Aquatic Resource Survey Pools 1 Business Confidential 

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)

Biological Evaluation and Management Plan

Proposed Bell Bend NPP Site

Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

Prepared by:

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 

400 Old Reading Pike 

Building A, Suite 101 

Stowe, PA 19464 

(610) 705-5733 

www.normandeau.com

Submitted to:

AREVA NP, Inc.

400 Donald Lynch Boulevard 

Marlborough, MA 01752

November 2011

$5(9$13,QF

7011796

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan 

For The 

Proposed Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Site 

Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

Prepared for: 

AREVA NP, Inc. 

Marlborough, MA 

And 

UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC 

Prepared by: 

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 

Stowe, PA 

November 2011 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

i

November 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ ii 

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... iii 

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ iii 

LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................. iv 

RECORD OF REVISIONS ........................................................................................................... 1 

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2 

1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 2 

1.2 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................... 3 

1.3 PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................................ 3 

1.4 AFFECTED SPECIES ............................................................................................................ 3 

2. CONSULTATIONS AND SITE SURVEYS ............................................................................ 3 

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 6 

3.1 CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................. 6 

3.1.1 Transmission System Modifications ............................................................................ 7 

3.1.2 Wetland Mitigation Activities ...................................................................................... 7

3.2 OPERATION ....................................................................................................................... 9 

3.3 MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................ 12 

4. ACTION AREA ....................................................................................................................... 12 

4.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 12 

4.2 BBNPP ACTION AREA .................................................................................................... 13 

4.2.1 Physical Conditions .................................................................................................... 14

4.2.2 Biological Conditions ................................................................................................. 14

5. SPECIES AND HABITAT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 16 

5.1 RANGE AND POPULATION LEVEL .................................................................................... 16 

5.2 THREATS ......................................................................................................................... 17 

5.3 SPECIES DESCRIPTION – MORPHOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR ................................................. 19 

5.4 SPECIES DESCRIPTION – HABITAT REQUIREMENTS ......................................................... 20 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

ii

November 2011

5.5 SIMILAR SPECIES DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 21 

6. EFFECTS OF PROJECT ACTIONS....................................................................................... 22 

6.1 CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................................... 22 

6.2 OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................... 25 

6.3 MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................ 25 

7. PROPOSED INDIANA BAT MITIGATION ......................................................................... 26 

7.1 REFORESTATION AND NATURAL SUCCESSION ................................................................. 27 

7.2 HABITAT CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ............................................................... 29 

7.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH ......................................................................................................... 31 

7.4 MITIGATION MEASURES EVALUATED BUT NOT SELECTED FOR IMPLEMENTATION ......... 32 

8. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 32 

8.1 AREA OF DISTURBANCE .................................................................................................. 33 

8.2 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................................... 35 

8.3 POTABLE WATER AND SEWER LINES .............................................................................. 35 

8.4 CONSERVATION ACTIONS ................................................................................................ 35 

9. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 36 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. BBNPP Site Location Map 

Figure 2. BBNPP Action Area 

Figure 3. BBNPP Isolated Forest Fragments 

Figure 4. Indiana Bat Pennsylvania Range 

Figure 5. BBNPP Indiana Bat Hibernacula Sites within 10 miles 

Figure 6. BBNPP Reforestation, Natural Succession, and Habitat Management and Conservation 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

iii

November 2011

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Calculation of Compensation Acres for Indiana Bat Habitat on the BBNPP Project Site 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Consultation 

Appendix B. Site Specific Survey Reports and Assessments 

 BBNPP Indiana Bat Mist Net Survey 

 BBNPP Indiana Bat Roost Tree Survey 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

iv

November 2011

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

BA - Biological Assessment 

BBNPP - Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant 

BEMP - Biological Evaluation and Management Plan 

BMPs - Best Management Practices 

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations 

COL - Combined License 

CWS - Circulating Waste System 

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA - Endangered Species Act 

ESWEMS - Essential Service Water Emergency Makeup System 

ESWS - Essential Service Water System 

FERC - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

NBCT - North Branch Canal Trail 

NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NUREG - NRC Regulatory Guidance – Documentation of technical, regulatory, or 

administrative information about NRC programs or activities prepared by a contractor. 

PADEP - Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

PDCNR - Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

PFBC - Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission 

PGC - Pennsylvania Game Commission 

UniStar - UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC 

SACTI - Seasonal/Annual Cooling Tower Impact 

SGL - State Game Lands 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

v

November 2011

SSES - Susquehanna Steam Electric Station 

USACE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USEPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USEPR - U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor 

USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

1

November 2011

RECORD OF REVISIONS 

Revision Date Pages/Sections 

Changed Brief Description 

000 November, 2011 All Initial Release 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

2

November 2011

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the combined license (COL) 

application of PPL Bell Bend, LLC (PPL) for the construction and operation of a new nuclear 

plant to be designated as the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant (BBNPP). BBNPP will be located 

in Salem Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, adjacent to the existing Susquehanna Steam 

Electric Station (SSES) near the Susquehanna River. The BBNPP site is located approximately 

5 miles (8 km) northeast of Berwick, Pennsylvania. 

The NRC is the lead federal agency responsible for preparing an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) in accordance with 10 CFR 51 for the construction and operation of the new unit 

that will be authorized by the COL. The decision to approve a license can only be made by the 

NRC upon the completion of the EIS. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is serving as 

a cooperating agency in the development of the EIS with respect to the requirements of USACE 

regulations at 33 CFR 320 through 332, the Federal Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) 

Guidelines and the USACE public interest review process. 

Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), all federal agencies participate in the 

conservation and recovery of listed threatened and endangered species. Section 7(a) (2) of the 

Act requires that federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, fund or carry out is not 

likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Furthermore, Section 7 provides guidance for 

the consultation process and federal interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species 

and designated critical habitats, including the development of a Biological Assessment (BA). A 

BA may be necessary if the information available to the lead Federal agency and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through the informal consultation process is insufficient to 

conclude that the proposed action is not likely to affect listed species or critical habitat that may 

be present in the Project Action Area. 

As a part of the licensing process, the NRC requested comment, in a letter dated January 12, 

2009, from the USFWS on the environmental scoping process and federally protected species 

within the area affected by the proposed construction of BBNPP. In response to the NRC 

request, the USFWS indicated in a letter dated July 10, 2009 that the BBNPP project is located in 

proximity to three known hibernacula for the federally–listed, endangered Indiana bat (Myotis 

sodalis) and the Indiana bat may be adversely affected by the clearing of forested areas that 

support foraging, roosting or fall swarming habitat (Appendix A). In this same letter, the 

USFWS recommended that PPL implement avoidance, minimization, and compensatory 

mitigation measures to avoid adverse effects to the species (USFWS, 2009). 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

3

November 2011

This Biological Evaluation and Management Plan (BEMP) has been prepared to provide the 

NRC with baseline information for the development of a BA, which would determine whether 

there would likely be any adverse effects from the Project on this federally protected species. 

Appendix A provides the consultation record for the project. Appendix B provides the results of 

the site-specific Indiana bat mist net and roost tree surveys conducted for this project. Appendix 

C provides documentation of the commitments on the part of PPL to minimize and avoid impacts 

to Indiana bats and habitat and provide mitigation for unavoidable impacts associated with the 

BBNPP Project. 

1.2 Purpose 

The purpose of this BEMP is to assess potential effects of site preparation activities, the 

construction of support facilities, mitigation and restoration activities, and the construction, 

operation and maintenance of the BBNPP on the Indiana bat. 

1.3 Proposed Action 

PPL is planning to construct and operate the new BBNPP on property adjacent to the existing 

SSES Units 1 and 2. The purpose of the proposed new nuclear power plant is to generate 

electricity (baseload power) for sale. The construction and operation of BBNPP will be 

authorized by Federal action resulting in the issuance of a COL by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission under 10 CFR 52. BBNPP will be constructed based on the U.S. Evolutionary 

Power Reactor (U.S. EPRTM) reactor design. Structures and facilities associated with the 

construction and operation of the plant will include the main power block buildings, cooling 

towers, switchyards and on-site transmission lines, a water treatment building, a wastewater 

retention pond, an emergency water makeup pond, water intake and discharge structures, water 

intake and discharge pipelines, storm water infiltration basins, plant access roads, a rail spur, 

temporary and permanent parking areas, construction laydown areas and various temporary and 

permanent ancillary facilities. 

1.4 Affected Species 

The USFWS has determined that the Indiana bat may be present in the area affected by the 

Project, because of the proximity of the project site to several hibernacula, and it is therefore 

likely that suitable habitat that exists within the BBNPP project area is used by this species 

(Turner et al., 2009). The Indiana bat is federally listed as endangered and listed in the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as endangered. 

2. CONSULTATIONS AND SITE SURVEYS 

In December 2007, PPL requested an environmental review of the BBNPP site and vicinity for 

the presence of rare, threatened and endangered species from the USFWS, Pennsylvania Game 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

4

November 2011

Commission (PGC), Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC), and Pennsylvania 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (PDCNR). In the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania, jurisdiction for mammals, including the Indiana bat, falls under the purview of the 

PGC and the USFWS. Responses from all four agencies regarding the presence or absence of 

rare, threatened and endangered species within the vicinity of a project area are valid for one 

year. 

In a letter dated January 18, 2008, the USFWS indicated that the BBNPP site was within the 

range of the Indiana bat (Appendix A) and requested that PPL provide additional information on 

forested areas that would be disturbed by the Project. The PGC, in a letter dated April 10, 2008, 

indicated that the BBNPP site was within the range of two species of special concern: smallfooted myotis (Myotis leibii), which is state threatened, and northern myotis (Myotis 

septentrionalis), which is a state candidate species (Appendix A). The Indiana bat was not 

included by the PGC as a species of concern that may occur in the vicinity of the BBNPP site. 

PPL provided the information requested by the USFWS on March 26, 2008 (Appendix A). In 

response, the USFWS requested in a communication dated April 21, 2008 (Appendix A) that a 

bat survey of the project area be completed between May 15th and August 15th and that any caves 

or mine openings on the site be identified. 

As a result of this letter, a survey was completed to determine if the Indiana bat was present on 

the BBNPP site. This investigation was conducted by Dr. Karen Campbell, a USFWS-approved 

Qualified Indiana Bat Surveyor, between June 7 and July 11, 2008 following the USFWS Bat 

Mist Netting Guidelines. Study techniques included mist net sampling, acoustic (echolocation) 

monitoring using hand-held AnaBat ultrasonic detectors, and a survey for cave and mine 

openings that could indicate the potential presence of hibernacula on-site. The primary purpose 

of surveys conducted under these guidelines is to identify the presence or probable absence of 

maternity colonies.

No Indiana bats were collected by the mist net surveys and none were detected by acoustic 

monitoring. In addition, no potential hibernacula were identified within the BBNPP Project 

Boundary. 

Although no Indiana bats were collected during the mist net survey, four northern myotis (Myotis 

septentrionalis), eight little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus), and four big brown bats (Eptesicus 

fuscus) were captured, tagged and released. Results of acoustic monitoring were consistent with 

the echolocation signatures for big brown bats and the Myotis species captured during mist 

netting. The little brown and big brown specimens included reproductively active females, and 

adult or juvenile males, while the northern myotis specimens were all adult males. These 

findings suggest that northern myotis use of the site may be limited to roosting only, while the 

other two bat species use the site for both roosting and maternity colonies (AREVA, 2010b). The 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

5

November 2011

little brown bat (Kunz et al., 2010) and northern myotis (USFWS, 2011a) have the potential to be 

listed by the USFWS in the near future. 

Results of the investigation were included as part of the COL application Environmental Report 

submitted to the NRC in October, 2008 (UniStar, 2010). As previously discussed, the NRC 

subsequently requested comment, in a letter dated January 12, 2009, from the USFWS on the 

environmental scoping process and federally protected species within the area affected by the 

proposed construction of BBNPP. 

The USFWS indicated in its July 10, 2009 response to the NRC that the Service could not 

conclude that either summer habitat for males or maternity colonies would not be affected by the 

BBNPP Project, due to the mist netting survey area that was selected, and it should be assumed 

that suitable forested areas on the site could potentially be used by Indiana bats for fall foraging, 

roosting and swarming habitat, because BBNPP is located within 10 miles of a hibernaculum 

(Appendix A). 

On February 9, 2010 a meeting was held at USFWS Offices in State College, PA with 

representatives of NRC, ACOE and USFWS. The original topic of the meeting was to discuss 

avoidance and minimization activities to protect the Indiana bat; USFWS also discussed the need 

to perform a Biological Assessment (BA) for Indiana Bats to fulfill ESA Section 7 requirements 

relative to documentation of potential significant impact to the Indiana Bat. Discussion with the 

agencies also included lead agency designation and the scope of the BA. 

Representatives of the USFWS, NRC, USACE and PPL discussed the conclusions of the 

USFWS response letter on June 1, 2010 (Normandeau, 2010a). Following the discussion, the 

USFWS and USACE also inspected forested areas on the BBNPP site. As an outcome of the 

discussion, the NRC determined that it should prepare a BA for the Indiana Bat. 

In September 2010, PPL requested environmental reviews for the presence of rare, threatened 

and endangered species from the USFWS, PGC, PFBC, and PDCNR for a study area 

encompassing the BBNPP Project Boundary and a surrounding 0.5 mile buffer. These 

environmental reviews were needed to cover the expanded project area and because agency 

responses for the initial project review were more than one year old and no longer valid. 

The PGC, in a letter dated December 28, 2010 (Appendix A), responded that potential impacts to 

the Indiana bat may be associated with the Project. However, in contrast to the agency’s April 

21, 2008 response discussed above, no other potential species impacts were noted. Furthermore, 

PGC stated that it would defer to the USFWS on potential project impacts, since the Indiana bat 

is a federally-listed endangered species. No letter of response has been received yet from the 

USFWS. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

6

November 2011

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

The BBNPP Project Boundary encompasses 2,055 acres (831.6 hectares [ha]) of land in an area 

of open deciduous woodlands interspersed with grasslands, previously cultivated fields, and 

orchards that support a variety of habitats as well as the facilities for the existing SSES Units 1 

and 2 (Figure 1). The limit of disturbance boundary associated with BBNPP encompasses 687 

acres, of which 677 acres (274 ha) will actually be disturbed by site preparation and construction. 

Furthermore, 457 acres (185 ha) would be permanently dedicated to BBNPP and its supporting 

facilities and converted to structures, pavement, or other intensively-maintained exterior 

grounds, or from forested land to scrub/shrub vegetation within transmission line and vehicle, 

rail and utility bridge corridors (UniStar, 2010). Impacts to natural resources are expected to 

originate primarily from the site preparation activities and construction phase of the Project, but 

will also result from the operation and maintenance of the new unit. 

Construction, operation and maintenance activities that could potentially affect the Indiana Bat 

are described below. 

3.1 Construction 

The area of construction disturbance within the BBNPP Project Boundary is illustrated in Figure 

2. Of the total acreage to be disturbed, approximately 623 acres (252 ha) of impacts will occur to 

areas that are not currently developed. Clearing and grubbing will result in temporary and 

permanent conversions of various habitat types including forest, agricultural, wetland, and 

scrub/shrub habitats. 

Approximately 369.4 acres (149.5 ha) of undeveloped land would be permanently converted to 

structures, pavement, or other intensively-maintained exterior grounds. These facilities will 

include the proposed power block, switchyards, cooling towers, Essential Service Water 

Emergency Makeup System (ESWEMS) Retention Pond, wastewater retention pond, water 

treatment building, permanent parking and laydown areas, access roads, rail spur, and 

Circulating Water System (CWS) Makeup Water Intake Structure. 

Approximately 220.3 acres (89.2 ha) of undeveloped land would only be temporarily converted 

- to accommodate the concrete batch plant, temporary sedimentation pond, dredge dewatering 

basin, topsoil stockpiles and temporary offices, warehouses, parking and laydown areas. 

Temporary wetland losses associated with the installation of water intake and discharge pipelines 

will be 0.78 acres (0.32 ha). Acreage not containing permanent structures would be restored by 

grading and revegetating to the extent practicable and certain portions may be designated for 

wetland or other habitat mitigation. 

Approximately 33.0 acres (13.4 ha) would be permanently converted to accommodate 

transmission lines and vehicle, rail and utility pipeline bridge corridors. These areas include both 

forested upland and forested wetland areas that will require forest clearing for transmission line 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

7

November 2011

rights-of-way and bridges. Transmission line corridors and areas under and adjacent to bridges 

will be permanently maintained as scrub/shrub habitats following PPL vegetation management 

programs. 

Wetlands comprise approximately 1.4 acres (0.57 ha) of permanently lost terrestrial habitat. 

Additionally, 742 linear feet (226 m) of stream channel outside of the wetlands areas will be 

permanently filled. 

Construction of the surface water CWS Makeup Water Intake Structure and blowdown diffuser 

structure will involve very minor impacts of 0.6 acres (0.24 ha) and 0.7 acres (0.28 ha), 

respectively, within the Susquehanna River. The remaining disturbed area of approximately 0.1 

acres (0.04 ha) will be temporarily disturbed, only, to accommodate cofferdams, necessary 

excavation work and other construction activities within the river.

Total temporary and permanent losses of forested cover will include 222.2 acres (89.9 ha) of 

upland deciduous forest and 11.3 acres (4.6 ha) of palustrine forested wetland. In addition to the 

cleared forested areas, approximately 2.8 acres (1.1 ha) of forest will be fragmented and isolated, 

effectively lost as viable Indiana bat habitat (Figure 3). Forest areas were determined not to be 

suitable Indiana bat habitat based on small size and physical separation (>1000 feet [305 meters]) 

from suitable habitat. The majority of both the upland and wetland forest cover that will be 

cleared is composed of well-developed overstory and understory strata. Other vegetation losses 

from both permanent and temporary disturbances will include approximately 63.4 acres (25.7 ha) 

of upland scrub/shrub vegetation; 168.2 acres (68.1 ha) of old field vegetation and former 

agricultural land including an abandoned orchard, 148.2 acres (60.0 ha) of agricultural land, and 

7.2 acres (2.9 ha) of palustrine emergent vegetation. 

3.1.1 Transmission System Modifications 

Although certain sections of two off-site transmission lines will need to be reconductored to 

avoid network overloads during peak usage periods, no new off-site transmission corridors or 

other off-site land use would be required to connect the new reactor unit to the existing electrical 

grid (UniStar, 2010). Numerous breaker upgrades and associated modifications will be required 

at existing off-site substations and switchyards, but all of the modifications would be 

implemented within the existing substations and switchyards.

3.1.2 Wetland Mitigation Activities

A description of potential wetland mitigation activities that may be undertaken at the BBNPP site 

is presented below. Mitigation measures for the Indiana bat are discussed in Section 7. 

Wetland mitigation in Pennsylvania is driven primarily by conditions established by the USACE 

and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) in permits issued under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Chapter 105 Dam Safety and Waterway Management 

Regulations. Wetland mitigation follows a sequencing process requiring avoidance of wetland 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

8

November 2011

impacts, minimization of unavoidable wetland impacts, and compensatory mitigation to offset 

impacts not able to be avoided or minimized. The proposed facilities have been sited and the 

proposed construction has been configured to avoid encroaching into wetlands to the extent 

possible. 

Several measures will be taken to minimize unavoidable adverse effects to wetlands. The use of 

silt fences, temporary and permanent vegetative stabilization, and other soil erosion and sediment 

control practices will reduce the risk of sediment runoff into intact wetlands adjacent to disturbed 

areas, as well as wetlands located downstream of the project area. Infiltration beds will be 

constructed on the periphery of the power block, laydown, cooling tower, parking areas and 

switchyard areas to collect and treat surface runoff and prevent degradation of adjoining 

terrestrial and aquatic habitats. These and other BMPs will be important in minimizing the 

changes in hydrologic conditions from facility construction and operation. 

Commonly used forms of compensatory wetland mitigation include restoration or enhancement 

of degraded wetlands, creating (constructing) wetlands in areas that are not wetland, and 

preserving areas of intact wetlands. The proposed wetland impacts would be permanent; hence, 

restoring the filled wetlands after completion of construction activities would not be possible. 

Compensatory wetland and water body mitigation for the BBNPP site will include: 

o Re-creating the same type of habitats as are lost. 

o Creating wetlands in the same watershed as the permanently affected wetlands and 

aquatic features disturbed by BBNPP construction, and in most cases in the same subwatershed. 

o Replacing lost wetland habitat functions and values; selection and design of mitigation 

measures for BBNPP will rely upon a site-specific functions and values analysis, which 

identifies the important characteristics provided by those wetlands to be altered or lost as 

a result of BBNPP construction. 

o Providing mitigation at a ratio of wetlands replaced to wetlands lost that is greater than 

the actual amount of sensitive resources affected to mitigate for temporal losses of 

functions and values during the period of mitigation area maturation. 

o Enhancing existing unaffected habitats on the BBNPP site so as to improve the physical 

integrity, functions and values of riparian and wetland buffer zones. 

While compensatory mitigation for BBNPP is designed to meet these guiding principles, the 

ultimate determination of the areal requirements for mitigation will be based upon the Project’s 

unavoidable impacts. Construction of the BBNPP Project will permanently impact 

approximately 1.4 acres (0.57 ha) of wetlands. In addition, 7.9 acres (3.2 ha) of forested 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

9

November 2011

wetlands located within proposed transmission line rights-of-way and vehicle, rail and utility 

pipeline bridge corridors will be permanently converted to scrub-shrub and emergent wetland 

types. This conversion will produce temporary and indirect impacts. Also, the installation of 

water intake and discharge pipelines will result in additional minor temporary wetland impacts of 

0.78 acres (0.32 ha). The total mitigation provided for BBNPP will result in a substantially 

greater area of compensatory wetlands than that impacted by construction. 

Restoration and rehabilitation of affected Waters of the Commonwealth and adjacent riparian 

buffer zones are also an integral component of the BBNPP mitigation plan. While direct impacts 

to waterways are limited, restoration and enhancement of degraded waterways on and near the 

BBNPP site will be included in the BBNPP mitigation design as actions to reduce impacts to 

streams and wetlands. In addition, a limited program of invasive species control, replanting of 

native tree and shrub species, installation of stabilization measures and incorporation of physical 

in-stream habitat enhancements will be proposed at waterways within the BBNPP Project 

Boundary. Reforestation of wetlands and riparian areas would be expected to benefit Indiana 

bats as these areas are primary foraging habitats. 

In order to compensate for activities affecting wetlands and riparian zones and to provide habitat 

mitigation, forested habitat will be evaluated for permanent preservation within the watershed 

where BBNPP is located. Conservation and management of forested habitat, especially in 

riparian corridors, would be expected to benefit Indiana bat as they would provide forested 

migration corridors and potential foraging and roosting habitat. 

A comprehensive 10-year monitoring and corrective action plan will be proposed for 

implementation following the construction of BBNPP mitigation features. The plan will ensure 

the original design goals are met, provide an active feedback mechanism allowing for 

identification and correction of areas of concern within the mitigation areas, and meet applicable 

regulatory agencies’ requirements for annual reporting of the condition of the mitigation areas. 

A specific wetlands mitigation plan has been developed and is provided in the Joint Permit 

Application filed with the USACE and DEP on June 29, 2011. Additional specific detail on 

project impacts, compliance with regulatory standards and mitigation is provided in this 

document. 

3.2 Operation 

BBNPP will produce approximately 1,600 megawatts of electricity that would be sold into the 

regional market. This facility will consist of a four loop, pressurized water reactor with a 

Reactor Coolant System composed of a reactor pressure vessel containing fuel assemblies; a 

pressurizer, including ancillary systems to maintain system pressure; a reactor coolant pump and 

a steam generator for each loop; associated piping, and related control and protection systems. 

Operation of this facility will be regulated by the NRC. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

10

November 2011

BBNPP will use closed-cycle, wet cooling systems. Two natural draft cooling towers will be 

used to dissipate heat from the CWS that serves the main steam turbine condenser. There will 

also be four smaller Essential Service Water System (ESWS) cooling towers to dissipate heat 

from the Component Cooling Water System heat exchangers and the heat exchangers of the 

Emergency Diesel Generators. Each of these four safety-related trains uses a two-cell 

mechanical draft cooling tower to dissipate heat. Makeup water for all of the cooling towers will 

be drawn from the North Branch of the Susquehanna River to replace losses from evaporation, 

blowdown, and drift. (UniStar, 2010) 

Impacts from fogging, icing, shadowing, and drift deposition were modeled using the Electric 

Power Research Institute’s Seasonal/Annual Cooling Tower Impact (SACTI) prediction code. 

This code incorporates the modeling concepts which were endorsed by the NRC Standard 

Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-1555) (NRC, 

1999). The model provides predictions of seasonal, monthly, and annual cooling tower impacts 

from mechanical or natural draft cooling towers. It predicts average plume length, rise, drift 

deposition, fogging, icing, and shadowing, providing results that have been validated with 

experimental data (UniStar, 2010). No ground-level fogging and icing would occur for the Bell 

Bend natural draft cooling towers, since ground-level impacts are not possible for plumes from 

tall natural draft cooling towers. 

The maximum predicted salt deposition from the cooling towers is well below the NUREG1555, Section 5.3.3.2 (NRC, 1999) significance level for possible vegetation damage of 8.9 

pounds per acre per month (10 kg per ha per month) in all directions from the cooling tower 

during each season and annually. The maximum predicted salt deposition is less than 0.1 kg/ha 

per month. Therefore, no impacts to vegetation from the salt deposition would be expected for 

both on site and off site locations (UniStar, 2010). 

Quantitative studies of vegetation and plant diseases were conducted for SSES from 1977 

through 1994. Significant changes detected in plant community composition over this time were 

attributed to normal vegetation dynamics such as succession and animal interaction, and not to 

SSES operation (Ecology III, 1995). In addition, findings for plant diseases were similar for 

preoperational (1977-1982) and post-operational (1983-1994) study periods. No effects of salt 

drift from SSES were detected. 

The principal noise sources associated with normal operation of the BBNPP cooling water 

system are the CWS and ESWS cooling towers. Noise generated from cooling towers is more 

specific to mechanical draft cooling towers, which use numerous fans to aid in heat dissipation. 

Noise levels from natural draft cooling towers (i.e. no use of fans) are expected to be 

insignificant. Noise surveys were conducted in the vicinity of SSES in February and March 

2008 and June 2010, to measure ambient environmental community noise levels to establish a 

baseline noise level in the presence of the existing two-unit SSES. Measured ambient sound 

levels during operation of SSES could be attributed to normal, current environmental sources, 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

11

November 2011

such as traffic noise, high wind and rain and were not related to the existing plant (UniStar, 

2010). 

Noise generated by the CWS and ESWS cooling towers is unlikely to have deleterious effects on 

wildlife. Wildlife is generally more sensitive to sudden and random noise events, which can 

induce a startle response similar to that induced by a predator, than to the steady continuous 

noise produced by operation of a cooling tower (USFWS, 1988). 

The proposed cooling towers would not be expected to cause substantially elevated bird 

mortality due to collisions. Although infrequent bird collisions with the proposed cooling towers 

are possible, the overall mortality potentially resulting from bird collisions with cooling towers 

are reported to have only minor impacts on bird species populations (NRC, 1999). 

There are no major sources of air pollution in the vicinity of the BBNPP site. Existing diesel 

generators and boilers at SSES Units 1 and 2 operate for limited periods. Diesel generators that 

are associated with BBNPP will also operate for limited periods. Interactions between pollutants 

emitted from these sources and the plumes from the cooling towers for SSES Units 1 and 2 are of 

sufficient distance and would not have a significant impact on air quality (UniStar, 2010). 

The water intake for BBNPP will be located just downstream of the existing intake structure for 

SSES on the Susquehanna River. The discharge outfall will enter the River downstream of the 

existing SSES discharge system through a buried pipe that will be connected to a multi-port 

diffuser positioned perpendicular to the River flow. Because the discharge stream volume will 

be small relative to the volume of the River, concentrations of solids and chemicals used in 

cooling tower water treatment will rapidly dilute and approach ambient concentrations in the 

River after exiting the discharge pipe. The operation of BBNPP will comply with a PADEPissued Nation Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and the applicable state 

water quality standards. All biocides or chemical additives in the discharge will be among those 

approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania as safe for humans and the environment (UniStar, 2010). 

The NPDES permit will also require a Post-Construction Stormwater Management (PCSM) Plan, 

which prevents or minimizes the discharge of potential pollutants with the storm water discharge, 

to reflect the addition of new paved areas and facilities and changes in drainage patterns. To 

help intercept surface runoff and prevent degradation of adjoining terrestrial and aquatic habitats, 

storm water infiltration beds will be constructed on the periphery of the power block, laydown, 

cooling towers, parking areas and switchyard areas. These beds will be important in minimizing 

the changes in hydrologic conditions after construction is completed. Infiltration beds serve 

several storm water functions including volume reduction, groundwater recharge, control of peak 

runoff rates, and maintenance of water quality. Routing of runoff from the plant site through 

infiltration beds will help maintain the temperature of the water being discharged into the 

wetlands and minimize sediment transport to the wetlands. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

12

November 2011

Various types of waste would be generated by the operation of BBNPP. Wastes are classified as; 

non-hazardous waste, sanitary waste, hazardous waste, mixed waste, and nuclear waste. BBNPP 

will recycle, recover, or send off-site for disposal all solid waste other than spent fuel in 

accordance with applicable state and federal regulatory programs. 

3.3 Maintenance 

Grounds maintenance activities for areas within the immediate vicinity of the power block and 

CWS cooling towers will result in an intensively managed and permanently maintained 

landscape with limited vegetative cover. Other areas on-site that are adjacent to and/or occupied 

by transmission lines and switchyards, vehicle and rail access ways, storm water management 

facilities, utility pipeline corridors, and ancillary plant facilities will also be subject to ongoing 

maintenance activities that allow for only limited vegetative cover. These areas include both 

forested upland and wetland areas that will be cleared for transmission line rights-of-way and 

bridges. Transmission line corridors and areas under and adjacent to bridges that were 

previously forested will be permanently maintained as scrub/shrub habitat following PPL 

vegetative management programs. 

In the Susquehanna River periodic sediment removal via dredging may be required to maintain 

the depth of the area immediately in front of the entrance to the BBNPP intake structure. Based 

on the current frequency of dredging at the SSES intake structure, it is anticipated that 

maintenance dredging at the BBNPP intake would take place approximately once every 5 to 10 

years. There are no impacts to Indiana bat associated with this periodic sediment removal 

activity. 

4. ACTION AREA 

4.1 Background 

The ESA Consultation Handbook defines the Action Area as encompassing all areas to be 

affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and is not limited to the immediate area 

involved in the action (USFWS and NMFS, 1998). Direct effects are defined as the immediate 

effects resulting from the agency action on the species and/or its habitats, including the effects of 

interrelated actions and interdependent actions. Interrelated activities are part of, and justified 

by, the proposed action. Interdependent activities have no independent utility apart from the 

action under consultation. Indirect effects are caused by or result from the proposed action, are 

later in time, are reasonably certain to occur and may occur outside of the area directly affected 

by the action (USFWS and NMFS, 1998). In addition, the proposed Action includes 

conservation measures which will be taken to benefit the species under review. Therefore, the 

Action Area should include the vicinities in which these conservation measures will be 

implemented. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

13

November 2011

4.2 BBNPP Action Area 

The BBNPP Action Area encompasses all lands that potentially serve as Indiana bat habitat 

which will be affected in some manner by the proposed Action through direct, interrelated, 

interdependent and indirect activities as described above. Direct effects will focus on the area of 

disturbance within the BBNPP Project Boundary where nearly all activities for construction of 

BBNPP facilities (Section 3.1) will take place, as well as a 200-foot buffer around the 

construction area to account for potential off-site construction related noise effects on Indiana 

bats (Section 6.0). Figure 2 identifies the Action Area with respect to direct effects. 

Interrelated activities will consist of several off-site roadway intersection improvements to 

mitigate traffic congestion associated with the construction workforce and the delivery of 

construction materials, as well as the extension of potable water and sewer lines by the 

Pennsylvania American Water Company and the Berwick Area Joint Sewer Authority, 

respectively, to the BBNPP site (Figure 2). In addition, a suite of potential mitigation options for 

the Project is under consideration, as discussed in Section 7.0, and the Action Area with respect 

to interrelated activities includes Indiana bat conservation measures undertaken on any on-site 

and off-site lands. 

Reforestation will take place on suitable BBNPP site lands following construction of the facility 

as well as on adjacent non-forested PPL-owned land (approximately 58 acres [23 ha] in total). 

Natural succession will be allowed to take place on dedicated on-site and off-site agricultural 

land (approximately 137 acres [48 ha] in total). Habitat conservation and management will 

conserve and enhance Indiana bat habitat and will be implemented on dedicated on-site and offsite parcels of forest (approximately 386 acres [156 ha] in total). Off-site land parcels for 

reforestation, natural succession, habitat conservation and management have been identified and 

are included in the Action Area. 

At this time, there are no known or foreseeable interdependent activities that should be integrated 

into the Action Area, including the proposed Susquehanna to Roseland transmission line. The 

Susquehanna to Roseland project, as originally conceived, is intended to satisfy an increased 

demand for electric power and enhance the reliability of the electric grid in the northeastern 

portion of the PJM Interconnection region, and will be connected to SSES Units 1 and 2. 

Although the transmission line will also provide an outlet for electric power generated by 

BBNPP, it is being constructed independently of the BBNPP Project and its viability is not 

dependent upon the final outcome of the Project. 

Indirect effects that are certain to occur will result from operation and maintenance of BBNPP 

facilities as discussed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively. However, as noted these activities 

will be confined largely to the project site. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

14

November 2011

4.2.1 Physical Conditions

As discussed in Section 3.0, the 2,055-acre (831.6-ha) BBNPP Project Boundary consists largely 

of deciduous forest and fallow agricultural land in various stages of secondary succession. 

Current land use supports a variety of habitats as well as facilities for the existing SSES Units 1 

and 2 (Figure 1). Forested land comprises approximately 885 acres (358 ha) or 43 percent of the 

land cover and consists of uplands and wetlands cover types. Upland forest (772 acres [312 ha]) 

is dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), and to a lesser degree by red oak (Quercus rubra), 

white oak (Quercus alba), and sweet birch (Betula lenta). Black cherry (Prunus serotina) and 

black oak (Quercus velutina) are also relatively common. Forested wetlands (113 acres [46 ha]) 

are also largely comprised of red maple and to a lesser degree pin oak (Quercus palustris), silver 

maple (Acer saccharinum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera), and black locust (Robinia 

pseudoacacia). Black cherry, black walnut (Juglans nigra), and river birch (Betula lenta) are 

also relatively common (AREVA, 2010a). 

Most of the mature trees on-site are between 40 and 70 years old, and the oldest trees are located 

primarily in wetlands, on steep slopes, or in generally inaccessible areas that were not farmed 

historically. Approximately 233.5 acres (94.5 ha) of forested land will be cleared for 

construction of the BBNPP, of which 222.2 acres (89.9 ha) are upland and 11.3 acres (4.6 ha) are 

wetland. In addition to the cleared forested areas, approximately 2.8 acres (1.1 ha) of forest will 

be fragmented and isolated, effectively lost as viable Indiana bat habitat (Figure 3). Additional 

minor temporary impacts to forested wetlands associated with the installation of water intake and 

blowdown pipelines are 0.78 acres (0.32 ha). 

4.2.2 Biological Conditions

Detailed surveys were completed in October 2010 and July 2011 to characterize the forested 

areas that will be cleared for the BBNPP. The surveys focused on the suitability of the forest 

areas as roosting habitat for Indiana bats and specifically addressed roosting habitat for males 

during the summer and for both sexes during the time of fall swarming. Both the interior 

sections and edges of these forest areas were surveyed for potential roost trees (PRTs) and the 

results are presented in a report entitled Indiana Bat Roost Tree Study Report for the Proposed 

Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Site Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, which is included in 

Appendix B and summarized below. 

The forested habitat on the BBNPP site was found to provide abundant foraging opportunities for 

bats in general, including the Indiana bat. Bats often forage over water and wetlands, and along 

forest edges. Standing water is present in most of the wetlands on the BBNPP site, depending on 

time of year and precipitation received. In normal years, many of the wetlands on the BBNPP site 

contain standing water year-round. 

Forest Areas of approximately 2 acres (0.8 ha) or greater (18 of 33 total) that were proposed for 

clearing were surveyed for PRTs. Total forest area surveyed encompassed 46.2 acres (18.7 ha) 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

15

November 2011

consisting of 41.7 upland acres (16.9 ha) and 4.5 wetland acres (1.8 ha). Out of the 255 PRTs in 

the combined interior forest survey area, 118 were live, 114 were dead, and 23 were partially dead. 

The average diameter-at-breast height (dbh) for all PRTs observed in the forest interior was 14 

inches (36 centimeters). In regards to roost type, 252 PRTs offered potential roost sites in the form 

of exfoliating or defoliating bark, 13 PRTs had suitable crevices, and 5 PRTs had suitable cavities. 

PRTs may have more than one roost tree characteristic present. 

Approximately 75,581 feet (23,035 meters) of forest edge along the forest areas were surveyed 

for the presence of PRTs. Out of the 286 PRTs identified, 192 were live, 77 were dead, and 17 

were partially dead. Similar to forest interiors, the average dbh for PRTs observed on the forest 

edge was also 14 inches (36 centimeters). In regards to roost type, 285 PRTs offered potential 

roost sites in the form of exfoliating or defoliating bark, 4 PRTs had a crevice suitable for roosting, 

and 1 PRT had a cavity suitable for roosting. 

PRT densities were compared to U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) standards for suitable 

Indiana bat summer habitat which recommend a minimum of 6 PRTs/acre (14.8 PRTs/ha) for 

interior forest and 1 PRT/500 feet (1 PRT/152 meters) for forest edges (USDOI, 2009). Interior 

forest as a whole, and when subdivided into wetlands and uplands, essentially met or exceeded the 

recommended 6 PRTs/acre (14.8 PRTs/ha) for suitable Indiana bat summer roosting habitat. 

Wetlands, averaging 8.1 PRTs/acre (19.9 PRTs/ha), exceeded the threshold, and interior forest as a 

whole (5.5 PRTs/acre [13.6 PRTs/ha]) and uplands (5.2 PRTs/acre [13.0 PRTs/ha]) were slightly 

below the threshold. Forest area edges also provide PRTs at densities suitable for Indiana bat 

summer roosting habitat. Forest edges as a whole, at 1.9 PRTs/500 feet (1.9 PRTs/152 meters) 

also exceeded the USDOI recommended 1 PRT/500 feet (1 PRT/152 meters). Detailed results by 

forest area are presented in the Indiana Bat Roost Tree Survey Report (Revision 2) provided in 

Appendix B. 

PRT quality for the site was evaluated based on the density of “high,” “moderate,” or “low” roost 

trees as determined by the USFWS PRT ranking system (See Appendix B). Interior forest as a 

whole yielded an estimate of 1.7 high PRTs/acre (4.2 high PRTs/ha), 2.4 medium PRTs/acre (5.9 

medium PRTs/ha), and 1.4 low PRTs/acre (3.5 low PRTs/ha). Subdividing the interior forest into 

wetlands and uplands indicated that wetlands provided higher densities of high PRTs (4.0 high 

PRTs/acre [9.9 high PRTs/ha] versus 1.4 high PRTs/acre [3.6 high PRTs/ha]), similar densities of 

medium PRTs (2.5 medium PRTs/acre [6.1 medium PRTs/ha] versus 2.4 medium PRTs/acre [5.9 

medium PRTs/ha]) and similar densities of low PRTs (1.6 low PRTs/acre [3.9 low PRTs/ha] 

versus 1.4 low PRTs/acre [3.5 low PRTs/ha]). The forest edges as a whole yielded an estimate of 

0.6 high PRTs/500 feet (0.6 high PRTs/152 meters), 0.8 medium PRTs/500 feet (0.8 medium 

PRTs/152 meters), and 0.5 low PRTs/500 feet (0.5 low PRTs/152 meters). Detailed results by 

forest area are presented in the report enclosed in Appendix B. 

The roost tree study concluded that some of the surveyed interior forest and many of the surveyed 

forest edges provided densities of PRTs suitable for Indiana bat roosting habitat based on USDOI 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

16

November 2011

criteria. Additionally, based on the USDOI and USFWS criteria, forested wetlands provide higher 

quality roosting habitat than forested uplands at the site. Forested wetlands had higher overall 

densities of interior forest PRTs and higher overall densities of high PRTs than upland forests. 

5. SPECIES AND HABITAT DESCRIPTION 

5.1 Range and Population Level 

The historic range of the Indiana bat includes much of the eastern United States, extending west 

to Iowa and the Ozarks of eastern Oklahoma, north to Michigan, east to the Connecticut River 

Valley and northern New Jersey, and south to northern Alabama and Arkansas. The species has 

disappeared from, or greatly declined in, most of its former range in the northeastern United 

States (Nature Serve, 2010). Range-wide, the total population of Indiana bats was estimated to 

be about 417,000 in 2009. This population estimate is based on surveys of known overwintering sites (hibernacula) where Indiana bats gather and roost communally (USFWS, 2011b). 

The Indiana bat is found in low numbers throughout most of its range. The 2009 population 

estimate is less than half as many as when the species was listed as federally endangered in 1967. 

Fifty-two percent of the population occurs in Indiana, with less than one percent of the total 

population estimated to be present in Pennsylvania (USFWS, 2011b). Based on recent surveys 

conducted by PGC biologists, the USFWS estimates that about 1,000 Indiana bats hibernate in 

Pennsylvania. Nine Indiana bat summer maternity sites have been found in seven Pennsylvania 

counties and there have been mist-net captures in summer habitat in four counties (Butchkoski, 

2010). 

Winter hibernacula have been documented at 19 locations in ten Pennsylvania counties, including 

Luzerne County (Figure 4; Turner et al., 2009). Luzerne County has three known bat hibernacula 

within a 10-mile radius of the BBNPP site, the Glen Lyon Anthracite Mine, Dogtown Mines, and 

the Penn Wind Hazleton 09 site (Figure 5). All three of these hibernacula occur in abandoned 

anthracite mines and no interior bat counts have been possible due to safety concerns. Instead, 

the total population of all species combined is estimated based on fall swarming activity near the 

mine entrances (Turner et al., 2009). The total hibernating population for all bat species at the 

Glen Lyon hibernaculum is estimated at 50,000 to 100,000 individuals, and the Indiana bat 

component could range from dozens to more than 100 individuals (Normandeau 2010b). 

Unpublished information indicates that bat abundance at Glen Lyon mines has decreased 

substantially since the introduction of White-nose Syndrome (WNS). No population estimates 

are available for either the Dogtown Mines hibernaculum or the Penn Wind Hazleton 09 

hibernaculum. 

Indiana bat hibernacula are assigned priority numbers ranging from Priority 1 (highest) to 

Priority 4 (lowest) based on the number of Indiana bats present (USFWS, 2007). All three 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

17

November 2011

hibernacula in the vicinity of the BBNPP site are designated as Priority 4 sites, which are least 

important to recovery and long-term conservation of Indiana bats, and have current or observed 

historic populations of fewer than 50 bats (Turner et al., 2009). However, the Glen Lyon 

hibernacula may qualify as a Priority 3 site, defined as having current or observed historic 

populations of 50 to 1,000 bats (Normandeau, 2010b). 

Summer maternity sites for Indiana bats have been documented through mist netting or telemetry 

studies at nine locations in seven Pennsylvania counties, consisting of Adams, Armstrong, Berks, 

Bedford, Blair, Green and York counties (Butchkoski, 2010a; 2010b). Based on range-wide 

population estimates for the United States derived from winter hibernacula surveys, it is believed 

that only a fraction of the existing maternity colonies have been found as they are widely dispersed 

during the summer and difficult to locate. Although additional Indiana bat maternity colonies may 

exist in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, they appear to be relatively less common in the mid-eastern 

United States than in the Midwest, which is the more central portion of this species range 

(USFWS, 2007). 

As discussed in Section 2, there are no hibernacula located on-site, and a survey following the 

USFWS Bat Mist Netting Guidelines (USFWS, 2007) conducted on the BBNPP site between 

June 7 and July 11, 2008 did not identify any Indiana bats on-site. Three other species, the 

northern myotis, little brown bat, and big brown bats were captured, tagged and released 

(AREVA, 2010b). 

5.2 Threats 

Significant threats to the Indiana bat include human induced disturbance and alterations at 

hibernation sites, loss of summer habitat, contaminants, and WNS. Wind power development 

also poses a threat, and vandalism and indiscriminant killing have also been a problem at some 

caves (Butchkoski, E., 2010; USFWS, 2010a). 

Disturbance within over wintering caves causes bats to arouse, deplete their energy reserves, and 

potentially increases over-winter mortality. Sources of disturbance include informal recreational 

activities and commercialization of caves. Alteration of conditions at a hibernaculum can render 

it unsuitable for over-wintering bats or exclude bats from entering. Exclusion of bats can occur 

due to poorly designed barriers to human access or by gates installed for other reasons. 

Additionally, improperly constructed gates can alter the air flow, trap debris, and block the 

entrance by not allowing enough flight space. Altered exchange of air with the outside 

environment can cause significant changes in cave temperature and humidity and may cause the 

bats to abandon the cave. Changes in cave temperatures can also be induced by opening 

additional entrances. Improperly constructed gates may also subject the bats to severe predation 

as they attempt to pass through the gates (Nature Serve, 2010). 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

18

November 2011

In response to these issues, most known, major over-wintering sites are currently protected in 

some way. Despite protection at over-wintering sites, populations continue to decrease in 

several portions of their range, suggesting that the species is being negatively affected by 

disturbance or loss of summer habitat. Loss and degradation of summer habitat and roost sites 

due to impoundment, stream channelization, housing development, clear cutting for agricultural 

use, mining, or incompatible forest management practices that result in a shortage of the 

microhabitats used for maternity roosts may be the primary factors in recent population declines 

(Nature Serve, 2010). 

Pesticides and environmental contaminants may also affect all bats, including Indiana bats, 

through two mechanisms. In local areas, insects may not be plentiful because of pesticide use, 

reducing the food base of these species. Pesticide use may affect the quality as well as the 

quantity of the bats’ food supply. Environmental contaminants may also have health 

consequences for bats, and they have the potential to absorb relatively high contaminant loads by 

eating contaminated insects, drinking contaminated water, or absorbing the chemicals while 

feeding in areas that have been recently treated (USFWS, 2010a). 

WNS is an emerging threat to all species of hibernating bats, including the Indiana bat. WNS 

was first observed in February 2006, west of Albany, New York, and more than a million 

hibernating bats have died since then (USFWS, 2011c). Affected bats usually have white fungus 

on their muzzles and other parts of their bodies, and frequently lack adequate body fat to survive 

until spring. These bats may exhibit uncharacteristic behavior such as moving to cold parts of 

the hibernaculum, and flying during the day and during cold winter weather when the insects 

they feed upon are not available. Since the disease emerged in 2006, bats displaying the 

symptoms of WNS have been observed in and around caves and mines from Maine and New 

Hampshire south to North Carolina and Tennessee and in the Canadian provinces of Ontario, 

Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. WNS is suspected in states as far west as Oklahoma, 

and has been confirmed in Pennsylvania (USFWS, 2011c). Ninety to 100 percent mortality has 

been documented in some hibernacula and there is an emerging consensus that the mode of 

transmissions is from bat to bat. This puts a highly colonial hibernator like the Indiana bat at 

particular risk (USFWS, 2010c). 

Mortality due to collisions with wind turbines have been recorded for a wide variety of bat 

species in North America, including at least one Indiana bat (USFWS, 2010d). Collisions appear 

to happen primarily during the migration period (Arnett et al., 2008), and some populations of 

Indiana bats do migrate considerable distance between their summer habitats and their 

hibernacula. The reason that migrating bats appear to be more susceptible to collisions is 

unclear, but wind power developments located within migratory pathways, near hibernacula, or 

within summer habitat are believed to pose a potential threat to this species. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

19

November 2011

5.3 Species Description – Morphology and Behavior 

The Indiana bat is a small insectivorous bat, with a very fine and fluffy, dull grayish chestnut 

pelage above and pinkish white under parts. The wing membranes and ears are blackish-brown 

and its total body length is 2.9 – 4.0 inches (75-102 mm); wingspan is 9.5 – 10.5 inches (241-267 

mm). It is similar in appearance to other myotids and makes a similar call. The ecology of the 

Indiana bat is however, distinct. 

The Indiana bat is a true hibernator, entering hibernation in the fall and surviving on stored fat 

until spring. In Pennsylvania, this species begins to enter hibernacula in mid-September, and 

begins hibernating by early November. Before going into hibernation, and again during the 

spring emergence, bats swarm around entrances to hibernation sites and rely on nearby surface 

habitat to forage for insects. Northern breeding populations may migrate south and in some 

cases, winter and summer habitats may be as much as 278 miles (480 km) apart. Migrants leave 

hibernation sites in late March and April. Females generally leave earlier than do males, with the 

greatest exodus in mid- to late April. Some males migrate while most remain in the general 

geographic vicinity of the hibernaculum throughout the summer (Nature Serve, 2010). 

This species is notably gregarious during hibernation. In the center of its range, hibernating 

individuals characteristically form large, compact clusters of as many as 5,000 bats, averaging 

500 to 1,000 individuals per cluster (Nature Serve, 2010). In Pennsylvania, where the population 

of Indiana bats is lower, this species often mixes with little brown bats (Butchkoski, E., 2010). 

Clusters form in the same area in a cave each year, with more than one cluster possible in a 

particular cave. Clustering may have certain benefits, including protecting the central 

individuals from temperature changes, reducing the sensitivity of most bats to external 

disturbance, or rapid arousal and escape from predators (Nature Serve, 2010). 

Mating occurs in fall, when Indiana bats assemble at cave entrances at dusk and dawn in late 

August and September. This swarming behavior appears to facilitate breeding and reduce the 

chances of inbreeding in small summer colonies. Males arrive first at the swarming areas, and 

the number of bats and the proportion of females rises to a maximum in early September. 

Females store sperm through the winter, fertilization occurs in spring and a single pup is born in 

June-July. The rate of development in the young is dependent on weather, particularly the 

temperature, and mothers have been observed moving non-volant young to warmer roost spots. 

Typically, the young first fly at 25-37 days of age (Nature Serve, 2010). 

Reproductive female Indiana bats migrate from the hibernacula to summer roosting habitat, and 

have shown strong site fidelity to their traditional summer roosting and foraging areas. They form 

maternity colonies after arriving at their summer range (late March to mid-May) and cluster in 

maternity roosts with suitable microclimates that facilitate roost temperatures favorable for prenatal 

and postnatal development. Maternity colonies most commonly consist of 60 to 100 adult females 

but may be larger, and may include females from more than one hibernaculum. Composition of 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

20

November 2011

the colony is fluid with females moving between as many as 10 to 20 different maternity roost 

trees. The majority of female bats use one to three primary maternity roost trees, while the rest of 

the trees are alternate or secondary maternity roosts. These alternate or secondary roosts are 

intermittently used by small numbers of females throughout the summer, or on only a few days, or 

as temporary night roosts. Maternity colonies may occupy maternity roost trees for a number of 

years; however all maternity roost trees are ephemeral and become unusable by losing important 

structural characteristics such as bark, by falling to the ground, or due to competition with other 

animals. The use of alternate maternity roost trees is thought to be a behavioral mechanism that 

enables bats to evaluate new trees for use as future primary maternity roosts (USFWS, 2007). 

The location of summer roosting habitat for non-reproductive female Indiana bats is less well 

known. They may remain close to their hibernaculum or migrate to summer habitat where they 

roost individually or in small numbers. Typically, non-reproductive females do not roost in 

colonies but may be present in the same trees as reproductive females. Males are most commonly 

found in the vicinity of their hibernaculum but may also disperse throughout the summer range and 

roost individually or in small groups (USFWS, 2007). 

In an Indiana bat population, the observed rate of mortality between birth and weaning was about 

eight percent. Female survivorship in this same population was 76 percent for ages 1 to 6 years, 

and 66 percent for ages 6 to 10 years. Male survivorship was 70 percent for ages 1 to 6 years 

and 36 percent for ages 6 to 10 years. Maximum ages of banded individuals were 15 years for 

females and 14 years for males (Nature Serve, 2010). 

5.4 Species Description – Habitat Requirements 

Indiana bat hibernation sites have stringent requirements, including noticeable airflow and the 

lowest non-freezing temperatures possible. Only a small percentage of available hibernacula 

provide these temperatures. Indiana bat sites usually also have some standing or flowing water 

(Butchkoski, E., 2010; Nature Serve, 2010). Roost sites within caves may shift such that bats 

remain in the coldest area, and individuals may move from a location deeper in the cave to a site 

nearer the entrance as the cold season progresses. Relative humidity in occupied caves ranges 

from 66 to 95% and averages 87% throughout the year (Nature Serve, 2010). 

In summer and fall, Indiana bats primarily use wooded or semi-wooded habitats, usually near 

water. Foraging is often focused on riparian areas, ponds, and wetlands, but also takes place in 

upland forests and fields. Flying insects are the Indiana bat’s typical prey items, and diet 

composition reflects prey present in available foraging habitat (Nature Serve, 2010). Generally 

Indiana bats roost under the exfoliating bark of trees and occasionally in longitudinal crevices 

within trees. They rarely use cavities created by rot or woodpeckers, and are only infrequently 

found using man-made structures (USFWS, 2007). However, most studies of roost characteristics 

have focused on maternity roosts (described in detail below) and a more limited amount of data 

suggests that roost preferences may be less strict for males and non-reproductive females. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

21

November 2011

For maternity roosts (primary and alternate), females prefer dead or nearly dead trees, or dead parts 

of living trees such as dead trunks of trees with multiple trunks. They are occasionally found on 

living trees with loose, peeling bark; however, these trees are thought to be used primarily as 

alternate maternity roosts during exceptionally warm or wet weather. Typically, non-reproductive 

females do not roost in colonies but may be present in the same trees as reproductive females. 

A wide variety of tree species are used for maternity roosts and use is primarily related to local 

availability of trees with suitable structure rather than a preference for a particular species. In 

addition, regional differences in maternity roost tree characteristics may result from influencing 

factors such as weather and altitude. Maternity roost trees are typically found in areas with high 

solar exposure such as openings within a forest, in a fence line, or along a wooded edge. Higher 

solar exposure creates warmer roosting sites and, thereby, facilitates faster prenatal and postnatal 

development of young bats. Female Indiana bats may use structurally suitable trees in more 

interior sections of forest as maternity roosts during exceptionally warm or wet weather (USFWS, 

2007). 

Maternity roost trees vary in size, although larger diameter trees are preferred and may provide 

advantages for thermoregulation, as well as more roosting spaces. The average range-wide 

diameter of primary maternity roost trees is 18 inches (45.7 cm) dbh. However, average diameters 

of primary and alternate maternity roost trees in several Midwestern states ranged from 16 to 24 

inches (40.6 – 60.9 cm) dbh, and an alternate maternity roost tree in Pennsylvania had a diameter 

of only 11 inches. The minimum height of maternity roost trees is typically greater than 10 feet 

(3.0 m), although the absolute height of maternity roost trees is thought to be less important than 

height and position relative to surrounding trees, which can affect the amount of solar exposure 

received by a tree (USFWS, 2007). 

Male Indiana bats are more flexible in their preferred summer roosting habitat. They roost in the 

same types of structurally suitable trees as females but not necessarily in areas with high solar 

exposure. In addition, male bats are more likely to roost in living trees and trees that are smaller. 

The average range wide diameter of male roost trees is 13 inches (33 cm) dbh (USFWS, 2007). 

Beginning in the late summer and into the fall, Indiana bats return to the vicinity of their 

hibernacula and engage in swarming behavior, which peaks in September and early October. This 

behavior is characterized by large numbers of bats moving in and out of hibernacula at night but 

with few roosting inside during daylight hours. Instead, the bats tend to roost individually in 

surrounding forests. The characteristics of these roosting trees are not well known (USFWS, 

2007). 

5.5 Similar Species Description 

Two bat species with habitat affinities similar to Indiana bat have the potential to be listed by the 

USFWS in the near future: little brown bat (Kunz et al., 2010) and northern myotis (USFWS, 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

22

November 2011

2011a). Both species were captured during mist netting at BBNPP (see Section 2 and Appendix 

B). 

Little brown bats are typically found mixed in summer roosts and among hibernating clusters 

with the less common Indiana bat. It is believed that the low statewide numbers of Indiana bats 

may cause them to use little brown bats as surrogate roosting partners. Based on these two 

species similar ecologies, biologists have used little brown bats as surrogates for Indiana bats to 

sample traveling behavior from roosts to foraging areas (Steele et al. 2010). However, primary 

foraging cores differ between the two species with little brown bats foraging on or adjacent to 

major bodies of water (rivers and lakes) and Indiana bats focusing on intermittent streams and 

dry forested hillsides (Butchkoski and Turner 2005). 

Northern myotis are found throughout Pennsylvania but never in large numbers, even during 

hibernation. Forested upland areas appear to be the primary summer foraging habitat for this 

species containing larger and older trees with cavities and exfoliating bark, similar roost tree 

characteristics as those utilized by Indiana bat. It typically forages only 1-3 meters above the 

ground, flying among and above the understory shrubs. They frequently feed by gleaning, taking 

insects off the ground or vegetation and then carrying them to perches for consumption (Steele et 

al. 2010). This behavior is thought to allow them to eat larger prey than other Myotis species, 

and one study of diet analysis found that this species consumes more orthopterans and large 

beetles than little brown bats or Indiana bats (Lee and McCracken 2004). 

6. EFFECTS OF PROJECT ACTIONS 

6.1 Construction 

The construction of BBNPP and all associated facilities will require the removal of 233.5 acres 

(94.5 ha) of forest, 222.2 acres (89.9 ha) of which are upland forest and 11.3 acres (4.6 ha) of 

which are forested wetlands. In addition to the cleared forested areas, approximately 2.8 acres 

(1.1 ha) of forest will be fragmented and isolated, effectively lost as viable Indiana bat habitat 

(Figure 3). With the exception of danger tree removal discussed below, tree clearing will occur 

from November 16th to March 31st only, when Indiana bats are hibernating, to avoid direct 

impacts (direct mortality) to bats that may be roosting on-site during the period of spring 

emergence through fall swarming. However, seasonal restrictions on tree clearing will not avoid 

the potential for an indirect but permanent impact on Indiana bats due to the loss of potential 

roost trees and foraging opportunities. 

To the extent practicable, PPL has adopted design measures that are intended to avoid and 

minimize potential indirect impacts on Indiana bats due to habitat loss that may occur as a result 

of the construction of BBNPP. These measures include adjustments to the overall layout of the 

Project to minimize the project footprint, minimize habitat fragmentation, retain forested travel 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

23

November 2011

corridors, and to avoid higher-value habitats. The effort to minimize habitat loss was focused on 

wetland and riparian areas, where roost trees are present in greater densities (AREVA, 2010a) 

and where Indiana bats also drink and often forage. Minimization of impacts to wetland and 

riparian areas included retaining a 50-foot (15.2-meter) buffer around Walker Run and its 

tributaries and adjacent wetlands. When impacts to streams and wetlands could not be avoided, 

silt fences, temporary and permanent vegetative stabilization, and other soil erosion and sediment 

control practices are proposed to reduce the risk of sediment runoff into intact wetlands and 

water bodies adjoining the areas of disturbance, as well as wetlands and water bodies located 

downstream of the project area. These BMPs will minimize the indirect effects on Indiana bats 

by reducing adverse impacts on aquatic insect populations and riparian and wetland foraging 

habitat. 

The compensatory wetland and water body mitigation described in Section 3.1.2 is not expected 

to result in adverse direct impacts to the Indiana bat. Any tree removal associated with 

construction of compensatory wetlands will be conducted between November 16th and March 

31st. The long term impacts of compensatory wetland and water body mitigation will be 

positive, as the overall wetland acreage in the vicinity of BBNPP will increase thereby providing 

Indiana bats with additional foraging opportunities. Reforestation and wetland creation and 

enhancement will be designed to provide Indiana bat habitat in the restored riparian corridor. 

Additional minimization and avoidance measures include the following: 

 The use of pesticides and herbicides will be avoided or minimized during construction and 

operation of BBNPP to avoid adverse effects to Indiana bats associated with ingestion of 

contaminated insects and reduction in local insect populations. 

 The following policy will be followed during construction and operation within the 

BBNPP project boundary. It provides for the removal of trees that present a hazard to 

property and workers undertaking activities near forested areas and may be implemented 

at any time of the year. This policy is designed to comply with the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration’s (OSHA) “Danger Tree Rule” found at 29 CFR 

1910.266(h)(1)(vi). Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) also provides for 

removal of Danger Trees, and this policy is also meant to comply with the ESA. 

Implementation of this policy will only occur in the rare instance that removal needs to 

occur outside the November 16 to March 31 construction removal window. 

“Danger Trees” are defined as trees with significant defects and the potential to fall, 

causing harm to workers or property. “Defects” include a wide variety of symptoms not 

limited to damage cause by insects, lightning, ice/hail, overmaturity, disease, or from 

impacts with adjacent falling trees/limbs. Dead standing trees or partly dead trees which 

are stable and not exhibiting imminent danger of falling are not considered danger trees, 

and will not be managed as such. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

24

November 2011

Potential danger trees that are greater than 5”dbh within the project boundary will be 

evaluated as defined below. Potential danger trees that are less than 5”dbh may be 

immediately removed without evaluation. Evaluation criteria employed for danger trees 

greater than 5”dbh are contained in the 2008 United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service publication “Field Guide for Danger Tree Identification and Response,” 

R6-NR-FP-PR-01-08. 

Upon identification of danger tree(s) greater than 5”dbh requiring removal the tree(s) will 

be marked, documented with color photographs, and evaluated by a qualified individual 

(biologist) before being professionally felled and removed. 

 If it is determined that an Indiana bat will be harmed by removal of the danger 

tree, the USFWS will be immediately consulted and notifications will be made to 

the NRC and PGC prior to removal. 

 If it is determined that no Indiana bat will be harmed, the danger tree will be 

removed and a record of this determination maintained for 5 years. 

 When removing a danger tree care will be taken to avoid damage to adjacent trees 

or other environmental resources. Mechanized land clearing equipment such as 

skidders will not be employed in danger tree removal. 

 Records of routine vegetation management will be maintained for a period of 5 

years.

Potential temporary impacts associated with construction of BBNPP consist of disturbance 

created by noise, visual impacts, and increased night-lighting during night construction. Noise 

will be generated by construction activities (i.e., movement of people, equipment, and vehicles 

on-site) and vehicles bringing people and supplies to and from the construction site. Noises that 

are sudden, loud, and occur unpredictably have the potential to have the greatest impacts. 

However, all noise is expected to attenuate below the 80 to 85 decibel (dBA) threshold at which 

wildlife behavior is most affected (as discussed in Section 4) within 158 feet (48 meters) of the 

active construction area. Noise impacts in the 200-foot (61-meter) buffer around the 

construction zone may deny Indiana bats use of that habitat during construction. However, this 

area is relatively small compared to the amount of habitat available in the vicinity of BBNPP. 

Impacts which are perceived visually will be attenuated by the forest vegetation that surrounds 

the site. Lighting used during night construction may have a temporary positive impact on bat 

species that forage preferentially on the insects attracted by lights. However, lighting may also 

have a temporary negative impact on bat species that avoid light. No current research indicates 

if Indiana bats are included in either species group. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

25

November 2011

6.2 Operations 

Impacts to the Indiana bat are anticipated to be small as a result of BBNPP operations. All 

operational activities will occur within the portion of the property that has been altered by 

construction, and bats are unlikely to be present due to the lack of suitable habitat, except as 

discussed in Section 6.3. Noise, cooling tower vapor plumes, miscellaneous air emissions, and 

cooling water and wastewater blowdown will emanate or be discharged from this disturbed area, 

and generated wastes, except for spent fuel, will be recycled, recovered, or sent offsite for 

disposal. However, these effects of plant operation will have no or minimal impact, as discussed 

in Section 3.2. 

Any increases in the volume or concentrations of pollutants in storm water discharges from 

BBNPP will be minimized by implementation of BMPs described in the PCSM plan. The BMPs 

will minimize the indirect effects on Indiana bats by reducing adverse impacts on aquatic insect 

populations and riparian and wetland foraging habitat. 

Other than denial of foraging habitat through their footprint accounted for above, the CWS 

cooling towers are unlikely to create disturbance or mortality of Indiana bats through collision 

with the towers. The cooling towers are large, immobile objects that should be avoidable by the 

bats, which are known to generally avoid stationary objects. Studies of bird and bat mortality 

attributable to collision with the cooling towers at the adjacent SSES between 1984 and 1986 

found eight dead bats of three species and did not include Indiana bat (NRC, 1996).

Lighting used for safety and security purposes at night will be incrementally greater than the 

lighting present from SSES. This lighting may have a positive impact on bat species that forage 

preferentially on the insects attracted by lights. However, lighting may have a negative impact 

on bat species that avoid light. No current research indicates if Indiana bats are included in 

either species group. 

No other activities that may disturb Indiana bats on the remainder of the property or in 

surrounding habitats will occur as a result of plant operations. 

6.3 Maintenance 

Impacts to the Indiana bat are anticipated to be small as a result of BBNPP maintenance 

activities. All maintenance activities will occur within the portion of the property that has been 

altered by construction and therefore provides no habitat for this species. 

The use of pesticides and herbicides during BBNPP operations will be avoided or minimized as 

previously discussed in Section 6.1 as they may have direct adverse effects on Indiana bats 

through ingestion of contaminated insects and indirect adverse effects on Indiana bats by 

impacting insect populations. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

26

November 2011

With the exception discussed in Section 6.1, any tree clearing during the operation of BBNPP 

will occur from November 16th to March 31st only, when Indiana bats are hibernating, to avoid 

direct impacts (direct mortality) to bats that may be roosting on-site during the period of spring 

emergence through fall swarming. 

The periodic dredging of river sediment will not impact the habitat of the Indiana Bat, and no 

other activities that may disturb Indiana bats on the remainder of the property or in surrounding 

habitats will occur as a result of plant maintenance. 

7. PROPOSED INDIANA BAT MITIGATION 

Indiana bat-specific mitigation actions are proposed to offset unavoidable impacts to this species 

as a result of construction and operation of the BBNPP. Development of the mitigation plan 

described here is based primarily on the following inputs: 

 Written communication from USFWS to NRC in July 2009; A meeting held among state 

and federal agencies and PPL representatives on June 1, 2010; The Indiana Bat Range 

Wide Protection and Enhancement Plan (Range Wide PEP) for surface mining (USDOI, 

2009); and 

 A meeting held among state and federal agencies and PPL representatives on October 20, 

2011. 

The concept being proposed for Indiana bat compensatory mitigation for the BBNPP project is to 

provide viable Indiana bat habitat nearby the area of impact. In addition, due to similar habitat 

requirements and behavioral ecologies, these mitigation activities would be expected to provide 

viable habitat for little brown bat and northern myotis. To accomplish this, PPL proposes to 

create or conserve lands for potential Indiana bat habitat in two strategically located 1,500-foot 

(457-meter) wide riparian corridors on or adjacent to Walker Run and the North Branch of the 

Susquehanna River. These two corridors, located to the west and east of BBNPP respectively, 

will protect or create forested migration corridors, preferred foraging habitat, and potential 

roosting habitat. The created or conserved and subsequently managed habitat is both close to the 

area of impact and of similar quality to the affected habitat. 

Proposed mitigation actions to compensate for Indiana bat habitat loss are presented below and 

include: 

o Reforestation and Natural Succession; 

o Habitat Conservation and Management; and 

o Public Outreach. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

27

November 2011

The following additional mitigation measures were considered, but are not included in the 

proposed mitigation action: 

o White-Nose Syndrome Research Funding; 

o Hibernacula Gates; and 

o Funding of the Indiana Bat Conservation Fund. 

7.1 Reforestation and Natural Succession 

Reforestation will involve planting select species of trees on designated land within the BBNPP 

Project Boundary that has been cleared during construction of BBNPP and/or on adjacent PPLowned land that is not currently forested and is suitable for forest habitat. Lands potentially 

available for reforestation within the BBNPP Project Boundary as well as adjacent PPL-owned 

properties on the eastern side of the Susquehanna River are shown in Figure 6. Approximately 

58 acres (24 ha) are proposed for reforestation within or adjacent to the BBNPP Project 

Boundary. The reforestation locations consist of land that will be temporarily impacted by 

BBNPP construction, and are not planned for current or future use, and active agricultural land to 

be converted to forest. Included in the 58 acres (24 ha) are approximately 10 acres (4 ha) on 

which forested wetland creation will occur as part of restoration of Walker Run. Only 

agricultural fields that are not classified as prime farmland1

 will be employed for reforestation. 

In addition, natural succession will be allowed to occur on agricultural lands within the BBNPP 

Project Boundary as well as adjacent PPL-owned properties on the eastern side of the 

Susquehanna River as shown in Figure 6. Approximately 137 acres (55 ha) are proposed for 

natural succession within or adjacent to the BBNPP Project Boundary. 

Reforestation areas were selected by identifying all available PPL-owned lands within a 500-foot 

(152-meter) corridor along Walker Run and the Susquehanna River, providing improved habitat 

connectivity along this north-south oriented riparian corridor. Natural succession areas were 

selected by identifying all available PPL-owned agricultural lands within a 1,500-foot (457-

meter) corridor along the Susquehanna River. Forest preservation areas were selected from PPLowned forested lands along a 1,500-foot (457-meter) corridor along Walker Run and the 

Susquehanna River. Once implemented, these mitigation measures are expected to provide 

forested migration corridors and potential Indiana bat foraging and roosting habitat of varying 

stages of succession. 

                                                           

1 Prime farmland has the best combination of soil properties, growing season, and moisture supply needed to 

produce sustained high yields of crops in an economic manner if it is treated and managed according to acceptable 

farming methods (NRCS, 2010).

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

28

November 2011

As part of this mitigation plan, PPL commits to a combination of reforestation and natural 

succession of an area that is approximately 83% of the number of acres of forest cover that are to 

be cleared during construction of BBNPP. Not all disturbed areas are available for reforestation or 

natural succession since certain areas will remain open for security, safety or future use. 

Reforestation efforts will be planned and carried-out in consultation with the USFWS and PDCNR 

Bureau of Forestry. Additional sources of technical information that may be used in reforesting 

disturbed lands include the Forest Reclamation Advisories published by the Appalachian Regional 

Reforestation Initiative (USDOI, 2010). Site preparation and replanting will be based on a site 

specific planting plan developed based on guidance provided in the June 1, 2010 meeting with the 

USFWS and the USDOI’s Range-wide Indiana Bat Protection and Enhancement Plan reforestation 

guidelines. The proposed specifications are listed below: 

1) At least 70% of the total Indiana bat forested habitat to be affected must be reforested 

unless off-site mitigation measures are used. BBNPP proposes to use a combination of onsite and off-site reforestation, natural succession, habitat conservation and habitat 

management that will provide a greater than 2.4:1 ratio of habitat created and preserved to 

habitat lost. 

2) Saplings, groundcover and other vegetation will be planted in conformance with detailed 

specifications prepared by an experienced forester or restoration professional. Saplings 

will also be planted in a non-uniform pattern that resembles natural tree distribution within 

a forest. The following specific USFWS requirements for replanting will be adopted: 

a. A minimum of six different species from the “Tree Species List for Indiana Bat 

Protection and Enhancement Plans” will be selected (species selection should be 

determined by site-specific characteristics such as soil moisture, sun exposure, etc. and 

seedling availability) (USDOI, 2009). 

b. A minimum of four species identified as “exfoliating bark species” will be planted and 

equal at least 40 per cent, or 160 live woody stems, of a minimum of 400 live woody 

stems per acre. Tree species should be planted at approximately equal rates. The 

remaining 60% of the minimum stems per acre may come from any of the tree 

categories in the species list with no more than 20% of the total consisting of one tree 

species. 

c. Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) will comprise no more than 50 stems per acre. 

d. Herbaceous ground cover will be native to the ecosystem, compatible with tree 

planting, non-invasive, slow-growing, and beneficial to wildlife. 

3) Low compaction grading techniques will be used to increase the survival rate of planted 

trees. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

29

November 2011

4) Saplings will be protected from browsing by white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 

and other wildlife using methods such as tree tubes or deer fencing (Curtis et al, 2001; 

Vercauteren et al., 2006). 

5) Plantings may be done in stages over multiple consecutive growing seasons. PPL will 

contract ahead of time with local and regional nurseries (contract growing) to ensure that an 

adequate supply of the required species will be available for planting and, where feasible, 

enable locally adapted trees to be used as the seed source. 

6) A long term monitoring and maintenance plan will be instituted to ensure that reforestation 

efforts, as well as natural recolonization, will be successful. Maintenance activities will 

include a program to control invasive exotic plants. Reforested lands will be inspected by a 

qualified professional (forester, restoration professional or botanist) yearly during the 

growing season to identify invasive non-native plants that have the potential to adversely 

affect the growth and development of planted and volunteer saplings through competition 

or other interactions. The inspector will make recommendations to PPL on species-specific 

control methods for known problem plants identified in these areas. 

It is anticipated that to provide reforestation acceptable to these planting specifications, the cost 

will be a minimum of $10,000/acre. 

7.2 Habitat Conservation and Management 

Habitat conservation refers to the perpetual conservation of viable Indiana bat habitat via 

easement or deed restriction on or adjacent to the BBNPP site. Habitat management refers to the 

specific forest management practices to be implemented on dedicated parcels of existing on-site 

and off-site forest areas to conserve and maintain or enhance Indiana bat habitat. Habitat 

conservation and management is being proposed in conjunction with reforestation to further 

mitigate for the loss of habitat on site, since it may take many years for forested areas that have 

been cleared to provide habitat characteristics supporting Indiana bat life cycle requirements. 

In its July 2009 letter to the NRC regarding the BBNPP Project (USFWS, 2009), USFWS 

indicated that “after reducing forest impacts via the avoidance and minimization measures, any 

remaining unavoidable impacts on forest should be offset by permanently protecting forest 

habitat off-site at a 1:1 compensations ratio.” Additional details of land compensation 

requirements were provided in a June 1, 2010 meeting with the USFWS and in the USDOI’s 

Range-wide Indiana Bat Protection and Enhancement Plan reforestation guidelines (USDOI, 

2009).  

PPL has identified 386 acres (156 ha) of currently forested land within the BBNPP Project 

Boundary and adjacent PPL-owned lands that are similar to the habitat that is being lost and 

suitable for habitat conservation and management. These areas were selected by identifying all 

available PPL-owned forested lands along a 1,500-foot (457-meter) corridor along Walker Run 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

30

November 2011

and the Susquehanna River that in combination with areas selected for reforestation will provide 

potential Indiana bat foraging and roosting habitat of varying stages of succession. 

Approximately 122 acres (49 ha) are proposed for conservation and management within the 

defined 1,500-foot (457-meter) corridor along Walker Run, and 264 acres (107 ha) within the 

defined 1,500-foot (457-meter) corridor along the Susquehanna River. All conservation and 

management is proposed upon existing PPL-owned lands (Figure 6). These conservation and 

management areas are designed to compensate for the 236.3 acres (95.6 ha) of total temporary 

and permanent losses of forested cover on the BBNPP project site by a ratio of greater than 

1.6:1. The sum of reforestation, natural succession, and conservation and management areas 

compensate by a ratio of greater than 2.4:1. 

PPL proposes to implement passive habitat management practices on all land proposed for 

habitat conservation and management following suggestedUSFWS forest management 

guidelines. These guidelines are appropriate to manage Indiana bat habitat that exists on the 

BBNPP project site and nearby PPL-owned (Figure 6). The implementation of these guidelines 

is not intended to result in the establishment of optimal habitat, but to maintain and enhance 

existing habitat that is suitable for Indiana bats. The guidelines consider the Indiana bat’s needs 

for foraging and roosting habitat to survive and successfully reproduce. 

The following forest management plan guidelines will be followed to conserve and enhance 

Indiana bat habitat within the forest conservation areas proposed in this mitigation plan: 

1. Commercial timber harvesting shall not be permitted. Tree harvesting may be conducted 

to preserve or improve habitat in case of pest infestation or disease. 

2. Tree cutting shall not occur between April 1st and November 15th except to protect 

human health and safety or comply with the FERC Standards of Transmission Reliability. 

This corresponds to the Indiana bat reproductive and spring/fall emergence and swarming 

seasons. Individual trees which represent a potential safety risk may be removed in 

accordance with the PPL Danger Tree Removal Policy. 

3. No timber stand improvement activities shall be permitted within 100 feet of perennial 

streams or 50 feet of intermittent or ephemeral streams to provide riparian buffer zone 

protection. 

4. Selective thinning may be undertaken to decrease canopy cover in densely stocked 

forested stands, but at least 60% of the canopy closure shall be retained. 

5. All snags will be retained, except where they pose a safety hazard due to their location 

near a building, yard, road, or power line ROW. Trees with less than 10% live canopy 

shall be considered snags. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

31

November 2011

6. Shagbark hickory trees (Carya ovata) will not be harvested or manipulated unless the 

density of shagbark hickory exceeds 16 trees per acre. At least 16 live shagbark hickory 

greater than 11" dbh (diameter at breast height) per acre shall be maintained, if present. 

If there are no shagbark hickory trees greater than 11" dbh to retain and protect, then the 

16 live shagbark hickory trees per acre must include the largest specimens in the stand. 

7. The following species of trees in each forest stand will be identified, and protected, to 

enhance Indiana bat habitat. These trees have been identified as having relatively high 

value as potential Indiana bat roost trees: 

o shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) o bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis) 

o mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa) o pignut hickory (Carya glabra) 

o other hickories (Carya spp.) o silver maple (Acer saccharinum) 

o sugar maple (Acer saccharum) o red maple (Acer rubrum) 

o green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) o white ash (Fraxinus americana) 

o eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) o northern red oak (Quercus rubra) 

o scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea) o black oak (Quercus velutina) 

o white oak (Quercus alba) o chestnut oak (Quercus prinus) 

o slippery elm (Ulmus rubra) o American elm (Ulmus americana) 

o black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) 

This list is based on review of literature (Carter, 2003; Gardener, 1991; USDOI, 2009) 

and data on Indiana bat roosting requirements. Other species may be added as they are 

identified. Other tree species with exfoliating bark, crevices or cavities could also serve 

as potential roost trees. 

8. In habitat management stands, PPL will maintain at least 3 live trees per acre greater than 

20" dbh of the species listed above, where these species occur in the stand to be managed. 

An additional 6 live trees per acre greater than 11" dbh (of the species listed above) shall 

also be maintained. 

In areas of the stand where there are no trees greater than 20" dbh to retain, then 16 live 

trees per acre will be retained, and these will include the largest specimens of the 

preferred species (see list above) in the stand. 

9. PPL will ensure that all PPL personnel and contractors working in or near forest 

conservation areas are made aware of the limits and restrictions of these forest 

management guidelines. 

7.3 Public Outreach 

A module on the life history, importance and protection of Indiana bats will be included in 

ongoing environmental education programs conducted by PPL naturalists at the Susquehanna 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

32

November 2011

Riverlands Environmental Preserve. Information on WNS, as well as efforts by PPL to avoid, 

minimize and mitigate potential impacts to Indiana bat habitat within the BBNPP project area 

will be added to the existing year-round environmental education programs provided at the 

Susquehanna Energy Information Center. This program will seek to foster an appreciation 

among the general public for the environmental challenges facing both Indiana bats and bats in 

general, as well as programs to protect bats and conserve bat habitat. 

7.4 Mitigation Measures Evaluated but Not Selected for Implementation 

White-Nose Syndrome Research Funding

Because PPL is able to provide reforestation and habitat conservation and management that will 

compensate for cleared forested habitat at a ratio of greater than 2.4:1, no additional mitigation 

via funding of WNS research is proposed. However, information on Indiana bat life history, 

importance and threats (including WNS) will be included in the ongoing environmental 

education programs at PPL’s Susquehanna Riverlands Environmental Information Center. 

Hibernacula Gates

USFWS has recommended that PPL consider the installation of bat friendly gates on hibernacula 

that are known or likely to support Indiana bats (USFWS, 2009). There are no known Indiana 

bat hibernacula within 10 miles of the BBNPP site that are both not gated and suitable for gating. 

Therefore, PPL has eliminated this potential mitigation measure from consideration. 

Indiana Bat Conservation Fund

The Indiana Bat Conservation Fund is a cooperative agreement between the USFWS and PGC to 

provide funds for acquisition of Indiana bat habitat to mitigate for losses to Indiana bat habitat 

that are not compensated through the direct acquisition of habitat for conservation by the 

applicant (USDOI, 2009). The funds are used to buy land in the area where the habitat loss 

occurs. 

PPL will place in conservation an area of potential Indiana bat habitat (386 acres [156 ha]) that is 

greater than the amount of required habitat compensation determined by USFWS (234 acres [95 

ha]) (see calculation in Table 1), therefore a contribution to the Indiana Bat Conservation Fund is 

not being proposed. 

8. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS 

As defined in the Consultation Handbook (USFWS and NMFS, 1998) cumulative effects include 

“the effects of future State, tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in 

the action area” of the project under consideration. The analysis does not include future Federal 

actions unrelated to the proposed action, because they require separate consultation. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

33

November 2011

As discussed in Section 4, the BBNPP Action Area encompasses the area of disturbance within 

the BBNPP Project Boundary (where nearly all construction activities will take place), as well as 

a 200-foot (61-meter) buffer around the area of disturbance to account for potential constructionrelated noise effects on Indiana bats both within and outside the construction zone (Figure 2). 

Additionally, the Action Area includes several offsite roadway intersections which will be 

improved, the extension of potable water and sewer lines from US 11 to the BBNPP site, and 

areas where Indiana bat conservation measures will be undertaken on PPL-owned off-site lands. 

State, tribal, local or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur for the above defined 

action areas are discussed in the following sections. 

8.1 Area of Disturbance 

Cumulative effects within the Action Area (BBNPP area of disturbance and surrounding 200-

foot buffer plus mitigation areas) that are reasonably certain to occur are limited to development 

activities related to the Susquehanna Greenway Project. Several other effects that are unlikely to 

occur are also addressed in this section to ensure a comprehensive analysis. These additional 

effects encompass timber harvesting, surface mines and development of Marcellus shale natural 

gas resources on the small areas of adjacent private land that overlap with the construction noise 

buffer (Figure 2). 

Susquehanna Greenway Project

The Susquehanna Greenway Project is an ambitious long-term plan to extend a greenway along 

the entire length of the river. A major focus of the greenway plan is the development of a 

network of recreation trails to link municipalities along the river corridor with parks and other 

recreational areas, historic sites and other points of interest. The goal is to provide economic and 

environmental benefits, as well as connect people to the culture, nature, and beauty of the 

Susquehanna River (SEDA-COG, 2009). 

The North Branch Canal Trail (NBCT) is part of the larger greenway and is located along the 

Middle Susquehanna River in Montour and Columbia Counties. A demonstration project for the 

NBCT is currently underway for a 12-mile reach of the former canal towpath between Danville 

and Berwick which is located several miles south of the BBNPP area of disturbance. The canal 

and towpath also extend through the PPL Susquehanna Riverlands which already has an 

extensive trail system. The demonstration project was initiated in 2010 and has a planned 

completion date of 2016 (SEDA-COG, 2009). 

PPL has a long history of providing and/or supporting recreational and other projects that benefit 

local communities within its service area. In support of the Susquehanna Greenway Project, PPL 

is already in the process of transferring 3,500 acres (1,414 ha) of company-owned land along the 

lower river in Lancaster County and York County to private conservation groups (Susquehanna 

Greenway Partnership, 2008). Therefore, there is a high likelihood that the NBCT will be 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

34

November 2011

extended north through the PPL Susquehanna Riverlands in the near future. Impacts from this 

project will be small as existing PPL Susquehanna Riverlands recreational trails are well 

maintained and already suitable for this use. A short section of NBC will be restored near the 

BBNPP intake structure as part of the overall site mitigation. Necessary tree cutting for trail or 

other improvements, if necessary, will be minimized and conducted during the allowed 

November 16th through March 31st period when Indiana bats are hibernating. Cutting of 

potential roost trees as defined by USFWS (AREVA, 2010a) will be avoided if possible. 

Timber Harvesting

Pennsylvania is a leading producer of forest products, particularly black cherry (Prunus 

serotina). Black cherry and other valuable timber species of marketable size are common within 

the BBNPP area of disturbance and, therefore, these trees are likely to be present on adjacent 

private lands that overlap with the construction noise buffer. The impact to Indiana bat habitat 

roosting habitat by selective timbering or even clear cutting of forests on these lands would be 

small as forested land within this area is very limited in size. Indiana bats could move to suitable 

roosting habitat in the much larger forested tracts surrounding the project site and located 

throughout the region. 

Surface Mines

Quarries that produce gravel and larger river stone materials are common in the BBNPP locale 

due to past glacial activity, and the BBNPP area of disturbance includes two former surface 

mines. Adjacent private lands that overlap with the construction noise buffer could potentially 

be developed for this purpose. However, similar to timber harvesting, the impact of surface 

mines on Indiana bat habitat would be small due to the relatively limited overall size of these 

lands and the ability of the bats to move to suitable habitat surrounding the project site. 

Natural Gas Development

The Marcellus shale formation underlies much of Pennsylvania and is the focus of intensive 

natural gas development activity including well drilling and pipeline construction. However, 

very little well drilling is occurring in Luzerne at this time and the few wells that have been 

installed are not located near any section of the BBNPP Action Area (PADEP, 2010). 

Additional gas well development in Luzerne County may be limited as recent test wells did not 

yield gas in commercially developable quantities (Hughes, 2010). Gas pipeline construction is 

likely to occur in Luzerne County but almost certainly will not occur within the Action Area. 

Furthermore, no new intrastate natural gas transmission pipelines are known to be currently 

proposed in the immediate vicinity of the BBNPP area of disturbance, and there is no 

information regarding any potential upgrades to the existing pipeline that runs through the 

northeastern portion of the BBNPP Project Boundary. Intrastate gas pipelines, only, are 

considered in this cumulative effects analysis as interstate pipelines are regulated by the Federal 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

35

November 2011

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and would go through a separate project specific ESA 

Section 7 consultation process with USFWS. Therefore, the impact of Marcellus shale gas 

development is considered small at this time. 

8.2 Intersection Improvements 

The Action Area includes several off-site roadway intersections which will be improved to 

mitigate traffic congestion associated with the construction workforce and the delivery of 

construction materials. This effect will be insignificant as most improvements will occur within 

the existing roadway footprint and, therefore, will not impact Indiana bat habitat. There are no 

non-Federal actions that are likely to be associated with these highway improvements. 

8.3 Potable Water and Sewer Lines 

The extension of potable water and sewer lines by the Pennsylvania American Water Company 

and the Berwick Area Joint Sewer Authority, respectively, to the BBNPP site is also included 

within the BBNPP Action Area, and is enclosed by a 200-foot (61-meter) construction noise 

buffer along each side of the right-of-way corridor (Figure 2). The impacts from pipeline 

construction will be small as forest clearing necessary for this Project will be limited to a narrow 

right-of-way immediately adjacent to the western side of Confers Lane. 

Cumulative effects associated with this part of the Action Area are limited to the potential for 

additional forest clearing resulting from an increased density of residential development within 

the noise buffer along Confers Lane, which could be facilitated by the new water and sewer 

lines. The impact from this effect would be small since most of the developable land along this 

reach of Confers Lane is already in residential use and largely cleared. Most of the undeveloped 

land consists of regulated wetland that is unsuitable for most residential uses. 

8.4 Conservation Actions 

Reforestation, Natural Succession, and Habitat Conservation and Management Lands

Reforestation will provide future Indiana bat habitat as compensation for lost Indiana bat habitat 

(Section 7.1) and will involve planting select species of trees on 10 acres (4 ha) of land within 

the BBNPP site that has been cleared during construction as well as on 48 acres (19 ha) of 

adjacent non-forested PPL-owned land (Figure 6). Natural succession will provide future 

Indiana bat habitat as compensation for lost Indiana bat habitat (Section 7.1) and will involve 

allowing 137 acres (55 ha) of PPL-owned agricultural lands to naturally convert to forest. 

Indiana Bat Habitat Conservation and Management will involve placing a conservation easement 

on 386 acres (156 ha) of PPL-owned on-site and off-site forest areas and implementing select 

Indiana bat specific forest management practices to conserve and enhance Indiana bat habitat 

(Section 7.2). No cumulative effects are expected from these activities. Reforestation and 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

36

November 2011

habitat conservation and management will have a high and beneficial effect on Indiana bats as 

well as little brown bat and northern myotis. 

9. CONCLUSION 

In spite of the implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 

6, the construction of the BBNPP is likely to adversely affect the Indiana Bat due to the loss of 

potential roost trees and foraging habitat. Where possible, impacts to Indiana bats will be 

avoided and minimized. Mitigation will be provided for the unavoidable impacts to 236.3 acres 

(95.6 ha) of forested land that will be temporarily or permanently impacted within the BBNPP 

Action Area as detailed in Section 7. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

37

November 2011

10. LITERATURE CITED 

AREVA NP, 2010a. Indiana Bat Roost Tree Study Report for the Proposed Bell Bend Nuclear 

Power Plant Site Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Normandeau Associates Inc., Revision 

1, December 2010. 

AREVA NP, 2010b. A Field Survey of Terrestrial Fauna at the Proposed Bell Bend Nuclear 

Power Plant Site, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, Normandeau Associates Inc., Revision 

2, August 2010. 

Arnett et al., 2008. Patterns of Bat Fatalities At Wind Energy Facilities in North America. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1):61-78. Arnett, E.B., Brown,W.K., Erickson, W.P., 

Fiedler, J.K., Hamilton, B.L., Henry, T.H., Jain A., Johnson, G.D., Kerns, J., Kolford, 

R.R., Nicholson, C.P., O’Connell, T.J., Piorkowski, M.D., Tankersley, R.D. 2008. 

Butchkoski, C. 2010. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Summer Roost investigations, 2009. 

Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 19 p. 

Butchkoski, E. 2010. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Connecting You With Wildlife. Pennsylvania 

Game Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 4 p. 

Butchkoski et al. 2005. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) investigations at Canoe Creek, Blair County 

Pennsylvania. Annual Job Report. Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania. C. Butchkoski and G. Turner, 2005. 24 p. 

Carter, T.C. 2003. Summer habitat use of roost trees by the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis 

sodalis) in the Shawnee National Forest of southern Illinois. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern 

Illinois University, Carbondale. 82 p. 

Cryan et al., 2010. Wing pathology of white-nose syndrome in bats suggests life-threatening 

disruption of physiology. BMC Biology 2010 8(135):1-8. Cryan, P.M., Meteyer, C.U., 

Boyles, J.G., Blehert, D.S. 2010. Website: 

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1741-7007-8-135.pdf. date accessed, January 

18, 2011.

Curtis et al., 2001. White-Tailed Deer, Wildlife Damage Management Fact Sheet Series. Cornell 

Cooperative Extension. P. D. Curtis and K. L. Sullivan. 2001. 

Ecology III, 1995. Environmental Studies in the Vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric 

 Station, 1994 Annual Report, Ecology III, Inc, June 1995. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

38

November 2011

Gardner, J.E. 1991. Determination of habitat suitability and mist netting surveys for Myotis 

sodalis (Indiana bat) within three proposed regional airport sites, Kankakee and Will 

counties Illinois and Lake County Indiana. Unpublished report submitted to Bureau of 

Location and Environment, Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield, and 

TAMS Consultants, Inc., Chicago. 10 p. 

Hughes, M. 2010. Encana Pulls Operations Out of County. Website: 

http://www.timesleader.com/news/Encana_pulls_operations_out_of_county_11-19-

2010.html, Date accessed: January 10, 2011. 

Kunz et al., 2010. Status review of the little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) and determination 

that immediate listing under the Endangered Species Act is scientifically and legally 

warranted. Boston University’s Center for Ecology and Conservation Biology. T.H. Kunz 

and J.D. Reichard, 2011. 31 p. Website: http://www.bu.edu/cecb/files/2010/12/FinalStatus-Review.pdf. date accessed, November 1, 2011.

Lee et al. 2004. Flight activity and food habits of three species of Myotis bats 

(Chiroptera:Vespertilionidae) in sympatry. Zoological Studies 43: 589-597. Y.-F. Lee 

and G.F. McCracken, 2004. 

NRCS, 2010. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010. National Soil Survey Handbook. 

Website: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part622.html, Date accessed: 

January 24, 2011.

NatureServe. 2010. Indiana Bat profile. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life 

[web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Website: 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer, Date accessed: December 22, 2010. 

Normandeau, 2010a. Normandeau Associates, Inc. Notes from June 1, 2010 meeting at Bomboy 

Lane, Berwick, PA between PPL, Pennsylvania DEP, USACE and USFWS regarding 

Indiana bat potentially occurring on the BBNPP project site. 

Normandeau, 2010b. Email from Carole Copeyon (US Fish and Wildlife Service) to Robert Blye 

(Normandeau Associates, Inc.) Subject: Indiana bat information for the Bell Bend NPP 

Project (FWS project #2009), Dated: July 10, 2010. 

Normandeau, 2011. Personal Communication with Cal Butchkoski, Pennsylvania Game 

Commission, January 11, 2011 

NRC, 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, 

 NUREG-1437, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 1996. 

NRC, 1999. Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, 

 NUREG-1555, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1999. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

39

November 2011

PADEP, 2010. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Oil and Gas 

Management. 2010. Wells Drilled in 2010. Website: 

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/photogallery/photo13295/PAOilFi

eldsmap1.gif, Date accessed: January 6, 2011. 

PGC, 2010. Pennsylvania Game Commission News Release. Agencies and Partners Intensify 

WNS Research to Save Bats. Release #112-10. October 12, 2010. Website: 

http://www.fws.gov/whitenosesyndrome/pdf/PAGameCommNR112-10.pdf. date 

accessed, January 14, 2011. 

SEDA-COG, 2009. SEDA Council Of Governments. North Branch Canal Feasibility Study. 

Website: 

http://www.susquehannagreenway.org/Pages/North%20Branch%20Canal%20Trail.aspx, 

Date accessed: January 6, 2011. 

Steele et al., ed. 2010. Terrestrial Vertebrates of Pennsylvania: A Complete Guide to Species of 

Conservation Concern. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Edited by 

M.A. Steele, M.C. Brittingham, T.J. Maret and J.F. Merritt, 2010. 

Susquehanna Greenway Partnership, 2008. PPL Land Transfer. Website: 

http://www.susquehannagreenway.org/Pages/PPL%20Land%20Transfer.aspx, Date 

accessed: January 6, 2011. 

Turner et al., 2009. Indiana Bat Hibernacula Surveys, 2009. Pennsylvania Game Commission, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. G. Turner and C. Butchkoski, 2009. 15 p. 

UniStar, 2010. Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Combined Operating License Application Part 3: 

Environmental Report for Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Revision 2. UniStar Nuclear 

Services, LLC. 2010. 

USDOI, 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior. 2009. Range-wide Indiana Bat Protection and 

Enhancement Plan Guidelines. Website: 

http://www.osmre.gov/guidance/docs/INBatPEPGuidelines.pdf, date accessed, November 

2010. 

USDOI, 2010. U.S. Department of the Interior. 2010. The Forestry Reclamation Approach. 

Website: http://arri.osmre.gov/FRA/Advisories/FRA_No.2.7-18-07.Revised.pdf, Date 

accessed: December 2010. 

USFWS, 1988. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Effects of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Booms on 

Domestic Animals and Wildlife: A Literature Synthesis, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Ecology Research Center, NERC-88/29, p 88, K. Manci, D. Gladwin, R. 

Villella, and M. Cavendish, 1988. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

40

November 2011

USFWS, 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery 

Plan: First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 2007. 258 p. 

USFWS, 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Forest Management Practices for Conserving 

Indiana Bats. Website: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/njfieldoffice/pdf/IbatForest.pdf, date 

accessed, January 2011. 

USFWS, 2009. Letter from David Densmore, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to Chief, Rules and 

Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, “Environmental scoping process and Federally protected species for 

BBNPP site, July 10, 2009. 

USFWS, 2010a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Fact Sheet. Region 

7. Website: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/inbafctsht.html, date 

accessed Dec 21, 2010. 

USFWS, 2010b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. A National Plan for Assisting States, Federal 

Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats (Draft). October 21, 

2010. 

USFWS, 2010c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Press Release. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Wind Farm Owners Work Together. Website: 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/News/release.cfm?rid=177 , date accessed, Dec 21, 2010. 

USFWS, 2011a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 90-day Finding on a petition to list the eastern 

small-footed bat and northern long-eared myotis as threatened or endangered. Federal 

Register 76(125): 38095-38106. Wednesday, June 29, 2011. Docket No. FWS-R5-ES2011-0024; MO 92210-0-0008. 

USFWS, 2011b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009 Rangewide Population Estimate for the 

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) by USFWS Region. Website:

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Endangered/mammals/inba/pdf/2009inbaRangewidePopJul

y2011.pdf, revised July 14, 2011. Date accessed, September 21, 2011. 

USFWS, 2011c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. White-nose syndrome: Something is Killing our 

Bats. Website: http://www.fws.gov/WhiteNoseSyndrome/#map, updated September 12, 

2011. Date accessed September 21, 2011. 

USFWS, 2011d. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Calculation Sheet for Indiana Bat habitat 

Compensation. Website: 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pafo/pdf/Indiana%20Bat%20Conservation%20Fund%20-

%20Calculation%20Sheet.pdf, date accessed September 26, 2011. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

41

November 2011

USFWS and NMFS, 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries 

Service. Endangered Species Act Handbook. Procedures for Conducting Consultation 

and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. March 1998 

Final. U.S Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

USGS, 2009. U.S. Geological Survey. Investigating White-Nose Syndrome in Bats. Fact Sheet 

2009-3058. July 2009. Website: 

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/fact_sheets/pdfs/2009-

3058_investigating_wns.pdf. date accessed, January 14, 2011. 

Vercauteren et al., 2006. Fences and Deer-Damage Management: A Review of Designs and 

Efficacy. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(1): 191-200. K. C. Vercauteren, M. J. Lavelle and 

S. Hygnstrom. 2006. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0

November 2011

Figures

Controlled Document
[

tu11

0.4 0.2 0 0.4 Miles

Su s q u eh a n na

Ri v e r

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure 1. 400 Old Reading Pike, Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe, PA 19464

BBNPP Site Location Map 3 date: 1/11/11

prepared by: s.sherman

project: 22648.099

rev. date: 09/28/11

prepared for: c.roche

file name: Figure1.Site Map

Legend

[ BBNPP

Area of Disturbance

BBNPP Project Boundary

Controlled Document
[

tu11

0.5 0.25 0 0.5 Miles

Su s q u e h a n n a

Ri v e r

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Figure 2. 400 Old Reading Pike, Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe, PA 19464

BBNPP Action Area 3 date: 1/10/11

prepared by: s.sherman

project: 22648.099

rev. date: 09/28/11, 10/28/11

prepared for: c. roche

file name: Figure 2_Action Area

Legend

[ BBNPP

Area of Disturbance

BBNPP Project Boundary

Action Area Boundary

Water/Sewer Line Corridor

Reforestation

Habitat Management and Conservation

Natural Succession

Controlled Document
[

SSES

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

400 Old Reading Pike, Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe, PA 19464

Figure 3.

BBNPP

Isolated Forest Fragments 3 date: 11/07/11

prepared by: s.sherman

project: 22474.000

rev. date: 

prepared for: c. roche

file name: Figure_Isolated_Forest_Fragments

0.4 0.2 0 0.4 Miles

Legend

Proposed Forest Clearing

All Forest

1000 ft Forest Buffer

Isolated Forest Fragments

Controlled Document
!.

!. !.!.!.

!.

!. !.

!.

!.

!.

!.!. !.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

Elk

York

Centre

Berks

Butler

Bedford

Mckean

Blair

Somerset

Luzerne

Fayette

Huntingdon

Greene Adams

Mifflin

Armstrong

Beaver

Lawrence

50 25 0 

date: 12/02/10project: 22648.099prepared by: s.sherman

NORMAENVIRON

400 Old Reading 

Fig

India

Sources: PennsylvButchkoski, E. 2010. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Connecting You With Wildlife.Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, PennsylvaniaButchkoski, C. 2010. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Summer Roost investigations, 2009.Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, PennsylvaniaTurner, G. and C. Butchkoski, 2009. Indiana Bat Hibernacula Surveys, 2009.Pennsylvania Game Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Legend

!. Priority 2 Hibernaculum!. Priority 3 Hibernaculum!. Priority 4 Hibernaculum

Maternity ColoniesSummer Live Captures

C

o

n

t

r

o

l

l

e

d

D

o

c

u

m

e

n

t
!.

!.

!.

[

1 0 M i l e

R a di

u

s

Susquehan n a River

Dogtown Mines

Glen Lyon Anthracite Mine

Penn Wind Hazleton 09

303 1.5 Miles

date: 01/24/11

project: 22648.099

prepared by: s.sherman

rev.date: 09/28/11

checked by: k.maurice 3 file name: IBAT_within_10miles

NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

400 Old Reading Pike Bldg. A, Suite 101 Stowe, PA 19464

Figure 5.

BBNPP

Indiana Bat Hibernacula Sites

within 10 miles

Controlled Document
2,500 1,250 0 

date: 09/28/11project: 22648.099prepared by: s.sherman

NORMAENVIRON

400 Old Reading 

BBNPP Re

Natural Suc

Habitat Manageme

Figu

Legend

Reforestati(within 500 Reforestati(within 500 Conservati(Within 150Proposed LConservatiwithin 1500 Conservati(within ProBBNPP Pr

1,500 ft Bu500 ft Buffe

Natural Su(within 150

C

o

n

t

r

o

l

l

e

d

D

o

c

u

m

e

n

t
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0

November 2011

Tables

Controlled Document
Table 1. Calculation of Compensation Acres for Indiana Bat Habitat on the BBNPP Project Site

Impact Type Impact Acres 

(Hectares) Multiplier1 Compensation Acres (Hectares)

Known maternity habitat 0.0 2.0 0.0

Known non-maternity habitat 0.0 1.0 0.0

Non-forest habitat3 0.0 0.5 0.0

P2 or P3 Hibernaculum 0.0 1.5 0.0

P4 Hibernaculum 234 (95) 1.0 234 (95)

Known maternity and swarming habitat occur 

together

* Approximately 386 acres (156 ha) are compensated through habitat conservation and management

 which is greater than a 1.6:1 ratio of compensation to loss. Therefore no compensation in 

 the form of an Indiana Bat Conservation Fund contribution is offered.

1 Multiplier assumes permanent habitat protection will occur in accordance with the Indiana Bat Mitigation

 Guidance for Pennsylvania (USFWS, 2010e).

2

 Loss of known summer habitat assumes such loss will occur when bats are NOT present (i.e., between 

 November 16 and March 31). 

3

Non-forest habitat includes fields, shrublands, and other areas that can be used for foraging by Indiana bats.

4

Swarming habitat is suitable habitat within a 10-mile radius of Indiana bat hibernacula. Loss of swarming habitat 

 assumes such loss will occur when bats are NOT present (i.e., between November 16 and March 31). 

5

Loss of summer and swarming habitat assumes such loss will occur when bats are NOT present (i.e., between

 November 16 and March 31). 

Summer Habitat Loss2

Swarming Habitat Loss4

Overlapping Habitat Loss5

Choose highest multiplier from above (maternity or swarming) 

appropriate for the impact, and add 1.0 to the multiplier

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

November 2011

Appendix A

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

November 2011

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

November 2011

List of Enclosed Correspondence 

1. Letter from Rod Krich, UniStar Nuclear Energy LLC, to David Densmore, USFWS, “Large Project 

Species of Special Concern Screen”, December 21, 2007.

2. Letter from David Densmore, USFWS, to Rod Krich, UniStar Nuclear Energy LLC, “USFWS Project 

#2008-0518”, January 18, 2008. 

3. Letter from David Densmore, USFWS, to J. E. Price, UniStar Nuclear Energy LLC, “USFWS Project 

#2008-0518, Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant”, March 26, 2008. 

4. Letter from David Densmore, USFWS, to J. E. Price, UniStar Nuclear Energy LLC, “USFWS Project 

#2008-0518”, April 21, 2008. 

5. Letter from David Densmore, USFWS, to Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of 

Administrative Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Environmental scoping process and 

Federally protected species for BBNPP site, July 10, 2009. 

6. Letter from Terry L. Harpster, PPL Bell Bend LLC, to Pamela Shellenberger, USFWS, “Large Project 

Species of Special Concern Screen, September 20, 2010. 

7. Letter from Terry L. Harpster, PPL Bell Bend LLC, to Carole Copeyon, USFWS, “Indiana Bat Roost 

Tree Survey Study Plan”, September 27, 2010. 

Controlled Document
tar 

December 21,2007 

Mr. David Densmore 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Endangered Species Biologist 

315 South Allen Street, Suite 322 

State College, PA 16801 

SUBJECT: Large Project Species of Special Concern Screen 

UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC, Berwick, PA NPP-1 Project 

Salem Township. Luzerne County. PA 

Dear Mr. Densmore: 

UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC is conducting an environmental evaluation for an approximately 2.6 square 

mile (1,642 acres) project area on the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) site and adjacent 

properties in Salem Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania (Figure 1). The project area boundaries 

encompass the entire footprint of possible disturbance for the construction and maintenance of additional 

electric generation facilities under consideration for the site. 

UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC wishes to screen the project area for species of special concern under 

jurisdiction of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Please provide all current and historical information 

concerning the occurrence of Federally-listed and proposed threatened and endangered species; 

designated and proposed critical habitats; and any other ecological resources of special concern within the 

project area. This information may be used in future consultations with your agency under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act. 

In addition, please provide this information for a 0.5-mile buffer surroundihg the project area. This latter 

screen is requested for the purpose of evaluating environmental impacts and compliance with 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection regulations (e.g., 25 PA Code Chapter 105.17). A 

PNDI search form is attached for your use. 

If you have any questions or need additional information please contact George Wrobel at (585) 771-

3535. 

Thank you for your assistance. 

Rod Krich 

Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs 

Enclosures Site Location Map, Figure 1 

PNDI Review Form 

Controlled Document
USGS Berwick, PA Quad 

USGS Sybertsville, PA Quad 

f.}: 

\~" .• ~' ''''i"· J ,l 

Figure 1. 

Berwick, PA NPP·1 

N 

~ 

0.5 

!jIl\@! 

',,~; , 

" :',: 

o 

' "i 

c' 

1 Miles 

NORMAIVDEA U ASSOCIATES E NV! 1=; Of\! ivl EN TA L C O N S U LTAI\j TS 

date: 12117/07 

project: 21159.000 

prepared by: s.sherman 

checked by: k.maur!ce 

project name: Areva 

jjle name: 21159_slteJocation 

Controlled Document
i ,-. ""'h ." t . ' j.,'. ',III »I·-'-r .. ,. 1"\. ":II '~ · 

Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory 

Project Planning & Environmental Review Form 

This form provides site information necessary to perform an Environmental Review for special concern species and resources 

listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Wild Resource Conservation Act, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat code Dr 

the Pennsylvania Game and Wildlife Code. 

Applicant Information 

Name; UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC 

Address: 750 E. Pratt Street, 14th floor, Baltimore, MD 21202-3106 

Phone Number: 410470-5518 Fax Number: 585-771-3392 

Contact Person Information - if different from applicant 

Name: Mr. George Wrobel 

Address: same 

Phone Number: 585-771-3535 Fax Number: 585-771-3392 

Project Information 

Project Name: Berwick, PA NPP-l 

Project Locations: Lat N 41d 05m 11.54s Lon W 76d 09m 53.66s 

Municipality: Salem Township County: Luzerne 

~ Attach a copy of a U.S.G.S 7 112 Minute Quadrangle Map with Project Boundaries clearly marked. 

U.S.G.S. Quad Name: Berwick, PA and Sybertsville, PA 

Project Description 

Proposed Project Activity (induding All earth disturbance areas and current conditions) 

The Berwick, PA NPP-I Project involves development of a combined license application (COLA) to the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) for potential construction and operation of a new nuclear powered steam electric plant 

in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. In the event a decision is made to develop the plant, 

associated activities would involve land clearing, grubbing, grading/excavation, and construction of plant and support 

facilities and structures; landscaping; and subsequent operation and maintenance of plant facilities and grounds. 

Land use of areas potentially disturbed consists predominantly of active/former farmland and forest and, to roadways, 

and natural vegetation (e.g., shrub-scrub). 

Total Acres of Property: 1,642 Acreage to be Impacted: 780 (approximately) 

1. Will the entire project occur in or on an existing building parking lot, driveway, road, maintained road 

shoulder, street, runway, paved area, railroad bed, or maintained lawn? Yes No X 

2. Are there any waterways or waterbodies (intermittent or perennial rivers, streams, creeks, tributaries, 

lakes or ponds) in or near the project area, or on the land parcel? If so, how many feet away is the 

project? Yes X feet NO 

3. Are wetlands located in or within 300 feet of the project area? Yes X No If No. is this the result 

of a wetland delineation? 

If you have a "PNDI Project Environmental Review Receipt" with potential impacts" please send a receipt copy, this completed 

form, and a USGS Quad Map to the agency/agencies noted on the receipt. If you are unable to generate a PNDI Receipt because 

you do not have Internet access, complete this form, attach USGS Quad Map, and send them to your local DEP or County Conservation 

District. For review of a "Large Project," please send form and map to all the agencies listed below. See page 2 for more information. 

PNDI Form 

Dept. of Conservation and N amral Resources 

Bureau of Forestry, Ecological Services Section 

400 Market St., PO Box. 8552 

Harrisburg, PA 17105 

fax: 717-771 -0271 

PA Game Commission 

Bureau of Land Management 

2001 Elmerton Avenue 

Harrisburg, PA 17110-9797 

fax: 717-787-6957 

PA Fish and Boat Commission 

Natural Diversity Section 

450 Robinson Lane 

Bellefonte, P A 10828 

fax: 814-359-5175 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

Endangered Species Biologist 

315 South Allen St., Suite 322 

State College, PA 16801 

no faxes please 

Page 1 of2 

Controlled Document
United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Pennsylvania Field Office 

315 South Allen Street, Suite 322 

State College, Pennsylvania 16801-4850 

Rod Krich 

UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC 

750 East Pratt Street, 14th Floor 

Baltimore, MD 21202-3106 

RE: USFWS Proj ect #2008-0518 

Dear Mr. Krich: 

January 18,2008 

This responds to your letter of December 21,2007, requesting information about federally listed 

and proposed endangered and threatened species within the area affected by the proposed nuclear 

powered steam electric plant located in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The following comments 

are provided pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 

US.c. 1531 et seq.) to ensure the protection of endangered and threatened species. 

The project is within the range of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), a species that is federally 

listed as endangered. Indiana bats hibernate in caves and abandoned mines during the winter 

months (November through March), and use a variety of upland, wetland and riparian habitats 

during the spring, summer and fall. Indiana bats usually roost in dead or living trees with 

exfoliating bark, crevices or cavities. Female Indiana bats form nursery colonies under the 

exfoliating bark of dead or living trees, such as shagbark hickory, black birch, red oak, white 

oak, and sugar maple, in upland or riparian areas. 

Land-clearing, especially of forested areas, may adversely affect Indiana bats by killing, injuring 

or harassing roosting bats, and by removing or reducing the quality of foraging and roosting 

habitat. To determine whether the proposed project will affect Indiana bats, we will need 

additional project information, including site plans and a detailed project description, that 

describe how much forest disturbance will occur (area, tree species, and size classes). 

This response relates only to endangered or threatened species under our juri!;diction, based on 

an office review of the proposed project's location. No field inspection of the project area has 

been conducted by this office. Consequently, this letter is not to be construed as addressing 

potential Service concerns under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act or other authorities. 

To avoid potential delays in reviewing your project, please use the above-referenced USFWS 

project tracking number in any future correspondence regarding this project. 

Controlled Document
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Pam Shellenberger of my staff at 

814-234-4090. 

Sincerely, 

.;C..-~~....:-=:::. o==-o,~~\ 

David Densmore 

Supervisor 

Controlled Document
~" Un.Star" 

I\JUCLE.l\R E NERGY 

March 26, 2008 

Mr. David Densmore 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Pennsylvania Field Office 

315 South Allen Street, Suite 322 

State College, PA 16801-4850 

Subject: USFWS Project #2008-0518 

Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant 

PPL Nuclear Development, LLC 

Salem Township, Luzerne County, PA 

Dear Mr. Densmore: 

750 East Pratt Street, 14!il FI.)or 

Balli lne MD 21202 

,41 0) 470·5531 

This letter responds to your request for additional information concerning the Bell Bend 

Nuclear Plant project that was made in your letter dated January 18, 2008. You 

specifically asked for a site plan and detailed project description indicating the amount of 

forest disturbance that will occur including area, tree species and size classes. These 

items are addressed below. 

Site Plans 

The following site plans are enclosed for your review: 

1. Site Utilization Plot Plan Rev 2 showing the preliminary site layout. 

2. Forest Disturbance Exhibit showing the project boundary, forest disturbance, 

wetlands and selected other features overlain on PAMAP color aerial photography. 

Project Oescri.ption 

The Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant project area encompasses approximately 1.04 

square miles (665 acres) on the PPL Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) site 

and adjacent properties in Salem TownShip, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Project 

area boundaries and the entire footprint of possible disturbance for the construction, 

operation and maintenance of a new nuclear powered steam electric plant are shown on 

the enclosed site plans. In the event a decision is made to develop the plant, most of 

the land within the foot print of disturbance will be cleared, grubbed, graded and/or 

excavated for the construction of the plant, support facilities and other structures. 

Controlled Document
Mr. David Densmore 

March 26, 2008 

Page 2 

Current land use of potentially disturbed areas consists predominantly of active 

farmland, former farmland that has succeeded to old field or scrub-shrub habitat and 

forest. Potential forest impacts resulting from all project construction activities are 

conservatively estimated to be 251 acres and were calculated using AutoCADD mapping 

software. 

Environmental monitoring studies for the project area were initiated in 2007 and included 

the delineation of all wetlands onsite. The wetlands delineation study revealed that 

forested areas consist largely of upland and wetland mixed deciduous cover. Trees 

commonly found in wetland forest habitat include red maple (Acer rubrum), silver maple 

(Acer saccharinum) black gum (Nyssa sylvafica), pin oak (Quercus rubra) and river birch 

(Betula nigra). 

Common upland trees include northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus 

alba), black cherry (Prunus serafina), white ash (Fraxinus americana), shagbark hickory 

(Carya ovata), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), black birch (Betula Jenfa), black 

walnut (Juglans nigra), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) and red maple. Most 

canopy trees fall in the range of 6-inches to 18-inches in diameter breast height (dbh). 

However, an estimated 1 O-percent to 20-percent of the forest cover may exceed this 

range. 

If you have any questions or need additional information please contact Jerome Fields at 

(610) 774-7889. 

Thank you for your assistance. 

Sincerely, 

. ~ 

rice Enclosures: 1) 

2) 

Site Utilization Plot Plan 

Natural Features Plan 

Controlled Document
i 

1500 750 o 

• 

P

P

B

(8

:---

i 

i 

i 

i 

t 

1

b===F4 

1 INCH = 

BELL 

FOREST DI

PR

UNISTAR NUCL

PE

CON

\l- - - ,- - --111100 Robbins A

_It j jj BerwIck, Pa.1

Scale: 1"= 1

Date: 03/ 17

C

o

n

t

r

o

l

l

e

d

D

o

c

u

m

e

n

t
United States Department of the Interior 

J. E. Price 

UniStar Nuclear Energy 

750 East Pratt Street 

14th Floor 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Pennsylvania Field Office 

315 South Allen Street, Suite 322 

State College, Pennsylvania 16801-4850 

April 21, 2008 

RE: USFWS Project #2008-05 18 

Dear Mr. Price: 

This responds to your letter of March 26,2008, which provided additional information about the 

Bell Bend Nuclear Plant project located in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The project is within 

the range of the Indiana bat (Myotis soda lis) , a species that is federally listed as endangered. 

The following comments are provided pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 

884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to ensure the protection of endangered and threatened 

speCIes. 

According to the additional information provided, which was requested by this office in a letter 

dated January 18, 2008, approximately 251 acres of forest habitat will be affected by the 

proposed project. Land-clearing, especially of forested areas, may adversely affect Indiana bats 

by killing, injuring or harassing roosting bats, and by removing or reducing the quality of 

foraging and roosting habitat. Therefore, due to the anticipated impacts of the project on forest 

habitat, and the project's proximity to a known Indiana bat hibernaculum, bat survey of the 

project area should be conducted between May 15 and August 15 by a qualified, Serviceapproved biologist (see enclosed list) using the enclosed Indiana Bat Mist Netting Guidelines. 

Survey results should be submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service for review and concurrence. 

In addition, if any natural caves or abandoned mines occur within the project area, it is possible 

that Indiana bats or other bat species may be using them during hibernation or potentially as 

summer roost sites. Entrances to these potential hibernacula could be intentionally or 

inadvertently closed or destroyed during activities such as land clearing, grading, fill disposal, 

mining, road construction or building construction. Ifbats are present within a cave or 

abandoned mine when this occurs, they will become trapped inside and perish. Even ifbats are 

not present during the closure, they may be adversely affected when they return to their 

hibernaculum in the fall and find it closed. This wiH force them to expend energy looking for 

Controlled Document
another suitable hibernaculum during a time when it is crucial that they store up sufficient fat 

reserves for hibernation. Bats are at an increased risk ofmorta1ity when they enter hibernation 

with insufficient fat reserves, or are unable to locate a cave/mine with the suite of conditions 

(e.g., temperature, humidity, air flow) necessary for successful hibernation. 

In order to determine whether this project will affect any potential Indiana bat hibernacula, the 

project area should be surveyed for cave and mine openings. All openings should be accurately 

mapped using a GPS unit. Ifpotentially unstable mines (e.g., abandoned coal mines) occur in 

the project area, the openings of these mines should be evaluated using the enclosed Protocol for 

Assessing Abandoned Mines/Caves for Bat Surveys. The Pennsylvania Game Commission has 

developed this protocol to determine whether abandoned mines may serve as potentially suitable 

bat habitat. Following this initial mine opening assessment, a qualified bat surveyor (see 

enclosed list) should survey each potentially suitable opening, as well as the area in the 

immediate vicinity of these openings. Surveys should be carried out in accordance with the 

enclosed survey protocol. Please submit a copy of the survey results to the Service and the 

Pennsylvania Game Commission for review and concurrence. 

If any caves or stable hard rock mines (e.g., limestone mines) occur in the project area, they 

should be surveyed for hibernating bats during the winter. Interior winter hibernacula surveys 

should be coordinated with the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Survey results should be 

submitted to the Service for review and concurrence. If caves or hard rock mines cannot be 

safely entered, their openings should be surveyed as described above. 

Survey results should be submitted to this office for review. Should Indiana bats be found during 

any survey, further consultation with the Service will be necessary, including the submission of 

detailed project plans, and an analysis of alternatives to avoid and minimize adverse effects. 

Additionally, removal of trees and forested areas within the project area could result in the direct 

take of roosting Indiana bats, which could be injured or killed when trees are cut. Regardless of 

whether Indiana bats are captured during your mist net survey, we nonetheless recommend that 

any tree-cutting activities be carried out from November 16 to March 31, during which time bats 

are hibernating. Studies have found that forested areas located within five miles ofhibernacula 

provide important foraging and roosting habitat for Indiana bats, especially during the fall and 

spring, when bats are building up their fat reserves prior to and after hibernation. 

If any tree-cutting is necessary from April 1 to November 15, the following trees greater than or 

equal to five inches diameter breast height (d.b.h.) should not be cut or physically disturbed (e.g., 

while harvesting any adjacent trees) in order to avoid killing or injuring roosting fudiana bats: 1) 

dead or dying trees and snags (including lightning struck trees) with exfoliating bark; 2) live 

trees (such as shagbark and shellbark hickory) which have exfoliating or defoliating bark in the 

trunk or branches; and 3) trees or snags that have characteristics typical of roost sites for Indiana 

bats (i.e., have exfoliating or defoliating bark, or contain cracks, crevices, or holes that could be 

used by the species as a potential roost), especially trees with sun exposure to the trunk. Treeclearing from November 16 to March 31 may proceed without these restrictions. 

Controlled Document
This response relates only to endangered or threatened species under our jurisdiction, based on 

an office review of the proposed project's location. No field inspection of the project area has 

been conducted by this office. Consequently, this letter is not to be construed as addressing 

potential Service concerns under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act or other authorities. 

To avoid potential delays in reviewing your project, please use the above-referenced USFWS 

project tracking number in any future correspondence regarding this project. 

If you have any questions regarding tIus matter, please contact Pam Shellenberger afmy staff at 

814-234-4090. 

Enclosures 

Sincerely, 

~~~"------ David Densmore 

Supervisor 

Controlled Document
Federally listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species in Pennsylvania 

(revised August 15, 2007) 

Common Name 

MAMMALS 

Indiana bat 

BIRDS 

Piping plover 

REPTILES 

Bog turtle 

Scientific Name 

Myotis sodafis 

Charadrius melodus 

Clemmys (Glyptemys) 

muhlenbergii 

Eastern massasauga Sistrurus catenatus 

rattlesnake catenatus 

MUSSELS 

Clubshell 

Dwarf 

wedge mussel 

Northern riffleshell 

Pleurobema clava 

Alasmidonta 

heterodon 

Epioblasma torulosa 

rangiana 

Status' Distribution (Counties and/or Watersheds) 

E 

E 

T 

C 

E 

E 

E 

Hibernacula: Armstrong, Beaver, Blair, Centre, 

Fayette, Huntingdon, Lawrence, Luzerne, Mifflin and 

Somerset Co. Maternity sites: Bedford, Berks and 

Blair Counties. Potential winter habitat state-wide in 

caves or abandoned mines. Potential summer 

habitat state-wide in forests or wooded areas. 

Designated critical habitat on Presque Isle (Erie 

Co.). Migratory. No nesting in PA since 1950s, but 

recent colonization attempts at Presque Isle 

Adams, Berks, Bucks, Chester, Cumberland, 

Delaware, Franklin, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, 

Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkill and 

York Co. 

Historically found in Crawford, Mercer and 

Philadelphia Co. 

Butler, Crawford, Mercer and Venango Co. 

Historically found in Allegheny and Lawrence Co. 

French Creek and Allegheny River (and some 

tributaries) in Armstrong, Clarion, Crawford, Erie, 

Forest, Mercer, Venango, and Warren Co.; 

Shenango River (Mercer and Crawford Co.) 

Has not been found recently in 13 streams of 

historical occurrence in Butler, Beaver, Fayette, 

Greene, Indiana, Lawrence, and Westmoreland Co. 

Delaware River (Pike and Wayne Co.). 

Has not been found recently in streams of historical 

occurrence in the Delaware River watershed 

(Bucl(s, Carbon, Chester, Philadelphia Co.) or 

Susquehanna River watershed (Lancaster Co.) 

French Creek and Allegheny River (and some 

tributaries) in Armstrong, Clarion, Crawford, Erie, 

Forest, Mercer, Venango, and Warren Co. 

Has not been found recently in streams of historical 

occurrence, including: Shenango River (Lawrence 

Co.), Conewango Creek (Warren Co.) 

US Rsh and Wildlife Service 

315 South Allen Street. Suite 322, State College. Pennsylvania 16801 Controlled Document
Common Name Scieniific NBlm~ Sialius1 Disiribui ion (Counties and/or Waiersheds) 

MUSSELS 

(continued) 

Rayed bean Vil/osa faba/is C French Creek and Allegheny River (Armstrong, 

Clarion, Crawford, Erie, Forest, Mercer, Venango, 

Warren Co.); Cussewago Creek (Crawford Co.). 

Has not been found recently in 5 streams of 

historical occurrence in Armstrong, Lawrence, 

Mercer and Warren Co. 

Sheepnose Plethobasus cyphyus C Allegheny River (Forest and Venango Co.). 

Has not been found recently in streams of historical 

occurrence, including: Allegheny River (Armstrong 

Co.), Beaver River (Lawrence Co.), Ohio River 

(Allegheny and Beaver Co.), and Monongahela 

River (Washington Co.) 

FISH 

Shortnose Acipenser E Delaware River and other Atlantic coastal waters 

sturgeon2 brevirostrum 

PLANTS 

Northeastern Scirpus E Adams, Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Carbon, Centre, 

bulrush ancistrochaetus Clinton, Columbia, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franl<lin, 

Fulton, Huntingdon, Lackawanna, Lehigh. 

Lycoming, Mifflin, Monroe, Perry, Snyder. Tioga, 

and Union Co. 

Historically found in Northampton Co. 

Small-whorled Isotria medea/aides T Centre, Chester and Venango Co. 

pogonia 

Historically found in Berks, Greene, Monroe, 

Montgomery and Philadelphia Co. 

1 E = Endangered; T = Threatened; P = Proposed for listing: C = Candidate 

2 Shortnose sturgeon is under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service 

US Fish and Wildlife SeN ice 

315 South AIJen Street, Suite 322, State College, Pennsylvania 16801 

Controlled Document
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Pennsylvania Field Office 

QUAL~[ED INDIANA BAT SURVEYORS 

The following list includes persons known by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to have the skills and 

experience to conduct surveys for Indiana bats. Any individuals handling or conducting surveys for Indiana bats 

must first obtain a permit from the Pennsylvania Game Commission. All Indiana bat captures must be reported 

in writing to the Service and Commission within 72 hours. Indiana bat surveys should be overseen by a 

qualified surveyor, who should be present in the field at all times during the investigation. Mist-net surveys 

should be carried out in accordance with the Service 's Indiana Bat Mist Netting Guidelines. lf any Indiana bats 

are captured during mist-netting, a surveyor with bat telemetry experience should be prepared to place a 

transmitter on the bates) to identify roost trees and foraging habitat. Various sampling teclmiques, including 

mist-netting, Anabat detection, radio-telemetry, harp-trapping and hibernacula surveys, are used to detect and 

monitor bats. Some individuals on this list may not be qualified to conduct all types of sampling. 

This information is not to be construed as an endorsement of individuals or firms by the Service or any of its 

employees. Persons not on this list, but who have documented experience in conducting scientific studies of, or 

successful searches for, Indiana bats may submit their qualifications to the Service for review. The submission 

must include documentation that the requestor has experience successfully locating and identifying Indiana bats 

in their hibemacula and their summer habitat. Additions to and deletions from this list are at the sole discretion 

of the Service. This list is subject to revision at any time without prior notice. 

Chris Sanders, Jessica Kapp, 

MichaelO'Mahony 

Sanders Environmental, Inc. 

322 Borealis Way 

Bellefonte, PA 16823 

814-364-8776; 814-659-8257 (cell) 

sanders@batgate.com 

Jeffrey Brown, Amy Henry & 

Russell Ronum! 

BHB Environmental, Inc. 

11733 Chesterdale Road 

Cincinnati, OH 45246 

513-326-1500 

513-326-1550 (fax) 

Stacy Wolbert 

145 Lamb Drive 

Morrisdale, PA 16858 

814-360-1290 

stacy _ wolbeli@yahoo.com 

Neil Bossart 

Civil & Env. Consultants, Inc. 

333 Baldwin Road 

Pittsburgh, PA 15205 

412-429-2324 

nbossatt@cecinc.colll 

John Chenger, Matt Hopkins & 

Kevin Rhome 

Bat Conserva ion & Management 

220 Old Stone House Road 

Carlisle, PAl 70 15 

717-241 -2228 

814-442-4246 (cell) 

Hal Bryant 

Eco-Tech, Inc. 

P.O. Box 8 

Frankfort, KY 40602-0008 

502-695-8060 

502-695-8061 (fax) 

myotis2000@aol.com 

James Hart 

The Vertebrate Museum 

Shippensburg University 

Shippensburg, PA 17257 

717-532-1145 

Jolm Macgregor 

Berea Ranger District 

Daniel Boone National Forest 

1835 Big Hill Road 

Berea, KY 40403 

606-745-3100 

PlIge I ofl 

Dr. Virgil Brack, Jr. 

Environmental Solutions & 

Innovations 

781 Neeb Road 

Cincinnati, OH 45233 

513-451-1777 

513-451-3321 (fax) 

Robert F. Madej 

R.D. Zande & Associates 

1237 Dublin Road 

Columbus,OH 43215 

800-340-2743 

614-486-4387 (fax) 

Dr. Karen CampbelJ 

Biology Department 

Albright College 

Reading, PA 19614 

610-921-2381 

Dr. Lynn Robbins 

Southwest Missouri State Univ. 

Biology Department 

901 South National 

Springfield, MO 65804 

417-836-5366 

IlIdia/1lI Bal Surveyors I Rev 03-26-08 

Controlled Document
Dr. Michael Gannon 

Department of Biology 

Penn State University 

Altoona College 

3000 lvyside Park 

Altoona, PA 16601-3760 

814-949-5210 

Bryon DuBois 

Trident Environmental Consultants 

1856 Route 9 

Toms River, NJ 08755 

732-81 8-8699 

bdu bois@tridentenviro.com 

James Kiser 

Stantec 

1901 Nelson Miller Parkway 

Louisville, KY 40223 

812-206-0100,606-434-9018 (cell) 

james.kiser@stantec.com 

Steve Pemick 

Skelly and Loy, Inc. 

2500 Eldo Road, Suite 2 

.. Monroeville, PA 15146-1456 

412-856-1676 

. spernick@skeUyloy.com 

Dr. Phillip Clem 

University of Charleston 

2300 MacCorkle Ave., SE 

Charleston, WV 25304 

304-357-4793 

Kristen Watrous 

Stantec 

55 Green Mountain Drive 

South Burlington, VT 05403 

802-383-0425,802-578-7161 (cell) 

kristen. watrous@stantec.com 

Page 2 of2 

Ryan Leiberher 

Skelly and Loy, Inc. 

2601 N. Front St. 

Harrisburg, PA 17110 

717-232-0593 

rleiberher@skellyloy.com 

Michael R. Schirmacher 

Bat Conservation International 

PO Box 4254 

Hidden Valley, PA 15502 

843-408-1695 

mschiImacher@batcoll.org 

Tim Blackburn 

825 19th Street, 2nd Floor 

Altoona, P A 16601 

Illdialia Bar S,lrveyors I Rev 03-26-08 

. 

J 

Controlled Document
INDIANA BAT MIST NETTING GUIDELINES 

RATIONALE 

A typical mist net survey is an attempt to determine presence or probable absence of the species, it does 

not provide sufficient data to determine population size or structure. Following these guidelines will 

standardize procedures for mist netting. It will help maximize the potential for capture of Indiana bats at 

a minimum acceptable level of effort. Although the capture of bats confirms their presence, failure to 

catch bats does not absolutely confinn their absence. Netting effort as extensive as outlined below 

usually is sufficient to capture Indiana bats. However, there have been instances in which additional 

effort was necessary to detect the presence of the species. 

NETTING SEASON 

May 15 - August 15 

These dates define acceptable limits for documenting the presence of summer population of Indiana bats, 

especially maternity colonies. Several captures, including adult females and young of the year, indicate 

that a nursery colony is active in the area. Outside these dates, even when Indiana bats are caught, data 

should be carefully interpreted: If only a single bat is captured, it may be a transient or migratory 

indi vidual. 

EQUIPMENT 

Mist nets - Use the finest, lowest visibility mesh commercially available: 

1. In the past, this was I ply, 40 denier monofilament - denoted 40/1 

2. Currently, monofilament is not available and the finest on the market is 2 ply, 50 denier nylon -

denoted 50/2 

3. Mesh of approximately 1 Y2 (1 Y4 - 1 lis) in (-38 rom) 

Hardware - No specific hardware is required. There are many suitable systems of ropes and/or poles to 

bold the nets. See NET PLACEMENT below for minimum net heights, habitats, and other netting 

requirements that affect the choice of hardware. The system of Gardner, et al. (1989) has met the test of 

time. 

NET PLACEMENT 

Potential travel corridors such as streams or logging trails typically are the most effective places to net. 

Place the nets approximately perpendicular across the corridor. Nets should fill the corridor from side to 

side and from stream (or ground) level up to the overhanging canopy. A typical set is seven meters high 

consisting of three or more nets "stacked" on top one another and up to 20 m wide. (Different width nets 

may be purchased and used as the situation dictates.) 

Occasionally it may be desirable to net where there is no good corridor. Take caution to get the nets up 

into the canopy. The typical equipment described in the section above may be inadequate for th.ese 

situations, requiling innovation on the pcui of the observers. 

Controlled Document
RECOMMENDED NET SITE SPACING: 

Stream corridors - one net site per Ian of stream. 

Non-corridor land tracts - two net sites per square km of forested habitat 

(=0 1 net site for every 123 acres of forested habitat) 

MINIl\tIUM LEVEL OF EFFORT 

Netting at each site should consist of: 

At least four net-nights (unless bats are caught sooner) (one net set up for one night = one net-night) 

A minimum of two net locations at each site (at least 30m apart, especially in linear habitat such as a 

stream corridor) 

A minimum of two nights of netting 

Sample Period: begin at sunset; net for at least 5 hr 

Each net should be checked approximately every 20 min 

No disturbance near the nets, other than to check nets and remove bats 

WEATHER CONDITIONS 

Severe weather adversely affects capture of bats. If Indiana bats are caught during weather extremes, it is 

probably because they are at the site and active despite inclement weather. On the other hand, ifbats are 

not caught, it may be that there are bats at the site but they may be inactive due to the weather. Negative 

results combined with any of the following weather conditions throughout all or most of a sampling 

period are likely to require additional netting: 

• Precipitation 

• Temperatures below lOoC 

• Strong winds (Use good judgement: moving nets are more likely to be detected by bats.) 

MOONLIGHT 

There is some evidence that small myotine bats avoid brightly lit areas, perhaps as predator avoidance. It 

is typically best to set nets under the canopy where they are out of the moon light, particularly when the 

moon is \6-full or greater. 

Controlled Document
United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Pennsylvania Field Office 

315 South Allen Street, Suite 322 

State College, Pennsylvania 16801-4850 

July 10,2009 

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch 

Division of Administrative Services 

Mail Stop TWB-05-B01M 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 

Dear Sir or Madam: ' 

llle!lJ, 

7'1rJ< /I/O 

(j) 

~JJ 

'Tl 

... ...) 

u.s. FISH & WJLDLIFE SERVICE 

rt1 

~ k l ~ .". <,' 

"~nt·,.\,f;"~ 

\ ... l,( 

9? 

\../1 

W 

This responds to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) letter of January 12,2009, 

requesting comments on the environmental scoping process and federally protected species 

within the area affected by the proposed construction and operation of the PPL Bell Bend, LLC 

(PPL), Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant (B13NPP). The NRC is reviewing an application 

submitted by PPL for a combined license for construction and operation of on'e new nuclear 

power plant at the BBNPP site. As part of the review of this application, NRC staff are 

preparing the environmental impact statement (EIS) required by NRC's regulations on 

implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 852 as amended; 42 

U.S.c. 4321 et seq.). The EIS will include an analysis of pertinent environmental matters 

including those involving endangered or threatened species, and impacts to fish and wi1c~life. 

The following comments are provided pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 

884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (40 Stat. 755, as 

amended; 16 U.S.c. 703-712) (MBTA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (54 Stat. 250, as 

amended; 16 U.S.c. 668-668d) (Eagle Act), and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (48 

Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667e). 

The proposed BBNPP site consists of approximately 882 acres located along the Susquehanna 

River, five miles northeast of Berwick, in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The proposed site is 

adjacent to the existing Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES). Current land cover consists 

of forest, agricultural, and wetland habitats. PPL has stated there is no need for new 

transmission lines or corridors to connect the new reactor unit to the existing electrical grid, since 

the new facility would make use of the existing 500 kV transmission line and the SusquehannaRoseland Interconnection. 

6 u -VSJ Ife-Yt~~/~ 

rr-~~~ /7])/-1-/)/:3 

'/=-/&0'5 =- ,1)) H -0 3 

~::;;~·r~~ 

(5~) 

Xl 

c:: 

r-'-

" ' c.:) 

Controlled Document
According to the BBNPP Combined License Application Environmental Report documents, 

approximately 564 acres would be affected by construction of the project (351 acres would be 

permanently affected). The total loss of habitat, including permanent and temporary impacts: 

would consist of the following: 173.7 a~res upland forest, 38.7 acres upland scrub/shrub, 179.8 

acres old field/former agriculture, 134.4 acres agriculture, 22.2 acres palustrine forested 

wetlands, 0.7 acre palustri.ne scrub-shrub wetlands, and 14 acres palustrine emergent wetlands. 

Approximately 37 acres of wetland habitat would be permanently lost to filling. In addition, 

approximately 1,000 feet of Walker Run would be relocated to a new channel, and 

approximately 340 feet of s~ream channel would be permanently filled. 

Federally Protected Species 

A compilation of certain federal status species in Pennsylvania is enclosed for your information. 

The BBNPP site is located within the range of the federally-listed, endangered Indiana bat 

(Myotis sodalis) and the federally protected bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). 

Indiana Bat 

The Indiana bat hibernates in caves and mines during the winter months (November through 

March), and uses a variety of upland, wetl~nd and riparian habitats during the spring, summer 

and fall. Indiana bats usually roost in dead or living trees with exfoliating bark, or living or dead 

trees with crevices or cavities. Female Indiana bats form nursery colonies under the exfoliating 

bark of dead or living trees, such as shagbark hickory, in upland or riparian areas. However, a 

variety of tree species such as black birch, red and white oak, and sugar maple are also used. 

The proposed project is near three known Indiana bat hibemacula. Specifically, the project is 

located three miles south of the Shickshinny hibemaculum, six miles south of the Glen Lyon 

hibemaculum, and eight miles north of a newly-discovered hibemaculum in Luzerne County. In 

general, Indiana bats roost and forage in forest habitat during the non-hibernating period. To a 

lesser extent, the foraging bats also use a variety of adjacent fields, meadows, emergent 

wetlands, riparian corridors and shrub-lands. From late August through mid-November, they 

concentrate their roosting and foraging activities within a lO-mile radius of their hibernacula 

(e.g., caves, abandoned mines) to build up fat reserves to take them through the winter 

hibernating period, when food is not available. Fall telemetry work conducted in Pennsylvania 

in 2007 confirmed that Indiana bats forage within an approximate ten-mile radius of hibemacula. 

According to the September, 2008 report entitled A Field Survey of Terrestrial Fauna at the 

Proposed Bell Bend Nuclear Power PLant Site, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, by Normandeau 

Associates, the project area contains suitable spring, summer and fall habitat for Indiana bats 

(e.g., trees with exfoliating bark and dead snags). Because of the proximity of the project site to 

several hibernacula, it is likely that the' suitable habitat in the project area is used by Indiana bats 

associated with these hibernacula. Consequently, removal of individual trees or forest clearing 

within the project area could result in the direct take of roosting Indiana bats, which could be 

injured or killed when trees are cut. Land-clearing, especially of forested areas, may adversely 

affect Indiana bats by killing, injuring, or harassing roosting bats; and by removing or reducing 

the quality of foraging, roosting, or fall swarming habitat. Therefore, land-clearing associated 

2 

Controlled Document
with the project may result in the death or injury of roosting Indiana bats if tree-cutting is 

conducted during the time of year when bats may be present. Due to the potential for Indiana 

bats to occur within the project area, we recommend that measures be implemented to avoid 

killing or injuring them. This can be accomplished by carrying out timber-cutting activities from 

November 15 to March 31, during which time bats are hibernating or concentrated near their 

hibernacula. 

To determine whether the project would adversely affect Indiana bat maternity colonies or 

summer habitat for male Indiana bats, bat mist-net surveys were conducted by Dr. Karen 

Campbell, a Fish and Wildlife Service-approved surveyor, between June 7 and July 11, 2008, at 

four sites within the project area. During sampling, 16 bats of three species were captured: eight 

little brown (Myotis lucijugus), four big brown (Eptesicus juscus), and four northern long-eared 

(Myotis septentrionalis). No Indiana bats were captured. Unfortunately, it appears that no mistnet sites were located within the large forested wetland at the southwestern comer of the project 

area, part of which would be permanently removed by the project. Consequently, we cannot 

conclude that Indiana bat maternity colonies or summer habitat for male Indiana bats would not 

be affected by the project. It is important to note that summer mist-net surveys do not provide 

any information about use of an area by Indiana bats in the fall, since suitable forest habitat 

within 10 miles of a hibernaculum is assumed to be used for fall foraging, roosting, and 

swarming. 

According to the latest site plans, approximately 196 acres of forest habitat will be removed by 

this project. To reduce impacts to Indiana bats and their foraging, roo~ting, and swarming 

habitats, the applicant should implement the following avoidance, minimization, and 

compensation measures. 

1. Seasonal restriction on tree-cutting. Any tree-clearing must be done between November 

15 and March 31. This avoidance measure is necessary to avoid direct "take" oflndiana 

bats. 

2. Configure the project to avoid and minimize impacts on forest habitat, particularly in and 

around wetlands and riparian areas. 

3. Configure the project to avoid and minimize impacts on suitable roost trees. 

4. Retain at least a 50-foot forested buffer on each side of streams and around wetlands. 

5. Retain forested travel corridors. 

r 

6. Co-locate project features (e.g., roads and utility lines) and cluster project features to 

reduce forest clearing. 

3 

Controlled Document
7. Re-forest cleared areas with a native tree species, using at least six of the tree species 

listed in Appendix A. One of these species must be shagbark hickory. Species selection 

will be determined by site-specific characteristics (soil moisture, sun exposure, etc.) and 

availability. Trees should be planted at approximately equal rates. Monitor re-planted 

areas and conduct supplemental tree planting to ensure tree-stocking success is a 

minimum of 400 live woody stems per acre. 

( 

8. Avoid or minimize the use of pesticides and herbicides. 

9. Install bat-friendly gates on hibernacula (e.g., abandoned mine portals) that are known or 

likely to support Indiana bats, or large numbers of hibernating bats of any species. 

10. After reducing forest impacts via the avoidance and minimization measures (see #1-6 

above), any remaining unavoidable impacts on forest should be offset by permanently 

protecting forest habitat off-site at a 1: 1 compensation ratio, in consuHation with the 

Service. 

Revised project plans should be submitted to the Service, documenting how the above avoidance 

and minimization measures have been incorporated into the project design and layout. If 

adverse effects to Indiana bats cannot be avoided, formal consultation between the Service and 

NRC may be necessary, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Bald Eagle 

The EIS should also evaluate potential effects of the project on bald eagles. Although the bald 

eagle has been removed from the federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, it 

continues to be protected under the Eagle Act and the NffiT A. Both acts protect bald eagles by 

prohibiting killing, selling or otherwise harming eagles, their nests or eggs. The Eagle Act also 

( protects eagles from disturbance. "Disturb" means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to 

a degree that causes~ or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) 

injury to an eagle; 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with J?ormal 

breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior; or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering 

with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. 

On June 4,2007, the Service released several important documents related to the protection of 

bald eagles under the Eagle Act, including 1) a final rule establishing a regulatory definition of 

"disturb"; 2) a' final environmental assessment of the "disturb" regulation; 3) National Bald Eagle 

Management Guidelines; and 4) a proposed rule to establish a permit for the take of bald and 

golden eagles. The proposed rule would establish regulations for issuing permits to take bald 

and golden eagles where the take is associated with, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful 

activities. A second permit type would provide for permits to, take bald and golden eagle nests 

for safety emergencies (of humans or eagles). All of these documents can be found at 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/baldeagle.htm. 

4 

Controlled Document
Bald eagle nests are located five miles upstream and ten miles downstream of the proposed 

BBNPP site. In addition, eagles are expanding their range in Pennsylvania, and could be found 

in previously undocumented locations along the Susquehanna River. Consequently, we 

recommend that the project be carefully evaluated in light of the National Bald Eagle 

Management Guidelines to determine whether or not bald eagles might be disturbed as a.direct 

or indirect result of this project. If it appears that disturbance may occur, we recommend that 

PPL consider modifying their project consistent with the Guidelines. If PPL has questions about 

when and how to obtain a permit because they believe the proposed project will disturb bald 

eagles, and they are not able to implement measures to avoid disturbance, they should contact the 

Service's Migratory Bird Permit Program at 413-253-8643 or permitsr5mb@fws.gov. 

Other Wildlife Impacts ' 

We recommend that the EIS address additional potential impacts to fish, wildlife, and their 

habitats due to the proposed construction and operation of the BBNPP. We note the following 

wildlife resources and designations at the BBNPP site: 

Susquehanna Riverlands Important Bird Area: 247 documented bird species 

and 126 documented breeding birds. In particular, eight Federal Birds of 

Conservation Concern (USFWS 2008) have 'been documented within the project 

area: Peregrine falcon, wood thrush, blue-winged warbler, golden-winged 

warbler, prairie warbler, cerulean warbler, worm-eating warbler, and sedge 

wren. 

Wyoming Valley Important Mammal Area designation due to the site's 

proximity to Indiana bat hibernacula. 

Forest habitat avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures for the Indiana bat, 

discussed above, will provide long-term benefits to many of these bird species as well as the 

Indiana bat and other bat species. 

Wetland and Aquatic Impacts 

As currently proposed, construction of the BBNPP would include permanently filling 

approximately 37 acres and temporarily affecting two acres of wetland habitat. In addition to 

evaluating direct impacts on wetlands, the EIS should evaluate potential indirect and secondary 

impacts of the proposed project on other wetlands and waters, including degradation of habitat 

and impacts to water quantity and quality (including thermal impacts) within and .adjacent.to the '\ 

proposed development. We are especially concerned about the potential for the proposed site 

development plan to isolate wetland areas, cutting off their sources of water and interrupting 

habitat connectivity. \ 

Clean Water Act regulations prohibit issuance of section404 permits for discharges having less 

damaging, practicable alternatives. The EIS should rigorously and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives, including other forms of energy production and alternative sites. If 

impacts to wet~ands are unavoidable, however, and have been minimized to th,e maximum extent 

5 · 

/ 

Controlled Document
practicable, remaining impacts to the aquatic environment must be offset through appropriate 

compensatory measures. As part of the project evaluation, an inventory of potential 

compensation sites should be conducted. 

Alternative Sites 

As part of the EIS, three alternative sites for the proposed nuclear energy facility are being 

evaluated: the Sandy Bend Site, in Mifflin County, Pennsylvania; the Montour Site, in Montour 

County, Pennsylvania; and the Martins Creek Site, in ,Warren County, New Jersey. The 

following are preliminary comments for the Sandy Bend and Montour sites only. Preliminary 

comments for the Martins Creek Site have been provided by the Service's New Jersey Field 

Office in a letter addressed to Robert Schaaf, Chief, Environmental Projects Branch 3, NRC, ' 

dated March 13,2009. 

Sandy Bend Site 

The Sandy Bend alternate site is located 2.5 miles northeast of McVeytown, along the Juniata 

River. The total size of the property is 420 acres, all of which would be affected by the project. 

The current land use has not been specified. However, aerial photography of the site indicates 

both open and forest habitat. You have indicated that wetlands are located within 300 feet of the 

project area, but the number of acres that would be affected has not been specified. The EIS 

should include a detailed evaluation of habitat impacts, including direct and indirect impacts on 

wetlands and waters, and degradation of habitat and water quantity and quality (including 

thermal impacts), within and adjacent to the proposed development at this site. 

This site is within the range of two federally-listed, endangered species - the Indiana bat and 

northeastern bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus). Development of this project area should be 

evaluated with respect to these species, based on the information provided below. 

Depending on the anticipated impacts of the project on forest habitat, seasonal restrictions on 

forest removal and/or a bat mist-net survey may be warranted. Although it is not near any 

known Indiana bat hibemacula, the site may still contain suitable roosting and maternity habitat 

within the forested areas. We would need to know the extent of forest removal before making 

final recommendations. If mist-net surveys are needed, they should be conducted between May 

15 and August 15 by a qualified, Service-approved biologist (see enclosed list) using the 

enclosed Indiana Bat Mist Netting Guidelines. Should Indiana bats or potential habitat be found 

during any surveys, further consultation with the Service will be necessary, including the 

submission of detailed project plans, and an analysis ,of alternatives to avoid and minimize 

adverse effects. ' 

Although northeastern bulrush is not known to occur within the project area boundaries, potential 

habitat may occur this area. Potential habitat for northeastern bulrush could be affected if the 

project will directly or indirectly affect wetlands. 'The northeastern bulrush is typically found in 

ponds, wet depressions, shallow sinkholes, vernal ponds, small emergent wetlands, or beaverinfluenced wetlands. These wetlands are often located in forested areas and characterized by 

seasonally variable water levels. 

6 

Controlled Document
We recommend that the proposed site be surveyed for wetlands. If wetlands are present, a 

Service-approved botanist (see enclosed list), should conduct a thorough survey of the wetlands 

to determine the presence of northeastern bulrush before any pennits are approved or earthmoving activities begin. Surveys for this species must be conducted,between June 1 and 

September 30, when the flowering/fruiting culm is present. A survey report should be submitted 

to the Service for review and comment. 

Montour Site 

The Montour alternate site is located two miles northeast of Washingtonville, adjacent to the 

Montour Coal Fired Power Plant. The total size of the property is 2,500 acres; however, only 

420 acres would be affected by the project. The current land use has l10t been specified. 

However, aerial photography of the site indicates mostly open areas with interspersed patches of 

forest. You have indicated that wetlands are located within 300 feet of the project area, but the 

number of acres that would be affected has not been specified. The EIS should include a detailed 

evaluation of habitat impacts, including direct and indirect impacts on wetlands and waters, and 

degradation of habitat and impacts to water quantity and quality (including thennal impacts), 

within and adjacent to the proposed development at this site. 

This site is also within the range of the Indiana bat; therefore, development of this area should be 

evaluated with respect to this species. Depending on the anticipated impacts of the project on 

forest habitat, seasonal restrictions on forest removal and/or a bat mist-net survey may be 

warranted. Although the site is not close to any known Indiana bat hibernacula, the site may still 

contain suitable roosting and maternity habitat within the forested areas. We would need to 

know the extent of forest removal before making final recommendations. If mist-net surveys are 

needed, they should be conducted between May 15 and August 15 by a qualified, Serviceapproved biologist (see enclosed list) using the enclosed Indiana Bat Mist Netting Guidelines. 

Should Indiana bats or potential habitat be found during any surveys, further consultation with 

the Service will be necessary, including the submission of detailed project plans, and an analysis 

of alternatives to avoid and minimize adverse effects. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the BBNPP project. Please contact Cindy Tibbott 

of my staff at 814-234-4090 if you have any questions or require further assistance regarding this 

matter. 

Enclosures 

Sincerely, 

~7?Jr------- David Densmore 

Supervisor 

7 

Controlled Document
I 

References 

u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States 

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 

Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. (Online version available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/) 

\ 

8 

Controlled Document
lFedell'a~~yustedJ Proposed!; and! Candidate Speciesir P~~nsy val1lia (revised November 19, 2008) 

Common Name 

MAMMALS 

Indiana bat 

BIRDS . 

Piping ployer 

REPTILES 

Bog turtle 

Scientific Name 

Myotis ~odalis 

Charadrius melodus 

Clemmys (Glyptemys) 

muhlenbergii 

Eastern rriassasauga . Sistrurus catenatus 

rattlesnake catenatus 

MUSSELS 

Clubshell 

Dwarf 

wedgemussel 

Northern riffles hell 

Pleurobema clava 

Alasmidonta 

heterodon 

Epioblasma torulosa . 

rangiana 

Status1 Distribution (Counties and/or Watersheds) 

E 

E 

T 

C 

E 

E 

E 

Hibernacula: Armstrong, Beaver, Blair, Centre, 

Fayette, Hunting'don, Lawrence, Luzerne, Mifflin and 

Somerset Co. Maternity sites: Adams, Bedford, 

Berks, Blair, Greene, and York Counties. Potential 

winter habitat state-wide in caves or abandoned 

mines. Potential summer habitat state-wide in . 

forests or wooded areas. 

Designated critical habitat on Presque Isle (Erie 

Co.). Migratory .. No nesting in PA since 1950s, but 

recent colonization attempts at Presque Isle 

Adams, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, 

Cumberland, Delaware, Lancaster, Lebanon, 

Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, 

Schuylkill and York Co. ' 

Historically found in Crawford, Mercer and 

Philadelphia Co. .. 

Butler, Crawford, Mercer and Venango Co. 

Historically found in Allegheny and Lawrence Co. 

French Creek and Allegheny River (and some 

tributaries) in Armstrbng. Clarion, Crawford, Erie, 

Forest, Mercer, Venango, and Warren Co.; 

Shenango River (Mercer and Crawford Co.) 

Has not been found recently in 13 streams of 

historical occurrence in Butler, Beaver, Fayette, 

Greene. Indiana, Lawrence, and Westmoreland Co . 

. Delaware River (Pike and Wayne Co.). 

Has not been found recently in streams. of historical 

oc.currfmce in the Delaware River watershed 

(Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Philadelphia Co.) or 

Susquehanna River watershed (Lancaster Co.) 

French Creek and Allegheny River (and some 

tributaries) in Armstrong, Clarion, Crawford, Erie, 

Forest, Mercer, Venango, and Warren Co. 

Has not been found recently in streams of historical 

occurrence, including: Shenango River (Lawrence 

Co.), Conewango Creek (Warren Co.) 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

315 South Ailen Street, Suite 322. State Col/ege, Pennsylvania 16801 

Controlled Document
Common Name Scientific Name Status! Distribution (Counties and/or Watersheds) 

MUSSELS 

(continued) 

Rayed bean· . Villosa fabalis C French Creek and Allegheny River (Armstrong, 

Clarion, Crawford, Erie, Forest, Mercer, Venango·, 

Warren Co.); Cussewago Creek (Crawford Co.). 

Has not been found recently in 5 streams of 

historical occurrence in Armstrong, Lawrence, 

Mercer and Warren Co. 

Sheepnose Plethobasus cyphyus C Allegheny River (Forest and Venango Co.). 

Has not been found recently in streams of historical 

occurrence, including: Allegheny River (Armstrong 

. Co.), Beaver River (Lawrence Co.), Ohio River 

(Allegheny and Beaver Co.), and Monongahela 

River (Washington Co.) 

FISH 

Atlantic sturgeon2 Acipenser oxyrinchus C Delaware River and other Atlantic coastal waters 

oxyrinchus 

Shortnose ACipenser E . Delaware River and other Atlantic coastal waters 

sturgeon2 brevi rostrum 

PLANTS 

Northeastern Scirpus E Adams, Bedford, Blair, Cambria, Carbon, Centre, . 

bulrush ancistrochaetus Clinton, Columbia, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, 

Fulton, Huntingdon, Lackawanna, Lehigh, 

Lycoming, Mifflin, Monroe, Perry, Snyder, Tioga, 

and Union Co. 

Historically found in Northampton Co. 

Small-whorled Isotria medeoloides T Centre, Chester and Venango Co. 

pogonia 

Historically found in Berks, Greene, Monroe, 

Montgomery and Philadelphia Co. 

1 E = Endangered; T = Threatened; P = Proposed for listing; C = Candidate 

2 Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon are under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service 

US Fish and Wildlife SelVice 

315 South Allen Street, Suite 322, State Coilege, Pennsylvania 16801 

Controlled Document
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Pennsylvania Field Office 

QUALIFIED INDIANA BAT SURvEYORS 

The following list includes persons known by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to have the skills and 

experience to conduct surveys for Indiana bats. Any individuals handling or conducting surveys for Indiana bats 

must fitst obtain a permit from the Pennsylvania Game Commission. All Indiana bat captures must be reported 

in writing to the Service and Commission within 72 hours. , Indiana bat surveys should be overseen by a 

qualified surveyor, who should be present in the field at all times during the investigation. Mist-net surveys 

should be carried out in accordance with the Service's Indiana Bat Mist Netting Guidelines. If any Indiana bats 

are captured during mist-netting, a surveyor with bat telemetry experience shOuld be prep'ared to place a 

transmitter on the bat(s) to identify roost trees and foraging habitat. Various sampling techniques, including 

mist-netting, Anabat detection, radio-telemetry, harp-trapping and hibemacula surveys, are used to detect and 

monitor bats. Some individuals on this list may not be qualified to conduct all types of sampling. 

This information is not to be con'strued as an endorsement of indivmuals or firms by the Service or any of its 

employees. Persons not on this list, but who have documented experience in conducting scientific studies of,'or 

successful searches' for, Indiana bats may submit their qualifications to the Service for review. The submission 

must include documentation that the requestor has experience successfully locating and identifying Indiana bats 

in their hibemacula and their summer habitat. Additions to and deletions from this list are at the sole discretion 

of the Service. This list is subject to revision at any time without prior notice. 

Chris Sanders, Jessica Kapp, 

Michael o 'Mahony . 

Sanders Envirorunental, Inc. 

322 Borealis Way 

Bellefonte, PA 16823 

,814-364-8776; 814-659-8257 (cell) 

sanders@batgate.com 

Jeffrey Brown, Amy Henry & 

Russell Romme 

• BHE Environmental, Inc. 

11733 Chesterdale Road 

Cincinnati, OH 45246 

513-326-1500 

513-326-1550 (fax) 

Stacy Wolbert 

145 Lamb Drive 

Morrisdale, PA 16858 

814-360-1290 

stacy _ wolbert@yahoo.com 

John Chenger, Matt Hopkins & 

Kevin Rhome 

Bat Conservation & Management 

220 Old Stone House Road 

Carlisle, PA 17015 

717-241-2228 

814-442-4246 (cell) 

James A. Hart 

Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 

PA Natural Heritage Program 

19 Wyrick Avenue 

Shippensburg, PA 17257 

717-530-1931 

jahart@pa.net 

Robert F. Madej 

R.D. Zande & Associates 

1237 Dublin Road 

Columbus, OH 43215 

800-340-2743 

614-486-4387 (fax) 

Page 1 of2 

Dr. Virgil Brack, Jr. 

. Environmental Solutions & 

Innovations 

781 Neeb Road 

Cincinnati,OH 45233 

513-451-1777 

513-451-3321 (fax) 

Hal Bryant 

Eco-Tech, Inc . 

P.O. Box 8 

Frankfort, KY 40602-0008 

502-695-8060 

502-695-8061 (fax) 

myotis2000@aol.com 

Dr. Karen Campbell 

Biology Department 

Albright College 

Reading, PA 19614 

610-921-2381 

Indiana Bat Surveyors / Rev 11-]8-08 

Controlled Document
Neil Bossart 

Civil & Env. Consultants, Inc. 

333 Baldwin Road 

Pittsburgh, PA 15205 

412-429-2324 

nbossart@cecinc.com 

Dr. Michael Gannon . 

Department of Biology 

Penn State University 

Altoona College 

3000 Ivyside Park 

Altoona, PA 16601-3760 

814-949-5210 

Bryon DuBois 

Trident Environmental Consultants 

1856 Route 9 

Toms River, NJ 08755 

732-818-8699 

bdubois@tridentenviro.com 

James Kiser 

Stantec 

1901 Nelson Miller Parkway 

Louisville, KY 40223 

812-206-0 I 00, 606-434-90 18 (cell) 

. james.kiser@stantec.com 

John Macgregor 

Berea Ranger District 

Daniel Boone National Forest 

1835 Big HiIlRoad 

Berea, KY 40403 

606-745-3100 

Steve Pemick 

L.R. Kimball and Associates 

615 West Highland Avenue 

Ebensburg, P A 15931 

814-472-7700 

pernisO 1@lrkimball.com 

Dr. Phillip Clem 

University of Charleston 

2300 Ma'cCorkle Ave., SE 

. Charleston, WV 25304 · 

304-357-4793 

Kristen Watrous 

Stantec 

55 Green Mountain Drive 

South Burlington, VT 05403 

802-383-0425, 802-578-7161 (cell) 

kristen. watrous@stantec.com 

Page 2 of2 

Dr. Lynn Robbins 

Southwest Missouri State Univ. 

Biology Department 

901 South National 

Springfield, MO 65804 

.417 -836-5366 

Ryan Leiberher 

Skelly and Loy, Inc. 

2601 N. Front St. 

Harrisburg, P A 17110 

717 -232-0593 

rlciberher@skellyloy.com 

Michael R. Schirmacher 

Bat Conservation International 

PO Box 4254 

Hidden Valley, PA 15502 

843-408-1695 

mschirmacher@batcon.org 

Tim Blackburn 

825 19th Street, 2nd Floor 

Altoona, PA 16601 

Indiana Bat Surveyors / Rev 11-18-08 

Controlled Document
'::_' '' ~'.': .''.: ' .. :.~: '~'<, :: ~~'~ ,~:,;\.,~:~~ ,'''.: . , ..... : . . ~ .... ,:...::..: _:" .j '.:':": .~ '.' . '.~.:' .;. \:: ".:"':'.l: :.;.,'::,:_ .• ~:_., • . : ".' : ; .. , ' .. .. ',.!.:. :':.', ~.f' ,,!,.; • .:._: : .. ~; , •. , :'. • • . • .t .. , · • •.• :....l.: • ..:.. •.• • • 

INDIANA BAT MIST NETTING GUIDELINES 

" 

RATIONALE 

A typical mist net survey is an attempt to determine presence or probable absence o( the species, it does 

Dot provide sufficient data to determine population size or structure. Following these guidelines will 

standardize procedures for mist netting. It will help maximize the potential for capture of Indiana bats at 

a minimUm acceptable level of effort. Although the capture of bats confinns their presence, fl:iilure to 

ca~ch bats does not absolutely confinn their absence. Netting effort as extensive as outlined below 

usually is s~cient tQcapture Iridiana bats. lfowever, there have been instances in which additional 

effort was necessary to detect the preSence of the species. . 

NETTING SEASON 

May 15 - August 15 

(. 

These dates define acceptable limits for documenting the presence of sUmmer population ofIndiana bats, 

especiallymatemity colonies. Several captures, including adult females and young ofth~ year, indicate 

that a nursery colony is active in the area. Outside these dates, even when Indiana bats are caught, data 

should be carefully interpreteq: If only a single bat is captured, it may be a transient or migratory 

individual. . . 

EQUIPMENT 

Mist nets - Use the finest, lowest visibility mesh commercially available: 

1. In the past, this was 1 ply, 40 denier monofilament - denoted 40/1 . 

2. Currently, monofilament is not available and the finest on the market is 2 ply, 50 denier nylon - denoted 50/2 . . 

3. Mesh ofapproxinUitely i~ (1 y.. - 1 ~) in (-38 mm) 

I 

Hardware - No specific hardware is required. There are many suitable systems of ropes and/or poles to 

hold the nets. See NET PLACEMENT below for minimum net heights, habitats, arid other netting _ 

requirements that affect the choice of hardware. the system of Gardner, et al. (1989) lias met the test.of 

time. . . 

NET PLACEMENT 

Potential travel corridors such as streams or logging trails typically are the most effective places to net. 

Place the nets approximately perpendicular across the corridor. Nets should fill the corridor from side to 

side and from stream (or gr(mnd) level up to the overhanging canopy. A typical set is seven meters bigh 

consisting of three or more nets "stacked" on top one another and up to 20 m wide. (Different width netS 

may be purchased and used as the situation dictates.) 

Occasionally it may be desirable tc) net where there is no good corridor. Take caution to get the nets up 

into the canopy. The typical equipment described in the section above may be inadequate for these 

situations, requiring innovation on the part of the observers. 

.. 'v . • ~ .. : •. _ 

~ . , 

Controlled Document
' . .... J . • " . ~ , . ~. . .. • '~ _ ... ', . ' . • l •• . , 

• '-.... • ..• '. '. '. ~ ' -' - "",<.:. ,.. .:. ' . . . . , .... . , . • ~.' •• • I •. ..:' • 

RECOMMENDED NET SITE SPACING: 

Stream corridors - one net site per km of stream. 

Non-corridor land tracts - two net sites per square km of forested habitat 

(= 1 net site for every 123 acres of forested habitat) 

MINIMUM LEVEL OF EFFORT . 

Netting at each site should consist of: 

At least four net-nights (unless bats are, caught sooner) (one net set up for one night = one net-night) 

A minimwn of two net locations at each site (at least 30m apart, especially in linear habitat such as a 

stream corridor) 

A minimum of two nights of netting 

Sample Period: begin at sunset; net for at least 5 hr 

Each net should be checked approximately every 20 min 

No disturbance near the nets, other than to check nets and remove bats 

WEATHER CONDITIONS 

Severe weather adversely affects capture of bats. If Indiana bats are caught during weather extremes, it is 

probably because they are at the site and active despite inclement weather. On the other hand, if bats are 

not caught, it may be that there are bats at the site but they may be inactive due to the weather. Negative 

results combined with any of the following weather conditions throughout all or most of a sampling 

period are likely to require additional netting: 

• . Precipitation 

G Temperatures below lOoe 

• Strong winds (Use good judgement: moving nets are more likely to be detected by bats.) , 

MOONLIGHT· 

There is some evidence that small myotine bats avoid brightly lit areas; perhaps'as predator avoidance. 'It 

is typically best to set nets under the canopy where they are out of the moon light, particularly when the 

moon is Yz-full or greater. 

Controlled Document
U.S. FISH AND WlLDi.JFE SERVICE 

Pennsylv ~mia Field Office 

QUALIPIED NORTHEASTERN BULRUSH SURVEYORS 

'\ 

The folloWing list inciudes persons known by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to have the 

skills and experience to conduct surveys for the northeastern bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus). 

Observations of the northeastern bulrush at previously undocumerited sites rii~st be reported in 

writing tothe Ser'vic~ within 48 hours. Northeastern bulrush surveys should be overseen by a 

qualified surveyor, who should be present ,in the field at all times during the investigation. 

, 1 " ", ' , 

This informatioh is riot to oeconstrued as an endorsement Of individuals ot firms by the Service 

or any of its employees. , :persons not on this list, but who have doclU)1enteqexpetienceiri 

conducting scientific studies of, or successful searches fot, the nofthe'astetn bulrush may submit 

their qualifications to the Service for review. the submission mUst include documentation that 

the requestor has, experience successfully locating and ideritifying the northeastern bulrush and 

its habitat. Additions to and deletions from this list are at the sole discretion of the Service'. This ~ 

list is subject to re'visiQn at any time without prior notice. 

Richard Mellon 

Mellon BiologiC;al SerVices ' 

200 Flint Court South 

Yardley; PA 19067 

(215) 493~0697 

Bob Beran ' 

Beran Envirorunenta1 Services 

2322 W. Sunbury Road 

Boyers, PA 16020 

(724) 735-2766 

(724) 679~0272 (cell) 

Dr. Alfred Schuyler 

Department of Biology 

Academy of Natural SCiences 

1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway 

Philadelphia; PA 191 03~ 1195 

(215) 299-1193 

Dr. Ann Rhoads 

Morris Arboretum 

9414 Meadowbrook A venue 

Philadelphia, PA 19118 

(215) 247-5777, ext. 134 ' 

Staff Botanist 

Western Pennsy\vania Conservancy 

316 Fourth Ave. 

Pittsburgh,PA 15222 

(412) 288-2777 

Or. Larry Klo~ , ' 

Biology Department - Shippensburg University 

1871 Old Main Drive 

Shippensburg, PA 17257 

(717) 477-1402 

Ihklot@ship.edi.! 

Larry G. Brewer 

Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc. 

781 Neeb Road 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45233 

(513)451-1777 

1 brewer@envirorulientalsi.com 

Joe Isaac 

RD 1 Box 117F 

Pulaski, PA 16143 

(412) 964-8770 

Revised 0111412009 

Controlled Document
TREE SPECIES LIST FOR INDIANA BAT HABITAT RESTORATION 

Acer rub rum 

Acer saccharum 

Carya cordi/ormis 

Carya glabra 

Carya laciniosa 

Carya ovata 

Carya tomentosa 

Fraxinus americana 

Fraxinus nigra 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica 

Platanus occidentalis 

Populus deltoides 

Quercus alba 

Quercus coccinea 

Quercus prinus 

Quercus rubra 

Quercus velutina 

Robinia pseudoacacia 

Sassafras albidum 

Ulmus americana 

Ulmus rubra 

red maple 

sugar maple 

bitternut hickory . 

pignut hickory 

shellbark hickory 

shagbark hickory 

mockernut hickory 

white ash 

black ash 

green ash 

sycamore 

.. eastern cottonwood 

white oak 

scarlet oak 

chestnut oak 

northern red oak 

black oak 

black locust 

sassafras 

American elm 

slippery elm 

Planting plans should include at least six of the tree species listed above, one of which must be 

shagbark hickory. To promote diversity, no more than 15 percent of anyone tree species shall 

be included in planting plans. .' 

Controlled Document
T. L. Harpster 

VP-Bell Bend Project-Development 

September 20, 2010 

Ms. Pamela Shellenberger 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Endangered Species Section 

315 South Allen Street, Suite 322 

State College, PA 16801 

BELL BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

LARGE PROJECT SPECIES 

OF SPECIAL CONCERN SCREEN 

PPL Bell Bend, LLC 

38 Bomboy Lane, Suite 2 

Berwick, PA 18603 

Tel. 570.802.8111 FAX 570.802.8119 

tlharpster@pplweb.com 

SALEM TOWNSHIP, LUZERNE COUNTY, PA 

BNP-2010-208 Docket No. 52-039 

PPL Bell Bend, LLC is conducting an environmental evaluation for a potential nuclear power plant 

adjacent to the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) site in Salem Township, Luzerne 

County, Pennsylvania. For screening purposes, the project area boundaries as shown on Figure 1 

encompass the entire footprint of possible disturbance for the construction and maintenance of a 

nuclear power plant under consideration for the site, as well as the existing SSES site. The existing 

active SSES operating unit is within this boundary but will not be altered. This letter is a follow up to a 

similar letter sent March 26, 2008 and your agency's response dated April 21,2008 with a reference 

USFWS Project #2008-0518. 

Please note that the project team has initiated consultation with USFWS with respect to the project's 

impacts to Indiana bat at the proposed BBNPP. 

PPL Bell Bend, LLC wishes to screen the entire area as shown on Figure 1 for species of special 

concern under jurisdiction of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Please provide all current and 

historical information concerning the occurrence of Federally-listed and proposed threatened and 

endangered species; designated and proposed critical habitats; and any other ecological resources of 

special concern within the project area. This information may be used in future consultations with 

your agency under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

In addition, please provide this information for a 0.5-mile buffer surrounding the project area. This 

latter screen is requested for the purpose of evaluating environmental impacts and compliance with 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection regulations (e.g., 25 PA Code Chapter 

105.17). A PNDI search form is attached for your use. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Bradley Wise at 

610.774.6508 or bawise@pplweb.com. 

Thank you for your assistance. 

Respectfully, 0-

Terry L Harpster 

TLH/dw 

Enclosures 1) Site Location Map 

2) PNDI Review Form 

Controlled Document
September 20, 2010 

cc: Ms. Stacey Imboden 

Senior Project Manager 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Ms. Jamie Davis 

BNP-2010-208 

Office of Environmental Programs (3EA30) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Mr. Tom Shervinskie 

Pa Fish & Boat Commission 

450 Robinson Lane 

Bellefonte, PA 16823 

Ms. Jennifer Kagel 

United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

Pennsylvania Field Office 

315 S. Allen St. #322 

State College, PA 16801 

Mr. Eugene Trowbridge 

Pa Dept Environmental Resources 

Northeast Regional Office 

2 Public Square 

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711 

Ms. Amy Elliott 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District 

State College Field Office 

1631 South Atherton Street, Suite 102 

State College, PA 16801 

Ms. Paula B. Ballaron 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

1721 North Front Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17102-0425 

Mr. Thomas W. Beauduy 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

1721 North Front Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17102-0425 

Page 2 

Controlled Document
September 20, 2010 

bee: B. A. Wise J. S. Fields 

R.Sgarro 

D. Klineh 

BNP-2010-208 

bawise@pplweb.eom jsfields@pplweb.eom 

rrsqarro@pplweb.eom 

David.Klineh@eonstellation.eom 

Page 3 

ControlledDocument
September 20, 2010 BNP-2010-20B 

Enclosure 1 

Site Location Map 

Enclosure 1 

Controlled Document
Controlled Document 

Legend 

* BBNPP 

I22LI Potential Areas of Disturbance 

~ : : ! BBNPP/SSES Site Boundary 

Figure 1. 

Bell Bend NPP 

Site Location Map 

N 

i 

0.5 0.25 o 0.5 Miles 

~ I ~~~~8~~g~Y ~5~~~~~!~ date: 07127110 rev. date: 

prepared by: s.sherman prepared for: b.lees 

project 21766.004 file name: Figure l .BBNPP_ Site_USGS 

Controlled Document
September 20,2010 BNP-2010-208 

Enclosure 2 

PNDI Review Form 

Enclosure 2 

Controlled Document
Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory 

Project Planning & Environmental Review Form 

This form provides site information necessary to perform an Environmental Review for special concern species and resources 

listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Wild Resource Conservation Act, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat code or 

the Pennsylvania Game and Wildlife Code. 

Applicant Information 

Name: PPL Bell Bend, LLC 

Address: 38 Bomboy Lane, Suite 2, Berwick, PA 18603 

Phone Number: 570.802.8100 Fax Number: 570.802.8119 

Contact Person Information - if different from applicant 

Name: Bradley A. Wise, Environmental Permitting Supervisor, PPL Bell Bend LLC 

Address: Two North Ninth Street (GENPL4), Allentown, PA 18101-1179 

Phone Number: (610) 774-6508 Fax Number: (610) 774-2618 

Project Information 

Project Name: Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project 

Project Locations: Lat N 41d 5m 20.7s Lon W 76d 9m 4.5s 

Municipality: Salem Township County: Luzerne 

[KJ Attach a copy of a U.S.G.S 7 112 Minute Quadrangle Map with Project Boundaries clearly marked. 

U.S.G.S. Quad Name: Berwick, PA 

Project Description 

Proposed Project Activity (including All earth disturbance areas and CUlTent conditions) 

The Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project involves development of a combined license application (COLA) to the 

u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for potential construction and operation of a new nuclear powered 

steam electric plant adjacent to the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. In the event a decision is made to 

develop the plant, associated activities would involve land clearing, grubbing, grading/excavation, and construction 

of plant and suppport facilities and structures; landscaping; and subsequent operation and maintenance of plant 

facilities and grounds. Land use of areas potentially disturbed consists predominatly of active/former farmland 

and forest, to roadways, and natural vegetation (e.g., shrub-scrub). 

Total Acres of Property: 1,700 Acreage to be Impacted: 700 acres (approximately) 

1. Will the entire project occur in or on an existing building parking lot, driveway, road, maintained road 

shoulder, street, runway, paved area, railroad bed, or maintained lawn? Yes No X 

2. Are there any waterways or waterbodies (intermittent or perennial rivers, streams, creeks, tributaries, 

lakes or ponds) in or near the project area, or on the land parcel? If so, how many feet away is the 

project? Yes X feet 0 

3. Are wetlands located in or within 300 feet of the project area? Yes X No If No. is this the result 

of a wetland delineation? 

If you have a "PNDI Project Environmental Review Receipt" with potential impacts" please send a receipt copy, this completed 

form, and a USGS Quad Map to the agency/agencies noted on the receipt. If you are unable to generate a PNDI Receipt because 

you do not have Internet access, complete this form, attach USGS Quad Map, and send them to your local DEP or County Conservation 

District. For review of a "Large Project," please send form and map to all the agencies listed below. See page 2 for more information. 

Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources 

Bureau of Forestry, Ecological Services Section 

400 Market St., PO Box 8552 

Harrisburg, PA 17105 

PNDlForm 

fax: 717-771-0271 

P A Game Commission 

Bureau of Land Management 

2001 Elmerton Avenue 

Harrisburg, PA 17110-9797 

fax: 717-787-6957 

P A Fish and Boat Commission 

Natural Diversity Section 

450 Robinson Lane 

Bellefonte, P A 10828 

fax: 814-359-5175 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

Endangered Species Biologist 

315 South Allen St., Suite 322 

State College, PA 16801 

no faxes please 

Page 1 of 1 

Controlled Document
T. L. Harpster 

VP-Bell Bend Project-Development 

September 27,2010 

Ms. Carole Copeyon 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Pennsylvania Field Office 

315 South Allen Street, Suite 322 

State College, PA 16801 

BELL BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

PPL Bell Bend, LLC 

38 Bomboy Lane, Suite 2 

Berwick, P A 18603 

TeL 570.802.8111 FAX 570.802.8119 

tlharpster@pplweb.com 

INDIANA BAT ROOST TREE SURVEY STUDY PLAN 

BNP-2010-235 Docket No. 52-039 

As part of the process for the development of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Bell Bend 

Nuclear Power Plant project, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has requested that 

the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) perform a Biological Assessment I Biological Opinion 

regarding impacts on the Indiana Bat. 

Attached please find PPL's Indiana Bat Roost Tree Survey Study Plan, which is being provided at 

your request in support of your assessment activities. 

Please do not hesitate to contact myself or Brad Wise (610-774-6508) directly with any additional 

needs or questions. 

Respectfully, 

TLH/dw 

Enclosure: 1) Indiana Bat Roost Tree Survey Study Plan 

Controlled Document
September 27 , 2010 

cc: Ms. Stacey Imboden 

Senior Project Manager 

BNP-2010-235 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Ms. Jamie Davis 

Office of Environmental Programs (3EA30) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Mr. Tom Shervinskie 

Pa Fish & Boat Commission 

450 Robinson Lane 

Bellefonte, PA 1.6823 

Ms. Jennifer Kagel 

United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

Pennsylvania Field Office 

315 S. Allen St. #322 

State College, PA 16801 

Mr. Eugene Trowbridge 

Pa Dept Environmental Resources 

Northeast Regional Office 

2 Public Square 

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711 

Ms. Amy Elliott 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District 

State College Field Office 

1631 South Atherton Street, Suite 102 

State College, PA 16801 

Ms. Paula B. Bal/aron 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

1721 North Front Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17102-0425 

Mr. Thomas W. Beauduy 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

1721 North Front Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17102-0425 

Page 2 

Controlled Document
September 27,2010 BNP-2010-235 Enclosure 1 

Enclosure 1 

Indiana Bat Roost Tree Survey Study Plan 

Controlled Document
.. ~ 

~ IB3~ ~M!jwf1fJsJ ~~~~ 

~~ lr~ ~nmw®y ~~ lFu 

~ IID®llIl h<dl ~lF ~n~ 

~® CC@LIllmlftr9 ~~ll~ 

~~~B 

~~ 

-(Q)lkd\~~ 

~ /Ag ~ ll(o)ll 

~IP>An~ 

(<IDll@» cmcm~ 

... \W\W\W~ 

~ftDg 

&rnI1W&~g~ 

_~IL,~~ 

~~(O)niJ~~ 

~~@ll@ 

Controlled Document
BBNPP Roost Tree Survey Study Plan 

INTRODUCTION· 

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Nonnandeau) proposes to conduct a quantitative in-field survey for suitable 

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) roost trees within the forested areas proposed to be impacted by construction of 

the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant (BBNPP). The objective is to determine the density and quality of 

Indiana bat roosting habitat provided by these areas. 

Neither the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) nor the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) has 

an official Indiana bat roost tree survey methodology. Therefore, our survey techniques will be based on 

this site-specific protocol. Each contiguous forest block proposed for clearing will be described with 

respect to species composition, age, structure and other measures used to judge habitat quality for Indiana 

bats as described under field measurements in the methodology section below. The habitat assessment 

wi\1 be based on density and quality of suitable roost trees and evaluation of forest stands. 

SITE DESCRIPTION 

BBNPP is proposed to be sited adjacent to the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) in Salem 

Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Potential areas of disturbance associated with BBNPP will 

extend across 703 acres (1.10 mile2

) within the 1 ,99 I-acre (3.1 mi\e2) BBNPP Project Site (Figure I). 

The site terrain is variable and ranges from steeply SlQping hills in the north and west to the relatively 

level floodplain of the Susquehanna Riverlands in the east. The net topographic relief is approximately 

560 feet. There are approximately 238 acres (228.45 upland verses 9.34 wetland) offorested habitat 

proposed to be impacted by construction ofBBNPP that will be analyzed as part of this roost tree habitat 

evaluation. 

INDIANA BAT SUMMER HABITAT 

The following section is provided as background information for our survey plan and was summarized from 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Recovery Plan For The Indiana Bat (USFWS 2007). 

Female Summer Roosts 

Reproductive female Indiana bats migrate from the hibernacula to summer roosting habitat, and have shown 

strong site fidelity to their traditional summer roosting and foraging areas. They form maternity colonies 

after arriving at their summer range (late March to mid-May) and cluster in maternity roosts with suitable 

microclimates that facilitate roost temperatures favorable for prenatal and postnatal development. Maternity 

colonies most commonly consist of 60 to 100 adult females but may be larger, and may include females 

from more than one hibernaculum. Composition of the colony is fluid with females moving between as 

many as 10 to 20 different maternity roost trees. The majority of female bats use one to three primary 

maternity roost trees, while the rest ofthe trees are alternate or secondary maternity roosts that are 

intermittently used by small numbers of females throughout the summer, or on only a few days, or as 

temporary night roosts. 

Maternity colonies may occupy maternity roost trees for a number of years; however all maternity roost 

trees are ephemeral and become unusable by losing important structural characteristics such as bark, faJling 

to the ground or due to competition with other animals. The use of alternate maternity roost trees is thought 

to be a behavioral mechanism that enables bats to evaluate new trees for use as future primary maternity 

roosts. 

Swnmer roosting habitat for non-reproductive female Indiana bats is less well known. They may remain 

close to their hibernaculum or migrate to summer habitat where they roost individually or in small numbers. 

Controlled Document
BBNPP Roost Tree Survey Study Plan 

Typically, non-reproductive females do not roost in colonies but may be present in the same trees as 

reproductive females. 

Male Summer Roosts 

Summer roosting habitat for male Indiana bats also is not well known. Males are most commonly found in 

the vicinity of their hibernaculum but may also disperse thought the summer range and roost individually or 

in small numbers. 

Characteristics of Roost Trees 

Indiana bats roost under the exfoliating bark of trees and occasionally in longitudinal crevices within trees; 

however, they rarely use cavities created by rot or woodpeckers. For maternity roosts (primary and 

alternate), females prefer dead or nearly dead trees, or dead parts oflivil1g trees such as dead trunks of trees 

with multiple trunks. They are occasionally found on living trees with lose peeling bark; however, these 

trees are thought to be used primarily as alternate maternity roosts during exceptionally warm or wet 

weather. A wide variety of tree species are used for maternity roosts and use is primarily related to local 

availability of trees with suitable structure rather than a preference for a particular species. In addition, 

regional differences in maternity roost tree characteristics may result from influencing factors such as 

weather and altitude. 

Maternity roost trees are typically found in areas with high solar exposure such as openings within a forest, 

in a fence line, or along a wooded edge. Female Indiana bats may use structurally suitable trees in more 

interior sections of forest as maternity roosts during exceptionally warm or wet weather. Sizes of maternity 

roost trees vary, although larger diameter trees are preferred and may provide thermal advantages as well as 

more roosting spaces. The average range wide diameter of primary maternity roost trees is I8-inches. 

However, average diameters of primary and alternate maternity roost trees in several Midwestern states 

ranged from I6-inches to 24-inches, and an alternate maternity roost tree in Pennsylvania had a diameter of 

only II-inches. The minimum height of maternity roost trees is typically greater than la-feet, although the 

absolute height of matemity roost trees is thought to be less important than height and position relative to 

surrounding trees, which can affect the amount of solar exposure received by a tree. 

Male Indiana bats are more flexible in their preferred summer roosting habitat. They roost in the same types 

of structurally suitable trees as females but not necessarily in areas with high solar exposure. In addition, 

male bats are more likely to roost in living trees and trees that are smaller since the average range wide 

diameter of male roost trees is 13-inches. 

Based upon the research presented in USFWS 2007, female Indiana bat maternity roost trees (primary and 

alternate) are typically Ilinches in diameter at breast height (db h) or greater, 10 feet in height or greater, 

dead with exfoliating, peeling or lose bark, and/or crevices. Primary roosts are situated in areas with high 

solar exposure and receive direct sunlight for more than half the day. Alternate roost trees may have a lower 

level of solar exposure. Trees with less than 10% live canopy will be considered dead to be consistent 

with USFWS "Forest Management Practices for Conserving Indiana Bats". 

Male Indiana bat roost trees will encompass live and dead trees that have exfoliating, peeling or lose bark, 

and/or crevices with a 5 inch or greater dbh, regardless oftheir solar exposure. The 5-inch dbh criterion is 

used for consistency with USFWS guidance regarding tree cutting within the range ofthe Indiana bat dwing 

its summer roosting period, which is cunently followed on adjacent SSES properties. 

2 

Controlled Document
BBNPP Roost Tree Survey Study Plan 

SURVEY METHODOLOGY 

Proposed forest clearing on the BBNPP site may result in the loss of potential Indiana bat foraging and 

roosting habitat, as well as changes to the thermal regime of the remaining forest habitat. Normandeau 

proposes to conduct a survey of contiguous forest blocks proposed for clearing at the BBNPP site to 

determine the distribution, density and quality oflndiana bat roost trees (Figure 2). Our survey is intended 

to estimate the quality of roosting habitat in the forest proposed for clearing, and is not intended to inventory 

all potential roost trees present at the BBNPP site. Norrnandeau will survey both the edges and interiors of 

these forest habitats for the presence and quality of roost trees as defined above. 

Mist-net surveys have not documented summerlmatemity colony use of the site, although mist-netting 

effort was lower than recommended. Roosting and foraging by bats in the fall is the primary focus 

because three Indiana bat hibemacula ocq.lr near the BBNPP site In addition, summer roosting by male 

Indiana bats is likely. Therefore, the roost tree assessment will focus on roosting habitat for Indiana bats 

during their active season (spring, summer, and fall). 

Forest Edges 

Normandeau biologists will inspect the onsite edges of all forested areas proposed for clearing and evaluate 

all potential roost trees within a distance of 50-feet of the forest edge. The 50-foot margin "has been used in 

published scientific studies and represents a conservative boundary for identifying potential roost trees 

along a forest edge that are likely to receive increased solar radiation relative to trees located in more interior 

sections of a forest. The positions of potential roost trees will be located using a Global Positioning System 

(GPS) with a sub-meter level of accuracy. A single GPS location will be taken at the center of clumps or 

otherwise closely associated groups of suitable roost trees. Field measurements of roost tree characteristics 

as described below will be recorded in digital or hardcopy format. 

Forest Interiors 

Normandeau will survey all contiguous forest blocks of approximately 2 acres or greater (18 total) proposed 

for clearing for the quality and density of Indiana bat roosting habitat. Forest blocks will be surveyed at the 

rate of one 100-ft radius sample plot per 5 acres or fraction thereof. There are 10 forest blocks between 2 

acres and 10 acres in size and some 8 forest blocks greater than 10 acres in size. Additional plots will be 

located within forest blocks to insure that our sampling is representative of all forest habitats present, 

particularly forested wetlands. Each forest block and will be evaluated for potential roost trees. We will 

also characterize the overall vegetation community according to species composition, age, stlUcture and 

other measures of habitat quality for Indiana bats as described under field measurements below. The 

center of each interior forest plot will be located with a sub-meter level GPS and data will be recorded in 

digital or hardcopy format. 

Field Measurements 

All trees in surveyed areas will be evaluated for suitability as roosts. The following information will be 

recorded for each potential roost tree: 1) species, 2) dbh, 3) roost tree condition (live, dead, or partially 

dead), 4) type of roost structure(s) (bark, crevice, and/or cavity), 5) date, 6) surveyor, and 7) sampling 

location (GPS coordinates). Field measurements are explained in more detail below. All measurements 

are for roost trees only, except in the forest interior plots where species identification and dbh will also be 

measured for the purpose of general categorization ofthe forest cover in each block. 

I) Species identification: All trees will be identified to species. Dead trees and snags that are too far 

decayed for identification will be designated as unknown. 

3 

Controlled Document
BBNPP Roost Tree Survey Study Plan 

2) Diameter at breast height (dbh): The dbh of each roost tree be measured to the nearest inch using a 

Biltmore stick, diameter tape or similar measuring device. For the purpose of categorizing the general 

forest cover, the minimum, maximum and average dbh will be measured in a similar manner from 

representative sub-samples of the trees in each of the forest interior plots. 

3) Roost Tree Condition: (Live. dead. or pal1ially dead): Trees designated as live will be healthy in 

appearance and have more than 80% live canopy. Trees designated as dead will encompass snags and 

trees with less than 10% live canopy. Trees designated as partially dead will have 10-80% live canopy. 

4) Type of roost structure: The type(s) of roost structure on the tree will be identified as bark (exfoliating 

or defoliating bark), crevice, or cavity. 

5) Date: The date ofthe surv:ey will be recorded as MMDDYYYY. 

6) Surveyor: The name of the person who identified the tree to species, measured dbh and classified 

attributes 3-5 and 7 will be recorded. If more than one person contributes to the data, then a lead and 

assistants will be identified for each line of data. 

7) Sampling location (GPS coordinates): The latitude and longitude of the base of each roost tree will be 

recorded using a sub-meter GPS. The datum and coordinate system will be chosen to coordinate with 

existing survey information for the BBNPP site. 

Roost tree characterization 

Trees will be categorized as having a "high", "moderate", or "low" potential for serving as a roost tree for 

Indiana bats. 

Higb - Live, dead, and partially dead trees that are ;::16" dbh and bave roost structure. 

Medium - Live, dead, and partially dead trees that are 9 to 15" dbh and have roost structure. 

Low - Live, dead, and partially dead trees that are 5 to 8" dbh and have roost structure. 

DATA ANALYSIS AND REPORT 

Normandeau will prepare a report that summarizes the study [mdings. Roost tree identity, dbh, attribute 

data and rank as described above will be tabulated and presented by forest block. Our report will include a 

written discussion of the on-site forest characteristics as they pertain. to the quality of the roosting habitat, as 

well as tabular summaries of data for forest edges and interior forest plots, maps showing the locations of 

vegetation plots and potential roosting habitat, and representative photographs offorest edges, interior forest 

sample plots and suitable roost trees. 

REFERENCES 

Menzel, M.A., 1. Menzel, T. Carter, W. Ford, 1. Edwards. 2001. Review of the Forest Habitat 

Relationships of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 

Northeastern Research Station General Technical Report NE-284. 21 pp. 

Romme, R.C., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack, Jr. 1995. Literature summary and habitat suitability index model: 

components of summer habitat for the IndianlJ. bat, Myotis sodalis. Report submitted to the Nongame 

Program, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Bloomington, IN. 43 pp. 

! 

4 

Controlled Document
BBNPP Roost Tree Survey Study Plan 

USFWS, 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: 

First Revision. U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 258 pp. 

USFWS, undated. Forest Management Practices for Conserving Indiana Bats. 2pp. 

5 

Controlled Document
Legend 

* BBNPP 

(2Z] Potential Areas of Disturbance 

r--I I __ J BBNPP/SSES Site Boundary 

0.5 0.25 o 0.5 Miles 

N 

~ I ~~~~~w.~~Y ~~g~~1%~~~ Figure 1. 

~ Bell Bend NPP 

Site Location Map dale: 07127/10 rev. date: 

prepared by: s.sherman prepared for: b.lees 

project: 21766.004 file name: Figure1 .BBNPP _Site_USGS 

Controlled Document
N 

Fig'ure 2. ! 

BBNPP Proposed Forest Clearing ~ 

0.3 0.15 0 0.3 Miles 

~ 

~ I NORMANDEAUASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

400 Old Reading Pike, Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe , PA 19464 

date: 08106110 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project 21931.000 

rev. date: 

prepared for: k.maurice 

fi le name: Figure2.Proposed Forest Clearing 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

November 2011

Pennsylvania Game Commission Consultation 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0 

November 2011

List of Enclosed Correspondence 

1. Letter from Rod Krich, UniStar Nuclear Energy LLC, to James R. Leigey, PGC, “Large Project Species 

of Special concern Screen, December 21, 2007. 

2. Letter from James R. Leigey, PGC to Rod Krich, UniStar Nuclear Energy LLC “PNDI Search Database 

Search”, April 10, 2008. 

3. Letter from Terry L. Harpster, PPL Bell bend LLC, to Tracey Librandi Mumma, PGC, “Bell bend 

Nuclear Power Plant Large Project Species of Special concern Screen”, September 20, 2010. 

4. Letter from Olivia A. Braun, PGC, to Bradley A. Wise, PPL Bell Bend LLC, “Bell Bend Nuclear Power 

Plant Project – Proposed Electrical Plant”, December 28, 2010. 

Controlled Document
~ 

niStar 

NUCLEAR 

December 21, 2007 

Mr. James R. Leigey 

Pennsylvania Game Commission 

Bureau of Land Management 

Division of Environmental Planning and Habitat Protection 

2001 Elmerton Avenue 

Harrisburg, PA 17110-9797 

SUBJECT: Large Project Species of Special Concern Screen 

UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC, Berwick, PA NPP-1 Project 

Salem Township. Luzerne County. PA 

Dear Mr. Leigey: 

UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC is conducting an environmental evaluation for an approximately 2.6 square 

mile (1,642 acres) project area on the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) site and adjacent 

properties in Salem Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania (Figure 1). The project area boundaries 

encompass the entire footprint of possible disturbance for the construction and maintenance of additional 

electric generation facilities under consideration for the site. 

UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC wishes to screen the project area for species of special concern under 

jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Please provide all current and historical information 

concerning the occurrence of rare, threatened and endangered species, as well as any other ecological 

resources of special concern within the project area. In addition, please provide this information for a 0.5-

mile buffer surrounding the project area. This latter screen is requested for the purpose of evaluating 

environmental impacts and compliance with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

regulations (e.g., 25 PA Code Chapter 105.17). A PNDI search form is attached for your use. 

If you have any questions or need additional information please contact George Wrobel at (585) 771-

3535. 

Thank you for your assistance. 

~~v Rod Krich 

Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs 

Enclosures Site Location Map, Figure 1 

PNDI Review Form 

Controlled Document
USGS Berwick, PA Quad 

USGS Sybertsville, PA Quad 

Figure 1. 

Berwick, PA NPP-1 

N 

i 

0.5 o 1 Miles 

~ I NORMANDEAUASSOCIATES 

~ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 00 Old Reading Pik",. BIOg A. \JIt~ lOt SI01'l(" Pi\. 194e4 

date: 12/17/07 checked by: k.maurice 

project: 21159.000 

prepared by: s.sherrnan ~roJect name: Areva 

Ie name: 21159_site_location 

Controlled Document
Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory 

Project Planning & Environmental Review Form 

This form provides site infonnation necessary to perfOlID an Environmental Review for special concern species and resources 

listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 , the Wild Resource Conservation Act, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat code or 

the Pennsylvania Game and Wildlife Code. 

Applicant Information 

Name; UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC 

Address: 750 E. Pratt Street, 14th floor, Baltimore, MD 21202-3106 

Phone Number: 410-470-5518 Fax Number: 585-771-3392 

Contact Person Information - if different from applicant 

Name: Mr. George Wrobel 

Address: same 

Phone Number: 585-771-3535 Fax Number: 585-771-3392 

Project Information 

Project Name: Berwick, PA NPP-l 

Project Locations: Lat N 41d Q5m 11.54s Lon W 76d 09m 53.66s 

Municipality: Salem Township County: Luzerne 

[K] Attach a copy of a U.S.G.S 7 112 Minute Quadrangle Map with Project Boundaries clearly marked. 

U.S.G.S. Quad Name: Berwick, PA and Sybertsville, PA 

Project Description 

Proposed Project Activity (including All earth disturbance areas and current conditions) 

The Berwick, PA NPP-l Project involves development of a combined license application (COLA) to the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) for potential construction and operation of a new nuclear powered steam electric plant 

in the vicinity of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. In the event a decision is made to develop the plant, 

associated activities would involve land clearing, grubbing, grading/excavation, and construction of plant and support 

facilities and structures; landscaping; and subsequent operation and maintenance of plant facilities and grounds. 

Land use of areas potentially disturbed consists predominantly of active/former farmJand and forest and, to roadways, 

and natural vegetation (e.g., shrub-scrub). 

Total Acres of Property: 1,642 Acreage to be Impacted: 780 (approximately) 

1. Will the entire project occur in or on an existing building parking lot, driveway, road, maintained road 

shoulder, street, runway, paved area, railroad bed, or maintained lawn? Yes No X 

2. Are there any waterways or waterbodies (intermittent or perennial rivers, streams, creeks, tributaries, 

lakes or ponds) in or near the project area, or on the land parcel? If so, how many feet away is the 

project? Yes X feet NO 

3. Are wetlands located in or within 300 feet of the project area? Yes X No If No. is this the result 

of a wetland delineation? 

If you have a "PNDI Project Environmental Review Receipt" with potential impacts" please send a receipt copy, this completed 

form, and a USGS Quad Map to the agency/agencies noted on the receipt. If you are unable to generate a PNDI Receipt because 

you do not have Internet access, complete this form, attach USGS Quad Map, and send them to your local DEP or County Conservation 

District. For review of a "Large Project," please send form and map to all the agencies listed below. See page 2 for more information. 

PNDI FOIlll 

Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources 

Bureau of Forestry, Ecological Services Section 

400 Market St., PO Box 8552 

Harrisburg, PA 17105 

fax: 717-771-0271 

PA Game Commission 

Bureau of Land Management 

2001 Elmerton Avenue 

Harrisburg, PAl 7 I 10-9797 

fax: 717-787-6957 

P A Fish and Boat Commission 

Natural Diversity Section 

450 Robinson Lane 

Bellefonte, P A 10828 

fax: 814-359-5175 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

Endangered Species Biologist 

315 South Allen St., Suite 322 

State College, PA 16801 

no faxes please 

Page I of2 Controlled Document
FAX 

To: Jerry van Noordennen 

Fax # (570) 802-8119 

Remarks: 

r~c LAY ~HFOHCEMEHT 04-11-08 07 :52 

PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

2001 ELMERTON AVENUE 

HARRISBTJRG, PA 17110-9797 

Py: 1/2 

WWW.PGC.sTATE.PAUS 

--

From: Jim Leigey Date: 4-11-08 

1o.T. - .L ofPaQeS-i Phone # (717) 787-4250 - -

Fax: (717) 787·6951 

I am faxing you a copy of our response letter for the new electric generation project. A bard copy of theletter will be sent by regular maiJ to Rod Klich with UniStar Nuclear_ Energy. 

Please contact me if you have any questions. 

- -

- . ---

. :', 

..... 

. ", ',.: . 

. , ....... . ". :: .. 

. . ;,' 

Controlled Document
I'ax sen't by ~1'/1I/l:r/:l~32 PGC LAW ENFORCEHENT ~H-11-B8 87: 52 Pg: 2/2 

COMMONWEALllf OF PENNSYLVANIA 

PENNSYLVANIA GAME COMMISSION 

Mr. Rod Krich 

UniStar Nuclear Ener~, LLC 

750 E. Pratt Street. 14 Floor 

Baltimore, MD 21202-3106 

2001 ELMERTON AVENUE. HARRISBURG. PA 17110-9797 

AprillO, 2008 

In re: PNDI Search Database Search 

Dear Mr. Krich: 

UniStar Nuclear Energy,' LLC, Berwick, PA NPP-l Project 

Salem Township, Luzerne County, PA 

This is in response to your fax dated December 21, 2007 regarding the potential imp~s of 

the project on special concern species of birds or mammals recognized by the Pennsylvania·Game 

Commission (PGC). . 

Our office review has detennined that your project area is located in proximity to known bat 

hibemacu1a. If a new nuclear powered steam electric plant is developed on the proposed project area. 

bats of tile foDowing species of bats may be impacted: the Small-footed Myotis (Myotis leibi,) .. ·the -

Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis), the Little Brown (Myotis lucifugos), the Big Brown 

(Eptesicus fuscus), and the Pipistrelle (PipistreOus subj/avus). If a decision is made to develop ·the 

plant, the activities associated with the development. and subsequent operation and maintenance of .. 

the plant filcilities and grounds should be coordinated with the PGC. This determination may be 

reconsidered if project plans change or extend beyond the present project· area. or if additional, 

information becomes available on state species. 

If you have any questions., please contact me at (717) 787-4~50. Please be advised that this 

determination is only valid for one year from the date of this letter. 

Cc: File 

v ~ truly yours) --..lJ • 

~rt·o<~ ~ R. Leigey U U 

Wildlife Impact Review Coordinator 

Division afEnviromnental 

Plannfug and Habitat Protection 

Bureau ofWddlife Habitat Management 

ADNJN1GffiA'J1\IE. BUREAUS: 

PERSONNEL: 717-7S'7-7SSQ ADM'NI~TlQN: 7 t 7-787-5070 AlItONcmvE../>NO PROCURMEKT': 717-7F57-6594 

LICENSE DMsION; 717-787-2084 WlLOUfE MANAGEMENT: 717-787-552S1INF~.A.nON & E:ouC4i10N: 717787-6286 

WILDUF'£~TECTlON:717-7er7-S740WlI.DUFEHASrrATMN«c;a.n;;N'r.717-787~18REAL~A'l"£:717·7e7-6!56S 

AI.rTOMAn;;oTe"CHNOJ...OGYSY'!n"ENB: 717-787-4(f76 

WWW.PGC.srA-n;;.PA.US 

:::": 

. , . :. ~. 

.. : :, 

,; 

.. , 

'. 

" . : 

, .' . ' " . ~ 

" . ',:; 

... : ~; 

: : ;: . . '. 

, ' , , , ' 

'" ' :" :: 

' , . :',;. 

' . ':," 

Controlled Document
T. L. Harpster 

VP-Bell Bend Project-Development 

September 20, 2010 

Ms. Tracey Librandi Mumma 

Pennsylvania Game Commission 

Bureau of Land Management 

PPL Bell Bend, LLC 

38 Bomboy Lane, Suite 2 

Berwick, PA 18603 

Tel. 570.802.811 1 FAX 570.802.811 9 

tlharpster@pplweb.com 

Division of Environmental Planning and Habitat Protection 

2001 Elmerton Avenue 

Harrisburg, PA 17110-9797 

BELL BEND NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

LARGE PROJECT SPECIES 

OF SPECIAL CONCERN SCREEN 

SALEM TOWNSHIP, LUZERNE COUNTY, PA 

BNP-2010-207 Docket No. 52-039 

PPL Bell Bend, LLC is conducting an environmental evaluation for a potential nuclear power plant 

adjacent to the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) site in Salem Township, Luzerne 

County, Pennsylvania. For screening purposes, the project area boundaries as shown on Figure 1 

encompass the entire footprint of possible disturbance for the construction and maintenance of a 

nuclear power plant under consideration for the site, as well as the existing SSES site. The existing 

active SSES operating unit is within this boundary but will not be altered. This letter is a follow up to a 

similar letter sent December 21 , 2007 and your response dated April 10, 2008. 

PPL Bell Bend, LLC wishes to screen the entire area as shown on Figure 1 for species of special 

concern under jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Game Commission. Please provide all current and 

historical information concerning the occurrence of rare, threatened and endangered species, as well 

as any other ecological resources of special concern within the project area. In addition, please 

provide this information for a 0.5-mile buffer surrounding the project area. This latter screen is 

requested for the purpose of evaluating environmental impacts and compliance with Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection regulations (e.g., 25 PA Code Chapter 105.17). A PNDI 

search form is attached for your use. 

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Bradley Wise at 

610.774.6508 or bawise@pplweb.com. 

Thank you for your assistance. 

Respectfully, ~ 

TLH/dw 

Enclosures 1) Site Location Map 

2) PNDI Review Form 

Controlled Document
September 20, 2010 

cc: Ms. Stacey Imboden 

Senior Project Manager 

BNP-2010-207 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

11545 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, MD 20852 

Ms. Jamie Davis 

Office of Environmental Programs (3EA30) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029 

Mr. Tom Shervinskie 

Pa Fish & Boat Commission 

450 Robinson Lane 

Bellefonte, PA 16823 

Ms. Jennifer Kagel 

United States Fish & Wildlife Service 

Pennsylvania Field Office 

315 S. Allen St. #322 

State College, PA 16801 

Mr. Eugene Trowbridge 

Pa Dept Environmental Resources 

Northeast Regional Office 

2 Public Square 

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18711 

Ms. Amy Elliott 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District 

State College Field Office 

1631 South Atherton Street, Suite 102 

State College, PA 16801 

Ms. Paula B. Ballaron 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

1721 North Front Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17102-0425 

Mr. Thomas W. Beauduy 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission 

1721 North Front Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17102-0425 

Page 2 

Controlled Document
September 20,2010 

bee: B. A. Wise J. S. Fields 

R. Sgarro D. Klineh 

BNP-2010-207 

bawise@pplweb.eom 

jsfields@pplweb.eom 

rrsgarro@pplweb.eom 

David. Klineh@eonstellation.com 

Page 3 

ControlledDocument
September 20, 2010 BNP-2010-207 

Enclosure 1 

Site Location Map 

Enclosure 1 

Controlled Document
Controlled Document 

Legend 

* BBNPP 

12221 Potential Areas of Disturbance 

~ : : ! BBNPP/SSES Site Boundary 

Figure 1. 

Bell Bend NPP 

Site Location Map 

0.5 0.25 

date: 07127110 

prepared by: s.shermarJ 

project 21766.1)04 

o 0.5 Miles 

rev. date: 

prepared for: b.lees 

file name: Figure1.BBNPP _Site_USGS 

Controlled Document
September 20,2010 BNP-2010-207 

Enclosure 2 

PNDI Review Form 

Enclosure 2 

Controlled Document
Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory 

Project Planning & Environmental Review Form 

This form provides site information necessary to perform lin Environmental Review for special concern species and resources 

listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Wild Resource Conservation Act, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat code or 

the Pennsylvania Game and Wildlife Code. 

Applicant Information 

Name: PPL Bell Bend, LLC 

Address: 38 Bomboy Lane, Suite 2, Berwick, PA 18603 

Phone Number: 570.802.8100 Fax Number: 570.802.8119 

Contact Person Information - if different from applicant 

Name: Bradley A. Wise, Environmental Permitting Supervisor, PPL Bell Bend LLC 

Address: Two North Ninth Street (GENPL4), Allentown, PA 18101-1179 

Phone Number: (610) 774-6508 Fax Number: (610) 774-2618 

Project Information 

Project Name: Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project 

Project Locations: Lat N 41d 5m 20.7s Lon W 76d 9m 4.5s 

Municipality: Salem Township County: Luzerne IKJ Attach a copy of a U.S.G.S 7 1/2 Minute Quadrangle Map with Project Boundaries clearly marked. 

U.S.G.S. Quad Name: Berwick, PA 

Project Description 

Proposed Project Activity (including All earth disturbance areas and current conditions) 

The Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project involves development of a combined license application (COLA) to the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for potential construction and operation of a new nuclear powered 

steam electric plant adjacent to the Susquehanna Stearn Electric Station. In the event a decision is made to 

develop the plant, associated activities would involve land clearing, grubbing, grading/excavation, and construction 

of plant and suppport facilities and structures; landscaping; and subsequent operation and maintenance of plant 

facilities and grounds. Land use of areas potentially disturbed consists predominatly of active/former farmland 

and forest, to roadways, and natural vegetation (e.g., shrub-scrUb), 

Total Acres of Property: 1,700 Acreage to be Impacted: 700 acres (approximately) 

1. Will the entire project occur in or on an existing building parking lot, driveway, road, maintained road 

shoulder, street, runway, paved area, railroad bed, or maintained lawn? Yes No X 

2. Are there any waterways or waterbodies (intermittent or perennial rivers, streams, creeks, tributaries, 

lakes or ponds) in or near the project area, or on the land parcel? If so, how many feet away is the 

project? Yes X feet 0 

3. Are wetlands located in or within 300 feet of the project area? Yes X No If No. is this the result 

of a wetland delineation? 

If you have a "PNDI Project Environmental Review Receipt" with potential impacts" please send a receipt copy, this completed 

form. and a USGS Quad Map to the agency/agencies noted on the receipt. If you are unable to generate a PNDI Receipt because 

you do not have Internet access, complete this form, attach USGS Quad Map, and send them to your local DEP or County Conservation 

District. For review of a "Large Project," please send form and map to all the agencies listed below. See page 2 for more information. 

Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources P A Fish and Boat Commission 

Bureau of Forestry, Ecological Services Section Natural Diversity Section 

PNDIForm 

400 Market St., PO Box 8552 450 Robinson Lane 

Harrisburg, PA 17105 Bellefonte, PA 10828 

fax: 717-771-0271 fax: 814·359-5175 

P A Game Commission 

Bureau of Land Management 

2001 Elmerton Avenue 

Harrisburg, P A 1711 0-9797 

fax: 717-787-6957 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

Endangered Species Biologist 

315 South Allen St., Suite 322 

State College. P A 16801 

no faxes please 

Page I of 1 

Controlled Document
.... .... ... c ~ V ' • Y I V 1&.'.." I • '" 

BUREAU OF WILDlIFE 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

717·787·6818 

December 28.2010 

Mr. Bradley A. Wise 

PPL Bell Bend, LLC 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Pennsylvania Game Commission 

2001 ELMERTON AVENUE 

HARRISBURG, PA 17110-91&7 

'To manage al/ wHd birds, mammals and their habitats 

for current and (urure generations. • 

Large Project Review 

Two NOlth Ninth Street (GENOL4) 

Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101-1119 

.. UI £ V J J I. L 

ADMINISTRATIVE BUREAUS; 

ADMINI$TAAnON. ••• ~ •••• " ....... 1.7-7e7·~70 

HUMIIH RESOU~CIO$ ......... ,_.717-7B7.78$ 

FISCAL MANAGEMENT ....... _ .. 717-7a1-7314 

COtffRACTSNlD 

PROCUREMEHT .................... 711-787-6S114 

l(CE~SING •• ~ .... _ .................. 1i7·7a7-20M 

OffiCE S~vrCES. ................ 717.7e7-2118 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ..... k ... ,,7'7-781-6520 

INFORtMTIOH& EOUCATION ...... 717-7n~2M 

WllOllFE PROIECnON .............. 717-7113-6528 

WILDlifE l1ABO'AT 

IMNI\OEMENT ........ , ........ ".",,, •• 117.787-Mt8 

IlEAl. ESTATE DMSIOII .. "" .... 71:1-767-6!i68 

AUTOMATeD YECIiNOlOaV 

sl;lMces.., ....... " ............ " ..... ".717-787-401B 

WWW.pgc.slate.pa.us 

Re: Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project - Proposed Elecuical Plant 

Sa~em Township. Luzerne County, Pennsylvania 

Dear Mr. Wise, 

ThBnk you for submitting the Pennsylvania Natura) Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Environmental 

Review Receipt Number Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project for review. The Pennsylvania 

Game Commission (paC) screened this project for potential impacts to species and resources of 

concern lUldel: PGC responsibility~ which includes birds and mammals only. 

Potential Impact Anticipated 

PNDI records indicate species or resources of concern are located in the vicinity of the project. 

The PGC has received and thoroughly reviewed the information that you provided to this offi~e) 

as well as PNDI data, and has determined that potential impacts to the following endangered 

species may be associated with your project: 

Common Nam.e PA Status Federal Status 

Indiana Bat ENDANGERED ENDANGERED 

Next Steps 

Indiana bats are a federally listed endangel'ed species under the jurisdiction of the U,S. Fish and 

WildJife Service, As a result, our agency defers comments on potentia] impacts to Indiana bats 

to the U.S, Fish and WiId1ife Service. 

This response represents the most up-to·date summal'Y of the PNDI data files and is valid for one 

(1) yeat from the date of this letter. An absence of recorded information does not necessarjly 

Controlled Document
imply actual conditions on site, Should project plans change or additional infol'mation on listed 

or proposed species become available~ this determination may be reconsidered. 

Should the proposed wOl'k continue beyond the pel-lod covered by this letter, please resubmit the 

project to this agency as an ''Update'' (including an updated PNDI receipt~ project narrative and 

accurate map). If the proposed work has not changed and no additional information concerning 

listed species is found, the project will be cleared for PNDI }'equirements under this agency for 

an additional year, 

This finding applies to impacts to birds and mammals only. To complete your review of state 

and federaHy-listed threatened and endangered species and species of special concel'n, please be 

sure that the U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service. the PA Depal'tment of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, and/or the P A Fish and Boat Commission have been contacted regarding this project 

as directed by the online PNDI ER Tool found at www.natul.alheritage.state.pa.us. . 

Olivia A. . rann 

Environmental Planner 

Division of Environm.en~a1 Planning & Habitat Protection 

Bureau of Wildlife Habitat Management 

Phone: 7l7~787·4250. Extension 3128 

Fax: 717-787·6957 

e-Mail: OBraun@state.pa.us 

A PNHP Paltner 

PNHP 

pennsylvanIa Natural ~ Hel1tege Program 

OAB/oab 

cc: Pamela Shellenbel'ge.t·J U.S, Fish & Wildlife Service 

Libl'andi Mumma, PGC 

DuBrock, PGe 

Brauning, PGe 

Butchkoski, PGe 

Turner. poe 

Terry L. HfU'pstet, PPL 

File 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0

November 2011

Appendix B

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0

November 2011

Indiana Bat Mist Net Study

Controlled Document
Report on Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Indiana Bat Mist Net Survey 

Normandeau Project No. 21159.013 

Protocol: 

This survey was conducted from 6/7/08 to 7/11/08, comprising a total of 8 sampling nights as outlined 

below. A combination of mist nets were used on each of the sampling nights, including: 

3 3-tier nets 9m (30’) in height, at 6m (20’) or 9m (30’) widths 

1 2-tier net 6m (20’) in height, at 6m (20’) or 9m (30’) widths 

Four (4) nets were set on all nights, for a total of 32 net-nights overall. Sampling was conducted at two 

main areas: along the road in W-7 and along the edge of the Beaver Pond adjacent to W-8, as shown on 

the following map. By the USFWS definition of two nets/site, two sites were sampled in W-7 for 5 

nights, and two sites were sampled at the Beaver Pond at W-8/W-9, for 3 nights. Given low activity at 

net #4 in F-6, based upon no captures and very low acoustic indication of bat flight activity, net #4 in F-6 

was replaced by net #5 in F-4 for 3 sampling nights. A total of 9 specific net sites were used, with the 

specific locations sampled on the nights indicated below: 

An effort was made to place nets following potential travel corridors along the road in W-7 and along the 

edge of the Beaver Pond (W-8/W-9), although bat activity was monitored acoustically at a number of 

other sites to gain a sense of overall activity. Many areas on the property are open and so not suitable for 

netting (e.g F-3, F-4, O-1, F-5, F-8, F-6), although acoustic monitoring also detected low levels of 

activity. The dense vegetation in other areas (e.g. W-7, W-8. W-9) restricted the ability to set nets, but it 

is expected that bat flight activity would also be low in these congested locations. There are no 

permanent or seasonal waterways in this part of the property, which made it difficult to predict potential 

foraging sites. There is a small pond adjacent to the trailer in F-3, and a larger pond in F-6, and although 

there is bat activity over these ponds, it is not possible to capture bats in such open locations. Acoustic 

monitoring of bat activity was conducted both at net sites, at the ponds, and along transects across the 

property, to both provide information about bat activity and to guide the placement of nets in areas more 

likely to result in captures. 

Dates Net#

6/7/08

6/8/08

1

2

3

4

6/26/08

7/01/08

7/02/08

1

2

3

5

7/8/08

7/10/08

7/11/08

6

7

8

9

Controlled Document
Captures: 

A total of sixteen (16) bats representing three (3) species were captured during the survey: 

Species Sex Number of bats Reproductive Status 

Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus) F 2 lactating 

Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus) M 1 juvenile 

Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus) F 1 juvenile 

Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus) M 3 adult 

Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus) F 1 pregnant 

Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus) F 4 lactating 

Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis) M 4 adult 

Specific details showing date of capture and net locations are shown in Appendix 2. 

Each of the captured bats was tagged with a permanent, aluminum wrist-band for future identification, 

and this number will be included in a separate report to be filed with PA Game Commission. 

Acoustic monitoring: 

Bat activity was monitored acoustically using hand-held AnaBat ultrasonic detectors (Titley Electronics). 

These instruments have a detection frequency range of 10 – 200 kHz, and sufficient sensitivity to monitor 

bat echolocation calls flying along the netting corridors as well as above the tree canopy. Acoustic 

monitoring occurred at 20-minute intervals at each of the net sites throughout each sampling night. 

Additionally, bat activity was monitored at the beginning and end of each sampling night along transects 

perpendicular to the ridge away from each net site. The activity at the ponds was monitored separately, to 

gain a better appreciation for overall bat activity on the property. 

The capture data reflects the generally low level of bat activity detected in the areas sampled, which was 

fairly uniform at each of the net sites as well as along transects through the surrounding area. Bat 

activity was uniformly low along the road in W-7, starting a less than 1 bat pass per minute at dusk as the 

nets were set, and dropping off through the survey period each night to less than 4 – 5 passes per hour 

after midnight. Generally, activity was a bit higher by the Beaver Pond, starting at 4 – 5 bat passes per 

minute at dusk, dropping to 1-2 passes per minute around midnight and falling off afterwards to less than 

one pass per minute. Temperatures were typically hot and humid at dusk throughout the survey period 

(daytime averages over 85ْ F), and remained elevated throughout the sampling each night, except for 

7/10/08 when the temperature at midnight had dropped to 54ْ F. There were no captures that night. 

Controlled Document
Most of the activity was recorded from bats flying below canopy level, lower than the 3-tier (9m) mist 

nets, so the acoustic monitoring represents a reasonable estimate of bat activity along the corridors 

sampled that resulted in the captures reported. The echolocation signals detected were consistent with E. 

fuscus as well as the Myotis species captured, but it is not possible to reliably distinguish between all 

Myotis species using acoustic methods. There was no indication of higher-flying species (like L. borealis 

or L. cinereus) which can readily be discriminated by their echolocation signatures. 

Recommendations: 

The capture of reproductively active (pregnant and lactating) females and juvenile bats suggests that this 

area supports maternity roosts of some bat species during the summer months. Although big brown bats 

(E. fuscus) and little brown bats (M. lucifugus) preferentially roost in human structures such as barns and 

attics, particularly when forming maternity colonies (Barbour and Davis, 1969), these bats can also form 

maternity roosts in tree cavities (Brigham, 1991; Fenton and Barclay, 1980). The capture of only adult 

male Myotis septentrionalis, which are tree-roosting species (Barbour and Davis, 1969), provides 

additional evidence for the existence of roost sites in the area surveyed, but not maternity colonies of 

females and young. While little brown bats tend to forage along the edges of wooded areas, M. 

septentrionalis is also known to forage in more cluttered forested areas, below the canopy but above the 

understory shrub layer (LaVal et al., 1977). Both little brown bats and big brown bats have been shown 

to forage preferentially in riparian areas (Kurta, 1982), as have endangered Indiana Bats (Murray and 

Kurta, 2004). The absence of significant bodies of water on this property, and the low level of bat activity 

detected over the ponds present on the property, suggests that even resident bats might seek other areas 

over which to forage. 

The primary objective of this survey was to determine the extent of Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) activity 

in this area, with particular attention to summer habitat for roosting and reproduction. Despite suitable 

habitat for both roosting and foraging, there were no Indiana Bats (Myotis sodalis) captured during this 

survey. While we might expect capture rates of Indiana bats to be low, as other studies (e.g. Callahan et 

al., 1997; Kurta et al., 1996) have shown that the bats roost singly or in small groups in hollow trees or 

underneath loose bark during the summer, there was potential for capture of Indiana Bats moving through 

the habitat if these bats were present in any reasonable number, as would be expected of resident bats. 

The members of a maternity colony of Indiana bats typically roost in 10-20 trees each summer (Callahan 

et al., 1997; Kurta et al., 1996). Although some colonies restrict roosting to an area of only a few 

hectares, other Indiana bats use trees that are 8-9 km apart (Kurta et al., 1996). Radio-tracking studies of 

the Indiana Bat (Murray and Kurta, 2004) show that these bats do not fly over open fields but travel along 

wooded corridors, even though such behavior may increase commuting distance by over 50%. Given this 

variability, it is difficult to predict the movements of bats within any one colony, but the failure to capture 

any Indiana Bats despite suitable roosting and foraging areas does not provide evidence for their presence 

on the site. 

Based upon these results, particularly the failure to capture any M. sodalis, it would seem that the clearing 

of trees proposed for the development of the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant project is unlikely to have a 

direct impact on the roosting or foraging activity of Indiana Bats in this area. There is so little wooded 

habitat on the property, that it seems likely that other areas surrounding the site would provide more 

adequate roosting and foraging habitat for tree-roosting species, including the Indiana Bat. The presence 

of trees of the appropriate size and species in which bats might roost does not preclude the potential for 

roost colonies of several species (see Barbour and Davis, 1969), including those species captured in this 

study, as well as the Indiana Bat, despite the absence of captures. Development of this property should 

proceed with this potential in mind, by conserving candidate roost trees whenever possible and removing 

Controlled Document
these trees when necessary during times outside the normal breeding season. Bats returning from 

hibernation typically resume residence in maternity roosts by late April, and most reproductive colonies 

have disbanded by late August, and so limiting the disturbance of the habitat to periods outside this 

breeding season will minimize the disruption of resident colonies. 

 

Controlled Document
Appendix 1: Details of bat captures 

Capture 

date Net # Species Sex Number of bats Reproductive Status 

6/7/08 2 M. lucifugus F 1 pregnant 

3 M. lucifugus M 1 adult 

3 M. septentrionalis M 1 adult 

6/8/08 1 M. septentrionalis M 1 adult 

6/26/08 2 M. lucifugus M 1 adult 

7/1/08 2 E. fuscus F 1 lactating 

7/2/08 1 E. fuscus F 1 lactating 

2 M. septentrionalis M 1 adult 

7/8/08 7 E. fuscus M 1 juvenile 

7 E. fuscus F 1 juvenile 

7 M. lucifugus M 1 adult 

9 M. lucifugus F 1 lactating 

7/11/08 7 M. lucifugus F 1 lactating 

7 M. septentrionalis M 1 adult 

7 M. lucifugus F 2 lactating 

Controlled Document
LITERATURE CITED: 

Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. 

286 pp. 

Brigham, R.M. 1991. Flexibility in foraging and roosting behaviour by the big brown bat (Eptesicus 

fuscus). Can. J. Zool. 69:117-121. 

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

bats (Myotis sodalist) in Missouri. J. Mammal. 78:818-825. 

Fenton, M.B. and R.M.R. Barclay. 1980. Myotis lucifugus. Mammal. Sepcies 142:1-8. 

Kurta, A. 1982. Flight patterns of Eptesicus fuscus and Myotis lucifugus over a stream. J. Mammal. 

63(2): 335-337 

Kurta A., K.J. Williams and R. Mies. 1996. Ecological, behavioral, and thermal observations of a 

peripheral population of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis). Pp. 102-117 in Bats and forests. (R.M.R. 

Barclay and R.M. Brigham, eds.). Research Branch, Ministry of Forests, Province of British 

Columbia, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 

LaVal, R.K., R.L. Clawson, M.L. LaVal and W. Caire. 1977. Foraging behavior and nocturnal activity 

patterns of Missouri bats, with emphasis on the endangered species Myotis grisescens and Myotis 

sodalis. J. Mammal. 58(4):592-599. 

Murray, S.W. and A. Kurta. 2004. Nocturnal activity of the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). 

Journal of Zoology 262:197-206. 

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat Biological Evaluation and Management Plan for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Project, Rev. 0

November 2011

Indiana Bat Roost Tree Survey Report

Controlled Document
Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) 

Roost Tree Survey Report 

Proposed Bell Bend NPP Site 

Luzerne County, Pennsylvania 

Prepared by: 

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 

400 Old Reading Pike 

Building A, Suite 101 

Stowe, P A 19464 

(610) 705-5733 

www.normandeau.com 

Submitted to: 

AREV A NP, Inc. 

400 Donald Lynch Boulevard 

Marlborough, MA 01752 

October 2011 

Controlled Document
 

Indiana Bat Roost Tree Survey Report 

For The 

Proposed Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant Site 

Luzerne County, Pennsylvania

Prepared for: 

AREVA NP, Inc. 

Marlborough, MA 

And 

UniStar Nuclear Development, LLC 

Prepared by: 

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 

Stowe, PA 

October 2011

Controlled Document
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. ii 

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ ii 

LIST OF APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... ii 

RECORD OF REVISIONS .................................................................................................................. 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 

 1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................... 3 

 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 3 

 

2.0 INDIANA BAT ROOSTING HABITAT ................................................................................. 3 

 2.1 SUMMER ROOSTS ................................................................................................... 3 

 2.2 FALL ROOSTS .......................................................................................................... 4 

 2.3 ROOST TREE CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................... 4 

 

3.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 5 

 3.1 FOREST INTERIORS ................................................................................................ 5 

 3.2 FOREST EDGES ........................................................................................................ 6

 3.3 FIELD MEASUREMENTS ....................................................................................... 6 

 3.3.1 FOREST COVER ....................................................................................................... 6 

 3.3.2 POTENTIAL ROOST TREES ................................................................................... 7 

 

4.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 8 

 4.1 FOREST COVER CHARACTERIZATION .............................................................. 8 

 4.2 POTENTIAL ROOST TREES ................................................................................... 9 

 4.2.1 INTERIOR FOREST .................................................................................................. 9 

 4.2.2 FOREST EDGES ...................................................................................................... 10 

5.0 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 10 

 5.1 HABITAT QUALITY .............................................................................................. 10 

 5.1.1 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF PRTs IN FOREST AND EDGE ........................... 10 

 5.1.2 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF HIGH PRTs IN FOREST AND EDGE ................ 11 

6.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 11 

7.0 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................... 12 

Controlled Document
ii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1 Summary of Proposed Upland and Wetland Forest Clearing Impacts Within the Bell 

Bend NPP Project Site (2010 LOD Boundary). 

Table 2 Summary of Proposed Upland and Wetland Forest Clearing Impacts Within the Bell 

Bend NPP Project Site (2011 Revised LOD Boundary). 

Table 3 Trees Observed in Forest Areas at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Table 4 Characteristics of Forest Areas Proposed for Clearing at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Table 5 Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees in the Interior Forest at the Bell Bend 

NPP Project Site. 

Table 6 Density of Interior Forest Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees by Forest 

Area at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Table 7 Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees along the Forest Area Edges at the 

Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Table 8 Density of Forest Edge Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees by Forest Area 

at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 Bell Bend NPP Site Location Map. 

Figure 2 Bell Bend NPP Proposed Forest Clearing. 

Figure 3 Changes to Surveyed Areas with Respect to Revised LOD Boundary. 

Figure 4 Bell Bend NPP Forest Areas. 

Figure 5 Overall Study Area, Wetland and Upland Interior Forest Potential Roost Tree Densities 

for the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Figure 6 Overall and High Interior Forest Potential Roost Tree Densities by Forest Area for the 

Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A Table A-1. Characteristics of Forest Areas at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Appendix B Table B-1. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees within the Interior Forest 

Areas at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Controlled Document
iii 

Appendix C Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at 

the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Appendix D Forest Area Maps 

Appendix E Photographs 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report, Rev 2 

1 

October 2011 

RECORD OF REVISIONS 

Revision Date Pages/Sections Changed Brief Description 

000 December 2010 All Initial Release 

001 January 2011 

Pages 4, 7, 9, 10, Table 7, 

Figure 3 and Appendix D 

as detailed below. 

Rev. 0 of document was revised to address 

owner acceptance review comments detailed 

below and in Comment Resolution #s: PPLEPR-10-69-R0 and EA-EPR-10-669-R0. 

001 Cover Date 

001 Title Page Date 

001 Page 4 3.0: citation added 

001 Page 7 4.2.1: text revisions 

001 Page 9 6.0: text revisions 

001 Page 10 7.0: reference added 

001 Table 7 Revised footnotes 

001 Figure 3 Legend revised 

001 Appendix D Figures revised 

002 September 2011 Cover Date 

002 Title Page Date 

002 Page i TOC: Added headings regarding LOD 

changes, updated page numbers 

002 Page ii TOC: Added heading for new figure of LOD 

changes 

002 Page 3 1.0: Text Revisions, updated area 

calculations 

002 

Page 5 Section 3.1: Added text on changes to 

Forest Interior Areas Based on LOD 

Boundary Revisions 

002 

Page 6 Section 3.2: Added text on changes to 

Forest Edges Based on LOD Boundary 

Revisions 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report, Rev 2 

2 

October 2011 

Revision Date Pages/Sections Changed Brief Description 

002 

Page 8-10 4.0: Text Revisions, updated area 

calculations and results based on 2011 

survey 

002 

Page 11 5.0: Text Revisions, updated area 

calculations and results based on 2011 

survey 

002 Page 11 6.0: Text Revisions, updated results based on 

2011 survey 

002 

Table 1 Changed title of table to reflect that these 

area calculations are from 2010 LOD 

boundary 

002 

Table 2 Created new table with new area calculations 

from 2011 survey and revised LOD 

boundary 

002 

Tables 3-8 Formerly Tables 2-7. Updated tables with 

new area calculations and results from 2011 

survey 

002 Figures 1 and 2 Updated figures with revised LOD boundary 

002 

Figure 3 Created new figure to reflect changes in 

forested cover within the revised LOD 

boundary. 

002 Figures 4-6 Formerly Figures 3-5. Updated figures with 

results from 2011 survey 

002 Appendices A, B, and C Updated appendices with results from 2011 

survey 

002 

Appendix D Added revised LOD boundary and new 

sample plot and PRT locations to Forest 

Area maps 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report, Rev 2 

3 

October 2011 

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES

Normandeau Associates, Inc. (Normandeau) conducted a quantitative in-field survey of Indiana bat (Myotis 

sodalis) roost trees within the forested areas proposed for clearing at the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant 

(NPP) project site during 28 September through 20 October 2010 and 13 and 14 July 2011. The objective 

of this study was to determine the distribution, density, and quality of Indiana bat roosting habitat 

provided by these forest areas with a particular focus on roosting habitat for males during the summer and 

for both sexes during the time of fall swarming. Indiana bats are listed as an Endangered Species by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which has jurisdiction over species of flora and fauna 

designated as listed, proposed, or candidate under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Indiana 

bats are also listed as Endangered by the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC), which has jurisdiction 

over birds and mammals classified as Threatened or Endangered under the Pennsylvania Game and 

Wildlife Code. 

The USFWS has reviewed the Bell Bend NPP project for potential impacts to Federally-listed species of 

special concern through ongoing coordination with PPL Corporation (USFWS, 2009). As the project site 

is located within 10 miles of three known Indiana bat hibernacula, the agency has determined that 

proposed forest clearing necessary for project construction could result in the loss of potential Indiana bat 

foraging and roosting habitat. 

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

As proposed, Bell Bend NPP will be sited adjacent to the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) in 

Salem Township, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Potential areas of disturbance associated with Bell 

Bend NPP will extend across 687 acres (1.1 mile2

, 278 hectares [ha]) within the 2,055-acre (3.2 mile2, 

832 ha) Bell Bend NPP Project Boundary (Figure 1). The site terrain is variable and ranges from steeply 

sloping hills in the north and west to the relatively level floodplain of the Susquehanna Riverlands in the 

east. The net topographic relief is approximately 500 feet (152 m). 

A total of approximately 623 acres (252 ha) of plant communities and other habitats will be impacted by 

construction of Bell Bend NPP of which 402.4 acres (162.8 ha) will be permanent impacts and 220.3 acres 

(89.2 ha) will be temporary impacts. Areas to be disturbed as a result of project construction activities are 

contained within a defined “Limit of Disturbance,” (LOD) as presented on Figure 3. The LOD was used 

to define the area within which roost tree survey activities would be contained, and at the time of the 2010 

survey the LOD depicted approximately 236 acres (96 ha) of forested habitat to be cleared, of which 227 

acres (92 ha) were upland and 8.2 acres (3.3 ha) were wetland (Table 1). In 2011, the LOD boundary was 

revised and based on this updated boundary, 233.5 acres (94.5 ha) of forested habitat will be cleared, of 

which 222.2 acres (89.9 ha) are upland and 11.3 acres (4.6 ha) are wetland (Table 2). Figure 2 shows the 

new proposed forest clearing within the BBNPP boundary based on the revised LOD boundary. Figure 3 

shows the changes to the surveyed areas based on the 2011 LOD boundary. 

2.0 INDIANA BAT ROOSTING HABITAT 

The following section provides background information for the survey plan and was summarized from the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Recovery Plan for the Indiana Bat (USFWS, 2007). 

2.1 SUMMER ROOSTS 

Summer roosting habitat for male Indiana bats is not well known. Males are most commonly found in the 

vicinity of their hibernaculum but may also disperse throughout their summer range and roost individually 

or in small groups. 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report, Rev 2 

4 

October 2011 

Reproductive female Indiana bats migrate from the hibernacula to summer roosting habitat, and have shown 

strong site fidelity to their traditional summer roosting and foraging areas. They form maternity colonies 

after arriving at their summer range (late March to mid-May) and cluster in maternity roosts with suitable 

microclimates, which facilitate roost temperatures favorable for prenatal and postnatal development. 

Maternity colonies most commonly consist of 60 to 100 adult females but may be larger, and may include 

females from more than one hibernaculum. Composition of the colony is fluid with females moving 

between as many as 10 to 20 different maternity roost trees. The majority of female bats use one to three 

primary maternity roost trees, while the rest of the trees are alternate or secondary maternity roosts that are 

intermittently used by small numbers of females throughout the summer, or on only a few days, or as 

temporary night roosts. 

Maternity colonies may occupy maternity roost trees for a number of years; however all maternity roost 

trees are ephemeral and become unusable by losing important structural characteristics such as bark, or by 

falling to the ground, or due to competition with other animals. The use of alternate maternity roost trees is 

thought to be a behavioral mechanism that enables bats to evaluate new trees for use as future primary 

maternity roosts. 

Summer roosting habitat for non-reproductive female Indiana bats is less well known. They may remain 

close to their hibernaculum or migrate to summer habitat where they roost individually or in small numbers. 

Typically, non-reproductive females do not roost in maternity colonies but may be present in the same trees 

as reproductive females. 

2.2 FALL ROOSTS 

Beginning in the late summer and into the fall, Indiana bats return to the vicinity of their hibernacula and 

engage in swarming behavior, which peaks in September and early October. This behavior is characterized 

by large numbers of bats moving in and out of hibernacula at night but with few roosting inside during 

daylight hours. Instead, the bats tend to roost individually in surrounding forests. Mating occurs during the 

swarming period and bats also feed heavily to build up fat reserves for hibernation. Indiana bats may travel 

considerable distances from their hibernacula to foraging areas based on the level of competition for food 

resources, with those from hibernacula with large numbers of Indiana and/or other bats most likely traveling 

furthest. Limited radio telemetry studies during fall swarming have shown Indiana bats traveling as far as 

19 miles (31 km) in a single night in Indiana and up to 9 miles (14 km) over several weeks in Pennsylvania. 

2.3 ROOST TREE CHARACTERISTICS 

Indiana bats roost under the exfoliating bark of trees and occasionally in longitudinal crevices within trees 

but rarely use cavities created by rot or woodpeckers. For maternity roosts (primary and alternate), females 

prefer dead or nearly dead trees, or dead parts of living trees such as dead trunks of trees with multiple 

trunks. They are occasionally found on living trees with lose peeling bark; however, these trees are thought 

to be used primarily as alternate maternity roosts during exceptionally warm or wet weather. A wide variety 

of tree species are used for maternity roosts and use is primarily related to local availability of trees with 

suitable structure rather than a preference for a particular species. In addition, regional differences in 

maternity roost tree characteristics may result from influencing factors such as weather and altitude. 

Maternity roost trees are typically found in areas with high solar exposure such as openings within a forest, 

in a fence line, or along a wooded edge. Higher solar exposure creates warmer roosting sites and, thereby, 

facilitates faster prenatal and postnatal development of young bats. Female Indiana bats may use 

structurally suitable trees in more interior sections of forest as maternity roosts during exceptionally warm 

or wet weather. Maternity roost trees vary in size, although larger diameter trees are preferred and may 

provide advantages for thermoregulation, as well as more roosting spaces. The average range-wide 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report, Rev 2 

5 

October 2011 

diameter of primary maternity roost trees is 18 inches (46 cm). However, average diameters of primary and 

alternate maternity roost trees in several Midwestern states ranged from 16 inches (41 cm) to 24 inches (61 

cm), and an alternate maternity roost tree in Pennsylvania had a diameter of only 11 inches (28 cm). The 

method of measuring the tree widths was not specific but is presumably diameter-at-breast height (dbh). 

The minimum height of maternity roost trees is typically greater than 10 feet (3 m), although the absolute 

height of maternity roost trees is thought to be less important than height and position relative to 

surrounding trees, which can affect the amount of solar exposure received by a tree. 

Male Indiana bats are more flexible in their preferred summer roosting habitat. They roost in the same types 

of structurally suitable trees as females but not necessarily in areas with high solar exposure. In addition, 

male bats are more likely to roost in living trees and trees that are smaller, with a 13-inch (33 cm) average 

diameter range-wide. 

3.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Normandeau’s survey was based on a study plan developed specifically for the Bell Bend NPP site, since 

neither the USFWS nor PGC have an official, standardized Indiana bat roost tree survey methodology. 

However, the USFWS provided considerable technical input to the study plan (PPL, 2010). This survey 

encompassed both the interior portions and edges of the Forest Areas proposed for clearing onsite. Forest 

Areas are defined as discrete or closely associated blocks of forest that are separated from other such 

areas by roads, lands formerly in agricultural use and developed properties (Figure 4). Using a subsampling procedure, each Forest Area was characterized by canopy cover and inventoried for potential 

roost trees (PRTs). Forest edges were inventoried for PRTs only. The information collected in the field 

was then used to determine the distribution, density, and quality of available roost trees for Indiana bats 

based on criteria specified by the USFWS and metrics available in the scientific literature (USDOI, 2009). 

3.1 FOREST INTERIORS

Normandeau surveyed all contiguous Forest Areas in which approximately 2 acres (0.8 ha) or greater (18 

total) were proposed for clearing to quantify potential Indiana bat roosting habitat (Figure 4). There were 

nine Forest Areas between 2 acres (0.8 ha) and 10 acres (4 ha) in size and eight Forest Areas greater than 10 

acres (4 ha) in size. A small portion of Forest Area 26 was also surveyed even though it was smaller than 2 

acres (0.8 ha) since temporary impacts to forested wetlands were anticipated. In total, eighteen Forest Areas 

were surveyed when Forest Area 26 was included. Forest areas were surveyed at the rate of one 100-ft (30 

m) radius (0.72 acres, 0.29 ha) sample plot per 5 acres (2 ha), or fraction thereof, using a stratified random 

sampling procedure. ESRI ArcMap software was used to randomly locate plots across each impacted forest 

polygon. An internal 100-ft (30 m) edge buffer was applied to each Forest Area polygon to ensure that all 

plots fell entirely within each polygon, and each polygon was filled with randomly located plots to enable 

stratification for different forest communities, age classes or other features that could affect roost tree 

abundance. The sequence in which the plots were surveyed was also randomly ordered by the ArcMap 

software. When necessary, additional non-random plots were located within the forest areas to ensure that 

sampling was representative of all forest habitats present, particularly forested wetlands. Using sub-meter 

level global positioning system (GPS) units, Normandeau’s field survey teams navigated to the forest plots, 

which were then inventoried for PRTs and characterized by species composition, species dominance, 

diameter (minimum, maximum and average), number of snags and stubs (See Section 3.3). PRT locations 

were taken with a sub-meter GPS and all data was recorded in digital format using a GPS data dictionary. 

In early 2010, the BBNPP Project Boundary and LOD were slightly enlarged to accommodate on-site fill 

placement without impacting wetlands. These boundary changes enlarged the BBNPP site by adding lands 

contiguous to the previous BBNPP boundaries. As a result of these changes, additional roost tree survey 

activities were required to ensure that Forest Areas at BBNPP were consistently investigated and 

characterized; these additional surveys were completed in July, 2011. 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report, Rev 2 

6 

October 2011 

Review of the newly defined boundaries (Figure 3) demonstrates that some of the previously surveyed 

Forest Areas are now outside of the LOD, and that new areas of proposed disturbance have been added to 

the LOD. These new additions represented approximately 37 acres (15 ha) of forest, and included large 

Forest Area totaling 22.1 acres (9 ha) within Forest Areas 15 and 16. These two areas were the focus of the 

supplemental survey activities completed in 2011. The remainder of the newly added forest consists of 

small, scattered forest patches not meeting the defined standard for survey. To complete the supplemental 

survey, two additional 100-ft [30 m] radius sample plots were surveyed in Forest Area 15, and three 

additional sample plots were surveyed in Forest Area 16. 

It should be noted that data collected on Forest Areas that are no longer within the LOD continued to be 

presented in this survey report. The rational for retaining this information is that the forest no longer within 

the LOD is very similar in structure and species composition to the new forest added to the LOD, and is 

representative of habitat within and adjacent to the BBNPP. 

3.2 FOREST EDGES 

Normandeau biologists also inventoried all the edges of the Forest Areas proposed for clearing for all PRTs 

within a distance of approximately 50-feet (15 m) of the forest edge. The 50-foot (15 m) margin has been 

used in published scientific studies (Callahan et al., 1997) and represents a conservative boundary for 

identifying suitable roost trees along forest edges that are likely to receive increased solar radiation relative 

to trees located in forest interior habitats. Locations and data for these PRTs were recorded with a GPS as 

noted above. 

As described in Section 3.1, changes to the Project Boundary and LOD in early 2010 necessitated 

supplemental roost tree survey activities to ensure comprehensive evaluation of forested areas affected by 

BBNPP construction. Significant new forest edges were incorporated into the revised LOD associated with 

Forest Areas 15 and 16, and these edges were surveyed using identical methods to those employed in the 

2010 survey. Accordingly, 1,007 feet (306.9 m) and 1,895 feet (577.6 m) of forest edges were evaluated at 

Forest Areas 15 and 16 respectively. 

As done with the forest interior PRT survey, data from forest edges surveyed in 2010 that now fall outside 

of the LOD continue to be presented in this report. As visible on Figure 3, forest edges no longer within the 

LOD are very close to the LOD and exhibit similar forest structure and composition; consequently this data 

remains germane to this survey. 

3.3 FIELD MEASUREMENTS 

3.3.1 FOREST COVER 

Characterization of the forest cover for each survey-plot encompassed the following information: 1) species 

composition, 2) dominant species, 3) diameter-at-breast-height (dbh) - maximum, minimum and average, 

4) number of snags, 5) number of stubs, 6) date, 7) surveyor, 8) sampling location. Forest cover field 

measurements are explained in more detail below. 

1) Species composition: All trees in the plot were identified to species and a list of species was 

compiled. 

2) Dominant species: Dominance was determined based on a visual assessment of the number and 

relative dbh of stems, and overall canopy cover of each tree species. 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report, Rev 2 

7 

October 2011 

3) Diameter-at-breast-height (dbh): The maximum, minimum and average dbh was determined by 

measuring a representative subsample of trees with a Biltmore stick. Typically, dbh is measured at a 

height of 4.5 feet (1.4 m) on the uphill side of a tree. 

4) Number of snags: Snags were defined as dead trees that still have branches and an overall tree-like 

form. This count was for snags within each forest area that were not structurally suitable as roost trees 

and, therefore, did not qualify as PRTs. 

5) Number of stubs: Stubs were defined as the remaining trunks of long dead trees that were still standing 

but generally lacked branches and no longer had a tree-like form. This count was for stubs within each 

forest area that were not structurally suitable as roost trees and, therefore, did not qualify as PRTs. 

6) Date: The date of the survey was recorded as MMDDYYYY. 

7) Surveyor: The name of the person who identified the tree to species, measured dbh, and determined 

the number of snags and stubs was recorded. If more than one person contributed to the data, then a 

lead and assistant(s) were identified for each line of data. 

8) Sampling location: The latitude and longitude near the center of each forest plot was recorded using a 

sub-meter GPS. 

3.3.2 POTENTIAL ROOST TREES 

All trees in the survey- plots were evaluated for suitability as roosts for Indiana bats using criteria specified 

for this study by the USFWS. A tree was designated as a PRT if it had a 5 inch (13 cm) or greater dbh and 

suitable roost structure in the form of exfoliating or defoliating bark, crevices and/or cavities. The following 

information was recorded for each PRT: 1) species, 2) diameter-at-breast-height, 3) roost tree condition 

(live, dead, or partially dead), 4) type of roost structure(s) (bark, crevice, and/or cavity), 5) date, 6) 

surveyor, 7) sampling location (GPS coordinates), and 8) roost tree potential (high, medium or low). PRT 

field measurements are explained in more detail below. 

1) Species identification: All trees were identified to species. Dead trees and snags that were too far 

decayed for identification were designated as unknown. 

2) Diameter-at-breast-height (dbh): The dbh of each roost tree was measured to the nearest inch using a 

Biltmore stick. 

3) Roost tree condition (live, dead, or partially dead): Trees designated as live were healthy in appearance 

and had more than 80% live canopy. Trees designated as partially dead had 10-80% live canopy. 

Trees designated as dead encompassed snags and trees with less than 10% live canopy. 

4) Type of roost structure: The type(s) of roost structure on the tree were identified as bark (exfoliating or 

defoliating bark), longitudinal crevices within the trunk and large branches, and/or internal cavities that 

were accessible by bats through above ground openings but not easily accessed by potential predators 

at ground level. 

5) Date: The date of the survey was recorded as MMDDYYYY. 

6) Surveyor: The name of the person who identified the tree to species, measured dbh, and classified 

roost tree condition; type of roost structure(s) and roost tree potential was recorded. If more than one 

person contributed to the data, then a lead and assistant(s) were identified for each line of data. 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report, Rev 2 

8 

October 2011 

7) Sampling location: The latitude and longitude at the base of each roost tree was recorded using a submeter GPS. A single GPS location was taken at the center of clumps or otherwise closely associated 

groups of suitable roost trees; however, the trees were inventoried separately. 

8) Roost tree potential - Trees were categorized as having a “high,” “moderate,” or “low” potential for 

serving as a roost tree for Indiana bats: 

High – Live, dead, and partially dead trees that are ≥16” (41 cm) dbh and have roost structure. 

Medium – Live, dead, and partially dead trees that are 9” (23 cm) to 15” (38 m) dbh and have roost 

structure. 

Low – Live, dead, and partially dead trees that are 5” (13 cm) to 8” (20 cm) dbh and have roost 

structure. 

9) Setting: The location (edge or interior) in which the tree was located. 

4.0 RESULTS 

4.1 FOREST COVER CHARACTERIZATION

The forest cover totaling 46.2 acres (18.7 ha), of which 41.7 acres (16.9 ha) are upland and 4.5 acres (1.8 

ha) are wetland, was characterized using the sub-sampling methodology described in Section 3.1. Results 

are presented here by forest plot (Table A-1). The majority of the upland forest cover was dominated by 

red maple (Acer rubrum) with red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), and sweet birch 

(Betula lenta) being less common dominant tree species. Red maple was also the most common 

subdominant tree species in upland forest plots with white oak, black cherry (Prunus serotina), and black 

oak (Quercus velutina) being less common subdominants. The majority of the wetland forest cover was 

dominated by red maple with pin oak (Quercus palustris), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), tulip poplar 

(Liriodendron tulipfera), and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) being less common dominant tree 

species. Pin oak was the most common subdominant tree species in wetlands followed by red maple, 

black cherry, black walnut (Juglans nigra), and river birch (Betula lenta). See Table A-1 for a complete 

list of dominant and subdominant tree species by upland and wetland forest cover plots. Other species 

that were commonly observed in the overstory are listed in Table 3. 

A review of available archival aerial photographs for the vicinity of the Bell Bend NPP project area 

indicates that in 1939 most of the Forest Areas surveyed for this study had limited or no forest cover 

(PDCNR, 2010). However, by 1959 many of these areas had forest cover and by 1969 most but not all were 

vegetated by forest. Therefore, many of the mature trees onsite are at least 40 years old and some are 70 

years or more in age. Our field survey indicated that the larger and older trees primarily occurred in 

wetlands, on steep slopes, or in generally inaccessible areas that were not historically tilled. 

Across all eighteen Forest Areas surveyed (Figure 4), the minimum dbh ranged from 3 inches (8 cm) to 8 

inches (20 cm) and the maximum dbh ranged from 10 inches (25 cm) to 60 inches (152 cm) (Table 4). The 

average number of PRTs was 14, the average number of snags was eight, and the average number of stubs 

was 18. For this survey, snags and stubs (defined in Section 3.3) do not qualify as PRTs due to a lack of 

suitable roosting structure. However, they may have been PRTs in the past and illustrate the ephemeral 

nature of Indiana bat roost trees. 

The average maximum dbh across all Forest Area survey plots was 21 inches (53 cm) with 31 of 69 plots 

(45 percent) having a maximum dbh greater than 20 inches (51 cm) (Table A-1). The average minimum 

dbh across all plots was 4 inches (10 cm). The average number of PRTs across all plots was four. Snags 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report, Rev 2 

9 

October 2011 

and stubs were relatively common, with only five of the 69 plots (7 percent) having no stubs or snags and 56 

plots (81 percent) having more than one stub/snag. 

When survey plots were separated into upland and wetland, the average minimum dbh was 4 inches (10 cm) 

for both upland and wetland plots. The average maximum dbh was larger across all wetland plots than 

upland plots (26 inches [66 cm] vs. 20 inches [51 cm]). The average number of PRTs for all upland plots 

and wetland plots was four and three, respectively. Snags and stubs were more common in upland plots 

than wetland plots, with only three of the 58 upland plots (5 percent) having no stubs or snags and two of 

the 11 wetland plots (18 percent) having no stubs or snags. In addition, only five of 11 wetland plots (45 

percent) had more than a single stub/snag as opposed to 51 of 58 upland plots (88 percent) (Table A-1). 

4.2 POTENTIAL ROOST TREES 

4.2.1 INTERIOR FOREST

A total of 46.2 acres (18.7 ha) of forest was surveyed for PRTs (41.7 upland acres [16.9 ha], 4.5 wetland 

acres [1.8 ha]). Out of the 255 PRTs in the interior forest survey area, 118 were live, 114 were dead, and 23 

were partially dead (Table 5). The average dbh for all PRTs observed in the forest interior was 14 inches 

(36 cm) (Table C-1). In regards to roost type, 252 PRTs offered potential roost sites in the form of 

exfoliating or defoliating bark, 13 PRTs had suitable crevices, and 5 PRTs had suitable cavities. A 

summary of interior forest PRTs by Forest Area survey plot is provided in Table B-1 and a comprehensive 

list of all PRTs (interior forest and edge) with individual PRT identification numbers is provided in Table C1. The locations of survey plots, interior forest PRTs and forest edge PRTs for each surveyed Forest Area 

are shown in the figures enclosed in Appendix D. Photographs of representative PRTs are provided in 

Appendix E. 

PRT densities were evaluated for the site as a whole and by surveyed Forest Area against U.S. 

Department of the Interior (USDOI) standards for suitable Indiana bat summer habitat which recommend a 

minimum of 6 PRTs/acre (14.8 PRTs/ha) for interior forest. The 255 PRTs identified within the interior 

forest area yielded an estimated 5.5 PRTs/acre (13.6 PRTs/ha) and five of the 18 Forest Areas provided 

greater than 6 PRTs/acre (14.8 PRTs/ha) (Table 6). Within the upland plots, 219 PRTs were identified, 

yielding an estimated 5.2 PRTs/acre (13.0 PRTs/ha) and within the wetland plots, 36 PRTs were identified, 

yielding an estimated 8.1 PRTs/acre (19.9 PRTs/ha). 

PRT quality for the surveyed area as a whole and by surveyed Forest Area was evaluated based on the 

density of “high,” “moderate,” or “low” roost trees as determined by the USFWS PRT ranking system. 

Seventy-eight PRTs were determined to be of high roost potential with 111 being of medium potential and 

66 considered PRTs of low potential. As a whole, the interior forest portion yielded an estimate of 1.7 high 

PRTs/acre (4.2 high PRTs/ha), 2.4 medium PRTs/acre (5.9 medium PRTs/ha), and 1.4 low PRTs/acre (3.5 

low PRTs/ha) (Table 6). Forest Areas 7, 8 and 9 had the highest numbers of high potential roost trees with 

12, 11 and 27, respectively. However when analyzed by high PRTs/acre, Forest Areas 8, 10 and 11 were 

highest with 3.5 high PRTs/acre (8.7 high PRTs/ha), 3.9 high PRTs/acre (9.7 medium PRTs/ha) and 4.1 

high PRTs/acre (10.0 low PRTs/ha), respectively. 

When broken into uplands and wetlands, 60 PRTs were determined to be of high potential in the surveyed 

uplands with 100 being of medium potential, and 59 were considered PRTs of low potential (Table 6). The 

surveyed uplands portions yielded an estimate of 1.4 high PRTs/acre (3.6 high PRTs/ha), 2.4 medium 

PRTs/acre (5.9 medium PRTs/ha), and 1.4 low PRTs/acre (3.5 low PRTs/ha). Eighteen PRTs were 

determined to be of high roost potential in the surveyed wetlands with 11 being of medium potential and 7 

considered PRTs of low potential. The surveyed wetlands portions yielded an estimate of 4.0 high 

PRTs/acre (9.9 high PRTs/ha), 2.5 medium PRTs/acre (6.1 medium PRTs/ha), and 1.6 low PRTs/acre (3.9 

low PRTs/ha). 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report, Rev 2 

10 

October 2011 

4.2.2 FOREST EDGE

Approximately 75,581ft (23,035 m) of forest edge were surveyed for the presence of PRTs. Out of the 286 

PRTs identified, 192 were live, 77 were dead, and 17 were partially dead (Table 7). The average dbh for 

PRTs observed on the forest edge was 14 inches (36 cm) (Table C-1). In regards to roost type, 295 PRTs 

offered potential roost sites in the form of exfoliating or defoliating bark, 4 PRT had a crevice suitable for 

roosting, and 1 PRT had a cavity suitable for roosting. 

PRT densities were evaluated for the site as a whole and by surveyed Forest Area edges against USDOI 

standards for suitable Indiana bat summer habitat which recommend a minimum of 1 PRT/500 ft (1 

PRT/152 m) along forest edges. The 286 PRTs observed along the forest edge yielded 1.9 PRTs/500 ft (1.9 

PRTs/152 m) with 13 of the 18 Forest Areas providing greater than 1 PRTs/500 ft (1 PRTs/152 m) (Table 

8). Potential roost trees located along edges were most common in Forest Area 1 and 5 with 8.0 PRTs/500 

ft (8.0 PRTs/152 m) and 5.3 PRTs/500 ft (5.3 PRTs/152 m), respectively. PRTs were absent or below 1 

PRTs/500 ft in Forest Area 12, 15, 17, 25 and 29 (Table 8). 

PRT quality for the surveyed area as a whole and by surveyed Forest Area edges was evaluated based on 

the density of “high,” “moderate,” or “low” roost trees as determined by the USFWS PRT ranking system. 

Ninety-two PRTs were determined to be of high roost potential with 121 being of medium potential and 73 

considered PRTs of low potential (Table 7). The forest edges as a whole yielded an estimate of 0.6 high 

PRTs/500 ft (0.6 high PRTs/152 m), 0.8 medium PRTs/500 ft (0.8 medium PRTs/152 m), and 0.5 low 

PRTs/500 ft (0.5 low PRTs/152 m) (Table 8). Forest Areas 9, 10 and 18 had the highest numbers of high 

potential roost trees with 26, 10 and 19, respectively. However when analyzed by high potential PRTs/500 

ft (high potential PRTs/152 m), Forest Areas 11, 16 and 18 were highest with 1.2 high PRTs/500 ft (1.2 high 

PRTs/152 m), 1.3 high PRTs/500 ft (1.3 high PRTs/152 m), 3.1 high PRTs/500 ft (3.1 high PRTs/152 m), 

respectively. 

5.0 DISCUSSION 

5.1 HABITAT QUALITY

The forested habitat on the Bell Bend NPP site provides abundant foraging opportunities for bats in general, 

including the Indiana bat. Bats often forage over water and wetlands, and along forest edges. Standing 

water is present in most of the wetlands on the Bell Bend NPP site, depending on time of year and 

precipitation received. In normal years, many of the wetlands on the Bell Bend NPP site hold water yearround. Wetlands make a small portion of the Forest Areas to be impacted (11.3 wetland acres [4.6 ha] out 

of approximately 233.5 forested acres [94.5 ha]). The majority of forested areas to be impacted are uplands. 

5.1.1 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF PRTS IN FOREST INTERIOR AND EDGE

Interior forest areas surveyed for this study as a whole, and when subdivided into wetlands and uplands 

essentially met or exceeded the recommended 6 PRTs/acre (14.8 PRTs/ha) for suitable Indiana bat summer 

roosting habitat (USDOI, 2009). Wetlands at 8.1 PRTs/acre (19.9 PRTs/ha) exceeded the threshold, and 

interior forest as a whole (5.5 PRTs/acre [13.6 PRTs/ha]) and uplands (5.2 PRTs/acre [13.0 PRTs/ha]) were 

just slightly below the threshold (Figure 5). Analysis by Forest Area illustrated the patchy nature of PRT 

distribution (Figure 6). Five Forest Areas (1, 8, 9, 10, and 12) ranged from 6.6 PRTs/acre (16.1 PRTs/ha) to 

19.4 PRTs/acre (48.3 PRTs/ha) and exceeded the threshold while Forest Area 11 was slightly below the 

threshold at 5.5 PRTs/acre (13.3 PRTs/ha) (Table 6). The remaining Forest Areas provided moderate to low 

PRT densities at 4.7 PRTs/ acre (11.6 PRTs/ha) to 0.7 PRTs/acre (1.7 PRTs/ha). 

Surveyed Forest Area edges also provide PRTs at densities suitable for Indiana bat summer roosting habitat. 

At 1.9 PRTs/500 ft (1.9 PRTs/152 m), the surveyed forest edge as a whole exceeds the USDOI 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report, Rev 2 

11 

October 2011 

recommended 1 PRT/500 ft (1 PRT/152 m). When analyzed by Forest Area, 13 of the 18 forest areas (1, 3, 

5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 26) at 1.1 PRTS/500 ft (1.1 PRTs/152 m) to 8.0 PRTs/500 ft (8.0 

PRTs/152 m) exceeded the USDOI threshold (Table 8). Potential roost trees were most common along 

edges in Forest Area 1 and 5 with 8.0 PRTs/500 ft (8.0 PRTs/152 m) and 5.3 PRTs/500 ft (5.3 PRTs/152 

m), respectively. PRTs were absent or below 1 PRTs/500 ft (1 PRTs/152 m) in Forest Area 12, 15, 17, 25 

and 29, only, which ranged from 0 PRTs/500 ft (0 PRTs/152 m) to 0.7 PRTs/500 ft (0.7 PRTs/152 m). 

5.1.2 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF HIGH PRTS IN FOREST INTERIOR AND EDGE

Alternatively, the concentration of high potential, PRTs as specified by the USFWS, may be used to 

determine the surveyed Forest Areas that may serve as the most suitable summer habitat for Indiana bats. 

The surveyed interior forest as a whole yielded an estimate of 1.7 high PRTs/acre (4.2 high PRTs/ha), 2.4 

medium PRTs/acre (5.9 medium PRTs/ha), and 1.4 low PRTs/acre (3.6 low PRTs/ha). Forest Areas 8, 10 

and 11 had the greatest densities of high PRTs/acre at 3.5 high PRTs/acre (8.7 high PRTs/ha), 3.9 high 

PRTs/acre (9.7 medium PRTs/ha) and 4.1 high PRTs/acre (10.0 low PRTs/ha), respectively (Figure 6). 

Subdividing the interior forest into wetlands and uplands indicated that wetlands provided higher densities 

of high PRTs (4.0 high PRTs/acre [9.9 high PRTs/ha] vs. 1.4 high PRTs/acre [3.6 high PRTs/ha]), similar 

densities of medium PRTs (2.5 medium PRTs/acre [6.1 medium PRTs/ha] vs. 2.4 medium PRTs/acre [5.9 

medium PRTs/ha]) and similar densities of low PRTs (1.6 low PRTs/acre [3.9 low PRTs/ha] vs. 1.4 low 

PRTs/acre [3.5 low PRTs/ha]). 

The surveyed Forest Area edges as a whole yielded an estimate of 0.6 high PRTs/500 ft (0.6 high PRTs/152 

m), 0.8 medium PRTs/500 ft (0.8 medium PRTs/152 m), and 0.5 low PRTs/500 ft (0.5 low PRTs/152 m). 

Forest Areas 11, 16 and 18 had the greatest densities of high PRTs/acre (high PRTs/152 m) with 1.2 high 

PRTs/500 ft (1.2 high PRTs/152 m), 1.3 high PRTs/500 ft (1.3 high PRTs/152 m), 3.1 high PRTs/500 ft (3.1 

high PRTs/152 m), respectively. 

6.0 CONCLUSIONS 

Some of the interior forest and many of the forest edges surveyed for this study provided densities of PRTs 

suitable for Indiana bat roosting habitat based on USDOI criteria. For interior forest, five Forest Areas (1, 8, 

9, 10, and 12) exceeded the USDOI recommended threshold of 6 PRTs/acre (14.8 PRTs/ha). Forest Area 11 

was just slightly below the threshold and the remaining Forest Areas (3, 5, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25 and 

26) were below the threshold. For forest edges, 13 of the 18 Forest Areas (1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 

18, and 26) exceeded the USDOI recommended threshold of 1 PRT/500 ft (1 PRT/152 m). PRTs were 

absent or below the threshold along the edges of Forest Area 12, 15, 17, 25 and 29. 

Additionally, based on the USDOI and USFWS criteria, forested wetlands provided higher quality roosting 

habitat than forested uplands at the site. Forested wetlands had higher overall densities of interior forest 

PRTs and higher overall densities of high PRTs than upland forests. 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report, Rev 2 

12 

October 2011 

7.0 LITERATURE CITED 

Callahan et al., 1997 Callahan, E. V., R. D. Drobney, and R. L. Clawson. 1997. Selection of 

summer roosting sites by Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in Missouri. Journal of 

Mammalogy, 78:818-825.

PDCNR, 2010 PDCNR Pennsylvania Geological Survey Historical Aerial Photo Library. 2010. 

Website: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/library/aerials.aspx, date accessed, 

November 2009. 

PPL, 2010. Letter from Terry L. Harpster, PPL Bell Bend LLC, to Carole Copeyon, USFWS, 

“Indiana Bat Roost Tree Survey Study Plan”, BNP-2010-235, 

September 27, 2010. 

USDOI, 2009 U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI). 2009. Range-wide Indiana Bat 

Protection and Enhancement Plan Guidelines. Website: 

http://www.osmre.gov/guidance/docs/INBatPEPGuidelines.pdf, date accessed, 

November 2010. 

USFWS, 2007 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft 

Recovery Plan: First Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 

258 pp. 

USFWS, 2009 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Letter from David Densmore to 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Re: Requested Comments on the 

Environmental Scoping Process and Federally Protected Species within the Areas 

Affected by the Proposed Construction and Operation of the PPL Bell Bend 

Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), Berwick, Luzerne County, PA dated July 10, 2009. 

Controlled Document
TABLES

Controlled Document
Forest

Area 2 Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Uplands Wetlands Total

1 53.45 21.63 48.95 19.81 4.50 1.82 4.50 1.82 NI NI 1 0 1

2 16.31 6.60 16.24 6.57 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.03 NI NI 0 0 0

3 32.65 13.21 13.27 5.37 19.39 7.85 19.39 7.85 NI NI 4 0 4

4 5.39 2.18 5.39 2.18 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 0 0

5 60.69 24.56 52.76 21.35 7.92 3.21 7.92 3.21 NI NI 2 0 2

6 8.47 3.43 8.47 3.43 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 0 0

7 59.12 23.92 32.14 13.01 26.97 10.92 26.97 10.92 NI NI 6 0 6

8 20.72 8.38 3.58 1.45 17.14 6.94 16.16 6.54 0.99 0.40 3 2 5

9 85.80 34.72 30.20 12.26 55.60 22.46 50.03 20.21 5.57 2.25 10 4 14

10 14.45 5.84 5.85 2.37 8.60 3.47 8.52 3.45 0.08 0.03 2 2 4

11 5.16 2.09 2.84 1.15 2.32 0.94 2.31 0.94 0.01 0.00 1 1 2

12 17.05 6.90 5.09 2.07 11.96 4.83 10.82 4.37 1.14 0.46 2 1 3

13 16.49 6.67 13.31 5.39 3.18 1.29 3.18 1.29 NI NI 1 0 1

14 21.63 8.75 0 0 21.63 8.75 21.63 8.75 NI NI 5 0 5

15 26.00 10.52 9.12 3.69 16.89 6.83 16.89 6.83 NI NI 4 0 4

16 15.04 6.09 13.02 5.27 2.02 0.82 2.02 0.82 NI NI 1 0 1

17 194.41 78.54 172.82 69.80 21.59 8.74 21.59 8.74 NI NI 5 0 5

18 17.80 7.19 13.19 5.33 4.61 1.86 4.61 1.86 NI NI 2 0 2

19 4.14 1.68 4.14 1.68 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 0 0

20 2.37 0.96 2.37 0.96 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 0 0

21 14.71 5.95 14.71 5.95 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 0 0

Total Forest Impact 3

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Upland and Wetland Forest Clearing Impacts Within the Bell Bend NPP Project Site (2010 LOD Boundary).1

Uplands Forest Impact 3 Wetlands Forest Impact 3, 4 Number of Survey Plots 5 Pre-construction Size Post-construction Size

Controlled Document
Forest

Area 2 Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Uplands Wetlands Total

22 17.11 6.93 17.11 6.93 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 0 0

23 5.32 2.15 5.32 2.15 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 0 0

24 9.62 3.89 9.61 3.89 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 NI NI 0 0 0

25 19.14 7.75 11.71 4.74 7.43 3.01 7.43 3.01 NI NI 2 0 2

26 29.67 11.99 28.37 11.46 1.30 0.53 1.30 0.53 0 6 0 1 0 1

27 19.07 7.70 19.07 7.70 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 0 0

28 0.33 0.13 0.33 0.13 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 0 0

29 49.12 18.19 46.73 17.22 2.39 0.97 1.98 0.79 0.41 6 0.16 1 1 2

30 2.09 0.85 2.09 0.85 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 0 0

31 0.11 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.03 NI NI 0 0 0

32 1.86 0.75 1.86 0.75 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 0 0

33 0.88 0.36 0.88 0.36 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 0 0

Total = 846.17 340.55 610.58 245.27 235.58 95.28 227.39 91.99 8.20 3.30 53 11 64

6

 Temporary forested wetlands impacts associated with pipelines in Forest Areas 26 and 29 are currently unknown.

1

 Based on Sargent & Lundy Limit of Disturbance drawing SK-12198-421-001, rev. 1, 4/14/10; BBNPP NRC Environmental Report - Section 2.4.1, Plant Communities Map, Figure 

2.4.1-2, rev. 2, 10/01/2010; and BBNPP Wetlands Delineation and Exceptional Values Analysis Report (rev. 5, November 2010). 

5

 Wetland forest areas proposed for clearing were surveyed in their entirety except for Forest Area 9.

Table 1. Continued.

Pre-construction Size Post-construction Size Total Forest Impact 3 Uplands Forest Impact3 Wetlands Forest Impact 3, 4

4

 Wetlands data is based on BBNPP NRC Environmental Report - Section 2.4.1, Plant Communities Map, Figure 2.4.1-2 ( rev. 2, 10/01/2010), and BBNPP Wetlands Delineation and 

Exceptional Values Analysis Report (rev. 5, November 2010). 

Number of Survey Plots 5

2

 See Figure 3. Bell Bend NPP Forest Areas.

3

 No impact = NI and 0.00 indicates that impacts were less than 1/100 of an acre/hectare.

Controlled Document
Forest

Area 2 Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Uplands Wetlands Total

1 60.33 24.41 55.29 22.37 5.04 2.04 5.04 2.04 0.00 0.00 101

2 18.15 7.34 18.01 7.28 0.14 0.06 0.14 0.06 NI NI 0003 34.79 14.08 12.02 4.86 22.77 9.22 21.28 8.61 1.50 0.61 404

4 6.60 2.67 6.60 2.67 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0005 57.02 23.08 49.82 20.16 7.20 2.92 6.76 2.74 0.45 0.18 202

6 10.09 4.08 10.09 4.08 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0007 58.12 23.52 36.89 14.93 21.23 8.59 21.23 8.59 NI NI 6068 20.69 8.37 5.55 2.24 15.14 6.13 14.47 5.86 0.67 0.27 3259 85.81 34.73 29.52 11.95 56.29 22.78 49.89 20.19 6.40 2.59 10 4 14

10 13.45 5.44 9.97 4.04 3.47 1.40 3.39 1.37 0.08 0.03 123

11 5.16 2.09 2.88 1.17 2.28 0.92 2.28 0.92 NI NI 112

12 17.09 6.92 6.48 2.63 10.61 4.29 9.57 3.87 1.04 0.42 213

13 17.51 7.09 15.24 6.17 2.27 0.92 2.27 0.92 NI NI 101

14 22.30 9.02 0.27 0.10 22.03 8.92 22.03 8.92 NI NI 505

15 26.09 10.56 0.34 0.14 25.75 10.42 25.75 10.42 NI NI 606

16 16.69 6.76 0.49 0.20 16.21 6.56 16.21 6.56 NI NI 404

17 198.06 80.15 189.03 76.49 9.04 3.66 9.04 3.66 NI NI 101

18 33.19 13.43 28.49 11.53 4.70 1.90 4.70 1.90 NI NI 202

19 4.08 1.65 4.08 1.65 NI NI NI NI NI NI 000

20 2.47 1.00 2.47 1.00 NI NI NI NI NI NI 000

21 14.71 5.95 14.71 5.95 NI NI NI NI NI NI 000

Table 2. Summary of Proposed Upland and Wetland Forest Clearing Impacts Within the Bell Bend NPP Project Site (2011 LOD Boundary).1

Pre‐construction Size Post‐construction Size Total Forest Impact 3 Uplands Forest Impact 3 Wetlands Forest Impact 3, 4 Number of Survey Plots

ControlledDocument
Forest

Area 2 Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Uplands Wetlands Total

22 17.38 7.03 17.38 7.03 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 0 0

23 5.31 2.15 5.31 2.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NI NI 0 0 0

24 9.84 3.98 9.84 3.98 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 NI NI 0 0 0

25 19.10 7.73 14.47 5.86 4.63 1.87 4.63 1.87 0.00 0.00 1 0 1

26 31.51 12.75 31.31 12.67 0.20 0.08 NI NI 0.20 0.08 0 0 0

27 22.90 9.27 22.90 9.27 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 0 0

28 0.33 0.13 0.33 0.13 NI NI NI NI NI NI 0 0 0

29 49.08 19.86 46.22 18.71 2.85 1.15 1.84 0.74 1.01 0.41 1 1 2

30 2.54 1.03 2.53 1.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 NI NI 0 0 0

31 0.33 0.14 0.19 0.08 0.15 0.06 0.15 0.06 NI NI 0 0 0

32 1.62 0.66 1.43 0.58 0.19 0.08 0.19 0.08 NI NI 0 0 0

33 2.73 1.11 1.41 0.58 1.32 0.53 1.32 0.53 NI NI 0 0 0

Total = 885.08 358.18 651.55 263.65 233.53 94.51 222.18 89.92 11.34 4.59 51 11 62

1 Based on Pennoni Associates Limit of Disturbance drawing, rev. 2, 8/25/11; BBNPP NRC Environmental Report ‐ Section 2.4.1, Plant Communities Map, Figure 2.4.1‐2, rev. 5, 9/2011;

and BBNPP Wetlands Delineation and Exceptional Values Analysis Report (rev. 7, September 2011).

Table 2. Continued.

Pre‐construction Size Post‐construction Size Total Forest Impact 3 Uplands Forest Impact3 Wetlands Forest Impact 3, 4

4 Wetlands data is based on BBNPP NRC Environmental Report ‐ Section 2.4.1, Plant Communities Map, Figure 2.4.1‐2 ( rev. 5, 9/2011), and BBNPP Wetlands Delineation and

Exceptional Values Analysis Report (rev. 7, September 2011).

Number of Survey Plots

2 See Figure 3. Bell Bend NPP Forest Areas.3 No impact = NI and 0.00 indicates that impacts were less than 1/100 of an acre/hectare.

ControlledDocument
Table 3. Trees Observed in Forest Areas at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Acer saccharinum silver maple 

Acer rubrum red maple 

Ailanthus altissima tree-of-heaven 

Betula alleghaniensis yellow birch 

Betula lenta sweet birch 

Betula nigra river birch 

Betula populifolia gray birch 

Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory 

Carya ovata shagbark hickory 

Carya tomentosa mockernut hickory 

Celtis occidentalis hackberry 

Cornus florida flowering dogwood 

Fagus grandifolia American beech 

Fraxinus americana 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica 

white ash 

green ash 

Juglans nigra black walnut 

Juniperus virginiana eastern red cedar 

Liriodendron tulipifera yellow poplar 

Malus spp. apples 

Nyssa sylvatica black gum 

Pinus resinosa red pine 

Pinus strobus eastern white pine 

Pinus sylvestris Scots pine 

Platanus occidentalis 

Populus deltoides

American sycamore 

eastern cottonwood 

Populus tremuloides quaking aspen 

Prunus serotina black cherry 

Quercus alba white oak 

Quercus bicolor swamp white oak 

Quercus palustris pin oak 

Quercus rubra northern red oak 

Quercus velutina black oak 

Robinia pseudoacacia black locust 

Sassafras albidum sassafras 

Tilia americana American basswood 

Tsuga canadensis eastern hemlock 

Ulmus rubra slippery elm 

Controlled Document
Inches Centimeters Inches Centimeters Inches Centimeters

1 Red oak Mockernut hickory 20 51 3 8 12 30 14 6 19

3 Red maple none 15 to 30 38 to 76 3 8 10 to 12 25 to 30 8 14 27

5 White oak, Red pine none 10 to 14 25 to 36 3 8 8 to 9 20 to 23 1 8 32

7 White oak, Red oak, Red maple Red oak, White oak, Black oak, Black cherry 17 to 30 43 to 76 3 to 4 8 to 10 10 to 14 25 to 36 20 14 37

8 Shagbark hickory, Red maple, Sweet

birch, Black locust

White oak, Red maple,

Black walnut

11 to 16 28 to 41 3 to 6 8 to 15 7 to 12 18 to 30 38 22 16

9

Red maple, White oak, Red oak, Sweet

birch, Mockernut hickory, Red pine,Tulip poplar

Red maple, Red oak, Pinoak, Black cherry 12 to 60 30 to 152 3 to 8 8 to 20 6 to 23 15 to 58 80 21 50

10 Red oak, Red maple, Pin oak Red maple, Black cherry 23 to 33 58 to 84 4 to 6 10 to 15 9 to 15 23 to 38 10 3 9

11 White pine, Pin oak none 11 to 23 28 to 58 3 to 5 8 to 13 6 to 14 15 to 36 4 1 3

12 Black oak, Red maple, Sweet birch Pin oak, Black oak 14 to 28 36 to 71 3 to 4 8 to 10 9 to 13 23 to 33 17 2 2013 Sweet birch none 22 56 5 13 12 30 2 0 2

14 Red maple none 11 to 18 28 to 46 3 to 4 8 to 10 8 to 10 20 to 25 17 5 8

15 Quaking aspen, Sassafras, Red maple,

Black oak

Red maple, Scots pine 10 to 21 25 to 53 3 to 7 8 to 18 7 to 10 18 to 25 12 13 31

16 Red oak, Black oak, Black cherry Red maple, Scots pine, Mockernut hickory 15 to 26 38 to 66 4 to 6 10 to 15 9 to 12 23 to 30 9 6 12

17 Red maple none 16 to 24 41 to 61 3 to 4 8 to 10 10 to 12 25 to 30 10 12 37

18 White pine, Silver maple none 12 to 17 30 to 43 4 to 7 10 to 18 10 to 11 25 to 28 5 7 0

25 White oak, Black cherry none 16 to 40 41 to 102 3 to 4 8 to 10 10 to 12 25 to 30 5 2 6

26 White oak Red maple 18 46 5 13 12 30 2 1 2

29 Red oak, Silver maple River birch 17 to 42 43 to 107 3 to 5 8 to 13 10 to 15 25 to 38 1 2 15

Cumulative Forest Area Totals 255 139 326

Cumulative Forest Area Averages 14 8 18

1DBH = Diameter at breast height2PRTs = Potential Roost Trees3Number of snags = snags that didn't qualify as roost trees4Number of stubs = stubs that didn't qualify as roost trees

Table 4. Characteristics of Forest Cover Areas Proposed for Clearing at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site.

Maximum DBH1 Range Minimum DBH1 Range Average DBH1 Range Forest Area

Number Dominant Tree Species

SubdominantTree Species

Number

of PRTs2

Number

of Snags3

Number

of Stubs4

ControlledDocument
Inches Centimeters Live PD2 Dead Bark Crevice Cavity Low Medium High

1 Red oak, White oak, Black oak, Shagbark hickory, Unknown 7 to 16 18 to 41 3 0 11 14 0 0 5 8 1

3 Black cherry, Red maple, White pine 9 to 21 23 to 53 2 4 2 8 0 0 0 7 15 Shagbark hickory 8 20 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

7 Red maple, White oak, Red oak, Black walnut, Red pine, Black cherry, Sassafras, Unknown 7 to 32 18 to 81 9 4 7 19 2 2 2 6 12

8

Red maple, Shagbark hickory, White ash, Black

cherry, White oak, Scots pine, Sweet birch, Blacklocust, American basswood

6 to 25 15 to 64 24 2 12 38 4 1 7 20 11

9

Red maple, White ash, Black cherry, Red pine,Shagbark hickory, White oak, Pin oak, River 5 to 60 13 to 152 48 8 24 79 5 1 17 36 27

10 Shagbark hickory, White oak, Red oak, Red maple, Black gum, Unknown 7 to 28 18 to 71 7 1 2 9 1 1 0 4 6

11 White pine, White oak, Unknown 14 to 36 36 to 91 2 0 2 4 1 0 0 1 3

12 Shagbark hickory, White oak, White pine, Unknown 6 to 28 15 to 71 9 0 8 17 0 0 1 11 5

13 Sweet birch, Unknown 20 to 23 51 to 58 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2

14 Red maple, Unknown 6 to 13 15 to 33 2 0 15 17 0 0 12 5 0

15 Red maple, Red pine, Quaking aspen, Sassafras 6 to 13 15 to 33 0 4 8 12 0048016 Red maple, Black oak 7 to 34 18 to 86 3 0 6 9 0 0 5 0 417 Red maple, Bigtooth aspen, Unknown 6 to 13 15 to 33 1 0 9 10 0082018 White pine, Silver maple 7 to 21 18 to 53 2 0 3 5 0 0 2 0 325 White oak, Black cherry, Unknown 7 to 40 18 to 102 3 0 2 5 0 0 1 3 1

26 Shagbark hickory, White oak, Black cherry, Black locust, Unknown 40 to 46 102 to 117 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2

29 Unknown 15 38 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

Notes: Cumulative Forest Area Totals 118 23 114 252 13 5 66 111 78

1DBH = Diameter at breast height2PD = Partially dead

Table 5. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees in the Interior Forest Areas at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site.

Forest Area

Survey Plot

Number

Roost Potential Condition

Tree Species

Roost Type DBH Range 1

ControlledDocument
Forest Area Acres Hectares Number PRTs/Acre PRTs/Hectare Number PRTs/Acre PRTs/Hectare Number PRTs/Acre PRTs/Hectare Number PRTs/Acre PRTs/Hectare

1 0.72 0.29 14 19.4 48.3 1 1.4 3.4 8 11.1 27.6 5 6.9 17.2

3 2.88 1.17 8 2.8 6.8 1 0.3 0.9 7 2.4 6.0 0 0.0 0.0

5 1.44 0.58 1 0.7 1.7 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 1 0.7 1.7

7 4.32 1.75 20 4.6 11.4 12 2.8 6.9 6 1.4 3.4 2 0.5 1.1

8 3.15 1.27 38 12.1 29.9 11 3.5 8.7 20 6.3 15.7 7 2.2 5.5

9 9.15 3.70 80 8.7 21.6 27 3.0 7.3 36 3.9 9.7 17 1.9 4.6

10 1.52 0.62 10 6.6 16.1 6 3.9 9.7 4 2.6 6.5 0 0.0 0.0

11 0.73 0.30 4 5.5 13.3 3 4.1 10.0 1 1.4 3.3 0 0.0 0.0

12 2.47 1.00 17 6.9 17.0 5 2.0 5.0 11 4.5 11.0 1 0.4 1.0

13 0.72 0.28 2 2.8 7.1 2 2.8 7.1 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0

14 3.60 1.46 17 4.7 11.6 0 0.0 0.0 5 1.4 3.4 12 3.3 8.2

15 4.32 1.75 12 2.8 6.9 0 0.0 0.0 8 1.9 4.6 4 0.9 2.3

16 2.88 1.17 9 3.1 7.7 4 1.4 3.4 0 0.0 0.0 5 1.7 4.3

17 3.60 1.46 10 2.8 6.8 0 0.0 0.0 2 0.6 1.4 8 2.2 5.5

18 1.44 0.58 5 3.5 8.6 3 2.1 5.2 0 0.0 0.0 2 1.4 3.4

25 1.44 0.58 5 3.5 8.6 1 0.7 1.7 3 2.1 5.2 1 0.7 1.7

26 0.72 0.29 2 2.8 6.9 2 2.8 6.9 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0

29 1.13 0.46 1 0.9 2.2 1 0.9 2.2 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0

Interior Forest Totals 46.23 18.71 255 N/A N/A 78 N/A N/A 111 N/A N/A 66 N/A N/A

Wetlands Totals 4.47 1.81 36 N/A N/A 18 N/A N/A 11 N/A N/A 7 N/A N/A

Uplands Totals 41.76 16.90 219 N/A N/A 60 N/A N/A 100 N/A N/A 59 N/A N/A

Interior Forest PRT1

Density2 N/A N/A N/A 5.5 13.6 N/A 1.7 4.2 N/A 2.4 5.9 N/A 1.4 3.5

Wetlands PRT1

Density2 N/A N/A N/A 8.1 19.9 N/A 4.0 9.9 N/A 2.5 6.1 N/A 1.6 3.9

Uplands PRT1 Density2 N/A N/A N/A 5.2 13.0 N/A 1.4 3.6 N/A 2.4 5.9 N/A 1.4 3.5

1PRTs = Potential Roost Trees2Density = Number of PRTs/acre (PRTs/hectare) surveyedTable 6. Density2 of Interior Forest Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees by Forest Area at the BBNPP Project Site.

Area Surveyed All PRTs1 High PRTs1 Medium PRTs1 Low PRTs1

ControlledDocument
Inches Centimeters Live PD2 Dead Bark Crevice Cavity Low Medium High

1 Shagbark hickory, Red maple, Sweet birch, Unknown 5 to 13 13 to 33 4 0 5 9 0 0 5 4 0

3 Shagbark hickory, Red maple, Black cherry, Red oak, Unknown 5 to 30 13 to 76 13 1 11 25 0 0 9 15 15 Shagbark hickory, Red maple, Black cherry, Unknown 5 to 14 13 to 36 15 0 6 21 0 0 12 9 07 Shagbark hickory, White pine, Red maple, White oak, Red oak, Unknown 8 to 53 20 to 135 8 0 9 17 0 0 2 7 88 Shagbark hickory, White oak, Red maple, White pine, Unknown 6 to 29 15 to 74 10 0 6 16 0 0 5 6 59 Shagbark hickory, Red oak, Black cherry, White pine, Red maple, White oak, Black oak, Unknown 5 to 45 13 to 114 77 7 10 93 1 0 25 43 26

10 Shagbark hickory, White oak, Red maple, White pine, Unknown 6 to 28 15 to 71 14 0 5 19 0 0 3 6 1011 White oak, Red oak, Unknown 12 to 49 31 to 125 7 0 1 8 0 0 0 3 5

12 Black cherry, Red maple, White oak 7 to 19 18 to 48 4 0 2 6 0 0 2 2 2

13 Red maple, Shagbark hickory, Sweet birch 9 to 22 23 to 56 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 2 114 Red maple, Black cherry, Shagbark hickory, Unknown 6 to 20 15 to 51 8 1 6 15 0 0 5 8 215 Black oak, American sycamore, Red maple, Black cherry, Red oak, River birch 8 to 31 20 to 79 4 1 1 6 1 0 1 3 216 Red maple, River birch, Sassafras, Black cherry, Bigtooth aspen, Black locust, Pin oak 9 to 35 23 to 90 5 3 9 17 2 1 2 6 917 Red maple 9 23 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

18 Silver maple, Red maple, Unknown 6 to 48 15 to 122 16 2 2 20 0 0 1 0 19

25 Red maple, White oak, Unknown 7 to 32 18 to 81 1 0 3 4 0 0 1 2 126 Shagbark hickory, White oak 11 to 36 28 to 91 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 1

29 No potential roost trees found N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cumulative Forest Area Totals 192 17 77 295 4 1 73 121 92

Notes

1DBH = Diameter at breast height2PD = Partially dead

N/A = Not Applicable

Table 7. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees along the Forest Area Edges at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site.

Forest

Area

Number

Roost Potential Condition

Tree Species

Roost Type DBH Range 1

ControlledDocument
Forest Area Feet Meters Number PRTs/500 ft PRTs/152 m Number PRTs/500 ft PRTs/152 m Number PRTs/500 ft PRTs/152 m Number PRTs/500 ft PRTs/152 m

1 564 172 9 8.0 8.0 0 0.0 0.0 4 3.5 3.5 5 4.4 4.4

3 6,666 2,032 25 1.9 1.9 1 0.1 0.1 15 1.1 1.1 9 0.7 0.7

5 1,970 600 21 5.3 5.3 0 0.0 0.0 9 2.3 2.3 12 3.0 3.0

7 4,203 1,281 17 2.0 2.0 8 1.0 0.9 7 0.8 0.8 2 0.2 0.2

8 5,418 1,651 16 1.5 1.5 5 0.5 0.5 6 0.6 0.6 5 0.5 0.5

9 16,669 5,081 94 2.8 2.8 26 0.8 0.8 43 1.3 1.3 25 0.7 0.7

10 6,724 2,049 19 1.4 1.4 10 0.7 0.7 6 0.4 0.4 3 0.2 0.2

11 2,140 652 8 1.9 1.9 5 1.2 1.2 3 0.7 0.7 0 0.0 0.0

12 4,061 1,238 6 0.7 0.7 2 0.2 0.2 2 0.2 0.2 2 0.2 0.2

13 1,387 423 3 1.1 1.1 1 0.4 0.4 2 0.7 0.7 0 0.0 0.0

14 6,040 1,841 15 1.2 1.2 2 0.2 0.2 8 0.7 0.7 5 0.4 0.4

15 4,542 1,384 6 0.7 0.7 2 0.2 0.2 3 0.3 0.3 1 0.1 0.1

16 3,518 1,072 17 2.4 2.4 9 1.3 1.3 6 0.9 0.9 2 0.3 0.3

17 1,595 486 1 0.3 0.3 0 0.0 0.0 1 0.3 0.3 0 0.0 0.0

18 3,101 945 20 3.2 3.2 19 3.1 3.1 0 0.0 0.0 1 0.2 0.2

25 4,043 1,232 4 0.5 0.5 1 0.1 0.1 2 0.2 0.2 1 0.1 0.1

26 665 203 5 3.8 3.7 1 0.8 0.7 4 3.0 3.0 0 0.0 0.0

29 2,275 693 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0

Forest Edge

Totals 75581 23035 286 N/A N/A 92 N/A N/A 121 N/A N/A 73 N/A N/A

Forest Edge

PRT1 Density N/A N/A N/A 1.9 1.9 N/A 0.6 0.6 N/A 0.8 0.8 N/A 0.5 0.5

1Density = Number of PRTs/500 ft (PRTs/152 m) surveyed.2Linear feet (linear meters) surveyed along the edge of the forest area.3PRTs = Potential Roost Trees

Table 8. Density1 of Forest Edge Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis ) Potential Roost Trees by Forest Area at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site.

Distance Surveyed2 All PRTs3 High PRTs3 Medium PRTs3 Low PRTs3

ControlledDocument
FIGURES 

Controlled Document
Legend 

* BBNPP 

~ Potential Areas of Disturbance ~~~~~ 

1- --

1 I BBNPP Project Boundary 

Figure 1. 

Bell Bend NPP 

Site Location Map 

N 

i 

0.3 0.1 5 0 

date: 12/14/10 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474 .000 

0.3 Miles 

rev. date: 09/13/11 

prepared for: c. roche 

file name: Figure1 ._Roost_ Tree_Report 

Controlled Document
Controlled Document
/" ~ Limit of Disturbance 

D BBNPP Project Boundary 

_ Proposed Forest Clearing (Same Areas of LOD) 

Proposed Forest Clearing (No longer part of LOD) 

Figure 3. 

Changes to Surveyed Areas 

with Respect to 

Revised LCD Boundary. 

N 

i 

0.4 0.2 o 0.4 Miles 

~ 

.A I NORMANDEAUASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 400 Old Reading Pike. Bldg A . Suite 101 Stowe . PA 19464 

date: 09/22/11 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474.000 

rev. date: 

prepared for: c. roche 

file name: Impact_Changes 

Controlled Document
1. Aerial Photography from PAMAP Program, PA DCNR, 

Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey, 2005 

Figure 4. 

Bell Bend NPP 

Forest Areas 

N 

~ 

Potential Area of Disturbance 

Upland Forest Area 

Wetland Forest Area 

Forest Area Number 

0.5 _===:1-====- 0.25 o 

___ _ 

0.5 Miles 

date: 12/13/10 

prepared by: s.sherman 

proiect: 22474.000 

rev. date: 09/13/11 

prepared for: c. roche 

file name: Figure4.Forest Areas 

Controlled Document
Site NPP

Figure 5. Overall Study Area, Wetland and Upland Interior Forest

Potential Roost Tree (PRT) Densities for the Bell Bend NPP Project Site

Wetland PRT DensityUpland PRT DensityOverall PRT Density

USDOI Recommended

Overall Density

0 612

Aggregate Potential Roost Tree Density (PRTs/acre)

Bend Bell

ControlledDocument
18

12

(PRTs/acre) Density Treet

Figure 6. Overall and High Interior Forest Potential Roost Tree (PRT)

Densities by Forest Area for the Bell Bend NPP Project Site

Overall PRT DensityHigh PRT Density

60

1 3 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 25 26 29 Site

t Roos Potential

Forest Area

USDOI

Recommended

Overall Density

ControlledDocument
APPENDIX A 

Characteristics of Forest Areas

Controlled Document
Maximum Minimum Average

Dominant Subdominant Inches (cm) Inches (cm) Inches (cm)

1-1 Upland Red oak Mockernut hickory 20 (51) 3 (8) 12 (30) 14 6 19

3-1 Upland Red maple none 15 (38) 4 (10) 10 (25) 4 5 8

3-2 Upland Red maple none 30 (76) 4 (10) 12 (30) 1 5 7

3-3 Upland Red maple none 21 (53) 4 (10) 11 (28) 1 2 6

3-5 Upland Red maple none 17 (43) 4 (10) 11 (28) 2 2 6

5-1 Upland White oak none 10 (25) 3 (8) 8 (20) 1 7 21

5-4 Upland Red pine none 14 (36) 3 (8) 9 (23) 0 1 11

7-1 Upland White oak Red oak 30 (76) 4 (10) 14 (36) 4 1 4

7-2 Upland Red oak Black oak 26 (66) 4 (10) 13 (33) 2 1 4

7-3 Upland Red maple none 17 (43) 3 (8) 10 (25) 4 4 13

7-4 Upland White oak Black cherry 30 (76) 3 (8) 13 (33) 3 2 5

7-7 Upland Red maple none 20 (51) 4 (10) 10 (25) 2 3 6

7-8 Upland Red maple White oak 26 (66) 4 (10) 14 (36) 5 3 5

8-1 Upland Shagbark hickory none 16 (41) 3 (8) 10 (25) 21 1 3

8-2 Upland Red maple White oak 20 (51) 4 (10) 10 (25) 4 3 8

8-3 Upland Sweet birch Red maple 15 (38) 3 (8) 9 (23) 1 4 4

8a Wetland Black locust Black walnut 11 (28) 3 (8) 7 (18) 1 1 0

8b Wetland Red maple none 28 (71) 6 (15) 12 (30) 11 13 1

9-1 Upland Red maple none 13 (33) 3 (8) 6 (15) 2 0 0

9-2 Upland White oak none 24 (61) 3 (8) 11 (28) 7 1 5

9-3 Upland Red oak Red maple 16 (41) 4 (10) 10 (25) 4 1 7

9-4 Upland Red pine none 21 (53) 5 (13) 11 (28) 5 2 8

9-5 Upland Mockernut hickory Red oak 32 (81) 4 (10) 11 (28) 11 3 4

9-6 Upland Mockernut hickory none 20 (51) 3 (8) 11 (28) 1 6 3

9-7 Upland White oak none 21 (53) 3 (8) 11 (28) 1 2 2

Number 

of PRTs1

 Number 

of Snags2

Number 

of Stubs3

Table A-1. Characteristics of Forest Areas at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)

Forest Area 

Survey Plot 

Number Setting

Tree Species

Controlled Document
Maximum Minimum Average

Dominant Subdominant Inches (cm) Inches (cm) Inches (cm)

Number 

of PRTs1

 Number 

of Snags2

Number 

of Stubs3

Table A-1. Characteristics of Forest Areas at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)

Forest Area 

Survey Plot 

Number Setting

Tree Species

9-8 Upland Red maple none 26 (66) 4 (10) 12 (30) 4 2 8

9-9 Upland Sweet birch Red maple, Black 

Cherry 17 (43) 5 (13) 10 (25) 7 1 5

9-10 Upland White oak none 22 (56) 4 (10) 10 (25) 22 1 4

9-29 Wetland Red maple Pin oak 60 (152) 8 (20) 23 (58) 14 1 1

9-30 Wetland Tulip poplar none 35 (89) 3 (8) 15 (38) 2 0 3

9b Wetland Red maple none 25 (64) 3 (8) 9 (23) 0 1 0

9d Wetland Red maple none 12 (30) 3 (8) 8 (20) 0 0 0

10-1 Upland Red oak none 23 (58) 4 (10) 11 (28) 4 1 2

10-2 Upland Red maple none 30 (76) 5 (13) 13 (33) 4 1 5

10a Wetland Red maple Black cherry 33 (84) 4 (10) 9 (23) 1 0 2

10b Wetland Pin oak Red maple 29 (74) 6 (15) 15 (38) 1 1 0

11-1 Upland White pine none 23 (58) 5 (13) 14 (36) 4 1 3

11 Wetland Pin oak none 11 (28) 3 (8) 6 (15) 0 0 0

12-1 Upland Black oak Pin oak 14 (36) 4 (10) 9 (23) 4 1 7

12-2 Upland Sweet birch Black oak 28 (71) 4 (10) 11 (28) 7 1 12

12 Wetland Red maple Pin oak 28 (71) 3 (8) 13 (33) 6 0 1

13-1 Upland Sweet birch none 22 (56) 5 (13) 12 (30) 2 0 2

14-1 Upland Red maple none 12 (30) 4 (10) 8 (20) 0 1 0

14-2 Upland Red maple none 14 (36) 3 (8) 9 (23) 0 1 0

14-3 Upland Red maple none 11 (28) 4 (10) 8 (20) 0 0 0

14-4 Upland Red maple none 14 (36) 4 (10) 9 (23) 12 2 4

14-5 Upland Red maple none 18 (46) 4 (10) 10 (25) 5 1 4

15-1 Upland Quaking aspen Red maple 15 (38) 5 (13) 10 (25) 5 2 7

15-2 Upland Sassafras Red maple 14 (36) 4 (10) 10 (25) 0 3 6

15-3 Upland Red maple none 10 (25) 3 (8) 7 (18) 4 2 6

Controlled Document
Maximum Minimum Average

Dominant Subdominant Inches (cm) Inches (cm) Inches (cm)

Number 

of PRTs1

 Number 

of Snags2

Number 

of Stubs3

Table A-1. Characteristics of Forest Areas at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)

Forest Area 

Survey Plot 

Number Setting

Tree Species

15-4 Upland Red maple none 21 (53) 4 (10) 10 (25) 3 3 9

15-12 Upland Black oak none 18 (46) 7 (18) 12 (30) 0 1 0

15-14 Upland Black oak Scots pine 17 (43) 5 (13) 11 (28) 0 2 3

16-1 Upland Red oak none 15 (38) 4 (10) 9 (23) 4 4 3

16-3 Upland Black oak Mockernut hickory 26 (66) 5 (13) 12 (30) 4 1 4

16-4 Upland Black oak Scots pine 17 (43) 6 (15) 11 (28) 0 0 0

16-5 Upland Black oak, Black cherry Red maple 18 (46) 6 (15) 11 (28) 1 1 5

17-1 Upland Red maple none 24 (61) 3 (8) 11 (28) 4 8 4

17-2 Upland Red maple none 20 (51) 4 (10) 10 (25) 3 0 9

17-3 Upland Red maple none 23 (58) 4 (10) 10 (25) 2 1 11

17-4 Upland Red maple none 22 (56) 4 (10) 12 (30) 0 0 9

17-5 Upland Red maple none 16 (41) 4 (10) 10 (25) 1 3 4

18-1 Upland White pine none 12 (30) 7 (18) 10 (25) 1 5 0

18-3 Upland Silver maple none 17 (43) 4 (10) 11 (28) 4 2 0

25-2 Upland White oak none 40 (102) 4 (10) 12 (30) 1 0 1

25-3 Upland Black cherry none 16 (41) 3 (8) 10 (25) 4 2 5

26-1 Upland White oak Red maple 18 (46) 5 (13) 12 (30) 2 1 2

29-1 Upland Red oak none 42 (107) 5 (13) 15 (38) 1 1 8

29 Wetland Silver maple River birch 17 (43) 3 (8) 10 (25) 0 1 7

Cumulative Survey Plot Totals 255 139 326

Cumulative Wetland Survey Plot Totals 36 18 15

Cumulative Upland Survey Plots Totals 219 121 311

Max DBH1 Min DBH1

Inches (cm) Inches (cm) PRTs2 Snags Stubs

Controlled Document
Maximum Minimum Average

Dominant Subdominant Inches (cm) Inches (cm) Inches (cm)

Number 

of PRTs1

 Number 

of Snags2

Number 

of Stubs3

Table A-1. Characteristics of Forest Areas at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)

Forest Area 

Survey Plot 

Number Setting

Tree Species

21 (53) 4 (10) 4 2 5

26 (66) 4 (10) 3 2 1

20 (51) 4 (10) 4 2 5

1

DBH = Diameter at breast height

2

PRTs = Potential Roost Trees

3

Number of snags = snags that didn't qualify as roost trees

4

Number of stubs = stubs that didn't qualify as roost trees

Cumulative Survey Plot Averages

Cumulative Wetland Survey Plot Averages

Cumulative Survey Upland Survey Plot Averages

Controlled Document
APPENDIX B 

Potential Roost Trees by Forest Area 

Controlled Document
Inches Centimeters Live PD2 Dead Bark Crevice Cavity Low Medium High

1-1 Upland Red oak, White oak, Black oak, 

Shagbark hickory, Unknown 7 to 16 18 to 41 3 0 11 14 0 0 5 8 1

3-1 Upland Black cherry, Red maple, White 

pine 10 to 14 25 to 36 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 4 0

3-2 Upland Black cherry 13 33 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

3-3 Upland Black cherry 21 53 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

3-5 Upland Red maple 9 to 10 23 to 25 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0

5-1 Upland Shagbark hickory 8 20 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

5-4 Upland No potential roost trees found N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

7-1 Upland Red maple, White oak 11 to 30 28 to 76 4 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 3

7-2 Upland Black walnut, Red oak 15 to 18 38 to 46 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 1

7-3 Upland Red maple, Red pine 10 to 32 25 to 81 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 2 2

7-4 Upland Black cherry, Black walnut, 

Unknown 15 to 26 38 to 66 0 2 1 3 0 2 0 1 2

7-7 Upland Red maple, Sassafras 7 to 20 18 to 51 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1

7-8 Upland White oak, Sassafras, Unknown 7 to 26 18 to 66 2 0 3 5 0 0 1 1 3

8-1 Upland Shagbark hickory, White ash, 

Black cherry, White oak 8 to 24 20 to 61 21 0 0 21 0 0 1 14 6

8-2 Upland Scots pine, Red maple 7 to 15 18 to 38 0 1 3 4 0 0 2 2 0

8-3 Upland Sweet birch 15 38 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0

8a Wetland Black locust 6 15 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

8b Wetland

Red maple, Sweet birch, White 

ash, Shagbark hickory, American 

basswood

6 to 25 15 to 64 3 1 7 12 3 0 3 3 5

9-1 Upland Shagbark hickory 9 23 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0

Table B-1. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees within the Interior Forest Areas at the Bell Bend NPP Site. 

Forest Area - 

Survey Plot 

Number

Condition Roost Potential

Setting Tree Species

Roost Type DBH1

 Range

Controlled Document
Inches Centimeters Live PD2 Dead Bark Crevice Cavity Low Medium High

Table B-1. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees within the Interior Forest Areas at the Bell Bend NPP Site. 

Forest Area - 

Survey Plot 

Number

Condition Roost Potential

Setting Tree Species

Roost Type DBH1

 Range

9-2 Upland Shagbark hickory, White oak, 

Red Maple, Unknown 10 to 24 25 to 61 5 0 2 7 1 0 0 3 4

9-3 Upland Red maple, Black cherry, 

Unknown 7 to 15 18 to 38 0 2 2 4 0 0 3 1 0

9-4 Upland

Red maple, White ash, Black 

cherry, Red pine, Shagbark 

hickory

6 to 10 15 to 25 1 1 3 5 0 0 3 2 0

9-5 Upland Shagbark hickory, White oak, 

Unknown 8 to 36 20 to 91 10 0 1 11 0 0 1 7 3

9-6 Upland Black cherry 20 18 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

9-7 Upland White oak 21 53 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

9-8 Upland Red maple, Pin oak 7 to 24 18 to 61 1 1 2 4 0 0 2 0 2

9-9 Upland

Black cherry, Red maple, 

Shagbark hickory, Red pine, 

White oak

9 to 23 23 to 58 3 1 3 7 1 0 0 3 4

9-10 Upland Red maple, White oak, Shagbark 

hickory, Unknown 6 to 22 15 to 56 14 1 7 22 0 0 4 12 6

9-29 Wetland Red maple, Black cherry, Pin 

oak, River birch 5 to 60 13 to 152 11 1 2 13 3 1 2 4 8

9-30 Wetland Red maple 9 to 11 23 to 28 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0

9b Wetland No potential roost trees found N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

9d Wetland No potential roost trees found N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

10-1 Upland Shagbark hickory, White oak 7 to 13 18 to 33 4 0 0 4 0 0 1 3 0

10-2 Upland Red oak, Unknown 12 to 24 30 to 61 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 1 3

10a Wetland Red maple 33 84 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

10b Wetland Black gum 28 71 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

11-1 Upland White pine, White oak, Unknown 14 to 36 36 to 91 2 0 2 4 1 0 0 1 3

Controlled Document
Inches Centimeters Live PD2 Dead Bark Crevice Cavity Low Medium High

Table B-1. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees within the Interior Forest Areas at the Bell Bend NPP Site. 

Forest Area - 

Survey Plot 

Number

Condition Roost Potential

Setting Tree Species

Roost Type DBH1

 Range

11 Wetland No potential roost trees found N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

12-1 Upland White pine, Unknown 12 to 13 30 to 33 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 0

12-2 Upland Shagbark hickory, White oak, 

Unknown 9 to 28 23 to 71 3 0 4 7 0 0 0 5 2

12 Wetland Shagbark hickory 6 to 21 15 to 53 6 0 0 6 0 0 1 2 3

13-1 Upland Sweet birch, Unknown 20 to 23 51 to 58 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2

14-1 Upland No potential roost trees found N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

14-2 Upland No potential roost trees found N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

14-3 Upland No potential roost trees found N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

14-4 Upland Red maple, Unknown 6 to 13 15 to 33 2 0 10 12 0 0 7 5 0

14-5 Upland Red maple 7 18 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 0 0

15-1 Upland Red pine, Quaking aspen, 

Sassafras 6 to 11 15 to 28 0 0 5 5 0 0 3 2 0

15-2 Upland No potential roost trees found N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

15-3 Upland Red maple, Quaking aspen 9 to 11 23 to 28 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 4 0

15-4 Upland Red maple 7 to 13 18 to 33 0 3 0 3 0 0 1 2 0

15-12 Upland No potential roost trees found N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

15-14 Upland No potential roost trees found N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

16-1 Upland Red maple, Black oak 7 to 8 18 to 20 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 0 0

16-3 Upland Pin oak, Black oak 7 to 26 18 to 66 2 0 2 4 0 0 1 0 3

16-4 Upland No potential roost trees found N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

16-5 Upland Pin oak 34 86 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

17-1 Upland Red maple, Unknown 6 to 13 15 to 33 1 0 3 4 0 0 3 1 0

17-2 Upland Red maple 6 to 7 15 to 18 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 0

17-3 Upland Red maple, Bigtooth aspen 6 to 8 15 to 20 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0

17-4 Upland No potential roost trees found N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

17-5 Upland Unknown 12 30 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

Controlled Document
Inches Centimeters Live PD2 Dead Bark Crevice Cavity Low Medium High

Table B-1. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees within the Interior Forest Areas at the Bell Bend NPP Site. 

Forest Area - 

Survey Plot 

Number

Condition Roost Potential

Setting Tree Species

Roost Type DBH1

 Range

18-1 Upland White pine 7 18 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

18-3 Upland Silver maple 7 to 21 18 to 53 2 0 2 4 0 0 1 0 3

25-2 Upland White oak 40 102 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

25-3 Upland Black cherry, Unknown 7 to 13 18 to 33 2 0 2 4 0 0 1 3 0

26-1 Upland Black locust, Unknown 40 to 46 102 to 117 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2

29-1 Upland Unknown 15 38 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

29 Wetland No potential roost trees found N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cumulative Survey Plot Totals 118 23 114 252 13 5 66 111 78

Cumulative Wetland Survey Plot Totals 21 3 12 34 8 2 7 11 18

Cumulative Upland Survey Plot Totals 97 20 102 218 5 3 59 100 60

1

DBH = Diameter at breast height

2

PD = Partially dead

Controlled Document
APPENDIX C 

Comprehensive List of Potential Roost Trees 

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

1 1

Interior 

Upland Red oak 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.164194410 41.093752309 10/6/2010

2 1

Interior 

Upland Red oak 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.164161593 41.093808025 10/6/2010

3 1

Interior 

Upland Red oak 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.164177113 41.094014816 10/6/2010

4 1

Interior 

Upland Red oak 15 38 Dead yes no no Medium -76.164148850 41.094036442 10/6/2010

5 1

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.164643137 41.093821423 10/6/2010

6 1

Interior 

Upland White oak 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.164529982 41.093864568 10/6/2010

7 1

Interior 

Upland Black oak 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.164492893 41.093897978 10/6/2010

8 1

Interior 

Upland Unknown 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.164380903 41.093862641 10/6/2010

9 1

Interior 

Upland Red oak 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.164212008 41.093948912 10/6/2010

10 1

Interior 

Upland Red oak 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.164245718 41.093897586 10/6/2010

11 1

Interior 

Upland Unknown 10 25 Dead yes no no Medium -76.164337407 41.093699451 10/6/2010

12 1

Interior 

Upland Red oak 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.164414857 41.093748860 10/6/2010

13 1

Interior 

Upland White oak 16 41 Live yes no no High -76.164507910 41.093745692 10/6/2010

14 1

Interior 

Upland Black oak 10 25 Dead yes no no Medium -76.164744226 41.093796118 10/6/2010

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

15 1 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.166601572 41.093426001 10/18/2010

16 1 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.166219586 41.093310683 10/18/2010

17a 1 Edge Unknown 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.166239605 41.093354395 10/18/2010

17b 1 Edge Unknown 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.166239605 41.093354395 10/18/2010

18 1 Edge Red maple 5 13 Dead yes no no Low -76.162693206 41.093892166 10/18/2010

19 1 Edge Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.162746268 41.093973968 10/18/2010

20 1 Edge Red maple 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.162372397 41.094030193 10/18/2010

21 1 Edge Red maple 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.162058387 41.094146488 10/18/2010

22 1 Edge Red maple 10 25 Dead yes no no Medium -76.162054612 41.094192573 10/18/2010

23 3

Interior 

Upland

Black 

cherry 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.166559877 41.091029027 10/6/2010

24 3

Interior 

Upland Red maple 13 33 Dead yes no no Medium -76.166786841 41.090869215 10/6/2010

25 3

Interior 

Upland White pine 15 38 Dead yes no no Medium -76.166837178 41.090850929 10/6/2010

26 3

Interior 

Upland

Black 

cherry 10 25

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.166819996 41.091171848 10/6/2010

27 3

Interior 

Upland

Black 

cherry 13 33

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.166416121 41.090290121 10/6/2010

28 3

Interior 

Upland

Black 

cherry 21 53 Live yes no no High -76.171158463 41.089976932 10/6/2010

29 3

Interior 

Upland Red maple 10 25

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.167504186 41.090390429 10/6/2010

30 3

Interior 

Upland Red maple 9 23

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.166971136 41.090420109 10/6/2010

31 3 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 6 15 Live yes no no Low -76.171719841 41.088607582 10/18/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

32 3 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.171534580 41.088464176 10/18/2010

33 3 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 6 15 Live yes no no Low -76.171406704 41.088522280 10/18/2010

34 3 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 30 76 Live yes no no High -76.171333965 41.088559158 10/18/2010

35 3 Edge

Black 

cherry 9 23

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.171324939 41.088650000 10/18/2010

36 3 Edge Red maple 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.170884642 41.088644234 10/18/2010

37 3 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.170904431 41.088706664 10/18/2010

38 3 Edge Red oak 10 25 Dead yes no no Medium -76.170975122 41.088942575 10/18/2010

39 3 Edge

Black 

cherry 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.170912611 41.089050386 10/18/2010

40 3 Edge

Black 

cherry 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.170924901 41.089064843 10/18/2010

41 3 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.170942045 41.089183273 10/18/2010

42 3 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.170938746 41.089520189 10/18/2010

43 3 Edge Red maple 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.168376002 41.089488831 10/18/2010

44 3 Edge Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.167407790 41.091602002 10/18/2010

45 3 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.166305364 41.091631754 10/18/2010

46 3 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.166321240 41.091357078 10/18/2010

47 3 Edge Unknown 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.166366924 41.091266491 10/18/2010

48 3 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 6 15 Live yes no no Low -76.166316384 41.091213411 10/18/2010

49 3 Edge Red maple 5 13 Dead yes no no Low -76.166348574 41.091194639 10/18/2010

50 3 Edge Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.166373642 41.091142893 10/18/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

51 3 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.166242327 41.090956991 10/18/2010

52a 3 Edge Unknown 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.166861985 41.089035751 10/18/2010

52b 3 Edge Unknown 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.166861985 41.089035751 10/18/2010

52c 3 Edge Unknown 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.166861985 41.089035751 10/18/2010

53 3 Edge Red maple 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.167657463 41.089167396 10/18/2010

54 5

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.162508415 41.082682229 10/7/2010

55 5 Edge Unknown 13 33 Dead yes no no Medium -76.162132951 41.083101476 10/19/2010

56 5 Edge

Black 

cherry 6 15 Dead yes no no Low -76.162534080 41.082914593 10/19/2010

57 5 Edge

Black 

cherry 6 15 Dead yes no no Low -76.162610706 41.082806874 10/19/2010

58 5 Edge Unknown 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.162707749 41.082747583 10/19/2010

59 5 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.163678957 41.081881723 10/19/2010

60 5 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.163779211 41.081876271 10/19/2010

61 5 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.161118942 41.083177012 10/19/2010

62 5 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.160992503 41.083309609 10/19/2010

63 5 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.160847375 41.083255075 10/19/2010

64 5 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 7 18 Live yes no no Low -76.160825557 41.083238960 10/19/2010

65 5 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.160849600 41.083116518 10/19/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

66 5 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 6 15 Live yes no no Low -76.160774072 41.083046680 10/19/2010

67 5 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.160854503 41.082925434 10/19/2010

68 5 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.160762108 41.082823863 10/19/2010

69 5 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.160779594 41.082697023 10/19/2010

70 5 Edge Red maple 5 13 Dead yes no no Low -76.160778990 41.082619953 10/19/2010

71 5 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.160749648 41.082611707 10/19/2010

72 5 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 7 18 Live yes no no Low -76.160765384 41.082551534 10/19/2010

73 5 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.160845305 41.082546908 10/19/2010

74 5 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.160809640 41.082378393 10/19/2010

75 5 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 12 30 Dead yes no no Medium -76.160879065 41.082224918 10/19/2010

76 7

Interior 

Upland Red maple 11 28 Live no yes no Medium -76.156942285 41.095006775 10/7/2010

77 7

Interior 

Upland White oak 22 56 Live yes no no High -76.156872818 41.095032511 10/7/2010

78 7

Interior 

Upland White oak 30 76 Live yes no no High -76.156869697 41.095035700 10/7/2010

79 7

Interior 

Upland White oak 30 76 Live yes no no High -76.156841437 41.095115375 10/7/2010

80 7

Interior 

Upland

Black 

walnut 18 46

Partially 

Dead yes no no High -76.155551478 41.095690990 10/7/2010

81 7

Interior 

Upland Red oak 15 38 Live yes no no Medium -76.155412182 41.095358790 10/7/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

82 7

Interior 

Upland Red maple 13 33 Dead yes no no Medium -76.155305849 41.097305263 10/7/2010

83 7

Interior 

Upland Red maple 10 25

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.155319182 41.097383251 10/7/2010

84 7

Interior 

Upland Red maple 32 81 Live yes no no High -76.155193912 41.097476801 10/7/2010

85 7

Interior 

Upland Red pine 18 46 Dead yes no no High -76.154955602 41.097218638 10/7/2010

86 7

Interior 

Upland Unknown 15 38 Dead yes no yes Medium -76.161253302 41.094103723 10/7/2010

87 7

Interior 

Upland

Black 

cherry 26 66

Partially 

Dead yes no no High -76.161218820 41.094155846 10/7/2010

88 7

Interior 

Upland

Black 

walnut 18 46

Partially 

Dead yes no yes High -76.161398391 41.094097005 10/7/2010

89 7

Interior 

Upland Red maple 20 51 Live yes yes no High -76.154946773 41.098579788 10/8/2010

90 7

Interior 

Upland Sassafras 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.154892503 41.098425676 10/8/2010

91 7

Interior 

Upland Unknown 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.156263487 41.101291507 10/11/2010

92 7

Interior 

Upland White oak 26 66 Live yes no no High -76.156030315 41.101311224 10/11/2010

93 7

Interior 

Upland Unknown 20 51 Dead yes no no High -76.155919604 41.101244831 10/11/2010

94 7

Interior 

Upland White oak 21 53 Live yes no no High -76.155885930 41.101244480 10/11/2010

95 7

Interior 

Upland Sassafras 12 30 Dead yes no no Medium -76.155760368 41.101056148 10/11/2010

96 7 Edge White pine 14 36 Dead yes no no Medium -76.156357950 41.094784324 10/20/2010

97 7 Edge Unknown 12 30 Dead yes no no Medium -76.156323352 41.094676732 10/20/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

98 7 Edge White pine 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.155993132 41.094877919 10/20/2010

99 7 Edge Unknown 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.153644529 41.095531438 10/20/2010

100 7 Edge Red maple 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.153749081 41.096044657 10/20/2010

101 7 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.153768202 41.096087090 10/20/2010

102 7 Edge Red maple 13 33 Dead yes no no Medium -76.153566049 41.096243438 10/20/2010

103 7 Edge Unknown 16 41 Dead yes no no High -76.153727298 41.096435292 10/20/2010

104 7 Edge White oak 25 64 Live yes no no High -76.153887192 41.097073381 10/20/2010

105 7 Edge White oak 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.154170486 41.097589964 10/20/2010

106a 7 Edge White oak 21 53 Live yes no no High -76.154335087 41.097635624 10/20/2010

106b 7 Edge White oak 21 53 Live yes no no High -76.154335087 41.097635624 10/20/2010

107 7 Edge White oak 19 48 Live yes no no High -76.154318395 41.097699577 10/20/2010

108 7 Edge White oak 53 135 Live yes no no High -76.154430028 41.097793925 10/20/2010

109 7 Edge Red oak 42 107 Live yes no no High -76.154430897 41.097939691 10/20/2010

110 7 Edge Unknown 26 66 Dead yes no no High -76.154996062 41.099189250 10/20/2010

111 7 Edge Red maple 14 36 Dead yes no no Medium -76.154992427 41.099211063 10/20/2010

112 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.156212839 41.092365684 10/11/2010

113 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.156126022 41.092344350 10/11/2010

114 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.156122358 41.092325657 10/11/2010

115 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.156050913 41.092261216 10/11/2010

116 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.156192453 41.092218616 10/11/2010

117 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.156209973 41.092191146 10/11/2010

118 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 16 41 Live yes no no High -76.156190983 41.092187351 10/11/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

119 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.156115727 41.092153625 10/11/2010

120 8

Interior 

Upland

Black 

cherry 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.156118619 41.092237725 10/11/2010

121 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.156387571 41.092168602 10/11/2010

122 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.156451406 41.092276997 10/11/2010

123a 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.156414079 41.092228126 10/11/2010

123b 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.156414079 41.092228126 10/11/2010

124 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 18 46 Live yes no no High -76.156473504 41.092232642 10/11/2010

125 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 19 48 Live yes no no High -76.156518635 41.092307378 10/11/2010

126 8

Interior 

Upland White oak 20 51 Live yes no no High -76.156490486 41.092406233 10/11/2010

127 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.156511261 41.092311191 10/11/2010

128 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.156519308 41.092459115 10/11/2010

129 8

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.156520734 41.092510633 10/11/2010

130 8

Interior 

Upland White ash 21 53 Live yes no no High -76.156207302 41.092562880 10/11/2010

131 8

Interior 

Upland White oak 24 61 Live yes no no High -76.156345913 41.092306704 10/11/2010

132 8

Interior 

Upland Scots pine 15 38

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.159358659 41.091639737 10/11/2010

133 8

Interior 

Upland Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.158983185 41.091390030 10/11/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

134 8

Interior 

Upland Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.159017774 41.091399279 10/11/2010

135 8

Interior 

Upland

Scotch 

pine 12 30 Dead yes no no Medium -76.158971824 41.091528283 10/11/2010

136 8

Interior 

Upland

Sweet 

birch 15 38 Dead yes no yes Medium -76.157903337 41.091832361 10/11/2010

137 8

Interior 

Wetland

Black 

locust 6 15 Dead no yes no Low -76.159620377 41.094200536 9/29/2010

138 8

Interior 

Wetland

Shagbark 

hickory 18 46 Live yes no no High -76.157088137 41.092880696 9/29/2010

139 8

Interior 

Wetland

American 

basswood 25 64

Partially 

Dead no yes no High -76.156962020 41.092878929 9/29/2010

140 8

Interior 

Wetland White ash 17 43 Dead yes no yes High -76.156345174 41.092752969 9/29/2010

141 8

Interior 

Wetland White ash 6 15 Dead yes no no Low -76.155752724 41.092611747 9/29/2010

142 8

Interior 

Wetland White ash 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.155755394 41.092724023 9/29/2010

143 8

Interior 

Wetland Red maple 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.157091340 41.092806785 9/29/2010

144 8

Interior 

Wetland Red maple 21 53 Live yes no no High -76.156915805 41.092734610 9/29/2010

145 8

Interior 

Wetland

American 

basswood 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.156071939 41.092772757 10/6/2010

146 8

Interior 

Wetland Red maple 12 30 Dead no yes no Medium -76.156942996 41.092714820 9/29/2010

147 8

Interior 

Wetland Red maple 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.157233952 41.092788704 9/29/2010

148 8

Interior 

Wetland

Sweet 

birch 22 56 Live yes no no High -76.157385144 41.092821818 9/29/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

149 8 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 15 38 Live yes no no Medium -76.156111729 41.092097276 10/11/2010

150 8 Edge Unknown 29 74 Dead yes no no High -76.156150932 41.090421543 10/19/2010

151 8 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.156171368 41.090412551 10/19/2010

152 8 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 20 51 Live yes no no High -76.156686320 41.091465059 10/19/2010

153 8 Edge White oak 28 71 Live yes no no High -76.157648188 41.090938140 10/19/2010

154 8 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 6 15 Live yes no no Low -76.157670691 41.090956235 10/19/2010

155 8 Edge White oak 20 51 Live yes no no High -76.157841753 41.091048801 10/19/2010

156 8 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.157809652 41.091060135 10/19/2010

157 8 Edge Red maple 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.158756472 41.091293738 10/19/2010

158 8 Edge White pine 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.159691912 41.091579456 10/19/2010

159 8 Edge Red maple 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.159934744 41.091650384 10/19/2010

160 8 Edge Unknown 6 15 Dead yes no no Low -76.160517309 41.091773053 10/19/2010

161 8 Edge Unknown 13 33 Dead yes no no Medium -76.160805498 41.091901422 10/19/2010

162 8 Edge Unknown 14 36 Dead yes no no Medium -76.160678077 41.091958110 10/19/2010

163 8 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.160491119 41.092004880 10/19/2010

164 8 Edge White oak 27 69 Live yes no no High -76.160188860 41.092043404 10/19/2010

165a 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.159759849 41.089223423 10/12/2010

165b 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.159759849 41.089223423 10/12/2010

166 9

Interior 

Upland Unknown 10 25 Dead yes no no Medium -76.159524086 41.090677240 10/12/2010

167 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.159280741 41.090797268 10/12/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

168 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.159520670 41.090337916 10/12/2010

169 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 17 43 Live yes no no High -76.159527227 41.090350208 10/12/2010

170 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 16 41 Live yes no no High -76.159532984 41.090375902 10/12/2010

171 9

Interior 

Upland Red maple 16 41 Dead yes no no High -76.159463866 41.090431555 10/12/2010

172 9

Interior 

Upland White oak 24 61 Live yes yes no High -76.159453555 41.090556989 10/12/2010

173 9

Interior 

Upland Unknown 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.161195812 41.085585809 10/12/2010

174 9

Interior 

Upland Red maple 7 18

Partially 

Dead yes no no Low -76.160881691 41.085650707 10/12/2010

175 9

Interior 

Upland Unknown 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.160895870 41.085700596 10/12/2010

176 9

Interior 

Upland

Black 

cherry 15 38

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.161013633 41.085710319 10/12/2010

177 9

Interior 

Upland Red pine 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.160381696 41.090934727 10/12/2010

178 9

Interior 

Upland Red maple 6 15 Dead yes no no Low -76.160404302 41.090949908 10/12/2010

179 9

Interior 

Upland White ash 10 25 Dead yes no no Medium -76.160052561 41.090600125 10/12/2010

180 9

Interior 

Upland

Black 

cherry 9 23

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.160358926 41.090545551 10/12/2010

181 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 7 18 Live yes no no Low -76.160261124 41.090721005 10/12/2010

182 9

Interior 

Upland Unknown 15 38 Dead yes no no Medium -76.157796286 41.088413752 10/12/2010

183 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 19 48 Live yes no no High -76.158107344 41.088412969 10/12/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

184a 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.158107855 41.088486184 10/12/2010

184b 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.158107855 41.088486184 10/12/2010

185 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.157856121 41.088615117 10/12/2010

186 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.157859581 41.088590394 10/12/2010

187 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.157786270 41.088606577 10/12/2010

188 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.157764696 41.088680722 10/12/2010

189 9

Interior 

Upland White oak 16 41 Live yes no no High -76.157709275 41.088560127 10/12/2010

190 9

Interior 

Upland White oak 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.157745388 41.088544284 10/12/2010

191 9

Interior 

Upland White oak 36 91 Live yes no no High -76.157691483 41.088600532 10/12/2010

192 9

Interior 

Upland

Black 

cherry 20 51

Partially 

Dead yes no no High -76.161233256 41.084961022 10/11/2010

193 9

Interior 

Upland White oak 21 53 Live yes no no High -76.162741275 41.090491493 10/12/2010

194 9

Interior 

Upland Red maple 24 61 Live yes no no High -76.156815113 41.085664949 10/12/2010

195 9

Interior 

Upland Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.156883708 41.085653524 10/12/2010

196 9

Interior 

Upland Pin oak 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.156744275 41.085654768 10/12/2010

197 9

Interior 

Upland Pin oak 18 46

Partially 

Dead yes no no High -76.156832990 41.085516733 10/12/2010

198 9

Interior 

Upland

Black 

cherry 18 46 Dead yes no no High -76.162947537 41.088630064 10/12/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

199 9

Interior 

Upland Red pine 17 43 Dead yes yes no High -76.162805577 41.088603142 10/12/2010

200 9

Interior 

Upland White oak 23 58 Live yes no no High -76.162943124 41.088678388 10/12/2010

201 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.162921814 41.088833144 10/12/2010

202 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.162947216 41.088874389 10/12/2010

203 9

Interior 

Upland

Black 

cherry 10 25 Dead yes no no Medium -76.162749478 41.088996925 10/12/2010

204 9

Interior 

Upland Red maple 18 46

Partially 

Dead yes no no High -76.162413019 41.088849133 10/12/2010

205 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.157605481 41.090082467 10/12/2010

206 9

Interior 

Upland Unknown 12 30 Dead yes no no Medium -76.157640096 41.090040552 10/12/2010

207 9

Interior 

Upland White oak 21 53 Live yes no no High -76.157748901 41.089985983 10/12/2010

208 9

Interior 

Upland Red maple 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.157747252 41.089976839 10/12/2010

209 9

Interior 

Upland Red maple 8 20

Partially 

Dead yes no no Low -76.157794966 41.089899395 10/12/2010

210 9

Interior 

Upland Red maple 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.157862323 41.089924401 10/12/2010

211 9

Interior 

Upland White oak 20 51 Live yes no no High -76.157873132 41.090002500 10/12/2010

212 9

Interior 

Upland Red maple 12 30 Dead yes no no Medium -76.157853076 41.090073707 10/12/2010

213 9

Interior 

Upland Unknown 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.157785999 41.090131673 10/12/2010

214 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.157665414 41.090175072 10/12/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

215 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.157630329 41.090251251 10/12/2010

216 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.157651398 41.090259166 10/12/2010

217 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 6 15 Live yes no no High -76.157572129 41.090236342 10/12/2010

218 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.157590004 41.090220317 10/12/2010

219 9

Interior 

Upland White oak 21 53 Live yes no no High -76.157483793 41.090168101 10/12/2010

220 9

Interior 

Upland Unknown 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.157567659 41.090122101 10/12/2010

221 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.157530903 41.090088657 10/12/2010

222 9

Interior 

Upland White oak 20 51 Live yes no no High -76.157419863 41.090051377 10/12/2010

223 9

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.157360266 41.090038044 10/12/2010

224 9

Interior 

Upland White oak 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.157391562 41.090113014 10/12/2010

225 9

Interior 

Upland White oak 22 56 Live yes no no High -76.157260331 41.090075194 10/12/2010

226 9

Interior 

Upland Unknown 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.157378253 41.089795665 10/12/2010

227 9

Interior 

Wetland Red maple 17 43 Live yes no yes High -76.157070962 41.086518163 10/7/2010

228 9

Interior 

Wetland

Black 

cherry 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.156968040 41.086671464 10/7/2010

229 9

Interior 

Wetland

Black 

cherry 5 13 Dead yes no no Low -76.156993142 41.086588947 10/7/2010

230 9

Interior 

Wetland River birch 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.156988952 41.086739694 10/7/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

231 9

Interior 

Wetland River birch 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.156908785 41.086708593 10/7/2010

232 9

Interior 

Wetland River birch 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.156786939 41.086749143 10/8/2010

233 9

Interior 

Wetland River birch 18 46 Live yes no no High -76.156805226 41.086749635 10/8/2010

234 9

Interior 

Wetland Red maple 56 142 Live yes no no High -76.156906217 41.086510591 10/8/2010

235 9

Interior 

Wetland Red maple 35 89 Live yes no no High -76.156878064 41.086555165 10/8/2010

236 9

Interior 

Wetland Pin oak 60 152 Live yes no no High -76.156765679 41.086377815 10/8/2010

237 9

Interior 

Wetland Red maple 23 58

Partially 

Dead yes yes no High -76.156923650 41.086303825 10/8/2010

238 9

Interior 

Wetland Red maple 16 41 Live no yes no High -76.156924767 41.086283546 10/8/2010

239 9

Interior 

Wetland Red maple 40 102 Live yes yes no High -76.156662635 41.086110366 10/8/2010

240 9

Interior 

Wetland Red maple 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.156891642 41.086153839 10/8/2010

241 9

Interior 

Wetland Red maple 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.161757423 41.089110265 10/15/2010

242 9

Interior 

Wetland Red maple 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.161683493 41.089054155 10/15/2010

243 9 Edge

Black 

cherry 18 46

Partially 

Dead yes no no High -76.158098455 41.087249976 10/19/2010

244 9 Edge

Black 

cherry 12 30 Dead yes no no Medium -76.158147575 41.088028548 10/19/2010

245 9 Edge Red oak 16 41

Partially 

Dead no yes no High -76.158168628 41.088257278 10/19/2010

246 9 Edge White oak 17 43 Live yes no no High -76.158270949 41.088337660 10/19/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

247 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.158264909 41.088411334 10/19/2010

248 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 17 43 Live yes no no High -76.158099501 41.088918386 10/19/2010

249 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.158154678 41.088893542 10/19/2010

250 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 7 18 Live yes no no Low -76.158120376 41.089063390 10/19/2010

251 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.158162118 41.089094163 10/19/2010

252a 9 Edge

Black 

cherry 16 41 Live yes no no High -76.158212575 41.089121062 10/19/2010

252b 9 Edge

Black 

cherry 16 41 Live yes no no High -76.158212575 41.089121062 10/19/2010

253 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.158120909 41.089293973 10/19/2010

254 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.158076563 41.089419319 10/19/2010

255 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 7 18 Live yes no no Low -76.158113625 41.089599862 10/19/2010

256 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.158058810 41.089679770 10/19/2010

257a 9 Edge White oak 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.157985249 41.090009317 10/19/2010

257b 9 Edge White oak 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.157985249 41.090009317 10/19/2010

258 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.158048328 41.090018597 10/19/2010

259 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.157971353 41.090254556 10/19/2010

260 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.158132216 41.090134442 10/19/2010

261 9 Edge White oak 17 43 Live yes no no High -76.157877957 41.090297330 10/19/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

262 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.157856052 41.090310861 10/19/2010

263 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.159955092 41.090997576 10/19/2010

264 9 Edge Red maple 10 25

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.160616974 41.091151563 10/19/2010

265 9 Edge White oak 22 56 Live yes no no High -76.161373042 41.089758112 10/19/2010

266 9 Edge White oak 28 71 Live yes no no High -76.161286020 41.089700188 10/19/2010

267a 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 6 15 Live yes no no Low -76.160268994 41.088851152 10/19/2010

267b 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 6 15 Live yes no no Low -76.160268994 41.088851152 10/19/2010

267c 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 6 15 Live yes no no Low -76.160268994 41.088851152 10/19/2010

268a 9 Edge White oak 15 38 Live yes no no Medium -76.160256876 41.088820630 10/19/2010

268b 9 Edge White oak 15 38 Live yes no no Medium -76.160256876 41.088820630 10/19/2010

269 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 7 18 Live yes no no Low -76.159754787 41.088801775 10/19/2010

270 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.159728887 41.088795260 10/19/2010

271 9 Edge White oak 45 114 Live yes no no High -76.159566473 41.088716599 10/19/2010

272 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.159589673 41.088787343 10/19/2010

273 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.159263674 41.088757348 10/19/2010

274 9 Edge Unknown 6 15 Dead yes no no Low -76.158947418 41.088445435 10/19/2010

275 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.158781723 41.088460146 10/19/2010

276 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.158667464 41.088538387 10/19/2010

277 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 15 38 Live yes no no Medium -76.162501544 41.088134311 10/20/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

278 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.162841032 41.088099113 10/20/2010

279 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.162875900 41.088156869 10/20/2010

280 9 Edge White oak 24 61 Live yes no no High -76.162885416 41.088201737 10/20/2010

281 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 22 56 Live yes no no High -76.162950167 41.089021665 10/20/2010

282 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.162949039 41.089063800 10/20/2010

283 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 15 38 Live yes no no Medium -76.162953102 41.089205172 10/20/2010

284 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.162953334 41.089232987 10/20/2010

285 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.162956000 41.089258452 10/20/2010

286 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 15 38 Live yes no no Medium -76.163049169 41.089301270 10/20/2010

287 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 16 41 Live yes no no High -76.163003243 41.089328324 10/20/2010

288 9 Edge Unknown 15 38 Live yes no no Medium -76.162968922 41.089434672 10/20/2010

289 9 Edge White oak 21 53 Live yes no no High -76.163089748 41.091196817 10/20/2010

290 9 Edge White oak 26 66 Live yes no no High -76.163107760 41.091428776 10/20/2010

291 9 Edge White oak 30 76 Live yes no no High -76.163090132 41.091470838 10/20/2010

292a 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.163101738 41.091487163 10/20/2010

292b 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.163101738 41.091487163 10/20/2010

293 9 Edge Unknown 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.163078695 41.091563903 10/20/2010

294 9 Edge Unknown 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.162864947 41.091811193 10/20/2010

295 9 Edge White pine 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.162519076 41.091575226 10/20/2010

296 9 Edge Red maple 14 36 Dead yes no no Medium -76.162791590 41.085789594 10/19/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

297 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 16 41 Live yes no no High -76.162736184 41.085752048 10/19/2010

299 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 21 53 Live yes no no High -76.162729890 41.085743468 10/19/2010

300 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.162728453 41.085814788 10/19/2010

301 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.161987736 41.085880895 10/19/2010

302 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.161728976 41.085818772 10/19/2010

303 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 7 18 Live yes no no Low -76.161688754 41.085850988 10/19/2010

304 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.161544882 41.085884574 10/19/2010

305 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 6 15 Live yes no no Low -76.161562107 41.085839296 10/19/2010

306 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.161418954 41.085859263 10/19/2010

307 9 Edge Unknown 21 53 Dead yes no no High -76.161423414 41.085926452 10/19/2010

308a 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 7 18 Live yes no no Low -76.161323091 41.085861610 10/19/2010

308b 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 7 18 Live yes no no Low -76.161323091 41.085861610 10/19/2010

309 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 16 41 Live yes no no High -76.161329589 41.085847727 10/19/2010

310 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.161226282 41.085861355 10/19/2010

311 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.161206302 41.085872165 10/19/2010

312 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 5 13 Live yes no no Low -76.161269911 41.085932669 10/19/2010

313 9 Edge Black oak 5 13 Dead yes no no Low -76.160439172 41.085106051 10/19/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

314 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.159748480 41.085139837 10/19/2010

315 9 Edge Unknown 14 36 Dead yes no no Medium -76.157857973 41.084862159 10/19/2010

316 9 Edge Unknown 10 25 Dead yes no no Medium -76.160694848 41.084858574 10/19/2010

317a 9 Edge

Black 

cherry 6 15

Partially 

Dead yes no no Low -76.160821284 41.084881401 10/19/2010

317b 9 Edge

Black 

cherry 6 15

Partially 

Dead yes no no Low -76.160821284 41.084881401 10/19/2010

317c 9 Edge

Black 

cherry 6 15

Partially 

Dead yes no no Low -76.160821284 41.084881401 10/19/2010

318 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.162811736 41.085910667 10/19/2010

319 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.162733576 41.085917099 10/19/2010

320 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 26 66 Live yes no no High -76.162781794 41.086007481 10/19/2010

321 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 18 46 Live yes no no High -76.162820105 41.086005186 10/19/2010

322 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 7 18 Live yes no no Low -76.162815638 41.086050809 10/19/2010

323 9 Edge White oak 34 86 Live yes no no High -76.162799696 41.086133067 10/19/2010

324 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.162824239 41.086474665 10/19/2010

325 9 Edge

Black 

cherry 18 46 Live yes no no High -76.162545221 41.086530589 10/19/2010

326 9 Edge

Black 

cherry 16 41 Live yes no no High -76.162095420 41.086568987 10/19/2010

331 9 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.159548272 41.086861547 10/19/2010

335 9 Edge

Black 

cherry 26 66

Partially 

Dead yes no no High -76.158103006 41.087240735 10/19/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

336 10

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.154572980 41.089618379 10/13/2010

337 10

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 7 18 Live yes no no Low -76.154492526 41.089610914 10/13/2010

338 10

Interior 

Upland White oak 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.154976508 41.089643721 10/13/2010

339 10

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.154780505 41.089643819 10/13/2010

340 10

Interior 

Upland Red oak 20 51 Live yes no no High -76.152786980 41.089642881 10/13/2010

341 10

Interior 

Upland Red oak 12 30 Dead yes no no Medium -76.152469855 41.089497028 10/13/2010

342 10

Interior 

Upland Red oak 24 61 Live yes no no High -76.152528178 41.089469301 10/13/2010

343 10

Interior 

Upland Unknown 17 43 Dead yes no no High -76.153050736 41.089385874 10/13/2010

344 10

Interior 

Wetland Red maple 33 84

Partially 

Dead yes yes no High -76.155793559 41.089930584 10/1/2010

346 10

Interior 

Wetland Black gum 28 71 Live no no yes High -76.153144269 41.087506861 10/7/2010

347 10 Edge Unknown 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.153498454 41.089488119 10/20/2010

348 10 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.153702443 41.089658099 10/20/2010

349 10 Edge White oak 20 51 Live yes no no High -76.153700702 41.089672401 10/20/2010

350 10 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.154019956 41.089615528 10/20/2010

351 10 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.154147506 41.089655707 10/20/2010

352 10 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.154010211 41.089682358 10/20/2010

353 10 Edge Red maple 16 41 Dead yes no no High -76.152528936 41.089022645 10/20/2010

354 10 Edge Unknown 12 30 Dead yes no no Medium -76.152314883 41.088690557 10/20/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

355 10 Edge White oak 21 53 Live yes no no High -76.151153415 41.088734844 10/20/2010

356 10 Edge White oak 19 48 Live yes no no High -76.151100900 41.088735060 10/20/2010

357 10 Edge Unknown 6 15 Dead yes no no Low -76.151493284 41.089165067 10/20/2010

358 10 Edge White oak 18 46 Live yes no no High -76.151626639 41.089205950 10/20/2010

359 10 Edge White oak 21 53 Live yes no no High -76.152163110 41.089391099 10/20/2010

360 10 Edge White oak 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.152175131 41.089439237 10/20/2010

361 10 Edge White pine 6 15 Dead yes no no Low -76.152164106 41.089447320 10/20/2010

362 10 Edge White oak 23 58 Live yes no no High -76.152096500 41.089463710 10/20/2010

363 10 Edge White oak 18 46 Live yes no no High -76.152185309 41.089487910 10/20/2010

364 10 Edge White oak 26 66 Live yes no no High -76.152238120 41.089490468 10/20/2010

365 10 Edge White oak 28 71 Live yes no no High -76.152206035 41.089553859 10/20/2010

366 11

Interior 

Upland Unknown 14 36 Dead yes no no Medium -76.152786436 41.085395315 10/13/2010

367 11

Interior 

Upland White pine 28 71 Dead yes yes no High -76.152493439 41.085409262 10/13/2010

368 11

Interior 

Upland White oak 27 69 Live yes no no High -76.152713237 41.085106941 10/13/2010

369 11

Interior 

Upland White oak 36 91 Live yes no no High -76.152595860 41.085154236 10/13/2010

370 11 Edge Unknown 16 41 Dead yes no no High -76.152375950 41.085459057 10/20/2010

371 11 Edge Red oak 49 124 Live yes no no High -76.152760442 41.085874933 10/20/2010

372 11 Edge White oak 18 46 Live yes no no High -76.152835715 41.085929912 10/20/2010

373 11 Edge White oak 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.152895884 41.085807087 10/20/2010

374 11 Edge White oak 20 51 Live yes no no High -76.153060434 41.085941870 10/20/2010

375 11 Edge White oak 17 43 Live yes no no High -76.153041403 41.085925096 10/20/2010

376 11 Edge White oak 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.153007328 41.085899138 10/20/2010

377 11 Edge White oak 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.153039647 41.085892591 10/20/2010

378 12

Interior 

Upland White pine 13 33 Dead yes no no Medium -76.157640088 41.083241177 10/13/2010

379a 12

Interior 

Upland Unknown 12 30 Dead yes no no Medium -76.158116392 41.083017679 10/13/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

379b 12

Interior 

Upland Unknown 12 30 Dead yes no no Medium -76.158116392 41.083017679 10/13/2010

380 12

Interior 

Upland White pine 13 33 Dead yes no no Medium -76.158186971 41.083084656 10/13/2010

381 12

Interior 

Upland White oak 28 71 Live yes no no High -76.156507564 41.082754573 10/13/2010

382 12

Interior 

Upland Unknown 12 30 Dead yes no no Medium -76.156530756 41.082776156 10/13/2010

383 12

Interior 

Upland Unknown 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.156677673 41.082876841 10/13/2010

384 12

Interior 

Upland White oak 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.156706940 41.082977781 10/13/2010

385 12

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 14 36 Dead yes no no Medium -76.156669465 41.083025212 10/13/2010

386 12

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 10 25 Live yes no no Medium -76.156617536 41.082911465 10/13/2010

387 12

Interior 

Upland

Shagbark 

hickory 16 41 Dead yes no no High -76.156234074 41.082715572 10/13/2010

388 12

Interior 

Wetland

Shagbark 

hickory 15 38 Live yes no no Medium -76.155922139 41.082211828 10/15/2010

389 12

Interior 

Wetland

Shagbark 

hickory 6 15 Live yes no no Low -76.155462912 41.082289767 10/15/2010

390 12

Interior 

Wetland

Shagbark 

hickory 20 51 Live yes no no High -76.155106030 41.082368044 10/15/2010

391 12

Interior 

Wetland

Shagbark 

hickory 18 46 Live yes no no High -76.155016693 41.082263703 10/15/2010

392 12

Interior 

Wetland

Shagbark 

hickory 21 53 Live yes no no High -76.154937122 41.082167604 10/15/2010

393 12

Interior 

Wetland

Shagbark 

hickory 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.154848102 41.082210842 10/15/2010

394 12 Edge

Black 

cherry 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.158025741 41.083714944 10/20/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

395 12 Edge Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.158275702 41.083642543 10/20/2010

396 12 Edge Red maple 12 30 Dead yes no no Medium -76.158753815 41.083148268 10/20/2010

397 12 Edge

Black 

cherry 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.158778028 41.082868459 10/20/2010

398 12 Edge

Black 

cherry 19 48 Live yes no no High -76.157411461 41.083580446 10/20/2010

399 12 Edge White oak 18 46 Live yes no no High -76.157450746 41.083617008 10/20/2010

400 13

Interior 

Upland

Sweet 

birch 20 51 Live yes no no High -76.151877493 41.081893579 10/13/2010

401 13

Interior 

Upland Unknown 23 58 Dead yes no no High -76.151654211 41.082101472 10/13/2010

402 13 Edge Red maple 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.150092430 41.081157902 10/20/2010

403 13 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 22 56 Live yes no no High -76.150400020 41.081852831 10/20/2010

404 13 Edge

Sweet 

birch 12 30

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.150337030 41.082062560 10/20/2010

405 14

Interior 

Upland Unknown 6 15 Dead yes no no Low -76.147629647 41.079909038 10/13/2010

406 14

Interior 

Upland Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.147561672 41.079864090 10/13/2010

407 14

Interior 

Upland Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.147493813 41.079984770 10/13/2010

408 14

Interior 

Upland Red maple 13 33 Dead yes no no Medium -76.147434320 41.080054220 10/13/2010

409 14

Interior 

Upland Red maple 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.147465532 41.080068706 10/13/2010

410a 14

Interior 

Upland Red maple 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.147527680 41.080049802 10/13/2010

410b 14

Interior 

Upland Red maple 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.147527680 41.080049802 10/13/2010

410c 14

Interior 

Upland Red maple 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.147527680 41.080049802 10/13/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

411a 14

Interior 

Upland Red maple 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.147669604 41.080052629 10/13/2010

411b 14

Interior 

Upland Red maple 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.147669604 41.080052629 10/13/2010

411c 14

Interior 

Upland Red maple 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.147669604 41.080052629 10/13/2010

411d 14

Interior 

Upland Red maple 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.147669604 41.080052629 10/13/2010

412 14

Interior 

Upland Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.147467061 41.081113897 10/13/2010

413a 14

Interior 

Upland Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.147820630 41.081375206 10/13/2010

413b 14

Interior 

Upland Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.147820630 41.081375206 10/13/2010

413c 14

Interior 

Upland Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.147820630 41.081375206 10/13/2010

413d 14

Interior 

Upland Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.147820630 41.081375206 10/13/2010

414 14 Edge Red maple 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.148346400 41.079073199 10/20/2010

415 14 Edge Red maple 6 15 Dead yes no no Low -76.148462596 41.079500654 10/20/2010

416 14 Edge Red maple 8 20

Partially 

Dead yes no no Low -76.148446707 41.079512294 10/20/2010

417 14 Edge

Black 

cherry 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.148611654 41.080654842 10/20/2010

418 14 Edge Unknown 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.148529527 41.080740455 10/20/2010

419 14 Edge Red maple 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.148546550 41.080976483 10/20/2010

420 14 Edge Red maple 20 51 Live yes no no High -76.147893121 41.082220343 10/20/2010

421 14 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 14 36 Live yes no no Medium -76.147793541 41.082147923 10/20/2010

422 14 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.147657960 41.082182821 10/20/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

423 14 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.147646812 41.082202758 10/20/2010

424 14 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 18 46 Live yes no no High -76.147277234 41.081860914 10/20/2010

425 14 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 8 20 Live yes no no Low -76.147287500 41.081684066 10/20/2010

426 14 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 9 23 Live yes no no Medium -76.147301014 41.081664680 10/20/2010

427 14 Edge Red maple 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.147322205 41.081211514 10/20/2010

428 14 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.147264747 41.081135036 10/20/2010

429 15

Interior 

Upland Red pine 6 15 Dead yes no no Low -76.146098852 41.072727790 10/13/2010

430 15

Interior 

Upland

Quaking 

aspen 10 25 Dead yes no no Medium -76.146261157 41.072574359 10/13/2010

431 15

Interior 

Upland Red pine 6 15 Dead yes no no Low -76.147054547 41.071870739 10/13/2010

432 15

Interior 

Upland Sassafras 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.147212596 41.072359476 10/13/2010

433 15

Interior 

Upland

Quaking 

aspen 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.147196685 41.072224372 10/13/2010

434 15

Interior 

Upland Red maple 11 28

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.147338496 41.073281938 10/13/2010

435 15

Interior 

Upland

Quaking 

aspen 11 28 Dead yes no no Medium -76.147061297 41.073062105 10/13/2010

436 15

Interior 

Upland Red maple 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.147068259 41.073114861 10/13/2010

437 15

Interior 

Upland Red maple 10 25 Dead yes no no Medium -76.147115876 41.073004973 10/13/2010

438a 15

Interior 

Upland Red maple 13 33

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.147732173 41.072317618 10/13/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

4638b 15

Interior 

Upland Red maple 13 33

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.147732173 41.072317618 10/13/2010

439 15

Interior 

Upland Red maple 7 18

Partially 

Dead yes no no Low -76.147820445 41.072295883 10/13/2010

499 15 Edge Black oak 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.14437078 41.07255624 7/13/2011

500 15 Edge

American 

sycamore 11 28 Live

yes no no Medium -76.14545751 41.07028226 7/14/2011

501 15 Edge Red maple 11 28

Partially 

Dead yes yes no Medium -76.14529554 41.07040717 7/14/2011

502 15 Edge

Black 

cherry 19 48 Live

yes no no High -76.1452139 41.07050118 7/14/2011

503 15 Edge Red oak 31 79 Live yes no no High -76.14586967 41.0706686 7/14/2011

504 15 Edge River birch 15 38 Live yes no no Medium -76.14603137 41.07068584 7/14/2011

440a 16

Interior 

Upland Red maple 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.149145499 41.070487375 10/14/2010

440b 16

Interior 

Upland Red maple 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.149145499 41.070487375 10/14/2010

440c 16

Interior 

Upland Red maple 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.149145499 41.070487375 10/14/2010

441 16

Interior 

Upland Black oak 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.148836141 41.070735929 10/14/2010

512 16

Interior 

Upland Pin oak 34 86 Live yes no no High -76.15021918 41.06970755 7/14/2011

513 16

Interior 

Upland Black oak 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.14948191 41.0693843 7/14/2011

514 16

Interior 

Upland Pin oak 26 66 Live yes no no High -76.14935571 41.069573 7/14/2011

515 16

Interior 

Upland Pin oak 24 61 Dead yes no no High -76.14944895 41.06958881 7/14/2011

516 16

Interior 

Upland Pin oak 18 46 Live yes no no High -76.14954177 41.06941774 7/14/2011

442 16 Edge Red maple 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.149188375 41.071182461 10/20/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

443 16 Edge Red maple 6 15 Dead yes no yes Low -76.149182210 41.071237066 10/20/2010

444 16 Edge Red maple 10 25 Dead yes no no Medium -76.149299437 41.071333577 10/20/2010

445 16 Edge Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.149229329 41.071296371 10/20/2010

505 16 Edge River birch 28 71 Dead yes no no High -76.14857254 41.06884736 7/14/2011

506 16 Edge Sassafras 32 81 Live yes yes no High -76.14873427 41.06875031 7/14/2011

507 16 Edge

Black 

cherry 24 61 Live yes no no High -76.1490073 41.06866859 7/14/2011

508 16 Edge Red maple 24 61 Dead yes yes no High -76.14909531 41.07003401 7/14/2011

509 16 Edge Red maple 9 23

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.14909011 41.07004764 7/14/2011

510 16 Edge

Black 

cherry 22 56 Live yes no no High -76.14940777 41.06986685 7/14/2011

511 16 Edge

Bigtooth 

aspen 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.14947187 41.06971834 7/14/2011

517 16 Edge River birch 20 51 Dead yes no no High -76.14922399 41.06865338 7/14/2011

518 16 Edge River birch 28 71 Dead yes no no High -76.14912438 41.06865819 7/14/2011

519 16 Edge River birch 26 66 Live yes no no High -76.14919887 41.06870042 7/14/2011

520 16 Edge

Black 

locust 15 38

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.15020528 41.06812299 7/14/2011

521 16 Edge

Black 

locust 14 36

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.15069452 41.06799665 7/14/2011

522 16 Edge Pin oak 35 89 Live yes no no High -76.15068241 41.06801803 7/14/2011

446 17

Interior 

Upland Red maple 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.154424382 41.100616790 10/14/2010

447 17

Interior 

Upland Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.154326841 41.100737827 10/14/2010

448 17

Interior 

Upland Red maple 6 15 Dead yes no no Low -76.154318359 41.100801085 10/14/2010

449 17

Interior 

Upland Unknown 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.154570097 41.100799277 10/14/2010

450 17

Interior 

Upland Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.152232989 41.099134977 10/14/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

451 17

Interior 

Upland Red maple 6 15 Dead yes no no Low -76.152458076 41.098933033 10/14/2010

452 17

Interior 

Upland Red maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.152662255 41.098986520 10/14/2010

453 17

Interior 

Upland Red maple 8 20 Dead yes no no Low -76.151938164 41.099754197 10/14/2010

454 17

Interior 

Upland

Bigtooth 

aspen 6 15 Dead yes no no Low -76.152103226 41.099761910 10/14/2010

455 17

Interior 

Upland Unknown 12 30 Dead yes no no Medium -76.154284576 41.100362610 10/14/2010

456 17 Edge Red maple 9 23

Partially 

Dead yes no no Medium -76.154266237 41.099873225 10/20/2010

457 18

Interior 

Upland White pine 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.136236638 41.103897218 10/14/2010

458 18

Interior 

Upland

Silver 

maple 19 48 Dead yes no no High -76.135494411 41.102560232 10/14/2010

459 18

Interior 

Upland

Silver 

maple 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.135446502 41.102685457 10/14/2010

460a 18

Interior 

Upland

Silver 

maple 21 53 Live yes no no High -76.135396257 41.102693512 10/14/2010

460b 18

Interior 

Upland

Silver 

maple 21 53 Live yes no no High -76.135396257 41.102693512 10/14/2010

461 18 Edge Red maple 6 15 Dead yes no no Low -76.135315193 41.102256453 10/20/2010

462 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 28 71 Live yes no no High -76.135566036 41.102300686 10/20/2010

463 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 38 97 Live yes no no High -76.135610265 41.102347523 10/20/2010

464 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 20 51 Live yes no no High -76.135658191 41.102272128 10/20/2010

465 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 24 61 Live yes no no High -76.135220278 41.103421131 10/20/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

466 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 25 64 Live yes no no High -76.135221312 41.103448600 10/20/2010

467 18 Edge Unknown 17 43 Dead yes no no High -76.135208493 41.103678562 10/20/2010

468 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 48 122 Live yes no no High -76.135270297 41.103710227 10/20/2010

469 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 72 183 Live yes no no High -76.135288652 41.104167528 10/20/2010

470 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 34 86

Partially 

Dead yes no no High -76.134980919 41.104174116 10/20/2010

471 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 34 86 Live yes no no High -76.134953620 41.103905198 10/20/2010

472 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 24 61

Partially 

Dead yes no no High -76.134947805 41.103847828 10/20/2010

473a 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 22 56 Live yes no no High -76.134928907 41.103721191 10/20/2010

473b 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 22 56 Live yes no no High -76.134928907 41.103721191 10/20/2010

473c 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 22 56 Live yes no no High -76.134928907 41.103721191 10/20/2010

474 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 38 97 Live yes no no High -76.134973255 41.103450313 10/20/2010

475a 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 20 51 Live yes no no High -76.134966781 41.103458126 10/20/2010

475b 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 20 51 Live yes no no High -76.134966781 41.103458126 10/20/2010

476a 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 20 51 Live yes no no High -76.134949552 41.103418173 10/20/2010

476b 18 Edge

Silver 

maple 20 51 Live yes no no High -76.134949552 41.103418173 10/20/2010

477 25

Interior 

Upland White oak 40 102 Live yes no no High -76.144232457 41.087402276 10/14/2010

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

478 25

Interior 

Upland Unknown 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.139209637 41.089627747 10/14/2010

479 25

Interior 

Upland

Black 

cherry 9 23 Dead yes no no Medium -76.139199117 41.089657504 10/14/2010

480a 25

Interior 

Upland

Black 

cherry 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.139021236 41.089538947 10/14/2010

480b 25

Interior 

Upland

Black 

cherry 13 33 Live yes no no Medium -76.139021236 41.089538947 10/14/2010

481 25 Edge White oak 32 81 Live yes no no High -76.144179634 41.087686115 10/14/2010

482 25 Edge Red maple 12 30 Dead yes no no Medium -76.137504946 41.089634926 10/20/2010

483 25 Edge Unknown 14 36 Dead yes no no Medium -76.137446216 41.089524336 10/20/2010

484 25 Edge Unknown 7 18 Dead yes no no Low -76.138184894 41.089694779 10/20/2010

485 26

Interior 

Upland Unknown 40 102 Dead yes no no High -76.136188465 41.089703873 10/15/2010

486 26

Interior 

Upland

Black 

locust 46 117 Live yes no no High -76.136583866 41.089628458 10/15/2010

491 26 Edge White oak 36 91 Live yes no no High -76.135062380 41.089366425 10/15/2010

494 26 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 12 30 Live yes no no Medium -76.135371755 41.089518917 10/15/2010

495 26 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.135387590 41.089503029 10/15/2010

496 26 Edge

Shagbark 

hickory 11 28 Live yes no no Medium -76.135253697 41.089502253 10/15/2010

497 26 Edge White oak 15 38 Live yes no no Medium -76.135110910 41.089388847 10/15/2010

498 29

Interior 

Upland Unknown 15 38 Dead yes no no High -76.131758842 41.085952360 10/15/2010

in (cm)

Average DBH1 of all PRTs2 14 (36)

Average DBH1 of all PRTs2 in the Interior Forest 14 (36)

Average DBH1 of all PRTs2 in the Interior Wetlands 18 (46)

Controlled Document
in cm Bark Crevice Cavity

Date 

Observed

Table C-1. Comprehensive List of Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Potential Roost Trees at the Bell Bend NPP Project Site. 

Longitude Latitude

Identification 

Number Setting

Tree 

Species

Roost Type

Condition

Roost 

Potential

Forest 

Area 

Number

DBH1

Average DBH1 of all PRTs2 in the Interior Uplands 13 (33)

Average DBH1 of all PRTs2 in the Forest Edge 14 (36)

1

DBH = Diameter at breast height: in = inches; cm = centimeters

2

PRTs = Potential Roost Trees

Controlled Document
APPENDIX D 

Forest Area Maps 

Controlled Document
Legend 

Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

W Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

t:2:2J Survey Plots 

bS:SJ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

-"--"---., c=J Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

b~~~~i"~~~':'!IP~· .. Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

300 150 o 300 Feet 

Figure 0-1. 

BBNPP Forest Area 1 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

i ~ 

.A I NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

400 Old Read ing Pike, Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe, PA 19464 

date: 11/29/10 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474.000 

rev. date: 01/09/11 , 09/15/11 

prepared for: c. roche 

file name: Area1 _UP _AppendixFi9_Rev 

Controlled Document
400 200 o 400 Feet 

Figure 0-2. 

BBNPP Forest Area 3 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

~ 

• Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

(£3 Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

~ Survey Plots 

[S.SJ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

c=J Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

.. Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

Proposed Upland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

~ 

.A I NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 400 Old Reading Pike, Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe, PA 19464 

date: 12/13/10 

prepared by: s. sherman 

project: 22474.000 

rev. date: 01 /09/11 , 09/15/11 

prepared for: c. roche 

file name: Area3_UP _AppendixFi9_ Rev 

Controlled Document
• Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

ffi Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

E:Za Survey Plots 

~ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

c=J Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

.. Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

400 200 o 400 Feet 

Figure D-3. 

BBNPP Forest Area 5 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

i ~ 

.A I NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

400 Old Reading Pike, Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe , PA 19464 

date: 11/29/10 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474.000 

rev. date: 01/09/11 , 09/15/11 

prepared for: c.roche 

file name: Area5_UP _AppendixFi9_Rev 

Controlled Document
Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

QJ Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

l2:2J Survey Plots 

~ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

li~Ii1.~ ~ Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

~ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

~51~~~&1 Proposed Upland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

400 200 o 400 Feet 

Figure 0-4. 

BBN PP Forest Area 7 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

~ ~ 

.A I NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

400 Old Read ing Pike, Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe , PA 19464 

date: 11/29/10 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474.000 

rev. date: 01/09/11, 09/15/11 

prepared for: c. roche 

file name: Area7 _UP _AppendixFi9_Rev 

Controlled Document
•• 

• Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

CD Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

E22l Survey Plots 

~ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

c=J Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

.. Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

250 125 o 250 Feet 

Figure 0-5. 

BBNPP Forest Area 8 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

~ ~ 

~ I NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 400 Old Read ing Pike, Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe, PA 19464 

date 11 /29/10 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474.000 

rev. date: 01/09/11 , 09/15/1 1 

prepared for: c. roche 

file name: Area8_PFOandUP _Append ixFi9_Rev 

Controlled Document
Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

(£3 Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

~ Survey Plots 

~ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

~ Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

~.:o.:.....~=~.s..;a::"':";;::z:..:J:. _____ ---II::It....I:;~L.O...:..:L.l.:..~.a:;.;o~ .. Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

450 225 o 450 Feet 

Figure 0-6. 

BBNPP Forest Area 9 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

~ 

Proposed Upland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

date: 12113110 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474.000 

rev. date: 01109111 , 09115111 

prepared for: c. roche 

file name: Area9_PFOandUP _AppendixFi9_Rev 

Controlled Document
Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

CD Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

[2ZI Survey Plots 

cs:sJ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

c=J Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

.. Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

Figure 0-7. 

BBNPP Forest Area 10 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

~ 

200 100 

date: 12/13/10 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474.000 

o 200 Feet 

rev. date: 01/09/11 , 09/15/11 

prepared for: c. roche 

file name: Area1 O_PFOandUP _AppendixFi9_Rev 

Controlled Document
Figure 0-8. 

BBNPP Forest Area 11 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

~ 

Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

ffi Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

E'2LJ Survey Plots 

~ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

c=J Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

.. Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

Proposed Upland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

150 75 o 150 Feet 

~ 

~ I NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

400 Old Read ing Pike, Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe, PA 19464 

date 11 /29/10 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474.000 

rev. dale 01/09/11 , 09/14/11 

prepared for: c. roche 

file name: Area11 _PFOandUP _Append ixFi9_ Rev 

Controlled Document
• 

• 

Figure 0-9. 

BBNPP Forest Area 12 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

~ 

• Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

LD Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

~ Survey Plots 

~ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

c=J Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

.. Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

Proposed Upland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

200 100 o 200 Feet 

~ 

.A I NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 400 Old Read ing Pike, Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe, PA 19464 

date 12/13/10 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474.000 

rev. date 01/09/11, 09/14/11 

prepared for: c.roche 

file name: Area12_PFOandUP _AppendixFi9_Rev 

Controlled Document
Figure 0-10. 

BBNPP Forest Area 13 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

! 

Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

CD Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

r::z:2J Survey Plots 

cs:sJ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

c==J Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

.. Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

500 250 o 500 Feet 

~ 

.A I NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

400 Old Reading Pike , Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe , PA 19464 

date: 1112911 0 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474.000 

rev. date: 01 /09/11 , 09115111 

prepared for: c. roche 

file name: Area13_UP _AppendixFi9_Rev 

Controlled Document
.. Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

CD Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

C2:2J Survey Plots 

~ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

D Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

.. Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

Proposed Upland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

Figure 0-11. 

BBNPP Forest Area 14 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

~ 

P 3 

PI 1 

310 155 o 310 Feet 

~ 

.A I NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

400 Old Read ing Pike, Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe, PA 19464 

date 11 /29/10 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474.000 

rev. date 01 /09/11 , 09/15/11 

prepared for: c.roche 

file name: Area14_ UP _AppendixFi9_Rev 

Controlled Document
• Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

CD Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

l2Zl Survey Plots 

~ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

c=J Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

I11III Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

Proposed Upland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

Figure 0-12. 

BBNPP Forest Area 15 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

~ 

Plot 12 

200 100 o 200 Feet 

~ 

.A I NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 400 Old Read ing Pike, Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe, PA 19464 

date 11 /29/10 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474.000 

rev. date: 01/09/11 , 09/15/1 1 

prepared for: c.roche 

file name: Area15_UP _AppendixFi9_Rev 

Controlled Document
Plot 3 

Figure 0-13. 

BBN PP Forest Area 16 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

• Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

0) Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

.... ,~!~tril4! 1 C2:2:J Survey Plots 

cs:sJ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

c=J Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

-;~, ......... ~ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) ~., .,..;''ll. 

N 

~ 

200 100 o 200 Feet 

~ 

~ I NORMANDEAUASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 400 Old Reading Pike , Bldg A, Suile 101 Stowe , PA 19464 

date: 11/29/10 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474.000 

rev. date 01/09/11 , 09/15/11 

prepared for: c. roche 

file name: Area16_UP _AppendixFi9_Rev 

Controlled Document
• Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

CD Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

[2Zj Survey Plots 

~ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

c=J Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

II1II Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

Figure 0-14. 

BBNPP Forest Area 17 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

~ 

250 125 o 250 Feet 

~ 

.A I NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 400 Old Read ing Pike, Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe, PA 19464 

date 12/13/10 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474.000 

rev. date: 01109/11 , 09/15/11 

prepared for: c.roche 

file name: Area17 _ UP ppendi Fig Rev 

Controlled Document
Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

CD Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

~ Survey Plots 

lSS:J Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

c=J Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

.. Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

Figure 0-15. 

BBNPP Forest Area 18 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

~ 

175 87.5 o 175 Feet 

~ 

.A I NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

400 Old Reading Pike. Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe . PA 19464 

date: 11 /29/10 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474.000 

rev. date: 01 /09/11 . 09/15/11 

prepared for: c.roche 

file name: Area18_UP _AppendixFi9_Rev 

Controlled Document
Figure 0-16. 

BBN PP Forest Area 25 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

i 

• Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

CD Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

E2:2J Survey Plots 

~ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

D Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

.. Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

400 200 o 400 Feet 

~ 

~ I NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

400 Old Reading Pike, Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe , PA 19464 

date: 11/29/10 

prepared by: s.sherman 

project: 22474.000 

rev. date 01/09/11 , 01/26/11 , 09/15/11 

prepared for: c.roche 

file name: Area25_PFOandUP _AppendixFi9_ Rev 

Controlled Document
• Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

CD Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

L22J Survey Plots 

~ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

~ Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

II1II Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

Figure 0-17. 

BBNPP Forest Area 26 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

~ 

200 100 o 200 Feet 

~ 

.A I NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

400 Old Reading Pike, Bldg A, Suile 101 Slowe , PA 19464 

dale: 12/13/10 

prepared by: s. sherman 

project: 22474 .000 

rev. dale: 01 /09/11 , 09/15/11 

prepared for: c.roche 

file name: Area26_PFO_AppendixFi9_Rev 

• Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

CD Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

L22J Survey Plots 

~ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

~ Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

II1II Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

Figure 0-17. 

BBNPP Forest Area 26 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

~ 

200 100 o 200 Feet 

~ 

.A I NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

400 Old Reading Pike, Bldg A, Suile 101 Slowe , PA 19464 

dale: 12/13/10 

prepared by: s. sherman 

project: 22474 .000 

rev. dale: 01 /09/11 , 09/15/11 

prepared for: c.roche 

file name: Area26_PFO_AppendixFi9_Rev 

Controlled Document
• Potential Roost Trees (Single Trunk) 

CD Potential Roost Trees (Clump) 

~ Survey Plots 

~ Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing 

~ Proposed Upland Forest Clearing 

II1II Proposed Wetland Forest Clearing (Revised) 

Figure 0-18. 

BBNPP Forest Area 29 

Potential Roost Tree Locations 

N 

~ 

200 100 o 200 Feet 

~ 

~ I NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES 

~ 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 

400 Old Read ing Pike, Bldg A, Suite 101 Stowe, PA 19464 

date 12/13/10 rev. date 01 /09/11 , 09/15/11 

prepared by: s.sherman prepared for: c.roche 

project: 22474.000 file name: Area29_PFOandUP _AppendixFi9_Rev 

Controlled Document
APPENDIX E 

Photographs 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report 

Photo 1. Forest Area 1 - Upland oak-hickory forest showing young, healthy trees characteristic 

of early successional forest onsite. 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report 

Photo 2. Forest Area 3 - Upland forest edge with black cherry (Prunus seratina) and shagbark 

hickory (Carya avata). Shagbark hickories exhibit suitable roost tree characteristics. 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report 

Photo 3. Forest Area 3 - Close-up of shagbark hickories exhibiting suitable roost tree 

characteristics. Both trees are live with naturally exfoliating bark. Tree in center is considered a 

clump as it has two trunks, each with suitable roost tree characteristics. 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report 

Photo 4. Forest Area 9 - Typical snag with suitable roost tree characteristics. Stub lacking 

suitable roost tree characteristics is visible to the right. 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report 

Photo 5. Forest Area 9 - Close-up of snag with exfoliating bark visible. Stub to right is lacking 

in suitable bark characteristics and has been heavily excavated by woodpeckers. 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report 

Photo 6. Forest Area 13 - This live shagbark hickory was considered a roost tree with high 

potential as it was greater than 16 inches dbh and had a large percentage of exfoliating bark. 

Controlled Document
Bell Bend NPP Roost Tree Study Report 

Photo 7. Forest Area 13 - Close-up of shagbark hickory with a high potential for use as a roost 

tree and with exfoliating bark visible. 

Controlled Document