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

on the

**CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE**

**OF THE U.S. 33 NELSONVILLE BYPASS**

**FOR THE FEDERALLY-LISTED**

**ENDANGERED INDIANA BAT (*Myotis sodalis*)**

**Submitted to the Federal Highway Administration**

**April 15, 2005**

Prepared by:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ohio Ecological Services Field Office

6950 Americana Parkway, Suite H

Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068

**INTRODUCTION**
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....iv

**CONSULTATION
HISTORY**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....iv

**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

**I. [DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....1

**[Construction Activities]{.underline}**
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....5

Land Acquisition and Exchange
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....5

Clearing and Grubbing
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....5

Earthwork
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....5

**[Construction Minimization Measures]{.underline}**
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....6

Land Acquisition and
Exchange\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....6

Clearing and Grubbing
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....6

Earthwork
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....7

**[Operation and Maintenance Activities]{.underline}**
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...9

Lighting\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....9

Vegetation
Management\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...9

Snow and Ice
Control\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....9

Road
Maintenance\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...9

Spill
Management\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....9

**[Operation and Maintenance - Minimization Measures]{.underline}**
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...9

Lighting
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....9

Vegetation
Management\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....10

Snow and Ice Control
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....10

Road Maintenance
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....10

Spill
Management\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....10

**[Action Area]{.underline}**
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....10

**II. [STATUS OF THE SPECIES]{.underline}**
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....12

**[Description and
Distribution]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...13

**[Life History and Population Dynamics]{.underline}**
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...13

######  Hibernation\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....14

######  Female Maternity Colony and Summer Roosting Habitat\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....14

######  Male Roosting Habitat\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....16

Foraging\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...16

###### Fall Swarming and Mating\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....17

**[Range-wide Status]{.underline}**
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....17

**[Threats to the Species]{.underline}**
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....18

**III. [ENVIRONMENTAL
BASELINE]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....19

**[Status of the Species within the Action Area]{.underline}**
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...21

Summer
Surveys\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....23

Spring, Fall, and Winter
Surveys\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...23

Interpretation of Survey
Results\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....24

Factors Affecting Species Environment within the Action Area
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....27

*Mining*
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....27

*Land Ownership and Management
..*\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...27

*Municipal
Waste*\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....28

**IV. [EFFECTS OF THE
ACTION]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...29

**[Beneficial
Effects]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....29

**[Direct
Effects]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...30

*Loss of Roosting Habitat when Bats are
Present*\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....30

*Loss of Foraging Habitat when Bats are
Present.*\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....32

*Direct Effects of Decreased Water
Quality*\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...32

*Direct Effects of Construction Noise and Vibrations when Bats are
Active*\...\...\...\...\...\...\....33

*Direct effects of Construction Noise and Vibrations when Bats are
Hibernating*\...\...\...\....34

**[Indirect Effects]{.underline}**
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....35

*Loss of Roosting Habitat when Bats are Not Present*
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....35

Indirect Effects on the Maternity Colony from the Loss of Roosting
Habitat\...\...\...\....35

Indirect Effects on Non-reproductive Bats from the Loss of Roosting
Habitat\...\...\.....37

*Loss of Foraging Habitat when Bats are Not
Present*\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....37

Indirect Effects to the Maternity Colony from the Loss of Foraging
Habitat\...\...\...\.....37

Indirect Effects on Non-reproductive Bats from the Loss of Foraging
Habitat\...\...\.....40

*Indirect Effects of
fragmentation*\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....40
*Indirect Effects of Decreased Water
Quality*\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...41

*Indirect Effects of
Disturbance*\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...41

*Indirect Effects on Potential
Hibernacula*\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....42

*Indirect Effects of Vehicle
Traffic*\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....42

**[Effects on Reproduction Success of the Maternity
Colony]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....43

**[Effects on
Numbers]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...46

**[Summary of
Effects]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...46

**V. [CUMULATIVE
EFFECTS]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...47

**VI. [CONCLUSION
]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....47

**INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT**
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....48

**[Amount or extent of take
anticipated]{.underline}**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....49

EFFECT OF THE
TAKE\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...50

REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...50

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...50

**REINITIATION NOTICE**
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...52

**CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS**
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\.....53

**LITERATURE
CITED**\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...54

**[TABLES]{.underline}**

**Table 1.** Summary of consultation for the U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass
project\...\...\...\...\...\...\....iv

**Table 2.** Summary of bat surveys in the action area
\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....21

**[FIGURES]{.underline}**

**Figure a.** U.S. 33 Nelsonville Bypass Project
Location\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...
\.....viii

**Figure 1-A.** U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass, Haydenville, Ohio to
landfill\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\....2

**Figure 1-B.** U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass, Dorr Run area to
Nelsonville, Ohio\...\...\...\...\...\...\...\...3

**Figure 1-C.** U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass, Nelsonville, Ohio to
Doanville, Ohio \...\...\...\...\...\.....4

**INTRODUCTION**

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\'s (Service)
Biological Opinion (BO) based on our review of the Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA) proposed U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass located in
Hocking and Athens Counties, Ohio, and its effects on the Indiana bat
(*Myotis sodalis*) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). On
September 16, 2004, the Service received FHWA's request for formal
consultation along with the Biological Assessment for Federally-Listed
Species for U.S. Route 33 Nelsonville Bypass (HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00 PID
14040) Hocking and Athens Counties, Ohio (BA). The Service determined
that the initiation package received on September 16 was not complete in
accordance with 50 CFR §402.14 and notified FHWA in an October 6, 2004
letter. FHWA submitted additional information on the proposed project to
the Service on December 3, 2004. The Service determined that the
additional information completed the initiation package and provided a
letter to FHWA stating that the Service had received a complete
initiation. Formal consultation was initiated on December 3, 2004.

This Biological Opinion is based on information provided in the BA, the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Nelsonville Bypass
(HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00 PID 14040) Hocking and Athens Counties, Ohio,
July 2004 (DEIS); the Ecological Survey Report HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00 PID
14040; the Impact Addendum Report to the Level II Ecological Survey
Report HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00, numerous letters, meetings, telephone
conversations, and e-mail exchanges among the Service, FHWA, Ohio
Department of Transportation (ODOT), and the U.S. Forest Service's Wayne
National Forest (USFS, WNF), field investigations, and other sources of
information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on
file at the Service's Reynoldsburg, Ohio Field Office (ROFO).

**CONSULTATION HISTORY**

Upgrades to the Nelsonville, Ohio portion of U.S. 33 date back to the
1970s when environmental studies resulted in an Environmental Impact
Statement, although no Record of Decision was completed. Due to funding
constraints, no further action was taken on the project until the
mid-1990s when the project was revisited, and new environmental studies
started. Numerous meetings, telephone conversations, and written
exchanges have occurred with the Service since the project was reopened
in the 1990s, with the majority of the coordination occurring since
December 2001. Table 1 presents a summary of the primary points in the
consultation history.

**Table 1.** Summary of consultation for the U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass
project.

  -------------- --------------------------------------------------------
  **Date**       **Event/Action**

  January 9,     The Service receives request from Gannett Fleming, on
  1996           behalf of ODOT, for Federally-listed species information
                 around the City of Nelsonville, Ohio in Hocking and
                 Athens counties

  January 24,    The Service sends a response letter to Gannett Fleming
  1996           stating that the project is in the range of the Indiana
                 bat and the American burying beetle

  **Date**       **Event/Action**

  March 14, 2002 The Service receives a letter dated 3/12/02 from ODOT
                 stating that ODOT will prepare a BA for the Nelsonville
                 bypass project. ODOT requests the Service's concurrence
                 with species list provided in the letter

  March 19, 2002 The Service sends a response letter to ODOT concurring
                 with list of species to be included in the BA as the
                 Indiana bat, American burying beetle, bald eagle,
                 northern monkshood, and small whorled pogonia

  February 25,   The Service receives the Ecological Resource Inventory
  2003           Report for the project from ODOT

  April 18, 2003 The Service receives an email from FHWA requesting
                 informal consultation on the Nelsonville bypass project

  April 29, 2003 The Service receives a letter dated 4/28/03 from ODOT
                 requesting an updated species list for the preparation
                 of the BA

  May 15, 2003   The Service sends a response letter to ODOT with an
                 updated species list and the Service expresses concern
                 over the potential direct and indirect effects of the
                 project on the Indiana bat

  August 28,     The Service receives a letter from ODOT with a draft BA
  2003           dated 8/27/03 for review

  September 22,  The Service receives the Ecological Survey Report and
  2003           Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS)
                 from ODOT

  November 14,   The Service meets with ODOT and FHWA to provide and
  2003           discuss comments on 8/27/03 draft BA

  December 30,   The Service sends comments on the PDEIS to ODOT and FHWA
  2003           

  April 9, 2004  The Service receives an email from ODOT requesting
                 updates to the species list for the BA under preparation

  April 9, 2004  The Service sends an email to ODOT and FHWA verifying
                 that the list provided to ODOT on 5/15/03 is correct

  April 19, 2004 The Service receives a draft BA from ODOT dated 4/9/04

  June 4, 2004   The Service sends a letter and electronic copy of the
                 4/9/04 draft BA with the Service's comments to ODOT and
                 FHWA

  July 12, 2004  The Service receives the Impact Addendum Report from
                 ODOT

  July 28, 2004  The Service receives the DEIS from ODOT

  September 16,  The Service receives a letter, BA, and DEIS from FHWA
  2004           requesting initiation of formal consultation

  October 6,     The Service sends response letter to FHWA on their
  2004           9/16/04 formal consultation initiation request and BA.
                 The Service concurred with the effect determinations for
                 the Indiana bat, American burying beetle, bald eagle,
                 and small whorled pogonia. The request for initiation
                 was denied because the Service determined that the
                 initiation package was incomplete

  **Date**       **Event/Action**

  October 19,    The Department of Interior sends FHWA comments on the
  2004           DEIS

  December 6,    The Service receives a letter from FHWA dated 12/3/04
  2004           providing additional information and clarification on
                 the proposed project in response to the Service's
                 10/6/04 letter

  December 21,   The Service sends letter to FHWA notifying that formal
  2004           consultation was initiated on 12/3/04 because the
                 Service received a complete initiation package

  January 12,    The Service and FHWA meet to discuss the various
  2005           activities associated with the proposed action

  February 28,   The Service and FHWA meet to discuss the various
  2005           activities associated with the proposed action

  March 31, 2005 The Service provides FHWA with a draft BO and cover
                 letter

  April 7, 2005  FHWA provides comments to the Service on the draft BO

  April 12, 2005 The Service, FHWA, and ODOT meet to discuss comments on
                 the draft BO

  April 15, 2005 The Service provides the final BO to FHWA
  -------------- --------------------------------------------------------

In their request for formal consultation received by the Service on
September 16, 2004, FHWA determined that activities associated with the
U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass project are likely to adversely affect the
Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) and are not likely to adversely affect
the bald eagle (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*), American burying beetle
(*Nicrophorus americanus*), and small whorled pogonia (*Isotria
medeoloides*). Furthermore, FHWA determined that the project would have
no effect on northern monkshood (*Aconitum noveboracense*).

FHWA requested our concurrence on these effect determinations. In a
letter dated October 6, 2004, we: (1) concurred with FHWA's
determination that the project is likely to adversely affect the Indiana
bat, (2) concurred with FHWA's determinations that the project is not
likely to adversely affect the bald eagle, American burying beetle, and
small whorled pogonia, (3) indicated that the initiation package
associated with the FHWA's request for formal consultation was not
complete in accordance with 50 CFR §402.14, and (4) provided a list of
the additional information required to complete the initiation package
in accordance with 50 CFR §402.14.

The Service concurred with FHWA's effect determination of "not likely to
adversely affect" for the bald eagle based on the following: (1)
suitable habitat for this species may occur in the action area, but
there are no summering or wintering populations of bald eagles, only
rare occurrences of transient bald eagles, (2) although transient bald
eagles could potentially be affected by vehicular strikes, it would not
reach the extent of take, as the maximum estimate of 0.00001 deaths per
year, per lane mile in Ohio, and (3) the potential for water quality
degradation from contaminants or sedimentation to impact the bald eagle
through decreased or contaminated food sources will be mediated by
erosion control methods, and thus, no detectable reduction or
contamination of food will occur. Therefore, the possibility of an
impact occurring to the bald eagle from an accidental spill is not
quantifiable or predictable. Based upon this information, potential
adverse affects to the bald eagle from the U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass
project, as proposed, are insignificant and discountable.

The Service concurred with FHWA's effect determination of "not likely to
adversely affect" for the American burying beetle based on the
following: (1) suitable habitat for this species occurs in the action
area but no individuals have been detected in the area during past
surveys, (2) The nearest record is 7 miles away from the project in
Athens County but is not a viable, expanding population, and (3) the
project will not significantly reduce suitable habitat for the species
in the surrounding landscape. Suitable habitat for this species is
abundant throughout southern Ohio for the dispersal of a future, viable,
expanding population. Based upon this information, potential adverse
affects to the American burying beetle from the U.S. 33 Nelsonville
bypass project, as proposed, are insignificant and discountable.

The Service concurred with FHWA's effect determination of "not likely to
adversely affect" for the small whorled pogonia based on the following:
(1) suitable habitat for this species occurs in the action area but no
individuals have been detected during surveys, (2) the closest known
occurrence of small whorled pogonia (and thus a seed source) is far
outside the action area at nearly 17 miles away. Based on this
information the potential adverse affects to small whorled pogonia from
the U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass project, as proposed, are discountable.

Consultation on the bald eagle, American burying beetle, and small
whorled pogonia for this project, as proposed, has concluded. These
species will not be considered further in this Biological Opinion.
Should, during the term of this action, additional information on listed
or proposed species or their critical habitat become available, or if
new information reveals effects of the action that were not previously
considered, FHWA should consult with the Service to determine whether
these determinations are still valid.

**Figure a.** U.S. 33 Nelsonville Bypass Project Location

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.4944444444444445in" height="6.8875in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

**I. [DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION]{.underline}**

The following summary of the proposed action is drawn from project
description in the Biological Assessment for Federally-Listed Species
for U.S. Route 33 Nelsonville Bypass (HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00 PID 14040)
Hocking and Athens Counties, Ohio (BA) and the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Nelsonville Bypass (HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00 PID 14040)
Hocking and Athens Counties, Ohio, July 2004 (DEIS).

The project is the proposed construction of a U.S. Route 33 bypass
around the city of Nelsonville, in Athens and Hocking counties, Ohio.
The proposed project corridor is approximately 8.5 mi (13.7 km) long and
includes two interchanges to access Nelsonville. One interchange will be
located at Dorr Run and the other at the junction of relocated State
Routes 78 and 691. The project will affect private and public lands. The
project will cross through portions of the Athens Unit of the Wayne
National Forest (WNF), the only National Forest located within the state
of Ohio (Figures 1-A, Figure 1-B, and Figure 1-C).

The Nelsonville bypass corridor ranges in width from approximately 350
ft to 1000 ft comprising 768 acres. This includes all staging, waste,
and borrow areas and ancillary connector roads. It is anticipated that
construction and operation of the highway will actually impact less area
than is currently being considered. However, the final project design
continues to be refined, including specific location of developments
within the corridor. Therefore, the analysis in this BO will consider
that the impact is to the entire 768-acre area.

The bypass project will provide a 4-lane limited access highway. From
its western terminus, the project corridor begins west of Nelsonville
near Haydenville, Ohio at U.S. 33 just west and north of Company Road.
It proceeds east through the WNF crossing the Hocking-Athens County Line
and continues east along the northern edge of the Athens Hocking
Reclamation Center Landfill. The corridor proceeds east crossing Dorr
Run Road continuing toward the Hocking Correctional Facility (north of
Nelsonville). The corridor then proceeds southeast to Doanville Road
where U.S. 33 currently transitions from a 4-lane highway to a 2-lane
road.

The bypass will be constructed in two parts. The first portion of the
project will involve the western half of the bypass, the section between
Haydenville and State Route 278, which includes Segment C and a portion
of Segment A. Segment C is west of Nelsonville between Haydenville, Ohio
and Dorr Run Road. Segment A begins at Dorr Run Road and proceeds to the
east passing north of Nelsonville then proceeds to the southeast until
connecting to the existing U.S. 33 alignment by Doanville, Ohio. The
second part of the project will involve the eastern half consisting of
the remaining portion of Segment A between State Route 278 and
Doanville. The western half, which includes the Dorr Run Interchange,
will be constructed first and put into service immediately upon
completion. The Dorr Run connector road will provide the access back to
the existing U.S. 33 and the western edge of Nelsonville. Although the
western portion of the project will begin first, construction of both
portions of the project may occur concurrently. Each portion of the
project will take three years to build with construction, including
clearing and grubbing, scheduled to begin in 2007 and extend into 2011.

Figure 1-A. U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass, Haydenville, Ohio to landfill.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.81875in" height="8.800694444444444in"}

Figure 1-B. U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass, Dorr Run area to Nelsonville,
Ohio.

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="6.935416666666667in" height="8.55625in"}

Figure 1--C. U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass, Nelsonville, Ohio to Doanville,
Ohio.

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="6.613888888888889in" height="8.4375in"}

The action consists of 3 project elements: construction, operation, and
maintenance.

**[Construction Activities]{.underline}**

Project construction activities include land acquisition and exchange,
clearing and grubbing, and earthwork. Each of these activities is
discussed below.

[Land Acquisition and Exchange]{.underline}: Properties within the
project right-of-way will be purchased prior to the commencement of
construction work. Properties to be acquired include commercial,
residential and public land properties. Approximately 50 % of the area
needed for the project is currently under commercial and residential
ownership. The remaining portion of the right-of-way (ROW) will be
obtained by easement from the WNF. Two properties have already been
purchased by ODOT; the 280-acre former General Clay Products (brickyard)
property and a residential property along project Segment A.
Additionally, some properties may be obtained outside the project area
and transferred to the WNF as mitigation for the loss of WNF lands due
to the project.

[Clearing and Grubbing]{.underline}: Clearing will be performed to
prepare the project area for construction activities. Clearing consists
of cutting and removing above‑ground vegetation such as weeds, grasses,
brush, and trees; removing downed timber and other vegetative debris;
and salvaging marketable timber. Due to the rugged terrain, the initial
access into the work area for clearing activities will be via existing
public roads, forest roads and trails. Grubbing will follow clearing
operations to remove any remaining surface vegetation and buried debris.

Clearing and grubbing will be required prior to earthwork in order to
remove vegetative and other debris from work areas so that design
specifications (e.g., for compaction) can be met. Trees, stumps, and
large roots will be removed from excavation areas to a depth sufficient
to prevent such objectionable material from becoming mixed with the
material being incorporated in the embankment. Areas to be excavated
will require grubbing to remove small bushes, vegetation, and any
rubbish. Within excavation and embankment limits, tree stumps, roots,
and other vegetation will be removed. All extraneous matter will be
removed and disposed of in designated waste areas by chipping, burying,
or other methods of proper disposal, including burning. Various methods
and equipment will be used for this work.

[Earthwork]{.underline}: Earthwork is all earth moving activities that
will occur for road and interchange construction, access road and ORV
trail relocations, utility placement and relocation, construction of
drainage structures, and preparation of staging, maintenance, waste, and
borrow areas. Earthmoving activities will include excavating, filling,
blasting, grading, and borrowing and wasting of materials. Earthmoving
equipment to be used includes haul trucks, dozers, excavators, scrapers,
and backhoes. Past mining and mineral extraction activities have altered
the natural geological conditions in the project area. Therefore,
earthwork may also involve the excavation and/or filling, backstowing,
or grouting of mine voids.

Staging and maintenance areas will be used to assemble and store the
construction vehicles that are too large to travel on the highway in one
piece (e.g., haul trucks, earthmovers, large dozers, large excavators,
hoes, etc.). These areas are also used to store supplies (erosion
control materials, steel rebar and mesh, small diameter culverts,
traffic signs and posts, office trailers, etc.). Waste and borrow areas
are used to dispose of and obtain materials for earthwork. Up to 10
staging, waste, and borrow areas may be utilized outside the actual road
construction area. These areas include: a site within the former
brickyard property, 8 private and commercial properties, and the WNF
site along Woodlane Drive.

Performing earthwork activites may necessitate the use of dust control
measures. This work consists of applying water or dust paliative for the
alleviation or prevention of dust nuisance originating from earthwork
construction operation from within the project construction limits. Dust
palliatives may contain calcium chloride or a brine solution.

**[Construction Minimization Measures]{.underline}**

The following provides a description of measures incorporated into the
project design that may avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to the
Indiana bat during construction.

[Land Acquisition and Exchange]{.underline}:

1\. Public and private land will be obtained for road construction and
ROW through purchase and easements. Additional land will be aquired and
transferred to the WNF as mitigation for Forest Service lands being lost
due to the project. The property or properties to be exchanged with the
WNF as mitigation are not known at this time.

[Clearing and Grubbing:]{.underline}

1\. FHWA will ensure that all construction activities are confined to
the construction work limits defined in the project description above.
All staging, waste, and borrow areas will be located within the 768-acre
project footprint.

2\. Tree cutting within the project footprint will be minimized wherever
possible.

3\. Tree cutting will occur between September 15 and April 15 to avoid
direct take of Indiana bats during the summer maternity season. The
following exceptions apply:

● Trees ≤ 2\" dbh may be cut without restriction,

> ● Trees \> 2\" dbh but \< 4\" dbh that do not exhibit bat roosting
> characteristics such as
>
> cavities, splits, openings, and peeling bark, can be cut between April
> 15 and September
>
> 15 upon approval of the project engineer,
>
> ● A maximum of 100 trees for the duration of the project that do not
> fit into the previous
>
> categories may be removed between April 15 and September 15 upon the
> following
>
> conditions:
>
> \(a\) A qualified bat scientist will evaluate the potential of
> roosting habitat for each
>
> selected tree. If the tree offers no potential for roosting habitat,
> it may be cut
>
> between April 15 and September 15.
>
> \(b\) If a selected tree does offer the potential for roosting
> habitat, an emergence survey will be conducted. If no bats are
> detected, the tree may be cut the day following completion of the
> emergence survey.
>
> \(c\) If bats are detected during the emergence survey, the tree will
> not be cut until the period between September 15 and April 15.

4\. To minimize forest impacts, access to each wooded plot within the
project area will occur by way of specific public highways, Forest
Service roads, and existing logging trails.

5\. A comprehensive sedimentation and erosion control plan will be
developed and implemented during tree-cutting operations to avoid
downstream impacts to waterways.

[Earthwork:]{.underline}

1\. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized during
construction activities in accordance with ODOT's Construction and
Material Specifications Handbook, January 1, 2002 (ODOT 2002).

2\. The Dorr Run interchange has been designed to minimize impacts to
forested habitat and the mine complex where an Indiana bat has been
captured.

3\. Existing roads will be upgraded for interchange connector roads
whenever possible to minimize forest impacts.

4\. The project has been designed to avoid the potential Indiana bat
hibernaculum in the Dorr Run area during project construction.

5\. FHWA will insure that the Dorr Run portal will be treated as if it
were a residential dwelling during blasting to minimize the potential of
collapsing the portal and the mine. The Dorr Run portal will be
monitored during blasting to ensure that noise vibrations are minimal.

6\. Dry mines adjacent to the project area will be protected during
construction. Alterations that cause drainage into the mine will be
avoided, thereby preventing future acid mine drainage and water quality
problems that could impact the Indiana bat.

7\. Mine openings encountered in the right of way, yet outside the work
limits, will be protected from disturbance and a bat-friendly gate will
be installed.

8\. The ODOT Office of Construction Administration\'s Handbook for the
Removal of Regulated Wastes will be adhered to during all phases of
construction.

9\. A project specific emergency spill response protocol will be
developed and implemented dictating the use and handling of hazardous
materials and other contaminants to prevent and control spills during
construction.

10\. The following provisions will be developed and implemented to
protect and enhance surface and ground water quality by using erosion
control practices appropriate for the terrain and approved best
management practices:

> \(a\) Areas disturbed during the construction activities that are
> outside the roadway clear zone will be mulched and seeded. Some areas
> will be planted with native herbaceous and woody plants. All areas
> outside the roadway clear zone will be allowed to revegetate to the
> surrounding natural condition.
>
> \(b\) Natural stream channel design features will be utilized in areas
> where the relocation of existing streams is necessary, and feasible.
> The goal will be to establish long‑term channel stability within the
> region of unreclaimed surface and deep mining damage to minimize the
> impacts to water quality from acid mine drainage.
>
> \(c\) Construction of stormwater detention/treatment facilities will
> be designed to minimize the impact of highway contaminants on surface
> water quality.
>
> \(d\) Culverts for stream crossings will be properly sized and
> engineered to provide unobstructed, continuous flow for aquatic biota
> whenever possible.
>
> \(e\) Asphalt paved shoulder aprons will be constructed to extend
> under the guardrail when the roadway is on an embankment to prohibit
> weed growth around the guardrail. This will eliminate the use of
> herbicides in these areas, except at the ends of guardrails to
> simplify mowing, during maintenance activities thus minimizing impacts
> to surface water quality from herbicides.
>
> \(f\) A comprehensive sedimentation and erosion control plan will be
> developed and implemented during construction activities to avoid
> down‑stream impacts to waterways. The plan will include designing and
> constructing roadway slopes and drainage appurtenances in a manner
> that does not exacerbate erosion and sedimentation of the streams and
> wetlands.
>
> \(g\) Construction will employ standard and state of the art erosion
> control techniques including the use of silt fences, sediment
> detention basins and ponds, and temporary revegetation as appropriate.
>
> \(h\) A post-construction re‑vegetation plan to control erosion and
> maintain water quality will be developed and implemented.
>
> \(i\) The project footprint has been minimized to reduce impacts to
> streams and wetland and to avoid releasing underground contaminants
> from the Athens Hocking Reclamation Center (AHRC) and underground
> mines.
>
> \(j\) Upland ponds and waterholes will be created whenever possible.
> Consideration for such features will be given in areas of other
> mitigation activities or ground disturbance due to construction.

\(k\) Mitigation for stream impacts will be accomplished through
specific negotiations with

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency during

the Clean Water Act 404/401 permitting process.

> \(l\) Wetland impacts will be mitigated at a ratio ≥ 1.5:1 in
> accordance with the Ohio Wetland Water Quality Standards.

**[Operation and Maintenance Activities]{.underline}**

Project operation and maintenance will involve a variety of activities.
The following is a list and description of the operation and maintenance
activities.

[Lighting]{.underline}: Roadway lighting will be used to increase
visibility for safety purposes at the 2 interchanges. Roadway lighting
may also be used at the St. Rt. 691 bridge over the Hocking River for
visual asthetics.

[Vegetation Management]{.underline}: Mowing will be conducted to provide
a clear sight distance, clear area for vehicle recovery, visible and
clear ditches, and control of noxious weeds. In addition to mowing,
herbicidal spraying will be used to manage herbaceous groundcovers
around roadway fixtures (i.e., guardrails and road signs). Use of
herbicides prevents obscuring of roadway fixtures and simplifies mowing.
Application is specified for once per year.

[Snow and Ice Control]{.underline}: Snow removal and ice control
activities involve plowing, de-icer or abrasive application to ensure
public safety during snow and ice events. The roadway will be treated
with de-icing agents and/or salt during specific winter weather events.
This activity will vary depending on local weather conditions.

[Road Maintenance]{.underline}: Road repair will be conducted as needed.
Repair activities include resurfacing, pothole repair, striping, bridge
and culvert repair, and guardrail repair/replacement. Emergency repairs
may include slide abatement, bank stabilization, and flood damage
repair. Emergency work may occur at any time and could utilize any
method appropriate to the situation.

[Spill Management]{.underline}: Spill response targets containment and
remediation to avoid and minimize the potential for adverse impacts to
human health and the natural environment.

**[Operation and Maintenance - Minimization Measures]{.underline}**

The following provides a description of measures incorporated into the
project design to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to the Indiana
bat during road operation and maintenance.

[Lighting:]{.underline}

1\. High-mast sodium vapor lights will be installed for interchange
lighting.

[Vegetation Management:]{.underline}

1\. Mowing and herbicide applications will follow guidelines set by the
ODOT Roadside Vegetation Management -- Mowing and Herbicide Application
Policy (ODOT 1997). Specifically,

> \(a\) Herbicide use will be restricted to ends of guardrails and
> roadway clear zones and will always be applied by a State Licensed
> Practitioner.
>
> \(b\) The sideslopes of the roadway will not be mowed or sprayed with
> herbicides, with the exception of the clear zone where maintenance for
> sight distance and safety is necessary.

2\. A maintenance schedule that involves tree removal (unsafe trees),
limbing/pruning, or other activities that may disturb tree‑roosting bats
will be limited to the period from September 15 to April 15 to avoid
direct take of Indiana bats during their maternity period.

[Snow and Ice Control:]{.underline}

1\. Winter de‑icing agents will be applied at minimum effective rates.

[Road Maintenance:]{.underline}

1\. Dry mines adjacent to the project area that serve as potential
Indiana bat hibernacula will be protected during operation. Alterations
that cause drainage into the mine will be avoided, thereby also
preventing future acid mine drainage and water quality problems.

[Spill Management:]{.underline}

1\. A Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan will be
developed and implemented thus reducing the potential for spills to
impact the Indiana bat and its habitat.

**[Action Area]{.underline}**

The action area includes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly
by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the
action (50 CFR 402.02). The action area is defined by measurable or
detectable changes in land, air and water or to other measurable factors
that may elicit a response in the species or critical habitat. The
action area is not limited to the "footprint" of the action and should
consider the biotic, chemical, and physical impacts to the environment
resulting from the action.

The FHWA has delineated the action area for this project in their BA as
the project footprint plus all lands within 2.5 miles on either side of
the footprint. FHWA included the 2.5 mile area on either side of the
footprint based upon (1) several studies indicate that 2.5 miles may be
the upper end of typical movement by members of an Indiana bat maternity
colony (Gardner et. al. 1991; Butchkoski and Hassinger 2002; Murray and
Kurta 2002) and (2) there is a precedence for use of this area in other
BAs (e.g., I-69 in Indiana).

The action area provided in the BA was based upon the area to be
directly impacted by the project (project footprint) and the typical
area of movement for an Indiana bat maternity colony. However, as this
delineation is not fully consistent with the regulatory definition of
action area, we delineated the action area differently than the method
decribed in the BA.

The action area for this project is the area that encapsulates the reach
of all the direct and indirect environmental impacts of the project.
That is, the area in which the biotic, chemical, and physical impacts to
the environment that are anticipated to occur. The area directly
affected by the action is the project footprint where all construction,
operation and maintenance activities will occur. The project footprint
is linear and includes a 768-acre area.

The area indirectly affected by the action includes the area affected by
noise and vibrations, and surface and subsurface water impacts. Noise
and vibrations are physical impacts to the environment that will be
caused by the road construction, operation, and maintenance and will
vary in intensity depending upon the source. Logging, earthmoving, and
blasting activities will generate noise during site preparation and road
construction. The level of noise generated from the different
construction and maintenance activities will vary depending upon the
methods and equipment being used or operated. Operational noise will be
generated by vehicle traffic and will vary depending upon the type and
volume of vehicles. Noise and vibrations are expected to increase in the
area along the new corridor whereas noise and vibrations are expected to
decrease in the area along the existing U.S. Route 33 alignment as
traffic patterns through and around the city of Nelsonville are changed.

The current ambient noise along the proposed construction corridor
varies greatly depending upon the proximity of the corridor to existing
activities. Given the rural, forested nature of the project area, the
lowest existing noise levels along the corridor should occur in the
areas that are farthest away from roads, structures, and the AHRC
landfill. Considering the positioning of the corridor with the city of
Nelsonville and existing land uses, the lowest existing noise levels
should be occurring in the western portion (Segment C) of the project
area, most of which is within the WNF. Noise monitoring conducted in
July 2004 by ODOT personnel within Segment C found that the lowest
existing noise level in this area is 44.9 dBA (D. Snyder, FHWA, Pers.
comm.).

The highest project noise levels are expected to occur during the
clearing and construction activities. Logging activities typically
involve sawing equipment which can generate high noise levels (for
example, chainsaws can generate a noise level of 110 dB). Typical
construction noise levels are at an average of 85 dBA at 50 ft from the
source (D. Snyder, FHWA, Pers. comm.) with the peak noise level for most
construction equipment at or below 95 dBA (FHWA 2005). However, rock
blasting can generate significantly higher noise levels than
construction equipment with blasts generating as much as 115 dBA at 50
ft. from the source (D. Snyder, FHWA, Pers. comm.). The area that will
be impacted by blasting noise is difficult to to determine due to the
sporadic and short-term nature of the blasting activity.

To put these noise levels into perspective, normal human conversation
measures about 60 dBA. In general, human sound perception is such that a
change in sound level of 3 dBA is just noticable, a change of 5 dBA is
clearly noticable, and a change of 10 dBA is perceived as a doubling or
halving of sound level (FHWA 2005).

The area that will experience the greatest increase in noise during
construction will be the western portion of the project area where the
current noise levels are the lowest. The increase in noise disturbance
during construction could encompass an area up to 2.4 miles (12,800 ft)
from the actual work limits. This distance was estimated based upon (1)
the lowest existing noise level in the construction area of 44.9 dBA,
(2) the typical reduction level of 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance for
a line noise source over soft ground with heavy vegetative ground cover
(D. Snyder, FHWA, Pers. comm.), (3) the average noise level produced
during project construction is estimated to be 85 dBA (D. Snyder, FHWA,
Pers. comm.; FHWA 2005).

FHWA estimates that noise generated during the operation of the project
from traffic will more than double the ambiant level with an increase of
approximately 14.4 dBA (D. Snyder, FHWA, Pers. comm.). The noise level
anticipated during project operation is around 59.3 dBA. This would
noticably increase the noise around the project to a distance of about
400 ft based upon the typical reduction level of 4.5 dBA per doubling of
distance for noise.

Impacts to surface waters are anticipated from the project. Wetlands and
streams will be directly and indirectly affected within the project
footprint during all phases of the project. Also, some surface waters
outside the actual project footprint could be indirectly affected from
the project due to the anticipated change in the volume of pollutants
entering the environment (e.g., sediment, de-icing agents) and the
alteration of surface water drainage patterns. The physical, chemical,
and biological nature of wetlands and streams will be altered by various
activities such as ditching, culverting, and filling. FHWA and ODOT
estimate that up to 7.08 miles of streams and 2.45 acres of wetlands
will be directly or indirectly impacted by the project.

The project area is underlain by the Conemaugh and Allegheny Series,
which consist of sandstone, shales, and coals that have low primary
porosities. Thus, groundwater transport and storage in these rocks
occurs through secondary porosity (i.e., fractures and bedding plane
partings). In the project area, usable quantities of groundwater are
generally encountered only below the valley floors (FHWA and ODOT 2004).
Changes to groundwater from the project are anticipated to be minimal.

Based on the discussion above, we determine the action area for the U.S.
33 Nelsonville bypass as the project footprint plus an additional 2.4
mile area surrounding the footprint that will be temporarily affected by
construction noise. Once construction is completed and the highway
bypass is operational, traffic noise will permanently impact an
estimated area of 400 ft to either side of the highway.

**II. [STATUS OF THE SPECIES]{.underline}**

The Indiana bat is a species that continues to decline since being
listed as an endangered species in 1967. Recovery of this species faces
several challenges and there are multiple biological reasons why the
outlook for this species may be unfavorable. These reasons below, will
be discussed throughout this Biological Opinion as they pertain to the
project impacts on the species.

-   Indiana bats exhibit colonial behaviors in virtually every stage of
    their life history

-   Male and female Indiana bats exhibit strong site fidelity to their
    summer grounds

-   Resilience of Indiana bats is limited by the species' low
    reproductive capability

-   The declining trend in Indiana bat numbers is both long-standing and
    widespread

The well-documented philopatric behavior of Indiana bats suggests that
loss of roosting habitat alone can have adverse consequences (Kurta and
Murray 2002; Gumbert et al. 2002). Healthy female bats start breeding
their first fall and can produce one pup per year for up to 14-15 years
(Humphrey et al. 1977). However, this current reproductive capacity has
been insufficient to offset mortality rates over the last 40+ years.
Indiana bat populations continue to plummet, with population decreases
of 23 percent from 1960/70 -- 1980, 30 percent from 1980 -- 1990, and 19
percent from 1990 -- 2000. The highest declines have been observed in
the southern part of the species' range.

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

The Indiana bat is a medium-sized bat, closely resembling the little
brown bat (*Myotis lucifugus*) but differing in coloration. There are no
recongnized subspecies. The Indiana bat has been found in 27 states
throughout much of the eastern United States (USFWS 1999). More
specifically, NatureServe (2004) describes its range as going from
eastern Oklahoma, north to Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan, east to New
England and south to western North Carolina, Virginia, and northern
Alabama. It is virtually extirpated in the northeastern United States.
The Indiana bat is migratory, and the above described range includes
both summer and winter habitat. Major populations of this species
hibernate in Indiana, Kentucky, and Missouri, with smaller populations
reported in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi,
New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia. The majority of maternity colonies are
located in the glaciated midwest.

**[Life History and Population Dynamics]{.underline}**

The lifespan for Indiana bats is generally between 5 and 10 years
(Thomson 1982), but individuals may live much longer, with the oldest
known bat captured 20 years after it was first banded (LaVal & LaVal
1980). Based on a 13-year study, Humphrey and Cope (1977) found that the
adult period of life is characterized by two distinct survival phases.
The first is a high and apparently constant rate from 1 to 6 years after
marking with 76% and 70% annual rates of survival for females and males,
respectively. The second phase is a lower, constant rate after 6 years,
with annual survival rates of 66% for females up to 10 years and 36% for
males. In one study in Indiana, survival of pups was found to be very
high at 92% from birth to weaning (Humphrey et al. 1977). Post-weaning
to age 1 survival is unknown, but believed to be low.

The key stages in the annual cycle of Indiana bats are: hibernation,
spring staging, pregnancy, lactation, volancy/weaning, migration, and
swarming. While varying with weather and latitude, generally bats begin
winter torpor in mid-September through late October and begin emerging
in April. Females depart shortly after emerging and are pregnant when
they reach their summer area. Birth of young occurs between mid-June and
early July and then nursing continues until weaning, which is shortly
after young become volant in mid to late July. Migration back to the
hibernacula may begin in August and continue through September. Males
depart later from the hibernacula and begin migrating back earlier than
females.

###### [Hibernation]{.underline}

Generally, Indiana bats hibernate from October through April depending
upon local weather conditions. Bats cluster on cave ceilings during
hibernation and are capable of clustering 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.

Temperature and relative humidity are important factors in the selection
of hibernation sites. During the early autumn, Indiana bats roost in
warm sections of caves and move down a temperature gradient as
temperatures decrease. In mid-winter, Indiana bats tend to roost in
portions of the cave where temperatures are cool (37-43^o^ F). Long-term
data suggest an ideal temperature range for hibernacula is between
3-6^o^C (USFWS 1999). A recent study of highly populated hibernacula
documented a temperature range of 3-7.2^o^C (Tuttle and Kennedy 2002).
Relative humidity in Indiana bat hibernacula is usually above 74% but
below saturation (Hall 1962; Humphrey 1978; LaVal et al. 1976), although
relative humidity as low as 54% has been observed (Myers 1964). 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.

###### [Female Maternity Colony and Summer Roosting Habitat]{.underline} 

###### Upon emergence from the hibernacula in the spring, females seek suitable habitat for maternity colonies (USFWS 1999). Coloniality is a requisite behavior for reproductive success. Females usually start grouping into larger maternity colonies by mid-May and give birth to a single young between late June and early July (Humphrey et al. 1977). These colonies are typically located under the sloughing bark of live, dead and partially dead trees in upland and lowland forest (Humphrey et al. 1977; Gardner et al. 1991). Colony trees are usually large-diameter, standing dead trees with direct exposure to sunlight. The warmer temperature from sunlight exposure helps development of fetal and juvenile young (USFWS 1999). A maternity roost may contain 100 or more adult females and their pups.

###### 

Roost trees often provide suitable habitat as a maternity roost for only
a short period of time. Roost trees are ephemeral in nature; suitable
trees fall to the ground or lose important structural characteristic
such as bark exfoliation (Gardner et al. 1991; Britzke et al. 2003).
Dead trees retain their bark for only a certain period of time (about
2-8 years). Once all bark has fallen off a tree, it is considered
unsuitable to the Indiana bat for roosting. Gardner et al. (1991) found
that 31% of Indiana bat occupied roost sites were unavailable the summer
following their discovery; 33% of the remaining occupied roost sites
were unavailable by the second summer.

###### However, female Indiana bats have shown strong site fidelity to their summer maternity grounds, and will use suitable roost trees in consecutive years, if they remain standing and have sloughing bark (Gardner et al. 1991; Callahan et al. 1997; Kurta and Murray 2002). 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. 

###### 

###### It is unknown how many roosts are critical to the survival of a colony, but the temporary nature of the use of the roost trees dictates that several must be available in an area if the colony is to return to the same area and raise their young successfully. Indiana bats require many roost trees to fulfill their needs during the summer (Callahan et al. 1997). In Michigan, Indiana bats used two to four different roost trees during the course of one season (Kurta and Williams 1992). In Missouri, each colony used between 10-20 roost trees, and these were not widely dispersed (all within a circle ranging in size from 0.81 to 1.48 km) (Miller et al. 2002). The important factor associated with roost trees is their ability to protect individuals from the elements, and to provide thermal regulation of their environment. Maternity colonies have at least one primary roost, which is generally located in an opening or at the edge of a forest stand (USFWS 1999). Maternity colonies also use multiple alternate roosts which are located in the open or in the interior of forest stands (USWFS 1999). Exposure to sunlight is important during development of fetal and juvenile young. In Missouri, use of dead trees in the forest interior increased in response to unusually warm weather (i.e., shading provided a cooler thermal environment), and use of live trees and snags in interior forest increased during periods of precipitation (Miller et al. 2002). Maternity colonies in North Carolina and Tennessee used roosts located above the surrounding canopy (Britzke et al. 2003).

Indiana bats have been found roosting in several different species of
trees, and it appears that they choose roost trees based on their
structural composition. Therefore, it is difficult to determine if one
particular species of tree is more important than others. However, 12
tree species have been listed in the Habitat Suitability Index Model as
primary species (class 1 trees) (Rommé et al. 1995). These trees include
silver maple (*Acer saccharinum*), shagbark hickory (*Carya ovata*),
shellbark hickory (*C. laciniosa*), bitternut hickory (*C.
cordiformis*), green ash (*Fraxinus pennsylvanica*), white ash (*F.
americana*), eastern cottonwood (*Populus deltoides*), red oak (*Quercus
rubra*), post oak (*Q. stellata*), white oak (*Q. alba*) slippery elm
(*Ulmus rubra*), and American elm (*Ulmus americana*). In addition to
these species, sugar maple (*A. saccharum*), shingle oak (*Q.
imbricaria*), and sassafras (*Sassafras albidum*) are listed as class 2
trees (Rommé et al. 1995). The class 2 trees are those species believed
to be less important, but that still have the necessary characteristics
to be used as roosts. These tree species are favored by the Indiana bat,
since as these trees age, their bark will slough.

During a fall survey in Kentucky in 1994 and 1995, female Indiana bats
utilized sourwood (*Oxydendrum arboreum*) and pignut hickory as roost
trees and were found to roost singly (Kiser and Elliott 1996). The
females' trees were between 6 and 10 inches in diameter and contained
bark cover between 54 and 70 percent. Females tended to roost within
0.75 miles of the hibernacula, whereas males roosted anywhere from 0.95
to 2.35 miles from the hibernacula. Both males and females were found to
use 2 to 3 roost trees for 2 to 3 days at a time (Kiser and Elliott
1996). Britzke et al. (2003) documented the use of conifers by maternity
colonies in the mountains of Tennessee and North Carolina.

###### [Male Roosting Habitat]{.underline}

Some adult males use mature forests around and near their hibernacula
for roosting and foraging from spring through fall. However, some male
bats have been found to leave the hibernacula area completely (USFWS
1999). Male Indiana bats have been found to use the same habitat in
subsequent years (USFWS 1999).

Roost trees are primarily dead snags on upper slopes or ridgetops,
however live shagbark hickory and pignut hickory (*Carya glabra*) trees
have been recorded as roost trees. Male Indiana bats have been found to
roost singly during autumn in scarlet oak (*Quercus coccinea*), Virginia
pine (*Pinus virginiana*), red maple (*Acer rubrum*), shagbark hickory,
and red oak. These trees ranged in diameter from 4.6 to 26 inches and
had bark coverage ranging from 1 percent to 100 percent. However, the
majority of the roost trees had bark coverage of at least 60 percent
(Kiser and Elliott 1996).

During a 1999 radio telemetry survey on the Athens District of the Wayne
National Forest, males were found roosting in American elm, red maple,
shagbark hickory, and sugar maple trees. The average dbh of these trees
was 11.8 inches and the average length of time each tree was used was
2.3 days (Schultes 2002). In 2000, two male Indiana bats were found
roosting in American elm, red maple, black oak (*Quercus velutina*),
white oak, pignut hickory and shagbark hickory. The average dbh of these
trees was 11.9 inches and the average length of time each tree was used
was 1.9 days (Schultes 2002).

[Foraging]{.underline} Indiana bats feed exclusively on flying aquatic
and terrestrial insects. Although there are no consistent trends, diet
appears to vary across their range, as well as seasonally and with age,
sex and reproductive-status (Murray and Kurta 2002; Belwood 1979).
Murray and Kurta (2002) found that diet is somewhat flexible across the
range and that prey consumed is potentially affected by regional and
local differences in bat assemblages and/or availability of foraging
habitats and prey. For example, Lee (1993) and Murray and Kurta (2002)
found that adult aquatic insects (Trichoptera and Diptera) made up
25-81% of Indiana bat diets in northern Indiana and Michigan. However,
in the southern part of the species range terrestrial insects
(Lepidoptera) were the most abundant prey items (as high as 85%) (Brack
and LeVal 1985; LaVal and LaVal 1980; Belwood 1979). Kiser and Elliot
(1996) found that Lepidopterans (moths), Coleopterans (beetles),
Dipterans (true flies) and Homopterans (leafhoppers) accounted for the
majority of prey items (87.9% and 93.5% combined for 1994 and 1995,
respectively) consumed by male Indiana bats in their study in Kentucky.
Diptera, Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, and Coleopterans also comprised the
main prey of Indiana bats in Michigan (Murray and Kurta 2002), however,
Hymenopterans (alate ants) were also taken when abundant.

Foraging habitat for male and female Indiana bats in the core of its
range is assumed to include forest habitats with open understories and
canopy closures of 50 to 70 percent (Romme et al. 1995). However, other
foraging habitat includes upland, bottomland, and riparian woodlands, as
well as forest and cropland edges, fallow fields, and areas of impounded
water (Kiser and Elliott 1996). Other studies are showing that summer
roosting and foraging areas, in parts of its range, can contain diverse
cover types, including agricultural lands, residential areas, and open
woodlands (Carter et al. 2002; Farmer et al. 2002; Miller et al. 2002).

Females tend to use larger foraging areas than males during the summer.
One study recorded a post-lactating female as having a foraging range of
approximately 530 acres; males had an area of approximately 140 acres
(Kiser and Elliott 1996). New information from a Michigan study
documented pregnant and lactating females traveling up to 2.6 miles from
the day roost to foraging areas (Murray and Kurta 2004). Observations by
Murray and Kurta (2004) indicated that female Indiana bats would not fly
over open areas between foraging areas on the northern edge of its range
in Michigan, but appeared to follow wooded corridors described as a
narrow fence line of mature trees. These foraging areas included lakes,
ponds, an area that was 50% wooded and 50% open fields, woodlands, and
forested wetlands.

During summer months, some males remain near the hibernacula and forage
along floodplain pastures, within dense forests and on ridge tops. Male
Indiana bats generally travel between 1.2 and 2.6 miles from their
summer roosts to summer foraging areas (USFWS 1999). A separate study
indicated male Indiana bats have a minimum foraging area size of about
400 acres and a high use area size of 115 acres (Kiser and Elliott
1996).

During the fall, male bats were found to forage in upland, ridgetop
forest as well as valley and riparian forest areas (USFWS 1999). Male
Indiana bats tend to use larger foraging areas during autumn than in
summer. However, female bats use even larger autumn foraging areas than
males. During October, males were observed to be traveling between 0.89
and 1.5 miles to forage (Kiser and Elliott 1996).

###### [Fall Swarming and Mating]{.underline}

From late-August to mid-October, prior to entering the hibernacula,
large numbers of Indiana bats fly in and out of cave or mine openings
from dusk till dawn in a behavior called swarming. Swarming usually
lasts for several weeks and mating occurs toward the end of this period.
Male Indiana bats tend to be active for a longer period of time than
females during swarming and will enter the hibernacula later than the
females (USFWS 1999). Adult females store sperm through the winter thus
delaying fertilization until early May. **[Range-wide
Status]{.underline}** The Indiana bat was officially listed as an
endangered species on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001) under the Endangered
Species Preservation Act of October 15, 1966 (80 Stat. 926; 16 U.S.C.
668aa\[c\]). The Endangered Species Act of 1973 extended full protection
to the species. Thirteen winter hibernacula (11 caves and two mines) in
6 states were designated as critical habitat for the Indiana bat in 1976
(41 FR 187). 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. The recovery plan is currently being updated to reflect new
information concerning summer habitat use. Based on censuses taken at
hibernacula, the total known Indiana bat population is estimated to
number about 388,000 bats (A. King, USFWS, Pers. comm.). More than 85%
of the range-wide population occupies 9 Priority I hibernacula
(hibernation sites with a recorded population \>30,000 bats since 1960),
although 2 of these currently have low numbers of bats. Indiana,
Kentucky, and Missouri each contain 3 Priority I hibernacula. Priority
II hibernacula (recorded population \>500 but \<30,000 bats since 1960)
are known from the aforementioned states, in addition to Arkansas,
Illinois, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Priority III hibernacula, with recorded populations of \<500 bats or
records of single hibernating individuals, have been reported in 17
states (Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin). Indiana
bat numbers have declined in every 10-year census period: \~883,300
Indiana bats in 1960/1970; 678,700 in 1980; 473,500 in 1990; and 382,300
in 2000/2001 (Clawson 2002). At the time of Euopean settlement, it is
believed that Indiana bats were a very adundant mammal, with more than
10 million bats occupying 1 hibernaculum alone (Tuttle et al. 2004).
Since the 1960s, the Indiana bat has declined by 57% (Clawson 2002).
Despite recovery efforts, the populations in the southern part of the
range (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia)
continue to decline, and cummulatively are down 80%. However, since the
1960s the northern part of the range (Illinois, Indiana, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia) has experienced a population increase of
30%. Winter population numbers of Indiana bats in Ohio are based on 2
hibernacula, located in abandoned limestone mines in Preble and Lawrence
counties. In Ohio, 2004/2005 hibernacula census detected 9,769
individuals, down from the 2002/2003 census of 9,996. **[Threats to the
Species]{.underline}** The causes for the population decline of the
Indiana bat have not yet been definitively determined. However, the
documented and suspected reasons for decline include disturbance and
vandalism; improper cave gates and structures; natural hazards;
microclimate changes; adverse land use practices; and chemical
contamination. Human disturbance of hibernating bats led to a decline in
Indiana bat populations from the 1960s to the 1980s (USFWS 1999).
Disturbance from recreational cavers and researchers entering
hibernacula can cause bats to expend crucial fat reserves before they
are able to forage in the spring. If disturbance occurs too often, fat
reserves can be depleted before the species can begin foraging in the
spring. Changes in the microclimate of a cave or mine can affect
temperature and moisture level, thereby affecting suitability of the
hibernaculum or affecting bat physiology (Richter et al. 1993; Tuttle
and Kennedy 2002). Blockage of entry points can alter airflow in a cave
or mine. This poses serious consequences when a hibernaculum is on the
warm edge of the species hibernating tolerance, or has less stable
temperatures. In northern areas, changes in airflow could lead to areas
of the mine or cave being too cold for the bat. In either case, changes
in airflow and the microclimate could result in individuals having to
use less optimal locations in the hibernaculum. This could leave them
vulnerable to predation, freezing, or exhaustion of fat reserves.
Improper gates have either rendered hibernacula unavailable to the
Indiana bat, or have altered air flow causing hibernacula temperatures
to be too high for bats to retain fat reserves through the winter (USFWS
1999). Cave entrances essential to proper cooling of key hibernating
sites must be identified and protected from inadvertent closures,
including those that may occur naturally (Tuttle and Kennedy 2002).
Natural hazards including flooding, freezing during severe winters, and
ceiling collapse have caused the loss of Indiana bats (USFWS 1999).
Indiana bats have been drowned by flooding of caves or mines, either by
river flooding or changes in subsurface and surface hydrology. Severe
weather can affect bats roosting in summer habitat. There has been a
documented occurrence of strong winds and hail stripping bark from a
tree, forcing the bats to move to another roost (USFWS 1999). This could
occur during summer roosting, or during migration. Land use practices,
fire suppression, and agricultural development have reduced available
roosting and foraging habitat as well as reduced the abundance of
insects for bat prey across its range. Ongoing research and monitoring
is helping to enhance the understanding of habitat use and
characteristics. When done properly, experts consider forestry practices
to be compatible with Indiana bat conservation; however silvicultural
methods need to maintain structural features important for roosting and
foraging (BCI 2001). Bioaccumulation of environmental contaminants is
suspected as a potential factor in the decline of the Indiana bat (USFWS
1999). Organochlorine insecticides became widely used after World War
II; they are neurotoxic, synthetic chemicals of which many are resistant
to metabolism in mammals (O'Shea and Clark 2002). Organochlorine
insecticides may have resulted in chronic mortality of Indiana bats
(O'Shea and Clark 2002). For example, guano collected from an Indiana
bat roost in Indiana, in the 1970s, had concentrations of dieldrin in
their guano comparable to the levels found in colonies of gray bats that
suffered mortality from dieldrin poisoning (O'Shea and Clark 2002).
Schmidt et al. (2002) measured levels of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAH) and organochlorine pesticides in surrogate bat
species to ascertain potential affects to the Indiana bat. At low
concentrations, these chemicals cause cancer and cellular mutations in
mammals, and may affect reproductive success by reducing viability of
gametes or offspring. In this Missouri study at Fort Leonard Wood, all
red bats and eastern pipistrelles had detectable concentrations of DDE,
heptachlor epoxide and PAHs, and many had measurable amounts of
dieldrin. **III. [ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE]{.underline}** The
environmental baseline is the past and present impacts of all Federal,
State, or private actions and other human activities in an action, the
anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in a action area
that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and
the impact of State or private actions that are contemporaneous with the
consultation in process (50 CFR 402.02). The action area lies in the
unglaciated Allegheny Plateau section of the Appalachian Plateaus
physiographic province. This area is characterized by narrow, strongly
sloping and/or moderately steep ridge tops with steep and very steep
side slopes. Maximum relief in the project area ranges from
approximately 280 to 320 feet. Ridge tops area slightly over 1,000 feet
above sea level and the Hocking River valley is at slightly less than
670 feet above sea level (FHWA and ODOT 2004). On xeric slopes and
ridgetops, chestnut oak (*Quercus prinus*) and white oak are the two
primary dominant species of trees; subdominants include black oak,
scarlet oak, northern red oak, shagbark hickory, pignut hickory, and
mockernut hickory (*C. tomentosa*). Scattered individual red maple,
black locust (*Robinia pseudoacacia*), sassafras, white ash, sourgum,
and Virginia pine are often presents in upper slope and ridgetop
communities. The action area is predominately forested and rural in
nature, with the exception of the city of Nelsonville with a population
of 5,230, with the forest comprised of both primary (20 -- 50 years) and
secondary (50 -- 100 years) growth stands (L. Andrews, WNF, Pers.
comm.). Land ownership is a mix of private, commercial, and public land,
with approximately 50% of the forested habitat to be removed occurring
on the WNF. In general, WNF lands in the action area are comprised of
secondary growth with the exception of an area east of the city of
Nelsonville that is 100+ years of age. Nelsonville was incorporated in
1838 and prospered as a mining town until the 1940's when the mining
operation closed and the prosperity of this area diminished. The action
area contains 5 land cover types. Forest habitat dominates the landscape
at 84% of the land area. The composition of the forested areas is
approximately 72% closed deciduous, 5% open deciduous, 6% mixed
evergreen/deciduous, and 1% evergreen. The remaining land cover types in
the action area are agriculture (2%), oldfield/shrub (5%), water (\<1%),
barren (\<1%), and urban/developed (8%) (FHWA and ODOT 2004). Fourteen
wetlands, comprising approximately 2.45 acres, have been identified
within the project area. Thirteen of the wetlands are mixed swamp
communities and the other is a cattail marsh. The mixed swamp
communities are dominated by a mixture of wet swamp trees and mesic
species in an area that is at least seasonally wet with non-flowing
water. The cattail marsh is comprised of over 50% broad-leaved cattail
(*Typha latifolia*). Sixty-three stream segments, comprising
approximately 37,381 ft, occur within the project area. Approximately
10,761 ft of these streams are currently being impacted by acid mine
drainage that has resulted from prior coal mining activities. Specific
data on the streams and wetlands in the action area are included in the
U.S. 33 Nelsonville Bypass Impact Addendum Report to the Level II
Ecological Survey Report and are hereby incorporated in this opinion by
reference. Throughout the action area, humans have used lower slopes and
valleys (bottomlands) for a variety of purposes, including pastures,
home sites, gardens, coal tipples and other agrarian, residential, and
industrial purposes. As such, most plant communities on lower slopes
have been modified and usually contain non-native species. Some areas
still exhibit natural conditions; these areas are typically dominated by
an overstory of sycamore (*Plantanus occidentalis*), tuliptree
(*Liriodendron tulipifera*) sugar maple, American beech (*Fagus
grandifolia*), and sweet gum (*Liquidambar styraciflua*). Historical
coal mining, using both surface and underground techniques, has altered
the landscape; bottoms have been filled and flat benches occur on steep
slopes. Abandoned mine portals are known from within the action area and
are indicative of extensive past underground mining. Historic coal
mining without post-mining reclamation has created highwalls, sunken
streams, acidic gob piles, and acid mine drainage throughout the Dorr
Run and Nelsonville areas. Poor mine reclamation before the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and resultant acid mine
runoff have impaired most streams within the action area (ESI 2002).
Along Segment A there are several abandoned deep mines below the
alignment. In Segment C, there are 2 coal seams that have been deep
mined. Unreclaimed surface mines which include highwalls and mine spoil,
occur throughout the action area. **[Status of the Species within the
Action Area]{.underline}** Indiana bat presence in and surrounding the
action area is well documented (see Table 2 below). Indiana bats were
first documented in the action area in July 1997 (Kiser and Bryan 1997),
and subsequently documented in the action area during the summer of 1999
and 2000, and during the fall of 2000, 2002, and 2004 (Kiser et. al.
1999; Kiser et. al. 2000; ESI 2001a; ESI 2001b; Schultes 2002; WNF 2002;
ESI 2002; ESI 2003; WNF 2004). In addition to the Indiana bat, 7 other
bat species are known to occur in the action area. These include the
little brown bat (*Myotis lucifugus*), northern long-eared bat (*Myotis
septentrionalis*), big brown bat (*Eptesicus fuscus*), red bat
(*Lasiurus borealis*), hoary bat (*Lasiurus cinereus*), eastern
pipistrelle (*Pipistrellus subflavus*), and silver-haired bat
(*Lasionycteris noctivagans*) (Lacki 1981; Kiser and Bryan 1997; Kiser
et. al. 1999; Kiser et. al. 2000; ESI 2001a; ESI 2001b; Schultes 2002;
WNF 2002; ESI 2002; ESI 2003; WNF 2004). Surveys for the Indiana bat
have been conducted in and around the action area in 1979-1980, 1997,
1999-2000, 2001, 2002, and 2004. The surveys were conducted for either
WNF land management activities or for the U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass
project. Table 2 summarizes these various surveys.

**Table 2.** Summary of bat surveys in the action area.

+---------+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| **[     | **   | **[Survey               |                         |
| Source] | [Dat | Results]{.underline}**  |                         |
| {.under | e]{. |                         |                         |
| line}** | unde |                         |                         |
|         | rlin |                         |                         |
|         | e}** |                         |                         |
+---------+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Wayne   | S    | • No Indiana bats       |                         |
| N       | umme | captured or observed; 7 |                         |
| ational | r/Wi | other species of bats   |                         |
| Forest  | nter |                         |                         |
|         | 1    | captured                |                         |
| (Lacki  | 979- |                         |                         |
| 1981)   | 1980 | • Summer: 8 sites       |                         |
|         |      | netted along Monday     |                         |
|         |      | Creek near project area |                         |
|         |      |                         |                         |
|         |      | • Winter: 26 mines on   |                         |
|         |      | the WNF Athens Unit     |                         |
|         |      | visually surveyed       |                         |
|         |      |                         |                         |
|         |      | during the winters of   |                         |
|         |      | 1979 and 1980           |                         |
+---------+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Ec      | Su   | • **[4 lactating female |                         |
| o-tech, | mmer | Indiana bats            |                         |
| Inc.    | 1997 | captured]{.underline}** |                         |
|         |      | on July 22, 1997 by     |                         |
| (Kiser  |      |                         |                         |
| and     |      | the Hocking River near  |                         |
| Bryan   |      | Haydenville, Ohio       |                         |
| 1997)   |      |                         |                         |
|         |      | ▪ 7 other species of    |                         |
|         |      | bats also captured      |                         |
|         |      |                         |                         |
|         |      | • 6 sites netted on WNF |                         |
|         |      | near project area       |                         |
+---------+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Appa    | Su   | • **[1 adult male       |                         |
| lachian | mmer | Indiana bat             |                         |
| Te      | 1999 | captured]{.underline}** |                         |
| chnical |      | on July 7, 1999 and     |                         |
| Se      |      | radio-                  |                         |
| rvices, |      |                         |                         |
| Inc.    |      | tracked                 |                         |
|         |      |                         |                         |
| (Kiser  |      | ▪ 7 other species of    |                         |
| et. al. |      | bats also captured      |                         |
| 1999)   |      |                         |                         |
|         |      | • 7 sites netted on WNF |                         |
|         |      | near project area       |                         |
+---------+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| **[     | **   | **[Survey               | **[Survey               |
| Source] | [Dat | Results]{.underline}**  | Results]{.underline}**  |
| {.under | e]{. |                         |                         |
| line}** | unde |                         |                         |
|         | rlin |                         |                         |
|         | e}** |                         |                         |
+---------+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Appa    | Su   | • **[2 adult male       |                         |
| lachian | mmer | Indiana bat             |                         |
| Te      | 2000 | captured]{.underline}** |                         |
| chnical |      | on June 12, 2000 and    |                         |
| Se      |      | July                    |                         |
| rvices, |      |                         |                         |
| Inc.    |      | 10, 2000 and            |                         |
|         |      | radio-tracked           |                         |
| (Kiser  |      |                         |                         |
| et. al. |      | ▪ 6 other species of    |                         |
| 2000)   |      | bats also captured      |                         |
|         |      |                         |                         |
|         |      | • 9 sites netted on the |                         |
|         |      | WNF near project area   |                         |
+---------+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Enviro  | Fall | • **[1 juvenile female  |                         |
| nmental | 2000 | Indiana bat             |                         |
| So      |      | captured]{.underline}** |                         |
| lutions |      | on September 19,        |                         |
| &       |      |                         |                         |
| Innov   |      | 2000 at mine portal in  |                         |
| ations, |      | project area            |                         |
| Inc.    |      |                         |                         |
|         |      | ▪ 3 other species of    |                         |
| (ESI    |      | bats also captured      |                         |
| 2001a)  |      |                         |                         |
|         |      | • 11 mine portals       |                         |
|         |      | surveyed in Segments A  |                         |
|         |      | and C                   |                         |
+---------+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Enviro  | Fall | • No Indiana bats       |                         |
| nmental | 2001 | captured; 3 other       |                         |
| So      |      | species of bats         |                         |
| lutions |      | captured                |                         |
| &       |      |                         |                         |
| Innov   |      | • 18 mine portals       |                         |
| ations, |      | surveyed in Segment C   |                         |
| Inc.    |      |                         |                         |
|         |      |                         |                         |
| (ESI    |      |                         |                         |
| 2001b)  |      |                         |                         |
+---------+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Enviro  | Sp   | • No Indiana bats were  |                         |
| nmental | ring | captured; 6 other       |                         |
| So      | /Sum | species of bats         |                         |
| lutions | mer/ |                         |                         |
| &       | Fall | captured or observed    |                         |
| Innov   | 2002 |                         |                         |
| ations, |      | • Spring: 5 mine        |                         |
| Inc.    |      | portals surveyed in     |                         |
|         |      | Segment A               |                         |
| (ESI    |      |                         |                         |
| 2002)   |      | • Summer: 13 sites      |                         |
|         |      | netted in Segment A     |                         |
|         |      |                         |                         |
|         |      | • Fall: 10 mine portals |                         |
|         |      | surveyed in Segment A   |                         |
+---------+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Wayne   | Fall | • **[1 adult male       |                         |
| N       | 2002 | Indiana bat             |                         |
| ational |      | captured]{.underline}** |                         |
| Forest  |      | on September 12, 2002   |                         |
| (WNF    |      |                         |                         |
| 2002)   |      | • 3 other species of    |                         |
|         |      | bats also captured      |                         |
|         |      |                         |                         |
|         |      | • 2 mine portals netted |                         |
|         |      | in Snake Hollow north   |                         |
|         |      | of Nelsonville          |                         |
+---------+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Enviro  | Sp   | • No Indiana bats       |                         |
| nmental | ring | captured; 4 other       |                         |
| So      | 2003 | species of bats         |                         |
| lutions |      |                         |                         |
| &       |      | captured                |                         |
| Innov   |      |                         |                         |
| ations, |      | • 5 mine portals        |                         |
| Inc.    |      | surveyed in Snake       |                         |
|         |      | Hollow north of         |                         |
| (ESI    |      | Nelsonville             |                         |
| 2003)   |      |                         |                         |
+---------+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+
| Wayne   | Fall | • **[1 adult female     |                         |
| N       | 2004 | Indiana bat             |                         |
| ational |      | captured]{.underline}** |                         |
| Forest  |      | on September 28, 2004   |                         |
| (WNF    |      |                         |                         |
| 2004)   |      | • 2 other species of    |                         |
|         |      | bats also captured      |                         |
|         |      |                         |                         |
|         |      | • 2 mine portals netted |                         |
|         |      | in Monkey Hollow, north |                         |
|         |      | of Nelsonville          |                         |
+---------+------+-------------------------+-------------------------+

[Summer Surveys]{.underline}

Several studies have been completed for the WNF in and near the action
area during the Indiana bat summer reproductive period. The earliest
survey occurred during the summers of 1979 and 1980 when 50 sites along
Monday Creek were mist-netted by Lacki (1981). Eight of these sites were
near the project area by the towns of Carbon Hill, Doanville, and
Bessemer, Ohio. The Service was unable to determine the precise
locations of these sites but they all occurred on Monday Creek. No
Indiana bats were captured during these surveys.

In the summer of 1997, 40 sites were mist-netted on the WNF. Of these 40
sites, 6 of the sites were near the project area. On July 22, 1997, 4
reproductively active (lactating) female Indiana bats were captured over
a dirt road paralleling the Hocking River near Haydenville,
approximately 0.75 mi. southwest of the western terminus of the project
footprint and south of the Hocking River (Kiser and Bryan 1997).

Mist-net surveys were also conducted on the WNF during the summers of
1999 and 2000. Of the 37 sites surveyed in 1999, 7 were located near the
project area and 2 of these sites were surveyed in 1997 as well. On July
7, 1999, an adult male Indiana bat was captured at a ridgetop road-rut
in the Dorr Run area in project Segment C, north of the Athens Hocking
Reclamation Center near the Hocking-Athens County line. The bat was
radio-tracked for 14 days to 5 roost trees in a beaver pond on private
property approximately 0.5 miles south of the capture site. The roost
trees were all dead and included 3 American elm, a red maple, and a
shagbark hickory (Kiser et. al. 1999, Shultes 2002).

In 2000, mist-net surveys were conducted at 44 sites on the WNF. Of
these sites, 9 were near the project area and 3 of these sites were also
surveyed in 1999 and/or 1997 (6 new sites surveyed in 2000). Two adult
male Indiana bats were captured on June 12 and July 10, 2000,
respectively. The bat captured on June 12 was netted in a corridor
leading from a road into a wildlife pond approximately 0.6 miles
northeast from the Indiana bat that was captured during the 1999 WNF
survey. The bat was radio-tracked to six roost trees over a 12-day
period. All the roost trees were dead and included a black oak, a white
oak, a pignut hickory, 2 American elms, and a red maple.

The second Indiana bat captured near the project area in 2000 was netted
on private property adjacent to WNF property approximately 2.0 miles
north of project Segment C. The bat was netted over a small road rut
pond on a mowed trail. This bat was successfully radio-tracked for only
one day to a dead shagbark hickory on the WNF approximately 1 mile SE of
the net site and 1.4 miles N of Segment C.

In 2002, mist-netting was conducted at 13 sites within the eastern
portion of the action area (in or near Segment A) for FHWA and ODOT.
High quality suitable Indiana bat roosting and foraging habitat occurs
throughout the eastern portion of the action area, which includes
Segment A. No Indiana bats were captured in the eastern portion of the
action area during this summer survey.

[Spring, Fall, and Winter Surveys]{.underline}

The first winter bat survey near the project area was a visual survey
conducted by Lacki (1981) during the winters of 1979 and 1980 on the
WNF. None of these winter survey sites occur within the action area. The
survey sites closest to the action area are approximately 3 miles to the
NE near Orbiston, Ohio. No Indiana bats were observed during these
surveys although 7 other bat species were captured including the little
brown bat, big brown bat, northern long-eared bat, eastern pipistrelle,
red bat, hoary bat, and silver-haired bat.

During the fall of 2000, 11 mine portals were mist-netted and/or trapped
within project segments A and C. On September 19. 2000, a juvenile
female Indiana bat and 3 other species (see Table 2) were captured at a
portal in the Dorr Run area in project Segment A approximately 200 ft
south of the project construction work limits. Three other species of
bats, the little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, and eastern
pipistrelle, were also captured at this portal.

Fall surveys were conducted at 18 mine portals in project Segment C in
2001. No Indiana bats captured during these surveys but 3 other species,
the little brown bat, eastern pipistrelle, and northern long-eared bat,
were captured (ESI 2001b).

In the spring of 2002, 5 mine portals were surveyed in project Segment A
including the portal where the juvenile female Indiana bat was captured
in 2000 in the Dorr Run area. Bat species captured during the survey
included the little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, and eastern
pipistrelle. Other species detected but not captured at the Dorr Run
portal include the big brown bat and red bat. No Indiana bats were
captured during the survey (ESI 2002).

During the fall of 2002, 10 mine portals were surveyed near Happy Hollow
in the eastern portion of project Segment A. No Indiana bats were
captured during these surveys but 3 species were netted including the
little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, and eastern pipistrelle. The
WNF also conducted surveys in Snake Hollow approximately 0.5 mi to the
north of the project area during the fall of 2002. An adult male Indiana
bat was captured at one of the Snake Hollow portals on September 12. WNF
biologists also noted observing "hundreds of bats" foraging over an
adjacent beaver pond (WNF 2002). Other species captured during the
survey included the little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, and
eastern pipistrelle (WNF 2002).

In the fall of 2004, WNF conducted a survey of 2 mine portals in Monkey
Hollow in the action area approximately 1 mile north of the project
right-of-way. This survey resulted in the capture of an adult female
Indiana bat on September 28, 2004. Other species captured included the
little brown bat and eastern pipistrelle (WNF 2004).

[Interpretation of Survey Results]{.underline}

The western portion of the action area, which includes Segment C south
to the Hocking River and west of the city of Nelsonville, lacks
comprehensive summer mist-net survey coverage within and to the south of
the project Segment C. The existing summer mist-net records in the
western portion of the project area are from surveys conducted for the
WNF. Only 3 of the survey sites are within project Segment C with the
remainder of the sites occurring north of project Segment C, with one
exception; one site was located SW of the western terminus of Segment C,
where the 4 reproductively active (lactating) female Indiana bats were
captured.

In the absence of comprehensive survey data for the western portion of
the action area, the Service must formulate reasonable assumptions as to
the potential for the Indiana bat and its habitat to occur throughout
this area. These assumptions must be made in order to analyze the
potential effects of the action.

Male Indiana bats and 4 reproductive females were captured within or
near (within ¾ mi.) of the proposed action. High quality roosting an
foraging habitat exists throughout the action area and surrounding
landscape. The survey results and the presence of suitable habitat
throughout the action area indicate that both males and reproductive
females occupy the general area. Although the female captures were near
but outside the action area, we believe individuals comprising this
maternity colony likely use the action area, and in particular the
western portion.

This belief is based on the following rationale. Four lactating Indiana
bats were captured during the summer within ¾ mi. of the western
terminus of the project. This distance is well within the dispersal
capabilities of Indiana bats. The western portion of the project area is
almost entirely oak-hickory forest, which is high quality Indiana bat
roosting and foraging habitat. Male Indiana bats have been documented
using the habitat within and to the north of the action area over many
years, indicating that conditions are suitable for Indiana bat roosting
and foraging. Therefore, it is logical and reasonable to conclude that
the western portion of the action area is within the home range of the
maternity colony discovered in 1997.

As explained in the Status of Species section, precisely determining the
size of a maternity colony is difficult without long-term studies. Based
on other Indiana bat studies indicate that the average maternity colony
size is 80 reproductive females. Therefore, for the purposes of our
analysis, we have selected 80 female bats as a reasonable estimate of
the size of the maternity colony within the action area. Additionally,
as each adult female is capable of having 1 pup annually, we also
conclude that up to 80 young are likely present within the western
portion of the action area during the summer maternity season.

As previously discussed in the Life History section of this BO, Indiana
bat maternity colonies require multiple roost trees to fulfull their
thermoregulatory requirements. Maternity roost trees include at least
one primary roost tree and several secondary roost trees. Without detail
ecological study, the extent to which the action area is used by Indiana
bats is unknown. However, given the suitability of the action area and
the length of the corridor, it is likely that primary and secondary
roost trees occur within the action area and possibly within the project
corridor.

Similarly, existing survey data also indicate that male and
non-reproductively active female Indiana bats also use the western
portion action area for roosting and foraging during the summer. The
rationale for this position is based upon the following: (1) three male
Indiana bats were captured in/near the western portion of the action
area in the summer confirming that foraging is occurring in this area,
(2) all of the male bats were radio-tracked to roost trees in and near
the action area confirming that roosting is occurring in this area, and
(3) the forest composition throughout the western portion of the action
area is comparable to the habitat that occurs where the summer Indiana
bat captures occurred.

High quality summer roosting and foraging habitat also occurs throughout
the eastern portion of the action area. Summer surveys in this area,
conducted in accordance with the Service's recommended level of effort
in the Indiana bat summer mist-net survey protocol (USFWS 1999), did not
detect any Indiana bats. However, due to the quality and quantity of
suitable summer habitat throughout the eastern portion of the action
area and the known summer records of Indiana bats in the western portion
of the action area, it is still possible, and likely, that Indiana bats
occur in this area, as well.

The entire project footprint area has been surveyed for suitable Indiana
bat spring, fall, and winter habitat. Fall captures of Indiana bat in
and to the north of Segment A, at portals in Dorr Run, Snake Hollow, and
Monkey Hollow, confirm that Indiana bats occur in the eastern portion of
the action area during the fall swarming and migratory period.

The bat activity documented at the Dorr Run mine portal, where the
Indiana bat was captured on September 19, 2000, is typical of the
behavior of many temperate-region species of bats within the genus
*Myotis* during the fall swarming period (ESI 2001a). During the spring
of 2002, an emergence survey was conducted at the Dorr Run portal. No
Indiana bats were captured during the survey on April 23, May 4, and May
10. However, 3 bat species (little brown bat, northern long-eared, and
eastern pipestrelle) were captured during surveys in spring and fall,
indicating that bats may have utilized the mine for hibernation.

Although the precise use of these portals in the fall is unknown, their
presence during this time is evidence that the mine is important for one
or more of the following reasons: (1) it is used during migration, (2)
it serves as a location for swarming, or (3) that it is used for
hibernation. Given the survey information available, we are unable to
determine the precise function these mines provide, but some reasonable
assumptions can be made based upon the available data. These assumptions
will assist the Service in analyzing the potential effects of the
action.

Based on the following, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that 3
Indiana bat Priority III hibernacula, each with 1 to several hibernating
Indiana bats, occur in the action area in Dorr Run, Snake Hollow, and
Monkey Hollow. First, the Dorr Run, Snake Hollow, and Monkey Hollow
portals were surveyed because they exhibited a combination of conditions
that are considered as general indicators that the mines could support
hibernating bats. Second, in addition to the capture of Indiana bats
during the fall swarming and migratory period in the area at each of
these locations, five other species of bats were captured and/or
detected at these portals during spring and fall sampling as well. This
indicates that the mines may provide suitable conditions for bat
hibernation as swarming activity typically occurs at hibernacula (USFWS
1999). Third, the low number of Indiana bats detected at these portals
is consistent with other known Indiana bat hibernacula in Ohio.
Throughout Ohio, with only 1 exception, Indiana bats congregate in
numbers less than 500.

Many male Indiana bats have been known to remain near their winter
hibernacula during the summer (Whitaker and Brack 2002; USFWS 1999).
Therefore, the occurence of Indiana bats in the eastern portion of the
action area during the fall and potentially during the winter indicates
that Indiana bats may also occur in the eastern portion of the action
area during the summer. However, summer surveys have not detected
Indiana bats in the eastern portion of the action area. Thus, the
Service's assumption that Indiana bats are present in the eastern
portion of the action area but only in a low density seems to be
supported by the presence of potential Priority III hibernacula.

**[Factors Affecting Species Environment within the Action
Area]{.underline}**

Numerous human-related and natural factors have affected the habitat and
Indiana bat occupancy within the action area. A brief discussion of
these factors is provided below.

*[Mining]{.underline}*

Past mining and mineral extraction activities have significantly altered
the natural geologic conditions in the action area. Both surface and
underground coal and clay mining occurred prior to the enactment of
mining reclamation laws in Ohio. Acid mine drainage (AMD) is prevalent
throughout the action area and many of the streams within the action
area have been impacted as a result.

Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) is water that is affected by passage through,
or alteration by, coal or abandoned coal mine environments. The products
of AMD formation, acidity and iron, can devastate water resources by
lowering the pH and coating stream bottoms with iron hydroxide. Streams
in the action area that are impacted from AMD may have a lowered
productivity of aquatic biota, including insects that Indiana bats prey
upon. Furthermore, waterways severely impacted by AMD may not provide
suitable drinking water sources for Indiana bats. Despite the past
impacts to surface water within the action area, the area supports a
high density of bats including Indiana bats and 7 other species. This
indicates that the action area currently provides ample foraging and
drinking sources for bats.

*[Land Ownership and Management]{.underline}*

Approximately 50% of the forested lands within the action area are in
private ownership. In Ohio, timber harvest on private land is not
regulated. Some landowners in the action area may be performing logging
operations at any time of the year. Timber harvest occurring between
April 15 and November 15 could potentially cause the death or injury of
Indiana bats when a tree they are roosting in is felled.

The action area includes a portion of the Athens Ranger District of the
WNF. In general, the WNF is intermixed with private and State owned
lands. The landscape of the WNF is fragmented by roads, farms, mines and
quarries, oil and gas wells, industrial developments, recreational areas
and trails, towns, and utility corridors. The WNF property in and to the
north of the project footprint is one of the largest contiguous land
tract within WNF ownership.

The WNF is comprised of 14 different management areas (MA) with 2 of
these areas, MA 3.1 and MA 3.2, occuring in the action area. MA 3.1 and
MA 3.2 were primarily established to create a vegetative condition
necessary to maintain wildlife habitat diversity and increase and
enhance habitat for early successional wildlife species, provide high
quality hardwoods on a sustained yield basis, and provide various
dispersed recreation opportunities, particularly hunting, hiking, and
horseback riding. These areas are planned to be a mosaic of hardwood and
conifer forests with small waterbodies and open-lands, but the existing
forest is predominantly of the oak-hickory type with between 50 and 100
years of growth. The difference between MA 3.1 and MA 3.2 is that in the
latter area, off road vehicle (ORV) use is allowed on designated trails.
Both of these management areas are supporting the Indiana bat's life
history requirements. In fact, the majority of Indiana bat captures on
that WNF have occurred in these 2 MAs

In 2001, the WNF and the Service conducted a programmatic formal
consultation on the Indiana bat utilizing a tiered approach on the
implementation of the Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). A
non-jeopardy tier I BO was issued to the WNF in September 2001 which
included the anticipated extent of incidental take of the Indiana bat
forest-wide through September 2006. With this tiered consultation
approach, the WNF consults with the Service on individual, site-specific
projects to ensure that the actions are consistent with the tier I BO.
The Service issues tier II BOs to authorize incidental take of the
Indiana bat for projects that are consistent with the tier I
consultation and do not exceed the incidental take anticipated in the
tier I BO.

Currently, 5 site specific WNF projects have been reviewed in the action
area with tier II BOs having been issued for each. The anticipated
incidental take of the Indiana bat on the WNF in the tier I BO was
expressed in acres rather than in numbers of individuals as loss of
suitable habitat was used as a surrogate for take of individual Indiana
bats. The total amount of incidental take of the Indiana bat that has
been authorized in the action area through the issuance of tier II BOs
is 46.3 acres of habitat. This area is only a small fraction of MA 3.1
and MA 3.2. Some of these activities may have had a short term adverse
affect on the bat with over all effects even somewhat beneficial with
habitat improvement, for example watershed restoration projects. Of the
46.3 acres of incidental take exempted in the action area, 37 acres were
for watershed projects that reduced acid mine drainage in the area and
into Monday creek. Since the issuance of the tier I BO in 2001, the
condition of the WNF throughout the action area has remained relatively
stable.

*[Municipal Waste]{.underline}*

Athens Hocking Reclamation Center (AHRC) is an active regional landfill
located on existing U.S. 33, with the actual landfill positioned between
project Segment C and existing U.S. 33. The AHRC property is at least
205 acres which includes five landfill areas (116 acres) and a 300-ft
minimum buffer area of no impact (89 acres) surrounding the landfill. An
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency preferred 1,000-ft buffer area
includes an additional 239 acres extending beyond the 300-ft buffer.
Land ownership of these 239 acres is a combination of AHRC, WNF, state,
and private lands. No residential structures can be placed within the
entire 1000' buffer area surrounding the 116-acre landfill (D. Snyder,
FHWA, Pers. comm.)

Currently, the 116-acre landfill portion of the property is mostly open
and disturbed due to the ongoing landfill operations. Groundwater
monitoring at the landfill indicates that groundwater is being impacted
at one of the landfill areas and that the impacted groundwater is
located entirely on landfill property. The 116-acre active landfill area
is not currently providing suitable habitat for the Indiana bat for
roosting and foraging and based on current fill rates, the AHRC expects
to continue landfill operations for 70 to 100 years (FHWA and ODOT
2004). The 300-ft (89 acre) buffer area surrounding the landfill is
comprised primarily forested and is to remain undeveloped (D. Snyder,
FHWA, Pers. comm.) providing habitat.

In summary, high quality summer roosting and foraging habitat has been
documented throughout the action area. Male and non-reproductive female
Indiana bats likely occur throughout the action area during the summer,
with the majority of Indiana bats occurring throughout the area to the
west of Nelsonville. Data indicate that a maternity colony likely occurs
in the western portion of the action area, and male and non-reproductive
females may be found throughout the action area. Fall and winter
presence is likely restricted to a few individuals swarming, foraging
and hibernating at 3 mine portals.

**IV. [EFFECTS OF THE ACTION]{.underline}**

In evaluating the *effects of the action*, section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and the implementing regulations (50 CFR §402) require the
Service to consider both the direct and indirect effects of the action
on the species, together with the effects of other activities that are
interrelated or interdependent with the action that will be added to the
environmental baseline. *Direct effects* are those effects that have
immediate impacts on the species or its habitat while *indirect effects*
are those that are caused by or will result from the proposed action and
are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur.
*Interrelated actions* are those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for project justification*. Interdependent
action*s are those actions that have no independent utility apart from
the action under consideration.

The *effects* evaluation is necessary to make the required determination
under 7(a)(2), of insuring the Federal action does not jeopardize the
continued existence of the species, or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated critical habitat. *Jeopardize the
continued existence* of a species means to engage in an action that
reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce
appreciably the likelihood of both survival and recovery of a listed
species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or
distribution of that species. The following analysis will evaluate the
effects of the proposed project in relation to the reproduction, numbers
and distribution of the Indiana bat within the action area, and then
further evaluate these effects in the context of the overall range-wide
species status and cumulative effects to the species.

**[Beneficial Effects]{.underline}**

Stream and wetland mitigation may help to offset project impacts to
these resources. In turn, these measures could help to offset impacts to
the Indiana bat through habitat replacement and enhancement. Many of the
streams that will be impacted by the project are currently impacted by
AMD (PB 2004). Several potential stream mitigation activities are
currently being considered by ODOT. These include mitigation of AMD in
Coe Hollow and Bessemer Hollow, restoration of degraded stream banks,
development or enhancement of wetlands, incorporation of natural stream
design principals for stream relocation within the project limits,
and/or preservation of streams and their riparian areas by acquisition
of conservation easements (ODOT 2004). Stream mitigation could offset
and even improve water quality in the area. An improvement in water
quality could replace or increase the productivity of aquatic insect
prey and suitable drinking sources. In turn, stream mitigation could
potentially have a beneficial effect on the Indiana bat at a later time
when measures have been implemented.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has established Ohio Water
Quality Standards that address wetland mitigation criteria in the state
of Ohio. These standards require wetland mitigation at or above a ratio
of 1.5:1 (ODOT 2004). Mitigation at or above a 1.5:1 ratio could replace
and enhance habitat for the Indiana bat by increasing the quantity and
quality of foraging habitat.

FHWA and ODOT propose to incorporate the creation of upland ponds and
waterholes as the project plans are refined. Creation of the features
could offset losses of and potential enhance the suitability of the
habitat around the project area by providing new foraging and drinking
opportunities. It is difficult to meaningfully analyze the potential
beneficial effects to the Indiana bat from mitigation activities for
this project at this time because precise methods and locations for
mitigation have not been established. Furthermore, recent research by
Porej (2003a, 2003b) suggests that mitigation wetlands often do not
adequately replace the functions of natural wetlands. Therefore, the
Service surmises that the potential for future beneficial effects from
stream and wetland mitigation for the Nelsonville bypass projects is
minimal.

**[Direct Effects]{.underline}**

*[Loss of Roosting Habitat when Bats are Present]{.underline}*

Indiana bats have been captured outside of the maternity season at mine
portals in and near the action area during the fall migratory and
swarming period. Some of these bats may be migrating through the area
and others may be hibernating in the abandoned mines in the action area.
Bats that are hibernating in the action area would also be present in
the area during the spring as staging occurs following emergence from
hibernation. Indiana bats typically day roost in trees rather than caves
or mines during the migration/swarming and staging periods.

The project proposes to directly impact an area of up to 768 acres.
According to the data provided in the BA, approximately 83 % of the
project area contains suitable forested Indiana bat habitat. This means
that approximately 637 acres of suitable Indiana bat roosting habitat
will be eliminated by the project. The removal of 637 acres of forested
habitat presents a direct threat to any Indiana bats that may be
roosting in trees that are cut between the September 15 - November 15
fall swarming period and the March 15 -- April 15 spring staging period.

During the fall and spring active periods, Indiana bats typically day
roost alone or in small groups as life history requirements during this
period do not necessitate the formation of colonies. Tree cutting is an
activity that typically occur during the daytime when Indiana bats would
be roosting in trees. Limited information suggests that some Indiana
bats would remain in their roost trees until after the trees are felled
and that some bats will survive the impact of the fall and then attempt
to crawl or fly out of the tree and seek cover elsewhere (Belwood 2002).
Bats on the underside of the trees will likely be injured or killed when
the trees fall to the ground. Unlike the situation in Goshen, Ohio
(Belwood 2002) where the fallen tree was not immediately limbed and cut
up for processing, bats at this project site will have little time to
reorient and escape prior to the onset of additional impacts.

Additional tree felling and the operation of heavy equipment (log
skidders) in the vicinity of felled trees will likely further reduce the
survival of those bats. Therefore, those bats that survive the fall of
their roost tree are likely to be killed or injured while attempting to
escape and seek cover elsewhere. Those that move to a nearby tree for
cover (*i.e.*, a tree located within the area to be cleared) will again
be exposed within a short period of time to another repetition of risk
of death or injury as that tree is also felled, limbed, and skidded out
of the forest. Due to the solitary roosting habits of the Indiana bat
during tree clearing operations, death or injury to Indiana bats in
trees that are cut is expected to occur to individuals in separate
events and to be sporadic across the project footprint.

During tree clearing operations, Indiana bats roosting outside the
project footprint are not likely to be killed or injured as trees are
felled. However, these bats may be exposed to noise and vibrations cause
by tree clearing activites and equipment. Based on available
information, the reponsiveness to these disturbances may range from no
perceivable response to avoidance of the area.

Direct effects to the Indiana bat from tree cutting between September 15
and November 15 and between March 15 and April 15 are expected to range
from death or injury of Indiana bats roosting in the project footprint
to harassment or even no adverse effects to some Indiana bats roosting
outside the project footprint but within the action area. The Service
anticipates that felling of trees between November 15 and March 31
should avoid directly killing or injuring Indiana bats since the bats
hibernate in caves and mines during this time.

FHWA proposes the following measures to avoid or minimize direct take of
roosting Indiana bats: (1) All construction activities will be confined
to the construction work limits defined in the project description; (2)
Tree cutting within the construction work limits will be minimized
wherever possible; (3) Cutting of trees \> 2" dbh will occur between
September 15 and April 15 to avoid direct take of Indiana bats during
the summer maternity season, with several exceptions,

Trees \> 2\" dbh but \< 4\" dbh that do not exhibit bat roosting
characteristics and, for the duration of the project, up to 100 trees ≥
4" dbh that, upon investigation by a qualified bat scientist, either do
not exhibit bat roosting characteristics or are determined to be
unoccupied through an emergence survey may be cut between April 15 and
September 15. Furthermore, any tree deemed to be unoccupied through
emergence studies will be removed within one day of the completion of
the study to minimize the potential for one or more bats to utilize the
tree at a different time; and (4) Construction of new access roads will
be avoided during tree clearing activities to further minimize the
number of trees to be cleared for the project.

In a bat study conducted in the WNF, Schultes (2002) radio-tracked
Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats, both in the genus *Myotis*,
to roost trees. Of the 5 Indiana bats tracked (all males), 4 were
located at roost trees \< 10" dbh with the smallest tree having a 5.2"
dbh. Five of the 7 northern long-eared bats (all males and
post-lactating females) were tracked to roost trees ≤ 4" dbh with the
smallest tree having a 2.3" dbh. Grumbert et. al. (2002) radio-tracked
an Indiana bat roosting in a flowering dogwood (*Cornus florida*) with a
2.5" dbh. Considering this data, the tree cutting measures proposed by
FHWA to avoid cutting trees with a dbh \> 2" and \< 4" that exhibit bat
roosting attributes and all trees with a dbh ≥ 4" during the Indiana bat
maternity period, should be sufficient to avoid direct exposure of
individual Indiana bats of any reproductive condition between April 15
and September 15 of each year.

The one exception to these measures being proposed is that up to 100
trees, over the life of the project, that do not meet the above
descriptions, may be removed between the April 15 and September 15
period. This may occur only if it is determined by a qualified bat
scientist that these trees either do not provide suitable roosting
characteristics or if an emergence survey does not detect the presence
of bats exiting the trees. Furthermore, all of the trees would be
removed on the day following the completion of a negative survey. There
is a slight possibility that bats could be roosting in these trees and
be undetected but, it is unlikely that any maternity roost would go
undetected given that these would be supporting multiple bats. Thus, we
anticipate that this measure will minimize the potential for direct
exposure of Indiana bats to tree removal under these situations. Because
bats could begin using these trees at a later date, the immediate
removal of these trees would further minimize that chance that bats
would be roosting in trees when they are cut. The Service anticipates
that by following these measures, take of Indiana bats will be
insignificant and discountable during the clearing of up to 100 trees,
following specific conditions, during the summer maternity season.

*[Loss of Foraging Habitat when Bats are Present]{.underline}*

In addition to the direct effects associated with the loss of roost
trees when bats are present, the loss of foraging habitat during the
fall and spring may also directly affect the Indiana bat. Effects to the
bats whose fall and/or spring foraging areas lie entirely or mostly
outside the project area are anticipated to be minimal. However,
individuals, whose foraging areas occur entirely or mostly in the
project area or whose foraging areas will be significantly fragmented
due to the project, will have to expend an increased amount of energy to
establish new foraging areas. Additionally, they will be subject to an
increase in inter- and intra-specific competition. However, the Service
anticipates that Indiana bats in the action area during the fall and/or
spring will have little difficulty in establishing new foraging areas
due to the availability of a considerable amount of remaining suitable
foraging habitat in the surrounding landscape.

Some Indiana bats may avoid crossing the project footprint during tree
clearing activities. These bats may be subject to an increased
expenditure of energy to establish new foraging areas as well as travel
corridors between roosting and foraging. Bats in this scenario would be
subject to take in the form of harm or harassment as they are displaced
from their home range. Due to the availability of suitable foraging
opportunities in the surrounding landscape, it is likely that these bats
will have little difficulty in establishing new home ranges. Indiana
bats that remain loyal to certain foraging areas may continue to cross
through newly cleared areas in the project footprint and would likely
have an increased risk of mortality from predation although this risk is
not detectable or measurable. Take of Indiana bats from the loss of
foraging habitat while the bats are present in the fall and spring is
anticipated to be short term in the form of harassment.

*[Direct Effects of Decreased Water Quality]{.underline}*

Water quality is expected to decrease in the action area for a variety
of reasons. Road construction will result in the loss of up to 2.45
acres of wetlands and 7.08 miles of stream habitat by relocating or
converting streams through drainage structures. Sediment, herbicides,
and other contaminants, could affect water quality through erosion,
vegetation management, and accidental spills during any phase of the
project from construction to operation.

Insects associated with these aquatic habitats make up part of the diet
of Indiana bats. Therefore, a change in water quality can affect the
prey base of the species. Decreases in water quality through
contamination and the destruction of wetlands and stream habitats while
Indiana bats are present will reduce the availability of aquatic insects
and reduce the availability or quality of suitable drinking sources. The
project description includes a number of measures to be performed to
both minimize and offset the impacts to water quality during all phases
of the project. These measures can substantially reduce the extent of
impacts to water quality from the project.

The Service believes that the water quality impacts will cause a
reduction in prey base and drinking sources for the Indiana bat. Direct
adverse effects to Indiana bats from this decrease in aquatic insect
prey and drinking sources is likely to be undetectable due to the linear
nature of the project combined with the availability of suitable habitat
in the surrounding landscape and the assumption that bats will use or
seek alternate areas for foraging and drinking as some areas become
unsuitable. The Service presumes that the surrounding landscape will
continue to provide an abundant prey base of both terrestrial and
aquatic insects during project construction, operation and maintenance.
Therefore, any potential direct adverse effects to the Indiana bat from
a reduction in water quality is anticipated to be insignificant and/or
discountable.

*[Direct Effects of Construction Noise and Vibrations when Bats are
Active]{.underline}*

In addition to the habitat destruction in the project footprint, the
proposed project may result in a decrease in the quality of remaining
habitat outside the actual project footprint. Increased disturbance in
the action area is anticipated during clearing and construction from the
use of equipment and blasting. As a result, Indiana bats in the action
area will be exposed to noise levels, or intensity of noise and
vibrations that they may not have experienced in the past, depending on
the proximity of their roost sites to other human activities.

The western half of the project area is almost entirely on the WNF. This
area is also one of the largest contiguous parcels of National Forest in
Ohio and it has not been extensively logged for 50 to 100 years or more
(L. Andrews, WNF, Pers. comm.). In general, the increased noise and
vibrations could cause disturbance to Indiana bats unaccustomed to these
impacts while roosting and thereby lower the suitability of habitat
adjacent to the project area. It is difficult to predict the degree to
which Indiana bats would be disturbed by the noise and vibrations
associated with construction activities. Some studies suggest that bats
avoid noisy areas. Female bats in Illinois, for example, used roosts at
least 1,640 feet from paved roadways (Garner and Gardner 1992).

Other studies suggest that bats may be able to tolerate disturbance from
noise. Indiana bats were documented to use roosts near the I-70/
Indianapolis Airport area, including a primary maternity roost tree
nouth of I-70 at the edge of the airport. This roost was not abandoned
despite constant noise from the Interstate and airport runways; however,
their proximity to the Interstate could also have been due to lack of a
more suitable roosting area (USFWS 2002). On Crane Naval Surface Warfare
Center in Indiana, a female Indiana bat used a roost tree only 436 ft
from a two-lane road. In the Hoosier National Forest in Indiana, a male
Indiana bat was located roosting on the edge of the Interstate 64
right-of-way.

Some studies indicate that Indiana bats may be somewhat tolerant of
noise from busy roads. Yet, other studies indicate that bats may select
roosts somewhat removed from these noisy areas. Any impact resulting
from noise and vibrations related to construction activities would be
expected to result in bats selecting roost trees further from the
disturbance in habitat. It is reasonable to assume that this will occur
when taking the conservative analytical approach.

The highest project noise levels are expected to occur during the
clearing and construction activities. The area that will experience the
greatest increase in noise during construction will be the western
portion of the project area where the current noise levels are the
lowest. The Service estimates that the area impacted by noise
disturbance during construction could encompass an area up to 2.4 miles
(12,800 ft) from the actual work limits. FHWA estimates that noise
generated during the operation of the project from traffic will more
than double the ambiant level with an increase of approximately 14.4 dBA
(D. Snyder, FHWA, Pers. comm.). The noise level anticipated during
project operation is around 59.3 dBA. This would noticably increase the
noise around the project to a distance of about 400 ft based upon the
typical reduction level of noise over distance.

*[Direct Effects of Construction Noise and Vibrations when Bats are
Hibernating]{.underline}*

Three potential Indiana bat hibernacula occur in the action area: in the
Dorr Run area, Snake Hollow, and Monkey Hollow areas. Construction
activities such as operating equipment and blasting near the mine from
October through March could disturb hibernating Indiana bats in the
mine. Substrate born vibrations from equipment and blasting could
disturb hibernating bats in a couple ways: (1) blasting near the mine
could cause the mine to collapse which would kill or trap hibernating
bats, and (2) vibrations generated from the use of equipment and
blasting could cause bats to awaken during hibernation thus decreasing
their fitness by causing them to deplete their limited fat reserves
prematurely.

The Snake Hollow and Monkey Hollow mines are approximately a mile from
the construction area. Therefore, it is probable that noise vibrations
from construction activities would either not reach these mines or if
they did, the levels would not cause hibernating Indiana bats to awaken.

The footprint of the project has been designed to avoid the Dorr Run
portal where an Indiana bat was captured during September 2000, and as
such, construction activities will not be occurring within approximately
600 ft of the portal and the closest area where blasting may need to
occur is 725 ft from the portal (D. Snyder, FHWA, Pers. comm.). The full
area extent of the mine is not known; however, based upon the topography
of this area, it does not appear that the Dorr Run mine complex
potentially supporting hibernating Indiana bats will be exposed during
project construction (D. Snyder, FHWA, Pers. comm.).

Published literature indicates that ground vibration of approximately 12
inches per second are required to cause rocks to fall in unlined tunnels
(ESI 2004b). Restrictions on blasting have been incorporated into the
project design to minimize the potential for the Dorr Run portal and
mine to collapse. It is anticipated that blasting activities will create
ground vibrations at and in the potential hibernaculum around 2 inches
per second (D. Snyder, FHWA, Pers. comm.). Monitoring will be performed
at the Dorr Run portal during blasting activities to help ensure that
vibrations are minimal (D. Snyder, FHWA, Pers. comm.). Therefore, the
Service anticipates that subsurface vibrations from blasting will not
approach a level which could cause the portal and/or mine to collapse.

Several studies have been undertaken to assess the effect of noise on
hibernating Indiana bats. Data from these studies indicate that when
hibernating, Indiana bats are not particularly sensitive to air and
substrate-born vibrations (ESI 2004b). Therefore, it is possible that
noise vibrations that do not threaten the structural integrity of the
mine may not pose a detectable response from hibernating Indiana bats.

The Service expects that the effects of noise vibrations on hibernating
Indiana bats during project construction will likely range from those
which are insignificant or discountable to harm in the form of
disturbance at the potential Dorr Run hibernaculum.

**[Indirect Effects]{.underline}**

*[Loss of Roosting Habitat when Bats are Not Present]{.underline}*

[Indirect Effects on the Maternity Colony from the Loss of Roosting
Habitat]{.underline}

One of the most significant indirect effects on the Indiana bat from the
proposed activities will be the extensive loss of Indiana bat maternity
roosting habitat outside of the maternity season. Up to 768 acres of
tree cutting for road construction will occur between September 15 and
April 15. According to the BA, approximately 83 % of this area is
suitable Indiana bat habitat. This means that approximately 637 acres of
suitable Indiana bat maternity roosting habitat will be eliminated by
the project.

A site specific reforestation plan for areas cleared for temporary
construction needs has not yet been developed. If reforestation occurs
in these area either by plantings or succession, trees will not become
suitable as primary roost trees for approximately 50 years. Furthermore,
the potential for successful reforestation of temporary construction
areas may be low due to soil compaction that results from heavy
construction equipment and extensive earthwork. The Service anticipates
that the removal of 637 acres of forested habitat for the project will
be a permanent loss.

As explained in the Status of Species section, when female bats return
to their summer maternity area in the spring after tree clearing
activities have occurred, it is anticipated that they will attempt to
use the same roosting areas that were used in previous years. The effect
of loss of roosting habitat depends on the extent of loss and use of the
area by the bats. We expect greater impact if the entire roosting area
is destroyed and more yet if the surrounding area is not suitable for
roosting. In this particular situation, we do not expect the entire
roosting area to be affected and we know the surrounding landscape
provides suitable habitat. However, if a primary or several secondary
roosts are destroyed, we fully anticipate that adverse impacts to those
exposed females are likely. First, these pregnant females will suffer
stress while searching for new roosting areas. It is not known how long
or how far female Indiana bats will search to find new roosting habitat
if their traditional roost tree is lost. Nonetheless, if they are
required to search for new roosting habitat in the spring, this effort
will place additional stress on pregnant females at a critical time when
fat reserves are low or depleted, and they are already stressed from the
energy demands of migration and pregnancy, and food availability is
unpredictable.

It appears that when a primary roost tree becomes unsuitable, members of
a colony may initially distribute themselves among several previously
used alternate roost trees (USFWS 2002; Kurta et al*.* 2002). It is not
known how long it takes for the colony to attain the same level of
roosting cohesiveness that it experienced prior to the loss of an
important primary roost tree. It is likely that due to the ephemeral
nature of roost trees, the Indiana bat has evolved to be able to
relocate replacement roosts, if available, when their previously-used
roost trees become unsuitable. Considering the linear design of the
project, it is plausible that at least some if not many of the colony's
alternate roosts will remain outside the project footprint. The
availability of a considerable amount suitable roosting habitat in the
surrounding landscape and the likelihood that some of the colony's
alternate roosts will remain standing outside the project footprint
following clearing activities suggest that the colony may successfully
locate new roosts within days of returning from their hibernaculum.

Despite that Indiana bats will likely regain colony cohension within a
few days, the poor thermoregulatory abilities of pregnant females
(Humphrey 1975) pose problems. Pregnant bats not only need to secure
sufficient food to maintain their body weight and temperature, they also
need to support a growing fetus or pup. In spring, maintaining an energy
balance is complicated by the need for pregnant bats to migrate to their
traditional roosting areas after completing 6 to 7 months of
hibernation, and hence, having depleted or low fat stores, and during a
time when temperatures are low and food is scarce (Kurta and Rice 2002).
Loss of primary and secondary roosts would cause a disruption of
colonial behavior which may cause some females to abort or absorb their
embryos.

Until the bats from the colony locate another desirable primary roost
tree and reunite, it is likely that individual members of the colony
will be subject to increased stress resulting from: (1) having to search
for a replacement primary roost tree, which increases energy expenditure
and risk of predation; (2) having to roost in alternate trees that are
less effective in meeting thermoregulatory needs; and (3) having to
roost singly, rather than together, which decreases the likelihood in
meeting thermoregulatory needs, thereby reducing the potential for
reproductive success. These effects are compounded because they will
occur in the spring when fat reserves are low or depleted and they are
already stressed from the energy demands of migration. This would place
them at an increased risk of mortality and/or failed reproduction.

As previously described, harm, a form of take, is defined as an act
which actually kills or injures wildlife; harm may include significant
habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures
wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns,
including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Therefore, based on the
above information, the Service believes that take in the form of harm
through habitat loss is reasonably certain to occur.

In addition to the loss that results from the action, we analyzed the
potential for impacts from secondary development. History has shown that
retail development (i.e., gas stations, restaurants, etc.) typically
occurs around road interchanges. As described earlier, the project
includes 2 interchanges: one at Dorr Run and another at Happy Hollow.
Secondary development around the Dorr Run interchange and connector
road, beyond the areas already impacted by project construction, is not
likely to occur based upon the following assumptions: (1) WNF land
occurs to the north of the interchange area, therefore development of
this area is unlikely, (2) the topography to the west of the Dorr Run
interchange and connector road area is steep and not conducive to
development, (3) the area to the east of the interchange and connector
road is already under development as a residential area, (4) the area to
the south of the connector road is already disturbed as this is where
the existing U.S. 33 occurs, and (5) the city of Nelsonville is
currently not supportive of commercial development in the Dorr Run area
(FHWA 2004).

It is also likely that secondary development around the Happy Hollow
interchange will occur in areas that are already impacted by U.S. 33.
The reasons for this are: (1) WNF land occurs to the north and west of
the interchange area, therefore development of this area is precluded,
(2) State Route 691 and the existing U.S. 33 intersection are just to
the south of the interchange provides a logical area for commercial
development, and (3) the property to the east of the intersection
includes high quality wetlands not suitable for development.
Furthermore, ODOT is investigating the purchase of this property to
mitigate for wetland impacts resulting from the proposed action. Hence,
we believe impacts from secondary development are likely to be
insignificant if such development does indeed occur.

[Indirect Effects on Non-reproductive Bats from the Loss of Roosting
Habitat]{.underline}

In addition to a maternity colony, the project area is known to support
non-reproductively active Indiana bats. This mainly includes adult males
but may also include females which were either not reproductively active
or not reproductively successful in a given year. In general, the
indirect effects to non-reproductively active Indiana bats in the action
area due to the loss of roosting habitat would be similar to the effects
on Indiana bats associated with a maternity colony except that these
bats are not typically associated with a colony during the summer
months. Upon emergence from hibernation and during spring migration,
these bats are not challenged with the energetic demands of pregnancy
and rearing young.

During the summer, the life history strategy of male and
non-reproductive female Indiana bats does not necessitate colonial
roosting. Males and non-reproductive females typically roost alone or
occasionally in small groups. When these individuals are displaced from
roosts they must utilize alternative roosts or seek out new roosts.
Because these individuals are not functioning as members of maternity
colonies, they do not face the challenge of reforming as a colony.
Suitable roosts for individual Indiana bats include trees of any size
whereas maternity colonies must seek out larger trees to accommodate a
colony. Therefore it is anticipated that the indirect effects to
non-reproductive bats will likely be much less significant than the
effects to a maternity colony. Indirect effects to non-reproductive
Indiana bats are likely to be insignificant and discountable.

[*Loss of Foraging Habitat when Bats are Not Present*]{.underline}

Another indirect effect of the proposed project on the Indiana bat in
the action area will be the loss and fragmentation of foraging habitat.
Of the up to 637 acres of forested habitat that may be cleared for the
project, all is suitable Indiana bat foraging habitat.

[Indirect Effects to the Maternity Colony from the Loss of Foraging
Habitat]{.underline}

Indiana bats exhibit strong site fidelity to their traditional summer
colony areas and foraging habitat, that is, they return to the same
summer range annually to bear their young (Kurta et al. 2002; Garner and
Gardner 1992; Gardner et al. 1991; Humphrey et al. 1977; Gardner et al.
1996; Cope et. al 1974). Telemetry studies on a maternity colony in
Indiana have indicated that Indiana bats continue to return to areas
that previously served as foraging habitat, even after those areas have
been developed and no longer provide suitable habitat (USFWS 2003).

This information indicates that when the females of the maternity colony
presumed to occur in the western portion of the action area return to
their summer range, individuals will attempt to use the same foraging
areas that were used in previous years. After clearing is completed on
the project area, as much as 637 acres of foraging habitat will no
longer be available. An additional 1050 acres of forested foraging
habitat will be separated from the remaining forested habitat to the
north of the bypass by a 4-lane divided highway.

In general, Indiana bats are reluctant to cross open areas (Brack 1983;
Menzel et. al. 2001). Once the project footprint area has been cleared,
some Indiana bats whose foraging and commuting areas have been altered
may avoid flying across this area. These individuals would be subject to
an increase expenditure of energy to establish a new roosting area as
well as travel corridors between roosting and foraging. Bats in this
scenario would be subject to take in the form of harm or harassment as
they are displaced from their home range.

The project will impact approximately 7 miles of streams. In Illinois,
Gardner et. al. (1991) found that forested stream corridors and
impounded bodies of water were preferred foraging habitats for pregnant
and lactating Indiana bats, indicating that streams likely provide an
important source of prey for Indiana bat maternity colonies (Kurta and
Whitaker 1998). In Pennsylvania, core foraging areas (where a bat spent
50 percent of its time foraging) were located along intermittent streams
or within hollows containing an intermittent stream (Butchkoski and
Hassinger 2002). This study indicates the importance of large blocks of
contiguous forested habitat as well as small streams and their
associated habitat to foraging female Indiana bats.

Because insects associated with aquatic habitats make up part of the
diet of Indiana bats, water quality can affect the prey base of the
species. Over 7 miles of streams may be impacted by the project,
reducing or eliminating potential sources of aquatic insects. In
response, bats will seek alternate food sources in upland and other
riparian areas. However, upland food sources may also likely be reduced
after forested habitat is removed by clearing and grubbing activities.
Bats of other species will also be displaced, thus compounding
interspecies competition.

The destruction and/or modification of over 7 miles of streams, along
with their associated riparian forested habitat, will eliminate and/or
degrade bat flyways, foraging areas, and drinking sources. In addition,
the Indiana bat's prey base will be reduced due to the loss of insects
associated with the 637 acres of upland and riparian forests in the
project footprint.

The effects to individual bats from the loss of foraging habitat are
likely to vary based upon each bats usage of this area. According to
Murray and Kurta (2004), Indiana bats appear to forage individually
rather than in groups. Additionally, individual Indiana bats establish
several foraging areas. Some bats may only forage in the project area
occasionally and therefore would be familiar with other nearby foraging
areas. These bats may be able to quickly adjust their foraging habitats
by spending more time foraging in other portions of their range. For
bats that foraged extensively or exclusively within the project area,
the effect may be more severe. Due to the linear nature of the project,
it is more likely that bats forage in the project area occasionally
rather than extensively.

In addition to the Indiana bat, 7 other species of bats (little brown
bat, northern long-eared bat, eastern pipistrelle, big brown bat, red
bat, hoary bat, and silver-haired bat) were captured in and around the
action area during mist net surveys (Lacki 1981; Kiser and Bryan 1997;
Kiser et. al. 1999; Kiser et. al. 2000; ESI 2001a; ESI 2002b; Schultes
2002; ESI 2002; WNF 2002; ESI 2003; WNF 2004). Therefore, the potential
for the project to increase inter- and intra-specific competition during
foraging must also be considered. Although very little literature is
available to assess the impact of this effect, interspecific competition
has been identified as an area of concern by researchers monitoring
maternity colonies subject to habitat alterations in Indiana (USFWS
2003). Feeding habits for Indiana bats are similar to those of the
little brown bat, the northern long-eared bat, and to a lesser extent
the eastern pipistrelle (Whitaker 2004; Lee and McCracken 2004).
Therefore competition between those species may be pronounced as all
species will be displaced and forced to move quickly into other foraging
habitat. Displaced bats are likely to have a reduced foraging efficiency
while competing against other bats that have already established
territories and are familiar with the area, adjusting to altered travel
routes to foraging areas in addition to seeking out new foraging areas
to replace areas which were lost. However, the effects to individual
bats from the loss of foraging habitat and increased competition may be
somewhat offset by the availability of a considerable amount of suitable
foraging habitat in the surrounding landscape and the likehood that most
bats, regardless of species, do not forage exclusively or extensivly in
the area to be cleared. The quantity and quality of the habitat that
will remain outside the project footprint suggests that individuals from
the colony may have little difficulty successfully locating and
establishing modified or new foraging areas.

It is also important to consider the potential effects to reproductively
active females in concert with other life history and environmental
factors. Indiana bats that are already subject to the energy demands of
hibernation, migration, and pregnancy may be displaced from their
preferred foraging ranges. They will then have to expend energy to
search for new areas to forage while at the same time being subject to
an increase in competition for prey. In addition, environmental factors,
such as an unseasonably cool spring, could limit the availability of
prey while at the same time increase the energetic cost of
thermoregulation. When combined, these factors could reduce the fitness
of pregnant Indiana bats to the extent that some may not successfully
bear a pup and/or some pups may be born with lower birth weights such
that their pups may have delayed development.

FHWA has committed to carrying out the following measures which will
minimize adverse indirect effects to the foraging habitat of the
maternity colony: (1) FHWA will insure that all construction activities
are confined to the construction work limits defined in the project
description which includes all staging, waste, and borrow areas, (2)
Tree cutting within the project footprint will be minimized wherever
possible, (3) Access to each wooded plot within the project area will
occur by way of specific public highways, Forest Service roads, and
existing logging trails to minimize impacts to forested habitat, and (4)
A comprehensive sedimentation and erosion control plan will be developed
and implemented during tree-cutting operations to avoid down‑stream
impacts to waterways which will minimize impacts to the aquatic prey
base.

Overall, the effect of the loss of 637 acres of foraging habitat on
individual bats from the colony will range from insignificant and
discountable effects to take in the form of harm. Due to the linear
nature of the project, the foraging areas for many of the bats would
likely be entirely or mostly outside the project footprint. The effects
to these individuals are anticipated to be minimal. Effects to a few
individuals, those who forage entirely or mostly in the project
footprint or those who will have their foraging areas separated from
their roosting areas, may be more significant. These individuals may
have to expend an increased amount of energy to establish new foraging
areas, thereby potentially reducing their fitness, and more likely,
reducing their chance for successful reproduction. Additionally, the
effects on individual bats will differ depending upon variable factors
such as the weather and the condition of individuals upon emergence from
hibernation.

[Indirect Effects on Non-reproductive Bats from the Loss of Foraging
Habitat]{.underline}

As predicted with the maternity colony, most males and non-reproductive
females are likely utilizing foraging areas that lie entirely or mostly
outside the project footprint due to the linear nature of the project.
Effects to these individuals are anticipated to be minimal. It is also
possible that a few individuals utilize foraging areas entirely or
mostly in the project footprint. The effects to these individuals could
be more severe as they are forced to establish new foraging areas.
However, these effects would not be complicated with the energy demands
of pregnancy and rearing of pups.

Individuals seeking modified or new foraging areas will be subject to an
increase in inter- and intra-specific competition. As with the
reproductive females, the effects to individual non-reproductively
active bats from the loss of foraging habitat and increased competition
may be somewhat offset by the availability of a considerable amount of
suitable foraging habitat in the surrounding landscape. The quantity and
quality of the habitat that will remain outside the project footprint
suggests that non-reproductively active individuals may have little
difficulty successfully locating and establishing modified or new
foraging areas.

*[Indirect Effects of Fragmentation]{.underline}*

In addition to the effects from the permanent loss of trees, forest
fragmentation is also anticipated and could impact the Indiana bat.
Recent research by Murray and Kurta (2004) indicates that Indiana bats
may prefer traveling along forested corridors rather than over large
open spaces. Conversely, some data from maternity colonies in Indiana
and Pennsylvania show that Indiana bats cross major roads routinely
(Kiser et. al. 2002; Butchkoski and Hassinger 2002). Therefore, the
Service deems it reasonable to assume that some bats may avoid crossing
the project area and others may continue to routinely cross the area
once it has been cleared.

The Service estimates that up to 1050 acres of forested habitat between
project Segment C and the existing U.S. 33 could become less suitable
for roosting and foraging as the new highway divides forest habitat into
smaller forest units. The forested parcels that occur in this area
include the former brickyard property (less the 38.7 acres to be
utilized for staging and waste disposal), several WNF tracts, the AHRC
property (less the 116 acre active landfill area), and private
properties. Once the project footprint area been cleared, Indiana bats
whose roosting and foraging areas are within the bypass corridor may
need to establish a new roosting or foraging area.

*[Indirect Effects of Decreased Water Quality]{.underline}*

Potential indirect effects to the Indiana bat from a reduction in water
quality from construction, operation, and maintenance of the highway are
anticipated to be similar to direct effects.

Water quality is expected to decrease in the action area for a variety
of reasons. The project description includes a number of measures to be
performed to both minimize and offset the impacts to water quality
during all phases of the project. These measures should substantially
reduce the extent of impacts to water quality from the project.

The Service believes that the water quality impacts will cause a
reduction in prey base and drinking sources for the Indiana bat.
Indirect adverse effects to Indiana bats from this decrease in aquatic
insect prey and drinking sources is likely to be undetectable due to the
linear nature of the project combined with the availability of suitable
habitat in the surrounding landscape and the assumption that bats will
use or seek alternate areas for foraging and drinking as some areas
become unsuitable. The Service presumes that the surrounding landscape
will continue to provide an abundant prey base of both terrestrial and
aquatic insects during project construction, operation and maintenance.
Therefore, any potential indirect adverse effects to the Indiana bat
from a reduction in water quality is anticipated to be insignificant.

*[Indirect Effects of Disturbance]{.underline}*

In addition to the actual habitat removal in the project footprint and
the direct effects associated with that removal, the proposed project
may also indirectly decrease the quality of habitat surrounding this
area. Indiana bats remaining in the action area during the operation of
the highway will be subject to noise disturbance from traffic noise when
the highway is operational. As a result, Indiana bats in the action area
will be exposed to noise levels, or intensity of noise and vibrations
that they may not have experienced in the past, depending on the
proximity of their roost sites to other human activities nearby.

The current ambient noise along the proposed construction corridor
varies greatly depending upon the proximity of the corridor to existing
activities. Given the rural, forested nature of the project area, the
lowest existing noise levels along the corridor should be occurring in
the areas that are farthest away from roads, structures, and the AHRC
landfill. Considering the positioning of the corridor with the city of
Nelsonville and existing land uses, the lowest existing noise levels
should be occurring in the western portion (Segment C) of the project
area, most of which is within the WNF. Noise monitoring conducted in
July 2004 by ODOT personnel within Segment C found that the lowest
existing noise level in this area is 44.9 dBA (D. Snyder, FHWA, Pers.
comm.).

FHWA estimates that noise generated during the operation of the project
from traffic will more than double the ambient level with an increase of
approximately 14.4 dBA (D. Snyder, FHWA, Pers. comm.). The noise level
anticipated during project operation is around 59.3 dBA. This would
noticably increase the noise around the project to a distance of about
400 ft based upon the typical reduction level of 4.5 dBA per doubling of
distance for noise (D. Snyder, FHWA, Pers. comm.).

Given the above, the total estimated area to be impacted by vehicle
noise during operation of the highway is 800 acres. Approximately 25% of
this 800-acre area has already been considered in the 1050-acre area
between Segment C and existing U.S. 33 that will be fragmented.
Therefore, the estimated additional area that will be impacted by
traffic noise is 600 acres.

The western half of the project area is one of the largest contiguous
parcels of National Forest land in Ohio and has been relatively
undisturbed for a number of years. Increased noise and vibrations could
cause disturbance to Indiana bats unaccustomed to these impacts while
roosting and thereby lower the suitability of habitat adjacent to the
project area. It is difficult to predict the degree to which Indiana
bats would be disturbed by the noise and vibrations associated with
operation activities. Any impact resulting from noise and vibrations
related to operation activities would be expected to result in bats
selecting roost trees further from the disturbance in habitat.

Traffic noise generated during the operation of the highway should not
produce substrate vibrations. Therefore, noise during the operation of
the highway should not elicit any response from Indiana bats hibernating
in the action area.

*[Indirect Effects on Potential Hibernacula]{.underline}*

Substrate vibrations that are generated outside of the Indiana bat's
hibernation period could impact the potential hibernaculum in the Dorr
Run area. Vibrations from blasting or construction equipment could cause
the mine to collapse causing blockages in mine passages or portals which
would alter airflow patterns. Thus, the mine could become inaccessible
or the microclimate could be altered making the mine unsuitable for
Indiana bat hibernation.

FHWA has incorporated blasting restrictions around the Dorr Run portal
into the project design to minimize the potential for the portal and/or
the mine to collapse. It is anticipated that blasting activities will
create ground vibrations at the portal around the rate of 2 inches per
second (D. Snyder, FHWA, Pers. comm.). This level of vibration is well
below the vibration level shown to cause rocks to fall in unlined
tunnels (ESI 2004b). Monitoring will be performed at the Dorr Run portal
during blasting activities to help ensure that vibrations are minimal
(D. Snyder, FHWA, Pers. comm.). Therefore, the Service anticipated that
subsurface vibrations from blasting will not approach a level which
could cause the portal and/or mine to collapse.

*[Indirect Effects of Vehicle Traffic]{.underline}*

Once the highway is in operation, Indiana bats will be subject to the
hazard of being struck by vehicles. Bats may cross roads while commuting
between roosting and foraging areas and/or while foraging on insects
attracted to road lighting. Although Indiana bats generally avoid
crossing over open areas (Brack 1983; Menzel et. al. 2001), they have
been documented flying over busy interstate highways (e.g., I-70 near
the Indianapolis Airport; USFWS 2002). In Pennsylvania, Indiana bats
have also been documented crossing U.S. Route 22 near the Canoe Creek
Church (Butchkoski 2003). In both of these circumstances, the road lies
between known roosting and foraging areas for members of the colonies
(Butchkoski 2003; D. Sparks, IN State Univ., Pers. comm. 2005). Thus, it
is apparent that Indiana bats do cross over busy highways when they
divide foraging from roosting areas. It should also be noted that
through a radio telemetry study by Indiana State University, Sparks
(Pers. comm.) observed that individuals of the Indianapolis Airport
colony avoided flying over I-70 where a bridge provided a 35-ft high
corridor beneath the road. The results of this particular study indicate
that bats may avoid flying over highways when an alternative corridor is
present.

Since there is some evidence that Indiana bats will routinely fly across
roads during the summer, the Service anticipates that the proposed road
may not present a physical barrier to the movements of Indiana bats.
However, limited information on the Indianapolis Airport colony suggests
that Indiana bats may only do so when the road separates roosting and
foraging areas and no other route between these areas is available or no
other such areas are available that do not necessitate crossing the road
(D. Sparks, IN State Univ., Pers. comm.). The Service anticipates that
individual home ranges of Indiana bats that occur in the action area
will be impacted differently depending upon the extent to which the
project will impact each bat's roosting, foraging, and commuting areas.
The home ranges for some Indiana bats may be partially or even entirely
divided by the project. These bats may modify their home ranges to avoid
crossing the roadway or they may choose to cross the road to access
roosting or foraging areas. Bats that do cross the road will be subject
to the risk of being struck by vehicles traveling on the roadway. In
fact, multiple bat mortalities from vehicle collisions, including at
least one Indiana bat, have been documented at the Canoe Creek site in
Pennsylvania where Indiana bats routinely cross U.S. Route 22
(Butchkoski 2002).

Although it has been documented that Indiana bats fly across roadways,
there is no data specific to the Indiana bat for the use or avoidance of
lighted areas that may or may not occur over these roadways. Research by
Rydell and Baagoe (1996) indicates that bats in the genus *Eptesicus*
(e.g. big brown bat) and Lasiurine bats (red and hoary bats) are the
species typically noted foraging around artificial lights. In contrast,
they also noted that bats in the genus *Myotis* seem to avoid open
places most of the time preferring to feed in woodlands or low over
water. It appears that the foraging strategies utilized by *Myotis*
bats, including the Indiana bat, may be more suited to foraging in
forested areas than out in open areas (Humphrey et. al. 1977; LaVal et.
al. 1976; Brack 1983; Garner and Gardner 1992; Gardner et. al. 1996;
Murray 1999).

FHWA has committed to only locating road lights for the new bypass at
the Dorr Run and Happy Hollow interchanges and at the new State Route
691 bridge over the Hocking River at the southeastern terminus of the
project. The type of lighting to be placed at the interchanges is
high-mast sodium vapor lights. This type of lighting emits a color that
is less visible to insects than standard lighting (GE 2005).
Furthermore, the use of high mast lighting, which is ≥ 70 ft above the
pavement, reduces the number of lights needed to cover the interchange
area (as compared to standard lighting that is typically 30 to 50 ft
above pavement) since the light-cast area from each mast is larger.
Although data suggests that Indiana bats prefer to forage in forested
areas (Humphrey et. al. 1977; LaVal et. al. 1977; Brack 1983; Garner and
Gardner 1992; Gardner et. al. 1996; Murray 1999), there is still a
slight probability that they could forage at artificial lights if these
opportunities provided a concentration of their insect prey base. The
use of high mast sodium vapor lights would both minimize their
attractiveness to insects and move any insects around lighting farther
above vehicle traffic. Thus, reducing the likelihood of large insect
congregations and hence less chance for bats to be attracted to the
lighted area. Based upon these factors, the Service predicts that in
general, Indiana bats will typically not forage at artificial lights
installed for this project, however; if they do, they would be doing so
at elevations that would not present the hazard of colliding with
vehicles.

The Service anticipates that Indiana bats will run the risk of colliding
with vehicles when the Nelsonville bypass is in operation when bats are
commuting between roosting and foraging areas and that any bat that is
struck by a vehicle will be directly killed or fatally injured. However,
it is difficult to meaningfully quantify the risk of bat/vehicle
collisions. Furthermore, any such strikes would likely go either
unnoticed or unreported.

**[Effects on Reproduction Success of the Maternity
Colony]{.underline}**

In general terms, the overall population decline of the Indiana bat is a
result of mortality exceeding recruitment (*i.e*., deaths are outpacing
recruitment). The specific reasons for this dynamic remain unknown. Due
to the energy demands of migration and hibernation, higher mortality
rates can be expected during these events than during routine foraging
and roosting activities in summer habitat. The annual cycle (for
females) of hibernation → spring migration → birthing → lactation → fall
migration → mating → hibernation, can be broken at any point, resulting
in the loss of that female from the population, and her remaining
reproductive potential from the population. At some point(s) in this
annual cycle, the species is experiencing higher mortality rates, or
lower reproductive success than it did historically, causing the
species' population to continue to decline. Since bats are only capable
of producing one pup per year, this limits their ability to rebound
after these population losses. The vulnerable point(s) in this cycle may
differ by geographic area, and even within the same area. It is
important to recognize that it is not necessarily the *events* in the
annual cycle that are causing the species decline, rather, it may be a
*change in the environments* (*i.e*., hibernacula, summer habitat,
migration habitat) in which those events are occurring. Unless a change
in these environments occurs to allow reproduction to exceed mortality,
the species will continue to decline. The continuing population decline
provides the context for the evaluation of the effects of the proposed
action.

An important feature of Indiana bat behavioral biology that is integral
to the discussion of effects of the proposed projects is the fact that
female Indiana bats exhibit strong site fidelity to summer roosting and
foraging areas. Removal of established foraging and roosting areas is
expected to have an adverse effect on bats that rely upon these areas
and features (Gumbert et al. 2002). Some researchers have stated that
bats may not be able to compensate if a large number of trees used in
previous years are missing, and that "destruction of many roost trees in
a small area could be devastating when these bats faithfully return the
following spring" (Kurta et al. 2002; Kurta and Murray 2002). Kurta et
al. (2002) further suggests that the use of seasonal tree-clearing
restrictions alone is not an appropriate measure for minimizing impacts
to Indiana bats.

While very few site-specific data are available regarding the effects of
summer habitat degradation or loss on maternity colonies of Indiana
bats, information regarding basic life-history strategies can be of
assistance, as well as, information from surrogate species that have a
similar biology. For example, species that show high site fidelity
usually occupy predictable and stable (in space and time) niches
(McNicholl 1975; Blancher and Robertson 1985). Species adapted to niches
that are unpredictable in space and time generally do not show high site
fidelity. For a species showing high site fidelity, alteration of their
foraging, roosting, or breeding habitat reduces the predictability of
the habitat; therefore, disruption to various aspects of that species\'
ecology, particularly survival and reproduction are expected. Even if
there is an ability to relocate, when individuals of species that
normally exhibit high site fidelity move to different breeding
locations, they may suffer decreased reproductive success following the
movement (Dow and Fredga 1983). Species with high site fidelity
occupying habitat that is undergoing changes may subsequently experience
reduced productivity and substantial population declines (Takagi 2003).

A few bats either remaining in the action area or displaced from
previously used foraging and roosting sites can be expected to have
higher rates of reproductive failure, and have young that mature later.
If the summer range is modified such that females are required to search
and compete for new roosting habitat or foraging areas, this added
energy expenditure may place 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 gestation (Kurta, et al*.*
2002; Kurta and Murray 2002).

Juvenile female Indiana bats can attain sexual maturity in their first
fall season (USFWS 1999). A delay in pre- and postnatal development can
affect juvenile survival and reproductive potential. Slowed growth rates
during pregnancy and lactation may mean later weaning dates and smaller
young both of which affect juvenile survival (Racey and Entwistle 2000).
Later weaning dates leave less time for young to perfect their flying
and foraging skills, which in turn, affects their ability to maintain
their body condition and store fat and obtain adequate strength to
successfully migrate in the fall. Further, as a minimum fat-to-lean mass
ratio may be need to successfully reproduce, delays in weaning time may
also, in a similar manner, affect the reproductive potential of the
young. Lastly, delays in migration departure could subject bats (both
young and adults) to unfavorable winter conditions along the way.
Humphrey et al. (1977), for example, reported that young Indiana bats
became volant 2 weeks later than the previous year because of cold
temperatures and delayed migration to hibernacula a commensurate amount
with the last migrants departing 3 weeks later than expected. These bats
were then exposed to freezing weather at the nursery site and entered
into torpor. When they finally arrived at hibernacula there was very
little time for prehibernation fat storage and mating. Consequently,
Humphrey and colleagues suspected that the delayed growth and subsequent
delay in migration reduced the survival rates of affected young during
migration and hibernation, and may have reduced natality the next year
as fewer females were likely able to successfully mate. The decrease in
foraging, roosting, and watering habitat available during and
post-project may not be significant given that the surrounding landscape
will continue to provide a significant amount of suitable habitat.

The degree of habitat loss associated with the proposed project, 637
acres, when compaired to the environmental baseline, represents a
noticable change in the summer environment for the maternity colony in
the action area. The biological question is whether these changes will
affect the maternity colony and if so, to what extent. The relevant
biological and behavioral factors important to these evaluations are the
species' population dynamics, life cycle, strong philopatric behavior,
and foraging and roosting requirements.

The strong fidelity shown by this species to its summer habitat makes it
likely that the maternity colony will attempt to remain in their
traditional summer habitat (i.e., the remaining portions of habitat)
(Gardner et al. 1991; Humphrey et al. 1977; Kurta and Murray 2002). It
is possible that the colony would leave the area entirely and seek
roosting and foraging habitat sufficient to support the colony
elsewhere. However, it is more reasonable to assume that the colony
would utilize the surrounding forest because it provides foraging and
roosting habitat similar to that which will be lost due to the project.
The displaced colony will likely be subject to inter- and intra-specific
competition from both resident and displaced bats for roosting and
foraging habitat (Whitaker 2004; Foster and Kurta 1999). However, given
the abundance of high-quality roosting and foraging habitat that will
remain in and around the action area during the life of the project, the
prey base (i.e. aquatic and terrestrial insects) for bats is not likely
to be a limiting factor and foraging opportunities should remain
abundant. Therefore, the effect to the colony, and its ability to
successfully reproduce, from inter- and intra-specific competition is
expected to be insignificant.

The Service believes that loss of some foraging and roosting areas could
temporarily disrupt the cohesive nature of the maternity colony (Kurta
and Murray 2002) for a few days in the spring following clearing
activities in the western portion of the project. Given the ability of
the Indiana bat to adapt to the ephemeral nature roost trees, the
assumption that not all of the colony's roost trees and foraging areas
will be lost, and the availability of suitable roosting and foraging
habitat in the surrounding landscape, it is probable that the colony
will be able to reestablish a new primary roost and additional alternate
roosts, and the individuals to reestablish and/or modify their foraging
patterns within a few days to a week upon arriving in the project area.
Such disruption is not likely to eliminate the reproductive advantages
of colonial maternity roosting for more than a short period of time.

The Service anticipates that most females of the colony will
successfully bear a pup. However, due the higher short-term energy
demands on individuals of the colony at a time when their energy
reserves are low, some bats may experience a delay in giving birth or
fail to successfully produce a pup. Due to the high likelihood that the
bats will be able to forage and roost successfully in the surrounding
landscape, most of the females should be able to meet their energy
demands and give birth to their pups within a timely manner so that the
adverse effects of delayed maturity can be avoided. However, it is
possible---although unlikely\--that a small number of females may be
utilizing the bypass area exclusively. For these individuals, the loss
of most of their foraging area could have a greater impact on their
energy budget, and could as a result, lead to terminating their
reproductive effort for the year.

**[Effects on Numbers]{.underline}**

Quantification of these project related losses at the population level
(i.e., maternity colony) is difficult. We do not believe for reasons
detailed above that the proposed action will result in the death of
adult females. We do, however, anticipate that a few females may abort
or terminate their pregnancy due to loss of their traditional foraging
areas. We fully expect these situations will be rare (less than 1
percent of the individuals) because of the abundant, high quality
foraging habitat that will remain during and after the proposed project
is completed.

**[Summary of Effects]{.underline}**

The Service anticipates that Indiana bats will incur both direct and
indirect effects from the proposed U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass project.
The intensity of effects will differ by activity, season, and condition
and home range of individual bats. Direct and indirect effects to
Indiana bats are anticipated during clearing, construction, and
operational activities from the removal of habitat and due to noise
disturbance.

Direct take (killing or injuring) of Indiana bats should be avoided
during the maternity period due to project specifications that avoid
cutting of potential roost trees from April 15 to September 15. However,
direct effects to Indiana bats may occur outside the maternity period,
between March 15 -- April 15 and September 15 -- November 15, while bats
are still active and during the hibernation period from November 15 --
March 15. This take may be in the form of injury or mortality during
clearing activities, harm due to the loss of roosting and foraging
areas, and disturbance from clearing and construction noise. Indiana
bats hibernating in the action area would also be subject to disturbance
during construction activities from ground vibrations during blasting
activities.

Indirect effects on Indiana bats are anticipated from the project due to
the loss and fragmentation of habitat, disturbance from traffic noise,
and an increased risk of bat vehicle collisions. Some bats will be
subject to take in the form of harm due to displacement from traditional
roosts and foraging areas that are cleared. The effect upon individuals
of the maternity colony would likely be more severe than
non-reproductive females and males since pregnant females will be forced
to alter their home ranges in the spring when they return to the area at
a time when they are already stressed from the physical demands of
pregnancy in addition to the decreased fitness following hibernation and
migration. Vehicle noise during operation of the bypass is anticipated
to further reduce the suitability of roosting habitat in the area
immediately surrounding the new roadway. Mortality of bats may also
result indirectly from the project when the bypass is in operation as
bats that fly across the roadway to access roosting and/or foraging
areas could be struck by vehicles. Take due to indirect effects are
anticipated to range from death of some individuals over time to effects
which may be insignificant or discountable for other individuals whose
home ranges is mostly or entirely outside the project area.

The direct and indirect effects to Indiana bats will vary greatly
ranging from death or injury of some bats to effects which are
insignificant and discountable and will differ depending upon the home
range and condition of individual bats as well as the tolerance of
individual bats of noise disturbance.

**V. [CUMULATIVE EFFECTS]{.underline}**

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

Future Federal, State, local or private actions that are reasonably
certain to occur on the WNF in the action area, will either be carried
out by, or will require authorization from the

Forest Service and therefore will require separate section 7
consultations (for example, consultation on the Forest Plan). The
Service has not been able to detect any future State or local actions
that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area.

**VI. [CONCLUSION]{.underline}**

After reviewing the current status of the Indiana bat, the environmental
baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed U.S. 33
Nelsonville bypass and the cumulative effects, it is the Service\'s
Biological Opinion that the U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass, as proposed, is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat, and
is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical
habitat. Critical habitat for this species has been designated at
hibernacula in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and
West Virginia; however, this action does not affect these areas, thus,
no destruction or adverse modification of that critical habitat is
anticipated.

Based on the past rates of decline, the expected continued rate of
decline, and lack of knowledge of the causes of the decline, it is
reasonable to conclude that the species' survival is in serious
question. As explained earlier, Indiana bats continue to decline.
Although their absolute numbers are seemingly high, the Indiana bat life
history strategy renders this species especially susceptible to
population declines. As a result of these past and anticipated continued
declines, the Indiana bat is increasingly highly endangered. Improving
the reproductive success of Indiana bats is paramount for their
continued survival. Maternity colonies are an important population
aspect that is crucial to the survival of the Indiana bat. In order to
slow down and reverse the rate of decline, and get to survival and
recovery of the Indiana bat, either the rate of reproduction needs to
increase, the rate of mortality needs to decrease, or a combination of
both these factors needs to occur.

The direct and indirect loss of habitat due to this project will impact
the Indiana bat maternity colony causing short-term effects on
individuals of the colony. The Service anticipates that most females of
the colony will successfully bear a pup but a few females may experience
a delay in giving birth or fail to successfully produce a pup thereby
slightly reducing the reproductive output of the colony. The females
expected to be most at risk to the loss of a pup or delayed birth are
those whose fitness is already comprimised due to other environmental
factors.

The Service concludes that overall the project will not contribute a
measurable decrease in reproduction or numbers of the Indiana bat at the
local level. The one-time loss of recruitment from a few individuals of
the maternity colony does not represent an appreciable reduction in the
recruitment of a maternity colony as a whole, nor does it represent an
appreciable reduction in the overall number of future bats available to
contribute towards the survival and recovery of the species rangewide.
The Service also detemines that the loss of 637 acres and fragmentation
of an additional 1050 acres of habitat, the disturbance to one potential
Priority III hibernaculum in the Dorr Run area, the loss of 7.08 miles
of streams, and the loss of 2.45 acres of wetlands is not likely to
result in an appreciable reduction to the distribution of the species at
the local or rangewide level given the availability of the remaining
suitable habitat in the surrounding landscape and the availablity of the
nearby potential hibernacula. Thus, we conclude that the U.S. 33
Nelsonville bypass project, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the Indiana bat.

**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 the Service as intentional or negligent
actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such
an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which
include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering.
Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the
terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental
to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be
prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in
compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take
Statement.

The measures described below are non‑discretionary, and must be
undertaken by FHWA so that they become binding conditions of any funding
issued to ODOT, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to
apply. FHWA has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by
this Incidental Take Statement. If FHWA (1) fails to assume and
implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require ODOT to
adhere to the terms and conditions of the Incidental Take Statement
through enforceable terms that are applied to the funding, the
protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor
the impact of incidental take, FHWA must report the progress of the
action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the
Incidental Take Statement \[50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)\].

**[Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated]{.underline}**

Based on the proposed project as describe within and the conservation
measures provided, we anticipate that incidental take of Indiana bats
will occur in the form of harm through habitat loss, death and injury
during tree clearing operation, harm through disturbance during, death
by vehicle collisions, and death by an increased exposure to predation.

Based on our analysis of the environmental baseline and effects of the
proposed action, the Service anticipates that one maternity colony of
Indiana bats, three potential Priority III hibernacula, and
non-reproductive Indiana bats occupy the action area and may be impacted
as a result of the proposed project. Collectively, the effects of the
action, as described in the accompanying Biological Opinion, are
expected to result in behavioral or physiological effects that impair
essential behavioral patterns. Death, decreased fitness, and reduced
reproductive success of a few individuals are reasonably certain to
occur. Although it is extremely difficult to determine precisely, we
believe that no more than 10 Indiana bats will be incidentally taken
over the term of this project.

The Service anticipates that incidental take of Indiana bats will be
difficult to detect for the following reasons: the species is highly
motile; the species occurs in habitat (e.g., trees) that makes detection
difficult; and finding dead or moribund bats is unlikely due to a small
body size and the likely scavenging of specimens by predators. However,
we believe the level of take of this species can be monitored by
tracking the level of habitat destruction and modification.
Specifically, if the current anticipated level of habitat loss is
exceeded, we fully expect the level of incidental take to increase as
well. Thus, the following indicators will serve to alert us to when more
than 10 individuals may be taken: (1) 15 or more acres of tree clearing
occurs outside the corridor as described in the accompanying BO, (2) any
additional clearing outside the proposed corridor as described in the
accompanying BO within ¼ mile of the potential hibernacula in Dorr Run,
(3) any additional impacts to wetlands, beyond those described in the
accompanying BO, with a Ohio Rapid Assessment Method score of Category 2
or higher in the project area west of Dorr Run Road, (4) 5 or more acres
of additional wetland impacts, beyond those described in the
accompanying BO, in the project area east of Dorr Run Road, and (5) any
additional steam impacts beyond those described in the accompanying BO.

**[EFFECT OF THE TAKE]{.underline}**

In the accompanying Biological Opinion, the Service determined that,
based on the proposed project [and the conservation measures described
on pages 6-10]{.underline}, 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]{.underline}**

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

1\. The implementation status of all the proposed conservation measures,
mitigation efforts,

and terms and conditions need to be monitored and clearly communicated
to the Service

on an annual basis.

2\. Develop and implement an Indiana bat education program for all
personnel involved in

the construction, operation, and maintenance of the U.S. 33 Nelsonville
bypass.

3\. Prevent the disturbance of hibernating Indiana bats from blasting
activities around the Dorr Run mine complex.

4\. Restore Indiana bat habitat in temporary construction areas to the
maximum extent practicable.

5\. To the maximum extent practicable, incorporate measures to benefit
the Indiana bat into mitigation plans for stream, wetland, and WNF
impacts.

6\. Ensure that construction equipment is in proper working order to
minimize operation noise and reduce the risk of equipment spills and
leaks.

**[TERMS AND CONDITIONS]{.underline}**

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act,
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 nondiscretionary.

1\. Monitoring Requirements:

> A. FHWA will prepare an annual report detailing all conservation
> measures, mitigation efforts, and terms and conditions that have been
> initiated, are ongoing, or completed during the previous calendar year
> and the current status of those yet to be completed. The report will
> be submitted to the Service's ROFO by 31 January each year (the first
> report will be due January 31, 2006) and reporting will continue until
> the construction phase of the project is completed.
>
> B. Any dead bats located within the construction limits and
> right-of-way, regardless of species, should be immediately reported to
> ROFO \[(614) 469-6923\], and subsequently transported (frozen or on
> ice) to ROFO. No attempt should be made to handle any live bat,
> regardless of its condition; report bats that appear to be sick or
> injured to ROFO. ROFO will make a species determination on any dead or
> moribund bats.

2\. All U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass project engineers, construction
personnel (includes logging personnel), equipment operators, and road
maintenance staff will attend a mandatory environmental awareness
training to learn about the Indiana bat and its habitat requirements.
This training will provide personnel with an increased awareness about
the species and should increase the likelihood of compliance with the
non-discretionary measures and terms of this Incidental Take Statement.
The program should be developed in cooperation with the Service. All
participants are to be provided with a protocol for reporting the
presence of any live, injured, or dead bats observed or found within or
near the construction limits or right-of-way during construction,
operation, and maintenance of the bypass. This training should occur
prior to the initiation of onsite project activities.

3\. Blasting activities around the Dorr Run mine complex should be
conducted between April 15 and October 15 to avoid disturbing
hibernating Indiana bats. During blasting activities in the Dorr Run
area, monitoring at the Dorr Run portal of the potential Indiana bat
hibernaculum should be conducted to measure and ensure that
substrate-born vibrations at the portal are maintained at a level low
enough to prevent the mine and the portal from collapsing.

4\. Develop a reforestation plan using native tree species for disturbed
areas outside the project ROW and safety clear zone. Tree species used
for reforestation should be a combination of the species from the
following list. These species frequently exhibit suitable roost tree
characteristics.

Black Ash (*Fraxinus nigra*)

Green Ash (*Fraxinus pennsylvanica*)

White Ash (*Fraxinus americana*)

Eastern Cottonwood (*Populus deltoides*)

American Elm (*Ulmus americana*)

Slippery Elm (*Ulmus rubra*)

Bitternut Hickory (*Carya cordiformis*)

Shagbark Hickory (*Carya ovata*)

Shellbark Hickory (*Carya laciniosa*)

Black Locust (*Robinia pseudoacacia*)

Red Maple (*Acer rubrum*)

Silver Maple (*Acer saccharinum*)

Sugar Maple (*Acer saccharum*)

Black Oak (*Quercus velutina*)

Post Oak (*Quercus stellata*)

Red Oak (*Quercus rubra*)

Shingle Oak (*Quercus imbricaria*)

White Oak (*Quercus alba*)

Sassafras (*Sassafras albidum*)

5\. During the development of mitigation plans required under the Clean
Water Act and by the Forest Service, seek mitigation opportunities which
both fulfill the requirements of these agencies and benefit the Indiana
bat through habitat protection, restoration and/or enhancement.

6\. Conduct regular inspections of construction equipment to ensure that
equipment is in good working order to minimize disturbance to bats from
operational noise and to reduce the risk of surface water contamination
from equipment leaks and spills which could affect the bats prey base
and drinking sources.

In conclusion, the Service believes that the U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass
project will result in the permanent loss of 637 acres of suitable
Indiana bat maternity, roosting, foraging, migratory, and swarming
habitat and will permanently degrade an additional 1650 acres due to
fragmentation and disturbance. 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, such incidental take represents new information
requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable and
prudent measures provided. FHWA 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.

The Service believes that no more than 10 Indiana bats will be
incidentally taken as a result of the proposed action. The reasonable
and prudent measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, are
designed to minimize the impact of incidental take that might otherwise
result from the proposed action. If, during the course of the action,
this level of incidental take is exceeded---as indicated by additional,
unanticipated habitat loss (Extent of Take section above)\--such
incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of
consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided.
The Federal agency 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.

**REINITIATION NOTICE**

This concludes formal consultation with FHWA on the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass in Athens
and Hocking counties, Ohio. As provided in 50 CFR §402.16, reinitiation
of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency
involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is
authorized by law) and if; (1) the amount or extent of incidental take
is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an
extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is
subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed
species or critical habitat not considered in this 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.

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

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

1\. Provide funding to staff a permanent full-time Indiana bat
Transportation Liaison within the Service's Reynoldsburg, Ohio
Ecological Services Field Office (ROFO).

2\. In coordination with ROFO and the WNF, purchase or otherwise protect
Indiana bat hibernacula in Ohio.

3\. Expand on scientific research and educational outreach efforts on
Indiana bats in coordination with ROFO.

4\. Pursue the purchase of easements to restore and protect high quality
Indiana bat roosting, foraging, and commuting habitat, including
riparian corridors.

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

**LITERATURE CITED**

Barclay, R.M.R., and L.D. Harder. 2003. Life histories of bats: life in
the slow lane. Pages 209-256 *In* Kunz, T.H., and M.B. Fenton, editors.
Bat ecology. University of Chicago Press; Chicago, Illinois.

(BCI) Bat Conservation International. 2001. Bats in eastern woodlands.
Austin, Texas. 311 pp.

Belwood, J.J. 1979. Feeding ecology of an Indiana bat community with
emphasis on the endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. M.S. thesis,
Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL. 103 pp.

Belwood, J.J. 2002. Endangered bats in suburbia: observations and
concerns for the future. Pages 193-198. *In* Kurta, A., and J. Kennedy,
editors. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered
species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

BHE Environmental, Inc. 2004. A 2004 winter census for the Indiana bat,
Lewisburg limestone mine, Preble County, Ohio. Report prepared for Ohio
Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Wildlife.

Blancher, P.J., and R.J. Robertson. 1985. Site consistency in kingbird
breeding performance: implications for site fidelity. Journal of Animal
Ecology 54:1017-1027.

Brack, V.M., Jr. 1983. The nonhibernating ecology of bats in Indiana,
with emphasis on the

> endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Ph.D. Dissertation. Purdue
> University, W. LaFayette, IN. 280 pp.

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

Mammalogy 66:308-315.

Britzke, E.R., M.J. Harvey, and S.C. Loeb. 2003. Indiana bat, *Myotis
sodalis*, maternity roosts in the southern United States. Southeastern
Naturalist 2(2):235-242.

Butchkoski, C.M. 2003. Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) investigation at
Canoe Creek, Blair County, Pennsylvania. Project annual job report to
the Pennsylvania Game Commision, Bureau of Wildlife Management Research
Division.

Butchkoski, C.M. 2002. Surveying the behavior of bats crossing a
two-lane highway and an open field. Bat Research News. Pennsylvania Game
Commision, Petersburg, PA.

Butchkoski, C.M. and J.D. Hassinger. 2002. Ecology of a maternity colony
roosting in a building. Pages 130-142 *In* Kurta, A., and J. Kennedy,
editors. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered
species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

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

Carter, T.C., S.K. Carroll, J.E. Hofmann, J.E. Gardner, and G.A.
Feldhamer. 2002. Landscape analysis of roosting habitat in Illinois.
Pages 160-164 *In* Kurta, A., and J. Kennedy, editors. The Indiana bat:
biology and management of an endangered species. Bat Conservation
International, Austin, Texas.

Clawson, R.L. 2002. Trends in population size and current status. Pages
2-8 *In* Kurta, A., and J. Kennedy, editors. The Indiana bat: biology
and management of an endangered species. Bat Conservation International,
Austin, Texas.

Clawson, R.L., R.K. LaVal, M.L. LaVal and W. Caire. 1980. Clustering
behavior of the hibernating *Myotis sodalis* in Missouri. Journal of
Mammology 61: 245-253.

Cope, J.B., A.R. Richter, and R.S. Mills. 1974. A summer concentration
of the Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis,* in Wayne County, Indiana. Indiana
Academy of Science 83:482-484.

Dow, H., and S. Fredga. 1983. Breeding and natal dispersal of the
goldeneye, *Bucephala clangula*. Journal of Animal Ecology 52: 681-695.

(ESI) Environmental Solutions & Innovations. 2001b. An autumn survey for
the endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) at mine portals within
segment C of the purple corridor for U.S. Route 33 Nelsonville bypass
(HOC/ATH -- 33-17.00/0.00), Hocking and Athens counties, Ohio. Report
prepared for Ohio Department of Transportation. 32 pp.

(ESI) Environmental Solutions & Innovations. 2001a. An autumn survey for
the endangered

> Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) at mine portals along alternate
> corridors for U.S. Route 33 Nelsonville bypass (HOC/ATH --
> 33-17.00/0.00), Hocking and Athens counties, Ohio. Report prepared for
> Ohio Department of Transportation. 31 pp.

(ESI) Environmental Solutions & Innovations. 2002. Investigations during
spring, summer, and

> autumn 2002 for the federally endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis
> sodalis*) along segment A of the proposed U.S. Route 33 Nelsonville
> bypass (HOC/ATH -- 33-17.00/0.00), Hocking and Athens counties, Ohio.
> Report prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff Ohio, Inc. 37 pp.

(ESI) Environmental Solutions & Innovations. 2003. A spring 2003 survey
for the federally

endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) in Snake Hollow for proposed
U.S. Route 33

> Nelsonville bypass (HOC/ATH -- 33-17.00/0.00), Hocking and Athens
> counties, Ohio. Report prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff Ohio, Inc. 24
> pp.

(ESI) Environmental Solutions & Innovations. 2004a. An assessment of
summer habitat for the

> Indiana bat along the Ohio Department of Transportation Nelsonville
> bypass project (HOC/ATH -- 33-17.00/0.00 PID 14040). Report prepared
> for Parsons Brinckerhoff Ohio, Inc. 24 pp.

(ESI) Environmental Solutions & Innovations. 2004b. A literature summary
of the affects of: (1)

> air and substrate-born vibration, (2) roads as barriers to movements,
> and (3) owl predation on the Indiana bat. Unpublished report to
> Parsons Brinckerhoff Ohio,Inc.15 pp.

Farmer, A.H., B.S. Cade, and D.F. Stauffer. 2002. Evaluation of a
habitat suitability index model. Pages 172-179 *In* Kurta, A., and J.
Kennedy, editors. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an
endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Fleming, T.H., and P. Eby. 2003. Ecology of bat migration. Pages 156-208
*In* Kunz, T.H., and M.B. Fenton, editors. Bat ecology. University of
Chicago Press; Chicago, Illinois.

Foster, R.W., and A. Kurta. 1999. Roosting ecology of the northern bat
(*Myotis septentrionnalis*) and comparisons with the endangered Indiana
bat (*Myotis sodalis*). Journal of Mammalogy 80: 659-672.

Gardner, J.E., J.D. Garner, and J.E. Hofmann. 1991. Summer roost
selection and roosting behavior of *Myotis sodalis*, Indiana bat, in
Illinois. Final report submitted to the Illinois Natural History Survey,
Champaign, Illinois. 56 pp.

Gardner, J.E., J.E. Hofmann, and J.D. Garner. 1996. Summer distribution
of the federally endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) in Illinois.
Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science 89: 187-196.

Garner, J.D., and J.E Gardner. 1992. Determination of summer
distribution and habitat utilization of the Indiana bat (*Myotis
sodalis*) in Illinois. Unpublished report prepared for Illinois
Department of Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage, and Illinois
Natural History Survey, Center for Biogeographic Information. 23p.

(GE) General Electric Company. 2005. GE consumer and industrial
lighting.

Available at:
http://www.gelighting.com/na/buisiness_lighting/faqs/incandescent.htm.

Gumbert, M.W., J.M. O\'Keefe, and J.R. MacGregor. 2002. Roost fidelity
in Kentucky. Pages 143-152 *In* Kurta, A., and J. Kennedy, editors. The
Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. Bat
Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Hall, J.S. 1962. A life history and taxonomic study of the Indiana bat,
*Myotis sodalis*. Reading Publ. Mus. Art., Gallery Publ. 12:1-68.

Humphrey, S.R. 1975. Nursery roosts and communtiy diversity of Nearctic
bats. Journal of Mammalogy 56:321-346.

Humphrey, S.R. 1978. Status, winter habitat, and management of the
endangered Indiana bat *Myotis sodalis*. Florida Scientist 41:65-76.

Humphrey, S.R., and J.B. Cope. 1977. Survival rates of the endangered
Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Journal of Mammalogy 58:32-36.

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

Kiser, J.D., and H.D. Bryan. 1997. A survey for the federally endangered
Indiana bat (*Myotis*

> *sodalis*) on the Athens and Ironton Ranger Districts, Wayne National
> Forest. Final report submitted to the USDA-Forest Service, Wayne
> National Forest, Athens, Ohio. 7 pp.

Kiser, J.D., and C.L. Elliot. 1996. Foraging habitat, food habits, and
roost tree characteristics of the Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*, during
autumn in Jackson County, Kentucky. Final Report for the Kentucky
Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 65 pp.

Kiser, J.D., R.R. Kiser, B.W. Summer, and K.L. Schultes. 1999. A mist
net survey and

> radiotelemetry study for the federally endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis
> sodalis*) on the Athens and Ironton Ranger District, Wayne National
> Forest. Final report submitted to the USDA-Forest Service, Wayne
> National Forest, Athens,Ohio 7 pp.

Kiser, J.D., R.R. Kiser, K.E. Brock, and J. Beverly. 2000. A mist net
survey for the federally

> endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) on the Athens and Ironton
> Ranger Districts, Wayne National Forest. Final report submitted to the
> USDA-Forest Service, Wayne National Forest, Athens, Ohio. 14 pp.

Kiser, J. D., J.R. MacGregor, H.D. Bryan, and A. Howard. 2002. Use of
bridges as night roosts. Pages 208-215 *In* Kurta, A., and J. Kennedy,
editors. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered
species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Kurta, A., and S.W. Murray. 2002. Philopatry and migration of banded
Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*) and effects of radio transmitters.
Journal of Mammalogy 83(2):585-589.

Kurta, A., S.W. Murray, and D.H. Miller. 2002. Roost selection and
movements across the summer landscape. Pages 118-129 *In* Kurta, A., and
J. Kennedy, editors. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an
endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Kurta, A., and H. Rice. 2002. Ecology and management of the Indiana bat
in Michigan. Michigan Academician, pp.177-190.

Kurta, A., and J.O. Whitaker. 1998. Diet of the endangered Indiana bat
(*Myotis sodalis*) on the northern edge of its range. American Midland
Naturalist 140: 280-286.

Kurta, A., and K.J. Williams. 1992. Roosting habitat, microclimate, and
behavior of the endangered Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) in southern
Michigan. Final report to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
17 pp.

Lacki, M.J. 1981. A survey of bats in Wayne National Forest. Unpublished
M.S thesis, The

Ohio State University, Ohio. 70 pp.

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

> emphasis on cave-dwelling species. Terrestrial Series No. 8. Missouri
> Dept. of Conservation, Jefferson City. 52 pp.

LaVal, R.K., R.L. Clawson, M.L. LaVal, and W. Caire. 1976. Foraging
behavior and nocturnal activity patterns of Missouri bats, with emphasis
on the endangered species *Myotis grisescens* and *Myotis sodalis*.
Journal of Mammalogy 58: 592-599.

Lee, Y.F., and G.F. McCracken. 2004. Flight activity and food habits of
three species of *Myotis* bats (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in
sympatry. Zoological Studies 43(3): 589-597.

McNicholl, M.K. 1975. Larid site tenacity and group adherence in
relation to habitat. Auk 92:98-104.

Menzel, M.A., J.M. Menzel, T.C. Carter, W.M. Ford, J.W. Edwards. 2001.
Review of the forest habitat relationships of the Indiana bat (*Myotis
sodalis*). USDA Forest Service, Pennsylvania.

Miller, N.E., R.D. Drobney, R.L. Clawson, and E.V. Callahan. 2002.
Summer habitat in northern Missouri. Pages 165-171 *In* Kurta, A., and
J. Kennedy, editors. The Indiana bat: biology and management of an
endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Murray, S.W. 1999. Diet and nocturnal activity patterns of the
endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. M.S. thesis. Eastern Michigan
University, Yipsilanti, MI. 77 pp.

Murray, S.W., and A. Kurta. 2004. Nocturnal activity of the endangered
Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*). Journal of Zoology 262:197-206.

Myers, R.F. 1964. Ecology of three species of Myotine bats in the Ozark
Plateau. Unpubl. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Missouri-Columbia,
Columbia, MO. 210 pp.

NatureServe Explorer: an online encyclopedia of life \[web
application\]. 2004. Version November 2003. Arlington, Virginia, USA:
NatureServe. Available at: <http://www.natureserve.org/explorer>.

(ODOT) Ohio Department of Transportation. 2004. Biological assessment
for federally-listed

> species for U.S. Route 33 Nelsonville bypass (HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00
> PID 14040), Hocking and Athens counties, Ohio. 134 pp.

(ODOT) Ohio Department of Transportation. 2002. State of Ohio DOT
construction and

materials specifications. January 1, 2002. 1061 pp.

(ODOT) Ohio Department of Transportation. 1997. Roadside vegetation
management, mowing,

> and herbicide application policy. Policy number 512-002 (P), Effective
> December 1, 1997.

O'Shea, T.J., and D.R. Clark, Jr. 2002. An overview of contaminants and
bats, with special reference to insecticides and the Indiana bat. Pages
237-253 *In* Kurta, A., and J. Kennedy, editors. The Indiana bat:
biology and management of an endangered species. Bat Conservation
International, Austin, Texas.

(PB) Parsons Brinckerhoff Ohio, Inc. 2003. Ecological survey report,
U.S. Route 33

Nelsonville bypass, HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00, PID 14040, Hocking and Athens
counties. 82 pp.

(PB) Parsons Brinckerhoff Ohio, Inc. 2004. U.S. Route 33, Nelsonville
bypass impact

addendum report to the level II ecological survey report for Hocking and
Athens County,

Ohio, PID# 14040, HOC/ATH-33-17.00/0.00. 60 pp.

Porej, D. 2003a. An inventory of Ohio wetland compensatory mitigation.
Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency Final Report, Division of Surface Water, Columbus,
Ohio.

Porej, D. 2003b. Faunal aspects of wetland restoration. Ph.D. thesis.
The Ohio State University,

Columbus, Ohio.

Racey, P.A., and A.C. Entwistle. 2000. Conservation ecology. Pages
680-743. *In* Kunz, T.H. and M.B. Fenton, editors. Bat ecology.
University of Chicago Press; Chicago, Illinois.

Richter, A.R., S.R. Humphrey, J.B. Cope, and V. Brack, Jr. 1993.
Modified cave entrances: thermal effect on body mass and resulting
decline of endangered Indiana bats (*Myotis sodalis*). Conservation
Biology 7(2):407-415.

Rommé, 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*. Final Report for the Indiana Department
of Natural Resources; Federal Aid Project E-1-7, Study No. 8. 39 p.

Schultes, K.L. 2002. Characteristics of roost trees used by Indiana bats
(*Myotis sodalis*) and northern bats (*Myotis septentrionalis*) on the
Wayne National Forest, Ohio. M.S. thesis. Eastern Kentucky University.

Schmidt, A.C., K. Tyrell, and T. Glueck. 2002. Environmental
contaminants in bats collected from Missouri. Pages 228-236 *In* Kurta,
A., and J. Kennedy, editors. The Indiana bat: biology and management of
an endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Takagi, M. 2003. Philopatry and habitat selection in bull-headed and
brown shrikes. Journal of Field Ornithology 74: 45-52.

Thomson, C.E. 1982. *Myotis sodalis*. The American Society of
Mammalogists. Mammalian Species No. 162. pp. 1-5.

Tuttle, M. D., and J. Kennedy. 2002. Thermal requirements during
hibernation. Pages 68-78 *In* Kurta, A., and J. Kennedy, editors. The
Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. Bat
Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Tuttle, M.D., M.B. Fenton, and E. Bernard. 2004. Ecological role of bats
in forest ecosystems.

> 2nd Bats and Forests Symposium and Workshop, March 9-12, 2004. Hot
> Springs, Arkansas.

# 

# (FHWA) U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2005.

#  Special report: highway construction noise: measurement, prediction, and mitigation. Available at: <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/highway/hcn01.htm>.

(FHWA) U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
December 3, 2004.

Letter to Mary Knapp, USFWS Field Supervisor, Reynoldsburg, Ohio Field
Office.

(FHWA and ODOT) U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration and Ohio

> Dept. of Transportation. 2004. Draft environmental impact statement,
> U.S. 33 Nelsonville bypass, city of Nelsonville, Hocking and Athens
> counties, Ohio.

(WNF) U.S. Forest Service, Wayne National Forest. 2002. Mine portal
swarming survey.

> Specialist report regarding activities at Snake Hollow, Ward Twp.,
> Hocking County, Wayne National Forest.

(WNF) U.S. Forest Service, Wayne National Forest. 2004. Specialist
report: Indiana bat capture,

> Monkey Hollow swarming surveys 2004, Ward Twp., Hocking County, Wayne
> National Forest.

(USFWS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Recovery plan for the
Indiana bat. Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

(USFWS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Agency draft Indiana bat
(*Myotis sodalis*) revised recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

(USFWS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Biological opinion of the
application for an incidental take permit for the federally endangered
Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) for the Six Points Road interchange and
associated development. Bloomington Field Office. Bloomington, Indiana.
35p.

(USFWS) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Biological opinion on the
construction, operation, and maintenance of alternative 3C of Interstate
69 (I-69) from Indianapolis to Evansville for the federally endangered
Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) and the federally threatened bald eagle
(*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*) traversing portions of Gibson, Warrick,
Pike, Daviess, Greene, Monroe, Morgan, Johnson, and Marion Counties,
Indiana. Submitted to the Federal Highway Administration.

Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 2004. Prey selection in a temperate zone
insectivorous bat community. Journal of Mammalogy. In press.

Whitaker, J.O., Jr., and V. Brack, Jr. 2002. Distribution and summer
ecology in Indiana. Pages 48-54 *In* Kurta, A., and J. Kennedy, editors.
The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. Bat
Conservation International, Austin, Texas.