**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

on the

**AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE APPLICATION PRACTICES AT THE NEWPORT CHEMICAL
DEPOT**

**NEWPORT, INDIANA**

**Submitted to the Department of the Army**

**April 13, 1999**

Prepared by:

Robin McWilliams-Munson

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Bloomington Field Office

620 S. Walker Street

Bloomington, IN 47403

\(812\) 334-4261 x 207

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

INTRODUCTION\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
1

CONSULTATION
HISTORY\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
1

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

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED
ACTION\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.... 2

STATUS OF THE
SPECIES\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
5

ENVIRONMENTAL
BASELINE\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
8

EFFECTS OF THE
ACTION\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
10

CUMULATIVE
EFFECTS\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
15

CONCLUSION\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
15

**[INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT]{.underline}**

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF
TAKE\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
16

EFFECT OF
TAKE\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....
17

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT
MEASURES\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\..... 17

TERMS AND
CONDITIONS\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
18

**[CONSERVATION
RECOMMENDATIONS]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
20

**[REINITIATION
NOTICE]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
20

**[LITERATURE
CITED]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....
22

**[ATTACHMENT]{.underline}:**

FIGURE 1: Location of agricultural leases, bat records, and associated
features

at the Newport Chemical Depot

**INTRODUCTION**

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\'s (Service)
biological opinion based on our review of the proposed Agricultural
Pesticide Application Practices at the Newport Chemical Depot, located
in Newport, Indiana (Vermillion County), and its effects on the Indiana
bat (*Myotis sodalis*) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your
March 30, 1999 request for formal consultation was received on April 2,
1999.

This biological opinion is based on information provided in the March
30, 1999 Biological Evaluation: Effects of Agricultural Pesticide
Application Practices on the Indiana Bat at Newport Chemical Depot
(hereafter referred to as the biological evaluation), the February 2,
1999 meeting at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office in
Bloomington, Indiana, and additional sources of information. These
additional sources include telephone conversations, meetings, and
written correspondence with the staff of the Newport Chemical Depot
(NECD), the Army Materiel Command (AMC) in Rock Island, Illinois and
various other agencies and institutions. Field survey information was
also included. A complete administrative record of this consultation is
on file at the Service=s Bloomington, Indiana Field Office (BFO).

**CONSULTATION HISTORY**

On April 20, 1998 BFO received a letter requesting review and comment on
the Army=s potential use of aerial application of pesticides as part of
the Army=s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. The
Service requested that additional information be made available
regarding the logistics of the aerial application and what, if any,
alternatives had been considered. Subsequent to receiving the additional
information, the Service, in a letter dated June 12, 1998, concluded
that aerial applications of pesticides Amay affect@ the Federally
endangered Indiana bat. This conclusion was based on the knowledge of
the presence of two maternity colonies on the installation, the risk of
pesticide drift, runoff, and/or overspray, and the general life history
of the bat. The Service recommended that the Army consider preparing a
biological assessment to determine if the proposed action would
adversely affect the Indiana bat. On July 2, 1998 representatives from
the Army Materiel Command, Newport Chemical Depot, Army Corp of
Engineers, Indiana State Chemist=s Office, Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Service met to discuss the various
agencies= concerns regarding the aerial application of pesticides. At
this meeting, it was brought to the Services=s attention that ground
application of pesticides often has similar consequences to those of
aerial, including drift and overspray potential. This meeting concluded
by the Army agreeing to eliminate any aerial applications for that
growing season and prepare a biological evaluation. The Service received
a biological evaluation, dated November 25, 1998, which contended that
the current agricultural practices at the Newport Chemical Depot
(including aerial applications and ground applications without buffers)
would have no affect on the Indiana bat. Part of this conclusion was
based on a literature review, contracted by the Army with the Army Corp
of Engineers Waterway Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi.
After careful review of the biological evaluation, literature review,
and other scientific literature, as well as conversations with pesticide
experts and species experts, the Service issued a finding of
non-concurrence in a letter dated January 4, 1999. The letter indicated
that if certain restrictions and guidelines were incorporated into the
Army=s agricultural lease program, such as the use of buffer strips and
the elimination of aerial application, the Army=s pesticide application
program would not likely adversely affect the Indiana bat. On February
2, 1999 a meeting was held at the Service=s Bloomington, Indiana Field
Office between the Service and the Army to discuss the Army=s options.
The Army agreed to revise their biological evaluation to indicated the
potential for adverse effects to the Indiana bat as a result of the
current pesticide practices at the NECD. Furthermore, the Army agreed to
incorporate the recommendations made by the Service as the leases come
up for renewal each year, unless new information is made available
regarding the status of the species or potential for pesticide impacts.
The first set of 8 leases that will incorporate the new guidelines will
be renewed in April, 1999. All leases will be amended by May, 2003.
Incorporating the recommendations into all leases immediately was not
feasible due to the nature of the contracts and bidding process.
Therefore, the Army has requested formal consultation and an incidental
take statement for those leases not yet amended with the Service=s
recommendations.

The final biological evaluation and request for formal consultation from
the NECD was received on April 2, 1999. On April 6, 1999, the Service
acknowledged receipt of your formal consultation request, and indicated
that information required to initiate consultation was included or
available; we indicated that this biological opinion would be provided
no later than April 15, 1999.

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

**DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION**

The Army proposes to allow its agricultural lessees to use agricultural
chemicals in support of ongoing agricultural operations on the
installation. These practices include the ground based application of
herbicides and insecticides as well as aerial application. Aerial
applications are subject to National Environmental Policy Act analysis
and approval by the U.S. Army Environmental Center Aerial Validation
Officer.

The Army anticipates outleasing 3,512 acres for agricultural production
and grazing purposes in 1999 (see Figure 1). This agricultural acreage
is adjacent to known Indiana bat maternity roosts and foraging habitat.
(A survey done in 1997 confirmed the use of the installation=s riparian
areas by the bat.) There are approximately 35 leases total, of which 30
are leased for row crop production. Portions of many of these fields lie
adjacent to known and potential bat habitat and serve as a possible
source of pesticide contamination to the bat=s prey base, the prey base
forage and cover plants, and the bat directly via overspray and/or
drift. Aerial application could have effects beyond the installation
boundary if roosting and foraging habitat were present.

Outleases are written in coordination with the NRCS and are advertised
and approved by natural resources professionals at the Army Materiel
Command every five years. The installation natural resources manager and
the Louisville District Army Corps of Engineers inspect leases for
compliance with lease agreements on a semi-annual basis.

**[Conservation Measures]{.underline}**

The Army and the Service have agreed that incorporating the following
measures into the Army=s agricultural leases program will help to avoid
or minimize impacts of the program at the NECD to summering Indiana
bats:

1\. Eight leases will be re-bid in 1999. The lease regulations for these
new 8 leases will be written to incorporate all of the Service=s
recommendations as follows:

a\. Maintain a 10 meter buffer for the application of herbicides between
agricultural fields and forested vegetation.

b\. Maintain a 20-meter buffer for the application of insecticides
between agricultural fields and forested vegetation.

c\. Eliminate the use of aerial applications of pesticides.

d\. Avoid applications in gusty winds or when wind speed exceeds five
miles per hour.

e\. Avoid ultra low volume and mist applications.

2\. Twenty-seven leases will come up for renewal over the next four
years. As each group of leases comes up for renewal annually, the Army
will incorporate the above-mentioned recommendations, unless new
information is made available regarding the status of the species or the
effects of pesticides on the Indiana bat. In such instances,
consultation will be reinitiated between the Army and the Service.

3\. The 27 on-going leases will be immediately amended to include the
following conditions:

a\. No aerial insecticide applications will be made in agricultural
tracts within 20 meters of known maternity colonies.

b\. The Army will formally incorporate an enforcement process into lease
inspections and will implement a monitoring program for the Indiana bat
at the NECD. These findings will be included in annual updates to the
[NECD Indiana Bat Endangered Species]{.underline} [Management
Plan]{.underline} currently being prepared by Tetra Tech, Incorporated.
This plan is being coordinated with the Service. Monitoring will be
accomplished through periodic contracts to survey Indiana bats on the
installation. Enforcement will occur through routine lease monitoring by
the NECD Natural Resources Management Professional and semi-annual lease
inspections by the Louisville District Army Corps of Engineers.

4\. All agricultural crop leases will institute rotation periods which
diminish the opportunity for pest populations to become established.
This practice will be instituted in each cropping lease at the time it
comes due for renewal. Other cultural management practices will be
continually reviewed.

5\. The installation will coordinate a list of pesticides with the
Office of the Indiana State Chemist and Seed Commissioner to assure that
the pesticides used by lessees exhibit the lowest reasonable mammalian
toxicity for the insect/weed being targeted. Agricultural lessees will
be restricted to these pesticides beginning in the year of lease renewal
with the exception of tracts directly adjacent to the Indiana bat
maternity colonies which will be subject to the requirement immediately.
Consideration will also be given to bioaccumulation potential,
degradation half-life, and water solubility.

6\. Prior to the award of bids for leased tracts, the Office of the
Indiana State Chemist and Seed Commissioner will be contacted to assure
that the subject lessee does not have a record of non-compliance with
that agency. If a record exists, steps will be taken to qualify the
lease noting that any failure to comply with the lease agreement will
result in immediate termination and loss of the performance bond.

7\. Any un-amended lease tract within 20 meters of an Indiana bat
maternity colony will restrict insecticide applications to periods when
wind direction is away from the maternity colonies and wind speed is
less than 5 miles per hour. No ultra low volume or mist applications
will be used with any pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, etc.). These
lease restrictions will take place immediately.

8\. Emphasis will continue to be placed on pest scouting so that
pesticides are applied only when economic thresholds, as required to
avoid economic impact, are reached.

9\. Emphasis will be placed on rotation of pesticide classes from
application to application to reduce pest resistance.

10\. Emphasis will be placed on precision farming by using variable rate
technology to adjust percentage of active ingredient based on soil type
or location of pests in the field.

11\. Emphasis will be placed on using *Bacillus thuringiensis*
containing cultivars to eliminate the need for insecticides to control
European corn borer.

12\. The Army will formally incorporate these pesticide practices into
the [NECD Indiana Bat Endangered Species Management Plan]{.underline}.

13\. The Army will continue to work with the Office of the Indiana State
Chemist and Seed Commissioner to keep abreast of pesticides which
exhibit the greatest target specificity.

**STATUS OF THE SPECIES**

The Indiana bat was officially listed as an endangered species on March
11, 1967 (Federal Register 32\[48\]:4001) under the Endangered Species
Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 926; 16 U.S.C.
668aa\[c\]). The Endangered Species Act of 1973 extended full protection
to the species. The Service has published a recovery plan (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1983) which outlines recovery actions. Briefly, the
objectives of the plan are to: (1) protect hibernacula; (2) maintain,
protect, and restore summer maternity habitat; and (3) monitor
population trends through winter censuses. The recovery plan is
currently being updated to reflect new information concerning summer
habitat use.

Thirteen winter hibernacula (11 caves and two mines) in six states were
designated as Critical Habitat for the Indiana bat in 1976 (Federal
Register, Volume 41, No. 187). In Indiana, two winter hibernacula are
Designated Critical Habitat, including Big Wyandotte Cave in Crawford
County and Ray=s Cave in Greene County. Neither of these caves are in
the vicinity of NECD; the closest, Ray=s Cave, is approximately 105
kilometers (km) from NECD.

Based on censuses taken at hibernacula, the total known Indiana bat
population is estimated to number about 352,000 bats. The most severe
declines in wintering populations have occurred in two states: Kentucky,
where 180,000 bats were lost between 1960 and 1997, and Missouri, where
250,000 Indiana bats were lost between 1980 and 1997. In Indiana
populations dropped by 50,000 between the earliest censuses and 1980,
but have rebounded to former levels in recent years. Currently, half of
all the hibernating Indiana bats in existence (approximately 176,000)
winter in Indiana.

A variety of factors have contributed to Indiana bat population declines
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1983). Sometimes their winter
hibernacula are flooded, ceilings of the hibernacula collapse, or cold
temperatures kill the bats through hypothermia. Exclusion of bats from
hibernacula through blocking of entrances, installations of gates that
do not allow for bat ingress and egress, disruption of cave air flow,
and human disturbance during hibernation have been documented causes of
Indiana bat declines. Because many known threats are associated with
hibernation, protection of hibernacula has been a management priority.

Despite the protection of most major hibernacula, population declines
have continued. These continued declines have led scientists to the
conclusion that additional information on summer habitat is needed
(Romme et al. 1995). In recent years, the potential role of pesticides
in the decline of this species has become an increasing concern.
Insecticides have been known or suspected as the cause of a number of
bat die-offs in North America, including endangered gray bats in
Missouri (Clark et al. 1978). A study done in Missouri (McFarland and
Drobney 1998) found evidence of exposure and impacts from a synthetic
pyrethroid pesticide and an organophosphate pesticide. These more
modern-day pesticides were initially thought to be fairly innocuous.
Although pesticide-related mortality has not been documented in Indiana
bats, it probably has contributed to the decline of the species in
certain regions (Evans et. al. 1998; Garner and Gardner, 1992). Factors
related to diet, longevity, and low recruitment result in an increased
susceptibility of bats to pesticides, compared to most other small
mammals.

**[Description and Distribution]{.underline}**

The Indiana bat is a medium-sized bat with a head and body length that
ranges from 41 to 49 mm. It is a monotypic species that occupies much of
the eastern half of the United States, from Oklahoma, Iowa, and
Wisconsin east to Vermont, and south to northwestern Florida. The
Indiana bat is migratory, and the above described range includes both
winter and summer habitat. The winter range is associated with regions
of well-developed limestone caverns. Major populations of this species
hibernate in Kentucky, Indiana, and Missouri. Smaller winter populations
have been reported from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland,
Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. More than 85% of the entire
known population of Indiana bats hibernates in only nine caves.

**[Life History]{.underline}**

Generally, Indiana bats hibernate from October through April (Hall 1962;
LaVal and LaVal 1980), depending upon local weather conditions. Bats
cluster on cave ceilings in densities ranging from 300-484 bats per
square foot. Hibernation facilitates survival during winter when prey
are unavailable. However, the bat must store sufficient fat to support
metabolic processes until spring. Substantial risks are posed by events
during the winter that interrupt hibernation and increase metabolic
rates.

After hibernation ends in late March or early April, most Indiana bats
migrate to summer roosts. Female Indiana bats emerge from hibernation in
late March or early April, followed by the males.

The period after hibernation but prior to migration is typically
referred to as staging. Most populations leave their hibernacula by late
April. Migration is stressful for the Indiana bat, particularly in the
spring when their fat reserves and food supplies are low. As a result,
adult mortality may be the highest in late March and April.

Summering Indiana bats roost in trees in riparian, bottomland, and
upland forests. Roost trees generally have exfoliating bark which allows
the bat to roost between the bark and bole of the tree. Cavities and
crevices in trees also may be used for roosting. A variety of tree
species are known to be used for roosts including (but not limited to)
silver maple (*Acer saccharinum*), shagbark hickory (*Carya ovata*),
shellbark hickory (*Carya laciniosa*), bitternut hickory (*Carya
cordiformis*), green ash (*Fraxinus pennsylvanica*), white ash
(*Fraxinus americana*), Eastern cottonwood (*Populus deltoides*),
northern red oak (*Quercus rubra*), post oak (*Quercus stallata*) ,
white oak (*Quercus alba*), shingle oak (*Quercus imbricaria*), slippery
elm (*Ulmus rubra*), American elm (*Ulmus americana*), sassafras
(*Sassafras albidum*), and sugar maple (*Acer saccharum*) (Romme et al.
1995). At one site in southern Indiana, black locust (*Robinia
psuedoacacia*) was used extensively by roosting bats (Pruitt 1995).
Structure is probably more important than the species in determining if
a tree is a suitable roost site; tree species which develop loose,
exfoliating bark as they age and die are likely to provide roost sites.
Male bats disperse throughout the range and roost individually or in
small groups. In contrast, reproductive females form larger groups,
referred to as maternity colonies.

Maternity colonies, which may be occupied from mid-May to mid-September,
usually contain 100 or fewer adult female bats. Females each give birth
to a single young in late June or early July . Young Indiana bats are
capable of flight within a month of birth. They spend the latter part of
the summer foraging to accumulate fat reserves for the fall migration
and hibernation. Maternity colonies occupy roost sites in trees in
forested riparian, floodplain, or upland habitats (Romme et al. 1995).
Female Indiana bats exhibit strong site fidelity to summer roosting and
foraging areas, that is, they return to the same summer range annually
to bear their young. Traditional summer sites are essential to the
reproductive success of local populations. It is not known how long or
how far female Indiana bats will search to find new roosting habitat if
their traditional roost habitat is lost or degraded. If they are
required to search for new roosting habitat, it is assumed that this
effort places additional stress on pregnant females at a time when fat
reserves are low or depleted and they are already stressed from the
energy demands of migration.

Indiana bat roosts are ephemeral and frequently associated with dead or
dying trees. Most roost trees may be habitable for only 2-8 years
(depending on the species and condition of the roost tree) under natural
conditions. Gardner et al. (1991[a]{.underline}) evaluated 39 roost
trees and found that 31% were no longer suitable the following summer,
and 33% of those remaining were unavailable by the second summer. A
variety of suitable roosts are needed within a colony\'s traditional
summer range for the colony to continue to exist. Indiana bat maternity
sites generally consist of one or more primary maternity roost trees
which are used repeatedly by large numbers of bats, and varying numbers
of alternate roosts, which may be used less frequently and by smaller
numbers of bats. Bats move among roosts within a season and when a
particular roost becomes unavailable from one year to the next. It is
not known how many alternate roosts must be available to assure
retention of a colony within a particular area, but large, nearby forest
tracts appear important (Callahan 1993). In addition to having
exfoliating bark, roost trees must be of sufficient diameter. Trees in
excess of 40 cm diameter at breast height (dbh) are considered optimal
for maternity colony roost sites, but trees in excess of 22 cm dbh
appear to provide suitable maternity roosting habitat. Male Indiana bats
have been observed roosting in trees as small as 7- 8 cm dbh.

In Illinois, Gardner et al. (1991[b]{.underline}) found that forested
stream corridors, and impounded bodies of water, were preferred foraging
habitats for pregnant and lactating Indiana bats, which flew up to 2.4
km from upland roosts to forage. Females typically utilize larger
foraging ranges than males (Garner and Gardner 1992). Gardner and
Garner=s work (1991[b]{.underline} and 1992) also indicated that the
bats will forage along forest and crop edges, cropland, upland forests,
and old field areas. In fact, one study indicated that the bats may
prefer open areas, such as old field and cropland to some of the upland
forested habitat types. The Indiana bat is a somewhat opportunistic
insectivore. It has been documented feeding on up to 10 different orders
of insects. The most common orders include Lepidoptera (moths),
Trichoptera (caddisflies), Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera (flies), and
Homoptera (plant hoppers) (Lee 1993). Collectively, these orders include
insects with both terrestrial and/or aquatic life stages. Due to the
bat=s opportunistic feeding behavior, land with limited availability of
forested riparian habitat may encourage more foraging along cropland and
forested edges. Bats forage at a height of approximately 2-30 meters
above ground level (Humphrey et al. 1977). They forage between dusk and
dawn and feed exclusively on flying insects. Riparian habitat is
occupied by Indiana bats from mid-April to mid-September.

After the summer maternity period, Indiana bats migrate back to
traditional winter hibernacula. Some male bats may begin to arrive at
hibernacula as early as July. Females typically arrive later and by
September numbers of males and females are almost equal. Autumn
Aswarming@ occurs prior to hibernation. During swarming, bats fly in and
out of cave entrances from dusk to dawn, while relatively few roost in
the caves during the day. By late September many females have entered
hibernation, but males may continue swarming well into October in what
is believed to be an attempt to breed late arriving females.

Swarming is important to the life history of the bat as most copulation
occurs during this time. Females store sperm through the winter and
fertilization occurs in the spring. Females are pregnant when they
arrive at the maternity roost. Fecundity is low; female Indiana bats
produce only one young per year.

**ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE**

The Army developed the Wabash River Ordnance Works in 1941 on property
that was primarily, at that time, residential and agricultural.
Historically, the area was forest interspersed with tallgrass prairie.
Although little remained of the original prairie vegetation, the NECD
began a prairie restoration program in 1994. The installation and
surrounding areas are now primarily agricultural fields, second growth,
and small scattered woodlots (Chandler and Weiss 1994 cited in U.S. Army
1998). Agricultural production occupies approximately 53% of the
installation, forest 27%, and facilities and grounds 9%. Common tree
species on the base include oak (*Quercus* spp.), hickory (*Carya*
spp.), black walnut (*Juglans nigra*), maple (*Acer* spp.), ash
(*Fraxinus* spp.), elm (*Ulmus* spp.), Eastern cottonwood (*Populus
deltoides*), and sycamore (*Platanus occidentalis*). Forested portions
of the installation are managed for multiple uses, including commercial
timber harvest, wildlife habitat, protection of unique natural areas,
watershed protection, recreation, and aesthetics.

The main portion of the NECD comprises about 7,100 acres, all within
Vermillion County, Indiana. In addition to this primary, fenced area,
the NECD also holds property along a railroad spur to the north and
east, and another approximately 70 acres along the Wabash River. The
five county region surrounding the NECD is heavily farmed. The
proportion of land in farms ranges from 63.8% to 90.3% (U.S. Army 1998).
The NECD is located in the drainage basin of the Little Vermillion and
Wabash Rivers. It falls within the Tipton Till Plain which is generally
characterized as a broad, level plain created by glaciation. The general
land forms present include a nearly level plain, and a series of small,
primarily forested stream valleys. The NECD is drained by several small
streams, including: Jonathon, Little Vermillion, Little Raccoon, and
Buck Creeks. (U.S. Army 1998). The water quality of the creeks that
drain NECD is described as very hard and slightly polluted. Over the
years agricultural and operational activities have resulted in various
types of wastewater being discharged into the creeks, particularly
Little Raccoon Creek. Water quality and sediment sampling have revealed
the presence of a number of contaminants in Little Raccoon Creek,
including volatile organics, metals, and explosives (U.S. Army 1998).

Other baseline factors potentially affecting the bat include the use of
pesticides on adjacent, private land, as well as any impacts from
historical pesticide use which included the more persistent chemicals,
particularly organochlorines. In addition, physical disturbance from the
current construction activities occurring on the installation have the
potential to impact bat habitat; however, these activities were reviewed
and informally consulted on prior to the construction season in order to
minimize any effects. Other management activities (such as timber
management) conducted by the Army at the installation will be
incorporated and consulted on in the Endangered Species Management Plan
currently under preparation.

**[The Indiana Bat at NECD]{.underline}**

The NECD encompasses only a small percentage of the Indiana bat=s total
range in Indiana; however, due to extensive farming in the counties
surrounding the facility, the NECD is particularly important habitat for
the bat population utilizing the area. Most of the forested areas on the
installation are along small creeks and tributaries, but also include
small, scattered woodlots. The majority of these riparian corridors and
woodlots are surrounded by or adjacent to agricultural fields.

In 1996, the NECD contracted with PRC Environmental Management, Inc.
(PRC) to conduct a survey to determine the presence of Indiana bats on
the installation. (While previous surveys in 1987 and 1994 failed to
reveal the presence of the Indiana bat, the availability of suitable
habitat and recommendations by species experts prompted the NECD to
continue with periodic surveys for the bat.) As part of the survey, PRC
agreed to do preliminary identification of suitable roosting and
foraging habitat, mist net to determine the presence or absence of any
Indiana bats, radio-tag all adult female Indiana bats captured to help
identify areas used for roosting and foraging areas, and conduct dusk
counts at roost trees to estimate the population size. Four areas were
determined to contain suitable foraging habitat for the Indiana bat, and
a total of 3 netting locations was established within each area. Sixteen
bats were captured, including 4 Indiana bats. Five other species were
represented. Two female Indiana bats of undetermined reproductive status
were captured above the unnamed creek along the railroad spur, east of
the fenced property, and a male and pregnant female Indiana bat were
captured along Little Vermillion Creek. A radio-transmitter was attached
to a female from each site and the two bats were tracked to two separate
roost trees. The bat captured along Little Vermillion Creek was tracked
to a dead sugar maple (girdled in October, 1993) west of the Small Arms
Range. The other bat, captured along the old railroad spur, was tracked
to a dead slippery elm in a woodlot west of the capture location. Dusk
counts revealed 21 Indiana bats roosting in the sugar maple, and 16
roosting in the elm. Due to the time of year the dusk counts were
conducted, it was assumed that females were pregnant and that the colony
size would increase later in the season (PRC 1997). Additional surveys
were conducted during the summer of 1998. These surveys resulted in
several Indiana bats being captured along Little Raccoon Creek on the
southern portion of the base (P. Cox, pers. comm. 1998). Further
surveying and radio-tracking may yield evidence of additional maternity
colonies and foraging areas.

**\
\
**

**EFFECTS OF THE ACTION**

The original biological evaluation prepared by the Army included a
literature review, contracted by the Army, to assess the effects of the
ongoing agricultural practices at the NECD. This original biological
evaluation concluded that the agricultural practices in place on the
installation would have no affect on the Indiana bat. After reviewing
this original document (and accompanying literature review) and
contacting various researchers and experts, the Service (in a letter
dated January 4, 1999) indicated to the Army our disagreement with their
conclusion. We provided support of our position and a list of
recommendations that could be incorporated into the existing Army
agricultural program leases in order to avoid potential Atake@ of the
Indiana bat.

After careful consideration by the Army and Service, it was agreed that
amending existing leases mid-contract, or canceling and rebidding the
leases could result in economic hardship for the lessees and a change of
scope and timing for the project. Consequently, the Army agreed to
incorporate the Service=s guidelines into the leases currently up for
renewal, and revise it=s biological evaluation to conclude Aa potential
for adverse effects@ to the Indiana bat on the remaining un-amended
leases. Furthermore, the Army proposed to incorporate the Service=s
guidelines into each set of leases as they come up for renewal, unless
new information arises pertaining to the status of the species or the
effects of pesticides on bats (at which time the Army and the Service
would reinitiate consultation). Hence, in the interim, the Army has a
requested and incidental take permit for those unamended leases. This
will result in the greatest amount of take occurring the first year, and
subsequently diminish each year until all leases have incorporated the
protective guidelines. This is expected to take approximately 4 years
from April, 1999. (As noted in the Conservation Measures section, the
Army has also agreed to some immediate measures to avoid and minimize
the level of incidental take.)

In the mean time, the agricultural practices used on lands that have not
yet incorporated the recommended guidelines into their leases could
potentially result in adverse effects to the bats. These could include
direct effects via direct application of pesticides to volant bats or
roosts trees, indirect effects via the elimination of a portion of the
bats prey base, and/or sublethal effects via the ingestion of pesticide
contaminated prey.

A description of the potential effects of the action, as detailed in the
biological evaluation and accompanying literature review, is hereby
incorporated by reference. A summary, which includes information from
the biological evaluation and literature review, as well as additional
comments by the Service, follows.

[Pesticide Impacts on Bats]{.underline}

Studies examining pesticide effects over the past three decades in
insectivorous bats have primarily addressed insecticides with a focus on
the organochlorine class of compounds (Sprecher 1998). This class of
compounds was more recently replaced with the organophosphate (OP),
carbamate, and synthetic pyrethroid insecticides. There is a significant
gap in the data with respect to these newer classes of pesticides and
their effects on the bat and its prey; however, this should not be
interpreted to mean that potential risks and adverse effects do not
exist, particularly at the sublethal level.

Pesticides often affect the physiology, behavior, or nutrition of an
organism without causing death. For example, pesticides can decrease the
food supply, modify behavior (such as reduced mobility or the
attentiveness of adults to young), or cause other subtle impacts to an
individual that are not readily detectable by researchers. None the
less, such impacts decrease reproductive fitness or chances of survival
of an individual (Hoffman et. al. 1995). The sublethal impacts of
pesticides on non-target organisms are of increased importance for rare
species because a reduced food base, modified behavior, and/or impaired
reproductive fitness could reduce the ability of threatened and
endangered species to recover.

As previously mentioned, the Indiana bat is an opportunistic insectivore
and is known to forage on a variety of insects from up to 10 different
orders. (Six of these orders are considered major agricultural pests.)
To understand the potential impacts to bats from pesticides, not only
does the foraging area and prey species information need to be
evaluated, but also information on the origin of the prey base. It is
widely accepted that forest edge areas are extremely productive in terms
of biomass. Despite statements made in the biological evaluation, most
likely a portion of the prey base for the bat originates along this
edge, if not from the cropland itself. In a study done by Whitaker
(1993), he found that the big brown bat \[a species often found foraging
along with the Indiana bat (pers. obs.; Evans et. al. 1998)\] will
consume a number of agricultural pests, including the cucumber beetle
(adult form of the corn rootworm), May beetles or June bugs, green and
brown stinkbugs, and leafhoppers. Furthermore, the literature review
indicates that the Lepidopteran adult stages of some of the corn pests
(armyworms, cutworms, and the European corn borer) are potential prey
species for the Indiana bat (Sprecher 1998). This information does not
suggest that Indiana bats preferentially consume these particular
insects, but that, contrary to the biological evaluation, a variety of
agricultural pests are indeed food for Anocturnal and crepuscular@ bats.
Depletion or sublethal contamination of this dietary component would
result in adverse impacts to the bat.

Very little information has been documented with respect to the effects
of Amodern day@ pesticides on bats or their food base. Even less is
available with respect to threatened and endangered species. One
potential effect is a reduction in the insect resources that comprise
the bat=s diet. The literature review indicates that no studies were
found related to herbicides and their impacts on bats or their food
base. There have been, however, several studies done on the impacts of
herbicide use on birds. Studies done in both North Carolina and England
have found that herbicide use was the primary cause of decline in the
study area for two species of birds, both insectivores. These birds were
known to forage on insects found along the borders of the crop fields.
Herbicide drift and overspray reduced the amount of available insect
cover and food, thus reducing the insect resources themselves (Stinson
and Bromley 1991; Palmer 1995 cited in McFarland et. al. 1998). It is
reasonable to assume that insecticides would have a similar, even more
direct, effect on insect resources, particularly considering the types
of insects consumed by bats and their foraging areas. In addition,
pesticide drift (from aerial or ground application), surface run-off,
overspray, and vapor drift make the likelihood of pesticides entering
the riparian areas of the installation fairly high.

Another potential avenue for impacts to bats is indirect, via ingestion
of prey carrying some body burden of pesticides. The literature review
suggests that bats are not particularly sensitive to insecticides
relative to other mammals. This statement was based on a study reviewed
by Clark (1988) in which bats (big brown and little brown bats) had
LD50\'s (the dose at which 50% of the test population is killed) similar
to reference rat and mice test species for DDT (an organochlorine). This
information, as presented by the literature review, is misleading. In
one of the organochlorine studies discussed by Clark (the study by
Luckens and Davis 1964), the bats were far more sensitive than the
laboratory rats. In another (Luckens 1973), while the LD50\'s were
similar, all but 1 of the 32 bats showed signs of DDT intoxication.
Clark (1988) indicated: AThe seasonally related increasing proportion of
body fat of the bats was probably the factor that resulted in an
[apparent]{.underline} progression from high sensitivity to great
tolerance.@ (emphasis added). Clark goes on to say: AEven though the
initial claim of great sensitivity was countermanded (Davis 1966,
Luckens 1973), the idea that bats are unusually sensitive to DDT (or
even insecticides in general) has continued to be repeated and now seems
widely accepted. . . .@

The literature review references three studies in which the
organophosphate class of pesticides was examined in relation to bats.
The first two studies looked at the effects of oral doses of two
organophosphate pesticides (Orthene7 (acephate) and methyl parathion) on
bats in comparison to rats or mice (Clark 1986; Clark 1987; Clark 1988).
With respect to studies involving the organophosphate pesticide Orthene7
(Clark 1987), while bat LD50s may have been similar or even higher
compared to mice, Clark indicates that 30% of the surviving bats had
lost coordination and could not right themselves when placed on their
backs, whereas the surviving mice appeared normal. Clark concludes by
saying: AEquating these 2 LD50s could, therefore, be misleading. . . .@
Clark cautions that the conclusions of the safety of Orthene7 should
remain tentative until confirmed by field studies. In addition, based on
his methyl parathion study (Clark 1986), Clark indicates that there is
the potential for injury to exposed bat populations, considering the
chemical=s potential to cause loss of coordination, the long-lived
nature of bats, and their low recruitment. Clark concludes the review of
studies by saying that: AEven though bats may not be unusually sensitive
to insecticides, extensive mortality has occurred because of these
chemicals. . . and other die-offs are thought to be caused by
insecticides. . . .@

The third study mentioned in the literature review is the thesis work of
Craig McFarland (with Dr. Ronald Drobney as advisor) at the University
of Missouri, Columbia. This study was designed to evaluate pesticide
contamination of Indiana bats and their prey in Northern Missouri. While
this work was apparently ongoing at the time of the writing of the
literature review, this thesis has since been completed and defended and
has revealed some interesting results with respect to organophosphates,
synthetic pyrethroids, and bats (R. Drobney, pers. comm). The research
was designed to evaluate potential exposure to Indiana bats, using
little brown bats as surrogates. The researchers found evidence of
exposure to organophosphates in an analysis of acetylcholinesterase
(AChE) levels. AChE is an enzyme responsible for regulating
acetylcholine (a neurotransmitter). Depression of AChE is generally
indicative of OP exposure (Smith 1987). Physiological responses to
depressed levels of AChE include alterations in cardiac rate,
convulsions, muscle weakness, altered spatial memory, gastrointestinal
distress, and altered thermoregulation (McFarland et. al. 1998).

In addition to organophosphate exposure, McFarland et. al. (1998) also
found evidence of exposure to several synthetic pyrethroids (including
permethrin) via whole body chemical analysis of little brown bats.
\[Although these chemicals are generally considered to be
non-persistent, there is evidence of bioconcentration in insects (Muir
et. al. 1985 cited in McFarland et. al. 1998) and some partitioning of
the chemical into fatty tissues (McFarland 1998)\]. These animals were
skinned prior to analysis with the assumption that contamination via
dermal exposure would be eliminated or greatly reduced, and that the
residues present were most likely a result of ingestion of contaminated
prey. Sixteen out of 78 bats were found to contain pyrethroid residues.
(It is worth noting, that many of the surveys and studies conducted on
animals in their natural setting are only studying the Asurvivors@, and
do not necessarily take into account those animals more seriously
affected or incapacitated, and consequently not trapped or caught).
Further laboratory experiments revealed impacts to little brown bats via
ingestion of field-grade permethrin in the form of tremors, decreased
ability to right themselves, seizures, vocalization, weakness, and
death. This information suggests that the habits of bats and their prey,
in conjunction with agricultural practices in the study area, are such
that exposure to pesticides via the prey base is likely. While the
ingestion of live prey carrying a body burden of pesticide may seem
unlikely, recent research suggests that many insects are rapidly
evolving and developing resistance to commonly used pesticides
(McFarland et. al. 1998).

Most of the toxicological information presented in the literature review
related to the potential impacts of pesticides on the Indiana bat deals
with data in the form of LD50s and LC50s. As previously mentioned, the
LD50 or LC50 is the dose or concentration at which 50% of the test
animals are killed. The use of this type of information in assessing the
potential risk to fish and wildlife in the field is very limited,
especially when threatened and endangered species are involved.
ARealistic models of environmental hazards involve many variables, most
of which are held constant or eliminated in laboratory toxicity testing.
Therefore, extrapolation from laboratory studies to the field is usually
approximate at best and sometimes not possible (Smith 1987).@ In
addition, many LD50 ratings given are based on tests done years ago,
under less stringent requirements and controls. McFarland (1998)
determined an LD50 for field grade permethrin in little brown bats to be
25 times lower than that reported on the product=s Material Safety Data
Sheet (MSDS). AAt best, the LD50 rating for the relative degree of
toxicity of a material has many inadequacies, and can be used only as a
rough estimate.@ (Briggs 1992). Laboratory derived values do not take
into consideration environmental factors which may in fact add to the
effects of contaminant stress.

The final possible route of exposure for bats using the NECD for
roosting and foraging is direct contact with the pesticides. While this
is the least probable exposure route, some potential still exists given
the types of application methods used at NECD. Direct exposure of
non-target animals via drift, overspray, surface run-off, etc. has been
documented in a variety of instances (Grue et. al. 1988; Blus et. al.
1989). Some estimates indicated that less than 50% of pesticides applied
aerially actually land on the target plant or pest (Bird et. al 1996).
This is also an issue with ground application, particularly as the
growing season progresses and the height of ground-equipment is raised
to accommodate the taller vegetation. In order to minimize impacts via
this route, the Army plans to restrict application periods to after dawn
and before sunset, and also to immediately implement buffer strips for
aerial application (20 meters) on those tracts adjacent to the known
maternity colonies. (All requests for aerial applications must go
through an approval process at several levels of the Army). All
applications will also immediately be restricted in those tracts
adjacent to maternity colonies to periods where wind direction is away
from the roost sites.

As mentioned in previous correspondence with the Army, the Service=s
main concern is the impact of pesticides on the limited habitat and prey
resources of the Indiana bat at the NECD. While we are confident that
the Army would require its lessees to comply with label guidelines and
to use well-calibrated equipment, these measures in and of themselves do
not guarantee that impacts to wildlife would not occur. Available
information suggests that even when applications are made according to
label directions, wildlife may be killed. APesticide users must also
understand that merely following instructions on the product label will
not ensure that wildlife will not be killed.@ (Smith 1987). For example,
in Indiana there was a case in which 30 Canada geese were killed after a
legal application of diazanon (L. Harris, U.S. FWS, pers. comm.). At a
workshop on Indiana bats held in December, 1998, the point was
specifically made that label guidelines are not always protective of
bats. The presenter cited a case in which the federally endangered gray
bat was adversely impacted by routine mosquito fogging following label
guidelines (L. Pruitt, U.S. FWS, pers. comm.). In addition, various
studies have been conducted which illustrate the inadvertent poisoning
of non-target organisms (including insects) as a result of legal
pesticide applications involving recommended application rates and
methods (see Grue et. al., 1988; Tome et. al., 1990[a]{.underline}; Tome
et. al., 1990[b]{.underline}; Ernst 1991).

The FWS, using the best scientific information available to us, has
evaluated this situation based on the aforementioned information and
uncertainties, while being conservative with respect to listed species.
Considering the potential for off-target and unintended impacts of
pesticides, and also considering the known foraging information and
general life history of Indiana bats, we believe there is a potential
for impact, primarily sublethal, to the Indiana bat from the continuing
pesticide practices at the NECD.

**CUMULATIVE EFFECTS**

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, 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
Act. The Service is not aware of any specific State, tribal, local or
private actions likely to occur in the action area which would affect
Indiana bats.

**CONCLUSION**

After reviewing the current status of the Indiana bat, the environmental
baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and
the cumulative effects, it is the Service\'s biological opinion that the
agricultural practices, as proposed, are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the Indiana bat. No critical habitat has been
designated for the Indiana bat in the action area; therefore, none will
be affected.

**[INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT]{.underline}**

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

The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be
undertaken by the Army for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply.
The Army has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this
incidental take statement. If the Army fails to assume and implement the
terms and conditions the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may
lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the Army must
report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the
Service as specified in the incidental take statement \[50 CFR
\'402.14(I)(3)\].

**AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE**

The Service anticipates that incidental take of Indiana bats will occur
in the form of harm through exposure to pesticides, either directly (by
physical contact) or indirectly (by ingestion), and potentially via a
reduced forage base as a result of direct insect mortality or a
reduction in the availability of insect forage and cover plants. Based
on our knowledge of the ecology of Indiana bats, and the distribution of
Indiana bats at the NECD, we assume that there is the potential for both
of the known maternity colonies to be affected by the ongoing
agricultural practices at NECD. This is based on the assumption that all
of the bats in those colonies are foraging in and along the field
margins during some portion of their foraging activities on the
installation. (As previously mentioned, female Indiana bats are known to
forage up to 2.4 km from their roost site). Based on exit counts done
during the 1997 field season, approximately 74 bats comprise the two
maternity colonies (37 reproductive female bats and 37 young of the
year). Additionally an unknown number of adult male and non-reproductive
adult female Indiana bats could be impacted by pesticide applications.

It is unlikely that direct mortality of bats will be detected, that is,
we do not expect that dead or moribund bats will be found. However,
behavioral or physiological effects from chemical exposure which impair
overall health, flight coordination and orientation, thermoregulation,
and/or other essential behavioral patterns are anticipated; furthermore,
impacts to food resources could result in reduced fitness and possible
reductions in recruitment. There is also the potential for fall
migration and hibernation to be impaired as a result of poor nutritional
conditions of bats. Some of these toxicological and nutritional effects
will be reduced immediately per implementation of the reasonable and
prudent measures. Additional impacts to Indiana bats will diminish each
year as additional reasonable and prudent measures are incorporated into
new leases. All of the agricultural leases will be amended by May, 2003,
at which time no further take is anticipated.

Due to the nature of the harm anticipated to the two maternity colonies,
it is not practical to measure the level of take in terms of number of
bats affected. The amount of take permitted is that which will occur as
the result of practices employed by agricultural lessees prior to their
lease being amended.

**EFFECT OF THE TAKE**

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

**REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES**

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

1\. Incorporate the Service=s recommendations for aerial and ground
pesticide applications into the 8 leases currently up for renewal.

2\. Incorporate the Service=s recommendations into each set of leases as
they come up for renewal each year. This will allow for contractual
elements to be negotiated prior to the bidding process in order to avoid
any economic hardships on the lessees. All leases will be amended by
May, 2003.

3\. Immediately implement measures, as developed by the Army in the
biological evaluation, to minimize the effects of pesticide applications
on those tracts of land not yet amended with the Service guidelines. The
list of acceptable pesticides to be used on the facility should be
developed in consultation with the Service.

4\. Provide an annual report to the Service detailing the Army=s
activities related to implementing the reasonable and prudent measures.

5\. Design and implement a monitoring program in consultation with the
Service to periodically evaluate Indiana bat population levels and
habitat at NECD.

**TERMS AND CONDITIONS**

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

1\. Incorporate the Service=s recommendations immediately into the new
1999 leases, and on an annual basis for the remaining 27 leases as sets
of leases come up for renewal each year. (Eight leases are up for
renewal in 1999, six in 2000, nine in 2001, four in 2002, and seven in
2003). The Service=s guidelines are as follows: a) eliminate aerial
application of all pesticides; b) implement a 10 meter buffer zone for
the ground application of herbicides between agricultural fields and
forested vegetation; c) implement a 20 meter buffer zone for the ground
application of insecticides between agricultural fields and forested
vegetation; d) avoid applications in gusty winds or when wind speed
exceeds five miles per hour; and e) avoid ultra low volume and mist
applications.

2\. The NECD will implement the agricultural management practices that
were designated in the biological evaluation as mitigation measures.
These measures include: a) no aerial applications on the new 1999 leases
(or any leases renewed after 1999); b) requiring NEPA analysis, approval
by the NECD natural resource manager, and approval from the Army
Environmental Center Aerial Validation Representative for any aerial
application requests; c) no aerial application in the unamended tracts
within 20 meters of known maternity colonies; d) continued contact with
the Office of the Indiana State chemist for up-to-date pesticide
information; e) incorporating all pesticide practices into the
Endangered Species Management Plan (ESMP) (this is currently being
developed with the Service=s involvement); f) implementing specific crop
rotation periods as leases come up for renewal; g) development of a list
of acceptable pesticides for use on the installation agricultural leases
(this should be done in consultation with the Service); h) pest
scouting; I) implementing a rotation system for pesticide classes to
reduce pest resistance; j) background check on lessees for pesticide use
compliance; k) immediately restricting all pesticide applications on
tracts within 20 meters of maternity colonies to periods when wind
direction is away from the colony and less than 5 miles per hour; l)
implementing precision farming techniques; and m) use of biological
control agents, such as *Bacillus thuringiensis*.

3\. Design and implement a monitoring program for the Indiana bat and
bat habitat in consultation with the Service. (This is being addressed
in the ESMP in coordination with the Service). The Army has proposed to
initiate a monitoring program in order to evaluate the population
dynamics of the bat at the NECD. In accordance with Army regulation, the
Army will survey the facility at least every 5 years; surveys will be
conducted in accordance with Service guidelines. These surveys should
include radio-telemetry work in order to determine the presence of any
additional maternity colonies, and also yearly dusk counts at known
colonies to help assess the ecology of Indiana bats on the base. The
Army has also proposed to do long-term monitoring of summer habitat
conditions for the Indiana bat at NECD. This data will be collected at
least every 10 years in conjunction with scheduled forest resource
inventories. Information to be collected for individual trees (living
and dead) will include condition, species, size, bark cover (i.e.
approximate percentage of sloughing bark), cavity presence/absence,
crown condition and number of branches.

4\. Any dead bats located at the NECD, regardless of species, should be
immediately reported to BFO \[(812) 334-4261\], and subsequently
transported on ice to that office. No attempt should be made to handle
any live bat (except during permitted monitoring and research),
regardless of its condition; report bats that appear to be sick or
injured to BFO. BFO will make a species determination on any dead or
moribund bats found on the base. If an Indiana bat is identified, BFO
will contact the appropriate Service Law Enforcement office.

5\. Provide an annual report to the Service. NECD will provide an annual
report to the Service=s BFO detailing each year=s activities related to
implementation of the reasonable and prudent measures. Annual reports
will be provided by December 31 of each year, beginning in 1999.
Required elements of the annual report (as detailed in the terms and
conditions) include: a) results of Indiana bat surveys (including dusk
counts and roost tree information) and bat habitat surveys; b) an update
on agricultural lessee compliance with lease amendments and
requests/approvals for aerial applications; c) details on management
activities related to agricultural practices; this should include
established crop rotation periods, pesticide class rotations, types and
amounts of pesticides used, dates and locations of pesticides used,
methods for implementing buffer strips, and the list of approved
pesticides (as developed by NECD and the Indiana Office of the State
Chemist).

In conclusion, the Service understands that all existing agricultural
leases at the NECD will be amended with the above-described reasonable
and prudent measures. Amending the leases will begin with the eight
currently up for renewal in 1999, and will continue each year as leases
come up for renewal. All leases will be amended by May, 2003. 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, the level of incidental take is exceeded (i.e. a renewed
lease is not amended with the reasonable and prudent measures or
lessee=s do not implement the required measures), such incidental take
represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and
review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The Army must
immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and
review with the Service the need for possible modification of the
reasonable and prudent measures.

**[CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS]{.underline}**

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

The Service provides the following conservation recommendations for the
NECD; these activities may be conducted at the discretion of the Army as
time and funding allow:

1\. The Service recommends that requests for aerial applications of
pesticides be seriously scrutinized and aerial applications as a method
of pest control be eliminated prior to May, 2003 (the deadline already
established) if possible. We believe that aerial applications pose the
most significant threat considering the layout of the agricultural
tracts, locations of maternity colonies, and the likelihood of drift and
overspray.

2\. Develop educational materials to promote awareness of the Indiana
bat among installation employees, agricultural lessees, and the
surrounding community. Education is a valuable tool in promulgating good
stewardship principles and lessening potential impacts to the bat on the
installation and in the surrounding area.

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

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

This concludes formal consultation on the Agricultural Pesticide
Application Practices at the Newport Chemical Depot, Newport, Indiana,
as outlined in the biological evaluation received with your March 30,
1999 request. 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 application of pesticides may affect
listed species in a manner or to an extent not considered in this
opinion; (3) the agricultural pesticide practices at NECD are
subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed
species 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. Requests
for reinitiation, or questions regarding reinitiation, should be
directed to BFO.

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

Bird, S.L., D.M. Esterly, and S.G. Perry. 1996. Atmospheric pollutants
and trace gases: Off-target deposition of pesticides from agricultural
aerial spray applications. Journal of Environmental Quality
25:1095-1104.

Blus, L.J., C.S. Staley, C.J. Henry, G.W. Pendleton, T.H. Craig, E.H.
Craig, and D.K. Halford. 1989. Effects of organophosphorus insecticides
on sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management
53:1139-1146.

Briggs, S.A. 1992. Basic guide to pesticides: their characteristics and
hazards. Taylor and Francis; Washington, D.C. 283pp.

Callahan, E.V., III. 1993. Indiana bat summer habitat requirements. M.S.
Thesis. University of Missouri Columbia. 84pp.

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

Clark, D.R., Jr. 1986. Toxicity of methyl parathion to bats: mortality
and coordination loss. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 5:191-195.

Clark, D.R., Jr., and B. Rattner. 1987. Orthene7 toxicity to little
brown bats (*Myotis lucifugus*): acetylcholinesterase inhibition,
coordination loss, and mortality. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
6:705-708.

Clark, D.R., Jr. 1988. How sensitive are bats to insecticides? Wildlife
Society Bulletin 16:399-403.

Cox, P. 1998. Personal communication. Natural Resource Manager. Mason &
Hanger Corporation, Newport Chemical Depot. Newport, Indiana.

Ernst, W.R., P. Jonah, K. Doe, G. Julien, and P. Hennigar. 1991.
Toxicity to aquatic organisms of off-target deposition of endosulfan
applied by aircraft. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 10:103-114.

Evans, D.E. W.A. Mitchell, and R.A. Fischer. 1998. Species profile:
Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) on military installations in the
Southeastern United States. Technical Report SERDP-98-3. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 23pp.

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann. 1991[a]{.underline}.
Summer roost selection and roosting behavior of *Myotis sodalis*
(Indiana bat) in Illinois. Unpublished report, Illinois Natural History
Survey, Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect Identification. 51pp.

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann. 1991[b]{.underline}.
Summary of *Myotis sodalis* summer habitat studies in Illinois: with
recommendations for impact assessment. Unpublished report prepared for
the Indiana/Gray Bat Recovery Team Meeting, Columbia, Mo. Illinois
Natural History Survey, Section of Faunistic Surveys and Insect
Identification. 28pp.

Garner, J.D, and J.E. Gardner. 1992. Determination of summer
distribution and habitat utilization of the Indiana bat (*Myotis
sodalis)* in Illinois. Final Report: Project E-3. Endangered Species Act
Section 6 Report, Illinois Dept. of Conservation.

Grue, C.E., M.W. Tome, G.A. Swanson, S.M. Borthwick, and L.R. DeWeese.
1988. Agricultural chemicals and the quality of prairie-pothole wetlands
for adult and juvenile waterfowl - what are the concerns? In Proceedings
of a national symposium on protection of wetlands from agricultural
impacts, J. Zuboy (ed.). U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service Biological Report.

Hall, J. 1962. A life history and taxonomic study of the Indiana bat,
(*Myotis sodalis*). Reading Public Museum and Art Gallery Publication
12:1-68.

Harris, L. 1998. Personal communication. Special Agent. Indianapolis Law
Enforcement Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Indianapolis,
Indiana.

Hoffman, D.J., B.A. Rattner, G.A. Burton, Jr., and J. Cairns, Jr. 1995.
Handbook of ecotoxicology. CRC Press; Boca Raton, Florida.

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

LaVal, R.K. and M.L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological studies and management of
Missouri bats, with emphasis on cave-dwelling species. Missouri Dept. of
Conservation 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.
Unpublished M.S. thesis, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
Tennessee. 146pp.

McFarland, C.A., and R. Drobney. 1998. Potential agricultural
insecticide exposure of Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*) in Missouri.
M.S. Thesis. University of Missouri Columbia. 256pp.

McWilliams-Munson, R.E. 1996. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. Ecological
Services Bloomington Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Bloomington, Indiana.

PRC Environmental Management, Inc. 1997. Biological survey of federally
endangered bats at the Newport Chemical Depot. Prepared for the U.S.
Army Materiel Command Installations and Services Activity, Rock Island,
Illinois. 27pp and appendices.

Pruitt. L. 1995. Summary of Jefferson Proving Ground bat surveys:
1993-1995. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington Field Office,
Unpublished report. 5pp.

Pruitt, L.B. 1998. Fish and Wildlife Biologist. Ecological Services
Bloomington Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington,
Indiana.

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 to Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Federal Aid Project E-1-7, Study No. 8. 38pp.

Smith, G.J. 1987. Pesticide use and toxicology in relation to wildlife:
organophosphate and carbamate compounds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Resource Publication 170. 171pp.

Sprecher, S.L. 1998. Agricultural pesticide management and the Indiana
bat (*Myotis sodalis*): A review of literature. Unpublished report
prepared for the Newport Chemical Depot; Newport, IN. 14pp.

Stinson, E. and P. Bromley. 1991. Pesticides and Wildlife: A Guide to
Reducing Impacts on Animals and Their Habitat. Virginia Department of
Game and Inland Fisheries, Publication 420-004. 1991.

Tome, M.W., and C.E. Grue. 1990[a]{.underline}. Spray deposit in the
wetland emergent zone following aerial application of ethyl parathion to
sunflowers in North Dakota. Pp 27-28 in Proceedings of a symposium:
environmental contaminants and their effects on biota on the Northern
Great Plains. North Dakota Chapter, The Wildlife Society, Bismark.

Tome, M.W., C.E. Grue, S. Borthwick, and G.A. Swanson.
1990[b]{.underline}. Effects of an aerial application of ethyl parathion
on selected aquatic invertebrate populations inhabiting prairie pothole
wetlands. Pp 31-33 in Proceedings of a symposium: environmental
contaminants and their effects on biota on the Northern Great Plains.
North Dakota Chapter, The Wildlife Society, Bismark.

U.S. Army. 1998. Pilot testing of neutralization/supercritical water
oxidation of VX agent at Newport Chemical Depot, Indiana. Final
Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by Program Manager for Chemical
Demilitarization, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Recovery plan for the Indiana bat.
Washington, D.C. 80pp.

Whitaker, J.O. 1993. Bats, beetles, and bugs. BATS, Vol. 11, No. 1:23