**[REVISED]{.underline}**

**[PROGRAMMATIC]{.underline}**

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

on the

**PROPOSED**

**CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF ALTERNATIVE 3C OF
INTERSTATE 69 (I-69)**

**FROM EVANSVILLE TO INDIANAPOLIS**

**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**

**August 24, 2006**

Prepared by:

R. Andrew King

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Bloomington Field Office

620 S. Walker Street

Bloomington, IN 47403

\(812\) 334-4261

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 2

CONSULTATION HISTORY 3

BIOLOGICAL OPINION 8

> I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 8
>
> The FHWA\'s Tiered Approach 12
>
> Revised Tier 1 Forest and Wetland Mitigation\
> and Enhancement Plan 12
>
> Conservation Measures 16
>
> Proposed Project Schedule 26
>
> Changes Since the Tier 1 Biological Assessment 27
>
> Action Areas 32
>
> The Service's Section 7 Consultation Approach 37
>
> II\. STATUS OF THE SPECIES 38
>
> Indiana Bat 38
>
> Bald Eagle 54
>
> Fanshell Mussel 59
>
> III\. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 59
>
> Physiographic Regions 59
>
> Natural Regions 61
>
> Major Drainages 66
>
> Karst Features 67
>
> Indiana Bats within the Action Area 67
>
> Bald Eagles in the Action Area 79
>
> IV\. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 81
>
> Indiana Bat 81
>
> Bald Eagle 91
>
> V. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 94
>
> Cumulative Effects within the Indiana Bat Action Areas 94
>
> Cumulative Effects within the Bald Eagle Action Area 97
>
> VI\. CONCLUSION 98

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT 100

> INDIANA BAT 100
>
> AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE 100
>
> EFFECT OF THE TAKE 102
>
> REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES 103
>
> TERMS AND CONDITIONS 103
>
> BALD EAGLE 106
>
> AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE 106
>
> EFFECT OF THE TAKE 106
>
> REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES 106
>
> TERMS AND CONDITIONS 107

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 110

REINITIATION NOTICE 111

LITERATURE CITED 111

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document is a partial revision to the original programmatic
Biological Opinion (BO) dated December 3, 2003 for the proposed
extension of I-69 from Evansville to Indianapolis Indiana. Following the
recommendation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reinitiated formal consultation on
Tier 1 of the proposed I-69 extension on March 7, 2006 and submitted an
addendum to the original Biological Assessment that detailed significant
new information regarding potential impacts to the Federally endangered
Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) that were not known or available for
analysis during the original formal consultation period in 2003. Because
there was not any significant new information regarding the Federally
threatened bald eagle (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*), the Service did not
deem it necessary and the FHWA did not request to reinitiate formal
consultation on this species. Although this revised BO only contains
substantive revisions involving impacts to the Indiana bat, we have
incorporated the original analysis and sections pertaining to the bald
eagle for continuity and clarity. As requested in the FHWA's March 7,
2006 reinitiation letter, the Service now confirms our previous
concurrence with the determination that the I-69 project is *not likely
to adversely affect* the eastern fanshell mussel (*Cyprogenia stegaria*)
and the project is still *likely to adversely affect, but not
jeopardize*, the bald eagle.

Even though the proposed extension of I-69 from Evansville to
Indianapolis will have greater impacts to Indiana bats than were
originally considered, based on our current analysis of the updated
information, the Service still concludes that this project is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat and is not
likely to adversely modify the bat's designated Critical Habitat. A
revised Incidental Take Statement has been included at the end of the BO
with its non-discretionary Reasonable and Prudent Measures and
associated Terms and Conditions to further minimize the incidental take
of both Indiana bats and bald eagles.

Lastly, we concur with FHWA's determination (as stated in its letter
dated 20 July 2006) that the proposed I-69 project is *not likely to
adversely affect* Ray's Cave in Greene County, Indiana, which is
designated Critical Habitat for the Indiana bat under the Endangered
Species Act.

When Ray's Cave was designated as Critical Habitat for the Indiana bat
on September 24, 1976, the federal rule did not identify constituent
elements associated with the conservation value of this particular cave,
nor did it for any of the other caves or mines that were designated at
that time. Therefore, we have had to identify the physical and
biological features that make Ray's Cave essential to the conservation
of Indiana bats ourselves. We believe the essential features include the
cave's physical structure, configuration, and all openings that create
and regulate suitable microclimates for hibernating bats within, its
associated karst hydrology and cave stream recharge area/watershed, and
the amount and condition of surrounding forested habitat (extending 5
miles from the cave's entrances) that is used by the bats during the
pre-hibernation swarming period each fall. Because the Proposed Action
for I-69 1) will not have any direct impacts on Ray's cave itself or its
important conservation features identified above, 2) indirect impacts to
the surrounding forest habitat are likely to be relatively far removed
from the cave's main entrance and insignificant in size (24 acres of
forest impacts/32,353 acres of surrounding forest = a 0.07% loss), and
3) it is extremely unlikely (i.e., discountable) that I-69 would cause
an increased risk of someone physically altering or vandalizing the cave
itself in some way, the Service, by way of this BO, has concurred with
the FHWA's "not likely to adversely affect" determination. While our
concurrence technically concludes the need for further informal
consultation on Ray's Cave as Critical Habitat for I-69, we respectfully
request that FHWA and INDOT continue to investigate any and all
potential effects of the Proposed Action that we have yet to envision
and thoroughly explore and include such additional analysis within the
Tier 2 BA for Section 4.

# 

# INTRODUCTION

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\'s (Service
or USFWS) biological opinion, which was primarily based on our review of
two documents, the [Tier 1 Biological Assessment for Threatened and
Endangered Species, Interstate 69, Indianapolis to Evansville (dated
July 18, 2003, revised October 27, 2003)]{.underline} (hereafter
referred to as the Tier 1 BA or BA), and the [Tier 1 Biological
Assessment Addendum (dated March 7, 2006)]{.underline} (hereafter
referred to as the Tier 1 BA Addendum, BAA, or Addendum). The Tier 1 BA
was originally submitted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and was received at the Service's Bloomington, Indiana Field Office
(BFO) on July 21, 2003 along with a letter requesting us to initiate
formal consultation on the proposed construction, operation, and
maintenance of Alternative 3C of Interstate 69 (I-69) from Indianapolis
to Evansville, Indiana and its effects on the Federally endangered
Indiana bat and the Federally threatened bald eagle. The original formal
consultation for Tier 1 of I-69 was concluded with the issuance of the
Service's programmatic Bioloical Opinion on December 3, 2003. On March
7, 2006, the FHWA requested to reinitiate formal consultation for the
Indiana bat and submitting a Tier 1 BA Addendum that detailed additional
impacts to Indiana bats stemming from significant new information
regarding this species' presence and abundance within the project's
action areas, as revealed during Tier 2 field studies. Formal
consultation was not reinitiated for the bald eagle. This revised BO
replaces the December 3, 2003 BO.

This programmatic BO is prepared in accordance with section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) and is the culmination of formal section 7 consultation under the
Act. The purpose of formal section 7 consultation is to insure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by the Federal government is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of any officially
designated critical habitat of such species. This BO covers the proposed
actions of the FHWA, as this agency will partially fund the road
construction associated with this project.

Road construction that will occur as part of this proposed project will
also require a permit(s) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
However, the COE permits will not result in any impacts to Indiana bats
or bald eagles beyond those addressed in this consultation with the
FHWA. Therefore, the Service intends to provide a copy of this BO to the
COE to demonstrate that the FHWA has fulfilled its obligations to
consult with the Service.

This BO is primarily based on information provided from the following
sources:

1)  an original I-69 Tier 1 BA \[dated July 18, 2003, revised October
    27, 2003; prepared by Bernardin-Lochmueller and Associates,
    Inc.(BLA)\],

2)  a Tier 1 BA Addendum (dated March 7, 2006; prepared by BLA),

3)  Tier 1 National Environmental Policy Act ([NEPA) documents for the
    I-69 project (Draft EIS, Final EIS and ROD]{.underline}),

4)  The I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis Tier 1 (tolling option)
    Re-evaluation Report (dated June 23, 2006; prepared by BLA),

5)  numerous technical reports from I-69 Tier 2 field surveys and
    related studies,

6)  reports and scientific literature on Indiana bat and bald eagle
    research conducted in the action area and elsewhere, and

7)  meetings, phone calls, e-mails, other written correspondence with
    FHWA, INDOT, and their consultants. A limited number of field visits
    and site investigations were also conducted by personnel from the
    Service's BFO. A complete administrative record of this consultation
    is on file at BFO.

# CONSULTATION HISTORY

The proposed action has a background that encompasses several decades of
planning and planning studies by INDOT and is outlined in Chapter 1 of
the Tier 1 DEIS. Studies since 1990 have been focused on the currently
proposed project area. The 1996 DEIS for the Southwest Indiana Highway
Project follows the currently proposed 3C alignment very closely.

In 1989-90, the Southwest Indiana Highway Feasibility Study
(Indianapolis to Evansville, Rockport, or Tell City) (Donohue study)
addressed three feasible north-south routes, all of which used SR 37
from Bloomington to Indianapolis. That study found Alternative A, from
Evansville to Indianapolis, economically feasible based on optimistic
assumptions for business attraction.

An environmental study for the Indianapolis to Evansville Highway was
done in 1990. This study was based on Alternative A from the 1989-90
feasibility study. The corridor was separated into three sections and
did not consider upgrading SR 37 to an Interstate. Section 1
(Bloomington to Newberry) was developed as an EIS, while section 2
(Newberry to Petersburg) and section 3 (Petersburg to Evansville) were
developed as preliminary overviews for detailed studies to come later.
In 1992, the decision was made to consolidate all three sections of the
1990 study into a single DEIS between Evansville and Bloomington.

The DEIS for the Southwestern Indiana Highway Project (Evansville to
Bloomington) was published in 1996. The preferred route studied in the
1996 DEIS closely followed what is now known as Alternative 3C, the
preferred alternative for proposed I-69. For the 1996 study, karst
features were investigated, forest plots were surveyed, and wetlands
were delineated, in addition to other standard NEPA elements. That
document included extensive fish, wildlife, and plant field surveys; and
literature review.

In 1998, INDOT decided to expand the scope of the EIS for the Southwest
Indiana Highway Project to include consideration of the need for an
Evansville-to-Indianapolis link in the context of the planned extension
of I-69. With the major change in scope, new corridor alternatives were
evaluated. The result of this expanded study culminated in FHWA and
INDOT initiating a two-tiered NEPA process and the release of the Tier 1
DEIS for proposed I-69 in July 2002 and the subsequent July 2003
submittal of a Tier 1 Biological Assessment with FHWA's request to
initiate formal section 7 consultation on Alternative 3C, INDOT's
preferred alternative. The Tier 1 DEIS and BA only summarized existing
data as no new field studies were conducted as part of Tier 1. The
Service issued its original programmatic BO on December 3, 2003, which
concluded that the project was not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the Indiana bat or bald eagle. This formal consultation
also provided FHWA and INDOT with an outline for submitting subsequent
Tier 2 BAs for each of the six Tier 2 Sections. Under the December 2003
Tier 1 BO, each of the Tier 2 section-specific BAs was required to show
how impacts associated with each particular section are consistent with
those described in the Tier 1 BO.

INDOT and FHWA published a Tier 1 FEIS, which selected Alternative 3C as
the preferred corridor. On March 24, 2004, the FHWA approved the 3C
corridor and made numerous mitigation commitments by signing and
releasing its Record of Decision (ROD) for the project.

During the summer of 2004, INDOT's consultants began Tier 2 field
studies within and around the 3C, approximately 2000-foot-wide corridor
including mist net surveys at 148 sites and radio-tracking of Indiana
bats captured along the proposed corridor. A total of 48 Indiana bats,
including reproductive adult females and juveniles (i.e., evidence of
nearby maternity colony), was captured from sites scattered among all
six sections of I-69. Based on these 2004 bat captures and associated
radio-tracking studies, the Service informed INDOT that there was now
evidence of at least 13 Indiana bat maternity colonies within the
project's SAA. Additional mist netting and radio tracking was conducted
at 49 sites during the summer of 2005 in an attempt to locate additional
primary roost trees for each of the 13 Indiana bat maternity colonies.

A meeting was held on July 1, 2005 with FHWA, INDOT, and the Service to
discuss Section 7 consultation during Tier 2 studies for the I-69
Evansville to Indianapolis project. At this meeting, the Service stated
that FHWA and INDOT should consider reinitiating formal Section 7
consultation for the entire I-69 corridor from Evansville to
Indianapolis for impacts to the Indiana bat, because so much new field
data had been collected in 2004 and 2005 concerning that species. Such
new information included results from mist netting surveys and
radio-tracking studies, roost tree identification, roost tree emergence
counts, bridge surveys for Indiana bat summer habitat, and results from
fall/spring cave harp trapping and winter cave surveys for Indiana bats.
The Service indicated that the formal consultation process would
conclude with the issuance of a revised programmatic BO for the entire
Alternative 3C corridor. INDOT and FHWA agreed that a reinitiation of
formal section 7 consultation for the Indiana bat was warranted.

Over several months time during the fall of 2005, INDOT's primary
consultant for I-69, BLA, informally consulted with the Service during
weekly meetings to decide what data should be included in the Tier 1 BA
Addendum and how it should be presented. Also, in February 2006, the
Service, INDOT and FHWA signed a pre-consultation agreement, which
outlined the mutual understanding of expectations for the I-69 Tier 1
formal consultation reinitiation, subsequent Tier 2 consultations, and
mitigation commitments for the Indiana bat. Extensive coordination
occurred between INDOT's consultants and the Service while the Tier 1 BA
Addendum was being prepared. A draft of the Addendum was requested by
the Service, but was not received. The FHWA submitted the BA Addendum to
the Service on March 7, 2006 with a letter requesting the reinitiation
of formal consultation. Due to extraordinarily high work loads stemming
from the forthcoming Revised Indiana Bat Recovery Plan, the Service's
BFO staff was incapable of completing a review of the BA Addendum until
the end of June 2006. By this time, the 90-day formal consultation
period had technically ended, but the BFO verbally informed the FHWA
that it intended to complete the formal consultation and issue a revised
BO by the end of the statutory 135-day period if at all possible. During
a meeting on July 17, 2006, FHWA and INDOT agreed to provide the Service
some additional information regarding impacts in the vicinity of Ray's
Cave and they and the Service mutually agreed to extend the consultation
period beyond the 135-day period, with the understanding that a draft BO
would be submitted for review on or before July 28, 2006.

A chronological summary of important consultation events and actions
associated with this project is presented below.

Summary of NEPA and section 7 consultation history for the currently
proposed action.

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

  February 3, 2000     INDOT and FHWA hosted a "Scoping Meeting" with
                       environmental review agencies.

  June 5, 2001         INDOT and FHWA convened an agency review meeting to
                       discuss the "Purpose and Need Statement" (including a
                       comparison of Tier 1 & 2 EIS)

  November 27, 2001    INDOT and FHWA convened an agency review meeting to
                       discuss their "Screening of Alternatives" for I-69
                       (included environmental information).

  December 21, 2001    BFO sent a letter to BLA with comments on the Draft
                       Level 2 Alternatives Analysis Report for the
                       Evansville to Indianapolis I-69 study including
                       endangered species and critical habitat technical
                       information.

  March 14, 2002       Federally listed species were reviewed and
                       appropriate tables constructed with species, their
                       number and status and presented to the USFWS at the
                       BFO.

  June 4 and 5, 2002   A BFO biologist took a two-day bus tour of I-69
                       alternatives focused on environmentally sensitive
                       areas with INDOT, FHWA, USEPA, IDNR, and BLA
                       representatives.

  June 2002            Through informal consultation with the Service INDOT
                       agreed to shift the common alignment of Alternative
                       3A, B, and C to be beyond the range of bats that
                       forage around and hibernate in Ray's Cave, which is
                       Designated Critical Habitat for the Indiana bat in
                       Greene County

  June 27, 2002        FHWA sent a letter to BFO requesting a list of
                       Federally listed species and Designated Critical
                       Habitat that may be present in the I-69 study area of
                       5 alternatives being carried forward for detailed
                       analysis in the DEIS.

  July 1, 2002         BFO sent FHWA a species list for all 5 alternatives
                       that included 6 species and one cave Designated
                       Critical Habitat for the Indiana bat that may be
                       present within the proposed project counties.

  July 22, 2002        INDOT and FHWA released their Tier 1 DEIS for public
                       comment

  November 14, 2002    BFO commented on the Tier 1 DEIS are combined with
                       those of the National Park Service and sent in single
                       letter from the Department of the Interior's
                       Washington Office to FHWA.

  January 9, 2003      Governor Frank O'Bannon announced Alternative 3C as
                       INDOT's recommendation as the "preferred alternative"
                       for I-69.

  February 21, 2003    FHWA requests a species list for their preferred
                       alternative, 3C.

  February 28, 2003    FHWA sends BFO a letter requesting comments on
                       regarding the four variations of Alt. 3C around the
                       City of Washington.

  March 11, 2003       An Agency Coordination Meeting was held at BFO to
                       discuss a Conceptual Tier 1 Forest and Wetland
                       Mitigation Plan, Sections of Independent Utility, the
                       proposed Patoka River crossing, and how the sec. 7
                       consultation would coincide with Final EIS
                       preparation.

  March 13, 2003       BFO sent FHWA a letter listing 3 species that may be
                       present in the Alternative 3C study area, Indiana
                       bat, bald eagle, and fanshell mussel.

  March 14, 2003       BFO sent FHWA a letter advising them to choose one of
                       the two eastern routes around Washington (variation
                       "WE1" was specifically recommended) as they were less
                       likely to have adverse affects to Indiana bats or
                       bald eagles because impacts to forest and wetlands
                       would be smaller.

  March 26, 2003       BLA sent BFO a Draft BA addressing effects to Alt. 3C
                       on Indiana bats, bald eagles, and fanshell mussels
                       and requested our review and comments.

  May 30, 2003         BFO returned comments on Draft BA to BLA.

  June 15 -- July 2003 BFO assisted INDOT and BLA in developing Conservation
                       Measures to be included in the BA that would avoid
                       and minimize incidental take of Indiana bats and bald
                       eagles.

  July 21, 2003        BFO received a revised BA and letter from FHWA
                       requesting formal section 7 consultation for the
                       effects of Alt. 3C of I-69 on Indiana bats and bald
                       eagles. The letter also requested our concurrence
                       that fanshell mussels were not likely to be adversely
                       affected by Alt. 3C. (the 135-day formal consultation
                       timeframe began).

  August 22, 2003      BFO sent FHWA a letter acknowledging receipt and
                       completeness of formal consultation initiation
                       package. Informed FHWA that the Service expected to
                       provide them with a final Biological Opinion no later
                       than December 3, 2003. Based on information contained
                       in the BA, the Service also provided the FHWA our
                       written concurrence with their determination that the
                       fanshell mussel was "not likely to be adversely
                       affected" by the proposed construction, operation,
                       and maintenance of Alternative 3C of I-69.

  August -- November   BFO consulted with FHWA/INDOT/BLA to gain
  2003                 clarification on various issues resulting in several
                       revisions to the Tier 1 BA.

  November 28, 2003    BFO sent FHWA/INDOT/BLA a draft Biological Opinion
                       for review.

  December 2, 2003     FHWA/INDOT/BLA returned comments on draft BO to BFO.

  December 3, 2003     BFO sent FHWA/INDOT/BLA the Final Biological Opinion
                       for Alternative 3C of I-69.

  December 2003        INDOT released Final EIS with 3C named as its
                       preferred alternative

  February 2004        FHWA issued a Record of Decision approving the 3C
                       corridor

  Summer 2004          Tier 2 Mist net surveys revealed the presence of 13
                       maternity colonies and scattered occurrences of male
                       Indiana bats throughout the 3C corridor.

  Fall-Winter-Spring   Tier 2 surveys at caves within 5 miles of the 3C
  2004 and 2005        corridor revealed limited seasonal use by Indiana
                       bats at a small number of caves without previous
                       documented use by Indiana bats.

  Summer 2005          Additional mist netting and radio-tracking located
                       additional Indiana bat roost trees within the 13
                       maternity colony areas.

  July 1, 2005         FHWA and INDOT met with Service and agreed to
                       reinitate formal consultation on Tier 1 of I-69 in
                       light of all the new information on Indiana bat
                       maternity activity and hibernacula in the project
                       area.

  Fall 2005            BLA and BFO staff held weekly meetings in order to
                       guide development of the Tier 1 BA Addendum

  February 2006        FHWA, INDOT and the Service signed a Pre-consultation
                       Agreement

  March 7, 2006        FHWA submitted a Tier 1 BA Addendum to the Service
                       with a letter requesting to reinitiate formal
                       consultation for the Indiana bat.

  June and July 2006   BFO consulted with FHWA/INDOT/BLA to gain
                       clarification on various issues discussed within the
                       BA Addendum.

  July 10, 2006        BFO reviewed and submitted comments on the Tier1
                       Re-evaluation Report for I-69, which outlined
                       anticipated impacts resulting from the interstate
                       being a toll road.

  July 17, 2006        BFO met with FHWA FHWA/INDOT/BLA to discuss findings
                       of the Tier 1 Re-evaluation Report and other issues.
                       It was agreed to expand the Winter Action Area to
                       include Ray's Cave, which would necessitate FHWA/
                       INDOT/BLA to provide additional data to BFO and an
                       effects determination on Ray's Cave as Critical
                       Habitat. It was mutually agreed to extend the formal
                       consultation period to accommodate these changes.

  July 20, 2006        BFO received a letter from FHWA stating that it
                       determined that I-69 "*may effect, but is not likely
                       to adversely affect*" Ray's Cave as Critical Habitat
                       for the Indiana bat. They also provided additional
                       information regarding impacts around this cave and
                       revised data for the revised Winter Action Area.

  July 26, 2006        The Service provided FHWA with a draft of the revised
                       BO and ITS for review.

  August 11, 2006      FHWA/INDOT/BLA returned comments on the draft revised
                       BO and ITS to the Service.

  August 21, 2006      The Service provided FHWA with a revised draft ITS
                       for review.

  August 23, 2006      FHWA/INDOT/BLA returned additional comments on the
                       revised draft BO and ITS to the Service.

  August 24, 2006      BFO concluded formal consultation on Tier 1 by
                       issuing FHWA and INDOT a Final Revised Programmatic
                       Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement for
                       Alternative 3C of I-69.
  -------------------- -----------------------------------------------------

**BIOLOGICAL OPINION**

# I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Indiana Department of
Transportation (INDOT) are proposing construction of I-69 from
Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana. The study of proposed I-69 from
Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana is a comprehensive National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) study that will be carried forward in
two tiers. Tier 1 of the study involved extensive environmental,
transportation, and economic studies, and cost analysis. The Tier 1
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provided a basis for the FHWA to
grant approval for a specific corridor. In most cases, the corridor is
approximately 2000 feet wide, but has been narrowed or widened in some
instances to avoid or provide room to avoid sensitive environmental
areas. A working alignment within the corridor, ranging from
approximately 270 -- 470 feet wide, was developed to estimate potential
impacts for the Tier 1 study. The Tier 1 study was completed on March
24, 2004 with the issuance of the Tier 1 Record of Decision (ROD) signed
by FHWA. Alternative 3C was determined to be the Preferred Alternative
for this project. Alternative 3C is near SR 57 from Evansville to
Washington, crossing the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge
acquisition boundary. The alternative continues overland east around
Washington to Elnora then turns east toward Bloomington. From
Bloomington, the alternative is located along existing SR 37 to connect
to I-465 at Indianapolis (Figure 1).

With the aid of FHWA funds, INDOT is proposing to construct, operate,
and maintain a new extension of an Interstate highway, I-69,
approximately 142 miles long, connecting Evansville and Indianapolis,
via Oakland City, Washington, Crane, Bloomington, and Martinsville,
Indiana. Approximately 35% of the proposed route would be mostly within
the footprint of an existing 4-lane highway, SR 37; however, the
remaining 65% or approximately 90 miles of interstate would be
constructed off of existing highways on new-terrain. The proposed action
would also involve constructing/reconstructing approximately 33
interchanges, but the actual number may change in Tier 2, as well as new
frontage roads, access roads, and improvements to existing roads. The
project is part of a larger, national proposal to connect the three
North American trading partners of Canada, the United States, and Mexico
by an Interstate highway in the states of Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky,
Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. The purpose of
the proposed I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis Project is to provide an
improved transportation link between Evansville and Indianapolis
that: 1) strengthens the transportation network in southwestern Indiana,
2) supports economic development in southwestern Indiana, and 3)
completes the portion of the National I-69 project between Evansville
and Indianapolis.

Tier 2 NEPA studies are currently being conducted to determine a
specific alignment within the selected corridor. The corridor selected
in Tier 1 has been divided into six (6) sections. To provide more
flexibility, Tier 2 NEPA studies will be conducted on each project
section rather than singly on the entire route. The six (6) project
sections to be carried forward to Tier 2 are (traveling northeast)
(Figure 2):

1.  From I-64 (near Evansville) via the SR 57 corridor to SR 64 (near
    Princeton/Oakland City)

2.  From SR 64 (near Princeton/Oakland City) via the SR 57 corridor to
    US 50 (near Washington)

3.  From US 50 (near Washington) via the SR 57 corridor and cross
    country to US 231 (near Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC))

4.  From US 231 (near Crane NSWC) via cross country to SR 37 (south of
    Bloomington)

5.  From SR 37 (south of Bloomington) via SR 37 to SR 39 (Martinsville)

6.  From SR 39 (Martinsville) via SR 37 to I-465 (Indianapolis)

The width of the typical interstate sections differ depending on three
factors: 1) flat versus hilly topography (broadly determined by
physiographic region), 2) number of traffic lanes needed, and 3) number,
if any, of frontage roads needed.

The possibility of I-69 as a toll road is currently being studied as a
part of a re-evaluation of the Tier 1 EIS. This was not originally
considered in the Tier 1 BA. At this time, each Tier 2 Section
consultant is evaluating each alternative as a toll road and as a
non-toll road.

In the Tier 2 DEISs for each project section, it is anticipated that a
preferred location alternative will be identified. A preferred financing
option will be identified in either the Tier 2 DEIS or the Tier 2 FEIS
for each section. Thus uncertainty regarding the funding of the
interstate remains at this time.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.777777777777778in"
height="8.65625in"}**Figure 1.** Proposed corridor for I-69 from
Evansville to Indianaplis (Alternative 3C).

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="6.606944444444444in"
height="8.539583333333333in"}**Figure 2.** Tier 2 project sections.

**[The FHWA's Tiered Approach]{.underline}**

The FHWA's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) studies for proposed
I-69 from Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana are being completed in two
tiers. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines and Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines allow NEPA studies for large,
complex projects to be completed in a two-staged or "tiered" process.
Tier 1 of the study involved extensive environmental, transportation,
and economic studies, and cost analyses, but no field studies. The final
Tier 1 NEPA document was an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that
provided a basis for the FHWA to grant approval for INDOT's preferred
corridor, Alternative 3C. In most cases, the proposed 3C corridor is
approximately 2000 feet wide, but has been narrowed in some instances to
avoid sensitive environmental areas. A "working alignment" within the
2000-foot corridor, ranging from approximately 270 to 470 feet wide, was
developed to estimate the potential impacts analyzed in the Tier 1 BA
and Tier 1 BA Addendum. It is important to note that specific alignment
decisions within a project section will not be finalized until after the
Tier 2 study processes and consultations have been completed for each
project section.

Tier 2 NEPA studies will be conducted to determine a specific alignment
within the selected corridor. The 3C corridor that was selected at the
completion of Tier 1 has been divided into six "project sections" in
Tier 2. To provide more flexibility, detailed Tier 2 NEPA studies will
be conducted on each project section rather than singly on the entire
route. Each Tier 2 study will look beyond its project termini to
determine if there is anything sensitive just beyond the termini that
would affect the location of the adjoining project. This will provide
additional assurance that decisions made in one section do not
prematurely preclude consideration of alternatives within the preferred
corridor for adjoining sections. In general, the range of alternatives
in Tier 2 are confined to the corridor selected in Tier 1. In some
instances, interchanges and access roads for Tier 2 alternatives extend
outside the corridor. Flexibility exists to consider alternatives
outside the corridor, with consultation, if necessary to avoid
unanticipated impacts.

**Revised Tier 1 Forest and Wetland Mitigation and Enhancement Plan**

During Tier 1, INDOT and FHWA developed a Tier 1 Forest and Wetland
Mitigation and Enhancement Plan ("Plan") for the proposed project in
consultation with the USFWS and other review agencies. This Plan
described 17 potential sites where wetland and forest restoration and
conservation efforts would be targeted. These sites were "conceptual" in
nature, and were general areas rather than specific parcels of land. The
Plan was intended to provide a list of potential mitigation sites. The
actual mitigation sites to be implemented for the project will be
determined during or following Tier 2, in consultation with the USFWS,
and could include different sites than those identified in the Plan. A
copy of the original Tier 1 Forest and Wetland Mitigation and
Enhancement Plan, was included as Appendix NN in the Tier 1 FEIS, Volume
II, and is hereby incorporated by reference.

Appendix D of the Tier1 BA Addendum contained a Revised Tier 1 Forest
and Wetland Mitigation and Enhancement Plan and his hereby incorporated
by reference. This conceptual Revised Tier 1 Plan is an updated version
of the original Tier 1 Forest and Wetland Mitigation and Enhancement
Plan. The Tier 1 Forest and Wetlands Mitigation and Enhancement Plan
included a commitment to replace wetlands at a ratio of 3:1 for forested
and scrub/shrub wetlands, and a ratio of 2:1 for emergent wetlands. In
addition to wetland mitigation, the Plan included a commitment to
mitigate for upland forests at a ratio of 3:1. In addition to these
amounts, a buffer for each wetland mitigation site was included within
the Plan totaling 55 acres. Based on impact estimates available in Tier
1, the Plan included *estimated* acreages for forest and wetlands
mitigation and identified *potential* forest and wetland mitigation
sites.

The Plan noted that if impacts were reduced below the levels estimated
in Tier 1, then the level of mitigation acreage required under the Plan
would be reduced accordingly; similarly, if the impacts were higher than
estimated in Tier 1, then the mitigation acreage would increase. The
Plan also noted that further enhancements to the mitigation measures
listed in the Plan would be determined in consultation with the USFWS
and other regulatory agencies on a case-by-case basis in Tier 2. The
Plan also noted that the mitigation sites identified in the Plan were
conceptual, and that specific mitigation sites would be determined
during or after Tier 2 and noted that INDOT would acquire mitigation
sites only from willing sellers at fair market value.

**Consideration in December 3, 2003 Biological Opinion**

The USFWS's original Biological Opinion for the project, issued on
December 3, 2003, included a description of the Tier 1 Forest and
Wetland Mitigation and Enhancement Plan (Tier 1 B.O., pp. 8-10.) The
USFWS specifically considered the Plan as part of the analysis that
supported its no-jeopardy finding for the project. (Tier 1 B.O., pp.
74-75). In addition, the USFWS required implementation of the measures
contained in the Plan, or equivalent measures deemed satisfactory by the
USFWS, as one of the mandatory terms and conditions in the Incidental
Take Statement for the Indiana bat. (Tier 1 B.O., p. 79).

**Updates to Tier 1 Mitigation and Enhancement Commitments**

The re-initiation of Section 7 consultation for the entire I-69
Evansville to Indianapolis project provides an opportunity to review
and, where appropriate, update the Tier 1 mitigation and enhancement
commitments. Updates are appropriate where new information has been
developed about the project's impacts or about specific mitigation
sites; modifications also may be appropriate in order to clarify
statements in the original Plan. Any updates contained in the Tier 1 BA
Addendum, will supersede commitments in the original mitigation plan,
and are incorporated into this revised Biological Opinion for the I-69
project.

**Mitigation Commitments**

Statements within the Tier 1 BA Addendum, indicated that FHWA and INDOT
have re-affirmed their commitment to the mitigation ratios provided in
the Tier 1 Forest and Wetlands Mitigation and Enhancement Plan. These
mitigation ratios are summarized in Table 1 of the BA Addendum provided
below.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="6.495138888888889in"
height="1.6159722222222221in"}

**Estimated Mitigation Acreages**

As noted above, the Tier 1 BA included *estimates* for mitigation
acreages, based on then available information about the project's
impacts. It did not commit to providing a specific number of acres of
mitigation land. Consistent with that approach, the Tier 1 BA Addendum
included updated estimates of the mitigation acreages for forest and
wetlands (see Table 2.)

To provide a conservative/worst-case scenario, the updated estimates in
the Tier 1 BA Addendum have been based on a representative alignment
within each section that have the highest impact to Tier 2 forest, from
among the alignments under consideration in the Tier 2 studies as of
November 14, 2005. (The "representative alignment" used in the Tier 1 BA
Addendum differs from the "working alignment" considered in the Tier 1
study.) The term "Tier 2 forest" is explained below at p. 32.

Tier 2 forest was determined from 2003 aerial photographs, high
resolution aerial photographs of the corridor, and field reconnaissance
by Tier 2 Environmental and Engineering Assessment Consultants (EEACs).
The EEACs are responsible for specific, detailed evaluations of each
Tier 2 Section. The new forest data shows greater overall forest
coverage when compared to the forest data used in the original Tier 1
analysis and formal consultation. The revised forest data used in this
analysis was discussed in greater detail on page 25 of the BAA. It is
likely that the actual impacts will be somewhat lower than this
estimate, due to the ongoing efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to
forest and wetlands. The highest forest impact alignments have been used
in order to provide a "reasonable worst-case" estimate of the Tier 2
forest impacts for the alternatives that are being considered in the
Tier 2 studies. Since actual impacts are likely to be somewhat lower, it
is expected that the corresponding mitigation acreages will also be
somewhat lower than those presented here.

![](media/image4.wmf){width="6.114583333333333in"
height="2.4583333333333335in"}

Both the harmful and beneficial effects of the "Tier 2 BA" estimated
impacts and proposed mitigation acreages presented in Table 2 were taken
into consideration for both our jeopardy and incidental take analyses of
this revised BO.

**Principles for Selecting Mitigation Sites**

Mitigation sites and easements will only be purchased from willing
sellers at fair market value. FHWA and INDOT propose the following
principles to guide the selection of forest and wetlands mitigation
sites for the project:

a.  Wherever possible, mitigation for impacts in the vicinity of an
    Indiana bat maternity colony will be provided (if willing sellers
    are available for a price at fair market value) within a 2.5-mile
    radius of the estimated central location of the colony. The area
    within this 2.5-mile radius is referred to in this document as the
    maternity colony roosting and foraging area. Maps in Appendix D of
    the BAA show the location of mitigation priority areas for the 13
    identified maternity colonies. Where mitigation cannot be provided
    within the maternity colony roosting and foraging area, any
    additional mitigation for impacts to the colony will be provided
    elsewhere within the SAA or at other locations acceptable to the
    USFWS, FHWA, and INDOT.

b.  Mitigation will include both the protection of existing habitat
    (through acquisition of easements or other ownership interests in
    the property) and the creation of new habitat (through reforestation
    and wetlands creation). The balance between protecting and creating
    habitat will be determined as part of the Section 7 consultation
    process for Tier 2 BAs.

c.  Mitigation measures that include property acquisition (including
    acquisition of easements) will be carried out only with willing
    sellers at fair market value. When seeking to acquire sites for
    mitigation purposes, FHWA and INDOT will try to identify potential
    willing sellers and try to reach an agreement with them.

d.  The USFWS will be consulted prior to acquisition of sites that are
    intended to be used as mitigation for impacts to the Indiana bat.

e.  On a project-wide basis, FHWA and INDOT will provide mitigation for
    upland forest impacts at a ratio of 3:1 as committed in the Tier 1
    FEIS and ROD. Some of the land used to meet this 3:1 commitment may
    be located outside the Indiana bat Action Areas and thus may not
    always constitute mitigation for the Indiana bat. Consultation with
    the USFWS will determine what will be deemed appropriate for Indiana
    bat mitigation. Mitigation goals are to replace direct forest
    impacts at a 1:1 ratio and provide an additional 2:1 ratio of forest
    preservation.

f.  Mitigation for impacts to the Indiana bat maternity colonies will be
    determined on a case-by-case basis and will be located within the
    Indiana bat Action Areas. The appropriate mitigation ratio for
    impacts to the Indiana bat will be determined as part of the Tier 2
    Section 7 process, taking into account the type and location of the
    mitigation, as well as the nature of the impacts. The mitigation
    provided for the Indiana bat within the Action Area may be provided
    at a ratio of less or greater than 3:1, if a lower or higher ratio
    is determined to be appropriate as part of the Tier 2 Section 7
    process.

g.  Mitigation for impacts to the Indiana bat may also serve as
    mitigation for other environmental resources, such as wetlands.

Mitigation for wetlands will be replaced in the same 8-digit watershed
and at ratios described in INDOT's Wetland Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) dated January 21, 1991. Mitigation sites in upland forested areas
will be incorporated with wetland areas and other forested areas when
feasible in an effort to expand existing core forest habitat and
otherwise augment existing ecological communities. Potential mitigation
sites also were specifically targeted to create/enhance habitat for
Federal and state threatened, endangered, and rare species. For example,
potential sites near large, open water bodies were targeted as
appropriate habitat for bald eagles. Likewise some forested areas near
known Indiana bat hibernacula were targeted because they provide
suitable foraging and roosting habitat for the bats. Detailed
information pertaining to each potential mitigation site is provided in
the Revised Tier 1 Forest and Wetland Mitigation and Enhancement Plan
and is hereby incorporated by reference.

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

The following conservation measures were jointly developed by the FHWA,
INDOT, and the Service during informal consultation and were
subsequently incorporated into the Tier 1 BA and the Tier 1 BA Addendum
as part of the official Proposed Action for the I-69 project. Since
conservation measures are part of the Proposed Action, their
implementation is required under the terms of the consultation. These
measures were specifically designed to avoid and minimize impacts of the
proposed action on Indiana bats and bald eagles and to further their
recovery. **The Service has analyzed the effects of the Proposed Action
based on the assumption that all conservation measures will be
implemented or equivalent measures developed in consultation with the
Service during or following Tier 2.** The beneficial effects of the
following measures were taken into consideration for both our jeopardy
and incidental take analyses.

**[INDIANA BAT (*Myotis sodalis*)]{.underline}**

A.  **[CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS]{.underline}**

> *[Winter Habitat]{.underline}*

1.  **Alignment Planning -** Efforts will be made to locate Interstate
    alignments beyond 0.5 miles from known Indiana bat hibernacula.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- All alternatives have been located
> greater than 0.5 miles from any of the 14 known hibernacula.**

2.  **Blasting -** Blasting will be avoided between September 15 and
    April 15 in areas within 0.5 miles of known Indiana bat hibernacula.
    All blasting in the Winter Action Area (WAA) will follow the
    specifications developed in consultation with the USFWS and will be
    conducted in a manner that will not compromise the structural
    integrity or alter the karst hydrology of nearby caves serving as
    Indiana bat hibernacula.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

3.  **Hibernacula Surveys --** A plan for hibernacula surveys (caves
    and/or mines) will be developed and conducted in consultation with
    and approved by USFWS during Tier 2 studies.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- Plan was completed with USFWS and
> fieldwork has been completed. To date, 373 cave records were evaluated
> and 250 caves were visited in the field. Of these, sixty-one caves
> were surveyed for Indiana bats in 2004-2005 and 16 caves had fall harp
> trapping in 2005. The 16 caves that were harp trapped in the fall of
> 2005 also had internal cave surveys completed in December 2005. Three
> new Indiana bat hibernacula were identified as a result of these
> surveys.**

4.  **Karst Hydrology --** To avoid and minimize the potential for
    flooding, dewatering, and/or microclimate (i.e., temperature and
    humidity) changes within hibernacula, site-specific efforts will be
    made to minimize changes in the amount, frequency, and rate of flow
    of roadway drainage that enters karst systems that are determined to
    be hydrologically connected to Indiana bat hibernacula.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- The only hibernaculum for which
> hydrological connectivity with the corridor has been established is
> Ashcraft Cave. Karst feature dye tracing from inputs within the
> corridor established a positive dye trace to Ashcraft Cave in December
> 2005. Efforts will be made to minimize any disturbance to the
> hydraulic/hydrologic function of these features, and their
> relationship to Ashcraft Cave, thus minimizing any potential changes
> to the hibernaculum microclimate.**
>
> *[AUTUMN/SPRING HABITAT]{.underline}*

5.  **Tree Removal --** To minimize adverse effects on bat habitat, tree
    (three or more inches in diameter) cutting will be avoided within
    five miles of a known hibernaculum. If unavoidable, cutting will
    only occur between November 15 and March 31.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} - To be completed.**
>
> *[SUMMER HABITAT]{.underline}*
>
> **6. Alignment Planning -** Efforts will be made to locate Interstate
> alignments so they avoid transecting forested areas and fragmenting
> core forest where reasonable.

**[Status Report]{.underline} -- Efforts have been made to avoid and
minimize**

**fragmenting forests.**

7.  **Tree Removal -** Tree and snag removal will be avoided or
    minimized as follows:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  **Tree Cutting** - To avoid any direct take of Indiana bats, no
    trees with a diameter of 3 or more inches will be removed between
    April 15 and September 15. Tree clearing and snag removal will be
    kept to a minimum and limited to within the construction limits. In
    the median, outside the clear zone, tree clearing will be kept to a
    minimum with woods kept in as much a natural state as reasonable.
    Forested medians will be managed following IDNR State Forest timber
    management plan.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

b.  **Mist Netting** - In areas with suitable summer habitat for the
    Indiana bat, mist net surveys will be conducted between May 15 and
    August 15 at locations determined in consultation with the USFWS as
    part of Tier 2 studies. If Indiana bats are captured, some will be
    fitted with radio transmitters and tracked to their diurnal roosts
    for at least 5 days unless otherwise determined by USFWS.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- Completed. A total of 148 mist net
> sites was surveyed in 2004 and 49 sites were surveyed or resurveyed in
> 2005.**

**8. Bridges --** Bridges will include the following design features:

a.  **Surveys --** The undersides of existing bridges that must be
    removed for construction of I-69 will be visually surveyed and/or
    netted to determine their use as night roosts by Indiana bats during
    the summer.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- Completed. A total of 270 bridges and
> culverts was inspected for Indiana bats. Of the 259 bridge surveys,
> Indiana bats were found under one bridge. INDOT and FHWA have worked
> with the USFWS on fencing below this bridge at either end to avoid
> human disturbance. Both ends of the bridge have fencing, a gate, and a
> keyed lock. Monthly monitoring with USFWS is ongoing throughout the
> summer of 2006. This bridge is greater than 1.5 miles from the
> proposed corridor with no direct forested connectivity to it.**

b.  **Bat-friendly bridges --** Where feasible and appropriate,
    Interstate and frontage road bridges will be designed to provide
    suitable night roosts for Indiana bats and other bat species in
    consultation with the USFWS.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

c.  **Floodplains --** Where reasonable and appropriate, floodplains and
    oxbows will be bridged to protect environmentally sensitive areas.
    The Patoka River floodplain will be bridged in its entirety, thus
    minimizing impacts to many different habitats.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} - To be completed.**

9.  **Stream Relocations --** Site-specific plans for stream relocations
    will be developed in design considering the needs of sensitive
    species and environmental concerns. Plans will include the planting
    of woody and herbaceous vegetation to stabilize the banks. Such
    plantings will provide foraging cover for many species. Stream
    Mitigation and Monitoring plans will be developed for stream
    relocations, as appropriate.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} - To be completed.**
>
> *[ALL HABITATS]{.underline}*

10. **Medians and Alignments --** Variable-width medians and Independent
    alignments will be used where appropriate to minimize impacts to
    sensitive and/or significant habitats. Context sensitive solutions
    will be used, where possible. This may involve vertical and
    horizontal shifts in the Interstate.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} - To be completed.**

11. **Minimize Interchanges -** Efforts have been made to limit
    interchanges in karst areas, thereby limiting access and
    discouraging secondary growth and impacts. In Tier 2, further
    consideration will be given to limiting the location and number of
    interchanges in karst areas.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} - To be completed in consultation with
> USFWS.**

12. **Memoranda of Understandings (MOUs) -** Construction will adhere to
    the Wetland MOU (dated January 28, 1991) and Karst MOU (dated
    October 13, 1993). The Wetland MOU minimizes impacts to the Indiana
    bat by mitigating for wetland losses, and creating bat foraging
    areas at greater ratios than that lost to the project. The Karst MOU
    avoids and minimizes impacts to the Indiana bat by numerous measures
    which protect sensitive karst features including hibernacula.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} - Items 1-4 of the karst MOU are being
> addressed as part of Tier 2 studies. Additional items to be
> completed.**

13. **Water Quality -** Water contamination will be avoided/minimized by
    the following:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  **Equipment Service -** Equipment servicing and maintenance areas
    will be designated to areas away from streambeds, sinkholes, or
    areas draining into sinkholes.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

b.  **Roadside Drainage -** Where appropriate in karst areas, roadside
    ditches will be constructed that are grass-lined and connected to
    filter strips and containment basins.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

c.  **Equipment Maintenance -** Construction equipment will be
    maintained in proper mechanical condition.

**[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

d.  **Spill Prevention/Containment --** The design for the roadway will
    include appropriate measures for spill prevention/containment.

**[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

e.  **Herbicide Use Plan -** The use of herbicides will be minimized in
    environmentally sensitive areas, such as karst areas that are
    protective of Indiana bats and their prey. Environmentally sensitive
    areas will be determined in coordination with INDOT and, as
    appropriate, INDOT consultants. Appropriate signage will be posted
    along the interstate to alert maintenance staff.

**[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

f.  **Revegetation -** Revegetation of disturbed areas will occur in
    accordance with INDOT standard specifications. Woody vegetation will
    only be utilized beyond the clear zone. Revegetation of disturbed
    soils in the right-of-way and medians will utilize native grasses
    and wildflowers, as appropriate, similar to the native seed mixes of
    other nearby states.

**[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

g.  **Low Salt Zones --** A low salt and no spray strategy will be
    developed in karst areas for this project. A signing strategy for
    these items will also be developed. The low salt zones will be
    determined in coordination with INDOT.

**[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

h.  **Bridge Design --** Where feasible and appropriate, bridges will be
    designed with none or a minimum number of in-span drains. To the
    extent possible, the water flow will be directed towards the ends of
    the bridge and to the riprap drainage turnouts.

**[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

14. **Erosion Control -** Temporary erosion control devices will be used
    to minimize sediment and debris. Timely revegetation after soil
    disturbance will be implemented and monitored. Revegetation will
    consider site specific needs for water and karst. Erosion control
    measures will be put in place as a first step in construction and
    maintained throughout construction.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

15. **Parking and Turning Areas --** Parking and turning areas for heavy
    equipment will be confined to sites that will minimize soil erosion
    and tree clearing, and will avoid environmentally sensitive areas,
    such as karst.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**
>
> **[B. Restoration / Replacement]{.underline}**
>
> *[SUMMER HABITAT]{.underline}*
>
> **1. Summer Habitat Creation / Enhancement -** Indiana bat summer
> habitat will be created and enhanced in the Action Area through
> wetland and forest mitigation focused on riparian corridors and
> existing forest blocks to provide habitat connectivity. The following
> areas and possibly others will be investigated for wetland and forest
> mitigation to create and enhance summer habitat for the Indiana bat:
> Pigeon Creek, Patoka River bottoms, East Fork of the White River,
> Thousand Acre Woods, White River (Elnora), First Creek, American
> Bottoms, Garrison Chapel Valley, Beanblossom Bottoms, White River
> (Gosport), White River (Blue Bluff), and Bradford Woods.
>
> In selecting sites for summer habitat creation and enhancement,
> priority will be given to sites located within a 2.5 mile radius from
> a recorded capture site or roost tree. If willing sellers cannot be
> found within these areas, other areas may be used as second choice
> areas as long as they are within the Action Area and close enough to
> benefit these maternity colonies, or are outside the Action Area but
> still deemed acceptable to the USFWS.
>
> Where appropriate, mitigation sites will be planted with a mixture of
> native trees that is largely comprised of species that have been
> identified as having relatively high value as potential Indiana bat
> roost trees. Tree plantings will be monitored for five years after
> planting to ensure establishment and protected in perpetuity via
> conservation easements.
>
> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

2.  **Wetland MOU -** Wetlands will be mitigated at ratios agreed upon
    in the Wetland MOU (dated January 28, 1991). Wetland replacement
    ratios are as follows:

    a.  Farmed 1 to 1

    b.  scrub / shrub and palustrine / lacustrine emergent 2 - 3 to 1
        depending upon quality

    c.  bottomland hardwood forest 3 -- 4 to 1 depending upon quality

    d.  exceptional, unique, critical (i.e. cypress swamps) 4 and above
        to 1 depending upon quality.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**
>
> **3. Forest Mitigation** - The Tier 1 Forest and Wetland Mitigation
> and Enhancement Plan identifies the general location of potential
> mitigation sites for upland and bottomland forests. Preference will be
> given to areas contiguous to large forested tracts that have recorded
> federal and state listed species. The actual mitigation sites
> implemented will be determined in or following Tier 2 in consultation
> with the Service and other environmental review agencies. Coordination
> with the environmental review agencies will assure that these forest
> mitigation sites are strategically situated in biologically attractive
> ecosystems. Forest impacts will be mitigated at a ratio of 3 to 1. All
> forest mitigation lands will be protected in perpetuity via
> conservation easements. The 3:1 forest mitigation may not be located
> entirely within the Action Area. Forest impacts occurring within each
> of the 13 2.5-mile radius maternity colony areas would be mitigated by
> replacement (i.e. planting of new forest and purchase of existing) at
> approximately 3:1, preferably in the vicinity of the known roosting
> habitat.
>
> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed. In 2004, following
> the issuance of the Tier 1 ROD, INDOT provided funding to IDNR for the
> purchase of approximately 1500 acres of land from Indiana Power &
> Light (IPL; now managed by IDNR, Division of Forestry as "Ravinia
> Woods," a unit of the Morgan-Monroe State Forest) in Morgan County for
> use as forest mitigation for the I-69 project. The Ravinia Woods
> property is about 80% forested and lies approximately 0.5 mile beyond
> the assumed boundary of the West Fork - Bryant Creek maternity colony
> in Section 5. A narrow wooded riparian corridor along Burkhart Creek
> provides connectivity between the West Fork - Bryant Creek colony and
> Ravinia Woods. INDOT considers this land to contribute to meeting a
> minimum 1:1 of the forest mitigation in Section 5. The remaining 2:1
> for Section 5 will include reforestation and preservation within the
> SAA and maternity colony foraging area. The 1:1 ratio could be
> increased depending upon site-specific mitigation in Tier 2 and
> through future coordination with USFWS. At this time (estimates may
> change in the future as alignments are refined), Section 5 is
> estimated to result in a total of 303 acres of forest loss. Thus, 606
> acres would be reforested and/or preserved within the SAA or maternity
> colony foraging area and 303 acres from the Ravinia Woods property
> would be included as the remaining forest mitigation.**

**C. [Conservation / Preservation]{.underline}**

> *[Winter Habitat]{.underline}*
>
> **1. Hibernacula Purchase -** Opportunities will be investigated to
> purchase at fair market value from "willing sellers," an Indiana bat
> hibernaculum(a) including associated autumn swarming/spring staging
> habitat. After purchase and implementation of all management efforts,
> the hibernaculum(a) and all buffered areas will be turned over to an
> appropriate government conservation and management agency for
> protection in perpetuity via conservation easements.
>
> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**
>
> **2. Hibernacula Protection** -- With landowner permission,
> investigations will be coordinated with the USFWS on acquiring
> easements to erect bat-friendly angle-iron gates at cave entrances.
> These gates prevent unauthorized human access and disturbance of
> hibernacula, while maintaining free airflow within the hibernacula
> within the Action Area. Gates will be constructed according to designs
> from the American Cave Conservation Association. Effects of gates on
> water flow and flash flooding debris will be carefully evaluated
> before and after gates are installed. Other structures (e.g.,
> perimeter fencing) or techniques (e.g., alarm systems and signs) may
> also be used.
>
> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**
>
> *[AUTUMN/SPRING HABITAT]{.underline}*
>
> **3. Autumn/Spring Habitat Purchase -** Any hibernaculum(a) purchased
> as part of conservation for Indiana bat winter habitat will include
> associated autumn swarming/spring staging habitat to the maximum
> extent practicable. Any purchase will be from a willing seller at fair
> market value. In addition, some parcels containing important autumn
> swarming/spring staging habitat may be acquired near key hibernacula
> regardless of whether the hibernacula are acquired themselves. Any
> acquired autumn swarming/spring staging habitat would be turned over
> to an appropriate government conservation and management agency for
> protection in perpetuity via conservation easements. The purchase of
> forest would be included as part of the 3:1 mitigation in Measure B.3.
>
> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**
>
> *[SUMMER HABITAT]{.underline}*
>
> **4. Summer Habitat** - Investigations will be coordinated with the
> USFWS on purchasing lands at fair market value in the Action Area from
> "willing sellers" to preserve summer habitat. Any acquired summer
> habitat area would be turned over to an appropriate government
> conservation and management agency for protection in perpetuity via
> conservation easements.
>
> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**
>
> **D. [Education / Research / Monitoring]{.underline}**
>
> *[Winter Habitat]{.underline}*
>
> **1. Monitor Gated Caves -** All caves that have gates erected as
> mitigation for this project will have their temperature, humidity, bat
> activity and populations monitored before and for three years after
> gate installation. Infra-red video monitoring or other techniques
> deemed acceptable by USFWS will be conducted for a minimum of two
> nights in the appropriate season at each newly installed cave gate to
> ensure the bats are able to freely ingress and egress. Data
> acquisition will use a number of data loggers minimizing the need for
> entry into these caves. All precautionary measures will be taken to
> minimize potential impacts to hibernating Indiana bats.
>
> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**
>
> **2. Cave Warning Signs -** Where deemed appropriate by USFWS, the
> following may be done: signs will be posted that warn the public and
> discourage cave entry at hibernacula within/near the Action Area.
> Signs should be placed so that they do not block air flow into the
> cave and do not draw attention to the entrance and attract violators
> (USFWS 1999). Also, light-sensitive data loggers may be placed within
> the caves to assess the effectiveness of the warning signs at
> deterring unauthorized entries. Permission from the landowners must be
> obtained before erecting such signs and installing data loggers.
>
> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

3.  **Biennial Census --** Total funding of \$50,000 will be provided to
    supplement the biennial winter census of hibernacula within/near the
    proposed Action Areas. Funding will be made available in
    consultation with the USFWS.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**
>
> *[AUTUMN/SPRING HABITAT]{.underline}*

4.  **Autumn/Spring Habitat Research -** Total funding of \$125,000 will
    be

> provided for research on the relationship between quality
> autumn/spring habitat near hibernacula and hibernacula use within/near
> the Action Area. This research should include methods attempting to
> track bats at longer distances such as aerial telemetry or a
> sufficient ground workforce. A research work plan will be developed in
> consultation with the USFWS. Funding will be made available as soon as
> practical after Notice to Proceed is given to the construction
> contractor for the applicable Tier 2 Section (or earlier).
>
> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**
>
> *[SUMMER HABITAT]{.underline}*

5.  **Mist Netting -** A work plan for surveying, monitoring, and
    reporting will be developed and conducted in consultation with and
    approved by USFWS. This mist netting effort will be beyond the Tier
    2 sampling requirements. Fifty mist netting sampling sites are
    anticipated. Monitoring surveys focused at each of the 13 known
    maternity colonies will be completed the summer before construction
    begins in a given section and will continue each subsequent summer
    during the construction phase and for at least five summers after
    construction has been completed. If Indiana bats are captured, radio
    transmitters will be used in an attempt to locate roost trees, and
    multiple emergence counts will be made at each located roost tree.
    These monitoring efforts will be documented and summarized within an
    annual report prepared for the Service.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**
>
> *[GENERAL]{.underline}*

6.  **Educational Poster -** Total funding of \$25,000 will be provided
    for the creation of an educational poster or exhibit and/or other
    educational outreach media to inform the public about the presence
    and protection of bats, particularly the Indiana bat. Funding would
    be provided after a Notice to Proceed is issued for construction of
    the first section of the project.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

7.  **Rest Areas -** Rest areas will be designed with displays to
    educate the public on the presence and protection of sensitive
    species and habitats. Attractive displays near picnic areas and
    buildings will serve to raise public awareness as they utilize the
    Interstate. Information on the life history of the Indiana bat,
    protecting karst, and protecting water quality will be included in
    such displays.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

8.  **Access to Patoka NWR -** If reasonable, an interchange will be
    constructed that would provide access to a potential Visitor's
    Center at the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed. At this time, there
> are two interchanges proposed near the Patoka River National Wildlife
> Refuge. South of the river, an interchange is proposed at SR 64 near
> Oakland City. North of the river, an interchange is being considered
> at Division Road as connected to SR 57. At either of these
> interchanges, signage and access for the refuge could be made
> available.**

9.  **GIS Information -** GIS maps and databases developed and compiled
    for use in proposed I-69 planning will be made available to the
    public. This data provides information that can be used to determine
    suitable habitats, as well as highlight other environmental concerns
    in local, county, and regional planning. Digital data and on-line
    maps are being made available from a server accessed on the IGS
    website at IU: <http://igs.indiana.edu/arcims/statewide/index.html>.
    In addition, detailed GIS forest data (five meter resolution) has
    been developed for the 13 maternity colony foraging areas (circles
    with 2.5 mile radius) and WAA. This data was developed in order to
    better determine habitat impacts to the Indiana bat. This is the
    most accurate and detailed forest data known to exist for those
    areas. This data could potentially be used by USFWS, other
    government agencies, or students to examine effects on the Indiana
    bat, other species, or ecosystems over time.

> **[Status Report]{.underline} -- To be completed.**

**[BALD EAGLE (*Haliaeetus leucocephalus*)]{.underline}**

A.  **[CONTEXT SENSITIVE Solutions]{.underline}**

    1.  **Alignment Planning -** Where reasonable, Tier 1 has located
        Interstate alignments away from environmentally sensitive areas
        (nests, core forests, wetlands, etc.). INDOT will closely
        coordinate with Indiana DNR biologists regarding the locations
        of nests near and within the Action Area. Alignments will be
        shifted away from eagle nests when feasible.

    2.  **Medians and Alignments --** Variable-width medians and
        Independent Alignments will be used where appropriate to
        minimize impacts to some habitats and provide context sensitive
        solutions where possible. This may involve vertical and
        horizontal shifts in the north-south bound highways.

    3.  **Carrion Removal --** Standard operating procedures will be
        employed to remove carrion from the Interstate in a timely
        manner to reduce the potential for vehicle/eagle collisions.
        Appropriate INDOT Maintenance Units in Districts where proposed
        I-69 crosses or comes near to the Patoka River, East Fork of the
        White River, and West Fork of the White River will be given
        notice for special attention to this measure, especially in
        winter.

    4.  **Water Quality -** Water contamination will be
        avoided/minimized by the following:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  **Equipment Service -** Equipment servicing and maintenance areas
    will be designated to areas away from streambeds.

b.  **Equipment Maintenance -** Construction equipment will be
    maintained in proper mechanical condition.

c.  **Spill Prevention/Containment --** The design for the roadway will
    include appropriate measures for spill prevention/containment.

d.  **Herbicide Use Plan -** The use of herbicides will be minimized in
    environmentally sensitive areas, such as riparian areas that are
    protective of bald eagles and their prey.

e.  **Revegetation -** Revegetation of disturbed areas will occur in
    accordance with INDOT standard specifications. Woody vegetation will
    only be utilized beyond the clear zone. Revegetation of disturbed
    soils in the right-of-way and medians will utilize native grasses
    and wildflowers, as appropriate, similar to the native seed mixes of
    other nearby states.

f.  **Bridge Design --** Where feasible and appropriate, bridges will be
    designed with none or a minimum number of in-span drains. To the
    extent possible, the water flow will be directed towards the ends of
    the bridge and to the riprap drainage turnouts.

    1.  **Erosion Control -** Temporary erosion control devices will be
        used to minimize sediment and debris. Timely revegetation after
        soil disturbance will be implemented and monitored. Revegetation
        will consider site specific needs for water and karst. Erosion
        control measures will be put in place as a first step in
        construction and maintained throughout construction.

    2.  **Parking and Turning Areas -** Parking and turning areas for
        heavy equipment will be confined to sites that will minimize
        soil erosion and tree clearing, and will avoid environmentally
        sensitive areas, such as karst.

    3.  **Tree Clearing -** Tree clearing will be kept to a minimum
        beyond the construction limits, but within the right-of-way.

    4.  **Floodplains --** Where reasonable and appropriate, floodplains
        and oxbows will be bridged to protect environmentally sensitive
        areas. The Patoka River floodplain will be bridged in its
        entirety, thus minimizing impacts to many different habitats.

    5.  **Vegetative Screens --** Where feasible and appropriate, a
        vegetative screen (i.e., trees) will be maintained within INDOT
        owned R/W between any nearby eagle nests and the Interstate to
        minimize visual and auditory disturbances during and after
        construction.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **[Restoration / Replacement]{.underline}**

    1.  **Forest and Wetland Mitigation -** Wetland and forestland
        impacted by the project will be mitigated as part of the Forest
        and Wetland Mitigation Plan. Potential mitigation sites include
        areas near the Patoka River bottoms, Beanblossom Bottoms, East
        Fork of the White River, White River (Elnora), White River
        (Gosport), White River (Blue Bluff), and possibly others.

> **2.** **Wetland MOU -** Wetlands will be mitigated at ratios agreed
> on in the Wetland MOU (dated January 28, 1991). Upland forests will be
> mitigated at a 3:1 ratio. Wetland replacement ratios are as follows:

a.  farmed 1 to 1

b.  scrub / shrub and palustrine / lacustrine emergent 2 - 3 to 1
    depending upon quality

c.  bottomland hardwood forest 3 -- 4 to 1 depending upon quality

d.  exceptional, unique, critical (i.e. cypress swamps) 4 and above to 1
    depending upon quality.

> **3. Forest Mitigation** - The Tier 1 Forest and Wetland Mitigation
> and Enhancement Plan identifies the general location of potential
> mitigation sites for upland and bottomland forests. Preference will be
> given to areas contiguous to large forested tracts that have recorded
> federal and state listed species. The actual mitigation sites
> implemented will be determined in or following Tier 2 in consultation
> with the Service and other environmental review agencies. Coordination
> with environmental review agencies will assure that these forest
> mitigation sites are strategically situated in biologically attractive
> ecosystems. Forest impacts will be mitigated at a ratio of 3 to 1.
> Where, tree planting is part of forest mitigation near large water
> bodies and rivers, native tree species that form large, open-branched
> crowns (e.g., eastern cottonwood and sycamore) will be included in the
> species mix. Tree plantings will be monitored for 5 years to ensure
> successful establishment. Mitigation lands will be protected in
> perpetuity via conservation easements.
>
> **4. Platforms and Perches -** Mitigation sites will be evaluated for
> inclusion of nesting platforms and artificial perch sites.

C.  **[Conservation / Preservation]{.underline}**

> **Habitat Purchase -** Purchasing lands in the Action Area from
> "willing sellers" to preserve habitat will be investigated. The listed
> areas and possibly others will be investigated for purchase and
> conservation. Special interest will be given to the Patoka River
> bottoms, East Fork of the White River, and Lake Monroe. Any acquired
> habitat would be turned over to the appropriate government
> conservation and management agency for protection in perpetuity via
> conservation easements.

D.  **[Education / Research]{.underline}**

    1.  **Pamphlet --** Total funding of \$25,000 will be provided for
        the creation of an educational pamphlet and/or other educational
        materials to inform the public about the recovery, presence, and
        protection of bald eagles, including measures to reduce harm,
        harassment risks, and water quality.

    2.  **Rest Areas -** Rest areas will be designed to educate the
        public on the presence and protection of sensitive species and
        habitats. Attractive displays near picnic areas and buildings
        will serve to raise public awareness as they utilize the
        Interstate. Information on life history of the bald eagle,
        recovery in Indiana, protecting water quality, and limiting
        disturbance will be included in such displays.

    3.  **Visitor's Center -** If reasonable, an interchange will be
        constructed that provides access to a proposed Visitor's Center
        at Patoka River NWR.

    4.  **GIS Information -** GIS maps and databases developed and
        compiled for use in proposed I-69 planning will be made
        available to the public. This data provides information that can
        be used to determine suitable habitats for the bald eagle, as
        well as highlight other environmental concerns in local, county,
        and regional planning. Digital data and on-line maps are being
        made available from a server accessed on the Indiana Geological
        Survey (IGS) website at Indiana University:
        http://igs.indiana.edu/arcims/statewide/index.html.

**[Proposed Project Schedule]{.underline}**

It is anticipated that Final Environmental Impact Statements (FEIS) will
be completed for all six (6) of the Tier 2 Sections in 2007.
Construction on the most southern 2 miles of the project is anticipated
to begin in 2008.

INDOT is currently considering the possibility of constructing I-69 as a
Public Private Partnership (P-3), which would include tolling to
generate revenue for the facility. Under this type of funding mechanism,
the entire length (140 miles), excluding the most southern 2 miles,
could be included in a single contract. INDOT is anticipating initiating
the procurement process in fall 2006 for this contract. When finalized,
the contractor/concessionaire would then be responsible for the
completion of the design and construction of all 140 miles within a
specified timeframe (perhaps as quickly as 5 years), although there may
not be any restrictions on where construction would be initiated, or in
any specified geographic order. Specific requirements of the contract
with the concessionaire, which may include timing details, would be
developed by INDOT, but are not available for the Service's review at
this time.

**[Changes Since the Tier 1 Biological Assessment]{.underline}**

**I-69 as a Toll Road**

It is uncertain at this time if the proposed I-69 extension from
Evansville to Indianapolis will be a toll road. The option of a toll
road has recently been studied as a re-evaluation of the Tier 1
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This re-evaluation studied
Alternatives 1, 2C, 3C, 4B, and 4C from the Tier 1 EIS. It involved a
reassessment of performance measures and a re-evaluation of
environmental impacts and resulted in a Tier 1 EIS Re-evaluation Report.
In addition, each Tier 2 study will study both toll and non-toll funding
options for their alternatives carried forward for detailed study in
each of the six Tier 2 DEISs.

The following assumptions have been made regarding the tolling studies:

1.  At this time, each Tier 2 Section is evaluating each alternative as
    a toll road and a non-toll road.

2.  The future year (2030) traffic forecasts for I-69 as a toll road are
    anticipated to be approximately 30% to 50% lower than for I-69 as a
    non-toll road. Therefore, as a result of reduced traffic volumes on
    the toll options of the alternatives, the typical sections or along
    the corridor may be reduced. For Sections 1 through 4, it is
    reasonable to expect that there will be minimal changes to the
    configuration and footprint of the alignment alternatives for the
    toll option (the Interstate would be four lanes -- two in each
    direction -- as a toll road or as a non-toll road). For Sections 5
    and 6, it is expected that there will be changes to the footprint
    and configuration of the alignment alternatives for the toll option
    --- likely a reduction in the number of lanes.

3.  A fully electronic toll collection system (possibly, transponder and
    video) would be utilized for the toll options. Because there would
    be no need for toll plazas, there should be little or no impact to
    the footprint of the roadway for incorporation of the electronic
    system on the mainline and ramps. In addition, interchange locations
    currently being considered as part of the alternatives carried
    forward will continue to be analyzed for the toll options because of
    electronic system and Tier 1 goals of economic development and
    accessibility.

4.  Traffic and revenue analysis are currently being conducted. While
    the I-69 traffic volumes are expected to be lower, the affects on
    the local road system are unknown at this time. Nonetheless, traffic
    volumes on existing roads that parallel I-69 are expected to
    increase, while traffic on connections from I-69 to these
    north/south parallel roads may increase or decrease. Local road
    impacts will be evaluated as they relate to evaluation of the
    alternatives.

5.  In the Tier 2 DEIS for each section, it is anticipated that a
    preferred location alternative will be identified. A preferred
    financing option (toll or non-toll) will be identified in the Tier 2
    DEIS or Tier 2 FEIS for each section.

**Community Planning Program**

The I-69 Community Planning Program was not included in the original
Tier 1 BA. The I-69 Community Planning Program is intended to establish
a regional strategy for providing resources to local communities to
manage development growth associated with I-69. The program would
provide grants for local communities (cities, towns and counties) to
prepare local land use plans to stimulate economic growth and manage new
developments along the I-69 corridor. The local communities will be able
to use these grants to prepare transportation land use plans, zoning and
subdivision ordinances and special highway corridor "overlay zones" for
development controls. The program will have the following objectives:

1.  Develop regional strategies and resources to allow communities to
    achieve their desired vision of how that community will develop in
    the future.

2.  Provide resources to establish a local planning process for
    communities to develop a desired future plan.

3.  Develop protective strategies for environmentally sensitive areas
    (including karst and wetlands).

4.  Develop growth management procedures to control development in
    accordance with local plans.

5.  Develop economic development strategies consistent with the
    communities' plans.

6.  Provide resources for local communities to implement growth
    management to achieve their plan.

This program is intended to empower local communities to take the
initiative in planning for their future and implement controls to
stimulate and manage growth. The I-69 Community Planning Program is a
two-phase effort. Phase 1 provides for a regional planning assessment
and development of regional planning strategies and resources for the
entire I-69 corridor impact area. Phase 1 will include:

1.  Establish a planning partnership with the Indiana Department of
    Commerce, the Indiana Land Resources Council, the Indiana Department
    of Natural Resources and corridor communities to provide oversight
    to the planning study.

2.  Inventory of existing planning procedures in corridor communities
    (cities, towns and counties).

3.  Review of State regulations and legislation affecting rural growth
    management procedures.

4.  Identification of planning needs to manage corridor growth impacts.

5.  Development of corridor strategies for economic development and
    effective planning.

6.  Preparation of prototype planning process and model ordinances for
    zoning and subdivision ordinances and special highway corridor
    "overlay zones" for development controls.

7.  Identification of environmentally sensitive areas warranting special
    protection.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
8.  Identification of farmland preservation strategies.

9.  Conduct workshops for communities within corridor.

10. Provide technical planning support to corridor communities and
    assist communities in developing work programs to carry out Phase 2
    work activities.

Phase 2 would provide for the actual planning grants to local
communities for preparation of local plans and growth management
ordinances. These grants would be up to \$50,000 (actual amount to be
refined based upon planning needs assessment in Phase 1). This would
provide for the following elements:

1\. Public involvement activities for plan preparation.

2\. Develop comprehensive planning framework and corridor land use plan.

3\. Develop economic development strategies.

4\. Modify model planning ordinances to implement growth management
controls.

5\. Develop plan implementation program.

INDOT has just completed the contracting phase for the Phase 1
activities that will include developing community planning tools,
development of regional planning and economic development strategies for
the entire I-69 corridor area and establishing the framework for the
Phase 2 program. This first phase accounts for \$500,000 of the overall
\$2,000,000 for the I-69 Community Planning Program.

It is anticipated the Phase 1 program will take 12 to 16 months to
complete (including time to prepare for the Phase 2 program). The Phase
2 program will provide for grants up to \$50,000 for communities to
develop planning programs to capture the economic benefits and manage
associated growth resulting from the I-69 highway development (These
grants will total \$1,500,000). Cities and towns eligible for grants
are: Bedford, Bloomfield, Bloomington, Ellettsville, Evansville,
Greenwood, Indianapolis, Linton, Loogootee, Martinsville, Mooresville,
Oakland City, Petersburg, Princeton, Spencer, Vincennes, and Washington.
Counties eligible for grants are: Daviess, Dubois, Gibson, Greene,
Johnson, Knox, Lawrence, Martin, Monroe, Morgan, Owen, Pike,
Vanderburgh, and Warrick.

**Eastern Greene County (County Line) Interchange**

INDOT is considering an interchange in far eastern Greene County along
the Greene and Monroe County line in Section 4. This interchange would
include a 1-mile long connector road to SR 45, which would be developed
with limited access right-of-way to preclude development along it. In
the original Tier 1 studies, there was no interchange proposed at this
location. Rather, one was proposed at SR 54 to the south in Greene
County. According to INDOT, traffic volumes and community interest have
prompted the investigation of an interchange location change north and
east towards Monroe County. This location is in a karst area as was the
original SR 54 interchange location. A Conservation Measure developed
and included in the original Tier 1 BA stated "Efforts have been made to
limit interchanges in karst areas, thereby limiting access and
discouraging secondary growth and impacts. In Tier 2, further
consideration will be given to limiting the location and number of
interchanges in karst areas." Information on the potential impacts and
changes in traffic in the vicinity of hibernacula as a result of this
newly proposed interchange are discussed in further detail beginning on
page 88 of the BA Addendum. If an interchange is built along the county
line, then an interchange would not be built at SR 54.

**Rest Areas**

Rest area locations for the proposed I-69 were not included as part of
the proposed action in the original Tier 1 BA. The number of rest areas
and their locations has not yet been determined. There will be as few as
zero (0) or as many as three (3) rest area locations as part of this
project. Rest area locations could be a single facility to service both
north and south bound traffic, or twin facilities on either side of the
Interstate. Rest area locations and impacts will be identified in Tier 2
BAs. Rest areas will be located to minimize forest impacts. Rest areas
will not be located within the 13 Indiana bat maternity colony foraging
areas (2.5 mile radius circle) or within the WAA.

**Revised Forest Data**

Three (3) different forest data sources were used in the BA Addendum.
The goal was to use the most detailed and accurate data source where
available. Figure 3 in the Addendum shows which forest data sources were
used for each area analyzed.

[Tier 1 Forest]{.underline} - In the original Tier 1 BA, forest impacts
were estimated using United States Geological Survey (USGS) Land Cover
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data. This data is a subset of the
National Land Cover Data (NLCD). The NLCD was developed by the USGS with
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to produce a
consistent, land cover data layer for the continental U.S. The land
cover layer is based on satellite imagery with 30-meter resolution. This
data is current through 1992. The Tier 1 forest data was used for
analysis for portions of the SAA that are outside the I-69 corridor and
outside the maternity colony foraging areas and WAA.

[Tier 2 Forest]{.underline} - Tier 2 forest data for each of the six (6)
sections was used in the analysis for areas within the I-69 corridor or
where the representative alignment went outside the I-69 corridor. This
data was not used for the 13 maternity colony foraging areas and the
WAA; tree cover data was used for the analysis of those areas, as
described below. Tier 2 forest data was created through photo
interpretation of 2003 aerial photographs supplemented by field
reconnaissance. It includes groups of trees larger than 1 acre and wider
than 120 feet. This forest data was only developed for the I-69
corridor, or areas where the representative alignment crossed outside
the corridor. **All forest impacts and mitigation acreages used in this
revised Tier 1 BO for this project were calculated using Tier 2 forest
data.**

[Tree Cover]{.underline} - A finer scale, more detailed tree cover data
layer was developed for the maternity colony and WAA analysis conducted
in this document. The tree cover data layer was developed for each
maternity colony foraging area (2.5-mile radius circle) and the WAA
using Image Analysis for ArcView 3.0 (Leica Geosystems) software. It is
based off the 2003 National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) true
color aerial photographs and is 5-meter resolution. It is considerably
more detailed than the data used in the original Tier 1 BA.

**Representative Alignments**

In the original Tier 1 BA, a working alignment was used to estimate
forest impacts, as well as other types of impacts. This working
alignment ranged from 270 feet to 470 feet wide depending on terrain,
number of expected lanes, and number of expected frontage roads. It also
included a 500-foot radius buffer at potential interchange locations. It
was expected these interchange locations could change in Tier 2. The
working alignment was located in the approximate center of the corridor.

**For the analysis in this document, "representative" alignments will be
used. For the purposes of this study, a representative alignment is the
footprint for the alternative with the largest Tier 2 forest impacts,
among those alternatives that were under study as of November 14,
2005.** Tier 2 forest impacts were determined using 2003 aerial
photographs, high resolution aerial photographs for the corridor, and
field reconnaissance. This data was analyzed using Geographic
Information System (GIS) software. The representative alignment may or
may not end up being the preferred alternative. The representative
alignment is expected to have higher forest loss than the preferred
alternative due to efforts to further minimize forest impacts. In some
instances, particularly for interchanges or connector roads, the
alignment may extend outside the Tier 1 corridor. Table 3 shows the
impacts on Tier 2 forest for the representative alignments in each
Section.

![](media/image5.wmf){width="6.28125in" height="2.6041666666666665in"}

**New Indiana Bat Hibernacula**

For the purposes of this BO, an Indiana bat hibernaculum was defined as
any cave where an Indiana bat had been found hibernating. Due to the
physical characteristics of the caves, some may have a greater
significance to the species than others. At the time of the original
Tier 1 BA, there were 10 known Indiana bat hibernacula considered to be
within the I-69 Winter Action Area (WAA). These 10 caves were: King
Blair Cave System (including King Blair Cave, Brinegar Cave, and Triple
J Cave), Buckner Cave, Coon Cave, Grotto Cave, Salamander Cave,
Saltpeter Cave, Leonard Spring Cave, Reeves Cave, Ashcraft Cave, and
Sexton Spring Cave. Cave surveys conducted as part of the I-69 project
have since identified three (3) previously unrecognized, small Indiana
bat hibernacula in addition to the 10 hibernacula that were already
known within five miles of the corridor. These three (3) caves are
Primitive Baptist Spring Cave, Storm's Pit, and Ozzy's Hole. A fourth
hibernaculum, Sullivan Cave, was identified within the WAA approximately
five (5) miles from the I-69 corridor. It was confirmed as an Indiana
bat hibernaculum by the USFWS and Dr. Virgil Brack in 2004 during a
followup visit to the cave after receiving the initial report by members
of the Indiana Karst Conservancy (IKC). Finally, as previously
discussed, with the addition of Ray's Cave, there is a total of 15
Indiana bat hibernacula within the I-69 WAA.

**Indiana Bat and Karst Surveys**

Since the publication of the original Tier 1 BA, several studies
relating to the Indiana bat and karst features have been completed. Mist
netting surveys for each I-69 Section have been completed in the SAA in
2004, with additional surveys completed in 2005. The mist netting
surveys also included radiotelemetry and roost tree emergence counts.
Radiotelemetry involves temporarily affixing a lightweight
radiotransmitter to a bat's back and attempting to track the tagged bat
to its roost tree(s). Roost tree emergence counts were also conducted,
which involved counting the number of bats that leave an identified
roost tree to forage at dusk. Detailed summer habitat reports were
prepared for each I-69 Section and provided to the Service. These
reports contained detailed information for all summer survey work that
was conducted in each section. They included survey results, forms,
photographs, and maps. These reports are listed in the BA Addendum.

A cave reconnaissance was conducted within five (5) miles of the
proposed corridor in portions of Monroe, Greene, and Lawrence Counties.
The purpose of this reconnaissance was to identify and visit caves that
represented potential winter hibernacula for the Indiana bat and make
recommendations regarding further detailed investigations. The results
of this study can be found in the report intitled *Winter Action Area:
I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis Tier 2 Studies Cave Reconnaissance for
Indiana Bat Hibernacula, October 2005*(Indiana Geological Survey)

Detailed autumn, winter, and spring habitat survey reports were prepared
for Sections 4 and 5 (only Sections in karst area). These reports
contained detailed information for all winter habitat survey work that
was conducted in the two (2) sections. They included survey results,
forms, photographs, and maps. These reports are listed below.

2005: Autumn, Winter, and Spring Habitat for the Indiana Bat (*Myotis
sodalis*) within the Crawford Upland and Mitchell Plain From Scotland to
Bloomington, Indiana, September 7, 2005 (Environmental Solutions &
Innovations, Inc.)

Surveys for Indiana Bats in Caves in Greene and Monroe Counties,
Indiana, 2005. (BHE Environmental, Inc.)

2006: Surveys for Indiana Bats in Caves in Greene and Monroe Counties,
Indiana 2006, January 2006. (BHE Environmental, Inc.)

Autumn 2005 and Winter 2006 Habitat For the Indiana Bat (*Myotis
sodalis*) within the Crawford Upland and Mitchell Plain From Scotland to
Bloomington, Indiana. (Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc.)

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

The proposed project involves the construction, operation, and
maintenance of an Interstate highway, I-69, from Indianapolis to
Evansville through southwestern Indiana. The "action area" is defined by
regulation as 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 not limited to the "footprint" of
the action nor is it limited by the Federal agency's authority. Rather,
it is a biological determination of the reach of the proposed action on
listed species. For Tier 1, the FHWA, INDOT, and the Service's BFO
jointly developed two seasonally based action areas for the Indiana bat
and one for the bald eagle as is described in the following subsections.
The Action Areas may be to be expanded or otherwise refined in
subsequent Tier 2 BAs as the anticipated reach of direct and indirect
effects of each section of I-69 are more clearly recognized and
understood.

**Indiana Bat Action Areas**

Because the full "reach" of the direct and indirect effects of this
project were not well defined in Tier 1, we assumed quantifiable effects
to Indiana bats would be confined to the project footprint and a
2.5-mile buffer in all directions. Therefore, the "**Summer Action
Area**" (SAA) for the Indiana bat has been generally defined as a 5-mile
band, 2.5 miles either side of the centerline of Alternative 3C, that
runs the entire length of the proposed project (Figures 3 and 4). The
2.5-mile distance also has biological significance, because a study in
Illinois (Gardner et al.1991a) found that the maximum distance an
Indiana bat traveled from its daytime roost tree to its original capture
site was 2.5 miles (4.1 km). This 2.5-mile distance also is consistent
with unpublished data from Indiana bat studies conducted at the
Jefferson Proving Grounds and the Indianapolis Airport in Indiana
(Pruitt 1995, 3D/International 1995). The entire length of the proposed
project contains suitable summer roosting and foraging habitat, thus a
SAA width of 2.5 miles on either side of the proposed centerline (5
miles wide) will encompass summer habitat being used by Indiana bats
that might be affected by the proposed I-69 project. The Tier 1 corridor
is approximately 2000 feet wide in most places, but is narrowed in some
instances to avoid sensitive environmental areas.

A 2.5-mile radius circle has also been centered on each of the 13
Indiana bat maternity colony activity areas discovered during the Tier 2
mist net surveys. At these 13 locations the 2.5-mile radius circles
typically extend beyond the limits of the standard SAA (Figures 3 and
4).

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="6.643055555555556in"
height="8.586805555555555in"}**Figure 3.** Original I-69 Action Areas
for the Indiana bat and bald eagle.

![](media/image7.wmf){width="6.497916666666667in"
height="8.422916666666667in"}

**Figure 4**. Revised I-69 Indiana Bat Summer and Winter Action Areas
(Excluding Ozzy's Hole and Ray's Cave).

Similarly, the Service expanded the action area by defining the
"**Winter Action Area**" (WAA) for Indiana bats as collectively being
the total area that falls within a 5-mile radius centered on each of the
known Indiana bat hibernacula that have entrances located within 5 miles
of the proposed 3C corridor (Figures 3 and 4) because indirect effects
to swarming bats could reach that distance. \[**NOTE**: The BFO
expounded upon the definition of the WAA that was in the Tier 1 BA to
add clarity and to allow for the possibility of further modifications
that may be warranted based on new information collected during Tier 2
studies\]. The circular areas that form the WAA are assumed to
encompass 1) all of the known cave entrances and connected subterranean
passages of each hibernaculum, 2) the majority of the recharge areas
(e.g., sinkholes, and sinking stream basins) of cave streams that run
through or are otherwise hydrologically connected to each hibernaculum
(if known), and 3) the majority of the above-ground habitat used by
Indiana bats while foraging and roosting during the fall swarming and
early spring staging periods (e.g., forests, open woodlots, tree-lined
fencerows, pastures, old fields, wetlands, and surface waters). The Tier
1 BA Addendum included 14 known Indiana bat hibernacula within the WAA,
which are all natural caves located in the Crawford Upland and Mitchell
Plateau physiographic regions in western Monroe and eastern Greene
counties. The 5-mile radius centered on a hibernaculum was chosen
because Indiana bats have been documented roosting and foraging up to a
maximum distance of approximately 5 miles (8 km) from their winter
hibernacula during the fall swarming period (Rommé et al. 2002).

The original Tier 1 BO stated

> "there is no designated Critical Habitat for the Indiana bat within
> the Summer or WAAs for I-69. However, one hibernaculum (a natural
> cave) that has been designated as Critical Habitat for the Indiana bat
> is located approximately 6 miles from the proposed 3C corridor (i.e.,
> 1 mile beyond the WAA) in eastern Greene County. During informal
> consultation with the Service's BFO and prior to the release of the
> Tier 1 DEIS, the FHWA and INDOT agreed to shift their preliminary
> alignment of Alternative 3 further away to avoid adverse affects to
> Indiana bats using this cave."

The cave in eastern Greene County that this statement was referring to
is known as Ray's Cave, which was officially designated as Critical
Habitat under the ESA on September 24, 1976. Subsequently, in the
original Tier 1 BA and BO and again in the Tier1 BA Addendum, Ray's Cave
was not considered to be within the WAA, because its main entrance was
approximately 6 miles from the proposed corridor. However, through
formal consultation and mapping provided by FHWA and INDOT in the Tier 1
BA Addendum, the Service realized that the cave's underground passage
actually extended approximately one mile to the east and closer to the
I-69 corridor. Furthermore, the BA Addendum showed that the beginning of
one of the currently proposed, limited-access, connector roads between
SR. 45 and the proposed countyline interchange in eastern Greene County
would fall within 5 miles of the main entrance of Ray's Cave. Finally,
Figures 19 and 21 in the BA Addendum revealed that I-69 would likely
cause induced residential and business growth well within 5 miles of
Ray's Cave. For these reasons, the Service now considers Ray's Cave to
be within the I-69 WAA and has treated it as such in this revised BO.
During a meeting on July 17, 2006, FHWA and INDOT agreed to this change
and subsequently provided additional information regarding impacts to
the area surrounding Ray's Cave.

With the exception of Ray's Cave, the Service has generally assumed no
Indiana bats, their hibernacula and associated karst systems, their
prey, or surrounding habitat will be directly or indirectly affected
beyond 5 miles from the proposed footprint of I-69. However, if new
information proves one or more of these assumptions are not valid, then
the radii of all hibernacula will be adjusted accordingly or adjusted on
a case-by-case basis, which ever is warranted and appropriate, during
subsequent Tier 2 consultations. Likewise, if an additional Indiana bat
hibernaculum(a) is discovered during ongoing Tier 2 investigations or
future cave/mine surveys, then it will be treated similarly and given
full consideration during project section-specific consultations with
the Service as warranted.

**Bald Eagle Action Area**

The action area for the Federally threatened bald eagle is a band that
includes 1 mile on either side of the proposed I-69 corridor (Figure 3).
The Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan, developed by the Service
(USFWS 1983a), details three management zones, or buffer zones, that
should be established around bald eagle nests to avoid disturbing the
eagles. These buffer zones become less restrictive to human activity as
the distance from the nest increases. The primary zone extends 330 feet
from the nest, the secondary zone 660 feet, and the tertiary zone 1,320
feet (1/4 mile) to 2,640 feet (1/2 mile). The Bald Eagle Action Area was
extended to 1 mile on either side of the proposed corridor, which is
twice the distance of the standard tertiary zone, and four times the
recommended distance from winter night roost sites. Therefore, the
action area band is a total of approximately 2.4 miles wide, and follows
the length of the proposed Interstate from Indianapolis to Evansville.
No direct or indirect effects from I-69 are expected to occur on bald
eagles beyond this distance. Because no Critical Habitat has been
designated for the bald eagle, none will be adversely modified by this
project.

**[The Service's Section 7 Consultation Approach]{.underline}**

Because the FHWA is following a tiered process for the I-69 project,
where complete and detailed information regarding specific alignments
and anticipated impacts is not available for analysis until after the
Tier 1 corridor decision has been finalized and Tier 2 studies and BAs
have been completed on all six project sections, the Service believes
that a programmatic consultation approach is appropriate for this
project.

By taking a programmatic consultation approach, the Service will be able
to complete one comprehensive and conservative effects analysis, up
front in Tier 1 for the entire I-69 project rather than repeating the
same analyses for each of the six subsequent Tier 2 Project Sections.
Therefore this approach should also increase the efficiency of the
section 7 consultation process for I-69. Another benefit of completing
this analysis up front in an overall project or "programmatic"
consultation document is that the anticipated effects common to each of
the forthcoming Tier 2 Project Section alignments can be added into the
environmental baseline prior to their actual completion. This provides
predictability for the FHWA and INDOT as they can be assured that the
effects of their future Tier 2, I-69-related actions have already been
broadly accounted for.

In Tier 1, uncertainty exists as to the specific impacts that will occur
when the specific alignments eventually are selected for the entire I-69
project. Therefore, the Service will provide the benefit of the doubt to
the listed species and use \"reasonable worst case\" assumptions when
developing the programmatic-level biological opinion. This approach
results in the Service examining the greatest levels of impacts that can
reasonably occur from implementing the conservation measures proposed in
the Tier 1 BA. This evaluation is then refined through the Tier 2
Project Section-level consultations. This approach will ensure that the
FHWA can fulfill its responsibilities under section 7(a)(2) of the Act
to \"insure\" that actions implemented under their I-69 \"program\" are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated Critical
Habitat.

The Service will implement an appended programmatic approach for I-69,
which is a two-stage consultation process. The first stage involves the
Service developing a programmatic biological opinion for I-69 that
analyzes potential effects at a landscape-level, local population level,
and individual animal level that may result from fully implementing the
proposed design criteria developed for the entire I-69 project from
Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana. This stage was originally completed
near the end of Tier 1 and is now being revisited during this
reinitiation consultation after the completion of Tier 1 and after many
Tier 2 studies have been completed. The second stage involves the FHWA
developing appropriate project section-specific documentation (e.g.,
Tier 2 biological assessments for each project section) that addresses
the specific impacts associated with each section's final alignment and
funding option for I-69. Upon completion of the Service's project
section-specific review and analysis, the associated documentation is
physically "appended" to the programmatic biological opinion. The
programmatic biological opinion, together with the appended
documentation for each project section, encompasses the complete
consultation document for each Tier 2 Project Section of I-69.

To insure the impacts of take associated with the final alignments
chosen for each of the six forthcoming Tier 2 Project Sections of I-69
are appropriately minimized and that the exemption of incidental take is
appropriately tracked and documented, the FHWA and the Service will
implement an appended programmatic consultation approach for this
project. Under this approach, the Service's Programmatic Biological
Opinion and Incidental Take Statement for I-69 will consider and
quantify reasonable amounts of anticipated incidental take for Indiana
bats and bald eagles for the entire I-69 project from Evansville to
Indianapolis during Tier 1. However, all impacts associated with each
Tier 2 Project Section which have not yet been specifically identified
and those which will impact Indiana bat or bald eagle habitat will be
individually reviewed to determine if they are consistent with the Tier
1 programmatic Incidental Take Statement\'s reasonable and prudent
measures and associated terms and conditions, and to ensure that once
specific alignments are identified, the site-specific impacts of the
resulting incidental take are minimized. If an individual Tier 2 Project
Section is found to be consistent with the programmatic consultation it
will be appended to the programmatic Biological Opinion and Incidental
Take Statement, along with any project section-specific reasonable and
prudent measures and terms and conditions that are needed to fulfill the
requirements of section 7(a)(2). Details on how specific impacts
associated with each Tier 2 Project Section will be reported and
documented are included in the attached INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT. No
incidental take is exempted until after a Tier 2 Project Section's BA
has been reviewed, found to be consistent with Tier 1, and has been
appended to the programmatic BO by the Service.

# II. STATUS OF THE SPECIES

## [Indiana Bat]{.underline}

This section is a discussion of the range-wide status of the Indiana bat
and presents biological and ecological information relevant to
formulating the biological opinion. It includes information on the
species' life history, its habitat and distribution, and the effects of
past human and natural factors that have led to the current status of
the species.

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

Thirteen winter hibernacula (11 caves and two mines) in six states were
designated as Critical Habitat for the Indiana bat in 1976 (Federal
Register, Volume 41, No. 187). In Indiana, two winter
hibernacula,Wyandotte Cave in Crawford County and Ray's Cave in Greene
County, were designated as Critical Habitat. Ray's Cave is within the
reach of the proposed project and therefore is considered to be within
the Winter Action Area for I-69.

**Range-wide Population Status**

Because the vast majority of Indiana bats form dense aggregations or
"clusters" on the ceilings of a relatively small number of hibernacula
(i.e., caves and mines) each winter, conducting standardized surveys of
the hibernating bats is the most feasible and efficient means of
estimating and tracking population and distribution trends across the
species' range. Collectively, winter hibernacula surveys provide the
Service with the best representation of the overall population status
and relative distribution that is available.

For several reasons, interpretation of the census data must be made with
some caution. First, winter survey data has traditionally been
subdivided by state due to the nature of the data collection. As
described below, each state does not represent a discrete population
center. Nevertheless, the range-wide population status of the Indiana
bat has been organized by state thus far. Second, as will be further
discussed, available information specific to the "reproductive unit"
(i.e., maternity colony) of the Indiana bat is limited. While winter
distribution of the Indiana bat is well documented, little is known as
to the size, location and number of maternity colonies for the Indiana
bat. As described below, it is estimated that the locations of more than
90 percent of the estimated maternity colonies remain unknown.

Additionally, the relationship between wintering populations and
summering populations is not clearly understood. For example, while it
is known that individuals of a particular maternity colony come from one
to many different hibernacula, the source (hibernacula) of most, if any,
of the individuals in a maternity colony is not known. As discussed in
the "Spring Emergence/Migration" section, Indiana bats have been
documented to travel up to 300 miles from their hibernaculum to their
maternity areas (Gardner and Cook 2002). As such, the origin of the bats
(hibernacula) that comprise the maternity activity in the action area is
unknown.

***Rangewide Winter Hibernacula Surveys***

The data regarding Indiana bat abundance prior to Federal listing are
limited, but the information suggests that they were once far more
abundant than they were in the 1960s. Tuttle and colleagues, for
example, believe the overall abundance of Indiana bats likely rivaled
that of the now extinct passenger pigeon (Tuttle et al. 2004). The basis
for Tuttle's and others estimates of millions of Indiana bats prior to
European settlement is primarily based on historic accounts (e.g.,
Blatchley 1897, Silliman et al. 1851), extensive staining left on the
ceilings of several historic hibernacula (Tuttle 1997, Tuttle 1999), and
other paleontological evidence (Munson and Keith 1984, Toomey et al.
2002). For example, an analysis of bone deposits in Bat Cave, KY
revealed that an estimated 300,000 Indiana bats died during a single
flood event at some point in history (Hall 1962). Although we are never
likely to know the true historical abundance of Indiana bats, it seems
clear from the evidence above that Indiana bats were much more abundant
than observed in 1960.

When the Indiana bat was originally listed as endangered in 1967, there
were approximately 883,300 bats (Figure 5) and most of these hibernated
in just a small number of hibernacula (Clawson 2002). Since it was
listed the species' population numbers have apparently continued to
decline until the past few survey years. Although some winter bat
surveys began as early as the late 1950s, systematic surveys were not
conducted across the range until the mid 1980s when there were an
estimated 678,750 Indiana bats (Clawson 2002). Since being listed, large
population declines have been observed, especially at hibernacula in
Kentucky and Missouri. Caves in Kentucky suffered dramatic losses
because of changes in microclimate due to poor cave gate design in two
of the three most important hibernacula (Humphrey 1978), and Indiana bat
numbers in Kentucky hibernacula had continued to decline until 2005 when
a increase was first observed (King, personal communication 2005).
Despite recovery efforts, Indiana bats in Missouri caves have
continuously declined with a loss of more than 80 percent of the
previous population size (Clawson 2002). From the 1960s/70s to the most
recent population survey in 2005, the rangewide population of the
Indiana bat has declined from approximately 883,300 Indiana bats for
1960/1970 to 458,333 in 2005, or approximately 52 percent. The ten-year
population trend (from 1960 -- 2000) of the Indiana bat has shown a
steady decline (Figure 5).

The 2005 Indiana bat rangewide population estimate totaled approximately
457,374 bats; a 15% increase over the 2003 estimate of 398,220 bats
(Andy King, USFWS, unpublished data 2005; Figure 6). In 2005, about 60%
of the estimated 457,374 Indiana bats were hibernating in nine Priority
1 hibernacula in four states: 4 hibernacula in Indiana, 3 in Missouri, 2
in Kentucky and 1 in Illinois (A. King, USFWS, unpublished data, 2005).
Priority 2 hibernacula are known from the aforementioned states, in
addition to Arkansas, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Priority 3 hibernacula have been
reported in 21 states, including all of the aforementioned states
(Figure 6).

Although a slight increase (4.5%) over the previous biennial rangewide
population estimate first occurred in 2003, these results may not be
statistically or biologically significant, and no determinations can be
made with confidence from such a limited survey period. Small
fluctuations from year-to-year may be attributed to such factors as
weather affecting the success of reproduction for a given year (Humphrey
and Cope 1977, Ransome 1990); therefore, it is not appropriate to
extrapolate long-term trends from changes between individual survey
periods. Nonetheless, it should also be noted that in 2005 there was
almost a 15% increase over the 2003 estimate, but again it is premature
to know with any confidence whether this is the beginning of a sustained
positive trend or just an upward anomaly in an otherwise downward trend.
Until more data becomes available in coming years, we are cautiously
optimistic and encouraged by what initially appears to be a slowing in
what otherwise has been a steep long-term decline.

![](media/image8.wmf){width="6.497916666666667in"
height="3.3993055555555554in"}

**Figure 5.** Indiana bat rangewide population estimates (Data sources:
1965-1990, Clawson 2002; 2001-2005, USFWS, unpublished data, 2006).
Rangewide estimates calculated from all known hibernacula were not
attempted or data was not available for most years prior to 2001.

![](media/image9.wmf){width="5.25in" height="2.625in"}

  ------------------------------------------ ----------------------------
  Indiana                                    206,610

  Missouri                                   65,104

  Kentucky                                   62,380

  Illinois                                   44,343

  New York                                   41,702

  West Virginia                              12,677

  Tennessee                                  9,971

  Ohio                                       9,769

  Arkansas                                   2,067

  Pennsylvania                               746

  Virginia                                   735

  New Jersey                                 652

  Vermont                                    297

  Alabama                                    296

  Michigan                                   20

  Oklahoma                                   5

  Total                                      457,374
  ------------------------------------------ ----------------------------

**Figure 6.** State-by-state results of the 2005 Indiana bat winter
hibernacula surveys.

Some investigators believe that warmer winter temperatures may have
resulted in less conducive microhabitat conditions (warmer temperatures)
at hibernacula, particularly in the southern part of the species range
(Rick Clawson, personal communication, Missouri Department of
Conservation), but this has yet to be rigorously investigated. Other
declines have occurred as winter hibernacula have flooded, hibernacula
ceilings have collapsed, or cold temperatures kill bats through
hypothermia. Exclusion of bats from hibernacula through blocking of
entrances, installation of gates that do not allow for bat ingress and
egress, disruption of cave air flow, and human disturbance during
hibernation have been documented causes of Indiana bat declines. Because
many known threats are associated with hibernation, protection of
hibernacula still remains a top management and recovery priority.
Although some hibernacula have been restored in order to support future
wintering populations, Indiana bats have not returned to some of these
hibernacula as anticipated while they have quickly recolonized others.

Despite the protection of most major hibernacula, population declines
generally have continued until the apparent increases in 2003 and 2005.
It is too early to tell whether these recent increases in the estimated
population size are sustainable or simply a brief upward swing on an
otherwise long-term decline. Continued population declines of Indiana
bats, in spite of efforts to protect hibernacula, initially led some
scientists to the conclusion that additional information on summer
habitat is needed (Rommé et al. 1995), but others contend that the
primary cause of continued declines stems from suboptimal microclimates
within traditional hibernacula and/or high human disturbance levels
(Tuttle and Kennedy 2002). In addition to increased focus on these
issues, attention is also being directed to pesticide contamination.
Insecticides have been known or suspected as the cause of a number of
bat die-offs in North America, including endangered gray bats (*Myotis
grisescens*) in Missouri (Clark et al. 1978). The insect diet and
longevity of bats also exposes them to persistent organochlorine
chemicals which may bioaccumulate in bat tissue and cause sub-lethal
effects such as impaired reproduction.

***Maternity Colonies***

To date, most records of reproductively active female and juvenile
Indiana bats have occurred in glaciated portions of the upper Midwest
including southern Iowa, northern Missouri, most of Illinois, most of
Indiana, southern Michigan, and western Ohio (Gardner and Cook, 2002,
USFWS unpubl. data). The first maternity colony was found in
east-central Indiana in 1971 and most subsequent surveys and studies of
Indiana bat maternity habitat have been conducted in the upper Midwest
(Cope et al. 1974, Clawson 2002). Unglaciated portions of the Midwest
(southern Missouri, parts of southern Illinois, and south-central
Indiana), Kentucky, and most of the eastern and southern portions of the
species' range appear to have fewer maternity colonies per unit area of
forest than does the upper Midwest. Increased summer survey efforts are
needed elsewhere in the range, however, before final conclusions may be
reached regarding relative abundance across the species' summer range.

Recently, multiple maternity colonies have been discovered in the
Champlain Valley and lower elevations of adjacent hills between
Burlington, Vermont, and Ticonderoga, New York (A. Hicks, pers. comm.,
September 2005). In contrast, the first maternity roosts in "the South"
recently were found in very different types of habitat, in areas of
extensive mature forest in the southern Appalachian Mountains of North
Carolina and Tennessee. In further contrast, these colonies were found
roosting in eastern hemlock (*Tsuga canadensis*) and pines (*Pinus*
spp.), rather than deciduous trees (Harvey 2002).

Based on published literature and correspondence with Service and state
biologists throughout the range of the Indiana bat, maternity activity
has been documented at approximately 250 locations throughout the
species' range and colonies are still considered extant at approximately
246 of these locations(Table 4) (USFWS, unpublished data, 2006). The
majority of confirmed

**Table 4. States and counties with recorded Indiana bat maternity
colonies.^1,2,3^**

+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **\       | **No.  | **\                                             |
| \         | of     | \                                               |
| \         | Re     | Counties with Recorded Maternity Colonies**     |
| State**   | corded |                                                 |
|           | Mat    | (if multiple colonies, then \# is shown)        |
|           | ernity |                                                 |
|           | Colo   |                                                 |
|           | nies** |                                                 |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Arkansas  | 1      | Clay                                            |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Illinois  | 13     | Adams (2), Alexander, Henderson, Jackson (3),   |
|           |        | Jersey, Pike (2), Pulaski, Saline, and Schuyler |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Indiana   | 83     | Bartholomew (3), Clinton (2), Crawford, Davies  |
|           |        | (2), Dearborn, Gibson (2), Greene (3),          |
|           |        | Hendricks (2), Henry, Howard, Huntington,       |
|           |        | Jackson (3), Jasper, Jay, Jefferson (2),        |
|           |        | Jennings (2), Johnson (3), Knox, Koskiusko,     |
|           |        | LaPorte (2), Marion, Martin, Monroe (2),        |
|           |        | Montgomery (3), Morgan (4), Newton, Parke (2),  |
|           |        | Perry (2), Pike (2), Posey, Pulaski (2), Putnam |
|           |        | (2), Randolph (3), Ripley (2), Rush, Shelby     |
|           |        | (2), Spencer, St. Joseph, Steuben, Tippecanoe   |
|           |        | (4), Vermillion, Vigo, Wabash (2), Warren (2),  |
|           |        | Warrick (2), Wayne, and Wells                   |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Iowa      | 26     | Appanoose (2), Davis, Decatur (2), Des Moines,  |
|           |        | Iowa, Jasper, Keokuk, Lucas (2), Madison (2),   |
|           |        | Marion (7), Monroe, Ringgold, Van Buren,        |
|           |        | Wapello, and Washington (2)                     |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Kentucky  | 32     | Ballard, Ballard/Carlisle, Bath (3),            |
|           |        | Breckinridge, Bullitt (4), Daviess, Edmonson    |
|           |        | (3), Floyd, Harlan (3), Henderson (2), Hickman  |
|           |        | (2), Jefferson (3), Logan, McCracken (2),       |
|           |        | Pulaski, Rowan, Spencer, and Union              |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Maryland  | 2      | Carroll (2)                                     |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Michigan  | 11     | Calhoun, Cass, Eaton, Hillsdale, Jackson,       |
|           |        | Lenawee (2), Livingston, St. Joseph (2), and    |
|           |        | Van Buren                                       |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Missouri  | 20     | Chariton, Gasconade, Iron, Jefferson, Knox (2), |
|           |        | Lewis, Linn, Macon, Madison, Marion, Mercer,    |
|           |        | Monroe, Nodaway, Pulaski, Scotland, St.         |
|           |        | Francois, St. Genevieve, Sullivan, and Wayne    |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| New       | 2      | Morris (2)                                      |
| Jersey    |        |                                                 |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| New York  | 34     | Cayuga, Dutchess (5), Essex, Jefferson (8),     |
|           |        | Onandaga (4), Orange (8), and Oswego (7)        |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Ohio      | 10     | Ashtabula, Butler, Clermont, Cuyahoga, Greene,  |
|           |        | Hocking, Lawrence, Paulding, Summit, and Wayne  |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Pen       | 2      | Berk and Blair                                  |
| nsylvania |        |                                                 |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Tennessee | 2      | Blount and Monroe                               |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Vermont   | 4      | Addison (4)                                     |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Virginia  | 1      | Lee                                             |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| West      | 3      | Boone (2) and Tucker                            |
| Virginia  |        |                                                 |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+
| **Total** | *      |                                                 |
|           | *246** |                                                 |
+-----------+--------+-------------------------------------------------+

^1^ Unpublished data obtained in response to a data request sent to FWS
Field Offices in February 2006.

^2^ Most maternity colony records were based upon the capture of
reproductively active females and/or juveniles between 15 May and 15
August.

^3^ This table includes records of maternity colonies considered to
still be locally extant. Although some additional records exist, we
opted not to include them, if subsequent surveys failed to detect their
presence (i.e., the colony may have disbanded, relocated, was
extirpated, or was present but not found).

maternity areas are in the "core" of the range, in the glaciated Midwest
in pockets of remaining forested habitat within a predominantly
agricultural landscape and in the Northeast (i.e., NY and VT). Because
the Indiana bat is philopatric (i.e., loyal to its traditional summering
area), there is currently no evidence to suggest that all maternity
colonies are located in optimal foraging and roosting habitat. A
possibility that may have contributed to the species' decline is that
many existing maternity colonies are senescent (i.e., deaths outnumber
births) or are population sinks. This could be caused by pups being
produced but not surviving their first hibernation period; or maternity
areas are no longer providing a sufficient supply of suitable prey,
resulting in an increase in the age of first reproduction and increasing
fecundity schedules. Proof of at least several years of successful
reproduction and recruitment would be needed to verify long-term
survival of the Indiana bat in these highly altered and fragmented
landscapes. Although data at a few maternity sites indicate that
reproduction is occurring (exit counts nearly double a month after
birth), long-term monitoring of maternity sites is limited. Long-term
monitoring has been conducted at a maternity colony located near the
Indianapolis Airport (Whitaker and Sparks 2003, Whitaker et al. 2004).
This colony continues to persist, and shows evidence of reproduction,
although additional monitoring is needed to make a determination
regarding whether the colony is stable, increasing, or decreasing at
this site.

Monitoring data, including extensive exit counts to estimate maternity
colony population size and structure over more than one-year, is
available for only a few of the approximately 246 maternity colonies
discovered (Humphrey et al. 1977; Garner and Gardner 1992; Callahan
1993; Gardner et al. 1991b; Kurta et al. 1993; Indianapolis Airport
Authority 2003; Indianapolis Airport Authority 2004). Additionally,
because the vast majority of the Indiana bat maternity colonies have not
been discovered, let alone studied, what little demographic data that is
available, represent a fraction of the range-wide maternity activity.

Because so little is known regarding the population size and structure
of maternity colonies, the Service used the same assumption as Whitaker
and Brack (2002) to determine the average maternity colony size to give
an approximation of the number of potential maternity colonies across
the range of the Indiana bat. The Service recognizes that maternity
colonies are not static in size, and the numbers of individuals that
comprise a maternity colony likely vary widely as a colony adjusts to
current conditions, including the availability and quality of roosting
and foraging habitat, and variable climatic conditions. Therefore, these
figures should not be used to make extrapolations regarding the
densities or distribution of maternity colonies present within portions
of the species range (Racey and Entwistle 2003); however, these figures
do serve to provide a rough estimation regarding the number of maternity
colonies that might be present across the landscape. The "Maternity
Colony Size -- Population*"* section found in the "Life History" section
of this biological opinion provides more information with regard to the
size of a maternity colony.

Recognizing the inherent deficiency in such an assumption, these
calculations illustrate that the vast majority of maternity colonies for
the Indiana bat have not been documented **(**Table 5). The location of
most maternity colonies may always remain unknown because of the
difficulty in detecting maternity activity for the Indiana bat. Some
unknown proportion of these colonies may be at risk when land use
practices and changes, such as timber harvesting and development, are
carried out. Therefore, another likely cause for the decline of this
species and the level of activity occurring across the landscape is that
maternity colonies are being reduced in numbers, and in some cases
extirpated, prior to their discovery.

***Indiana Bat Status in Indiana***

Historic hibernating population levels in Indiana were comprehensive
enough to estimate on a statewide level for the first time in 1981,
resulting in an estimate of 147,242 hibernating bats (Andrew King,
USFWS, personal communication). Since that time, the statewide estimate
fell to a low of 97,503 bats in 1985, then rose steadily to 175,795 in
1993. After that year, the population estimate fluctuated between
173,076 and 185,899 until the 2005 census, when it rose to 206,610. As
of the winter of 2004-2005, Indiana's 40 hibernacula harbored
approximately 45.2% of all known Indiana bats. In 2005, the two most
populous Indiana bat hibernacula in the world were Wyandotte Cave
(n=54,913 bats) and Ray's Cave (n=54,325 bats).

**[Previous Incidental Take Authorizations]{.underline}**

*Summary-* All previously issued Service Biological Opinions involving
the Indiana bat have been non-jeopardy. These formal consultations have
involved (a) the Forest Service for activities implemented under various
Land and Resource Management Plans on National Forests in the eastern
United States, (b) the Federal Highway Administration for various
transportation projects, (c) the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
for various water-related projects, and (d) the Department of Defense
for operations at several different military installations.
Additionally, an incidental take permit has been issued under section 10
of the Endangered Species Act to an Interagency Taskforce for expansion
and related development at the Indianapolis Airport in conjunction with
the implementation of a Habitat Conservation Plan.

It is important to note that in many of these consultations, survey
information was lacking. As Federal agencies are not required to conduct
surveys, often the Service relied on a host of valid factors in helping
the Federal agency determine whether Indiana bats may be present. To
ensure the Federal agency and the Service met the mandate of the section
7(a)(2), if the best available data indicated that Indiana bats may be
present, the assumption was made that a maternity colony (in most
instances) occurred within the action area. Although this approach, we
believe, fully accords with the intent of Congress and the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, it likely resulted in an over-estimate of the
number of individuals or colonies that may have been impacted by Federal
actions.

*National Forests*- Within the past several years, nearly all National
Forests within the range of the Indiana bat have requested formal
consultation at the programmatic level including the HNF. Consultation
under Section 7 of the Act is necessary to ensure agency actions do not
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species. These
consultations have led to non-jeopardy biological opinions with
associated incidental take statements. Although some of these incidental
take statements anticipated the take of reproductive females, we have
not yet confirmed a loss of a maternity colony on a National Forest. The
reasons for this are likely two-fold. First, the programmatic
conservation measures (i.e., standard and guidelines) and second, the
project-specific reasonable and prudent measures were designed to
minimize maternity colony exposure to the environmental impacts of
Forest Plan actions. Specifically, these measures ensured an abundance
of suitable Indiana bat habitat on the National Forests, and protected
all known or newly discovered maternity colonies.

Approximately 95 percent of previously authorized habitat loss on
National Forests has not been a permanent loss. Rather, it has been
varying degrees of temporary loss (short-term and long-term) as a result
of timber management activities. Although this analysis does not include
all National Forests that, to date, have received an incidental take
statement, the concepts of the analysis are consistent, regardless of
the location. Conservation measures provided by the USFS as part of the
proposed action, as well as reasonable and prudent measures provided by
the Service to minimize the impact of the annual allowable take for each
of the National Forests, have been designed to: (1) ensure an abundance
of available remaining Indiana bat roosting and foraging habitat on all
National Forests; and (2) ensure persistence of any known or newly
discovered maternity colonies to the maximum extent practicable.

Although Indiana bat presence has been verified on most, if not all,
National Forests within the range of the species, confirmation of
maternity activity on these lands is relatively scant. There have been
less than seven maternity colonies documented on National Forests. It
must be noted that maternity activity was confirmed for the first time
on two national forests (Monongahela National Forest \[West Virginia\]
and Hoosier National Forest \[Indiana\]) as recently as 2004.

Take has been authorized in the form of habitat loss because of the
difficulty of detecting and quantifying take of the Indiana bat due to
the bat's small body size, widely dispersed individuals under loose bark
or in cavities of trees, and unknown spatial extent and density of their
summer roosting population range within the respective National Forests.
For some incidental take statements, take has also been extrapolated to
include an estimated number of individual Indiana bats. The estimate of
the number of individual Indiana bats likely to be taken has been
wide-ranging and based on various assumptions. Legal coverage has
included the take, by kill, of individual Indiana bats; or take, by harm
through habitat loss, or harassment.

Other Federal Agencies or Non-federal Entities- Several incidental take
statements have been issued to other Federal agencies. Unlike those
issued for the National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans, some
of these projects were certain to impact known occupied habitat. To
minimize the effect of these projects, the action agencies agreed to
implement various conservation measures. These included: seasonal
clearing restrictions to avoid disturbing female Indiana bats and young;
protection of all known primary and alternate roost trees with
appropriate buffers; retention of adequate roosting and foraging habitat
to sustain the maternity colony into the future; and permanent
protection of areas and habitat enhancement or creation measures to
provide future roosting and foraging habitat opportunities.

With the exception of three (Fort Knox, Great Smoky Mountains National
Park, and Laxare East and Black Contour Coal Mining projects), none of
these biological opinions and associated incidental take statements
anticipated the loss of a maternity colony. Required monitoring for
three formal consultations in Indiana (Camp Atterbury, Newport Military
Installation, and Indianapolis Airport) has confirmed that the affected
colonies persisted through the life of the project and continue to exist
today. We recognize that given the philopatric nature of Indiana bats
and their long life-spans, the full extent of the anticipated impacts
may not yet have occurred. Nonetheless, these monitoring results and the
lack of data to suggest otherwise for the other projects, indicate that
the conservation measures to avoid and minimize the impacts of Federal
projects appear to be effective. Only with long-term monitoring will we
definitively be able to determine the true effectiveness of our
conservation measures.

In summary, we believe the take exempted to date via section 7
consultation has resulted in short-term effects to Indiana bat habitat
and, in limited circumstances, on Indiana bat maternity colonies. As
many of these consultations necessarily made assumptions about Indiana
bat presence, we are uncertain of the actual number of maternity
colonies exposed to environmental impacts of Federal actions throughout
the species' range, but we believe the actual number is likely less than
what we have assumed to be present. Furthermore, although not
definitive, monitoring of several maternity colonies pre- and
post-project implementation preliminarily suggests that our standard
conservation measures, when employed in concert, appear to be effective
in minimizing adverse effects on the affected maternity colonies.

**Indiana Bat Description and Distribution**

The Indiana bat is a medium-sized bat with a head and body length that
ranges from 41 to 49 mm (Thompson 1982). There are no recognized
subspecies. The species range includes much of the eastern half of the
United States, from Oklahoma, Iowa, and Wisconsin east to Vermont, and
south to northwestern Florida. The Indiana bat is migratory, and the
above described range includes both winter and summer habitat. The
winter range is associated with regions of well-developed limestone
caverns. Major populations of this species hibernate in Indiana,
Kentucky, and Missouri. Smaller winter populations have been reported
from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia,
and West Virginia. Two-thirds (66%) of the entire estimated 2005
population of Indiana bats hibernated in only eight hibernacula in
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, and New York and more the 75% of
the rangewide population hibernated in only 12 hibernacula (USFWS
unpublished data, 2006).

**Table 5**. Estimated number of Indiana bat maternity colonies
range-wide.

+--------+----------+----------+----------+--------------+-----------+
| **     | **Est    | **%      | **Est    | *            | **% of    |
| Year** | imated** | Change\  | imated** | *Approximate | Est.      |
|        |          | from\    |          | Number of    | Maternity |
|        | **Ran    | P        | **Number | Known        | Colonies  |
|        | gewide** | revious\ | of       | Maternity    | that are  |
|        |          | Period** | M        | Areas^2^**   | Known**   |
|        | **Popu   |          | aternity |              |           |
|        | lation** |          | Colon    |              |           |
|        |          |          | ies^1^** |              |           |
+--------+----------+----------+----------+--------------+-----------+
| 196    | 883,300  |          | 5,500    | 1 (in 1971)  | \~0.02%   |
| 0/1970 |          |          |          |              |           |
+--------+----------+----------+----------+--------------+-----------+
| \~1980 | 678,750  | -23%     | 4,200    | 31           | \~0.7%-   |
+--------+----------+----------+----------+--------------+-----------+
| \~1990 | 473,550  | -30%     | 3,000    | 70           | \~2.3%    |
+--------+----------+----------+----------+--------------+-----------+
| 2001   | 376,932  | -20%     | 2,400    | 149          | \~6.2%    |
+--------+----------+----------+----------+--------------+-----------+
| 200    | 457,374  | +22%     | 2,900    | 246          | \~8.5%    |
| 5/2006 |          |          |          |              |           |
+--------+----------+----------+----------+--------------+-----------+

^1^ Total rounded to the nearest 100. Estimates of the number of
maternity colonies rangewide were developed based on the following
assumptions: 1) the known hibernating population is the source of the
entire summer population; 2) there is a 50:50 sex ratio (Humphrey et al.
1977); 3) average maternity colony size of 80 adult females (Whitaker
and Brack 2002); and 4) the trend in decline of the total number of
maternity colonies follows that of the hibernating population. ^2^ This
is the number of areas where reproductive females and/or juveniles have
been captured during the maternity season (USFWS, unpublished data,
2006).

**Life History**

The average life span of the Indiana bat is 5 to 10 years, but banded
individuals have lived up to 14 and 15 years (Thomson 1982). Female
survivorship in an Indiana population was 76% for ages 1 to 6 years and
66% for ages 6 to 10 years. Male survivorship was 70% for ages 1 to 6
years and 36% for ages 6 to 10 years (Humphrey and Cope 1977).

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

Females arrive in summer habitat as early as April 15. Temporary roosts
are often used during spring until a maternity roost with large numbers
of adult females is established. Indiana bats arrived at maternity
roosts in April and early May in Indiana, with substantial numbers in
mid-May. Most documented maternity colonies have 50 to 100 adult bats
(USFWS 1999). Fecundity is low; and female Indiana bats produce only one
young per year in late June to early July. Young bats can fly between
mid-July and early August, at about 4 weeks of age. Mortality between
birth and weaning was found to be about 8% (Humphrey et al. 1977). Many
males stay near hibernacula (i.e., caves and mines) and roost
individually or in small groups (Whitaker and Brack 2002). The later
part of the summer is spent accumulating fat reserves for fall migration
(USFWS 1999).

When arriving at their traditional hibernacula in August-September,
Indiana bats "swarm". Some male bats may begin to arrive at hibernacula
as early as July. Females typically arrive later and by September
numbers of males and females are almost equal. Swarming is a critical
part of the life cycle when Indiana bats converge at hibernacula, mate,
and forage until sufficient fat reserves have been deposited to sustain
them through the winter (Cope et al. 1977, USFWS 1983). Swarming
behavior typically involves large numbers of bats flying in and out of
cave entrances throughout the night, while most of the bats continue to
roost in trees during the day. Body weight may increase by 2 grams
within a short time, mostly in the form of fat. Swarming continues for
several weeks and copulation occurs on cave ceilings near the cave
entrance during the latter part of the period. (USFWS 1991 b, USFWS
1999). The time of highest swarming activity in Indiana and Kentucky has
been documented as early September (Cope et al. 1977). By late September
many females have entered hibernation, but males may continue swarming
well into October in what is believed to be an attempt to breed with
late arriving females. Research is needed to determine how far bats will
forage in the fall. Most bats tracked have stayed within 2 to 3 miles of
the hibernacula, but some have been found up to 4.2 miles away (Rommé et
al. 2002). Studies suggest that the majority of foraging habitat in
spring and autumn is within 2 mi of the hibernacula, but extends to 5
miles. Therefore, it is not only important to protect the caves that the
bats hibernate in, but also to maintain and protect the quality and
quantity of roosting and foraging habitat within 5 miles of each Indiana
bat hibernaculum. Additional studies of fall swarming behavior are
warranted to gain a better understanding of the bats' behavior and
habitat needs during this part of its annual life cycle (Rommé et al.
2002).

During swarming, males are active over a longer period of time at cave
entrances than females, probably to mate with females as they arrive.
Females may mate their first autumn, whereas males may not mature until
the second year (USFWS 1999). After mating, females soon enter into
hibernation. Most bats are hibernating by the end of November, but
hibernacula populations may continue to increase (USFWS 1999). Indiana
bats cluster and hibernate on cave ceilings in densities of
approximately 300-484 bats per square foot, from approximately October
through April. Hibernation facilitates survival during winter when prey
(i.e., insects) is unavailable. The season of hibernation may vary by
latitude and annual weather conditions. Clusters may protect central
individuals from temperature change and reduce sensitivity to
disturbance. Like other cave bats, the Indiana bat naturally arouses at
intervals of 7-14 days (Dr. John Whitaker, Jr. -- per. comm.) during
hibernation (Sealander & Heidt 1990). Arousals are more frequent and
longer at the beginning and end of the hibernation period (Sealander &
Heidt 1990). Limited mating occurs throughout the winter, and in early
April as bats emerge (USFWS 1999).

After hibernation ends in late March or early April, most Indiana bats
emerge, and forage for a few days or weeks near their hibernaculum
before migrating to their traditional summer roosting areas. Female
Indiana bats emerge first from hibernation in late March or early April,
followed by the males. The timing of annual emergence may vary across
their range depending on latitude and annual weather conditions. Shortly
after emerging from hibernation, the females become pregnant via delayed
fertilization from the sperm that has been stored in their reproductive
tracts through the winter (USFWS 1999). The period after hibernation but
prior to spring 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.

Most bats migrate to the north for the summer, although other directions
have been documented (USFWS 1999, Gardner and Cook 2002). A stronger
homing tendency has been observed along a north-south axis, than the
east-west direction in release studies. Females can migrate hundreds of
miles north of the hibernacula. In spring staging, males have been found
almost 10 miles from their hibernacula (Hobson and Holland 1995). Less
is known about the male migration pattern, but many males summer near
the hibernacula (Whitaker and Brack 2002, USFWS 1999).

**Food Habits:**

Indiana bats feed exclusively on flying aquatic and terrestrial insects.
Diet varies seasonally and variations exist among different ages, sexes,
and reproductive status (USFWS 1999). It is probable that Indiana bats
use a combination of both selective and opportunistic feeding to their
advantage (Brack and LaVal 1985). Reproductively active females and
juveniles show greater dietary diversity perhaps due to higher energy
demands. Studies in some areas have found that reproductively active
females eat more aquatic insects than do juveniles or adult males (USFWS
1999), but this may be the result of habitat differences (Brack and
LaVal 1985).

Lepidoptera (moths), Coleoptera (beetles), and Diptera (midges and
flies) consititute the bulk of the diet (Brack and LaVal 1985). Moths
(Lepidoptera) have been identified as major prey items that may be
preferentially selected (Brack and LaVal 1985), but beetles (Coleoptera)
and flies (Diptera) were also found significant (Brack and Tyrell 1990).
Diptera taken are especially midges and other species that congregate
over water, but are seldom mosquitoes. Other prey include wasps and
flying ants (Hymenoptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), brown leafhoppers
and treehoppers (Homoptera), stoneflies (Plecoptera), and lacewings
(Neuroptera) (Brack and LaVal 1985, USFWS 1999). Male Indiana bats
summering in or near a hibernation cave eat primarily moths and beetles
but feed on other terrestrial insects in lower percentages (USFWS 1999).

Indiana bats use small impoundments as well as permanent and
intermittent streams for drinking water (HNF 2000). Water-filled road
ruts may be used for drinking water in uplands, more commonly in the
eastern portion of the range (Brack, Jr. per. comm.).

**Habitat: Winter Hibernacula Habitat**

Indiana bats roost in caves or mines with configurations that provide a
suitable temperature and humidity microclimate (Brack et al. 2003, USFWS
1999). In many caves, suitable temperatures and therefore roosts are
located near the cave entrance, but roosts may be deeper where cold air
flows and is trapped. When bats arrive at hibernacula in October and
November, they need a temperature of 50º F (10º C) or below (USFWS
1999). Mid-winter temperatures range from 39 to 46º F (4 to 8º C) (USFWS
1983); however, recent data in Indiana has recorded increased use of
hibernacula ranging from 41 to 44.5º F (5 to 7º C) (Brack, Jr. per.
comm.). Only a small percentage of caves available meet these
temperature requirements (Brack et al. 2003, USFWS 1999). Stable low
temperature allows bats to maintain low metabolic rates and conserve fat
reserves to survive the winter (USFWS 1999). Relative humidity of roosts
usually ranges from 74% to just below saturation, although readings as
low as 54% have been recorded. This may be an important factor for
successful hibernation (USFWS 1999). Hibernacula often contain large
populations of several species of bats. Other bat species found in
Indiana hibernacula include: a number of little brown bats (*Myotis
lucifugus*) and eastern pipistrelles (*Pipistrellus subflavus*); some
northern long-eared bats (*Myotis septentrionalis*); and a few gray bats
(*Myotis grisescens*), big brown bats (*Eptesicus fuscus*), and
silver-haired bats (*Lasionycteris noctivagans*) (Brack et al.2003).

**Habitat: Summer Roosting Habitat**

**[FEMALE]{.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, USFWS 1999). Traditional summer sites that maintain a
variety of suitable roosts 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 during the winter. If they are required to
search for new roosting habitat in the spring, it is assumed that this
effort places additional stress on pregnant females at a time when fat
reserves are low or depleted and they are already stressed from the
energy demands of migration and pregnancy.

Female Indiana bats generally migrate northward from the hibernacula to
summer roosting areas. Indiana bat maternity colonies typically occupy
multiple roosts in riparian, bottomland, and upland forests. Roost trees
generally have exfoliating bark which allows the bat to roost between
the bark and bole of the tree and have a southeast or south-southwest
solar exposure and an open canopy. Cavities and crevices in trees also
may be used for roosting. Roost tree structure is probably more
important than the tree species in determining whether a tree is a
suitable roost site; and tree species which develop loose, exfoliating
bark as they age and die are likely to provide roost sites. Roost trees
are often located on forest edges or openings with open canopy and open
understory (USFWS 1999). Maternity colonies have often been found within
forests that are streamside ecosystems or are otherwise within 0.6 mi (1
km) of permanent streams. Most have been found in forest types similar
to oak-hickory and elm-ash-cottonwood communities. While these
characteristics are typical, research is showing adaptability in
habitats used. Important summer roosting and foraging habitat for the
Indiana bat is often in floodplain or riparian forests but may also be
in more upland areas. A telemetry study in Illinois found most maternity
roosts within 1640 ft (500 m) of a perennial or intermittent stream
(Hofmann 1996). Bats in Illinois selected roosts near intermittent
streams and far from paved roads (Garner and Gardener 1992). However,
observations have revealed habitat use nearer paved roads than
previously thought (Brack, Jr. per. comm.). Recent research has shown
bats using upland forest for roosting and upland forest, and pastures
with scattered trees for foraging. Indiana bats prefer forests with old
growth characteristics, large trees, scattered canopy gaps, and open
understories (USFWS 1999). The Indiana bat may persist in highly altered
and fragmented forest landscapes for some unknown period of time.
Instances have been documented of bats using forest altered by grazing,
swine feedlot, row-crops, hay fields, residences, clear-cut harvests,
and shelterwood cuts (Garner and Gardner 1992, USFWS 1999). Several
roosts have been located near lightly traveled, low maintenance roads,
as well as near I-70 at the Indianapolis Airport (USFWS 2002). Although,
Indiana bats may be more adaptable than previously thought, it still is
not known how a maternity colony's stability and reproductive success
responds to increasing levels of habitat alteration and fragmentation.

Suitability of a roost tree is determined by its condition (dead or
alive), suitability of loose bark, tree's solar exposure, spatial
relationship to other trees, and tree's spatial relationship to water
sources and foraging areas. Good roost trees are species whose bark
springs away from the tree on drying after dead, senescent, or injured;
and living species of hickories (*Carya* spp.) and large white oaks
(*Quercus alba*) with shaggy bark. Cottonwoods are probably one of the
best tree species. Many maternity colonies have been associated with
oak-hickory and elm-ash-cottonwood forest types. Tree cavities, hollow
portions of tree boles or limbs, and crevice and splits from broken tops
have been used as roosts on a very limited basis, usually by individual
bats. Roost longevity is variable due to many factors such as the bark
sloughing off or the tree falling down. Some roosts may only be
habitable for 1-2 years, but species with good bark retention such as
slippery elm (*Ulmus rubra*), cottonwood (*Populus deltoides*), Green
ash (*Fraxinus* *pennsylvanica*), oaks (*Quercus* spp.), and hickories
(*Carya* spp.) may provide habitat 4-8 years (USFWS 1999). Trees in
excess of 15.7 in (40 cm) diameter breast height (dbh) are considered
optimal for maternity colonies, but trees in excess of 8.6 in (22 cm)
dbh are used as alternate roosts (USFWS 2002). Females have been
documented using roost trees as small as 5.5 inches.(Kurta 2005).

Indiana bat roosts are ephemeral and frequently associated with dead or
dying trees. Gardner et al. (1991b) evaluated 39 roost trees and found
that 31% were no longer suitable the following summer, and 33% of those
remaining were unavailable by the second summer. A variety of suitable
roosts are needed within a colony\'s traditional summer range for the
colony to continue to exist. Indiana bat maternity sites generally
consist of one or more primary maternity roost trees which are used
repeatedly by large numbers of bats, and varying numbers of alternate
roosts, which may be used less frequently and by smaller numbers of
bats. Primary roosts are often located in openings or at the edge of
forest stands, while alternate roosts can be in either openings or the
interior of the forest stand. Primary roosts are usually surrounded by
open canopy and are warmed by solar radiation. Alternate roosts may be
used when temperatures are above normal or during precipitation. Bats
move among roosts within a season and when a particular roost becomes
unavailable from one year to the next. It is not known how many
alternate roosts must be available to assure retention of a colony
within a particular area, but large, nearby forest tracts would improve
the potential for an area to provide adequate roosting habitat (Callahan
1993, Callahan et al. 1997). In addition to having exfoliating bark,
roost trees must be of sufficient diameter. Trees in excess of 16 in.
diameter at breast height (dbh) are considered optimal for maternity
colony roost sites, but trees in excess of 9 inches dbh are often used
as alternate maternity roosts. Male Indiana bats have been observed
roosting in trees as small as 2.5 inches dbh (Gumbert et al. 2002).

Exposure of trees to sunlight and location relative to other trees are
important to suitability. Cool temperatures can delay development of
fetal and juvenile young and selection of maternity roost sites may be
critical to reproductive success. Dead trees with a southeast and
south-southwest exposures allow warming solar radiation. Some living
trees may provide a thermal advantage during cold periods (USFWS 1999).
Maternity colonies use multiple roosts in both dead and living trees
that are grouped. Extent and configuration of a use area is probably
determined by availability of suitable roost sites. Distances between
roosts can be a few meters to a few kilometers. Maternity colony
movements among multiple roosts seem to depend on climatic changes,
particularly solar radiation (Humphrey et al. 1977). Kurta et al. (1993)
suggests movement between roosts may be the bats' way of dealing with a
roost site as ephemeral as loose bark. The bat that is aware of
alternate roost sites is more likely to survive the sudden,
unpredictable, destruction of its present roost than the bat which has
never identified such an alternate.

Primary roosts are often located in openings or at the edge of forest
stands, while alternate roosts can be in either openings or the interior
of the forest stand. Primary roosts are usually surrounded by open
canopy and are warmed by solar radiation. Alternate roosts may be used
when temperatures are above normal or during precipitation. Shagbark
hickories (*Carya* *ovata*) are good alternate roosts because they are
cooler during periods of high heat and tight bark shields the bats from
rain (USFWS 1999). Weather has been found to have profound influence on
bat behavior and habitat use (Humphrey et al. 1977).

Humphrey et al. (1977) observed that each night after the sunset peak of
foraging activity the bats left the foraging areas without returning to
the day roosts, which indicated the use of "night" roosts. Kiser et al.
(2002) found three concrete bridges on Camp Atterbury, 25 mi (40 km)
south of Indianapolis, Indiana, used by Indiana bats as night roosts and
to a limited extent as day roosts. Bat species using the bridges
included the big brown bat (*Eptesicus* *fuscus*), northern myotis
(*Myotis* *septentrionalis*), little brown myotis (*Myotis*
*lucifugus*), Indiana bat, and eastern pipistrelle (*Pipistrellus*
*subflavus*). The Indiana bat was the most common species, representing
51% of all bats observed, whereas the big brown bat was the second most
abundant at 38%. Clusters of Indiana bats were observed night roosting
under the bridges that were lactating, post-lactating, and newly volant
juveniles. Bridges used were concrete-girder (multi-beam) bridges with
deep, narrow expansion joints. The bridges ranged from 46 to 223 ft in
length and 26 to 39 ft in width. Average daily traffic ranged from less
than 10 vehicles per day to almost 5,000 vehicles per day. All used
bridges were located over streams bordered by forested, riparian
corridors that connected larger tracts of forest. Riparian forest did
not overhang the bridges allowing solar radiation to warm the bridges;
however, forest was within 9 to 16.5 ft of each bridge. Bat clusters
under bridges were located over land, near the ends of the bridges. Mean
ambient temperatures at night were consistently higher and less variable
under bridges than external ambient temperatures. The bridges apparently
act as thermal sinks. The warmer, more stable environment presumably
decreases the energetic cost of maintaining high body temperature, thus
promoting fetal development, milk production, and juvenile growth. Three
individuals were radio-tracked to their day roosts within 0.6 to 1.2
miles from their night roost (Kiser et al. 2002).

**MALE:**

Many male Indiana bats appear to remain at or near the hibernacula in
summer with some fanning out in a broad band around the hibernacula
(Whitaker and Brack 2002). Males roost singly or in small groups in two
to five roost trees similar to those used by females. Males may
occasionally roost in caves. Suitable roost trees typically have a large
diameter, exfoliating bark, and prolonged solar exposure with no
apparent importance in regard to the tree species or whether it is
upland or bottomland (Whitaker and Brack 2002). Because males typically
roost individually or in small groups, the average size of their roost
trees tends to be smaller than the roost trees used by female maternity
colonies, and in one instance a roost tree only 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) in
diameter was used (Gumbert et al. 2002). Male bats have also been
observed using trees as small as 3.1 in (8 cm) dbh (USFWS 2002). Also,
males are more likely than females to be found in disturbed areas;
possibly because the roost trees in those areas are likely to be to
small for colony use, but still suitable for an individual roost (Brack,
Jr. per. comm.). One individual was found roosting on the Hoosier
National Forest within the easement of I-64 (HNF 2000). Males have shown
summer site fidelity and have been recaptured in foraging areas from
prior years (USFWS 1999). At Camp Atterbury in Indiana, male bats were
observed using the same bridges as females for night roosts, but they
roosted singly (Kiser et al. 2002).

**Autumn Swarming / Spring Staging Habitat**

Indiana bats use roosts in spring and fall that are similar to those
used in summer (USFWS 1999). However, because habitat is used by
individuals rather than colonies, sites may be much smaller (Brack, Jr.
per. comm.). Females use smaller, more disturbed areas during swarming
and staging than in summer in maternity colonies (Brack, Jr. per.
comm.). During fall, when bats swarm and mate at their hibernacula, male
bats roost in trees nearby during the day and fly to the cave during the
night. Studies have found males roosting in dead trees on upper slopes
and ridgetops within a few miles of the hibernacula (USFWS 1999). In
Jackson County, Kentucky, research showed fall roost trees tend to be
located in canopy gaps created by disturbance (logging, windthrow,
prescribed burning) and along edges (Gumbert et al. 2002). Fall roost
trees are often exposed to sunshine (USFWS 1999). Within-year fidelity
to fall roosts has been observed, where an individual bat uses an
individual roost for an average of 2 to 3 days before moving to a new
tree (Gumbert et al. 2002). Bats have been observed moving among
multiple roosts in an area using particular roosts alternatively (Brack,
Jr. per. comm., Gumbert et al. 2002).

In the spring, upon emergence, females and some males disperse from the
hibernacula. Migration within the core of the species' range is
generally northward to form colonies throughout Indiana, southern
Michigan, and adjoining Ohio and Illinois. Male Indiana bats remain at
or near the hibernacula, although some fan out in a broad band or zone
around the hibernacula (Whitaker and Brack 2002).

Spring and autumn habitat use is variable due to proximity and quantity
of roosts, weather conditions, and prey availability (Rommé et al.
2002). Several studies support the idea that during the autumn and
spring, bats primarily use habitat within 5 miles (8 km) of the
hibernacula (Rommé et al. 2002, Brack, Jr. per. comm.). However, more
studies of autumn and spring habitat use is recommended due to low
sample sizes and difficulties with telemetry research techniques (USFWS
1999).

**Foraging Habitat**

Indiana bats forage between dusk and dawn and feed exclusively on flying
insects, primarily moths, beetles, and aquatic insects. They typically
forage in and around tree canopy and in openings of floodplain,
riparian, and upland forests (USFWS 1999). Optimum canopy closures are
50-70% with relatively open understory (\<40% of trees are 2-4.7 in
(5-12 cm) dbh) (HNF 2000). Woody vegetation with a width of at least 100
ft (30 m) on both sides of a stream has been characterized as excellent
foraging habitat. Streams, associated with floodplain forests and
impounded water bodies, are preferred foraging habitats for pregnant and
lactating Indiana bats, some of which may fly up to 1 ½ mi from upland
roosts (Garner and Gardner 1992, USFWS 2002). Brack and Tyrell (1990)
found that in early summer, foraging was restricted to riparian
habitats. Foraging also occurs over clearings with successional
vegetation, along cropland borders, fencerows, and over farm ponds. Bats
have been observed crossing Interstate 70 in Indiana to reach foraging
habitat (USFWS 2002). Bats have been documented routinely flying at
least 1.25 mi (2 km) from the roost to forage and some were tracked up
to 3 mi (5 km) from the roost (USFWS 2002). Foraging bats usually fly
between 6 -- 100 feet above ground level (USFWS 1999). In Illinois,
Gardner et al. (1991a) found that forested stream corridors, and
impounded bodies of water, were preferred foraging habitats for pregnant
and lactating Indiana bats, which typically flew up to 1.5 miles (2.4
km) from upland roosts to forage. However the same study reported the
maximum distance that any female bat flew (regardless of reproductive
status) from her daytime roost to her capture site was 2.5 miles (4.2
km). Females typically utilize larger foraging ranges than males (Garner
and Gardner 1992).

## [Bald Eagle]{.underline}

This section is a discussion of the range-wide status of the bald eagle
(*Haliaeetus* *leucocephalus*) and presents biological and ecological
information relevant to formulating the biological opinion. It includes
information on the species' life history, its habitat and distribution,
and the effects of past human and natural factors that have led to the
current status of the species.

Designated as the national bird of the United States in 1782, the bald
eagle nested throughout the nation. In 1940, the bald eagle was
originally protected by what is now known as the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGEPA). This law provides for the protection of the bald
eagle and the golden eagle (as amended in 1962) by prohibiting the take,
possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter,
transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead,
including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit (16 U.S.C.
668(a); 50 CFR 22). \"Take\" includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison,
wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb (16 U.S.C. 668c;
50 CFR 22.3). On March 11, 1967, bald eagles south of the 40th parallel
were listed under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. The
bald eagle was also afforded protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703-712) when it was amended to include native
birds of prey in 1972. The bald eagle was subsequently listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 41 FR 24062
24067) on February 14, 1978 in Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Washington,
and Wisconsin, and as endangered in the 43 remaining conterminous
states. Due to the wide distribution of the bald eagle, the Service
established five recovery regions to outline recovery planning goals and
needs on a regional basis, leading to the development of five separate
recovery plans for the species. Bald eagles in the State of Indiana are
addressed in the Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan, which was
approved by the Service on July 29, 1983. No Critical Habitat was
designated under the ESA for the bald eagle. In July 1995, as a result
in wide-spread population increases, the Service down-listed the species
to threatened status under the ESA throughout the lower 48 states. Then
on July 6, 1999, after reaching or exceeding the recovery goals for the
species, the Service proposed to remove the bald eagle from the Federal
Threatened and Endangered Species List (i.e., delist it; Figure 7).
Currently, the Service considers the bald eagle population to be fully
recovered, even though it remains listed as a Federally threatened
species in the lower 48 states. The bald eagle delisting has been
delayed while a new post-delisting bald eagle disturbance permit process
is being established under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Once delisted, the ESA would require the Service to monitor the status
of the bald eagle for at least five years following delisting. If a
delisted species is found to be at risk, the Service can review the best
available information and if necessary invoke the emergency listing
clause of the ESA and relist the species.

![](media/image10.png){width="6.093055555555556in"
height="4.582638888888889in"}

**Figure 7.** Pairs of nesting bald eagles in the lower 48 states, 1963
-- 1999 (USFWS 2003).

A variety of factors contributed to bald eagle population declines over
the past century (USFWS 1983a), but habitat loss and pesticide use, such
as DDT, were the primary causes of decline. Habitat loss first occurred
during European settlement of North America. As settlers cleared the
land, they removed suitable trees for bald eagle nest and roost sites,
as well as habitat for their prey. Wide spread shooting of eagles was
also a contributing factor to the species' decline. Bald eagle numbers
began to increase in the U.S. after Federal laws were enacted to protect
them, however they began to decline again in the 1940s due to the wide
spread use of certain organophosphate pesticides. These pesticides, DDT
being the most notable, were used during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.
Pesticides like DDT and their metabolites tend to bioaccumulate, or
increase in concentration as they move up the food chain, and therefore
are present in highest concentrations in animals at the top of their
food chain, such as bald eagles. A metabolite of DDT, known as DDE,
inhibits normal calcium deposition in birds when eggshells are being
formed. This resulted in eggshell thinning and reproductive failure in
the bald eagle and other birds. Successful reproduction virtually
ceased. In 1972, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) banned the use of DDT because of its harmful
environmental effects. Bald eagle populations began to increase after
the ban of DDT (see Figure 4). After banning DDT and implementing
recovery actions under the ESA for over 30 years including:
protecting/enhancing habitat, minimizing disturbance, monitoring
contaminants, and reintroducing eagles, there are now more than 6,471
pairs of bald eagles nesting in the lower 48 states and the species has
recovered.

Even though bald eagle numbers have increased dramatically, continued
habitat loss, accidental trauma, illegal shooting, electrocution, and
poisoning remain a threat to eagles and need to be monitored. Loss of
forest habitat along and near large water bodies limits the available
amount of suitable nesting, perching, roosting, and foraging habitat.
Degradation of water quality also continues to threaten the integrity of
aquatic ecosystems and the fish the eagles need for food.

Toxic exposure to environmental contaminants also is a localized threat.
Franson et al. (1995) investigated the cause of death for over 4,300
bald and golden eagle carcasses examined over a 30 year period. Because
identifying cause of death depends on finding eagle carcasses in fair to
good condition, and advances in diagnostic capabilities, the study
results may not reflect proportional causes of death accurately.
Nonetheless, Franson et al. identified accidental trauma associated with
impacts with vehicles, power lines, or other structures as the leading
cause of death (23% of cases). Vehicular collisions have occurred as
bald eagles scavenge carrion/roadkill along roadways, particularly in
winter when food is scarce. The risk of vehicular collisions is directly
influenced by landcover near the road. Roadways within a dense forest
corridor present more risk than those with open roadsides because eagle
are limited to vertical avoidance movements. Gunshot, either accidental
or on purpose, accounted for about 15% of bald eagle deaths,
electrocution about 12%, and poisoning about 16% (Franson et al. 1995).
Electrocution problems with bald eagles, and other raptors, are
primarily associated with relatively low voltage distribution lines
(below 69 kV) to residences, businesses, or other individual users
(Lehman 2001). Measures such as increasing clearances between conductors
and ground wires, gapping ground wires, insulating energized components,
and managing perching opportunities can reduce electrocution hazards and
have been implemented in some problematic areas (Lehman 2001). Many
eagles have died from lead poisoning after ingesting lead bullet
fragments imbedded in crippled prey or carrion. Mortality may also occur
from poisoning of certain agricultural pesticides. Poly-chlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) may also be a localized source of contamination, and
have been linked to reproductive failure in bald eagles. PCBs, like DDT
and other pesticides, often bioaccumulate and end up in higher
concentrations in animals at the top of the food chain.

**Description and Distribution**

The bald eagle is a large bird of prey found only in North America. The
adult bald eagle is named for its white or bald (the old English word
"balde" meaning white) head. The rest of the adult's plumage is dark
brown with the exception of the tail feathers which are white. Males and
females are identical in color. Immature bald eagles are dark brown with
some blotches of white under the wings and on the body. As the bird
reaches maturity in four or five years, this mottling disappears. Young
bald eagles can be confused with the similar colored golden eagle
(*Aquila chrysaetos*). Juvenile bald eagles have a brownish bill and
yellow feet, while adults have bright yellow eyes, bills, and feet. The
body of an adult eagle is about 3 to 3 1/2 feet in length, and the
wingspan is 6 to 7 1/2 feet. Males weigh eight to nine pounds; while
females weigh ten to 14 pounds.

The historic range of the bald eagle extended throughout North America,
from central Alaska and Canada to northern Mexico. However, it
experienced considerable decline in the south and eastern portions of
its range during the 20th century. In the late 18th century, it is
believed there were as many as 100,000 nesting bald eagles in the lower
48 states, but by1963, only 417 were known in this portion of the
species range. There are about 40,000 bald eagles in Alaska and none in
Hawaii. After banning DDT and implementing recovery actions under the
ESA for over 30 years including: protecting/enhancing habitat,
minimizing disturbance, monitoring contaminants (DDT), and reintroducing
eagles, there are now more than 6,471 pairs of bald eagles nesting in
the lower 48 states.

**Life History**

Bald eagles reach sexual maturity between four to six years of age, but
may be older before they first attempt to nest and breed. They are
believed to mate for life. Bald eagles have a relatively long life-span
and have been known to live up to 48 years in captivity and 28 years in
the wild (USFWS 1983a).

Fish are the major item of the bald eagle's diet. Eagles often catch
fish while flying by swooping down on them as they swim near the water's
surface and snatching them up with their sharp talons. Therefore, bald
eagles spend much time roosting and foraging near large water bodies
where fish abound. They also feed on waterfowl, particularly those dead,
crippled, or otherwise vulnerable. At some locations, often during the
winter period when eagles may be away from open water, mammals that can
easily be caught or scavenged may be part of the eagle's diet (USFWS
1983a). Bald eagles may fly up to 40 mph during normal flight, but they
can reach speeds of 100 mph when diving for prey. Bald eagles have few
natural predators.

Bald eagles generally build their nests in trees along or near their
primary foraging areas, i.e., large bodies of water such as lakes, large
rivers and the ocean. Their massive nests are largely composed of small
tree branches placed in the crotch of a large, open-branched tree, but
at in some areas they may also nest on cliffs, or very rarely on the
ground. Bald eagles often prefer the largest tree in their breeding
area. Adult bald eagles will often use the same breeding area during
different nesting seasons. A "breeding area" is the local area
associated with one territorial pair of eagles, and containing one or
more nest structures. Bald eagles will also often reuse nests in
subsequent years. These birds often build and use new nests near a
previous nest, and several nests may accumulate in an area, although
only one is used during the nesting season. With additions to the nests
made annually, some may reach 10 feet across and weigh as much as 4,000
pounds. Clutch size ranges from one to three eggs. Adults will raise one
to three young, the average being just above one eaglet per nesting
attempt. Although bald eagles may range over great distances, they
usually return to nest within 100 miles of where they were raised or
hacked themselves.

Breeding and nesting phenology depends primarily on latitude. Prior to
egg-laying, bald eagles engage in courtship activities and nest
building. Courtship activities can involve both calls and aerial
acrobatics, such as cartwheels, swoops, and chases. Nest building and
refurbishing can take place prior to courtship, even during the previous
fall. During courtship and the incubation period, the eagles are most
intolerant of external disturbances and may abandon the area. The most
critical period for disturbances, therefore, extends from approximately
one month before egg laying through incubation. In Indiana, egg laying
can occur as early as early February or March, and as late as early
April. Eggs are laid every other day, and incubation takes approximately
35 days. After hatching, chicks are vulnerable to inclement weather and
need frequent brooding and feeding. Natural or human-caused disturbances
can keep adults from nests and, depending on the weather and length of
time involved, may cause weakening or death of chicks. Adults are
protective of the nest site as long as one or more healthy chicks are
present. The young remain in the nest for about 10 -- 12 weeks, and
adults often care for the young for 6 weeks to 3 months after fledging.
Prior to taking their first flight young eagles may "branch," where they
hop and climb out of their nest and into nearby tree branches while
flapping and strengthening their wings. Young eagles typically leave the
nest or "fledge" at 11 to 12 weeks of age. Young usually fledge from
early June to mid-July in Indiana. The time between egg-laying and
fledgling is approximately four months and the entire breeding cycle,
from initial activity at a nest through the period of fledgling
dependency, is about six months.

All bald eagles, whether tolerant or intolerant, are more susceptible to
human disturbance at some times during the nesting season. In southern
Indiana, bald eagles are most prone to human disturbances from December
or January through May or June depending on how early an individual pair
begins courting and egg-laying.

Most bald eagles in Canada and the northern U.S. migrate south in the
fall; however, in temperate latitudes some remain with nesting areas
throughout the year. This migration is probably a result of changes in
prey availability and weather conditions. The period from November to
March is referred to the "wintering period," and may overlap the
beginning of the nesting season in some areas (USFWS 1983a). Wintering
bald eagles occur throughout the country, but are more prevalent in the
West and Midwest. An adequate food supply and suitable night roost sites
are the primary factors for appropriate winter habitat. Bald eagles use
a much wider variety of habitat during winter than when nesting. Some
wintering sites may be used multiple times, while others are only used
once. Most wintering bald eagles are found near large bodies of water.
However, some spend a large amount of time in terrestrial environments,
away from a large water source. At night, wintering eagles may
congregate at communal roost trees, and may travel from feeding areas to
specific roost sites. Roost sites are often in locations that are
protected from the wind by vegetation or terrain. These protected sites
help minimize energy expenditures. Human disturbance to a roost site may
cause the bald eagles to abandon it (USFWS 1983a).

**[FANSHELL MUSSEL]{.underline}**

The Federally endangered fanshell mussel (*Cyprogenia stegaria)* was
included in the species list as potentially occurring in the project
area and was analyzed in the Tier 1 BA for I-69. In the BA, the FHWA
determined that I-69 from Evansville to Indianapolis was not likely to
adversely affect fanshell mussels because previous surveys at the
proposed crossing of the East Fork of the White River revealed that the
habitat was not suitable and no live or dead mussels were found in the
vicinity of the crossing. Because the Service has concurred with their
"not likely to adversely affect" determination (letter dated July 21,
2003), the fanshell mussel will not be considered further in this
consultation unless new information or changes to the proposed action
warrant reinitiating consultation for this species.

# III. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

This section is an analysis of the past effects of State, tribal, local
and private actions already affecting the species [within the Action
Areas]{.underline} and the present effects within the Action Areas that
will occur contemporaneously with the consultation in progress. It
includes a description of the known status of Indiana bats and bald
eagles and their habitats within or near the I-69 Action Areas.

The natural environments traversed by the Action Areas are summarized
below. Additional information available in the [I-69, Evansville to
Indianapolis, Indiana, Tier 1 DEIS]{.underline} is hereby incorporated
by reference.

# [Physiographic Regions]{.underline}

Physiographic regions are areas that have similar topography and land
use. Physiographic regions provide a general view of the terrain, and
resources that may be affected by the proposed Interstate. The preferred
alternative, Alternative 3C, traverses portions of seven physiographic
regions: **Wabash Lowland, Boonville Hills, Crawford Upland, Mitchell
Plateau, Norman Upland, Martinsville Hills, and New Castle Till Plains &
Drainageways** (Figure 8).

The proposed Interstate crosses the **Wabash Lowland** in portions of
Gibson, Warrick, Pike, Daviess, and Green counties. Approximately 44% of
the length of the Interstate (62 miles) is in this region. It is flat to
rolling with wide expanses of alluvial land, some of which is lacustrine
in origin. The Wabash Lowland is the largest of the southern Indiana
regions and was completely covered by the Illinoian Glacier. Land use is
essentially agricultural, some forest land (mostly floodplain forests),
extensive wetlands (e.g. Pigeon Creek and Patoka River bottoms), and
coal mining. Agriculture is the dominant land use, with over 61% of the
area devoted to farming. Approximately 22--25% of the land is forested,
while the remaining land area has urban and miscellaneous uses.
Approximately 87% of forests are owned by farmers and private
individuals. The remaining forests are owned by federal, state, county,
municipal agencies, and/or timber companies.

Only a small portion in Gibson and Pike counties, 3% (4 miles), of the
proposed Interstate crosses the **Boonville Hills Region**. This region
is slightly hillier than the adjacent Wabash Lowland, possibly because
it was not glaciated. Strip mining has been extensive in this region,
and there are large areas of reclaimed or modified land in the eastern
portion (Gray 2000). Land use in the Boonville Hills includes farmland,
forest, and mining.

![](media/image11.jpeg){width="6.704861111111111in"
height="8.666666666666666in"}**Figure 8.** Physiographic regions (Gray
2000) and species Action Areas for the proposed I-69.

Approximately 16.5% (23 miles) of the alternative is within the
**Crawford Upland Region**, primarily in Greene and Monroe counties.
This region is largely unglaciated and is a rugged highland with varied
elevations and v-shaped valleys with sharp ridges to u-shaped valleys
with rounded ridges. Karst terrain, containing sinkholes and caves, is
common. Land use is approximately 43% cropland, 20% pasture, and 28%
woodland. Approximately 71% of the forests are owned by farmers and
private individuals.

East of the Crawford Upland is the **Mitchell Plateau**. Approximately
9% (13 miles) of the proposed alternative is within this region, in
Monroe County. This region is a limestone, somewhat flat to rolling
plain, with many caves, sinkholes and continuous tracts of forests.
There is extensive karst topography west of Bloomington. Approximately
61% of forests are owned by farmers and private individuals. Livestock,
crops, timber, and limestone are this region's main commercial
resources.

Approximately 9% (13 miles) of the proposed alternative is within the
**Martinsville Hills Region** in Morgan County. This is a relatively
small region within the study area, and more rugged than the adjacent
Tipton Till Plain region to the north. The eastern and western parts of
this region are more rugged than the central, which contains lacustrine
and till plain areas (Gray, 2000). Predominate land use includes
farmland and forest.

Approximately 5.5% (8 miles) of the proposed Interstate traverses the
**Norman Upland**, in Monroe and Morgan counties. This upland region
contains great local relief due to stream action over a long period of
time. This resulted in long, sharp ridges, and v-shaped valleys, which
in turn create rugged, picturesque hills. Prime examples of this scenic
landscape are found in Brown County (Mumford and Whitaker 1982).

Finally, approximately 13% (18 miles) of the proposed Interstate passes
through the **New Castle Till Plains & Drainageways** in Johnson and
Marion counties. This region is a relatively flat glacial plain. It is
distinguished by the number of valleys that cross it in a southerly to
southeasterly radial pattern. These valleys fed the White River, the
East Fork of the White River and several of its tributaries, and several
forks of the Whitewater River (Gray 2000). Farmland is the predominant
land use in this region.

**[Natural Regions]{.underline}**

In addition to physiographic regions, the land can be categorized by
natural regions. A natural region is a major, generalized unit of the
landscape with a distinctive assemblage of natural features. It is part
of a classification system that integrates several natural features,
including: climate, soils, glacial history, topography, exposed bedrock,
presettlement vegetation, species composition, physiography, and flora
and fauna distribution. A "section" is a subunit of a natural region
where sufficient differences are evident, such that recognition is
warranted (Homoya et al. 1985). Natural regions are similar to
physiographic regions, but while physiographic regions may give
information on predominant land use, natural regions may give more
information about native plant and animal species. Some natural regions
have a similar corresponding physiographic region, while some may be
unique to the classification system.

The proposed 3C corridor of I-69 crosses five natural regions:
**Southwestern Lowlands, Southern Bottomlands, Shawnee Hills, Highland
Rim**, and the **Central Till Plain**. Within these five natural
regions, the Interstate crosses nine sections: **Driftless, Southern
Bottomlands, Glaciated, Plainville Sand, Escarpment, Mitchell Karst
Plain, Brown County Hills**, and **Tipton Till Plain** (Figure 9). The
following natural region section descriptions come from "The Natural
Regions of Indiana," by Homoya et al. (1985).

The **Southern Bottomlands Section** is the only section within the
**Southern Bottomlands Natural Region**. Approximately 8% (11 miles) of
the proposed Interstate crosses this section, primarily in Gibson and
Pike counties. This natural region includes the alluvial bottomlands
along rivers and larger streams of southwestern Indiana. The soils are
mostly neutral to acid silt loams and much of the area is subject to
frequent flooding. Natural communities of the region include bottomland
forest, swamp, pond, slough, and former marsh and prairie. Bottomland
forest, the major community type of this region, is characterized by
pecan, sugarberry, swamp chestnut oak, pin oak, swamp white oak, red
maple, silver maple, honey locust, catalpa, shellbark hickory, sycamore,
and green ash. Swamp and slough communities are characterized by bald
cypress, swamp cottonwood, water locust, pumpkin ash, and overcup oak.
Other distinctive species (many of which are restricted to this region)
include American featherfoil, bloodleaf, acanthus, climbing dogbane,
catbird grape, woolly pipe-vine, swamp privet, American snowbell,
climbing hempweed, spiderlily, mistletoe, and giant cane. Distinctive
southern animals include cottonmouth, hieroglyphic turtle, diamondbacked
watersnake, eastern mud turtle, northern copperbelly, swamp rabbit,
mosquitofish, harlequin darter, and yellow-crowned night heron.

The **Southwestern Lowlands Region** includes the **Driftless Section,
the Glaciated** **Section,** and the **Plainville Sand Section**. The
Southwestern Lowlands Region is characterized by low relief and
extensive aggraded valleys. This region, except for the southern
portion, was covered by the Illinoian Glacier. Much of the region is
nearly level, undissected, and poorly drained, although in some areas
the topography is hilly and well drained.

Approximately 12% (17.5 miles) of the proposed Interstate is within the
**Driftless Section,** primarily in Gibson and Pike counties. This
section is south of the Illinoian glacial border, and is characterized
by low hills and broad valleys. This area has the longest growing season
and highest average summer temperature in the state. Natural communities
include upland forest, occupying the well-drained slopes, and southern
flatwoods occupying lacustrine plains and river terraces. Flatwoods
species include cherry bark oak, sweetgum, shellbark hickory, pin oak,
swamp white oak, Shumard's oak, green ash, black gum, and locally, post
oak. Upland forests of this section are relatively dry communities
dominated by oaks and hickories. Other natural communities include
marsh, swamp, sandstone cliff, and low to medium-gradient stream. Soils
in this section are predominately acidic.

The **Glaciated Section** is also part of the Southwestern Bottomlands
Region. Approximately 24% (34 miles) of the alternative passes through
this section, in portions of Pike, Daviess, and Greene counties. Natural
communities in this section are mostly forests, but several types of
former prairie are known. The flatwoods community is common, but species
composition differs from the Driftless Section. Common flatwoods species
in this section include shagbark hickory, shellbark hickory, pin oak,
shingle oak, hackberry, green ash, red maple, and silver maple. Black
ash swamps are near their southern limit in this section. This section
also appears to have the largest amount of prairie south of the
Wisconsinan glacial border in Indiana; however, little is known about
the composition of this prairie. Additional community types include:
swamp,

![](media/image12.jpeg){width="6.801388888888889in"
height="8.65625in"}**Figure 9.** Natural regions (Homoya et al. 1985),
species Action Areas, and proposed I-69.

marsh, pond, and low-gradient stream. The prairie kingsnake and the
crawfish frog are characteristic animal species of this region.

Approximately 4% (5 miles) of the proposed Interstate traverses the
**Plainville Sand Section** in Daviess County**,** also in the
Southwestern Bottomlands Region. This section is a small, but unique,
area of wind-blown sand dunes east of the Wabash and White Rivers. Soils
are sandy and acidic. The barrens natural community, now almost gone
from the landscape, predominated on the ridges and well-drained areas,
and swamp, marsh, and wet prairie occupied the swales. The barrens
vegetation consisted mostly of prairie species, along with some western
and southern sand-dwelling species, including beard grass, Carolina
anemone, tube penstemon, clustered poppy-mallow, hairy golden aster,
narrowleaf dayflower, black hickory, adrosace, rose gentian, sedge, and
fleabane. In a few areas, barren vegetation, including little bluestem,
big bluestem, Indian grass, side-oats grama, New Jersey tea, and
blackjack oak, can still be seen. Animal species restricted to the
geographic area include the bull snake, ornate box turtle, and six-lined
racerunner.

The **Shawnee Hills Natural Region** includes the **Crawford Upland
Section** and the **Escarpment Section**. This natural region appears to
represent general presettlement conditions better than any other
terrestrial region in the state. It is a rugged and generally sparsely
populated area. Most natural communities are upland forest, although a
few sandstone and limestone glades, gravel washes, and barrens are
known.

Approximately 7% (10.5 miles) of the preferred alternative is within the
**Crawford Upland Section**, in Greene County. This section of the
Shawnee Hills Natural Region contains rugged hills with sandstone cliffs
and rockhouses. The soils are characteristically well drained acid silt
loams. Forest vegetation consists of an oak-hickory assortment on upper
slopes, while coves have a mesic component. Characteristic upper slope
species include black oak, white oak, chestnut oak, scarlet oak, post
oak, pignut hickory, small-fruited hickory, shagbark hickory, and
rarely, sourwood. Characteristic species of cove forests include beech,
tulip tree, red oak, sugar maple, black walnut, white ash, and locally,
yellow buckeye, white basswood, hemlock, yellow birch, and umbrella
magnolia. The sandstone cliff and rockhouse communities provide
environments for several species with Appalachian affinities, including
mountain laurel, mountain spleenwort, sourwood, and umbrella magnolia.
Distinctive species associated with rockhouses include filmy fern,
alumroot, Bradley's spleenwort, French's shooting star, and the
Appalachian gametophyte. There are a few spring communities, a type
extremely rare in Indiana. Vegetation characteristic of these
communities include cinnamon fern, royal fern, sedges, small clubspur
orchid, black chokeberry, winterberry, tearthumb, jewelweed, crested
wood fern, and *Sphagnum* spp. The barrens community is, and probably
was, a minor component of this section, and only a few remnants remain.
Sandstone glades are very rare in Indiana, but at least two are known in
this section. Characteristic species in sandstone glades include:
bluestem, slender knotweed, poverty grass, farkleberry, goat's rue,
pineweed, pinweed, and panic grass. Two interesting mammals in this
section are the smoky and pygmy shrews.

Approximately 9% (12 miles) of the proposed Interstate crosses the
**Escarpment Section** of the Shawnee Hills Natural Region in portions
of Greene and Monroe counties. This section includes rugged hills along
the eastern border of the region. Sandstone and sandstone- derived soils
are found on hill tops, and limestone and limestone-derived soils are
present at lower elevations. Karst features are common, especially in
the lower and middle elevations. Natural communities in this section
consist of various upland forest types, especially dry-mesic and mesic.
Species composition is similar to the Crawford Upland Section, except
certain species, such as post oak and black oak, commonly replace
chestnut oak on dry sites; and some of the mesic cove species,
especially those with Appalachian affinities, are absent. Limestone
glades and barrens occur in this section, but are more common in the
Highland Rim Natural Region. Limestone cliff communities occur at the
southern end of this section. Rare species such as alumroot, wall-rue
spleenwort, cleft phlox, wild liveforever, and black-seeded sedge can be
found in the limestone cliffs. Eastern woodrats live in the crevices of
cliffs along the Ohio River, which is also a roosting site for the black
vulture. Caves are also common. They support unique animal species such
as the troglobitic crayfish and northern cavefish. Some caves support
populations of hibernating bats, including the federal and state
endangered Indiana bat. Limestone gravel wash communities are found in
this section, and the wild blue indigo is apparently confined in Indiana
to these communities. Typical aquatic features include normally clear,
medium and high-gradient streams, springs, and sinkhole ponds.

The **Highland Rim Natural Region** within the study area includes the
**Mitchell Karst** **Plain Section** and the **Brown County Hills
Section**. This natural region is unglaciated, except relatively
unmodified glaciated areas at the northern and eastern boundaries. A
distinctive feature of this region is the large expanse of karst
topography, although several other major topographical features are also
present, such as cliffs and rugged hills. Much of the area was forested
in presettlement times, but large barrens, small glades (limestone and
siltstone), and gravel wash communities also occurred.

Approximately 11% (15 miles) of the proposed Interstate crosses the
**Mitchell Karst Plain Section** of the Highland Rim Natural Region, in
Monroe County. The major feature of this section is the karst (sinkhole)
plain. Several natural community types are associated with this plain,
including caves, sinkhole ponds and swamps, flatwoods, barrens,
limestone glades, and several upland forest types. The plain is
relatively level, although in some areas, especially near the section's
periphery, limestone cliffs and rugged hills are present. Caves are
common. The soils are generally well drained silty loams derived from
loess and weathered limestone. Possibly the largest area of barrens in
Indiana was located in this section. Species commonly found in remnants
of this prairie-like community include Indian grass, big bluestem,
little bluestem, rattlesnake master, prairie dock, hairy sunflower,
prairie willow, clasping milkweed, and *Carex meadii*. Most of Indiana's
limestone glades occur in this region, although most are in counties
outside the study area. This bedrock community has a prairie flora with
additional distinctive species, including downy milk pea, angle-pod,
axe-shaped St. John's wort, adder's tongue fern, crested coral root,
orchid, and heartleaf Alexander. Gravel wash communities of limestone
and chert border most streams. Characteristic species in these
communities include big bluestem, Indian grass, Carolina willow, water
willow, ninebark, pale dogwood, and bulrush. Karst wetland communities
are the major aquatic feature of this section. Southern swamp species
are known from some sinkhole swamps, including beakrush, log sedge,
giant sedge, Virginia willow, small buttercup, and netted chain fern.
Common dominants of these swamps are swamp cottonwood, pin oak, swamp
white oak, red maple, and sweetgum. Sinkhole pond communities normally
have open water and marshy borders with cattails, bulrush, bur-reed,
spatterdock, buttonbush, swamp loosestrife, bladderwort, and *Carex
comosa*. Several forest communities are also present in this section,
but the western mesophytic forest type is most common. Species
characteristic of this forest type include white oak, sugar maple,
shagbark hickory, pignut hickory, and white ash. Near glade communities
some xeric forest are characterized by post oak, chinquapin oak, and
blue ash. In karst areas, surface streams are few, as most of the
drainage is underground.

Approximately 11% (16 miles) of the proposed Interstate traverses the
**Brown County Hills Section**, in Monroe and Morgan counties. It is the
second section in the study area in the Highland Rim Natural Region.
This section is characterized by deeply dissected uplands, underlain by
siltstone, shale, and sandstone. The soils are well drained acid silt
loams with minor amounts of loess. Bedrock is near the surface, but
rarely crops out. Natural communities are rather uniform in composition,
with uplands dominated by oak-hickory, especially chestnut oak, and
ravines with mesic species, such as beech, red oak, sugar maple, and
white ash. The yellowwood tree is known in Indiana, but only from a
small area in this section. Small, high-gradient, ephemeral streams are
common, and larger streams are usually medium to low-gradient.

Finally, the **Central Till Plain Natural Region** is the fifth natural
region that comprises the I-69 study area. This region includes the
**Entrenched Valley Section** and the **Tipton** **Till Plain Section**.
The Central Till Plain Natural Region is the largest natural region in
Indiana, and is a formerly forested plain of the Wisconsinan till in the
central portion of the state. With the exception of the Entrenched
Valley Section, the topography is homogenous, although glacial features
such as moraines are common. The proposed Interstate does not pass
through the Entrenched Valley Section, therefore it is not discussed
further.

Approximately 14% (19 miles) of the proposed Interstate crosses the
**Tipton Till Plain** **Section**, in potions of Morgan, Johnson, and
Marion counties. This section is a mostly undissected plain formerly
covered by an extensive beech-maple-oak forest. The soils are
predominantly neutral silt and silty clay loams. The northern flatwoods
community associated with these poorly drained soils was ubiquitous but
now is confined to scattered woodlots. Species common within the
community include red maple, pin oak, bur oak, swamp white oak,
Shumard's oak, American elm, and green ash. In slightly better drained
sites, characteristic species include beech, sugar maple, black maple,
white oak, red oak, shagbark hickory, tulip poplar, red elm, basswood,
and white ash. Other community types of this section include bog,
prairie, marsh, seep, spring, and pond.

####### **[Major Drainages]{.underline}**

Three major rivers are crossed by the 3C corridor: the East Fork of the
White River, the Patoka River, and Pigeon Creek. The East Fork of the
White River is the largest river that would be crossed between
Evansville and Indianapolis. It is a slow-moving stream that drains
approximately 5,700 square miles. The proposed location for the I-69
bridge is approximately 1.5 miles east or upstream of the existing SR 57
bridge, which spans the East Fork between Pike and Daviess counties. The
Patoka River is approximately 100 miles long with an 860 square mile
drainage basin. The proposed crossing of this river is within the
acquisition boundary of the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge. Much
of this river has been dredged and straightened; however, the portion
from about US 41 to the Wabash River is still natural and meandering.
Pigeon Creek is a low-gradient stream with turbid waters. The proposed
bridge crossing for Pigeon Creek is in Gibson County. This creek is
classified as a legal drain and has been dredged in places to channelize
the stream. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)
has listed the Patoka River, southern portion of Pigeon Creek, and
portions of the East Fork of the White River on the 2002 303(d) List of
Impaired Waterbodies. Parameters of concern for the Patoka include PCBs
and mercury. Parameters for concern in Pigeon Creek include PCBs,
sulfates, TDS, pathogens, and low dissolved oxygen. The parameter of
concern for the East Fork of the White River upstream of the project
area is PCBs.

####### **[Karst Features]{.underline}**

Karst features are especially common in the Mitchell Plateau and
Crawford Upland physiographic/natural regions. The portion of
Alternative 3C in Monroe County, and to a lesser extent Greene County,
crosses karst terrain. The term "karst" refers to "landscapes
characterized by caves, sinkholes, underground streams, and other
features formed by the slow dissolving, rather than the mechanical
eroding of bedrock" (American Geological Institute 2001). Because the
underlying bedrock is easily dissolved by water, there is often a direct
connection between surface and ground water. Little water purification
occurs because the water flows directly through cracks and fissures
rather than percolating slowly through the ground as in other types of
terrain. Therefore, ground water resources are especially susceptible to
degradation from pollution in karst areas. Pollution from both urban
(e.g., untreated stormwater runoff, point-source dischargers/NPDES
permits) and rural sources (e.g., residential septic systems, livestock
waste, and agricultural pesticides) is an important concern in karst
areas.

Caves often contain highly specialized ecosystems with distinct
microclimates. Caves are not exposed to sunlight and the temperature of
the cave varies due to air movement near the entrances, the location (on
ridges or in valleys), and the temperature of water entering the cave.

Aquatic species that live in caves and karst terrain are especially
sensitive to pollution because it is easily introduced to their
environment via water flow with little filtering or dilution. However
other species such as bats that only use caves during part of their life
cycle (i.e., winter hibernation) also may be adversely affected by
pollution entering caves or changes to a cave's hydrology or temperature
regime.

Karst habitat is a non-renewable resource that is biologically important
because it provides habitat for a number of rare, threatened, and
endangered species that depend of caves to different degrees.
Troglobites are animals highly adapted to complete their entire life
cycle in cave environments. Troglobitic species often include flatworms,
isopods, amphipods, eyeless cave shrimp, cave crayfish, bristletails,
eyeless cave fish, and cave beetles. Because food in caves is scarce,
full time cave dwellers tend to be smaller, with lower metabolism and
longer life spans than their surface counterparts. Troglophiles pass
their life cycle within caves when sufficient food is present, or in
dark, cool, moist environments just outside the cave. Examples of
troglophiles include segmented worms, snails, copepods, spiders,
salamanders, springfish, phalangids, mites, pseudoscorpions, millipedes,
and cave crickets (*Hadenoecus*). Trogloxenes are species that use
caves, but cannot complete their life cycles within them. Crickets,
bats, pack rats, flies and gnats are trogloxenes. Many species of bats,
including the Federally endangered Indiana bat, use caves in karst areas
within the WAA of I-69. By collecting food on the surface and then
returning to caves, trogloxenes play an important role in providing food
(e.g., fecal matter) for cave animals that never venture outside. The
life histories of all cave animals highlight the fragility and
interconnectedness of the surface and the cave environments (NSS 2003).

**[Indiana Bats within the Action Area]{.underline}**

Prior to the initial formal consultation for Tier 1 of I-69, no previous
section 7 formal consultations involving Indiana bats have been
conducted within the boundaries of the Indiana bat Summer or Winter
Action Areas established for this project. However, numerous informal
and a few formal consultations have occurred for this species within
some of the same counties that will be traversed or in similar habitat
located elsewhere within southern Indiana. In general, more detailed
information is known about winter populations of Indiana bats in
hibernacula within the WAA than summer populations in the SAA. However,
the extensive mist netting surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005 by INDOT's
biological consultants contributed greatly to the Service's knowledge of
Indiana bat distribution and abundance along the 3C corridor.

**[Mist Net Surveys within the Summer Action Area]{.underline}**

At the time of the initial formal consultation for Tier 1 of I-69, only
one previous mist net survey had been conducted for Indiana bats near
the proposed I-69 corridor. In 1993, Dr. John Whitaker, Jr., conducted
mist net surveys for Indiana bats along INDOT's previously proposed
Southwest Indiana Highway Corridor connecting I-64 to Bloomington, which
basically followed the current Alternative 3C corridor of I-69. Although
Dr. Whitaker surveyed areas he thought to have high quality summer
habitat, he only captured Indiana bats at one of the 21 sites that was
surveyed. That one site was located along the Patoka River near the
proposed bridge crossing for I-69 and produced two lactating, female
Indiana bats indicating a nursery colony was located nearby (Whitaker
1996). Therefore, there were only records of a single maternity colony
within the I-69 SAA when FHWA and the Service conducted the initial
formal consultation for Tier 1 of I-69.

Since the December 3, 2003 BO for Tier 1 of I-69 was issued, INDOT has
completed numerous bat surveys as part of Tier 2. Between May 15, 2004
and August 15, 2004, a total of 148 mist net sites were surveyed within
the SAA for the proposed I-69. This included 12 sites in Section 1, 30
sites in Section 2, 23 sites in Section 3, 30 sites in Section 4, 24
sites in Section 5, and 29 sites in Section 6. The net sites are
depicted in Figure 1 (a large wall map) of the Tier 1 BA Addendum. These
survey sites, approximately one site per mile of proposed interstate,
were selected by FHWA, INDOT, and the BFO. Net sites included both
upland and stream locations. Upland sites consisted of trails and roads
bordered with forest, and forest corridors in pastures. Stream sites
were located along streams with forested riparian zones or wetlands.
Additional mist netting was conducted at 49 sites between July 12, 2005
and August 15, 2005. This includes six (6) sites in Section 1, 12 sites
in Section 2, six (6) sites in Section 3, 15 sites in Section 4, three
(3) sites in Section 5, and seven (7) sites in Section 6. The additional
mist net sites are shown on the I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis Indiana
Bat Survey map (Figure 1 of BAA). The majority of these sites were the
same as or near those surveyed in 2004. The additional mist netting was
conducted at or near survey sites from 2004 that produced a
reproductively active female or juvenile that could not be successfully
tracked to a roost tree. To our knowledge, this was the largest mist net
survey for bats ever conducted within the range of the Indiana bat for a
proposed transportation project and possibly any federal project or
program.

A total of 55 Indiana bats was captured in 2004 (n=48 bats) and 2005
(n=7 bats) and 34 of these bats were radio-tagged and tracked to a total
of 32 roost trees/sites. The 55 Indiana bats included, 21 reproductively
active (i.e., pregnant, lactating, or post-lactating) adult females, 8
non-reproductive adult females, 7 juveniles (i.e., young of the year),
and 19 adult males. Reproductive females were captured in each of the
six sections of the I-69 SAA and adult males were captured in all the
sections except Section 1.

**[Roost Trees Identified within the Summer Action Area]{.underline}**

Of the 32 roosts identified, eight (8) were primary roosts and 24 were
secondary roosts. A primary roost is defined as a roost with 30 bats or
greater observed during emergence counts. A secondary roost, or
alternate roost, is a roost with less than 30 bats observed during
emergence counts. Of the roosts identified, one (1) was a sugar maple
(live), six (6) were shagbark hickory , five (5) live and one (1) dead),
nine (9) were silver maple (six (6) live and three (3) dead), one (1)
cottonwood (dead), five (5) elm (all dead), one (1) ash (dead), one (1)
tulip poplar (live), five (5) dead trees of unknown species, one (1)
bridge, and two (2) utility poles.

The dbh for the roosts ranged from 6.9 inches to 30.0 inches, with an
average of 16.3 inches with a standard deviation of 6.9 inches. The dbh
for primary roosts ranged from 10.0 inches to 25.5 inches, with an
average of 15.3 inches and standard deviation of 5.1 inches. The dbh for
secondary roosts ranged from 6.9 inches to 30 inches, with an average of
16.6 inches and standard deviation of 7.5 inches. In this case, it was
atypical that the average diameter of the eight primary roost trees was
actually smaller than the average diameter of alternative roost trees.
Primary roosts are typically found in some of the largest dead trees
available and alternates in smaller trees. The cause of this atypical
result is unknown.

The percent of exfoliating bark ranged from 0% to 85%. The percent of
exfoliating bark for primary roosts ranged from 0% to 70%, and for
secondary roosts ranged from 0% to 85%. The percent of canopy closure
ranged from 0% to 100%. The percent of canopy closure for primary roosts
ranged from 0% to 75%, and for secondary roosts ranged from 0% to 100%.
Only five (5) of the roosts identified were in upland locations, the
remaining 26 were in riparian locations.

Distances from the roosts to the I-69 corridor range from zero (0) miles
to 2.6 miles. The average distance was one (1) mile with a standard
deviation of 0.7 miles. Only one (1) Indiana bat roost tree was
identified within the 2000-foot wide I-69 corridor. This roost tree was
a 14-inch dbh dead ash tree in a riparian corridor east of existing SR
37 in Section 6 near Martinsville. Additional detailed results of the
mist net surveys and associated radio-tracking, roost trees, and roost
emergence survey efforts are provided in the Tier 1 BA Addendum and
numerous Tier 2 survey reports and are hereby incorporated by reference.

**[Bridge Surveys for Roosting Bats]{.underline}**

Concurrent with the mist net surveys in 2004 and 2005, a total of 259
bridges within the SAA were inspected in order to identify Indiana bat
night-roosting sites. This included 54 bridges in Section 1, 68 bridges
in Section 2, 40 bridges in Section 3, 66 bridges in Section 4, 13
bridges in Section 5, and 18 bridges in Section 6. Bridges and culverts
within the proposed alignment, and along existing and connecting roads
were inspected. In most cases bridges were selected prior to field work
by INDOT, FHWA, and USFWS; however, some were added upon field
reconnaissance. Ten (10) bridges originally identified were not
inspected because they had been removed, were under construction, or
were small culverts. Bridges were checked for the presence of guano and
roosting bats during nighttime hours. Morphometric data was collected on
roosting bats and the habitat surrounding each bridge was generally
characterized.

Indiana bats were discovered roosting at only one (1) of the 259 bridges
surveyed. This bridge was located in Section 3. This bridge is not
specifically named in this document or the BA Addendum for sensitivity
reasons. On August 13, 2005, a total of 501 bats of several species
including 9 Indiana bats was found day-roosting beneath this bridge. It
was also used as a night roost for small numbers of Indiana bats and
hundreds of other bats. Both the north and south sides of this bridge
showed obvious signs of ongoing human activity and vandalism, such as
garbage and spray-painted graffiti. \[To prevent disturbance or
harassment to the Indiana bats and other bats species roosting beneath
this bridge, INDOT proposed to fence both the north and south sides of
the bridge as a Conservation Measure for the I-69 project and completed
this task in March 2006\].

**[Maternity Colonies within the Summer Action Area]{.underline}**

At the time of the December 2003 formal consultation for Tier 1 of I-69,
only one maternity colony was known in the SAA near the Patoka River.
However, based upon a spatial analysis of the 2004 and 2005 mist
netting, radiotelemetry, and emergence count efforts, the Service, in
informal consultation with INDOT and FHWA, determined that there were 13
Indiana bat maternity colonies with roosting/foraging areas within the
I-69 SAA. A maternity colony typically consists of reproductively active
female Indiana bats and their young (i.e., typically 1 pup/adult
female/year). A maternity colony was determined to exist if there was
evidence of reproduction in an area during the summer reproductive
season (the capture of a reproductive female or juvenile, or high
emergence counts at an identified roost). Each maternity colony's
roosting and foraging area was assumed to fall within a circle with a
2.5-mile radius centered on primary roosts, placed between multiple
roosts, or centered on mist net sites of Indiana bat capture if no
roosts were identified. These 13 maternity colonies had not been
identified and were not included in the original Tier 1 BA. The Service
believes it is unlikely that additional, unidentified maternity colonies
(beyond the 13 known colonies) exist in the portion of the SAA that will
be [directly]{.underline} impacted by I-69. If present, members of any
other maternity colonies are assumed to occur along the periphery of the
SAA and well beyond the reach of any significant direct or indirect
effects from I-69.

The 13 maternity colonies have been named after an associated river or
stream. They are listed below and the locations or their 2.5-mile areas
in relation to the I-69 corridor are shown in Figure 4.

+--------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+
| [      | [I-69     | > [\                                           |
| Colony | Se        | > Colony Name]{.underline}                     |
| N      | ction]{.u |                                                |
| umber] | nderline} |                                                |
| {.unde |           |                                                |
| rline} | [N        |                                                |
|        | umber]{.u |                                                |
|        | nderline} |                                                |
+--------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+
| 1\.    | 1         | > Pigeon Creek Maternity Colony                |
+--------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+
| 2\.    | 2         | > Patoka River Maternity Colony                |
+--------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+
| 3\.    | 2         | > Flat Creek Maternity Colony                  |
+--------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+
| 4\.    | 2         | > East Fork Maternity Colony                   |
+--------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+
| 5\.    | 2         | > Veale Creek Maternity Colony                 |
+--------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+
| 6\.    | 3         | > West Fork - Elnora Maternity Colony          |
+--------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+
| 7\.    | 4         | > Doans Creek Maternity Colony                 |
+--------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+
| 8\.    | 4         | > Plummer Creek Maternity Colony               |
+--------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+
| 9\.    | 4         | > Indian Creek Maternity Colony                |
+--------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+
| 10\.   | 5         | > West Fork - Bryant Creek Maternity Colony    |
+--------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+
| 11\.   | 6         | > West Fork - Clear Creek Maternity Colony     |
+--------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+
| 12\.   | 6         | > West Fork - Crooked Creek Maternity Colony   |
+--------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+
| 13\.   | 6         | > West Fork - Pleasant Run Maternity Colony    |
+--------+-----------+------------------------------------------------+

The Indian Creek Maternity Colony in Section 4 was initially identified
by a radiotagged male Indiana bat. The radiotagged male was tracked to a
conduit tube on the side of a utility pole in a residential yard in the
summer of 2004. Biologists conducting emergence counts of bats at this
utility pole observed from eight (8) to 20 bats emerge on six (6)
different nights. Because emergence counts do not identify bats to sex
or species, it was uncertain if the male Indiana bat was roosting with
other male Indiana bats, bats of other species, or female Indiana bats.
If the male was roosting with female Indiana bats, this roost could be a
potential Indiana bat maternity colony. Due to the uncertainty and
uniqueness of this roost, fecal DNA analysis was performed on guano
samples collected from the utility pole. The goal of the DNA analysis
was to determine the sex and species of bats roosting on the utility
pole. The DNA analysis was performed by Dr. Maarten Vonhof from the
Department of Biological Sciences at Western Michigan University.

Guano samples were collected from various heights within the plastic
covering of the utility pole. DNA analysis was conducted on 20 pellet
samples. The results showed all 20 samples to be *Myotis sodalis*
(Indiana bat). Of these 20 samples, eight (8) were female and eight (8)
were male. Four (4) of the samples could not be determined to sex. The
DNA analysis showed that both male and female Indiana bats were roosting
in the utility pole. The results of the DNA can be found in a report
titled, "Molecular Species and Gender Assessment of Bats Utilizing a
Roost Near an Interstate Expansion Project." Due to the presence of the
both male and female Indiana bats roosting on the utility pole, this
area was included in the analysis as the Indian Creek Maternity Colony.

**The Tier 2 discovery of these 13 "new" maternity colonies within the
SAA was one of the primary impetuses for the Service recommending that
FHWA consider reinitiating formal consultation for Tier 1 of I-69. These
13 maternity colonies represent 15% of the known Indiana bat maternity
colonies in Indiana (n=83) and 5% of the currently known maternity
colonies within the range (n=246 colonies; see Table 4). Assuming there
may be a total of 2900 maternity colonies throughout the species' range
(see Table 5), then these 13 maternity colonies would represent less
than one half of 1% (0.45%) of the total number.**

**[Maternity Colony Population Size Estimates]{.underline}**

When feasible, emergence counts conducted at roost sites as part of Tier
2 studies were used to determine minimum colony size estimates.
Maternity colony size estimates for the nine (9) colonies where
estimations were feasible ranged from 11 to 128 bats with an average
minimum colony size of 59 bats. Because it is practically impossible,
cost prohibitive, and highly disruptive to capture and radio-tag all
colony members, locate all of their roost trees and have a large enough
field staff to conduct simultaneous emergence counts at every roost
trees, **the Service has decided to conservatively assume that each
maternity colony is comprised of 80 adult females and their single
offspring**. **This would result in a maximum of 160 bats per colony by
mid- June when the young are born and when they become volant (i.e.,
capable of flight) around mid-July.** The Service believes an 80-adult
female colony size is a reasonable assumption based on the minimum
colony estimates generated during I-69 Tier 2 studies, other Indiana bat
studies within Indiana, and the concurrence of other Indiana bat experts
(see Whitaker and Brack 2002). To be conservative towards the bats, we
are assuming that 100% of adult females will successfully bear a live
pup and that 100% will survive to volancy, which is probably higher than
reality, but gives the benefit-of-the doubt to the species. The actual
reproductive rate of adult females in each maternity colony is unknown
as is the current mortality rate of adults and juveniles.

Because only eight (8) non-reproductive females were captured during the
2004 and 2005 mist net surveys and all of these females were captured
within three maternity colony areas in Section 2 (Patoka River, Flat
Creek, and Veale Creek), it is likely that they were associated with
these colonies. In fact, it was the radio-tracking of some of these
"non-reproductive" females that lead to the discovery of the primary and
alternate roost trees for the Patoka and Veale Creek colonies. Because,
these females were captured late in the summer survey season (August),
we assume that they actually had been reproductive earlier in the
summer, but could no longer be clearly identified as being such by the
biologists. The field biologist that had captured these bats in Section
2 concurred that our assumption was reasonable (pers. comm., with M.
Gilley, ESI Inc.,T 2004). **Based on these results, the Service is
assuming that all nonreproductive females in the SAA are associated with
one of the 13 identified maternity colonies and are thereby being
accounted for within the 80 adult females being estimated per maternity
colony. Therefore, given the documented presence of 13 maternity
colonies in the SAA and an approximate total of 160 females and their
pups per colony, then we can assume that there are a combined total of
approximately 2,080 (13 x 160 = 2,080) adult females (n=1,040) and
juveniles (1,040) within or adjacent to the defined SAA and that
variable proportions of the bats in these colonies are likely to be
exposed to direct and/or indirect effects from I-69.**

**[Adult Males within the Summer Action Area]{.underline}**

A total of 19 adult male Indiana bats was captured during the 2004 and
2005 mist net surveys within the entire 142 --mile long SAA. Over
two-thirds (n=13, 68%) of the 19 males were captured in Sections 4 and
5. This was anticipated, because Sections 4 and 5 contain multiple
hibernacula and the majority of male Indiana bats tend to remain
relatively close to their hibernacula during the summer. In fact, the
majority of the adult males were captured within the boundaries of the
WAA. While the exact number of adult males that occur with in the SAA
cannot be determined we can make a reasonable estimate of how many may
reside within the WAA during the summer by using several logical
assumptions. In the winter of 2005, biologists estimated that
approximately 74,042 Indiana bats hibernated with the WAA (including
54,325 in Ray's Cave + 19,717 from Table 16 of BA Addendum). If we
assume a 50:50 sex ratio, then half of these bats or 37,021 should be
adult males. If half of these males remain in forested habitat within 5
miles of their hibernaculum (i.e., the WAA), then there would be 18,510
adult male Indiana bats occupying the 143,948 acres of forested habitat
("tree cover" data) within the WAA during the summer, which equates to
approximately 0.13 adult males per acre of tree cover (we are assuming
an even distribution of male bats within the WAA). For the portion of
the I-69 SAA that extends north and south of the WAA (see Figure 4), we
will assume the density of adult males is half of what it is within the
WAA in summer or 0.065 adult males per acre of forested habitat.
Therefore, we assume there is an approximate total of 5,256 adult male
bats in the SAA (80,866 acres of forest x 0.065 bats/acre = 5,256 bats).

**[General Habitat Conditions]{.underline}**

According to the Tier 1 BA Addendum, FHWA and INDOT estimated that the
representative alignment for I-69 would directly impact approximately
2,148 acres of forest (2048 ac. upland forest and 100 ac. forested
wetland) and approximately 20 acres of non-forested wetlands (5 ac.
scrub/shrub and 15 ac. emergent). At this point in time, limited or no
field studies have been conducted to determine the relative quality or
general condition of the forested areas or wetlands (in regards to
Indiana bat habitat) that will be directly impacted. We anticipate this
type of information will be included in Tier 2 BAs. Nevertheless, the
following generic description of the existing habitat is believed to be
representative of much of the project area.

The native forest communities that once dominated the majority of
southwestern Indiana are now largely confined to scattered woodlots,
especially in the relatively flat, glaciated areas, which largely have
been converted to agricultural land uses. Within the species action
areas, agriculture, residential and commercial development, and
transportation infrastructure have resulted in extensive clearing and
construction. Agriculture and forest land uses dominant much of the
landscape. In addition, remaining natural habitats (e.g., forests and
wetlands) and previously converted agricultural lands are now widely
being converted for commercial and residential developments, especially
near larger cities such as Washington, Bloomington, Martinsville and
Indianapolis. Vegetation adjacent to most rivers, streams, and
tributaries that will be crossed by I-69 includes row crops, pasture,
old fields, and patches of riparian forest. Within the northern and
southern ends of I-69 corridor, much of the relatively high quality
wildlife habitat is commonly associated with river and stream corridors
and associated strips and small blocks of riparian forests. In addition
to riparian forest vegetation, isolated woodlots also occur within the
project area and a few larger areas that are managed as forest habitat
(e.g., Morgan-Monroe State Forest, Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center).
Many livestock pastures, and some grassy and brushy areas with widely
scattered mature trees and tree-lined fencerows also provide limited
wildlife habitat and potential travel corridors for bats.

**Baseline for the SAA and Maternity Colonies**

According to an updated version of Table 8 in the Tier 1 BA (provided by
BLA), the entire SAA encompasses a total of approximately 462,903 acres
(excluding the 13 maternity colony areas), of which 141,915 acres or 31%
is forested. Estimated forest cover within each project section is
summarized below in Table 6. **The Service will use the forest data
summarized in Table 6 as an approximate baseline of currently existing
forest habitat available within the entire SAA**, and assume that all of
the forest habitat within the SAA, approximately 141,915 acres, is of
moderate to high quality for roosting and foraging by Indiana bats. We
believe this is a reasonable assumption given that the project is within
the core of the Indiana bat's maternity range and that we know from
personal observations that many areas of high quality habitat are
scattered throughout the 3C corridor.

**Table. 6. Estimated amount of forest within the SAA of each Project
Section of Alternative 3C of I-69.**

  ------------- ------------ --------------- ----------------- --------------
  **Project\    **Total      **Total         **Percent of the  **Percent of
  Section\      Acres within Forested Acres  SAA within each   Total Forest
  Number**      Summer       within Summer   Project Section   within each
                Action       Action Area**   that is           Project
                Area**                       Forested**        Section**

  1             45,985       8,057           17%               6%

  2             89,912       18,022          20%               12%

  3             80,972       8,718           11%               6%

  4             85,755       53,714          63%               38%

  5             71,523       33,447          47%               24%

  6             88,346       19,957          23%               14%

  **Totals:**   462,903      141,915         31%               100%
  ------------- ------------ --------------- ----------------- --------------

Key parameters that may affect the quality of the summer habitat for
bats within the action area are the overall percentage of forest cover
in a specified area, the size of existing forest patches, and the degree
of connectivity among forest patches. Based on a thorough review of
literature on Indiana bat summer habitat, Rommé et al. (1995) concluded
that areas with less than 5% deciduous forest coverage will not support
summering Indiana bats. Localized areas considered as optimal habitat
tend to have greater than 30% forest cover. Forest cover within some
portions of the 3C corridor already may be too low or too fragmented
(e.g., portions of Marion, Johnson, Daviess and Gibson counties) to
support maternity colonies. Of the currently known Indiana bat maternity
colonies in Indiana that are being actively monitored (apart from the
I-69 colonies), only a few are persisting in areas with very low
percentages of forest cover (e.g., \<15%). In the cases where maternity
colonies still inhabit areas with little forest, the remaining forest
patches tend to be very well connected (A. King, pers. obs.).

In the Tier 1 BA Addendum, INDOT's consultant, BLA, conducted a detailed
GIS data analysis to estimate the current amount of tree cover within a
2.5-mile radius circle centered on each of the 13 maternity colonies
discovered during the summers of 2004 and 2005. **The current or
baseline acreages (e.g., % tree cover) and conditions of the 13
maternity colonies are summarized in Table 7 of the BA Addendum and are
hereby incorporated by reference.** Current total tree cover (5-meter
resolution) within each maternity colony was variable and ranged from
1,319 acres (11% of the total area) for the West Fork-Elnora colony in
Section 3 to 8,550 acres (68% of the total area) for the Plummer Creek
colony in Section 4. Forest core area for each maternity colony ranged
from 21 acres (2% of all trees) for the West Fork -Elnora colony to
2,928 acres (34% of all trees) for the Plummer Creek colony. The current
number of total tree cover "patches" for each maternity colony area
ranges from 53 patches in the Plummer Creek colony to 421 patches in the
Pigeon Creek colony. Generally, a higher number of patches translate to
more fragmentation and lower connectivity. Few large class patches, with
no mid-size patches and then a scattering of very small patches suggests
a high level of connectivity.

The majority of the forested tracts within the SAA are privately owned.
Some unknown number of Indiana bats occupying private forests is likely
to be adversely affected by non-protective timber harvest methods or
other activities conducted in a manner that degrades or destroys the
suitability of the habitat for Indiana bats. Conversely, we are aware of
some State-owned lands and private lands that are being managed in a
manner that is believed to be protective of Indiana bats. For example,
the Indiana DNR's Division of Forestry manages the Morgan-Monroe and
Martin State Forests, which both have parcels within the SAA. The
state's Division of Forestry also manages the Ravinia Woods parcel,
which was purchased by INDOT in partial fulfillment of meeting its I-69
forest mitigation commitment. The Division of Forestry is currently
preparing a Habitat Conservation Plan for all the lands it manages in
Indiana. Some level of incidental take of Indiana bats is anticipated on
these lands during timber management activities; however, the Service
believes that there ultimately will be a net benefit for the species. We
assume bat-friendly habitat management also is occurring at the
following areas (and will continue) within the SAA: Sugar Ridge Fish and
Wildlife Area, Thousand-Acre Woods, Griffy Woods Nature Preserve, Bean
Blossom Bottoms Nature Preserve, and Blue Bluff Nature Preserve.
Similarly, we know bat-friendly forest management occurs at Crane and
that all activities on the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge are
conducted in a manner that is protective of Indiana bats and many
actions benefit the bats.

**Ongoing Stressors in the SAA**

The Service believes the following State, local, and private actions are
currently occurring within the Action Areas and are likely to be
adversely affecting some percentage of Indiana bats to variable degrees,
and are likely to continue into the reasonably foreseeable future.

-   [Loss and degradation of roosting and foraging habitat]{.underline}
    -- variable amounts of private and public, commercial and
    residential developments are converting, fragmenting, or otherwise
    degrading forest habitat available for roosting and foraging,
    especially near larger urban centers and along primary and heavily
    traveled secondary roadways and their main intersections. Most of
    the forest within the SAA is privately owned by numerous individuals
    and entities and some unknown proportion of this habitat may be
    managed in a manner that degrades the quality or completely
    eliminates the habitat.

-   [Commercial and private timber harvesting]{.underline} -- Because
    some private timbering likely occurs on private lands within the SAA
    while bats are roosting in trees between 15 April and 15 September,
    some unknown number are exposed to this stressor and may be directly
    killed, harmed, or displaced as trees are felled in the summer.

-   [Cutting of Snags]{.underline} - While most primary and many
    alternate roost trees are dead snags that are ephemeral/short-lived,
    some small proportion are likely to be cut down before they would
    naturally fall in order to provide firewood, to improve aesthetics,
    or to reduce the risk of a dead tree from falling and hurting
    someone/thing (i.e., hazard tree).

-   [Degraded water quality]{.underline} -- Point and non-point source
    pollution and contaminants from agricultural, commercial, and
    residential areas are likely present in waterways within the Action
    Areas and may reduce aquatic insect biomass that form a portion of
    the Indiana bat prey base and/or have direct or other indirect
    adverse effects on the bats themselves (e.g., females may have
    reduced reproduction in heavily contaminated areas).

**Baseline for the [Winter Action Area]{.underline}**

Indiana bat spring-staging, fall-swarming and winter hibernacula habitat
requirements are described in the **Life History** section of the
biological opinion. Detailed information about each hibernaculum in the
WAA is contained in the Tier 1 BA and Tier 1 BA Addendum and is hereby
incorporated by reference. Indiana bats are dependent on suitable caves
for hibernation during the winter and the forested habitat that
surrounds them, which they use for foraging and roosting during the fall
swarming and spring staging periods. The INDOT conducted intensive field
surveys for Indiana bats at the numerous potential (i.e., previously
undocumented) hibernacula (caves and tunnels) within 5-miles of the 3C
corridor during the Tier 2 studies. The detailed results of these
surveys are summarized in the Tier 1 BA Addendum and are hereby
incorporated by reference. The primary findings are summarized below.

Of the 60 potential hibernacula surveyed during the [winter]{.underline}
of 2004/2005, a total of 32 Indiana bats were observed at three (3)
different caves. One Indiana bat was observed at Primitive Baptist
Spring Cave, 28 at Storms Pit Cave, and three (3) at Triple J Cave.
Primitive Baptist Spring Cave and Storms Pit Cave are considered new
hibernacula and were not originally included in those listed in the Tier
1 BA. Triple J Cave is considered part of the King Blair Cave System,
which was one of the original hibernacula included in the Tier 1 BA. Of
the 16 potential hibernacula surveyed in the [winter]{.underline} of
2005/2006, one (1) Indiana bat was observed at Ozzy's Hole. So, Ozzy's
Hole is now considered a new hibernaculum as part of this study.

Of the 60 caves surveyed during the fall swarming period in the
[autumn]{.underline} of 2004, a total of 17 Indiana bats (3 female and
14 male) were captured at eight (8) different caves. Indiana bats were
captured at Linthicum Springs Cave, Popcorn Springs Cave, Rush To It
Cave, Brinegar Cave (King Blair Cave System), Rail Tunnel, Reeves Cave,
Shirley Springs Cave, and Windy Rock Cave. Of the eight caves surveyed
in the [spring]{.underline} of 2005, no Indiana bats were captured. Of
the 16 caves surveyed during the [autumn]{.underline} of 2005, a total
of four (4) Indiana bats (all male) were captured at two (2) caves.
Indiana bats were captured at Ozzy's Hole and Mayfield Cave.

**Hibernating Populations**

Because Indiana bats form rather conspicuous clusters on cave ceilings
while hibernating, bat biologists are able to obtain remarkably accurate
estimates of winter populations within most hibernacula and thereby
track population trends over time. The Service assigns each Indiana bat
hibernaculum a "priority number" between 1 and 4 based on the number of
bats that they shelter and their relative importance towards recovery.
These priority numbers are defined below.

**[Priority 1 (P1)]{.underline}**: Essential to recovery and long-term
conservation of *M. sodalis*. Priority 1 hibernacula typically have (1)
a current and/or historically observed winter population ≥ 10,000
Indiana bats and (2) currently have suitable and stable microclimates
(e.g., they are not considered "ecological traps"). Priority 1
hibernacula are further divided into one of two subcategories, "A" or
"B", depending on their recent population sizes. Priority 1A (P1A)
hibernacula are those that have held at least 5,000 or more Indiana bats
at some point during the last decade (e.g., must have had 5,000 or more
hibernating bats since 1995). In contrast, Priority 1B (P1B) hibernacula
are those that have sheltered ≥ 10,000 Indiana bats at some point in
their past, but have not contained half that many (i.e., 0 -- 4,999
bats) during surveys conducted over the last decade.

**[Priority 2 (P2)]{.underline}**: Contributes to recovery and long-term
conservation of *M. sodalis*. Priority 2 hibernacula have a current or
observed historic population of 1,000 or greater but typically less than
10,000 and an appropriate microclimate.

**[Priority 3 (P3)]{.underline}**: Lower contribution to recovery and
long-term conservation of *M. sodalis*. Priority 3 hibernacula have
current or observed historic populations of 50 - 1,000 bats.

**[Priority 4 (P4)]{.underline}**: Least important to recovery and
long-term conservation of *M. sodalis*. Priority 4 hibernacula typically
have current or observed historic populations of less than 50 bats.

In 2003, only 10 Indiana bat hibernacula were known to occur within the
WAA and were included in the original Tier 1 BO. As a result of the
recent discovery of 3 new hibernacula during Tier 2 surveys and the
discovery of another hibernaculum by the Service and the IKC, and with
the inclusion of Ray's Cave, the total number of known Indiana bat
hibernacula within the WAA now stands at 15. The 15 caves forming the
basis of the WAA include nine (9) caves in western Monroe County -
Buckner, Coon, Grotto, King Blair/Brinegar, Leonard Springs, Primitive
Baptist Spring, Reeve's, Salamander, and Saltpeter caves, four (4) caves
in eastern Greene County -- Sexton Spring, Ashcraft, Ray's and Ozzy's
Hole, and two (2) caves in northwestern Lawrence County -- Sullivan and
Storms Pit caves.. **[These 15 known Indiana bat hibernacula located
within the WAA sheltered a combined total hibernating population of
74,042 Indiana bats in 2005/2006]{.underline}** (Brack et al. 2005, Andy
King per. comm.). Therefore, the 2005 WAA population represented
approximately 36% of all the Indiana bats hibernating within the State
of Indiana in 2005 (n = 206,610) and 16% of the range-wide population
estimated to be 457, 374 bats in 2005 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
unpublished data, 2006). **The Service considered the 2005 population
data for each hibernaculum individually and collectively (74,042 bats)
as the baseline for the Indiana bat population within the WAA.**
Population numbers and trends for individual caves within the WAA are
available in Table 16 of the Tier 1 BA Addendum.

Two of the hibernacula within the WAA, Coon (P1A) and Grotto (P1A)
caves, which are located in close proximity to one another, have
exhibited a dramatic increase in their hibernating populations of
Indiana bats since detailed surveys have begun. In 1960, Coon Cave only
had 9 Indiana bats and Grotto Cave had 200, but nearly each survey year
since then, these two caves have shown steady population increases.
Surprisingly, between the 2001 and 2003 winter surveys, these two caves
nearly doubled their winter populations with Coon Cave going from 6,395
bats to 10,675, and Grotto Cave going from 5,419 bats to 10,338. In
2005, with a combined population of 19,145 bats, Coon and Grotto caves
sheltered 25.8 % of the Indiana bats that hibernated within the WAA in
2005. Most of the other hibernacula within the WAA have remained
relatively stable or experienced population declines in recent survey
years.

In the winter of 2005, Ray's Cave (P1A) held an estimated 54,325 Indiana
bats making it the largest hibernating population in the WAA and the
second largest hibernaculum in the entire range of the species. It was
only surpassed by Wyandotte Cave (P1A) in Crawford County, Indiana,
which held 54,913 bats in 2005. The 15 hibernacula within the WAA
collectively held a total of 74,042 Indiana bats, which is approximately
16% of the known range-wide population. It is not known how much, if
any, inter-cave movement occurs among hibernacula in the WAA between
years, but movement between Ray's Cave and Coon and Grotto has been
recorded (Hall 1962) and exchanges between Coon and Grotto are
suspected.

Winter populations of Indiana bats in the State of Indiana declined from
1981 (148,000) to a low of 99,202 in 1985 before reaching a new recorded
high of 206,610 bats in 2005 (USFWS, unpublished data, 2006. State-wide
surveys of hibernacula in Indiana in 2005 revealed an increase of
approximately 23,278 Indiana bats or a 13% increase over the 2003
population of 183,332 bats (Brack et al. 2003, USFWS, unpublished data,
2006).

Five of the 15 WAA hibernacula are located within the Garrison Chapel
Valley (GCV), which is a well known karst area containing many large
caves and springs in western Monroe County. Coon and Grotto caves are
the most important hibernacula in the GCV, both are Priority 1A
hibernacula and are less than ½ mile apart (Dunlap 2001). In addition to
its large Indiana bat population, Grotto Cave also has the highest
population of little brown bats (*Myotis lucifugus*) of any cave in
Indiana (n = 2363 little brown bats in 2003; Brack et al. 2003). The
other three hibernacula in GCV, Buckner Cave, King Blair Cave System,
and Salamander Cave, are Priority 3 hibernacula, but their current
winter populations are all less than 200 Indiana bats. King
Blair/Brinegar and Saltpeter caves seem to show similar trends with
populations increasing in the 1990s and then showing quick declines in
the late 1990s and 2000s. Buckner and Salamander show similar trends of
sharp declines after the 1980s. Salamander Cave has shown little to no
use in surveys since 1987. Most of the population declines in the
Indiana bat hibernacula within the WAA are attributable to repeated
human disturbances during the winter (Brack et al. 2003), but the sudden
drop in Buckner Cave between 1987 and 1989 suggested a single
significant disturbance (shotgun blast, entrance room campfire, etc) may
have greatly reduced the hibernating population in this cave (Dunlap
2001).

Ashcraft Cave (P4) had a small population in the 1990s that declined to
only 3 bats in 1999 and had 0 bats in 2005. Leonard Spring Cave (P3) and
Sexton Spring Cave (P3) both seem to show trends of relatively stable
populations, although Leonard Spring Cave showed a dramatic decline in
2001 and a recovery in 2003 surveys (Brack et al. 2003). Reeve's Cave
(P4) was documented as a newly discovered hibernaculum containing 34
Indiana bats 2003 and 17 Indiana bats in 2005. Although the entrance to
Reeve's Cave is gated, the gate is not a bat-friendly design and may be
lowering the cave's suitability as an Indiana bat hibernaculum. The
gate's opening is much smaller than the original cave entrance and it
appears to restrict the cave's potential air flow and may be causing
flying bats to slow down while negotiating the gate and thus increasing
their risk of predation by domestic cats and other animals (per. comm.
with cave owner).

Sullivan, Primitive Baptist Spring, Storm's Pit, and Ozzy's Hole caves
are all recently discovered Priority 4 hibernacula that collectively
only held 55 Indiana bat in 2005.

**Available Swarming/Staging Habitat**

INDOT's consultant, BLA, estimated the amount of tree cover within a
5-mile radius of 14 of the 15 (not calculated for Ozzy's Hole, which
only had 1 bat) known Indiana bat hibernacula in the WAA and within the
collective boundaries of these hibernacula, which comprise the overall
WAA. These estimates were derived from aerial photos and provide a good
indication of the quantity of foraging and roosting habitat that is
currently available to bats during the swarming and staging periods. The
estimates were presented in Table 18 of the Tier 1 BA Addendum and are
hereby incorporated by reference. The total area within a single circle
having a 5-mile radius is 50,240 acres or 78.5 square miles. The tree
cover estimates around individual hibernacula ranged from a low of
25,763 acres around Saltpeter Cave to a high of 32,632 acres of tree
cover around Sexton Spring Cave. Therefore, percentages of forest ranged
from 51% to 65% of the land within 5 miles of each cave. Collectively
the revised WAA (including Ray's Cave) encompasses approximately 238,954
acres in western and southwestern Monroe, eastern Greene, southeastern
Owen, northwestern Lawrence, and northeastern Martin counties (Figure 4)
of which approximately 60% (143,948 acres) is forest.

A separate analysis of swarming habitat surrounding each of the10 caves
where small numbers of Indiana bats were captured during the falls of
2004 and 2005 was not deemed warranted and therefore was not conducted.
If a 5-mile buffer had been placed around these caves, the majority of
the area would already be contained within the currently delineated WAA
and therefore are mostly captured in calculations for the total WAA.

The vast majority of forested tracts within the WAA is privately owned
and may be vulnerable to timber extraction or other activities that may
degrade or destroy the suitability of the habitat for Indiana bats. At
this time, we are aware of two large forested parcels totaling 543 acres
that are providing high-quality swarming habitat to the bats hibernating
in the caves in the Garrison Chapel Valley in Monroe County and will
remain forested in perpetuity. One parcel is enrolled in the Federal
Forest Legacy program and the other has been voluntarily placed under a
conservation easement held by the Sycamore Land Trust. Purchase of a
third forested parcel containing Coon and Grotto caves is actively being
pursued at this time by the Indiana DNR with the aid of Federal and
state funds.

A minimum threshold or optimum amount of surrounding swarming/staging
habitat has yet to be defined for Indiana bats. However, we assume that
Indiana bats are more likely to have their foraging and roosting needs
met if their hibernacula are immediately (the closer the better)
surrounded by large, relatively undisturbed contiguous tracts of mature
and overmature forest as opposed to being surrounded by only small,
highly fragmented woodlots, interspersed with agricultural, commercial,
and residential areas. Additional habitat parameters that may be more
indicative of the swarming/staging habitat's quality and degree of
connectivity were included in the BA Addendum.

**Ongoing Stressors in the WAA**

The Service believes the following State, local, and private actions are
currently occurring within the WAA and are likely to be adversely
affecting some unknown percentage of Indiana bats to variable degrees,
and are likely to continue into the reasonably foreseeable future.

-   [Repeated human disturbance of hibernating bats]{.underline} --
    primarily caused by local and regional, organized recreational
    cavers, spelunkers, and vandals. Fourteen of the 15 hibernacula in
    the WAA are privately owned caves, only Ashcraft Cave is on
    state-owned land. Coon and Grotto caves are being specifically
    managed to protect hibernating Indiana bats via a private lease held
    by the Indiana Karst Conservancy. Only three of the 15 caves are
    currently gated or fenced to prevent unauthorized human visitation.

-   [Loss and degradation of swarming/staging habitat]{.underline} --
    commercial and residential development are slowly encroaching upon
    many of the hibernacula, especially those close to the west side of
    Bloomington and are reducing the overall amount of forest cover
    available for roosting and foraging. Fortunately, hibernacula and
    surrounding forests in Monroe County receive some level of
    protection under the county's current zoning ordinances and the
    required timber harvest permits required by the Monroe County
    Planning Department. There is no zoning or oversight of timber
    harvests in Greene or Lawrence counties. Because, the vast majority
    of the remaining forest within the WAA is privately owned by
    numerous individuals and entities, some proportion of the forest
    land may be vulnerable to activities that could temporarily or
    permanently degrade or destroy the suitability of the habitat for
    Indiana bats.

-   [Degraded water quality]{.underline} -- Some private residential
    developments with faulty septic systems are likely to be introducing
    untreated residential sewage into underground streams that may flow
    through some of the hibernacula and eventually resurface at springs,
    reducing aquatic insects and a portion of the Indiana bat prey base.

-   [Commercial and private timber harvesting]{.underline} --Because
    some unquantified number of large and small timber harvests occur
    within 5-miles of hibernacula while bats are roosting in trees
    between 1 April and 15 November some unknown number may be directly
    taken as the roost trees are felled.

**[Bald Eagles in the Action Area]{.underline}** (not revised since
Original BO)

No previous section 7 formal consultations involving bald eagles have
been conducted within the boundaries of the Bald Eagle Action Area
established for Alternative 3C of I-69, however, the Service has
conducted informal consultations in similar eagle habitat elsewhere in
the state. Bald eagle habitat requirements are described in the **Life
History** section of the biological opinion.

Most of the bald eagles nesting within Indiana today are the result of a
successful eagle restoration project conducted from 1985 to 1989 by the
Indiana DNR's Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program. Over this
five-year period, 73 bald eagle chicks were hacked and released at
Monroe Reservoir in Monroe County. When the released eagles reached
adulthood at four to five years of age, many returned to nest within
50-100 miles of where they had fledged. Most nests are located in south
central Indiana and are found on larger reservoirs and along the Wabash
and White River. Indiana\'s first successful bald eagle nest in this
century was in 1991 at Lake Monroe. The state\'s last successful nest
before then was in 1897. By that time Indiana had lost most of its once
extensive wetland habitat and in the 1950's and 60's eagle populations
decreased further as they failed to reproduce due to egg shell thinning
caused by pesticides, such as DDT. As of March 2003, there were 37
reported bald eagle nests within the southwestern portion of the
Indiana. Some of these nests may serve as winter use sites too.
Twenty-three of the 37 nest sites were also used by eagles in 2002.

Midwinter bald eagle surveys conducted since 1979 have shown a dramatic
increase in wintering eagles in the state. During the Midwinter Eagle
Survey in January 2003, 145 bald eagles were counted, 29% below the
count for 2002 and 48% fewer than the record of 280 in 2001. However,
this is only 5% below the average of the past 10 years. The low number
counted in 2003 is attributed to a lack of sustained cold weather prior
to the survey, resulting in fewer numbers of eagles moving south
(Castrale and Holbrook 2003). Bald eagle research in Indiana by the IDNR
Non-game Wildlife Program is ongoing and includes winter surveys by
helicopter, monitoring of bald eagle nests, and banding of young bald
eagles.

**Nesting and Wintering Areas within or near the Action Area**

No known nests are currently located within the Bald Eagle Action Area.
However, nests in two areas are less than a mile of the Action Area
boundary.

1.  The first nest is located on the West Fork of the White River near
    Waverly in Morgan County. This nest was first reported in 2002. If
    standard disturbance management zones are implemented around this
    nest (USFWS 1983a), the tertiary zone would likely overlap a portion
    of the Action Area's outer limit, which follows S.R. 37 in this
    project section.

2.  The second nesting area is located near the South Fork of the Patoka
    River, east of the proposed I-69 bridge crossing in Gibson County.
    Two bald eagle nests are located in this area and were first
    reported in 2001 and again in 2002, and 2003. The two nests are less
    than 1,500 feet from one another, and are assumed to be within the
    breeding area of a single pair of eagles. Both nests are on Federal
    land managed by the Service's Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge
    staff. The proposed 3C corridor is just over 1 mile from the
    tertiary zone boundaries of both nests or just outside of the Bald
    Eagle Action Area.

Although bald eagles could potentially nest in different forest, wetland
or riparian areas within the Action Area, the most likely nesting areas
are near the proposed crossings of the Patoka River and the East Fork of
the White River and in the areas where 3C Corridor closely approaches
the West Fork of the White River (project sections 2, 5, and 6; Figures
2 and 3). Likewise, most of the wintering bald eagles should be
concentrated in these same areas.

No bald eagles nested near the proposed I-69 crossing of the East Fork
of the White River in 2003. In 2002, the nearest reported nest on the
East Fork was about 8 miles upstream from the proposed crossing. Also,
there was a reported nest just over 10 miles west of the proposed
crossing on the mainstem of the White River, downstream from the
proposed I-69 crossing.

**Ongoing Threats**

The Service believes the following State, local, and private actions are
likely to be occurring to some bald eagles or their habitat within [or
near]{.underline} the Bald Eagle Action Area, and that these activities
may be adversely affecting them to some degree and are likely to
continue into the reasonably foreseeable future.

-   [Disturbance of eagles while nesting, foraging, and
    perching/roosting]{.underline} -- eagles are often disturbed
    visually and/or by load noises from various sources such as
    motorized watercrafts, all-terrain vehicles, road traffic, farm
    machinery, chainsaws, and gunshots.

-   [Degradation of water quality/prey base]{.underline} - Point and
    non-point source pollution from things such as agricultural
    pesticides, soil erosion, road salt, livestock waste, and
    commercial, industrial, and residential wastes all reduce aquatic
    diversity and abundance including fish that form a large portion of
    the bald eagle's prey base.

-   [Loss of bottomland and riparian forest habitat]{.underline} --As a
    result of expanded agricultural, industrial, commercial, and
    residential developments and timber harvests within the floodplains
    of large rivers.

**IV. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION**

While analyzing direct and indirect effects of the proposed action, the
Service considered the following factors:

-   [proximity of the action]{.underline} to known species locations and
    designated critical habitat,

-   [distribution of the disturbances]{.underline} and impacts (in this
    case a linear corridor),

-   [timing of the effects]{.underline} in relation to sensitive periods
    in the species' lifecycle,

-   [nature of the effects]{.underline} -- how the effects of the action
    may be manifested in elements of a species' lifecycle, population
    size or variability, or distribution, and how individual animals may
    be affected,

-   [duration of effects]{.underline} - short-term, long-term,
    permanent,

-   [disturbance frequency]{.underline} - number of events per unit of
    time, and

-   [disturbance severity]{.underline} - how long would it take a
    population to recover?

**[INDIANA BAT]{.underline}**

The original discussion of the direct and indirect effects of I-69 from
the original BO has been moved from this location and placed in
**Appendix A**. This discussion is still valid, but was placed in an
appendix to improve clarity and flow of the revised BO.

**[New Effects Analysis]{.underline}**

Because much more detailed information and data are now available for
analysis, we were able to conduct a much more thorough and rigorous
effects analysis for the Indiana bat for this revision to the BO. For
this revision, we deconstructed I-69 into its various project elements
and determined the direct and indirect environmental consequences that
Indiana bats would be exposed to. We conducted various exposure analyses
for each project activity that may directly or indirectly affect the
bats and outlined the likely responses of the bats and their local
populations to each of these potential stressors. Our primary focus was
placed on the 13 maternity colonies in the SAA and the 15 hibernacula in
the WAA. We determined which of the project-related stressors was likely
to result in take of Indiana bats and conducted a detailed incidental
take analysis for bats in both the SAA and WAA. The results of our
effects and incidental take analyses are summarized in a series of five
tables (Tables B1-B5) presented in **Appendix B**. Please review each of
these tables for further information. Only key findings of these effects
analyses are discussed in greater detail below.

**[Stressors]{.underline}**

The primary, project-related stressors that we determined Indiana bats
were likely to be directly or indirectly exposed to that were also
likely to cause some level of incidental "take" included:

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   I-69 Direct Impacts/Loss of [Roosting]{.underline} Habitat\       |
|     (seasonal cutting restrictions observed so no direct killing      |
|     anticipated),                                                     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   I-69 Direct Impact/Loss of [Foraging]{.underline}                 |
|     Habitat/[Connectivity,]{.underline}                               |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   Construction [Noise]{.underline}/Vibrations causing bats to       |
|     stress and flee roosts, with increased risk of predation (while   |
|     bats are present in adjacent areas),                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   Disturbance & Habitat Loss associated w/ Demolition and           |
|     Relocation of 390 Homes & 76 Businesses (no timing restrictions), |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   Habitat loss from I-69 related Utility Relocations (no timing     |
|     restrictions/bats may be present),                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   Additional High-speed traffic in Action Area leading to Roadkill, |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   I-69 Indirect/Induced Loss of Roosting and Foraging Habitat (no   |
|     restrictions/bats present)                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| -   Increased Levels of Disturbance/Vandalism of Bats in Vulnerable   |
|     Hibernacula                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

> Other potential project-related stressors that bats may be exposed to,
> but are not anticipated to cause incidental take because of their
> insignificant or discountable effects are listed in Table B1 in
> Appendix B.

**[Responses of Exposed Bats to Stressors]{.underline}**

With an understanding of how, when, and where Indiana bats will be
exposed to the proposed action, we then determined whether and in what
manner these individuals are likely to respond after being exposed to
the proposed action's effects on the environment or directly on the
Indiana bats themselves. To accomplish this, we asked "How will Indiana
bats likely respond after being exposed to the effects of the proposed?"
Our analysis entailed identifying the range of possible responses
Indiana bats could exhibit as a result of being exposed to the
project-related stressors (see Table B1 in Appendix B). To ensure a
thorough analysis of effects, the range of probable responses, not just
the most deleterious, for each exposure pathway were identified. As is
true in humans, bats typically demonstrate some degree of individual
variability as seen by their range of responses to various stimuli.
Therefore, accurately predicting how a generic, individual Indiana bat
may or may not respond to a stressor is an inherently difficult task
with little scientific literature available for guidance. Nevertheless,
relying heavily on our personal knowledge of the species and general
biological principles and logic, we identified the following [range of
responses]{.underline} of individuals and their local populations during
or after exposure to project-related stressors:

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  0\. no response

  1\. startled: increased respiration/heart rate

  **2. death/injury of adults and/or offspring**

  **3. flees from roost during daylight / ↑predation risk**

  4\. abandons roost site(s)

  5\. abandons foraging areas

  6\. shifts focal roosting and/or foraging areas

  **7. ↑ energy expenditures / ↓ fitness (short-term)**

  8\. ↓ energy expenditures / ↑ fitness (long-term)

  **9. aborted pregnancy/repro. Failure**

  **10. ↑torpor, delayed development/partuition, and/or delayed sexual
  maturation of offspring**

  **11. short-term ↓ colony reproductive rate (3-4 seasons)**

  **12. short-term ↓ in colony/hibernaculum size (3-4 seasons)**

  13\. long-term ↑ colony reproductive rate

  14\. long-term ↑ in colony/hibernaculum size/fitness level

  **15. long-term ↓ in colony/hibernaculum size/fitness level**
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Response numbers 2, 3, 7, 9, and 10 are in bold because we anticipated
that these negative responses are likely to rise to the level of take
(as defined in the ESA) of one or more exposed Indiana bats in the
action area. Similarly, Responses 11, 12, and 15 are the negative
responses to local populations that would result from take of individual
bats.

Please see Table B1 in Appendix B, which identifies the specific
behavioral and physiological responses of individuals and the
demographic responses of local maternity colonies/hibernating
populations that we anticipate will occur for each of the
project-related activities.

**Analysis of Stressors Causing Take of Individual Bats**

**[Loss of Roosting and Foraging Habitat]{.underline}** - Because
potential roost trees within the I-69 footprint will be cleared while
bats are absent (between 15 September and 15 April), we do not
anticipate any direct mortality from the felling of these trees.
However, a few individual females from each of the 13 maternity colonies
may be taken once they return to their traditional roosting areas the
following season and find that their primary or alternate roost tree is
gone. Given the locations of the known roost trees, we have generally
assumed that no primary maternity roost trees (i.e., roost trees used by
≥ 30 adult females and or their offspring on multiple occasions) are
likely to be directly felled during the construction phase of I-69
(Table B3, Appendix B). However, we do believe it is reasonable to
assume that between one to ten occupied alternate roost trees typically
containing far less than 30 bats may be felled and lead to the death or
injury of some proportion (but not all) of the bats as a result of I-69
induced growth and/ or the relocation of those people displaced by the
interstate.

Because the footprint of this transportation project is primarily linear
in shape, losses to any one patch or areas of important habitat (e.g.,
maternity colony area or hibernacula swarming areas) are automatically
minimized. For most maternity colonies and hibernacula areas it appears
that I-69 would not directly or indirectly eliminate a significant
amount of the existing forest cover nor would it create a permanent
barrier to movement among forest patches. (see Table B2 in Appendix B).

Because maternity colonies and individual male Indiana bats commonly
shift their use among multiple roost trees it is assumed that some
unoccupied roost trees will be felled as well. In this case no direct
adverse effects or take will occur, but some indirect adverse affects
could still stress some Indiana bats to the point where take is
reasonably certain to occur. For example, it is possible that the
majority of the alternate roosts trees being used by one or more of
the13 maternity colonies are located within or near some of the proposed
interchange areas and as a result a large proportion of such a colony's
alternate roosts (assuming primaries will remain standing) may be
felled. Loss of multiple alternate roost trees would cause displaced
individuals to expend increased levels of energy while seeking out
replacement roost trees. If this increased expenditure occurred during a
sensitive period of a bat's reproductive cycle (e.g., pregnancy) it is
assumed that spontaneous abortion or other stress-related reproductive
delays or losses would be a likely response in some individuals,
particularly those that may have already been under other environmental
stresses or perhaps stressed by other project-related stressors (e.g.,
increased noise levels). It has been hypothesized that these stresses
and delays in reproduction could also cause lower fat reserves and
ultimately lead to lower winter survival rates (USFWS 2002). For
example, females that do give live birth may have pups with lower birth
weights or their pups may have delayed development (i.e., late into the
summer). This could in turn affect the overwinter survival of the
young-of-the-year bats if they enter fall migration and winter
hibernation periods with inadequate fat reserves.

**[Noise, Tree Felling, and Predation Risk]{.underline}** -- Most noise
generated from project-related construction activities will likely occur
during daylight hours when Indiana bats are roosting in trees.
Unfamiliar noises from the operation of chainsaws, bulldozers, skidders,
trucks, etc. are likely to occur in relatively close proximity to
occupied primary and alternate roost trees during the summer
reproductive season. The novelty of these noises and their relative
volume levels will likely dictate the range of responses from
individuals or colonies of bats. At low noise levels (or farther
distances), bats initially may be startled and have increased
respiration/heart rates, but they would likely habituate to the low
background noise levels. At closer range and louder noise levels
(particularly if accompanied by physical vibrations from heavy machinery
and the crashing of falling trees) many bats would probably be startled
to the point of fleeing from their day-time roosts and in a few cases
may experience increased predation risk. Because the noise levels in
construction areas will likely continue for more than a single day the
bats roosting within or close to these areas are likely to shift their
focal roosting areas further away or may temporarily abandon these
roosting areas completely. Callahan (1993) noted that the likely cause
of the bats in his study area abandoning a primary roost tree was
disturbance from a bulldozer clearing brush adjacent to the tree. Female
bats in Illinois used roosts at least 1640 ft (500 m) from paved
roadways (Garner and Gardener 1992). Very low bat usage close to
Interstates has also been noted by other bat biologists (Whitaker, Jr.
per. comm.). Conversely, some bats did use roosts near the
I-70/Indianpolis Airport area, including a primary maternity roost 1,970
ft (0.6 km) south of I-70. This primary maternity 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 more suitable roosting areas and furthermore the noise
levels from the airport were not novel to the bats, so they had
apparently habituated to them (USFWS 2002).

We also assume that some bats that would be startled by the noise and
vibrations coming from a chainsaw would successfully exit their roost
trees prior to the tree being felled. Bats that remained in a roost tree
and survived the initial felling would likely try to crawl and fly away
from the immediate area, but being unaccustomed to flying during the
daytime and likely injured or disoriented from the fall, would likely
have a relatively high risk of predation from diurnal predators. Bats
that successfully flee the disturbance uninjured would not be expected
to return to that area and would likely shift their focal roosting (and
perhaps foraging) area at least temporarily. We assume that any
surviving young that were still nursing and non-volant (i.e. to young to
fly) would soon die if their lactating mothers were directly or
indirectly killed by a felled roost tree during the middle of the
maternity season.

**[Roadkill]{.underline} -** We anticipate that bat-auto collisions
(i.e., roadkill) on the proposed interstate would be the single largest
cause of take to Indiana bats (both male and female) within the Summer
Action Area (n=126 bats over 17 years) and the second leading cause of
take in the Winter Action Area (See Tables B4 and B5 in Appendix B).
However, because we anticipate that the total amount of take will be
evenly spread over a projected 17-year period of time, we anticipate
that the annual amount of take for any given maternity colony or
hibernating population will be insignificant. For example, we have
conservatively estimated the risk of roadkill for each colony of 160
bats has a 0.05% chance of take over the course of 17 years, which is
equivalent to 8 bats per colony. Likewise, this amount of roadkill is
insignificant at the regional or species level.

**[Increased Risk of Disturbance/Vandalism of Bats in Vulnerable
Hibernacula]{.underline} -** Because I-69 is anticipated to induce
indirect development and thereby increase the human population within
the WAA and will provide improved, convenient accessibility to people
that live outside the WAA (e.g., via the proposed Greene/Monroe
countyline interchange), we believe it is reasonable to assume that a
small proportion of these "new" people will want to explore the caves in
the area and will thereby increase the inherent risk of disturbing
hibernating Indiana bats within caves that are currently unprotected
(i.e., ungated and/or unfenced). Therefore, we have estimated that this
increased risk is equivalent to a taking of 1% of the 2005 winter
population of each unprotected hibernaculum within the WAA at some
point(s) after I-69 becomes operational through the year 2030 (see
Appendix B, Table B5). This scenario also assumes that the owners of
vulnerable hibernacula will not allow their cave(s) to be gated (this is
a reasonable assumption in itself given previous failed attempts at at
least one important cave). In a reasonable worst-case scenario an
unauthorized visitor(s) or vandal(s) would enter a hibernaculum and
directly or indirectly kill/take (e.g., direct, physical contact with
bats is not required for arousal to occur and essential fat reserves to
be depleted and subsequently leading to starvation) hundreds of Indiana
bats. While this scenario could still occur with or without I-69, we
believe that it is more likely to happen with the proposed interstate
and interchanges in place (i.e., overall improved accessibility).
However, the Service believes it is extremely unlikely (i.e.,
discountable) that I-69 would cause an increased risk of someone
physically altering or vandalizing unprotected caves to the degree that
they would no longer remain suitable habitat. Typically, the worst
physical alterations to the caves themselves are likely to be an
increased prevalence of spray-painted graffiti and trash.

**Insignificant and/or Discountable Stressors to Individual Bats**

**[Short-term Water Quality Impacts]{.underline} -** Water quality
affects the Indiana bat in the Action Areas in terms of its aquatic
insect prey and drinking water sources. In general, the streams in the
Action Areas exhibit a wide variety of aquatic habitat types and
associated species. The project area has many ephemeral and perennial
streams with narrow riparian areas that will be crossed by I-69. There
is some potential for sediment to move down the ephemeral channels into
intermittent and perennial streams after rainfall events. Removal of
vegetation during or after grading activities could potentially cause
short-term adverse effects on the hydrologic characteristics and water
quality in a watershed. A reduction in vegetative cover could
potentially increase water yield and stream discharge; changes in
vegetation cover could alter normal nutrient cycles in both terrestrial
and aquatic systems, and use of temporary access/construction roads and
trails during the construction phase could cause soil erosion leading to
sedimentation. Potential effects from removal of vegetation and soil
disturbance would be temporary. Proposed soil erosion and sediment
control measures such as riparian vegetative buffer strips, equipment
limitation zones, contouring for drainage control, outsloping roads, and
providing waterbars, mulching, and seeding would be implemented and
greatly reduce water quality degradation. Finally, some small potential
exists for accidental fuel/oil spills or spills of other hazardous
materials from chainsaws and heavy equipment during the pre-grading
forest clearing phase and related roadwork, which could degrade the
quality of both surface and ground water, but given the degree of
project oversight, we believe the odds of a large spill occurring and
entering a waterway are discountable. Although, water quality could also
be adversely affected during a major spill or accident once I-69 is
operational, the probability of this not known. These types of impacts
will be considered further in Tier 2.

**Risks to Local Bat Populations**

**[Maternity Colonies]{.underline}** -- Bat surveys and radio-tracking
studies have documented the presence of 13 maternity colonies, which we
are assuming are comprised of 80 adult females and their 80 young (13
colonies x 160/colony = 2080 reproductive female and juvenile bats) in
the SAA. We estimated that during the first 20+ years of the I-69
project that a maximum combined total of 281 adult female and juvenile
Indiana bats may be taken directly or indirectly taken by
project-related activities (see Table B4 in Appendix B). For
perspective, even if all of this take were to occur within a single
reproductive season (again this is not anticipated), it would only cause
a relatively small decline in the estimated [annual]{.underline} local
breeding population (281/2080 bats = 13.5% loss) within the Summer
Action Area. We anticipate that take of these individuals would likely
be spread among many of the 13 maternity colonies, not just a few.
However, in a worst-case scenario, where all 281 estimated bats were
taken from just 6 of the 13 existing colonies, this would still only
represent a 30% reduction in each of these colony's memberships. Under
no likely scenarios, is the estimated amount of loss/take of
reproductive individuals likely to cause an appreciable long-term change
in viability of an individual maternity colony let alone to the species'
regional or range-wide status. At worst, only short-term (2 or 3
maternity seasons) reproductive loss and reduction in numbers of 13
local maternity colonies is anticipated as a result of the Proposed
Action. In none of the maternity areas is the amount of proposed tree
clearing or anticipated induced development believed to be extensive
enough to cause a maternity colony to be permanently displaced from its
traditional summer range. If however, our suppositions are wrong and
these maternity colonies are displaced, there is currently additional
suitable habitat available in adjacent areas that they could relocate to
with minimal effort (personal observations based upon aerial photo
interpretations).

Please refer to Tables B2 -- B4 for a comparison of anticipated impacts
among the 13 maternity colonies. As indicated in Table B3, **despite the
direct and indirect impacts from I-69 and other cumulative impacts, the
Service believes that all 13 of the maternity colonies should still be
able to persist in their current maternity areas (MA), especially if
proposed mitigation efforts are successful.** In fact, the Service only
has a high level of concern for four out of the 13 colonies in regards
to their long-term (50+ years) conservation/sustainability. Based upon
our analysis, the colonies that are at greatest long-term risk of
becoming non-viable are Pigeon Creek, Veale Creek, West Fork -- Crooked
Creek, and West Fork -- Pleasant Run. We will be taking an especially
close look at these colonies during our review of Tier 2 BAs and their
mitigation plans to further ensure their conservation.

**Pigeon Creek Colony** -- This colony has a low percentage of existing
tree cover (15%) and has the highest acreage of habitat threatened by
cumulative effects from development and potential dredging of legal
drains. The cumulative impacts (279-acre reduction in tree cover by
2030) are likely the largest threat to this colony at its present
location. This colony is located near the intersection of I-64 and I-69
and has a proposed interchange within the maternity area, which will
likely hasten further development. No roost trees were found for this
colony in Tier 2 field studies. Lots of habitat along Pigeon Creek
remains to the east of this MA. We are not aware of any permanently
protected forest habitat in this area.

**Veale Creek Colony** -- The 2.5-mile area surrounding this colony
currently has low tree cover (15%) and the I-69 representative alignment
runs very close to the colony's primary roosting area. This colony is
also near the City of Washington and the proposed interchange of I-69
and U.S. 50.

**West Fork -- Crooked Creek Colony --** This colony is located in an
area with moderate tree cover (30%) that is highly fragmented and poorly
connected. Because this colony is within an easy commuting distance of
Indianapolis, cumulative impacts from residential development are very
likely here. A new, large golf-course community is currently planned
within this area.

**West Fork -- Pleasant Run Colony --** This colony is in a very rapidly
developing area along S.R. 37 south of Indianapolis. Although it
currently has 19% tree cover, it will likely be threatened by high
cumulative impacts in the foreseeable future.

In summary, the following effects are anticipated for the 13 maternity
colonies within the SAA:

-   Habitat loss will be minimal for all colonies: 10 colonies will lose
    less than 1% of their tree cover, and the other three will lose
    1.4%, 1.5% and 2.9%. So, the total amount of forest loss is
    relatively insignificant for each colony. It is also unlikely that
    any maternity area would experience a significant long-term decrease
    in quality of roosting or foraging habitat as a direct result of
    I-69 (this will be investigated further in Tier 2).

-   Seasonal tree-cutting restrictions will ensure no direct
    impacts/take occurs from this activity during the maternity colony
    season.

-   Primary roost trees are not likely to be destroyed in 9 of the 13
    maternity colonies (Appendix B, Table B3); primary roosts trees were
    not located for the other 4 colonies, so it is uncertain whether
    they would be adversely impacted during the winter clearing season.

-   All maternity colonies have additional habitat that is available
    nearby if some bats should become displaced.

-   Forest mitigation within each maternity area will insure suitable
    roosting and foraging habitat persists in these areas in perpetuity.

Although there may be some short-term impacts to individuals, these
impacts are not likely to affect a colony's long-term reproduction and
survival. Thus, all 13 Indiana bat maternity colonies are likely to
persist within the SAA following the I-69 project.

**[Local Populations of Males]{.underline}**-- Because adult males (and
presumably many non-reproductive females) do not participate in the
rearing of offspring, they typically lead solitary lives or in some
cases small bachelor colonies during the summer. Because these
individuals are not burdened with a dependent young they presumably
would be more apt to flee from their roost trees than reproductive
females would be when faced with a disturbance. Therefore, it is very
unlikely that the felling of an occupied roost tree would ever have more
than a few adult males in it at any one time and even more unlikely for
take of more than one male to occur per event. We estimated a maximum
total of 56 adult males may be taken as a result of the Proposed Action.
The potential loss of this relatively small number of male bats will
have no measureable or significant impact on the non-breeding Indiana
bat population in the Action Areas or beyond.

[**Hibernating/Swarming Populations**]{.underline} -- No direct adverse
impacts are anticipated to any of the 15 physical cave structures in the
WAA that are known to serve as Indiana bat hibernacula. The only
hibernaculum that appears to have hydrological connectivity (i.e.,
groundwater connections) with the proposed I-69 corridor is Ashcraft
Cave. This cave is not currently, nor has it been in the past, an
important hibernaculum for Indiana bats (i.e., it is a Priority 4
hibernaculum). Ashcraft Cave is prone to flooding and contained no
hibernating Indiana bats when it was last surveyed in January 2005
(Brack et al. 2005). The bulk of anticipated take to bats residing in
the WAA are likely to be caused by unauthorized, human disturbances of
hibernating bats in vulnerable hibernacula and roadkill of foraging bats
(would primarily occur during the annual swarming period in late summer
and fall). Under the reasonable worst scenarios, the anticipated levels
of take for these two threats are not likely to significantly impact the
regional populations and would not be expected to jeopardize the
species. For example, we estimated that up to 857 Indiana bats may be
taken in the WAA over a 17-year period ending in 2030. Even in the
extremely unlikely event that all 857 bats died in a single year, this
would only amount to a loss of 1% of the WAA's most recent winter
population of 74,042 bats. Nevertheless, there is a high degree of
uncertainty associated with our estimated amount of take from
unauthorized human disturbances/vandalism at vulnerable (i.e., ungated)
hibernacula. Therefore, should our assumption of a relatively low level
(1% increase) of I-69 induced take prove to be in error for this
particular stressor, there could be dire consequences to the species'
long-term conservation and recovery. If available, additional
information (e.g., current and past levels of unauthorized winter
visitation at local hibernacula) will be evaluated in relation to this
stressor in Tier 2.

**Over 99% of the 74,042 bats that hibernate in the WAA spend the winter
in just 3 of the 15 known hibernacula: Ray's (73.3%), Coon (12.5%) and
Grotto (13.3%) caves (i.e., the bat populations in the other 12
hibernacula in the WAA are relatively insignificant).** Because, the
footprint of I-69 is over 5 miles away from Ray's Cave and is 3.9 and
4.5 miles away from Grotto and Coon caves (respectively), there will be
no direct impacts to these important hibernacula. Similarly, direct
and/or indirect impacts to the forested habitat surrounding these
hibernacula is \<1% of what exists currently.

The "Winter Action Area Hibernacula Analysis" chapter and Appendix B of
the Tier 1 BA Addendum should be consulted for more detailed information
regarding anticipated impact levels for each hibernaculum and the WAA as
a whole. Also, see Table B5 in Appendix B for a summary of anticipated
levels of incidental take among the hibernacula in the WAA.

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

In addition to direct habitat loss, proposed actions may result in a
decrease in the quality of remaining habitat within the Action Areas.
Factors that may lead to a loss in the quality of remaining habitat
include: increased habitat fragmentation; increased human disturbance
(e.g., more lighting associated with road improvements, increased
traffic and associated noise); foraging habitat over culverted or
relocated streams will be poor until the aquatic community becomes
established; and water quality in the Action Areas may be negatively
impacted, at least in the short term during construction activities, and
potentially in the long-term from road salts, and various hazardous
materials leaked during traffic accidents. Over time, it is expected
that fragmentation of habitat in the Summer and Winter Action Areas will
increase as new indirect development occurs. However, as the mitigation
plantings mature into suitable Indiana bat habitat this may be partially
compensated. The majority of fragmentation to core forests will occur in
the large forested tracts of land in Greene and Monroe counties.

Given the nature of the landscape in some portions of the SAA, there
would be little potential for existing colonies to relocate if the
quality or quantity of habitat in the area could no longer support the
colony. The continued survival of a colony in this situation would
likely be dependent on maintaining suitable habitat within the action
area of the project as is being proposed with the forest mitigation
plans.

Increased human disturbance in the project area may affect the quality
of summer bat habitat, but these effects are expected to be relatively
minor. However, human disturbance within an unprotected Indiana bat
hibernaculum could be severe. Some Indiana bats in the Action Areas that
have not previously been exposed to artificial lighting, high noise
levels and highway traffic may avoid habitat near I-69, but this will
probably only be a relatively minor adverse affect of the project.

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

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

The FHWA and INDOT have incorporated measures into the proposed project
design to avoid, minimize and mitigate the impacts of the project to the
extent practical. Proposed avoidance, minimization and mitigation
procedures are discussed in the **Revised Tier 1 Forest and Wetland
Mitigation and Enhancement Plan** (see Appendix D of the Tier 1 BA
Addendum) and the **Conservation Measures** section in this document.

To minimize impacts to bats due to habitat loss, existing forested
habitat suitable for Indiana bat foraging, roosting, swarming,
hibernating, and staging within the Summer and Winter Action Areas will
be identified, and offers to purchase these areas will be made to the
land owners, and bought when sellers are willing, and then they will be
protected in perpetuity for the primary purpose of Indiana bat
conservation. Silvicultural manipulation in these areas will be limited
to activities which will enhance the quality of habitat for Indiana
bats, as agreed on by the Service's BFO. Areas targeted for permanent
protection will generally be of equal or higher quality (i.e., more
mature trees) than many of areas that will be cleared for I-69. In
addition, areas will specifically be sought that would provide larger
forest blocks, and that would protect areas providing connectivity among
existing blocks of forested habitat and other areas identified in Tier 2
studies as providing valuable habitat for Indiana bats or serving as
travel corridors.

The FHWA and INDOT are proposing to mitigate for the permanent and
unavoidable loss of forests (3:1 ratio) and wetlands (ratios in Table 2)
within the action areas by purchasing existing habitat, and/or creating,
restoring, and enhancing habitat. Based on [revised]{.underline} Tier 1
estimates of impacts, the committed mitigation acreage would be up to
approximately 6,585 acres. In Tier 2, this number will likely change
(probably will be smaller as impacts are anticipated to be smaller). The
actual mitigation acres will be determined based on impact acres and the
committed ratios which could provide higher or lower mitigation acres
than the amounts estimated in the Biological Assessment Addendum. Some
mitigation areas will be planted with a mixture of native hardwood
seedlings and protected in perpetuity. The goal of the plantings will be
to enhance Indiana bat habitat in the long term by providing forested
habitat, improving connectivity among blocks of existing habitat, and
creating larger blocks of forested bat habitat. The specific sites
proposed for plantings will also be located to improve the connectivity
of forested habitat within the range of maternity colonies that would be
adversely affected by I-69. Improved connectivity of habitat between
roosting and foraging areas is expected to improve habitat conditions
for Indiana bats. Permanently protected plantings along stream corridors
will also benefit water quality in the long term, as the plantings will
provide a vegetated buffer that will reduce runoff, and associated
sedimentation, from adjoining roadways, commercial/industrial
developments, and agricultural areas. In the long term, mitigation
plantings will provide a diverse woodland that is well stocked with
species of trees that are known to provide Indiana bat roosting habitat.
Plantings will be monitored to insure that at least 80% of the initial
planting survives; if survival is below 80% five years after planting,
then remedial measures will be taken. There will be no manipulation of
vegetation (e.g., mowing, timber harvest, timber stand improvement,
firewood collecting) in these mitigation areas without consultation with
the Service's BFO.

An extensive monitoring and research program is also proposed by the
FHWA and INDOT. Therefore, the 13 Indiana bat colonies discovered in the
action area during Tier 2 field studies would be studied and monitored
the summer prior to and at least 5 summers post-construction, beginning
with the first summer following the start of construction. The details
of the proposed monitoring plan will be developed in consultation with
the Service and finalized during Tier 2 formal consultations for each
affected project section.

As previously noted, a colony of Indiana bats in the vicinity of the
Indianapolis International Airport has been studied since 1994; this is
the longest that any single colony of Indiana bats has ever been
studied. The baseline data that are currently available on this colony,
in conjunction with the data that is being collected through a 15-year
monitoring program, will allow the Service to thoroughly evaluate the
response of an Indiana bat colony to habitat disturbance from a major
construction activity as well as the effectiveness of the mitigation
measures implemented there. The Service intends to use information
gained from the airport colony to help guide mitigation and monitoring
efforts for any Indiana bat colonies found within the SAA of I-69.

The FHWA and INDOT will also work with the Service's BFO to design an
educational poster and interpretive displays about Indiana bats to be
placed in rest stops along I-69. The Indiana bat recovery plan (USFWS
1983b) identifies public education on Indiana bats as a priority
activity needed for recovery of the species.

**[Bald Eagle]{.underline}** (not revised since Original BO)

**Direct Impacts**

**CONSTRUCTION**

-   [Tree Removal]{.underline}

    -   Loss of forest habitat will occur within the Bald Eagle Action
        Area and may adversely affect some eagles. Although, all of the
        forest would not be preferred bald eagle habitat, some may be.
        Three relatively large rivers will either be crossed or
        approached by the proposed Interstate, the Patoka River and the
        East and West Forks of the White River. Some tree clearing would
        occur during construction at the two river crossings.
        Construction of bridges at these locations will permanently
        remove some suitable habitat from future use.\
        \
        *Impacts will be reduced or avoided via proposed conservation
        measures.*

-   [Known Bald Eagle Nests & Winter Use Sites in Relation to Direct
    Impacts]{.underline}

    -   At this time, there are no known, recorded bald eagle nests
        within the Bald Eagle Action Area for the proposed project.

    -   There are two nests along the South Fork of the Patoka River,
        near the proposed crossing of the Patoka River. Both nests are
        most likely within the same breeding area of a single pair of
        eagles. The nests are on property owned by the Patoka River
        National Wildlife Refuge. The tertiary zone boundaries for both
        nests are over 1 mile from the proposed corridor and outside the
        Action Area for the proposed project.

    -   There are no nests near the proposed crossing of the East Fork
        of the White River. The closest nest is approximately 8 miles
        upstream. The East Fork of the White River in Daviess County is
        surveyed as part of the IDNR Midwinter Bald Eagle Survey. This
        area appears to be a relatively unimportant wintering site, with
        a 10-year average of only 0.6 eagles.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There are no expected direct effects from construction to individual
    bald eagle use areas as part of the proposed project. However,
    updated records checks and bald eagle surveys will be completed as
    needed. If a bald eagle nest or its associated management zones, or
    a winter use site are found within the corridor at a later time,
    individuals of the species could be affected by the proposed
    project.

> **OPERATION**

-   [Interstate Traffic]{.underline}

##### YEAR ROUND

-   Project operation could cause some number of bald eagle mortalities
    from vehicular collisions, especially in winter when food is scarce
    and bald eagles scavenge carrion on roadways. However, it is not
    anticipated this will be a severe impacts or negatively affect the
    population of this species. Risks of vehicular collision are
    influenced by the roadside landcover (forested corridors present
    higher risk due to limiting avoidance movements) and no bald eagle
    killed by a vehicle has been reported to INDOT along Indiana
    Interstates although isolated instances have occurred in the Toll
    Road District in northern Indiana.

-   Also, increased highway noise and lights, particularly near the
    crossings of the East Fork of the White River and the Patoka River
    area, could deter bald eagles from nesting in otherwise appropriate
    habitat near those areas.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Increased Public Awareness of Bald Eagles]{.underline}

##### YEAR ROUND

-   Public awareness of bald eagles, their life history requirements,
    and threats to the species is likely to increase as a direct result
    of educational pamphlets and interpretive displays that FHWA and
    INDOT have proposed to have designed and plan to distribute/display
    at public rest stops along I-69.

**Indirect Effects**

**CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE**

-   [Induced Commercial and Residential Development]{.underline}

    -   Development will occur as a result of the proposed Interstate.
        It is estimated that approximately 325 - 400 acres of forest and
        10 -- 30 acres of wetlands will be permanently lost to
        development that the Interstate will bring. Much of this will
        not occur in preferred bald eagle habitat, but a small portion
        may. At this time, it is difficult to estimate the amount of
        preferred bald eagle habitat that could be lost.

    -   Development may result in water quality issues such as erosion,
        sedimentation, or contamination from pesticides, improperly
        treated sewage, or other accidental chemical spills all of which
        could lower the abundance and diversity of fish that bald eagles
        prey on.

    -   Development may bring new utilities and associated power lines.
        This could potentially increase bald eagle mortalities from
        electrocution and tower collisions.

    -   Increased access to Lake Monroe has the possibility of
        increasing recreation that could result in more disturbance to
        eagles using the area.\
        *If sufficient evidence warrants, recreational use and
        disturbance to eagles may be investigated further in Tier 2
        studies.*

-   [Water Quality]{.underline}

    -   Erosion and sedimentation from areas of disturbed soil can
        degrade water quality, adversely affecting fish bald eagles feed
        upon. Servicing construction vehicles could cause an accidental
        chemical spill, and adversely affect water quality. Fugitive
        dust emissions could adversely affect area quality in the area
        of construction.

    -   Highway accidents could result in a spill of hazardous materials
        into wetlands, or rivers/streams. Spills could be detrimental to
        the overall water quality, and in turn adversely affect fish the
        bald eagle feeds upon.

    -   Road runoff may contain salts and chemicals that could degrade
        water quality and adversely affect the bald eagle food source.

    -   Herbicides used in right-of-way and median areas could be
        ingested by bald eagle prey (fish) and bioaccumulate within the
        bald eagle.

> *Impacts will be avoided or minimized by implementing equipment
> servicing and maintenance guidelines, contaminant spill,
> erosion-control, and herbicide use plans, following standard
> construction BMPs, and by installing containment roadside ditches as
> appropriate.*

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

Based on information to date, a potential adverse affect from this
project to individual bald eagles is the risk of death from vehicle
collisions during project operation. This risk is influenced by roadside
landcover, where forested road corridors pose a greater risk for
collisions by limiting an eagle on the roadway to only vertical
avoidance movements. Open roadsides better enable eagles to avoid
oncoming vehicles by moving horizontally out of the path. To date, no
bald eagle has been reported as killed by a vehicle on an Indiana
Interstate (other than the Toll Road or I-80/I-90 located in the extreme
northeast corner of Indiana). Nonetheless, several have been found along
the eastern end of the Toll Road District (INDOT -- Chief of Operations
Support). Another possible affect from project operation includes risk
of water quality degradation from hazardous spills and maintenance
chemicals. Water quality directly affects fish, the species' primary
food source.

There are no reported bald eagle nests within the Action Area (1 mile on
either side of the proposed corridor) of the project. Also, no primary,
secondary, or tertiary buffer zones, as detailed in the Northern States
Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (1983a), of any reported bald eagle nests
intersect the proposed 2000-foot corridor. The Action Area is double the
distance of the standard tertiary buffer zone. There are currently three
bald eagle nests (two within the breeding area of a single pair of
eagles) just over 1 mile from the proposed corridor, one on the West
Fork of the White River near Waverly in Morgan County and two along the
South Fork of the Patoka River near the proposed crossing of the Patoka
River. Construction of the proposed Interstate will be outside any
recommended buffer zones needed to be protective of these nests.

Although the USFWS has proposed to delist the bald eagle from the
threatened and endangered species list, habitat loss continues to be a
concern for the species. The bald eagle will almost exclusively nest
near relatively large, open water. Two areas that fit the description of
preferred bald eagle habitat will be crossed by the proposed Interstate,
the Patoka River bottoms area and the East Fork of the White River.
Construction of the bridge at these locations, as well as the
disturbance from light and noise from highway use may deter bald eagles
from nesting in nearby areas. However, some bald eagles are tolerant of
human disturbance, depending on the individual eagles as well as the
time of year. The loss of habitat associated with the construction of
the proposed bridge crossings will be minimal and is not likely to
adversely affect bald eagles.

FHWA and INDOT will conduct additional, more detailed studies during
Tier 2. Section 7 consultation will be conducted for each of the six
project sections as part of Tier 2 studies. Bald eagle surveys within
the action area will be conducted as part of these studies. If bald
eagle nests are found within the action area during the surveys, the
projects effects will be reassessed and reflected in a Tier 2 Biological
Assessment.

**V. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS**

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

**[Cumulative Effects within the Indiana Bat Action Areas]{.underline}**

Reasonably foreseeable non-federal activities that are anticipated to
occur within both the Summer and Winter Action Areas for the Indiana bat
are timber harvest and planned development for residential subdivisions.
Various departments and individuals were contacted by INDOT's
consultants for such information. They included contacting the
surveyor's office, recorder's office, auditor's office, highway
superintendents, county and planning officials. In addition, the Tier 1
BA Addendum contained a cumulative effects analysis that used the
Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI) to calculate projected population
and employment changes in each of five economic zones within the I-69
study area for the year 2030. Growth for each region was delegated into
Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). Figure 10 shows an example of TAZs for
the Pigeon Creek Maternity Colony use area. Changes were calculated for
both the No Build and the Build conditions. Population changes were
converted to acreages by multiplying by a factor of 0.21 to 0.26 acres
per household depending upon the region. Employment changes were
converted to acreages by multiplying each by a factor of 0.05 to 0.065
acres depending upon the region. These factors were developed for each
region based on various housing and commercial/industrial development
factors. The No Build condition represents what is expected to occur
without the proposed I-69 construction, and represents cumulative
impacts in this analysis. The No Build scenario impacts subtracted from
the Build scenario is equal to the indirect impacts attributed to I-69.
REMI model results will also be used in each Tier 2 EIS indirect and
cumulative impacts analysis, however the approach may differ slightly.

Expert land use panels reviewed the REMI model results and either
concurred with model results, or suggested adjustments based on their
expectations of development. These panels consisted of developers, local
city and county planning staff, and economic development personnel.

In addition to cumulative impacts generated by the REMI model, impacts
to tree cover from possible legal drain dredging were estimated and
included in addition to the model based cumulative impacts. These
impacts could potentially occur regardless of the I-69 construction.
Legal drains were identified through consultation with county officials
as those streams legally maintained by the county or maintained through
privately funded groups. For this analysis, impacts were assumed to be
75 feet from either side of a legal drain. The legal drain impacts
represent a "worst-case" scenario for tree cover impacts as not all
legal drains are likely to be maintained, and maintenance may not result
in impacts on both sides of the stream, or the entire 75 feet.

We typically can not accurately quantify how much forest land on private
lands will be converted to other habitat types, the extent of future
timber harvests on private lands, nor the amount of privately owned
habitat that will be developed for other purposes. However, we can look
at the trends state-wide and extrapolate assumptions as to how the
private lands within the Action Areas will likely be managed in the
foreseeable future.

The following Indiana forest trends were highlighted within the North
Central Research Station's 2005 report, "Indiana Forests: 1999-2003,
Part A". Trends that we believe may be of a net benefit to Indiana bats
have been *italicized* below:

• *There are no major tree die-offs anywhere in the state; natural tree
mortality appears evenly across the state.*

• *The ratio of harvested tree volume to tree volume growth indicates
sustainable management*.

**•** *Diverse and abundant forest habitat (snags, coarse woody debris,
forest cover and edges) support healthy wildlife populations across the
state.*

• *Indiana possesses a diversity of standing dead tree wildlife habitat
with an abundance of recently acquired snags to replenish fully decayed
snags as Indiana's forests mature***.**

• Indiana's oak species continue to grow slower than other hardwood
species.

• The average private forest landholding dropped from 22-acres in 1993
to 16-acres in 2003, indicating a continued "parcelization" of Indiana
forests.

• Introduced or invasive plant species inhabit a majority of inventories
plots.

• The amount of forest edge doubled from 1992 to 2001, indicating
smaller forest plots.

• Due to land use history and natural factors, the forest soils of
southern Indiana are generally below-average in quality.

• Although Indiana's overall forested land mass is increasing, the rate
of increase has slowed over the past decade.

**•** *Indiana's forests continue to mature in terms of the number and
size of trees within forest stands.*

• Increases in total volumes of oak species are less than those for most
other hardwood species.

• The advanced ages and inadequate regeneration of Indiana's oak forests
may signal a successional shift from an oak/hickory-dominated landscape
to one where other hardwood species, such as maples, occupy more
forested areas.

• Indiana's hardwood saw-timber resource continues to be at risk due to
maturing of hardwood stands, loss of timberland to development and new
pests (gypsy moth, emerald ash-borer, sudden oak death, beech-bark
disease, and more).

• Ownerships of Indiana forests have changed in the past decade,
resulting in more parcelization and fragmentation.

While the data shows there has been loss of continuous forest, resulting
in smaller, fragmented stands, there is also an overall increase in
forested land across the state.

Timbering data was requested from the Division of Forestry of the
Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Discussions showed that there
was no organized method of tracking timbering in any of the counties
except possibly Monroe County. The Planning Department of Monroe County
disclosed that permits were sporadic and voluntary, and much of the
timbering goes undocumented. Thus, field surveys from the mid-1990's to
the present were reviewed for a general understanding of timbering
activities in the Action Areas. Within the Action Areas, the majority of
forests are found in the Crawford Upland, Mitchell Plain, Norman Upland,
and Martinsville Hill physiographic regions. These regions include for
the most part Greene, Monroe and Morgan counties.

Timbering is limited and sporadic in the Action Areas. Observations
throughout many years indicate that cutting is for the most part
selective and that much of the timber in the area is second growth
indicating past activities. Classified forests are common and many in
the Action Areas and allow for the management of timber, especially
selective cutting. One area that showed timbering was east of US 231 at
Doan's Creek in Greene County. At this location, less than an acre of
woods was cut for black walnut. Another area included the timbering of
hardwood southwest of Cincinnati in the American Bottoms. Downed trees
were abundant and timbering included less than 20 acres. From such
observations and discussions with county officials, timbering is not
expected to be a major contributor to the loss of woodland within the
Action Areas.

Many planned residential subdivisions were investigated to ascertain
potential forest losses in the Action Areas. [There were approximately
100 plus planned and currently expanding subdivisions still being built
within the Action Areas]{.underline}. The bulk of these developments
were located in the northern portion of the Action Area just south of
Indianapolis, in non-forested areas along SR 37. In the Wabash Lowland
Region (i.e., Vanderburgh, Warrick, Pike, Gibson and Daviess counties),
forests were for the most part in woodlots surrounded by farm fields. In
addition, many of these are forested wetlands and/or in flood prone
areas. The majority of the few subdivisions recorded were developed upon
previously cleared lands, not forestlands.

In the heavily forested counties of Greene, Monroe, and Morgan,
subdivisions were for the most part in developed lands with some
exceptions. The major exceptions include the proposed Clifty Hills and
Blue Ridge Estates in eastern Greene County and the Stonebridge Club
along SR 37 in Morgan County. The development of such properties could
potentially take many acres of forest. Other smaller planned
subdivisions in Greene County are Lawrence Hollow Estates, Deer Lake,
and Green Hills Estates South. These three subdivisions would take much
less forested acres.

Monroe County and Morgan County have a number of subdivisions planned;
however, many of these are near SR 37 in open lands surrounding the city
of Bloomington. Examples of planned subdivisions in Monroe County are
Farmers Field Acres, Rolling Glen Estates, Harrell Road Subdivision, and
Orchard Estates in the vicinity of Hindustan. In Morgan County, a few
examples of planned subdivisions are Turkey Knob, Country Club Woods,
The Oaks and the Stonebridge Club. Most of the subdivisions located
within the Action Areas take marginal acres of forestland.

Most of the planned subdivisions in the Action Areas were found in open
lands of the Tipton Till Plain within Marion County and Johnson County.
Some example of planned subdivisions in Marion County are Willingshire
Community, Bluffs Subdivision, Bayberry Village, Silver Springs
Subdivision, Governor's Pointe Subdivision, Ridgehill Trail Subdivision,
and Thompson Meadows Subdivision. Examples in Johnson County are
Shadowood, Woods at Somerset, Smokey Row Estates, Manor at Somerset,
Persimmon Woods, and Northridge. Many of these subdivisions were located
around existing subdivisions in the area and are part of the
Indianapolis metropolitan area.

A review of the potential for loss of forest due to timbering and
residential development in the Action Areas showed limited timbering and
many planned subdivisions; however, the majority would be located on
open lands with limited forestland impacts. The only exception appeared
to be Clifty Hill and Blue Ridge Estates northeast of Koleen. Timbering
and residential development could potentially remove possible roost and
foraging habitat for the Indiana bat. Specific acres of forest loss will
be addressed in Tier 2 studies, as needed.

We anticipate decline in bat habitat in some areas of the Summer and
Winter Action Areas in the future, although we are not aware of specific
development plans in known bat habitat at this time. As we become aware
of specific projects, impacts to Indiana bats will be addressed through
the incidental take permit process, if appropriate.

Areas set aside for mitigation plantings will protect those areas from
development in the short term, and in the long term will provide quality
roosting and foraging habitat. These areas will also help to decrease
habitat fragmentation, and to improve the potential for colonies of
Indiana bats currently using the action area to expand into other areas
of suitable habitat. As of August 2006, INDOT had contributed some
financial assistance along with the Patoka River National Wildlife
Refuge towards the purchase of a key parcel of land containing high
quality summer habitat for the Patoka River Maternity Colony of Indiana
bats (e.g., INDOT helped to purchase a 20-acre parcel that contained the
colony's primary roost tree). INDOT had also installed chain-link
fencing beneath the end abutments of one of its large bridges in the SAA
to protect Indiana bats that were found roosting there from potential
human disturbance/vandalization. Both of these initial mitigation
efforts should benefit Indiana bats in those areas and minimize the
potential for future take.

With successful implementation of the revised Tier 1 Forest and Wetland
Mitigation and Enhancement Plan and all of the other proposed mitigation
efforts and conservation measures, we anticipate that long-term habitat
conditions for the Indiana bat maternity colonies, individuals and
hibernating populations within the action areas will be sustainable and
in limited situations may be better than existing conditions. However,
because the level of success in implementing the proposed habitat
mitigation is largely dependent on the willingness of key private
landowners to cooperate with INDOT representatives, uncertainty remains
as to the ultimate outcome and value of these efforts towards bat
conservation.

Additional cumulative effects, such as current levels of unauthorized
visitation at Indiana bat hibernacula in the WAA, will be further
investigated and addressed in Tier 2 project-section consultations.

**[Cumulative Effects within the Bald Eagle Action Area]{.underline}**
(not revised)

Current and reasonably foreseeable non-federal activities that may occur
within the Bald Eagle Action Area are timbering, planned development for
residential subdivisions, and recreational activities that occur along
open waterways. Various departments and individuals were contacted for
such information. They included contacting the surveyor's office,
recorder's office, auditor's office, highway superintendents, county and
planning officials. Because, the Bald Eagle Action Area falls completely
within the Indiana Bat SAA, the cumulative effects from timbering and
planned residential subdivisions are essentially the same as those
mentioned above for Indiana bats. Timbering and residential development
is not expected to remove optimum nesting and perching sites for bald
eagles as these primarily occur in riparian buffers and flood-prone
areas.

Most water-based recreation activities (e.g., boating, jet skiing, and
fishing) that occur near sensitive areas used by bald eagles are
concentrated at large public reservoirs, such as Lake Monroe in Monroe
County. Other areas associated with bald eagles such as the East Fork
White River, West Fork White River, and Patoka River are frequented by
motor boats less often than Lake Monroe. The majority of the recreation
activities conducted along these rivers is associated with smaller
motorized boats and canoes. Repeated disturbances from recreation
activities near lakes and rivers may disrupt nesting eagles and
potentially cause nest abandonment. Additional cumulative effects (if
any) will be investigated and addressed in Tier 2 studies and
project-section consultations.

**VI. CONCLUSION**

(Our non-jeopardy conclusion regarding impacts to the bald eagle still
stands as stated in the original December 3, 2003 BO.)

After reviewing the current status of the Indiana bat, the environmental
baseline for the action areas, the aggregate effects of the proposed
construction, operation, and maintenance of the interstate and
associated development, and the cumulative effects, **it is still the
Service\'s biological opinion that [Alternative 3C of I-69 from
Evansville to Indianapolis, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the Indiana bat, and is not likely to destroy or
adversely modify its designated Critical Habitat.]{.underline}**

Our basis for this conclusion follows:

-   The 13 Indiana bat maternity colonies in the SAA represent 0.4% of
    the total estimated number of maternity colonies in the species'
    range in 2005 (n=2,900 colonies, see Table 5). In theory, even if
    I-69 were to destroy many or even all of these colonies (which it
    most certainly will not), it would not likely constitute an
    appreciable reduction in the species' numbers (0.4% of colonies) nor
    an appreciable reduction in the species' range, since Indiana's
    caves annually shelter nearly half of all known Indiana bats across
    the range (45% of all *M. sodalis* hibernated in Indiana in 2005).
    Furthermore, no appreciable reduction in the species' overall
    reproductive rate is anticipated; only a short-term reproductive
    loss within some of the 13 affected colonies is likely to occur.

-   Because I-69 will have a long narrow/linear footprint, the amount of
    adverse impacts to any one habitat patch or maternity area along its
    path is minimal when compared to impacts of a similarly sized area
    that has a non-linear configuration.

-   In general, areas with less than 5% forest cover are not capable of
    sustaining an Indiana bat maternity colony. The construction of I-69
    will directly reduce the total amount of forest habitat/tree cover
    available around each of the 13 colonies and in some cases will
    cause small additional amounts to be indirectly lost by induced
    development. When combined, the percentages of existing tree cover
    that will be directly and/or indirectly impacted at each maternity
    colony is very small. Ten of the 13 colonies will lose less than 1%
    of their tree cover, and the other three will lose 1.4%, 1.5% and
    2.9%. So, the total amount of forest loss is insignificant for each
    colony.

-   Thirty-two roost trees/sites were identified during Indiana bat
    radio-tracking studies for I-69 in 2004 and 2005. None of these 32
    roosts will be directly impacted by the interstate. Furthermore, the
    I-69 corridor avoids running near or through the central roosting
    area in 7 out of the 13 maternity areas or 77% of the time.
    Therefore, we do not believe that any of the 13 maternity colonies
    will be displaced by the interstate. Because the proposed 3:1
    mitigation commitment for upland forest losses will largely be
    focused on improving forest habitats within the maternity colony
    areas, we have further confidence that any adverse impacts to these
    colonies will be minimal and should not be long lasting.

-   We estimated the maximum overall amount of I-69 related incidental
    take of Indiana bats within the SAA to be no more than 286 bats (236
    females/juv. and 50 males) spread over a 17-year long period. So on
    an annual basis, this equates to about 17 bats being taken per year
    in the SAA, which is less than 1% of the bats that occupy the SAA
    each summer.

-   The Proposed Action will only directly or indirectly take or
    otherwise reduce the fitness of a relatively small number of bats
    (estimated total = 857 bats over a 17-year long period or about 50
    bats/year) within the WAA and will only have minimal, short-term
    effects on these bats' respective maternity colonies and hibernating
    populations. The estimated amount of take only represents 1.2% of
    the *annual* winter population within the WAA. Similarly, loss of
    these individuals will have no adverse effect on the viability of
    other maternity colonies in the region or the species' range or to
    hibernating populations to which these individuals belong. So again,
    the Proposed Action in combination with relatively small amounts of
    cumulative impacts/take is not reasonably expected, directly or
    indirectly, to cause an appreciable reduction in the reproduction,
    numbers or distribution of the Indiana bat as a species.

-   The combined estimated amount of I-69-related take (SAA + WAA) and
    estimated take from cumulative effects equals 2,111 bats over a 17
    --year period. Again, we believe this level of take is insignificant
    because it equates to less than one-half of one percent (0.46%) of
    the 2005 range-wide population estimate of *M. sodalis*.

**INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT**

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

The measures described below are **[non-discretionary]{.underline}**,
and must be undertaken by the FHWA or their designee (e.g., INDOT) for
the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The FHWA has a continuing
duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement.
If the FHWA fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions of
the incidental take statement, the protective coverage of section
7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take,
the FHWA must report the progress of the action and its impact on the
species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement
\[50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)\].

**[INDIANA BAT]{.underline}**

**AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE**

The Service believes it is reasonably certain to anticipate that
incidental take of Indiana bats will occur as a direct or indirect
result of the Proposed Action in the following forms:

-   death/kill and/or injury/wound from direct felling of occupied trees
    (during indirect/induced development),

-   death/kill and/or injury/wound from direct collision with vehicles
    traveling on I-69 once it is operational (i.e., roadkill),

-   death/kill/wound/harassment of hibernating Indiana bats in
    unprotected Indiana bat hibernacula as an indirect result of
    project-induced population growth and increased vehicular
    accessibility to hibernacula areas,

-   harassment of roosting bats from noises/vibrations/disturbance
    levels causing roost-site abandonment and atypical exposure to
    day-time predators while fleeing and seeking new shelter during the
    day-time, and

-   harm through loss of roosting habitat such as primary and/or
    alternate roost trees, and loss of foraging habitat.

Based on our knowledge of the ecology of Indiana bats, and the
distribution of Indiana bats within the Summer and Winter Action Areas
of I-69, we assume that the habitat that will be lost will adversely
affect the roosting and foraging habitat of Indiana bats.

Based on our analysis of the environmental baseline and effects of the
proposed action, the Service anticipates that 13 Indiana bat maternity
colonies occupy the SAA and therefore may be impacted as a result of the
proposed activities. The effect of the loss of foraging habitat is
expected to result in the death of some bats (e.g., as the result of
exposure to predation or overwinter mortality of bats that failed to
store adequate fat reserves). Loss of roosting habitat and degradation
of remaining habitat may also result in harm of individual bats. While
some adverse effects are not expected to directly result in the death of
bats, they may exacerbate the effects of other ongoing stressors on the
bats. Collectively, the effects of the action are expected to result in
behavioral or physiological effects which impair reproduction and
recruitment, or other essential behavioral patterns. We anticipate
take/death of individuals, decreased fitness of individuals, reduced
reproductive potential, and reduced overwinter survival of an estimated
maximum of 337 Indiana bats within the SAA and 857 Indiana bats in the
WAA as detailed in Tables B4 and B5 in Appendix B, respectively. The
effects on the 13 known maternity colonies may be lost reproductive
capacity and potentially a short-term decline in their colony sizes. No
significant, long-term adverse effects to affected maternity colonies
are anticipated.

Construction of I-69 along the proposed 3C alignment and its associated
actions is expected to result in the permanent loss of approximately
2,170 acres of suitable summer foraging and roosting habitat for Indiana
bats. This estimate includes 2,050 acres of upland and bottomland
forest, 100 acres of forested wetlands, 5 acres of scrub-shrub wetlands,
and 15 acres of emergent wetlands. Degradation of remaining habitat is
also likely to occur from increased fragmentation and increased
disturbance.

It is unlikely that direct mortality of small-sized bats will be
detected, that is, we do not expect that most dead or moribund bats are
likely to be found as the project activities are being conducted, even
though we expect that up to 1,143 individuals may be taken as a result
of the proposed actions. Therefore, the anticipated levels of take
primarily are being expressed below as the permanent, direct loss of
currently suitable summer roosting and foraging habitat in the SAA and
fall swarming and staging habitat in the WAA for Indiana bats that will
result from project implementation as estimated in the Tier 1 BA
Addendum. In short, we will exempt anticipated levels of take by using
the affected habitat acreages as a surrogate as summarized below.

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

Permanent direct loss of up to 2,148 acres of forest habitat and 20
acres of non-forested wetlands is anticipated. Approximate direct loss
of Tier 2 Forest (from Table 3 of the BA Addendum) within each project
section is summarized in Table 1 below.

**Table 1.** Estimated direct loss of Tier 2 Forest within the I-69
Summer Action Area.

  ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
  **Project Section**             **Direct Loss of Tier 2 Forest
                                  (acres)**

  1                               55

  2                               280

  3                               112

  4                               1,132

  5                               303

  6                               266

  **Total**                       **2,148**
  ------------------------------- ---------------------------------------

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

Permanent direct loss of up to 1,097 acres of forest habitat surrounding
14 of the 15 known hibernacula (doesn't include area surrounding Ozzy's
Hole Cave) is anticipated (from the revised version of Table B-3 in
Appendix B of the BA Addendum). Approximate direct loss of Tier 2 Forest
within a 5-mile radius of each hibernaculum is summarized in Table 2
below. The sum of the individual acreages is greater than 1,097 acres
because of a high degree of overlap among the impacted acres surrounding
the hibernacula.

**Table 2.** Estimated direct loss of Tier 2 Forest within a 5-mile
radius\
of each hibernaculum within the I-69 Winter Action Area.

  -------------------------------------- --------------------------------
  **Hibernaculum Name**                  **Direct Loss of\
                                         Tier 2 Forest\
                                         (acres)**

  Ozzy's Hole Cave:                      631

  Primitive Baptist Spring Cave:         556

  Sexton Springs Cave:                   522

  Reeves Cave:                           463

  Ashcraft Cave :                        431

  Saltpeter Cave:                        327

  Leonard Springs Cave:                  350

  Buckner's Cave:                        288

  King Blair Cave System:                238

  Grotto Cave:                           98

  Coon's Cave:                           97

  Salamander Cave:                       85

  Sullivan Cave:                         51

  Storm's Pit Cave:                      0

  Ray's Cave:                            0
  -------------------------------------- --------------------------------

**[Roadkill:]{.underline}**

The Service anticipates that all bats that are struck by vehicles likely
will be killed. [The Service assumes that the annual number of deaths by
vehicle collisions is not likely to exceed 11 Indiana bats per calendar
year.]{.underline} However, based on the best available scientific data,
the actual number of Indiana bats that may be struck and killed from
vehicles traveling on I-69 between Evansville and Indianapolis can not
be precisely quantified and dead bats will be difficult to locate once
I-69 is operational. If more specific information becomes available,
then this issue will be reexamined during the Tier 2 project-section
consultations and prudent adjustments will be made at that time.

**EFFECT OF THE TAKE**

In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that the
aggregate level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy
to Indiana bats or destruction or adverse modification of designated
Critical Habitat (i.e., Ray's Cave).

**REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES**

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

1.  In the Tier 1 BA Addendum, the FHWA proposed to investigate and/or
    implement numerous conservation measures and mitigation efforts as
    part of their proposed action and these measures are hereby
    incorporated by reference. These measures will benefit a variety of
    wildlife species, including Indiana bats. The Service will take the
    necessary steps to ensure that the FHWA successfully implements all
    the conservation measures to the fullest extent practicable.

2.  The implementation status of all the proposed conservation measures,
    mitigation efforts, and research and any related problems need to be
    monitored and clearly communicated to the Service on an annual
    basis.

3.  All I-69 construction personnel and INDOT maintenance staff need to
    be made aware of potential issues concerning Indiana bats and
    construction and maintenance of I-69.

4.  The FHWA needs to ensure that the impacts of take associated with
    future Tier 2 section-specific actions are appropriately minimized
    and that the exemption of incidental take is appropriately
    documented and anticipated levels of incidental take will not be
    exceeded nor will any new forms of take occur that were not
    anticipated in Tier 1.

The Service believes that the measures above are necessary, appropriate,
and reasonable for minimizing take of Indiana bats.

**TERMS AND CONDITIONS**

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the
FHWA (and/or INDOT and their contractors or assigns) must comply with
the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and
prudent measures. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary.

1.  The FHWA must implement all proposed mitigation and conservation
    measures, as detailed in the revised "Tier 1 Forest and Wetland
    Mitigation and Enhancement Plan" and "Conservation Measures for
    Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species" sections of the Tier 1
    BA Addendum and Appendix B of the Tier 1 BA or alternative measures
    that are of equal or greater benefit to Indiana bats as developed in
    consultation with the Service during Tier 2.

2.  FHWA will prepare an annual report detailing all conservation
    measures, mitigation efforts, and monitoring 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 BFO by 31 January each year (the
    first report will be due 1/31/07) and reporting will continue for at
    least 5 years post-construction or until otherwise agreed to with
    the Service.\
    \
    If proposed conservation measures or mitigation goals can not be
    realized (e.g., lack of willing-sellers), then FHWA will investigate
    and propose alternative solutions that can be realized and are of
    equal or greater benefit to Indiana bats within the Summer and
    Winter Action Areas.

3.  All I-69 engineering supervisors , equipment operators, and other
    construction personnel and INDOT (and/or concessionaire) maintenance
    staff will attend a mandatory environmental awareness training that
    discloses where known sensitive Indiana bat sites are located in the
    project area, addresses any other concerns regarding Indiana bats,
    and presents 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 I-69.

4.  To ensure that the impacts of take associated with future Tier 2
    project-section specific actions are appropriately minimized and
    that the exemption of incidental take is appropriately documented,
    the FHWA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will implement an
    appended programmatic consultation approach for I-69. Under that
    approach this programmatic Biological Opinion and Incidental Take
    Statement will exempt incidental take that result from the
    implementation of site-specific actions that result from
    implementation of the proposed action as detailed in the Tier 1 BA
    and the Tier 1 BA Addendum. However, specific impacts within each
    Tier 2 Project Section must be individually reviewed by the Service
    to determine if they are consistent with this programmatic
    Incidental Take Statement\'s reasonable and prudent measures and
    associated terms and conditions, and to ensure that site-specific
    impacts of the resulting incidental take are minimized. If effects
    of an individual Tier 2 Project Section are found to be consistent
    with those analyzed in the programmatic consultation, then it will
    be appended to this programmatic Biological Opinion and Incidental
    Take Statement, along with any additional project section-specific
    reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions that are
    needed to fulfill the requirements of section 7(a)(2). No incidental
    take shall be exempted until after a Tier 2 Project Section's BA has
    been reviewed, found to be complete and consistent with Tier 1
    findings, and has been appended to the programmatic BO by the
    Service.\
    \
    Because acreages of lost Indiana bat habitat are being used as a
    surrogate to monitor levels of incidental take within the entire
    Summer and Winter Action Areas as well as within each Tier 2 Project
    Section and 5-mile radius around each known hibernaculum, the FHWA
    will provide the Service\'s Bloomington Field Office with a detailed
    description of each project section's contribution to habitat loss
    by preparing a Tier 2 Biological Assessment for each project
    section. The Tier 2 Biological Assessments must include: maps of the
    preferred final alignment and all associated development; methods
    and results of Tier 2 mist net surveys, radio-tracking studies,
    roost tree emergence counts, and hibernacula surveys; exact
    locations of all known and newly discovered Indiana bat roost trees
    and hibernacula (hibernacula location maps must identify known
    hydrologically connected surface streams and sinkholes and their
    drainage basins and delineate approximate boundaries of potential
    recharge areas for each hibernaculum within the WAA in relation to
    I-69's direct and indirect impacts as identified during Tier 2 and
    previous studies); the total acreages and relative quality of forest
    (e.g., maturity of forest/estimated dbh of live canopy trees and
    estimated suitability for roosting/estimated number and dbh of
    snags) and wetland habitats that will be directly impacted and
    permanently cleared/filled; and all other anticipated project
    section-specific impacts. Tier 2 BAs must also describe any
    additional direct or indirect effects that were not considered
    during the Tier 1 programmatic-level consultation. To reduce
    redundancy, Tier 2 BAs should summarize or simply reference sections
    of the Tier 1 BA and BA Addendum that would otherwise be
    repetitive.\
    \
    Each Tier 2 BA must quantify how the individual Tier 2 Project
    Section's direct impact acres contribute to the estimated project
    section-specific and hibernacula-specific acres (see Tables 1 and 2
    above) as well as to the project-wide forest acres (2,148 ac.) and
    non-forested wetland acres (20 ac.) as specified in the AMOUNT OR
    EXTENT OF TAKE section above. The Tier 2 BAs should also report how
    much total acreage remains for the overall I-69 project and within
    each project section in the SAA and hibernacula in the WAA (i.e.,
    provide the running totals and the remaining balances for these
    exempted levels of take).\
    \
    FHWA's cover letters requesting Project-Section specific ESA Section
    7 reviews must include a determination of whether or not the
    proposed project is consistent with this Programmatic Biological
    Opinion and Incidental Take Statement and request that the proposed
    Tier 2 BA be appended to this Programmatic Biological Opinion. The
    cover letter, and one bound hard copy and an electronic copy of the
    Tier 2 BA should be submitted to the BFO when requesting a project
    section review.

5.  Any dead bats located within the construction limits, right-of-way,
    rest stops, or mitigation areas of I-69, regardless of species,
    should be immediately reported to BFO \[(812) 334-4261\], and
    subsequently transported (frozen or on ice) to BFO. No attempt
    should be made to handle any live bat, regardless of its condition;
    report bats that appear to be sick or injured to BFO. BFO will make
    a species determination on any dead or moribund bats. If an Indiana
    bat is identified, BFO will contact the appropriate Service Law
    Enforcement office as required.\
    \
    The FHWA will keep track of all known Indiana bats killed from
    vehicle collisions to ensure that the anticipated amount of
    incidental take, [11 killed per calendar year,]{.underline} is not
    exceeded.

[ATTENTION]{.underline}: If at any point in time during this project,
the exempted project-wide or section-specific, or hibernacula-specific
habitat acreages or annual number of roadkilled bats quantified in the
AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE section of this ITS are exceeded by more than
10%, then the Service will assume that the exempted level of take for
this project may have been exceeded and the FHWA should immediately
reinitiate formal consultation.

In conclusion, the Service believes that the permanent loss of currently
suitable summer roosting and foraging habitat for Indiana bats will be
limited to 2,148 acres of forest habitat and 20 acres of non-forested
wetlands within the SAA (SAA) and 1,097 acres of forest habitat within
the Winter Action Area (WAA). These acreages represent approximately a
1% loss of the SAA's forested acreage and a 1% loss of the WAA's
forested acreage and will occur over a period of at least several years.
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 (or tree
clearing occurs during the period April 15-September 15 in the SAA or
April 1-November 15 within the WAA any given year) such incidental take
represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and
review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided. The 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.

**[BALD EAGLE]{.underline}**

**AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE**

The Service anticipates that incidental take of bald eagles will occur
in the form of death or injury resulting from collisions with vehicles
once I-69 is operational. Based on the best available scientific data,
the actual number of eagles that may be struck and killed/injured from
vehicles traveling on I-69 between Evansville and Indianapolis can not
be precisely quantified. The Service anticipates that collisions with
eagles would most likely occur during the winter when food is more
scarce and eagles are more apt to scavenge on carrion from roadkilled
animals. Once I-69 is operational, we anticipate that all eagles that
are struck by vehicles will be killed or injured and that [the number of
deaths and/or injuries would not exceed 3 bald eagles during any
five-year period.]{.underline} Because bald eagles are large birds and
would be widely recognized by most motorists and maintenance workers, we
anticipate most roadkilled or injured eagles would eventually be
reported to the Service, and therefore, the actual level of incidental
take could be fairly accurately monitored over time.

The amount of forested habitat that will be permanently cleared for
construction of bridges at the two major river crossings (E. Fork of
White River and Patoka River, where bald eagles are most likely to
occur) was not quantified in the Tier1 BA. However, from our review of
aerial photos and maps of the project area, we anticipate that the total
combined amount of forest that will be lost at these two river crossing
will be equal to or less than 50 acres and that an ample amount of
habitat will remain available to bald eagles in these areas.
Furthermore, the potential for incidental take from loss of future eagle
habitat will be minimized by the proposed forest and wetland mitigation
efforts. Therefore, we believe that if forest loss at these sites is
equal to or less than 50 acres, then the impact will be insignificant in
size and not likely to adversely affect nesting or wintering eagles.

**EFFECT OF THE TAKE**

In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this
level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to bald
eagles. No critical habitat has been designated for bald eagles, so none
would be impacted.

**REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES**

The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are
necessary and appropriate to further minimize take of bald eagles:

1.  In the Tier1 BA, the FHWA proposed to investigate and/or implement
    numerous conservation measures and mitigation efforts as part of
    their proposed action and these measures are hereby incorporated by
    reference. These measures will benefit a variety of wildlife
    species, including bald eagles. The Service will take the necessary
    steps to ensure that the FHWA successfully implements all the
    conservation measures to the fullest extent practicable.

2.  The implementation status of all the proposed conservation measures,
    mitigation efforts, and research and any related problems need to be
    monitored and clearly communicated to the Service on an annual
    basis.

3.  All I-69 construction workers and INDOT maintenance staff need to be
    made aware of potential issues concerning bald eagles and
    construction and maintenance of I-69.

4.  The FHWA needs to ensure that the impacts of take associated with
    future Tier 2 project-section specific actions are appropriately
    minimized and that the exemption of incidental take is appropriately
    documented and anticipated levels of incidental take will not be
    exceeded or that any new forms of take may occur that were not
    anticipated in Tier 1.

The Service believes that the measures above are necessary, appropriate,
and reasonable for minimizing take of bald eagles.

**TERMS AND CONDITIONS**

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the
FHWA (and/or INDOT and their contractors or assigns) must comply with
the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and
prudent measures. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary.

1.  The FHWA must implement all proposed mitigation and conservation
    measures, as detailed in the "Tier 1 Forest and Wetland Mitigation
    and Enhancement Plan" and "Conservation Measures for Impacts to
    Threatened and Endangered Species" sections and Appendix B of the
    Tier 1 BA or alternative measures that are of equal or greater
    benefit to bald eagles as developed in consultation with the Service
    during Tier 2.

2.  The FHWA will prepare an annual report detailing all conservation
    measures, mitigation efforts, and monitoring 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 BFO by 31 January each year (the
    first report will be due 1/31/07) and reporting will continue for at
    least 5 years post-construction or until otherwise agreed to with
    the Service.\
    \
    If proposed conservation measures or mitigation goals can not be
    realized (e.g., lack of willing-sellers), then FHWA will investigate
    and propose alternative solutions that can be realized and are of
    equal or greater benefit to bald eagles within the Bald Eagle Action
    Area.

3.  All I-69 engineering supervisors , equipment operators, and
    construction workers and INDOT (and/or concessionaire) maintenance
    staff will attend a mandatory environmental awareness training that
    discloses where known bald eagle nests are located in the project
    area, addresses any other concerns regarding bald eagles, and
    presents a protocol for reporting any eagle nests, and any live,
    sick, injured, or dead eagles observed or found within or near the
    construction limits or right-of-way during construction, operation,
    and maintenance of I-69. Project personnel will also be instructed
    about the terms and conditions of the ITS and the restrictions
    imposed by them before construction and operation begins.

4.  To ensure that the impacts of take associated with future Tier 2
    project-section specific action are appropriately minimized and that
    the exemption of incidental take is appropriately documented, the
    FHWA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will implement an
    appended programmatic consultation approach for I-69. Under that
    approach this programmatic Biological Opinion and Incidental Take
    Statement will exempt incidental take that result from the
    implementation of site-specific actions that result from
    implementation of the proposed action as detailed in the Tier 1 BA.
    However, specific impacts within each Tier 2 Project Section must be
    individually reviewed by the Service to determine if they are
    consistent with this programmatic Incidental Take Statement\'s
    reasonable and prudent measures and associated terms and conditions,
    and to ensure that site-specific impacts of the resulting incidental
    take are minimized. If effects of an individual Tier 2 Project
    Section are found to be consistent with those analyzed in the
    programmatic consultation, then it will be appended to this
    programmatic Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement, along
    with any additional project section-specific reasonable and prudent
    measures and terms and conditions that are needed to fulfill the
    requirements of section 7(a)(2). No incidental take shall be
    exempted until after a Tier 2 Project Section's BA has been
    reviewed, found to be complete and consistent with Tier 1 findings,
    and has been appended to the programmatic BO by the Service.\
    \
    Because acreages of lost bald eagle habitat are being used to insure
    that habitat loss in eagle use areas (Patoka River and E. Fork White
    River crossings) does not reach the scale where take will occur, the
    FHWA will provide the Service\'s Bloomington Field Office with a
    detailed description of each project sections contribution to
    habitat loss by preparing Tier 2 Biological Assessments for each
    project section. The Tier 2 Biological Assessments must include:
    maps of the preferred final alignment and all associated
    development; methods and results of Tier 2 bald eagle surveys (i.e.,
    current IDNR data should be sufficient), exact locations of all
    known and newly discovered eagle nests, night roosts, and other
    important areas; the total acreages and relative quality of forest
    (i.e., as compared to the maturity of forests and estimated
    suitability for nesting, perching, roosting in the immediate area)
    and wetland habitats that will be permanently cleared/filled. Tier 2
    BAs must also describe any additional direct or indirect affects
    that were not considered during the programmatic consultation. To
    reduce redundancy, Tier 2 BAs should summarize or simply reference
    sections of the Tier 1 BA that would otherwise be repetitive.\
    \
    Each Tier 2 BA must track how the individual Tier 2 Project Section
    contributes to the forest acres quantified in the AMOUNT OR EXTENT
    OF TAKE section above and report how much total acreage is remaining
    per section and the project as a whole. Your cover letters
    requesting Project-Section specific reviews must include your
    determination that the proposed project is consistent with this
    programmatic Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement and
    request that the proposed Tier 2 BA be appended to this programmatic
    Biological Opinion. The cover letter, and one bound hard copy and an
    electronic copy of the Tier 2 BA should be submitted to the BFO when
    requesting a project section review.

5.  Any dead bald or golden eagles found within the construction limits,
    right-of-way, rest stops, or mitigation areas of I-69, should be
    reported to BFO \[(812) 334-4261\] as soon as possible and
    subsequently transported (frozen or on ice) to BFO.\
    \
    Any sick or injured bald or golden eagle located within the
    construction limits, right-of-way, rest stops, or mitigation areas
    of I-69 should immediately be reported to BFO (and an Indiana
    Conservation Officer or the State Police if outside of normal
    business hours or on weekends). If possible, attempts should be made
    to remove an injured eagle from harms way, until a trained person
    arrives to safely capture and transport the bird. Sick and injured
    eagles will be transported to a veterinarian or a rehabilitation
    center that has a valid Federal permit to treat and rehabilitate
    eagles.\
    \
    BFO will contact the appropriate Service Law Enforcement office to
    report that a sick, injured, or dead eagle has been found.\
    \
    The FHWA will keep track of all known bald eagles killed or injured
    from vehicle collisions to ensure that the anticipated amount of
    incidental take, [3 killed/injured bald eagles during any five-year
    period,]{.underline} is not exceeded.\
    \
    The Service will not refer the incidental take of any migratory bird
    or bald eagle for prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of
    1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712), or the Bald and Golden
    Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 668-668d), if
    such take is in compliance with the terms and conditions specified
    herein.

In conclusion, the Service anticipates that the number of deaths and/or
injuries from vehicle collisions would not exceed 3 bald eagles during
any five-year period. If this level of take or less occurs, we expect
that the effects to Indiana breeding and wintering bald eagle
populations will be negligible. We anticipate that if 50 or less acres
of forested habitat that will be permanently cleared for construction of
bridges at the two major river crossings, East Fork of the White River
and the Patoka River, where bald eagles are most likely to occur, then
the impact will be insignificant in size and not likely to adversely
affect nesting or wintering bald eagles. Impacts to eagle habitat will
also be minimized by the proposed conservation measures and forest and
wetland mitigation efforts. 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. The 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.

**CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS**

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their
authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out
conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency
activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed
action/program on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement
recovery plans, or to develop information. Conservation recommendations
generally do not focus on a specific project, but rather on an agency's
overall program.

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

[INDIANA BAT]{.underline}

1.  Working with the Service, develop national guidelines for addressing
    Indiana bat issues associated with FHWA projects within the range of
    the Indiana bat.

2.  Expand on scientific research and educational outreach efforts on
    Indiana bats in coordination with the Service's BFO.

3.  In coordination with the BFO, purchase or otherwise protect
    additional Indiana bat hibernacula and forested swarming habitat in
    Indiana.

4.  Provide funding to staff a full-time Indiana bat Conservation
    Coordinator position within the BFO, which has the Service's
    national lead for this wide-ranging species.

[BALD EAGLE]{.underline}

1.  Working with the Service, develop guidelines for addressing Bald
    Eagle issues associated with FHWA projects in the Midwest.

2.  If delisted, provide funding to implement a bald eagle
    post-delisting monitoring plan in Indiana or throughout the Midwest.

3.  Expand on educational and outreach efforts on bald eagles in
    Indiana.

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

**REINITIATION NOTICE**

This concludes formal programmatic consultation with FHWA on the
construction, operation, and maintenance of the I-69 from Evansville to
Indianapolis, Indiana and associated development. 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 the may affect listed species or critical habitat
in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the
agency action (e.g., highway construction and associated development)
are subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the
listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or
(4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be
affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of
incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease
pending reinitiation.

**LITERATURE CITED**

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

American Geological Institute. 2001. Living With Karst: A Fragile
Foundation. AGI Environmental Awareness Series 4. 64 pp.

Brack, V., Jr. 1983. The nonhibernating ecology of bats in Indiana with
emphasis on the endangered Indiana bat, *Myotis sodalis*. Ph.D.
dissertation, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, Ind. 280 pp.

Brack, V. Jr, and R. K. LaVal. 1985. Food habits of the Indiana bat in
Missouri. Journal of Mammology 66(2):308-315.

Brack, V. Jr, and K. Tyrell. 1990. A model of the habitat used by the
Indiana bat (*Myotis sodalis*) during the summer in Indiana: 1990 field
studies. Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish and
Wildlife, Endangered Species Program, Project E-1-4, Study No. 8. 42pp.

Brack, V., Jr, S. A. Johnson, and R. K. Dunlap. 2003. Wintering
populations of bats in Indiana, with emphasis on the endangered Indiana
Myotis, *Myotis sodalis*. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Sciences
112:61-74.

Brack, V., Jr., and J. Duffey. 2005. A 2004-2005 winter survey for
Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in hibernacula of Indiana. Unpublished
technical report prepared by Environmental Solutions, Inc and the
Indiana Karst Conservancy for the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Diversity Section. 91
pp.

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

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

Castrale, J. and A. Holbrook. 2003. Indiana Department of Natural
Resources Wildlife Management Notes. Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Mitchell, Indiana.

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

Clawson, R.L. 2002. Trends in population size and current status in A.
Kurta and J. Kennedy eds. The Indiana Bat: Biology and Management of an
Endangered Species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Cope, J. B., A. R. Richter, and R. S. Mills. 1977. Spring and Autumn
Swarming Behavior in the Indiana Bat, Myotis sodalis. Journal of
Mammology 58(1):93-95.

Dunlap, K. 2001. Population Trends of Indiana Bats in Indiana. Indiana
Karst Conservancy Update 63:14-19.

Franson, J.C., Sileo, L., and N.J. Thomas. 1995. Causes of eagle deaths.
In E.T. LaRoe, G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett, P.D. Doran and M.J. Mac eds.
Our LivingResources. U.S. Department of Interior, National Biology
Service, Washington, D.C.

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

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

Garner, J. D., and J. E. Gardner. 1992. Determination of summer
distribution and habitat utilization of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
in Illinois. Final Report. Project E-3. Illinois Department of
Conservation, Division of Natural Heritage and Illinois Natural History
Survey, Center for Biogeographic Information. 25 pp.

Gray, H. 2000. Physiographic Divisions of Indiana. Indiana Universtiy,
Indiana.

Gumbert, M.W., J.M. O'Keefe, and J.R. MacGregor. 2002. Roost site
fidelity. In A. Kurta and J. Kennedy eds. 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.

Hofmann, J. 1996. Indiana Bats in Illinois. INHS Reports, March-April
1996. Illinois Natural History Survey. Available:
http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/surveyreports/mar-apr96/bats.html
(Accessed: February 5, 2003)

Homoya, M. A., Abrell, B. D., and J. R. Aldrich. 1985. The Natural
Regions of Indiana. D.R. Winslow ed. Proceedings of the Indiana Academy
of Science 94:245-268.

Hoosier National Forest (HNF). 2000. Programmatic Biological Assessment:
Land and Resource Management Plan. Unpublished Report. Hoosier National
Forest, Bedford, Indiana. 109 pp + Appendix.

Humphrey, S. R., A. R. Richter, and J. B. Cope. 1977. Summer Habitat and
Ecology of the Endangered Indiana Bat, Myotis sodalis. Journal of
Mammology 58(3):334-346.

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

Kiser, J.D., J.R. MacGregor, H.D. Bryan, and A. Howard. 2002. Use of
concrete bridges as nightroosts. in A. Kurta and J. Kennedy eds. The
Indiana Bat: Biology and Management of an Endangered Species. Bat
Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Kurta, A., D. King, J.A. Teramino, J.M. Stribley, and K.J. Williams.
1993. Summer Roosts of the Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) on
the Northern Edge of its Range. American Midland Naturalist 129(1):
132-138.

Kurta, A., S. W. Murray, and D. H. Miller. 2002. Roost Selection and
Movements Across the Summer Landscape in A. Kurta and J. Kennedy eds.
The Indiana Bat: Biology and Management of an Endangered Species. Bat
Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Lehman, R.N. 2001. Raptor electrocution on power lines: current issues
and outlook. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 84-813.

Mumford, R. E., and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 1982. Mammals of Indiana.
Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana. 537 pp.

National Speleological Society (NSS). 2003. Cave Life: Hey, What Lives
Down There Anyway? Available:
http://www.caves.org/grotto/mig/learn3.html (Accessed: June 17, 2003).

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

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*. Report to Indiana Department of Natural
Resources, Federal Aid Project E-1-7, Study No. 8. 38pp.

Rommé, R. C., A. B. Henry, R. A. King, T. Glueck, and K. Tyrell. 2002.
Home range near hibernacula in spring and autumn. in A. Kurta and J.
Kennedy eds. The Indiana Bat: Biology and Management of an Endangered
Species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.

Russell, A. L., C. Butchkoski, A. Tibbels, and G. F. McCracken. 2002.
Bats, Road-Kill, and the FBI (Flat Bat Investigation). Bat Research News
43 (4): 180.

Sealander J. A., and G. A. Heidt. 1990. Arkansas Mammals. The University
of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 308pp.

Tuttle, M.D. and J. Kennedy. 2002. Thermal requirements during
hibernation. Pp. 68-78 *in* A. Kurta and J. Kennedy (eds.), The Indiana
bat: biology and management of an endangered species. Bat Conservation
International, Austin, TX.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1983a. Northern States Bald
Eagle Recovery Plan. Bethesda, Maryland. 124 pp.

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Agency Draft Indiana Bat
(*Myotis sodalis*) Revised Recovery Plan. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 53
pp

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Biological Opinion on the
Application for an Incidental Take Permit for the Federally Endangered
Indiana Bat (*Myotis sodalis*) for the Six Points Road Interchange and
Associated Development. Unpublished Report. Bloomington Field Office,
Bloomington, Indiana. 35 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. An American success story
for the new millenium. Available: http://midwest.fws.gov/eagle/
(Accessed: October 15, 2003).

Whitaker, J. O., Jr. 1996. Survey of Summer Bat Communities and Search
for Endangered Bat Species at 21 Sites Along the Proposed Bloomington to
Evansville Highway Route in Gibson, Pike, Daviess, Greene, and Monroe
Counties in Southwest Indiana Highway Corridor - Draft EIS Appendices.
Indiana Department of Transportation, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Whitaker, J.O., Jr., and V. Brack Jr. 2002. Distribution and summer
ecology in Indiana. in A. Kurta and J. Kennedy eds. The Indiana Bat:
Biology and Management of an Endangered Species. Bat Conservation
International, Austin, Texas.

APPENDIX A:

OUTLINE AND DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS ON INDIANA BATS FROM THE ORIGINAL
DECEMBER 3, 2003 BIOLOGICAL OPINION

**[INDIANA BAT]{.underline}**

Below we have deconstructed the I-69 project into its various components
and outlined the anticipated direct and indirect impacts and their
effects on Indiana bats and bald eagles. The outline is organized by
species, direct vs. indirect impact/effect, and phase of the project:
construction, operation, or maintenance. The applicable time(s) of year
is also indicated. After each adverse effect is a brief description of
specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts that FHWA and
INDOT have already taken or agreed to implement (or attempt to
implement) in order to further reduce adverse effects and incidental
take of Indiana bats and bald eagles within the action areas (these are
shown in *italics*). The complete list of proposed avoidance and
minimization measures is included in the "Conservation Measures for
Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species" subsection under the
PROPOSED ACTION section above.

**Direct Effects**

######### **CONSTRUCTION**

-   [Tree/Forest Clearing]{.underline}

> *SPRING/SUMMER/FALL*

-   [Mortality/Injury/Harassment of roosting bats]{.underline} --
    removal of a roost tree while Indiana bats are present would likely
    result in directly killing, injuring, and/or harassing individuals
    or a colony.\
    \
    *FHWA/INDOT have agreed to abide by seasonal tree-cutting
    restrictions by not clearing any trees greater than 3 inches in
    diameter when bats are likely to be present: between April 15 and
    September 15 within the SAA or between April 1 and November 15
    within the WAA. Therefore, little or no [direct]{.underline} take of
    Indiana bats is anticipated from tree clearing during construction
    (or maintenance) of I-69. When possible, site-specific measures will
    be developed in consultation with the Service to avoid removing any
    primary and alternate roost trees located during Tier 2 surveys.*

-   [Permanent Loss of Roosting and Foraging Habitat]{.underline} --
    Estimates of direct loss of forest habitat were quantified in Table
    8 (SAA) and Table 9 (WAA) in the Tier 1 BA and updated for this
    reinitiated formal consultation and are presented below in this
    document as Tables 5 and 6. Acres of existing forest were estimated
    within each of the six Tier 2 project sections (approximately
    5-miles wide by variable length) and each circular areas around the
    10 Indiana bat hibernacula (5-mile radius), then recalculated
    subtracting forest needing to be cleared within the proposed
    construction limits of the Tier 1 working alignment of 3C. Based on
    Tier 1 estimates, **a total of approximately 1299 acres of forest
    will be permanently lost from construction of Alternative 3C of
    I-69.** This only represents a loss of 0.91% of the existing forest
    within the entire SAA, losses within individual project sections
    would range from 0.15% (Project Section 6) to 1.8% (Project Section
    4). Project Section 4 (between U.S. 231 and SR 37 in Bloomington) is
    the most heavily forested section of the

![](media/image13.wmf)

> project and would lose the most acres of forest (976.5 ac), which
> represents 1.8% of the existing forest within this section of the SAA.
> Comparisons of the percent of the working alignment forested to the
> percent of the landscape forested indicate successful forest avoidance
> in all sections with the exception of Section 4 where these
> percentages are very close. Because bats exhibit site fidelity to
> roosts and forage sites, potential exists, especially for pregnant
> females, to suffer stress searching for new roosting and foraging
> areas. It has been hypothesized that this stress could cause lower fat
> reserves and less successful reproduction and winter survival (USFWS
> 2002).\
> \
> Based on Tier 1 estimates, **construction of I-69 would cause the
> permanent loss of approximately 947 acres of forest habitat within the
> WAA, which represents less than 1 percent (0.95%) of the 99,502 acres
> of currently existing forest in the area**. Collectively, 59% of the
> WAA is forested. The percentage of fall swarming/spring staging/forest
> habitat that would be lost around each hibernaculum ranges from 0.19%
> (50 acres) for Salamander Cave to 1.39% (364 acres) for Reeve's Cave.
> The three hibernacula that would loss the least percent of surrounding
> forest are Coon's (0.39%), Grotto (0.33%) and Salamander (0.19%)
> caves. Loss of forest habitat around a hibernaculum can result in a
> reduced capacity to support a local hibernating population.\
> \
> *When possible, FHWA/INDOT avoided forest and wetland areas when
> developing the working alignment of Alternative 3C. They have also
> agreed to mitigate for the permanent and unavoidable loss of forests
> (3:1 ratio) and wetlands (ratios in Table 2) within the action areas
> by purchasing existing habitat, and/or creating, restoring, and
> enhancing habitat. Based on Tier 1 estimates of impacts, the committed
> mitigation acreage would total approximately 4,089 acres (Table 2). In
> Tier 2, this number may change. The actual mitigation acres will be
> determined based on impact acres and the committed ratios which could
> provide higher or lower mitigation acres than the amount estimated in
> the Biological Assessment. All mitigation areas would be monitored for
> at least 5 years and permanently protected via conservation easements.
> Efforts will be made to mitigate in locations that will directly
> benefit individual bats likely to be impacted by the project. Specific
> sites will be finalized in consultation with the Service after Tier 2
> surveys have revealed where important Indiana bat areas are located
> (e.g., maternity colonies, and new hibernacula). Opportunities will be
> investigated to benefit Indiana bats by purchasing additional
> summer/fall/spring forest habitat within the action areas from
> "willing-sellers" and turning it over to an appropriate government
> conservation and management agency for protection in perpetuity via
> conservation easements. Therefore, the adverse affects to Indiana bats
> within the action areas from the loss of summer/swarming/staging
> roosting and foraging habitat may be minimized. There is uncertainty
> as to what proportion of land owners with forested property within the
> action areas will be willing-sellers.\
> \
> In addition, FHWA/INDOT have identified as potential mitigation sites
> two properties totaling 1,180 acres (approx. 740 acres of forest)
> located outside of the action areas. While valuable to the species,
> this "off-site" summer habitat (and potentially caves/winter
> hibernacula) is not likely to benefit Indiana bats within the I-69
> action areas and therefore was only considered as a beneficial effect
> within the context of the Service's jeopardy analysis.*

-   [Forest fragmentation]{.underline} - The 3C alignment will increase
    the degree of forest fragmentation by removing approximately 398
    acres from core forests. Although only direct impacts to core forest
    were estimated, it is expected that indirect impacts would also
    occur. The majority of core forest impacts will occur where there
    are large forested tracts of land, primarily in Greene and Monroe
    counties. Fragmentation of roosting and foraging habitat from tree
    clearing within the construction limits may degrade the remaining
    habitat's quality by reducing the size of and distance between
    remaining forest tracts and thereby lowering the overall amount of
    roosting and foraging habitat available to a maternity colony. In
    some areas where forest cover is already sparse, the percentage of
    remaining forest may fall below the minimum amount needed to sustain
    a colony.[\
    \
    ]{.underline}*While developing the 3C working alignment, FHWA/INDOT
    attempted to avoid forested areas especially large contiguous tracts
    of forest. The FHWA/INDOT will finalize their proposed forest
    mitigation plans in consultation with the Service, and specific
    attempts will be made to improve the connectivity between forest
    patches in areas known to be inhabited by Indiana bat maternity
    colonies discovered during Tier 2 surveys.*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Stream Relocation]{.underline}

> *SPRING/SUMMER/FALL*

-   According to the Tier 1 DEIS, up to 40 perennial streams and 80
    intermittent streams will be crossed by the 3C alignment of I-69.
    Stream channel relocations will destroy any existing bat flyways,
    roosting, and foraging areas in the sections of streams being
    crossed, and lower the abundance of aquatic insects that form a
    portion of the Indiana bat's prey base.\
    \
    *FHWA/INDOT will develop site-specific mitigation and monitoring
    plans for stream relocations as appropriate. Proposed restoration
    actions will include the planting of woody and herbaceous vegetation
    to stabilize the banks and to provide future roosting and foraging
    habitat. .*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Bridge Construction and Removal]{.underline}

> *SPRING/SUMMER/FALL*

-   Removal of an unknown number of concrete-girder bridges from
    existing roadways crossed by the proposed I-69 alignment could cause
    [a loss of Indiana bat night roosts]{.underline}. Bats would have to
    expend energy to seek out other night roosts that may be less
    suitable or otherwise limited in a bat's range.\
    \
    *For bridges discovered to be night roosts during Tier 2 studies
    that need to be replaced, attempts will be made to replace them with
    bridges designed to create or recreate suitable night roosting
    areas.*

-   Construction of bridges spanning waterways could impact water
    quality, stream flow, and bank vegetation. This could lead to
    reduced aquatic insect production and degrade the quality of
    riparian foraging areas.\
    \
    *Impacts will be minimized by spanning as much of the floodplain as
    possible to preserve wildlife corridors and to minimize fill.
    FHWA/INDOT has committed to span the entire floodplain at the
    proposed crossing of the Patoka River.*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Water Quality Impacts]{.underline}

> *YEAR ROUND*

-   Spills of hazardous materials soil erosion could occur during
    construction and degrade the quality of both surface and ground
    water. Water quality affects the Indiana bat in terms of its aquatic
    insect prey, drinking water, and the environment in hibernacula. The
    potential for adverse impacts may be highest within the 50 acres of
    sinkhole areas and sinking stream basins that would be traversed by
    the 3C alignment (Tier 1 DEIS, Table 6-1).\
    \
    *Impacts will be avoided or minimized by implementing equipment
    servicing and maintenance guidelines, contaminant spill,
    erosion-control, and herbicide use plans, following standard
    construction BMPs, and by installing filtering barriers in sinkhole
    areas (in accordance with the 1993 Karst MOU) and containment
    roadside ditches as appropriate.*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Blasting near Known Hibernacula]{.underline}

> *FALL/WINTER/SPRING*

-   Using explosives to blast through rock in karst areas can disturb or
    kill bats swarming, hibernating, or staging in nearby caves.
    Blasting too close to hibernacula may cause cave ceilings to
    collapse, which could directly kill hibernating bats or trap them
    inside. Blasting could also cause cave passages or sinkholes to
    become blocked, which could trap or possibly cause cave streams to
    backup and drown bats when present or exclude them from entering
    later. Blockages in a cave's passages or entries would also alter
    its airflow patterns and microclimates, which could make the cave
    unsuitable as an Indiana bat hibernaculum.\
    \
    *This potential impact will be avoided or minimized by determining
    safe blasting charges and distances in coordination with experts on
    a case by case basis, by following seasonal restrictions (i.e., when
    bats aren't hibernating), and by monitoring and surveying known
    hibernacula before and after blasting occurs.*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Destruction or Adverse Modification of Potential
    Hibernacula]{.underline}

> *FALL/WINTER/SPRING*

-   Because at least 11 caves are known to be within the 2000-foot
    corridor of 3C and some subset of 310 historic underground mines
    (mostly coal mines, the majority of which have been closed and are
    no longer accessible to bats) documented within 5 miles of the 3C
    working alignment may also be within the corridor, some potential
    exists for Indiana bats to hibernate within these caves/mines and
    others not yet known (if suitable) within the proposed construction
    limits of I-69. Construction activities (e.g., grading, filling, and
    blasting) could destroy or adversely modify these caves and mines
    and kill any bats present and would permanently render them
    inaccessible or otherwise unsuitable. Because cave systems are
    dynamic and change over time (e.g., passages enlarge through
    dissolution, new cave entries form from collapsed ceilings, etc.),
    some of the caves that may be directly impacted by I-69 that are not
    currently suitable as hibernacula could become suitable in the
    future. So, any actions that reduce the abundance of caves or
    permanently preclude their future use by Indiana bats could be
    considered an adverse affect. It should be noted that some caves may
    be suitable hibernacula, but are not currently used by Indiana bats
    because they have been repeatedly disturbed or vandalized by humans
    in the past.\
    \
    *Because caves are essentially a non-renewable resource, the
    FHWA/INDOT has shifted its working alignment to avoid direct impacts
    to known cave resources when possible and will continue to do so.
    During Tier 2, field surveys will be conducted to locate all cave
    entrances, sinkholes, and mines within the 2000-foot corridor. Any
    of these caves/mines or others deemed to be potential hibernacula
    that are within the WAA or within 5 miles of the 3C corridor, will
    be surveyed for the presence of hibernating Indiana bats during
    Tier 2. Any newly discovered hibernacula will be avoided if at all
    possible and monitored throughout the project. Variable-width
    medians and/or independent alignments may be proposed to minimize
    direct impacts to hibernacula that can not be avoided.\
    \
    FHWA and INDOT will investigate opportunities to purchase from
    "willing sellers", an Indiana bat hibernaculum(a) including
    associated autumn swarming/spring staging habitat. After purchase
    and implementation of any needed management efforts, the
    hibernaculum(a) and associated buffer areas would be turned over to
    an appropriate government conservation and management agency for
    protection in perpetuity via conservation easements. Uncertainty
    remains as to what number of (if any) private property owners with
    land containing an Indiana bat hibernaculum(a) within the action
    areas will be willing to sell.*

######### **PROJECT OPERATION**

-   [Increased Mortality from Vehicle / Bat Collisions]{.underline}

> *SPRING/SUMMER/FALL*

-   Although Indiana bats have been documented safely flying over busy
    interstate highways (e.g., I-70 near Indianapolis; USFWS 2002), the
    possibility exists for individuals to be directly killed by vehicles
    traveling on I-69 and associated roadways (e.g., overpasses and
    frontage roads) once they are operational. There have been recent
    studies investigating Indiana bats being killed by vehicle traffic
    on a 2-lane road near a maternity colony in Pennsylvania (Russell et
    al. 2002).\
    \
    *The Service anticipates that all bats that are struck by vehicles
    will be killed. The Service assumes that the annual number of deaths
    by vehicle collisions is not likely to exceed 10 Indiana bats.
    However, based on the best available scientific data, the actual
    number of Indiana bats that may be struck and killed from vehicles
    traveling on I-69 between Evansville and Indianapolis can not be
    precisely quantified during Tier 1. Therefore, this issue will be
    reexamined during each Tier 2 project-section consultations when
    more specific information will be available. For example, if a
    maternity colony or hibernaculum is located near I-69, additional
    studies may be undertaken to determine if and to what extent
    roadkill is occurring and FHWA/INDOT will consult with the Service
    to appropriately address the issue.*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Increased Disturbance from Light / Noise / Vibration]{.underline}

##### YEAR ROUND

-   Increased light, traffic noise, and vibrations could cause
    disturbance to Indiana bats unaccustomed to these impacts while
    roosting, foraging, or hibernating nearby and thereby lower the
    suitability of adjacent habitats. Female bats in Illinois used
    roosts at least 1640 ft (500 m) from paved roadways (Garner and
    Gardener 1992). Very low bat usage close to Interstates has also
    been noted by other bat biologists (Whitaker, Jr. per. comm.).
    Conversely, some bats did use roosts near the I-70/Indianpolis
    Airport area, including a primary maternity roost 1970 ft (0.6 km)
    south of I-70. 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).\
    \
    *No specific measures have been proposed to avoid, minimize, or
    mitigate these effects in Tier 1, but they may be developed in Tier
    2 if evidence indicates they are warranted.*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Increased Public Awareness of Indiana Bats]{.underline}

##### YEAR ROUND

-   Public awareness of Indiana bats, their life history requirements,
    and threats to the species is likely to increase as a direct result
    of educational pamphlets and interpretive displays that FHWA and
    INDOT have proposed to have designed and plan to distribute/display
    at public rest stops along I-69.

######### 

######### **PROJECT MAINTENANCE**

-   [Bridge Repair / Replacement]{.underline}

##### SPRING/SUMMER/FALL

-   Night roosts could be destroyed, or degraded by repairs to concrete
    bridges or future replacement of concrete bridges with non-bat
    friendly designs. Bats using night roosts during maintenance
    projects would be forced to seek out other suitable night roosts
    that may be limited in number, of lower quality, or located further
    away.\
    \
    *INDOT maintenance staff will be made Aware of any bridges used as
    night roosts during Tier 2 studies and subsequently monitored in an
    effort to reduce unnecessary disturbances.*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Water Quality Impacts]{.underline}

> *YEAR ROUND*

-   Highway project maintenance could result in a spill of hazardous
    materials in wetland or karst areas. Spills could degrade quality of
    both surface and ground waters. Water quality affects the Indiana
    bat in terms of its aquatic insect prey, drinking water, and the
    environment in hibernacula. Impacts will be reduced or avoided by
    conservation measures.\
    \
    *Impacts will be reduced or avoided via proposed conservation
    measures.*

**INDIRECT EFFECTS**

Indirect effects are caused by or result from the proposed action, are
later in time, and are reasonably certain to occur. Many of the indirect
effects are beyond the authority of the FHWA or INDOT to control.
Anticipated indirect effects include the following.

> **CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE**

-   [Habitat Loss and Degradation from Relocated and Induced Commercial
    and Residential Development]{.underline} and other associated
    infrastructure (e.g., new roads, fire houses, and schools) is
    certain to occur along the new I-69, especially near proposed
    interchanges. According to the Tier 1 DEIS, from 28 to 31
    interchanges are likely to be constructed or modified along the I-69
    alignment. Induced development is also likely to occur in areas
    within and surrounding the cities being served by the interstate,
    especially the larger ones (e.g., Bloomington, Martinsville,
    Washington). Likewise, I-69 has been projected to stimulate new
    development at the Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center. According to
    the Tier 1 BA, **FHWA and INDOT estimated that** **approximately 325
    to 400 acres of forest and 10 to 30 acres of wetlands will be
    permanently cleared as part of development that the Interstate will
    induce over time**. According to the Tier 1 DEIS, up to 458 homes
    and 75 businesses may have to be relocated along the 3C corridor to
    make way for I-69. These relocations may lead to the removal of
    additional amount of forest and wetland habitat.

    -   Development will remove, degrade, and fragment forest serving as
        summer roosting and foraging and fall swarming/spring staging
        habitat.

    -   Runoff, erosion, and improper disposal of residential trash
        (e.g., dumping in sinkholes) resulting from induced development
        could degrade water quality and cave/hibernacula environments by
        altering karst hydrology (e.g., plug sinkhole drains).

    -   Use of pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals at induced
        developments may affect bat habitat and prey base, and may
        bioaccumulate within the bats causing lethal or sublethal
        effects on individuals and reduce their reproduction.

    -   Water quality in surface and cave streams could also be degraded
        or threatened by improper sewage treatment (e.g., septic tanks
        in karst areas).\
        \
        *See efforts mentioned under Direct Effects of habitat loss
        above. FHWA and INDOT have made efforts to discourage adverse
        impacts to forest and karst features within the WAA by
        eliminating or minimizing interchanges near karst habitats
        (e.g., no interchanges are proposed in SW Monroe County).*

-   [Utility Right-of-Ways (ROW)]{.underline} will need to be
    relocated/realigned to accommodate construction of I-69 and may
    potentially need to be expanded or added to accommodate newly
    induced development. This is likely to result in a permanent removal
    of some amount of Indiana bat foraging and roosting habitat.
    Depending on forest age classes and canopy cover, this could be
    beneficial by creating some openings and edge, or detrimental by
    fragmenting high quality habitat. Utility ROWs may also be
    maintained with herbicides that are toxic to aquatic life.

-   [Erosion]{.underline} and sedimentation from disturbed soil areas
    where induced development is occurring can degrade water quality and
    cave environments, as well as plug sinkhole drainages and cause
    flooding in karst areas, which could drown hibernating bats.

-   [Road Salt and Chemical Herbicides]{.underline} used to maintain the
    Interstate and may degrade surface and ground water through runoff
    and degrade cave environments. Some herbicides can affect bats by
    accumulating in their tissues as they consume contaminated insects
    or drinking contaminated water.\
    \
    *These impacts will be minimized by low-salt and no-spray strategies
    set forth in the Karst MOU (dated October 13, 1993) and the
    development of an Herbicide Use Plan.*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Contamination of Soil and Water from Vehicle
    Accidents]{.underline} - At some point during the operation of I-69,
    a vehicle accident(s) is likely to occur and result in a spill of
    hazardous materials into a stream, wetland or karst area. Spills
    could degrade quality of both surface and ground waters. Water
    quality affects the Indiana bat in terms of its aquatic insect prey,
    drinking water, and the environment in hibernacula.\
    \
    *Impacts will be reduced or avoided by emergency contaminant spill
    plans and filtering and containment roadside ditches placed in karst
    areas during construction in accordance with the mult-agency Karst
    MOU.*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Increased Human Disturbances to Hibernating Bats]{.underline} is
    possible at unprotected hibernacula within the WAA. Increased
    visitation at nearby caves may result once I-69 is operational
    because many more people and presumably more cavers/spelunkers would
    be within a shorter commuting distance/time than before.\
    \
    *Disturbance of hibernating bats at some currently unprotected
    hibernacula may be completely stopped or reduced by acquiring
    easements from cave owners to erect bat-friendly angle-iron gates.
    These gates restrict access to the caves preventing disturbance of
    hibernacula while maintaining airflow at the entrances and allowing
    bats to ingress and egress. If cave owners objected to installing a
    gate, then other structures (e.g., perimeter fencing) or techniques
    (e.g., alarm systems and signs) for discouraging unauthorized
    visitations would be investigated. Uncertainty remains as to what
    number of (if any) private property owners with land containing an
    Indiana bat hibernaculum(a) within the action area would be willing
    to allow FHWA/INDOT to install a gate or other deterrent.*

####### [Increased Predation of Bats by Domestic Cats]{.underline}. -- As yet another consequence of an increase in residential developments near hibernacula within the WAA, the resident population of free-ranging domestic and feral cats is likely to increase. More cats across the landscape may lead to higher predation rates on Indiana bats, especially as they enter and exit their hibernacula. Predation of bats by at least one domestic cat (a family pet) has been reported at the entrance of a gated Indiana bat hibernaculum near the owner's home (Reeve's Cave).  *This effect will be minimized by attempting to replace any poorly designed bat gates that increase the potential for predation by cats or other wild animals (e.g., Reeve's Cave) and by monitoring other hibernacula where evidence suggests that predation by cats is occurring.* 

APPENDIX B:

EFFECTS ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLES FOR THE INDIANA BAT PREPARED FOR THE
REVISED BIOLOGICAL OPINION