Letcher County FEIS Appendix H (Part 1.1) - USFWS Endangered Species Act Consultation (2017).pdf

APPENDIX H

USFWS ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT CONSULTATION

(2017)

From: Deborah Henson To: "Miller, Jessica" Subject: RE: FW: Letcher County Indiana and Northern Long-Eared Bat Mitigation Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:54:00 PM

Thanks Jessi. I will make sure that is clear in the mitigation section of the FEIS.

Deborah Henson

PROJECT MANAGER

GOVERNMENT SERVICES DIVISION

CARDNO

Office (+1) 717-547-6278 Mobile (+1) 717-433-7550 Fax (+1) 717-547-6357 Address 145 Limekiln Road, Suite 100, New Cumberland, PA 17070 Email deborah.henson@cardno-gs.com Web www.cardno.com

This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). All electronically supplied data must be checked against an applicable hardcopy version which shall be the only document which Cardno warrants accuracy. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, distribution or copying of the information contained in this email and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please email the sender by replying to this message and immediately delete and destroy any copies of this email and any attachments. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Cardno.

From: Miller, Jessica [mailto:jessica_miller@fws.gov] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:49 PM To: Deborah Henson Subject: Re: FW: Letcher County Indiana and Northern Long-Eared Bat Mitigation

That looks good, Deb. The only other thing that comes to mind is that tree removal during June and July is not covered under the CMOA.

Jessi

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Deborah Henson <Deborah.Henson@cardno-gs.com> wrote:

Hi Jessi, I just wanted to follow up on the below email and make sure there is nothing else you need prior to us moving forward with publication of the Final EIS?

Thanks, Deb

Deborah Henson

PROJECT MANAGER

GOVERNMENT SERVICES DIVISION

CARDNO

Office (+1) 717-547-6278 Mobile (+1) 717-433-7550 Fax (+1) 717-547-6357 Address 145 Limekiln Road, Suite 100, New Cumberland, PA 17070 Email deborah.henson@cardno-gs.com Web www.cardno.com

This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). All electronically supplied data must be checked against an applicable hardcopy version which shall be the only document which Cardno warrants accuracy. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, distribution or copying of the information contained in this email and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please email the sender by replying to this message and immediately delete and destroy any copies of this email and any attachments. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Cardno.

From: Henson, Deborah Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 9:32 AM To: Jessica Miller (jessica_miller@fws.gov) Cc: igaston@bop.gov Subject: Letcher County Indiana and Northern Long-Eared Bat Mitigation

Good morning Jessi, Just a follow up to our May 20, 2015 meeting to discuss mitigation for the Indiana and northern long-eared bat at the Roxana site. Below is the summary of that meeting and subsequent discussions we have had regarding the Roxana site and mitigation.

1) During the May 20 meeting we discussed that approximately 105 acres of summer habitat for the Indian bat and northern long-eared bat would be impacted at the Roxana site. To be covered under the MOA the impacts must be under 100 acres. Subsequently, the impact areas were re-evaluated and impacts will be approximately 92.5 acres. Based on coordination with you on June 11, 2015 you reviewed the map detailing the impact areas and agree that based on this impact assessment, the Roxana site can be covered through the Conservation Memorandum Agreement (CMOA) following the guidance provided in the USFWS's April 2015 Conservation Strategy for Forest Dwelling Bats in the Commonwealth of Kentucky (Conservation Strategy).

2) The CMOA will be put in place between the USFWS and the Bureau when construction funds become available. Mitigation will be in place prior to any disturbance to the site would occur.

3) Mitigation identified in the CMOA would include payment to the Kentucky Natural Lands Trust which would be placed in the Imperiled Bat Conservation Fund. The mitigation payment would be used to acquire, protect, and manage bat habitat in Kentucky. Based on 2015 rates mitigation would range from approximately $930,00.00 to $1.3 million.

Mitigation payment will depend on the time of year the habitat is impacted and rates may change prior to construction funding becoming available.

4) Once construction funding is available, the Bureau will meet with USFWS to ensure the CMOA is in place and mitigation requirements are fulfilled prior to any disturbance at the site (excavation, grading, timber removal, etc.).

5) Sediment Best Management Practices would be implemented to minimize sediment being carried to streams on site which may be potential foraging habitat for the gray bat.

6) At this time, based on the Preferred Alternative (Roxana), no formal Section 7 consultation is required for the Letcher County EIS project. Should anything change during the development of the final design site plans, the Bureau will notify USFWS to discuss any changes and how they may effect additional studies and mitigation.

Please let me know if you concur with this summary or have any additions or questions.

Thanks, Deb

Deborah Henson

PROJECT MANAGER

GOVERNMENT SERVICES DIVISION

CARDNO

Office (+1) 717-547-6278 Mobile (+1) 717-433-7550 Fax (+1) 717-547-6357 Address 145 Limekiln Road, Suite 100, New Cumberland, PA 17070 Email deborah.henson@cardno-gs.com Web www.cardno.com

Celebrating 70 Years of Shaping the Future – 1945 - 2015

This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). All electronically supplied data must be checked against an applicable hardcopy version which shall be the only document which Cardno warrants accuracy. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, distribution or copying of the information contained in this email and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please email the sender by replying to this message and immediately delete and destroy any copies of this email and any attachments. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Cardno.

Jessica Blackwood Miller Fish & Wildlife Biologist Kentucky Field Office U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 330 W. Broadway, Suite 265 Frankfort, KY 40601 Ph: (502) 695-0468 ext. 104 Fax: (502) 695-1024

Desktop Analysis and Habitat Survey for the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis), Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens), and Northern

Longeared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) at Two Sites for a Proposed Federal Correctional Facility

Letcher County, Kentucky

March 2016

Completed for:

Completed by:

Price Sewell

Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Inc.

i

357.01 - Proposed BOP Correctional Facility Bat Habitat Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

METHODS

Indiana Bat and NLEB Winter Habitat and Gray Bat Roosting Habitat Assessment

Summer Foraging/Swarming Habitat Assessment

RESULTS

Desktop Analysis: Indiana Bat and NLEB Winter Habitat and Gray Bat Roosting Habitat

Desktop Analysis: Indiana Bat and NLEB Summer Foraging and Roosting Habitat and Gray Bat Summer Foraging Habitat

Field Surveys: Indiana Bat, Gray Bat, and NLEB Winter Habitat and Gray Bat Summer Roosting Habitat

Field Surveys: Summer Foraging and Roosting/Swarming Habitat

CONCLUSIONS

LITERATURE CITED

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Potential Winter Indiana Bat and NLEB, and Gray Bat Summer Habitat within the

Payne Gap Site (December 2, 2014)

Table 2. Acreage of ESA-Listed Bat Summer/Swarming Habitat within the Roxana Impact Area

Table 3. Acreage of Habitat Types within the Roxana Site Impact Area

Table 4. Acreage of ESA-Listed Bat Summer/Swarming Habitat within the Payne Gap Site Impact Area

Table 5. Acreage of Habitat Types within the Payne Gap Site Impact Area

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project Location Map

Figure 2. Proposed Disturbance Limits of the Roxana Site

Figure 3. Proposed Disturbance Limits of the Payne Gap Site

Figure 4. Locations Identified During Desktop Review with Potential for Underground Mines at the Roxana Site

Figure 5. Locations Identified During Desktop Review with Potential Underground Mines at the Payne Gap Site

Figure 6. Potential Bat Winter Habitat Identified at the Payne Gap Site ii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix I: USFWS Correspondence

Appendix II: Field Datasheets

Appendix III: Field Visit Photos

Appendix IV: Additional Desktop Analysis Resources

INTRODUCTION

Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Copperhead) was contracted by Cardno Government Services, Inc. (Cardno) to conduct an Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), gray bat (Myotis grisescens), and northern long-eared bat (NLEB, Myotis septentrionalis) habitat analysis of two properties in Letcher County, Kentucky under consideration for development by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The two sites under consideration are the Roxana Site and the Payne Gap Site (Figure 1). The Roxana Site is located approximately 7 miles west of Whitesburg, Kentucky near the community of Roxana on the Roxana, KY United States (U.S.) Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2). The Payne Gap Site is located approximately 7 miles east of Whitesburg near Kona, Kentucky at the foot of Pine Mountain on the Jenkins West, KY-VA USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 3).

In response to coordination initiated by Deborah Henson of Cardno, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) sent an August 7, 2014 letter identifying the potential to impact the Indiana bat (federally endangered), the gray bat (federally endangered), and the NLEB (federally proposed endangered1), and recommended that a habitat assessment be conducted (Appendix I).

Desktop analyses and field surveys were conducted in accordance with the Indiana Bat Survey Guidance for Kentucky (USFWS and Kentucky Department for Fish and Wildlife Resources [KDFWR] 2013) and Supplemental Indiana Bat Survey Guidance for Kentucky (USFWS and KDFWR 2014).

METHODS

Indiana Bat and NLEB Winter Habitat and Gray Bat Roosting Habitat Assessment

To determine if caves and cave-like structures used for winter hibernation by Indiana bats, NLEBs, and gray bats and for summer roosting by gray bats were present or likely present, a desktop analysis was conducted using aerial photography, USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps, USGS geologic quadrangle maps, and data from the Kentucky Mine Mapping Information System (KMMIS) (2014). USGS geologic quadrangle maps were used to identify the presence of any cave forming geology at the surface. Locations of historic mine records and locations identified as having high potential for underground mine surface connections were used to determine potential search contours that were uploaded to handheld global positioning system (GPS) units to be used during field investigations. Aerial photography was used to calculate forested acreage and to review current and past land uses on and adjacent to the sites.

1Note: the NLEB was listed as threatened in April 2015 after this report was initially prepared in January 2015.

Whitesburg Roxana Site

Payne Gap Site

Lynch

Eolia

Benham

Pardee

Colson

Stonega

Blackey

Letcher

Speight

Millstone

McRoberts

Cumberland

Whitesburg

Fleming-Neon

(c) OpenStreetMap and contributors, Creative Commons-Share Alike License (CC-BY-SA)³

Figure 1. Project Location Map

0 52.5 Miles

!( City

!> Potential Site Location Letcher County, KY

Jefferson National Forest

Kentucky

Virginia

³ Figure 2. Proposed Disturbance Limits of the Roxana Site.

Roxana, KY USGS 7.5" Topographic Quadrangle Map

0 0.40.2 Miles

Legend

Roxana Impact Area

³ Figure 3. Proposed Disturbance Limits of the Payne Gap Site

Jenkins West, KY-VA USGS 7.5"

Topographic Quadrangle Map

0 0.40.2 Miles

Legend

Payne Gap Impact Area

Kentucky Virginia

Copperhead maintains a database of Kentucky cave locations and associated bat records. The database is a combination of data collected by Copperhead, data shared by resource agencies, and data provided by caving grottos and local individuals. Copperhead’s Kentucky cave database typically contains the same significant bat caves that are used to generate USFWS’s hibernacula buffers. While coordination with the USFWS will reveal whether or not a site is located within cave “swarming habitat” buffers for known hibernacula, it does not identify the distance from hibernacula, which can be important in determining the potential for impact.

Therefore, Copperhead’s cave database was used to estimate distances of the Roxana and Payne Gap sites from known hibernacula.

No surface geologic layers with the potential to yield caves were present on either site based on USGS geologic quadrangle maps; therefore, ground searches focused on potential underground mine openings and rock shelters.

Field surveys were conducted December 2–3, 2014 and consisted of searching within and around those areas identified during the desktop assessment deemed most likely to contain underground mines and associated openings that could provide potential Indiana bat, gray bat, and NLEB winter habitat and summer gray bat habitat. Field personnel meandered above and below GPS tracks searching for mine openings. Additional search effort was made around locations identified during desktop analysis as potential mine openings. Field personnel also followed the edges of old mine high walls in search of mine openings.

When potential winter habitat was located, personnel recorded data on Phase I Habitat Assessment Data Sheets provided in Appendix 1 of the Supplemental Indiana Bat Survey Guidance for Kentucky (USFWS and KDFWR 2014). Completed datasheets are provided in Appendix II.

Field personnel used non-contact infrared thermometers to determine internal and external temperatures from the entrances of mine openings. The ground at each entrance was searched for guano and insect parts indicating bat use. When ceilings were observable from the entrance of mine openings, ceilings were viewed for bats and staining typical of heavy bat use. Cracks and crevices at mine openings were searched for bats. Mines in close proximity with apparent passages leading toward each other were assumed to be connected. A location point for each mine opening was recorded on a GPS unit.

Summer Foraging/Swarming Habitat Assessment

Aerial photography was used to determine forested acreage present within the potential impact areas for each site. Habitat assessed during the desktop analysis was confirmed in the field.

Field maps were generated, delineating areas of potential habitat so field personnel could visit and ground truth habitat areas. All distinct habitat types visible on aerial photography were checked in the field to confirm habitat type, except for areas that were inaccessible. During hibernation and summer habitat assessment, an effort was made to look for suitable potential roosts, and the number of potential primary and secondary roosts identified for each proposed site was recorded. The search for potential roosts in forested sections was not exhaustive. Roosts that were documented are likely only a portion of those available onsite. Within shrub and grass habitats, all trees were observed. Mapping was reviewed for major streams that could provide foraging and travel habitat for Indiana bats, NLEBs and gray bats. Major streams that were identified during the desktop analysis would be field-verified to determine suitability for all three bat species, had major streams been present.

RESULTS

Desktop Analysis: Indiana Bat and NLEB Winter Habitat and Gray Bat Roosting Habitat

Desktop analysis showed the potential for both summer and winter habitat for target bat species at both sites. Review of geologic quadrangle maps did not show limestone at the surface of either site, so natural caves were not considered likely to be present. Both sites showed a history of mining, with historical underground coal mining having occurred at both sites.

Roxana Site The Roxana Site has been surface mined since deep mining occurred at the site, thereby decreasing the likelihood that deep mines are still present and accessible to bats. No historic mine adits were shown on USGS topographic or geologic mapping for this site. KMMIS data did show historical potential underground mines, and locations for potential connections to the surface were identified on the northern spur of the Roxana Impact Area and just outside the southern edge of the impact boundary (Figure 4). Locations with few historical mine records that have subsequently been surface mined seldom yield intact connections to underground mines, though there is still some possibility. A review of Copperhead’s Kentucky cave database showed the Roxana Site to be 7.5 miles from a Priority 3(2) Indiana bat hibernaculum identified in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2007), 8.4 miles from a Priority 4 hibernaculum, and 8.5 miles from a Priority 1 hibernaculum (Copperhead 2014). The Roxana Site was also identified as occurring within known “P1/P2 swarming” by the USFWS in their coordination response letter of August 7, 2014 (Appendix I: page 3).

Payne Gap Site Review of USGS topographic maps showed five historic deep mine openings within the proposed impact area of the Payne Gap Site. Review of KMMIS data showed several historical underground mines, and 17 locations were identified where historical deep mines could potentially come to the surface (Figure 5). Past experience with these resources has shown that while any individual record is unlikely to yield an intact deep mine entrance, the presence of this number of records makes deep mines in the area likely. Review of Copperhead’s Kentucky cave database showed the Payne Gap Site to be 20.9 miles from the nearest Priority 3 Indiana bat hibernaculum, 22.3 miles from the nearest Priority 4 hibernaculum, and 22.6 miles from the nearest Priority 1 hibernaculum (Copperhead 2014). This site was not identified as occurring within any known “P1/P2 swarming” habitat by the USFWS in their coordination response letter of August 7, 2014 (Appendix I).

2 Indiana bat hibernacula priority definitions: Priority 1 have current or historic population of >= 10,000 Indiana bats; Priority 2 have current or historic population between 1,000 and 9,999 Indiana bats; Priority 3 have a current or historic population between 50 and 999 Indiana bats; Priority 4 have a current or observed population between 1 and 49 Indiana bats (USFWS 2007).

%2

%2 KY Mine Data ³ Figure 4. Potential Underground Mines at the Roxana Site

Source: KMMIS (2014)

0 0.30.15 Miles

Historically mined areas

Roxana Impact Area

#0

%2

%2

%2

%2

%2 %2 %2

%2

%2

%2

%2

%2

%2

%2%2

%2

#0#0

#0

#0

%2 Potential Mine-KMMIS

#0 Potential Mine-USGS

Payne Gap Impact Area ³ Figure 5. Potential Underground Mines at the Payne Gap Site

Source: KMMIS (2014)

0 0.30.15 Miles

Historically mined areas

Desktop Analysis: Indiana Bat and NLEB Summer Foraging and Roosting Habitat and Gray Bat Summer Foraging Habitat

Aerial photography (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2012) showed forested areas on both sites that appeared to be suitable foraging habitat for Indiana bats and NLEBs, and suitable Indiana bat and NLEB roosting habitat. Major water bodies typical of gray bat foraging were not apparent from desktop analysis, so the potential for foraging habitat for this species appeared to be low.

Roxana Site Aerial photography for the Roxana Site showed the potential for up to 141.8 acres (69.8% of total impact area) of Indiana bat/NLEB summer habitat. This habitat could be appropriate for either summer maternity/bachelor use or spring/fall swarming habitat for Indiana bats or NLEBs if hibernacula are located nearby. No significant streams or other large bodies of water were apparent that might provide foraging or travel habitat for gray bats.

Payne Gap Site Aerial photography for the Payne Gap site showed the potential for up to 195.5 acres (92.4% of total impact area) of Indiana bat/NLEB summer habitat. This habitat could be appropriate for either summer maternity/bachelor use or spring/fall swarming habitat for Indiana bats or NLEBs if hibernacula are located nearby. No significant streams or other large bodies of water were apparent that might provide foraging or travel habitat for gray bats.

Field Surveys: Indiana Bat, Gray Bat, and NLEB Winter Habitat and Gray Bat Summer Roosting Habitat

Winter habitat for Indiana bats and gray bats is similar with both selecting areas of caves or cave-like structures that are cool as compared to average outside temperature (USFWS 1982, USFWS 2007). Although winter habitat for NLEBs is poorly understood, they also tend to occur in caves with cool temperatures (0–9 degrees C) with numerous cracks and crevices (USFWS 2014). Despite also occurring in caves or cave-like structures, gray bat summer habitat is considerably different from winter habitat. Summer roosting sites for gray bats are typically considerably warmer than hibernation sites (USFWS 1982). However, mine entrance surveys cannot elucidate these differences if they occur beyond the entrance passage and abandoned mine entry is generally not deemed safe. For this reason, all mines found with entrances that meet the criteria of the Supplemental Indiana Bat Survey Guidance for Kentucky (USFWS and KDFWR 2014) were considered potential winter habitat for Indiana bats, NLEBs, and gray bats as well as summer habitat for gray bats. Because gray bats typically roost in relatively large numbers in summer, a season when their digestive system is active, gray bat summer roosting sites typically accumulate a noticeable distribution of guano around the entrance. While use of a mine by individual gray bats cannot be ruled out by lack of guano, sites where guano cannot be found are less likely to be occupied by gray bats in the summer.

Roxana Site Field surveys found no evidence of potential winter habitat for Indiana bats or NLEBs, and gray bat summer roosting habitat. The majority of the site is on reclaimed surface mine or on disturbed soils resulting from surface mining activities. A large portion of the site is dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.) and other grasses. Side slopes are dominated by autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) and stunted trees. Surface mining over much of the site has extracted the entire coal layer, either removing historical underground mines completely, or collapsing/pushing them closed. The ridgetop remained relatively intact in the northern spur of the property, though extensive searching in this area did not yield any underground mine access points. Historical underground mines on the Roxana Site appear to be either removed entirely or inaccessible by bats or humans. No evidence of Indiana bat/NLEB winter habitat or gray bat summer roosting habitat was present and review of geologic quadrangle maps showed no limestone layers at the surface.

Payne Gap Site Field surveys found five open underground mines (with eight openings) and evidence of additional deep mines that have been closed either through collapse or intentional closing by humans. Mine openings located during field surveys did not correspond exactly to those identified during desktop analysis, though they did roughly occur within the same contour range. This is the norm when using historic mine location data in the region. This occurs for a variety of reasons, some being: inaccurate hand mapping of historic locations, subsequent mining operations excavated or buried old mine entrances, highwall collapse covered historic opening, etc. In total, seven locations were investigated as potential Indiana bat, gray bat, and NLEB winter habitat or gray bat summer roosting habitat. Of those seven, five (including eight openings) appeared to offer potential habitat for bats (mines M03, M04, M05, M06, and M07 [Table 1; Figure 6]). Openings that appeared to be connected internally were considered a single site with multiple openings. Descriptions of all openings considered to be potential habitat are included below. Datasheets for all sites investigated are included in Appendix II and photographs of openings are included in Appendix III.

M01 was a mine opening that had collapsed. Because no passage that was accessible to bats was observed and no evidence of any bat use was found, this site was not considered potential habitat for Indiana, NLEB, or gray bats.

RS02 was a rock shelter that appeared to be created by a section of high wall shifting away from the main mass, leaving three connected openings. While the site offered approximately 30 feet of passage, the ceiling was flaking, unstable shale with some dirt and root material and was wet for most of its length. The entire length of the passage was visible. No evidence of bat use was present. Due to the ceiling condition, this site was not considered habitat for Indiana bats, NLEBs or gray bats.

M03 was a mine opening with significant horizontal passage visible from the entrance. Ceiling condition was appropriate for bat roosting and appeared stable. It appeared that water was pooled in the back portion of the mine, though there was no evidence of flooding up to the higher elevation of the shaft between the opening and the pooled water. One eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii) and one big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) were observed in crevices at the entrance. This site appeared to be suitable winter habitat for Indiana bats, gray bats, and NLEBs. Though use by individual gray bats cannot be completely ruled out, based on the lack of observable guano near the entrance, it does not appear that M03 is being used by gray bats as summer roosting habitat.

Table 1. Potential Winter Indiana Bat and NLEB, and Gray Bat Summer Habitat within the Payne Gap Site (December 2, 2014)

Habitat ID M03 M04A M04B M05A M05B M06A M06B M07

Latitude 37.14326 37.14347 37.14355 37.14685 37.1467 37.14363 37.14317 37.14312

Longitude -82.68992 -82.69126 -82.69133 -82.70168 -82.70181 -82.68884 -82.68877 -82.68884

Opening Type Shaft Adit Adit Adit Adit Adit Adit Shaft

Opening Dimensions (ft) 4 x 30 3 x 7 3 x 5 1 x 4 1 x 6 4 x 2.5 2.5 x 10 3 x 7

Internal Dimensions (ft) 5 x 30 4 x 15 4 x 10 1 x 3 3 x 5 4 x 8 5.5 x 20 3 x 15

Slope Down Down Down Down Down Down Down Down

Entrance Stability Stable Moderate Moderate No No Moderate Yes Yes

Airflow In None Slight/Out None None Slight/Out Slight/Out Slight/Out

External Temp (⁰C) 4.1 6.9 6.6 10.9 6.1 7.5 7.5 11.6

Internal Temp (⁰C) 7.1 5.2 4.9 9.8 4.7 3.3 5.1 8.4

Evidence of Collapse No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ceiling Good Flat/Stable Stable Unstable Unstable Unstable Stable Stable

Water in Opening No No No No No No No No

Past Flooding Yes No No No No No No No

Length (ft) 100 50 40 10 40 20 50 30

Distance to Water <500 m <500 m <500 m <500 m <500 m <500 m <500 m <500 m

% Canopy Cover 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8

Signs of Bat Use No No No No No No No No

Bat(s) Observed Yes(1) No No No No No Yes(2) No Notes: (1)One eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii) and one big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus).

(2)One Indiana bat.

!( Payne Gap Mines

Payne Gap Impact Area ³ Figure 6. Potential Bat Winter Habitat Identified at the Payne Gap Site

Source: KMMIS (2014)

0 0.20.1 Miles

M01

M03

RS02

M04a

M04b

M05a

M06a

M06b

M07

M05b

M04A was a mine opening. Although the passage only ran a short distance, a side passage appeared to extend a significant distance parallel to the high wall face. The entrance was moderately stable. No air flow was detected at this site. At the point where the entrance passage met the coal seam, the ceiling was composed of chunky unstable coal material that likely would not have been appropriate for bat use, though side walls were usable. No evidence of bat use was detected. While the observable portion of this mine did not appear to be as optimal hibernation habitat for Indiana bats, gray bats, or NLEBs as M03, winter bat use by these species could not be ruled out. Though use by individual gray bats cannot be completely ruled out, based on the lack of observable guano near the entrance, it does not appear that M04A is being used by gray bats as summer roosting habitat..

M04B was a mine opening that had a passage leading toward M04A. This opening had slight airflow in an outward direction. The entrance was stable and approximately 40 feet of passage was visible. Temperature inside the mine was cooler than ambient. While no evidence of bat use was observed, this site could potentially be used by Indiana bats, gray bats, and NLEBs for hibernation. Though use by individual gray bats cannot be completely ruled out, based on the lack of observable guano near the entrance, it does not appear that M04B is being used by gray bats as summer roosting habitat.

M05A was a mostly closed mine opening in the western portion of the site. Internal temperature was cooler than ambient. No airflow was observed. Ceiling condition appeared unstable. No water or evidence of flooding was present. No sign of bat use was present. Only about 10 feet of passage was observed, though the passage turned and continued. Openings M05A and M05B were suspected to be connected due to proximity. The opening was very small and appeared to be intentionally closed. While this looked like very poor winter habitat for Indiana bats, gray bats, and NLEBs, it cannot be ruled out due to the potential presence of underground connections. Though use by individual gray bats cannot be completely ruled out, based on the lack of observable guano near the entrance, it does not appear that M05A is being used by gray bats as summer roosting habitat.

M05B was a mostly closed mine opening in the western portion of the site. Internal temperature was cooler than ambient. No airflow was observed. Ceiling condition appeared unstable. No water or evidence of flooding was present. No sign of bat use was present. About 40 feet of passage was observed. The opening was very small and appeared to be intentionally closed.

While this looked like very poor winter habitat for Indiana bats, gray bats, and NLEBs, without knowing underground connections, it cannot be ruled out. Though use by individual gray bats cannot be completely ruled out, based on the lack of observable guano near the entrance, it does not appear that M05B is being used by gray bats as summer roosting habitat.

M06A was an adit just outside the eastern boundary of the project impact area. It appeared to be connected to M06B as each had passage leading toward the other. The opening had slight airflow out and was cooler internally than ambient. There was evidence of ceiling collapse and the ceiling appeared unstable. No evidence of flooding or water near the entrance was observed. No evidence was seen of bat use. This site was considered potential winter habitat for Indiana bats, gray bats, and NLEBs. Though use by individual gray bats cannot be completely ruled out, based on the lack of observable guano near the entrance, it does not appear that M05B is being used by gray bats as summer roosting habitat.

M06B was a mine opening just outside the eastern boundary of the project impact area. It appeared to be connected to M06A as each had a passage leading toward the other. The opening had slight airflow out and was cooler internally than ambient. There was slight breakdown indicating prior ceiling collapse, but the ceiling appeared stable. There was no sign of flooding or water near the entrance. No guano, staining, or insect parts were observed but a solitary torpid Indiana bat was seen just inside the entrance (Appendix III). This site was considered potential winter habitat for Indiana bats, gray bats, and NLEBs. Though use by individual gray bats cannot be completely ruled out, based on the lack of observable guano near the entrance, it does not appear that M05B is being used by gray bats as summer roosting habitat.

M07 was an opening just outside the eastern boundary of the project impact area. No obvious connections to other mine openings were apparent. The opening had slight airflow in an outward direction. Despite some evidence of previous collapse, the ceiling appeared stable.

Internally, the mine was cooler than ambient. No evidence of bat use was observed. This site was considered potential winter habitat for Indiana bats, gray bats, and NLEBs. Though use by individual gray bats cannot be completely ruled out, based on the lack of observable guano near the entrance, it does not appear that M05B is being used by gray bats as summer roosting habitat.

Field Surveys: Summer Foraging and Roosting/Swarming Habitat

Roxana Site Gray bats are known to forage over and near major bodies of water. Gray bat summer roost sites and hibernation sites are typically caves or cave like structures (USFWS 1982). The Roxana Site is upland and is not adjacent to a major water body. The site is not in the vicinity of known gray bat hibernation or summer roosts. No open deep mines or other cave like structures were found during field surveys. None of the Roxana Site was considered potential summer or winter habitat for gray bats.

Habitat types identified during desktop analyses were revised via ground truthing conducted during the field surveys. Habitat types identified are mapped in Appendix IV. Ground truthing showed that the upper elevations of the Roxana Site were predominantly reclaimed surface mine. Much of the upland habitat that appeared sparsely forested on aerial photography was actually regenerated scrub habitat dominated by shrubs (autumn olive and others) with a small number of small pines and hardwoods. No usable Indiana bat or NLEB roost trees were identified in these areas during field activities. This habitat was defined as scrub on disturbed soils and was considered to offer no bat roosting habitat and to have little or no significant foraging value for Indiana bats or NLEBs. Therefore, Indiana bat and NLEB summer/swarming habitat within the Roxana Site proposed impact area was revised to 104.9 acres (Table 2).

Table 2. Acreage of ESA-Listed Bat Summer/Swarming Habitat within the Roxana Impact Area

Site Name Project Acreage

Habitat Acreage in Impact Area

Non-Habitat Acreage in Impact Area

Percent Habitat

Roxana 203.2 104.9 98.3 51.64%

Summer/swarming habitat was further delineated after ground truthing to give greater clarity to the quality of habitat available at the site. All areas not accessible by field crews, due to safety concerns (e.g., mining highwall prevented access) that appear to be forested on 2012 aerial photography were labeled “unknown forested”.

The largest habitat type observed at the Roxana Site was defined as “regenerated forest on spoil.” Although limited in its potential to develop good roost trees for Indiana bats and NLEBs, this habitat would be moderately appropriate for Indiana bat and NLEB foraging, especially along edges, above the canopy, or in areas with lower stem density.

Grasses and other herbaceous groundcover was the second most prevalent habitat type on the Roxana Site. This was the dominant habitat along the highest elevations and was likely the result of surface mine reclamation. This habitat type was not considered habitat for Indiana bats or NLEBs.

Mature hardwood 2nd growth was the major habitat component of the northern spur of the Roxana Site. It appeared to be the result of natural regeneration from historical logging. Trees of multiple age classes were present including some trees over 60 centimeters DBH. Hardwoods were the major component with occasional pines present. This habitat type offered both Indiana bat and NLEB potential roosting and foraging habitat.

“Scrub on disturbed soils” was usually found along the edges of the grass-dominated habitats and was comprised of a shrub layer with sparse pines and a few small hardwoods. No usable snags were found in this habitat and trees were too spread out and seldom over 20 feet tall. This habitat type was not considered suitable for Indiana bat or NLEB use.

The Roxana Site also had small components of dense shrub without mature trees and young mixed forest. A summary of target bat habitat components is provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Acreage of Habitat Types within the Roxana Site Impact Area

Habitat Type Habitat Acreage in Impact Area

Indiana Bat and NLEB Habitat?

Gray Bat Habitat?

Dense shrub, no mature trees 8.18 No No Grasses or other herbaceous 61.32 No No Mature hardwood 2nd growth 29.30 Yes No Regenerated forest on spoil 73.37 Yes No Scrub on disturbed soils 28.71 No No Young mixed forest 2.32 Yes No

Four potential Indiana bat or NLEB roost trees were identified at the Roxana Site. All were located in the mature hardwood 2nd growth habitat in the northern portion of the site. All potential roosts observed in this area were considered typical of secondary roosts, as none had sufficient solar exposure for a primary roost tree.

Payne Gap Site Gray bats are known to forage over and near major bodies of water. Roost sites and hibernation sites are typically caves and cave like structures (USFWS 1982). The Payne Gap Site is upland and is not adjacent to a major water body. The site is not in the vicinity of known gray bat hibernation or summer roosts. None of the Payne Gap Site was considered potential summer foraging habitat for gray bats. Field surveys did identify open deep mine portals that could potentially provide gray bat hibernation or summer roost habitat. These were considered to have very low potential to have been used during summer by gray bats prior to the survey based on the lack of guano found in and around the openings.

Desktop identified habitat types were revised via ground truthing conducted during the field surveys. Habitat types identified are mapped in Appendix IV. Ground-truthing at the Payne Gap Site largely confirmed the desktop habitat analysis findings, and the estimate of 195.5 acres (Table 4) of potential habitat was found to be accurate. It should be noted that ridge tops were often above mine highwalls and could not be safely accessed. However, these areas do appear to be forested and, thus, were considered potential foraging and roosting habitat for Indiana bats and NLEBs.

Table 4. Acreage of ESA-Listed Bat Summer/Swarming Habitat within the Payne Gap Site Impact Area

Site Name Project Acreage

Habitat Acreage in Impact Area

Non-Habitat Acreage in Impact Area

Percent Habitat

Payne Gap 211.6 195.5 16.1 92.38%

The majority of the Payne Gap Site was mature hardwood 2nd growth (described above) which covered over 80% of the site (Table 5). All usable roosts encountered during field investigation on the Payne Gap Site were found in this habitat. Mature hardwood 2nd growth offered both roosting and foraging habitat for Indiana bats and NLEBs. Additional habitat types found at the Payne Gap Site include: unknown forest, mine road, grasses and herbaceous, and shrubs and herbaceous.

Table 5. Acreage of Habitat Types within the Payne Gap Site Impact Area

Habitat Type Habitat Acreage in Impact Area

Indiana Bat and NLEB Habitat?

Gray Bat Habitat?

Grasses or other herbaceous 6.10 No No Mature hardwood 2nd growth 174.24 Yes No Mine road 10.00 No No Shrubs and herbaceous 0.07 No No Unknown forest 21.25 Yes No

Five potential Indiana bat/NLEB roost trees were identified during field investigations at the Payne Gap Site. All of these were encountered in the mature hardwood 2nd growth habitat. All potential roosts observed were considered secondary roosts as they did not have sufficient solar exposure to be typical of primary Indiana bat roost trees.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the two sites, Payne Gap appears to offer both higher quality and quantity of summer and swarming habitat for Indiana bats and NLEBs. Payne Gap has several mines that were deemed suitable for Indiana bat, NLEB, and gray bat hibernation, including one that had a torpid

Indiana bat hanging near the entrance at the time of the habitat assessment. While it appears unlikely that mines on the Payne Gap Site are occupied by gray bats during the summer, the possibility cannot be entirely ruled out without a summer survey. From the perspective of both summer/swarming habitat and from Indiana bat and NLEB winter habitat and gray bat summer roost habitat, the Payne Gap Site appeared to provide better potential habitat for ESA-listed bat species than the Roxana Site.

Although the Roxana Site is within the 10-mile buffer that defines potential swarming habitat, it is approximately 8.5 miles to the east-northeast of the nearest hibernaculum. The Roxana Site is largely disturbed and does not appear to be particularly good habitat for Indiana bats and NLEBs, especially when compared to surrounding forested areas. The site was not considered to be summer or winter habitat for gray bats.

If the proposed action were to be constructed, the Roxana site would be substantially less likely to incur impacts to Indiana bats, NLEBs, and gray bats as well as to potential foraging or roosting habitat for these species.

LITERATURE CITED

Copperhead. 2014. In-house bat cave database.

KMMIS. 2014. Interactive Map Services – Kentucky Coal Mine Map Viewer: Letcher County.

http://eppcgis.ky.gov/flexviewers/minemapping/index.html?config=config-search.xml&slayer=0&esearch=LETCHER. Page last updated November 13, 2014; accessed November.

USDA. 2012. 2012 National Agricultural Imagery Program.

datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx.

USFWS. 1982. Gray Bat Recovery Plan. Denver, CO.

USFWS. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. Fort Snelling, MN.

USFWS. 2014. Northern Long-eared Bat Interim Conference and Planning Guidance. USFWS

Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

USFWS and KDFWR. 2014. Supplemental Indiana Bat Survey Guidance for Kentucky.

Developed by USFWS, Kentucky Field Office, Frankfort, KY and KDFWR, Frankfort, KY.

March 15.

This page intentionally left blank