BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED, ENDANGERED, THREATENED, & SENSITIVE 2016 Compartment 52 RCW Thinning Evangeline Unit, Calcasieu Ranger District Kisatchie National Forest Rapides Parish,

Not likely to Likely to adversely Summary: PET species No Effect adversely affect affect Critical Habitat:  None designated on Calcasieu Proposed:  None designated on Calcasieu Endangered:  Red-cockaded woodpecker Threatened  Northern long-eared bat

May impact Likely to individuals but not result in a Summary: Sensitive Species No Beneficial likely to cause a trend toward Impacts Impacts trend toward Federal listing federal listing or a or a loss of loss of viability viability Louisiana pinesnake and Bachman’s sparrow  Rafinesque’s big-eared bat and southeastern myotis  Carolina fluffgrass 

I. Introduction All U.S. Forest Service planned, funded, executed, and or permitted programs and activities require a biological evaluation (BE) and/or a Biological Assessment (BA) as outlined in Forest Service Manual (FSM) Section 2672.41.

This Biological Evaluation addresses the proposed actions in Compartment 52, stands 5, 21, and 36.

A. Objectives The objectives of this biological evaluation (BE) are to:

1. Determine what effects the implementation of the proposed management activities in Compartment 52, stands 5, 11, 21, and 36, of the Calcasieu Ranger District of the Kisatchie National Forest (KNF) may have on Federally proposed, threatened, endangered, and on sensitive (PETS) species and their habitats that may be located within the project areas. A list of these rare species specific to the Kisatchie National Forest can be found in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Kisatchie National Forest (Forest Plan)(August 1999) and Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List Update (Jan. 2002). 2. Provide biological input to insure that the U.S. Forest Service is compliant with the FSM 2670, FSH 2609.23R and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended. 3. Provide management requirements to mitigate any potential negative effects that project implementation may have upon PETS species or their habitats located within the Project Areas. 4. Adhere to the Forest Plan (Forestwide Standards and Guidelines FW-009, Amendment 1) implementation requirement of a site-specific biological evaluation for a project area.

This biological evaluation was prepared in accordance with Forest Service Handbook 2609.23R and regulations set forth in Section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act.

B. Location Compartment 52 is located in Rapides Parish, Louisiana, northwest of the town of Forest Hill.

II. Proposed Management Actions The goal of this project is to encourage occupation of one inactive and one recruitment red- cockaded woodpeckers (RCW) cluster by improving foraging and nesting habitat in the immediate area. Several studies have shown that RCW group size and/or reproduction is negatively affected by dense stands of pines (Hardesty et al. 1997, James et al. 1997, in press, Walters et al. 2000). Foraging habitat for inactive cluster 52-12 and recruitment cluster 52-13 would be thinned from the current basal area of approximately 100 to a basal area of 60-70. Approximately 70 acres would be thinned to desirable stocking levels for RCW’s as a result of the proposed action. This is a temporary fix that needs to be supported by thinning the rest of the foraging area of these clusters during the next entry.

III. Species Considered and Species Evaluated All Forest proposed, endangered, threatened and sensitive species were considered for this project. Species that are included/excluded from analysis for this project, based upon whether they occurred in the action area or were potentially affected by the action, are listed in Table 1, below.

Table 1. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Considered and Included/Excluded from Analysis for 2016 Compartment 52 RCW Thinning Project, Calcasieu District (List derived from Final EIS, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, KNF, 1999, and Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List Update, Jan. 2002, and letter from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service dated September 24, 2009). Considered but USFWS Endangered Occurrence on Considered Habitat Excluded from Species Evangeline Unit in EA/BE Analysis Red-cockaded Open pine forests with Many active cluster Woodpecker large, old trees sites  (Picoides borealis) Considered but USFWS Threatened Occurrence on Considered Habitat Excluded from Species Evangeline Unit in EA/BE Analysis Louisiana Pearlshell Small, clear, shallow streams Mussel Bayou Boeuf drainage 1,2 with moderate current  (Margaritifera hembeli) Northern Long-eared Bat Within “buffered” Mature forests (Myotis septentrionalis) range of species  Earthfruit Saline prairies in mostly bare Not reported but 1,2  (Geocarpon minimum) areas and in sandstone glades remotely possible Considered Occurrence but Global State Rank on Considered USFS Sensitive Species Habitat Excluded Rank (*) (**) Evangeline in EA/BE from Unit Analysis A variety of Outside of Louisiana Fatmucket G4 S? substrates in known 1,2 (Lampsilis hydiana)  flowing water distribution Sand, sand and Outside of Louisiana Pigtoe gravel, or sand and G1G2 S1S2 known 1,2 (Pleurobema riddellii) silt substrate in  distribution flowing water Usually sandy Outside of Sandbank Pocketbook G2 S2 substrate in flowing known 1,2 (Lampsilis satura)  water distribution Predominantly Outside of Southern Creekmussel G3 S1 sandy substrates in known 1,2 (Strophitus subvexus)  flowing water distribution Sand, sand and Outside of Southern Hickorynut gravel, or sand and G2 S1S2 known 1,2 (Obovaria jacksoniana) silt substrate in  distribution flowing water Sand, sand and Outside of Texas Heelsplitter gravel, or sand and G1G2 SH known 1,2 (Potamilus amphichaenus) silt substrate in  distribution flowing water Usually sandy Outside of Texas Pigtoe G2G3 S3 substrate in flowing known 1,2 (Fusconaia askewi)  water distribution Flowing water with Calcasieu Painted Outside of some structure on Crawfish G2 S2 known 1,2 the substrate, such  (Orconectes blacki) distribution as logs or rocks Occurs in Free State Crawfish G3 S3S4 Creeks western 2 (Procambarus kensleyi)  drainages Flowing water with Red River Kisatchie Painted some structure on drainage, Crawfish G2 S2 1,2 the substrate, such extreme  (Orconectes maletae) as logs or rocks north of Unit Ouachita Fencing Ditches and Outside of Crawfish G2 S2 ephemeral forest known 1,2 (Faxonella creaseri) pools distribution Ditches and Outside of Sabine Fencing Crawfish G4 S1S2 ephemeral forest known 1,2 (Faxonella beyeri)  pools distribution Flowing water with Bayou Teche Painted Crawfish some structure on Boeuf and G3 S3 2 (Orconectes hathawayi) the substrate, such Spring as logs or rocks Creek drainages Probably breeds in Texas Emerald seeps along small G2 SNR Occurs 2 (Somatochlora margarita) streams and pitcher  plant bogs Schoolhouse Springs Reported High-quality Leuctran Stonefly G2 S2 from Loving 2 flowing water  (Leuctra szczytkoi) Creek No records; Blue Sucker Flowing water in G3G4 S2S3 no suitable 1,2 (Cycleptus elongatus) larger rivers  habitat Quiet backwaters No records; Bluehead Shiner of small to medium G3 S2 no suitable 1,2 (Pteronotropis hubbsi) sluggish streams  habitat and oxbow lakes Outside of Sabine Shiner Flowing water over G4 S4 known 1,2 (Notropis sabinae) a sandy substrate  distribution Outside of Western Sand Darter Flowing water over G3 S2 known 1,2 (Ammocrypta clara) a sandy substrate  distribution Mesic mixed pine- Louisiana Slimy Outside of hardwood forests, Salamander G3G4Q S1S2 known 1,2 usually on slopes  (Plethodon kisatchie) distribution above drainages Open pine woods Louisiana Pinesnake with very sandy Two old ( ruthveni) G3Q S2S3 soil and pocket records 

gophers Commonly Bachman’s Sparrow Open pine forests encountered (Aimophila aestivalis) G3 S3 with a grassy in  ground layer appropriate

habitat Roost in large hollow trees in Occasionally Rafinesque’s Big-eared riparian areas, encountered Bat G3G4 S3S4 under bridges and in specific  (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) in man-made situations structures like concrete bunkers Roost in large Occasionally hollow trees in encountered riparian areas, in specific Southeastern Myotis G3G4 S4 under bridges and situations; 3 (Myotis austroriparius)  in man-made known large structures like maternity concrete bunkers colonies Bottomland forest, small stream forest, Barbed Rattlesnakeroot hardwood slope No, but G3 S2 1,2 (Prenanthes barbata) forest, mixed possible hardwood-loblolly pine forest Bottomland forest, small stream forest, Bay Starvine hardwood slope Two known G3 S3 2 (Schisandra glabra) forest, mixed occurrences hardwood-loblolly pine forest Broadleaf Barbara's Outside of Buttons G3 S1 Riparian forest known 1,2 (Marshallia trinervia) distribution Carolina Crownbeard G4 S4 Riparian forest One record 2 (Verbesina walteri) Shortleaf pine/ oak- hickory forest, mixed Carolina Fluffgrass One old G3 S2 hardwood/loblolly (Tridens carolinianus) record  forest, western upland forest Outside of Cypress-knee Sedge Baldcypress G3 S3 known 1,2 (Carex decomposita) swamp  distribution Drummond's Yellow-eyed Western hillside Outside of Grass G3 S1 seepage bog, pine known 1,2 (Xyris drummondii) flatwoods distribution Outside of Giant Orchid Western upland G2G3 S2 known 1 (Pteroglossaspis ecristata) longleaf pine forest  distribution Pine flatwoods, Jackson calcareous Outside of Giant Spiral Orchid G3 S? prairie, western known 1 (Spiranthes longilabris)  upland longleaf distribution pine forest Harper's Yellow-eyed Western hillside Outside of Grass G3 S2 seepage bog, pine known 1,2 (Xyris scabrifolia) flatwoods distribution Pine flatwoods, western upland Outside of Incised Groovebur G3 S1 longleaf pine known 1 (Agimonia incisa)  forest, sandy distribution woodland western hillside Outside of Large Beakrush G3 S3 seepage bog, pine known 1,2 (Rhynchospora macra)  flatwoods distribution Riparian forest, Louisiana Bluestar mixed G3 S3 Possible 2 (Amsonia ludoviciana) hardwood/loblolly forest Louisiana Yellow-eyed Western hillside Outside of grass G3G4 S1 seepage bog, pine known 1,2 (Xyris louisianica) flatwoods distribution Mohlenbrock's Umbrella- Outside of sedge G3 S3 Sandy woodland known 1 (Cyperus grayioides) distribution Small stream Outside of Panicled False Indigo G3 S1S2 forest, bayhead known 1,2 (Amorpha paniculata)  seeps distribution Western hillside Outside of Pineland Bogbutton G3 S3 seepage bog, pine known 1,2 (Lachnocaulon digynum)  flatwoods distribution Western hillside Outside of Sabine Coneflower 1,2 G3 S3 seepage bog, known (Rudbeckia scabrifolia)  bayhead swamp distribution Transition zone Scarlet Catchfly from upland No known G3 S2 1 (Silene subciliata) longleaf forest, or occurrence  from sandhill, to small stream forest or bayhead swamp Jackson calcareous prairie, western Slender Gay Feather No known G3 S1 upland longleaf 1 (Liatris tenuis) occurrence  pine forest, sandy woodland Mixed Southern Lady's Slipper hardwood/loblolly One known (Cypripedium G3 S1 forest; bottomland 2 site  kentuckiense) forest; hardwood slope forest Summer Spurge No known G? S1 Sandy woodland 1 (Euphorbia discoidalis) occurrence  Texas Sunnybell No known G3 S2 Sandstone glades 1,2 (Schoenolirion wrightii) occurrence  Western hillside Outside of Yellow Fringeless Orchid G3G4 S3 seepage bog, pine known 1,2 (Platanthera integra)  flatwoods distribution Notes: (*) Global ranks are established by NatureServe (formerly the Association for Biodiversity Information - ABI). Rankings are based on the number of extant populations. G1= critically imperiled globally typically with 5 or fewer occurrences. G2=imperiled globally typically with 6 to 20 occurrences. G3=vulnerable globally typically with 21 to 100 occurrences. G4=uncommon but not rare and usually widespread typically with more than 100 occurrences. G5=demonstrably secure globally. ?=uncertainty in the numeric rank.. Q=taxonomic status in question. (**) State ranks are determined by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program and are based on extant populations occurring within the state borders. S1=critically imperiled in Louisiana with 5 or fewer occurrences. S2= imperiled in Louisiana with 6 to 20 occurrences. S3=vulnerable in Louisiana with 21 to 100 occurrences. S4=apparently secure in Louisiana with many occurrences. S5=demonstrably secure in Louisiana. S?=unranked. SH=historically occurred in the state. SX=extirpated from the state. SR=reported from the state. W=watch-list. “B” or “N” after a numeric rank indicates whether the rank refers to a breeding or non-breeding population. 1 Project areas are not within the species’ range in Louisiana. 2 Project areas are not appropriate or potentially appropriate habitat for the species.

IV. Evaluated Species Survey Information I considered PETS occurrence data from the Forest Service and Louisiana Natural Heritage Program along with the amount and distribution of potential suitable habitat (FW-009). Past surveys have recorded species occurrence and are displayed in Table 1. The Calcasieu District office keeps current records of locations of known proposed, threatened and endangered species for the district. Annual district-wide surveys of RCW clusters also include noting the presence of Bachman’s sparrows (a Forest sensitive species) and pocket gopher (Geomys breviceps) mounds (as an indicator of the potential presence of the Louisiana pine —a Forest sensitive species). This was last done during spring of 2016. In addition, gopher mound locations are documented immediately after prescribed burns and wildfires when the mounds are more visible.

USDA Forest Service, and Louisiana Natural Heritage Program botanists have surveyed the district extensively for rare plants and will continue to maintain a baseline for sensitive plant occurrences.

There is some suitable habitat for the Louisiana pine snake in the project area and pocket gopher burrows have been documented within a half mile of the area. There are no recorded sightings of the Louisiana pine snake in the project area but the type locality for the species, which dates from 1924, is approximately four miles to the south.

Bachman’s sparrows have been documented in the nearby active RCW clusters.

Of the upland pine sensitive plant species, Carolina fluffgrass is the only one remotely possibly occurring on the Evangeline unit and they have not been found in Compartment 52.

I assessed the need to conduct site-specific inventories of PETS species for this project using direction in the Forest Service Manual Supplement R8-2600-2002-2. Based on this assessment, I concluded that no additional surveys for PETS species were necessary to analyze and disclose effects, and to provide protection adequate for maintaining viability of PETS species that may occur on the District. For those species not already covered by inventories for the affected areas, either the proposed action would have beneficial effects or more information on the number and location of individuals would not improve the project design or reduce effects.

V. Environmental Baseline for the Species Evaluated in this BE Compartment 52 is located within Sub-Management Area 6BL and LTA1, which emphasizes managing red-cockaded woodpecker habitat (RCW) and producing high quality wildlife habitats created within an open, frequently burned landscape (Forest Plan, page 3-20). The project area is upland pine and pine hardwood. Status and threats for the evaluated species are in Table 1.

VI. Effects of Proposed Actions on Each Species Evaluated

Endangered species

Red-cockaded woodpeckers are non-migratory that once occurred throughout the southeast and into eastern Texas. The species is associated with the longleaf pine community and its fire-dependent ecosystem, but it also utilizes other pine types of the South out of necessity. The RCW is the only woodpecker that excavates cavities in living pine trees and it prefers areas with little midstory vegetation. When hardwood midstory reaches cavity level, a high rate of cavity abandonment occurs. Suitable nesting habitat consists of open stands with large, old pines (usually 80-100 years old) and suitable foraging habitat consists of open pine stands with trees 10 inches in diameter and larger at breast height (FEIS RCW).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence is provided for thinning operations designed to reduce pine stocking to levels more similar to historic longleaf pine conditions, as detailed in the Revised RCW Recovery Plan (pp. 188-189).

Thinning will promote the open “park-like” setting favored by RCW. The proposed action will encourage rapid growth of released trees and stimulate the growth of the herbaceous understory associated with the longleaf ecosystem, by allowing more sunlight to reach the forest floor. The proposed project will increase foraging and nesting habitat quality through basal area reduction while encouraging population stabilization and expansion, thereby meeting the goals of the Revised RCW Recovery Plan.

Threatened species

No Northern Long-eared Bat occurrences are known from the Calcasieu District; the closest known occurrences are in Grant Parish. In Louisiana, these bats have been found to use bridges and pine trees for roosting. The thinning proposed could remove roost trees or kill juvenile NLEBs if done during the species pup-rearing season. The Stressor-Exposure-Response Pathways for Timber Harvest from section 4.2.2 of the USFWS Biological Opinion on Activities Affecting the Northern Long-Eared Bat on Southern Region National Forests that apply to this project include pathways 2-6.

Sensitive species

Louisiana pine are semi-fossorial and are almost always found in upland pine forests with deep sandy soils. Rudolph and Burgdorf (1997) describe habitat as pine overstory with moderate to sparse midstory and a well-developed herbaceous understory dominated by grasses. These snakes are known to inhabit areas where the pocket gopher (Geomys breviceps) is found, utilizing the burrows as refugia and feeding areas. The proposed actions will have beneficial effects for the pine snake by increasing herbaceous plant development that provides additional foraging for pocket gophers. Individual snakes could possibly be run over and killed by the thinning equipment; however, due to the pine snake’s semi-fossorial nature and its mobility, this is unlikely.

Bachman’s sparrow is a ground-nesting, herb-gleaning insectivore granivore, inhabiting open pinewoods where grasses dominate the herbaceous layer (Hamel 1992). Habitat for Bachman's sparrow consists of open pine stands with grasses and scattered shrubs in the understory. Habitat requirements include dense herbaceous cover with, or bordered by, shrubs and trees, and the sparrows nest and forage on the ground, needing thick ground cover. Bachman’s sparrow habitat is similar to that of the RCW (open Longleaf pine stands) except that it requires grasses and scattered shrubs to nest in, a dense herbaceous plant ground cover or as an edge component. The proposed project will create more nesting and foraging opportunities through the development of additional herbaceous ground cover as a result of the thinning. However, Bachman’s sparrows are ground nesters and nests could potentially be destroyed, depending on when the project is implemented.

The thinning would open up and thus improve the habitat somewhat for foraging by southeastern myotis and Rafinesque’s big-eared bats. No bridges that could be used for roosting would be affected by any of the proposed activities and any large hollow trees usable for roosting are more likely to occur in the riparian areas where the proposed activities would not occur.

Carolina fluffgrass is commonly found on dry uplands and side slopes. Thinning will benefit this species by opening the canopy, reducing midstory, and removing underbrush because this stimulates and encourages growth of understory grasses and forbs by allowing more sunlight to the forest floor. Individual plants could be run over and destroyed by the thinning equipment.

VII. Determinations of Effect & Rationale

Endangered species

The proposed management activities will have “completely beneficial effects” on the red- cockaded woodpecker and its recovery by increasing foraging and nesting habitat quality on approximately 70 acres for two RCW clusters.

Therefore, under the Endangered Species Act, as amended, the Final EIS for the Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on National Forests in the Southern Region, June, 1995 (RCW EIS), and the Final EIS Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kisatchie National Forest, 1999 (KNF LRMP), I have determined that the proposed project is “not likely to adversely affect” the red-cockaded woodpecker.

Threatened species

This project is likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat; however, there are no effects beyond those previously disclosed in the programmatic BO dated August 5, 2015 (FWS Log #04E00000-2015-F-0003). Any taking that may occur incidental to this project is excepted from the prohibitions for taking threatened species under 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32. This project is consistent with the forest plan, the description of the proposed action in the programmatic BO, and activities excepted from taking prohibitions under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 4(d) rule applicable to the NLEB; therefore, the programmatic BO satisfies the USFS's responsibilities under ESA section 7(a)(2) relative to the NLEB for this project. The USFS-KNF will monitor and report this acreage, combined with additional applicable acreages affected by other proposed projects across the KNF in the same calendar year, in accordance with Section 7.5 and Tables 7.1 and 7.2 of the programmatic BO.

Sensitive Species

Because the thinning will improve the habitat for the pocket gopher (and, hence, the Louisiana pine snake) as well as for the Bachman’s sparrow, I have determined that the proposed project “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability” for the Louisiana pine snake and Bachman’s sparrow.

The southeastern myotis and Rafinesque’s big-eared bat may be in the project area but the thinning would not affect their potential roost sites and would somewhat improve their foraging habitat. Therefore, the proposed project will have “beneficial impacts” on these bats.

Because the proposed project will have beneficial effects on the upland pine plant sensitive species by improving potential habitat, I have determined that the proposed project “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability” for Carolina fluffgrass.

VIII. Mitigation

No harvesting activities will occur within the cluster during the general nesting season of March 1-July 31, unless the specific RCW populations nesting season is determined through monitoring to be different (KNF, Guideline). Thinning will begin no earlier than one-half hour after sunrise and will end one-half hour before sunset. IX. Signature of Preparer

/s/ Steve Shively 6-21-16 ______Steve Shively Date Wildlife Biologist Calcasieu Ranger District Kisatchie National Forest

X. References and Data Sources

Allen, Charles M., Dawn Allen Newman, and Harry Winters. 2004. Grasses of Louisiana. Third edition. Allen’s Native Ventures LLC. Pitkin, LA. Boundy, J. J. 1997. Snakes of Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA. Conner, R. N., D. C. Rudolph, and J. R. Walters. 2001. The red-cockaded woodpecker: surviving in a fire-maintained ecosystem. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX. Correll, Donovan Stewart, and Marshall Conring Johnston. 1979. Manual of the vascular plants of Texas. Second Printing. University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX. Dundee, H. A. and D. A. Rossman. 1989. The and of Louisiana. Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge, LA. Forest Health Recommendations for Treatment of Bark Beetle Infested Timber Within Red- cockaded Woodpecker Sites on Kisatchie National Forest, October 2005. Ghandhi, Kancheppuram N., and R. Dale Thomas. 1989. Asteraceae of Louisiana. Botanical Research Institute of Texas. Sida Botanical Miscellany No. 4. Fort Worth, TX. Hamel, P. B. 1992. The land manager's guide to the birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. Kisatchie National Forest TESC Species List, January 2002. Larke, Julia O., and Latimore M. Smith. 1994. Rare plants of pine-hardwood forests in Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Natural Heritage Program. Baton Rouge, LA. Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA. Radford, Albert E., Harry E. Ahles, and C. Ritchie Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. Rudolph, D. C. and S. J. Burgdorf, 1997. Timber rattlesnakes and Louisiana pine snakes of the west gulf coastal plain: hypotheses of decline. Texas J. Sci., 49(3) Supplement: 111-122. Sibley, D. A. 2000. National Audubon Society the Sibley guide to birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York. SPB and Other Bark Beetle Suppression, Environmental Assessment, Kisatchie National Forest, May 2005. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the management of the red-cockaded woodpecker and its habitat on national forests in the Southern Region. Volumes I and II. USDA Forest Service Management Bulletin R8-MB73. USDA Forest Service. 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Revised Land and Resource Management Plan of the Kisatchie National Forest, August 1999. USDA, NRCS. 2005. The Plants Database, Version 3.5 (http://plants.usda.gov). Data compiled from various sources by Mark W. Skinner, National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. Reports on Dichanthelim strigosum, Spiranthes longilabris, Pteroglossaspis ecristata and Xyris stricta accessed on 18 October 2005. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 pp. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Biological Opinion: Activities Affecting the Northern Long-eared Bat on Southern Region National Forests. FWS Log #04E00000-2015-F- 0003.