United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

April 2011

Appendix C1

UPPER KINZUA PROJECT

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THREATENED AND 

ENDANGERED SPECIES
USDA Forest Service

Allegheny National Forest

Bradford and Marienville Ranger Districts

Hamilton, Hamlin, Lafayette and Wetmore Townships in McKean County, Pennsylvania

Cornplanter Bridge, Lewis Run, Kane, Mt. Jewett, and Westline, Pennsylvania 7.5‟ Topographic 

Quadrangles

Prepared by, Reviewed by,

 /S/ Alan Wetzel /S/ Pam Thurston

ALAN WETZEL PAM THURSTON

Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Biologist

Bradford Ranger District Allegheny National Forest

 October 6, 2010 October 21, 2010

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities 

on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, 

familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an individual‟s income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) 

should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 

720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

This document is available in large font. Please contact the Bradford Ranger 

District at 814.363.6000 for a large font document if needed.
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSED ACTION.....................................................................2

Description of the UPPER KINZUA Project Area (UKPA)....................................................3

Project Area Location..........................................................................................................3

Habitat Summary of the Project Area ..................................................................................4

Alternatives Considered ..........................................................................................................5

Alternative 1: No Action .....................................................................................................5

Alternative 2: Proposed Action............................................................................................6

Summary of Alternatives.....................................................................................................6

II. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...............................................................8

Species Status, occurrence and habitat.....................................................................................8

Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................9

Cumulative Effects Analysis Area and Period..................................................................9

Species Not Documented but Suitable Habitat is Found in the Project Area...........................10

INDIANA BAT (Myotis sodalis)...................................................................................10

SMALL WHORLED POGONIA (Isotria medeoloides) ................................................24

NORTHEASTERN BULRUSH (Scirpus ancistrochaetus)............................................26

NORTHERN RIFFLESHELL (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana), CLUBSHELL 

(Pleurobema clava), RAYED-BEAN (Villosa fabalis), RABBITSFOOT (Quadrula 

cylindrica) and SHEEPNOSE (Plethobasus cyphyus)....................................................29

REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................30

Tables

Table 1: Upper Kinzua Project Area Habitat Summary for NFS Lands......................................5

Table 2: Proposed Activities by Alternative in the Upper Kinzua EA ........................................6

Table 3: Federally Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species for the ANF .......................8

Table 4: Indiana Bat 2010 Roosting Habitat in Upper Kinzua Project Area .............................11

Table 5: Indiana Bat 2010 Foraging Habitat in Upper Kinzua Project Area .............................11

Table 6: Alternative Summary of Anticipated Direct Effects for UKPA ..................................12

Table 7: Relative Risk to the Indiana Bat.................................................................................13

Table 8: 2030 Distribution of Maternity Roost and Foraging Habitat.......................................18

Table 9: Indiana bat Cumulative Effects for Upper Kinzua Project ..........................................22

Table 10: Determinations for Federally Endangered and Threatened Species............................30
2

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSED ACTION

This biological assessment (BA) includes a brief description of the habitat for federally 

Threatened, Endangered (T&E) or Candidate species followed by an analysis of potential effects 

associated with each alternative being considered in the Upper Kinzua Project Environmental 

Assessment (EA). This assessment evaluates the effects of alternatives in order to:

Determine potential effects on federally threatened and endangered species and species 

proposed for listing (FSM 2670.31).

Analyze the significance of the potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat 

within the area of concern and on the species as a whole if impacts cannot be avoided, 

(FSM 2670.32). 

The analysis presented in the Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Candidate 

Species on the Allegheny National Forest (ANF), January 2007 (Forest BE) (USDA-FS 2007) 

and the analysis in the Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence letter (USDI-FWS 2007) are not 

repeated in this biological assessment; however, they are incorporated by reference. This 

assessment will serve as biological input to ensure compliance with provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) as amended. The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that 

actions authorized, funded or carried out by the agency are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of endangered or threatened species or result in destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. This assessment also provides a process to ensure that endangered, threatened 

and candidate species receive full consideration in the decision making process. If the scope of 

the project changes or new information regarding a species changes significantly, this analysis 

will be updated. 

The primary purpose of the Upper Kinzua Project is to implement the 2007 ANF Forest Plan 

(USDA-FS 2007a) by moving the existing forest condition towards a desired condition as 

outlined in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The Forest Plan divides the ANF 

into Management Areas (MA) with specific goals, objectives and associated standards and 

guidelines (S&G) for a multitude of resources. The Forest Plan provides programmatic direction 

of how the ANF is to be managed for sustainable, multiple benefits. The goals and objectives of 

this project for vegetation management, wildlife habitat, non-native invasive plant treatments or 

transportation developments follow those outlined for MA 2.1, 2.2, 3.0, and 7.1 in the Forest 

Plan (USDA-FS 2007a, p. 26-29). .

Management strategies such as critical timing of harvests, site-specific herbicide applications, 

adjustments of shade intensity (canopy and understory closure) and area fencing (deer 

exclosures) may be employed to achieve silvicultural (vegetation) objectives. Other opportunities 

exist to develop a diversity of tree seedlings in areas dominated by fern, grass or undesirable 

woody vegetation.
3

Description of the UPPER KINZUA Project Area (UKPA)

Project Area Location

The United States Department of Agriculture - U.S. Forest Service (USDA-FS) is proposing to 

implement the Upper Kinzua Project, which is located on the Bradford and Marienville Ranger 

Districts of the ANF, in Hamilton, Hamlin, Lafayette and Wetmore Townships in McKean 

County, Pennsylvania (PA). The project boundary is roughly defined by the Kinzua 

Creek/Chappel Fork watershed break to the northwest, SR 59 on the north and northeast, the 

proclamation boundary from SR 59 to SR 219 in the east (including the areas north and east of 

Guffey and Riterville) and the watershed boundary between Mead Run and the South Branch 

Kinzua Creek to the south. It consists of 27,512 acres of National Forest System (NFS) Lands 

(25,884 on the Bradford District and 1,628 on the Marienville District), and 709 acres of private 

land, totaling 28,221 acres for the environmental analysis.

The project area is contained entirely within a portion of the Kinzua Creek Watershed (a 5th

Level Hydrologic Unit Code (LHUC) – 05010001215*) and includes at least 12 small

watersheds. They include: Meade Run, Kinzua Creek, Pine Run, Wintergreen Run, Turnup Run, 

Thundershower Run, Libby Run, Whitting Run, Root Run, Blacksnake Run and 2 streams called 

Windfall Run (both are tributaries to Kinzua Creek). The cumulative effect area is somewhat 

larger than the actual project area. It is approximately 41,180 acres in size consisting of both 

federal lands (Dunkle Corner area – 1,753 acres) and private land (11,208 acres). The private 

land consists of two large blocks including the FIA lands and the Riterville/Timbuck/Lafayette 

area. None of this project area is located within the “13% Area” that drains directly into the 

unimpounded section of the Allegheny River. 

OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE UK Project Area

Because oil and gas activity has been occurring within the project area for several decades, there 

is no definitive point in time from which to start the analysis period. As a result, potential effects 

include all past oil and gas development that has occurred within the analysis area prior to 2010, 

as well as development that is anticipated to occur between 2010 and 2030. The date 2030 was 

chosen as the end of the analysis period because that is the point in time in which anticipated 

effects of timber harvest are evaluated (after the first decade and canopy closure is complete after 

the second decade). 

There are presently an estimated 1,897 active wells within the project area and 495 wells on 

private land within the CE analysis area. Using an average 0.999 acre of land impacted per well 

(including pad, access roads, supply lines, etc) (USDA-FS 2007d, Appendix F), approximately 

1,897 and 2,392 acres of forestland has been converted to non-forest habitat in the project area 

and CE area respectively. A full field development scenario (see Appendix D) years estimates 

that approximately 1,320 new wells will be developed on both private lands and National Forest 

System lands within the project area and 203 additional wells in the CE area. The additional 

wells in the CE area are based on OGD over the past 10 years within the CE area and across the 

ANF.
4

Habitat Summary of the Project Area

Habitat conditions on National Forest System lands within the project area are summarized in 

Table 1. The project area is predominantly forested (98%), with approximately 78% of the area 

occurring as mature second growth forest and approximately 20% as young forest less than 50 

years of age. There is no old growth timber within the project area. The availability of seedling 

or young forest has varied over time and between the late 1960‟s and mid-1990‟s, and seedling 

forest <10 years of age was provided on between 2 and 5% of the project area. Early 

successional vegetation has been declining during the last decade. Approximately 2 % of the 

project area currently occurs as seedling habitat.

The Predominant Forest Types include upland hardwoods (94%). The project area has a small 

conifer component which include eleven stands and <6% of the area occurs as conifer or mixed 

conifer forest, with most of the conifer occurring as red pine or hemlock in MA 2.2 and 3.0 

portions of the project area. Kinzua Creek, Mead Run and Thundershower Run have large areas 

dominated by midstory and understory conifer. There is also a very small aspen component 

(<1% - 5 stands consisting of ~40 acres). The entire project area is in the beech bark disease 

killing front and as a result there has been extensive mortality of beech trees throughout. The 

beech mortality, combined with scattered mortality of white ash and sugar maple, has resulted in 

a higher density of large diameter snags than might be expected across the ANF. A total of 547 

acres or ~2% of the project area occurs within Management Area 2.1 which serves to enhance 

vertical diversity for timber management by applying uneven-aged management activities across 

the ANF. There is also a total of 4,479 acres or ~16% of the project area that occurs within 

Management Area 2.2. This area serves to link those areas currently being managed for late 

structural/old growth forest conditions across the ANF. It provides predominantly late structural 

forest conditions including older trees, maintenance of a predominantly high forest canopy and 

increased vertical structure. These lands also contain a substantial understory conifer component 

and as a result are good candidates to eventually provide conditions characteristic of true old 

growth forest in Pennsylvania. There are no old growth stands (those greater than 300 years of 

age) currently within the project area. The remainder of the mature forest in the project area is 

currently being managed as MA 3.0 which is meant to maintain or create a mosaic of age and 

structural diversity on lands suitable for timber management. 

Non-forested habitat (~2.5% of UKPA) occurs on 105 sites (~ 747 acres) across the project area, 

with most existing openings (86%) being less than 10 acres in size and openings 1 acre or less 

making up almost 20% of the total number of sites. There are 16 opening sites 10 acres or 

greater in size and of these, 62 acres are associated with Red Bridge campground (CS 457/25) 

and are mis-typed as opening and the 26 acre, flooded confluence of Kinzua Creek and South 

Branch Kinzua Creek (CS476/35) is actually open water through much of the year.. The other 

large openings (47.5 acres) follow some of the numerous overhead electric (OHE) and pipeline 

right-of-way (ROW). Shrub openings are found on only 18 acres on two sites while the rest of 

the existing openings are predominantly grass/forb openings. Approximately 650 acres of the 

existing openings within the project area are being maintained and/or have received past wildlife 

treatments such as planting, fencing or seeding.
5

Table 1: Upper Kinzua Project Area Habitat Summary for NFS Lands

Habitat/Landscape Condition Amount in Project 

Area in Acres

% of Project Area

Total Project Area Acreage 28,221 100

Non-Forest Service Ownership 709 3

ANF Forest Communities 27,514 97

Deciduous Hardwood 26,535 99

Conifer 276 1

Forested Age Class

0 to 20 years

21 to 50 years

51 to 80 years

81 to 110 years

111 to 140 years

141 to 300 years

301 plus years

2,354

3,346

3,638

16,730

757

25

0

(% of NFS lands)

9

12

14

62

3

<1

0

Non-Forest Communities

Grass/forb Openings 652 2

Shrub Openings 57 <1

Stream/Riparian/Wetlands acres

National Wetland Inventory Wetlands1538 ~2

Streams2 (in miles)

Allegheny Reservoir Shoreline

80.8 miles

2.6 miles

NA

Riparian 

 Stream/floodplain32,587 acres 9

1

– Includes federal and non-federal ownership and river habitat

2 

– Includes streams and river across federal and non-federal ownership

3

- Stream/riparian habitat - includes all land within 200‟ of a perennial or intermittent stream.

Approximately 9% of the project area (combined private and federal land) has been identified as 

stream riparian habitat, floodplain or other riparian habitat. The riparian habitat or area of 

influence is the area within 200 ft. from any perennial or intermittent stream. This distance was 

used because the number of tributary springs and seeps dispersed along most stream corridors are 

quite numerous and variable in size and shape. Wildlife use of these seeps occurs year round. 

The project area also includes 538 acres of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetlands 

(combined federal and non-federal ownerships). Non-FS lands comprise slightly less than 3% of 

the project area and contain ~7% of the total stream miles, only 7% of the NWI wetlands are on 

private lands.

Alternatives Considered

Alternative 1: No Action 

There are no new federal actions proposed under this alternative. Alternative 1 will serve as a 

baseline or reference point from which effects of the action alternative (Alt. 2) can be evaluated. 

Alternative 1 will let ecological processes control vegetation development. Habitat changes will 
6

occur primarily from natural disturbances, although previously approved activities from past 

environmental assessments in the project area will still continue. Oil and gas development is 

also expected to continue on private mineral leases (having outstanding sub-surface rights) on 

both private and federal land within the project area.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action 

This alternative is based on the site specific purpose and need for the project area and proposed 

activities are intended to move the project area from the present condition, to the desired future 

condition identified in the Forest Plan. Table 2 summarizes activities proposed under this 

alternative.

Summary of Alternatives

Table 2 summarizes activities for each of the alternatives identified above. For clarity, the 

estimated time of completion (2010 – 2030) for proposed timber harvest is also displayed in 

Table 6.

Table 2: Proposed Activities by Alternative in the Upper Kinzua EA

Proposed Treatments Amount

Hydrology Proposals Amount

Non-commercial thinning and/or girdling trees in riparian hemlock areas 30 acres

Fell Trees into Camp Run, Chappel Fork, Markham Run, Meade Run, Pine 

Run, Root Run, Thundershower Run, Windfall Run, a tributary to 

Wintergreen Run and within flood plains 

Fell 50 to 

100 trees 

per mile, 21 

miles

Stabilize Kinzua Creek banks with Instream Logs Structures, and Rocks, 

Utilizing Mechanical Equipment and Hand Labor 6 miles

Recreation Proposals (Kinzua Creek Access) No.

Harden Dispersed Campsites 3

Improve And Harden Access Parking Sites 9

Install Barriers 3

Install Signing 1

Rehabilitate Existing Sites 11

Transportation Proposals

Pits Acres

Expand 3 existing pits 6

Expand existing pit - reclaim old development (17) 17

Explore and develop 9 pits 18

Reclaim 5 pits 17

Roads Miles

Construction 0.3

Decommission - National Forest System Road (NFSR) 1

Decommission – Non-System Roads 4.7

High Quality Road Surfacing 15

Improve Road Access To Duck Ponds 1

Reclassification - Closed To Restricted 2
7

Proposed Treatments Amount

Reconstruction37.8

Re-designate As Hunter Disabled Permit Road 1

Remove NFSR From The System 0.7

Storm Proof NFSR And Change To Level 1 0.4

Road Items No.

Install Gate 2

Hardened, two car parking area 3

Remove gate 1

Vegetation (Silviculture) Proposals Acres

Even-age Treatments 1,988 Total

Aspen Clearcut With Reserves 31

Delayed Removal Harvest With Reserves 281

Intermediate Thinning - Improvement2424

Shelterwood Seed Cut/ Shelterwood Removal Cut With Reserves1, 2 1,205

Two-Aged Shelterwood Seed Cut/ Two-Aged Harvest141

Vista Creation 6

Uneven-age Treatments 369 Total

Group Selection to Restore Understory Mature Forest Conditions 

(RUMFC) 89

Hemlock Thinning (Non-Commercial) 56

Mast Release 56

Thinning to Accelerate Mature Forest Conditions (Non-Commercial) 89

Uneven-Aged Management (Single Tree Selection) 79

Other Silvicultural Treatments Acres

Expand Opening 26

Opening Release, Doze, Seed (Butternut, Beech Orchard Locations) 44

Pruning2

1

Reforestation and Stand Improvement Treatments Acres

Fence 177

Herbicide 2,243

Plant 448

Prescribed burn 21

Release 2,147

Scarify 52

Site prep 1,877

Non-native Invasive Plant Treatments Acres

Manual, Mechanical, and/or Herbicide Removal Of NNIP 15

Planting Restoration (Seed or Plants) 15

Wildlife Proposals Acres

Create Opening 15

Fence Cribs 88

Girdle Trees 12

Herbicide 56
8

Proposed Treatments Amount

Install 20 X20 Potholes Within The Duck Ponds (26 within 1 acre) 1

Mow 146

Opening Release, Edge Encroachment 63

Acres

Plant shrubs/fruit/conifer/trees 99

Plow & seed 63

Prescribed burn & plant warm season grasses 4

Prune & release apple/fruit trees 97

Restore & maintain opening 52

Seed orchard, plant butternut or beech seeds or seedlings 9

Thin & release butternut trees 1

Under-plant AMFC 58

Under-plant conifer 15

Under-plant conifer clumps 15

Under-plant mast release stand 25

Under-plant RUMFC 461

No.

Construct vernal pools 5

1

1205 acres of shelterwoods & removals are 1st entry and 2nd entry, 

respectively, 41 acres of 2-age shelterwoods & removals are 1st entry and 

2

nd entry, respectively.

2

See corrections on page 15 of the EA

3ROW needed on FR 144

II. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Species Status, occurrence and habitat

Table 3 summarizes the status of Federally Threatened, Endangered or Candidate species in the 

project area. Each species is placed in one of the following three categories depending on their 

known occurrence and available habitat: 1) species occurrence has been documented in the 

recent past and there is occupied habitat in the project area, 2) occurrence has not been recently 

documented in the project area but suitable habitat is present and 3) occurrence has not been 

documented in the recent past and suitable habitat is not present. 

Table 3: Federally Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species for the ANF

Species Species 

Status Distribution Relative to the Project

Mammals

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) Endangered Suitable habitat exists but presence 

of species not documented in project

Plants

Small whorled pogonia (Isotria Threatened Suitable habitat exists but presence 
9

Species Species 

Status Distribution Relative to the Project

medeoloides)

Northeastern bulrush (Scirpus 

ancistrochaetus)

Endangered

of species not documented in project

Suitable habitat exists but presence 

of species not documented in project

Mollusks

Clubshell (Pleurobema clava)

Northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa 

rangiana)

Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrical)

Rayed-bean (Villosa fabalis)

Sheepnose (Plethobasis cyphyus)

Endangered

Endangered

Candidate

Candidate

Candidate

No suitable habitat.

No suitable habitat.

No suitable habitat.

No suitable habitat.

No suitable habitat.

Special Note: The USFWS removed the bald eagle from the Endangered Species List effective 

August 9, 2007. However, the bald eagle will continue to be protected under the Bald Eagle 

Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and will automatically be placed on the 

Regional Forester Sensitive Species list. Bald eagle standards and guidelines will not change as 

a result of this status change and no change in the design and implementation of this project is 

needed.

Critical Habitat

There is no designated critical habitat for any federally listed T&E or Candidate Species within 

the UKPA or on the ANF (16 U.S.C. 1532 (5) (A)).

The following is a discussion of T&E and candidate species with suitable habitat in the project 

area, but no individuals have been documented. The ANF BE (USDA-FS 2007), which includes 

a BA, contains the life histories, species distribution and distribution of habitat, habitat suitability 

and population dynamics, forest habitat, threats to recovery and limiting factors, effects analysis 

and standards and guidelines for all ANF T&E and Candidate Species. This information is 

available in the BE (USDA-FS 2007, 47 to 132) and is incorporated by reference.

Cumulative Effects Analysis Area and Period

Analysis Period: Analysis of cumulative effects includes identification and evaluation of direct 

and indirect effects, that when considered cumulatively over time, and/or in combination with 

effects on private land, may result in significant effects to federally listed species or their 

habitats. The year 2000 was chosen as the start of the analysis period because only final harvest 

treatments that have occurred in the last 10 years are readily apparent on aerial photographs. 

However because final harvest treatments on private industrial forest land often use a 2-step 

cutting method, including a shelterwood treatment within the next 10 years followed by a final 

harvest treatment in 10-20 yrs out, 2030 was chosen as the end of the analysis period. As a result, 

the cumulative effects analysis period for regeneration or final harvest spans a period of 30 years 

(2000-2030). 

Analysis Area: The geographic scope or cumulative effects (CE) analysis boundary used to 

evaluate effects to the wildlife resource is larger than the Upper Kinzua project boundary. This 

area totals 41,180 acres and includes 1,753 acres of NFS land, 11,208 acres of private land and 
10

stream/reservoir. The project area includes 28,221 acres of private (709 acres) and National 

Forest System lands (27,514 acres) on both districts. Rationale for selection of the CE boundary 

includes the following:

The transportation and watershed boundaries are biologically relevant. Across this 

cumulative effects boundary, the vegetation cover types, forest structure, and 

development from non-Forest Service (private) activities are similar. The cumulative 

effect of the alternatives when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future Forest Service or private actions become diluted beyond this boundary. 

Oil and gas development is considered a potential cumulative effect to species viability. 

These lands need to be considered to adequately assess potential impacts to plants and 

wildlife.

The movements of many wildlife species are influenced by larger streams, impoundments 

and roads. The project boundary to the north and northeast is defined by State Route 59 

and SR 219 (actually bi-sects a portion of the project area), while SR 321S and the 

Reservoir define the west and southwest. These man-made barriers are likely to limit 

some individual access to the west, north, and east. 

The west-northwest portion of the project boundary mirrors the east-southeast boundary 

of the Morrison Run Project which is being analyzed during the summer of 2010/2011.

The southern border of the project mirrors the northern project boundary of the North 

End Project which was analyzed in 2008.

The northeastern boundary mirrors the southwest boundary of the Eastside Project that 

was previously analyzed in 1998.

The north boundary mirrors a portion of the south boundary of the Sugar Run Project that 

was previously analyzed in 2004.

This analysis area will be used for all species analyzed under this BA.

Species Not Documented but Suitable Habitat is Found in the 

Project Area

INDIANA BAT (Myotis sodalis)

Background

The life history, population trends, threats, and habitat status related to the Indiana bat is located 

in the Forest Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS-2007, p. 79-105).

Project Area Habitat

The project area was evaluated to determine the amount and distribution of Indiana bat habitat. 

The analysis of habitat is based on the Habitat Suitability Model (H.S.I.) developed by Romme et 

al. (1995) and includes an evaluation of canopy closure conditions, as well as an assessment of 
11

the availability of potential roost trees. The habitat analysis in this BA, the Forest BA (USDAFS 2007) and the Concurrence Letter (USDI-FWS 2007) are based on the best available science 

at this time. 

Using canopy closure criteria identified by Romme et al (1995), Tables 4 and 5 display present 

condition Indiana bat maternity roost and foraging habitat within the project area. A description 

of the habitat conditions that exists is also displayed. 

Maternity Roosting Habitat

Table 4: Indiana Bat 2010 Roosting Habitat in Upper Kinzua Project Area 

Habitat Description Habitat Features Present Present

Condition

Openings Overall, less than suitable condition. Scattered trees are 

present which could be used for roost purposes. 2%

Seedling/Sapling 

Stands

Overall, less than suitable condition. Reserve trees and 

clumps are present which could be used for roost 

purposes. 9%

Suitable habitat -

Open crowns

Forested stands with <54% canopy closure. Forest average 

dead and live tree distributions apply. 4%

Optimal habitat Forested stands with 54-80% canopy closure. Forest 

average dead and live tree distributions apply. 37%

Suitable habitat -

Closed crowns

Forested Stands with > 80% canopy closure. Forest

average dead and live tree distributions apply. 48%

Table 5: Indiana Bat 2010 Foraging Habitat in Upper Kinzua Project Area 

Description Habitat Features Present Present

Condition

Openings Overall, less than suitable condition. Scattered overstory 

trees remaining. 2%

Seedling/Sapling 

Stands

Overall, less than suitable condition. Reserve trees and 

clumps are present which provide minimal habitat 

requirements. 9%

Suitable Habitat -

Open Crowns

Forested Stands with < 50% canopy closure. Forest

average dead and live tree distributions apply. 2%

Optimal Habitat Forested Stands with 50-70% Canopy Closure Forest 

average dead and live tree distributions apply. 16%

Suitable Habitat -

Closed Crowns

Forested stands with > 70% canopy closure. Forest 

average dead and live tree distributions apply. 71%

Based on the information presented in Tables 4 and 5, approximately 89 percent of the project 

area currently provides canopy closure conditions that are considered suitable for Indiana bat 

maternity roost and foraging habitat. The distribution of available habitat conditions is also a 

consideration and suitable Indiana bat habitat is widespread across the project area. Optimum 
12

roosting and foraging habitat occurs as both concentrated areas and scattered stands across the 

project area. 

There are no known maternity colonies in the project area and although hardwood mortality and 

decline are somewhat common, there are concentrated areas of potential roost trees where 

disease has impacted stands. Suitable snags (providing potential roosts) appear to be well 

distributed across the analysis area. Field surveys found that many standing-dead trees have 

cavities, crevices or exfoliating bark.

Edge habitat exists along Forest Service, State, and lease roads, pipelines, a variety of openings, 

and utility corridors. These environments along with the stream corridors appear to provide the 

most suitable foraging conditions in the project. The project area provides an ample amount of 

preferred summer range for the Indiana bat. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects include effects of federally proposed actions that may directly result in harm or 

harassment of the Indiana bat under each alternative. Proposed activities that may result in direct 

effects to the Indiana bat include any activity that results in removal of suitable roost trees. 

These activities are displayed in Table 6.

Table 6: Alternative Summary of Anticipated Direct Effects for UKPA

Activity Dates 

Implemented

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Type of Harvest

Commercial Timber 

Harvest

acres

Two-aged shelterwood seed 

cut/Two aged harvest

2010-2015 0 41 Shelterwood Removal

Accelerate Mature Forest 

Condition (AMFC) 

(Noncommercial) 

2010-2015 0 89

Thinning

Aspen Clearcut with Reserves 2010-2030 0 28 Clearcut 

Opening Construction12010-2015 0 24 Clearcut

Aspen Clearcut - Noncommercial2020-2025 0 3

Clearcut

Delayed Removal Harvest 

with reserves

2010-2015 0 283 Shelterwood Removal

Restore Understory Mature 

Forest Condition (RUMFC)

2010-2015 0 89 Uneven-aged 

Regeneration

Shelterwood Seed Cut/ 

Shelterwood Removal Cut 

with Reserves

2010-2015 0 1,201

Clearcut

Hemlock thinning -

Noncommercial

2010-2015 0 58 Thinning 

Intermediate thinning -

Improvement

2010-2015 0 29 Thinning

Intermediate thinning 2010-2015 0 392 Thinning
13

Activity Dates 

Implemented

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Type of Harvest

Uneven-aged management 2010-2015 0 79 Uneven-aged 

Regeneration

Reforestation

Prescribed burn/Pile slash & 

burn

2015-2030 0 30 NA

Road and Misc. Activities

Road Construction – existing 

corridor

2010-2015 0

0.3 miles NA

Construct or Expand Gravel 

Pits

2010-2015 0 Up to 25 

acres

Clearcut

OGD – Future Development 2010 – 2030

ANF Pit Development - OGD 41

acres

41 acres Clearcut

Current OGD 1,897 

wells

1,897 

acres

Future Wells (Non-federal 

action)

1,320

wells

1,717 

acres

Clearcut

1 – Burning may be repeated if the first burn does not adequately control competing vegetation

Direct Effects of Timber Harvest

Alternative 1

Since no new treatments are proposed under Alternative 1, there are no direct effects resulting 

under this alternative. No timber harvest or roost tree removal would take place, therefore harm 

or harassment of individual bats would not occur. 

Alternative 2 

The treatments in Table 7 have the potential to result in direct effects on Indiana bat habitat for 

Alternative 2. Timber harvesting associated with vegetation and road construction activities, 

including pit expansion, has the potential to result in direct mortality or injury to individuals or 

groups of bats when harvesting removes trees that harbor undetected roosts. Direct effects, or 

potential harm and harassment vary and Table 8 displays by season, the relative risk to the 

Indiana bat. It is anticipated that some of the proposed harvests may occur prior to May, when 

risks are considered moderate to low, but there is no seasonal restriction and cutting could occur 

at any time of year. Harvest activities that occur when bats are away from the ANF (October 1 -

March 31) do not have a direct effect, but could indirectly impact roosting and foraging habitat. 

Table 7: Relative Risk to the Indiana Bat

Calendar Period Relative Risk on 

the ANF

Activities in Life History

October 1 – March 31 None Not on the ANF – near or at hibernacula

April 1 – May 14 None to low Bats in transit between hibernacula and 

summer habitat

April 1 – April 15 Low Migration starts
14

April 16 – May 14 Moderate Bats in transit and migration peaks 

May 15 – August 15 High Summer habitat – greatest risk overall to 

maternity colonies

June 1 – July 31 Very High Pups born & become volant

August 16 - September 

30 Low to Very low Leaves summer habitat - in transit to hibernacula, swarming, and hibernation

Harm or harassment to Indiana bats could happen under this alternative if an occupied roost tree 

was cut. However, the likelihood of cutting a tree containing a maternity colony or individual 

roosting Indiana bat is considered extremely low because of the rarity of the species (especially 

on the ANF based on survey results), the wide dispersal of Indiana bats and maternity colonies 

throughout the species‟ range, and the large number of suitable roost trees present on the ANF. 

The ANF has been surveyed for 10 of the last 13 field seasons (following FWS protocols), but

only a single male Indiana bat has been captured during surveys at 397 sites (1,826 net nights),. 

Although suitable habitat exists, there has been no documented occurrence of Indiana bats in the 

project. 

If an unknown maternity colony or roosting individuals is present in a harvest unit, the loss of 

suitable roosting habitat could harm individual Indiana bats. However, this decrease or loss of 

suitable habitat of Indiana bats is substantially reduced through the implementation of Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines in the ANF Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007). 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Indiana bat

In order to reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts, S&Gs from the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 

2007a, p. 80-82) will be implemented. Retention of live, dead and den trees in all timber harvest,

along with clumps of trees (reserve areas) will maintain many important features of summer 

foraging and roosting habitat while allowing a new forest to regenerate over the long term.

Harvest activities that occur when bats are away from the ANF (October 1 - March 31) would

not have a direct effect on the Indiana bat. 

Direct Effects of Prescribed Burning

Prescribed burning is proposed on 30 acres under Alternative 2. Proposed burning will occur in 

the spring of the year and occur over a 5-year period. The initial burning will not start until at 

least 2015. While the exact time of burn will vary somewhat from year to year depending on 

site-specific weather and fuel conditions, all burning will be conducted between April 15th and 

May 30th. Since parturition occurs in late June to early July (USDI-FWS 1999b), proposed 

burning will only occur when volant bats are present. 

As described in the Forest BE (USDA-FS 2007, p. 109), prescribed burning during the summer 

could result in Indiana bat mortality due to the actual roost tree being incinerated, or death or 

injury to bats being caused by smoke inhalation. Although this could result in take of Indiana 

bats, the likelihood of this happening is remote due to the small amount of acreage proposed for 

treatment annually and the timing of burning (only volant bats will be present).

Indirect Effects
15

Potential indirect effects include changes in Indiana bat habitat conditions. Analysis of indirect 

effects includes a discussion of the effects of individual treatments, as well as an evaluation of 

both stand level and landscape level changes in habitat. 

Alternative 1

There are no new direct or indirect effects anticipated under this alternative since no burn 

treatments are proposed that would adversely affect Indiana bat habitat.

Alternative 2

Although activities such as gravel pit expansion and construction will result in some removal of 

vegetation, these occur as small inclusions within individual stands and will only slightly alter 

habitat conditions over the long term within the affected stand. Proposed reforestation 

treatments are not expected to adversely affect Indiana bats or their habitat because site 

preparation, herbicide application, release and fencing will not alter the structure preferred by 

bats. None of the herbicides approved for use on the ANF will bioaccumulate in bats (USDA-FS 

2007d, Appendix G). Activities that will result in indirect effects, or changes in habitat 

conditions for the Indiana bat, include proposed timber harvest, opening construction, burning 

and non-commercial release treatments proposed under these alternatives (displayed in Table 2). 

Indirect effects or changes in Indiana bat habitat that results from these treatments are discussed 

below.

Timber Harvest

Although there is a variety of different timber treatments proposed, many of these are expected 

to have similar indirect effects on Indiana bat habitat. In order to more clearly describe potential 

effects, timber treatments will be placed in one of the following categories:

Final Harvests – Final harvests include removal harvests, clearcutting, aspen regeneration, and 

2-age harvest. These treatments are all even-aged prescriptions and will involve regeneration of 

the entire stand being treated. Proposed clearcutting to create a wildlife opening is also 

considered a final harvest treatment, although rather than allowing forest regeneration to occur 

following harvest, the site will be planted with shrubs or young trees or seeded with grasses and 

forbs to create a permanent opening.

Partial Harvests – Partial harvest treatments include even aged prescriptions and include; 

shelterwood seedcuts, and thinning. 

The following is a discussion of effects of proposed timber harvest on Indiana bat habitat:

Partial Harvest – These treatments will reduce the existing canopy closure on the site and 

generally result in optimum crown closure conditions for Indiana bat roosting and foraging. On 

sites receiving a shelterwood treatment, optimum crown closure conditions will be maintained 

for up to 5 years, after which a final harvest treatment will be implemented (see below 

discussion). 

Final Harvests – Although Indiana bat telemetry data collected on the ANF indicates that final 

harvest stands are utilized for foraging (USDA-FS 2003b), with the exception of 2-age harvest, 
16

these actions will result in; 1) the removal of most of the mature overstory trees, 2) create 

temporary, open canopy conditions (with live and dead reserve trees), and 3) result in the 

establishment of early successional forest habitat. As a result, the quality of roost and foraging 

habitat will be reduced over the short term in stands receiving this treatment. 

Although 2-age harvest will result in removal of much of the mature overstory, 20-30% crown 

closure will be retained on sites receiving this treatment. Sites receiving these treatments will 

continue to provide suitable Indiana bat roosting and foraging habitat based on the availability of 

live and dead trees and residual crown closure. 

Uneven-aged Management - Uneven-aged management includes AMFC and RUMFC harvest 

and is proposed on a little under 1% of the project area. These treatments are preceded by a 

shelterwood harvest (described above) which results in establishment of seedlings on the site. 

The AMFC harvest is used in stands with an overly dense canopy and smaller diameter trees 

mixed through the stand of larger trees. This intermediate thin will remove 20 to 30% of the 

trees in order to emulate heterogeneity in old growth. Some trees receive crown release while 

others do not. They will contribute to vertical diversity and mimic small natural disturbances. 

This type of harvest is particularly effective in accelerating tree growth.

The RUMFC harvest is implemented once seedlings are established. This treatment is designed 

to create an uneven-age structure in an even-aged stand and involves a mixture of individual tree 

and group selection harvest. Group selection harvest would result in the removal of all trees in 

groups of up to three acres in size and would result in the establishment of tree seedlings and 

herbaceous vegetation on approximately 20% of each stand. This treatment has larger groups 

than traditional uneven-age management, because groups of trees are only removed over shade 

intolerant tree seedlings. On the remaining 80% of the site, treatment would involve removing 

up to one-third of the overstory trees in all size classes while retaining approximately two thirds 

of the existing overstory. It is anticipated that the distribution of groups will vary by site, 

creating heterogeneous stand conditions because the distribution and size of groups will be 

determined by the species of tree seedling established,. 

This treatment would provide habitat for primarily mature and late-successional species, 

including many species that prefer or require a small seedling forest component since a mature 

overstory is retained on most of the area treated. Also the 3 acre groups would be large enough 

to provide habitat for some shrub or brushland species (DeGraaf and Yamasaki 2003), many of 

which are declining regionally. As in even-age treatments, species sensitive to disturbance 

would likely move off the area during logging, while other species would be attracted to the 

increased levels of slash created on the site. Because one of the objectives of this treatment is to 

create late structural conditions, only wood greater than 10” in diameter will be removed and 

greater amounts of large woody debris will be left on site, than with even age harvest. 

Wildlife Habitat Improvement Work

Opening construction, aspen regeneration, thinning and release are the only wildlife habitat 

improvement treatments that are expected to indirectly affect Indiana bat habitat. Opening 

construction is considered a final harvest treatment and is discussed above. Butternut release 

consists of releasing suppressed butternut by killing adjacent hardwood trees through girdling
17

(See Table 2). Girdling involves using a chainsaw to cut a narrow ring (~1⁄2 inch wide) around 

the tree at breast height. This creates a break in the cambium layer, which results in the death of 

the tree within 1-2 growing seasons. All trees girdled will be left standing on site and there will 

be no disturbance to the tree other than where the girdle is made. This treatment will increase 

the availability of snags and potential roost trees over the short term on the sites proposed for 

treatment, as well as create small canopy gaps that will help to improve the suitability of these 

snags as a maternity roost site. Although accurate predictions of crown closure conditions 

resulting from this treatment can not be made, the increase in snags and canopy gaps resulting 

from this treatment is expected to improve maternity roost and foraging habitat diversity on the 

site. Direct impacts should be beneficial and no indirect or cumulative effects are expected. 

Stand Level Effects on Roosting Habitat

Based on the H.S.I. model specifications for crown closure, optimum habitat conditions will 

result on sites proposed for partial harvest activities (identified above). However with the 

exception of 2-age harvest, seedling stands resulting from final harvest treatments under 

Alternative 2 no longer meet the criteria for suitable maternity roost habitat (as defined by the 

H.S.I. model). Potential adverse effects to Indiana bat habitat on sites receiving final harvest 

treatments are reduced through implementation of the mitigation measures listed above. These 

mitigation measures help to ensure that a variety of tree species and sizes are retained in final 

harvests including snags (dead trees), selected individual trees (live), trees containing cavities 

and patches of reserve trees (clumps), all of which continue to provide suitable Indiana bat 

habitat. Additionally, the newly opened canopy and margins of the harvest units increase the 

exposure of some potential maternity roost trees to solar radiation, possibly improving thermal 

conditions for raising young.

Like many aspects of Indiana bat habitat, research findings on thermal qualities of roost sites 

vary across the range of the Indiana bat. In Michigan (similar climate and latitude as the ANF), 

Kurta et al (1993) found a maternity colony where all roost trees were exposed to direct sunlight 

throughout the day. To the contrary, in Illinois Garner and Gardner (1992) state that roost sites 

exposed to intense solar radiation during midsummer may exceed potentially lethal temperatures 

for Indiana bats. Scientists are continuing to study and evaluate Indiana bat habitat. 

Stand Level Effects on Foraging Habitat

Both partial and final harvest treatments can affect Indiana bat foraging habitat. Partial harvests 

reduce canopy closure by reducing the number of trees in the overstory. This generally results in 

crown closure conditions that are considered optimum for Indiana bat foraging. Final harvests 

affect Indiana bat foraging habitat by increasing the number of temporary openings 

(seedling/sapling habitat), by creating edge habitat, and by altering canopy closure. Reserve 

trees (individuals and clumps, live and dead) in final harvest areas are protected by the 

implementation of mitigation measures. They create additional edge habitat, as well as improve 

vertical structure within stands receiving treatment. 

The analysis of foraging habitat is based on the H.S.I. model developed by Romme et al (1995). 

All stands (with the exception of 2-age stands) receiving a final harvest treatment under 

Alternative 2 will no longer meet the criteria for suitable foraging habitat (as defined by the 

H.S.I. model). Romme et al. (1995) found that Indiana bats may forage in habitats with canopy 
18

closures ranging from 50-70 percent most of the time. However, research and on-Forest 

telemetry data on foraging habitat indicates Indiana bats will forage in a variety of forest habitats 

and landscapes with a variety of canopy closures (from 0-100%) are also utilized. In addition to 

the possible improved thermal conditions for roosting described previously, some Indiana bat 

foraging takes place over clearings with early succession forest vegetation (Romme et al.1995). 

Additionally, the early successional forest resulting from final harvests will provide more habitat 

diversity in the predominantly closed canopy forest that characterizes both the ANF and the 

project area. Further, studies have shown that arthropod species diversity (moths and beetles) 

varies with forest type and age (Burford et al. 1999, Werner and Raffa 2000) and is a 

consideration, as these insects make up a large portion of bat diets (LaVal and LaVal 1980). 

Landscape Level Changes

Final harvests at a landscape scale result in an insignificant loss of potential roost trees because 

millions of potential roost trees are available across the ANF and an average of 0.3 % of the 

Forest receives this type of harvest in a year. While an assessment of changes in habitat 

conditions at the stand level is valuable, the availability of suitable habitat across the project area 

must be considered because management of an area for a perpetual supply of potential roost trees 

is much more important than trying to manage individual roost trees (Callahan et al., 1997, 

Clawson 1986, Kiser and Elliot 1996, Romme et al., 1995). Additionally, the assessment of 

habitat at a landscape scale helps to determine if suitable habitat is adequately distributed across 

the project area. 

The landscape level analysis discussed below is based upon the H.S.I. model developed by 

Romme et al (1995). Table 8 summarizes the present availability of maternity roosting and 

foraging habitat across the project area and provides an estimate of the habitat conditions that 

would develop under each alternative. Many stands proposed for even-aged final harvest 

treatments will receive two treatments, including a shelterwood harvest in the next 2-5 years, 

followed by a final harvest treatment (shelterwood removal cut, or 2-age harvest removal) during 

the next 15 years. Since the habitat conditions resulting from the shelterwood treatment will be 

short-term in nature, changes in habitat conditions displayed in Table 8 are the conditions that 

are expected to result following all of the proposed timber treatments on a site, or the habitat 

conditions that would occur in the year 2030. 

Table 8: 2030 Distribution of Maternity Roost and Foraging Habitat

Habitat Description Present

Condition

Alt.

1

Alt.

2

Minimally Suitable Habitat

Openings; less than suitable condition; scattered 

trees are present which could be used for roosting 

2% 2% 3%

Forested Stands with less than suitable conditions 

for roosting; reserve trees and clumps are present 

and available for roosting.

8% 2% 8%

Suitable Roosting Habitat

Forested stands with 26-53% canopy closure; 

suitable roosting condition; Forest average dead 

and live tree distributions apply.

3% 1% <1%
19

Habitat Description Present

Condition

Alt.

1

Alt.

2

Forested Stands with 54-82% canopy closure; 

optimal roosting condition; Forest average dead 

and live tree distributions apply 

43% 15% 16%

Forested Stands with >82% canopy closure; 

suitable roosting condition; Forest average dead 

and live tree distributions apply 

41% 77% 71%

Suitable Foraging Habitat

Forested stands with 16-50% crown closure; 

suitable foraging condition

2% 1% 1%

Forested stands with 51-70% crown closure; 

optimal foraging condition

16 % 4% 5%

Forested stands with >70% crown closure; 

suitable foraging condition

68% 87% 82%

Alternative 1

Suitable habitat will increase by 6% under this alternative. Both optimal roosting habitat and 

optimal foraging habitat will decrease by about 2/3 and 3⁄4 respectively. Suitable habitat under 

both categories will continue to be widely available. There are no changes in the availability of 

suitable Indiana bat habitat anticipated under this alternative since no treatments are proposed 

that would adversely affect Indiana bat habitat.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 will maintain almost the same amount of suitable habitat as currently exists, and 

under this alternative, approximately 83% of the project area will continue to provide suitable 

Indiana bat habitat (as measured by crown closure conditions in the H.S.I. model). Additionally, 

there will be a decrease in both optimum roosting habitat (43% or 16%) and optimum foraging 

habitat (16% to 5%) under this alternative.

Because the project area is in the beech bark disease killing front, the availability of snags and 

potential Indiana bat roost trees within the project area has been increasing over the past decade 

and this increase is expected to continue into the future under both alternatives. This recruitment 

in new snags combined with mitigation measures described above that call for retention of roost 

trees in sites proposed for timber harvest, will result in maintenance of potential roost trees on 

sites proposed for treatment, as well as result in an increase in available roost trees across the 

landscape. 

Indirect Effects of Prescribed Burning

Alternative 1

Since no burning is proposed under this Alternative, there are no indirect effects anticipated.

Alternative 2

Indirect effects of burning proposed under Alternative 2 include modifications or changes in 

Indiana bat habitat conditions on the affected site. Habitat changes that result from burning may 
20

be either positive or negative, depending on the intensity of the fire. If fire intensity is moderate 

to low, benefits may result due to the creation of new roosts. Potential roost trees may be

directly created by fire mortality, or indirectly, by making them more susceptible to insect 

attacks and pathogens (BCI, 2001). Low to moderate intensity fires may also improve bat 

habitat by opening up travel corridors and foraging areas. 

There are potential adverse effects if burning intensity is high because fires will consume 

existing snags or otherwise render them unusable (BCI, 2001). However, the intensity of 

prescribed burns such as those proposed is determined largely by the burning prescription. The 

burn prescription considers fire weather and fuel conditions and sets parameters for burning that 

ensures the fire intensity is controlled and kept at levels that are consistent with management 

objectives. Moderate intensity burns will be prescribed on all sites in order to meet management 

objectives related to establishment of oak seedlings. While this level of burning may result in 

the loss of some standing snags, this is expected to be offset by creation of additional snags, as 

some trees are killed by fire (USDA-FS 2007a). Additionally, in order to minimize impacts to 

existing roost trees, the following mitigation measure will be implemented on all sites proposed 

for burning:

Prior to burning, resource specialists will be consulted to identify areas of concern and outline 

site-specific resource mitigations. Slash will be pulled 10 feet away from identified snags with 

sloughing bark and from any live trees that exhibit sloughing bark on 20% or more of the trunk 

in order to minimize the loss of existing roost trees. A scratch line will be put around the tree 

once the slash is removed to further reduce the intensity of burning at the base of the tree.

Implementation of this mitigation measure will result in removal of fuels around existing roost 

trees, which will reduce flame heights and heat intensity around the tree, minimizing the loss of 

potential roost trees.

Oil and Gas Related Effects

Potential effects of oil and gas development on the Indiana bat and its habitat can be both 

positive and negative. For example this development often can result in improved thermal 

conditions of suitable roost trees adjacent to well pads and along road and pipeline ROW‟s and 

Indiana bat roosting habitat will be maintained and possibly improved in areas where 

development occurs. Conversely, the Indiana bat and its habitat can be adversely affected by the 

actual construction of roads, well pads and other facilities associated with development. 

Potential effects of oil and gas development to the Indiana bat will be evaluated by looking at the 

total area disturbed by development within the CE analysis area (described above), as well as by 

looking at the amount and distribution of available Indiana bat habitat across the analysis area.

 

Because oil and gas activity has been occurring within the project area for several decades, there 

is no definitive point in time from which to start the analysis period. As a result, potential effects 

include all past oil and gas development that has occurred within the analysis area prior to 2010, 

as well as development that is anticipated to occur between 2010 and 2030. The date 2030 was 
21

chosen as the end of the analysis period, because that is the point in time in which anticipated 

effects of timber harvest (described below) are evaluated. 

There is presently an estimated 2,392 active wells impacting 2,392 acres within the CE analysis 

area (includes public and private lands). Over the next 20 years, it is estimated that 

approximately 1,695 new wells will be developed on private and National Forest System lands

across the CE Area. Using an average 1.3 acre of land impacted per new well (including pad, 

access roads, supply lines, etc) (See Appendix D of the Upper Kinzua EA), approximately 4,597

acres of forestland will be converted to non-forest habitat across the CE area. The oil and gas 

related disturbance shown in Table 9, displays the physical disturbance associated with past and 

future development and provides an estimate as to how much area actually occurs in oil and gas 

related openings. This includes an estimate of the acreage in well pads, roads, tank batteries and 

associated utility ROWs and is a measure of Indiana bat habitat that has become unsuitable due 

to oil and gas development within the analysis area. 

Effects from Timber Management

While partial harvest activities create near optimum Indiana bat habitat (see discussion under 

indirect effects), final harvest treatments reduce the suitability of Indiana bat roosting and 

foraging habitat and as a result have the potential to contribute toward cumulative effects. 

However sites receiving final harvest treatments on National Forest System lands are still 

considered minimally suitable due to retention of snag, den and other reserve trees. Although 

private and industrial forestlands use similar silvicultural techniques and harvesting methods to 

those carried out on the ANF, measures used to reserve residual trees on private forestland 

generally differ from the ANF and there is no way of knowing if potential roost trees are 

retained. As a result, for the purpose of this analysis, lands receiving final harvest treatments on 

private land are considered unsuitable Indiana bat habitat. 

Using aerial photos, it is estimated that 50 acres of regeneration harvest have occurred on private 

land within the project area in the last 10 years (2000-2010). Anticipated regeneration on private 

land was based upon local research, which indicates industrial forestlands around the ANF 

regenerate approximately 10% per decade, as well as specific estimates that are based on the 

history of past harvest on both industrial and non-industrial lands. Using these assumptions, it is 

estimated that will be 50 acres of final harvest activities on private lands per decade, for a total of 

100 acres of anticipated future regeneration (2010-2030). 

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described on pages 11 and 12 above.

Table 9 displays past and anticipated future final harvest activity on private land, as well as past 

and anticipated future private oil and gas development on private and National Forest System 

land within the CE analysis area. As can be seen from Table 9, approximately 11% of the 

analysis area will be affected by private activities during the analysis period.

 

It was necessary to combine past and present activities on private and National Forest System 

lands to assess the distribution of available Indiana bat habitat. Effects on available Indiana bat 
22

habitat resulting from past, present and future activities under the two alternatives are displayed 

in Table 9. 

Cumulative effect changes in Indiana bat habitat will be evaluated by looking at the amount of 

unsuitable habitat (openings, OGD development and private final harvest stands), the amount of 

minimally suitable habitat (forested stands on National Forest that have a standing live and dead 

tree component but don‟t provide suitable crown closure conditions as defined by the H.S.I. 

model) and the total amount of suitable habitat (Habitat that meets all H.S.I. model requirements) 

that will be available under each of the alternatives on both private and National Forest System 

lands in the year 2030.

Table 9: Indiana bat Cumulative Effects for Upper Kinzua Project

Activity Present

Condition

Alt. 1 Alt. 2

Seedling Stands 5,024 ac

12%

3,586 ac

9%

5,122 ac

12%

OGD Development 2,392 ac

5.8%

4,597 ac

11.2%

4,597 ac

11.2%

Openings 663 ac

<2%

663 ac

<2%

728 ac

<2%

Sapling/Pole Stands 4,199 ac

10%

6,396ac

16%

6,389ac

16%

Total Available Habitat 28,902 ac

70.2%

25,938 ac

63.0%

24,344 ac

59.1%

Potential effects related to white-nose syndrome (WNS) were also considered. Analysis related 

to WNS was completed in the Allegheny National Forest Supplemental Information Report 

(SIR) that reviewed and summarized new information related to WNS and bat populations. The 

following is a summary of the findings presented in the Review of New Information (RONI) for 

WNS and Bat Populations (USDA-FS 2009), which is incorporated by reference into this 

analysis. The Allegheny National Forest (ANF) produced a RONI for White-Nose Syndrome in 

June 2008. 

The Forest ID team considered the best scientific information available and based on the analysis 

presented in the SIR, concluded that the discovery of WNS fungus in New York, Vermont, 

Massachusetts and Connecticut does not present a seriously different picture with regard to the 

environmental effects disclosed in the 2007 EIS (USDA-FS 2007b) developed for the Forest 

Plan or any site specific environmental documentation. While extensive monitoring for WNS 

and its effects to bats will continue, they also concluded that there is no need at this time to 

supplement, revise, or correct the 2007 EIS for the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007b) or any project 

specific environmental documents. The SIR also concluded that potential effects to the Indiana 

bat were adequately assessed in the Forest BE (USDA-FS 2007) and that with implementation of 

conservation measures (See Appendix A) identified in the BO (USFWS 2007), forest activities 

identified in the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2007a) are not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat 

because both direct mortality and indirect adverse effects to important habitat components are 

extremely unlikely to occur and are therefore considered discountable (USFWS 2007, 20). 
23

New information on the spread of WNS to Western New York, Tennessee, Quebec, Ontario and 

Oklahoma in 2010 prompted a third review. A careful examination of the current information 

referenced and the background information shows the Allegheny National Forest considered 

impacts to forest bats in preparing the Environmental Impact Statement and 2007 Forest Plan. 

Forest projects tier to the 2007 Forest plan and incorporate the analysis by reference. However, 

diseases were not considered a major threat at that time, and WNS was unknown. Until such 

time as causal factors and effective treatments are identified, the ANF will continue to protect 

cave habitats and manage summer habitats to provide high quality habitat that will help all bat 

species find adequate food, cover, roost sites, water, and other needs to survive and successfully 

reproduce on the Forest.

The ANF staff will work closely with partners, PGC, and USFWS to monitor ANF caves for the 

presence of WNS. Summer maternity colonies at the Hall Barn, Birdsall Eddy Girl Scout Camp, 

Camp Cornplanter and others will continue to be monitored. Close coordination with Forest 

Service Regional Office biologists will continue in order for the ANF to remain up-to-date on 

new occurrences of WNS across the range of the Indiana bat. In addition, Forest Service 

Regions 8 and 9 have implemented a cave closure effective through 2010.

Based on anticipated cumulative effects, suitable Indiana bat habitat will be reduced by 

approximately 7% under Alternative 1 and 11% under Alternative 2 from proposed activities. 

Considering the widespread availability of suitable habitat and that most of these impacts are 

short-term in nature, there are no significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects to bat habitat 

anticipated.

Indiana Bat Determination and Rationale

Alternative 1

Since there are no new federal activities proposed under this alternative, there is “no effect” to 

the Indiana bat or its habitat anticipated.

Alternative 2

A “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination is made for the Indiana bat for the 

action alternative. The likelihood of direct mortality as a result of implementation of the Upper 

Kinzua Project is possible but negligible. The likelihood of indirect adverse effects to important 

habitat components of the Indiana bat during implementation of this project is unlikely to occur 

based on expected changes in the habitat across the project and CE analysis area. The project 

will not modify or destroy critical habitat or jeopardize the continued existence of the species. 

This is based on the following rationale:

1. Potential harm or harassment to the IB is reduced with the implementation of Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines described above (USDA-FS 2007, 116 to 118).

2. Repeated surveys were conducted over the project area. During the following years, 25 sites 

were surveyed: 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006, and 2010. As of 2010 no IB has been caught in 

the project area even though mist net surveys have been conducted on a wide variety of sites 

within the project area.
24

3. Nine years of forest-wide surveys have shown that IB use of the ANF has been very rare and 

no female IB or maternity roosts have been identified. IB abundance and habitat use on the ANF 

can be characterized as “limited to occasional summer visits by solitary males”. The chances of 

an Indiana bat being exposed to any of the activities undertaken in this project are therefore 

considered very low.

4. Suitable roosting and foraging habitat will continue to predominate across the landscape. 

Additionally, available suitable habitat is well distributed, with optimum habitat conditions 

occurring in all affected watersheds. 

5. The availability of suitable roost trees is expected to increase across the landscape due to 

anticipated increase in insect and disease related tree mortality.

6. Timber harvest proposed under Alternative 2 includes activities that will ensure a continuous 

supply of potential roost trees over the long-term.

7. Herbicide application, fertilization, site preparation, crop tree management, release cuts, and 

fence construction, do not directly affect mature forest habitat (potential roost trees). A review 

of the other treatments, including wildlife and soil and water treatments, indicates they will have 

minimal effect on bat habitat. 

8. The ANF is not located near any large concentrations of Indiana bats. There are only 30 

known Indiana bat hibernacula within 250 miles of the ANF. These hibernacula support 

approximately 5,480 Indiana bats, which is only 1.2% of the range wide Indiana bat population.

9. Dispersal of Indiana bats from the Hartman Mine hibernaculum (115 miles from ANF) are 

generally to the south or east. The longest migration from the Hartman Mine is 89 miles to the 

south and east. No Indiana bats have been documented heading north towards the ANF. 

Dispersal of Indiana bats from New York hibernacula have not been documented heading in the 

direction of the ANF but rather to the Hudson River valley and Lake Champlain valley (south 

and east).

10. Because the ANF is at higher latitude and higher elevation with a cooler and wetter summer 

climate than most of the Indiana bat‟s range, summer habitat may be marginal, at best, based on 

an analysis by five leading Indiana bat experts (Brack et al. 2002).

In summary, the chances of an Indiana bat being exposed to any of the activities undertaken in 

this project is very low due to the limited geographic extent of the activities within the project 

that could affect habitat, and to the timing of activities that would limit exposure of Indiana bats 

to direct impacts. The potential for indirect impacts on habitat (loss of roost trees or foraging 

habitat) is limited to a small part of the project area.

SMALL WHORLED POGONIA (Isotria medeoloides)

Background 

The life history, population trends, threats, and habitat status related to the small-whorled 

pogonia is located in the Forest Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007, 125 to 130).
25

Project Area Habitat

Of the 22,020 acres inventoried in the Upper Kinzua project area; approximately 89% (24,485 

acres) of the project area has interfering vegetation from fern, grass, beech and striped maple. 

Although much of the project area provides favorable growing conditions for the small-whorled 

pogonia, the project‟s well stocked canopy, high level of woody understory vegetation, and 

dense fern and grass (competing ground cover) decrease the potential of finding the small 

whorled pogonia. 

Approximately 2,910 acres within Upper Kinzua Project area were surveyed for the small 

whorled pogonia or suitable habitat. Surveys included all forested sites where earth disturbing 

activities are proposed, all sites on National Forest System lands that contained high priority 

habitat described by the Forest GIS model, and roadside habitat. Additionally all sites proposed 

for treatment containing high priority habitat were surveyed during the month of July, when a 

second wave of non-flowering plants emerge and the likelihood of observing flowering plants is 

increased. Although several associated species including large whorled pogonia were 

documented, no small whorled pogonias were observed. The project area is considered suitable, 

but unoccupied small-whorled pogonia habitat based on project level survey work. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Proposed activities in the Upper Kinzua project area would have no direct effects on the small 

whorled pogonia considering this species has not been documented in the project area. Adverse 

direct affects, such as the destruction of a local population, are possible if these activities 

inadvertently impact an unknown community of plants. 

Any treatments that result in the conversion of forest to non-forest or timber harvest treatments 

that maintain forest vegetation but significantly alter site conditions have the potential to result in 

indirect effects through habitat modification. Final harvest treatments (described previously) can 

result in a significant change in site conditions due to changes in light, temperature and moisture 

conditions. A substantial increase in competing vegetation can also occur on the site in addition 

to the above changes. 

The overall result of these changes is the affected site will no longer provide desirable smallwhorled pogonia site conditions. Although forest habitat is not permanently lost, suitable 

growing conditions will be unavailable to the SWP for 40 to 50 years or until tree seedlings grow 

into more mature trees. Other treatments such as road construction could also have adverse 

indirect effects since these treatments will result in a long-term loss of forest cover on the site.

In addition to earth disturbing activities, proposed herbicide application could also have a direct 

effect if it is applied to a site where an unknown population exists. Herbicide application could 

have a positive indirect effect, since application will reduce competing ground cover and 

understory vegetation, which could provide more suitable growing conditions for the plant. 

Similarly, although actual construction of a fence could have an adverse direct effect if an 

unknown population exists, a positive indirect effect of area fencing could result due to the 

exclusion of deer and reduced browsing pressure.
26

Further protection for the pogonia will be achieved by implementing the following Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines prior to ground-disturbing and/or vegetation management activities or 

during any phase of a project‟s development (USDA-FS 2007a, p. 84):

Standard

If plants or populations are found, temporarily halt any activities that may cause impact within 

300 feet of the area of influence surrounding plants and/or populations. The area of influence 

includes suitable occupied habitat as well as appropriate area to conserve populations and their 

habitat. Consideration of site characteristics such as aspect, landform, overstory, midstory and 

understory shading, site topography, forest cover and hydrologic features will be used to 

determine this area of influence. Consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine and 

implement appropriate site-specific conservation measures before resuming activities.

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described on pages 11 and 12 above.

Suitable habitat for small-whorled pogonia will be reduced on approximately ~14% of the CE 

analysis area that is affected by oil and gas and pit development and final harvest timber 

treatments. In addition to this, suitable habitat on another 5% of the analysis area could be 

adversely affected over the short term due to proposed final harvest treatments under Alternative 

2. Cumulatively, suitable habitat for this species will be lost on approximately 19% of the CE 

analysis area over the short term, while another 5% of the analysis area occurs as unsuitable 

habitat in the form of existing openings or regenerating forest. Considering this, it is estimated 

that at the end of the analysis period, approximately 75% or more of the analysis area will 

continue to occur as potentially suitable small-whorled pogonia habitat under all alternatives. 

Considering the continued availability of suitable habitat and considering this species has not 

been found within the project area or on the ANF, no direct, indirect or cumulative effects are 

anticipated under either alternative. 

Small-whorled Pogonia Determination and Rationale

Alternatives 1 & 2 

A „No Effect‟ determination is reached for the small whorled pogonia under these alternatives. 

The Forest BE provides direction for the protection of this orchid if found within the ANF 

proclamation boundary. Due to the absence of documented occurrence on the ANF and 

considering all proposed treatment sites have been surveyed and no plants were found, there is 

no adverse affects to the small-whorled pogonia anticipated under either alternative.

NORTHEASTERN BULRUSH (Scirpus ancistrochaetus)

Background 

The life history, population trends, threats, and habitat status related to the northeastern bulrush 

is located in the Forest Biological Evaluation (USDA-FS 2007, 120 to 123).

Project Area Habitat
27

A limited amount of potentially suitable habitat is available in the Upper Kinzua Project area as 

538 acres of wetlands have been identified in the project area according to GIS data based on the 

National Wetlands Inventory. These wetlands are associated with the major stream corridors. 

Field surveys in the project area by district botany and wildlife technicians did not document the 

northeastern bulrush in wetlands contained within stands to be treated. The majority of the 538 

acres of classified NWI wetlands found in the project area are palustrine wetlands associated 

with the Kinzua Creek and Meade Run corridors. Only 4% of the NWI wetlands are identified 

as lacustrine wetlands which were associated with the Duck Ponds and Propagation Pond in the 

Meade Run headwater areas.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Management activities identified in Table 2 that have could have potential adverse effects to 

northeastern bulrush include: gravel pit development or expansion, herbicide application, 

fertilization, fence construction, intermediate (partial) and final timber harvests treatments, nonnative invasive species control, road construction in new or existing corridors, and road 

decommissioning. Possible effects from these activities include: forest canopy alteration, direct 

mortality, non-native invasive species introduction or spread, changes to local hydrology, 

compact soil, nutrient enrichment, trampling and/or improve access for (illegal) collecting.

No adverse direct or indirect effects on the northeastern bulrush would occur because field 

surveys have failed to document the species on any area slated for earth-disturbing activity and 

potentially suitable habitat is avoided by implementing project design features protecting 

wetlands, vernal pools, and riparian areas. 

Herbicide applications reduce undesirable ground cover and understory vegetation in other 

poorly-drained areas (micro sites) and could provide suitable growing conditions for the plant. 

The other reforestation activities (including fire) have the potential beneficial effects by 

removing undesirable understory and ground cover species, removing low shade-producing trees 

and shrubs, and increasing sunlight that reaches the forest floor. Area fencing can benefit the 

species by excluding deer and eliminating browsing pressure. Control of NNIP allows native 

species such as the bulrush to populate areas where the invasive species occupied potential 

habitat. Reforestation and vegetation management activities that promote forest sustainability, 

limiting road access, or protection from herbivory are potential indirect beneficial effects to the 

northeastern bulrush.

An adverse indirect effect could occur when there is a permanent loss of potential habitat such as 

the conversion of suitable forest habitat into an opening from activities such as new road 

construction, oil and gas lease development, and gravel pit expansion and development. 

However, this adverse effect is not likely to occur since these activities avoid suitable habitat. 

The most suitable growing conditions for these species in the project area can be found in the 

riparian zones along perennial streams. The proposed activities in the project will not impact 

wetland or riparian habitat with implementation of appropriate project design features and Forest 

Plan S&Gs (USDA-FS 2007a, 74 to 79). These activities will have no adverse effect on 

potentially suitable habitat under all alternatives. 
28

During soil disturbance and/or implementation of vegetation management activities for any 

phase of a project‟s development, the following Forest Plan Standard will be implemented:

Standard

If plants or populations are found, temporarily halt any activities that may cause impact within 

300 feet of the area of influence surrounding plants and/or populations. The area of influence 

includes suitable occupied habitat as well as appropriate area to conserve populations and their 

habitat. Consideration of site characteristics such as aspect, landform, overstory, midstory and 

understory shading, site topography, forest cover and hydrologic features will be used to 

determine this area of influence. Consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine and 

implement appropriate site-specific conservation measures before resuming activities.

Cumulative Effects

The analysis boundary and time period were previously described on pages 11 and 12 above.

The northeastern bulrush depends on an intact, well-functioning wetland and riparian ecosystem. 

Cumulative effects to this species could result from any approved or future projects that may 

increase sedimentation, degrade water quality, or (most importantly) physically impact soils or 

vegetation of these ecosystems. Approximately 67% of the CE analysis area is under jurisdiction 

of the ANF where the Forest-wide standards and guidelines apply. There are approximately 538 

acres of wetlands designated by the NWI within the CE area. 

The major non-federal activities that typically occur on the ANF or within the CE area include: 

OGD (reserved and/or outstanding rights), industrial/commercial timber management on private 

property, and to a lesser degree, the development of private land to non-forest uses. Final 

harvests maintain forest habitat but the resulting early structural seedling/sapling habitat is 

unsuitable for some plant species over the short term. Intermediate harvests partially open the 

forest canopy at least for the short-term. Typically these types of treatments on private lands do 

not occur in wetlands because of operability. Based on current information, no known 

populations of the northeastern bulrush are found on the private lands ownership. Interpretation 

of aerial photographs indicates that privately-owned forestland appears to provide habitat similar 

to that found on the National Forest. In general, except for commercial timber lands, private 

forestland owners tend not to invest in herbicide applications, site preparation, or area fencing 

that either increase the risk of adverse effects or provide benefits for the species or its habitat.

Suitable habitat could be reduced (lost) over the next decade as a result of private OGD on both 

federal and private lands in the CE area. Oil and gas well construction results in a permanent 

alteration in habitat, specifically the loss of suitable forest habitat and creation of opening and 

edge habitat. All OGD operate under regulations including a permit process designed to protect 

and maintain wetland habitat. Based on development rates across the ANF, it is estimated that 

1,695 additional wells would be constructed in the CE area over the next two decades. Using an 

average of 1.3-acre of impact per well, approximately 4,597 acres of forestland (federal and 

private) would be converted to opening habitat that is unsuitable for the northeastern bulrush. 

Approximately 11% of the CE area is projected to be affected by OGD activity over the next 20 

years. Private oil and gas development (ground disturbance from road building, well pads, tank 

batteries, etc.) could cause direct mortality to unknown populations or habitat alteration or 
29

degradation particularly in winter months when vernal pools and other suitable habitat for the 

northeastern bulrush may not be visible. 

The following standard for private mineral development on ANF lands is included in the Forest 

BA: During review of the plan of operation, known occurrences or habitat of federally-listed, 

proposed, threatened, or endangered species that are located in the vicinity of a proposed mineral 

development, will be documented in a letter to the operator and copied to the USFWS Field 

Office in State College, Pennsylvania. This letter will direct the operator to contact the USFWS 

to resolve issues related to threatened and endangered species prior to proceeding with any tree 

cutting or earth disturbance.

In summary, there are no substantial cumulative effects anticipated on the northeastern bulrush 

or its habitat from non-federal activities within the 41,180 acre CE analysis area. The species 

would not be adversely affected because a) the northeastern bulrush has not been found on the 

project or ANF, b) field surveys continue to be conducted on federal land on a project-specific 

basis on any soil disturbing project proposed on federal land, c) suitable bulrush habitat remains 

widely distributed and abundant across the riparian and wetland habitat on the Forest, and d) it is 

very likely that similar growing conditions and limiting factors are found on private land in the 

CE area. Suitable habitat (wetlands and riparian areas) for the northeastern bulrush is not 

expected to be affected by these activities. Considering these factors, there are no substantial 

cumulative effects anticipated on this endangered plant under any alternative. 

Northeastern bulrush Determination and Rationale

Alternatives 1 & 2 

A „No Effect‟ determination is reached for the northeastern bulrush under these alternatives. The 

Forest BA provides direction for the protection of this species if found within the ANF 

proclamation boundary. Due to the absence of documented occurrence on the forest and 

considering all proposed treatment sites have been surveyed and no plants were found, there is 

no adverse affects to the northeastern bulrush anticipated under either alternative. Regardless of 

the alternative selected, the implementation of Forest-wide standards and guidelines regarding 

the protection of wetlands, vernal pools, and riparian areas will ensure the project will have „no 

effect‟ on the northeastern bulrush. Species with no Suitable Habitat in the Project Area

NORTHERN RIFFLESHELL (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana), CLUBSHELL (Pleurobema 

clava), RAYED-BEAN (Villosa fabalis), RABBITSFOOT (Quadrula cylindrica) and 

SHEEPNOSE (Plethobasus cyphyus) 

These species do not have suitable habitat and individuals have not been documented within the 

Upper Kinzua Project Area. Therefore, a “No Effect” determination is made for all five mussel 

species. No further discussion of these species will occur.

III. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS FOR THE UPPER KINZUA PROJECT

Based on the above analysis, the following table (Table 10) displays the determinations reached 

for the species analyzed in this BA.
30

Table 10: Determinations for Federally Endangered and Threatened Species

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Indiana bat „No Effect‟ „May affect, not likely to adversely 

affect‟ Indiana bat, but no effects 

beyond those addressed in the 

Concurrence Letter issued to the 

Allegheny National Forest (1/31/07).

Small Whorled Pogonia „No Effect‟ „No Effect‟

Northeastern bulrush „No Effect‟ „No Effect‟

Mussels - N. Riffleshell,

Clubshell,

Rayed-bean, 

Rabbitsfoot, Sheepnose

„No Effect‟ „No Effect‟

REFERENCES

Literature Cited

Bat Conservation International Inc. 2001. Bats in Eastern Woodlands. Bat Conservation 

International Inc. Austin, Texas. 307 pp.

Brack, V. Jr., C.W. Stihler, R.J. Reynolds, C.M. Butchkowski, and C.S. Hobson. 2002 Effect of 

climate and elevation on distribution and abundance in the mideastern United States. Pp. 21-28 

in A. Kurta and J. Kennedy (eds.) The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered 

species. Bat Conservation International Inc., Austin, Texas.

Burford, L.S., M.J. Lacki, and C.V. Covell, Jr. 1999. Occurrence of moth’s amount habitats in a 

mixed mesophytic forest: implications for management of forest bats. Forest Science. 45(3):323-

332. 

Callahan, E.V., R.D. Drobney, and R.L. Clawson. 1997. Selection of summer roosting sites by 

Indiana bats, Myotis sodalis in Missouri. J. Mamm. 78:818-825.

Clawson, R.L. 1986. An investigation of the summer distribution and status of Indiana bats in 

Missouri. Final Report. Federal Aid Project W-13-R, Fish and Wildlife Res. Cen., Columbia, 

MO. 17 pp.

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

of the Indiana bat Myotis sodalis in Illinois. Trans Illinois State Acad. Sci. 89:187-196.

Kiser, J.D. and C.L. Elliott. 1996. Foraging habitat, food habits, and roost tree characteristics of 

the Indiana bat Myotis sodalis during autumn in Jackson County, Kentucky. Kentucky Dept. of 

Fish and Wildlife Resources, Frankfort, KY. 65 pp.

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. The American Midland 

Naturalist p. 129.
31

LaVal, R.K. and M.L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological studies and management of Missouri bats, with 

emphasis on cave-dwelling species. Missouri Department of Conservation, Terrestrial Seriex. 

8:1-52.

Romme, R., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack, Jr. 1995. Literature summary and habitat suitability Index 

Model: Components of summer habitat for the Indiana bat Myotis sodalis. 3D/Environmental, 

Cincinnati, Ohio.

USDA-FS 2003b. Endangered and Threatened Species Monitoring on the Allegheny National 

Forest. FY 2002. Compliance with the Terms and Conditions in the Biological Opinion. USDA 

Forest Service, Warren, PA.

USDA-FS 2007. Biological Evaluation, Allegheny National Forest. Warren PA

USDA-FS 2007a. Allegheny National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Allegheny 

National Forest. Warren PA.

USDA-FS 2007b. Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land 

and Resource Management Plan. Allegheny National Forest. Warren, PA.

USDA-FS 2007d. Allegheny National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land 

and Resource Management Plan, Appendix (A, B-F, or G). Allegheny National Forest. Warren, 

Pennsylvania.

USDA-FS 2008. Allegheny National Forest White Nose Syndrome Supplemental Information 

Report, Allegheny National Forest. Warren, Pennsylvania.

USDI-FWS 2007. Concurrence letter for the Biological Analysis on the Impacts of Forest 

Management and Other Activities to the Indiana bat, Small-whorled Pogonia, Northeastern 

bulrush, Clubshell and Northern Riffleshell on the ANF. USFWS Project #2007-0214. 20 pp.

USDI-FWS 1999b. Draft Recovery Plan for the Indiana Bat.

Werner, S.M. and K.F. Raffa. 2000. Effects of forest management practices on the diversity of 

ground-dwelling beetles in mixed northern hardwood forests of the Great Lakes Region. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 139:135-155.

Personal Communications

Brent Pence - Fish Biologist, Allegheny National Forest

April Moore – Botanist, Allegheny National Forest

___\S\ Alan Wetzel __ September 30, 2010 _____

Alan Wetzel Date

Bradford Wildlife Biologist