**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

**on the**

**APPLICATION FOR AN INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT FOR THE FEDERALLY ENDANGERED
INDIANA BAT (*Myotis sodalis*) FOR THE SIX POINTS ROAD INTERCHANGE AND
ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT**

**HENDRICKS AND MARION COUNTIES, INDIANA**

Prepared by:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Bloomington Field Office

620 S. Walker Street

Bloomington, IN 47403

\(812\) 334-4261

March xx, 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

**INTRODUCTION 3**

**CONSULTATION HISTORY 4**

**BIOLOGICAL OPINION 6**

**DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 6**

**Conservation Measures 7**

**STATUS OF THE SPECIES 8**

**Description and Distribution 9**

**Life History 10**

**ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 12**

**The Indiana Bat in the Action Area 13**

**EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 17**

**Effects on Foraging Habitat 18**

**Effects on Roosting Habitat 18**

**Effects on Habitat Quality 19**

**Effects of Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation**

**Measures 20**

**CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 22**

**CONCLUSION 23**

**INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 24**

**AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE 24**

**EFFECT OF THE TAKE 25**

**REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES 25**

**TERMS AND CONDITIONS 25**

**CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 27**

**REINITIATION NOTICE 27**

**LITERATURE CITED 28**

**APPENDIX I 31**

**INTRODUCTION**

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\'s (Service)
biological opinion based on our review of the [Habitat Conservation Plan
for the Six Points Road Interchange and Associated
Development]{.underline} (hereafter referred to as the HCP). The HCP was
submitted by an Interagency Task Force, which includes the Indianapolis
Airport Authority (IAA); Indianapolis Department of Public Works;
Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development; the Hendricks
County Board of County Commissioners; the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA); and the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) (hereafter
collectively referred to as the applicants), and its effects on the
Federally endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*). The HCP was
submitted by the applicants as part of their application for a permit
for incidental take of Indiana bats that will be associated with the
construction of road improvements and associated development in the
vicinity of the Indianapolis International Airport (IIA). This
biological opinion is prepared in accordance with section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).

This biological opinion is the culmination of formal section 7
consultation under the Act. The purpose of formal section 7 consultation
is to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the
Federal government is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat of such species. This biological
opinion covers the actions of two federal agencies as related to this
project: 1) FHWA, as this agency will fund, in part, the road
construction associated with this project; and 2) the Service, as the
agency which will issue the incidental take permit.

Road construction that will occur as part of the proposed project will
require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). However,
the COE permit will not result in any impacts to Indiana bats beyond
those addressed in this consultation with the FHWA. The Service will
provide a copy of this biological opinion to the COE to demonstrate that
the FHWA has fulfilled obligations to consult with the Service.

The HCP applicants chose to address the impacts of the road
construction, as well as commercial development and airport improvements
that will occur in the area following the road construction. However,
even though the HCP participants chose to address the road construction
impacts, the FHWA is required to fulfill section 7 consultation
requirements for this project. Therefore, this biological opinion will
address the adequacy of the HCP in fulfilling the section 7 consultation
requirements of the FHWA. In addition, this biological opinion evaluates
the Service=s issuance of an incidental take permit pursuant to section
10 of the Act, as the issuance of this permit is also a federal action
requiring consultation under section 7 of the Act.

This biological opinion is based on information from the following
sources:

1\) the applicants= HCP (American Consulting, Inc. 2001, 2002) (draft
dated September 19, 2001 and received by the Service on September 28,
2001 and final dated March xx, 2002, respectively);

2\) the [Draft Environmental Assessment for Issuance of an Endangered
Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permit for the Indiana
Bat (*Myotis sodalis*) to the Interagency Task Force Proposing the Six
Points Road Interchange and Related Development]{.underline} (USFWS
2001[a]{.underline});

3\) reports on Indiana bat research conducted in the action area (3D
Environmental Services Inc. 1994; 3D Environmental Services Inc. 1995;
3D Environmental Services Inc. 1996; American Consulting Engineers, Inc.
1998; American Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1999; American Consulting,
Inc. 2000); and

4\) meetings, phone calls, and written correspondence with the
applicants and their consultants. Field investigations were also
conducted by personnel from the Service=s Bloomington, Indiana Field
Office (BFO). A complete administrative record of this consultation is
on file at BFO.

**CONSULTATION HISTORY**

Consultation with the Service on Indiana bats in the vicinity of the IIA
began on April 24, 1991 when the Service attended an Environmental
Scoping Meeting and advised the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
that planned construction of new runways, terminals, roads, and
buildings associated with the expansion of the IIA would potentially
adversely affect the Indiana bat. The Service requested that a
biological assessment for the Indiana bat be prepared as part of the
[Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Master Plan Development
Actions at the IIA]{.underline}. As a result of this process, it was
determined that formal consultation for the project would be required.
On February 27, 1992, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued COE Public
Notice 199200165. That notice announced application for a Clean Water
Act Section 404 Permit for IIA for the purpose of a wetland fill to
facilitate the construction of new runways, terminals, roads and
buildings associated with the expansion of the IIA. On March 3, 1992,
the Service issued the [Biological Opinion on Master Plan Development
Actions at the Indianapolis International Airport]{.underline} and
accompanying incidental take statement for the anticipated take of
Indiana bats as the result of the loss of foraging and roosting habitat
associated with IIA expansion activities.

Under the terms of the incidental take statement, the FAA was required
to implement measures to avoid and minimize impacts to Indiana bats to
the extent possible. They also implemented an Indiana bat monitoring
program in and adjacent to the project area. As a result of these
efforts, extensive research was conducted on Indiana bats in the action
area during the summers of 1994 through 1999.

In October 1995 the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Indiana Department of Transportation, and Indianapolis
Department of Capital Asset Management issued the [Environmental
Assessment Six Points Road Interchange, Hendricks and Marion Counties,
Indiana, Project No. DEM-070-3(196)68, DES. NO. 9500900]{.underline}
(American Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1995). This document detailed plans
for two new interchanges on Interstate-70 as well as additional highway
construction. The purpose of the proposed highway improvements was to
improve access and facilitate development in the vicinity of the IIA.
The Environmental Assessment acknowledged that the proposed project
would have adverse impacts on Indiana bats, and that consultation with
the Service under section 7 of the Act would be conducted.

As discussions on the consultation proceeded, it became apparent that
indirect effects to be addressed within the consultation extended well
beyond the footprint of the highway construction. A stated objective of
the proposed highway improvements is to facilitate commercial
development and to allow for expansion and improvements at the IIA. Much
of this development is to occur in habitat known to be occupied by the
Indiana bat. Therefore, the indirect effects of this associated
development, in addition to the direct effects of highway construction,
must be addressed within the project=s section 7 formal consultation.
The Interagency Task Force that is proposing the project began a series
of meetings with the Service in 1995 to discuss options for addressing
impacts of the project on Indiana bats. After evaluating their options,
the task force chose to develop an HCP for the project area which
addresses both the impacts caused by road construction, as well as the
impacts associated with the commercial development and airport
expansion/improvements that will be facilitated by the highway
improvements.

On March 9, 2000, a meeting was held at BFO to initiate the HCP. At that
meeting, consultants from American Consulting Engineers, Inc. (ACE)
submitted a [Summary of the Preliminary Habitat Conservation Plan for
the Six Points Road Interchange]{.underline} on behalf of the task
force. The Service provided input at the meeting, and detailed comments
on the document in a letter on April 3, 2000. On April 7, 2000, the
Service received a [Preliminary Draft Habitat Conservation Plan: Six
Points Road Interchange]{.underline} from ACE. (Note that ACE prepared
and sent this document prior to receiving the Service=s letter dated
April 3. Therefore, ACE did not have the benefit of the comments in the
letter in preparing their preliminary draft HCP). The Service provided
summary comments on the preliminary draft HCP in an e-mail on April 25
followed by a letter with detailed comments on May 1. On May 8, 2000, a
meeting was held at BFO to discuss the preliminary draft HCP. Questions
related to the draft were discussed and ACE indicated that they would
provide a revised draft. Information that ACE needed from the Service in
order to proceed with the draft was identified at the meeting; this
information was provided by e-mail the following day. A field inspection
of the site was completed by three BFO biologists on June 21 and
comments provided to ACE on June 28. The revised draft was received on
November 3. Comments on three major issues were provided by the Service
in a letter dated November 16, and comprehensive comments were provided
in a second later dated December 7, 2000. In January and February 2001
there was extensive coordination (which included phone calls, meetings,
correspondence, and a field inspection) between ACE and the Service to
evaluate specific mitigation options to be incorporated into the HCP. On
February 1, 2001, the Service received the [Draft Habitat Conservation
Plan for the Six Points Road Interchange and Associated
Development]{.underline}. Service comments on this draft were provided
on February 26, 2001, and a revised draft was received by the Service on
April 30, 2001. Comments and coordination on this draft were through a
series of e-mails and phone calls between May 5 and May 18, 2001.

The final draft HCP (dated September 19, 2001) and application for an
incidental take permit was submitted to BFO on September 28, 2001. The
Service completed the [Draft Environmental Assessment for Issuance of an
Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permit for
the Indiana Bat (*Myotis sodalis*) to the Interagency Task Force
Proposing the Six Points Road Interchange and Related
Development]{.underline} (USFWS 2001[a]{.underline}) in November 2001;
this document is hereafter referred to as the EA. A [Federal
Register]{.underline} notice titled [Notice of Availability of a Draft
Environmental Assessment and Habitat Conservation Plan and Receipt of an
Application for an Incidental Take Permit From the Interagency Task
Force Proposing the Six Points road Interchange and Related Development
in Marion and Hendricks Counties, IN]{.underline} (USFWS
2001[b]{.underline}) was published on November 20, 2001 with a 60-day
comment period. A notice of comment period extension (USFWS 2002) was
published in the [Federal Register]{.underline} on February 6, 2002 and
extended the comment period until March 8, 2002. The comment period was
extended to be certain that the public had ample opportunity to provide
comments in light of the department-wide prohibition on the use of
electronic mail and the Internet. The notices solicited public comments
on the EA, HCP and permit application. One comment letter was received
and the comments are addressed in the final Environmental Assessment.

**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

**DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION**

There are two Federal actions being evaluated in this biological
opinion. First, is the preferred alternative in the Service=s EA (USFWS
2001[a]{.underline}), which is to issue a section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental
Take Permit for the incidental take of Indiana bats. Second, is the
FHWA=s proposal to construct a new highway interchange and associated
highway improvements in the vicinity of the IIA; these actions will
facilitate additional development in the area. The proposed project is
described in detail in the applicants= HCP (American Consulting, Inc.
2001). A summary of the action as described in the HCP follows.

An Interagency Task Force composed of the Federal Highway
Administration, the Indiana Department of Transportation, the
Indianapolis Airport Authority, the Indianapolis Department of Public
Works, the Indianapolis Department of Metropolitan Development, and the
Hendricks County Board of County Commissioners proposes to construct a
new interchange on Interstate 70 (I‑70) and associated highway
improvements in the vicinity of Six Points Road in Hendricks and Marion
Counties, Indiana. Additional development will occur in the area in
association with the road construction. Associated development
includes: 1) expansion and improvements at the Indianapolis
International Airport; and 2) commercial and industrial development
within the privately owned AmeriPlex area south of I‑70. It has been
determined through surveys that a colony of federally endangered Indiana
bats summers in the project area. (The Indiana bat is a migratory
species which hibernates in caves during winter and then migrates to
summer range). The Biological Assessment conducted by the applicants
(American Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1996) concluded that the proposed
actions will result in incidental take of the Indiana bat; the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service concurred with this finding. Therefore, the Task
Force has voluntarily submitted an application for a permit for
incidental take as a means of complying with the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended. The submission of the ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B)
Incidental Take Permit application requires the development of a Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) by the applicants which details the measures
which will be taken to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to Indiana
bats.

The total area included in the HCP boundary is approximately 1,448
hectares (ha) in the general area bordered by Stafford Road on the
north, Bridgeport Road and Flynn Road on the east, the Section Line west
of Six Points Road on the west, and the County Road 650 South/Flynn Road
extension on the south. In addition, a northeastern arm of the HCP
boundary extends parallel to I-70; this area is required for the new IIA
Mid-Field Terminal Interchange and associated development. Within the
HCP boundary, 247 ha (17%) are classified as bat habitat; these are
primarily forested areas, wooded pasture, or open areas with scattered
trees. As a result of the proposed project, it is anticipated that 139
ha of this habitat will be destroyed. Detailed mapping of the HCP
boundary and bat habitat within the boundary are included in Figure 12.2
of the HCP.

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

The following Conservation Measures have been incorporated into the HCP;
these measures are designed specifically to avoid and minimize impacts
of the proposed action on Indiana bats. The Service has analyzed the
effects of the proposed action based on the assumption that all
Conservation Measures will be implemented. More detailed descriptions of
conservation measures are provided in the HCP.

1\. Seasonal Tree Cutting Restrictions

No trees will be cleared between April 15 and September 15, the dates
during which concentrations of Indiana bats occupy maternity roosts in
the project area.

2\. Mitigation Plantings

Measures to provide permanent replacement of Indiana bat habitat will
include planting 140 ha of hardwood seedlings within the known roosting
and foraging range of the Indiana bat colony. All plantings will be
monitored for five years and corrective measures will be taken if the
plantings do not meet survival and species composition goals. There will
be no manipulation of vegetation in these areas without consultation
with the Service=s BFO. Planting areas will have a deed restriction
attached to the land title to preserve the planted habitat in
perpetuity. Proposed planting areas are mapped in Figure 12.1 of the
HCP.

3\. Permanent Protection of Existing Indiana Bat Habitat within the HCP
Boundary

Approximately 71.2 ha of existing bat habitat and 8.8 ha which buffer
existing habitat that is owned by the IAA will be protected in
perpetuity within the HCP boundary. There will be no manipulation of
vegetation in these areas without consultation with the Service=s BFO.
Areas to be permanently protected are mapped in Figure 12.2 of the HCP.

4\. Permanent Protection of Existing Indiana Bat Habitat Outside the HCP
Boundary.

Approximately 80 ha of existing bat habitat that is owned by the IAA
will be protected in perpetuity outside the HCP boundary. All parcels to
be permanently protected are within the range of the Indiana bat
maternity colony that will be affected by the proposed project. Emphasis
will be on protecting parcels along the East Fork of White Lick and
corridors which will improve the connectivity of existing habitat
patches to the creek corridor. There will be no manipulation of
vegetation in these areas without consultation with the Service=s BFO.
Areas to be permanently protected are mapped in Figure12.1 of the HCP.

5\. Purchase Additional Existing Indiana Bat Habitat

The applicants agree to purchase and permanently protect additional
Indiana bat habitat within the range of the colony; expenditures for
these lands will range from \$475,000 to \$500,000. Location and
suitability of this additional acreage as Indiana bat habitat will be
approved by the Service. There will be no manipulation of vegetation in
these areas without consultation with the Service=s BFO.

6\. Establish Buffers Around Protected Areas

Where possible and appropriate, buffers approximately 50 feet wide will
be established around any existing woodlot or mitigation planting areas,
which will be maintained in perpetuity. Buffers will be established
around lands protected as Indiana bat habitat when those buffer areas
are on land owned by the IAA.

7\. Training of Project Personnel

Project personnel, including engineering supervisors and equipment
operators, will be instructed about the terms of the HCP and the
restrictions imposed by it before construction begins.

8\. Public Outreach on Indiana Bats

The applicants have agreed to work with the Service=s BFO to develop and
implement an outreach program to educate the public regarding the
Indiana bat.

9\. Monitoring and Research Program.

The purpose of the monitoring plan proposed in the HCP is: 1) to assess
the effectiveness of mitigation efforts over time; 2) to provide for
adaptive management (i.e., determine the need for adjustments to
management of the Indiana bat habitat); and 3) to collect valuable
scientific data that will contribute to the recovery of the Indiana bat.
The proposed Indiana bat monitoring plan includes an extensive mist
netting survey. Mist net surveys to determine the presence of Indiana
bats will be conducted annually for the duration of the HCP, beginning
with the first summer following the start of construction. It is assumed
construction will begin in 2002 under the current project time line.
Therefore, mist netting is anticipated to occur annually from 2002
through 2016 (or for a total period of 15 years). Some of the Indiana
bats captured during the mist netting surveys will be fitted with radio
transmitters. Telemetry data will be used to document the location of
roost trees and the foraging range of the colony. Emergence (dusk)
counts will be conducted at each known primary maternity roost tree
during the period when bats are present during the summer maternity
roosting season.

**STATUS OF THE SPECIES**

This section is a discussion of the Indiana bat. It includes information
on the species= life history, its habitat and distribution, and past
human and natural factors that have led to the current status of the
species.

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

Thirteen winter hibernacula (11 caves and two mines) in six states were
designated as Critical Habitat for the Indiana bat in 1976 (Federal
Register, Volume 41, No. 187). In Indiana, two winter hibernacula were
Designated Critical Habitat, including Big Wyandotte Cave in Crawford
County and Ray=s Cave in Greene County. Neither of these caves are in
the vicinity of the current proposed project; the closest, Ray=s Cave,
is more than 100 kilometers (km) from the project area.

Based on censuses taken at hibernacula, the total known Indiana bat
population is estimated to number about 353,000 bats (based on 1997
survey). The most severe declines in wintering populations have occurred
in two states: Kentucky, where 180,000 bats were lost between 1960 and
1997, and Missouri, where 276,000 Indiana bats were lost between 1980
and 1997. In Indiana populations dropped by 50,000 between the earliest
censuses and 1980, but have rebounded to former levels in recent years.
Currently, over half of all the hibernating Indiana bats in existence
(approximately 182,500) winter in Indiana.

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

Despite the protection of most major hibernacula, population declines
have continued. Continued population declines of Indiana bats, in spite
of efforts to protect hibernacula, have led scientists to the conclusion
that additional information on summer habitat is needed (Romme et al.
1995). In addition to increased focus on summer habitat, attention is
also being directed to pesticide contamination. Insecticides have been
known or suspected as the cause of a number of bat die-offs in North
America, including endangered gray bats in Missouri (Clark et al. 1978).
The insect diet and longevity of bats also exposes them to persistent
organochlorine chemicals which may bioaccumulate in bat tissue and cause
sub-lethal effects such as impaired reproduction.

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

The Indiana bat is a medium-sized bat with a head and body length that
ranges from 41 to 49 mm. There are no recognized subspecies. The species
range includes much of the eastern half of the United States, from
Oklahoma, Iowa, and Wisconsin east to Vermont, and south to northwestern
Florida. The Indiana bat is migratory, and the above described range
includes both winter and summer habitat. The winter range is associated
with regions of well-developed limestone caverns. Major populations of
this species hibernate in Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri. Smaller
winter populations have been reported from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. More
than 85% of the entire known population of Indiana bats hibernates in
only nine caves.

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

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

After hibernation ends in late March or early April, most Indiana bats
migrate to summer roosts. Female Indiana bats emerge from hibernation in
late March or early April, followed by the males. The period after
hibernation but prior to migration is typically referred to as staging.
Most populations leave their hibernacula by late April. Migration is
stressful for the Indiana bat, particularly in the spring when their fat
reserves and food supplies are low. As a result, adult mortality may be
the highest in late March and April.

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

Maternity colonies, which may be occupied from mid-April to
mid-September, usually contain 100 or fewer adult female bats. Females
each give birth to a single young between mid June and early July. Young
Indiana bats are capable of flight within a month of birth. They spend
the latter part of the summer foraging to accumulate fat reserves for
the fall migration and hibernation. Maternity colonies occupy roost
sites in trees in forested riparian, floodplain, or upland habitats
(Romme et al. 1995).

Female Indiana bats exhibit strong site fidelity to summer roosting and
foraging areas, that is, they return to the same summer range annually
to bear their young. Traditional summer sites are essential to the
reproductive success of local populations. It is not known how long or
how far female Indiana bats will search to find new roosting habitat if
their traditional roost habitat is lost or degraded. If they are
required to search for new roosting habitat, it is assumed that this
effort places additional stress on pregnant females at a time when fat
reserves are low or depleted and they are already stressed from the
energy demands of migration and pregnancy.

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

In Illinois, Gardner et al. (1991[b]{.underline}) found that forested
stream corridors, and impounded bodies of water, were preferred foraging
habitats for pregnant and lactating Indiana bats, which flew up to 2.4
km from upland roosts to forage. Females typically utilize larger
foraging ranges than males (Garner and Gardner 1992). Bats forage at a
height of approximately 2-30 meters under riparian and floodplain trees
(Humphrey et al. 1977). They forage between dusk and dawn and feed
exclusively on flying insects, primarily moths, beetles, and aquatic
insects. Romme et al. (1995) cited several studies which document that
Indiana bats also forage in upland forests, as well as along the edges
of agricultural field adjacent to forests.

After the summer maternity period, Indiana bats migrate back to
traditional winter hibernacula. Some male bats may begin to arrive at
hibernacula as early as July. Females typically arrive later and by
September numbers of males and females are almost equal. Autumn
Aswarming@ occurs prior to hibernation. During swarming, bats fly in and
out of cave entrances from dusk to dawn, while relatively few roost in
the caves during the day. By late September many females have entered
hibernation, but males may continue swarming well into October in what
is believed to be an attempt to breed with late arriving females.
Swarming is important to the life history of the bat as most copulation
occurs during this time. Females store sperm through the winter and
fertilization occurs in the spring. Females are pregnant when they
arrive at the maternity roost. Fecundity is low; female Indiana bats
produce only one young per year.

**ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE**

This section is an analysis of the past effects of State, tribal, local
and private actions already affecting the species within the action area
and the present effects within the action area that will occur
contemporaneously with the consultation in progress. It includes a
description of the status of the species and its critical habitat within
the action area.

The natural environment of the action area is summarized below.
Additional information is available in the [Environmental Assessment for
the Six Points Road Interchange]{.underline} (American Consulting
Engineers, Inc. 1995).

The action area is within the Tipton Till Plain Section of the Central
Till Plain Natural Region of Indiana (Homoya et al. 1985). This section
is characterized by a mostly undissected plain which was formerly
covered by an extensive beech-maple-oak forest. The soils are typically
poorly drained silt and silty clay loams. Tree species typical of this
section include red maple (*Acer rubrum*), pin oak (*Quercus
palustris*), bur oak (*Q. macrocarpa*), swamp white oak (*Q. bicolor*),
Shumard=s oak (*Q. shumardii*), American elm, and green ash. On better
drained sites beech (*Fagus grandifolia*), sugar maple, black maple (*A.
nigrum*), white oak, northern red oak, shagbark hickory, tulip poplar
(*Lireodendron tulipifera*), slippery elm, basswood (*Tilia americana*)
and white ash are also considered characteristic (Homoya et al. 1985).

The native flatwoods community in this section is now largely confined
to scattered woodlots; the majority of the area has been converted to
agricultural land uses. In the project area, agriculture, expansion of
the IIA, and residential and commercial development in the vicinity of
the IIA have resulted in extensive clearing and construction. Current
land uses in the project area, based on the [Environmental Assessment
for the Six Points Road Interchange]{.underline} (American Consulting
Engineers, Inc. 1995), include: agricultural crop production 37.7%;
highway right-of-way (dominated by fescue) 26.6%; forest (9.0%);
residential (7.9%); commercial (7.4%); pasture (3.7%); and industrial
(3.5%).

Land use patterns are similar in areas surrounding the project area.
Agriculture is the dominant land use. In addition, conversion of land to
commercial and residential development is widespread. Forest cover is
limited. According to forest inventory data, Marion County is less than
1% forested and Hendricks County is approximately 7% forested (Smith and
Golitz 1986).

The East Fork of White Lick Creek and its tributaries provide drainage
for the western two-thirds of the project area. The eastern portion of
the project area is drained by tributaries of the West Fork of the White
River, which does not cross the project area. Vegetation adjacent to
these streams and tributaries includes row crops, pasture, old fields,
and patches of riparian forest. Within the project area, the highest
quality wildlife habitat is associated with stream corridors and
associated strips and small blocks of riparian forests. In addition to
riparian forest vegetation, isolated woodlots also occur within the
project area. In addition, some grassy and brushy areas with widely
scattered mature trees provide limited wildlife habitat.

A biological community assessment of the East Fork of White Lick Creek
was conducted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(IDEM) in July of 1997. This study established baseline conditions for
the EFWLC within the limits of the proposed construction; results are
detailed in IDEM=s report (IDEM 1997). The Index of Biotic Integrity
class for the sites in the project area was Agood.@ This class indicated
that species richness is somewhat below expectation, especially due to
the loss of the most intolerant forms; some species are present with
less than optimal abundance or size distributions; and trophic
structures show some signs of stress. Water quality parameters for the
sample sites were within the expected range. Vegetation adjacent to the
stream within the project area includes pasture, old field with
scattered large trees, and patches of floodplain forest.

Tributaries to the East Fork of White Lick Creek in the project area
include Center Creek, Middle Creek, North Creek, South Branch, Luck
Creek, Guilford Branch, and Flynn Creek. All of these are classified as
intermittent streams. Biotic community and water quality assessment of
some of these streams is ongoing.

**[The Indiana Bat in the Action Area]{.underline}**

As noted within in the **[CONSULTATION HISTORY]{.underline}** section of
this document, previous construction in the project area that was
associated with expansion and improvements at the IIA was subject to
consultation under section 7 of the Act. Under the terms of the
biological opinion and incidental take statement issued in December of
1992 (and subsequent amendments), the FAA was required to implement
measures to avoid and minimize take of Indiana bats, including: 1) the
development of a Sustained Mitigation Area where hardwood seedlings were
planted and permanently protected to improve Indiana bat habitat
adjacent to the project area in the long-term; and 2) parcels of
existing Indiana bat habitat both within and adjacent to the project
area, were set aside for protection in perpetuity or for interim
protection through 2010. Both the planting areas and the protected
parcels of existing bat habitat will be considered part of baseline
conditions for the current project. In addition to habitat protection,
the FAA also implemented extensive Indiana bat monitoring in the action
area. Detailed information is available in annual reports submitted to
the Service. These reports form the basis for this discussion on the
current status of Indiana bats in the area.

Indiana bat habitat requirements are described in the **[Life
History]{.underline}** section of the biological opinion. Indiana bats
are dependent on forested habitat during summer; the species roosts in
trees and forages primarily in forests or open areas adjacent to
forests. Within the HCP boundary, 247 ha (17%) are classified as bat
habitat; these are primarily forested areas, wooded pasture, or open
areas with scattered trees (American Consulting, Inc. 2001). Much of the
remaining forested habitat within the project area occurs in linear
strips or small blocks along stream corridors. However, small patches of
forest occur throughout the project area.

Habitat quality for Indiana bats in a portion of the project area was
assessed in the **[Biological Assessment: Effects of the Six Points Road
Interchange and Related Roadway Improvements in Hendricks and Marion
Counties, Indiana on the Indiana Bat, *Myotis sodalis*]{.underline}**
(American Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1996). The analysis area in this
assessment was limited to the right-of-way required for road
improvements. Approximately 33 ha of bat habitat were assessed; 20 ha, 3
ha, and 10 ha were categorized as high, moderate, and low quality
habitat, respectively. While a detailed assessment of habitat quality
was not done for the remainder of the project area, based on
observations in the project area we expect that the results would be
similar. There are scattered patches of high quality Indiana bat habitat
remaining in the project area.

In addition to the quality of habitat, quantity of Indiana bat habitat
is also a concern in the project area. Approximately 17% of the habitat
within the HCP boundary is classified as bat habitat, but as previously
noted this includes areas with only sparse tree cover. Only
approximately 9% of the project area is forested (i.e., predominant
vegetation is trees) (American Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1995). Based
on a thorough review of literature on Indiana bat summer habitat, Romme
et al. (1995) concluded that areas with less than 5% cover by deciduous
forest will not support summering Indiana bats. Areas considered optimal
are generally at least 30% forested. Forest cover within the project
area is low compared to most areas that support maternity colonies. Of
currently known Indiana bat maternity colonies in Indiana, none occur in
an area with more fragmented forests than the project area.

Extensive research was conducted on Indiana bats in the action area
during the summers of 1994 through 1999. Mist netting in August 1994
resulted in the capture of two Indiana bats along the East Fork of White
Lick Creek, immediately south of the project area (3D Environmental
Services Inc. 1994). One of the Indiana bats captured was a
post-lactating female and the other a juvenile male; the capture of a
post-reproductive adult female and a juvenile Indiana bat provided
evidence that a maternity colony was located in the immediate vicinity
of the project area. Mist netting (conducted along the East Fork of
White Lick Creek and near an Indiana bat maternity roost tree) during
the next five summers (1995-1999) resulted in the capture of 34 Indiana
bats: 6 in 1995 (3D Environmental Services Inc. 1995); 7 in 1996 (3D
Environmental Services Inc. 1996); 3 in 1997 (American Consulting
Engineers, Inc. 1998); 8 in 1998 (American Consulting Engineers, Inc.
1999); and 10 in 1999 (American Consulting, Inc. 2000). The 34 Indiana
bats captured included 15 reproductively active adult females, three
nonreproductive (or reproductive status unknown) adult females, one
adult male, and 15 juveniles. Two additional adult male Indiana bats
were captured in artificial roosting structures erected in the area; one
was captured in 1995 and one in 1996.

During the period 1995-1999, radio transmitters were attached to 30 of
the bats captured in the action area. The bats movements were monitored,
allowing researchers to assess the roosting and foraging habits of the
Indiana bats in the area. Based on data gathered from radio-tagged
Indiana bats, it is known that at least one maternity colony of Indiana
bats utilizes the proposed project area. The possibility that more than
one maternity colony is using the project area cannot be eliminated. The
majority of the radio-tagged bats were captured near a known maternity
roost. When mist netting bats near a known roost, the likelihood of
capturing a bat from a colony other than the one using that roost is
minimal.

Telemetry enabled researchers to collect information on the roosting
habits of bats in the action area. Trees used by roosting bats were
categorized as Aprimary@ or Aalternate@ roost trees. The definition of a
primary roost is a tree used by more than 30 bats and used on more than
one occasion (Callahan et al. 1997); all other trees used by roosting
bats are called alternate roost trees. Two primary roost trees used by
the maternity colony of bats in the area have been located using
telemetry. One of these trees (a dead cottonwood) was used in 1997 and
1998. The maximum number of bats counted exiting this tree was 64 during
a dusk count in 1998. This tree lost a major portion of its bark during
a storm in 1998, and was not used subsequently. The other primary roost
tree was first located in 1996, and was used again in 1997, 1998, and
1999. This tree is a large (59.3 cm dbh) dead shagbark hickory tree. In
excess of 100 dusk counts have been conducted at this roost trees since
its discovery. The maximum number of bats counted during any given dusk
count was 146 on July 15, 1999. Large fluctuations in the number of bats
utilizing this tree suggest that there are other primary roost trees
being used by this colony, but no others have been identified since the
loss of the cottonwood roost in 1998 (American Consulting Engineers,
Inc. 1999).

Large numbers of alternate roost trees were also located by tracking
radio-tagged bats to their roosts. Detailed information on alternate
roosts was provided in the annual reports referenced above. A variety of
trees were used as alternate roosts, but the majority were shagbark
hickories. In 1999, 10 of 12 alternate roost trees were shagbark
hickories. Both living and dead hickories were used as alternate roosts.

The primary roost tree and most of the alternate roost trees that have
been identified are located outside the HCP boundary, but within the
action area of the project, in a privately owned woodlot. This woodlot
is approximately 36 ha in size and represents one of the largest blocks
of mature forest remaining within the range of this maternity colony of
bats. The woodlot is dominated by mature mixed hardwood trees, including
many large shagbark hickories which appear to be preferred by roosting
bats. The data collected to date suggest that this woodlot is a key
element of the habitat used by this maternity colony.

Data collected on radio-tagged bats in the action area have also allowed
researchers to assess bat movements and foraging habits. Bats in the
area routinely fly at least 2 km from their roosts to forage (American
Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1999). Some radio-tagged bats were found up
to 5 km from the roost site. Generally, the distance traveled to
foraging sites by bats in the area have been similar to distances
reported for bats in Illinois (Gardner et al. 1991[b]{.underline}) and
southern Indiana (Pruitt 1995, Montgomery Watson 1999). The data
collected in the vicinity of the IIA show that individual Indiana bats
typically fly to the same foraging areas nightly. However, not all bats
from the colony use the same foraging areas. The majority of Indiana
bats concentrated their movements south of I-70. However, most of the
radio-tagged bats were located north of I-70 on at least a few
occasions. A few bats appeared to concentrate their movements in wooded
areas north of I-70. Telemetry locations for most bats were concentrated
south and east of the HCP boundary. Areas where locations were
concentrated included the riparian corridor of the EFWLC. As previously
noted, use of the EFWLC riparian corridor included a primary maternity
roost in a large cottonwood located adjacent to the creek. Patches of
forested habitat not associated with the creek, as well as adjoining
agricultural areas, were also used by foraging bats. Collectively, use
of almost all suitable Indiana bat habitat within the project area by
radio-tagged bats has been documented.

The previous efforts to minimize impacts to Indiana bats in the action
area involved both the preservation of existing bat habitat, and an
attempt to create additional habitat. Indiana bats return to the same
location each year in the spring to raise young. To minimize impacts to
Indiana bats that summered in the project area, it was necessary to
ensure that alternative existing habitat was available as close as
possible to the project area. As a condition of the FAA=s 1992
incidental take statement (and subsequent amendments), existing bat
habitat was set aside for permanent protection. Interim Mitigation Areas
were also protected. The purpose of setting aside these interim areas
was to provide habitat capable of supporting Indiana bats that would be
available until 2010 while the Indiana bats in the area adjusted to
changing habitat conditions (i.e. loss of habitat associated with the
airport expansion). The Sustained Mitigation Area to the south of the
project area (3D Environmental Services Inc. 1992) was also established
at this time. Approximately 160 ha of (formerly agricultural) land was
planted with hardwood seedlings within the Sustained Mitigation Area.
These plantings will be preserved as forested bat habitat in perpetuity.
To the extent possible, the plantings were linked to riparian corridors
and existing forested parcels. The immediate value of the mitigation
plantings to bats was: 1) to provide areas that will not be cleared for
development that link existing habitat patches; and 2) to protect water
quality by protecting riparian areas from development. Over time, we
anticipate that the mitigation plantings will develop into quality
roosting and foraging habitat for Indiana bats.

In addition to efforts to protect existing habitat and to create
additional habitat for the future, the FAA also attempted to enhance the
value of existing roosting habitat through: 1) the installation of
artificial roost structures such as bat boxes and artificial bark; 2)
mechanical exfoliation of bark on existing trees; and 3) relocation of
entire dead trees deemed suitable for roosting. Enhancing bat habitat
with artificial roosting structures had not been attempted before, and
this was recognized as an experimental technique. In order to take full
advantage of the research value of the work, the FAA conducted an
extensive monitoring program to determine the level of use of artificial
structures (3D Environmental 1995, 1996; American Consulting Engineers,
Inc. 1998, 1999, 2000). Two male Indiana bats were located in these
structures; this was the first documented use of artificial roost
structures by Indiana bats. The FAA has concluded their obligations to
maintain and monitor these artificial roost structures. However, many of
these structures remain in the action area.

In 1995 and 1996, research was conducted to characterize potential sound
exposures to Indiana bats foraging and roosting in the vicinity of the
IIA. Only one primary maternity roost (the one which was used annually
through 1999) had been documented at the time. That roost is located
just .6 km south of I-70, and is also near the flight path for two of
the IIA=s runways. Highway noise above background levels was detected
almost continuously at the maternity roost. In addition, bats were
exposed to high noise levels associated with aircraft overflights. It is
apparent from these studies that these noise levels were tolerable to
this colony of Indiana bats, at least to the extent that the habitat was
not abandoned. More detailed results are provided in the 1996 annual
report (3D Environmental 1996).

Given the nature of the landscape surrounding the action area, there is
little potential for this colony to relocate if the quality or quantity
of habitat in the area could no longer support the colony. The continued
survival of this colony is likely dependent on maintaining suitable
habitat within the action area of the project.

**EFFECTS OF THE ACTION**

Evidence that a maternity colony existed in the action area was first
collected during bat surveys in 1994, and continued existence of the
maternity colony has been documented every summer since that time. Based
on counts conducted in 1999, a maternity colony consisting of at least
146 bats (adult reproductive females and their young-of-the-year) uses
the project area. In addition, an unknown number of males and
non-reproductive females also use the area. Construction of the proposed
road improvements and associated development is expected to result in
the permanent loss of approximately 139 ha of suitable summer foraging
and roosting habitat for these Indiana bats. Degradation of remaining
habitat may also occur as the result of increased fragmentation and
increased disturbance. These effects are discussed in more detail below.

A feature of Indiana bat biology that is integral to the discussion of
effects of the proposed project is the fact that female Indiana bats
exhibit strong site fidelity to summer roosting and foraging areas. That
is, they return to the same summer range annually to bear their young.
If the summer range is modified such that females are required to search
for new roosting habitat or foraging areas, it is assumed that this
effort places additional stress on pregnant females at a time when fat
reserves are low or depleted and they are already stressed from the
energy demands of migration. This in turn could affect the reproductive
fitness and productivity of the bats.

Based on our knowledge of Indiana bat summer habitat use, and the
specific information that has been collected on this colony, we assessed
the impact of the loss and degradation of habitat in the project area on
the Indiana bat colony. We should note that there are many aspects of
Indiana bat summer habitat that are not fully understood. The first
maternity colony of Indiana bats was not discovered until 1971. The
colony was discovered when a dead elm tree was bulldozed, and a colony
of bats emerged from under the loose bark of the tree as it was pushed
over. Several of the bats were captured, and subsequently identified as
Indiana bats. Prior to this time, it was not known where female Indiana
bats roosted and raised young. Since that time, considerable research
has been done on Indiana bats during the summer, but many questions
remain unanswered. Therefore, we cannot precisely predict how Indiana
bats will be impacted by the proposed project. Our assessment is based
on the best data that are available.

**[Effects on Foraging Habitat]{.underline}**

The primary effect of the proposed activities on the colony of Indiana
bats in the action area will be the loss of foraging habitat. All 139 ha
of habitat that will be cleared is suitable Indiana bat foraging
habitat. Telemetry data demonstrate that most of the maternity colony
forages within the HCP boundary at least occasionally, although no
radio-tagged bat foraged exclusively in this area. In 1999 (the last
year for which extensive telemetry data are available), nine Indiana
bats (adult females or juveniles) were radio tracked. Each bat was
tracked for approximately six days. Seven of the nine bats (78%) were
located within the HCP boundary (presumably foraging) at some time. Of
those, two bats foraged extensively within the HCP boundary. Assuming
these bats are representative of the colony, approximately 32% of the
colony forages extensively within the HCP boundary and an additional 56%
forages in this area occasionally. When these bats return to the summer
range, we expect that they will attempt to use the same foraging areas
that were used in previous years. Within the HCP boundary, 139 of the
247 ha of habitat previously available will be gone after the clearing
occurs for the proposed project. Bats that only foraged in the area
occasionally obviously are familiar with other foraging areas in
addition to those within the HCP boundary; these bats may be able to
adjust for lost habitat by spending more time foraging in other portions
of their range. For bats that foraged extensively within the HCP
boundary, the effect may be more severe. These bats will still have some
foraging habitat available within the HCP boundary, but will likely have
to expand their foraging range into previously unused areas to make up
for the loss of foraging habitat. The impact of this on individual bats
will vary. Recovery from the stress of hibernation and migration may be
slower as the result of the added energy demands of searching for new
foraging habitat; this may be particularly problematic for pregnant
females. Pregnant females displaced from their preferred foraging range
will have to expend energy to search for new areas; some may not be
successful in producing young as the result. Females that do give birth
may have pups with lower birth weights or their pups may have delayed
development. This could in turn affect the overwinter survival of the
young-of-the-year bats if they enter fall migration and winter
hibernation periods with inadequate fat reserves. Indiana bats may also
experience higher rates of predation when searching for new foraging
areas. Overall, the effect of the loss of foraging habitat on
**individual** bats from the colony in the action area may range from no
effect to death (e.g., as the result of exposure to predation or
overwinter mortality of bats that have not stored adequate fat). The
effect on the colony may be lost reproductive capacity and death of a
small proportion of the colony. These effects are expected to be
relatively short-lived; bats that survive the impacts of habitat loss
will have found replacement foraging habitat within the second year
after the habitat is lost within the HCP boundary.

**[Effects on Roosting Habitat]{.underline}**

Indiana bats will also lose roosting habitat as the result of the
proposed project, although these impacts are not expected to be as
severe as the loss of foraging habitat. No known maternity roost trees
will be lost as the result of this project. However, our knowledge of
the roosting behavior of the colony is based on the roosting habits of
radio-tagged bats, which represent a small percentage of the colony, so
we cannot assume that all roost trees have been identified. There are
suitable roost trees within the area to be cleared, and it is plausible
that some of these trees may be used as alternate roosts by some members
of the maternity colony. Although unlikely, we cannot eliminate the
possibility that a primary maternity roost occurs within the area to be
cleared. Further, adult male and non-reproductive female Indiana bats
have not been radio tagged in the action area, but are known to inhabit
the area; we cannot assess the roosting habits of this portion of the
population. In summary, there is potential that currently used roosting
habitat will be lost as the result of the proposed project. At a
minimum, potential future roost trees will be lost as the result of the
proposed activities. This will reduce the number of suitable roosts
within the colony\'s traditional summer range. However, we know that the
major roosting areas used by this colony, including all known primary
maternity roosts, will not be cleared as the result of the proposed
project. The major effect to roosting habitat is expected to be the loss
of potential future roost sites, rather than immediate effects of lost
roosting habitat.

**[Effects on Habitat Quality]{.underline}**

In addition to direct habitat loss, proposed actions may result in a
decrease in the quality of remaining habitat within HCP boundary.
Factors that may lead to a loss in the quality of remaining habitat
include: increased habitat fragmentation; increased human disturbance
(more lighting associated with road improvements, increased traffic and
associated noise); foraging habitat over relocated streams will be poor
until the aquatic community becomes established; and water quality in
the action area may be negatively impacted, at least in the short term
during construction activities.

The loss of 139 of 247 ha of existing habitat inside the HCP boundary
will result in increased fragmentation of the habitat available to
Indiana bats in that area. However, because habitat to be lost is
concentrated in the eastern portion of the project area, and the blocks
of habitat that will be retained are concentrated in the western
portion, the affect on the level of fragmentation will be minor. Over
time, it is expected that fragmentation of habitat in the action area
will decline, as the mitigation plantings mature into suitable Indiana
bat habitat.

Increased human disturbance in the project area may affect the quality
of bat habitat, but these effects are expected to be relatively minor.
Indiana bats in the action area have previously been exposed to high
noise levels associated with aircraft overflights, as well as traffic on
I-70. Similarly, these bats have also been exposed to artificial lights
associated with roadway and airport lighting, as well as lights on
vehicles. There will be increased lighting and increased noise levels in
new locations (for example, associated with the new interchange on I-70)
as the result of some of the roadway improvements. However, we expect
that the loss of habitat associated with the proposed project, as
opposed to increased lighting and noise, that will the major factor
affecting habitat use by bats.

Insects associated with aquatic habitats make up part of the diet of
Indiana bats; therefore, water quality can affect the prey base of the
species. Water quality impacts that may result from the proposed project
include the relocation of stream channels, increased sedimentation as
the result of construction activities, and increased runoff (and
associated pollutants) from newly constructed roadways. All relocated
stream channels will be planted with hardwood seedlings, which are
expected to stabilize the banks; eventually trees are expected to
provide shade to the riparian corridor, a source of woody debris to
provide in-stream habitat, and Indiana bat foraging cover. Until these
newly relocated channels become established, they will not provide
foraging habitat for Indiana bats. Coordination with the applicants is
ongoing to insure that relocated stream channels produce viable aquatic
systems. Aquatic communities will be monitored post-construction and
remedial actions will be required if established criteria are not met.
Erosion control plans, as discussed in the HCP, will be implemented
during all construction activities. Properly implemented erosion control
measures should alleviate short-term sedimentation impacts on the
aquatic insect community. We do not have information that suggests that
these water quality impacts will result in a long-term decline in the
prey base available to Indiana bats in the project area. However, a
short-term decline in insect production is possible, and may exacerbate
the issue of lost foraging habitat in the project area.

**[Effects of Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation
Measures]{.underline}**

The applicants have incorporated measures into the proposed project
design to avoid, minimize and mitigate the impacts of the project to the
extent practical. Avoidance, minimization and mitigation procedures are
discussed in the [Conservation Measures]{.underline} section of this
document and are further detailed in the applicants= HCP. These measures
include:

1\. Seasonal Tree Cutting Restrictions;

2\. Mitigation Plantings;

3\. Permanent Protection of Existing Indiana Bat Habitat within the HCP
Boundary;

4\. Permanent Protection of Existing Indiana Bat Habitat Outside the HCP
Boundary;

5\. Purchase Additional Existing Indiana Bat Habitat;

6\. Establish Buffers Around Protected Areas;

7\. Training of Project Personnel;

8\. Public Outreach on Indiana Bats; and

9\. Monitoring and Research Program.

Cutting an Indiana bat roost tree when bats are present in the tree is
likely to result in bats being injured or killed. The applicants will
avoid killing or injuring roosting bats by removing trees in the HCP
boundary between September 16 and April 14, when Indiana bats are not
known to concentrate in roost trees.

To minimize impacts to bats due to habitat loss, 151 ha of existing
forested habitat suitable for Indiana bat foraging and roosting in areas
within the range of the Indiana bat maternity colony have been
identified and will be protected in perpetuity for the primary purpose
of Indiana bat conservation. Project applicants have also agreed to
purchase and protect additional acreage that has not yet been
identified. Silvicultural manipulation in these areas will be limited to
activities which will enhance the quality of habitat for Indiana bats,
as agreed on by the Service=s BFO. Areas selected for permanent
protection are generally of higher quality (i.e., more mature trees)
than many of areas that will be cleared for the project. In addition,
these areas were also selected specifically to provide larger forest
blocks, to protect areas that provide connectivity among existing blocks
of forested habitat, and to provide connectivity along the East Fork of
White Lick Creek corridor. This riparian area is known to provide
valuable habitat for Indiana bats, and also serves as a travel corridor
for bats.

To mitigate for unavoidable impacts, 140 ha of hardwood seedlings will
be planted and protected in perpetuity. The goal of the plantings is to
enhance Indiana bat habitat in the long term by providing forested
riparian habitat, improving connectivity among blocks of existing
habitat, and creating larger blocks of forested bat habitat. The sites
proposed for plantings are located to improve the connectivity of
forested habitat within the range of the maternity colony, particularly
along the corridor of the East Fork of White Lick Creek. Improved
connectivity of habitat along the stream, and between the stream and
other forested parcels, is expected to improve habitat conditions for
Indiana bats. Permanently protected plantings along the stream corridor
will also benefit water quality in the long term, as the plantings will
provide a vegetated buffer that will reduce runoff, and associated
sedimentation, from adjoining roadways, commercial/industrial
developments, and agricultural areas. Seedling plantings are proposed
both within the HCP boundary and within the IAA=s Conservation
Management Area (the applicants have also referred to this area as the
ASustained Mitigation Area@ in some documents). The Conservation
Management Area (which is mapped in Figure 12.1 of the HCP) is an area
south of the HCP boundary that is heavily used by Indiana bats;
therefore, proposed mitigation is concentrated in this area. Parcels
owned by the IAA outside the Conservation Management Area may be
considered for planting if it is determined by the Service that these
parcels have exceptional potential to improve habitat connectivity for
the Indiana bat colony that inhabits the area. In the long term, the
plantings will provide a diverse woodland that is well stocked with
species of trees that are known to provide Indiana bat roosting habitat.
Plantings will be monitored to insure that at least 80% of the initial
planting survives; if survival is below 80% five years after planting,
then remedial measures will be taken. There will be no manipulation of
vegetation in these areas without consultation with the Service=s BFO.

Specifically with reference to the loss of foraging habitat, which will
be the primary effect of the proposed project on Indiana bats, we
anticipate that the existing habitat that will be permanently protected
as the result of this project, in addition to other habitat that is
available to this colony, will provide adequate foraging habitat to
allow the colony of bats to persist in the action area. In addition to
protecting existing habitat, 140 ha of hardwood seedlings will be
planted and permanently protected to enhance long-term foraging
conditions for Indiana bats. Plantings will emphasize linking existing
habitat patches and creating larger blocks of forested habitat. Existing
habitat to be protected outside the HCP boundary and seedling plantings
will be concentrated in the area south of the HCP boundary. Telemetry
data have demonstrated that the area south of the HCP boundary is the
most intensively used foraging area by the Indiana bat maternity colony.
All of the nine Indiana bats radio tracked in 1999 were located in the
mitigation areas south of the HCP boundary at some time; seven of the
nine bats used these areas extensively. Concentration of mitigation in
these intensely used foraging areas will help to alleviate the effects
of the loss of foraging habitat within the HCP boundary in the short
term. In the long term, we anticipate that these measures will result in
better foraging conditions than currently exist in the action area.

An extensive monitoring and research program is also proposed by the
applicants. The Indiana bat colony in the action area would be studied
for 15 years, beginning with the first summer following the start of
construction. The details of the proposed monitoring plan were developed
in consultation with the Service and are provided in the applicants=
HCP. As previously noted, the colony in the vicinity of the project area
has been studied since 1994; this is the longest that any single colony
of Indiana bats has ever been studied. The baseline data that are
available on this colony, in conjunction with the data that would be
collected through the applicants= monitoring program, will allow the
Service to thoroughly evaluate the response of bats to the disturbance
which will occur in the project area as well as the mitigation measures
that are implemented. This will be the first time that information of
this magnitude has been collected over the long term on an Indiana bat
colony. The information collected through this monitoring program will
make a significant contribution to our understanding of Indiana bats and
it is hoped will make a contribution to the recovery of the species. The
applicants will also work with the Service=s BFO to develop and
implement an outreach program to educate the public regarding the
Indiana bat. The Indiana bat recovery plan (USFWS 1983) identifies
public education on Indiana bats as a priority activity needed for
recovery of the species. The presence of this Indiana bat maternity
colony in close proximity to the Indianapolis metropolitan area provides
a unique opportunity for public outreach programs on the species.

**CUMULATIVE EFFECTS**

Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local or
private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area
considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are
unrelated to the proposed action are not considered because they require
separate consulta­tion pursuant to section 7 of the Act.

The total area included in the HCP boundary is approximately 1,448
hectares (ha); 247 ha are classified as bat habitat. Areas classified as
bat habitat are primarily forested areas, wooded pasture, or open areas
with scattered trees. As a result of the proposed project, it is
anticipated that 139 ha of this habitat will be permanently lost, and
the applicants= HCP considers the effects of this habitat loss. An
additional 71 ha of habitat will be protected in perpetuity, as detailed
in the HCP. The remaining 37 hectares of Indiana bat habitat within the
HCP boundary is on privately owned land. Those parcels are not
controlled by the HCP applicants and the proposed project does not
involve any impacts to Indiana bats on those parcels. We are unaware of
any current development plans on these parcels. If in the future these
parcels are developed, consultation pursuant to section 10 of the Act
will be conducted if appropriate.

Outside the HCP boundary, but within the range of the Indiana bat
maternity colony, development is occurring rapidly. Models developed for
the [Environmental Assessment for the Six Points Road
Interchange]{.underline} (American Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1995)
indicated that development in the area surrounding the project area
would occur at a rate of 33 ha per year during the years immediately
following the project. Even though only a small portion of the landscape
in the surrounding area is forested, this continued development will
lead to additional habitat loss for Indiana bats. We anticipate decline
in bat habitat over a wide area outside the HCP boundary in the future,
although we are not aware of specific development plans in known bat
habitat at this time. As we become aware of specific projects, impacts
to Indiana bats will be addressed through the incidental take permit
process, if appropriate.

Implementation of the HCP would alleviate the cumulative effects of
development on the Indiana bat maternity colony. For the colony to
persist in light of increasing pressure for development in the area
surrounding the Indianapolis International Airport, habitat must be
permanently protected within the range of the colony. The 151 ha of
existing habitat that would be protected under the HCP provide habitat
and travel corridors for Indiana bats. Areas set aside for mitigation
plantings will protect those areas from development in the short term,
and in the long term will provide quality roosting and foraging habitat.
These areas will also help to decrease habitat fragmentation, and to
improve the potential that the colony of Indiana bats currently using
the action area could expand into suitable habitat further south. With
implementation of the HCP, we anticipate that long-term habitat
conditions for the Indiana bat colony in the area would be better than
existing conditions.

**CONCLUSION**

After reviewing the current status of Indiana bat, the environmental
baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed highway
construction and associated development, and the cumulative effects, it
is the Service\'s biological opinion that the project, as proposed, is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat.
Critical habitat for this species has been designated at two locations
in Indiana, however, this action does not affect either area and no
destruction or adverse modification of that critical habitat is
anticipated.

In summary, there will be a short-term net loss of Indiana bat habitat
associated with this project which is expected to result in take of
individuals bats, but we anticipate that the colony will be able to
persist in the action area if avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures as proposed in the HCP are fully implemented. Habitat quality
in areas set aside for bat conservation should gradually increase. Over
time, a large portion of the Conservation Management Area and adjoining
forested areas which will be preserved in perpetuity are anticipated to
result in a net benefit to Indiana bats in the action area as compared
to current conditions. The immediate value of the mitigation plantings
to bats include: 1) to provide areas that would not be cleared for
development that link existing habitat patches; and 2) to protect water
quality by protecting riparian areas from development. In the long term,
we anticipate that the mitigation plantings will develop into quality
roosting and foraging habitat for Indiana bats. It is expected that
hardwood seedling plantings may provide limited roosting habitat in
approximately 25 years, and the plantings may provide limited foraging
habitat much sooner. Within 50 years, the plantings are expected to
provide good quality roosting habitat. Compared to current baseline
conditions, there will be more forested habitat, a larger block of
contiguous habitat, greater connectivity among habitat patches, and
improved habitat conditions along the riparian corridors. All of these
habitat trends should be beneficial to Indiana bats. Both hardwood
seedling plantings and existing bat habitat that is set aside under the
HCP will be protected in perpetuity. This permanent protection is
particularly crucial because future opportunities for bat conservation
within the range of this colony are limited. These permanently protected
parcels will be the largest block of habitat available to Indiana bats,
as well as other species of forest wildlife, over a large geographic
area.

**INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT**

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

The proposed [Habitat Conservation Plan for the Six Points Road
Interchange and Associated Development]{.underline} and its associated
documents identify anticipated impacts to Indiana bats likely to result
from the proposed taking and the measures that are necessary and
appropriate to minimize those impacts. All conservation measures
described in the proposed HCP, together with the terms and conditions
described in the associated Implementing Agreement and the section
10(a)(1)(B) permit issued with respect to the proposed HCP, are hereby
incorporated by reference as reasonable and prudent measures and terms
and conditions within this Incidental Take Statement pursuant to 50 CFR
\'402.14(i). Such terms and conditions are non-discretionary and must be
undertaken for the exemptions under section 10(a)(1)(B) and section
7(o)(2) of the Act to apply. If the permittee fails to adhere to these
terms and conditions, the protective coverage of the section 10(a)(1)(B)
permit and section 7(o)(2) may lapse. The amount or extent of incidental
take anticipated under the proposed HCP, associated reporting
requirements, and provisions for disposition of dead or injured animals
are as described in the HCP and/or its accompanying section 10(a)(1)(B)
permit.

**AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE**

Based on the proposed HCP and on the analysis of the effects of the
proposed action, the Service anticipates that a maternity colony of
Indiana bats, which was estimated to number 146 reproductive females and
young in 1999, as well as an unquantifiable number of male and
nonreproductive female adult bats which occupy the action area but do
not occupy the primary maternity roost tree(s), may be impacted as the
result of the proposed project and the Service=s issuance of a
10(a)(1)(B) permit. The effect of the loss of foraging habitat is
expected to result in the death of some bats (e.g., as the result of
exposure to predation or overwinter mortality of bats that have not
stored adequate fat). Loss of roosting habitat and degradation of
remaining habitat may also result in harm of individual bats; while
these effects are not expected to result directly in the death of bats,
they may exacerbate the effect of loss of foraging habitat.
Collectively, the effects of the action are expected to result in
behavioral or physiological effects which impair reproduction and
recruitment, or other essential behavioral patterns. Death of
individuals, decreased fitness of individuals, reduced reproductive
potential, and reduced overwinter survival of some members of the colony
may result. The effect on the colony may be lost reproductive capacity
and potentially a short-term decline in the size of the colony.

It is unlikely that direct mortality of bats will be detected, that is,
we do not expect that dead or moribund bats will be found, even though
we expect that some portion of the colony may die as result of the
proposed actions. In fact, there is no practical means to directly
measure the level of take that will occur. Therefore, the anticipated
level of take is expressed as the permanent loss of 139 ha of roosting
and foraging habitat; the exact location of habitat to be impacted is
mapped in the proposed HCP.

**EFFECT OF THE TAKE**

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

**REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES**

The FHWA must fulfill all obligations, as a member of the Interagency
Task Force, to implement conservation measures described in Section 12.0
of the HCP, [Minimizing and Mitigating Impact to Indiana
Bats]{.underline}, and Section 13.0, [Indiana Bat Section 404/401
Monitoring]{.underline}. These measures are hereby incorporated by
reference.

The Service believes that all measures proposed are necessary and
appropriate to minimize take of Indiana bats. Upon issuing the
incidental take permit, the Service will take the necessary steps to
ensure that the HCP applicants complete all conservation measures.

**TERMS AND CONDITIONS**

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

The Service must ensure that the conservation measures proposed in the
HCP are fully implemented by the Interagency Task Force proposing this
project. The Service will, through enforceable terms and conditions
within the incidental take permit, ensure that the Interagency Task
Force is aware of their responsibilities and liabilities to fully
implement the conservation measures detailed in their HCP. The Service
will participate in field reviews, as appropriate, to evaluate and
verify permit compliance. The Service has developed a compliance
checklist (attached as Appendix I) which will be completed by April 1
(following each monitoring year) to provide documentation that the
Service is monitoring compliance of the task force to obligations made
in the HCP. This checklist will be completed for the 15-year period
during which the HCP and associated incidental take permit will be
valid.

The Service will also verify that deed restrictions for protected
parcels are in place within 90 days of the issuance of the incidental
take permit and ensure that project personnel are aware of procedures
for disposition of injured and dead bats (as provided in the HCP).

The FHWA, as a member of the Interagency Task Force, must fulfill its
obligations to implement the HCP and accompanying Implementing
Agreement. These obligations include:

> 1\. The Interagency Task force must implement all conservation
> measures, as detailed in Section 12.0 of the HCP and monitoring and
> reporting requirements as detailed in Section 13.0 of the HCP.
>
> 2\. As detailed in the HCP, representatives of the Service, the COE,
> the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, and the Indiana
> Department of Natural Resources will be granted access to all
> mitigation and permanently protected areas for monitoring purposes
> upon appropriate notification and approval by the Indianapolis Airport
> Authority (or other managing agency properly assigned in accordance
> with provisions of the HCP).
>
> 3\. Deed restrictions for all parcels to be held in perpetuity should
> be in place within 90 days of the issuance of the incidental take
> permit. (Except for parcels which are acquired by the Interagency Task
> Force after the issuance of this biological opinion and subsequently
> held in perpetuity, as discussed in the HCP).
>
> 4\. Any dead bats located on the action area during construction,
> mitigation, or monitoring activities, regardless of species, should be
> immediately reported to BFO \[(812) 334-4261\], and subsequently
> transported on ice to that office. No one, with the exception of
> researchers contracted to conduct bat monitoring activities, should
> attempt to handle any live bat, regardless of its condition; report
> bats that appear to be sick or injured to BFO. BFO will make a species
> determination on any dead or moribund bats. If an Indiana bat is
> identified, BFO will contact the appropriate Service Law Enforcement
> office. This information on the disposition of dead bats should be
> incorporated into instructions provided to project personnel and
> included in the AConstruction Specifications@ as discussed in Section
> 12.0 of the HCP.

In conclusion, the Service believes that no more than 139 ha of habitat,
that is currently suitable summer roosting and foraging habitat for
Indiana bats, will be permanently lost within the HCP boundary. This
take may occur over a total of 15 years, beginning in the first year of
construction. The reasonable and prudent measures, with their
implementing terms and conditions, are designed to minimize the impact
of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action.
If, during the course of the action, this level of incidental take is
exceeded (i.e. more than the 139 ha designated in the HCP is cleared, or
clearing occurs during the period April 15-September 15 in any given
year), such incidental take represents new information requiring
reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent
measures provided. The FHWA in conjunction with other members of the
Interagency Task Force must immediately provide an explanation of the
causes of the taking and review with the Service the need for possible
modification of the reasonable and prudent measures.

**CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS**

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

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

1\. Working with the Service, develop guidelines for addressing Indiana
bat issues associated with FHWA projects in the Midwest.

2\. Expand on educational and outreach efforts on Indiana bats that will
be developed by the Interagency Task Force.

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

**REINITIATION NOTICE**

This concludes formal consultation with FHWA on the construction of the
Six Points Road interchange and associated development and the formal
intra-Service consultation on the issuance of an incidental take permit
to the applicants. As a basis for this permit action, the applicants
submitted the required HCP requesting an incidental take permit for
Indiana bats in the project area. As provided in 50 CFR \'402.16,
reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary
Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained
(or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental
take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals that the issuance of an
incidental take permit may affect listed species in a manner or to an
extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the highway construction and
associated development are subsequently modified in a manner that causes
an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in
this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat
designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the
amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing
such take must cease pending reinitiation.

**LITERATURE CITED**

3D Environmental Services Inc. 1992. Environmental technical report:
Year 1 mitigation for loss of summer habitat suitable for the federally
endangered Indiana bat on the Indianapolis International Airport. 32pp.
plus appendices.

3D Environmental Services Inc. 1994. Mist net survey for Indiana bats
within the sustained mitigation area at the Indianapolis International
Airport. 16pp.

3D Environmental Services Inc. 1995. Environmental technical report:
1995 field studies for interim Indiana bat habitat mitigation at the
Indianapolis International Airport in Marion County, Indiana. 23pp. plus
appendices.

3D Environmental Services Inc. 1996. 1996 field studies for interim
mitigation for impacts to Indiana bats at the Indianapolis International
Airport in Marion County, Indiana. 125pp.

American Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1995. Environmental assessment Six
Points Road Interchange, Hendricks and Marion Counties, Indiana, Project
No. DEM-070-3(196)68, DES. NO. 9500900. 174 pp. plus appendices.

American Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1996. Biological Assessment: Effects
of the Six Points Road interchange and related roadway improvements in
Hendricks and Marion Counties, Indiana on the Indiana Bat (*Myotis
sodalis)*.

American Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1998. Report of findings: 1997 field
studies for interim mitigation, Indiana myotis (*Myotis sodalis*) at
Indianapolis International Airport Marion and Hendricks Counties,
Indiana. 20 pp. plus appendices.

American Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1999. Report of findings: 1998 field
studies for interim mitigation, Indiana myotis (*Myotis sodalis*) at
Indianapolis International Airport Marion and Hendricks Counties,
Indiana. 31 pp. plus appendices.

American Consulting, Inc. 2000. Report of findings: 1999 field studies
for interim mitigation, Indiana myotis (*Myotis sodalis*) at
Indianapolis International Airport Marion and Hendricks Counties,
Indiana. 56 pp. plus appendices.

American Consulting, Inc. 2001. Draft habitat conservation plan for the
Six Points Road Interchange and associated development. Project No.
DEM-070-3(196)68. Des. No.:9500900.

American Consulting, Inc. 2002. Habitat conservation plan for the Six
Points Road Interchange and associated development. Project No.
DEM-070-3(196)68. Des. No.:9500900.

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

Callahan, E.V., R.D. Drobney, and R.L. Clawson. 1997. Selection of
summer roosting sites by Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*) in Missouri. J.
Mammalogy: 78(3):813-825.

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

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

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

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

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

Homoya, M.A., D.B. Abrell, J.R. Aldrich, and T.W. Post. 1985. The
natural regions of Indiana. Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. 94:245-268.

Humphrey, S.R., A.R. Richter, and J.B. Cope. 1977. Summer habitat and
ecology of the endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Journal of
Mammalogy 58:334-346 Hall 1962

Indiana Department of Environmental Management. 1997. A preliminary
appraisal of the biological integrity of the East Fork White Lick Creek
in the West Fork River Watershed using fish community assessment. IDEM,
Biological Studies Section, Assessment Branch, Office of

Water Management. IDEM/32/03/013/1997. 19pp.

LaVal, R.K. and M.L. LaVal. 1980. Ecological studies and management of
Missouri bats, with emphasis on cave-dwelling species. Missouri Dept. of
Conservation Terrestrial Series 8:1-53.

Montgomery Watson. 1999. Final Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) mist
netting and telemetry study for Camp Atterbury, Indiana. Report prepared
for Military Department of Indiana (Contract No. DAHA90-94-D-0013,
Delivery Order No. 538). 19pp. plus tables and appendices.

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

Romme, R.C., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack, Jr. 1995. Literature summary and
habitat suitability index model: components of summer habitat for the
Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Report to Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Federal Aid Project E-1-7, Study No. 8. 38pp.

Smith, W.B. and M.F. Golitz. 1988. Indiana forest statistics, 1986.
North Central Forest Experiment Station Resource Bulletin NC-108. 139pp.

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

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001[a]{.underline}. Draft
Environmental Assessment for Issuance of an Endangered Species Act
Section 10(a)(1)(B) Incidental Take Permit for the Indiana Bat (*Myotis
sodalis*) to the Interagency Task Force Proposing the Six Points Road
Interchange and Related Development. Bloomington Field Office,
Bloomington, Indiana. 36pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001[b]{.underline}. Notice of
Availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment and Habitat
Conservation Plan and Receipt of an Application for an Incidental Take
Permit From the Interagency Task Force Proposing the Six Points road
Interchange and Related Development in Marion and Hendricks Counties,
IN. Federal Register 66(224):58159-58160.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Notice of comment period
extension for Draft Environmental Assessment and Habitat Conservation
Plan for an Incidental Take Permit for the Six Points Road Interchange
and Related Development in Marion and Hendricks Counties, Indiana.
Federal Register 67(25):5610.

**APPENDIX I**

**USFWS BLOOMINGTON FIELD OFFICE**

**Annual Compliance Checklist**

**for the**

**[Habitat Conservation Plan for the Six Points Road Interchange and
Associated Development]{.underline}**

Compliance checklist for the year \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.
Explanations are attached for any activity that was not in compliance
with the HCP and associated incidental take permit.

**[TREE CLEARING ACTIVITIES]{.underline}** (Permit allows for the
clearing of a total of 139 ha of habitat)

How many ha of bat habitat, as defined in the HCP, were cleared this
year?

Total clearing that has occurred under this incidental take permit to
date.

Did all clearing occur between September 16-April 14?

**[TREE PLANTING]{.underline}** (Permit requires planting 140 ha of tree
seedlings over a five-year period)

How many ha of seedlings were planted this year?

Total ha planted under this incidental take permit to date.

Did all planting this year comply with standards established in the HCP?

Was the annual report on vegetation monitoring received by March 1 (of
the year following the monitoring)?

Was the report complete and in compliance with standards established in
the HCP?

**[INDIANA BAT MIST NET SURVEY]{.underline}** (required for a total of
15 years)

A bat mist net survey is required every year, with an extensive survey
required during the first year of construction and every other year
thereafter through year 15 of the HCP.

Extensive mist net surveys will be conducted in 2002 and every even year
through 2016. Limited mist net surveys will be conducted in 2003 and
every odd year through 2015. Complete the appropriate section
**[Extensive Mist Net Survey]{.underline}** or **[Limited Mist Net
Survey]{.underline}**.

**[Extensive Mist Net Survey]{.underline}**

Was mist netting conducted for four net nights at each of the 10 stream
sites approved by the USFWS?

Was mist netting also conducted in the vicinity of each primary roost
tree (this is only required if netting at the stream sites does not
result in the capture of at least 2 Indiana bats per month during the
May 15-August 15 field season)?

Were a minimum of 2 Indiana bats per month captured and radio tracked
each month of the field season using the standards established in the
HCP?

**[Limited Mist Net Survey]{.underline}**

Was mist netting conducted monthly during the May 15-August 15 field
season in the vicinity of each primary roost tree?

Were a minimum of 2 Indiana bats per month captured and radio tracked
each month of the field season using the standards established in the
HCP?

**[ROOST TREE MONITORING/EMERGENCE COUNTS]{.underline}** (conducted
every year for 15 years)

Were emergence counts conducted at primary roost trees at least twice
weekly from March 15 until documented departure of the Indiana bats in
the fall? (If only 1 primary roost tree location was known, the tree
should have been monitored twice weekly. If the location of 2 or more
primary roost trees was known, emergence counts should have been
conducted at least once weekly at all primary roost trees
simultaneously).

Was information on characteristics of all known roosts, their location,
and site-specific data relative the roost area collected according to
standards established in the HCP?

**[INDIANA BAT SURVEY AND ROOST TREE MONITORING REPORT]{.underline}**

Was the annual report on Indiana bat monitoring received by March 1 (of
the year following the monitoring)?

Was the report complete and in compliance with standards established in
the HCP?

Was all data made available for review and/or analysis by the Service
(if requested)?

Was a field review of the area conducted this year?

If yes, what was the date of the review and who participated?

**[NOTES OR COMMENTS]{.underline}**

Compliance checklist completed by:

Date: