February 22, 2006

Paul Brewster, Forest Supervisor

Green Mountain National Forest

231 North Main Street

Rutland, VT 05701

Dear Mr. Brewster:

This responds to your January 23, 2006 and February 8, 2006 letters
requesting our review of the Biological Assessment (BA) for the Green
Mountain National Forest (GMNF) Revised Land and Resource Management
Plan (Forest Plan) and our concurrence on the Forest Service's effects
determinations for the following federally-listed threatened (T) and
endangered (E) species addressed in the BA: Indiana bat (E), gray wolf
(E), eastern cougar (E), and Canada lynx (T). Our comments are provided
in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1533).

The proposed revised GMNF Forest Plan does not identify site-specific
actions, but provides a framework for management actions as well as
Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. Approximately 47% (189,616 acres)
of the GMNF is classified as suitable or tentatively suitable (page 7 of
the BA) for timber production. The selected alternative, Alternative E
(the proposed action), proposes an average annual timber sale quantity
of 16.4 million board feet during implementation of the revised Forest
Plan. Under the selected Alternative, approximately 4,055 acres of the
GMNF may be commercially harvested annually, of which 800 acres may be
harvested in the non-winter months.

Management activities, including timber harvest, wildlife management,
recreational activities, and designation of wilderness areas, are
addressed in the revised plan. The Forest Plan provides goals and
objectives for threatened and endangered species. The goals include the
protection of endangered, threatened, proposed and Regional Forester's
Sensitive Species critical habitat (not defined as ESA-designated
critical habitat) and key habitat features, and the implementation of
established conservation or recovery strategies for Sensitive Species.
Standards (mandatory management requirements) and Guidelines
(requirements that should be implemented in most situations) address
threatened, endangered, proposed and Sensitive Species, and rare and
exemplary natural communities. In addition to the above, the revised
Forest Plan identifies specific standards and guidelines for the Indiana
bat and bald eagle.

On February 16, 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completed a
formal programmatic consultation on the 1986 GMNF Land and Resource
Management Plan as amended and provided a biological opinion, incidental
take statement, and conference report to the GMNF (USFWS 2000). In its
Biological Opinion, the Service concluded that: 1) implementation of the
1986 Plan, as amended, would have a direct adverse effect on Indiana
bats; 2) indirect effects (habitat removal) were not likely to adversely
affect Indiana bats; and 3) implementation of the 1986 Plan, as amended,
was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Canada lynx,
which was proposed for listing as threatened at that time. Our
Biological Opinion further concluded that implementation of the amended
1986 Plan would not affect the bald eagle, gray wolf, Eastern cougar, or
peregrine falcon. Since the completion of the consultation, the Forest
Service amended the Forest Plan to include Standards and Guidelines that
reflected the Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions
provided in the Service's Biological Opinion. Moreover, additional
information on the range and habitat requirements of the Indiana bat has
been obtained and the Canada lynx was formally listed as threatened in
2000.

**Indiana bat**

The GMNF lies within the northeasternmost edge of the Indiana bat's
range. Approximately 8,000 Indiana bats hibernate in eastern New York
and Vermont and could conceivably summer in GMNF forests. Our February
16, 2000 Biological Opinion concluded that direct adverse effects on the
Indiana bat could occur as a result of forest-wide management activities
that require the removal of trees being used by Indiana bats. These
actions included timber management, wildlife habitat management, roads
management, recreation management, and fire management that occurred
during the non-hibernation season (mid-April through September). Our
Biological Opinion also determined that indirect adverse effects of
forest-wide management activities on Indiana bat roosting habitat in the
GMNF are expected to be insignificant (size of the impact will never
reach the scale where take occurs) due to the large amount of available
roosting habitat within the GMNF that will not be affected at any given
time.

Since completion of our formal consultation on the amended 1986 Plan,
additional information on the status of the Indiana bat, its range and
habitat has been collected. Preliminary data (A. King, USFWS, pers*.*
comm. 2006) indicate that the Indiana bat population has increased to
its 1990 level (approximately 457,374). The increase in numbers may be
attributed to discovery of additional hibernacula and/or to an increase
in numbers at regularly monitored hibernacula.

As described in the BA, considerable bat surveys have been undertaken on
and off the GMNF. In addition, the White Mountain National Forest, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Air Force have conducted
surveys of their properties in New Hampshire and Vermont. Portions of
the White Mountain National Forest, the Connecticut River Valley in New
Hampshire and Vermont, and central and coastal New Hampshire have been
mist-netted and acoustically surveyed for Indiana and other bat species.
To date, no Indiana bats have been captured or acoustically documented
using echolocation equipment (Anabat detectors) outside of the Lake
Champlain Valley or the Valley of Vermont.

In the five years since our Biological Opinion was completed, five
radio-telemetry studies at three New York hibernacula were conducted in
an effort to determine the spring migratory routes and summer habitats
of Indiana bats wintering in New York. Seventy-six percent (72 of 94
bats, the majority of which were reproductive females) were followed to
their summer habitat; none traveled farther than 40 miles from their
hibernaculum. Moreover, the radio-tagged Indiana bats clustered in four
distinct areas: the Lake Champlain Valley (Rutland and Addison
Counties), and Orange, Duchess and Jefferson Counties in New York (Hicks
2004; M. Clark, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, pers.
comm. 2005). Additional surveys indicate that substantial numbers of
Indiana bats occur in these counties.

Based on the most current scientific information available, we do not
believe that summer roosting Indiana bats will be found outside of the
Lake Champlain Valley or the Valley of Vermont. Preliminary genetic
information, as well as information provided by the spring emergence
radio telemetry studies, indicates that female Indiana bats from Vermont
and eastern New York hibernacula probably do not travel the great
distances reported for southern and mid-western Indiana bats (Gardner
and Cook 2002; Kurta and Murray 2002). Moreover, most males are believed
to migrate short distances from their hibernacula (Gardner and Cook
2002; Whitaker and Brack 2002). Movements of 2.5--10 mi (4--16 km) by
male Indiana bats were reported in Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia
(Hobson and Holland 1995; Rommé et al. 2002). However, it should be
noted that a few males have been captured during the summer far from
their hibernacula (Kurta and Rice 2002; Whitaker and Brack 2002).

Kurta (2005) analyzed 393 roost trees from 11 states (including New York
and Vermont) to determine roost tree and habitat preferences for Indiana
bats. At least 33 species of trees were used as roosts, although 87% of
the trees surveyed were ash (*Fraxinus*), elm (*Ulmus*), hickory
(*Carya*), maple (*Acer*), poplar (*Populus*), and oak (*Quercus*).
Roosts were most often in open sites in agricultural areas with
fragmented forests. Watrous (2006) analyzed habitat characteristics of
Indiana bats in the Lake Champlain Valley of New York and Vermont. Roost
trees were generally found to be tall, large diameter trees with
exfoliating bark located within younger forest patches at or below 110 m
± 50 m (360 feet ± 150 feet) (Watrous 2006). In view of the above, we
anticipate that there is little suitable maternity roosting habitat on
the GMNF.

The BA concludes that implementation of the Proposed Action (Alternative
E) is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat because adverse
effects are "discountable" (not likely to occur). The "not likely to
adversely affect" determination is applicable to management actions
occurring within potential Indiana bat summer roosting habitat (as
defined on page 26 of the BA)[^1] and within five miles of a
hibernaculum. This determination is based on the following:

-   Timber harvests will be restricted during the non-hibernation season
    in areas where the Indiana bat might be present (within five miles
    of a hibernaculum or in potential maternity roosting habitat) unless
    surveys that strictly adhere to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    protocols have been conducted within the previous two years and
    Indiana bats were not detected.

-   Unoccupied individual roost trees can be removed during the
    non-hibernation season (April 15 -- October 30) only as a result of
    management activities other than timber harvest (e.g., trail or road
    maintenance).

-   Sufficient existing, potential and future roost trees in areas where
    Indiana bats are likely to occur will be retained in order to
    support maternity colonies.

-   Potential foraging areas over water will be protected.

-   Hibernacula will be protected from the impacts of smoke during
    controlled-burn activities.

We concur with the GMNF determination that the preferred alternative for
the revised Forest Plan is "not likely to adversely affect" the Indiana
bat. Our concurrence is based on 1) the GMNF commitment to implement the
Standards and Guidelines that are proposed in the Wildlife Section; 2)
the likelihood that Indiana bats are not present on the majority of the
GMNF and in very low numbers within potential Indiana bat habitat; 3)
the GMNF commitment to avoid direct effects through time-of-year
restrictions for timber harvest and individual roost tree removal during
the non-hibernation season (unless surveys following U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service protocols have been conducted); and 4) the GMNF
commitment to protect hibernacula and adjacent roosting habitat.

We conclude that Indiana bats are not likely to be present on the GMNF
outside of the Potential Indiana Bat Maternity Roosting Habitat and that
implementation of the Wildlife Standards and Guidelines for
site-specific projects is sufficient for "no effect" determinations on
timber harvest, wildlife management, and recreational management
projects outside of the Lake Champlain Valley and the Valley of Vermont.
However, in the event that there is new information on Indiana bat
occurrence on the GMNF, we recommend that the GMNF contact this office.

**Bald eagle, gray wolf, Eastern cougar, Canada lynx**

We concur with the \"No Effect\" findings for the bald eagle, gray wolf,
eastern cougar and Canada lynx. The best information currently available
indicates that the gray wolf, eastern cougar, and Canada lynx are
extirpated from both the Forest and the State of Vermont. There are no
nesting pairs of bald eagles and very limited wintering habitat occurs
on the GMNF.

Page 34 of the BA indicates that \"In Maine, two animals believed to be
wolves were found during the mid-1990\'s, but no additional confirmed
occurrences of wolves in the Northeast are known.\" It is our
understanding that one confirmed wolf and another suspected wolf were
killed (shot) during the mid-1990s. Moreover, in 1998, a wolf-like canid
was killed in Glover, Vermont, but positive identification of the animal
was not possible. Another confirmed wolf was killed in eastern New York
in 2001. In 2002, a wolf was trapped in an eastern township in southern
Quebec, not far from the New Hampshire border. This animal was reported
as the first confirmed wolf south of the St. Lawrence River in Quebec in
100 years.

On page 38 of the BA, reference is made to wolves and cougars having to
overcome competition with coyotes in order to become reestablished. It
is our understanding that both wolves and mountain lions are physically
dominant over coyotes and are known to kill them or drive them off in
encounters over food or territory. For this reason and because the three
species are commonly sympatric in the western U.S. and Canada, we
question the biological basis for this statement.

Page 52 of the BA (Bald Eagle Distribution, Status and Trend) indicates
that a territorial pair of bald eagles was observed nest-building near
the Connecticut River in Bellows Falls in April 2005. It is our
understanding that two territorial pairs constructed nests and attended
territories during 2005. The nests do not occur on the GMNF, but are
near the Connecticut River in Windsor and Windham Counties.

Thank you for your cooperation, and please contact Susi von Oettingen at
603-223-2541, extension 22, and Michael Amaral, extension 23, if we can
be of further assistance.

Sincerely yours,

Michael J. Bartlett Supervisor

New England Field Office

CC: Reading file

ES: SvonOettingen/MBartlett:2-22-06:603-223-2541

Literature Cited

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

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

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

Kurta, A. 2005. Roosting Ecology and Behavior of Indiana Bats (*Myotis
sodalis*) in Summer. *In* The Proceedings of the Indiana bat and coal
mining: a technical interactive forum (K.C. Vories and A. Harrington,
eds.). Office of Surface Mining, U.S. Department of the Interior, Alton,
Illinois.

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

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

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

USFWS. 2000. Biological Opinion on the Effects of the Land and Resource
Forest Management Plan and other Activities on Threatened and Endangered
Species in the Green Mountain National Forest and Incidental Take
Statement. New England Field Office. Concord, NH. 59 pp.

Watrous, Kristen. 2006. Predicting minimum habitat characteristics of
the Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) in the Champlain Valley of Vermont
and New York. M.S. Thesis. University of Vermont. Burlington, Vermont.
43 pp.

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

[^1]: The delineation of potential Indiana bat summer maternity roost
    habitat is based on Indiana bat surveys, spring emergence radio
    telemetry studies, elevation, climate and vegetative composition and
    structure.