April 7, 2000

Ms. Elizabeth Estill

Regional Forester

U.S. Forest Service, Southern Region

1720 Peachtree Road, NW.

Atlanta, Georgia 30367-9102

Dear Ms. Estill:

Subject: Biological Assessment on the Effects of Implementing the
Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan,
Amendment Five, on the Indiana Bat (*Myotis sodalis*)

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service=s (Service)
biological opinion based on our review of the subject biological
assessment and its effect on the Indiana bat in accordance with
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.*). We received your October 18, 1999, request
for formal consultation on October 18, 1999.

This biological opinion is based on information provided in the
October 18, 1999, biological assessment, supplemental information to the
biological assessment (requested on December 15, 1999, received January
13, 2000), other available literature, personal communications with
experts on the federally endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*), and
other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this
consultation is on file at this office.

**CONSULTATION HISTORY**

In 1994 the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) completed a biological assessment
(BA) on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource
Management Plan (Forest Plan) for federally proposed, threatened,
endangered, and candidate species, including the Indiana bat. The
Service concurred with the USFS=s determination of Anot likely to
adversely affect@[^1] for the Forest Plan (Service 1994). The provisions
of section 7 of the Act were met. The Anot likely to adversely affect@
determination did not require formal consultation with the Service.

Until 1995, bat experts with most national forests in the Southeastern
United States believed that southern forests (that did not have
hibernacula) were not used by Indiana bats, particularly as summer
maternity habitat. However, in 1994 and 1995, reproductive female
Indiana bats were captured between mid‑June and September on the
Morehead Ranger District, Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky,
providing the first indication that southern forests may be used as
summer maternity habitat by Indiana bats. Because of these new records,
southern forests near winter hibernacula sites began reexamining the
likelihood of having maternity colonies during summer months; many
forests initiated summer mist‑net surveys of likely habitat.

The USFS began these mist‑net surveys, initially focusing on those
portions of the national forests having the greatest likelihood of being
occupied by reproductively active bats. Factors used to determine the
likelihood of occurrence included habitat characteristics and the
proximity of USFS land to recent or historical hibernation records.
Mist‑net surveys were initiated on the Nantahala National Forest in late
May 1999.

On July 25, 1999, two Indiana bats were netted in the upper Santeetlah
Creek drainage in Graham County, North Carolina. A postlactating adult
female and a juvenile male were captured and banded. A radio transmitter
was attached to the female, and both bats were released at the capture
site. On July 26, 1999, research personnel found the adult bat=s roost
site.

On the evening of July 26, 1999, a third Indiana bat, a juvenile female,
was netted less than 100 yards from the initial capture site. All three
bats were captured within 25 miles (mi.) of White Oak Blowhole Cave (a
Priority II Indiana bat hibernaculum) in Tennessee. On July 27 and 28,
1999, additional field work verified the presence of a summer maternity
colony of up to 28 bats roosting in a large, dead Canadian hemlock. The
capture of these Indiana bats on the Nantahala National Forest
represents the first known summer maternity activity in western North
Carolina.

Following the discovery of these Indiana bats in Graham County, the USFS
began informal consultation with the Service. Based on the new record,
the Service advised the USFS that the species may be present anywhere in
Graham County and, because of similar habitat, in adjacent counties
(Macon, Swain, and Cherokee), and that the cutting of trees as small as
3.1 inches (in.) in diameter could impact the Indiana bat (Romme
*et al*. 1995). The USFS evaluated these risks and suspended activities
involving the cutting of trees in the four‑county area until the effects
of ongoing and proposed actions could be determined. The USFS determined
that the recent discovery of the Indiana bat maternity colony required a
review of the effects of their proposed and ongoing projects on the
Nantahala National Forest in Graham County and the adjoining counties.

On September 7, 1999, the Service received an Amendment to the
Biological Evaluations for the Independence Day Storm Project,
Barker/Belding Timber Sale, Poison Cove Timber Sale, and Tatham Gap
Timber Sale, on the Cheoah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest,
Graham County, North Carolina, and Big Choga Timber Sale, on the Wayah
Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, Macon County, North
Carolina, in which the USFS determined that the subject timber sales
would not adversely affect the endangered Indiana bat. These sales were
part of those initially suspended when the Indiana bat was discovered on
the Nantahala National Forest.

The Service agreed with the determination in the amended biological
evaluations, which was based on additional mist‑netting and habitat
evaluations, that the Indiana bat does not occur or is only present at
undetectably low levels in those project areas. The Service also agreed
that, given the information provided in the biological evaluations,
should the species be present at an undetectably low level or begin
using the area in the future, an abundance of suitable habitat will be
available after the subject projects are completed. Therefore, the
Service concurred with the USFS=s determination that the projects, as
described, are not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat (Service
1999a).

On September 16, 1999, the USFS amended the biological evaluation for
the Tuni Gap Road construction project on the Wayah Ranger District,
Nantahala National Forest, Macon County, North Carolina, and determined
that the subject project would not adversely affect the endangered
Indiana bat. Because of the lack of snags (i.e., dead, standing trees)
in the immediate project area and the quantity of suitable habitat
immediately outside the project area, the Service concurred with the
USFS=s Anot likely to adversely affect@ determination (Service 1999b).

On September 16, 1999, the Service also received an amendment to the
biological evaluation for the Martin Easement (Whitner Bend Road),
Tusquitee Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest, Cherokee County,
North Carolina, in which the USFS determined that the subject project
would not adversely affect the endangered Indiana bat. Because there are
only a few snags and only a handful of large trees in the project area,
most of which are species not likely to provide suitable roosting
habitat, the probability of an Indiana bat using the area or being
affected by the proposed project is small. Further, the direct loss of
1.3 acres (ac.) of forested habitat and possible indirect losses to home
construction (though potentially suitable as Indiana bat habitat in the
future) are not likely to affect Indiana bat use in the local area,
given the thousands of acres of suitable habitat surrounding the project
area. Therefore, the Service concurred with the USFS=s determination
that the project, as described, was not likely to adversely affect the
Indiana bat (Service 1999c).

On September 30, 1999, the USFS amended the biological evaluation for
the U.S. 19/74 turn lane and bridge replacement, Wayah Ranger District,
Nantahala National Forest, Swain County, North Carolina, and determined
that the subject project would not adversely affect the endangered
Indiana bat. Because of the lack of snags in the immediate project area,
the fact that tree removal would occur while the bats were hibernating,
and the abundance of suitable habitat immediately outside the project
area, the Service concurred with the Anot likely to adversely affect@
determination (Service 1999d).

On October 18, 1999, the USFS completed the subject BA on the effects of
implementing the Forest Plan on the Indiana bat. As stated in the BA,
AThis new occurrence information, as well as a refinement of new
knowledge of this species= habitat requirements, prompted the need to
reexamine the potential effects of continued implementation of the
existing Forest Plan, as amended. The verification of a summer maternity
colony on the Nantahala National Forest increases the likelihood of
other summer maternity colonies being present throughout the national
forests.@ The following biological opinion is the Service=s analysis of
this BA.

On October 19, 1999, the USFS amended the biological evaluation for the
construction of a drain field to service a flush toilet in the Ferebee
Memorial Picnic Area, Wayah Ranger District, Nantahala National Forest,
Swain County, North Carolina, and determined that the subject project
would not adversely affect the endangered Indiana bat. Because of the
lack of snags in the immediate project area, the timing of tree removal,
and the quantity of suitable habitat immediately outside the project
area, the Service concurred with the USFS=s Anot likely to adversely
affect@ determination (Service 1999e).

**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

**DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION**

As defined in the Service=s section 7 regulations (50 CFR 402.02),
Aaction@ means Aall 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 Aaction area@ is defined as
Aall 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 must be considered in
conjunction with the effects of other past and present Federal, State,
or private activities, as well as the cumulative effects of reasonably
certain future State or private activities within the action area. This
biological opinion (Opinion) addresses only those actions for which the
Service believes adverse effects may occur. In their BA, the USFS
outlined those activities in the Forest Plan (and projects predicated
upon it) that would affect the Indiana bat. This Opinion addresses
whether continued implementation of the Land and Resource Management
Plan, Amendment Five, on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests
(NPNFs) is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana
bat.

The proposed action, as defined in the BA, is Athe continued
implementation of the Nantahala and Pisgah Land and Resource Management
Plan, Amendment Five, and projects predicated upon it.@ The proposed
action includes likely future site‑specific projects. The purpose of the
USFS=s *programmatic* BA is to document the potential effects of the
continued implementation of the existing Forest Plan for the NPNFs,
specifically those measures that deal with the management and monitoring
of populations and habitat of the federally endangered Indiana bat.

The stated objectives of the BA are to:

\(1\) Comply with the requirements of the Act so that actions by Federal
agencies (in this case the NPNFs) do not jeopardize the existence of
this species or adversely modify its critical habitat;

\(2\) Assess the implementation of the current Forest Plan, which
describes the USFS=s likely future actions and standards and guidelines
and the effects implementation will have on the federally endangered
Indiana bat;

\(3\) Document standards and guidelines implemented on the NPNFs that
benefit this species; and

\(4\) Provide biological input to ensure USFS compliance with the
National Forest Management Act, Forest Service Manual 2670, and the Act.

**Action Area**

The action area for this opinion is the NPNFs in North Carolina. The
NPNFs lie within the Blue Ridge Province of the Appalachian Mountains.
Elevations range from about 1,000 feet (ft.) to more than 6,000 ft.
above sea level. The Appalachian Mountains were formed by many complex
geologic processes over the last 1.8 billion years. The Blue Ridge
Mountains are primarily comprised of igneous and metamorphic rock types.
Soils are dominated by Ochrepts and Udults and are generally moderately
deep and of medium texture. Soils receive adequate moisture for growth
of vegetation throughout the year.

There are five active mines and leases on the NPNFs, ranging from
3‑158 ac. in size. There are no current oil, gas, geothermal, or other
energy mineral mines or leases on or within the periphery of the NPNFs.

[Water]{.underline}

The region has a high density of small to medium‑sized perennial streams
and rivers. About 4,431 mi. of perennial streams and about 300 mi. of
cool‑ and warm‑water rivers occur on the NPNFs. The largest rivers
include the French Broad and Little Tennessee rivers. No natural lakes
exist; however, there are about 36,000 ac. of manmade lakes and
reservoirs. Of this area, approximately 35,900 ac. are reservoirs
maintained by other agencies and private companies for flood control
and/or hydroelectric power generation.

Average precipitation ranges from 31‑50 in. in most of the action area
but is higher on the highest mountain peaks. The eastern three ranger
districts average the lowest annual rainfall amounts across the NPNFs.
Along parts of the southern Blue Ridge escarpment bordering the Southern
Appalachian Piedmont Section, rainfall averages over 80 in. Mean annual
temperature is 50-62F and ranges from 38F in January to 76F in July.

[Disturbance Regimes]{.underline}

Fire, wind, ice, and precipitation are the principal causes of natural
disturbance. Indications are that Native Americans used fire for many
purposes, especially at low elevations in the drier intermountain basin.
Lightning‑caused fire is more predominant along the eastern sections of
the Blue Ridge Mountains, and on dry xeric aspects dominated by yellow
pine and oaks. Although tornadoes are uncommon, localized microbursts of
intense winds have the potential to cause small patches of trees to be
uprooted occasionally in the area. Winter ice storms are common at mid‑
to high elevations and can cause extensive damage to tree crowns. The
American chestnut blight caused broad‑scale disturbance and conversion
of the original tree species composition to more oak‑dominated
composition. The gypsy moth has affected localized sections of the
NPNFs. The potential for major gypsy moth defoliation is high due to the
predominance of oak species in forested stands. Other forest pests
threaten the American hemlock, flowering dogwood, Fraser fir, butternut,
and other important forest species.

[Vegetation]{.underline}

Vegetation in the area consists of Appalachian oak forest, southeastern
spruce‑fir forest, and northern hardwoods (McNabb and Avers 1994). The
dominant vegetation is montane, cold‑deciduous, and broad‑leaved forest
dominated by the genus *Quercus*. Black (*Q. velutina*), white
(*Q. alba*), and chestnut oak (*Q. montana*) dominate the drier mountain
slopes, with pitch pine (*Pinus rigida*) representing a major component
along ridge tops. Mesophytic species, such as yellow poplar
(*Liriodendron* *tulipifera*), red maple (*Acer rubrum*), northern red
oak (*Q. rubra*), and sweet birch (*Betula lenta*), dominate the moister
valley sites and slopes. Hardwood‑pine cover types, consisting of
scarlet (*Q. coccinea*), white, blackjack (*Q. marilandica*), and post
oak (*Q. stellata*) and shortleaf (*P. echinata*) and Virginia pine
(*P. virginiana*), are dominant in the intermontane basins. Table
mountain pine (*P. pungens*) is common on xeric ridge tops, where fire
most likely was historically more frequent. Mesic sites at higher
elevations (more than 4,500 ft.) are commonly occupied by northern
hardwoods such as basswood (*Tilia* sp.), sugar maple *(Acer
saccharum*), and buckeye (*Aesculus* sp.), with northern red oak more
dominant on drier sites. Red spruce (*Picea rubra*) and Fraser fir
(*Abies fraseri*) can often be found at altitudes above 5,000 ft.

The USFS used their Forest Continuous Information of Stand Condition
(CISC) database for the NPNFs to group forest habitats into six major
forest groups (Table 1 and Appendix D). The Upland Hardwood Group
occupies the greatest acreage on the NPNFs (45.6% of total forest
acreage and 47.9% of forested acreage). Hardwood‑dominated forest types
comprise more than 83% of forested acreage on the NPNFs (805,012 ac.).

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **Table 1.                                             
  Composition of                                         
  Forest Groupings on                                    
  the Nantahala and                                      
  Pisgah National                                        
  Forests (1999).**                                      

  **Forest Groups**   **Acres**        **Percent         **Percent of
                                       Composition**     Forest**

  Conifer             83,782           8.2               8.6

  White Pine-Hardwood 43,556           4.3               4.5

  Yellow              37,702           3.7               3.9
  Pine-Hardwood                                          

  Cove Hardwood       289,442          28.5              29.8

  Upland Hardwood     464,156          45.6              47.9

  Northern Hardwood   51,414           5.0               5.3

  Non-Forest          25,231           2.3               \-

  Other Uninventoried 23,425           2.3               \-
  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------

For both forests, approximately 88% of the forested acreage is more than
40 years old, with 65% equal to or greater than 70 years. More than 18%
of forested acres are over 100 years old. For hardwood‑dominated forest
types, more than 76% of these forest types are greater than 40 years
old, and 59% are over 70 years old (Table 2).

  --------------- ------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------
  **Table 2.                                                                                               
  Forest                                                                                                   
  Age‑class                                                                                                
  Distribution                                                                                             
  (1999) (percent                                                                                          
  of each forest                                                                                           
  group total).**                                                                                          

  **Age‑Class**   **Conifer**   **White           **Yellow          **Cove       **Upland     **Northern   **Total**
                                Pine-Hardwood**   Pine-Hardwood**   Hardwood**   Hardwood**   Hardwood**   

  0-10 years      6.0           5.3               2.0               2.2          1.4          0.7          2.2

  11-39 years     35.8          19.1              6.1               8.0          5.8          5.7          9.6

  40-69 years     11.9          19.0              17.3              28.3         14.9         34.2         19.9

  70-99 years     34.5          43.1              52.3              53.4         52.8         38.4         50.2

  100+ years      11.8          13.5              22.3              8.1          25.2         21.1         18.1
  --------------- ------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------

Of the approximately 1,025,000 ac. of national forest land administered
by the NPNFs, roughly 71% (730,328 ac.) are classified as unsuitable for
commercial timber production (Pages E‑10 and E‑11 of the Forest Plan).

This Opinion addresses a variety of management directions and associated
activities that are planned, funded, executed, or permitted by the USFS
on the NPNFs. These activities are implemented in accordance with the
provisions contained in the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan is a general
programmatic planning document that provides management goals,
objectives, and standards and guidelines under which project‑level
activities (e.g., timber sales, wildlife habitat management, road
construction, special uses, etc.) may be planned and implemented to
carry out the management direction of the NPNFs. Additional management
direction and guidelines are included in the Forest Plan for specific
management areas. Land‑use allocations are made and outputs are
projected based on the direction established in the Forest Plan. All
project‑level activities undergo National Environmental Policy Act
review by appropriate USFS personnel when proposed, as well as an
assessment of project effects on federally listed species in compliance
with section 7 of the Act. The Forest Plan establishes multiple‑use
management area prescriptions (including associated standards and
guidelines) for future decision making that are adjustable (via
monitoring and evaluation) by amendment and revision.

The BA did not contemplate or assess North Carolina Department of
Transportation/Federal Highway Administration activities on the NPNFs.
These activities are not included in this Opinion and will be subject to
separate consultation(s) pursuant to section 7 of the Act. In addition,
USFS activities proposed at levels higher than those projected in the BA
(see Table 3) will require further consultation with the Service.

**Management Actions: Types and Amounts of Activities**

There are many ongoing and planned activities on the NPNFs that could
affect Indiana bats or their habitat. The BA details the expected
management actions, as described below, and the anticipated levels of
activity (summarized in Table 3).

**Prescribed Fire** - Fire is prescribed to create and maintain desired
vegetative composition (for scenic vistas, for wildlife habitat, to
reduce fire hazards, and to control forest pests) and to accomplish
other forest management objectives such as site preparation. Prescribed
burns for wildlife generally fall into two categories: (1) burning
existing wildlife openings to help maintain early successional habitat
(typically grass fires conducted in the late winter or early spring) and
(2) burning understory in a forested area, usually between the fall and
early spring, to create or maintain areas with open or reduced
understory conditions.

**Trail Construction** - New trails are built to accommodate a variety
of uses and experience levels while complementing forestwide and
management area objectives. The use of these trails could include
hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and off‑road vehicles.

**Recreation Site Construction** - Construction of new recreational
sites or support facilities at new or existing recreational sites.

**Facilities** - Construction of or additions to administrative
buildings or support facilities at USFS offices and work centers.

**Regeneration by Selection Method** - Regeneration occurs in small
openings large enough to provide conditions necessary to regenerate
species that are shade intolerant or intermediate in shade tolerance. In
the Appalachians, the diameter of the group opening is defined as one
and a half to two times the mature tree height for the stand. This
usually results in openings of 1/4‑1 ac., depending on the desired
species, tree height, and topography. The resulting stand structure will
be uneven‑aged, with a mosaic of age‑class groups. Most often,
regeneration will be from sprouts, seedlings or advanced reproduction.
To eliminate competition with the new age‑class, site preparation may
include cutting down competing vegetation or treating it with
herbicides. Both methods may be used either before or after the
regeneration cut.

+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| **Table 3. Types  |                |               |                 |
| and Amounts of    |                |               |                 |
| Activities on the |                |               |                 |
| Nantahala and     |                |               |                 |
| Pisgah National   |                |               |                 |
| Forests (from     |                |               |                 |
| BA).**            |                |               |                 |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| **ACTIVITIES**    | **Estimated in | **Estimated   | **Estimated     |
|                   | the**          | Amount**      | for**           |
|                   |                |               |                 |
|                   | **Nantahala    | **            | **I             |
|                   | and Pisgah     | Implemented** | mplementation** |
|                   | National       |               |                 |
|                   | Forest Plan**  | **1994-1999** | **2000-2004**   |
|                   |                |               |                 |
|                   | **(Annual      | **(Annual     | **(Annual       |
|                   | Average)**     | Average)**    | Average**)      |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Prescribed Fire   | Fuel Reduction | Fuel          | Fuel Reduction  |
|                   | 1,000 acres    | Reduction     | 1,000-5,000 ac. |
|                   | (ac.)          | 947 ac.       |                 |
|                   |                |               | Wildlife Burns  |
|                   | Wildlife Burns | Wildlife      | 250-500 ac.     |
|                   | (not           | Burns 250 ac. |                 |
|                   | estimated)     |               |                 |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Trail             | 24 miles (mi.) | 17 mi.        | 20-25 mi.       |
| Construction      |                |               |                 |
|                   | 29 ac.         | 21 ac.        | 24-30 ac.       |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Recreation Site   | No estimate    | 5 ac.         | 5-10 ac.        |
| Construction      |                |               |                 |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Facilities        | No estimate    | \<1 ac.       | \<1 ac.         |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Regeneration by   | 500 ac.        | 149 ac.       | 150-500 ac.     |
| Selection Method  |                |               |                 |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Regeneration by   | 235 ac.        | Clearcut      | Clearcut        |
| Even-aged Methods |                | 120 ac.       | 100-135 ac.     |
|                   |                |               |                 |
|                   |                | Shelterwood   | Shelterwood     |
|                   |                | 67 ac.        | 50-100 ac.      |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Regeneration by   | 2,532 ac.      | 603 ac.       | 600-2,500 ac.   |
| Two Aged Method   |                |               |                 |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Timber Harvesting | No estimate    | 601 ac.       | 250-600 ac.     |
| for Salvage and   |                |               |                 |
| Other Purposes    |                |               |                 |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Thinning          | No estimate    | 537 ac.       | 500-1,000 ac.   |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Road Construction | 17 mi.         | 3.7 mi.       | 3-17 mi.        |
|                   |                |               |                 |
|                   | 52 ac.         | 18 ac.        | 15-52 ac.       |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Road              | 13 mi.         | 35 mi.        | 35-45 mi.       |
| Reconstruction    |                |               |                 |
|                   | 42 ac.         | 42 ac.        | 42-55 ac.       |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Road              | No estimate    | 5 mi.         | 20-30 mi.       |
| Decommissioning   |                |               |                 |
|                   |                | 1 ac.         | 4-6 ac.         |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Wildlife Openings | No estimate    |               | 5-10 ac.        |
| Constructed       |                |               |                 |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Landline Location | 105 mi.        | 20 mi.        | 15-25 mi.       |
| and Surveying     |                |               |                 |
|                   | 64 ac.         | 12 ac.        | 9-15 ac.        |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Road Easements    | No estimate    |               | 10-30 ac.       |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Special Use       | No estimate    | 120 ac.       | 100-150 ac.     |
| Permits           |                |               |                 |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+
| Timber Forest     | No estimate    |               | 100-200 ac.     |
| Products Permits  |                |               |                 |
+-------------------+----------------+---------------+-----------------+

**Regeneration by Even‑aged Methods**

> [Clearcut]{.underline} - A method of regenerating stands in which new
> production develops in fully exposed environmental conditions after
> removal of most or all of the existing trees. Reproduction may
> originate naturally from seedlings, seedling sprouts, and sprouts from
> stumps and roots. Reproduction may also be introduced artificially by
> planting or direct seeding. The new stand originating on a clearcut
> area is even‑aged regardless of the age structure before clearcutting.
>
> [Shelterwood]{.underline} - In this regeneration method, the stand is
> removed in two or more cuts, and the new stand is established through
> natural or artificial reproduction before the overstory is removed.
> The overstory is removed within 10‑20 years (normally within one‑fifth
> of the rotation age). The result is an even‑aged stand with a
> structure and composition similar to the clearcut method. Site
> preparation may include the control of competing vegetation by
> cutting, treating with herbicides, or combining the two methods,
> depending on the site‑specific objectives and needs.

**Regeneration by Two‑aged Method** - The mature stand is partially cut
and a new age‑class is established either by natural or artificial
methods. The residual overstory is left in place until mid‑rotation of
the new stand or later (40+ years). The overstory often remains until
the new age‑class reaches rotation age. With the development and growth
of the new stand in the understory, along with the continued growth of
the overstory, the stand takes on a two‑aged structure.

**Timber Harvest for Salvage and Other Purposes** - Timber is salvaged
to recover the value from timber damaged from weather and insect and
disease infestations. Typically in the mountains, weather damage is a
result of high‑wind events, ice storms, and snowstorms. Insect
infestations include southern pine beetle, other boring insects, and
gypsy moth. Disease infestations include oak decline and root diseases.
Other activities include the clearing of road rights‑of‑way and the
removal of the overstory in shelterwood harvests.

**Thinning** - A timber harvest method to reduce stand density in
immature stands, primarily to recover potential mortality and/or to
improve the growth of the residual trees. Thinning operations may be
commercial or noncommercial.

**Road Construction** - Most of the roads constructed on the NPNFs are
constructed to the lowest traffic service level with a clearing width of
25 ft. or less. Roads are constructed primarily to support timber
harvest operations. New roads may remain open, or be closed to the
public, depending on the open road density requirements and the
management objectives for an area.

**Road Reconstruction -** Road reconstruction involves bringing old
roads up to current standards that meet designated management
objectives. Activities may include tree removal, reshaping and/or
widening, culvert replacement, and placement of gravel.

**Road Decommissioning** - Roads that are being permanently closed and
revegetated.

**Wildlife Opening Construction** - Wildlife openings are generally
constructed to provide early successional habitat (permanent grass/forb)
in areas lacking such habitat. Openings are beneficial to many wildlife
species, such as Neotropical migratory birds, butterflies and other
insects, small mammals, birds of prey, white‑tailed deer, and eastern
wild turkey. Most openings are less than 5 ac. in size, with a majority
averaging about 1 ac. Wildlife openings are usually constructed by
cutting trees in an area, clearing the area of stumps and debris, and
planting the area with a seed mixture desirable for wildlife purposes.
Wildlife openings are often constructed in areas previously used as log
landings in timber sales.

**Landline Location/Surveying** - Boundary line location and surveying
is done to relocate existing lines that are no longer visible and to
mark new lines on recently acquired property. This work is necessary to
avoid trespasses and to protect resources on national forest land. The
work is usually accomplished in the fall and winter, during leaf‑off
season, when lines are easier to find. Crews normally work in a 3‑ to
5‑ft corridor in which they may cut underbrush and small trees
(generally no greater than 6 in. in diameter at breast height \[dbh\]).
Boundary lines are surveyed using surveying instruments, and the lines
are marked by blazing trees and posting aluminum signs. Boundary corners
are marked by driving 1‑in aluminum poles into the ground and capping
them with a surveying monument about 6 in. above the ground.

**Road Easements** - Road easements are granted across USFS land to
access private property in cases where the only access is across public
land or in cases where access across USFS property is in the best
interest of the government.

**Special Use Permits** - These permits are granted across USFS land to
allow individuals or private companies to use Federal land.. These
activities include power line rights‑of‑way, seed orchards, parking
areas, and other uses.

**Timber Forest Products Permits** - These permits are issued to
individuals for the collection of forest products, such as locust poles,
firewood, and small amounts of timber.

**Other Activities That Could Potentially Affect Indiana Bat Habitat**

**Land Exchanges** - The USFS exchanges land within its proclamation
boundaries to provide or improve protection within a wilderness,
protection of Wild and Scenic River corridors, protection of the
Appalachian Trail and its corridor, access opportunities (administrative
and public), wildlife and fish management opportunities, recreation
management opportunities, timber resource management, efficiency of
management, and protection of ecologically significant areas. The NPNF=s
land exchange program involves 100‑2,000 ac. per year. Over the past
5 years, the NPNFs exchanged an average of 450 ac. per year and acquired
625 ac. per year.

**Land Acquisitions** - The USFS purchases land for the same reasons
discussed for land exchanges. The USFS can only purchase land outright
under special authorizations such as Land and Water Conservation Funds
or other specially designated funds. Land acquisitions are averaging
about 550 ac. per year. Because land exchanges and acquisitions involve
different areas and circumstances unique to each transaction, the
effects of such exchanges and acquisitions on Indiana bat habitat will
be evaluated on a site‑specific basis.

**The Nantahala and Pisgah Land and Resource Management Plan**

The decision to implement the Forest Plan was approved in 1987. In 1989,
the Chief of the Forest Service remanded part of the 1987 Forest Plan
for further analysis. The reanalysis began in 1989, culminating in the
current Forest Plan (Amendment Five) in 1994. The existing Forest Plan
was developed after extensive involvement and review by other Federal
agencies, State agencies, private conservation groups, and the public.
The current Forest Plan deviates from the traditional compartmentalized
approach, relying instead on a more holistic, integrated approach.

The Forest Plan allocates areas to specific land units called
Amanagement areas,@ with each management area established to meet
specific long‑term management objectives, associated resource outputs,
and desired conditions. Management areas have been established to
achieve different desired conditions, to emphasize different activities,
permit different uses of the NPNFs, and to emphasize differing wildlife
species and landscape features. The NPNFs have been allocated to
18 management areas (Table 4 and Pages III‑54 to III‑56 in the Forest
Plan). Prescriptions have been established to provide direction to
achieve specific management area goals and objectives. An overriding
goal in the allocation of management areas was to use an ecosystem
management approach that provides for a full range of public uses and
functioning ecosystems, from old‑growth to early successional habitats.

Standards and guidelines are included, both at the forest level as well
as at the management area level, to ensure that activities are
implemented in a manner consistent with forest goals and objectives. The
Forest Plan emphasizes standards and guidelines that work toward
maintaining and/or enhancing plant and animal diversity and viability.
Amendment Five supplements the forest management objectives, with
specific direction for threatened and endangered species.

**CURRENT USFS INDIANA BAT CONSERVATION MEASURES**

Conservation measures represent actions pledged in the project
description that the action agency will implement to further the
recovery of the species under review. Such measures should be closely
related to the action and should be achievable within the authority of
the action agency. The beneficial effects of conservation measures are
taken into consideration in the Service=s conclusion of a jeopardy
versus a nonjeopardy opinion and in the analysis of incidental take.
However, such measures must minimize impacts to listed species within
the action area in order to be factored into the Service=s analyses. The
proposed actions subject to consultation on the NPNFs also include
ongoing conservation measures implemented through standards and guides
outlined in the Forest Plan to reduce or minimize the adverse effects of
actions on the Indiana bat.

+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| **Table 4. Nantahala and Pisgah National Forest Acreage by   |       |
| Management Area.**                                           |       |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| **Management Area**                                          | *     |
|                                                              | *Acre |
|                                                              | age** |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 1\. B. Emphasize a sustainable supply of timber and provide  | 3     |
| motorized access into the forest for traditional forest      | 8,498 |
| uses.                                                        |       |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 2\. A. Provides for visually pleasing scenery. Timber        | 4     |
| production is permitted but is modified to meet visual       | 0,642 |
| quality objectives. Roads are generally open.                |       |
|                                                              |       |
| > C. Provides for visually pleasing scenery. Not suitable    |       |
| > for timber production. Roads are generally open.           |       |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 3\. B. Emphasize a sustainable supply of timber but with few | 23    |
| open roads and limited disturbance associated with motorized | 2,873 |
| vehicles.                                                    |       |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 4\. A. Permits timber production that is modified to         | 5     |
| emphasize visual quality and wildlife habitat.               | 5,604 |
|                                                              |       |
| > C. Scenic areas and older forests.                         | 17    |
| >                                                            | 9,992 |
| > D. Wildlife habitat for species requiring older forests.   |       |
|                                                              | 16    |
|                                                              | 0,080 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 5\. Roadless Areas.                                          | 11    |
|                                                              | 9,685 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 6\. Wilderness Study Areas.                                  | 8,419 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 7\. Wilderness.                                              | 6     |
|                                                              | 6,550 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 8\. Experimental Forests.                                    | 1     |
|                                                              | 2,520 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 9\. Roan Mountain.                                           | 7,900 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 10\. Research Natural Areas.                                 | 1,460 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 11\. Cradle of Forestry.                                     | 6,540 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 12\. Developed Recreation Areas.                             | 3,030 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 13\. Special Interest Areas.                                 | 1     |
|                                                              | 0,370 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 14\. Appalachian Trail and Corridor.                         | 1     |
|                                                              | 2,450 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 15\. Wild and Scenic Rivers Corridors.                       | 2,050 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 16\. Administrative Facilities Sites.                        | 1,260 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 17\. Balds.                                                  | 3,880 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+
| 18\. Riparian Areas.                                         | 10    |
|                                                              | 1,530 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------+-------+

Although the Forest Plan indicates AThe Indiana bat uses summer foraging
and maternity habitats across the Forests,@ there are no standards and
guidelines designed specifically to protect, maintain, or enhance summer
or winter Indiana bat habitat or prevent impacts to Indiana bats
roosting in trees[^2]. However, impacts to Indiana bats resulting from
the implementation of various land management activities (e.g., timber
harvesting), may be coincidentally reduced through forestwide standards
and/or the implementation of standards and guidelines specific to those
activities. For example, impacts to potential Indiana bat roosting and
foraging habitat may be minimized by carrying out the Asnag and den tree
retention@ standards, Ariparian filter strip@ standards, and guidelines
for timber harvesting (Appendix A).

Forestwide standards may minimize negative impacts to, or, in some
cases, potentially improve Indiana bat habitat. These standards and
guidelines were developed to meet specific resource objectives, to serve
as mitigation measures, and to provide for population viability for
native wildlife species. The standards and guidelines that likely
pertain to the Indiana bat are listed in Appendix A, referenced with
Forest Plan page numbers.

**STATUS OF THE SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT**

[Federal Status]{.underline}

The Indiana bat was listed as an endangered species on March 11, 1967
(32 FR 4001), under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of
October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 926; 16 U.S.C. 668aa(c)). It is currently
included as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. Critical habitat was designated on September 24, 1976
(41 FR 41914), and included caves in Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois,
Indiana, Missouri, and West Virginia.

Based on censuses taken at hibernacula between 1995 and 1997, the total,
known Indiana bat population was estimated to number about 353,000 bats;
this represents a decline of about 60% since surveys began in the 1960s.
Although the 1997 data were incomplete, the trend continues downward.
The most severe declines were in Kentucky and Missouri, where 180,000
and 250,000 bats were lost, respectively, between 1960 and 1997. In
Indiana, however, populations dropped by 50,000 between the earliest
censuses and 1980 but have rebounded to former levels in recent years.
Currently, half the known Indiana bats winter in Indiana.

The Service (1999) completed an agency draft of a revised recovery plan
for the Indiana bat. The recovery plan is being revised to: (1) update
information on the life history and ecology of the Indiana bat,
especially information on summer ecology gathered since 1983;
(2) highlight the continued and accelerated decline of the species;
(3) continue site protection and monitoring efforts at hibernacula; and
(4) focus new recovery efforts toward research in determining the factor
or factors causing population declines. The main recovery actions
identified in the revised recovery plan are to:

\# 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.

**Indiana Bat Biology**

[Description]{.underline}

The Indiana bat is a medium‑sized monotypic species (no subspecies) of
the genus *Myotis*. It is migratory and occurs over much of the eastern
half of the United States. Head and body length ranges from
1 5/8‑1 7/8 in., and forearm length ranges from 1 3/8‑1 5/8 in. (Service
1983). This species is similar in appearance to both the little brown
bat *(M. lucifugus*) and the northern long‑eared bat
(*M. septentrionalis*) but has several distinct morphological
characteristics (Barbour and Davis 1969, Hall 1981).

[General Life History Chronology]{.underline}

Typically, Indiana bats hibernate from October through April (see
AHibernation@), depending on local weather conditions (see Figure 1 for
a depiction of the annual cycle). Upon arrival at hibernating caves from
August through September, Indiana bats Aswarm,@ a behavior in which
Alarge 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 (see AFall Roost and \>Swarming=@).
A majority of bats of both sexes hibernate by the end of November.

**Figure 1. Indiana Bat Annual Chronology (from Service 1999f).**

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}

\" [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
female 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 wintering
populations leave by early May. Females may arrive in their summer
habitats as early as April 15 in Illinois (Gardner *et al*. 1991a, Brack
1979). 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. Birth 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 and early August (Mumford and
Cope 1958, Cope *et al*. 1974, Humphrey *et al*. 1977, Clark *et al*.
1987, Gardner *et al*. 1991a, Kurta *et al*. 1996).

[Survivorship]{.underline}

Humphrey and Cope (1977) determined that female survivorship in an
Indiana population of Indiana bats was 76% for ages 1 to 6 years, and
66% for ages 6 to 10 years; for males, survivorship was 70% for ages
1 to 6 years, and 36% for ages 6 to 10 years. The maximum age for banded
individuals was 15 years for females and 14 years for males. Mortality
between birth and weaning has been estimated at 8% (Humphrey *et al.*
1977). By extending the expected survivorship rates beyond 10 years
(Humphrey and Cope 1977) so that the same rate of survivorship found
between ages 6 and 10 is extended to their estimated maximum ages (see
l~x~ in Appendix B), the survivorship between birth and 1 year can be
estimated at about 50% by using a standard life table and assuming a
stable population (Appendix B). Current research has yet to determine
when (or why), in the Indiana bat=s life, that survivorship has
decreased and resulted in the current rate of decline.

[Food Habits]{.underline}

Indiana bats feed strictly on flying insects, with prey items reflecting
the environment in which they forage (most often terrestrial insects).
Indiana bats typically feed in the subcanopy of forests with 60%‑80%
canopy cover (Garner and Gardner 1992, Romme *et al.* 1995), especially
in riparian woodlands (Brack 1983, Gardner *et al.* 1991b, Humphrey
*et al.* 1977, LaVal *et al.* 1977), though they also feed in upland
areas. Diet varies seasonally and differs with age, sex, and
reproductive status (Belwood 1979, Lee 1993). Reproductively active
females and juveniles exhibit the greatest dietary diversity, likely
because of increased energy needs. Reproductively active females consume
more aquatic insects than males or juveniles (Lee 1993).

Moths (Lepidoptera) are major prey items (Belwood 1979; Brack and LaVal
1985; Lee 1993), but caddisflies (Trichoptera) and flies (Diptera) are
also documented as major food items (Kurta and Whitaker 1998). Mosquitos
and midges are also major food items, especially those species that form
large mating aggregations over water (Belwood 1979). Male Indiana bats
summering near hibernacula feed primarily on moths and beetles (Service
1999f). Other food items include bees, wasps, and flying ants
(Hymenoptera), beetles (Coleoptera), stone flies (Plecoptera),
leafhoppers and treehoppers (Homoptera), lacewings (Neuroptera), and
true bugs (Hemiptera) (Whitaker 1972, Belwood 1979).

Indiana bats require open water for drinking. Streams, small ponds,
wetlands, and even road ruts serve as important sources of drinking
water during summer months. Upland water sources appear to be important
for all bat species, including Indiana bats. In Indiana, where a habitat
model was developed, the highest values were achieved when permanent
water sources were available within 66 ft. of roosting sites. Habitat
suitability values decline slightly, but are constantly high, from
66 ft. to 0.6 mi. from roost sites. The maximum travel distance reported
for Indiana bats is about 2.5 mi. Roosting sites more than 2.5 mi. from
water were assumed to be unsuitable (Romme *et al.* 1995). Studies in
the Cumberland Plateau and Cumberland Mountains of eastern Kentucky
(MacGregor *et al.* 1996) show that ponds and water‑filled road ruts in
forest uplands are primary water sources for Indiana bats, while stream
corridors received relatively little use.

[Hibernation]{.underline}

Indiana bats hibernate in winter and are restricted to a few suitable
hibernacula (typically caves, but also abandoned mines and even a tunnel
and a hydroelectric dam) that are primarily found in the karst region of
the Eastern United States. Generally, Indiana bats hibernate from
October through April (Hall 1962, LaVal and LaVal 1980), depending on
local weather conditions. They hibernate in large, dense clusters,
ranging from 300‑484 bats per sq. ft. Indiana bats have very specific
habitat requirements for a hibernation site to be suitable, with
temperature being the most notable. In the southern part of their range,
hibernacula trap large volumes of cold air, and the bats hibernate where
resulting rock temperatures drop; in the northern part of the range, the
bats avoid the coldest sites. In both cases, the bats are choosing cold
sites with a low risk of freezing. Stable low temperatures allow the
bats to maintain a low metabolic rate that will conserve energy reserves
through the winter until spring emergence (Humphrey 1978, Richter
*et al.* 1993). 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
(Service 1999f). Further, relative humidity at hibernacula is usually
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
determine the suitability of a cave for Indiana bats, but only a small
percentage of available caves provide these conditions.

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).

The Indiana Bat Recovery Plan (Service 1999f) ranks hibernation sites
into three tiers. More than 85% of the rangewide population occupies
nine Priority I hibernacula (hibernation sites with a recorded
population \>30,000 bats since 1960), three each in Indiana, Kentucky,
and Missouri. Priority II hibernacula (between 500 and 29,999
individuals) are found in the previously mentioned three States and in
Arkansas, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West
Virginia. Priority III hibernacula (1 to 499 individuals) have been
reported from 17 States, including all of the aforementioned, as well as
Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin (Service 1999f).

Although hibernating populations are reported to be stable or increasing
in some portions of its range (e.g., in Indiana, Illinois, New York,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia), Indiana bat numbers have continued to
decline rangewide. The most precipitous declines have occurred in
Kentucky and Missouri (Service 1999f).

[Fall Roosts and ASwarming@]{.underline}

Before hibernation, Indiana bats undergo Aswarming,@ an activity in
which the bats congregate around the hibernacula or other nonhibernation
caves, flying into and out of the cave, but typically roosting outside
the cave during the day (Cope and Humphrey 1977). Swarming continues for
several weeks, during which time the bats replenish fat reserves before
hibernation (Service 1983) and mate. Adult female Indiana bats store
sperm through the winter and become pregnant, via delayed fertilization,
soon after leaving the hibernacula. Indiana bats tend to hibernate in
the same cave in which they swarm (LaVal *et al*. 1976), although
swarming has occurred in caves other than those in which the bats
hibernate (Cope and Humphrey 1977; John MacGregor, USFS, personal
observation, 1996). Depending on local weather conditions, swarming may
continue through October, or even longer. Males generally remain active
longer than the females during this prehibernation period (LaVal and
LaVal 1980), probably to maximize their mating possibilities and
replenish fat reserves used in pursuit of females. After mating, females
enter directly into hibernation. Most individuals (both sexes) are
hibernating by the end of November (by mid‑October in northern areas
\[Kurta *in litt*.\]), but hibernacula populations may increase
throughout the fall and even into January (Clawson *et al*. 1980).

During the fall Aswarm,@ male Indiana bats roost in trees during the
day. In Kentucky, male bats have been found roosting primarily in dead
trees on upper slopes and ridgetops within 1.5 mi. of their
hibernaculum. During September in West Virginia, males have been found
roosting in trees near ridgetops within 3.5 mi. of their hibernacula,
often switching roost trees from day to day (Craig Stihler, West
Virginia Division of Natural Resources, personal observation, 1996).
Fall roost sites tend to be more exposed to sunlight than roost sites
used at other times of the year (MacGregor, personal observation, 1996).

[Spring Roosts]{.underline}

Females emerge from the hibernacula ahead of males, generally in late
March or early April, and most wintering populations have dispersed by
early May, migrating varying distances to their summer habitats. Spring
roosting is, in some respects, not a valid habitat descriptor; because,
in part, postemergence movement is mostly directional (i.e., the bats
are moving toward their summer habitat), brief, and essentially occurs
in summer habitat except, during the time it takes to fly from the
hibernacula to their summer habitat. Females dispersing from a Kentucky
hibernaculum in the spring moved 4‑10 mi. within 10 days of emergence
(MacGregor, *in litt*., 1999). Therefore, spring roosting requirements
are likely similar to summer roosting habitat requirements. However,
because the bats use some areas only briefly as they move towards their
summer habitat, these requirements may be less specific. During this
early spring period, females may use several roosts (i.e., small
cavities) temporarily, until a roost with larger numbers of bats is
established (see maternity roosts). Some males spend the summer near
their hibernacula (LaVal and LaVal 1980) while others migrate out of the
area. Movements of 2.5‑10 mi. have been reported in Kentucky, Missouri,
and Virginia (MacGregor, *in litt*., 1999; Hobson and Holland 1995;
3D/International 1996). Males roost in both trees and caves during the
summer; presumably, spring habitat requirements are similar to those of
summer.

[Migration Patterns]{.underline}

Sparse band recovery records, all from the Midwest, indicate that
females and some males migrate north in the spring upon emergence from
their hibernacula (Hall 1962, Barbour and Davis 1969, Kurta 1980, LaVal
and LaVal 1980), though there is evidence of movement in other
directions. However, though it appears likely that the majority of
individuals migrate north, because of the limited amount of data
available on migration and the recent discoveries of reproductive
activity further south than previously suspected, interpretation of
current data should be cautious.

[Summer Habitats]{.underline}

Researchers are still learning about the summer needs of this endangered
species, and the perception of what constitutes good habitat and the
quantities and the extent of this habitat has evolved over the past few
years. Early researchers considered flood‑plain and riparian forests to
be the primary roosting and foraging habitats used in the summer by the
Indiana bat (Humphrey *et al*. 1977), and these forest types are
unquestionably important. More recently, upland forests have been shown
to be used by Indiana bats for roosting (Clark *et al*. 1987, Gardner
*et al*. 1991b, Callahan *et al*. 1997, MacGregor, *in litt*., 1999),
and upland forests, old fields, and pastures with scattered trees have
been shown to provide foraging habitat (Gardner *et al*. 1991b;
MacGregor, *in litt*., 1999).

Throughout the species= range, the presence of the Indiana bat 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) its solar
exposure and location in relation to other trees; and (4) its 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 (*Populus deltoides*), elms (*Ulmus* spp.),
hickories (*Carya* spp.), maples (*Acer* spp.), oaks (*Quercus* spp.),
pines (*Pinus* spp.), sassafras (*Sassafras albidum*), sourwood
(*Oxydendrum arboreum*), sweet birch, and yellow buckeye (*Aesculus
octandra*) (Cope *et al*. 1974, Humphrey *et al*. 1977, Gardner *et al*.
1991a and b, Garner and Gardner 1992, Kurta *et al*. 1993, Romme
*et al*. 1995, Kiser and Elliott 1996, Kiser *et al*. 1996, Kurta
*et al*. 1996, Callahan *et al*. 1997). Morphological characteristics of
the bark of several trees make them suitable as roosts for Indiana bats;
that is, when dead, senescent, or severely injured (e.g., lightning),
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 also provide roost sites. The persistence of
peeling bark varies with the tree species and the severity of
environmental factors to which it is subjected. While some tree species
are undoubtedly more often suitable as roosting habitat, structure
(exfoliating bark with space for bats to roost between the bark and the
bole of the tree) is more important than the species of the tree.

Indiana bat maternity colonies have multiple roosts, in both dead and
living trees. APrimary@ roosts are generally in openings or at the edge
of forest stands, while Aalternate@ roosts (based upon the proportion of
bats in a colony occupying the roost site) can be in either the open or
the interior of forest stands. Maternity colonies have at least one
primary roost (up to three have been identified for a single colony)
used by most of the bats throughout the summer. Colonies may also have
multiple alternate roosts used by small numbers of bats intermittently
throughout the summer (Service 1999f). Kurta *et al.* (1996) studied a
maternity colony in northern Michigan over a 3‑year period and noted
that bats changed roost trees an average of every 2.9 days and that the
number of roosts used by the colony ranged from 5 to 18. Other studies
have shown that adults in maternity colonies may use as few as 2, or as
many as 33, alternate roosts (Humphrey *et al*. 1977, Gardner *et al.*
1991a, Garner and Gardner 1992, Callahan 1993, Kurta *et al.* 1993,
Romme *et al.* 1995).

Indiana bats move from one roost to another within a season, as well as
in response to changes in environmental conditions (temperature and
precipitation) or when a particular roost becomes unavailable (Gardner
*et al*. 1991a, Callahan *et al*. 1997). Therefore, the importance of an
individual roost site may not be as important as some researchers have
suggested (Humphrey *et al.* 1977), and the Indiana bat may be more
adaptable concerning roosting habitats than previously believed.
However, though the species appears to be an adaptable animal that takes
advantage of the ephemeral habitat available to it, 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, Callahan *et al*. 1997).

Most roost trees used by a maternity colony are close to one another,
and 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 yards to several miles and, in one
case, 3.1 mi. (Callahan 1993, Callahan *et al*. 1997, Service 1999f).

Thermoregulation may be a factor in roost site selection. Therefore,
exposure to sunlight and location relative to other trees are likely
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. Primary roosts are generally not surrounded by a closed canopy
and can be warmed by solar radiation, thus providing a favorable
microclimate for the growth and development of young during normal
weather. Additionally, dead trees with east‑southeast and
south‑southwest exposures may allow solar radiation to warm nursery
roosts effectively. Roosts in some species of living trees (e.g.,
shagbark hickory \[*Carya ovata*\]), on the other hand, may provide
better protection from rain and other unfavorable environmental
conditions because the greater thermal mass of these live trees can
maintain more favorable temperatures for roosting bats during cool
periods (Humphrey *et al*. 1977). The tight bark of these trees shields
bats from the encroachment of water into the roost during rain events
(Callahan *et al*. 1997). Snags exposed to direct solar radiation were
used most frequently by Indiana bats as summer roosts, followed by snags
not fully exposed to solar radiation and live trees not fully exposed
(Callahan 1993).

Alternate roosts tend to be more shaded, are frequently within forest
stands, and are selected when temperatures are above normal or during
periods of precipitation. Shagbark hickories again seem to provide
particularly good alternate roosts because of the factors listed above.
Roost site selection and use may differ between the northern and
southern parts of the species= range, but, to date, such analyses have
not been undertaken.

Known primary roost trees have ranged in size from 12.2-29.9 in. dbh
(summarized in Romme *et al*. 1995). Miller (1996) compared Indiana bat
habitat variables for sites in northern Missouri and noted that
significantly larger trees (\>12 in. dbh) were found where
reproductively active Indiana bats had been netted than at sites at
which bats had not been captured. Alternate roost trees also tend to be
large, mature trees, but the range in size is somewhat wider than that
of primary roosts (7.1-32.7 in. dbh) (Romme *et al.* 1995).

Because some characteristics of roosting habitat preferred by Indiana
bats are ephemeral, it is difficult to generalize or estimate their
longevity due to the many factors that influence them (bark may slough
off completely or the tree may fall over). Although roosts may only be
habitable for 1 to 2 years under Anatural conditions@ for some tree
species (Humphrey *et al*. 1977), others with good bark retention, such
as slippery elm (*Ulmus fulva*), cottonwood, green ash (*Fraxinus
pennsylvanica*), and oaks, may provide roosting habitat 4 to 8 years
(Gardner *et al*. 1991a, Callahan *et al*. 1997, Service 1999f).
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 1 year to the next (Bowles 1981,
Humphrey *et al*. 1977, Gardner *et al*. 1991a and 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 they had occupied during previous years
(Gardner *et al*. 1991b).

Most maternity records for 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
conducted, in this Midwest region. Although the woodlands in this
glaciated region are 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 (Service
1999f). 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, this may be an artifact in
comparing these areas with the highly fragmented Midwestern forests.

Indiana bats occupy distinct home ranges during the summer (Gardner
*et al.* 1990). Average home range sizes vary from about 70 ac.
(juvenile males) to more than 525 ac. (postlactating adult females).
Roosts occupied by individuals range from 0.33 mi. to more than 1.6 mi.
from preferred foraging habitat but are generally within 1.2 mi. of
water (e.g., stream, lake, pond, natural or manmade water‑filled
depression).

**[Foraging habitat and behavior]{.underline}**

**Indiana bats forage in and around the tree canopy of flood‑plain,
riparian, and upland forests. 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, as well as 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*. 1991b).
Within flood‑plain forests where Indiana bats forage, canopy closures
range from 30%‑100% (Gardner *et al*. 1991b). Cope *et al*. (1978)
characterized woody vegetation within a width of at least 30 yards on
both sides of a stream as excellent foraging habitat. Streams,
associated flood‑plain forests, and impounded bodies of water (e.g.,
wetlands, reservoirs) are preferred foraging habitats for pregnant and
lactating Indiana bats, some of which may fly up to 1.5 mi. from upland
roosts (Gardner *et al*. 1991b). Indiana bats also forage within the
canopy of upland forests, over clearings with early successional
vegetation, along the borders of croplands, along wooded fencerows, and
over farm ponds in pastures (Clark *et al*. 1987, Gardner *et al*.
1991b).**

**Indiana bat maternity colony foraging areas have ranged from a linear
strip of creek vegetation 0.5 mi. in length (Belwood 1979, Cope *et al*.
1974, Humphrey *et al*. 1977) to a foraging area 0.75 mi. in length,
within which bats flew over a wooded river or around the riverside trees
(Cope *et al*. 1978). Indiana bats return nightly to their foraging
areas (Gardner *et al*. 1991b).**

**Indiana bats usually forage and fly within an air space from 6‑100 ft.
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. (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. Some male bats also foraged at
the edges of small flood‑plain pastures, within dense forests, and on
hillsides and ridgetops; maximum reported distance was 1.2 mi. (LaVal
*et al*. 1976, LaVal *et al.* 1977, LaVal and LaVal 1980). In Kentucky,
MacGregor (*in litt*., December 1998) reported that the maximum distance
males moved from their hibernaculum in the summer was about 2.6 mi. In
the fall, male Indiana bats tend to roost and forage in upland and
ridgetop forests, but may also forage in valley and riparian forests;
movements of 1.8‑4.2 mi. have been reported in Kentucky and Missouri
(Kiser and Elliott 1996, 3D/International 1996, MacGregor, *in litt*.,
June 1997).**

**Summer Habitat Model**

Romme *et al.* (1995) developed a habitat suitability index (HSI) model
for the Indiana bat that identified nine variables believed to be the
major components of summer habitat for the species. The model was
developed for use in southern Indiana, but it may also be applicable in
other areas within the species= range. The five variables considered
important for roosting habitat within the analysis areas included:
(1) the amount of overstory canopy, (2) the diameter of overstory trees,
(3) the density of potential live roost trees, (4) snag density, and
(5) the amount of understory cover. Variables considered important
foraging habitat components included the amount of overstory canopy and
the percentage of trees between 2 in. and 4.7 in. dbh. Distance to water
and percentage of the analysis area with forest cover are also
considered to be important habitat variables. The habitat model also
classifies species of trees that may provide roosts for Indiana bats
(Class I through Class III, with Class I being the most important).
Class I trees include:

> Silver maple Shagbark hickory Shellbark hickory
>
> Bitternut hickory Green ash White ash
>
> Eastern cottonwood Red oak Post oak
>
> White oak Slippery elm American elm

These species are likely to develop the loose, exfoliating bark as they
age and/or die that is preferred by Indiana bats as roosting sites.
Class II trees were identified (including sugar maple, shingle oak
\[*Quercus imbricaria*\], and sassafras) as species believed to be of
somewhat lesser value for roosting Indiana bats. Class III trees are all
other species of trees not included in the other two classes. Class II
and III trees are species that are less likely to provide optimal
roosting habitat but may develop suitable cracks, crevices, or loose
bark after the trees die.

In southern Indiana, where the HSI model was developed, optimal Indiana
bat roosting habitat consists of areas that are within 0.6 mi. of open
water and contain at least 30% forest cover that meets the following
requirements: (a) roosting habitat consisting of overstory canopy of
60%‑80%, overstory trees with an average dbh of 15.7 in. at a density of
at least 16 or more per acre, snags with a dbh of at least 8.7 in. at a
density of at least six snags per acre, understory cover (i.e., from
2 meters above the forest floor to the bottom of the overstory canopy)
of 35% or less and (b) foraging habitat consisting of overstory canopy
cover of 50% to 70%, with 35% or less of the understory trees between
2 in. and 5 in. dbh (Romme *et al.* 1995).

**Threats to the Species**

Not all of the causes of the Indiana bat population decline have been
determined. Although several known human‑related factors have caused
population declines in the past, they may not be entirely responsible
for recent declines. Several known and suspected causes of decline are
discussed below.

[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, a bat=s
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 Caves State Park, Kentucky, when three youths tore
masses of bats from the ceiling and trampled and stoned them to death
(Mohr 1972). Another documented incident was reported from Thornhill
Cave in Kentucky, where at least 255 Indiana bats were killed by shotgun
blasts in January 1987 (Anonymous 1987).

[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 1950s, the exclusion of
Indiana bats from caves and changes in air flow are the major causes of
loss in Kentucky (an estimated 200,000 bats at three caves)[^3] (Service
1999f). Other cave gates have so modified the climate of hibernacula
that Indiana bats are unable to survive the winter because changes in
air flow elevated temperatures, which caused an increased metabolic rate
and a premature exhaustion of fat reserves (Richter *et al.* 1993;
Merlin Tuttle, Bat Conservation International, *in litt*., 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 in Indiana, dramatic population increases
followed gate replacement and the 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
three‑fold increase in Indiana bat numbers in Ray=s Cave in Indiana
(Brack *et al*. 1991). The recovery of hibernating populations to
historic levels, however, have not been as successful elsewhere. At
Hundred Dome Cave in Kentucky, predicted population gains have never
been realized, although air flow obstructions have been removed and
gates suitable for the species have been installed (Service 1999f).

[Natural hazards]{.underline}. Indiana bats are subject to a number of
natural hazards. River flooding in Bat Cave at Mammoth Cave National
Park in Kentucky caused large numbers of Indiana bats to drown (Hall
1962). Other cases of hibernacula being flooded have been recorded by
Hall (1962), DeBlase *et al*. (1965), and the 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 (Service 1999f). 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 (Service 1999f).

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 with temperatures in the 1970s and early 1980s. A major
population loss occurred between the mid‑1980s and 1998. A 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 (Service 1999f).

[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).

[Microclimate effects]{.underline}. Changes in the microclimates of
caves and mines may have contributed more to the decline in population
levels of the Indiana bat than previously estimated (Tuttle, *in litt*.
August 4, 1998). Entrances and internal passages essential to air flow
may become larger, smaller, or closed, with concomitant increases or
decreases in air flow. The blockage of entry points, even those too
small to be recognized, can be extremely important in hibernacula that
require chimney‑effect air flow in order to function.

Hibernacula in the southern portions of the Indiana bat=s range may
either be near the warm edge of the bat=s hibernating tolerance or have
relatively less stable temperatures. Hibernacula in the northern portion
of its range may have passages that become too cold, and the bats must
be able to escape particularly cold temperatures. 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 both cases, modifications that obstruct air flow or bat
movement could adversely affect the species (Service 1999f).

Recent analysis of mid‑winter temperature records obtained during
hibernacula surveys, especially of Priority I caves, suggests that
unacceptable deviations in roost temperatures may account for some of
the overall population decline (M. Tuttle, *in litt*., 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, the temperature and relative humidity of 13 major
hibernacula in Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia were
monitored. Investigations revealed that crucial air flow had been
interrupted at some sites, and the air temperature had risen a few
degrees above optimal levels in others, providing additional initial
evidence that changes in microclimates may be contributing to this
species= drastic decline (Tuttle, *in litt*., August 4, 1998).
Additional years of monitoring at these sites will be necessary to
further evaluate any changes in hibernation conditions.

[Land‑use practices]{.underline}. Habitat within the Indiana bat=s
maternity range has changed dramatically since presettlement 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, many chemicals are applied
to these intensely agricultural areas. The changes in the landscape and
the use of chemicals (McFarland 1998) may have reduced the availability
and abundance of the bat=s insect forage base.

Conversely, regions surrounding hibernacula in the Missouri Ozarks and
elsewhere are now more densely forested than they were historically
(Sauer 1920, Ladd 1991, Jacobson and Primm 1997). Consequently, the
open, savannalike conditions that may have been important to the species
maternity habitat (Romme *et al.* 1995) in part of its range are much
less abundant today than occurred historically (Service 1999f).

In the Eastern United States, the area of land covered by forest has
been increasing in recent years (MacCleery 1992) but is still young by
historical standards. Whether 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.
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 limited to regional or rangewide
populations (Service 1999f).

[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 and the northern long‑eared bat‑‑as
surrogates in northern Missouri and documented depressed levels of
acetylcholinesterase, suggesting that bats there may be exposed to
sublethal levels of carbamate and/or organophosphate insecticides
applied to agricultural crops. McFarland (1998) also showed 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.

**Status of the Species in North Carolina**

Several documented and unverified Indiana bat records exist for the last
60 years in North Carolina. The Agency Draft Indiana Bat Recovery Plan
(Service 1999f) lists county records for Henderson, Jackson, Rutherford,
Mitchell, and Swain Counties. The Henderson County record is in error
because the cave where the Indiana bat has been found is in Rutherford
County and the location has been tallied for both counties.

Boynton *et al.* (1992) summarized information for the known Indiana bat
records in North Carolina. The Mitchell County record is based on one
specimen, date unknown. There is one specimen from Swain County (Hewitt
Station, an abandoned mine) collected before 1962. The North Carolina
State Museum of Natural Sciences has four specimens of Indiana bats
collected in 1947 from Rutherford County at what is now the Bat Cave
Preserve (owned and managed by The Nature Conservancy). This complex
system of fissure caves was surveyed in 1984, 1991, 1995, and 1997.
Individual Indiana bats were found in 1984 and 1991.

On July 25, 1999, a postlactating female and a juvenile male Indiana bat
were captured on upper Santeetlah Creek in the Nantahala National
Forest, Graham County, North Carolina. A radio transmitter was attached
to the female, and she was tracked to a large dead Canadian hemlock the
following night. A juvenile female Indiana bat was captured the same
night. Monitoring over the next several nights documented 28 bats using
the same hemlock as a roost site. This represents the first likely
maternity colony found in North Carolina and the first summer breeding
found south of Kentucky.

White Oak Blowhole Cave in Blount County, Tennessee, is slightly more
than 5 mi. northeast of Graham County, North Carolina. This cave is a
Priority II hibernacula and has been designated as critical habitat for
the Indiana bat. The winter population at this hibernaculum has
undergone an inconsistent decline (Figure 2) since a high of 11,287
Indiana bats were counted in 1981. Only 3,084 were found in 1999.

**ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE**

Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, when considering the Aeffects of the
action@ on federally listed species, we are required to take into
consideration the environmental baseline. The environmental baseline
includes past and ongoing natural factors and the past and present
impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other activities
in the action area (50 CFR 402.02), including Federal actions in the
area that have already undergone section 7 consultation, and the impacts
of State or private actions that are contemporaneous with the
consultation in process. The environmental baseline for this Opinion
considers all USFS projects approved prior to the initiation of formal
consultation with the Service (October 18, 1999).

The action area for this consultation, though it covers over one million
acres, impacts less than 1% of the known range of the Indiana bat.
Similarly, it is likely that less than 2% of the known Indiana bat
population occurs within the consultation area (see AProximity to
Hibernacula@). No critical habitat occurs within the project area.

At this time no Indiana bat hibernacula are known to occur on the NPNFs.
The hibernaculum closest to the NPNFs is Whiteoak Blowhole cave in the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee (see AStatus of the
Species in North Carolina@). The Indiana bat population at this
Priority II hibernacula has ranged from about 3,000 bats to more than
11,000 (Figure 2). This hibernaculum is the likely origin of any Indiana
bats that might establish maternity roost sites on the NPNFs. There is
no USFS land within 10 mi. of this cave; however, within 20 mi. of the
cave there are over 17,000 ac. of suitable Indiana bat habitat (see
AUSFS Assessment of Current Habitat Conditions for the Indiana Bat on
the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests@) on the NPNFs. Within 40 mi.
there are 131,000 ac., and within 100 mi. there are 408,000 ac.
(Table 5).

  ---------------- ------------- --------------- ---------------------------
  **Table 5.                                     
  Suitable Indiana                               
  Bat Habitat on                                 
  the Nantahala                                  
  and Pisgah                                     
  National Forests                               
  near Whiteoak                                  
  Blowhole Cave                                  
  Hibernacula.**                                 

  **Radius from    **Total       **USFS -        **Suitable Indiana Bat
  Hibernacula**    acres**       acres**         Habitat on Nantahala and
                                                 Pisgah National Forests**

  20 miles (mi.)   800,128       50,040          17,140

  40 mi.           3,200,526     329,740         131,030

  60 mi.           7,201,238     635,260         262,845

  100 mi.          20,003,584    888,120         408,520

  130 mi.          33,806,119    1,027,380       490,000
  ---------------- ------------- --------------- ---------------------------

Following the discovery of the Indiana bat in Graham County, North
Carolina, the Service advised the USFS that, based on habitat
similarities, the species may be present in adjacent counties (Macon,
Swain, and Cherokee). The USFS evaluated their responsibilities under
the Act and suspended activities involving the cutting of trees in those
counties until the effects of ongoing and proposed actions could be
determined. The Service consulted with the USFS on several projects (see
AConsultation History@) and agreed that these projects were not likely
to adversely affect the Indiana bat. Other ongoing and proposed projects
were determined by the USFS to have Ano effect.@ All consultations with
the USFS concerning the Indiana bat on USFS land in western North
Carolina since the Graham County discovery have been on the Nantahala
National Forest in Graham, Cherokee, Macon, and Swain Counties, North
Carolina. Projects outside this four‑county area on the Nantahala
National Forest and all of the Pisgah National Forest have continued
following informal consultation on the Indiana bat.

**USFS Assessment of Current Habitat Conditions for the Indiana Bat on
the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests**

In the BA, the USFS described the current quality and quantity of
Indiana bat summer habitat[^4] on the NPNFs. Five summer habitat
variables were selected for analysis of summer habitat conditions:
(1) percent canopy cover, (2) number and size of live potential roost
trees, (3) tree species/forest type, (4) number and size of dead roost
trees (snags), and (5) percent of area forested. Specific habitat
suitability criteria for identifying habitat suitability threshold
levels were determined after reviewing HSI values developed by Romme
*et al.* (1995), other research studies, and threshold criteria levels
used by other national forests.

In evaluating the quality and availability of Indiana bat habitat, both
at current conditions and those projected at the end of the life of the
Forest Plan, the USFS assessed habitat conditions on three
scales‑‑(1) at the timber stand level, (2) 2‑mi diameter circles (see
AFocal Analysis@), and (3) across the forest landscape. In the USFS=s
analysis, three levels of habitat quality were also
established‑‑(1) optimal habitat, (2) suitable habitat, and
(3) unsuitable habitat. These levels of habitat quality were established
using a combination of sources, including recent scientific field
studies, personal communications from recognized professional bat
biologists, habitat suitability criteria levels used by other national
forests, Forest Inventory and Monitoring (FIM) data, field data
collected on the NPNFs, past research studies, communications with the
Service, and the Indiana Bat HSI model developed by Romme *et al.*
(1995)[^5]. Depending on the habitat variable, habitat suitability
threshold criteria were established and used to display spatially and
tabularly the amount and distribution of suitable habitat. In some
instances, the minimum suitable levels were used for the analysis, while
for other habitat elements, an optimal habitat criteria was used. The
choice between optimal versus suitable criteria depended on the
available information.

**Evaluation of Roosting Habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National
Forests**

The following four habitat variables were used to define and evaluate
Indiana bat summer roosting habitat suitability:

1.  Percent Canopy Cover: A wide range of canopy coverage conditions
    exists at known summer maternity and other summer roosts. Romme
    *et al*. (1995) used an HSI value of 60%‑80% canopy cover as
    providing optimal summer maternity roosting habitat. No HSI value
    was predicted to represent less than optimal canopy coverage
    conditions. However, studies conducted by MacGregor (personal
    communication, 1999) on the Daniel Boone National Forest in
    Kentucky, indicate that male Indiana bats have been found using
    roost trees where canopy cover was as low as the mid‑20% range.

> The NPNFs do not currently collect percent canopy cover information
> when conducting silvicultural examinations; there are no existing
> models from which to predict relationships between forest type, forest
> age, site quality, size of trees, tree density, and canopy coverage
> conditions for Southern Appalachian hardwood forests. Information
> provided by the forest silviculturist shows an acceptable relationship
> between forest age and stand condition class (stand density) to
> predict at least optimal canopy coverage conditions (refer to
> Appendix C of the BA). Consequently, the USFS used \>60% canopy
> coverage[^6] to assess this habitat variable across the NPNFs. No
> attempt was made to analyze habitat conditions based on the suitable
> criteria, only optimal criteria.
>
> Optimal maternity roost habitat overstory conditions are being
> provided on about 57% of the forested acres on the NPNFs with no
> appreciable change being predicted over the next 5 years (Table 6).

+-------------------+-----------+----------+------------+-------------+
| **Table 6. Acres  |           |          |            |             |
| of Optimal        |           |          |            |             |
| (Roosting         |           |          |            |             |
| Habitat) Canopy   |           |          |            |             |
| Closure           |           |          |            |             |
| (\>60%).**        |           |          |            |             |
+-------------------+-----------+----------+------------+-------------+
| **Forest          | **        | **%      | *          | **%         |
| Grouping**        | Current** | C        | *Projected | Projected   |
|                   |           | urrent** | 2004**     | 2004**      |
|                   | **Co      |          |            |             |
|                   | ndition** | **Con    |            |             |
|                   |           | dition** |            |             |
+-------------------+-----------+----------+------------+-------------+
| Cove Hardwood     | 236,641   | 43%      | 236,849    | 43%         |
+-------------------+-----------+----------+------------+-------------+
| Upland Hardwood   | 290,380   | 53%      | 290,982    | 53%         |
+-------------------+-----------+----------+------------+-------------+
| Yellow            | 25,412    | 4%       | 25,412     | 4%          |
| Pine-Hardwood     |           |          |            |             |
+-------------------+-----------+----------+------------+-------------+
| Total Acres       | 552,433   |          | 553,243    |             |
+-------------------+-----------+----------+------------+-------------+

**2. Number and Size of Live Potential Roost Trees (number of trees and
diameter):** Romme *et al*. (1995) used an HSI value of at least
16 trees/acre, of at least 9 in. dbh, as providing optimal roosting
habitat conditions. The USFS=s analysis of FIM data shows that stand age
can be used as an indicator of when stands provide the desired number of
a certain size tree. Their analysis used at least 16 trees/acre as
optimal and 8‑15 trees/acre as suitable (refer to Appendix C of the BA).

> The USFS=s analysis also evaluated the availability of forest stands
> to provide 16‑in. dbh trees as live roost trees and potential future
> roost trees. The USFS used three trees per acre or greater as
> providing optimal habitat conditions. Their analysis of FIM data
> indicates that a stand age of at least 70 years will provide optimal
> numbers of 16‑in. dbh trees.
>
> Optimal tree densities, which are a component of potential live roost
> tree conditions, are being provided on about 83% of the forested acres
> on NPNFs (Table 7). An additional 4,000+ ac will reach Aoptimal@
> conditions in the next 5 years.

+---------------+-------------+-----------+------------+-------------+
| **Table 7.    |             |           |            |             |
| Acres         |             |           |            |             |
| Providing at  |             |           |            |             |
| least         |             |           |            |             |
| 16 Trees/Acre |             |           |            |             |
| and           |             |           |            |             |
| \>9 in. dbh   |             |           |            |             |
| (Optimal      |             |           |            |             |
| Roosting      |             |           |            |             |
| Habitat)**    |             |           |            |             |
+---------------+-------------+-----------+------------+-------------+
| **Forest      | **Current   | **%       | *          | **%         |
| Grouping**    | Condition** | Current** | *Projected | Projected   |
|               |             |           | 2004**     | 2004**      |
|               |             | **Co      |            |             |
|               |             | ndition** |            |             |
+---------------+-------------+-----------+------------+-------------+
| Cove Hardwood | 329,039     | 41%       | 331,224    | 41%         |
+---------------+-------------+-----------+------------+-------------+
| Upland        | 440,814     | 55%       | 442,984    | 55%         |
| Hardwood      |             |           |            |             |
+---------------+-------------+-----------+------------+-------------+
| Yellow        | 34,622      | 4%        | 34,667     | 4%          |
| Pine-Hardwood |             |           |            |             |
+---------------+-------------+-----------+------------+-------------+
| **Total       | 804,475     |           | 808,875    |             |
| Acres**       |             |           |            |             |
+---------------+-------------+-----------+------------+-------------+

> The mean diameter of primary roost trees is approximately 15.7 in. dbh
> (Romme *et al.* 1995). An estimated 58% of forested acres of the NPNFs
> provide habitat with optimal densities of larger diameter roost trees
> (Table 8). For this analysis, the USFS used an age of 70 years or
> greater to identify stands that would more than adequately provide at
> least three trees per acre (Table 9); over 100,000 ac. will become
> more than 70 years of age by 2004. This analysis predicts that more
> than 69% of the forested acres on the NPNFs will provide optimal
> densities of larger‑diameter live potential roost trees. Using the
> list of Class I and II tree species developed by Romme *et al.*
> (1995), an analysis of forest CISC types on the NPNFs shows that
> approximately 886,270 ac., or roughly 91% of forested acres on the
> NPNFs contain Class I and II trees that potentially could provide
> suitable Indiana bat habitat conditions.

+----------------+---------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| **Table 8.     |               |           |            |           |
| Acres          |               |           |            |           |
| Providing at   |               |           |            |           |
| Least Three    |               |           |            |           |
| 16‑in. dbh     |               |           |            |           |
| Trees/Acre     |               |           |            |           |
| (Optimal       |               |           |            |           |
| Habitat).**    |               |           |            |           |
+----------------+---------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| **Forest       | **Current     | **%       | *          | **%       |
| Grouping**     | Condition**   | Current** | *Projected | Projected |
|                |               |           | 2004**     | 2004**    |
|                |               | **Co      |            |           |
|                |               | ndition** |            |           |
+----------------+---------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Cove Hardwood  | 195,815       | 35%       | 246,824    | 37%       |
+----------------+---------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Upland         | 343,784       | 61%       | 395,372    | 59%       |
| Hardwood       |               |           |            |           |
+----------------+---------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Yellow         | 25,675        | 4%        | 30,251     | 4%        |
| Pine-Hardwood  |               |           |            |           |
+----------------+---------------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| **Total        | 565,274       |           | 672,447    |           |
| Acres**        |               |           |            |           |
+----------------+---------------+-----------+------------+-----------+

  ---------------- ------------- ------------- ----------- ------------- ------------
  **Table 9.                                                             
  Age‑class                                                              
  Distribution for                                                       
  Forested Acres                                                         
  Consisting of                                                          
  Suitable Forest                                                        
  CISC Types, for                                                        
  Current Year and                                                       
  Projected Year                                                         
  2004 (No                                                               
  Management).**                                                         

  **Age‑class**    **Current**   **Percent**   **2004**    **Percent**   **Change**

  0-10             22,548        3%            6056        1%            -16,528

  11-20            28,729        3%            37,249      4%            +8,520

  21-30            19,286        2%            18,415      2%            -871

  31-40            11,196        1%            15,670      2%            +4,474

  41-50            15,065        2%            11,205      1%            -3,860

  51-60            52,349        6%            23,411      3%            -28,938

  61-70            171,787       19%           101,817     11%           -69,970

  71-80            213,693       24%           207,305     23%           -6,388

  81-90            130,554       15%           179,693     20%           +49,139

  91-100           81,019        9%            104,409     12%           +23,390

  \>100            140,008       16%           181,040     20%           +41,032
  ---------------- ------------- ------------- ----------- ------------- ------------

**3. Tree Species (Class I and II trees):** Using the Class I and
Class II tree species listed by Romme *et al*. (1995), forest CISC types
were evaluated and categorized as either representing potentially
suitable or unsuitable Indiana bat habitat. Unsuitable CISC types
included those types classified as conifers. Potentially suitable CICS
types were then grouped into three major forest groupings‑‑Cove Group,
Upland Group, and Yellow Pine‑Hardwood Group. A specific listing of
those CISC types, considered to represent potentially suitable Indiana
bat habitat, is provided in the BA.

4.  Number/Size of Dead Roost Trees (Snags) \>9 in. dbh: The USFS used
    three data sets to estimate the number of snags in stands and to
    project their extent on the NPNFs (refer to Snag Process Paper,
    Appendix B of the BA). Romme *et al.* (1995) used an HSI value of
    six snags per acre \>9 in. dbh as providing optimal snag habitat
    conditions. The USFS=s analysis used three to five snags per acre as
    providing suitable habitat conditions and six or greater snags per
    acre as providing optimal conditions. The USFS analysis showed that
    suitable snag conditions would be met at 60 years or greater for
    cove and upland hardwood forest types but at 40 years or greater for
    yellow pine‑hardwood stands. Their analysis used only suitable
    habitat conditions to assess Indiana bat habitat conditions across
    the NPNFs. Data does not exist to conduct an analysis using the
    optimal habitat criteria.

> Most female Indiana bats have been found on snags \>8.7 in. dbh (Romme
> *et al.* 1995). Using 8.8 in. dbh, the USFS=s analysis indicates that
> suitable snag density conditions are being achieved on at least 76% of
> the forested acres on the NPNFs (Table 10). An additional 35,000+ ac
> will become suitable by 2004.

+----------------+------------+----------+-------------+-------------+
| **Table 10.    |            |          |             |             |
| Acres          |            |          |             |             |
| Providing At   |            |          |             |             |
| Least Three    |            |          |             |             |
| Snags Per      |            |          |             |             |
| Acre,          |            |          |             |             |
| \>8.8 in. dbh  |            |          |             |             |
| (Suitable      |            |          |             |             |
| Habitat)**     |            |          |             |             |
+----------------+------------+----------+-------------+-------------+
| **Forest       | **Current  | **%      | **Projected | **%         |
| Grouping**     | C          | C        | 2004**      | Projected   |
|                | ondition** | urrent** |             | 2004**      |
|                |            |          |             |             |
|                |            | **Con    |             |             |
|                |            | dition** |             |             |
+----------------+------------+----------+-------------+-------------+
| Cove Hardwood  | 285,590    | 39%      | 308,803     | 40%         |
+----------------+------------+----------+-------------+-------------+
| Upland         | 419,035    | 57%      | 431,438     | 56%         |
| Hardwood       |            |          |             |             |
+----------------+------------+----------+-------------+-------------+
| Yellow         | 34,622     | 4%       | 34,667      | 4%          |
| Pine-Hardwood  |            |          |             |             |
+----------------+------------+----------+-------------+-------------+
| **Total        | 739,247    |          | 774,908     |             |
| Acres**        |            |          |             |             |
+----------------+------------+----------+-------------+-------------+

The USFS=s assessment of habitat conditions shows that a very high
percentage of the forested acres on the NPNFs provide at least suitable
summer maternity roost habitat conditions. To analyze and display the
spatial availability of stands that concurrently provide optimal habitat
conditions relative to the number of 16‑in. dbh potential live roost
trees, roosting canopy closure, and suitable conditions for snags, a
focal analysis was conducted of forest CISC types that have been
identified as potentially providing suitable Indiana bat habitat (see
AFocal Analysis@).

**Evaluation of Summer Foraging Habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah
National Forests**

Though Romme *et al.* (1995) stated that optimum foraging habitat is
found where percent canopy closure falls between 50% and 70%, other
studies have shown that Indiana bats will also forage along the edges of
timber regeneration areas, agricultural openings, and near clumps of
overstory trees left in timber regeneration areas (Garner and Gardner
1992). In fact, the greatest amount of bat activity occurs along edges
between intact forest and cut areas, though rarely next to large
clearcuts (Barclay and Brigham 1998). The Allegheny National Forest has
documented Indiana bats foraging in areas with canopy closures roughly
estimated between 0% and 50%, suggesting that Indiana bats use a wide
range of habitat conditions as foraging habitat.

Riparian areas have also been documented as representing important
foraging habitat for Indiana bats. Using 100‑foot buffers on each side
of perennial streams and rivers as an approximation of riparian habitat,
total riparian habitat on the NPNFs is estimated to be 99,800 ac.

Suitable foraging habitat can be found throughout the NPNFs, especially
where suitable habitat thresholds are met for percent canopy closure,
numbers of large snags, and number and species of live trees
\>9 in. dbh. Suitable Indiana bat foraging habitat is not limited in
distribution or abundance across the NPNFs.

**Analysis of Indiana Bat Habitat Conditions in Stands Following Recent
Timber Harvesting**

An average of 2,077 ac. have been silviculturally treated annually[^7]
since 1994 (Table 3). In all categories, the actual reported level of
timber treatments fell below levels estimated and analyzed in the Forest
Plan. The USFS evaluated Indiana bat habitat conditions in stands
harvested within the last 3 to 5 years by evaluating select harvest
units.

The Forest Plan projects about 2,500 ac. to be harvested per year under
the two‑aged shelterwood system. However, since the implementation of
the Forest Plan, only about 600 ac. per year have been sold. Projections
for the next 5 years indicate that from 600-2,500 ac. per year will be
regenerated using two‑aged shelterwood harvesting. A review of data for
residual trees on two‑aged shelterwood harvests reveals that the average
harvest unit is about 15‑20 ac. The typical leave residual basal area on
these hardwood sites is about 20‑30 sq. ft., with leave trees ranging
from 8‑28 in. dbh. On average, about 10‑20 trees/acre \>9 in. dbh are
left as residual trees, and about five of those trees left in
regeneration units are \>16 in. dbh. At least three snags/acre
\>9 in. dbh are present after harvesting.

The USFS=s analysis of postharvest shelterwood conditions indicates that
at the stand level, on average, areas harvested by two‑aged shelterwood
harvesting, selection harvesting, and thinning currently meet (at least
minimally) suitable habitat criteria for the number of trees
(16 trees/acre \>9 in. dbh), size of trees (three trees/acre
\>16 in. dbh), and number of snags (three trees/acre \>9 in. dbh). The
NPNFs do not have any postharvest canopy closure data for harvested
stands. However, it is projected that while minimally suitable canopy
closure conditions may not be achieved across all portions of all
harvest units, suitable roosting habitat will be provided where residual
leave trees are being left in small clumps or buffer strips. In these
critical leave areas, canopy closures are expected to meet minimally
suitable levels. Minimally suitable habitat conditions are generally not
present in stands harvested over the last 5 years by clearcut or
shelterwood harvesting. However, Krusic *et al*. (1996) suggest that
small clearcuts in eastern forests can benefit bats as long as mature
forests are maintained for roosting and foraging.

**Focal Analysis**

Any activity that alters Indiana bat habitat suitability can affect
habitat beyond the stand or project area level. Implementation of an
action that alters a timber stand may be determined to reduce one or
more habitat components below suitable levels within the stand but only
represent a very small percentage on the landscape. As Erickson and West
(1995) stated, ABecause bats are highly mobile animals, restricting the
interpretation of habitat selection to the stand level will limit our
understanding of bat habitat associations. Consideration must also be
given to the influence of the surrounding landscape.@

The USFS evaluated Indiana bat summer habitat on a larger landscape
scale using focal analysis (refer to Appendix D of the BA for a
description of this Geographic Information System analysis tool). To
evaluate potential Indiana bat habitat across the scale of the entire
NPNFs, the USFS divided the forests into square, approximately 2‑ac,
tracts (300 ft. per side). Each tract was evaluated for the percent of
national forest land in North Carolina in the surrounding 8,000 ac. (in
a 2‑mi‑radius circle) that met certain habitat criteria. Callahan (1993)
used a 1.9‑mi‑radius circle to assess habitat conditions around summer
maternity sites in Missouri. This analysis of Indiana bat summer habitat
conditions on the NPNFs allows for analysis at multiple scales (from
2 ac. to the landscape level).

Using the variables detailed above (forest types potentially suitable
for Indiana bat habitat, optimal density of live 9 in. dbh potential
roost trees, optimal density of live 16‑in. dbh potential roost trees,
optimal percent canopy cover, suitable density of dead 9 in. dbh
potential roost trees) the USFS was able to tabularly and graphically
display the distribution of Indiana bat habitat across the NPNFs
(Appendix D of the BA). They were also able to evaluate future potential
Indiana bat habitat by conducting the same analyses with the habitat
conditions that will exist when the stands are 5 years older.

[Suitable forest types:]{.underline} The numerical value assigned to
each 2‑ac tract is the proportion of national forest land in a 2‑mi
radius that has suitable forest types. For both the NPNFs, the
distribution of these values is strongly skewed to the right, suggesting
a high density of tracts with suitable forest types in most areas
(Figure D‑2b in the BA). The mean value is 0.90 for the Nantahala and
0.86 for the Pisgah (i.e., the average 2‑ac. tract has about 86%‑90% of
the national forest land in a 2‑mi radius in suitable forest types). The
range of values around the mean for both forests is narrow (the standard
deviation is 0.13 for the Nantahala and 0.18 for the Pisgah). About
447,000 ac. on the Nantahala (of 520,000 total ac; 86%) and 423,000 ac.
on the Pisgah (of 497,000 total acres; 85%) fall within +/‑ one standard
deviation of the mean. This suggests that most 2‑ac tracts on both
forests are surrounded by suitable forest types. A spatial display of
values also shows a fairly uniform distribution across the landscape
(Figure D‑2a in the BA).

[Live 9‑in. dbh potential roost trees:]{.underline} The value of each
2‑ac tract is the proportion of national forest land in a 2‑mi radius
that meets the criteria for defining optimal density of live 9‑in. dbh
potential roost trees. For both the NPNFs, the distribution of these
values is skewed to the right, suggesting a relatively high density of
tracts with optimal density of live 9‑in. dbh trees in most areas
(Figure D‑3b in the BA). The mean value is 0.78 for the Nantahala and
0.80 for the Pisgah (i.e., the average 2‑ac tract has about 78%‑80% of
the national forest land in a 2‑mi radius with an optimal density of
live 9‑in. dbh trees). The range of values around the mean for both
forests is relatively narrow (the standard deviation is 0.14 for the
Nantahala and 0.17 for the Pisgah). About 410,000 ac. on the Nantahala
(of 520,000 total acres; 79%) and 374,000 ac. on the Pisgah (of 497,000
total acres; 75%) fall within +/‑ one standard deviation of the mean.
This suggests that most 2‑ac tracts on both forests are surrounded by a
large amount of land with optimal density of live 9‑in. dbh trees. This
conclusion is supported by the spatial distribution of values across the
landscape (Figure D‑3a in the BA). An estimation of potential change in
the next 5 years shows that values for this variable will experience
almost no change. The mean values will remain the same, as will the
frequency distribution curves (Figure D‑3d of the BA), and the spatial
distribution will have only minor, localized changes (Figure D‑3c in the
BA).

[Live 16‑in. dbh potential roost trees**:**]{.underline} The value of
each 2‑ac tract is the proportion of national forest land in a 2‑mi
radius that meets the criteria for defining optimal density of live
16‑in. dbh potential roost trees. For the Nantahala, these values
exhibit a normal distribution, while values for the Pisgah are slightly
skewed to the right (Figure D‑4b of the BA). The mean value is 0.50 for
the Nantahala and 0.64 for the Pisgah. The range of values around the
mean is close to what would be expected with a normal distribution (the
standard deviation is 0.15 for the Nantahala and 0.19 for the Pisgah).
About 346,000 ac. on the Nantahala (of 520,000 total acres; 67%) and
331,000 ac. on the Pisgah (of 497,000 total acres; 67%) are within +/‑
one standard deviation of the mean. This suggests that two‑thirds of all
2‑ac tracts on both forests are surrounded by moderate amounts of land
with optimal density of live 16‑in. dbh trees (35%‑65% of national
forest land in a 2‑mi radius on the Nantahala and 45%‑85% on the
Pisgah). The remaining one‑third of the 2‑ac tracts are evenly
distributed at high and low values on the Nantahala and are skewed
toward higher values on the Pisgah. These patterns can also be seen in
the spatial distribution of values (Figure D‑4a in the BA). An estimate
of potential change in the next 5 years shows that frequency
distribution curves and spatial distribution both shift toward higher
values (mean values increase to 0.62 \[up 0.12\] for the Nantahala and
0.72 \[up 0.12\] for the Pisgah\] (Figures D‑4c, D‑4d in the BA).

[Canopy cover:]{.underline} The value of each 2‑ac tract is the
proportion of national forest land in a 2‑mi radius that meets the
criteria for defining optimal percent canopy cover. For both the NPNFs,
the distribution of these values is moderately skewed to the right,
suggesting a moderately high density of tracts with an optimal percent
canopy cover in most areas (Figure D‑5b in the BA). The mean value is
0.70 for the Nantahala and 0.71 for the Pisgah (i.e., the average 2‑ac
tract has about 70%‑71% of the national forest land in a 2‑mi radius
with an optimal percent canopy cover). The range of values around the
mean for both forests is slightly wider than that for live 9‑in. dbh
trees (the standard deviation is 0.14 for the Nantahala and 0.17 for the
Pisgah). About 378,000 ac. on the Nantahala (of 520,000 total acres;
73%) and 356,000 ac. on the Pisgah (of 497,000 total acres; 72%) fall
within +/‑ one standard deviation of the mean. This suggests that most
2‑ac tracts on both forests have an optimal percent canopy cover on over
half the national forest land within a 2‑mi radius. This conclusion is
supported by the spatial distribution of values across the landscape
(Figure D‑5a in the BA). An estimation of potential change in the next
5 years shows that frequency distribution curves and spatial
distribution both shift very slightly toward higher values (mean values
increase to 0.74 \[up 0.04\] for the Nantahala and 0.76 \[up 0.05\] for
the Pisgah) (Figures D‑5c, D‑5d in the BA).

[Dead 9‑in. dbh potential roost trees:]{.underline} The value of each
2‑ac tract is the proportion of national forest land in a 2‑mi radius
that meets the criteria for defining suitable density of dead 9‑in. dbh
potential roost trees. For both the NPNFs, the distribution of these
values is moderately skewed to the right, suggesting a moderately high
density of tracts with optimal density of dead 9‑in. dbh trees in most
areas (Figure D‑6b in the BA). The mean value is 0.70 for the Nantahala
and 0.75 for the Pisgah (i.e., the average 2‑ac tract has about 70% to
75% of the national forest land in a 2‑mi radius with an optimal density
of dead 9‑in. dbh trees). The range of values around the mean for both
forests is slightly wider than that for live 9‑in. dbh trees (the
standard deviation is 0.13 for the Nantahala and 0.17 for the Pisgah).
About 361,000 ac. on the Nantahala (of 520,000 total acres; 69%) and
361,000 ac. on the Pisgah (of 497,000 total acres; 73%) fall within +/‑
one standard deviation of the mean. This suggests that most 2‑ac tracts
on both forests have an optimal density of dead 9‑in. dbh trees on over
half the national forest land in a 2‑mi radius. This conclusion is
supported by the spatial distribution of values across the landscape
(Figure D‑6a in the BA). An estimation of potential change in the next
5 years shows that frequency distribution curves and spatial
distribution both shift very slightly toward higher values (mean values
increase to 0.75 \[up 0.05\] for the Nantahala and 0.77 \[up 0.02\] for
the Pisgah) (Figures D‑6c, D‑6d in the BA).

[Habitat capability index:]{.underline} The value of each 2‑ac tract is
the average of the values derived for three of the above variables‑‑live
16‑in. dbh potential roost trees, canopy cover, and dead 9‑in. dbh
potential roost trees. Therefore, rather than directly representing a
proportion of national forest land in a 2‑mi radius, this value is an
index of habitat capability within a 2‑mi radius, ranging from zero to
100. The distribution of these values is slightly skewed to the right,
somewhat more so for the Pisgah than for the Nantahala (Figure D‑7b in
the BA). The mean value is 63 for the Nantahala and 70 for the Pisgah.
The range of values around the mean is slightly wider for the Pisgah
than for the Nantahala (the standard deviation is 11.2 for the Nantahala
and 16.6 for the Pisgah). About 377,000 ac. on the Nantahala (of 520,000
total acres; 73%) and 361,000 ac. on the Pisgah (of 497,000 total acres;
73%) fall within +/‑ one standard deviation of the mean. This suggests
that most 2‑ac tracts on both forests have values over 50 and that
values on the Pisgah are generally slightly higher than on the Nantahala
(Figure D‑7a in the BA). An estimation of potential change in the next
5 years shows that frequency distribution curves and spatial
distribution both shift very slightly toward higher values (Figures D‑7c
and D‑7d in the BA). The mean value changes to 70 (up 7) for the
Nantahala and 74 (up 4) for the Pisgah.

The maps of the focal analysis display the spatial distribution of
values calculated by the focal mean function (as described in Appendix D
of the BA). Areas that display as 90%‑100% are uniformly surrounded by
habitat that meets the specified requirements. Likewise, areas that
display as 0%‑9% have essentially no habitat on national forest land
within a 2‑mi radius that meets the specified requirements.

In summary, there are about 490,000 ac. on the NPNFs that could provide
optimal foraging habitat, optimal live potential roost trees, and
suitable dead potential roost trees for the Indiana bat, [all on the
same acre]{.underline}. This includes 182,000 ac. of cove forests,
287,000 ac. of upland hardwood forests, and 21,000 ac. of yellow
pine‑hardwood forests. This represents about one‑half of all acres on
the NPNFs and over one‑half of the forest types considered suitable for
the Indiana bat (Appendix D). These estimates of habitat capability are
conservative because they require each acre to provide all the
components of Romme *et al.* (1995) habitat suitability model at levels
above suitable.

Suitable Indiana bat foraging and roosting habitat, given the parameters
that are measurable, appears abundant and well dispersed across the
NPNFs, and though there are several contiguous blocks of land greater
than 1,000 ac. in size that are not suitable for the Indiana bat due to
either unsuitable forest types (e.g., spruce‑fir forests or young
forests that have insufficient live or dead potential roosting habitat),
the USFS=s focal analysis of landscapes on the NPNFs showed that on the
Nantahala National Forest, forest stands on over 400,000 ac., are
surrounded by at least the same proportion of optimal forage, optimal
live potential roost habitat, and suitable dead tree roost habitat as
that found at the one known maternity roost site. On the Pisgah National
Forest, there are more than 386,000 ac. in this condition (Figures 7a,
7b, and 8 of Appendix D in the BA). In addition, very few areas on the
NPNFs would be considered unsuitable for Indiana bats due to the long
distances they would have to travel to get to open water or riparian
habitats, because average stream density exceeds 8.8 mi. per sq. mi.

**EFFECTS OF THE ACTION**

Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, Aeffects of the action@ refers to the
direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical
habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are
interrelated or interdependent with that action. The Federal agency is
responsible for analyzing these effects. The effects of the proposed
action are added to the environmental baseline to determine the future
baseline, which serves as the basis for the determination in this
Opinion. Should the effects of the Federal action result in a situation
that would jeopardize the continued existence of the species, we may
propose reasonable and prudent alternatives that the Federal agency can
take to avoid a violation of section 7(a)(2). The discussion that
follows is our evaluation of the anticipated direct and indirect effects
of implementing the current Forest Plan. Indirect effects are those
caused by the proposed action that occur later in time but that are
still reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR 402.02). We have determined
that there are no interrelated (an activity that is part of the proposed
action and depends on the proposed action for its justification) or
interdependent (an activity that has no independent utility apart from
the action under consultation) actions apart from the action under
consideration.

As mentioned above, there are no standards and guidelines designed
specifically to identify, protect, maintain, or enhance summer or winter
Indiana bat habitat or prevent impacts to Indiana bats roosting in
trees. This makes Indiana bats and their habitat, particularly any
maternity sites, vulnerable to take and habitat alteration due to the
implementation of land management activities that result in the removal
of trees. However, impacts to Indiana bats resulting from land
management activities (e.g., timber harvesting) may be reduced through
implementation of the current Forest Plan standards and guidelines
specific to those activities (Appendix A).

**Potential Beneficial Effects**

Some activities that have associated negative impacts may also have
commensurate beneficial effects. Management practices that create small
forest openings may foster the development of suitable roosting and
foraging habitat (Krusic and Neefus 1996). Activities that involve tree
removal, which could adversely affect roosting habitat, may at the same
time improve foraging and/or roosting habitat conditions by opening the
canopy and exposing potential roost trees to a greater amount of
sunlight (see thermoregulatory needs in ASummer Habitats@). Romme
*et al*. (1995) reported that stands with closed canopy conditions
(\>80% canopy closure) provide less than optimal roosting habitat
conditions. Selective timber harvesting treatments that reduce canopy
closure levels to \<80% may enhance Indiana bat roosting habitat.
Callahan (1993) stated that manmade disturbances unintentionally made
nine maternity roost trees suitable for Indiana bats. These were in
areas that had been heavily logged within the past 20 years and had been
used as a hog lot in recent years. Callahan also stated, Athose
activities probably benefitted Indiana bats by removing most of the
canopy cover and leaving behind many standing dead trees.@ Gardner
*et al.* (1991b) found that the selective harvesting of living trees did
not directly alter summer roosting habitat. The development of
infrequently used or closed logging roads and small wildlife openings
may improve foraging habitat conditions by providing narrow foraging
corridors within a larger network of mature closed canopy forest.

There are several standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan that
conserve Indiana bat habitat, and these safeguards will provide future
protection if implementation of the Forest Plan is continued. For
example, during the last 5 years of implementation of the Forest Plan,
several caves that may support future hibernacula have been protected
through gating; this protection will continue in the future. The Forest
Plan also includes measures that maintain, protect, and restore Indiana
bat foraging and nursery habitat. USFS land allocation establishes over
730,000 ac. of land not suited for timber production, including riparian
areas, old‑growth patches, wilderness, and special interest areas. In
these areas, habitat suitability for the Indiana bat will improve in the
future as the number of acres \>70 years in age increases.

Specifically, the USFS has identified the following activities as having
potentially beneficial effects to the Indiana bat:

1.  Vegetative treatments applied in potentially suitable forest types
    that reduce dominant canopy closures to 60%‑80% for roosting habitat
    (50%‑70% for foraging habitat) while maintaining a distribution of
    larger‑diameter dead and live potential roost trees across the
    landscape.

2.  Vegetative treatments that create a mosaic of small canopy gaps that
    allow sunlight to penetrate the forest.

3.  Managing at least 70% of the NPNFs as unsuitable for commercial
    timber production, which should increase the availability and
    distribution of older‑aged forested stands.

4.  Managing for a network of small, medium, and large old‑growth
    patches across the NPNFs.

5.  Maintaining functioning riparian ecosystems that provide an
    abundance of large‑diameter hardwoods, large standing snags and den
    trees, and widely dispersed small canopy gaps.

6.  Vegetative treatments that maintain a distribution of small (less
    then 2 ac.) and linear open grassy habitats as foraging habitat
    across the NPNFs.

7.  Prescribed burning that, when applied, results in a reduction in
    2‑5 in. midstory and understory saplings.

8.  Vegetative treatments that reduce stand stocking levels in young
    regeneration units and that promote the development of
    larger‑diameter hardwoods.

9.  Vegetative treatments that promote and/or maintain oak as a dominant
    species in mature stands.

**Potential Direct Effects of Proposed Actions**

Actions that may result in direct impacts to Indiana bats include
commercial timber‑harvesting activities, timber‑salvaging activities,
development and management of recreation sites, road construction and
reconstruction, trail construction, fuel wood harvesting, wildlife and
fishery habitat management, special uses, forest pest management,
prescribed burning, site preparation burning, wildland fire suppression,
felling of snags to address public safety, and forest products permits.
All of the above actions may involve the removal of trees \>3 in. dbh,
which may negatively affect the Indiana bat through the slight chance
that individuals or small groups of roosting bats could be killed by the
intentional felling of healthy trees harboring undetected roosts (e.g.,
dead limbs with loose bark or small cavities in the boles) or the
felling of occupied snags or damaged or hollow trees. Between April 15
and October 15, it is possible that one or more Indiana bats could be
roosting in trees removed, potentially resulting in the death of an
individual(s). The likelihood for Ataking@ individual bats is dependent
on the time of year when the activity occurs and is commensurate with
the scope and magnitude of the activity. The potential for removing
trees occupied by roosting females and young that are unable to fly is
most pronounced after May 1 and before August 15. For projects involving
the removal of small numbers of potential roost trees on a small scale,
this likelihood is low. Projects involving the removal of suitable roost
trees on a larger scale increase the risk of directly harming individual
bats.

However, because bats are highly mobile, it is unlikely that a falling
tree would result in a bat being killed. Both the sound of a chain saw
and the vibration of a saw blade on a tree bole would likely alert the
bats and they would simply fly to another roost. This illustrates the
low probability of a bat being killed but shows that the bats could be
harassed (also a form of Atake@ (see take definition in AIncidental
Take@) and stresses the importance of maintaining a sufficient number of
snags to provide multiple roost sites (see ASummer Habitats@). Further,
Gardner *et al.* (1991a) found that timber harvest activities neither
directly damaged known roosts nor discouraged bats from continuing to
forage in harvested areas in Illinois.

**Potential Indirect Effects of Proposed Actions**

Any actions that result in the modification or removal of potential
roost trees, or roost trees not in use[^8], may adversely impact the
quality and availability of summer roosting habitat. Removing potential
or unoccupied roost trees may occur through the actual felling or
removal of trees during actions that clear forests, burning of trees
during prescribed burning activities, and modifying surrounding forest
habitat conditions to the point where trees that are left standing are
no longer suitable for use by bats.

**Indirect effects common to timber harvest activities**

When potential roosting habitat is removed by timber‑harvesting
operations, these effects are most often temporary (\<40 years). If
posttreatment harvest conditions maintain minimally suitable summer
roosting conditions, the effects from the loss of potential or actively
used roost trees would be minimized. Humphrey *et al.* (1977) suggested
that previously used summer roosts may be important to the reproductive
success of local Indiana bat populations. 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 posthibernation
migration and the increased metabolic energy costs of pregnancy. While
the Indiana bat appears to be an adaptable mammal, the available
literature clearly indicates that it is essential that a variety of
suitable roosts exist within a colony=s occupied summer area to ensure
the continuance of the colony in that area (Kurta *et al.* 1993;
Callahan *et al.* 1997). A few maternity colonies, including the first
discovered maternity roost site in Indiana, were found when a tree was
cut down and the bats moved to another tree (Service 1999f).

Suitable Indiana bat habitat may also be altered in the long term
through the conversion from a potentially suitable forest type to an
unsuitable forest type (i.e., clearing an upland hardwood site and
planting/managing for white pine). As with other Astand level@
activities, it is also possible for the impacts to extend to the
landscape level.

**Effects of timber harvesting for stand regeneration, improvement,
salvage, and other activities limited in scope**

The harvesting of standing mature, moderately closed‑canopy forest for
commercial purposes has the potential for having the greatest impact on
the quality and availability of suitable Indiana bat summer habitat,
both at the stand and landscape scale.

1\. [Even‑aged Regeneration Systems]{.underline}

> \(a\) Clearcut - Stand‑level Scale: This type of regeneration/harvest
> is applied to stands selected for final harvest and regeneration,
> where optimal conditions requiring regeneration exist that meet the
> USFS=s guidelines, and where the clearcut harvesting system may be
> appropriate.
>
> Areas regenerated using even‑aged management (i.e., clearcut and
> shelterwood final removal harvesting) have the highest potential for
> creating less than suitable roosting and foraging habitat conditions
> for the Indiana bat. In stands harvested by this method, the quality
> of foraging and roosting habitat would most likely be reduced below
> habitat suitability threshold levels for at least three of the four
> habitat criteria (see USFS Assessment of Current Habitat Conditions
> for the Indiana Bat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests).
> However, any resulting reduction in foraging and roosting habitat
> quality or quantity would be partially mitigated by implementing the
> existing Forest Plan standards and guidelines that call for retaining
> clumps of standing live trees (most often consisting of Class I and II
> trees, see ASummer Habitat Model@) and retaining minimal numbers and
> appropriate size snags, existing and potential den trees, and riparian
> zones or stream‑side management. Projected reductions in summer
> habitat quality will be temporary (\<40 years) and small in scope
> (clearcut units average approximately 20‑25 ac.).
>
> The potential exists for unknown, actively used summer roost trees to
> be removed, resulting in a net reduction in the availability of
> potentially suitable roost trees. However, snags and residual live
> roost trees left within harvested units (left singly or in clumps), as
> well as an abundance of potential roost trees available in riparian
> areas, old‑growth patches, and adjacent untreated stands, should
> provide an ample amount of potential roost sites close to harvested
> stands.
>
> Landscape Scale: The Forest Plan projects about 235 ac. per year would
> be regenerated using this system. The actual acres treated have
> averaged about 120 ac. per year, with a projected 150 ac. each year
> being similarly treated from now through 2004 (Table 3). Annually,
> this treatment only comprises about 0.02% of the forested acres on the
> NPNFs. Over the remaining 5‑year period, this totals 750 ac., or 0.08%
> of the forested acres‑‑a very small proportion of the landscape.
> Considering the amount of forested acres across the NPNFs projected to
> provide more than optimal numbers of potential roost trees and
> roosting habitat, the potential loss of possible roost trees from
> clearcut harvesting represents a very small impact.
>
> \(b\) Shelterwood - Stand‑level Scale: On a stand scale, potential
> impacts to summer roosting and foraging habitat are projected to be
> similar to those for clearcut harvesting, the difference being that
> standing live potential roost trees (residual overstory trees) will be
> retained until a final removal harvest occurs (about 15 to 20 years).
>
> Landscape Scale: The past 6‑year harvest figures indicate that the
> NPNFs are harvesting around 65‑70 ac. per year under the shelterwood
> final removal regeneration method and projects that this will occur on
> about 50‑200 ac. annually over the next 5 years (Table 3). Across the
> NPNFs, this annually comprises approximately 0.005%‑0.02% of the total
> forested acres. Using this projected annual level of activity, a total
> of 250‑1,000 ac., or 0.03%‑0.1% of the forested acres, will be
> regenerated by this method. Across the NPNFs, the potential loss of
> potential roost trees and reduction in potential roosting and/or
> foraging habitat is considered small.

2.  [Selection Regeneration Systems]{.underline}

> \(a\) Group Selection and Single‑Tree Selection - Stand‑level Scale:
> Group selection and single‑tree selection regeneration occurs in small
> openings. For group selection, these openings are large enough to
> provide conditions necessary to regenerate tree species that are shade
> intolerant or intermediate in tolerance. In the Southern Appalachians
> the diameter of the group opening is defined as one and one‑half to
> two times the mature tree height for the stand. This usually results
> in openings of 1/4‑1 ac. in size, depending on the desired species,
> tree height, and topography. The resulting stand structure will be
> uneven‑aged, with a mosaic of age‑class groups throughout the stand.
> To eliminate competition with the new age‑class, site preparation may
> include cutting down competing vegetation or treating with herbicides.
> Single‑tree selection results in a series of tree‑sized canopy gaps
> throughout a stand.
>
> Callahan (1993) concluded, from a study conducted of summer maternity
> colony sites in Missouri, that summer roosting habitat may be enhanced
> by creating openings around large‑diameter snags and mature living
> trees. The USFS predicts that group selection and single‑tree
> selection regeneration will result in the creation of optimal foraging
> and roosting habitat by slight to moderate reductions in canopy
> closure and the creation of small forest openings. Canopy closures
> would be reduced to within optimal ranges for both foraging and
> roosting habitat requirements.
>
> The cutting of trees to develop small openings may result in the
> removal of potential roost trees. However, it is possible that the
> potential benefits derived from improved general habitat conditions
> outweigh the loss of individual or small groups of potential roost
> trees. Over time, as the stand is managed through uneven‑aged
> management, suitable roost trees will be provided within the stand, as
> well as within adjacent untreated stands. In the USFS=s analysis,
> acres projected to be treated using group selection and single‑tree
> selection have been assumed to represent suitable summer Indiana bat
> habitat.
>
> Landscape Scale: The Forest Plan projects that approximately 500 ac.
> will be treated annually using group selection and/or single tree
> selection regeneration. However, since 1994, these two treatments have
> comprised about 150 ac. annually, with about the same level of annual
> use projected for the next 5‑year period (150‑200 ac. each year)
> (Table 3). Given the forest types and stand conditions on the NPNFs,
> single‑tree selection is used very little across the NPNFs.
>
> \(b\) Two‑aged Regeneration - Stand‑level Scale: With two‑aged
> regeneration treatments, a mature stand is partially cut and a new
> age‑class is established either by natural or artificial methods. The
> residual overstory is left in place at least until mid‑rotation of the
> new stand (40+ years) or later. With the development and growth of the
> new stand in the understory, along with the continued growth of the
> overstory, the stand takes on a two‑aged structure. Residual basal
> areas can range from 15‑50 sq. ft. per acre, depending on the
> management objective.
>
> The removal of live, dominant canopy trees would result in the removal
> of potential roost trees, with a potential reduction in roosting
> habitat quality. Stands that have minimal residual basal areas
> (\<15‑sq.‑ft. basal area) could reduce roosting habitat quality below
> suitability threshold levels. Snags could be inadvertently knocked
> down from timber‑harvesting operations (from falling trees and by
> motorized equipment), and some snags could be felled because of safety
> concerns.
>
> The USFS=s analysis assumed that minimally suitable/optimal thresholds
> would be met for two of the four habitat variables (three snags/acre
> \>8.8 in. dbh and 16 trees/acre \>9‑in. dbh), 50% of the time for
> three trees/acre \>16 in. dbh), and never for \>60% canopy closure.
> However, the habitat variable for three trees/acre \>16 in. dbh can
> usually be met without adversely affecting stand regeneration and
> assuming that enough trees of this size are available in the stand
> prior to harvesting. Suitable foraging and roosting habitat can be
> maintained by retaining clumps of live potential roost trees of Class
> A or B trees (Class A snags with \>25% exfoliating bark; Class B snags
> with 10% to 25% exfoliating bark) (Romme *et al*. (1995); retaining
> all, or a minimum of, three snags per acre; retaining some
> larger‑diameter snags within clumps of live potential roost trees; and
> leaving all den trees \>12 in. dbh.
>
> While the optimal percent canopy closure may not be achieved
> throughout the stand, the potential impacts can be minimized both in
> the short and long term. Suitable or optimal canopy closure conditions
> can be provided throughout treated stands within individual clumps of
> leave trees, within key wildlife leave areas, and in riparian areas,
> which will provide a distribution of suitable roosting habitat
> conditions dispersed throughout treated stands. Retaining an average
> basal area of 10‑30 sq. ft. translates roughly to a canopy cover of
> 12%‑35%. The releasing of residual trees, achieved through the opening
> of the canopy, is projected to stimulate growth, increase crown
> development, and increase canopy cover conditions within 5 years
> following treatment.
>
> Additionally, ranger districts on the NPNFs indicate that unless there
> is a clearly demonstrated public safety concern, snags are generally
> left standing within two‑aged units. No net reduction in the
> availability of snags within two‑aged shelterwood units is projected.
> Existing standards and guidelines also provide a framework and
> direction for creating snags whenever snag standards are not being
> achieved.
>
> Conversely, it is recognized that due to site conditions and a need to
> achieve other resource objectives, some stands treated by the two‑aged
> regeneration method may not maintain minimally suitable threshold
> levels for the four habitat variables (three snags per acre
> \>8.8 in. dbh, an optimal density of live 16‑in. dbh potential roost
> trees, a suitable density of dead 9‑in. dbh potential roost trees, and
> an optimal percent canopy cover). This could result in a potential
> reduction in summer roosting and foraging habitat at the stand level.
> However, these habitat elements will be available within leave areas,
> riparian/stream‑side management zones, old‑growth patches, and
> adjacent mature unharvested stands.
>
> Landscape Scale: The Forest Plan projected that 2,532 ac. would be
> regenerated annually using the two‑aged regeneration method (i.e.,
> two‑aged shelterwood). However, only about 600 ac. annually have been
> treated using this method (0.06% of total forested acres) (Table 3).
> The USFS projects that between 600 and 2,500 ac. per year will be
> regenerated over the next 5‑year period (0.06%‑0.25% of total forested
> acres). At the projected Forest Plan levels, this would constitute
> less than 0.3% of total forested acres. Over a 5‑year period, and
> under the most liberal scenario (i.e., projected Forest Plan level),
> acres regenerated by two‑aged regeneration would comprise less than
> 1.3% of total forested acres.

3\. [Thinning]{.underline} - Stand‑level Scale: During the last 6‑year
period, approximately 535 ac. have been thinned, with an expected
500‑1,000 ac. of thinning to occur annually during the next 5 years. The
purpose of this treatment is to reduce stand density in immature stands,
primarily to recover potential mortality and/or to improve growing
conditions for residual trees. Thinning operations may be commercial or
noncommercial.

> Potential effects resulting from this treatment are similar to those
> previously discussed for group selection and single‑tree selection.
> This treatment may remove individual trees, which could otherwise have
> provided roosting habitat. However, this treatment results in a stand
> condition that will continue to supply suitable and/or optimal habitat
> conditions. At a landscape scale, thinnings likely result in an
> insignificant loss of potential roost or foraging habitat and should
> result in an increased growth of residual trees, which would produce
> larger‑diameter dominant canopy trees at a greater rate than if the
> area had not been thinned.

4.  [Timber Harvest for Salvage and Other Purposes]{.underline} -
    Stand‑level Scale: Timber salvage is for recovering value from
    timber damaged from the weather and insect (i.e., southern pine
    beetle, other boring insects, and gypsy moths) and disease
    infestations. Typically, weather damage is a result of high‑wind
    events, ice storms, and snowstorms. Disease infestations include oak
    decline and root diseases. Other activities include clearing of road
    rights‑of‑way.

> Most often, the dominant canopy overstory has already been
> substantially modified by some timber‑damaging event. However, the
> impacts of salvage activities may be lessened by the intensity of the
> salvaging operation. Timber salvage usually consists of the retrieval
> of commercially valuable trees that are dead and standing, dead and
> downed, and/or standing live trees determined to be damaged to the
> point where they are not predicted to persist through the stand
> rotation. Standing dead trees have a high potential and desirability
> to serve as immediate bat roosting trees[^9], while damaged standing
> trees represent trees with a high potential for providing future
> roosting habitat. Further, for those stands where the overstory has
> already been severely damaged, any additional removal of standing live
> trees could further reduce stand conditions to below suitable
> threshold levels for all four habitat variables (three snags per acre
> \>8.8 in. dbh, an optimal density of live 16‑in. dbh potential roost
> trees, a suitable density of dead 9‑in. dbh potential roost trees, and
> an optimal percent canopy cover).
>
> The potential magnitude of these unplanned events is quite variable
> and could occur over large portions of the landscape. Large‑scale late
> winter snow and ice events could impact extensive areas across the
> NPNFs. However, even under the most accommodating conditions for
> removal, and given the difficulty in securing economically feasible
> access, a very low percentage of the timber would ever be retrieved
> through timber salvaging.
>
> Natural catastrophic events and/or subsequent limited timber salvaging
> activities, would most likely enhance foraging habitat conditions
> (create openings), due to a greater abundance of insects. Several
> studies have documented insect abundance to be higher in clearings
> than in surrounding habitats (Lunde and Harestad 1987; de Jong 1994).
>
> A potential problem without some salvage operations is that natural
> catastrophic events, which damage extensive timber acreage, usually
> result in substantial increases in forest‑floor fuel loading. This, of
> course, can increase the risk and potential severity of wildfires.
> Subsequent wildfires that are rapidly moving and intense would likely
> result in extensive damage to stands and a reduction in Indiana bat
> roosting habitat (the fires would consume the roost trees).
>
> Landscape Scale: While projecting timber harvest levels associated
> with timber‑salvaging and other activities is impossible, records for
> the last 6 years indicate that the NPNFs have been salvaging timber on
> about 600 ac. per year (about 0.06% of the total forested acres). On a
> landscape scale, this represents a very small impact on the
> availability of summer roosting and foraging habitat across the NPNFs.

5.  [Activities That Require Limited Removal of Standing
    Timber]{.underline} - Site‑level Scale: Activities that may involve
    the small‑scale clearing of mature forests include road
    rights‑of‑way, road widening or reconstruction, trail construction,
    recreation site construction, road easements, special use permits,
    construction of wildlife openings, and landline surveying. These
    activities could potentially remove roost trees and convert
    potentially suitable roosting habitat to unsuitable nonforested
    habitat, depending on the specific activity. The potential impacts
    to summer roosting habitat can be, and often are, mitigated by the
    retention of larger‑diameter trees within recreation sites, within
    wildlife openings, and at recreational facility sites. While there
    is a potential for the loss of roost trees, roosting and foraging
    habitat conditions may be ultimately improved through the
    development of long linear foraging corridors, small grass‑covered
    openings, and the increase in sunlight to roost trees adjacent to
    the open areas. The cutting of snags within recreation sites, along
    road rights‑of‑way, and other high public use areas where the risk
    to public safety is elevated could remove potential roost trees.

> Depending on the type of road and level of activity, increased
> motorized activity could have an adverse impact on maternity colonies.
> Gardner *et al.* (1991a) reported that the spatial relationships of
> roost trees to roads (paved or unpaved) and streams may predetermine
> their suitability as roost trees. Colonial (\>five bats) maternity
> roosts occupied by pregnant or lactating adult females occurred at
> least 1,477 ft. (mean = 4,882 ft.) from paved roads.
>
> Landscape Scale: These activities are limited in scope and
> collectively represent a very small loss of potential roosting
> habitat. The USFS projects that, collectively, these activities could
> comprise 200‑320 total acres annually. Outside the risk of felling
> roost trees occupied by Indiana bats, the amount of habitat
> potentially affected annually comprises less than 0.035% of the total
> forested area on the NPNFs and likely represents an insignificant
> impact on Indiana bat habitat.

6.  [Public Fuelwood Harvesting]{.underline} - Site‑level Scale: The
    NPNFs issue permits to the public to cut dead trees next to open
    roads. Most ranger districts only permit cutting downed dead trees.
    However, at least two ranger districts permit the limited cutting of
    standing dead trees. Most often, this activity occurs next to
    existing access roads. The harvesting of downed dead trees will have
    no effect on Indiana bats. The cutting of standing dead trees within
    areas next to roads could remove suitable roost trees. Depending on
    the level of activity, intense public fuelwood harvesting could, on
    a localized scale, substantially reduce snag availability.

> Landscape Scale: Public fuelwood cutting is projected to occur on
> about 100‑200 ac. annually. Given the large number of projected
> potential roost trees across the NPNFs, the likelihood is extremely
> low that this activity could ever achieve the magnitude that would
> result in a significant loss of summer roosting habitat. Demand for
> public fuelwood has been declining and is projected to remain low,
> with only localized public interest.

**Prescribed Burning, Wild Fire Suppression, and Site Preparation
Burning**

1.  [Fuel Reduction, Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Burns, and
    Growing‑season Stand Replacement Burns]{.underline} - Site‑level
    Scale: Fuel reduction and wildlife habitat enhancement burns are
    primarily relatively cool‑burning, dormant season burns, normally
    conducted between October 15th and April 15th. These burns pose
    little risk to bats, because maternity colonies and solitary
    roosting bats have abandoned summer roosting sites by early October.
    They generally do not reoccupy summer roosting sites until at least
    mid‑April. However, it is remotely possible that Indiana bats could
    be roosting in trees within a prescribed burn unit in early October
    and late April. Heat, smoke, or flames from the burn could disturb
    roosting bats and cause them to fly to another roost outside the
    burned area.

> Growing‑season stand replacement burns occur from late spring through
> the summer, primarily for regenerating/restoring fire dependent yellow
> pine communities (pitch pine or table mountain pine and mixed oak
> species). Burn prescriptions typically call for more intense burning
> conditions, to the point of causing moderate to extensive tree
> mortality, which is required to meet restoration objectives.
>
> Prescribed burns could consume standing snags, thus removing potential
> roost trees. Living trees suitable as roosts could potentially be
> killed from the heat/flames from prescribed fire. While this may
> remove potential live roost trees, it is also likely that the fire
> will increase the availability of snags. Snags could be created either
> directly by fire mortality or indirectly by making them more
> susceptible to insect attacks or pathogens (Bull *et al*. 1997).
> Depending on the tree species, live trees subsequently killed by fire
> activity would remain as suitable potential roost trees until such a
> time that peeling/lost bark renders them unsuitable as summer roost
> sites. Fuel reduction and wildlife enhancement burns are not conducted
> on the NPNFs while young Indiana bats are unable to fly.
>
> Prescribed burning most often results in some degree of midstory
> mortality to small‑diameter trees and shrubs, producing more open
> understory conditions. Opening of the midstory may improve foraging
> and roosting habitat conditions. Individual mortality to live trees
> would increase the number of snags and create scattered canopy gaps,
> which would improve roosting habitat quality.
>
> Landscape Scale: The Forest Plan projected a prescribed burning
> program of around 1,000 ac. per year. The average number of acres
> burned annually on the NPNFs over the last 6 years has averaged around
> 1,200 ac. The USFS projects an annual prescribed burning program of
> 1,000‑5,000 ac. The USFS is moving toward larger landscape burns,
> which could potentially involve a greater amount of Indiana bat
> habitat at once. The effects (positive and negative) on a landscape
> scale would be similar to those at the site‑level scale.

2.  [Wildfire Suppression]{.underline} - The primary wildfire season in
    western North Carolina occurs from around October 15 through May 15.
    The periods between November 1 through December 15, and March 15
    through May 1 have the highest number of wildfires. In years of
    prolonged summer drought conditions, wildfires can occur at any
    time, especially in more xeric southerly and southwesterly aspects
    and on the eastern portion of the Pisgah National Forest. While
    predicting the number of acres on which wildfires occur each year is
    impossible, the average is about 96 wildfires, totaling 1,840 ac.
    Wildfires are usually less than 100 ac. in size and burn longer and
    more intensely before green‑up in the spring.

> If occurring after mid‑April and before October 15, the possibility
> exists that snags being used by roosting bats could be consumed. Live
> roost trees being used by roosting bats could be killed. It is not
> known how long or how far female Indiana bats will search to find new
> roosting habitat if traditional habitats have been destroyed or
> otherwise rendered unsuitable. If they are required to search for
> prolonged periods after emerging from hibernation in the spring, this
> effort may place additional stress on pregnant females at a time when
> they are already expending significant amounts of energy. However,
> suitable roost trees (both live and dead) are plentiful throughout the
> NPNFs.
>
> Standing snags within the vicinity of fire‑control lines could be
> felled by chainsaws to reduce safety hazards to firefighters and to
> simplify fire containment. The felling of snags could remove potential
> roost trees. However, wildfires occurring during the spring and summer
> months typically create an abundance of additional potential roost
> sites as trees die from the effects of the fire. Tree mortality
> usually occurs in relatively small and localized gaps, potentially
> improving foraging habitat conditions.

3.  [Site Preparation Burning]{.underline} - Site‑level Scale: Site
    preparation burning is conducted primarily during the mid‑ to late
    summer months to enhance the survivability of planted tree
    seedlings. The standing timber basal area has previously been
    reduced, either by commercial or noncommercial treatments or from
    insect or disease outbreaks. Areas may be planted in either conifer
    or hardwood trees, depending on specific site conditions and
    resource objectives. Typically, residual live trees remain within
    treatment units, ranging from 10‑40 sq. ft. of basal area. Snags
    most often exceed three snags per acre but may consist primarily of
    conifer snags.

> Site preparation burning could remove potential roost trees. However,
> it is anticipated that such activities will result in at least a
> short‑term net increase in roost trees as scattered residual live
> trees within the burn units die of the effects of summer fire.
>
> Landscape Scale: Across the NPNFs, this activity represents a very
> small portion of the landscape, with likely insignificant impacts on
> Indiana bat habitat.
>
> [Gypsy Moth Spraying]{.underline} - Since 1994 at least two outbreaks
> of gypsy moth infestations have occurred on the NPNFs (Yancey County
> and Jackson County). Integrated pest management principles are used in
> the management of this moth. Annual trapping programs are conducted to
> monitor infestation rates. The two previous outbreaks were aerially
> treated with either Gypcheck, *B.t.*, and pheromone flakes. Gypcheck
> only affects gypsy moth caterpillars, while *B.t.* can be toxic to a
> wide range of Lepidopterans and thus could affect the Indiana bat=s
> food base. Pheromone flakes are not a toxic chemical; rather, they
> work to disrupt mating activities.
>
> There is no feasible way to predict the likelihood of future outbreaks
> of gypsy moth infestations in western North Carolina. However, any
> decision not to treat any future outbreaks increases the likelihood of
> more extensive defoliation and tree mortality in oak‑dominated timber
> stands. Based on experiences reported in Virginia, West Virginia, and
> other northern Appalachian States, such outbreaks can result in
> extensive areas of high tree mortality. While this may initially
> increase the potential number of dead roost trees and open the area to
> become better foraging habitat, in the long term, there would be
> little snag recruitment.
>
> [Riparian‑Stream‑side Zone Management]{.underline} ‑ Riparian or
> stream‑side management zones are classified as management area 18 in
> the Forest Plan. The area is to be actively managed to protect and
> enhance, where possible, the distinctive resource values and
> characteristics dependent on or associated with these systems. Timber
> management can only occur in these areas if needed to maintain or
> enhance riparian habitat values. The riparian ecosystem, unless
> mapped, is considered to be 100 ft. on each side of perennial streams
> or around a lake. Large standing trees, snags, den trees, and small
> canopy gaps should be characteristic to this management area. Canopy
> closure will most likely vary across the NPNFs but generally will
> provide suitable, if not optimal, canopy closure conditions. As larger
> trees fall out of stands, the resulting small canopy gaps should
> improve roosting and foraging habitat conditions.
>
> [Land Exchanges and Acquisition]{.underline} - On average, about
> 450 ac. of national forest land is exchanged each year, with about
> 620 ac. received, for a net gain of 170 ac. An additional 500 ac. per
> year are acquired through purchase, bringing the total net increase in
> land acquired to 720 ac. Without bat surveys of national forest land
> exchanged, the remote possibility exists that active Indiana bat roost
> sites are present on the land traded. Should this be the case, the
> potential exists, once this land is in private ownership, for occupied
> or potential roost trees to be removed. However, given the amount and
> distribution of potentially suitable roosting habitat on private and
> national forest land, and the type of land acquired in exchanges,
> there is an equal degree of likelihood that the national forest could
> receive land occupied by roosting Indiana bats. Given the small amount
> of land exchanged each year, the potential effects from this activity
> are minimal.

**[Indirect effects common to all activities at landscape
scale]{.underline}**

The USFS=s analysis of the number of acres classified as Asuitable for
commercial timber production@ indicates that more than 70% of the NPNFs
will not be harvested for timber production purposes during the life of
the Forest Plan. Additional acres that currently provide potentially
suitable Indiana bat habitat classified as Asuitable@ will not be
harvested between now and 2004 due to accessibility and economic
concerns.

Of the estimated 970,050 forested acres on the NPNFs, only 0.21% (2,077
ac.) are annually being treated through some type of timber treatments
(includes even‑aged, uneven‑aged, salvaging, and thinning). At this
rotation rate, it is projected that a very high percentage of forested
stands in the Asuitable@ timber base will exceed the projected 80‑ to
120‑year rotations specified in the Forest Plan. Even at an 80‑year
rotation, the USFS=s analysis indicates that suitable and optimal
habitat conditions will be maintained over most of the forested areas.

Using a worst‑case scenario (assuming that leave trees would not be left
within regeneration units harvested by clearcutting and shelterwood
\[which is incorrect, considering the Forest Plan=s standards and
guidelines\] at such a level so as to meet suitability thresholds for
percent canopy closure, number of trees \>9‑in. dbh, and number of trees
\>16 in. dbh), there would still be more suitable and/or optimal
suitable Indiana bat habitat on the NPNFs in 2004 (Table 11).

  -------------------- ---------------------- ---------------- -------------------
  **Table 11.                                                  
  Estimated                                                    
  Suitable/Optimal                                             
  Indiana Bat Habitat                                          
  Without Leaving                                              
  ALeave@ Trees**                                              

  **Habitat            **Optimal/Suitable**   **Current        **Projected 2004
  Suitability                                 Condition        Timber Management
  Criteria**                                  (acres)**        (acres)**

  16 Trees/Acre and    Optimal                804,475 (83.0%)  807,975 (83.3%)
  \>9 in. dbh                                                  

  3 Trees/Acre         Optimal                565,274 (58.3%)  670,772 (69.1%)
  \>16 in. dbh                                                 

  \>60% Canopy Closure Optimal                552,434 (56.9%)  549,293 (56.6%)

  3 Snags/Acre \>9 in. Suitable               739,247 (76.2%)  774,908 (80%)
  dbh                                                          
  -------------------- ---------------------- ---------------- -------------------

The following activities are not likely to result in any adverse impacts
to Indiana bats or potential habitat: timber harvesting in unsuitable
CISC forest types (see BA) where no hardwood trees \>3 in. dbh are
removed/felled; public fuelwood harvesting of downed, dead trees or
standing live hardwood trees \<3 in. dbh; trail maintenance that does
not remove snags or standing live hardwood trees \>3 in. dbh; timber
stand improvements that do not remove standing live trees \>3 in. dbh;
landline location/surveying that does not remove standing live hardwood
trees \>3 in. dbh; or road maintenance that does not remove standing
live trees \>3 in. dbh.

[Summary of Indirect Effects]{.underline}

The Implementation of management activities that involve the removal of
trees \>9 in. dbh has the potential for adverse effects by removing
potential roost trees and reducing tree density levels and subsequent
canopy closure levels, which results in less then optimal or suitable
summer roosting or foraging habitat conditions. When these activities
occur near known or potential maternity sites, they could result in
adverse stress to roosting bats. However, the overall potential impact
is somewhat lessened by at least five factors: (1) more than 70% of the
NPNFs are exempt from timber harvesting; (2) a very high percentage of
the NPNFs are projected to provide at least suitable snag habitat
conditions, with a projected increase in the number of acres meeting
suitable snag habitat conditions by 2004; (3) at projected
timber‑harvesting rates, the creation of roosts through annual natural
tree mortality will more than offset any subsequent loss of live
potential or dead roost trees; (4) the overall age of the NPNFs is
rapidly increasing, which indicates that as the Forest gets older there
will be a greater number of larger‑diameter potential roost trees
available; and (5) the existing Forest Plan standards and guidelines
appear to provide for more than adequate numbers of potential roost
trees.

Timber‑harvesting activities may reduce roosting and foraging habitat
conditions on portions of regeneration units that are below optimal or
suitable levels. However, this is a relatively short‑term impact that is
partially offset by the Forest Plan standards and guidelines, which
prescribe retaining suitable snags, den trees, and potential snags at
prescribed levels within timber regeneration units. Timber regeneration
units can readily meet suitable or optimal threshold levels for three of
four roosting habitat criteria (at least 16 trees/acre \>9 in. dbh, at
least three snags/acre \>8.8 in. dbh, and at least three trees/acre
\>16 in. dbh). While \>60% canopy cover may not be attainable on all
regeneration units, minimal canopy closure levels can be provided in
clumps of leave trees, which should provide potentially suitable
roosting habitat within all units. Suitable foraging habitat will remain
on all areas where timber harvesting occurs. Given these factors, the
potential exists for the implementation of forest management activities
to impact components of Indiana bat summer habitat over portions of the
NPNFs, but at least some impacts are offset by gains in habitat
components elsewhere on the NPNFs.

The amount and quality of habitats that could support Indiana bats will
increase significantly across the NPNFs during the next 5 years. The
USFS projects that by the year 2004, an additional 100,000 ac. of
optimal foraging and live tree potential roosting habitat and suitable
dead tree potential roosting habitat will exist on the NPNFs. Total
habitat that could support the Indiana bat would increase from its
current level of 490,000 to 590,000 ac., a 21% increase. This increase
is a result of an increase in stands exceeding 70 years in age that will
be present on the NPNFs by the year 2004.

The distribution of habitats that can support Indiana bats will also
improve by the year 2004 due to the increase in acres of optimal and
suitable habitats (Figures 7a, 7b, 7c, and 7d and Appendix D of the BA).
In 5 years, the average proportion of optimal foraging habitat, optimal
live potential roosting habitat, and suitable dead tree roost habitat
within all 8,000 ac. landscapes (see AFocal Analysis@) on the Nantahala
National Forest is estimated to be 53% and 65% on the Pisgah National
Forest (up from the current levels of 42% and 57%, respectively). This
equates to an increase of 150,000+ ac on the NPNFs in landscapes similar
to or of higher quality foraging and potential roost habitats than that
around the known maternity site. Again, this is a conservative estimate
of habitat capability because it is based on the requirement that each
acre contain all Indiana bat habitat components at suitable or optimal
levels.

**Cumulative Effects**

Action Area

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 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. 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 Opinion, will either be carried out by, or will
require a permit from, the USFS; they will, therefore, require
compliance with section 7 of the Act. 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 USFS section 7 review, cumulative effects, as defined by the Act,
will not occur and will not be addressed further in this Opinion.

**Cumulative Impact of Incidental Take Anticipated by the Service in
Previously Issued Biological Opinions**

In reaching a decision of whether the continued implementation of
activities outlined in the Forest Plan on the NPNFs is likely or is 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
a few previously issued biological opinions involve the loss of riparian
corridors or foraging and roosting habitat for the Indiana bat, 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 nonjeopardy and
include opinions for the Cherokee, Daniel Boone, Ozark and St. Francis,
George Washington and Jefferson, Mark Twain, Alleghany, and Ouachita
National Forests.

The cumulative impacts of an annual anticipated incidental take of
124,659 ac. (Table 12) on these seven national forests and the potential
impact to the Indiana bat was 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 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
nonjeopardy biological opinions for each perspective forest that
minimize the impact of incidental take, and (4) the percentage of the
rangewide population that is predicted to be impacted by the proposed
actions.

  ------------------------- ------------------- --------------------------
  **Table 12. Annual                            
  Anticipated Incidental                        
  Take (Acres) and                              
  Estimated Number of                           
  Indiana Bats Potentially                      
  Affected as Identified in                     
  Biological Opinions                           
  Previously Issued by the                      
  Service Involving Seven                       
  National Forests in the                       
  Eastern United States.**                      

  **Forest**                **Annual            **Estimated Number of
                            Anticipated         Indiana Bats Potentially
                            Incidental Take     Affected**
                            (Acres)**           

  Alleghany                 13,984^1^           \~400

  Cherokee                  1,300\~             \~200^2^

  Daniel Boone              4,500               \~1,600^2^

  George Washington and     4,500               \~300^3^
  Jefferson                                     

  Mark Twain                38,375              \~500

  Ozark and St. Francis     19,000^4^           \~1,000

  Ouachita                  43,000              \~9

  **Totals**                124,659             \~4,009
  ------------------------- ------------------- --------------------------

^1^ Five‑year average.

^2^ MacGregor, personal communication, 1999.

^3^ Estimate based on MacGregor=s predictions for the number of Indiana
bats that may occur on the Cherokee and

Daniel Boone National Forests.

^4^ This includes hardwoods, pines, and pine/hardwoods, all of which can
provide suitable roosting habitat for the

Indiana bat.

The USFS=s BAs provide convincing evidence that an abundance of roosting
habitat will be available to each individual bat that may occur on each
national forest, even with the annual incidental take of acreage as
outlined in the Service=s biological opinions. Further, the 4,009
Indiana bats potentially affected would constitute only about 1.1% of
the entire population.

Given: (1) the conservation measures outlined in the Forest Plan, BA,
biological evaluation, or recovery strategy developed for the Indiana
bat; (2) the additional terms and conditions associated with the
Service=s biological opinions; (3) the abundance of available roost
trees on the seven national forests; and (4) the small percentage of the
overall population of the species likely to be affected from the annual
anticipated level of incidental take (very little of which is actually
likely to result in the death of a bat), 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 from the activities.

**Potential Interrelated and Interdependent Actions**

An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of the proposed
action and depends on the proposed action for its justification (Service
and National Marine Fisheries Service \[NMFS\] 1998). An interdependent
activity is an activity that has no independent utility apart from the
action under consultation (Service and NMFS 1998). A determination of
whether other activities are interrelated to, or interdependent with,
the proposed action under consultation is made 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 (Service and NMFS 1998). For example, private
timber‑harvesting activities outside the NPNFs would only be considered
as interrelated or interdependent if a determination was made that these
activities would not occur but for implementation of the Forest Plan on
the NPNFs. There is no justification for claiming that other
tree‑harvesting activities on adjacent land occurred due to the
implementation of the Forest Plan; therefore, these actions outside the
boundaries of the NPNFs cannot be considered as an interrelated or
interdependent action that should be considered in this Opinion.

**CONCLUSION**

After reviewing the current status of the Indiana bat; the environmental
baseline for the action area; the effects of forest management and other
activities described in the Forest Plan on the NPNFs (both direct and
indirect); measures identified in the USFS=s BA to assist in the
protection, management, and recovery of the species; previously issued
Service nonjeopardy 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 NPNFs, in
accordance with the Forest Plan for the NPNFs, are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat. Critical habitat
does not occur in the action area; therefore, none will be adversely
affected or destroyed by the continued implementation of the Forest
Plan.

**INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT**

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of
the Act prohibit the taking 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
essential behavioral patterns such as 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 that 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
under the Act, provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms
and conditions of this incidental take statement.

Factors Considered in Determining the Amount of Incidental Take

Several factors must be considered in determining the amount of
incidental take for this Opinion. Foremost is the likelihood that the
species occurs in any particular area and the probability of any
particular project impacting an individual. Although the Indiana bat has
now been documented in one area on the Nantahala National Forest during
the summer, there are few documented occurrences of this species on
either the Nantahala or Pisgah National Forests (see AStatus of the
Species in North Carolina@). Though extensive surveys have not been
conducted for this species across the NPNFs, recent (1999)
mist‑netting/Anabat[^10] surveys revealed only the one capture/detection
(the Graham County maternity colony) at more than 60 separate survey
sites.

[Species= Range]{.underline}

The NPNFs are on the extreme southeastern edge of the range of the
Indiana bat. In fact, there are relatively few records east of the spine
of the Appalachian Mountains. The species= range in North Carolina is
based on the four records (over the last 40 to 60 years) detailed above.
Before the Graham County, North Carolina, maternity colony discovery,
all records were thought to be for hibernating individuals or
individuals moving to or from a hibernaculum. Only one Indiana bat has
been found (1991) at these four locations in more than 30 years (see
AStatus of the Species in North Carolina@). The capture of foraging
males and reproductive females in Kentucky in 1994 and 1995, the capture
of foraging males in West Virginia and Virginia, and the capture of a
lactating female in Tennessee[^11], have led some to believe that the
Southern Appalachians may be more important as Indiana bat summer
maternity habitat then previously thought. However, the North Carolina
maternity colony is farther south than any previous maternity record
and, except for one New Jersey record, is also the farthest east.

[Proximity to Hibernacula]{.underline}

The Asource@ of any Indiana bats on the NPNFs is dependent primarily on
the proximity of the NPNFs to winter hibernacula. More than 85% of the
rangewide population of 353,000 bats occupy nine Priority I hibernacula
(\>30,000 bats), all of which are north of North Carolina (Service
1999f), and it is believed that the vast majority of these bats disperse
north from these areas, not south, into North Carolina. Caves on the
eastern side on the Southern Appalachians in the North Carolina
mountains are fissure caverns rather than karst caves and do not provide
ideal microclimate conditions for the Indiana bat (Boynton *et al.*
1992). Only one Priority III hibernacula (hibernacula of marginal
significance; i.e., 1 to 500 individuals) has been identified in North
Carolina (Service 1999f), and no more than four Indiana bats have been
recorded in 1 year from this site (see AStatus of the Species in North
Carolina@).

The most likely Asource@ of Indiana bats that could disperse to the
NPNFs is Whiteoak Blowhole Cave (a Priority II hibernaculum) in the
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee. This cave is about
15 mi. from the western edge and 130 mi. from the eastern edge of the
NPNFs. The winter population of Indiana bats at this hibernaculum,
though apparently declining (Figure 2), has averaged 7,294 over the last
25 years. A high of 11,287 Indiana bats were counted in 1981, but only
3,084 were found in 1999. While it is likely that most of the bats
hibernating in this cave disperse to the north, as in most other areas,
the Graham County, North Carolina, maternity site also indicates that
probably not all individuals are long‑distance migrants, at least not
every year (see AMigration@).

Assuming that there are approximately 7,294 bats at the hibernacula
(25‑year average, see Figure 2), that 50% are females, and that there
are an average of 25 females at a colony site (again a maximum estimate
of the number of colonies, since colonies can have up to
100 individuals), then the Indiana bats at Whiteoak Blowhole Cave would
require enough habitat to support probably no more than 146 maternity
colonies (7,294 \* 0.50/25). Using a 1‑mi‑radius circle (2,011 ac.) as a
conservative estimate of an Indiana bat maternity colony=s home range
(Gardner *et al.* 1992, Garner and Gardner 1992) and assuming home
ranges do not overlap (which is unlikely), it is estimated that a
maximum of 293,606 ac. (146 \* 2011) of suitable foraging and roosting
habitat would be needed for all female bats found at Whiteoak Blowhole
Cave. If all of the potential maternity colonies originated from
Whiteoak Blowhole Cave migrated to the NPNFs, they would need only 60%
of the 490,000 ac. of Aoptimal@[^12] Indiana bat habitat found on the
NPNFs. Further, an additional 100,000 ac. are expected to become
Aoptimal@ over the next 5 years, a 20% increase by 2004.

It is more likely, however, that dispersal is oriented to the north and
not equal in all directions, though there appears to be no shortage of
habitat in close proximity to the hibernaculum. There are more than
20 million acres of land in the Southern Appalachians within a 130‑mi
radius (the distance to the eastern edge of the NPNFs) of Whiteoak
Blowhole Cave, of which over a half million acres are between the cave
and the NPNFs). While most of this area is private land, there are
nearly 3.6 million acres of public land managed by the USFS, National
Park Service, State Parks, and the Cherokee Indian Reservation
(Table 13) within a 130‑mile radius of Whiteoak Blowhole Cave. Further,
forests cover 70% of the Appalachian region, while pastures (17.4%),
croplands (3.4%), and areas developed for roads, dwellings, and other
human structures (3.1%) cover considerably less area (Southern
Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative 1996). Therefore, whether
dispersal is oriented to the north or random, the role of NPNFs in
providing forested habitat for the Indiana bat is reduced.

+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| **Table 13. Land Ownership (Acres)    |                              |
| Within a 130‑Mile Radius of the       |                              |
| Whiteoak Blowhole Hibernacula.**      |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| total area within a 130‑mile radius   | 33,979,466                   |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| total area within the Southern        | 20,059,600                   |
| Appalachians                          |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| private land                          | 17,245,000                   |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| U.S. Forest Service                   | 2,549,348                    |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| U.S. Park Service                     | 577,310                      |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| State Parks                           | 411,255                      |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| Cherokee Indian Reservation           | 45,420                       |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| U.S. Departments of Defense and       | 37,510                       |
|                                       |                              |
| U.S. Department of Energy             |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+

[Migration]{.underline}

Migration is an energy‑expensive and hazardous undertaking.
Consequently, the benefits must be considerable for a species to
undertake such a risk. Migration allows a species to exploit a resource
(i.e., food), avoid a negative influence (i.e., predation, harsh
weather, parasites), or both[^13]. Migration, as a form of dispersal,
also enables animals to maintain higher average densities and activity
rates (Odum 1971). As mentioned previously, band recovery records
indicate that females, and some males, migrate north in the spring upon
emergence from their hibernacula (Hall 1962, Barbour and Davis 1969,
Kurta 1980, LaVal and LaVal 1980), and most biologists would consider
the Indiana bat a migratory species. Therefore, the conditions provided
at more northern latitudes must be providing the Indiana bat with a
resource (or resources) that is not available, or less available, in
southern areas, or the southern latitudes have a negative factor (or
factors) that outweighs the risks associated with northward migration.

The recent discoveries of a maternity colony and postlactating females
at more southern latitudes during the summer months implies that not all
individuals are migratory. If migration has evolved in the Indiana bat
so that they are better able to exploit a resource at more northern
latitudes, then it is possible for some individuals to be able to not
migrate and still exploit the same resource at more southern latitudes
because of decreased intra‑specific competition. What proportion of the
population could remain nonmigratory is likely small or migration would
never have evolved as a part of the species= ecology.

Similarly, if there is a negative influence at more southern latitudes,
while some individuals may be able to survive and/or reproduce in any
given year, the number of individuals that take this risk is likely
small and inconsistent from year to year, or, again, migration would
never have evolved as a part of the species= ecology. Therefore, it is
likely that the vast majority of the individuals do migrate north and
the relatively low number of individuals that do not migrate is
inconsistent from year to year.

[Activities Within Suitable Indiana Bat Habitat]{.underline}

The Forest Plan for the NPNFs allocates land for many activities and
uses (Table 3). Any activity that removes trees \>3 in. dbh could
directly or indirectly affect the Indiana bat. Though during the
previous 6 years (1994‑1999) implementation of such activities was much
less than projected, if implementation is carried out at 100% for the
remainder of the Forest Plan, about 10,893 ac. would be impacted
(including 5,500 ac. of prescribed burning) each year, or about 54,465
ac. during the remaining planning period. Although this overestimates
impacts to Indiana bat habitat because it assumes that all activities
occur in forest types suitable for the Indiana bat and that all
activities are completely deleterious, this would represent only about
11% of the Aoptimal@ habitat (490,000 ac.) that could support this
species (see AFocal Analysis@), and only 7% of all forested acres
(730,328 ac.). While this would appear to represent a decline in the
amount of available habitat, the 437,000 remaining acres of Aoptimal@
habitat would provide enough habitat to theoretically support more than
217 maternity colonies of 25 bats each, 60% more than the maximum number
of maternity colonies that would be supported by the population
estimates of Whiteoak Blowhole Cave hibernacula bats (see AProximity to
Hibernacula@). Further, the USFS projects that by the year 2004, an
additional 100,000 ac. of optimal foraging habitat and live tree
potential roosting habitat, as well as suitable dead tree potential
roosting habitat, will exist on the NPNFs. This increase results from
the increase in stands exceeding 70 years in age that will be present on
the NPNFs by the year 2004. Also, many activities, such as thinning and
burning, may actually improve foraging habitat for the Indiana bat by
opening dense stands that may hamper movement of bats through the stand
or improve potential dead‑tree roosting habitat by creating new snags.

Prescribed Fire

Growing season prescribed burns may result in the burning of occupied
roost trees and there is a slight chance that the smoke generated during
prescribed burns could also cause roosting bats discomfort or, in the
extreme, death (particularly before young can fly). More likely,
however, is that the bats will simply fly away from the disturbance and
find another roost, given the estimated number of acres providing
suitable roosting habitat and the fact that most colonies have multiple
roost sites. Additionally, the creation of new snags probably offsets
any roosting habitat losses that are the result of an occasional snag
burning. Further, because a dense overstory and understory inhibit bat
movement and foraging, prescribed burning will provide restoration and
maintenance of an uncluttered, open forest, thus providing foraging
pathways and allowing bats to reach roost trees more easily. Increased
insect populations produced in burned areas are also likely to occur in
the years following prescribed burns.

Summary of Factors to Consider

Since the discovery of the Indiana bat maternity colony in Graham
County, North Carolina, in July of 1999, the Service has considered the
summer range to include Graham County, North Carolina, and, because of
similar habitat, the adjacent counties of Cherokee, Macon, and Swain in
North Carolina)^1^[^14]. The Service believes that this is a reasonable
approach to conservatively (erring on the side of the species) estimate
the range of a species when extensive surveys have not been conducted,
especially on the edge of the species= range.

After a more in‑depth analysis of the habitat and the biology of the
Indiana bat (particularly the range of the species, migration biology,
and the proximity to hibernacula detailed above), the Service continues
to believe that these counties in North Carolina‑‑Graham, Cherokee,
Macon, and Swain‑‑are the most likely to harbor Indiana bats during the
summer months. However, the Service does not exclude the possibility
that Indiana bat could occur elsewhere on the NPNFs, though it is likely
they would be in very low numbers and principally males. Expanding the
summer range farther south and/or east (over 100 mi. if it were to
include the entire Pisgah National Forest), without further evidence to
indicate the species occurs there, is not reasonable.

There appears to be no shortage of suitable habitat across the NPNFs nor
is there any predicted net decline in the amount of suitable habitat
over the life of the Forest Plan. On the contrary, because of age of the
NPNFs, there will be more suitable habitat at the end of Forest Plan
implementation than is now available.

Amount of Take Anticipated

The Service anticipates incidental take of the Indiana bat will be
difficult to detect and quantify for the following reasons:
(1) individuals are small; (2) Indiana bats form small (i.e.,
25‑100 individuals), widely dispersed maternity colonies under loose
bark or in the cavities of trees and males and nonreproductive females
may roost individually; (3) finding dead or injured specimens is
unlikely; and (4) the extent and density of the species= summer
Apopulation@ on the NPNFs is likely small and on the periphery of the
summer range.

The measures described below are nondiscretionary and must be
implemented by the USFS or become binding conditions of any actions
carried out by the USFS or any permit issued to an applicant, as
appropriate, in order for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) of the Act to
apply. The USFS has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered
by this incidental take statement. The protective coverage of Section
7(o)(2) of the Act may lapse if the USFS (1) fails to adhere to the
terms and conditions of the incidental take statement or fails to
require applicants to adhere to the terms and conditions through
enforceable terms added to permits or grant documents, and/or (2) fails
to retain oversight to ensure compliance with these terms and
conditions.

Incidental take of Indiana bats is expected to be in the form of
killing, harming, or harassing, with the direct killing of Indiana bats
being the least likely. While cutting trees during the nonhibernation
season for harvest or in preparation for other activities could result
in mortality to females and young (especially before the young are able
to fly) or to individually roosting Indiana bats, it is more likely that
the colony (or roosting individuals) will be forced to find an alternate
roost or be forced to abandon a roost in the area. This, in turn, could
possibly lead to lower reproduction or survival. Tree harvesting or
removal (e.g., associated with road and trail construction or
recreational development) may also result in the alteration of the bats=
roosting and/or feeding activities (i.e., the bats may have to fly
farther to forage and seek alternate roosts, or they may be forced to
abandon the area altogether). In addition, growing‑season prescribed
fires may result in the 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. Finally, the spraying of
large blocks of forested habitat with *B.t.* (or other nontarget
pesticides) may reduce prey and cause individual bats to have to travel
longer distances to forage.

Monitoring to determine the taking of individual bats within an
expansive area of forested habitat is a complex and difficult task.
Unless every suitable roost tree is inspected by a trained individual
before an activity begins, it would be impossible to know if a maternity
colony or roosting Indiana bats were present in a project area. It would
also be impossible to evaluate the amount of incidental take of Indiana
bats unless a postproject inspection is immediately made of every tree
that has been cut 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 level
of take of this species can be anticipated by the aerial extent of
suitable habitat affected. Although no Indiana bat maternity colony or
individually roosting Indiana bats are known to have been incidentally
taken on the NPNFs during tree removal or other habitat‑modifying
activities conducted to date, incidental take of this species can be
anticipated due to the loss of active roost trees. The Service believes
if a maternity colony or roosting individuals are present in an area
proposed for disturbance, loss of suitable roosting habitat would result
in the incidental taking of Indiana bats. However, implementation of the
terms and conditions associated with the reasonable and prudent measures
provided below will significantly reduce the potential for incidental
take.

This incidental take statement anticipates the taking of Indiana bats
from tree removal associated with timber harvest; road and trail
construction and maintenance; recreational site construction; facilities
construction; wildlife openings; surveying lines; easements; special use
permits; forest products permits; and prescribed burning. Because the
Service believes the Indiana bat is not equally distributed across the
NPNFs, the incidental take statement addresses two separate
areas‑‑(1) Graham, Macon, Swain, and Cherokee Counties, North Carolina,
and (2) the remainder of the NPNFs.

As detailed above, Graham, Macon, Swain, and Cherokee Counties, North
Carolina, are the most likely to harbor summer‑resident Indiana bats,
particularly maternity colonies. This four‑county area covers 1,170,022
ac., of which 862,848 ac. (74%) are forested. The USFS manages 379,977
ac. in this area, and 158,623 of these acres provide optimal or suitable
habitat (\>60% canopy cover, at least three snags/acre, at least
16 trees/acre \>9 in. dbh, and at least three trees/acre 16 in. dbh or
greater) for Indiana bats (Table 14). The USFS estimates that by 2004,
an additional 35,820 ac. will provide suitable or optimal habitat (a 23%
increase).

  ---------------- --------------- ------------- --------------- -----------
  **Table 14.                                                    
  Acres Providing                                                
  All Habitat                                                    
  Components                                                     
  Suitable or                                                    
  Optimal for the                                                
  Indiana Bat in                                                 
  Graham, Macon,                                                 
  Swain, and                                                     
  Cherokee                                                       
  Counties, North                                                
  Carolina (\>60%                                                
  Canopy Cover, at                                               
  Last Three                                                     
  Snags/Acre, at                                                 
  least                                                          
  16 Trees/Acre                                                  
  \>9 in. dbh, and                                               
  at Least Three                                                 
  Trees/Acre                                                     
  16 in. dbh or                                                  
  Greater).**                                                    

  **Forest         **Current       **Projected   **Estimated     **Percent
  Grouping**       Condition**     2004**        Change          Change**
                                                 (acres)**       

  Cove hardwood    64,861          86,005        +21,144         +33%

  Upland Hardwood  86,268          98,401        +12,133         +14%

  Yellow           7,494           10,037        +2,543          +34%
  Pine-Hardwood                                                  

  **Total Acres**  158,623         194,443       +35,820         +23%
  ---------------- --------------- ------------- --------------- -----------

Because there has been virtually no research on Indiana bats focused on
nonmigratory or short‑distance migrants, some assumptions are necessary
to estimate the amount of incidental take. First, it is reasonable to
assume that the bats found on the NPNFs have dispersed from Whiteoak
Blowhole cave in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee.
Second, most literature indicates that the majority of individuals
probably migrate north from the cave with only a small percentage likely
dispersing a short distance. If: (1) an estimated 10% of the females do
not migrate north, (2) there is an average of 7,294 (25‑year average)
bats using Whiteoak Blowhole Cave, and (3) half of these bats are
female, an estimated 365 females a year are nonmigratory (or
short‑distance migrants). If all of these females joined maternity
colonies, with a minimum size of 25, it could be estimated that there
are about 15 maternity colonies near Whiteoak Blowhole Cave.

How far these colonies disperse from the hibernacula is problematic, as
the only information available is for the Graham County maternity site,
which is about 23 mi. from the hibernaculum. Within 40 mi. of the cave
(an area of more than 3.2 million acres) three areas are most likely to
provide suitable Indiana bat habitat‑‑(1) the four‑county area of the
Nantahala National Forest, (2) the Cherokee National Forest to the west,
and (3) the Great Smoky Mountains National Park to the east. If the
estimated 15 colonies disperse equally *only* to these three areas
(which would be unlikely), as they are the largest forested tracts in
the area, then only an estimated five colonies (125 bats) occur in the
four‑county area of the Nantahala National Forest. Further, if a
1‑mi‑radius circle (2,011 ac.) is used as a conservative estimate of an
Indiana bat maternity colony=s home range (Gardner *et al.* 1992, Garner
and Gardner 1992), only an estimated 10,055 ac. (5 \* 2011) of suitable
foraging and roosting habitat are needed to support the estimated number
of maternity colonies in the four‑county area (assuming home ranges do
not overlap), which is only 6% of the estimated Aoptimal@ habitat
available in the four‑county area (158,623 ac.). Even if all of the
Indiana bat maternity colonies from Whiteoak Blowhole Cave summered in
the four‑county area, there appears to be enough habitat to support them
(see calculations under AProximity to Hibernacula@).

The USFS estimates maximum annual impacts to 4,574 ac. from their
activities in the four‑county area (Table 15). These activities impact
only 0.5% of the forest acres in the four‑county area and only 1% of
USFS land in the four‑county area annually (862,848 ac.). Assuming a
worst‑case scenario, that all the activities will occur in Aoptimal@
habitat and that all activities will be completely deleterious, this
would represent annual impacts to less than 3% of the Aoptimal@ habitat
that could support this species in the four‑county area (158,623 ac.,
Table 14). While this would appear to represent a decline in the amount
of available habitat if all activities occurred in Aoptimal@ habitat,
the 135,753 remaining Aoptimal@ acres alone would provide enough habitat
to theoretically support about 68 maternity colonies of 25 bats each,
almost half the number of maternity colonies that would be supported by
the population estimates of Whiteoak Blowhole hibernaculum bats if no
females migrated (see AProximity to Hibernacula@). Further, the USFS
projects that by the year 2004 an additional 35,820 ac. of habitat will
provide \>60% canopy cover, at least three snags/acre, at least
16 trees/acre \>9 in. dbh, and at least three trees/acre 16 in. dbh or
greater in the four‑county area. Therefore, even if all scheduled
activities occurred in Aoptimal@ habitat over the next 5 years, there
would still be a net increase of almost 13,000 ac. of Aoptimal@ habitat
in the four‑county area. Also, many of these activities, such as
thinning, may improve foraging habitat for the Indiana bat by opening
dense stands that may hamper movement of bats through the stand or
improve potential dead‑tree roosting habitat by creating new snags
and/or increasing the amount of solar radiation reaching new and
existing snags.

**The annual incidental take for Graham, Macon, Cherokee, and Swain
Counties, as estimated indirectly by acres disturbed, is 4,574
ac.**^1^[^15] **annually**. This constitutes a maximum of 2.9% of the
Aoptimal@ habitat (158,623 ac.) in the four‑county area and about 1.3%
of the forested acres managed by the USFS in the four‑county area
(348,852 ac.). The potential for the loss of suitable/optimal habitat
and the consequent incidental taking of Indiana bats, however, is
significantly reduced through the implementation of the Forest Plan=s
standards and guidelines, the terms and conditions associated with the
reasonable and prudent measures provided by the Service, and the net
increase in optimal and suitable habitat expected over the next 5 years.
Further, as mentioned previously, many of these activities, such as
thinning, may actually improve foraging habitat for the Indiana bat by
opening dense stands that may hamper movement of bats through the stand
or improve potential dead‑tree roosting habitat by creating new snags
and/or increasing the amount of solar radiation reaching new and
existing snags.

If levels of incidental take associated with any one of the above‑listed
activities (Table 15) are exceeded, as measured by the total amount of
habitat disturbance, such incidental take represents new information
that would require a review of the reasonable and prudent measures
provided and could require reinitiation of formal consultation.

On the remainder of the Nantahala National Forest (outside the
four‑county area detailed above) and the Pisgah National Forest
(heretofore referred to as the Aremainder of the forest@), the Service
does not have evidence that summer populations, specifically maternity
colonies, are present. Additionally, the Service believes there are
relatively few Indiana bats using the remainder of the forest because:
(1) there are only four records for Indiana bats in the last 40+ years
in western North Carolina; (2) the area is on the edge of the species=
range; (3) there is only one Priority III hibernaculum south of the
NPNFs, and no more than four Indiana bats have ever been found there
(only one in the past 5 decades); and (4) the area is not between known
summer habitat and any Priority I or II hibernacula.

The Forest Plan shows a maximum of 6,198 ac. (0.9%) would be disturbed
annually by USFS activities (Table 3 \[less values in Table 15\]) on the
remainder of the forest (about 645,000 ac.). The USFS=s analysis of this
area indicate that about 474,380 ac. could provide optimal foraging
habitat, optimal live potential roost trees, and suitable dead potential
roost trees for the Indiana bat, [all on the same acre]{.underline}.
Assuming a worst‑case scenario, that all the activities will occur in an
area that provides optimal foraging habitat, optimal live potential
roost trees, and suitable dead potential roost trees for the Indiana bat
(all on the same acre) and that all activities are completely
deleterious, only about 1.3% of this habitat would be affected annually,
or about 6% by 2004. While this appears to represent a decline in the
amount of suitable and optimal habitat, the 444,260 remaining acres
would provide enough habitat to theoretically support almost 700 bats
with home ranges (conservatively estimated at 640 ac.) that did not
overlap. Further, the USFS projects that by the year 2004 an additional
64,000+ ac of habitat that will provide \>60% canopy cover, at least
three snags/acre, at least 16 trees/acre \>9 in. dbh, and at least three
trees/acre 16 in. dbh or greater in the remainder of the forest.
Therefore, even if all scheduled activities occurred in optimal or
suitable habitat over the next 5 years, and all of these activities made
the habitat unsuitable for Indiana bats, there would still be a net
increase in Indiana bat habitat.

With the probability that Indiana bats occur on the remainder of the
forest being so low and the quantity of habitat able to support them
being so high, the probability of any event actually Ataking@ an Indiana
bat, much less the take being detected or measurable, is discountably
small. Further, should Indiana bats be present at an undetectably low
level or should they begin using the area in the future, an abundance of
suitable habitat will be available even if the Forest Plan is fully
implemented. **Therefore, the Service believes that implementation of
the Forest Plan outside Graham, Macon, Swain, and Cherokee Counties, at
the levels described, is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat
and an incidental take statement is not needed.** This determination is
based on adherence to the Forest Plan. Obligations under section 7 of
the Act must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of
the identified action that may affect the Indiana bat in a manner not
previously considered, (2) the Forest Plan is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review, (3) new information
reveals the Indiana bat is more abundant in the area than is currently
believed, or (4) the species is distributed across the NPNFs differently
than described in this Opinion.

**EFFECT OF THE TAKE**

In this Opinion the Service determined that this level of take is not
likely to result in jeopardy to the Indiana bat 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 the Indiana bat. These
nondiscretionary measures include, but are not limited to, current
standards and guidelines found in the Forest Plan and the terms and
conditions outlined in this Opinion.

1\. Proposed management activities shall be planned, evaluated, and
implemented consistent with measures developed to protect the Indiana
bat, including those designed to maintain, improve, or enhance its
habitat.

2\. The USFS shall monitor timber sales and other activities on the
Nantahala National Forest in Graham, Macon, Swain, and Cherokee Counties
to determine if the Forest Plan=s standards and guidelines and the terms
and conditions of this Opinion are being implemented.

3\. The USFS shall monitor distribution and use of the NPNFs by Indiana
bats.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the
USFS must either conduct mist‑netting surveys for the Indiana bat that
show the Indiana bat is not present or comply with the following terms
and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures
described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements
for actions on the Nantahala National Forest in Graham, Macon, Swain,
and Cherokee Counties, North Carolina. These terms and conditions are
nondiscretionary.

1\. Implement the Forest Plan=s standards and guidelines in a manner
that will accomplish the following terms and conditions as they apply to
timber management practices pertaining to the harvest, regeneration, or
stand improvements of suitable forest types (Appendix D), on the
Nantahala National Forest in Graham, Macon, Swain, and Cherokee
Counties, North Carolina:

b.  Retain standing^1^[^16] live trees that have more than 25%
    exfoliating (separated from the cambium) bark and are greater than
    3 in. dbh.

c.  Retain as many shellbark, shagbark, and bitternut (*Carya
    cordiformis*) hickories as practicable^1^[^17], regardless of size
    or condition (live, dead, or dying).

> c\. Retain as many standing^15^ snags (greater than 3 in. dbh) as
> practicable within regeneration and timber treatment units, regardless
> of species, unless specifically marked for removal^1^[^18].
>
> d\. Retain as many hollow, den, or cavity trees greater than 9 in. dbh
> as practicable^15^.
>
> e\. To maintain suitable canopy cover, within 30 feet of intermittent
> streams, limit openings in the upper canopy to single‑tree gaps. Limit
> the distance between openings to 75 feet. Maintain trees from the
> Priority Leave Tree Species List (Appendix C) when possible. For
> intermittent stream crossings (roads, skid trails, etc.), apply the
> management standards and guidelines used for riparian areas
> (Management Area 18).
>
> f\. Use Indiana bat summer habitat as a riparian related value^1^[^19]
> for delineation of riparian areas (Management Area 18). Within the
> first 30 ft. on each side of perennial streams and other permanent
> water bodies, no standing trees (green, dead, dying, or leaning) shall
> be removed or felled. Retain a minimum of 60% canopy in the remainder
> of the riparian area with leave trees being first selected from the
> Priority Leave Tree Species List in Appendix C. For crossings (roads,
> skid trails, etc.), apply the management standards and guidelines used
> for riparian areas (Management Area 18).

g.  Designate and retain living residual trees in the vicinity of
    one‑third of all large (\>12 in. dbh) snags with exfoliating bark to
    provide them with partial shade and some protection from wind throw,
    using the priority trees in Appendix C when possible.

h.  Where feasible, design regeneration units with irregularly shaped
    boundaries so that some uncut live trees project into the
    regeneration unit.

i.  Conduct prescribed burns between October 15 and April 15, when
    possible. During site preparation burns, protect Aleave@ trees
    (above) and snags to the extent practicable^15^. Site preparation
    burns, when necessary before October 15, should be conducted after
    August 15 to prevent potential harm to young that are unable to fly.

j.  The above‑listed measures do not take the place of the other
    wildlife or sensitive species standards listed in the Forest Plan
    but are in addition to them.

k.  The USFS will develop timber‑marking guidelines for use by district
    personnel so as to insure that the specific terms and conditions of
    this Opinion are fully implemented.

l.  The USFS will conduct and report the results of inspections of all
    timber sales on the Nantahala National Forest in Graham, Macon,
    Swain, and Cherokee Counties to ensure that the terms and conditions
    related to timber harvesting have been implemented, including a pre‑
    and postharvest inventory of Indiana bat habitat components. For
    USFS timber sales, the contract administrator shall document pre‑
    and postharvest monitoring, including any action taken through
    contract or law enforcement channels, to address negligent or
    willful damage to residual trees or riparian areas. The USFS will
    make these reports available to the Service, if requested.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  To ensure landscape‑scale effects are minimized, for nonlinear
    activities impacting forest stands of 5 or more acres, analyze the
    area for pre‑ and postproject conditions using the HSI (live 16‑in.
    dbh potential roost trees, canopy cover, and dead 9‑in. dbh
    potential roost trees) generated by the focal analysis described in
    Appendix D of the BA. Do not let any project or combination of
    projects decrease the HSI by more than 5% for the duration of this
    Opinion. If the HSI were to be decreased by more than 5%,
    consultation with the Service would be required.

3\. All known roost trees will be protected until such time as they no
longer serve as a roost (e.g., loss of exfoliating bark and/or cavities,
blown down, or decay).

4.  No standing^14^ snags shall be removed during personal‑use fuelwood
    cutting unless marked for removal^16^.

5.  When standing^14^ snags need to be removed between April 15 and
    October 15 (other than those marked^16^ as unsuitable) because they
    pose either a safety hazard or a project cannot be relocated,
    evening checks, mist‑netting (per Indiana Bat Recovery Plan
    protocol), or mist‑netting with the Anabat system for bat use shall
    be conducted by qualified personnel prior to removal. If no bats are
    found, the tree may be removed after notifying the Service. If
    Indiana bats are found, consultation with the Service should be
    initiated. Note, however, that removal will be a last resort, after
    other alternatives (such as fencing the area) have been considered
    and determined to be unacceptable.

6.  Any activities that involve modification of habitat or potential
    adverse disturbance between April 15 and October 15 within a 1.5‑mi
    radius of known maternity sites shall be subject to further
    consultation.

7\. The USFS will continue its Forest Plan monitoring efforts to
determine use of the NPNFs by Indiana bats during the hibernation,
summer roosting/maternity, and prehibernation seasons by implementing
the following monitoring procedures. Selection of sites for future
monitoring and surveys will be left to the discretion of USFS
biologists. The Service believes that implementation of the following
terms and conditions is necessary to evaluate the underlying assumptions
made about Indiana bat presence and use of the NPNFs. Implementation of
these terms and conditions will, in turn, provide a more site‑specific
measure of the protective adequacy of the Forest Plan=s standards and
guidelines and the terms and conditions of this Opinion for the Indiana
bat on the NPNFs.

> a\. Continue Forest Plan monitoring by working with the Service,
> universities, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and
> local experts to locate and survey caves and mines that may contain
> Indiana bats. If Indiana bats are present, surveys shall continue
> biennially following the protocol of the Indiana Bat Recovery Team. If
> an Indiana bat hibernaculum is found on, or within 5 mi. of, the
> Nantahala or Pisgah National Forest, consultation with the Service
> shall be reinitiated. After any gating of a hibernaculum, biennial
> surveys shall be conducted to determine the effects of the gate(s) on
> all bat species.
>
> b\. Continue monitoring efforts to refine the distribution and
> abundance of the Indiana bat on the NPNFs. Survey efforts should be
> focused on those areas which, based on habitat characteristics (e.g.,
> percent canopy closure, presence of suitable roost trees, proximity to
> water, etc.) and/or previous survey results (e.g., Anabat detection),
> appear to be conducive to maternity colonies. These surveys should be
> designed to determine the distribution of the species on the NPNFs and
> its habitat use and movements of Indiana bats during the spring/fall
> periods. Comparative evaluations of the effectiveness of mist‑netting
> surveys and Anabat detectors are strongly encouraged. If any Indiana
> bats (male or female) are netted, the Service must be notified within
> 24 hours. We recommend tracking them using radio‑telemetry to identify
> and characterize roost trees and foraging habitat. The habitat at
> identified maternity sites will be characterized and quantified, and
> these habitat data will then be used to assist in identifying
> additional sites. Information gained during these studies can be used
> to refine USFS strategies for the protection and management of the
> species.
>
> c\. Habitat at all sites where Indiana bats are documented on the
> NPNFs should be characterized and quantified at both local and
> landscape levels.
>
> d\. Upon completion of each survey, provide the results (within
> 6 months of survey/study completion) to the Service=s Asheville, North
> Carolina, Field Office.
>
> e\. The amount of incidental take (both total and categorical levels,
> as measured indirectly by acreage) as identified in this Opinion must
> be monitored on an annual basis. This information is to be provided to
> the Service=s Asheville, North Carolina, Field Office no later than
> 6 months following the end of the previous year=s activities.

8.  The NPNFs will consult with the Service on any plans to use *B.t.*
    or any other nonselective pesticide to control gypsy moth
    infestations or other forest pest insects. Reduction in nontarget
    lepidopteran abundance will be considered when developing spraying
    plans, especially when determining the size and configuration of
    spray blocks.

9.  The above listed terms and conditions are only applicable in the
    forest types representing potentially suitable Indiana bat habitat
    (see Appendix D).

10. The above‑listed terms and conditions do not apply to the removal of
    live, invasive exotic tree species; e.g., Tree of Heaven (*Ailanthus
    altissima*) and Princess tree (*Paulownia tomentosa*).

11. Care must be taken in handling dead specimens of Indiana bats (and
    any other species of bat) that are found in the project area to
    preserve biological material in the best possible state and to
    protect the handler from exposure to diseases, such as rabies. In
    conjunction with the preservation of any dead specimens, the finder
    has the responsibility to ensure that evidence intrinsic to
    determining the cause of death of the specimen is not unnecessarily
    disturbed. The reporting of dead specimens is required to enable the
    Service to determine if take is reached or exceeded and to ensure
    that the terms and conditions are appropriate and effective. Upon
    locating a dead, injured, or sick specimen of any endangered or
    threatened species, prompt notification must be made to the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Division of Law
    Enforcement, 1875 Century Blvd., Suite 380, Atlanta, Georgia 30345
    (Telephone: 404/679‑7057).

The Service believes that an indeterminate number of Indiana bats (as
measured indirectly by the acreage presented in Table 15) will be
incidentally taken as a result of the proposed action. 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, such incidental take represents
new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and a review of
the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The USFS must immediately
provide an explanation of the cause of the taking and review with the
Service the need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent
measures.

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to use their
authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out
conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. The following 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.

1\. Pursue additional funding and partnership opportunities to complete
any additional inventory and monitoring work determined to be needed to
better understand the autecology of the Indiana bat.

2\. Where opportunities exist, work with landowners, the general public,
and other agencies to promote education and information about endangered
bats and their conservation.

3\. The NPNFs hosts many visitors each year; therefore, the Service
encourages the installation of informational/educational displays
regarding all bats occurring on the NPNFs. The Service believes that
such information would be invaluable in informing the public about the
value of this misunderstood group of mammals. We also encourage the USFS
to develop an educational slide program on the status of the Indiana bat
and threats to its existence.

4\. Provide training for appropriate NPNFs employees on the bats
(including the Indiana bat) that occurs on the NPNFs. Training should
include sections on bat identification, biology, habitat requirements,
and sampling techniques (including instructions on applicability and
effectiveness of using mist‑netting surveys versus Anabat detectors to
accurately determine the presence of various bat species). The proper
training of NPNFs biologists on bat identification and reliable methods
for counting roosting bats will enable the USFS to monitor the status of
this species.

5\. The demolition or removal of buildings or other manmade structures
that harbor bats should occur while bats are hibernating. If public
safety is threatened and the building must be removed while bats are
present, a bat expert should examine the building to determine if
Indiana bats are present; if so, consultation with the Service should be
initiated.

6\. Monitor percent canopy closure pre‑ and postharvest and the number
of residual trees (i.e., snags, den trees, and live trees) per acre
remaining on at least 10 final‑harvest units and 10 partial‑harvest
units during the remainder of the Forest Plan (including some green
units and some salvage units), and report these data to the Service.
These data shall be collected within 3‑6 months following harvest, and
shall be reported to the Service within 3 months of collection.

7\. Determine the longevity of snags, den trees, shagbark hickories
(live and dead), and other live residual trees remaining within
10 final‑ and 10 partial‑harvest units (including both green and salvage
units) by monitoring the number within each category remaining per acre
at intervals of 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 years postharvest. For the purposes
of this monitoring study, the same harvest units shall be monitored
during each time interval. These data shall be reported to the Service
within 3 months of collection.

8\. Conduct any tree removal activities between October 15 and April 15,
when possible.

9\. Retain as many standing^14^ damaged or dying^1^[^20] hardwood trees
greater 9 in. dbh as practicable^15^, but not less than three trees per
acre (if present).

10. Avoid converting suitable Indiana bat forest type to unsuitable
    types.

11. Strive to control the spread of invasive exotic species; e.g., kudzu
    (*Pueraria lobata*), Tree of Heaven, and Princess tree, that result
    in the loss of suitable Indiana bat habitat.

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

**REINITIATION/CLOSING STATEMENT**

This concludes formal consultation on the action outlined in your
October 18, 1999, request for formal consultation. 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 , (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 , or (4) a new
species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected
by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental
take is exceeded, any operation causing such take must cease, pending
reinitiation.

Consultation should also be reinitiated if new biological information
comes to light that invalidates the assumptions made regarding the
biology or distribution (especially evidence of a maternity colony
outside of Graham County, North Carolina) of the Indiana bat on the
NPNFs.

**Applicability of Biological Opinion to Site‑specific Projects**

The Service believes that the scope of effects for specific ongoing
projects and projects developed through the continued implementation of
the Forest Plan on the NPNFs falls under the umbrella of this
consultation for the following reasons:

1\. The reasonable and prudent measures outlined in this Opinion will
minimize the impact of incidental take identified for the Indiana bat,
on both a programmatic and site‑specific level; accordingly, the
protective measures outlined herein for Graham, Macon, Cherokee, and
Swain Counties, North Carolina, are applicable to individual projects
approved by the USFS hereafter.

2\. If after complying with the Forest Plan=s standards and guidelines
and the terms and conditions associated with the reasonable and prudent
measures provided in this Opinion, the USFS determines that activities
on a project level are likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat in a
manner or to an extent not considered or evaluated in the BA and this
Opinion, further consultation will be necessary.

3\. Any individual project that results or would result in incidental
take that exceeds the level identified in this Opinion would require the
reinitiation of formal consultation.

4\. The USFS will continue to conduct site‑specific project analyses to
ensure that each individual action follows the recommendations set forth
in this Opinion.

5\. The Service will review site‑specific projects, as appropriate, 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.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this , please contact
Mr. Allen Ratzlaff of our staff at 828/258‑3939, Ext. 229, or me,
Ext. 223. We have assigned our Log No. 4‑2‑99‑278 to this project;
please refer to it in any future correspondence concerning this project.

Sincerely,

Brian P. Cole

State Supervisor

LITERATURE CITATIONS

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

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

Barclay, R. M. R., and R. M. Brigham. 1998. Hide and Seek: in search of
forest bats. Bats 16(1):3‑7

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

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

Boynton, A., C. Holler, and B. Currie. 1992. Final Report to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Survey of important sites for listed and
candidate bat species in western North Carolina. Asheville, NC.

Brack, V., Jr. 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.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1983. The nonhibernating ecology of bats in Indiana with
emphasis on the endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN.

Brack, V., and R. K. LaVal. 1985. Food habits of the Indiana bat in
Missouri. J. of Mammalogy, 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.

Bull, E. L., C. G. Parks, and T. R. Torgenson. 1997. Trees and logs
important to wildlife in the interior Columbia River basin. USDA, Forest
Service, Gen. Tech Rep., PNW‑GTR‑391:1‑40.

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

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

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

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

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., and R. M. Prouty. 1976. Organochlorine residues in
three bat species from four localities in Maryland and West Virginia,
1973. J. of Pesticide Monitoring, 10:44‑53.

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

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

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

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,

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

DeJong, J. 1994. Distribution patterns and habitat use by bats in
relation to landscape heterogeneity, and consequences for conservation.
Ph.D. Thesis. University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

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

Erickson, J., and S. West. 1995. Managed forests in the Pacific
Northwest: the effects of seral stage on bat habitat use patterns.
Abstract from paper presented at the 1995 Bats and Forests Conference,
Victoria, BC.

Farrell, M. J., B. W. Miller, and W. L. Gannon. 1999. Qualitative
identification of free‑flying bats using the Anabat detector. J. of
Mammalogy 80(1):11‑23.

Gardner, J. E., J. D. Garner, and J. E. Hofmann. 1989. A portable mist
netting system for capturing bats with emphasis on *Myotis sodalis*
(Indiana bat). Bat Res. News 30(1):1‑8.

\-\-\-\-\--. 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 the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1991a. Summer roost selection and roosting behavior of
*Myotis sodalis* (Indiana bat) in Illinois. Final report. Illinois
Natural History Survey, Illinois Dept. of Conserv.. Champaign, IL.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1991b. Summary of *Myotis sodalis* summer habitat studies
in Illinois: with recommendations for impact assessment. Special report.
Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois Dept. of Conserv.
Champaign, IL.

Garner, J. D., and J. E. Gardner. 1992. Determination of summer
distribution and habitat utilization 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. of Mammalogy, 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
Mammalogy, 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, CO.

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.

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, KY.

Kiser, J. D., C. L. Elliott, and J. MacGregor. 1996. The use of roost
trees by Indiana bats, *Myotis sodalis*, during autumn. Presented at the
6th colloquium on the Conservation of Mammals in the Southern and
Central United States.

Krusic, R. A., and C. Neefus. 1996. Habitat associations of bat species
in the White Mountains National Forest. Pp. 185‑198 *in* Bats and
Forests Symposium, October 19‑21, 1995, Victoria, British Columbia,
Canada (R. M. R. Barclay and R. M. Brigham, eds.) Research Branch,
British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia,
Working Paper 23/1996:1‑292.

Krusic, R. A., M. Yamasaki, C. D. Neefus, and P. J. Perkins. 1996. Bat
habitat use in White Mountain National Forest. J. Wildlife Management,
60(3):625‑631

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

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., 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., 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* G. V. Burger, J. E. Ebinger, and G. S.
Wilhelm, eds.: Proceedings of the Oak Woods Management Workshop, Eastern
Illinois Univ., Charleston, IL.

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.

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. of Mammalogy, 58:592‑599.

LaVal, R. K., and M. L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological studies and management
of Missouri bats, with emphasis on cave‑dwelling species. Missouri Dept.
Cons. 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, TN.

Lunde, R. E., and A. S. Harestad. 1986. Activity of little brown bats in
coastal forests. NW Sci. 60:206‑209.

MacCleery, D. W. 1992. American Forests - A History of Resiliency and
Recovery. USDA Forest Service Publ. FS‑540. Forest History Society,
Durham, NC.

MacGregor, J., J. Kiser, and M. Gumbert. 1996. The use of road ruts as
bat drinking water sources on the Cumberland Plateau of Eastern
Kentucky. Presented at Sixth Colloquium on the Conservation of Mammals
in the Southern and Central United States.

McFarland, C. A. 1998. Potential agricultural insecticide exposure of
Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*) in Missouri. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis, Univ.
of Missouri, Columbia.

McNabb, W. H, and P. E. Avers. 1994. Ecological subregions of the United
States: Section Descriptions. Washington, D.C. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, Forest Service.

Miller, N. E. 1996. Indiana bat summer habitat patterns in northern
Missouri. Unpubl. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia,
Columbia, MO.

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. of Mammalogy, 39:586‑587.

Murray, K. L., E. R. Britzke, B. M. Hadley, and L. W. Robbins. 1999.
Surveying bat communities: a comparison between mist‑nets and the
Anabat II bat detector system. Acta Chiropterologica 1:105‑112.

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.

Nigh, T. A., W. L. Pflieger, P. L. Redfearn, W. A. Schroaeder, 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.

Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology, 3rd ed. W. B. Saunders Co.
Pp. 200‑203.

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

Reidinger, R. F. 1972. Factors influencing Arizona bat population
levels. Unpubl. Ph.D. Dissertation. Univ. of Ariz., Tucson, AZ.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1976. Organochlorine residues in adults of six southwestern
bat species. J. of Wildlife Management, 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. Bio.
7:407‑415.

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 Dept. of
Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Bloomington, Indiana, by
3D/Environmental, Cincinnati, Ohio. Federal Aid Project E‑1‑7, Study
No. 8,

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

Schroeder, W. A. 1981. Presettlement Prairie of Missouri. Missouri Dept.
of Conserv., Jefferson City, MO.

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere Cooperative. 1996. The
Southern Appalachian Assessment; Terrestrial Report.

Thomas, D. W. 1995. Hibernating bats are sensitive to non‑tactile human
disturbance. J. of Mammalogy, 76:940‑946.

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., M. Dorais, and J. M. Bergeron. 1990. Winter energy
budgets and cost of arousals for hibernating little brown bats (*Myotis
lucifugus*). J. of Mammalogy, 71:475‑479.

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.

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

\-\-\-\-\--. 1992. Letter to Bjorn Dahl, Forest Supervisor, from Nora
Murdock, Acting Field Supervisor, Asheville Field Office, Asheville, NC.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1994. Letter to Randle G. Phillips, Forest Supervisor, from
Brian Cole, Field Supervisor, Asheville Field Office, Asheville, NC.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1999a. Letter to John Ramey, Forest Supervisor, from Brian
Cole (signed by Acting State Supervisor, Nora A. Murdock), State
Supervisor, Asheville Field Office, Asheville, NC. September 7, 1999.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1999b. Letter to John Ramey, Forest Supervisor, from Brian
Cole, State Supervisor, Asheville Field Office, Asheville, NC.
September 24, 1999.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1999c. Letter to John Ramey, Forest Supervisor, from Brian
Cole (signed by Acting State Supervisor Mark A. Cantrell), State
Supervisor, Asheville Field Office, Asheville, NC. October 8, 1999.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1999d. Letter to John Ramey, Forest Supervisor, from Brian
Cole, State Supervisor, Asheville Field Office, Asheville, NC.
October 1, 1999.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1999e. Letter to Lawrence Hayden, Director, Ecosystems and
Planning, from Brian Cole, State Supervisor, Asheville Field Office,
Asheville, NC. October 21, 1999.

\-\-\-\-\--. 1999f. Agency Draft Indiana Bat (*Myotis sodalis*) Revised
Recovery Plan. Fort Snelling, MN.

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.

Whitaker, J. O., Jr. 1972. Food habits of bats from Indiana. Canadian
J. of Zoology, 50:877‑883.

**APPENDIX A**

Standards and Guidelines - Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests

(From Biological Assessment)

**[Forest wide Standards]{.underline}** [Page]{.underline}

Maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native
vertebrate species in the planning area. Protect the following community
types when identified as unique in the botanical or wildlife analysis:
caves and rare plant communities, including bogs, rock cliffs, granitic
domes, high elevation rocky summits, barren glades, balds, boulder field
forests and seeps.

III-23

Provide site specific analysis of occurrence and effects on proposed,
endangered, threatened, and sensitive species, and Forest-listed species
at the project level. Provide aquatic, botanical, and wildlife analyses,
biological assessment and/or biological evaluation as necessary to
comply with the Endangered Species Act and FSM 2670. III-23

Assure a regular and sustained flow of habitats across the Forests
through space and time for diversity and viability of plant and animal
populations. III-29

The amount of 0-10 age class is regulated at 3 geographic scales: the
analysis area, management area, and compartment (see pages III-29-31 for
specific listing of 0-10 age class restrictions by MA). III-29

[Snags]{.underline}

Retain about 2 snags per acre during stand regeneration. Snags should be
15\" dbh or greater, wherever possible. Retain bear dens, standing live
and dead den trees of 22\" dbh or greater, except where human safety is
of concern. Favor snags along edge of openings or combined with other
leave trees. III-23

[Old Growth]{.underline}

The desired future condition for old growth across the forest is to have
a network of small, medium, and large sized old growth areas,
representative of sites, elevation gradients, and landscapes found in
the Southern Appalachians and on the Forests, that are well dispersed
and interconnected by forested lands.

> Large Patches: Evaluate the 30 large patches identified in Appendix K
> (Plan Amendment Appendix K) for future old growth management
> potential. Select 2500 contiguous acres or more within or proximate to
> each large patch. Identify two additional patches of at least 2500
> acres, one in the combined area of administrative watersheds 2, 3, and
> 4, and one in the combined area of the northwestern part of
> administrative watershed 26 and the northeastern part of
> administrative watershed 23, for old growth management. III-26
>
> Medium Patches: In each administrative watershed containing more than
> 2500 acres of national forest land, and not containing a portion of a
> designated large patch area for old growth management, select a medium
> patch for future old growth management. III-27
>
> Small Patches: In each compartment containing more than 250 acres of
> national forest land, select a small patch for future old growth
> management. If 5 percent of the compartment acres are already part of
> a large or medium patch, an additional small patch is not needed.
> Whenever possible, areas should incorporate some riparian habitat to
> enhance old growth values. III-27

Treatments allowed in areas managed for old growth: vegetative
manipulation allowed for enhancement of old growth values and
characteristics include: III-28

Downed logs in all stages of decay

Old trees

Standing snags undisturbed soils

Uneven-aged structure of canopy species

Single and multiple tree-fall gaps

Abundant fungal component

Large trees

Appropriate density and basal area of canopy trees

Salvage operations will not be allowed unless needed to protect the
integrity of the old growth patch. III-28

[Timber Management]{.underline}

Use rotations appropriate for the objectives of each MA. Use the
following as minimum rotations for even-aged management: III-33

Upland hardwood - 80 years

Cove hardwood - 80 years

Vary sizes of even-aged and two-aged regeneration openings depending on
MA directives. Limit the size of openings created by even-aged and
two-aged regeneration harvest to 40 acres regardless of forest cover
type with the following exceptions: -larger openings are the result of
natural catastrophic conditions of fire, insect or disease attack,
windstorm; or Bthe area does not meet the definition of created
openings. III-34

Disperse planned regeneration openings to provide for wildlife habitat
and vegetative diversity. Maintain a minimum of a manageable stand (at
least 330 ft) between openings created by regeneration harvest except
when using selection harvest methods. III-34

Establish a satisfactory stand on regeneration areas within 5 years
after final harvest. Emphasize natural regeneration for hardwood forest
types. III-35

Provide for stocking density and species variety through timber stand
improvement practices. Encourage reproduction of oak, other hardmast and
soft mast species by treating those stands where such seedlings or
saplings are present to favor growth of these species and limit
competition from other species. III-37

Manage to emphasize quality hardwood sawtimber as the primary product.
Quality begins to occur when the following range of sizes is reached:
III-61

[Management Type]{.underline} [Product Size Range]{.underline}

Upland hardwoods 18-20 inches

Cove hardwoods 20-22 inches

Indiana Bat B No hibernacula for the Indiana Bat are known on the
Forests. If one or more are found, the appropriate recovery objectives
will be implemented.

1.  Maintain, protect, and restore foraging and nursery habitat. Prevent
    adverse modification to foraging and nursery roost habitat.

Determine habitat requirements.

Preserve water quality.

Restore and preserve forest cover along rivers and streams.

Monitor habitat.

2.  Implement the snag and den standard for areas considered suitable
    for commercial timber harvest in all project areas.

3.  Maintain not less than 50 percent of the Forests in unsuitable
    timber management areas or in timber management areas where timber
    rotations are not less than 100 years, old growth, and/or riparian
    areas.

4.  Maintain the integrity of mature and old growth habitats within
    riparian areas.

5.  Where hibernacula are found, implement the protection and monitoring
    programs.

A-3

Minimum management requirements for diversity and viable populations of
plants and animals.

L-48

Retain all standing live and dead den trees equal to or greater than
22@dbh in all management areas (MA=s) (including MA=s 1-5) except where
public health and safety in a concern. L-48

Select old growth areas to represent the full range of forest community
types occurring within the analysis area. Conduct the analysis at a
landscape level. Consider wildlife corridors, rare species, spatial
relationships and areas identified in the initial inventory of old
growth. Use an interdisciplinary team approach to select old growth
areas. Riparian areas can contribute to old growth acreage only when
they are included within a designated old growth area. Designate
5 percent or more per mile^2^ or at least 50 acres per compartment for
long-term old growth management. Select areas to represent community
types in the general proportion to their availability in the analysis
area. Areas selected should be at least 50 acres in size and generally
1000 ft or more in width. L-48

> Retain two snags per acre in harvest units including uneven-aged
> harvest units. Coordinate snag retention in clear cut regeneration
> areas with visual quality and wildlife species objectives. L-48

Forest-wide Direction: An interdisciplinary team will conduct
project-level and landscape-level analyses for proposed activities. Size
of analysis area will correspond to appropriate management indicator
species (MIS) or proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive species
for the management area or aggregate of management areas, but will occur
at the watershed level or in units of 5,000-15,000 acres, whichever is
larger. L-48

[Management Areas Standards and Guidelines]{.underline}

Management Area 2

Provide habitat conditions for pileated woodpecker, golden crowned
kinglet, saw-whet owl, bats (roosting and foraging in habitats in mature
forest), white-breasted nuthatch, and gray squirrel.

L-48

Standard: Provide not less than 5 percent and not more than 10 percent
per compartment in 0-10 year age class. Configuration of 0-10 year
stands in surrounding project/analysis areas are considered in the
analysis. L-48

Management Area 2C B This land is unsuitable for timber production. The
area will favor wildlife species that prefer older forest conditions and
yet can tolerate some human disturbance.

III-63

Management Area 4

Provide habitat conditions for black bear, cerulean warbler, solitary
vireo, veery, ovenbird, northern parula warbler, eastern wild turkey,
pileated woodpecker, golden crowned kinglet, saw-whet owl, bats
(roosting and foraging in habitats in mature forest), white-breasted
nuthatch, and gray squirrel across the planning area by providing
suitable habitat in MA 4. L-48

Standard: Provide not more than 10 percent per compartment in 0-10 year
age class. Configuration of 0-10 year stands in surrounding
project/analysis areas are considered in the analyses. L-4

The lands of MA 4 are managed to provide high levels of scenic quality,
many opportunities for nonmotorized recreational uses and habitats for
animals that prefer a predominance of older vegetation and limited
disturbance. III-77

Management Area 4C B Emphasize visually pleasing scenery and habitats
for wildlife requiring

older forests. This land is unsuitable for timber production. III-77

Management Area 4D B Emphasize high quality habitats for wildlife
requiring older forests. Allow small widely dispersed opening throughout
the management area. III-78

Management Area 5

Provide habitat conditions for black bear, cerulean warbler, solitary
vireo, veery, ovenbird, northern parula warbler, pileated woodpecker,
golden crowned kinglet, saw-whet owl, bats (roosting and foraging in
habitats in mature forest), white-breasted nuthatch, eastern wild
turkey, and gray squirrel. L-49

Standard: Provide direct and indirect habitat improvements such as
prescribed burning and small openings consistent with semi-primitive
non-motorized recreational experiences and visual quality objectives.
L-49

Emphasis is on providing large blocks of backcountry where there is
little evidence of other humans or human activities other than
recreational use. An unroaded forest environment and natural appearing
forests with large old trees are desirable. Wildlife that benefit from
old trees and greatly reduced disturbance from humans and motorized
vehicles are favored on these lands. Timber production is not
appropriate. III-89

Management Areas 6 and 7

Congressionally designated Wilderness Study Areas recommended for
inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Manage to
protect wilderness attributes. III-93/97

Management Area 13

These lands are special interest areas that are managed to protect, and
where appropriate, foster public use and enjoyment of unique scenic,
geological, botanical or zoological attributes.

III-144

Manage areas as land not selected for timber production. III-146

Management Area 14

This management area consists of the Appalachian Scenic Trail and its
foreground zone.

Manage area as land not selected for timber production. III-161

Management Area 15

These are existing Wild and Scenic Rivers and adjacent lands that make
up the river corridors.

Manage land not selected for timber production. III-170

Management Area 18

This Management Area consists of aquatic ecosystem, riparian ecosystem
and closely associated plant and animal communities. The area will be
actively managed to protect and enhance, where possible, the distinctive
resource values and characteristics dependent on or associated with
these systems. Timber management can only occur in this area if needed
to maintain or enhance riparian habitat values. A high quality riparian
area has a diverse assemblage of mature trees that can provide large
woody debris for fisheries habitat and suitable conditions for late
successional terrestrial plant and animal communities. III-179

Until identified, consider riparian areas as 100 ft (horizontal
distance) on each side of a perennial stream or around a lake. III-181

Manage riparian areas as unsuitable for timber production during the
10-15 year period of the plan. Use vegetation management methods
appropriate for land not suited for timber production.

III-186

Description of Management Practices for stand regeneration in Amendment
Five E-1

Wildlife habitat needs such as snag and den tree requirements, outlined
in the standard, must be followed in all phases of the selection of
regeneration method. E-1

With the two-aged regeneration method, the residual overstory will
remain in place until mid-rotation or later (40 years+). In many cases,
it will remain until a new age class reaches rotation.

E-2

Leave trees with a wildlife objective should be mast producers, or
provide den habitat. E-2

If only one entry is planned (two-aged shelterwood method) optimum
regeneration would be achieved by establishing a residual basal area as
low as 15-20 ft^2^ per acre, depending on the average diameter of the
residual trees. In order to meet wildlife or visual quality objectives,
residual basal area will be higher, as much as 50 ft^2^ per acre. E-2

Timber rotation by Management Area E-9

[MA]{.underline} [Timber Type]{.underline} [Rotation Age]{.underline}

1B Hardwood 80 years

2A Hardwood 120 years

3B Hardwood 80 years

4A,4D Hardwood 120 years

**[Management Requirements and Mitigation Measures Required by the
Record of Decision for Vegetation Management in the Appalachian
Mountains]{.underline}**

During timber stand improvements (TSI), wildlife stand improvements
(WSI), and site preparation, selected groups of overstory and understory
vegetation are protected and managed to assure a variety of softmast,
hardmast, and cover species. During site preparation, active and
potential den trees are retained in clumps (at least 2 acre per 20
acres) if they are not provided in adjacent stands not suitable for
timber production, inclusions, or streamside management zones. During
TSI and WSI, all recognized den trees are protected. In addition, during
TSI, WSI, and site preparation, an average of at least two standing dead
snags are retained per acre, in the form of large hardwood trees
(greater than 12 inches) when possible. Appropriate treatments are used
to create snags where snags are lacking. I-6

Wildlife Protection-burns are planned and executed to avoid damage to
habitat of any threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species.
I-9

Protection of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species
(Herbicide Method of Treatment)

2,4-D, 2,4-DP, and triclopyr are not aerially applied within 300 ft, nor
ground-applied within 60 ft, of known occupied gray, Virginia big-eared,
or Indiana bat habitat.

**[Management Requirements for Control of Southern Pine
Beetle]{.underline}**

Insecticide will not be used in a manner that would adversely affect
threatened or endangered species. J-2

Riparian ecosystems that encompass floodplains and wetlands will receive
appropriate protection. As a minimum, riparian areas will extend 100 ft
from the edge of all perennial streams and other perennial water bodies,
including lakes. J-2

**APPENDIX B**

Indiana Bat Life Table

(Estimated)

  --------- ------------------ --------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------
                                                                **Age Weighted**  **Expectation**   

  **Age**   **Survivorship**   **Fecundity**   **Realized**     **by Realized**   **of Life**       **Reproductive**

  **(x)**   **(l~x~)**         **(m~x~)**      **(l~x~m~x~)**   **(xl~x~m~x~)**   **(E~x~)**        **(v~x~)**

  0         1.0000             0.000           0.000            0.000             2.993             8.73

  1         0.5200             0.500           0.260            0.260             3.833             9.45

  2         0.3947             0.500           0.197            0.395             3.733             8.85

  3         0.2996             0.500           0.150            0.449             3.601             8.22

  4         0.2274             0.500           0.114            0.455             3.427             7.55

  5         0.1726             0.500           0.086            0.431             3.197             6.82

  6         0.1310             0.500           0.065            0.393             2.895             6.07

  7         0.0864             0.500           0.043            0.303             2.871             5.54

  8         0.0571             0.500           0.029            0.228             2.835             5.01

  9         0.0377             0.500           0.019            0.169             2.781             4.45

  10        0.0249             0.500           0.012            0.124             2.698             3.87

  11        0.0164             0.500           0.008            0.090             2.573             3.24

  12        0.0108             0.500           0.005            0.065             2.383             2.55

  13        0.0071             0.500           0.004            0.046             2.096             1.77

  14        0.0047             0.500           0.002            0.033             1.660             0.83

  15        0.0031             0.500           0.002            0.023             0.000             0.50

                               7.5             0.9967           3.4656                              

                               (GRR)           (Ro)             \(T\)                               
  --------- ------------------ --------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------

**APPENDIX C**

Priority Leave Tree Species List

for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests

in North Carolina

Class I Priority Leave Trees:

*Carya laciniosa* (shellbark hickory)

*Carya ovata* (shagbark hickory)

*Carya cordiformis* (bitternut hickory)

*Fraxinus americana* (white ash)

*Quercus montana* (chestnut oak)

*Quercus rubra* (red oak)

*Quercus alba* (white oak)

*Robinia pseudoacacia* (black locust)

*Acer saccharum* (sugar maple)

*Betula spp.* (birches)

*Platanus occidentalis* (sycamore)

*Aesculus octandra* (yellow buckeye)

Class II Priority Leave Trees:

*Quercus stellata* (post oak)

*Acer rubrum* (red maple)

*Fagus grandifolia* (American beech)

*Nyssa sylvatica* (black gum)

*Quercus coccinea* (scarlet oak)

*Sassafras albidum* (sassafras)

*Pinus echinata* (shortleaf pine \>120 years old)

*Pinus rigida* (pitch pine \>120 years old)

**APPENDIX D**

SUITABLE FOREST TYPES

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  **CISC Code**                         **Forest Type**

  **White Pine‑Hardwood Group**         

  8                                     Hemlock‑Hardwood

  9                                     White Pine‑Cove Hardwood

  10                                    White Pine‑Upland Hardwood

  **Yellow Pine‑Hardwood Group**        

  12                                    Shortleaf Pine‑Oak

  13                                    Loblolly Pine‑Hardwood

  15                                    Pitch Pine‑Oak

  16                                    Virginia Pine‑Oak

  20                                    Table Mountain Pine‑Oak

  49                                    Bear Oak‑Southern Red Oak‑Yellow
                                        Pine

  **Cove Hardwood Group**               

  41                                    Cove Hardwoods‑White Pine‑Hemlock

  46                                    Bottomland Hardwood‑Yellow Pine

  50                                    Yellow Poplar

  55                                    Northern Red Oak

  56                                    Yellow Poplar‑White Oak‑Northern
                                        Red Oak

  **Upland Hardwood Group**             

  42                                    Upland Hardwoods‑White Pine

  44                                    Southern Red Oak‑Yellow Pine

  45                                    Chestnut Oak‑Scarlet Oak‑Yellow
                                        Pine

  47                                    White Oak‑Black Oak‑Yellow Pine

  48                                    Northern Red Oak‑Hickory‑Yellow
                                        Pine

  51                                    Post Oak‑Black Oak

  52                                    Chestnut Oak

  53                                    White Oak‑Northern Red
                                        Oak‑Hickory

  54                                    White Oak

  57                                    Scrub Oak

  59                                    Scarlet Oak

  60                                    Chestnut Oak‑Scarlet Oak

  **Northern Hardwood Group**           

  81                                    Sugar Maple‑Beech‑Yellow Birch
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

[^1]: The Service concurred with the determination because the Service
    considered the Indiana bat as A. . . not likely to occur on the
    Forest@ (Service 1992)

[^2]: Note that the Service believed the Indiana bat did not occur on
    the NPNFs at the time the Forest Plan was reviewed. Therefore, the
    Service did not object to, or deem inadequate, measures the USFS
    implemented to protect the Indiana bat (Service 1992, 1994).

[^3]: Most of the obstructions have since been removed or redesigned.

[^4]: The USFS defined summer habitat as the habitat used primarily by
    female Indiana bats to bear their young. Although male Indiana bats
    may also use these same types of habitats, it is assumed that
    habitat suitable for females and young will also provide suitable
    habitat for males that may sporadically occur in the same general
    habitat. The two primary habitat components of summer habitat are
    roosting habitat and foraging habitat.

[^5]: This model was developed for conditions in Indiana and may not be
    completely applicable to conditions in western North Carolina.
    However, this model provides the best available information from
    which to derive a method for evaluating summer habitat conditions.

[^6]: While this will include some portions of the forest with an upper
    canopy closure greater than 80% (outside the optimum range), this
    would be only a slight over estimate because only a small percentage
    of hardwood stands have canopy closures above 80% (Steve Simon,
    Plant Ecologist, NPNFs, personal communication, 2000).

[^7]: Throughout this Opinion, Aannual@ refers to the U.S. Government=s
    fiscal year (October 1 through September 30) when used in a planning
    context.

[^8]: Recent studies have shown that Indiana bats occupy a number of
    roost sites within a maternity colony area. Bats reportedly move
    from one roost to another within a season, in addition to changing
    roosts in response to changes in environmental conditions.
    Therefore, it is possible to remove an important roost site while
    the bat is simply in another portion of its home range.

[^9]: Pines killed by bark beetles have only limited and temporary
    potential as roosting sites because the bark falls off the trees
    within a few months of the beetle attack.

[^10]: The Anabat system is composed of a bat detector with a broadband
    microphone (20‑200 kHz) and a Zero Crossing Analysis Interface
    Module (ZCAIM). The ZCAIM converts the sounds detected by the
    microphone and displays the sounds in a time‑frequency
    representation. The assumption being that each species of bat has a
    unique Avoice print@ by which it can be identified. Using the Anabat
    system in conjunction with mist‑netting has been shown to be more
    effective in documenting a species= occurrence than mist‑netting
    alone (Farrell *et al*. 1999, Murray *et al.* 1999).

[^11]: A lactating female was captured in Monroe County, Tennessee, on
    June 30, 1999. Because this bat was captured more than 15 mi. from
    the Graham County, North Carolina, maternity site, it likely came
    from a different maternity colony.

[^12]: There are approximately 490,000 ac. on the NPNFs that could
    provide optimal foraging habitat, optimal live potential roost
    trees, and suitable dead potential roost trees for the Indiana bat,
    [all on the same acre]{.underline}.

[^13]: There could also be some genetic benefits from migration but,
    because the Indiana bat mates during the fall, when it is least
    dispersed, this seems an unlikely reason to invest in migration.
    Further genetics work could, however, show that genetic Amixing@ is
    influenced by migration.

[^14]: 2^12^ The adjacent counties in Tennessee, which include portions
    of the Cherokee National Forest, are not considered in this
    consultation. The Service=s Cookeville, Tennessee, Field Office has
    been and continues to work with the USFS and others in Tennessee
    regarding the Indiana bat.

[^15]: 3^13^ Though measuring the actual number of Indiana bats that
    might be Ataken@ either by killing, harming, or harassing is
    virtually impossible, it is estimated that this habitat‑disturbance
    level could impact 25‑100 Indiana bats per year (one maternity
    colony).

[^16]: 4^14^ Standing trees are those that are not root sprung.

[^17]: 5^15^ Practicable is defined, for these term and conditions, as
    not intentionally removing. The Service recognizes that occasionally
    individual trees (live, dead, or dying) will be incidentally knocked
    down or felled and that these acts should not constitute a violation
    of these term and conditions. Further, the Service realizes that
    some projects have few or no options for where or when they can
    occur (rights‑of‑way, roads, landings) that may require the
    intentional removal of snags - see Condition 5.

[^18]: 6^16^ A snag can be marked for removal if it does not provide or
    is not expected to provide suitable Indiana bat roosting or
    maternity habitat (i.e., snags \<3 in. dbh and snags that have lost
    all of their bark and do not have any cavities or crevasses for
    individual bats).

[^19]: 7^17^ By having Indiana bat considered as a riparian related
    value, their habitat will receive the emphasis given to riparian
    area guidance in the Forest Plan - AThe area will be actively
    managed to protect and enhance, where possible, the distinctive
    resource values and characteristics dependent on or associated with
    these systems.@

[^20]: 8^18^ A dying tree is defined as having a broken or a damaged
    crown resulting in less than one‑third of the original crown being
    intact and is not expected to survive.