Letcher County FEIS Appendix H (Part 2) - USFWS Endangered Species Act Consultation (2017).pdf

Final

Biological Assessment

Potential Effects on Species under the Jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from Construction and Operation of a

Proposed U.S. Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp

Letcher County, Kentucky

Prepared for:

U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons

Capacity Planning and Construction Branch

May 2017

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ac acre(s)

BA Biological Assessment

BMPs best management practices

Bureau Federal Bureau of Prisons oC degrees Celsius

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

Copperhead Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Inc.

dB decibel(s) dBA A-weighted decibel(s) dBP peak decibel(s)

ESA Endangered Species Act oF degrees Fahrenheit

FPC Federal Prison Camp ft foot/feet ft2 square foot/feet ha hectare(s)

Hz Hertz in inches

KEPPC Kentucky Exotic Pest Plant Council km kilometer(s)

KRADD Kentucky River Area Development District m meter(s) m2 square meter(s)

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NLCD National Land Cover Database

NLEB northern long-eared bat

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

U.S. United States

USC U.S. Code

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USP U.S. Penitentiary

WNS white-nose syndrome

WVDEP West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection

Final BA – Proposed USP and FPC Letcher County, KY May 2017 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

1.2 Scope and Content of the BA

1.3 Consultation History

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND CONSERVATION MEASURES

2.1 Proposed Action

2.2 Proposed Conservation Measures to Avoid, Minimize, and Compensate for Potential Effects to ESA-listed species

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE ACTION AREA

3.1 Determination of the Action Area

3.2 Ecoregion Description

3.3 Land Use

3.4 Summary of Findings of the Project Area Habitat Assessments

3.5 Summer Bat Habitat within the Action Area

3.6 Winter Bat Habitat within the Project Area and Action Area

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF ESA-LISTED SPECIES THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED

ACTION

4.1 Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis)

4.2 Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)

4.3 Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens)

5.0 ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS TO ESA-LISTED SPECIES

5.1 Approach to Analysis

5.2 Effects Analysis

5.3 Effects Determinations

6.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS

8.0 LITERATURE CITED

ii

List of Figures Figure 1-1. Project Location of Proposed USP and FPC, Letcher County, Kentucky Figure 2-1. Roxana Site for the Proposed USP and FPC, Letcher County, KY Figure 2-2. Conceptual Site Layout for the Proposed USP and FPC Figure 2-3. Proposed Ground Disturbance, Fill, Excavation, and Tree Clearing Figure 3-1. Action Area for Proposed USP and FPC Figure 3-2. Land Cover Types within the Action Area for the Proposed USP and FPC Figure 3-3. Delineated Potential Suitable Habitat for ESA-listed Bats within the Project Area Figure 3-4. Potential Summer Habitat for ESA-listed Bats within the Action Area Figure 5-1. Land Cover Types within a 0.5 mile Buffer Surrounding the Potential ESA-listed Bat Winter

Habitat Figure 5-2. Modeled Noise Contours for Outdoor Firing Range Operations at the Proposed USP and FPC

List of Tables Table ES-1. Summary of Findings for ESA-Listed Species ................................................................... ES-1 Table 1-1. ESA-listed Species Potentially Occurring within the Action Area Table 3-1. NLCD Classes within the Action Area Table 3-2. Acreage and Percent NLCD Classes within the Action Area Table 3-3. Area of Summer Habitat for ESA-listed Bats within the Roxana Site and Action Area Table 5-1. Potential Effects on ESA-listed Bat Species Based on Stressors Associated with the Proposed

Action Table 5-2. Quality and Utilization of ESA-listed Bat Species Habitat Cleared under the Proposed Action

Table 5-3. Summary of Potential Effects to the NLEB Table 5-4. Summary of Potential Effects to the Indiana Bat Table 5-5. Summary of Effects to the Gray Bat Table 7-1. Summary of Findings for ESA-listed Species

Appendix Appendix I. Coordination History

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (Bureau), as the action agency, has prepared this Biological Assessment (BA) to support formal consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 United States [U.S.] Code [USC] 1531 et seq.). Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. This document also supports the Bureau’s compliance with Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq.) mandating that appropriate consideration be given to environmental resources impacted by the preferred alternative presented in the Supplemental Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed United States Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp, Letcher County, Kentucky.

This BA has been prepared to analyze and address the potential effects on federally threatened and endangered species under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) from the construction and operation of a proposed U.S. Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp near the community of Roxana, Letcher County, Kentucky. Table ES-1 provides information on the ESA-listed species that occur within the Action Area and, based on the evaluation presented in this BA, presents the Bureau’s effects determination for each ESA-listed species from the implementation of the proposed project.

Table ES-1. Summary of Findings for ESA-Listed Species Common Name Scientific Name Status Effects Determination

Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened May affect, is likely to adversely affect Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered May affect, is likely to adversely affect Gray bat Myotis grisescens Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect Kentucky arrow darter Etheostoma spilotum Threatened No effect

ES-2

[This page intentionally left blank.]

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (Bureau), as the action agency, has prepared this Biological Assessment (BA) to support formal consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 United States [U.S.] Code [USC] 1531 et seq.). Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or otherwise carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any ESA-listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

This document also supports the Bureau’s compliance with Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 USC 4321 et seq.) mandating that appropriate consideration be given to environmental resources potentially impacted by the preferred alternative presented in the Draft Supplemental Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed United States Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp, Letcher County, Kentucky (Federal Bureau of Prisons 2017).

This BA has been prepared to analyze and address the potential impacts on federally threatened and endangered species under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) from the construction and operation of a proposed U.S. Penitentiary (USP) and Federal Prison Camp (FPC) near the community of Roxana, Letcher County, Kentucky (Figure 1-1).

1.1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Bureau’s mission is to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, appropriately secured, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. The purpose of the proposed federal correctional facility in Letcher County, Kentucky is to provide an additional high-security penitentiary and an associated prison camp to increase capacity for current inmate populations in the Mid-Atlantic Region. The need for the proposed facility is that the current inmate populations of high-security male facilities (USPs) in the Mid-Atlantic Region are exceeding their rated capacity and their associated minimum-security facilities (FPCs) are at or near capacity. The overcrowding level in the USPs in the Mid-Atlantic Region is currently 35%. Current inmates from the four existing USPs in the Mid-Atlantic Region could be moved from these overcrowded facilities to the proposed Letcher County USP. The Bureau has determined that there is a need for additional high-security facilities within this region to reduce the demonstrated overcrowding that compromises the mission of the Bureau (Federal Bureau of Prisons 2017).

1.2 SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE BA

1.2.1 SPECIES ADDRESSED IN THIS BA

ESA-listed species are defined as those plant and animal species currently listed by the USFWS under the ESA as threatened or endangered. Based upon guidance from the USFWS Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office received on August 7, 2014 (USFWS 2014; included in Appendix I of this BA), four ESA-listed species may potentially occur within the Action Area and are addressed in this BA (Table 1-1). The definition of the Action Area is provided in Section 3.1. Throughout this BA, the phrase “ESA-listed bats” applies to the listed bat species that are considered: northern long-eared bat (NLEB), Indiana bat, and gray bat.

Table 1-1. ESA-listed Species Potentially Occurring within the Action Area Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status

Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered Gray bat Myotis grisescens Endangered Kentucky arrow darter Etheostoma spilotum Threatened

State Hwy

State Hwy 7

H ic k or yR d

StateH w y

S ta te H w y

State Hwy 160

K in gs C reek Judy Bra nc h

Rd

O ldhouse

Branch

Tolby Branc h R d

Pr esto ns Dr

SEa stRdLi lle y

C or ne ttB ran ch

Rd

Big Br-T olson Cr Rd

Lynn Bran

Tolby Branch

Big Bottom Branch

Lucky Branch Pa ci es

Br an ch

N orth Fork Kentucky R iver

Floyd

Harlan

Knott

Letcher Perry

Pike

Ken tucky

V irg inia

0 2,500

Ft

Biological Assessment

Letcher County, Kentucky

1:36,000

1 inch = 3,000 ft or Coordinate System: NAD

1983 StatePlane Kentucky FIPS 1600 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Datum: North American Sources: ESRI 2017, USG S 2009, US Census 2015, KYTC 2015, Bureau Date: 2/24/2017

Project Area Railroad Rivers/Streams Roads

Figure 1-1.

Project Location of Proposed USP and FPC, Letcher County, KY µ

State Hwy 588 Roxana

Line Fork

Project Area _̂ Whitesburg

M ill

B ra nc h

P ac ie s

Br an ch Rd

Island Branch

Sm oot C reek

CSX Transportation

Whitta ker B ran ch

T ol so n

B ra n ch

North Fork Ken tuck y

R iv er

The USFWS published occurrence records for the Kentucky arrow darter in the critical habitat designation for the species (USFWS 2016e). Stream reaches containing all extant populations are considered critical habitat. No extant arrow dater populations are known to occur within the Action Area or Letcher County. The closest population measured along watercourses through which fish or pollutants must travel for the project to have effect on the population, is approximately 44 stream miles (71 kilometers [km]) from the Project Area and is considered too remote to be affected by the project.

Therefore, given the species does not occur within the Action Area and the proposed construction and operation of the USP and FPC would have no effect on the closest occurrence of the species via waterway connection, the Kentucky arrow darter is dismissed from further analysis in this BA.

1.2.2 CRITICAL HABITAT

Critical habitat is defined in ESA section 3(5)(A)] as: “(1) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (constituent elements) (a) essential to the conservation of the species and (b) which may require special management considerations or protection;

and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.”

Critical habitat has not been designated for the gray bat or NLEB (USFWS 2015e, 2017a). While critical habitat has been designated in Kentucky for the Indiana bat (USFWS 1976), no areas of critical habitat are located within or in the vicinity of the Action Area.

1.2.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE BA

Chapter 1 of this BA provides an introduction to the Proposed Action, including information on the scope and content of the BA. Chapter 2 provides a description of the Proposed Action and proposed conservation measures to avoid, minimize and compensate for potential effects to ESA-listed species.

Chapter 3 provides a definition of the Action Area and existing conditions within the Action Area.

Chapter 4 provides information on the ESA-listed species in the Action Area. Chapter 5 provides analyses of the potential effects of the Proposed Action on ESA-listed species, given implementation of the conservation measures. Chapter 6 discusses any non-federal actions within the Action Area that may result in cumulative effects. Finally, Chapter 7 presents conclusions of the BA, including the Bureau’s section 7 effects determinations.

1.3 CONSULTATION HISTORY

Initial conversations between the Bureau and USFWS personnel began in June 2013, which began informal consultation. The following summarizes the consultation history.

• July 15, 2013 – Letter from the Bureau notifying the USFWS of its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for a new USP and FPC in Letcher County, and inviting the USFWS to a scoping field view on August 13, 2013.

• August 13, 2013 – USFWS attends the Bureau’s scoping field view.

• August 7, 2014 – Letter from USFWS to Cardno with comments on the Proposed Action in accordance with the ESA and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The letter identified two federally listed endangered species (Indiana bat, gray bat), one species proposed for listing as endangered (NLEB), and one candidate species (Kentucky arrow darter) that have the potential to occur within the project vicinity. USFWS recommended presence/absence or habitat surveys for these species.

• December 2–3, 2014 – Field survey for a habitat assessment for Indiana bat, gray bat, and NLEB was conducted by Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Copperhead) at the proposed Roxana and Payne Gap sites.

• January 16, 2015 – Letter from the Bureau to USFWS submitting the habitat assessment report for Indiana bat, gray bat, and NLEB at the proposed Roxana and Payne Gap sites.

• February 4, 2015 – Letter from USFWS to Cardno acknowledging receipt and review of the January 2, 2015 Habitat Assessment and the January 16, 2015 submittal, recommending a spring portal survey of the Payne Gap site.

• May 20, 2015 – The Bureau and Cardno met with the USFWS in Frankfort, Kentucky to discuss mitigation for impacts to summer habitat of the Indiana bat and NLEB at the Roxana site.

• June 12, 2015 – Email from Cardno to USFWS summarizing May 20, 2015 meeting on mitigation for Indiana bat and NLEB at the Roxana site.

• June 30, 2015 – Email correspondence between Cardno and USFWS. USFWS notified Cardno that tree removal during June and July is not covered under the Conservation Memorandum of Agreement.

• July 15, 2016 – Email exchange between USFWS and the Bureau describing potential scenarios associated with summer presence/absence bat surveys and winter habitat surveys.

• September 6–8, 2016 – Field habitat assessment of revised 2016 survey area was completed for listed bat habitat by Copperhead.

• October 31 and November 9, 2016 – Emails from USFWS to Copperhead detailing type and distance of listed bat records from the proposed Roxana site.

• December 15, 2016 – Letter from the USFWS to the Bureau acknowledging receipt of the habitat assessment report for Indiana bat, gray bat, and NLEB for additional areas at the Roxana site. The survey found suitable summer habitat for Indiana bats and NLEB. One cave-like rock shelter was found that was deemed potentially suitable as winter habitat for listed bat species. The USFWS concurred with determination of potential habitat for the species. The USFWS suggested that indirect impacts to the species as a result of construction activities and operation of the facility, including loss of forested habitat in proximity to the suitable cave-like rock shelter, should be evaluated.

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND CONSERVATION MEASURES

2.1 PROPOSED ACTION

The following is a summary of the proposed action addressed in this BA; further detail can be found in the Draft Supplemental Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed United States Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp, Letcher County, Kentucky (Federal Bureau of Prisons 2017). The Proposed Action evaluated in this BA is the acquisition of property and the construction and operation of a federal correctional facility in Letcher County, Kentucky. The proposed site is located near the community of Roxana 7.5 miles (12.1 km) west of the city of Whitesburg, Kentucky (Figure 2-1).

The Proposed Action would include the construction and operation of a USP and a FPC. Inmates housed in the USP would be high-security male inmates and those housed in the FPC would be minimum-security male inmates. The proposed USP and FPC would house approximately 1,216 inmates (approximately 960 within the USP and approximately 256 within the FPC). Operation of the USP and FPC would require approximately 300 full-time staff. On-site ancillary facilities necessary for the operation of the USP and FPC would include the following:

• Central Utility Plant (13,100 square ft [ft2] [1,217 square m {m2}])

• Training Center including an Outdoor Firing Range (1,033 ft2 [96 m2]) and Staff Training

Building (9,795 ft2 [910 m2])

• Outside Warehouse (35,295 ft2 [3,279 m2])

• Garage/Landscape Building (7,028 ft2 [653 m2])

• Access Roads and Parking

A non-lethal/lethal fence and lighting would also be installed. The non-lethal/lethal fence would be placed around the perimeter of the USP between two parallel, chain link and razor wire fences. The fence would be approximately 12 feet (ft) (3.6 meters [m]) high. The site lighting would consist of 100-ft (30-m) high-mast lighting poles placed along the security perimeter road around the correctional facility, in the parking lot, and around the buildings. The lighting would include hooded fixtures with a combination of high pressure sodium and metal halide lights or light-emitting diode (LED) lights to provide a minimum of 1.5 foot candles of illumination. The number and mix of light sources used to illuminate the secure compound are selected for the ability to relight the facility quickly in the event of a power outage.

2.1.1 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES

The Bureau proposes to acquire approximately 570 acres (ac) (231 hectares [ha]) west of Roxana to construct a USP (approximately 15.2 ac [6.2 ha]) and FPC (approximately 1.5 ac [0.6 ha]). The 570-ac (231 ha) Project Area and conceptual site layout are presented in Figure 2-2. A forested buffer area would remain around the USP and FPC providing visual and physical setbacks from the site boundaries.

Preparation of the site for construction would require forest clearing and clearing a previously mined area, and extensive excavation of spoil material and lesser amounts of rock. All excavated mine spoil and rock would be used on-site for structural fill. The excavated soil and rock would be compacted to create a structural fill for the building foundations or transported to the valleys adjacent to the northwest of the proposed FPC location and southwest of the proposed USP location and compacted as structural fill. The total area required for clearing and grading is approximately 180.5 ac (73.1 ha) (Figure 2-3).

The outdoor firing range would be used by Bureau staff on an annual and monthly basis. Annual small arms training for employees, along with annual qualification/recertification for firearms instructors, would last 6 weeks during the months of March and April. Monthly firearms training for special operations response teams would last 1 day.

T ol so n

B ra nc h

Pa cie s Bra nc h

North Fork Kentucky River

Kings Creek

Jim sR d

P a ce s Br an ch

Rd

Jewell Rd

L ille y Cor ne tt

B ra nc h

Rd

Bluegrass Ridge Rd

S E ast R d

St at e H w y

State H w y

Harlan

Knott

Letcher

Perry

Pike

Ken tucky

V irg inia

0 2,000

Ft

Biological Assessment

Letcher County, Kentucky

1:15,000

1 inch = 1,250 ft or

Coordinate System:

NAD 1983 StatePlane Kentucky FIPS 1600 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Datum: North American Sources: ESRI 2009, USG S 2009, US Census 2015, KYTC 2015, Bureau 2017, Date: 2/24/2017

Project Area Elevation Contours Railroad Rivers/Streams Roads

Roxana State Hwy 588

Figure 2-1. Roxana Site for the Proposed

USP and FPC, Letcher County, KY µ

Project Area _̂ Whitesburg

State Hwy 588

CSX

Tr an sp or ta tio n

M ill

B ra nch

Garage/Landscape Building

Outside Warehouse

Utility Plant

T ol so n

B ra nc h

Pa ci es Bra nch

Kings Creek

North Fork Kentucky River

M ill

Branch

Stat e H w y

State Hwy 588

State H w y

Floyd

Harlan

Knott

Letcher Perry

Pike

Kentucky

Virg inia

0 2,000

Ft

Biological Assessment

Letcher County, Kentucky

1:15,000

1 inch = 1,250 ft or

Coordinate System:

NAD 1983 StatePlane Kentucky FIPS 1600 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Datum: North American Sources: ESRI 2017, USGS 2009, KYTC 2015, US Census 2015, Bureau Date: 4/17/2017

Roxana

State Hwy 588

Figure 22. Conceptual Site Layout for the

Proposed USP and FPC µ

Project Area _̂ Whitesburg

Blu eg ra ss

R id ge R dLi lle y C or ne tt Br an ch

S E as t R d Jewell Rd

State Hwy 588 Facilities and Infrastructure

USP

FPC

Road

Training Center/ Firing Range

Central Utility Plant

Project Area

Roads

Rivers/Streams

Rd ol so n

B ra nc h

Pa ci es Bra nc h

Kings Creek

N orth Fork Kentucky River

M ill

Bran ch

State Hwy

State Hwy 588

State H w y

Floyd

Harlan

Knott

Letcher Perry

Pike

Ken tucky

V irg inia

0 2,000

Ft

Biological Assessment

Letcher County, Kentucky

1:15,000

1 inch = 1,250 ft or

Coordinate System:

NAD 1983 StatePlane Kentucky FIPS 1600 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Datum: North American Sources: ESRI 2017, USG S 2009, US Census 2015, KYTC 2015, Bureau 2017.

Date: 2/24/2017

Project Area

Proposed G round Disturbance and Clearing Proposed Tree Clearing

Proposed Excavation Area

Proposed Fill Area

Roxana

Ri dg e R d

Figure 2-3. Proposed Ground D isturbance, Fill, Excavation, and Tree Clearing µ

Project A rea _̂ Whitesburg

Blueg ras s

Li lle y C or ne tt

Br an ch R d

S E as t R d

Jewell Rd

State Hwy 588

2.1.2 PROJECT TIMELINE

The initial step for project development would be property acquisition. Property acquisition would involve acquisition of both surface and mineral rights from multiple owners, and would be estimated to take several months to a year or longer. Project construction would begin after property acquisition is completed, and would take 4-5 years. Once open, the facility would continue operation indefinitely.

2.1.3 INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS

No interrelated or interdependent actions are currently known concerning the Proposed Action.

2.2 PROPOSED CONSERVATION MEASURES TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, AND COMPENSATE FOR

POTENTIAL EFFECTS TO ESA-LISTED SPECIES

Construction impacts to vegetation and wildlife would be minimized to the greatest extent possible. An open area with a direct line of site is required for the areas surrounding the USP and FPC. However, upon completion of construction, disturbed areas that are not developed would be revegetated and maintained as grassy lawn areas.

2.2.1 SOIL DISTURBANCE

The project would require a substantial amount of earth-moving that could potentially increase sediment runoff. The Bureau would prepare a soil erosion and sediment control plan and submit it to the Kentucky Division of Water for approval prior to construction. The erosion and sediment control plan would outline the measures and best management practices (BMPs) to be used for controlling on-site erosion and sedimentation during construction. BMPs could include placement of silt fencing adjacent to surface waters and wetlands to prevent the introduction of sediment; the use of hay bales to minimize the spread of sediment off the construction site; stabilization of steep slopes; use of tree clearing plans. In addition, construction period and permanent surface water and stormwater control plans would be implemented to manage stormwater runoff during construction. Additionally, construction of the USP, FPC, and ancillary facilities could be phased to occur at different times, resulting in the minimization of disturbed soil by clearing only the area necessary for the current phase of construction. Revegetation of disturbed areas following the completion of construction would also occur to minimize the erosion of exposed soil.

In addition to mitigation and conservation measures, the Bureau will obtain the required permits to meet regulatory requirements related to environmental impacts. Required permits include Clean Water Act section 401 and 404 permits; Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit; and an air quality permit.

2.2.2 TREE REMOVAL

Standing trees will not be removed during June and July of any year during construction. Following the guidance provided in the USFWS’s 2016 Revised Conservation Strategy for Forest-Dwelling Bats in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, or appropriate succeeding document (USFWS 2016j), the Bureau will mitigate for impacts to summer habitat and potential take of listed bat species through payment into the Imperiled Bat Conservation Fund. Payment into the fund would be based on the acreage and time of year that forested habitat is removed (120.6 ac [48.8 ha]). The Imperiled Bat Conservation Fund would then provide the mitigation fees to the Kentucky Natural Lands Trust to support conservation and recovery actions for the species.

2.2.3 CONSTRUCTION BLASTING

The Proposed Action would require blasting within 0.5 mile (0.8 km) of one cave-like feature identified during the 2016 Habitat Assessment as potential ESA-listed bat winter habitat. In the absence of swarming surveys or an internal survey of the cave-like feature, listed bat species are assumed to be present within the feature during the winter. Likewise, winter presence of listed bat species is assumed for areas outside the Project Area surveyed during the habitat assessments (Copperhead 2016a, 2016b). In order to avoid potential adverse effects to hibernating ESA-listed bats at potential hibernacula within 0.5 mile (0.8 km) of the Project Area, the Bureau will not conduct construction blasting from November 15 through March 31.

2.2.4 SITE LIGHTING

The Bureau would implement conservation measures to avoid and minimize potential effects of site lighting on the Indiana bat and NLEB during construction and operations. To maintain the character of the surrounding rural environment, hooded lights with reflectors would be used to completely conceal the light source above the rim of the fixture, which would result in maximum down-lighting effects.

Illumination of forest will be kept to an absolute minimum. In addition, all outdoor construction activities would be conducted during daylight hours from April 15 through October 31 in known or suitable summer habitat to avoid harassment of foraging Indiana bats and NLEB.

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE ACTION AREA

3.1 DETERMINATION OF THE ACTION AREA

Determination of the Action Area followed the Section 7 Consultation Handbook and through coordination with the Kentucky Field Office. The USFWS advises that “the Action Area is defined by measurable or detectable changes in land, air, and water, or to other measurable factors that may elicit a response in species or critical habitat” (USFWS 2015c). The Action Area includes “all areas that may be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action” (USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] 1998).

The USFWS Kentucky Field Office recommends a habitat analysis buffer of 2.5 miles (4.0 km) and 1.5 miles (2.4 km) from a project’s center to address potential impacts to Indiana bats and NLEB bats, respectively (Figure 3-1) (USFWS 2016g; 2016j). The buffers are used to compare amount of suitable bat habitat removed by projects with the amount of suitable bat habitat available in the area. For the purposes of the Proposed Action, the Action Area is that area 2.5 miles (4.0 km) from the center of the proposed facilities and includes potential direct and indirect impacts to ESA-listed species from vegetation removal, noise and vibration, potential changes in water quality, and lighting. The Action Area corresponds to the

2.5 mile buffer used for Indiana bat habitat analysis.

3.2 ECOREGION DESCRIPTION

The Action Area occurs in Dissected Appalachian Plateau of the Central Appalachian Ecoregion (Woods et al. 2002). The ecoregion is composed of narrow ridges and valleys, deep coves with cool, high gradient streams, and is mostly forested. The Central Appalachian Ecoregion is underlain by flat-lying Pennsylvanian shale, siltstone, sandstone, and coal. Surface and underground coal mining, logging, and both gas and oil production are common and have degraded surface waters. Nutrient levels in streams are very low and reflect the ecoregion's low population density, limited agriculture, and non-carbonate rocks.

Line Fo rk

S ta te H w y

H ick or y Rd

StateH w y

St at e H w y

S t a te H w y

State H w y

Floyd

Harlan

Knott

Letcher Perry

Pike

Ken tucky

Virg inia

0 1

Miles

Biological Assessment

Letcher County, Kentucky

1:48,000

1 inch = 4,000 ft or

Coordinate System:

NAD 1983 StatePlane Kentucky FIPS 1600 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Datum: North American Sources: ESRI 2017, USG S 2009, US Census 2015, KYTC 2015, Bureau 2017, Copperhead Consulting 2016.

Date: 2/24/2017

Action Area Project Area Proposed Ground Disturbance and Clearing

Roxana

Figure 3-1. Action Area for Proposed USP and FPC µ

Action A rea

Project A rea

_̂ Whitesburg

State H w y

State Hwy 58

North Fork Ken tuck y

R iv er

North Fork Ken tuck y

R iv er

K ings Creek

M ill

B ra nc h

3.3 LAND USE

Based on the 2011 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) (Homer et al. 2015), 11 land cover types occur within the Action Area (Table 3-1 and Figure 3-2).

Table 3-1. NLCD Classes within the Action Area Class\Value Classification Description

WATER

Open Water Areas of open water, generally with less than 25% cover of vegetation or soil.

DEVELOPED

Open Space Areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20% of total cover. These areas most commonly include large-lot single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes.

Low Intensity Areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 20–49% percent of total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units.

Medium Intensity Areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50–79% of the total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units.

BARREN

Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay)

Areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits, and other accumulations of earthen material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 15% of total cover.

FOREST

Deciduous Forest Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 m tall, and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75% of the tree species shed foliage simultaneously in response to seasonal change.

Evergreen Forest Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 m tall, and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75% of the tree species maintain their leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage.

Mixed Forest Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 m tall, and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen species are greater than 75% of total tree cover.

SHRUBLAND

Shrub/Scrub Areas dominated by shrubs; less than 5 m tall with shrub canopy typically greater than 20% of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs, young trees in an early successional stage, or trees stunted from environmental conditions.

HERBACEOUS

Herbaceous Areas dominated by graminoid or herbaceous vegetation, generally greater than 80% of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to intensive management such as tilling, but can be utilized for grazing.

PLANTED/CULTIVATED

Hay/Pasture Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing or the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle. Hay/pasture vegetation accounts for greater than 20% of total vegetation.

Source: Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium 2016.

The 11 land cover types total 12,565 ac (5,085 ha) within the Action Area, with approximately 83% (10,460 ac [4,233 ha]) forested, primarily Deciduous Forest (80%) (Table 3-2 and Figure 3-2).

Herbaceous areas total 9% (1,154 ac [467 ha]) and developed areas total 6% (775 ac [314 ha]).

Table 3-2. Acreage and Percent NLCD Classes within the Action Area

NLCD Class Area (ac)

% of Action Area

Indiana Bat and NLEB Summer Habitat

Forest Deciduous Forest 10,020.3 79.7% Yes Mixed Forest 425.8 3.4% Yes Evergreen Forest 13.5 0.1% Yes

Herbaceous 1,154.2 9.2% No Developed

Open Space 553.5 4.4% No Low Intensity 180.2 1.4% No Medium Intensity 41.4 0.3% No

Barren Land 140.6 1.1% No Open Water 24.0 0.2% Yes Hay/Pasture 9.3 0.1% No Shrub/Scrub 2.2 0.02% No

Total 12,565.0 olson Branch

S ta te H w y te H State Hwy 2036

H ic ko ry

Rd

State

H w y

St at e H w y

State H w y

State

H w y

Harlan

Knott

Letcher Perry

Pike

Ken tucky

Virg inia

0 1

Miles

Biological Assessment

Letcher County, Kentucky

1:48,000

1 inch = 4,000 ft or

Coordinate System:

NAD 1983 StatePlane Kentucky FIPS 1600 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Datum: North American Sources: ESRI 2017, USGS 2009, US Census 2015, KYTC 2015, Homer et al. 2015, Bureau 2017 Date: 4/19/2017

Action Area NLEB Habitat Buffer Proposed Ground Disturbance and Clearing Project Area

State Hwy 588

Figure 32. Land Cover Types within the

Action Area for the Proposed USP and FPC µ

Action Area

NLEB Habitat Buffer

Project Area

_̂ Whitesburg

M ill

B ra nc h

Line Fork State Hwy 160

North Fork Kentucky

R iv er

NorthFork Kentucky

R iv er

Land Cover (Homer et al. 2015)

Shrub/Scrub

Open Water

Mixed Forest

Herbaceous

Hay/Pasture

Evergreen Forest

Developed, Open Space

Developed, Medium Intensity

Developed, Low Intensity

Deciduous Forest

Barren Land

3.4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF THE PROJECT AREA HABITAT ASSESSMENTS

Two habitat assessments were conducted within the Project Area focusing on habitat for ESA-listed bats.

The first, finalized in March 2016 with field work conducted in December 2014, detailed habitat on 203.2 ac (82.2 ha) of the original Roxana site (Copperhead 2016a). The second habitat assessment, finalized in December 2016 with field effort in September 2016, detailed habitat on an additional 302 ac (122 ha) within the boundaries of the Roxana site after project planning changes were incorporated (Copperhead 2016b). The combined survey area (i.e., Project Area) is shown on Figure 3-3.

The habitat assessments involved initial desktop research followed by field surveys. Desktop analysis identified history of mining and probable presence of summer habitat for Indiana bats and NLEB.

Desktop analysis data was used to focus field survey activities. No cave-forming geology was indicated through desktop analysis (Copperhead 2016a, 2016b).

The 2014/2016 habitat assessment identified 104.9 ac (42.5 ha) of potential suitable summer habitat for Indiana bats and NLEB and no potential winter habitat for ESA-listed bat species; no suitable habitat was found onsite for gray bats during any season (Copperhead 2016a).

The 2016 habitat assessment identified 251.5 ac (101.8 ha) of potential suitable Indiana bat and NLEB summer habitat and one underground feature that was considered potentially suitable for use as a hibernaculum by Indiana bats, NLEB, and gray bats. The feature was considered unlikely to be used by gray bats during summer as no signs of use, typical of gray bat summer sites, were present (Copperhead 2016b).

Of the combined areas surveyed during both bat habitat assessments (505.2 ac [204.4 ha]), a total of 356.4 ac (144.2 ha) were considered potential suitable Indiana bat and NLEB summer habitat within the Project Area. A total of 180.5 ac (73.1 ha) would be cleared and graded, of which 120.6 ac (48.8 ha) is forested (Copperhead 2016b). Potential suitable habitat for ESA-listed bat species is shown in Figure 3-3.

3.5 SUMMER BAT HABITAT WITHIN THE ACTION AREA

NLCD class descriptions were reviewed and four classes were deemed suitable as Indiana bat and NLEB summer habitat within the Action Area: Deciduous Forest, Mixed Forest, Evergreen Forest, and Open Water (Table 3-1). These were determined to comprise approximately 10,484 ac (4,243 ha) of potential Indiana bat and NLEB summer roosting and foraging habitat within the Action Area (Figure 3-4). While grasslands do contribute to the production of insect prey and may be used as foraging or commuting habitat for these species, potential project-related impacts to these habitats are considered to have an insignificant and/or discountable effect on ESA-listed bat species and are not included in the summer habitat acreage (Table 3-3).

Typical Indiana bat foraging range was used to determine the buffer (provided by USFWS) for the Action Area; however, NLEBs typically occupy a smaller area surrounding roosts. Per the direction of USFWS, habitat within a 1.5 mile (2.4 km) radius around the project center was used for the NLEB summer habitat analysis (USFWS 2016j). Total area within this buffer is 4,534.5 ac (1,835.1 ha), of which 81.5% is considered NLEB habitat (Table 3-3 and Figure 3-4).

Table 3-3. Area of Summer Habitat for ESA-listed Bats within the Roxana Site and Action Area

Area

NLEB

(ac) Indiana Bat

(ac) Gray Bat

(ac) Project Area 356.4 (72.4%)(a) 356.4 (72.4%)(a) 0 Action Area (2.5-mile radius Indiana bat habitat buffer) 10,483.6 (83.4%)(b) 10,483.6 (83.4%)(b) 71.5 (0.6%)(c) NLEB 1.5-mile radius habitat buffer 3,696.3 (81.5%)(b) 3,696.3 (81.5%)(b) 0

Notes: (a)Suitable habitat within the Roxana Site determined via field surveys.

(b)Suitable habitat determined via NLCD.

(c)Suitable habitat determined via U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset and NLCD.

Gray bat summer habitat in the Action Area was assumed to be the North Fork of the Kentucky River and its major drainages. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset polygons for major drainages (USGS 2016) were used to determine large stream areas. In addition, areas of streams greater than third order were delineated to determine area for smaller streams that were still considered possible gray bat summer habitat (Figure 3-4). Gray bat habitat comprised 0.6 % (71.5 ac [28.9 ha]) of the Action Area. While upland forested habitats contribute to the generation of potential gray bat prey and individuals will commute across and opportunistically forage in these habitats, impacts from the Proposed Action to upland forested sites are considered to have an insignificant and discountable effect to the species and are not included in habitat acreage for the species (Figure 3-4).

3.6 WINTER BAT HABITAT WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND ACTION AREA

One underground feature within the Project Area is considered potential winter habitat for NLEB, Indiana bats, and gray bats. In the absence of a fall/spring trapping or winter survey to determine use of the underground feature, it is assumed to be winter habitat for ESA-listed bats. The feature is 217.7 ft (66.4

m) south of the proposed construction and tree clearing limits for the Proposed Action (Figure 3-3).

Habitat assessment field efforts were conducted only on properties where access permission was provided (the Project Area). For that reason, all habitat within the Action Area, excluding the Project Area, is assumed to have potential winter habitat (hibernacula) for ESA-listed bat species. However, the number and locations of any potential hibernacula is unknown.

#0 olson

B ran

Pa cie s Bra nc h

North Fork Kentucky River

Kings Creek

Jim sR d

P a ce s Br an ch

Rd

Jewell Rd

L ille y Cor ne tt

B ra nc h

Rd

S E as t

R d

St at e H w y

State Hwy 160

Harlan

Knott

Letcher

Perry

Pike

Ken tucky

V irg inia

0 2,000

Ft

Biological Assessment

Letcher County, Kentucky

1:15,000

1 inch = 1,250 ft or

Coordinate System:

NAD 1983 StatePlane Kentucky FIPS 1600 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Datum: North American Sources: ESRI

2009/2017., USG S 2009,

US Census 2015, KYTC 2015, Bureau 2017, Copperhead Consulting 2016.

Date: 2/24/2017

Project Area

Potential Indiana Bat and NLEB Roosting and Foraging Habitat Grassland/Scrub Habitat on M ine Spoil

#0 Potential Suitable ESA-listed Bat Hibernaculum Railroad

Roads

Rivers/Streams

Roxana State Hwy 588

Figure 3-3. Delineated Potential Suitable

Habitat for ESA-listed Bats within the Project Area µ

Project A rea _̂ Whitesburg

State Hwy 588

CSX

Tr an sp or ta tio n

M ill

B ra nch

LineFork

N orth

Fork K entuck y

R iver

K ings Creek

S ta te H w y

Hickory Rd

StateH w y

St at e H w y

S ta te H w y

State Hwy

StateH w y

Floyd

Harlan

Knott

Letcher Perry

Pike

Kentucky

Virg inia

0 1

Miles

Biological Assessment

Letcher County, Kentucky

1:45,000

1 inch = 3,750 ft or

Coordinate System:

NAD 1983 StatePlane Kentucky FIPS 1600 Feet Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Datum: North American 1983 Sources: ESRI 2016, USGS 2009, Us Census 2015, Homer et. al.

2015, Bureau 2017, Copperhead Consulting 2016 Date: 4/19/2017

Action Area

NLEB Habitat Buffer

Project Area

Proposed Ground Disturbance and Clearing Gray Bat Summer Habitat (USGS

NHD 2009)

Indiana Bat and NLEB Summer Habitat (Homer et. al. 2015)

Roxana

Figure 34. Potential Summer Habitat for

ESAlisted Bats within the Action Area µ

Action Area

NLEB Habitat Buffer

Project Area

_̂ Whitesburg

State Hwy 588

Tolson

Branch

North ForkKentuck y

R iv er

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF ESA-LISTED SPECIES THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE

PROPOSED ACTION

4.1 NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT (MYOTIS SEPTENTRIONALIS)

4.1.1 SPECIES DESCRIPTION

The NLEB is a medium-sized bat that utilizes a wide variety of forested habitats for roosting and foraging during the summer throughout the eastern U.S. The species uses hawking and gleaning techniques to forage on a diversity of insect prey often under the canopy (USFWS 2015a).

4.1.2 LISTING STATUS

The NLEB was listed as threatened under the ESA with an interim 4(d) Rule in May 2015; the Final 4(d) Rule was issued in January 2016 (USFWS 2015a, 2016a). The Final 4(d) Rule prohibits purposeful take of NLEB throughout the species’ range, except in instances of removal of NLEB from human structures, defense of human life (including public health monitoring), and removal of hazardous trees for protection of human life and property. The 4(d) Rule restricts clearing of potential roost trees within 0.25 mile (0.4

km) of a known hibernaculum, removal of known occupied maternity roost trees, or removal of other trees within a 150-ft (45.7-m) radius of a known occupied maternity roost tree during the maternity season (June 1 – July 31). Incidental take resulting from otherwise lawful activities is prohibited in areas not yet affected by white-nose syndrome (WNS). WNS is a fungal disease affecting many hibernating U.S. bat species. The Action Area occurs within the WNS zone (USFWS 2016d). A recovery plan has not yet been prepared for the NLEB.

4.1.3 THREATS

WNS is the most significant contributor to the population decline of NLEB and the primary reason the species was federally listed as threatened (USFWS 2015a). WNS is caused by a fungus (Pseudogymnoascus destructans) that lives in cold environments such as the caves and mines where bats hibernate. WNS was first documented in New York in 2007 and has since spread to 32 states and 5 Canadian provinces (White-nose Syndrome.org 2016). WNS has caused severe declines in bat populations in eastern North America (Blehert et al. 2009; Turner et al. 2011). Francl et al. (2012) found that NLEB were the dominate species captured (41%) in West Virginia before the arrival of WNS, but the capture rates of NLEB in West Virginia declined by approximately 23% after the arrival of WNS. By 2010, NLEB were the third most abundant species captured (24% of captures). Turner et al. (2011) documented a 98% decline in NLEB across 42 hibernation sites in New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Artificial lighting can have adverse effects on bat activity and behavior. Although lights often attract flying insects and therefore bats that prey on those insects, there is variation of the effect of artificial lighting among species. Stone et al. (2012) found that the activity of Myotis species significantly decreased in areas receiving artificial light. Stone et al. (2009) also found that lit areas delayed the emergence of the lesser horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus hipposideros). Typically, bats emerge at or near dusk in conjunction with prey availability (Jones and Rydell 1994). A delay in emergence due to the presence of artificial light may cause bats to miss the peak abundance of their insect prey, potentially causing reduced foraging effectiveness and longer commutes. Longer travel distances can have a negative impact on growth rates and mass of juvenile bats (Tuttle 1976).

Vibrations caused by blasting for construction, quarrying, or mining have the potential to adversely impact hibernating bats. Vibrations are greatest along the ground surface and have been found to be 2.0 to

7.8 times greater than underground levels (Vibra-Tech Engineers 2001; West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection [WVDEP] 2006). Studies have documented an increase in Indiana bat and Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus) populations subjected to vibrations associated with blasting suggesting these populations can tolerate vibrations of 0.06 to 0.20 inches

(in)/second (sec) (1.52 to 5.08 millimeters [mm]/sec) without negative effects (Besha 1984; WVDEP 2006). Vibra-Tech Engineers (2001) found peak particle velocities in a cave closest to blasting to range from 0.05 to 0.18 in/sec (1.27 to 4.57 mm/sec) and described the noise level in the cave to be comparable to far-off thunder. Vibration has the potential to arouse bats from hibernation, cause abandonment of hibernacula or in extreme cases, cause collapse within hibernacula (WVDEP 2006). Disturbance or modification of normal torpor patterns, abandonment of roosts, and felling of roosts during spring, summer, and fall are also a concern.

Additional threats to NLEB include deforestation, wind energy, and climate change. These threats likely have a cumulative effect on the NLEB population, but not to the extent of WNS. Deforestation is thought to be of minor concern for NLEB as they appear to be resilient to forest conversion. Reviews of studies involving 62 wind energy facilities found NLEB mortalities to occur at 29% of the facilities and comprise less than 1% of all bat mortalities (USFWS 2015b). Climate change may also influence the range of some bat species due to food availability, timing of hibernation, reproduction, frequency and duration of torpor, and rate of energy expenditure (Loeb and Winters 2013; Sherwin 2013).

4.1.4 ECOLOGY

4.1.4.1 Winter Habitat

To date, relatively little is known about NLEB hibernation. Although NLEB do occur in caves during winter, they are rarely found in high numbers. There are approximately 1,508 known hibernacula across the NLEB’s U.S. range, which include caves and abandoned or active mines (USFWS 2015b). Length of hibernation for bats in the genus Myotis varies with latitude and environmental factors, but can occur from September to May (Fenton 1969; Caire et al. 1979; Whitaker and Rissler 1992a, 1992b; Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). Bats select hibernacula based on physical structure, air circulation, temperature profile (constant, cool temperatures 32–48 degrees Fahrenheit [oF] (0–9 degrees Celsius [oC], and high humidity), and distance to foraging sites (Tuttle and Stevenson 1978; USFWS 2015a).

NLEB are often found hibernating individually or in small groups deep in crevices in hibernacula. This habit likely contributes to the difficulty in their detection during winter census (USFWS 2015a). Whitaker and Rissler (1992a) documented a large number of NLEB entering a cave in Indiana and subsequently found it difficult to find them in the cracks of the cave. Furthermore, these bats may remain active throughout the winter and move between hibernacula (Whitaker and Rissler 1992a), which compounds difficulties associated with estimating populations.

4.1.4.2 Summer Habitat

NLEB utilize a wide variety of forested habitats during the summer for foraging, roosting, and commuting. During the summer, NLEB roost in a wide variety of tree species, heights, and diameters.

Lacki et al. (2009) found the NLEB roost heights to be 11.8–34.8 ft (3.6–10.6 m). Studies indicate roost trees typically have a diameter at breast height (DBH) between 4 and 10 in (10 and 25 centimeters [cm]).

Maternity colonies usually occur in live or dead trees greater than 3 in (7.6 cm) DBH under sloughing bark, in crevices, or in cavities (USFWS 2015a), although there is some use of artificial roosts (e.g., BrandenBarkTM, Steve Samoray, Copperhead, pers. obs., 2013), and bat boxes and anthropogenic structures (e.g., shutters) (Broders and Forbes 2004; Henderson and Broders 2008).