It would also be impossible to evaluate the amount of incidental take of
Indiana bats unless a post-harvest inspection is immediately made of
every tree that has been removed or disturbed. 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 habitat affected can be
used as a surrogate to monitor the level of take. Although, to the best
of our knowledge, no Indiana bat maternity colony or individually
roosting Indiana bats to date have been incidentally taken on the MTNF
during tree removal or other habitat modifying activities, the possible
removal of undiscovered occupied roost tree(s) may result in incidental
take of this species. The Service believes if a maternity colony or
roosting individuals are present in an area proposed for timber harvest
or other disturbance, loss of suitable roosting habitat could result in
incidental take of Indiana bats. However, implementation of the terms
and conditions associated with the reasonable and prudent measures
provided below by the Service, will significantly reduce the potential
of incidental take.

This incidental take statement anticipates the taking of Indiana bats
from activities (e.g., tree removal associated with timber harvest, road
construction and maintenance, utility corridor maintenance, the
development and maintenance of recreational areas, special uses;
prescribed fires) conducted on the MTNF and associated with an annual
removal of, or disturbance to, no more than 38,375 acres of potential
Indiana bat habitat (Table 6).

The annual incidental take associated with the manipulation of 38,375
acres constitutes approximately 2.89% of the total forested area on the
MTNF. Although the scarcity of records and lack of information on the
distribution and movements of Indiana bats on the MTNF away from
occupied hibernacula make it difficult to estimate the number of Indiana
bats likely to be incidentally taken through the continued
implementation of the LRMP on the National Forest, the Service would
anticipate that no more than 5% of the total potential population of
Indiana bats (i.e., 500) on the MTNF would be adversely affected.
Consequently, the Service anticipates that 25 Indiana bats or one
maternity colony could be potentially taken during management activities
that result in the accidental removal or disturbance of unknown,
occupied roost trees. The potential for incidental taking of Indiana
bats, however, is significantly reduced through the implementation of
the terms and conditions associated with the reasonable and prudent
measures provided below by the Service. Standards and guidelines
outlined in the LRMP for the MTNF and the implementation of the terms
and conditions associated with the reasonable and prudent measures
provided below by the Service dictates that at least 7 potential roost
trees per acre be provided in those areas subject to timber harvest or
other types of tree removal activities. Consequently, the annual
incidental take associated with the manipulation of 38,375 acres per
year would provide a minimum of 268,625 potential roost trees for the
estimated 500 Indiana bats that may occur on the MTNF during the
spring-fall period, if we assume that the 500 Indiana bats could
potentially occur throughout the National Forest, especially during
spring and fall migration.

Table 6. Annual estimated management activities causing removal or
disturbance of Indiana bat habitat on the Mark Twain National Forest,
Missouri (from Eberly, [in]{.underline} [litt]{.underline}. March 8,
1999; Houf, pers. commun., April 19, 1999).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Activity Number of Forested Acres Affected

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Timber harvest 20,000

Prescribed fire 12,000

Wildlife habitat improvement 2,000

Timber stand improvement 4,000

Soil & water improvement 150

Range management 50

Mineral exploration and development 50

Wildfire fire lines 50

Special use 50

Road construction 25

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Totals 38,375

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Thus, a minimum of 537 potential roost trees per bat/ per year would be
provided in those areas where habitat alterations occur. Within a 5-year
period, the annual disturbance of 38,375 acres per year would yield a
minimum of 1,343,125 potential roost trees available to the species.

Additionally, the potential impact to the species must be examined in
the context of how many potential roost trees are likely to be available
in the remaining acreage that is not disturbed each year. In a 5-year
period, 38,375 x 5= 191,875 acres that would be disturbed. However,
there are 1,065,426 acres of forest \> 50 years of age that would
produce trees that provide suitable roosting (i.e., trees 9-16\" dbh)
and foraging habitat for Indiana bats. Within the same time period,
however, approximately 5,000 acres per year would grow into the \> 50
year age class (5 x 5, 000= 25,000 acres). Adding 25,000 acres to our
1,065,426 acre baseline yields 1,090,426 acres. If we subtract the
191,875 acres that are disturbed within the same time frame, the
difference is 898,551 acres. Multiplying 898,551 acres x the number of
suitable roost trees per acre (\~20) yields 17,971,020 roost trees
available to the species. If we add the number of potential roost trees
from disturbed areas within the 5-year period (i.e., 1,343,125) with the
number of potential roost trees from undisturbed areas with the same
5-year period (i.e., 17,971,020), the total is 19,314,315. Dividing the
total number of potential roost trees by the maximum number of Indiana
bats that could use the MTNF (i.e., 500, and assuming that this number
remains stable) suggests that a minimum of 38,628 potential roost trees
would be available for each Indiana bat on the National Forest within a
5-year period, and an average of 7,726 trees per bat per year. Although
several assumptions must be factored into such analysis, it does suggest
that there will be an abundance of suitable roost trees for bats on the
MTNF and that the impacts of the incidental take outlined above will be
greatly minimized.

Operations on the MTNF that would exceed the annual level of incidental
take in acreage of any one of the above-listed activities or in the
number of bats would require reinitiation of formal consultation.

**K. Effect of the take**

The Service has determined that the level of anticipated take of Indiana
bats is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species (see discussion
above). Additionally, implementation of the reasonable and prudent
measures (with implementing terms and conditions) presented below will
further minimize the impact of incidental take to Indiana bats.

**L. Reasonable and prudent measures**

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

-   Decrease possible adverse impacts to Indiana bats at known, occupied
    caves on the MTNF.

-   Decrease possible adverse impacts to Indiana bats due to the removal
    of potentially occupied, suitable roost trees, especially near known
    occupied caves and areas where pregnant/lactating  have been
    caught May 15- August 15, and on the Cedar Creek District which is
    located in an area of the state (i.e., north of the Missouri River)
    where the largest number of reproductively active females have been
    captured and which have the highest likelihood for the discovery of
    a maternity colony.

-   Incorporating guidelines as outlined by Romme et al. (1995),
    increase the number of potential, suitable roost trees on the MTNF
    above what currently exists.

-   Use appropriate smoke management techniques to minimize potential
    smoke impacts to occupied Indiana bat caves or roosting bats (both
    male roosts and maternity roosts).

-   Monitor: 1) human disturbance and bat population numbers at White=s
    Creek Cave, Cave Hollow Cave, and at any other occupied caves which
    may be found on lands managed by the MTNF in the future, 2) the
    status of Indiana bats on lands managed by the MTNF during the
    spring/fall period, and 3) the various levels of incidental take.

The Service believes that the reasonable and prudent measures outlined
above will significantly reduce the impacts of incidental take of
Indiana bats on the MTNF and that these measures are reasonable and fall
within the Forest Service=s responsibilities to conserve federally
listed species as outlined in Sections 2(c)(1) and 7(a)(1) of the Act.

**M. Terms and conditions**

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

In order to reduce possible adverse impacts to Indiana bats at known,
occupied caves on the MTNF, the following is necessary:

-   Continue protection of the two known, occupied Indiana bat caves on
    the MTNF by maintaining angle-iron gates; continue working with the
    Service and MDC to determine protection needs (e.g., gates, signs,
    etc.) of any additional occupied Indiana bat caves (hibernacula)
    discovered on the MTNF.

-   Increase the area of old growth forest (old growth) around caves
    with current populations of Indiana bats to 20 contiguous acres and
    maintain a mature/overmature forest for an additional 130 acres
    around occupied caves with Indiana bat populations; this area will
    include the cave entrance, the area above any known cave passage,
    the foraging corridor from cave to nearest water source, and
    ridgetops/side slopes above the cave- a minimum of 150 acres of
    mature/overmature forest will be maintained around all occupied
    caves.

In order to decrease possible adverse impacts to Indiana bats due to the
removal of potentially occupied roost trees, the following is necessary:

-   For even-aged regeneration harvests, group Aleave@ trees around
    large snags, large live trees, and den trees to protect potential
    roost trees from wind throw.

-   Within shelterwood harvests, retain a minimum of 25 basal area (BA)
    of residual trees; within clearcuts and seed tree harvests, retain a
    minimum of 15 BA of reserve trees; to the maximum extent possible,
    such reserve trees shall be located in groups and along intermittent
    drainages to provide foraging corridors into harvested areas.

-   Determine an area of influence for each occupied Indiana bat cave
    that is on or adjacent to lands managed by the MTNF. The size and
    shape of this area of influence will be determined by: 1)
    significance provided to the cave as outlined by the Service
    (1983b, 1999) and as published in the *Federal Register* 32(48):4001
    (i.e., Priority 1 or Priority 2, designated as critical habitat,
    etc.), 2) the maximum population number recorded, 3) the relative
    amounts of National Forest lands and other ownerships nearby, 4)
    current land use practices nearby, 5) the amount of preferred
    foraging habitat currently available (as defined by Romme et al.
    1995), and 6) and additional conditions specific to that cave which
    may affect bat use. The area of influence shall not exceed a 5.0
    mile radius circle centered on the hibernaculum following the
    findings of 3D/Environmental (1966), except as agreed to by the
    Service and Forest Service and determined to be based on best
    science available, result in the discovery of a larger foraging
    radius.

-   In cooperation with the Service and MDC, develop a management
    recovery strategy within one year after issuance of this biological
    opinion for lands managed by the MTNF within the area of influence
    of any occupied Indiana bat cave located on the National Forest.

-   In cooperation with the Service and MDC, develop a management
    recovery strategy within two years after issuance of this biological
    opinion for lands managed by the MTNF within the area of influence
    for all occupied Indiana bat caves adjacent to the MTNF.

-   Management recovery strategies listed above for caves on and
    adjacent to, the MTNF, will include vegetation objectives for
    providing: a) a continuous supply of potential and suitable roost
    trees as outlined above, and b) ample preferred foraging habitat as
    outlined by Romme et al. (1995).

-   In cooperation with the Service and MDC, develop a management
    recovery strategy within one year after issuance of this biological
    opinion, for lands managed by the MTNF within an area of influence
    approximately 3/4 of one mile \[based on the foraging radius of a
    post-lactating female as determined by Gardner et al. (1991b)\]
    centered on all locations where reproductively active females have
    been caught between May 15 and August 15. Such areas of influence
    shall be applicable to locations of reproductively active females
    recently (i.e., within the last five years) captured on lands
    adjacent to the MTNF as well as the locations of any reproductively
    active females discovered on the National Forest in the future. This
    management recovery strategy will include vegetation objectives for
    providing: a) a continuous supply of potential and suitable,
    maternity roost trees as outlined above, and b) ample preferred
    foraging habitat as outlined by Romme et al. (1995).

-   In the event that reproductively active female(s) is discovered on
    lands managed by the MTNF between May 15 and August 15, the
    following is requested: 1) in consultation with the Service, MDC,
    and other recognized bat experts, as needed, and when such actions
    will not knowingly result in the death or injury to the captured
    individual(s), conduct a radio telemetry study to determine the
    location of the maternity colony, 2) upon discovery of a maternity
    colony, immediately initiate informal consultation with the Service.

-   If maternity colonies are discovered on the MTNF, roost trees used
    by such colonies are to be protected by establishing a zone centered
    on the maternity roost site. The actual area will be determined by a
    combination of topography, known roost tree locations, the proximity
    of permanent water and a site specific evaluation of the habitat
    characteristics associated with each colony. This area shall not
    exceed 3/4 of a mile radius circle centered on location of a
    maternity roost following the findings of Gardner et al. (1991b),
    except as agreed to by the Service and Forest Service and determined
    to be the best science available, result in the discovery of a
    larger foraging radius. Protective measures shall be established by
    developing a management recovery strategy, in cooperation with the
    Service and MDC, immediately upon discovery. Within this area:1) a
    minimum average of 24 potential roost trees per forested acre must
    be retained that may include snags, live shellbark and shagbark
    hickories 9\"dbh, dead or dying trees with at least 10% exfoliating
    or defoliating bark 9\" dbh, lightning struck trees 9\" dbh, den
    or cull trees, and live trees 26\" dbh, 2) the removal of occupied
    roost trees determined to be a safety hazard can only be done
    following consultation with the Service, 3) tree removal activities
    which would benefit the species may be performed only during a
    season when roosting bats are absent and only when it has been
    determined that roosts are unoccupied, 4) from 30% to 50% of mature
    oak-hickory and/or oak-pine forest with a canopy closure of 60-80%,
    following the guidelines outlined in Romme et al. (1995), must be
    maintained.

-   For the Cedar Creek District, the following is requested: 1) to the
    maximum extent possible and logistically practical, maintain, on
    average, a minimum of 23 suitable roost trees per acre on forested
    acreage, 2) suitable roost trees contributing to the minimum listed
    above may include the following: 1) live shagbark and shellbark
    hickories 9\" dbh, 2) lightning struck trees 9\" dbh and trees
    9\" dbh, 3) dead or dying trees 9\" dbh with at least 10%
    exfoliating or defoliating bark, 4) den or cull trees, and 5) live
    trees 26\" dbh, 3) as outlined in the LRMP for the MTNF,
    incorporate only uneven-aged management techniques on this unit, 4)
    of the 23 roost trees maintained, to the maximum extent possible and
    logistically practical, retain all dead trees 20\" dbh and all live
    trees 26\" dbh unless they are an immediate human safety hazard,
    and 5) a canopy closure of 60-80% following the guidelines outlined
    in Romme et al. (1995) must be maintained.

In order to increase the number of potential, suitable roost trees on
the MTNF above what currently exists, the following is recommended:

-   To the maximum extent possible and logistically practical, maintain,
    on average, a minimum of 23 suitable roost trees per acre on
    forested acreage on the MTNF. Suitable roost trees contributing to
    the minimum listed above may include the following: 1) live shagbark
    and shellbark hickories 9\" dbh, 2) lightning struck trees 9\" dbh
    and trees 9\"dbh, 3) dead or dying trees 9\" dbh with at least 10%
    exfoliating or defoliating bark, 4) den or cull trees, and 5) live
    trees 26\" dbh.

-   Of the 23 roost trees maintained, to the maximum extent possible and
    logistically practical, retain dead trees 20\" dbh and live trees
    26\" dbh unless they are an immediate human safety hazard.

In order to minimize potential smoke impacts to occupied bat caves or
roosting bats (both male bats and maternity roosts), the following is
necessary:

-   Consider occupied Indiana bat hibernacula as smoke sensitive areas
    during planning for prescribed burns conducted from November to
    April in the vicinity of occupied caves. Wind direction, speed,
    mixing height, and transport winds will be used during burn planning
    and implementation to minimize smoke drifting in or near occupied
    hibernacula.

-   Consider areas near Indiana bat hibernacula (Aareas of influence@ as
    previously defined), the Cedar Creek District, and areas adjacent to
    locations where reproductively active females have been captured
    between May-July, as smoke sensitive areas during planning for
    prescribed fires conducted from May to October. Special precautions
    are to be taken to protect large snags (16\" dbh) which are not
    safety hazards; such snags should be protected from fire and smoke.
    Wind direction, speed, mixing height and transport winds are to be
    used during burn planning and implementation to minimize smoke
    intensity and duration of burns.

-   Prior to the employment of any prescribed fire, provide the
    Service=s Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office with
    the opportunity to review burn plans that could potentially impact
    Indiana bats.

The MTNF will continue its efforts to determine habitat use of the
National Forest by Indiana bats during the hibernation, summer
roosting/maternity, and pre-hibernation seasons by directing the
following monitoring activities. Selection of sites for future
monitoring will be done in cooperation with the Service and MDC.
Monitoring activities shall be directed through the Forest Service=s
North Central Experiment Station, appropriate university research
institutions, MDC, the Biological Research Division of the U.S.
Geological Survey, or private organizations/consultants. Monitoring
activities must be conducted by individuals trained and experienced in
working with Indiana bats following consultation with the Service and
MDC. The Service believes that implementation of the following terms and
conditions are necessary to evaluate the underlying assumptions made on
Indiana bat presence and characterized use on the MTNF. Implementation
of these terms and conditions, in turn, will provide site-specific
measures useful in evaluating the protective adequacy of the
conservation measures outlined for the Indiana bat on the MTNF. In
cooperation and consultation with the Service and MDC, the following
monitoring activities should be investigated:

-   Continued, regular monitoring of occupied Indiana bat caves on the
    MTNF to assess changes in population numbers, changes in
    microclimate, the effectiveness of protective structures currently
    in place, etc.

-   Monitor the extent of use of Indiana bats on all districts of the
    MTNF. Such monitoring should include the employment of techniques to
    determine: 1) the presence or absence of the species on the National
    Forest, 2) habitat use and movements of Indiana bats during the
    spring-fall periods, 3) the location of any potential maternity
    sites, 4) the major foraging areas used by male Indiana near
    occupied caves during the summer and during spring-fall migration.
    Comparative analyses involving mist net surveys and Anabat Detectors
    are strong encouraged to assess the presence or absence of the
    species on the MTNF. The use of radio telemetry is strongly
    encouraged to determine the location of maternity colonies and is
    assessing habitat use and movements of the species throughout the
    National Forest.

-   If monitoring activities result in the discovery of maternity sites
    on the MTNF, they will be protected along with associated roosts and
    foraging areas following the guidelines outlined above.

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

-   The amount of incidental take (both total and categorical levels of
    forested acres affected and the number of bats) as identified in
    this opinion must be monitored on an annual basis. This information
    is to be provided to the Service=s Columbia, Missouri Ecological
    Services Field Office, no later than 6 months following the end of
    the previous year=s activities.

-   The number of suitable roost trees and preferred foraging habitat
    available to the species shall on the MTNF shall be monitored
    according to the following schedule: 1) as part of the Forest
    Service=s Forest Inventory Assessment (FIA), assess, at a minimum,
    once every ten years, the number of available, suitable roost trees
    and the amount of foraging habitat throughout the MTNF, and 2)
    annually monitor the number of available, suitable roost trees and
    the amount of foraging habitat within each of the following sampling
    areas: a) within 5 miles of all currently known or potentially
    discovered new occupied Indiana bat caves on the MTNF, b) within 3/4
    miles of any location on the MTNF where a maternity colony or
    reproductively active female is discovered, c) at selected sites
    sampled on the Cedar Creek District, and d) at selected sites
    sampled within all other districts of the MTNF. The degree of
    sampling and the selection of sampling sites will be determined in
    consultation with the Service and MDC and identified by October 1,
    1999.

-   The results of all monitoring activities shall be provided to the
    Service=s Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office, and
    MDC, no later than December 31 of each year.

-   Provide to personnel of the Service=s Columbia, Missouri Ecological
    Services Field Office and to MDC, an opportunity to conduct site
    visits to all districts of the MTNF, to evaluate compliance of
    monitoring requirements. Site visits will be scheduled by mutual
    consent of the Service and personnel of the MTNF. Upon completion of
    such visits, the Service will provide a written report on the
    results of such field investigations.

When applicable, monitoring the incidental take of Indiana bats should
done by adhering to the following guidelines:

-   Care must be taken in handling dead bat specimens that are found on
    the MTNF to preserve biological material in the best possible state.

-   Any dead specimens found should be placed in plastic bag and
    refrigerated as soon as possible following discovery.

-   The finding of any dead specimen should be reported immediately
    following discovery to: 1) Larry Keck, Senior Resident Agent, U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, 1103 A Southwest Blvd., Jefferson City,
    MO 65109, 573-636-7815, 2) Bruce Maldonado, U.S. Forest Service,
    Mark Twain National Forest, 401 Fairgrounds Rd., Rolla, MO 65401,
    573-341-7463, and 3) R. Mark Wilson, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, 608 E. Cherry St., Room 200, Columbia, MO
    65201-7712.

**N. Conservation recommendations**

Sections 2(c)(1) and 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to
utilize their authorities to further the purpose 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 that the MTNF implement the following
conservation measures for the benefit of the Indiana bat:

-   In consultation with the Service and MDC, direct a study \[similar
    to currently ongoing MOFEP (Missouri Ozark Forest Ecosystem
    Project)\] to determine the potential impact of various timber
    management activities (including different types of even-aged and
    uneven-aged management)on potential Indiana bat habitat; such a
    study should involve pre-treatment and post-treatment surveys of
    Indiana bats to analyze the potential response of the species to
    different forestry and wildlife prescriptions.

-   By December 31 of a year that such a study is completed, provide a
    copy of the results to Service=s Columbia, Missouri Ecological
    Services Field Office, and to MDC.

-   In consultation with the Service and MDC, develop an educational
    slide program on the status of the Indiana bat in the eastern United
    States, Missouri, and on the MTNF; various aspects of its life
    history and habitat requirements; reasons why human disturbance of
    maternity colonies or hibernacula can adversely impact the species;
    steps that can be taken to decrease the impact of incidental take of
    the species; the ecological benefits of bats, etc.

-   In consultation with the Service and MDC, continue to conduct
    training for employees of the MTNF on bats (including Indiana bat)
    occurring on the National Forest; training should include sections
    on bat identification, biology, habitat requirements, and sampling
    techniques (including instructions on applicability and
    effectiveness of using mist net surveys vs. Anabat detectors to
    accurately determine the presence of various bat species); the
    proper training of MTNF biologists on bat identification and a
    reliable methods for counting roosting bats will enable the Forest
    Service to continue to monitor the status of this species
    independently of other agencies and research institutions.

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

The Service believes that implementation of the terms and conditions
associated with the reasonable and prudent measures listed above and
implementation of the conservation recommendations as outlined above for
the Indiana bat, will significantly contribute to the Forest Service=s
responsibility under Section 7 (a) (1) to consult with Service in the
development of a conservation program that will advance the recovery of
this species.

**[Mead=s milkweed]{.underline}**

**A. Species/habitat description/life history**

*Asclepias meadii* is an obligate outcrossing, long-lived,
late-successional perennial that is restricted primarily to virgin tall
grass prairies, prairie haymeadows, and glades (Tecic *et al*. 1998). It
has also occasionally been reported from prairie remnants, sandstone
barrens, and sandstone ledges (Voight and Mohlenbrock 1964; Chaplin *et
al*. 1994; Tecic *et al*. 1998) It usually begins its seasonal growth in
mid to late April. It has a solitary, slender, unbranched stalk, 20-40
centimeters (8-16 inches) high that is glabrous but covered with a
whitish, waxy covering. Leaves are opposite, broadly ovate, 5-7.5
centimeters (2-3 inches) long, 1-5 centimeters (3/8-2 inches) broad,
glabrous, and also covered with a whitish, waxy covering. A solitary
umbel at the summit of a long stalk consisting of 6-15 greenish
ivory/cream colored flowers is produced in late May and early June. When
sexual reproduction is successful, young green fruit pods are formed by
late June and reach their maximum length of 4-8 centimeters (1.5-3
inches) by late August or early September. Mature seeds are produced by
mid-October (Morgan 1980; Kurz and Bowles 1981). This species is
pollinated by small bumblebees (*Bombus*) and miner bees
(*Anthorphora*), the pollen is dispensed in pollinia, and its seeds are
wind-dispersed from follicles (Betz and Lamp 1992; Betz *et al*. 1994;
Tecic *et al*. 1998). Mead=s milkweed requires from three to eight years
to reach reproductive maturity from seed under cultivated conditions
(Betz and Hohn 1978; Betz 1989).

**B. Status and distribution**

Mead=s milkweed (*Asclepias meadii*) was officially listed as a
threatened species on September 1, 1988 (53 *Federal Register*:
33992-33995). *Asclepias meadii* is state listed as endangered in
Missouri and is ranked S2 (state imperiled), G2 (globally imperiled)
(Missouri Department of Conservation 1998). The species formerly
occurred primarily in native tall grass prairies in Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin but is now considered extirpated
in Indiana and Wisconsin (Bowles *et al*. 1998; Tecic *et al*. 1998) and
is threatened with extirpation in Iowa (Watson 1998). Although
approximately 150 extant populations (Bowles *et al*. 1998) of this
species are scattered across 31 counties in Illinois, Iowa, Missouri,
and Kansas (Tecic *et al*. 1998), the majority are now restricted to
primarily Ahigh quality@ tall grass prairies and prairie haymeadows in
Kansas and Missouri, and on igneous glades in Iron and Reynolds
counties, Missouri (Chaplin *et al*. 1994; Bowles *et al*. 1998; Tecic
*et al*. 1998).

In Iowa, the species is believed to be extant at seven sites in six
counties, but there the species only occurs on small, isolated prairie
remnants that contain low to very low numbers of individual plants
(Watson 1998). In 1998, Watson (1998) surveyed six of the seven extant
sites in Iowa and located the species at only one site (Woodside
Prairie). Although he found seven flowering plants that produced two
mature pods, he concluded that *AAsclepias meadii* must at present be
considered near the brink of extinction in Iowa@ (Watson 1998). Of the
currently known two populations in Illinois, one is represented by a
single plant from a remnant railroad prairie in Ford County, and the
other consists of four colonies scattered on four small glades in the
Shawnee Hills, Saline County (Tecic *et al*. 1998).

Total reproductive success in Mead=s milkweed is low (Betz 1989; Thurman
and Hickey 1989; Bowles *et al*. 1998; Tecic *et al*. 1998) and the
species has been essentially extirpated from many of the locations in
the eastern portion of its range where it consists of genetic clones
that may be incapable of reproduction and long-term population
maintenance (Schall *et al*. 1993; Bowles *et al*. 1998; Tecic *et al*.
1998). Successful fruit production has been estimated to be as low as 15
percent (Kurz and Bowles 1981) and the species does not flower every
year (Thurman and Hickey 1989). Additionally, many populations
throughout the range of the species are small and contain only a small
number of plants (Watson 1992; Bowles *et al*. 1998; Tecic *et al*.
1998; Watson 1998). Watson (1992) postulated that the species may remain
dormant some years due to several unknown environmental factors. This
theory is supported by the observations of Betz and Hohn (1978) who
noted that populations of this species fluctuate widely from year to
year, and individual plants known to flower for several successive years
may subsequently disappear completely for a few years.

Schaal *et al*. (1993), Bowles *et al*. (1998), and Tecic *et al*.
(1998) have also reported a reduction in genetic diversity in prairies
that are managed as hay meadows compared to those managed with
prescribed fire. Currently, only two populations of Mead=s milkweed
reproduce sexually and produce viable seed on a regular basis:
Rockefeller Prairie in Jefferson County, Kansas, and the Weimer Hill
igneous glade in Iron County, Missouri (Bowles *et al*. 1998; Tecic *et
al*. 1998), both of which have been managed primarily by using
prescribed fire. Tecic *et al*. (1998) used allozyme electrophoresis to
compare the genetic variability of plants at these two sites with plants
from other populations on hay meadows and determined that the two
fire-managed populations had more genotypes and fewer ramets per genet
than those on hay meadows. They further postulated that the Ainhibition
of sexual reproduction may have resulted in clonal spread and attrition
of genotypes, thus exacerbating the effects of sexual incompatibility
and inbreeding.

Main reasons listed for this species= decline include the destruction
and modification of native tall grass prairie for agricultural
development, urban expansion; over grazing and hay mowing which are
detrimental to the plant=s reproductive cycle; insect predation;
erosion; fire suppression; encroachment of woody vegetation; application
of herbicides; and foot trampling (Harrison 1988; Chaplin 1994; Bowles
*et al*. 1998; Tecic *et al*. 1998). Although the species can survive
vegetatively for decades under a management strategy of solely
haymowing, Bowles *et al*. (1998) suggested that eventual sexual
reproduction and recombination was necessary for long term survival.
Haymowing is a cultural management practice that has existed in some
areas for almost a century (Fitch & Hall 1978). This practice removes
developing seed pods and prevents sexual reproduction (McGregor 1977;
Betz 1989; Bowles *et al*. 1998; Tecic *et al*. 1998). Bowles *et al*.
(1994) noted that Ain such populations, recruitment is by asexual
reproduction, and genetic diversity can be lost through attrition of
genotypes.@

The few populations on igneous glades in Iron and Reynolds counties,
Missouri, that reproduce sexually are apparently threatened with
continued fragmentation due to forest encroachment resulting from fire
suppression (Guyette & McGinnes 198; Guyette & Cutter 1991; Ladd 1991;
Tecic *et al*. 1998). Due to the continued destruction of native
prairie, the persistent haymowing on others, and fire suppression in
some areas, this species is apparently continuing to decline. The
decrease in genetic diversity on some prairies due to continued hay
cutting activities further threatens the long term survival of this
species (Schaal *et al*. 1993; Bowles *et al*. 1998; Tecic *et al*.
1998). Nonetheless, recent propagation and restoration experiments in
northeastern Illinois and northwestern Indiana have been partially
successful and provide hope that the species can still be recovered
(Bowles *et al*. 1994; Bowles *et al*. 1998). Currently, Mead=s milkweed
is known from 56 extant occurrences scattered within the following 12
Missouri counties: Barton, Benton, Cass, Cedar, Dade, Harrison, Iron,
Pettis, Polk, Reynolds, St. Clair, and Vernon.

**C. Status of the species within the action area**

The only known location of *Asclepias meadii* on the Mark Twain National
Forest is on an igneous glade within the Bell Mountain Wilderness in
Iron County. In 1993, Craig Anderson of the Missouri Department of
Conservation discovered a small population of eight plants on a small
opening of glade that was part of complex of glades within the
wilderness (Missouri Department of Conservation1997). Seven of the eight
plants had inflorescences and were in healthy condition. Although this
one population only constitutes approximately 0.67% of the known extant
sites in the United States and only about 2 % of the sites in Missouri,
it represents an estimated 8% of those populations in the country that
reproduce sexually, and is therefore important to the recovery of the
species.

**D. Effects of the action (direct and indirect effects**)

All factors affecting the species= environment within the action area
are associated with the designated wilderness status of that portion of
Bell Mountain managed by the Forest Service.

Outside its designation as a wilderness, other activities identified in
the environmental baseline are not applicable for this species because
of the restrictions that accompany such a designation.

However, the wilderness designation does provide some beneficial effects
to the species. For example, under the wilderness designation, timber
management, motorized vehicles, developed facilities, herbicide
application, mineral exploration, and unless authorized by law,
pipelines and transmission lines are all prohibited from such areas
(U.S. Forest Service 1986). The restrictions listed above would benefit
Mead=s milkweed by greatly reducing disturbance to existing populations.

**Direct effects**

While many operations are restricted within the designated wilderness,
other activities could directly or indirectly impact the species. Mead=s
milkweed could be directly impacted from foot and horse traffic, ground
disturbance associated with primitive camping, and non-prescribed fires
that are accidentally or deliberately set during the growing season.

**Indirect effects**

The greatest potential threat to the species within the action area
would be the continued suppression of prescribed fires. Research by
Bowles *et al*. (1998) and Tecic *et al*. (1998) have provided strong
evidence that prescribed fires are essential to successful sexual
reproduction and the long term survival of the species. Several igneous
glades adjacent to or in the vicinity of this wilderness are inhabited
by several populations of Mead=s milkweed on public property owned by
the MDC or MDNR (Missouri Department of Conservation 1997; e.g., Profit
Mountain, Wildcat Mountain, Ketcherside Mountain Conservation Area,
Weemer Hill). Recent studies by the MNDR involving prescribed fires in
some of these areas have supported the findings of Bowles *et al*.
(1998) and Tecic *et al*. (1998) that *Asclepias meadii* responds well
following burning, but soon disappears if fires are not utilized on a
regular basis (pers. commun., Ken McCarty, Missouri Department of
Natural Resources, February 1999). Without the use of prescribed fires
within the action area, it is extremely probable that Mead=s milkweed
will also disappear from the Bell Mountain Wilderness. Prescribed fires,
however, can only be allowed if approved by the Chief of the Forest
Service. Nonetheless, such approval is possible, if it can be shown that
Afire is essential to aid, maintain, or restore natural plant
communities or threatened or endangered plant species.@ (U.S. Forest
Service 1998).

**E. Cumulative effects**

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

**F. Conclusion**

After reviewing the current status of Mead=s milkweed; the environmental
baseline for the action area; the effects of forest management and other
activities on the MTNF (both direct and indirect); additional measures
identified in the Forest Service=s BA to assist in the protection,
management, and recovery of the species; and any potential cumulative
effects, it is the Service=s biological opinion that forest management
and other activities authorized, funded, or carried out by the MTNF, are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Mead=s milkweed.
Because critical habitat has not been designated for this species, none
will be adversely affected by the continued implementation of the LRMP.

**G. Conservation recommendations**

Sections 2(c)(1) and 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to
utilize their authorities to further the purpose of the Act by carrying
out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency
activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on
listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or
to develop information.

We believe that this provision of the ESA places an obligation on all
Federal agencies to implement positive programs to benefit listed
species, and a number of recent court cases appear to support that
belief. Agencies have some discretion in choosing conservation programs,
but Sections 2 (c) (1) and 7(a)(1) place a mandate on agencies to
implement some type of programs.

The Service, therefore, recommends that the MTNF implement the following
conservation measures to benefit Mead=s milkweed:

-   Seek approval from the Chief of the Forest Service to regularly
    conduct prescribed fires on the portion of the Bell Mountain
    Wilderness which provides habitat for Mead=s Milkweed.

-   Develop a management strategy for the Bell Mountain Wilderness to
    perpetuate an open glade ecosystem there. Such a strategy would
    include, but not be limited to, the use of prescribed fire and other
    accepted management techniques (e.g., manual removal of woody
    vegetation, etc.).

-   Because populations of this species can fluctuate widely year to
    year due to several environmental parameters, annual surveys should
    be conducted on the wilderness, in consultation with the Service and
    MDC, especially to determine this species= response to prescribed
    fires. Following adequate burning, it is possible that additional
    populations of Mead=s milkweed could be discovered on new areas of
    the wilderness where the species has never been recorded.

-   Primitive camping, horseback riding, and excessive foot traffic
    should be prohibited from those areas of Bell Mountain Wilderness
    that inhabit the species. Hiking and horsebacking riding trails
    should be routed away from all existing Mead=s milkweed populations.

-   Demographic life history studies should be conducted on the
    population to determine the degree of sexual reproduction; the
    percent of flower, pod, and viable seed production, seedling
    establishment; and the longevity of plants through time. Such
    studies could be done in cooperation and conjunction with a larger
    project involving the Missouri Department of Conservation, the
    Missouri Department of Natural Resources, the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, and the Morton Arboretum. Such a partnership could maximize
    funding possibilities and allow for strong collaboration among the
    agencies involved to ensure that prescribed fires, surveys, and life
    history work are well coordinated.

-   An annual report on the outcome of all research activities conducted
    within the Bell Mountain Wilderness should be submitted to the
    Service by December 31 of each year.

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

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

This concludes formal consultation on the Forest Service=s reinitiation
request of September 8, 1998, on the effects of the continued
implementation of the LRMP on the MTNF to the gray bat, bald eagle,
Indiana bat, and Mead=s milkweed. As provided in 50 CFR \' 402.16,
reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary
Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained
(or is authorized by law) and if: 1) the amount or extent of incidental
take is exceeded; 2) new information reveals effects of the agency
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or
to an extent not considered in this opinion; 3) the agency action is
subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed
species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or 4) a new
species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by
the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take
is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending
reinitiation.

**[IV. APPLICABILITY OF BIOLOGICAL OPINION TO SITE SPECIFIC
PROJECTS]{.underline}**

The Service believes that scope of effects for specific projects
developed through the continued implementation of the LRMP on the MTNF
falls under the umbrella of this consultation for the following reasons:

-   The terms and conditions associated with the reasonable and prudent
    measures outlined in this opinion will minimize the impact of the
    incidental take identified for the gray bat, bald eagle, and Indiana
    bat on both a programmatic and site specific level; the protective
    measures outlined herein for the entire MTNF are applicable to
    individual projects yet to be identified.

-   If after adhering to the terms and conditions associated with the
    reasonable and prudent measures provided in this opinion, the Forest
    Service determines that activities on a project level are likely to
    adversely affect the gray bat, bald eagle, or Indiana bat, the
    Service would request that formal consultation be initiated.

-   Any individual project that results in the level of incidental take
    identified in this opinion to be exceeded would necessitate the
    reinitiation of formal consultation as outlined above.

-   The Forest Service will continue to conduct site-specific project
    analyses to ensure that each individual action follows
    recommendations set forth in this opinion.

-   The Service will continue to review all site-specific projects to
    ensure that there is strict adherence to the terms and conditions
    associated with the reasonable and prudent measures outlined in this
    opinion and that incidental take levels identified in this opinion
    are not exceeded.

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

Andrew, J.M. and J.A. Mosher. 1982. Bald eagle nest site selection and
nesting habitat in

Maryland. *J. Wildl. Manage*. 46(2):382-390.

Anonymous. 1987. Vandals destroy hibernating Indiana bats. Bats
(quarterly newsletter of Bat Conserv. Internat., Austin, TX) 5(2):5-8.

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

> 286 pp.

Barrett, S.W. 1980. Indians and fire. *Western Wildlands* 6:17-21.

Belwood, J. J. 1979. Feeding ecology of an Indiana bat community with
emphasis on the endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. M.S. Thesis,
Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL 103pp.

Betz, R.F. 1989. Ecology of Mead=s milkweed (*Asclepias meadii* Torrey).
Pages 187-191 *[in]{.underline}* T.B. Bragg & J. Stubbendieck, eds.:
Proceedings of the Eleventh North American Prairie Conference,
University of Nebraska at Lincoln.

Betz, R.F., and J.E.Hohn. 1978. Status Report for *Asclepias meadii*.
Unpubl. Report-Nortwestern Illinois University, Evanston, Illinois. 9pp.

Betz, R.F., and H.F. Lamp. 1978. Flower, pod, and seed production in
eighteen species of milkweeds (*Asclepias*). Pages 25-30
*[in]{.underline}* D.D. Smith & C.A. Jacobs, eds.: Recapturing a
Vanishing Heritage: Proceedings of the Twelfth North American Prairie
Conference, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls.

Betz, R., D. Struven, J.E. Wall & F.B. Heitler. 1994. Insect pollinators
of 12 milkweed (*Asclepias*) species. Pages 45-60 *[in]{.underline}*
R.G. Wickett, P.D. Lewis, A. Woodliffe, & P. Pratt (eds.): Proceedings
of the Thirteenth North American Prairie Conference, Department Of Parks
& Recreation, Winsor, Ontario.

BHE Environmental, Inc. 1999. 1998 Annual report: implementation of
reasonable and prudent measures & terms and conditions in the biological
opinion for BRAC implementation at Fort Lenoard Wood. Unpubl. Rep.- 3DE
Group of BHE Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. 199pp. + appendices.

Bowles, J.B. 1981. Ecological studies on the Indiana Bat in Iowa.
Central College, Pella, Iowa. 28 pp.

Bowles, J. B. 1982. Results of monitoring of Indiana bat maternity sites
in south-central Iowa. Unpubl. report to Iowa Conserv. Commission.

Bowles, M.L., J.L. McBride, and R.F. Betz. 1998. Management and
restoration ecology of the Federal threatened Mead=s milkweed
(*Asclepias meadii*) (ASCLEPIADACEAE). *Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard*.
85:110-125.

Brack, V. 1979. Determination of presence and habitat suitability for
the Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) and gray bat (*Myotis grisescens*)
for portions of three ditches, Big Five Levee and Drainage District,
Union and Alexander Counties, Illinois. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
St. Louis, MO 23pp.

Brack, V., Jr. 1983. The nonhiberating ecology of bats in Indiana with
emphasis on the endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Ph.D.
dissertation, Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind. 280pp.

Brack, V., and R. K. LaVal. 1985. Food habits of the Indiana bat in
Missouri. *J. Mamm*. 66:308-315.

Brack, V., Jr., K. Tyrell, and K. Dunlap. 1991. A 1990-1991 winter cave
census for the Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) in non-priority 1
hibernacula in Indiana. Ind. Fed. Aid Proj. E-1-6, Study No. 18, Ind.
Dept. Nat. Resour., Indianapolis. 45pp.

Buehler, D.A., T.J. Mersmann, J.D. Fraser, and J.K.D. Seegar. 1991.
Effects of human activity on bald eagle distribution on the northern
Chesapeake Bay. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:282-290.

Callahan, E.V., III. 1993. Indiana bat summer habitat requirements. M.S.
thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, 74 pp.

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

Chaplin, C., R. Betz, C. Freeman, D. Roosa, T. Toney, & M. Bowles (ed.).
1994. Draft recovery plan for Mead=s milkweed (*Asclepias meadii*
Torr.). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chicago, Illinois.

Clark, D.R., Jr. 1981. Bats and environmental contaminants: a review.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report. Wildlife No.
235, 27 pp.

Clark, D.R., Jr., R.K. LaVal, and D.M. Swineford. 1978. Dieldrin-induced
motality in an endangered species, the gray bat (*Myotis grisescens*).
*Science* 199: 1357-1359.

Clark, D. R., Jr., and R. M. Prouty. 1976. Organochlorine residues in
three bat species from four localities in Maryland and West Virginia,
1973. *J. Pestic. Monitor*. 10:44-53.

Clark, B.L., J.B. Bowles, and B.S. Clark. 1987. Summer habitat of the
endangered Indiana bat in Iowa. *Amer. Midl. Nat*. 118:32-39.

Clawson, R. 1984. A determination of the source and effects of pesticide
poisoning of gray bats in Boone County, Missouri. Final Report Federal
Aid Project No. W-13-R-38, Study No. 71. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Jefferson City, Missouri. 15pp.

Clawson, R. 1986. An investigation of the summer distribution and status
of Indiana bats in Missouri. Final Report- Fed. Aid Proj. W-13-R, Fish
and Wildl. Research Cent., Columbia, Missouri. 17pp.

Clawson, R. 1987. Indiana bats: down for the count. *Endangered Species
Technical Bull*. 22(9):9-11.

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

Clawson, R.L., R. Titus, D. Figg, L. Burger, C. Hauser, T. French, and
D. Beffa. 1992. Manage-ment plan for the Indiana bat and the gray bat in
Missouri. Unpubl. Report, Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson
City, 39pp.

Cope, J. B., A. R. Richter and R. S. Mills. 1974. Concentrations of the
Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*, in Wayne County, Indiana. Proc. *Indiana
Acad. Sci*. 83:482-484.

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

Cope, J. B., A. R. Richter, and D. A. Searly. 1978. A survey of bats in
Big Blue Lake project area in Indiana. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
51pp.

Daan, S. 1973. Activity during natural hibernation in three species of
vespertilionid bats. *Netherlands J. Zool.* 23:1-77.

Dalton, V.M. 1987. Distribution, abundance, and status of bats
hibernating in caves in Virginia. *Virginia J. of Sci*. 38(4):369-379.

DeBlase, A. F., S. R. Humphrey, and K. S. Drury. 1965. Cave flooding and
mortality in bats in Wind Cave, Kentucky. *J. Mamm*., 46:96.

Easterla, D.A., and L.C. Watkins. 1969. Pregnant *Myotis sodalis* in
northwestern Missouri. *J.*

*Mamm*. 50:372-373.

Edwards, C.C. 1969. Winter behavior and population dynamics of American
eagles in Western Utah. Ph.D. Thesis. Bringham Young University, Provo,
Utah. 142pp.

Elder, W.H, and W.J. Gunier. 1981. Dynamics of a gray bat population
(*Myotis grisescens*) in Missouri. *Amer. Midl. Nat*. 105(1):193-195.

Fenneman, N.M. 1938. Physiography of eastern United States. McGraw-Hill
Book Co., New

York. 662pp.

Fitch, H.S. & W.D. Kettle. 1978. A 20-year record of succession on
reseeded field of tall grass prairie on the Rockefeller experimental
tract. Special publ. No. 4, Museum of Natural History,

> The University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Gardner, J.E., and T.L. Gardner. 1990. Determination of presence and
habitat suitability for the Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) and gray bat
(*M. grisescens*) for portions of the lower 6.6 miles of McGee Creek.
Unpubl. Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, McGee
District Drainage and Levee District, St. Louis District, Corps of
Engineers.

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann. 1990. Combined progress
reports: 1989 and 1990 investigations of *Myotis sodalis* (Indiana bat)
distribution, habitat use, and status in Illinois.

> Progress report for the U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
> Service, Twin Cities, Minnesota, 19 pp.

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner and J.E. Hofmann. 1991a. Summer roost
selection and roosting behavior of *Myotis sodalis* (Indiana bat) in
Illinois. Final report. Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois
Department of Conservation. Champlain, Illinois. 56 pp.

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner and J.E. Hofmann. 1991b. Summary of *Myotis
sodalis* summer habitat studies in Illinois: with recommendations for
impact assessment. Special report. Illinois Natural History Survey,
Illinois Department of Conservation. Champaign, Illinois.

> 28 pp.

Garner, J.D. and J.E. Gardner. 1992. Determination of summer
distribution and habitat utiliz-ation of the Indiana bat (*Myotis
sodalis*) in Illinois. Unpubl. Report. Endangered Species Coordinator,
Region 3, USFWS, Twin Cities, MN 28 pp.

Geluso, K. N., J. S. Altenbach, and D. E. Wilson. 1976. Bat mortality:
pesticide poisoning and migratory stress. *Science* 194:184-186.

Gerrard, J.M., and G.R. Bortolotti. 1988. The bald eagle: haunts and
habits of a wilderness monarch. Smithsonian Press, Washington, D.C.
177pp.

Giessman, N., T.W. Barney, T.L. Haithcoat, J.W. Meyers, and B.
Massengale. 1986. Distribution of forestland in Missouri. *Trans.
Missouri Acad. of Sci*. 20:5-14.

Grewe, A.A., Jr. 1966. Some aspects in the natural history of the bald
eagle (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*, in Minnesota and South Dakota. Ph.D.
Thesis. University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota. 68pp.

Griffin, C.R., T.S. Baskett, and R.D. Sparrowe. 1982. Ecology of bald
eagles wintering near a waterfowl concentration. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Special Sci. Rep.-Wildl. No. 247. Washington, D.C. 12pp.

Guyette, R., & E.A. McGinnes. 1982. Fire history of an Ozark Missouri
glade in Missouri. *Trans. Missouri Acad. Sci*. 16:85-93.

Guyette, R.P., and B.E. Cutter. 1991. Tree ring analysis of a post oak
savanna in the Missouri Ozarks. Natural Areas J. 11:93-99.

Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. Vol. I. John Wiley and
Sons, New York. 690 pp.

Hall, J. S. 1962. A life history and taxonomic study of the Indiana bat,
*Myotis sodalis*. Reading Publ. Mus. Art., Gallery Publ. 12:1-68.

Hansen, M.H., T. Fireswyk, J.F. Glover, and J.F. Kelly. 1992. The
eastwide forest inventory database: users manual. USDA, Forest Service-
North Central Forest Experiment Station Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-151. St.
Paul, Minnesota. 48pp.

Harrison, W.F. 1988. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants:
determination of

> threatened status for *Asclepias meadii* (Mead=s milkweed). U.S. Fish
> and Wildlife Service,
>
> Department of the Interior. *Federal Register* 53(170):33992-33995.

Hassell, M.D. and M.J. Harvey. 1965. Differential homing in *Myotis
sodalis*. *Am. Midl. Nat*. 74:501-503.

Hobson, C.R. 1993. Status, distribution, and summer ecology of bats in
western Virginia: A survey for the endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis
sodalis*. 1993. Report to Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries Non-game Division, Richmond, VA. 18 pp.

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

Hopkins, D.S. 1988. Winter populations, foraging activity, and night
roost observations of bald eagles on the Mississippi River near
Burlington, Iowa. M.S. Thesis, Western Illinois University. 73pp.

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*. *J. Mammal*. 58:32-36.

Humphrey, S.R., A.R. Richter and J.B. Cope. 1977. Summer habitat and
ecology of the endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. *J. of Mammal*.
58:334-346.

Jacobson, R.B., and A.T. Primm. 1997. Historical land-use changes and
potential effects on stream disturbance in the Ozark Plateaus, Missouri.
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2484, Denver, Colorado. 85pp.

Johnson, S.A., V. Brack, Jr.,and R.E. Rolley. 1998. Overwinter weight
loss of Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*) from hibernacula subject to
human visitation. Am. Midl. Nat. 139:255-261.

Jonen, J.R. 1973. The winter ecology of the bald eagle in west-central
Illinois. M.S. Thesis. Western Illinois University, Macomb, Illinois.
84pp.

Kennedy, J., and S. Ducummon. 1999. 1999 Winter bat survey in Pilot Knob
Mine, Iron County, Missouri. Unpubl. Rep. to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Columbia, Missouri. 12pp.

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 Johnson County, Kentucky. Final report, Kentucky Dept. of Fish
and Wildl. Resources, Frankfort, Kentucky. 65 pp.

Kiser, J., C. Elliott, and J. MacGregor. 1996. The use of roost trees by
Indiana bats, *Myotis sodalis*, during autumn. Presented at the sixth
colloquium on the Conservation of Mammals in the Southern and Central
United States.

Kurta, A. 1980. Status of the Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*, in
Michigan. *Mich. Acad*. 13:31-36.

Kurta, A., and J.A. Teramino. 1994. A novel hibernaculum and noteworthy
records of the Indiana bat and eastern pipistrelle (Chiroptera:
Vespertilionidae). *Am. Midl. Nat*. 132:410-413.

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

Kurta, A.J., J. Kath, E.L. Smith, R. Foster, M.W. Orick, and R. Ross.
1993. A maternity roost of the endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*)
on the northern edge of its range. *Am. Midl. Nat*. 129:132-138.

Kurta, A., D. King, J.A. Teramino, J.M. Stribley, and K.J. Williams.
1993. Summer roosts of the endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) on
the northern edge of its range. *Am. Midl. Nat*. 129:132-138.

Kurta, A., K.J. Williams, and R. Mies. 1996. Ecological, behavioral, and
thermal observations of a peripheral population of Indiana bats (*Myotis
sodalis*). Pages 102-117 *in* Bats and Forests Symposium (R.M.R. Barclay
and R.M. Brigham, eds.). Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of
Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, Working Paper 23:1-292.

Ladd, D. 1991. Reexamination of the role of fire in Missouri oak
woodlands. Pages 67-80 [in]{.underline} G.V. Burger, J.E. Ebinger, &
G.S. Wilhelm, eds.: Proceedings of the Oak Woods Management Workshop,
Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois.

LaVal, R.K., R.L. Clawson, M.L. LaVal and W. Caire. 1977. Foraging
behavior and nocturnal activity patterns of Missouri bats, with emphasis
on the endangered species *Myotis grisescens* and *Myotis sodalis*. *J.
Mamm*. 58:592-599.

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. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, MO 136pp.

LaVal, R.K. and M.L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological studies and management of
Missouri bats, with emphasis on cave-dwelling species. Missouri Dept.
Conserv. Terrestrial Series 8:1-53.

Lee, Y.-F. 1993. Feeding ecology of the Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*,
and resource partitioning with *Myotis keenii* and *Myotis lucifugus*.
Unpubl. M. S. thesis, The Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.
146pp.

Lincer, J.L., W.S. Clark, and M.N. LeFrance, Jr. 1979. Working
bibliography of the bald eagle. National Wildlife Federation
scientific/technical series No. 2. National Wildlife Federation,
Washington, D.C. 219 pp.

Lish, J.S., and J.C. Lewis. 1975. Status and ecology of bald eagles
wintering in Oklahoma. Proc. Of the 29^th^. Annual Conference of the
Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. Pp. 415-423.

MacCleery, D.W. 1992. American Forests- A History of Resiliency and
Recovery. USDA Forest Service publ. FS-540. Forest History Society,
Durham, North Carolina. 58pp.

Marbut, C.F. 1896. Surface features of Missouri. Missouri Geological
Survey Report 10:14-109.

Martell, M. 1992. Bald eagle winter management guidelines. The Raptor
Center, University of Minnesota publ., St. Paul, Minnesota. 14pp.

McEwan, L.C. and D.H. Hirth. 1979. Southern bald eagle productivity and
nest site selection. J*. Wildl. Manage*. 42(1):86-92.

McFarland, C.A. 1998. Potential agricultural insecticide exposure of
Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*) in Missouri. Unpubl. M..S. thesis,
University of Missouri-Columbia. 256pp.

McGimsey, M.D., and R.D. Johnson. 1994. 1994 Gray bat cave survey
report. Missouri Department of Conservation Unpub. Report, Jefferson
City, Missouri. 79pp.

McGregor, R.L. 1977. Rare native vascular plants of Kansas. Tech. Publ.
State Biol. Survey of

Kansas 5:1-44.

McNab, W. H., and P.E. Avers. 1994. Ecological subregions of the United
States: section descriptions. WO-WSA-5. U.S. Forest Service Publ.

Millar, J.G. 1995. Final Rule to reclassify the bald eagle from
endangered to threatened in all of the lower 48 states. *Federal
Register* 60(133):36000-36010.

Miller, N. E. 1996. Indiana bat summer habitat patterns in northern
Missouri. Unpubl. M. S. thesis, University of Missouri-Columbia,
Columbia, Missouri. 100pp.

Missouri Department of Conservation. 1992. Management plan for the
Indiana bat and the gray bat in Missouri. Jefferson City, Missouri.
39pp.

Missouri Department of Conservation. 1994. 1994 gray bat cave survey
report. Jefferson City, Missouri. 77pp.

Missouri Department of Conservation. 1997. Missouri Natural Heritage
Database.

Missouri Department of Conservation. 1998. Missouri species of
conservation concern checklist. Jefferson City, Missouri. 29pp.

Mohr, C.E. 1972. The status of threatened species of cave-dwelling bats.
*Bull. Natl. Speleol. Soc*. 34:33-37.

Mumford, R. E. and J. B. Cope. 1958. Summer record of *Myotis sodalis*
in Indiana. *J. Mamm*. 39:586-587.

Munro, J.A. 1938. The northern bald eagle in British Columbia. *Wilson
Bull*. 50(1):28-35.

Myers, R. F. 1964. Ecology of three species of Myotine bats in the Ozark
Plateau. Unpubl. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Missouri-Columbia,
Columbia, MO 210pp.

Nelson, P.W. 1985. The terrestrial natural communities of Missouri.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri.
197pp.

Nigh, T.A., W.L. Pflieger, P.L. Redfearn, W.A. Schroeder, A.R.
Templeton, and F.R. Thompson III, 1992. The Biodiversity of Missouri-
Definition, Status, and Recommendations for its Conservation.
Biodiversity Task Force, Jefferson City, MO. 53pp.

Osterfeld, D.J. 1988. The communal night roosting of wintering bald
eagles in west-central

> Illinois. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis. Western Illinois University, Macomb,
> Illinois. 106pp.

Petersen, J.C., J.C. Adamski, R.W. Bell, J.V. Davis, S.R. Femmer, D.A.
Freiwald, and R.L. Joseph. 1998. Water quality in the Ozark Plateaus,
Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, 1992-95. U.S. Geological
Survey Circular No. 1158, Denver, Colorado. 33pp.

Platt, J.B. 1976. Bald eagles wintering in a Utah desert. *Am. Birds*
30(4):783-788.

Racey, P. A. 1982. Ecology of bat reproduction. Pages 57-104 *in* T. H.
Kunz, (ed.) Ecology of bats. Plenum Press, New York, NY. 425pp.

Reidinger, R. F. 1972. Factors influencing Arizona bat population
levels. Unpubl. Ph.D. dissert., Univ. Ariz., Tucson, 172pp.

Reidinger, R. F. 1976. Organochlorine residues in adults of six
southwestern bat species. *J. Wildl. Manage*., 40:677-680.

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*). *Conserv. Biol*. 7:407-415.

Robbins, M.B. and D.A. Easterla. 1992. Birds of Missouri- Their
Distribution and Abundance. University of Missouri Press, Columbia.
399pp.

Romme, R.C., K. Tyrell and V. Brack, Jr. 1995. Literature summary and
habitat suitability index model: components of summer habitat for the
Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Report submitted to the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Bloomington,
Indiana by 3D/Environmental, Cincinnati, Ohio. Federal Aid Project
E-1-7, Study No. 8, 38 pp.

Sauer, C. O. 1920. The geography of the Ozark highland of Missouri. The
Geographic Society of Chicago Bull. No. 7. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago. 187pp.

Schaal, B., M. Bowles, D. Hayworth, & K. Williamson. 1993. Genetic
variation in *Asclepias meadii* and its implications for
re-introduction. Presentation at *Restoring diversity: is reintroduction
an option for endangered plants?* Symposium by the Center for Plant
Conservation, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, Missouri.

Schmauch, S. and M. Tuttle. 1998. Pilot Knob Mine site evaluation.
Unpubl. Rep. to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, Missouri.
5pp.

Schroeder, W.A. 1981. Presettlement Prairie of Missouri. Missouri
Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, MO. 35pp.

Schoolcraft, H.R. 1819. A view of the lead mines of Missouri. Wiley
Printing Co., New York.

299pp.

Schoolcraft, H.R. 1821. Journal of a tour into the interior of Missouri
and Arkansaw, from Potosi, or Mine=a Burton, in Missouri Territory, in a
south-west direction, toward the Rocky Mountains- Performed in the years
1818 and 1819, Sir Richard Phillips and Co. London. 102pp.

Shifley, S.R., B.L. Brookshire, D.R. Larsen, L.A. Herbeck, and R.G.
Jensen. 1997. Snags and down wood on upland oak sites in the Missouri
Ozark Forest Ecosystem Project. Pages 248-256 [in]{.underline} Proc. of
the Missouri Ozark Project Symposium: an experimental approach to
landscape research, B.L. Brookshire and S.R. Shifley, eds. USDA- Forest
Service General Tech. Rep. NC-193. St. Paul, MN. 378pp.

Southern, W.E. 1963. Winter populations, behavior and seasonal dispersal
of bald eagles in northwestern Illinois. *Wilson Bull*. 75(1):42-55.

Southern, W.E. 1964. Additional observations on winter bald eagle
populations: including remarks on biotelemetry techniques and immature
plumages. *Wilson Bull*. 76(2):121-137.

Spencer, J.S., Jr., S.M. Roussopoulos, and R.A. Massengale. 1992.
Missouri=s forest resource, 1989: an analysis. USDA Forest Service-
North Central Forest Experiment Station Bull. No. NC-139.

Stalmaster, M.V., and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of
wintering bald eaglesto human activity. *J. Wildl. Manage*.
42(3):506-513.

Stalmaster, M.V., and J.R. Newman. 1979. Perch-site preferences of
wintering bald eagles in northwest Washington. *J. Wildl. Manage*.
43(1):221-224.

Stalmaster, M.V., and J.A. Gessaman. 1984. Ecological energetics and
foraging behavior of overwintering bald eagles. *Ecol. Monogr*.
54:407-428.

Stenhof, K. 1976. The ecology of wintering bald eagles in southeastern
South Dakota. M.S. Thesis. University of Missouri, Columbia. 148pp.

Steenhof, K. 1978. Management of wintering bald eagles. USFWS Report
FWS/OBS-78/79. Washington, D.C. 59pp.

Stenhof, K., S.S. Berlinger, and L.H. Fredickson. 1980. Habitat use by
wintering bald eagles in South Dakota. *J. Wildl. Manage*.
44(4):798-805.

Stinson, E.R. and P.T. Bromley. 1991. Pesticides and wildlife, a guide
to reducing impacts on animals and their habitat. Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries Publ. 420-004. 44pp.

Swisher, J.F. 1964. A roosting area of the bald eagle in northern Utah.
*Wilson Bull*. 76(2):186-187.

Tecic, D.L., J.L. McBride, M.L. Bowles, and D.L. Nickrent. 1998. Genetic
variability in the Federal threatened Mead=s milkweed, *Asclepias
meadii* Torrey (ASCLEPIADACEAE). *Ann. Missouri. Bot. Gard*. 85: 97-109.

Thom, R.H., and J.H. Wilson. 1980. The Natural Divisions of Missouri.
*Trans. of the Missouri*

> *Academy of Sci*. 14:9-23.

Thomas, D. W., M. Dorais, and J. M. Bergeron. 1990. Winter energy
budgets and cost of

> arousals for hibernating little brown bats (*Myotis lucifugus*). *J.
> Mamm*. 71:475-479.

Thomas, D. W., and D. Cloutier. 1992. Evaporative water loss by
hibernating little brown bats, *Myotis lucifugus*. *Physiol. Zool.*
65:443-456.

Thomas, D. W. 1995. Hibernating bats are sensitive to non-tactile human
disturbance. *J. Mamm*. 76:940-946.

3/D International, Inc. 1996. Biological Assessment of the Master Plan
and Ongoing Mission, U.S. Army Engineer Center and Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City
District. 226 pp. + Appendices.

Thurman, C. M., and E. E. Hickey. 1989. Final Report- A Missouri survey
of six species of Federal concern. Missouri Department of Conservation
Unpubl. Report. Federal Aid Project SE-01-17, Jefferson City, Missouri.
99pp.

Tuttle, M.D. 1974. Population ecology of the gray bat (*Myotis
grisescens*). Unpubl. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, Kansas. 109pp.

Tuttle, M.D. 1976a. Population ecology of the gray bat (*Myotis
grisescens*): philopatry, timng and patterns of movement, weight loss
during migration, and seasonal adaptive strategies. Occasional Papers of
the Museum of Natural History- University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Number 54:1-38.

Tuttle, M.D. 1976b. Population ecology of the gray bat (*Myotis
grisescens*): factors influencing growth and survival of newly volant
young. *Ecology* 57:587-595.

Tuttle, M.D. 1979. Status, causes of decline, and management of
endangered gray bats. *J. Wildl. Manage*. 43:1-17.

Tuttle, M. D. 1996. Wisconsin gains key bat sanctuary. *Bats* 14(4):3-7.

Tuttle, M. D., and D. A. R. Taylor. 1994. Bats and mines; Res. Publ. No.
3, Bat Conserv. Internat., Austin, TX 42pp.

Tuttle, M.D. and D.E. Stevenson. 1978. Variation in the cave environment
and its biological implications [in]{.underline} R. Zuber, *et al*.
(eds.). National Cave Management Symposium Proceedings. 1977. Pp.
108-121. Speleobooks Adobe Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 140 pp.

Tyrell, L.E., G.J. Nowacki, T.R. Crow, D.S. Buckley, E.A. Nauertz, J.N.
Niese, J.L. Rollinger, and J.C. Zasada. 1998. Information about old
growth for selected forest type groups in the e

> eastern United States. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-197, St.
> Paul, MN- USDA, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment
> Station. 507pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Gray Bat Recovery Plan. USFWS,
Twin Cities, Minnesota, 21pp. + Appendices.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983a. Northern States Bald Eagle
Recovery Plan. USFWS, Twin Cities, Minnesota, 76 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983b. Recovery plan for the Indiana
bat. USFWS, Twin Cities, Minnesota, 80 pp.

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service.
1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook- Procedures for
Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Forest Service. 1986. Mark Twain National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan, Rolla, Missouri.

U.S. Forest Service. 1998. Mark Twain National Forest Programmatic
Biological Assessment.

> Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 243pp.

Vian, W.E. 1971. The wintering bald eagle (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*)
on the Platte River in southcentral Nebraska. M.S.E. Thesis. Kearney
State College, Kearney, Nebraska. 60pp.

Vineyard, J.D. and G.L. Feder. 1974. Springs of Missouri. Missouri
Department of Natural

> Resources- Geological Survey and Water Resources Rep. WR 29. 272pp.

Voight, J.W., & R. H. Mohlenbrock. 1964. Plant communities of southern
Illinois. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. 202pp.

Watson, W.C. 1992. Final Report- inventory of southern Iowa for
*Asclepias meadii* Torr. Unpub.

> report of the Iowa Field Office of the Nature Conservancy to the Iowa
> Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines. 41pp.

Watson, W.C. 1998. Final Report- site census of *Asclepias meadii* Torr.
in Iowa. Unpub. report of the Iowa Field Office of the Nature
Conservancy to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rock Island, Illinois. 10pp.

Whitaker, J. O., Jr. 1972. Food habits of bats from Indiana. *Canadian
J. Zool*. 50:877-883.

White, D. H., and J. T. Seginak. 1987. Cave gate designs for use in
protecting endangered bats. *Wildl. Soc. Bull*. 15:445-449.

Wiemeyer, S.N., C.M. Bunck, and C.J. Stafford. 1993. Environmental
contaminants in bald eagle eggsB1980-84Band further interpretations of
relationships to productivity and shell thickness. *Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicol*. 24:213-227.