20181192_Northern Long-Eared Bat Section 7 Documentation - July 2015_20151201

Northern Long-Eared Bat Section 7 Documentation
For
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
�
•
��: �U�P�E�'�
�`i :S4C)
Trlan�le F�r�ssw�y
�.�:d���r�� ���t�����
Wake and Johnston Counties
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829
State Project Nos. 6.401078, 6.401079, and 6.401080
Federal Aid Project Nos. STP-0540(19), STP-0540(20), and STP-0540(21)
WBS Nos. 37673.1.TA2, 35516.1.TA2, and 35517.1.TA1
July 2015

DOCUMENTATION
Complete 540 - Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension
Northern Long-Eared Bat Section 7 Documentation
NCDOT STIP Project No. R-2721, R-2828, R-2829
Wake and Johnston Counties
The included documentation relates to coordination efforts relative to the northern long-eared bat
(NLEB, Myotis septentrionalis) in eastern North Carolina (NCDOT Divisions 1-8). This coordination
was conducted primarily between the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT).
The Complete 540 project is located in NCDOT Division 4 and 5. Therefore, the attached
documentation applies to this project.
The following documents are attached. A divider page is used to separate the various documents.
A. USFWS letter dated April 10, 2015 to the FHWA and the USACE — this letter adopts the
USFWS's March 25, 2015 conference opinion as the Programmatic Biological Opinion for the
NLEB in eastern North Carolina (NCDOT Divisions 1-8) effective May 4, 2015.
B. FHWA and USACE letter dated April 9, 2015 to the USFWS — this letter requests that the
USFWS confirm their March 25, 2015 conference opinion as the biological opinion.
C. USFWS letter dated March 25, 2015 to the FHWA and the USACE and attached USFWS
Programmatic Conference Opinion — this letter and the attached conference opinion applies to
all NCDOT activities with a federal nexus in NCDOT Divisions 1-8 relative to the NLEB.
D. FHWA and USACE letter dated January 13, 2015 to the USFWS and attached Programmatic
Biological Assessinent — this letter initiates formal Section 7 conference relative to the NLEB
in eastern North Carolina (NCDOT Divisions 1-8) and includes the Programmatic Biological
Opinion for the NLEB as prepared by NCDOT.
Northern Long-Eared Bat Section 7 Documentation ,
STIP Project Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829—July 2015

ATTACHMENT A
USFWS letter �daYed A�ril 10, 2015
to the FHWA and the USACE

United States llepartment of the Interior
John F. Sullivan III, PE
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh F'ield Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Federal Highway Administration
North Carolina Division
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Mr. Sullivan and Mr. McLendon:
April 10, 2015
Scott McLendon
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Caz•olina 28403
This letter is in response to your letter of April 9, 2015 regarding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Seivice (Service) Programmatic Conference Opinion for North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) activities in eastern North Carolina (Divisions 1-8) and their effects on
the northern long-eared bat (NLEB, Myotis septentrionalis). The Service issued the Conference
Opinion on March 25, 2015. Subsequently, the final rule designating the NLEB as a federally
threatened species was published on Apri12, 2015 and becomes effective on May 4, 2015. You
have requested that the Service coniirm our Conference Opinion as the Programmatic Biological
Opinion for the NLEB. This response is provided in accordance with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Since the issuance of the Conference Opinion, we understand that there have been no significant
changes in the action as planned or in the information used during the conference. Therefore,
effective May 4, 2015, the Service will officially adopt our Conference Opinion as the
Programmatic Biological Opinion for the NLEB.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for the NLEB
in eastern North Carolina (NCDOT Divisions 1-8). However, any individual project which may
affect any other federally threatened or endangered species must undergo its own Section 7
consultation on a project-by-project basis. Also, obligations under Section 7 consultation must
be reconsidered if new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect the
NLEB in a manner not previously considered in this review or if this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review. If you have any questions
concerning the Programmatic Biological Opinion, please contact me at [phone] (Ext. 11).
Since d�ly,
� � �-- },_, �
Pete Benj in
Field Supervisor

Electronic copy:
Donnie Brew, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Brian Yanchik, FHWA, Summerville, SC
Richard Hancock, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Phil Harris, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Felix Davila, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Ron Lucas, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Henry Wicker, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Lori Beckwith, USACE, Asheville, NC
Tracey Wheeler, USACE, Washington, NC
Tom Steffens, USACE, Washington, NC
Brad Shaver, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Liz Hair, USACE, Wilrnington, NC
�ric Alsmeyer, USACE, Wake Forest, NC
David Bailey, USACE, Wake Forest, NC
Neil Medlin, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Heather Wallace, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Mary Frazer, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Colin Mellor, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Chris Rivenbark, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Rachelle Beauregard, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Clay Willis, NCDOT, Edenton, NC
Jay Johnson, NCDOT, Gi•eenville, NC
Stonewall Mathis, NCDOT, Castle Hayne, NC
Chad Coggins, NCDOT, Wilson, NC
Chris Murray, NCDOT, Durham, NC
James Rerko, NCDOT, Fayetteville, NC
Jeriy Parker, NCDOT, Gi•eensboro, NC
Art King, NCDOT, Aberdeen, NC
Jill Utrup, USFWS, Bloomington, MN
Forest Clark, USFWS, Bloomington, IN
Marella Buncick, USFWS, Asheville, NC
Jason Mays, USFWS, Asheville, NC
Sue Cameron, USFWS, Asheville, NC
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC

ATTACHMENT B
FHWA and USACE letter dated April 9, 2015 to the USrWS

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Apri19, 2015
Mr. Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
SS1F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
Dear Mr. Benjamin:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTION DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTION, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
In Reply Refer To:
HDA-NC
On January 13, 2015, the Pederal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District, requested the initiation of formal conference for the
northern long-eared bat (NLEB). Formal conference was requested for North Carolina
Department of Transportatio�� (NCDOT) projects implemented in Divisions 1-8. In response,
your office issued a conference opinion (CO) on March 25, 2015.
On Apri12, 2015, the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) was formally listed as a threatened species
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). FHWA and USACE, therefore, request that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) confirm the conference opinion (CO) as a biologica] opinion
(BO). There have been no significant changes in the proposed action or with the information
used in the conference.
If you have any questions, please contact Doruiie Brew at (9] 9) 747-7017, or
donnie.bi'e��:a�dot�zov; and/or Lori Beckwith at [phone], ext. 223, or
loretta.a.beck�vith cr�usace.armv.mi�.
Sincerely,
� � ���
�`'John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
North Carolina Division
CF:
Richard Hancock, NCDOT, PDEA
Sincerely,
Scott McLendon
Chief, Regulatory Division
Wilmington District

ATTACHMENT C
USFWS letter dated March 25, 2015
to the FHWA and the USACE
and the
USFWS Programmatic Conference Opinion

Ilniteci States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Ralei�,sh. North Carolina 27636-3726
John F. Sullivan III, PE
Federal Highway Administr•ation
Noi-th Carolina Division
310 IVew Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, Noi•th Caroliiia 27601
Dear Mr. Sullivan asld Mr. McLendon:
March 25, 2015
Scott McLendon
US Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Conference Opinion
base�i on our programmatic review of North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
activities ul eastern North Carolina (Divisions 1-8) and their effects on the northei�n long-eared
bat (NLEB, Myotis septentrionalis), a species federally proposed for listing under the
Endangei•ed Species Act of 1973 (ESA). This Conference Opinion is provided in accordance
with Section 7(a)(4) of the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your January 13, 2015
request for formal conference and accompanying Programmatic Biological Assessment (dated
Januaiy 9, 2015) were i•eceived on January 16, 2015.
The Federal Highway Administr•ation (NC Division) and the U.S. Army Cotps of Engineers
(Wilmington District) have determined that, collectively, federally funded and federally
permitted activities implemented by NCDOT in eastern North Carolina (Divisions 1-8) may
affect and are likely to adversely affect the NLEB. Therefore, this programmatic Section 7
conference will consider all NCDOT activities with a federal nexus in NCDOT Divisions 1-8 as
a single action. It is undersiood that the Federal Highway Administration will be the lead federal
action agency when individual pr°ojects are federally funded, whet•eas the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineez•s will typically be the lead federal action agency when there is no feder•al funding for a
project and a Clean Watei• Act Section 404 permit is requit•ed.
This Programmatic Conference Opinion only addresses the NLEB and should not, by itself, be
necessarily construed as completing Section 7 consultation for any specific project. Any
individual project which may affect any other federally threatened or endangered species must
undergo its own Section 7 consultation on a project-by-project basis. If you have any questions
concerning this Programmatic Conference Opinion, please contact me at [phone] (Ext.
11).
�Since.z�ly, �
�� r� �
1 � � �
� f ��
_ �.¢�-'"` � �
:.,�� `�:��. _ ,
Pete B�amin
Field Supervisor

Electronic copy:
Donnie Brew, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Richard Hancock, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Phil Hai7is, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Felix Davila, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Ron Lucas, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Henry Wicker, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Lori Beckwith, USACE, Asheville, NC
Tracey Wheeler, USACE, Washington, NC
Tom Steffens, USACE, Washington, NC
Brad Shaver, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Liz Hai��, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Wake Forest, NC
David Bailey, USACE, Wake Forest, IVC
Neil Medlin, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Heather Wallace, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Mary Fr•azer•, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Colin Mellor, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Chris Rivenbai•k, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Rachelle Beauregard, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC
Clay Willis, NCDOT, Edenton, NC
Jay Johnson, NCDOT, Greenville, NC
Stonewall Mathis, NCDOT, Casile Hayne, NC
Chad Coggins, NCDOT, Wilson, NC
Chris Mur-�•ay, NCDOT, Durham, NC
James Rei•ko, NCDOT, Fayetteville, NC
Jerry Parker, NCDOT, Greensboro, NC
Art King, NCDOT, Aberdeen, NC
Jill Utrup, USFWS, Bloomington, MN
Forest Clark, USFWS, Blooinington, IN
Maz�ella Buncick, USFWS, Asheville, NC
Jasofl Mays, USFWS, Asheville, NC
Sue Cameron, USFWS, Asheville, NC
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC

The following Programmatic Conference Opinion (PCO) is based on infarmation provided in the
Programmatic Biological Assessment: Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentr�ionalis) in
Eastern North Carolina (PBA), scientific literature, meetings, emails, and other sources of
published and unpublished information. A complete administrative record of this conference is
on file at this office.
CONFERENCE HISTORY
March 24, 2014 — Staff from the Service, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) met to discuss the need for a formal Section 7
conference for the proposed listed NLEB.
May 28, 2014 — Staff from the Service, FHWA, NCDOT, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) met to discuss the development of a programmatic formal Section 7 conference.
June 3, 2014 — Staff from the Service, FHWA, NCDOT, and USACE met to discuss the
development of a programmatic formal Section 7 conference.
June 11, 2014 — Staff from the Service, FHWA, NCDOT, and USACE met to discuss the
development of a programmatic formal Section 7 conference.
June 26, 2014 — Staff from the Service, FHWA, NCDOT, and USACE met to discuss the
development of a programmatic formal Section 7 conference.
July 14, 2014 — Staff from the Service, FHWA, NCDOT, and USACE met to discuss the
development of a programmatic formal Section 7 conference.
August 4, 2014 — Staff froin the Service, FHWA, NCDOT, USACE, and North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) met to discuss the development of a programmatic formal
Section 7 conference.
August 25, 2014 — The Service provided comments on an early rough draft PBA.
August 25, 2014 — Staff from the Service, FHWA, NCDOT, USACE, and NCWRC met to
discuss the development of the PBA.
September 18, 2014 — Staff from the Service, FHWA, NCDOT, USACE, and NCWRC met to
discuss the development of the PBA.
October 7, 2014 — Staff from the Service, FHWA, NCDOT, USACE, and NCWRC met to
discuss the development of the PBA.
October 30, 2014 — Staff from the Service, FHWA, NCDOT, USACE, and NCWRC met to
discuss the development of the PBA.

November 17, 2014 — Staff from the Service, FHWA, NCDOT, USACE, and NCWRC met to
discuss the development of the PBA.
October — December 2014 — The Service provided comments on multiple drafts of the PBA.
January 16, 2015 — The Service received a letter from the FHWA and USACE, dated January 13,
2015 with the attached PBA, requesting a formal conference for potential effects to the NLEB
that could result from the implementation of NCDOT activities in Divisions 1-8.
January 22, 2015 — The Service sent a letter to the FHWA and USACE stating that all
information required for initiation of conferencing was either included with their January 13,
2015 letter or was otherwise available.
March 2, 2015 — The Service provided the FHWA, USACE, and NCDOT with a draft PCO.
PROGRAMMATIC CONFERENCE OPINION
L DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
NCDOT Program Overview
North Carolina is one of only a few states that have no county highway departments. With about
80,000 miles of state-owned and maintained highways, NCDOT has one of the two largest state-
owned and maintained highway systems in the country (USDOT 2013). NCDOT constructs and
maintains a wide variety of transportation infrastructure across the state, including aviation,
bicycle, pedestrian, ferry, highway, public transportation, and railroad projects. NCDOT has
divided the state into 14 geographical divisions. Typically larger projects are planned as part of
the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), while smaller projects are planned
within the local Division Office. Most state transportation projects eventually become the
responsibility of the local NCDOT Division Offices to maintain.
NCDOT projects are tracked by project type and a unique number. NCDOT STIP and Division
project types, including commonly used prefixes, are listed below (Table 1) with brief
descriptions adapted from the STIP (NCDOT 2015).
Table 1. NCDOT STIP and Division Project Types and
Prefix Proiect Tvpe Description
B Bridge Replacement in Existing bridges are replaced. These projects are generally larger
STIP or more complicated than the next two cate�ories.
:�
i'
Bridge Replacement in
Division
Bridge Preservation in
Division
Existing bridges are replaced. Generally these are two lane
bridges.
Existing bridges are preserved by supplementing or replacing
comnromisin� elements.

Prefix Pro'ect Ty e Descri tion
C Congestion Mitigation Addition of lanes, sidewalks, greenways, trails, intersections, and
associated crosswalks and signage for improved movement
E Enhancement Installation of interactive signage, visitor's exhibits and/or
gateway or interruptive markers intended for scenic beautification
EE Mitigation Wetland and stream mitigation in the form of enhancement,
restoration, or preservation is conducted to offset losses due to
project construction
EB, Bike Route and New or additional lanes for bike or pedestrian traffic
ER Pedestrian Enhancement
EL Enhancements — Ramp, parking lot, or visitor center improvements, preservation,
Multi-use Path or maintenance
F Ferry Dock, ramp, engine, ferry, parking lot, or visitor center
improvements, preservation, or maintenance
FS Feasibility Study Conducted to determine the degree to which the project is
justified (economically, environmentally, socially, financially)
I Interstate Pavement preservation or maintenance, access improvement,
widening, upgrading intersections, bridge preservation and/or
adding lanes along interstates
K Rest Area Existing or new rest area ramp, parking, sewer, fixtures and
finishes installation or preservation
L Landscape Plantings or replantings along NCDOT projects.
P Passenger Rail Rail grade separations, track realignment, track improvement,
tracic and station right of way acquisition, and track bypass
installation
R, A, Rural Improvements to existing and new locations, road widening,
M intersection or interchange improvements, traffic circles, and
weigh stations improvements
S, SB Scenic Byway Waysides, overlooks, interpretive signs, land conservation to
implement resource protection and heritage tourism development
to enhance and preserve scenic vistas and tourism corridors
SF, Highway Safety and Realign curves, install median barriers, install shoulders or turn
SI, W Hazard lanes to improve safety
SR Safe Routes to School Improve safety and/or reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air
pollution in vicinity of schools; also includes education, training,
and other non-infrastructure needs
U Urban Roadway improvements including new lanes, new location
extensions, bridge replacements, grade separations, interchange
and intersection conversion
X Special Projects New location and new structures
Y,Z Railroad-Highway Grade separation and crossing safety improvements
Crossings

For the purposes of this programmatic consultation, NCDOT projects (STIP and Division) have
been grouped and categorized as follows:
l. New Construction
2. Safety and Mobility
3. Maintenance and Preservation
4. Disaster Response, Bank Stabilization, and Sinkhole Repair
5. Transportation Enhancements
The proposed action evaluated in this PCO includes all of the NCDOT activities in NCDOT
Divisions 1-8 (eastern North Carolina) with a federal nexus.
NCDOT Program Details
In order to conduct a thorough effects analysis of the NCDOT activities on the NLEB, each of
the above categories of proj ects was broken down into a list of potential activities and sub-
activities and are described below.
1. New Construction (category)
New construction includes activities for roadway and railway construction and improvements,
bridge and culvert construction and replacement, and the development of construction staging
areas. Vehicle and heavy equipment use are involved in all aspects of new construction. New
construction projects typically reduce and modify habitat, increase impervious surface area, and
increase disturbance. Many of these projects affect undeveloped or undisturbed property, require
the acquisition of additional right-of-way (ROW), and involve impacts to native vegetation.
Contractars may need to establish project equipment staging areas and parking areas. Often,
existing road surfaces or parking areas can be utilized. However, if heavy equipment staging is
necessary in vegetated areas, temporary impacts to sensitive habitats can occur.
The NCDOT anticipates there will be approximately 1,436 projects within this category over the
next five years within the action area.
Staging areas/site prep (activity)
Staging areas/project site prep covers preparations at the project site itself and staging areas.
Staging areas are places where equipment, a temporary field office, and materials are temporarily
stored or located in preparation for their use during construction. These areas are typically
located within or closely adjacent to the construction site.
Lighting (subactivity under staging areas/site prep)
The use of lighting to illuminate project work involves installing permanent highway
illumination and traffic signals. Lighting may also be used temporarily in order to conduct
construction activities during the evening and nighttime hours.
4

Tree clearing and grubbing (subactivities under staging areas/site prep)
Tree clearing and clearing of other vegetation is performed to prepare the project area for
construction activities. Clearing generally takes place within pre-marked areas in the project
area necessary for construction purposes. The initial access into work areas for clearing
activities will be via existing public roads, but clearing for temporary access roads may also be
needed. Clearing consists of cutting and removing above-ground vegetation such as grasses,
brush, and trees; removing downed timber and other vegetative debris; and salvaging marketable
timber. Grubbing will follow clearing operations to reinove any remaining surface vegetation
and buried debris. Clearing and grubbing are required prior to earthwork in order to remove
vegetative and other debris from work areas so that design speciiications (e.g. for compaction)
can be met. Trees, stumps, and large roots will be removed from excavation areas to a depth
sufficient to prevent such objectionable inaterial from becoming mixed with the material being
incorporated in the embankment. All extraneous matter will be removed and disposed of in
designated waste areas on or off-site by chipping, burying, or other methods of disposal,
including burning. Various methods and equipment will be used for this work. Clearing and
grubbing takes place within construction limits, but may also occur in temporary construction
easements used to assemble and store the construction vehicles that are too large to travel on the
highway in one piece (e.g. haul trucks, earthmovers, large dozers, large excavators, hoes, etc.).
These areas are also used to store supplies (erosion control materials, steel rebar and mesh, small
diameter culverts, traffic signs and posts, office trailers, etc.).
Earthwork (subactivity under staging areas/site prep)
Earthwork is all earth moving activities that will occur for road and interchange construction,
access road construction/relocation, utility placement and relocation, construction of drainage
structures, and preparation of staging, maintenance, waste, and borrow areas. Earthmoving
activities will include excavating (cutting), filling, ditching, backfilling, grading, embankment
construction, auguring, disking, ripping, grading, leveling, borrowing and wasting of materials,
and any other earth-moving work required in the construction of the project. Earthmoving
equipment to be used includes haul trucks, dozers, excavators, scrapers, and backhoes.
Earthwark may be conducted as part of the preparation of staging areas, bridge approaches,
alignments, embankments, fills, backfills, foundations, toe trenches, road grades, utility
relocation, stormwater treatment, ditch construction, bank stabilization, landscaping, restoration,
and mitigation.
Blasting (subactivity under staging areas/site prep)
Blasting may be required on a limited number of projects. Timing and duration of the blasting
will vary on a project-by-project basis. Blasting consists of excavating in rock to achieve
smooth, unfractured backslopes. It can also involve blasting to facilitate excavation.
Bridgework may require blasting during the construction or removal of bridge abutments.
Debris or rock disposal may be required after blasting.
5

Dust control (subactivity under staging areas/site prep)
Performing earthworlc activities may necessitate the use of dust control measures. This worlc
consists of applying water for the alleviation or prevention of dust nuisance originating from
earthwork construction operation from within the project construction limits.
Install erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) (subactivity under
staging areas/site prep)
This work includes the installation of silt fences, check dams, sediment basins, coir blankets and
temporary seeding.
Structure demolition (subactivity under staging areas/site prep)
Structures within the project ROW will be purchased and either demolished or moved (intact)
off-site prior to the commencement of construction work. Structures include commercial,
residential, and public buildings and facilities. After demolition, structure debris is hauled off-
site for disposal.
Installation of drainage features (subactivity under staging areas/site prep)
This work may include work area isolation; stream diversion; dewatering; excavation for pipe
trenches, ditch creation and stream relocation; culvert jacking or drilling; laying and covering
pipe; constructing headwalls on the outlet side of flow diversion; installing armoring; and
restoring flow.
Utility relocation (subactivity under staging areas/site prep)
Utility relocation or placement can involve both above and below-ground work, including tree
clearing, mowing, trenching, and horizontal or directional bore. When water, sewer, electric, or
gas lines need to be relocated, these impacts are typically accounted for during project planning
and permitting. In the rare event that utility lines would need to be relocated outside a project
right of way, the utility company will be responsible for obtaining their own permits. In this rare
instance, tree clearing would not be accounted for by NCDOT.
Other project site prep subactivities
portable fence installation/removal
temporary access road construction, which requires installation of geofabric and rock
gravel workspace
Offsite use areas (activity)
Waste and borrow areas that are used to dispose of and obtain materials for earthwork are also
subject to clearing and grubbing, but the contractor is responsible for addressing federally listed
threatened and endangered species issues per NCDOT standard specifications. Most borrow and
waste areas are sited in areas of previously disturbed habitat where tree removal is minimal.
�

Road surface preparation and construction (activity)
The activity of road surface preparation and construction also includes the construction of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This activity may include the following sub-activities:
construct stormwater facilities
final grading and road/trail bed preparation
construct barrier wall and retaining wall (mechanically stabilized earth, soil nail, sheet
pile, soldier pile, etc.)
application of course aggregate, concrete, or asphalt
striping, pavement markers, and signage
guard rail installation
noise wall construction
sidewalk installation
New rail track construction (activity)
This activity includes the following subactivities:
subgrade installation (building up ballast/rail bed)
laying track
Bridge/culvert construction (activity)
Work included in this activity includes bridge construction and replacement, construction and
replacement of culverts over three feet in diameter, and widening of existing bridges and
culverts.
Many of NCDOT's traditional bridge replacement projects take as little as 9 months, and low-
impact bridges can be completed in as little as 3-6 months. Culvert replacements are typically
even shorter in duration. Installation of new bridges may require the installation of an on-site
detour bridge. Occasionally, half of the new bridge is constructed adjacent to the old bridge and
acts as the detour bridge while the original bridge is removed and replaced.
Geotechnical investigations (drilling) are necessary far any type of construction work that
requires a level of underground stability. They are normally needed to determine appropriate
designs far bridge foundations.
Foundations are required elements of every bridge construction and replacement project. Bridge
foundations consist of three general types: 1) drilled shafts, 2) columns on spread footings, and
3) driven piles and pile-supported caps or walls. Driven piles are normally used to support
temporary structures such as detour bridges and work bridges. However, driven piles are also
used to provide additional support to spread footings.
In-water work may take place during many activities associated with bridge construction,
excluding superstructure construction. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are used to protect
water quality during in-water work, and special BMPs apply in High Quality Waters,
Outstanding Resource Waters, and in N.C. Carolina Coastal Area Management Act counties
(NCDOT 2003).

Bridge and culvert construction include the following subactivities:
barge use - anchor spud installation, mooring, operation
temporary work trestle/platform/detour bridge/causeway construction and removal
o impact/vibratory pile driving
o deck installation
o pile removal (vibratory hammer, direct pull, etc.)
bridge demolition (for replacement)
o work area isolation (cofferdam installation, impact/vibratory pile driving,
dewatering)
o remove piles, footings, piers, bridge decking, rail bed, etc. (vibratory pile driver,
clamshell bucket, containment boom)
o wire saw concrete cutting, crane use
o hoe ram use, debris containment, excavation
substructure construction (piers, shafts, shaft caps, footings, abutments, foundations)
o work area isolation (cofferdam installation, impact/vibratory pile driving,
dewatering)
o drilled shaft construction (auger drills hole within casing) or impact pile driving
o install casing and rebar
o pour concrete
o spread footing construction
o riprap installation
superstructure construction
o pier tables, cantilevers, decicing, pre-cast concrete or steel girders, crane use
Post-construction activities
In addition to temporary BMPs used during construction, NCDOT implements a post-
construction stormwater program in accordance with its National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Post-construction structural BMPs are permanent controls
that treat stormwater runoff from stabilized drainage areas to protect water quality, reduce
pollutant loading, and minimize post-construction impacts to water quality. Because post-
construction BMPs are permanent, they require a long-term maintenance commitment to
function as designed. Subactivities include:
temparary BMP removal (silt fencing, check dams, sediment basin)
fence installation
landscaping/beautification/site stabilization
Billboards (activity)
NCDOT has entered into an agreement with the FHWA regarding the control of outdoar
advertising in areas adjacent to any highway which is or becomes a part of the National Highway
System. No person shall erect and/or maintain any outdoor advertising within 660 feet of the
highway ROW without first obtaining a permit from NCDOT. Constructing or maintaining a
billboard may involve tree removal along highways. Vegetation cutting, thinning, pruning, or
removal by billboard owners cannot be conducted without a permit by NCDOT.

The current tree clearing limit along federal primary highways is 380 feet for rural roads and 340
feet for roads within city limits. Statewide, there are an estimated 8,000 billboards. Up to 750
permits may be issued annually for vegetation removal statewide (Coleman 2012). In addition tc
tree clearing, billboards may also involve long-term lighting.
2. Safety and Mobility Improvement (category)
Safety and mobility improvement projects include many of the same activities and subactivities
described under the New Construction category such as tree clearing and grubbing. Vehicle and
heavy equipment use will be required for all projects and portable lighting may be used for some
proj ects.
Safety projects are designed to improve the safety of the highway system and not to add
capacity. These include signal and illumination improvements, sign installation, installation of
sidewalks, tree removal from the clear zone, guard rail installation, railroad grade separation, and
alignment modifications. Alignment modifications may include adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.
truck climbing and acceleration lanes), channelization (turn lanes), on and off ramp extensions,
or realigning an intersection to improve the sight distance.
Mobility improvement projects are designed to improve traffic operations and/or capacity on
existing roadways. Typical projects include construction of high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes in urban areas, reconstructing existing interchanges, construction of new interchanges,
adding additional lanes, and sidewalk, curb and shoulder construction. Overpass, bridge, and
culvert replacement and widening may occur as part of a mobility improvement project.
Most mobility improvement projects generally occur in heavily developed urban areas. Many of
these projects affect very little undeveloped or undisturbed property, and many occur in the
existing ROW in heavily urbanized areas.
The NCDOT anticipates there will be approximately 601 projects within this categary over the
next five years within the action area.
Intelligent transportation systems (activity)
Intelligent transportation systems are advanced applications that strive to provide innovative
services relating to different modes of transport and traffic management and enable various users
to be better informed and make safer, more coordinated, and smarter use of transport networks.
This includes all modes of transport and incorporates current and evolving computer and
communication technologies with the goal of improving traffic conditions, minimizing delays,
and increasing safety for all commuters. This primarily involves the following subactivities: sign
and camera installations.
Railroad protective device installation (activity)
This activity involves the installation of signals and other safety features where railroads
intersect at grade or where railroads intersect roads at grade.

Railroad grade separation (activity)
Railroad grade separation involves the alignment of two or more surfaces, associated with
similar or dissimilar transport types of differing elevations. This typically consists of the
creation of an overpass or underpass to allow for continued flow of activity at the
axis/intersection of the transport facilities. Subactivities include:
staging areas
project site prep
install drainage features
utility lines
pre-watering of roads and exposed areas in construction site for dust control or grading
Road surface, railroad bed preparation and construction (activity)
The preparation of and construction of road surfaces and railroad beds may involve the following
subactivities:
construct stormwater facilities
final grading and road/rail bed preparation
retaining wall construction
course aggregate application, concrete or asphalt application
striping, pavement markers and signage
railroad crossing gate installation
guard rail installation
sidewalk, curb, and shoulder construction
Signal system improvements (activity)
Signal system improvements involve changes or upgrades to signaling system.
3. Maintenance and Preservation (category)
All activities under this category will require the use of vehicles. Many will require the use of
heavy equipment and portable lighting. Minor tree clearing and grubbing may be required on
some maintenance, preservation, and facilities preservation projects.
The NCDOT anticipates there will be approximately 392 projects within this category over the
next five years within the action area.
Bridge painting (activity)
Steel bridges ar bridges with steel sections require painting on an as-needed basis, approximately
every 10 years. Bridge painting involves abrasive blasting to remove all corrosion, washing the
bridge, and then applying a number of coats of paint. Bridge painting and rehabilitation both
require human presence above and below bridges. Bridge painting involves the following
subactivities:
construct scaffolding
install full containment (includes vacuum system far capturing wash water)
pressure wash bridge
l0

sandblast bridge
prime/paint bridge
remove containment and scaffolding
Bridge rehabilitation (activity)
Bridge deck repairs occur regularly while bridge deck replacement is infrequent. Bridge decks
that are made of concrete are partially removed and replaced. Removal may involve
jackhammers, concrete saws, and hydro milling (high-pressure water). Longer bridges have
expansion joints that must be repaired and replaced as needed. Bridge repair, painting, and
retrofit projects may involve hanging scaffolding and containment devices under and around the
bridges.
Bridge repair and maintenance activities include washing, sandblasting, patching, bonding, and
filling voids in concrete with epoxy. Similar washing, sandblasting, and patching may be
implemented for maintenance of guardrails and other infrastructure. In addition, this action may
occasionally include minor replacement and repair of bridge structural elements, such as
individual trusses, stringers, and girders. Generally, this work requires the use of light
equipment, primarily handheld power tools. However, replacement or repair of bridge structure
elements, such as individual trusses, stringers, and girders may require the use of heavy
equipment. In-water work similar to that previously described under Bridge/culvert
construction may take place during many activities associated with bridge rehabilitation
projects.
Bridge rehabilitation subactivities include:
install scaffolding and containment
replace rivets, degraded steel, bridge railing, joint seals, bearing wark
seal cracks (Shotcrete)
repair concrete spalling
repair bridge approaches
repair/replace electrical system
bridge deck replacement
bridge demolition
o install scaffolding and containment
o mill, break up, ar use hydro-demolition to remove existing deck
o use vacuum truck or sweeper to remove debris
o repair/replace finger joints
o pour new deck
o remove containment and scaffolding
Culvert cleaning/repair (activity)
This activity includes regular removal of debris, vegetation, and sediment. Culvert
cleaning/repair includes the following subactivities:
divert flow, dewater as previously described
clean culvert
lil

install culvert liner (complete or invert)
patch repair (metal or concrete, coat and seal)
headwall or outfall repair (concrete work or riprap installation)
repair joints (band installation, inject grout)
line with Shotcrete or Gunnite
sandblast/repaint/recoat
Drainage improvements (activity)
This activity includes all work necessary to maintain roadside ditches and channels, cross
culverts, catch basins and inlets, and detention/retention basins. Slope and ditch repair involves
re-grading ditches and slopes to the appropriate contour and filling in or repairing sides of the
ditches where necessary. Regular maintenance of roadside ditches is required to remove built up
sediments, debris or blockages, re-slope the sides, and maintain capacity. Removal of newly
constructed beaver dams is often necessary when the dams affect the effectiveness of storm
drainage facilities. Each construction project has an associated staging area which contains the
construction company job site headquarters, parking, equipment, materials storage, refueling
tanks, etc.
Catch basins and inlets and retention facilities are part of the storm drain system of the highway.
These are designed to trap sediments and liquids, and require regular cleaning. Material is
removed by manual clearing methods or by using a vacuum truck. Solids are stored on NCDOT
property, tested, and then disposed of at an approved disposal facility or recycled as fill material
if suitable. Regular cleaning improves water quality and minimizes sediments that enter the
natural stream systems. Drainage improvement subactivities include:
clean and reshape ditches (remove vegetation, sediment, debris)
culvert repair work
clean catch basins/inlets (manually or vacuum truck)
remove beaver dams from culvert ends
remove sediment from retention/detention facilities
dispose of debris and vegetation
Guardrail replacement (activity)
Guardrail replacement includes the following subactivities:
remove damaged guardrail
install posts with post driver
install steel beam
Pavement rehab and resurfacing (activity)
This activity involves patching, repairing, and replacing of roadway surfaces and pavements.
Each section of highway paved with asphalt or concrete must be repaved every 10 to 14 years. If
the pavement is in good shape, it may be overlaid with a new layer of asphalt, but badly
deteriorated pavement requires the replacement of the foundation material. Typically, the
existing asphalt pavement is ground off and replaced or simply overlaid with new asphalt.
Ground off pavement is normally recycled and used to make new asphalt pavement.
12

Since paving may result in a slightly higher road surface, manholes, drainage inlets, valves,
guardrails, and survey monuments may require raising. Ditches and slopes may be repaired, and
culverts may be cleaned. Culverts may also require extension as part of pavement rehab and
resurfacing projects. Pavement rehab and resurfacing include the following subactivities:
seal cracks with liquid asphalt
blanket application of liquid asphalt
apply aggregate
finish with power roller
grind (mill) existing pavement
collect and dispose of pavement grindings/slurry
dowel bar placement (if concrete)
apply new pavement
Herbicidal spraying within ROW (activity)
This activity involves treating roadside vegetation using chemical control treatment methods that
are applied by hand or by vehicle-mounted sprayers. Herbicide is used to control vegetation
where manual or mechanical means would be cost-prohibitive or result in excessive soil
disturbance or other resource damage. All herbicides are used according to manufacturer's label
direction for rates, concentrations, exposure times, and application methods. Only formulations
approved for aquatio-use will be applied in or adjacent to wetlands, lakes, and streams. The use
of spot herbicide applications is periodically used to control tree limb growth.
Mowing (activity)
Mowing occurs regularly along roadside shoulders during the growing season and extends less
frequently to the back of roadside ditches.
Mechanical branch removal along ROW (activity)
This is regular maintenance targeted at woody vegetation that occurs along the edges of existing
transportation corridors. The NCDOT maintains a safety recovery zone of 40 feet from the edge
of the travel lane to allow errant vehicles to recover. The use of A-boom mowers has been the
routine method of limb removal along the tree line. NCDOT also contracts the use of machinery
equipped with a series of high speed rotary saws on a heavy-duty skidder apparatus which cuts
the limbs smoothly as it moves along the ROW. There is no set schedule for addressing limb
removal, and trimming limbs may wait un�il there is a complaint ar problem. NCDOT also
periodically contracts for the removal of a swath of roadside trees to set the woods line back to
the original desired safety recovery distance when it has become overgrown over the course of
several years. This generally requires the removal of 10 to 20 feet of wooded buffer area.
Hazard tree removal (activity)
This occurs along the edges of existing transportation corridors and involves the removal of
individual trees with the potential to fall or drop branches in areas that may cause safety issues.
Repair ROW fence (activity)
13

Facility rehabilitation (activity)
This activity includes the preservation, maintenance, and construction of new weigh stations, rest
areas, rail stations, and maintenance facilities. Rehabilitation of historic buildings and other
historic structures may also occur. Subactivities at these facilities may include:
paving
expansion of buildings and parking areas
septic upgrades
minor vegetation alteration and removal (including trees)
installation of erosion and sediment control
overlay, paving
excavation
herbicide application
painting/striping/signing
rehab historic rail buildings and other non-bridge structures
Reconstruct existing rail (activity):
Reconstructing existing rail includes the following subactivities:
install new rail, concrete ties, and resurface stone ballast
pavement resurfacing at crossings and approaches
upgrade signals and warning systems
Snow removaVdeicers (activity)
Snow removal and deicing is conducted sporadically in eastern North Carolina. Stormwater
pollution prevention plans are developed for NCDOT maintenance facilities where deicers are
stored and loaded, and where equipment repair is conducted.
Bridge inspections (activity)
This activity involves a detailed review of each bridge's superstructure, deck, supports, railing,
and pavement to check the functionality and safety of each bridge. This activity requires the
presence of humans in close proximity to where bats may be roosting. Each bridge is inspected
every 24 months on average, but a few older structures may be inspected every 12 months.
4. Disaster Response, Bank Stabilization and Sinkhole Repair (category)
There is no way to accurately predict all the activities that may occur within this categary since
they are entirely dependent on the ex�ent and type of damage and level of repair that will be
needed. Minor tree clearing and grubbing may be required on some disaster response, bank
stabilization, and sinkhole repair projects in order to provide access for equipment. Vehicles,
heavy equipment, and portable lighting may be used.
Since it is not possible to accurately predict or account for projects in this category, an estimated
number of projects in this category cannot be determined. However, most NCDOT divisions
report dealing with disaster situations once every 3-10 years. One exception to this is NCDOT
Division 1 which incurs hurricane and other severe storm damage more frequently than other
Divisions.
14

Disaster response (activity)
Disasters are usually weather-driven events from flooding, ice-storms, or hurricanes. Disaster
response activities involve emergency work to repair and stabilize eroding banks or shoulders on
sections of rivers, streams, and the ocean adjacent to existing highways. Emergency repairs to
bridges and roadbeds may also be necessary. Temporary bridges may be constructed. High
water flows during floods can cause erosion of the bank to the point that the adjacent highway is
undermined. Other flood damage can include clogged culverts and deposition of debris along
transportation corridors. Immediate repairs normally involve protection or reconstruction of the
highway and associated infrastructure such as bridges, culverts, and utilities. Disaster response
includes the following subactivities:
debris removal
construct temporary access road
vegetation removal/disposal
grading
instalUremove temporary erosion control
barge use
riprap installation
road reconstruction (rebuild roadbed, add drainage structures, repave, paint)
fill newly created breaches
sandbag installation/replacement
water removal (pumping water from flooded areas)
culvert cleaning/repair
Bank stabilization/flood damage/scour repair - non-emergency (activity)
These activities stem from the result of natural changes in river ar stream morphology over time.
These activities normally involve protection of the highway and associated infrastructure such as
culverts and utilities. Clogged culverts often require cleaning or may need upgraded to a larger
size to prevent further flow restrictions. Other repairs involve river training techniques to
redirect the thalweg away from the road. These techniques include placing riprap, barbs, drop
structures, groins, or large woody debris in the waterway. Subactivities include:
debris removal
construct temporary access road
vegetation removal/disposal
grading
barge use
riprap installation
willow staking
in-stream structure installation (weirs, barbs, logjams, etc.)
road reconstruction (rebuild roadbed, add drainage structures, repave, paint)
retaining wall construction
landscaping/site stabilization
install/remove temporary erosion control
15

Sinkhole repair (activity)
Sinkhole repair will involve some level of earthwork and may rarely include tree clearing and
grubbing, depending on the extent of damage. Sinkhole repair subactivities include:
excavate and/or flush loose material
place non-concrete fill material
place concrete fill
compact fill
restore roadway
5. Transportation Enhancements (category)
Transportation enhancements can include bicycle and pedestrian facility construction and
historic bridge rehabilitation. Other activities include the construction of turnouts, overlooks,
historic markers, and viewpoints. Such activities could be consistent with new roadway
construction; however, these are much smaller in scale with less vegetation removal, disturbance,
etc. Minor tree clearing, grubbing, and earthwork may be required on some transportation
enhancement projects. Portable lights, vehicles, and heavy equipment may also be used.
The NCDOT anticipates there will be approximately 154 projects within this category over the
next five years within the action area.
Subactivities include:
permanent lighting installed
install/remove portable fence
prepare project site
install drainage features
utility lines
pre-watering of roads and exposed areas for dust control or grading
road and parking lot surface preparation and construction
construct stormwater facilities
final grading
construct retaining wall (mechanically stabilized earth, soil nail, sheet pile, soldier pile,
etc.)
course aggregate application, concrete or asphalt application
striping, pavement markers and signage
guard rail installation
sidewalk installation
information kiosk construction
post-construction work
Conservation Measures
Conservation measures represent actions, pledged in the project description, that the action
agency will implement to minimize the effects of the proposed action and further the recovery of
the species under review. Such measures should be closely related to the action and should be
16

achievable within the authority of the action agency. Since conservation measures are part of the
proposed action, their implementation is required under the terms of the consultation. The
NCDOT has agreed to implement the following conservation measure:
NCDOT will conduct a five-year NLEB research study with four objectives. First, acoustic
surveys will be conducted to determine the distribution of NLEB in eastern North Carolina.
Second, results from acoustical surveys will be used to guide mist-netting surveys. Captured
NLEB will be equipped with radio transmitters and tracked to aid in the characterization of
summer and winter roosting habitat and activity. Third, NLEB will be checked for presence and
severity of white nose syndrome. Finally, structures (bridges, culverts, and buildings) will be
assessed to determine frequency and seasonality of NLEB use. See Appendix B for details of the
research.
Action Area
The action area is the 59 eastern-most counties of North Carolina, which comprises NCDOT
Divisions 1-8 (out of the 14 total Divisions). North Carolina counties within the action area are
listed by NCDOT Division in Table 2 and shown in Figure 2(Appendix A).
Table 2. NCDOT Divisions and Counties within Action Area
Division 1 Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, Martin,
Northampton, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, Washington
Division 2 Beaufort, Carteret, Craven, Greene, Jones, Lenoir, Pamlico, Pitt
Division 3 Brunswick, Duplin, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender, Sampson
Division 4 Edgecombe, Halifax, Johnson, Nash, Wayne, Wilson
Division 5 Durham, Franklin, Granville, Person, Vance, Wake, Warren
Division 6 Bladen, Columbus, Cumberland, Harnett, Robeson
Division 7 Alamance, Caswell, Guilfard, Orange, Rockingham
Division 8 Chatham, Hoke, Lee, Montgomery, Moore, Randolph, Richmond, Scotland
The action area is a mosaic of federal, state, and private lands. Using Level III EPA Ecoregions
(USEPA 2013), the action area can be divided into the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain,
Southeastern Plains, and the Piedmont (see Figure 1 in Appendix A).
Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain (Ecoregion 63)
Ecoregion 63 is found primarily in the Carolinas and other states to the north. It consists of low
elevation, flat plains, with many swamps, marshes, and estuaries. Forest cover in the region,
once dominated by longleaf pine, is now mostly loblolly and some shortleaf pine, with patches of
oak, gum, and cypress near major streams. Its low terraces, marshes, dunes, barrier islands,
and beaches are underlain by unconsolidated sediments. Poorly drained soils are common, and
the region has a mix of coarse and finer textured soils. Ecoregion 63 is typically lower, flatter,
mare poorly drained, and marshier than Ecoregion 65 (see below). Pine plantations for
pulpwood and lumber are typical, with some areas of cropland (USEPA 2002).
17

Southeastern Plains (Ecoregion 65)
These irregular plains with broad inter-stream areas have a mosaic of cropland, pasture,
woodland, and forest. Natural vegetation was historically predominantly longleaf pine, with
smaller areas of oak-hickory-pine. On some moist sites, southern mixed forest occurred with
beech, sweetgum, southern magnolia, laurel and live oaks, and various pines. The Cretaceous or
Tertiary sands, silts, and clays of the region contrast geologically with the metamorphic and
igneous rocks of the Piedmont (see below). Streams in this area are relatively low-gradient and
sandy-bottomed (USEPA 2002).
North Carolina Piedmont (Ecoregion 45)
Considered the non-mountainous portion of the Appalachians Highland by physiographers, the
northeast-southwest trending Piedmont ecoregion coinprises a transitional area between the
mostly mountainous ecoregions of the Appalachians to the northwest and the relatively flat
coastal plain to the southeast. It is a complex mosaic of Precambrian and Paleozoic metamorphic
and igneous rocks with moderately dissected irregular plains and some hills. Once largely
cultivated, much of this region is in planted pine or has reverted to successional pine and
hardwood woodlands. The historic oak-hickory-pine forest was dominated by white oak,
southern red oak, post oak, and hickory, with shortleaf pine, loblolly pine, and to the north and
west, Virginia pine. The soils tend to be finer-textured than in coastal plain regions (USEPA
2002).
II. STATUS OF THE SPECIES
A. Species/critical habitat description
The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is a medium-sized bat species, with an average adult body
weight of 5 to 8 grams, with females tending to be slightly larger than males (Caceres and Pybus
1997). Average body length ranges from 77 to 95 mm and wingspan between 228 and 258 mm
(Barbour and Davis 1969, Caceres and Barclay 2000). Pelage (fur) colors include medium to
dark brown on its back, dark brown ears and wing membranes, and tawny to pale-brown fur on
the ventral side (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Whitaker and Mumford 2008). As indicated by
its common name, the NLEB is distinguished from other Myotis species by its long ears (average
17 mm, Whitaker and Mumford 2008) that, when laid forward, extend beyond the nose but less
than 5 mm beyond the muzzle (Caceres and Barclay 2000). The tragus (projection of skin in
front of the external ear) is long (average 9 mm), pointed, and symmetrical (Nagorsen and
Brigham 1993, Whitaker and Mumford 2008).
The NLEB was once considered a subspecies of Keen's long-eared Myotis (Myotis keenii) (Fitch
and Schump 1979), but was later recognized as a distinct species by van Zyll de Jong (1979)
based on geographic separation and difference in morphology (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993,
Caceres and Pybus 1997, Whitaker and Hamilton 1998, Caceres and Barclay 2000, Simmons
18

2005, Whitaker and Mumford 2008). No subspecies have been described for this species (van
Zyll de Jong 1985, Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Whitaker and Mumford 2008).
The range of the NLEB includes much of the eastern and north-central United States, and
portions of all Canadian provinces from the Atlantic Ocean west to the southern Yukon Territory
and eastern British Columbia. Within the United States, this area includes all or portions of the
following 39 States: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dalcota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming (USFWS 2014a). However, throughout the majority of the
species' range it is patchily distributed and historically was less common in the southern and
western portions of the range than in the northern portion of the range (Amelon and Burhans
2006).
The Service proposed to list the NLEB as an endangered species on October 2, 2013 (USFWS
2013). On June 30, 2014, the Service reopened the comment period and announced a six-month
extension for making a final listing determination for the NLEB, extending the due date until
April 2, 2015 (USFWS 2014c). The Service subsequently proposed listing the NLEB with a rule
under Section 4(d) of the ESA on January 16, 2015 (USFWS 2015). No critical habitat for the
species has been proposed at this time.
B. Life history
NLEBs predominantly overwinter in hibernacula that include caves and abandoned mines.
Hibernacula used by NLEBs are typically large, with large passages and entrances (Raesly and
Gates 1987), relatively constant and cooler temperatures (32° to 48° F) (Raesly and Gates 1987,
Caceres and Pybus 1997, Brack 2007), and with high humidity and no air currents (Fitch and
Shump 1979, van Zyll de Jong 1985, Raesly and Gates 1987, Caceres and Pybus 1997). NLEBs
are typically found roosting in small crevices or cracks in cave or mine walls or ceilings, often
with only the nose and ears visible, thus are easily overlooked during surveys (Griffin 1940,
Barbour and Davis 1969, Caire et al. 1979, van Zyll de Jong 1985, Caceres and Pybus 1997,
Whitaker and Mumfard 2008). Caire et al. (1979) and Whitaker and Mumford (2008)
commonly observed individuals exiting caves with mud and clay on their fur, also suggesting the
bats were roosting in tighter recesses of hibernacula. They are also found hanging in the open,
although not as frequently as in cracks and crevices (Barbour and Davis 1969, Whitaker and
Mumford 2008).
To a lesser extent, NLEBs have been found overwintering in other types of habitat that resemble
cave or mine hibernacula, including abandoned railroad tunnels. Also, in 1952 three NLEBs
were found hibernating near the entrance of a storm sewer in central Minnesota (Goehring 1954).
Kurta and Teramino (1994) found NLEBs hibernating in a hydro-electric dam facility in
�

Michigan. In Massachusetts, NLEBs have been found hibernating in the Sudbury Aqueduct
(French 2012). Griffin (1945) found NLEBs in December in Massachusetts in a dry well.
During the summer, NLEBs typically roost singly or in colonies underneath bark or in cavities or
crevices of both live trees and snags (Sasse and Perkins 1996, Foster and Kurta 1999, Owen et
al. 2002, Carter and Feldhamer 2005, Perry and Thill 2007, Timpone et al. 2010). Males and
non-reproductive females' summer roost sites may also include cooler locations, including caves
and mines (Barbour and Davis 1969, Amelon and Burhans 2006). NLEBs have also been
observed roosting in colonies in manmade structures such as buildings, barns, a park pavilion,
sheds, cabins, under eaves of buildings, behind window shutters, and in bat houses (Mumford
and Cope 1964; Barbour and Davis 1969; Cope and Humphrey 1972; Amelon and Burhans
2006; Whitaker and Mumford 2008; Timpone et al. 2010; Joe Kath 2013, pers. comm. cited in
USFWS 2013).
The NLEB appears to be opportunistic in tree roost selection, selecting varying roost tree species
and types of roosts throughout its range, including tree species such as black oak (Quercus
velutina), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), black locust
(Robinia pseudoacacia), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), sugar maple (Ace� saccha�um),
sourwood (O�ydendrum arboreum), and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) (Mumford and Cope
1964, Clark et al. 1987, Sasse and Pekins 1996, Foster and Kurta 1999, Lacki and Schwierjohann
2001, Owen et al. 2002, Carter and Feldhamer 2005, Perry and Thill 2007, Timpone et al. 2010).
NLEBs most likely are not dependent on certain species of trees for roosts throughout their
range; rather, certain tree species will form suitable cavities or retain bark and the bats will use
them opportunistically (Foster and Kurta 1999). Carter and Felhamer (2005) speculated that
structural complexity of habitat or available roosting resources are more important factors than
the actual tree species.
Many studies have documented the NLEB's selection of live trees and snags, with a range of 10
to 53% selection of live roosts found (Sasse and Perkins 1996, Foster and Kurta 1999, Lacki and
Schwierjohann 2001, Menzel et al. 2002, Carter and Feldhamer 2005, Perry and Thi112007,
Timpone et al. 2010). Foster and Kurta (1999) found 53% of roosts in Michigan were in living
trees, whereas in New Hampshire, 34% of roosts were in snags (Sasse and Pekins 1996). The
use of live trees versus snags may reflect the availability of such structures in study areas (Perry
and Thill 2007) and the flexibility in roost selection when there is a sympatric bat species present
(e.g., Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis) (Timpone et al. 2010). In tree roosts, NLEBs are typically
found beneath loose bark or within cavities and have been found to use both exfoliating bark and
crevices to a similar degree for summer roosting habitat (Foster and Kurta 1999, Lacki and
Schwierjohann 2001, Menzel et al. 2002, Owen et al. 2002, Perry and Thill 2007, Timpone et al.
2010).
Canopy coverage at NLEB roosts has ranged from 56% in Missouri (Timone et al. 2010), 66% in
Arkansas (Perry and Thi112007), greater than 75% in New Hampshire (Sasse and Pekins 1996),
to greater than 84% in Kentucky (Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001). Studies in New Hampshire
and British Columbia have found that canopy coverage around roosts is lower than in available
20

stands (Sasse and Pekins 1996, Caceres 1998). Females tend to roost in more open areas than
males, likely due to the increased solar radiation, which aids pup development (Perry and Thill
2007). Fewer trees surrounding maternity roosts may also benefit juvenile bats that are learning
to fly (Perry and Thi112007). However, in southern Illinois, NLEBs were observed roosting in
areas with greater canopy cover than in random plots (Carter and Feldhamer 2005). Roosts are
also largely selected below the canopy, which could be due to the species' ability to exploit
roosts in cluttered environments; their gleaning behavior suggests an ability to easily maneuver
around obstacles (Foster and Kurta 1999, Menzel et al. 2002).
Female NLEBs typically roost in tall, large-diameter trees (Sasse and Pekins 1996). Studies
have found that the diameter-at-breast height (dbh) of NLEB roost trees was greater than random
trees (Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001), and others have found both dbh and height of selected
roost trees to be greater than random trees (Sasse and Pekins 1996, Owen et al. 2002). However,
other studies have found that roost tree mean dbh and height did not differ from random trees
(Menzel et al. 2002, Carter and Feldhamer 2005). Lacki and Schwierjohann (2001) have also
found that NLEBs roost more often on upper and middle slopes than lower slopes, which
suggests a preference for higher elevations due to increased solar heating.
NLEBs hibernate during the winter months to conserve energy from increased thermoregulatory
demands and reduced food resources. In general, NLEBs arrive at hibernacula in August or
September, enter hibernation in October and November, and leave the hibernacula in March or
April (Caire et al. 1979, Whitaker and Hamilton 1998, Amelon and Burhans 2006). However,
hibernation may begin as early as August (Whitaker and Rissler 1992a). In Copperhead Cave in
west-central Indiana, the majority of bats enter hibernation during October, and spring
emergence occurs mainly from about the second week of March to mid-April (Whitaker and
Mumford 2008). In Indiana, NLEBs become more active and start feeding outside the
hibernaculum in mid-March, evidenced by stomach and intestine contents. In northern latitudes,
such as in upper Michigan's copper-mining district, hibernation for NLEBs may begin as early
as late August and may last for 8 to 9 months (Stones and Fritz 1969, Fitch and Shump 1979).
NLEBs have shown a high degree of philopatry (using the same site multiple years) for a
hibernaculum (Pearson 1962), although they may not return to the same hibernaculum in
successive seasons (Caceres and Barclay 2000).
Contrary to the species' documented behaviar in the rest of its range, Grider (2014) found
NLEBs to be active during the winter at a location in coastal North Carolina, an area which is
devoid of known hibernacula and of any caves/mines which could potentially serve has
hibernacula. The relatively mild winter temperatures of coastal North Carolina appear to allow
some level of insect activity, thus providing winter foraging opportunities for NLEBs.
Typically, NLEBs are not abundant and compose a small proportion of the total number of bats
hibernating in a hibernaculum (Barbour and Davis 1969, Mills 1971, Caire et al. 1979, Caceres
and Barclay 2000). Although usually found in small numbers, the species typically inhabits the
same hibernacula with large numbers of other bat species, and occasionally are found in clusters
with these other bat species. Other species that commonly occupy the same habitat include:
21

little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), eastern small-footed bat
(Myotis leibii), tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), and Indiana bat (Swanson and Evans 1936,
Griffin 1940, Hitchcock 1949, Stones and Fritz 1969, Fitch and Shump 1979). Barbour and
Davis (1969) found that the species is never abundant and rarely recorded in concentrations of
over 100 in a single hibernaculum.
NLEBs often move between hibernacula throughout the winter, which may further decrease
population estimates (Griffin 1940, Whitaker and Rissler 1992b, Caceres and Barclay 2000).
Whitaker and Mumford (2008) found that this species flies in and out of some of the mines and
caves in southern Indiana throughout the winter. In particular, the bats were active at
Copperhead Cave periodically all winter, with NLEBs being more active than other species
hibernating in the cave. Though NLEBs fly outside of the hibernacula during the winter, they do
not feed; hence the function of this behavior is not well understood (Whitaker and Hamilton
1998). However, it has been suggested that bat activity during winter could be due in part to
disturbance by researchers (Whitaker and Mumford 2008).
NLEBs exhibited significant weight loss during hibernation. In southern Illinois, weight loss
during hibernation was observed in male NLEBs, with individuals weighing an average of 6.6
grams prior to January 10, and those collected after that date weighing an average of 5.3 grams
(Pearson 1962). Whitaker and Hamilton (1998) reported a weight loss of 41-43% over the
hibernation period for NLEBs in Indiana. In eastern Missouri, male NLEBs lost an average of
3.0 grams during the hibernation period (late October through March), and females lost an
average of 2.7 grams (Caire et al. 1979).
While the NLEB is not considered a long-distance migratory species, short migratory
movements between summer roost and winter hibernacula between 35 miles and 55 miles have
been documented (Griffith 1945, Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). However, movements from
hibernacula to summer colonies may range from 5 to 168 miles (Griffin 1945). Several studies
show a strong homing ability of NLEBs in terms of return rates to a specific hibernaculum,
although bats may not return to the same hibernaculum in successive winters (Caceres and
Barclay 2000). Individuals have been known to travel between 35 and 60 miles between caves
during the spring (Griffin 1945, Caire et al. 1979).
NLEBs switch roosts often (Sasse and Perkins 1996), typically every 2-3 days (Foster and Kurta
1999, Owen et al. 2002, Carter and Feldhamer 2005, Timpone et al. 2010). In Missouri, the
longest time spent roosting in one tree was 3 nights; however, up to ll nights spent roosting in a
manmade structure has been documented (Timpone et al. 2010). Similarly, Carter and
Feldhamer (2005) found that the longest a NLEB used the same tree was 3 days; in West
Virginia, the average time spent at one roost was 5.3 days (Menzel et al. 2002). Bats switch
roosts for a variety of reasons, including temperature, precipitation, predation, parasitism, and
ephemeral roost sites (Carter and Feldhamer 2005). In Missouri, Timpone et al. (2010) radio-
tracked 13 NLEBs to 39 roosts and found the mean distance between the location where captured
and roost tree was 1.1 miles (range 0.04-3.0 miles), and the mean distance traveled between
roost trees was 0.42 mile (range 0.03-2.4 miles). In Michigan, the longest distance the same bat
22

moved between roosts was 1.2 miles and the shortest was 20 feet (Foster and Kurta 1999). In
New Hampshire, the mean distance between foraging areas and roost trees was 1975 feet (Sasse
and Pekins 1996). In the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas, Perry and Thill (2007) found that
individuals moved among snags that were within less than 5 acres.
Some studies have found tree roost selection to differ slightly between male and female NLEBs.
Male NLEBs have been found to mare readily use smaller diameter trees for roosting than
females, suggesting males are more flexible in roost selection than females (Lacki and
Schwierjohann 2001, Broders and Forbes 2004, Perry and Thill 2007). In the Ouachita
Mountains of Arkansas, both sexes primarily roosted in snags, although females roosted in snags
surrounded by fewer midstory trees than did males (Perry and Thi112007). In New Brunswick,
Canada, Broders and Forbes (2004) found that there was spatial segregation between male and
female roosts, with female maternity colonies typically occupying more mature, shade-tolerant
deciduous tree stands and males occupying more conifer-dominated stands. In northeastern
Kentucky, males do not use colony roosting sites and are typically found occupying cavities in
live hardwood trees, while females form colonies more often in both hardwood and softwood
snags (Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001).
NLEB breeding occurs froin late July in northern regions to early October in southern regions
and commences when males begin to swarm hibernacula and initiate copulation activity
(Whitaker and Hamilton 1998, Caceres and Barclay 2000, Amelon and Burhans 2006, Whitaker
and Mumford 2008). Copulation occasionally occurs again in the spring (Racey 1982).
Hibernating females store sperm until spring, exhibiting a delayed fertilization strategy (Racey
1979, Caceres and Pybus 1997). Ovulation takes place at the time of emergence from the
hibernaculum, followed by fertilization of a single egg, resulting in a single embryo (Cope and
Humphrey 1972, Caceres and Pybus 1997, Caceres and Barclay 2000). Gestation is
approximately 50-60 days (011endorff 2002).
Maternity colonies, consisting of females and young, are generally small, numbering from about
30 (Whitaker and Mumford 2008) to 60 individuals (Caceres and Barclay 2000); however, one
group of 100 adult females was observed in Vermilion County, Indiana (Whitaker and Mumford
2008). In West Virginia, maternity colonies in two studies had a range of 7-88 individuals
(Owen et al. 2002) and 11-65 individuals, with a mean size of 31 (Menzel et al. 2002). Lacki
and Schwierjohann (2001) found that the population size of colony roosts declined as the
summer progressed with pregnant females using the largest colonies (mean=26) and
postlactating females using the smallest colonies (mean=4), with the largest overall reported
colony size of 65 bats. Other studies have also found that the number of individuals within a
maternity colony typically decreases from pregnancy to post-lactation (Foster and Kurta 1999,
Lacici and Schwierjohann 2001, Perry and Thill 2007, Garroway and Broders 2008, Johnson et
al. 2012). Female roost site selection, in terms of canopy cover and tree height, changes
depending on reproductive stage; relative to pre- and post-lactation periods, lactating NLEBs
have been shown to roost higher in tall trees situated in areas of relatively less canopy cover and
tree density (Garroway and Broders 2008).
23

Adult females give birth to a single pup (Barbour and Davis 1969). Birthing within the colony
tends to be synchronous, with the majority of births occurring around the same time (Krochmal
and Sparks 2007). Parturition likely occurs in late May or early June (Easterla 1968, Caire et al.
1979, Whitaker and Mumford 2008), but may occur as late as July (Whitaker and Mumford
2008). Broders et al. (2006) estimated a parturition date of July 20 in New Brunswick.
Lactating and post-lactating females were observed in mid-June in Missouri (Caire et al. 1979),
July in New Hampshire and Indiana (Sasse and Pekins 1996, Whitaker and Mumford 2008), and
August in Nebraska (Benedict 2004). Juvenile volancy occurs by 21 days after parturition and as
early as 18 days after parturition (Kunz 1971, Krochmal and Sparks 2007). Subadults were
captured in late June in Missouri (Caire et al. 1979), early July in Iowa (Sasse and Pekins 1996),
and early August in Ohio (Mills 1971).
Adult longevity is estimated to be up to 18.5 years (Hall 1957), with the greatest recorded age of
19 years (Kurta 1995). Most mortality for NLEBs and many other species of bats occurs during
the juvenile stage (Caceres and Pybus 1997).
The NLEB has a diverse diet including moths, flies, leaflioppers, caddisflies, and beetles
(Griffith and Gates 1985, Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Brack and Whitaker 2001), with diet
composition differing geographically and seasonally (Brack and Whitaker 2001). The most
common insects found in the diets of NLEBs are lepidopterans (moths) and coleopterans
(beetles), with arachnids (spiders) also being a common prey item (Brack and Whitaker 2001,
Feldhamer et al. 2009).
Foraging techniques include hawking (catching insects in flight) and gleaning in conjunction
with passive acoustic cues (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Ratcliffe and Dawson 2003).
Observations of NLEBs foraging on axachnids (Feldhamer et a1.2009), presence of green plant
material in their feces (Griffith and Gates 1985), and non-flying prey in their stomach contents
(Brack and Whitaker 2001) suggest considerable gleaning behaviar. NLEBs have the highest
frequency call of any bat species in the Great Lakes area (Kurta 1995). Gleaning allows this
species to gain a foraging advantage for preying upon moths because moths are less able to
detect these high frequency echolocation calls (Faure et al. 1993). Emerging at dusk, most
hunting occurs above the understory, 3-10 feet above the ground, but under the canopy
(Nagorsen and Brigham 1993) on forested hillsides and ridges, rather than along riparian areas
(LaVal et al. 1977, Brack and Whitaker 2001). This coincides with data indicating that mature
forests are an important habitat type for faraging NLEBs (Caceres and Pybus 1997). Occasional
foraging also takes place over forest clearings and water, and along roads (van Zyll de Jong
1985).
Female home range size may range froln 47-425 acres (Lacki et al. 2009). Owen et al. (2003)
estimated average maternal home range size to be 161 acres. Home range size of NLEBs in this
study site was small relative to other bat species, but this may be due to the study's timing
(during the maternity period) and the small body size of NLEBs (Owen et al. 2003). The mean
distance between roost trees and foraging areas of radio-tagged individuals in New Hampshire
was 2034 feet (Sasse and Pekins 1996).
24

C. Population dynamics
Although they are typically found in low numbers in inconspicuous roosts, most records of
NLEBs are from winter hibernacula surveys (Caceres and Pybus 1997). More than 780
hibernacula have been identified throughout the species' range in the United States, although
many hibernacula contain only a few (1-3) individuals (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). Known
hibernacula include: Arkansas (n=20), Connecticut (n=5), Georgia (n=1), Illinois (n=36),
Indiana (n=25), Kentucky (n=90), Maine (n=3), Maryland (n=11), Massachusetts (n=7),
Michigan (n=94), Minnesota (n=11), Missouri (n=>111), Nebraska (n=2), New Hampshire
(n=9), New Jersey (n=8), New York (n=58), North Carolina (n=20), Oklahoma (n=4), Ohio
(n=3), Pennsylvania (n=ll2), South Carolina (n=2), South Dakota (n=7), Tennessee (n=11),
Vermont (n=13), Virginia (n=8), West Virginia (n=104), and Wisconsin (n=45). Other states
within the species' range have no known hibernacula (due to no suitable hibernacula present or
lack of survey effort).
Historically, the NLEB was most abundant in the eastern portion of its range (Caceres and
Barclay 2000). NLEBs have been consistently caught during summer mist net surveys and
detected during acoustic surveys in eastern populations. Large numbers of NLEBs have been
found in larger hibernacula in Pennsylvania (e.g. an estimated 881 individuals in a mine in Bucks
County in 2004). Fall swarm trapping conducted in September—October 1988-1989, 1990-1991,
and 1999-2000 at two hibernacula with large historical numbers of NLEBs had total captures
ranging from 6 to 30 bats per hour, which indicated that the species was abundant at these
hibernacula (Pennsylvania Game Commission 2012).
The NLEB is commonly encountered in summer mist-net surveys throughout the majority of the
Midwest and is considered fairly common throughout much of the region. However, the species
is often found infrequently and in small numbers in hibernacula surveys throughout most of the
Midwest. Historically, the NLEB was considered quite common throughout much of Indiana,
and was the fourth ar fifth most abundant bat species in the State in 2009 (Whitaker and
Mumford 2008).
The NLEB is less common in the southern portion of its range than in the northern portion of the
range (Amelon and Burhans 2006). In the South, it is considered more common in states such as
Kentucky and Tennessee, and rarer in the southern extremes of the range (e.g. Alabama,
Georgia, and South Carolina).
The NLEB is generally less common in the western portion of its range than in the northern
portion of the range (Amelon and Burhans 2006). It is considered common in only small
portions of the western part of its range (e.g. Black Hills of South Dakota) and uncommon or
rare in the western extremes of the range (e.g. Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska) (Caceres and
Barclay 2000).
25

The NLEB occurs throughout the majority of the forested regions of Canada, although it is found
in higher abundance in eastern Canada than in western Canada, similar to in the United States
(Caceres Pybus 1997). However, the scarcity of records in the western parts of Canada may be
due to more limited survey efforts. It has been estimated that approximately 40% of the NLEB's
global range is in Canada (COSEWIC 2014).
D. Status and distribution
On October 2, 2013, the Service proposed to list the NLEB as an endangered species throughout
its range under the ESA (USFWS 2013). The Service subsequently proposed listing the NLEB
with a rule under Section 4(d) of the ESA on January 16, 2015 (USFWS 2015). No critical
habitat has been proposed at this time.
The primary threat to and the reason for the proposed listing of the NLEB is white-nose
syndrome (WNS), a disease caused by the fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans (formerly
known as Geon�yces destructans) that is known to kill bats. The Service has found that no other
threat is as severe and immediate to the species persistence as WNS. There is currently no
known cure. The species would likely not be imperiled were it not for this disease (USFWS
2013).
White-nose syndrome is an emerging infectious disease responsible for unprecedented mortality
in some hibernating insectivorous bats of the northeastern United States (Blehert et al. 2009) and
poses a considerable threat to several hibernating bat species throughout North America
(USFWS 2011). The first evidence of WNS was documented in Howes Cavern, 32 miles west of
Albany, New York in February 2006 (Blehert et al. 2009). Since that first documented
appearance, WNS has spread rapidly throughout the Northeast and is expanding through the
Midwest. As of August 2014, WNS had been confirmed in 25 states (Alabama, Arkansas,
Connecticut, Delaware, Geargia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) and
5 Canadian provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and
Quebec). The fungus that causes WNS has been confirmed in three additional states — Iowa,
Minnesota, and Mississippi. WNS has killed more than 5.5 million bats in the northeast United
States and Canada (USFWS 2014b).
The pattern of spread has generally followed predictable trajectories along recognized migratory
pathways and overlapping summer ranges of hibernating bat species. Therefore, Kunz and
Reichard (2010) assert that WNS is spread mainly through bat-to-bat contact. However,
evidence suggests that fungal spares can be transmitted by humans (Sleeman 2011). Seven
North American hibernating bat species are confirmed with WNS (USFWS 2014b).
White-nose syndrome is caused by the recently described psychrophilic (cold-loving) fungus,
currently known as Pseudogymnoascus destructans. P. dest�uctans may be nonnative to North
America and only recently arrived on the continent (Puechmaille et al. 2011, Minnis and Lindner
26

2013). The fungus grows on and within exposed tissues of hibernating bats (Gargas et al. 2009,
Lorch et al. 2011), and the diagnostic feature is the white fungal growth on muzzles, ears, or
wing membranes of affected bats, along with epidermal erosions that are filled with fungal
hyphae (Blehert et al. 2009, Meteyer 2009). P. destructans grows best at the cool temperatures
at which many bats hibernate, with optimal fungal growth occurring at 54.5° to 60.4° F, and no
growth above approximately 67° F(Verant et al. 2012). Temperatures in WNS-affected
hibernacula seasonally range from 36° to 57° F, permitting year-round growth, and may act as a
reservoir maintaining the fungus (Blehert et al. 2009). Langwig et al. (2014) documented that
contact with P. destructans contaminated hibernacula in autumn initiated infection in bats, but
transmission and infection intensity remained low until bats began to fully hibernate during the
winter. In summer, despite high bat-to-bat contact rates, most bats cleared infections and
prevalence dropped to zero, presumably due to the resumption of a body temperature higher than
the upper growth limit of P. destructans.
In addition to the presence of the white fungus, observations show that bats affected by WNS are
characterized by some or all of the following: (1) depleted fat reserves by mid-winter; (2) general
unresponsiveness to human disturbance; (3) apparent lack of immune response during
hibernation; (4) ulcerated, necrotic, and scarred wing membranes; and (5) aberrant behaviors,
including shifts of large numbers of bats in hibernacula to roosts near the entrances or unusually
cold areas, large numbers of bats dispersing during the day from hibernacula during midwinter,
and large numbers of fatalities, either inside the hibernacula, near the entrance, or in the
immediate vicinity of the entrance (WNS Science Strategy Group 2008, USFWS 2011).
Although the exact process by which WNS leads to death remains undetermined, it is likely that
the immune function during torpor compromises the ability of hibernating bats to combat the
infection (Bouma et al. 2010, Moore et al. 2011). A current hypothesis suggests that bats arrive
at hibernacula unaffected and enter hibernation with sufiicient fat stores, but then become
affected and use fat stores too quickly as a result of disruption to hibernation physiology (WNS
Science Strategy Group 2008). Recent observations suggest that bats are arriving at hibernacula
with sufficient or only slightly lower fat stores (Courtin et al. 2010).
Boyles and Willis (2010) hypothesized that infection by P. destructans alters the normal arousal
cycles of hibernating bats, particularly by increasing arousal frequency and/or duration. In fact,
Reeder et al. (2012) and Warnecke et al. (2012) observed a progressive increase in arousal
frequency in laboratory studies of hibernating bats infected with P. destructans. A disruption of
this torpor-arousal cycle could easily cause bats to metabolize fat reserves too quickly, thereby
leading to starvation. For example, skin irritation from the fungus might cause bats to remain out
of torpor for longer than normal to groom, thereby exhausting their fat reserves prematurely
(Boyles and Willis 2010). In the early stages of WNS infection, Verant et al. (2014) found that
hibernating WNS-infected little brown bats utilized energy twice as fast as non-infected bats.
However, this greater energy use by infected bats was not associated with an increased rate or
duration of arousals from torpor during the early stages of infection. This implies that infected
bats have an elevated metabolism prior to the onset of the increased arousal patterns
characteristic of late-stage infections.
27

Cryan et al. (2010) suggested that mortality may be caused by catastrophic disruption of wing-
dependent physiological functions. The wings of winter-collected WNS-affected bats often
reveal signs of infection, whereby the degree of damage observed suggests functional
impairment. Emaciation is a common finding in bats that have died from WNS. The authors
hypothesized that wing damage caused by P. destructans infections could sufficiently disrupt
water balance to trigger frequent thirst-associated arousals with excessive winter flight, and
subsequent premature depletion of fat stores. In related research, Cryan et al. (2013) found that
electrolytes (sodium and chloride) tended to decrease as wing damage increased in severity.
Proper concentrations of electrolytes are necessary for maintaining physiologic homeostasis, and
any imbalance could be life-threatening. Additionally, Verant et al. (2014) found that bats with
early-stage WNS developed severe, chronic respiratory acidosis and hyperkalemia (high
potassium concentrations in the blood). Although the exact mechanism by which WNS affects
bats is still in question, the effect it has on many hibernating bat species is well documented, as
well as the high levels of mortality it causes in some susceptible bat species.
The NLEB is known to be highly susceptible to WNS, and mortalities due to the disease have
been confirmed. From 2007 to mid-2013, the USGS National Wildlife Health Center in
Madison, Wisconsin tested 65 NLEB submissions. Twenty-eight of the 65 NLEBs tested were
confirmed as positive for WNS by histopathology and another 10 were suspect (Ballmann 2013,
personal communication cited in USFWS 2013). The New York Department of Environmental
Conservation has confirmed at least 29 NLEBs submitted with signs of WNS since 2007 in New
York but there were still bat carcasses not yet analyzed (Okonieski 2012, personal
communication cited in USFWS 2013).
Due to WNS, the NLEB has experienced a sharp decline in the northeastern part of its range, as
evidenced in hibernacula surveys. The northeastern United States is very close to saturation (i.e.
WNS found in majority of hibernacula) for the disease, with the NLEB being one of the species
most severely affected by the disease (Herzog and Reynolds 2013). Turner et al. (2011)
compared the most recent pre-WNS count to the most recent post-WNS count for 6 cave bat
species; they reported a 98% decline between pre- and post-WNS in the number of hibernating
NLEBs at 30 hibernacula in New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. In
addition to the Turner et al. (2011) data, the Service conducted an additional analysis that
included data from Connecticut (n=3), Massachusetts (n=4), and New Hampshire (n=4), and
added one additional site to the previous Vermont data. Using a protocol similar to Turner et al.
(2011), the Service found that the combined overall rate of decline seen in hibernacula count data
for the 8 states was approximately 99% (USFWS 2013). Similarly, during 2013 hibernacula
surveys at 34 sites where NLEBs were also observed prior to WNS in Pennsylvania, researchers
found a 99% decline (from 637 to 5 bats) (Turner 2013).
Long-term (including pre- and post-WNS) summer data for the NLEB are somewhat limited;
however, the available data parallel the population decline exhibited in hibernacula surveys.
Summer surveys from 2005-2011 near Surry Mountain Lake in New Hampshire showed a 99%
decline in capture success of NLEBs post-WNS, which is similar to the hibernacula data for the
2s

state (a 95% decline) (Brunkhurst 2012). In Vermont, the species was the second most common
bat species in the state pre-WNS; however, it is now one of the least likely to be encountered,
with the change in effort to capture one bat increasing by nearly 13 times, and approximately a
94% overall reduction in captures in mist-net surveys (Darling and Smith 20ll). In eastern New
York, captures of NLEBs have declined approximately 93% from pre-WNS (Herzog 2012). In
West Virginia, NLEB mist-net captures comprised 41 % of all captures pre-WNS and 24% post-
WNS (Francl et al. 2012). Nagel and Gates (2012) reported a 78% decrease in NLEB passes
during acoustic surveys between 2010 and 2012 in western Maryland. At two swarm trapping
sites in Pennsylvania, researchers in 2010-2011 saw a decline in capture rates of 95% at one site
and 97% at the second site post-WNS, which corroborates documented interior hibernacula
declines (Turner et al. 2011, Turner 2013).
The area currently affected by WNS constitutes the core of the NLEB's range, where the species
was most common prior to WNS. Furthermore, the rate at which WNS has spread has been
rapid. Since its first documented occurrence in New York in February 2006, WNS had spread to
25 states and 5 Canadian provinces by August 2014 (USFWS 2014b). WNS has already had a
substantial effect on NLEBs in the core of its range and is likely to spread throughout the
species' entire range within a short time; thus the Service considers it to be the predominant
threat to the species range-wide. This threat is ongoing and is expected to increase in the future
as it continues to extirpate NLEB populations (USFWS 2013).
Other threats to the NLEB include wind-energy development, winter habitat modification (i.e.
effects on hibernacula), summer habitat loss/modification (i.e. tree clearing from timber harvest,
development, natural resource extraction, etc.), human disturbance of hibernating bats, predation,
climate change, and contaminants (USFWS 2013). Although these threats (prior to WNS) have
not individually ar cumulatively had significant impacts at the species level, they may increase
the overall impacts to the species when considered cumulatively with WNS.
E. Analysis of the species/critical habitat likely to be affected
The NLEB is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire range due to the severity and
immediacy of the threat posed by WNS. White-nose syndrome has currently spread to 25 of the
39 states where the NLEB is known to occur, but is expected to spread to the remaining states in
the near future. Rates of decline at hibernacula have been as high as 99%. The proposed action,
the implementation of the NCDOT activities in Divisions 1-8, is likely to adversely affect the
NLEB.
Other species
This PCO only addresses the NLEB and should not, by itself, be necessarily construed as
completing Section 7 consultation for any specific activity. Individually, each NCDOT activity
may or may not have adverse effects on other federally threatened or endangered species.
Therefore, independent of this programmatic conference, all NCDOT projects in Divisions 1-8
will be separately assessed for effects to other federally listed species.
29

IIL ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
Under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, when considering the "effects of the action" on federally
listed species, the Service is required to take into consideration the environmental baseline. The
environmental baseline includes past and ongoing natural factors and the past and present
impacts of all federal, state, or private actions and other activities in the action area (50 CFR
402.02), including federal actions in the area that have already undergone Section 7 consultation,
and the impacts of state or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in
process.
A. Status of the species within the action area
Eastern North Carolina is on the periphery of the NLEB's range, and data indicating the presence
or absence of the species within the action area is sparse. However, the available data do suggest
that NLEBs occur in low numbers within the action area and that the species is absent from
much of the action area. Currently, negative data (data which does not support the presence of
the species at a specific location) far exceeds positive data.
NLEB capture records in the action area
Camden Countv: Six NLEBs were captured in 2012, and one NLEB was captured in 2013
(Grider 2014).
Currituck Countv: During bat surveys conducted at a U.S. Naval facility that spans Chesapeake,
Virginia and Currituck County, North Carolina, a total of 16 NLEBs were captured during the
summers of 2013 and 2014 (Michael Wright, US Navy, personal communication, October 29,
2014).
Washin�ton County: Six NLEBs were captured in June/July of 2007, including five juveniles,
suggesting a resident maternity colony was present (Morris et al. 2009). In 2012, two NLEBs
were captured (Grider 2014).
Other records indicating NLEB presence in the action area
Lee Countv: A rabies lab record from June 2001 is preserved in the University of North
Carolina Wilmington Natural History Collection (David Webster, associate dean, University of
North Carolina Wilmington, personal communication, January 21, 2014).
New Hanover Countv: A rabies lab record from 1996 is preserved in the University of North
Carolina Wilmington Natural History Collection (David Webster, associate dean, University of
North Carolina Wilmington, personal communication, January 21, 2014).
30

Wake Countv: Two specimens collected in Raleigh from 1947 and 1981 are preserved in the
University of North Carolina at Wilmington Natural History Collection (David Webster,
associate dean, University of North Carolina Wilmington, personal communication, January 21,
2014).
Negative data for NLEBs in the action area
Below is a summary of all known mist net bat survey work in eastern North Carolina which did
not lead to any evidence of the presence of NLEB.
Fort Bra /�p Mackall (Cumberland, Harnett, Hoke, Richmond, and Scotland Counties� —
(Janice Patten, wildlife biologist, Fort Bragg Endangered Species Branch, personal
communication, July 1, 2014).
Mist-netting was conducted from 2004-2009 at 38 locations across Fort Bragg and Camp
Mackall. In addition, buildings were inspected for potential roosts. No NLEBs were
captured or observed.
In the winter of 2013-2014, several known roost locations where checked for bats. Bats
were found at two sites, but no NLEBs were observed.
Uwharrie National Forest (Mont_o�mery and Randolph Counties�
Three nights of netting occurred during the 2004 Southeastern Bat Diversity Network bat
blitz in Anson, Montgomery, and Randolph counties at over 30 sites. Seventy-seven bats
(representing five species) were captured, but no NLEBs were captured (Cameron et al.
2004).
NCDOT staff conducted netting in 2007 at four sites in Montgomery County. No NLEBs
were captured.
Fifty-eight nights of mist-netting occurred at 14 sites in the Uwharrie National Forest in
the summer of 2014; 179 bats were captured, but there were no NLEB captures (King and
Kalcounis-Rueppe112014).
Croatan National Forest (Carteret, Jones, and Onslow Counties)
Fourteen nights of mist-netting were conducted for the US 17 project on the west side of
Croatan National Forest (CNF) in Jones and Onslow Counties, but no NLEBs were
captured (Ecological Engineering 2014).
Six nights of mist-netting were conducted in CNF along the proposed Havelock bypass
corridar in 2005 (NCDOT). No NLEBs were captured.
Five nights of mist-netting were conducted adjacent to CNF at the NCDOT Croatan
Mitigation Bank from 2007-2010 (NCDOT). No NLEBs were captured.
One night of mist-netting was conducted in Carteret County at the southern edge of CNF
in 2009 (NCDOT). No NLEBs were captured.
31

North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation surveys
North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences staff surveyed 12 state parks and natural areas in
eastern North Carolina between 1999 and 2004 via mist-netting and roost checks (Lambiase et
al. 2000 and subsequent 2005 addendum). More than 160 bats were observed in approximately
40 days/nights of surveys, but no NLEBs were observed during any of these surveys. Survey
locations included Eno River State Park (Orange and Durham Counties), Goose Creek State Park
(Beaufort County), Lake Waccamaw State Park (Columbus County), Lumber River State Park
(Columbus, Robeson, and Scotland Counties), Merchant's Millpond State Park (Gates County),
Pettigrew State Park (Washington and Tyrell Counties), Raven Rock State Park (Harnett
County), Weymouth Woods State Park (Moore County), Jones Lake State Park (Bladen County),
Singletary Lake State Park (Bladen County), Theodore Roosevelt State Natural Area (Carteret
County), and William B. Umstead State Park (Wake County).
Bladen and Lenoir County mist-nettin�
During the summer of 2012 (May 14 to August 5) Grider (2014) did not capture any NLEBs at
sites in Bladen and Lenoir Counties, although 168 bats from seven other species were captured.
During the spring of 2013 (March 11 to April 12), Grider (2014) did not capture any NLEBs at
his field site in Bladen County, although five bats from one other species were captured.
Brid eg surve�
Although there is evidence of NLEBs using bridges and other structures for roosting in other
parts of the species range, bridge surveys in eastern North Carolina have failed to find any
NLEBs. Felts and Webster (2003) found 219 bats (representing three species) during bridge and
culvert surveys in southeastern North Carolina (Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus, Duplin, New
Hanover, Onslow, and Pender Counties), but none were NLEB. McDonnell (2001) examined
990 bridges and culverts in 25 counties in the North Carolina Coastal Plain. Eighty-one (81) bats
were found, but no NLEBs were identified.
Acoustic bat surveys in the action area
At this time, the Raleigh Field Office is not considering acoustic data as official records of
presence ar absence, given the software's difficulties in distinguishing the Myotis species and
pending further refinement of acoustic software and standardization of inethodologies and
analysis. However, acoustic efforts are noted below as current best available information.
From March 25 to May 15, 2014 the Service conducted passive acoustic surveys for
NLEBs at 23 sites in 14 counties within the action area. NLEBs were identified by two
software packages at 4 of the 23 sites in Bertie, Chatham, Craven, and Jones Counties
(Kathy Matthews, USFWS Raleigh Field Office, personal communication, February 23,
2015).
Multiple Sonobat acoustic transects were conducted across Fort Bragg and Camp
Mackall from 2004-2014. Eight bat species were detected, but none were NLEBs (Janice
Patten, wildlife biologist, Fort Bragg Endangered Species Branch, personal
communication, July 1, 2014).
32

Pittaway and Kalcounis-Rueppell (2014) analyzed acoustic transects along 18 routes that
were run in 2009, 2010 and 2012 in the Uwharrie National Forest. No NLEB calls were
recorded.
Three nights of acoustic driving transects in 2010 conducted on CNF by USFS staff
(Pittaway and Kalcounis-Rueppe112014). No NLEB calls were recorded.
Winter bat activity in the action area
Grider (2014) determined that multiple species of bats remain active during the winter in eastern
North Carolina, especially within the coastal plain. Seven species, including NLEB in Camden
County, were identified by acoustic surveys during the winters of 2012/2013 and 2013/2014.
Additionally, one NLEB was captured in a mist net in Camden County on March 11, 2013
(Kalcounis-Rueppell and Grider 2013). Several other bats from three other species were also
captured December 20-21, 2013 at the same location (Grider 2014). In the rest of the NLEB's
range, the species would normally be hibernating in caves or other suitable hibernacula during
winter. See Section B below for more related discussion.
B. Factors affecting species environment within the action area
A number of ongoing anthropogenic and natural factors may affect the NLEB. Some of these
effects have not been evaluated with respect to biological impacts on the species. In addition,
some are interrelated and the effects of one cannot be separated from others. Known or
suspected factors affecting the NLEB are discussed below.
White-nose syndrome
WNS is not known to occur within the action area (Heffernan 2015). This may be due to the
near absence of caves or other suitable hibernacula within the action area. However, much of the
action area does occur within the WNS buffer zone described in USFWS (2015).
Lack of known hibernacula
No NLEB hibernacula are currently known to exist within the action area. This is likely due to
the near absence of suitable caves in eastern North Carolina. Although suitable or potentially
suitable caves do exist outside the action area in south-central Virginia (Virginia Speleological
Survey 2007) and in western North Carolina, these caves are >125 miles from known NLEB
capture sites in northeastern North Carolina. This distance is beyond the 35-55 mile range at
which NLEBs are typically known to migrate (Griffith 1945, Nagorsen and Brigham 1993).
However, a small number of underground mines located primarily in the western portion of the
action area could conceivably provide hibernacula for NLEBs. Overall, the absence of known
hibernacula within or near the action area makes the area distinctly different than most of the rest
of the range of the species.
33

Winter activity of NLEB in eastern North Carolina
From Grider (2014) it appears that the climate in eastern North Carolina, especially along the
coast, is sufficient for year-round or near year-round activity for NLEBs, thus possibly
precluding the need for traditional hibernacula. Whitaker et al. (1997) similarly found that
eastern red bats (Lasiurus borealis) were able to forage during winter in coastal North Carolina.
Due to relatively mild winter temperatures in coastal North Carolina, it is believed that sufficient
insect activity occurs to sustain bat activity during much of the winter. Taylar (1963) found that
some cold-tolerant insects can maintain flight at temperatures as low as 8°C. Grider (2014)
found that his coastal plain North Carolina study sites averaged nightly temperatures of 8°C or
higher on 34.1 % of winter nights. However, he also found some minimal level of bat activity as
low as -3.4°C.
Loss/modification of roosting and foraging habitat
The action area has experienced and continues to experience loss and modification of NLEB
roosting and foraging habitat through tree removal. Tree removal occurs primarily as a result of
development, timber harvest, and land clearing for agriculture. From 1990 to 201 l, total forest
land in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont Regions of North Carolina declined by approximately
4%, but the decline appears to have stabilized in recent years (Brown and New 2013).
Public conservation lands
The action area contains significant amounts of forested conservation lands in the form of
national wildlife refuges, national forests, state forests, state parks, state gaine lands, and other
protected properties. Public ownership confers some conservation benefit to listed species by
removing some threats that might otherwise be present if the properties were owned by private
landowners and subsequently developed. However, some management activities such as
prescribed burning, timber stand improvement, and sustainable timber harvesting may have some
level of adverse effects to the species.
Climate Change
Climate change in eastern North Carolina may result in additional sea level rise. Sea level rise
would flood portions of coastal North Carolina, thus killing trees that NLEBs may use for
foraging and roosting. Simultaneously, a warming climate could increase insect availability
during winter and thus increase winter activity and perhaps alter behaviors.
IV. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
Under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, "effects of the action" refers to the direct and indirect effects
of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are
interrelated or interdependent with that action. The federal agency is responsible for analyzing
34

these effects. The effects of the proposed action are added to the environmental baseline to
determine the future baseline, which serves as the basis for the determination in this PCO.
Should the effects of the federal action result in a situation that would jeopardize the continued
existence of the species, we may propose reasonable and prudent alternatives that the federal
agency can take to avoid a violation of Section 7(a)(2). The discussion that follows is our
evaluation of the anticipated direct and indirect effects of the proposed project. Indirect effects
are those caused by the proposed action that occur later in time but are still reasonably certain to
occur (50 CFR 402.02).
A. Factors to be considered
Proximity of the action: The proposed action will occur within suitable roosting and foraging
habitat throughout the action area. No known hibernaculum occur within the action area.
Distribution: The expected disturbance from the proposed action may directly affect roosting
and foraging NLEBs at multiple locations throughout the action area.
Timin�: Project construction will occur throughout the year and through all phases of the
NLEB's life cycle, although the winter behavior of NLEBs within the action area is not yet fully
understood.
Nature of the effect: Adverse effects to the NLEB in the action area are expected to occur
primarily in the form of nonlethal harassment of roosting bats as roost trees are felled during land
clearing operations or when structures (e.g. bridges) are demolished. However, some minimal
level of lethal effects is expected when bats are unable to escape roost trees which are being
felled or when structures are demolished (e.g. when female bats with non-volant pups are
present). Due to seemingly low numbers of NLEBs in the action area, the generalist roosting
habitat selection of the species, and the abundance of forested lands within the action area, it is
assumed that removal of roosting and foraging habitat is, in and of itself, not an adverse effect if
no NLEBs are present.
Duration/disturbance frequencX: This PCO analyzes the effects of the proposed action for a
period of five years, beginning in Apri12015. Covered activities will be ongoing throughout the
5-year timeframe, but the duration of each covered activity will vary from weeks to years.
Disturbance intensit,y and severit�: The intensity and severity of disturbance will vary depending
on the scope of each covered activity.
B. Analysis for effects of the action
Beneficial effects:
The greatest beneficial effect of the action is the previously described 5-year research project to
be conducted by NCDOT (see Conservation Measures section above and Appendix B).
35

Information is severely lacking for the NLEB in eastern North Carolina. Of special interest is
the need for information on the winter behavior of NLEBs in the action area. The data obtained
from the research will be essential for long-term NLEB conservation in eastern North Carolina
by helping to target management and protection efforts.
To comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, NCDOT is required to mitigate for impacts
to wetlands and streams. NCDOT typically offsets unavoidable impacts at a 2:1 ratio through a
combination of restoration, enhancement, and preservation activities. Since most wetland
impacts are to forested wetlands, NCDOT is responsible for replacing much of the forested
wetland acreage that is lost due to project construction. Additionally, most stream mitigation
requires forested riparian buffers to be planted or restored. From 2003 to 2013, NCDOT restored
approximately 4,000 acres of forest, preserved approximately 18,000 acres of forest, and planted
over one million trees within NCDOT Divisions 1-8 (LeiLani Paugh, NCDOT, personal
communication, February 2, 2015). These restored and preserved acres of forested habitat
provide substantial long-term benefits to the NLEB.
Direct effects:
The amount of information on the occurrence, distribution, and population size of the NLEB in
the action area is minimal. Little information exists on locations of maternity roosts or preferred
foraging areas. Therefore, quantifying the direct effects to the species is difficult. However,
because the available data do suggest that NLEBs occur in low numbers within the action area
and that the species is absent from much of the action area, it is presumed that most of NCDOT's
activities within the action area, if viewed individually, would not adversely affect the species.
However, when assessed at the programmatic level, it is certain that adverse effects will occur.
1. Mortality from tree clearing or structure removal
During tree clearing activities, if a NLEB is present in a tree at the time it is felled, it is possible
the bat may be killed if it does not quickly exit the tree. Non-volant pups would be especially
vulnerable. Given the seeming low occurrence of the NLEB in the action area, and given the
large amount of forested acreage in the action area, the probability that any specific project
would cause mortality of the species is likely low. However, collectively, all NCDOT activities
within the action area together as a program will likely result in some relatively small amount of
mortality, although the precise amount of mortality would not be predictable or measureable.
Although there is currently no evidence of NLEBs using bridges, culverts, or buildings as roost
sites in the action area, there has been a minimal amount of NLEB use of bridges as roost sites in
the mountains of western North Carolina. Therefore, it is possible that NLEBs may use bridges,
large boX culverts, ar buildings as roost sites in eastern North Carolina. During the demolition of
these structures, it is possible that NLEBs could be killed if they are unable to quickly exit the
structure.
36

2. Overall habitat loss
Although the overall distribution of the NLEB is currently unknown for the action area, for the
purposes of this programmatic conference, it is assumed that all forested land within the action
area could serve as NLEB foraging and/or roosting habitat. NCDOT has determined that their
activities from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019 will clear up to 10,223 acres of trees in
Divisions 1-8. Based on U.S. Forest Service forest inventory data for North Carolina (New
2014), this amount of clearing represents 0.21% of the total forested acres in the action area.
While there is no evidence to indicate that roosting or foraging habitat availability is a limiting
factor for the NLEB in the action area, the acreage of tree clearing will serve as the surrogate to
attempt to quantify the potential harm and/or harassment to the species from the removal of trees.
To put the potential amount of forested habitat loss into perspective, the following theoretical
exercise is useful. Using an average maternal home range size of 161 acres from Owen et al.
(2003), the theoretical maximum number of NLEB maternity colonies represented by 10,223
acres of trees to be cleared by NCDOT over five years is 63. However, this theoretical number
of maternity colonies is a gross overestimate for multiple reasons. The 10,223 acres of tree
clearing assumes that project ROWs are entirely cleared, which is generally not the case. Also,
the available information regarding presence/absence of the species within the action area
suggests that the occupancy rate of the forested acreage to be cleared is low. Only 3 of the 59
counties within the action area are conclusively known to currently support the NLEB. The
proposed tree clearing within these three counties only represents a small fraction of the 10,223
acres that may be cleared within the action area over five years. Furthermore, there is only one
STII'-level project planned within three miles of any known NLEB capture sight, and most of the
trees within that project ROW have previously been cleared.
3. Harm or harassment from removing roost trees
Although there are few records of NLEB maternity or non-maternity roost areas from the action
area, NCDOT activities at the programmatic level are likely to remove some unknown number of
active roost trees. A NLEB present in a roost tree that is being felled will likely exit the tree and
fly to another nearby tree. The NLEB's flight to another tree will cause extra energy expenditure
and may expose the bat to increased predation pressures. Pregnant females and females with
pups would be the most vulnerable due to the increased energy demands of pregnancy and the
rearing of young. Likewise, NLEBs that exit their roost sites in bridges or buildings being
demolished could experience similar effects.
4. Harm or harassment from removing foraging habitat
An individual NLEB whose foraging area overlaps with a specific project area or whose foraging
area will be significantly fragmented will have to expend an increased amount of energy to
establish a new foraging area or new travel corridors between roosting and foraging areas. This
may subject the bat to increased inter- or intra-specific competition ar to increased predation
37

pressures. It is anticipated that in most cases an individual NLEB would have little difficulty in
establishing new foraging areas and that any adverse effects would be minimal and temporary.
5. Harm or harassment due to noise, vibrations, and other disturbances
In addition to habitat destruction in a project footprint, a decrease in the quality of remaining
habitat adjacent to a project footprint may occur. Increased disturbance may occur during
clearing and construction from the use of equipment and from blasting, although blasting is
rarely used by NCDOT. NLEBs may be exposed to noise levels and vibrations that they may not
have experienced in the past, depending on the proximity of their roost sites or foraging areas to
NCDOT activities. The majority of these effects will be temporary and generated solely during
construction activities, although noise generated from new roads will be permanent. It is
difficult to predict the degree to which NLEBs would be disturbed by the noise and vibrations
associated with construction activities, but it is reasonable to assume that any effect resulting
from noise and vibrations could result in bats selecting roost trees or foraging areas further from
the disturbance. However, there would be limited exposure of foraging NLEBs to construction-
related noise and vibration since most construction work occurs during the daytime, and the
nighttime work that does occur generally occurs within congested urban areas which would be
less likely to have NLEBs present. The burning of woody debris at construction sites may also
disturb roosting or foraging bats with smoke or heat.
6. Decreased water quality
Although NCDOT implements various measures to avoid or minimize degrading water quality,
some NCDOT activities may cause impacts in the form of temporary sedimentation or accidental
spills of petrochemicals, uncured concrete, or herbicides. Degraded water quality could affect
NLEB drinking water sources, and since some insects with an aquatic life-stage (e.g. caddisflies)
make up a portion of the diet of the NLEB, the degraded water quality could affect the prey base
for NLEBs. However, since NLEBs should have little difficulty finding alternative drinking
water sources or alternative prey and faraging areas, the effect on the species would likely be
insignificant and/or discountable.
7. Harassment from research project
During the five-year research project to be implemented by NCDOT, NLEBs could be adversely
affected by mist-netting activities, such as becoming stressed or injured in the net. Roost surveys
conducted during cold temperatures in winter could also arouse bats during periods of low insect
activity, thus leading to the excess expenditure of energy reserves. Telemetry surveys could
stress individual bats carrying transmitters. However, all of these potential effects are covered
under ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) permits for the researchers.
38

Indirect effects:
1. Mortality from vehicle traffic
Bats that fly across roads can be killed by vehicles (Lesinski 2007, Lesinski 2008, Russell et al.
2009, Gaisler et al. 2009). A study conducted in eastern North Carolina (in Tyrrell and Dare
Counties) which analyzed wildlife road-kills documented bat mortality (Smith 2011). Since
NLEBs typically forage 1 to 3 meters above the ground (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993), NLEBs
could be struck and killed by vehicles on new roads constructed within the action area; however,
such mortality would be expected to be minimal.
2. Habitat fragmentation from road traffic
Zurcher et al. (2010) found that roads can act as a barrier to bats, and the volume of traffic
increases the barrier effect. Without specific data on the relationship between NLEB and current
habitat connectivity levels in eastern North Carolina, only generalizations can be made about the
effects of habitat fragmentation due to NCDOT activities. NCDOT projects may reduce NLEB
habitat connectivity; therefore, NLEBs may need to expend extra energy to forage, find cover, or
commute to roost sites as a result. No realistic estimate of the reduction in habitat connectivity
can be made due to the limited NLEB data in the action area. It is assumed that the abundance of
NLEB habitat will act to ameliorate the fragmentation effects of NCDOT activities.
3. Harm or harassment from removing maternity roost trees outside the maternity season
Activities that require the removal of primary maternity roost trees outside of the NLEB
maternity season may result in adverse effects to maternity colony members and potential loss of
a year's recruitment. If pregnant females are required to search for new roosting habitat in the
spring, this effort may place additional stress on pregnant females at a critical time when fat
reserves are low and they are already stressed from the energy demands of pregnancy. Adult
male and non-reproductive female NLEBs would be less affected since they are not subject to
the physiological demands of pregnancy and rearing young.
4. Road avoidance due to traffic noise
Data regarding the effects of traffic noise on bats is mixed. Far example, Schaub et al. (2008)
suggested that foraging habitat for greater mouse-eared bats (Myotis myotis) in Germany near
noisy roads is degraded, while Zurcher et al. (2010) found that noise from vehicles had no
discernable effect on Indiana bats crossing roads in Indiana. Without data specific to NLEBs, it
is unknown what effect traffic noise will have on the species.
5. Secondary development
There is potential for the NCDOT Program to induce additional development. While bridge
replacements and maintenance activities do not increase development, new location and
39

widening projects do have the potential to increase traffic capacity, which may induce secondary
development, resulting in additional habitat loss. No quantitative analysis is practicable for the
scope of the NCDOT Program.
Interrelated and interdependent effects:
Utility companies often locate utility lines (e.g. water, gas, electrical) along NCDOT roads
within the ROW. In those situations, there would generally be no additional effects to the NLEB
from tree clearing. However, occasionally, utility companies relocate utility lines outside the
limits of the NCDOT ROW. In those situations, additional tree clearing may occur. Since that
decision by the utility company generally does not occur until late in project planning ar even
after project construction has begun, and given the programmatic nature of this PCO, there is no
accurate way to estimate the extent of additional tree clearing. However, based on the infrequent
occurrence of this scenario, the additional adverse effect to NLEBs is expected to be minimal.
C. Species' response to proposed action
Numbers of individuals/populations in the action area affected: Comprehensive information
regarding the population size of NLEBs in the action area is lacking. Total records of live
captures within the action area comprise only about 20 individuals. These live captures are from
only 3 of the 59 counties in the action area. A significant amount of negative data (i.e. surveys
without evidence of NLEB) covering multiple counties suggests that the population of NLEB
within the action area is low.
Sensitivity to chan�e, resilience, and recovery rate: Due to the near absence of information on
the population, distribution, and behavior of NLEBs in the action area, these factars are largely
unknown.
V. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects include the effects of future state, local, ar private actions that are reasonably
certain to occur in the action area considered in this PCO. Future federal actions that are
unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate
consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA.
Bridge maintenance
There will be NCDOT maintenance activities with no federal nexus such as bridge painting and
repair work which could affect the NLEB. If NLEB are roosting in bridges in eastern North
Carolina, maintenance activities could harass or kill individuals. However, current data suggest
that bridge use by NLEB in North Carolina is very limited (McDonnell 2001, Felts and Webster
2003), so the overall effects of bridge maintenance on the species are expected to be minimal.
40

Tree trimming and hazard tree removal
Tree trimming and hazardous tree removal are activities that generally occur without a federal
nexus. These activities occur along road ROWs to reduce safety hazards due to falling trees or
limbs, or to improve line-of-sight issues. Potential effects to NLEB would be similar to the tree
removal previously described in the direct effects section. Tree trimming and hazardous tree
removal occurs on an as-needed basis, so quantifying the amount of habitat lost from this activity
is not practicable.
Borrow areas
NCDOT contractors, independent of project planning and usually without a federal nexus, may
select borrow areas to obtain material for earthwork and may require tree removal. Construction
contractors are generally responsible for addressing federally threatened and endangered species
issues for these sites per NCDOT standard specifications. However, most borrow areas are
located in areas of previously disturbed habitat where tree removal is minimal.
Timber industry
Eastern North Carolina has a large timber industry, with approximately $551 million of timber
being delivered to mills within the action area in 2012 alone (Jeuck and Bardon 2013). Much of
this timber harvest is part of sustainable management, with the remainder occurring due to
development and land clearing for other purposes. In addition to timber harvest, some unknown
acreage of forested land is managed for optimal timber production and/or wildlife management.
Both timber harvest and forest management involving tree clearing will continue to have adverse
effects on the NLEB within the action area similar to the effects described above for the removal
of roost trees and foraging habitat. However, these adverse effects would be very difficult to
quantify.
Development
From 2010 to 2013, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated an annual 1.1% population growth rate in
the action area (U.S. Census Bureau 2014). Most of this growth occured in urban areas, with the
rural areas being nearly stable or declining in population. Increased population growth generally
leads to increased land clearing. Tree clearing from development will continue to have adverse
effects on the NLEB. However, given the size of the action area (59 counties) and the paucity of
data on NLEBs within the action area, these effects would not be measureable.
VL CONCLUSION
After reviewing the current status of the NLEB, the environmental baseline for the action area,
the effects of the proposed action and cumulative effects, it is the Service's conference opinion
that NCDOT activities in eastern North Carolina (Divisions 1-8), as proposed, are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the NLEB. No critical habitat has been proposed or
designated for the NLEB; therefore, none will be affected.
41

This non jeopardy opinion is based on the following rationale:
1. Eastern North Carolina is on the periphery of the NLEB's range, and there are very few
records of NLEBs in the action area.
2. Based on available data, NLEBs appear to occur in low numbers within the action area.
3. The NLEB appears to be absent from portions of the action area.
4. There are no known NLEB hibernacula and almost no caves in eastern North Carolina.
5. The loss of trees from NCDOT activities will not result in a shortage of available roosts or
foraging opportunities for NLEB since forested habitat is abundant in eastern North Carolina
and is not likely a factor limiting the numbers or reproduction of NLEB populations.
6. The likelihood of any individual NCDOT project having an adverse effect on the NLEB is
likely low.
7. Most of the adverse effects that do occur will occur as non-lethal harassment. The
probability of any individual project causing NLEB mortality is likely very low.
8. The greatest conservation need for NLEBs in eastern North Carolina is basic information on
the distribution and behavior of the species. As part of the action, NCDOT has proposed to
conduct an extensive and systematic research and data collection effort over five years. This
information is needed to form conservation strategies for the species in the future.
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 of the ESA and federal regulations pursuant to Section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the
taking of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is
defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to
engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat
modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly
impairing essential behaviaral patterns such as breeding, feeding or sheltering. Harass is defined
by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed
species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but
are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is
incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the
terms of Section 7(b)(4) and Section 7(0)(2), tal�ing that is incidental to and not intended as part
of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA provided that such
taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.
The prohibitions against taking the species found in Section 9 of the ESA do not apply until the
NLEB is listed. However, the Service advises the action agencies to consider implementing the
following reasonable and prudent measures. If this PCO is adopted as a Programinatic
Biological Opinion following a listing, these measures, with their implementing terms and
conditions, will be non-discretionary.
42

Amount or extent of take anticipated
The Service expects incidental take of NLEBs attributable to the proposed action will be difficult
to detect and quantify for the following reasons: 1) most incidental take will occur as sub-lethal
harassment, 2) sub-lethal effects are mostly undetectable, 3) dead bats are mostly undetectable,
and 4) data on the presence, distribution, and behavior of NLEB in the action area is very
limited. By far, the greatest amount of incidental take will be associated with tree clearing.
Although other NCDOT activities have the potential to take NLEBs, these other activities are
believed to be inconsequential when compared to tree clearing. Therefore, tree clearing acreage
was determined to be the only meaningful surrogate to express the extent of incidental take. The
NCDOT has determined that up to 10,223 acres of trees will be cleared by NCDOT activities
within the action area over the next five years. This figure is conservatively estimated and is
likely high since it assumes that all trees will be cleared within a project ROW, which is often
not the case.
Effect of the take
In the accompanying PCO, the Service has determined that this level of anticipated take is not
likely to result in jeopardy to the NLEB, or destruction or adverse modification of designated or
proposed critical habitat.
Duration of the take
This level of incidental take is authorized from the effective date of a final listing determination
through Apri130, 2020.
Reasonable and Prudent Measures
The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and
appropriate within NCDOT Divisions 1-8 to minimize take of the NLEB. These
nondiscretionary measures include, but are not limited to, the terms and conditions outlined in
this PCO.
Include visual bat surveys far structures and mines when developing environmental
documentation during project planning.
2. Report annual tree clearing acreage to the Service.
3. Avoid disturbing any known NLEB maternity roosts during pupping season.
4. As research findings become available, coordinate with the Service to develop future
conservation measures.
43

Terms and Conditions
In arder to be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the ESA, the NCDOT must comply
with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures
described previously. These terms and conditions are nondiscretionary.
Develop a policy to conduct bat presence surveys at bridges, within vacant buildings, and
within suitable underground mines within project study areas when developing Natural
Resource Technical Reports and National Environmental Policy Act documents during
project planning. These bat presence surveys will be limited to visual surveys only. With
regard to underground mines, there is no expectation that investigators will survey any mine
with unsafe conditions. If NLEBs are observed, the information must be reported to the
Raleigh Field Office. (RPM 1)
2. NCDOT must track and report annually to the Service the total tree clearing acreage for all
activities covered by this programmatic conference/consultation (i.e. projects with a federal
nexus only). A cumulative tree clearing acreage for the years 2015-2019 must be provided
by Apri12020. (RPM 2)
3. If NCDOT or other researchers identify NLEB maternity roosts, do not remove occupied
maternity roost trees or clear-cut within 0.25 mile of an occupied maternity roost tree during
the summer pupping season. The pupping season for NLEBs in eastern NC is not yet
precisely known, but the dates of May 15 — August 15 will be used until more data are
available. (RPM 3)
4. During the research related semi-annual meetings specified in the conservation measures,
discuss and consider any future conservation measures which the research findings may
suggest would benefit the NLEB. (RPM 4)
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purposes
of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs far the benefit of endangered and threatened
species. The following conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to
minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or proposed critical
habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.
NCDOT and/or FHWA could contribute funding to purchase additional acoustic bat survey
equipment and software for natural resource agencies.
2. NCDOT and/or FHWA could provide for bat acoustic survey techniques training for staff
from the Service, WRC, and other natural resource agencies.
44

In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing ar avoiding adverse effects or
benefiting listed species or their habitats, we request notification of the implementation of any
conservation recommendations.
REINITIATION/CLOSING STATEMENT
This concludes the conference for the action outlined in your January 13, 2015 request for formal
conference. You may ask the Service to confirm the PCO as a Programmatic Biological Opinion
issued through formal consultation if the NLEB is listed. The request must be in writing. If the
Service reviews the proposed action and finds that there have been no significant changes in the
action as planned or in the information used during the conference, the Service will confirm the
PCO as the Programmatic Biological Opinion on the action and no further Section 7 consultation
will be necessary.
After listing of the NLEB as endangered or threatened and any subsequent adoption of this PCO,
the FHWA (NC Division) and USACE (Wilmington District) shall request reinitiation of
consultation i£ (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information
reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species ar critical habitat in a manner
or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion;
or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action.
The Incidental Take Statement provided in this PCO does not become effective until the NLEB
is listed and the PCO is adopted as the Programmatic Biological Opinion issued through formal
consultation.
Literature Cited
Amelon, S. and D. Burhans. 2006. Conservation assessment: Myotis septentrionalis (northern
long-eared bat) in the eastern United States. Pages 69-82 in Thompson, F.R., III (ed.).
Conservation Assessments for Five Forest Bat Species in the Eastern United States. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, General
Technical Report NC-260. St. Paul, MN. 82 pp.
Ballmann, A. 2013. E-mail correspondence sent from A. Ballmann, wildlife disease specialist,
USGS-National Wildlife Health Center to J. Utrup, fish and wildlife biologist, USFWS
Green Bay Wisconsin Field Office (sent May 17, 2013).
Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. The University of Kentucky Press,
Lexington, KY.
45

Benedict, R.A. 2004. Reproductive activity and distribution of bats in Nebraska. Western
North American Naturalist 64:231-248.
Blehert, D.S., A.C. Hicks, M. Behr, C.U. Meteyer, B.M. Berlowski-Zier, E.L. Buckles, J.T.H.
Coleman, S.R. Darling, A. Gargas, R. Niver, J.C. Okoniewski, R.J. Rudd, and W.B.
Stone. 2009. Bat white-nose syndrome: An emerging fungal pathogen? Science
323:227.
Bouma, H.R., H.V. Carey, and F.G.M. Kroese. 2010. Hibernation: The immune system at
rest? Journal of Leukocyte Biology 88:619-624.
Boyles, J.G. and C.K.R. Willis. 2010. Could localized warm areas inside cold caves reduce
mortality of hibernating bats affected by white-nose syndrome? Frontiers Ecology and
the Environment 8(2):92-98.
Brack, V. 2007. Temperatures and locations used by hibernating bats, including Myotis sodalist
(Indiana bat), in a limestone mine: Implications for conservation and management.
Journal of Environmental Management 40:739-746.
Brack Jr., V. and J.O. Whitaker Jr. 2001. Foods of the northern myotis, Myotis septentrionalis,
from Missouri and Indiana, with notes on foraging. Acta Chiropterologica 3:203-210.
Broders, H.G. and G.J. Forbes. 2004. Interspecific and intersexual variation in roost-site
selection of northern long-eared and little brown bats in the Greater Fundy National Park
ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:602-610.
Broders, H.G., G.J. Forbes, S. Woodley, and LD. Thompson. 2006. Range extent and stand
selection for roosting and foraging in forest-dwelling northern long-eared bats and little
brown bats in the Greater Fundy Ecosystem, New Brunswick. Journal of Wildlife
Management 70:1174-1184.
Brown, M.J. and B.D. New. 2013. North Carolina, 2011 Forest Inventory and Analysis
Factsheet. e-Science Update SRS-080. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
Southern Research Station. Asheville, NC. 5 pp.
Brunkhurst, E. 2012. Unpublished data from New Hampshire Fish and Game Department to
USFWS Region 3 data request regarding status of 7 cave bat species (sent January 24,
2012).
46

Caceres, M.C. 1998. The suminer ecology of Myotis species bats in the interior wet-belt of
British Columbia. MSc. Thesis. University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Caceres, M.C. and M.J. Pybus. 1997. Status of the northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management
Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 3. Edmonton, Alberta.
Caceres, M.C. and RM.R. Barclay. 2000. Myotis septentrionalis. Mammalian Species No.
634:1-4.
Caire, W., R.K. LaVal, M.L. LaVal, and R. Clawson. 1979. Notes on the ecology of Myotis
keenii (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) in Eastern Missouri. American Midland Naturalist
102(2):404-407.
Cameron, M.L., C.T. McAllister, S.F. Barclay, M. Kalcounis-Rueppell, J. O'Keefe, and M.K.
Clark. 2004. Results of the 2004 bat blitz, Uwharrie National Forest and Pee Dee
National Wildlife Refuge, North Carolina. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of
Science 84:82.
Carter, T.C. and G. Feldhamer. 2005. Roost tree use by maternity colonies of Indiana bats and
northern long-eared bats in southern Illinois. Forest Ecology and Management 219:259—
268.
Clark, B.K, J.B. Bowles, and B.S. Clark. 1987. Status of the endangered Indiana bat in Iowa.
American Midland Naturalist 118(1):32-39.
Coleman, V. 2012. Billboards: New state law could curb cities' input. Independent Weekly.
Accessed on January 14, 2015 at http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/new-state-law-
could-curb-cities-input/Content?oid=315 7349 .
Cope, J.B. and S.R. Humphrey. 1972. Reproduction of the bats Myotis keenii and Pipistrellus
subflavus in Indiana. Bat Research News 13:9-10.
47

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2014. Myotis,
northern (Myotis septentrionalis). Accessed on December 29, 2014 at
http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct 1 /searchdetail_e.cfm?id=1175&StartRow=1 &boxStatus
=A11&boxTaxonomic=Al1&location=Al1&change=All&board=Al1&commonName=&sci
enceName=Myotis%20septentrionalis&returnFla —g-0&Page=1
Courtin, F., W.B. Stone, G. Risatti, K. Gilbert, and H.J. Van Kruiningen. 2010. Pathologic
findings and liver elements in hibernating bats with white-nose syndrome. Veterinary
Pathology 47(2):214-219.
Cryan, P.M., C.U. Meteyer, J.G. Boyles, and D.S. Blehert. 2010. Wing pathology of white-nose
syndrome in bats suggests life-threatening disruption of physiology. BMC Biology
8:135-142.
Cryan, P.M., C.U. Meteyer, D.S. Blehert, J.M. Lorch, D.M Reeder, G.G. Turner, J. Webb, M.
Behr, M. Verant, R.E. Russell, and K.T. Castle. 2013. Electrolyte depletion in white-
nose syndrome bats. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 49(2):398-402.
Darling, S. and R. Smith. 2011. Unpublished data from Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department
to USFWS Region 3 data request regarding status of 7 cave bat species (sent Apri126,
2011).
Easterla, D.A. 1968. Parturition of Keen's Myotis in southwestern Missouri. Journal of
Mammalogy 49(4):770.
Ecological Engineering. 2014. Protected Species Survey Report; US 17 Improvements from SR
1330/SR 1439 south of Belgrade to the New Bern Bypass; Craven, Onslow and Jones
Counties, North Carolina; TIl' No. R-2514 B, C, & D. Report to North Carolina
Department of Transportation.
Faure, P.A., J.H. Fullard, and J.W. Dawson. 1993. The gleaning attacks of the northern long-
eared bat, Myotis septentrionalis, are relatively inaudible to moths. Journal of
Experimental Biology 178:173-189.
Feldhamer, G.A., T.C. Carter, and J.O. Whitaker Jr. 2009. Prey consumed by eight species of
insectivorous bats from southern Illinois. The American Midland Naturalist 162(1):43-
51.
48

Felts, J.W. and W.D. Webster. 2003. Use of bridges as daytime roosts by bats in southeastern
North Carolina. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science 119(4):172-178.
Fitch, J.H. and K.A. Shump, Jr. 1979. Myotis keenii. Mammalian Species No. 121:1-3.
Foster, R.W. and A. Kurta. 1999. Roosting ecology of the Northern bat (Myotis septentrionalis)
and comparisons with the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Journal of
Mammalogy 80(2):659-672.
Francl, K.E., W.M. Ford, D. Sparks, and V. Brack. 2012. Capture and reproductive trends in
summer bat communities in West Virginia: Assessing the impact of white-nose
syndrome. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 3(1):33—�2.
French, T. 2012. Unpublished data from Massachusetts Division of Wildlife and Fisheries to
USFWS Region 3 data request regarding status of 7 cave bat species (sent January 3,
2012).
Gaisler, J., Z. Rehak, and T. Bartonicka. 2009. Bat casualties by road traf�c (Brno-Vienna).
Acta Theriologica 54(2):147-155.
Gargas, A., M.T. Trest, M. Christensen, T.J. Volk, and D.S. Blehert. 2009. Geomyces
destructans sp. nov. associated with bat white-nose syndrome. Mycotaxon 108:147-154.
Garroway, C.J. and H.G. Broders. 2008. Day roost characteristics of northern long-eared bats
(Myotis septentrionalis) in relation to female reproductive status. Ecoscience 15(1):89-
93.
Goehring, H.H. 1954. Pipistrellus subflavus obscurus, Myotis keenii, and Eptesicus fuscus
fuscus hibernating in a storm sewer in central Minnesota. Journal of Mammalogy
35(3):434-436.
Grider, J.F. 2014. Year-Round Activity of Peripheral Bat Populations in the North Carolina
Coastal Plain. M.S. Thesis. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro,
NC. 50 pp.
Griffin, D.R. 1940. Reviewed notes on the life histories of New England cave bats. Journal of
Mammalogy 21(2):181-187.
49

Griffin, D.R. 1945. Travels of banded cave bats. Journal of Mammalogy 26(1):15-23.
Griffith, L.A. and J.E. Gates. 1985. Food habits of cave-dwelling bats in the central
Appalachians. Journal of Mammalogy 66(3):451-460.
Hall, J.S. 1957. Longevity records and notes on tooth wear of bats. Journal of Mammalogy
3 8:407-409.
Heffernan, L. 2015. Bat White Nose Syndrome Occurrence by County/District. Accessed on
January 27, 2015 at https://www.whitenosesvndrome.org/resource/updated-wns-map-
january-23-2015
Herzog, C. 2012. Unpublished data from New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation including mist-net surveys conducted pre- and post- white-nose syndrome
in New York (2003-2011).
Herzog, C. and R. Reynolds. 2013. An Update from the Heart of WNS Country.
PowerPoint presentation at the Northeast Bat Working Group 2013 annual meeting.
Albany, NY.
Hitchcock, H.B. 1949. Hibernation of bats in southeastern Ontario and adjacent Quebec.
Canadian Field-Naturalist 63(2):47-59.
Jeuck, J. and R. Bardon. 2013. 2012 Income and North Carolina Timber Harvested and
Delivered to Mills. North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension. Raleigh,
NC. Accessed on 1/29/2015 at http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/nreos/forest/pdf/incomel2.pdf
Johnson, J.B., W.M. Ford, and J.W. Edwards. 2012. Roost networks of northern myotis (Myotis
septentrionalis) in a managed landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 266:223-231.
Kalcounis-Rueppell, M. and J. Grider. 2013. Report of Wildlife Collecting Activities.
Unpublished report to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. University of
North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC.
Kath, J. 2013. Email communication sent by J. Kath, endangered species manager, Illinois
Department of Natural Resources, to J. Utrup, fish and wildlife biologist, USFWS Green
Bay, Wisconsin Field Office (sent Apri19, 2013).
50

King, K. and M. Kalcounis-Rueppell. 2014. Distribution and Habitat Preferences of Priority Bat
Species in North Carolina. Interim Report for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC.
Krochmal, A.R. and D.W. Sparks. 2007. Timing of birth and estimation of age of juvenile
Myotis septentrionalis and Myotis lucifugus in west-central Indiana. Journal of
Mammalogy 88(3):649-656.
Kunz, T.H. 1971. Reproduction of some Vespertilionid bats in central Iowa. American
Midland Naturalist 86(2):477-486.
Kunz, T.H. and J.D. Reichard. 2010. Status review of the little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus)
and determination that immediate listing under the endangered species act is scientifically
and legally warranted. Boston University's Center for Ecology and Conservation
Biology, Boston, MA. 30 pp.
Kurta, A. 1995. Mammals of the Great Lakes Region. University of Michigan Press. Ann
Arbor, MI.
Kurta, A. and J.A. Terainino. 1994. A novel hibernaculum and noteworthy records of the
Indiana bat and eastern pipistrelle (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). American Midland
Naturalist 132(2):410-413.
Lacki, M.J. and J.H. Schwierjohann. 2001. Day-roost characteristics of northern bats in mixed
mesophytic forest. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65(3):482-488.
Lacici, M.J., D.R. Cox, L.E. Dodd, and M.B. Dickinson. 2009. Response of northern bats
(Myotis septentrionalis) to prescribed fires in eastern Kentucky forests. Journal of
Mammalogy 90(5):1165-1175.
Lambiase, S.J., M.K. Clark, and L.J. Gatens. 2000. Bat (Chiroptera) Inventory of North
Carolina State Parks 1999-2000. Unpublished report of the North Carolina Division of
Parks and Recreation.
Langwig, K.E., W.F. Frick, R. Reynolds, K.L. Parise, K.P. Drees, J.R. Hoyt, T.L. Cheng, T.H.
Kunz, J.F. Foster, and A.M. Kilpatrick. 2014. Host and pathogen ecology drive the
seasonal dynamics of a fungal disease, white-nose syndrome. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B 282:20142335.
51

LaVal, RK., R.L. Clawson, M.L. LaVal, and W. Caire. 1977. Foraging behavior and nocturnal
activity patterns of Missouri bats, with emphasis on the endangered species Myotis
grisescens and Myotis sodalis. Journal of Mammalogy 58(4):592-599.
Lesinski, G. 2007. Bat road casualties and factors determining their number. Mammalia
71(3):138-142.
Lesinski, G. 2008. Linear landscape elements and bat casualties on roads — an example.
Annales Zoologici Fennici 45(4):277-280.
Lorch, J.M., C.U. Meteyer, M.J. Behr, J.G. Boyles, P.M. Cryan, A.C. Hicks, A.E. Ballmann,
J.T.H. Coleman, DN. Redell, D.M. Reeder, and D.S. Blehert. 2011. Experimental
infection of bats with Geomyces destructans causes white-nose syndrome. Nature
480:376-379.
McDonnell, J.M. 2001. Use of Bridges as Day Roosts in the North Carolina Coastal Plain.
M.S. Thesis. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 80 pp.
Menzel, M.A., S.F. Owen, W.M. Ford, J.W. Edwards, P.B. Wood, B.R.Chapman, and K.V.
Miller. 2002. Roost tree selection by northern long-eared bat (Myotis septent�ionalis)
maternity colonies in an industrial forest of the central Appalachian mountains. Forest
Ecology and Management 155:107-114.
Meteyer, C.U., E.L. Buckles, D.S. Blehert, A.C. Hicks, D.E. Green, V. Shearn-Bochsler, N.J.
Thomas, A. Gargas, and M.J. Behr. 2009. Histopathologic criteria to confirm white-nose
syndrome in bats. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 21:411-414.
Mills, R.S. 1971. A concentration of Myotis keenii at caves in Ohio. Journal of Mammalogy.
52(3):625.
Minnis, A.M. and D.L. Lindner. 2013. Phylogenetic evaluation of Geomyces and allies reveals
no close relatives of Pseudogymnoascus dest�uctans, comb. nov., in bat hibernacula of
eastern North America. Fungal Biology 117:638-649.
Moore, M.S., J.D. Reichard, T.D. Murtha, B. Zahedi, R.M. Fallier, and T.H. Kunz. 2011.
Specific alterations in complement protein activity of little brown myotis (Myotis
lucifugus) hibernating in white-nose syndrome affected sites. PLoS ONE 6(11): e27430.
52

Morris, A.D, M.J. Vonhof, D.A. Miller, and M.C. Kalcounis-Rueppell. 2009. Myotis
septentrionalis Trouessart (northern long-eared bat) records from the coastal plain of
North Carolina. Southeastern Naturalist 8(2):355-362.
Mumford R.E. and J.B. Cope. 1964. Distribution and status of the chiroptera of Indiana.
American Midland Naturalist 72(2):473-489.
Nagel, J. and J.E. Gates. 2012. Acoustic Survey Methodology to Assess the Impacts of White-
nose Syndrome (WNS) on Summer Distribution of Bats in Western Maryland: 2010,
2011, and 2012. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Appalachian
Laboratory, Frostburg, MD. 58 pp.
Nagorsen, D.W. and R.M. Brigham. 1993. The Bats of British Columbia: Royal British
Columbia Museum Handbook. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. 164
PP•
NCDOT (North Carolina Department of Transportation). 2003. Best Maintenance Practices for
Construction and Maintenance Activities. Available online at:
htt�s://connect.ncdot.gov/proj ects/Roadway/RoadwayDesignAdministrativeDocuments/B
est%20Mana�ement%20Practices%20for%20Construction%20and%20Maintenance%20
Activities.pdf
NCDOT (North Carolina Department of Transportation). 2015. NCDOT Current STIP.
Accessed on January 13, 2015 at
https://connect.ncdot. gov/proj ects/planning/Planning%20Document%20Librarv/LIVE_S
TIP.pdf
New, B.D. 2014. Forest Inventory Data. Unpublished data from the U.S. Forest Service,
Northern Research Station, St. Paul, MN.
011endorff, J. 2002. Myotis septentrionalis. Animal Diversity Web. Accessed January 22,
2015 at http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/M.�_septentrionalis/
Owen, S.F., M.A. Menzel, W.M. Ford, J.W. Edwards, B.R. Chapman, K.V. Miller, and P.B.
Wood. 2002. Roost Tree Selection by Maternal Colonies of Northern Long-eared
Myotis in an Intensively Managed Forest. USDA Forest Service. Newtown Square, PA.
53

Owen, S.F., M.A. Menzel, W.M. Ford, B.R. Chapman, K.V. Miller, J.W. Edwards, and P.B.
Wood. 2003. Home-range size and habitat used by the northern Myotis (Myotis
septentrionalis). American Midland Naturalist 150(2):352-359.
Pearson, E.W. 1962. Bats hibernating in silica mines in southern Illinois. Journal of
Mammalogy 43(1):27-33.
Pennsylvania Game Commission. 2012. Unpublished 1985-2011 Myotis leibii data.
Perry, R.W. and R.E. Thill. 2007. Roost selection by male and female northern long-eared bats
in a pine-dominated landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 247:220-226.
Pittaway, L.H. and M.C. Kalcounis-Rueppell. 2014. Uwharrie National Forest Bat Transect
Data Analysis 2009, 2010, 2012. Project Report for the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC.
Puechmaille, S.J., G. Wibbelt, V. Korn, H. Fuller, F. Forget, et al. 2011. Pan-European
distribution of white-nose syndrome fungus (Geomyces destructans) not associated with
mass mortality. PLoS ONE 6(4): e19167.
Racey, P.A. 1979. The prolonged storage and survival of spermatozoa in Chiroptera. Journal of
Reproduction and Fertilization 56:391-402.
Racey, P.A. 1982. Ecology of bat reproduction. Pages 57-104 in Kunz, T.H. (ed) Ecology of
Bats. Plenum Press, New York. 425 pp.
Raesly, R.L. and J.E. Gates. 1987. Winter habitat selection by north temperate cave bats.
American MidlandNaturalist 118(1):15-31.
Ratcliffe, J.M. and J.W. Dawson. 2003. Behavioral flexibility: the little brown bat, Myotis
lucifugus, and the northern long-eared bat, M. septentrionalis, both glean and hawk prey.
Animal Behaviour 66:847-856.
Reeder D.M., C.L. Frank, G.G. Turner, C.U. Meteyer, A. Kurta, E.R. Britzke, M.E. Vodzak, S.R.
Darling, C.W. Stihler, A.C. Hicks, R. Jacob, L.E. Grieneisen, S.A. Brownlee, L.K.
Muller, and D.S. Blehert. 2012. Frequent arousal from hibernation linked to severity of
infection and mortality in bats with white-nose syndrome. PLoS ONE 7(6): e38920.
54

Russell, A.L., C.M. Butchkoski, L. Saidak, and G.F. McCracken. 2009. Road-killed bats,
highway design, and the commuting ecology of bats. Endangered Species Research 8:49-
60.
Sasse, D.B. and P.J. Pekins. 1996. Summer roosting ecology of northern long-eared bats
(Myotis septentrionalis) in the White Mountain National Forest. Bats and Forests
Symposium, October 1995. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, p91-101.
Simmons, N.B. 2005. Myotis septentrionalis. Page 516 in Wilson, D.E. and D.M. Reeder (eds).
2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. The
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 2142 pp.
Sleeman, J. 2011. Universal precautions for the management of bat white-nose syndrome
(WNS). Wildlife Health Bulletin 2011-05. USGS National Wildlife Health Center,
Madison, WL 2 pp.
Smith, D.J. 2011. Cost Effective Wildlife Crossing Structures which Minimize the Highway
Barrier Effects on Wildlife and Improve Highway Safety along US 64, Tyrrell County,
NC. Final Report to NCDOT. University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. 90 pp. +
appendices.
Stones, R.C. and W. Fritz. 1969. Bat studies in upper Michigan's copper mining district. The
Michigan Academician 2(1):77-85.
Swanson, G. and C. Evans. 1936. The hibernation of certain bats in southern Minnesota.
Journal of Mammalogy 17(1): 39-43.
Taylor, L.R. 1963. Analysis of the effect of temperature on insects in flight. Journal of Animal
Ecology 32(1):99-43.
Timpone, J.C., J.G. Boyles, K.L. Murray, D.P. Aubrey, and L.W. Robbins. 2010. Overlap in
roosting habits of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) and northern bats (Myotis
septentrionalis). American Midland Naturalist 163:115-123.
Turner, G.G., D.M. Reeder, and J.T.H. Coleman. 2011. A five-year assessment of mortality and
geographic spread of white-nose syndrome in North American bats and a look to the
future. Bat Research News 52(2):13-27.
55

Turner, G. 2013. Unpublished data from Pennsylvania Game Commission including pre- and
post- white-nose syndrome hibernacula and swarm surveys conducted through 2013 in
Pennsylvania.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. State & County Quick Facts: North Carolina. Accessed on
1/29/2015 at http://quickfacts.census. o�v/qfd/states/37000.htm1
USDOT (United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration). 2013.
Highway Statistics 2012. Accessed on January 22, 2015 at
https://www. fhwa. dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2012/hm81. cfm
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina:
Regional Descriptions. Accessed on January 14, 2015 at
http://www.epa. gov/wed/pa�es/ecore�ions/ncsc_eco.htm
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Level III ecoregions of the continental
United States. National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory.
Corvallis, Oregon. Accessed on January 14, 2015 at
ftp://ftp.epa.g;ov/wed/ecoregions/us/Eco_Level_III US.�df
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011. A National Plan for Assisting States, Federal
Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats. Accessed on January
22, 2015 at https://www.whitenosesyndrome.or�/sites/default/files/white-
nose_svndrome national�lan maX 2011.pdf
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;
12-month finding on a petition to list the eastern small-footed bat and the northern long-
eared bat as endangered or threatened species; listing the northern long-eared bat as an
endangered species; proposed rule. Federal Register 78 (191):61045-61080.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014a. Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis
septentrionalis). Accessed on January 22, 2015 at
http://www.fws. gov/midwest/endan�ered/mammals/nlba/nlbaFactSheet.html
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014b. White-Nose Syndrome: The devastating
disease of hibernating bats in North America. Accessed on January 22, 2015 at
https://www.whitenosesyndrome. org/sites/default/files/resource/white-
nose fact sheet 8-2014 0.
56

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014c. Endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants; 6-month extension of final determination on the proposed endangered status for
the northern long-eared bat. Federal Register 79(125):36698-36699.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;
listing the northern long-eared bat with a rule under section 4(d) of the act. Federal
Register 80(11):2371-2378.
van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1979. Distribution and systematic relationships of long-eared Myotis in
western Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57:987-994.
van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1985. Handbook of Canadian Mammals: Bats. National Museum of
Natural Sciences. Ottawa, Canada. 212 pp.
Verant, M.L., J.G. Boyles, W. Waldrep, G. Wibbelt, and D.S. Blehert. 2012. Temperature-
dependent growth of Geomyces destructans, the fungus that causes bat white-nose
syndrome. PLoS ONE 7(9): e46280.
Verant, M.L., C.U. Meteyer, J.R. Speakman, P.M. Cryan, J.M. Lorch, and D.S. Blehert. 2014.
White-nose syndrome initiates a cascade of physiologic disturbances in the hibernating
bat host. BMC Physiology 14:1-10.
Virginia Speleological Survey. 2007. Map accessed on 1/27/2015 at
http://www.vir�iniacaves.or�/proj ects.html
Warnecke, L., J.M. Turnera, T.K. Bollinger, J.M. Lorch, V. Misra, P.M. Cryan, G. Wibbelt, D.S.
Blehert, and C.K.R. Willis. 2012. Inoculation of bats with European Geomyces
destructans supports the novel pathogen hypothesis for the origin of white-nose
syndrome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 109:6999-7003.
Whitaker, J.O. and L.J. Rissler. 1992a. Seasonal activity of bats at Copperhead Cave.
Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 101:127-134.
Whitaker, J.O. and L.J. Rissler. 1992b. Winter activity of bats at a mine entrance in Vermillion
County, Indiana. American Midland Naturalist 127:52-59.
57

Whitaker, J.O., R.K. Rose, and T.M. Padgett. 1997. Food of the red bat Lasiurus borealis in
winter in the Great Dismal Swamp, North Carolina and Virginia. American Midland
Naturalist 137(2):408-411.
Whitaker, J.O. and W.J. Hamilton. 1998. Mouse-eared bats, Vespertilionidae. Pages 89-102 in
Mammals of the Eastern United States, Third Edition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca,
New Yark. 608 pp.
Whitaker, J.O. and R.E. Mumford. 2008. Mammals of Indiana. Indiana University Press,
Bloomington, IN. 688 pp.
WNS Science Strategy Group. 2008. Questions, Observations, Hypotheses, Predictions, and
Research Needs for Addressing Effects of White-nose Syndrome (WNS) in Hibernating
Bats. 13pp. Available at http://batcon.or�/pdfs/WNSMt�RptFinal2.pdf
Zurcher, A.A., D.W. Sparks, and V.J. Bennett. 2010. Why the bat did not cross the road? Acta
Chiropterologica 12(2):337-340.
58

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

USFWS
Raleigh Field Qffice
Wark Area
USFINS
Ashe�ille Field OfFice
V'u'ork Area
NC Eca-Regions
Level 3
hJ�iddleAtlanticCoas[al Plain
Southeastem Plains
Piedmont
Blue Ridge (not includee in BA}
- Line �ividing USFVVS VtiorkAreas
� CountY Boundary
, ��:�ao. � �,
, �� PrQgram Area and %� FIG
`g��`� EPA Ecore ions
m,k g o,o zo 40 �.,,es �
115FWS WorkArea
PreParee ey r�coaT �v�na Eastern N C

�� �� r
� �E1i ��17 �� � —, �4FffS�i11 ���
nc.�an ham Ca�v►cll P�I�st�� �'W'ar�A - ��Emtle�
�ar�nvillt t_ Haklfax '���� — X ' �'�ti�ti��l� �
� � — �- - I ��d'fLLi�118fl� "
Y � �� .
'�4P1��4i1� �,� .
J� _2et11 �,�F�[7�€] � V � � ��x� � .- --
�% � asf ' �� ., • ' �
- �� ' �
� � �' � .''���IIi3�diQCPAC � II
I � � - � �
� �hatham 4..`'� Wifsan , i- . ;.. �
�" �� -. PVt'f -�
� �Lee Jo9�nstt��r feeare� 4y �eauf�rt H e
�c �
; � .-
� Har�e#t � 'kMa�ne � �-, �
�. '
� ; .
4-. .� - - � L.�1�(F!P - - '
_ - - _ , �-�-- Crav�ein Ki Pare��'sc+a
�3
chmund • Httke "'�Ib�i'lan ' ,�,qn,p�, '"`"�
5,�,nr� � . � �� - ����afte�t
{1�18 �: ' � - �� � ' �
�715 IO�lY
�i'O:�E54l1 �
�£14�8�' .
._.
}•�- —
�' .- _ ,
�Gdumh:us ��,Ha vice
�runs4rick
` � �l��l�!'k 181r��
�
�
.�,x? �e�tam �lC C4u�rii�
� d Ga�t�k+n N�l�T �aYlsiofi�
(`i zio;i f.v11':- '." .. ; �.Il 1:1�; �, 14
Cuunty �aundary
�1 C;+�„rav F���.�iv?a�'r
�L�7�dY�SIi1 �Y�6llhd8f}I
r�r.nnr niv�slonu
- 1
�t
� '�
�s
-
�p�"
■ .'
�<
3'i '!
� �{ ,�, I.r�� �'�5.�,,
__ ,� -� � �". � �,,'�, FI �
r .�.. � ��� .,•." �
l..d. E
r. � �: ��i u.�� w
�.._,.:,,..-1:1..1+1 P �.., L,.�C1.
f � f .

APPENDIX B
RESEARCH
62

NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT RESEARCH STUDY
FOR EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA
NCDOT, 2015-2019
Obj ectives
1. Use acoustic monitoring to determine the distribution of Northern Long-eared Bat (NLEB) in eastern
North Carolina, determine where presence is year-round and where it is limited to the maternity season,
and develop basic understanding of northern long-eared bat habitat and temporal (year-round) activity
patterns.
2. Use the results of the acoustic surveys to conduct mist-netting/telemetry on NLEBs to locate and
characterize day roosts, especially winter roosts (if NLEB are present in eastern NC over the winter).
3. Swab bats in winter to determine presence/absence of Pseudogymnoascus destructans, the fungus that
causes white nose syndrome (WNS).
4. Conduct structure, bridge and culvert checks to determine degree of use, seasons of use and type of
structure preferences.
l. Acoustic Monitoring
For research in eastern NC, select 30 locations for conducring acoustic work, covering l O locarions/year
for 3 years. At each location, sample 4 times/year (early and mid-summer, fall and winter) with 4 bat
detectors for 3 nights/sampling period. This will result in 480 detector nights/year. Sampling for three
years will result in a minimum of 1440 detector nights, which will be the minimum amount of acoustic
work to be conducted through the 5-year research program. Additional work may be needed to fill
information gaps; this will be determined as wark progresses. If ten locations are sampled a year for iive
years, a maximum of 2400 detector nights will be the result. Using multiple bat detectors will allow four
sites within a location to be sampled so that habitat preferences can be determined. Monitoring multiple
times a year will ensure that the species' presence is detected if some areas are only inhabited on a
seasonal basis. Sampling may be discontinued at locations with little or no bat activity, at which point a
new location will be selected.
Thirty locations spaced out over eastern NC will provide information about the species' distribution.
Counties with NLEB capture records, counties with reliable acoustic-only records (no captures), and
counties near recent NLEB captures in Washington, Currituck and Camden counties will be prioritized
for initial monitaring. Sampling locations will be coordinated with advisors from state and federal
resource agencies and from academia to avoid duplicating efforts.
In addition to the methods listed below, all survey efforts will follow the NLEB Interim Conference and
Planning Guidance (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014) to the extent practicable.
Methods:
• Use Anabat SD2 detectors or SM2 Songmeters encased in weather-proof housing. Ensure that
the latest firmware is included. All detectors will have been tested within the last year for
sensitivity.
• Use sensitivity setting of 7(Anabat).
• Detectors will be placed in a variety of habitats and stand conditions.
• Bat echolocation passes will be identified using two automated systems such as EchoClass II and
BCID (Bat Call ID) as well as supervised visual examination.
• Habitat will be scored as as pine/hardwood/mixed; the landscape setting as upland/bottomland;
the timber as managed (thinned, burned, or pine plantation) or unmanaged, mature or cutover;
and the condition as more open or more forested, following Ford et al. (2006). To score human
disiurbance, habitat will also be classed as natural, rural (scattered agricultural land or buildings
visible), suburban (regular houses/buildings) or mixed (patches of natural and other land use).

• Natural communities will be typed according to Schafale (2012) to give an indication of which
tree species are present.
Assess farest basal area (m2/ha) using a 10- factor prism and canopy cover using a sighting tube
at 10 random locations within a 0.05-ha circular plot around each survey site (Cook et al. 1995,
Ford et al. 2006). This will give an indication of forest structure and how cluttered the
surrounding habitat is.
Rationale for locations for acoustic wark:
• Virginia lists records for NLEB in the Dismal Swainp in VA. The swamp lies in Gates,
Pasquotank, and Camden Counties in NC. Navy biologists captured NLEB in Currituck
County, NC and adjacent Chesapeake County, VA.
• Washington, Camden, Currituck and surrounding counties were selected to gather more
information about presence/seasonal activity of NLEBs in the area.
• No NLEB records occur in the Piedmont or coastal plain of South Carolina; all records are from
the mountains.
• There are records of NLEB in Wake County and the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) lists Lee County as a recent occurrence, so those counties and some of the surrounding
counties will be targeted for work.
• New Hanover and Brunswick counties will be targeted due to a New Hanover record.
• iJNC-Greensboro has identified one NLEB call in Bladen County, so it was selected.
• iJNCG researchers felt that the swath of counties between New Hanover and
Washington would be good to survey, so counties such as Duplin, Onslow, Pitt and
Beaufort will be targeted.
• The following areas were avoided based on negative data: Uwharrie National Forest and Fort
Bragg.
Proposed Acoustic Locations for 2015 (rational for selecrion is indicated below each county)
1. Bladen — Bladen Lakes State Forest
One county acoustic record from LTNCG
2. Currituck — North River Gameland
Proximity to known NLEB capture sites
3. Gates (or Camden/Pasquotank) - Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Proximity to known NLEB capture sites
4. Hertford — Chowan Swamp Gameland (some of the gameland may fall in an NABat priority site)
Proximity to known NLEB capture sites
5. Lee (or Chatham) — CP&L Gameland (selecting Chatham will hit part of an NABat priority site)
NLEB capture record for Lee County
6. New Hanover — NCDOT Murrayville Mitigation Site
NLEB rabies record for New Hanover County
7. Tyrell — Palmetto-Peartree Reserve (some of which falls in an NABat priority site)
Proximity to known NLEB capture sites
8. Wake — Swift Creek Bluffs, Triangle Land Conservancy
Historic NLEB record for Wake County
9. Washington - Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Proximity to known NLEB capture site
10. Wayne — Waynesborough State Park (on Neuse River)
Lack of data from this area of the state; proposed NCDOT Goldsboro bypass project

Locations will be further refined based on a variety of good habitat types. Locations at state parks,
national wildlife refuges, and large NCDOT mitigation properties will be prioritized for sampling, as they
should be amenable to repeated monitoring and, if NLEBs are determined to be present, can help provide
species conservation measures. Locations will be selected to provide a wide array of vegetative
communities and manageinent/disturbance regimes. Because of logisrical constraints associated with
intensive mist-netting and day-roost research, these efforts will be concentrated initially in and around
Camden, Washington and Currituck counties, where NLEB are known to occur.
The North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABat; https://www.fort.usgs.gov/science-tasks/2457)
sampling design and protocols will be followed to the extent possible. The NABat sampling frame
consists of a GIS-generated sampling grid across North America of 1Ox101an grid cells. Two to four
stationary sampling sites are established within each cell and are sampled two times/summer within the
same week. Following repeatable protocols in a nationally standardized context will allow comparison
within and between states and regions and can reveal trends across broad landscape scales. NABat will
establish population baselines froin which anticipated declines from white-nose syndrome and other
threats can be documented and will provide information about bat populations within NC.
Acousric monitoring results will be used to determine where mist-netting should be targeted. Acoustic
data collected as a result of NCDOT research could be used to develop northern long-eared bat predictive
habitat models. Modeling will not be conducted by NCDOT, but NCDOT will cooperate with other
agencies wishing to use our data to develop models.
2. Mist-netting/telemetry
NLEBs will be netted over water, forest edges, and forested roads and outfitted with radio-transmitters.
The bats will be radio-tracked to day-roosts to describe roost and site characteristics following the
methods of Perry and Thill, (2007). Mist netting/telemetry in the northeastern part of the state (around
Camden, Currituck and Washington counties) can begin concurrently with acoustic work in early 2015
and can expand to other areas of eastern NC over time, depending on the acoustic results. If mist-netting
is not as productive as we anticipate (few NLEB captures), resources can be reallocated for more acoustic
work. The initial assumption is that there will be positive acoustic results to justify mist-netting at least
15 locations in the eastern half of NC. This 15-location estimate is based on known occurrences and
negative survey results, while anticipating that ideally, mist-netting should occur in enough locations to
provide data from all regions of eastern NC. The target season far most netting will be in the fall, with
the intent of tracking bats to their winter roosts. Some summer netting may be conducted as well if
requested by USFWS, which would allow data to be collected on reproductive status and summer roosts.
Assume at least five locations will be surveyed with mist-nets each year for three years, with 8 nights of
surveying per location, for a minimum of 120 survey nights. If 25 locations are netted eight nights each
(67 nights of mist-netting a year over a three-year period), two hundred survey nights will be conducted.
Mist-netting will be coordinated with UNCG researchers, who will be conducting NLEB work around
Camden and Washington counties in 2015.
Telemetry will be used to collect information about roost types and locations. For telemetry, assume that
up to 100 NLEBS will be captured and transmittered throughout the five year programmatic duration, for
a minimum of 8400 hours of telemetry (100 bats x 4 hours a day x 21 days), assuming sufficient numbers
of bats are captured.
Allowing for the possibility that up to 50 NLEB roost sites will be found, each roost will be inspected at
least four times a year for two years to determine summer/winter usage. Emergence counts may be
conducted instead of physically entering roosts. Collecting data on winter presence and roosting habitat
will prioritized over collecting summer data (e.g. 2/3 effort on winter data, 1/3 effort on summer data). If
100 NLEB roosts are found, a total of 800 roost inspections/emergence counts will be conducted.

Methods:
Nets will remain open at least five hours a night (pre-dawn netting can count towards the five hours).
There will be a 46 degree cut-off for mist-netting, based on insect activity results from Taylor (1963).
Each bat will be traciced for at least 4 hours a day for 3 weeks, (unless the transmitter falls off or stops
working prior to that point).
Each roost will be inspected (or an einergence count will be conducted) at least four time a year:
twice in summer and twice in winter.
The following data will be collected at each roost: tree species, diameter at breast height (dbh), roost
height, cavity description, total tree height, tree condition (live vs snag), and tree location. If the roost
is in a site other than a tree, the site will be described.
The natural community surrounding each roost tree will be typed according to Schafale (2012).
Habitat surrounding each roost will be characterized in a 17.8-m radius (0.1-ha) plot centered on the
roost tree with a tally of all woody stems >1 m tall and <5 cm dbh. Woody stems (including snags)
> 1 m tall and >5 cm dbh will be recorded by dbh and species. Canopy cover will be measured at four
locations along the outer edge of each plot using a spherical densitometer (Perry and Thill, 2007).
To determine site characteristics that may have affected roost selection, data will also be collected at
random sites and compared with roost plots.
It should be noted that in addition to the above mist-netting and acoustic work, NCDOT may also conduct
NLEB surveys for one or two new location projects in eastern North Carolina in early 2015.
3. White-nose Syndrome Data Collection
Data collection to determine the presence/extent of WNS will be coordinated with the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) so as not to duplicate efforts. If winter roosts are located and
the bats can be accessed safely, they will be swabbed in winter for Pseudogymnoascus destructans. Some
winter/early spring mist-netting may be conducted at the request of USFWS in order to collect data on
WNS occurrence. In the unlikely event fungal growth is observed on bats during the suminer,
photographs and wing punches will be collected. The Reichard Wing Damage Index should be recorded
for all bats regardless of season, and bats with score of 2 or 3 will be photographed per North Carolina's
White-nose Syndrome Surveillance and Response Plan (2013). Swabs and wing punches will be sent to
the Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study lab for analysis.
4. Bridge and Structure Surveys
Bridge and structure surveys will be conducted to determine if NLEB use them for roosting in eastern
NC, and if so, how often, what types of structures are used, and for which seasons. These surveys will
focus initially around Camden and Washington counties, expanding into other counties as acoustic
surveys dictate. A variety of bridge types will be selected for surveying: concrete slab, cast-in-place, steel
deck, concrete beam, wooden, etc. Large culverts will also be surveyed.
Data will be collected from 200 bridges/culverts throughout the 5 year duration. Some bridge data may
be compiled from existing NCDOT records. Bridge surveys will be conducted primarily in summer, but
some surveys may also be conducted in winter to look for potential winter roosts. If a bridge has
evidence of significant bat use, that structure will be checked again to collect data on seasonal
use. Buildings capable of housing bats (abandoned houses, barns, sheds, etc.) will be surveyed
opportunistically.
5. Reporting and Decision-making Process
NCDOT will develop monitoring methods and locations with technical advice from advisors from state
and federal resource agencies and from academia. Their recommendations will be considered by the
4

research group. The group will consist of staff from the NCDOT Biological Surveys Group, and
representatives from USFWS, NCWRC and FHWA. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will
remain informed as the research progresses, but has chosen to be silent member of the group. NCDOT
will provide quarterly reports to USFWS, FHWA, NCWRC and USACE throughout the duration of the
iive year research study, and meetings will be held at least twice a year to provide results, to plan for
future efforts, and to maintain coordination between agencies. Work will begin in 2015 and will be
completed by the end of 2019. Final reports will be due by Apri12020.
Products
Levels of effort for the various obj ectives may vary somewhat as the wark progresses, if the research
group determines it is appropriate. For example, if mist-netting proves to be rather unproductive, less
effort will be needed for telemetry, freeing up more resources for acoustic surveys.
Initial mist-netting and acoustic planning/installation
Year-round acoustic surveys
Acoustic data interpretation and analysis
Northern long-eared netting and tracking
Roost data collection
WNS swabbing results
Quarterly reports
Preparation and submittal of final acoustical activity report
Preparation and submittal of final tracking/roost report
Final report
Literature Cited
Cook, J. G., T. W. Stutzman, C. W. Bowers, K. A. Brenner and L. L. Irwin. 1995. Spherical
densiometers produce biased estimates of forest canopy cover. Wildlife Society Bulletin2 3:711-717.
Ford. W.M., J.M. Menzel, M.A. Menzel, J.W. Edwards and J.C. Kilgo. 2006. Presence and absence of
bats across habitat scales in the upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management
70:1174-1184.
NC Wildlife Resources Commission and US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. North Carolina's White-
nose Syndrome Surveillance and Response Plan.
http://www.ncwildlife. or�/Portals/0/Conservin�/documents/WildlifeDiversitv/NCWNS_Surveillance%20
ResponsePlan.pdf
Perry, R.W., and R.E. Thill, 2007. Roost selection by male and female northern long-eared
bats in a pine-dominated landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 247: 220-226.
Schafale, M.P., 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
http://cvs.bio.unc. edu/pubs/4thA�proximationGuideFinalMarch2012.pdf
Taylor, L.R. 1963. Analysis of the Effect of Temperature on Insects in Flight. Journal of Animal
Ecology, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 99-117.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, January 6, 2014. Northern Long-eared Bat Interim Conference and
Planning Guidance.
http://www.fws. gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/pdf/NLEBinterimGuidance6Jan2014.pdf

ATTACHMENT D
FHWA and USACE letter dated January 13, 2015
to the USFWS and the
NLEB Programmatic Biological Assessment

S-
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
In Reply Refer To:
HDA-NC
Mr. Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
SS1F Pylon Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
Dear Mr. Benjamin:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTION DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTION, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
January 13, 2015
This letter serves as our request to initiate formal conference with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) in accordance with Section 7(a)(4) ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA), as amended, for potential effects to the norfhern long-eared bat (Myotis septe�ctriorralis)
(NLEB) that could result from implementation of North Carolina Deparhnent of Txansportation
(NCDOT) projects in Divisions 1-8.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), Wilmington District, anticipate that the NLEB will be formally listed under the ESA
on or after Apri12, 2015. A Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA) has been prepared for
NCDOT transportation projects in Divisions 1-8 and is attached to this letter.
The PBA includes:
• a description of the action being considered;
• a description of the area that may be affected by the action;
• a description of NLEB that may be affected by the action;
• a description of the manner in which the action may affect the listed species, and analyses
of indirect, and cumulative effects; and
• conservation measures that incorporate avoidance, minimization, and measures to offset
adverse effects on the species.
Both FHWA and USACE have individually reviewed the PBA and agree with the
conclusions contained therein.
Our biological conclusion/determination for the northern long-eared bat is "May Affect,
Likely to Adversely Affect" due to potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from
NCDOT transportation projects in Divisions 1-8.

Please review the attached PBA and provide us witl� your Conference Opinion. If you have
any questions, please contact Donnie Brew at [phone], or donnie.brew��dot.�_ov; and/ar
Lori Beckwith at [phone], ext. 223, or loretta.a.beckwith cr usace.armv mil.
Sincerely,
�i�"�^e"--' " . "` �� �
John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
North Carolina Division
Attachment
Copy FLirnished (w/o attachment):
Sincerely,
S ott McLendon
Cl�ief, Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
Richard Hancock, NCDOT, PDEA
Neil Medlin, NCDOT, PDEA, Natural Environment Section

Programmatic Biological Assessment
Northern Long-Eared Bat
(Myotis septent�ionalis)
In Eastern North Carolina
North Carolina Department of Transportation
�
'�ia�r,y �,��.
��
c,}.
�'
. ' ' ':;
���r,
0
��f]I� 7FSA�r'�
Contact: Mr. Neil Medlin
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
[phone]
Lead Federal Agencies
Federal Highway Administration & US Army Corps of Engineers
Contact: Mr. Donnie Brew
310 New Bern Avenue Suite 410
Contact: Ms. Lori Beckwith
151 Patton Ave Room 208
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 Asheville, North Carolina 28801
[phone] [phone] ext. 223
January 9, 2015

Executive Summary
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) North Carolina Division, the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Wilmington District, and the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) have developed this programmatic biological assessment (PBA) far Endangered Species
Act (ESA) compliance purposes associated with the anticipated listing of the Northern Long-eared
Bat (NLEB). FHWA, USACE, and NCDOT consider the approach utilized (explained in detail
within the body of this PBA) to be conservative from the species' perspective.
The Northern Long-eared Bat (NLEB, Myotis septentrionalis) was considered a stable species until
its population was dramatically reduced by a disease called white-nose syndrome (WNS). Although
other factors also affect the NLEB's long-term survival, WNS was the driving factor for the proposed
listing of the NLEB as Endangered (78 Federal Register 61046-61080) under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended.
NLEB are considered a generalist species able to inhabit almost all wooded communities within their
range. Eastern North Carolina is on the periphery of the species' range. Data is lacking on NLEB
biology, behavior, habitat preference and distribution in eastern North Carolina. Despite an
abundance of available habitat, less than 25 NLEB have been documented (from 1901 to 2014) in six
noncontiguous eastern North Carolina counties.
FHWA, USACE, and NCDOT developed this Programmatic Biological Assessment to account for
potential adverse effects to NLEB that may occur as a result of proposed transportation projects in
NCDOT Divisions 1-8. The approach for the PBA was developed by a working group consisting of
personnel from FHWA, USACE, US Fish and Wildlife Service-Raleigh Field Office (USFWS), and
NCDOT. This working group began regular meetings to establish a methodology for ensuring NLEB
ESA compliance that would result in no NCDOT transportation project delays and provide for NLEB
species protection/uplift.
As explained in this PBA, the effects analysis far NLEB concludes that the NCDOT transportaiion
program will result in take. Harassment will likely be the most common form of take. However,
there is potential far mortality.
In terms of NLEB species protection/uplift, the warking group determined that detailed information
on NLEB distribution and behavior in eastern North Carolina would be the initial key to conservation
of the species in this part of its range. Therefore, conservation measures in this PBA include a five
year NLEB research study in eastern North Carolina. This research will be conducted in close
association with USFWS and will be important to future avoidance, minimization, and conservaiion
measures for NLEB.
It is expected that future NLEB consultation will utilize data from the five year NLEB research study
to refine compliance methodology for improved future consultations and conservation opportunities
for NLEB.

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1. PROGRAMMATIC OVERVIEW ..................................................................... 1
1.1. Background ....................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Action and Federal Nexus .............................................................................................................................1
1.3 Action Area ....................................................................................................................................................2
1.4. NCDOT Program Description .........................................................................................................................3
1.4.1. NCDOT STIP and Division Projects .................................................................................................3
1.4.2. NCDOT Program Categories .............................................................................................................4
1.5. Program Area and Setting ...............................................................................................................................5
1.5.1. Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain (Ecoregion 63) ...................................................................................5
1.5.2. Southeastern Plain (Ecoregion 65) .....................................................................................................5
1.5.3. North Carolina Piedmont (Ecoregion 45) ..........................................................................................6
1.6. Eastern North Carolina NLEB Conference History, Reasoning, Assumption and Methodology .............6
1.6.1. Eastern North Carolina NLEB Conference History ........................................................................6
1.6.2. Eastern North Carolina NLEB Conference Reasoning ....................................................................7
1.6.3. Eastern North Carolina NLEB Conference Assumptions and Methodology .................................8
CHAPTER 2. NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT ................................................................. 11
2.1. Species Description .........................................................................................................................................11
2.2. Life History .....................................................................................................................................................11
2.3. Population Dynamics .....................................................................................................................................17
2.4. Status and Distribution ..................................................................................................................................18
CHAPTER 3. NCDOT PROGRAM ACTION AREA ............................................................ 22
CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE .................................................................... 22
4.1. Status of the Northern Long-Eared Bat in Eastern North Carolina ..........................................................22
4.1.1. Northern Long-eared Bat Capture Records in Eastern North Carolina ......................................23
41.2. Other Records Indicating Northern Long-Eared Bat Presence in Eastern North Carolina ......23
41.3. Negative Records for Northern Long-Eared Bats in Eastern North Carolina .............................23
4.2. Factors Affecting the Northern Long-Eared Bat .........................................................................................25
4.2.1. White Nose Syndrome in Eastern NC ..............................................................................................25
4.2.2. Overwintering of NLEB in Eastern North Carolina ......................................................................26
4.2.3. Wind Energy Development ...............................................................................................................27
4.2.4. NLEB Habitat Loss/Modification ....................................................................................................27
4.2.5. Human Disturbance of Bats .............................................................................................................28
4.2.6. Predation ............................................................................................................................................29
4.2.7. Climate Change .................................................................................................................................29
4.2.8. Contamination ...................................................................................................................................29
4.2.9. Bridge and Building Use by NLEB in Eastern North Carolina .....................................................29
CHAPTER 5. PROGRAM DETAILS ...................................................................................... 30
5.1. New Construction (category) .........................................................................................................................30
5.2. Safety and Mobility Improvement (category) ..............................................................................................36
5.3. Maintenance and Preservation (category) ....................................................................................................37
5.4. Disaster Response, Bank Stabilization and Sinkhole Repair (category) ....................................................43
5.5. Transportation Enhancements (category) ....................................................................................................45
5.6. Conservation Measures (category) ................................................................................................................46
CHAPTER 6. EFFECTS ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 47
6.1. Beneficial Effects ............................................................................................................................................48
61.1. Conservation Measure for NCDOT Program .................................................................................48
6.1.2. Wetland and Stream Mitigation .......................................................................................................48
6.1.3. NCDOT Stormwater Program .........................................................................................................49

6.1.4. Wildlife Passage Facilities .................................................................................................................49
6.1.5. Endangered Plant Conservation ......................................................................................................49
6.2. Direct Effects ..................................................................................................................................................50
6.2.1. Habitat Loss .......................................................................................................................................50
6.2.2. Direct Effects of Decreased Water Quality .....................................................................................53
6.2.3. Direct Effects of Light, Noise, Vibrations, and Other Disturbance ..............................................54
6.2.4. Direct Effects of Herbicide Use ........................................................................................................55
6Z.5. Research and Management ..............................................................................................................55
6.3. Indirect Effects ............................................................................................................................................55
6.3.1. Habitat Connectivity .........................................................................................................................56
6.3.2. Indirect Effects of Decreased Water Quality ..................................................................................56
6.3.3. Indirect Effects of Disturbance ........................................................................................................56
6.3.4. Indirect Effects of Vehicle Traftic ....................................................................................................57
6.3.6. Long-Term Habitat Alteration .........................................................................................................57
6.4. Cumulative Effects .........................................................................................................................................58
6.4.1. Bridge Maintenance ..........................................................................................................................58
6.4.2. Tree Trimming and Hazard Tree Removal ....................................................................................58
6.4.3. Climate Change .................................................................................................................................58
6.4.4. Herbicide Use .....................................................................................................................................59
6.4.5. Human Population ............................................................................................................................59
6.4.6. Waste and Borrow .............................................................................................................................59
6.5. Incidental Take ...............................................................................................................................................59
6.6. Avoidance and Minimization Measures .......................................................................................................60
6.7. Summary of Effects ........................................................................................................................................60
CHAPTER 7. EFFECT DETERMINATIONS FOR NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT. 61
7.1. Effect Determination ......................................................................................................................................61
7.1.1. No Effect Determinations ..................................................................................................................61
71.2. May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Determinations (MA-NLAA) ..................................61
7.1.3. May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect Determinations (MA-LAA) ............................................61
7.2. Making Overall Effect Determinations ........................................................................................................62
7.3. Potential Flaws in Making Effect Determinations .......................................................................................62
CHAPTER 8. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 64
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. NCDOT STIP and Division Project Types and Descriptions ....................................................................3
Table 2. NLEB Working Group Meetings .................................................................................................................6
Table 3. NCDOT Divisions and Counties within Action Area ...............................................................................22
Table 4. Percent Forested Area (Acres), By North Carolina County ....................................................................28
Table 5. Tree Clearing Estimate Method Used Per Project Type .........................................................................51
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Figures
Appendix B: Glossary of Terms
Appendix C: Five Year NLEB Research Project
Appendix D: Activity Effects Analysis Spreadsheets

Chapter 1. Programmatic Overview
1.1. Background
This Programmatic Biological Assessment (PBA) was prepared by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in coordination with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) North Carolina Division and the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Wilmington District, and addresses the proposed action in compliance with Section
7(a)(2) and 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Section 7 requires
that consultation (or conferencing for species proposed for listing) be conducted with the US
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure federal actions do not jeopardize the continued
existence of any threatened, endangered, or proposed species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
A USFWS proposal for listing the Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) as an
endangered species was published in the Federal Register in October 2013. The listing may
become effective as soon as April 2, 2015. Therefore, potential effects to this species as a result
of NCDOT projects must be evaluated.
1.2 Action and Federal Nexus
This PBA evaluates the potential effects to NLEB from all proposed NCDOT Division-planned
and central office-planned projects with a federal nexus in NCDOT Divisions 1-8 (i.e. the
proposed action, hereafter referred to as "NCDOT Program") that are scheduled to be under
construction during a five-year period beginning April 2, 2015. The NCDOT Program will be
carried out by NCDOT and/or NCDOT contractors or partners.
The lead federal agency far the preparation of this PBA is the FHWA.
Projects implemented by NCDOT must comply with federal environmental laws and regulations
when a federal action occurs. Two pertinent examples of potential federal actions for NCDOT
projects are federal funding and federal permitting.
Funding- Many NCDOT projects will be performed using FHWA federal-aid funds.
FHWA reimbursement to NCDOT for funding of a project is a federal action requiring
compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations.
Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting-When NCDOT activities involve discharges to
Waters of the United States a permit from the USACE is required. Such permitting is a
federal action requiring compliance with federal laws and regulations.
In project specific situations, where both the FHWA and the USACE have a nexus, the FHWA
will typically serve as the lead federal agency. Sometimes the FWHA study area and the USACE
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 1

permit area are the same, and sometimes the USACE permit area is only a portion of the FHWA
study area. However, some transportation projects have a USACE nexus, but no FHWA nexus.
When there is no FHWA funding, the USACE will typically serve as the lead federal agency for
those projects that require authorization (i.e. a Department of the Army (DA) permit) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. In
those situations, the USACE permit area may be the same as the NCDOT SEPA study area, or it
may be different. For any specific transportation project, the Wilmington District, USACE may
have an ESA action area that does not include the entire length of the project.
1.3 Action Area
In a typical lineal or corridor project, a DA permit simply authorizes crossings of jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. by the placement of culverts, bridge abutments, stabilization, soil, and similar
structures. Therefore, the USACE's action area does not necessarily include the entire length of
the highway project. According to the Wilmington District, USACE, the action area for linear
projects includes not only the footprint of the fill (the direct effect), but also those areas of the
water upstream and downstream of the proposed fill that might reasonably be affected by the
placement of that fill (the indirect effect), as well as those segments of the proposed road whose
alignment is dictated by the proposed fill (the interrelated actions), and those segments of the
road that would have no independent utility apart from the proposed fill (the interdependent
actions). The action area determination is made by the USACE on a case-by-case analysis of the
circumstances of each particular project.
As noted previously, on a project by project basis, the Wilmington District, USACE, may have a
different ESA action area than the FHWA would have for the same transportation project.
However, due to the large number of transportation projects in NCDOT Divisions 1-8 that are
scheduled to be under construction during a five-year period beginning April 2, 2015, it would
be impracticable to predict the respective ESA action areas and quantify the impacts of each
individual project. Because of this, a large number of transportation projects will be collectively
evaluated, rather than evaluated on an individual basis for the purposes of this PBA. As a result,
USACE, FHWA, and NCDOT have established a programmatic action area rather than
individual project action areas. Therefore, the programmatic action area for this PBA will be the
59 North Carolina counties that fall within NCDOT Divisions 1-8.
The Wilmington District, USACE, has determined that it is in their interest to enter into this PBA
for the limited purpose of dealing with potential ESA issues related to one species, the NLEB.
The FHWA and NCDOT have independently agreed to the USFWS programmatic conditions for
this species. The expansion of the ESA action area for purpose of this PBA does not affect the
Wilmington District's policy regarding the ESA action area with regard to other threatened or
endangered species. Furthermore, the Wilmington District may have a more limited ESA action
area far other threatened or endangered species in a transportation project that is also subject to
this PBA.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 2

1.4. NCDOT Program Description
North Carolina is one of a handful of states that no longer have county highway departments.
NCDOT took over all county roads in the 1930s, in order to have greater leverage with vendors
and suppliers of the materials necessary to more economically build and maintain highways.
Currently, with about 80,000 miles of state-owned and maintained highways, North Carolina has
one of the two largest state-owned and maintained highway systems in the country. In North
Carolina, municipalities maintain an additional 21,000 miles of city streets, and combining these
two administrative systems with highways maintained by other agencies such as the National
Park Service ar the U.S. Forest Service, the state contains approximately 105,000 miles of roads
and highways (NCPedia 2014, USDOT 2014, Hartegan et al. 2013).
NCDOT maintains and constructs a wide variety of transportation infrastructure across the state,
ranging from aviation, bicycle, pedestrian, ferry, highway, public transportation and railroad
projects across the state. NCDOT has divided the state into 14 transportation regions or NCDOT
Divisions. Typically larger projects are planned as part of the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), while smaller projects are planned within the local division. Most
state transportation projects eventually become the responsibility of the local NCDOT Division
offices to maintain. Project priorities and time schedules within the STIP and NCDOT Divisions
can vary greatly depending on several factors including purpose and need, safety concerns and
funding.
1.4.1. NCDOT STIP and Division Projects
NCDOT projects are tracked by planning name in either the STIP or by the NCDOT Division.
NCDOT STIP and Division projects, including commonly used preiixes, are listed below (Table
1) with brief descriptions adapted from the NCDOT STIP (NCDOT 2014a).
TABLE 1. NCDOT STIP AND DiVISION PROJECT TYPES AND DESCRIPTIONS
Pre�ix Project Type Descripfion
B Bridge Replacement Existing bridges are replaced. These projects are generally larger or
in STIP more complicated (due to construction needs or affects to human or
natural environment) projects than the next two categories.
BD Bridge Replacement Existing bridges are replaced; generally these are two lane bridges.
in Division
BP Bridge Preservation Existing bridges are preserved by supplementing or replacing
in Division compromising elements.
C Congestion Addition of lanes, sidewalks, greenways, trails, intersections and/or
Miiigation associated crosswalks and signage for improved movement.
E Enhancement Installation of interactive signage, visitor's exhibits and/ or gateway
or interruptive markers intended for scenic beautification.
EE Mitigation Wetland and Stream mitigation in the form of enhancement,
restoration or preservation is conducted to ofFset losses due to project
construction.
EB, ER Bike Route and New or additional ]anes for bike or pedestrian traffic.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 3

Prefix Pro'ect T e Descri tion
Pedestrian
Enhancement
EL Enhancements — Ramp, parking lot, or visitor center improvements preservation or
Multi-use Path maintenance.
F Ferry Dock, ramp, engine, ferry, parking lot, or visitor center improvements
preservation or maintenance.
FS Feasibility Study Conducted to determine the degree to which the project is justified
(economically, environmentally, socially, financially)
I Interstate Pavement preservation or maintenance, access improvement,
widening, upgrading intersections, bridge preservation and/or adding
lanes along interstates.
K Rest Area Existing or new rest area ramp, parking, sewer, fixtures and finishes
installation, or preservation.
L Landscape Plantings or replantings along NCDOT projects.
P Passenger Rail Rail grade separations, track realignment, track improvement, track
and station right of way acquisition, and track bypass installation.
R, A, M Rural Improvements to existing and new locations, road widening,
intersection or interchange improvements, trafiic circles, and weigh
stations improvements.
S, SB Scenic Byway Waysides, overlooks, interpretive signs, land conservation to
implement resource protection and heritage tourism development to
enhance and preserve scenic vistas and tourism corridors.
SF, SI, Highway Safety and Realign curoes, install median barriers, install shoulders or turn lanes
W Hazard to improve safety.
SR Safe Routes to Improve safety and/or reduce traffic, fuel consumption and air
School pollution in vicinity of schools. Also include education, training and
other non-infrastructure needs.
U Urban Roadway improvements including new lanes, new location
extensions, bridge replacements, grade separations, interchange and
intersection conversion
X Special Projects New location and new structures
Y,Z Railroad-Highway Grade separation and crossing safery improvements
Crossings
1.4.2. NCDOT Program Categories
A national effort to develop a NLEB (and Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis) range-wide informal
programmatic agreement for transportation projects is currently occurring. A draft of the current
effects spreadsheet was shared with NCDOT via federal agencies. In order to be more
compatible with the federal range wide conferencing and to reduce duplication of effort: the
categorization of projects and the effects of transportation activities to NLEB were adapted for
use in this PBA.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 4

NCDOT projects (STIP and Division) have been grouped and categorized as follows, and are
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5:
New Construction
Safety and Mobility
Maintenance and Preservation
Disaster Response, Bank Stabilization, and Sinkhole Repair
Transportation Enhancements
Conservation Measures
The NLEB range-wide effort used the above categories to consider all possible effects to NLEB.
Each category is broken down into a list of all probable activities (as seen in Appendix D). The
activities are the mechanisms through which project categories have potential to affect NLEB.
The North Carolina working group has borrowed and adapted these categories and activities to
consider all possible effects to NLEB in eastern North Carolina (NCDOT Divisions 1-8). The
working group reviewed all activities and identified those with the potential to affect NLEB in
eastern North Carolina. General descriptions of these categories and their likely associated
activities can be found in Chapter 5.
1.5. Program Area and Setting
North Carolina is in the southeastern quadrant of the United States of America. The program area
roughly covers the eastern half of North Carolina, including 59 counties that fall under the
jurisdiction of the USFWS Raleigh Field Office (Figure 1). The area is a mosaic of federal, state,
and private lands. Using Level 3 EPA Ecoregions (USEPA 2002), the program area can be
divided into the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain, Southeastern Plain and the Piedmont.
1.5.1. Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain (Ecoregion 63)
Ecoregion 63 is found primarily in the Carolinas and other states to the north. It consists of low
elevation, flat plains, with many swamps, marshes, and estuaries. Forest cover in the region,
once dominated by longleaf pine, is now mostly loblolly and some shortleaf pine, with patches of
oak, gum, and cypress near major streams. Its low terraces, marshes, dunes, barrier islands,
and beaches are underlain by unconsolidated sediments. Poorly drained soils are common, and
the region has a mix of coarse and finer textured soils. Ecoregion 63 is typically lower, flatter,
mare poorly drained, and marshier than Ecoregion 65 (see below). Pine plantations for pulpwood
and lumber are typical, with some areas of cropland (USEPA 2002).
1.5.2. Southeastern Plain (Ecoregion 65)
These irregular plains with broad interstream areas have a mosaic of cropland, pasture,
woodland, and forest. Natural vegetation was predominantly longleaf pine, with smaller areas of
oak-hickory-pine. On some moist sites, southern mixed forest occurred with beech, sweetgum,
southern magnolia, laurel and live oaks, and various pines. The Cretaceous ar Tertiary-age
sands, silts, and clays of the region contrast geologically with the older metamorphic and igneous
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 5

rocks of the Piedmont (45, see description below). Streams in this area are relatively low-
gradient and sandy-bottomed (USEPA 2002).
1.5.3. North Carolina Piedmont (Ecoregion 45)
Considered the non-mountainous portion of the old Appalachians Highland by physiographers,
the northeast-southwest trending Piedmont ecoregion comprises a transitional area between the
mostly mountainous ecoregions of the Appalachians to the northwest and the relatively flat
coastal plain to the southeast. It is a complex mosaic of Precambrian and Paleozoic metamorphic
and igneous rocks with moderately dissected irregular plains and some hills. Once largely
cultivated, much of this region is in planted pine or has reverted to successional pine and
hardwood woodlands. The historic oak-hickory-pine forest was dominated by white oak,
southern red oak, post oak, and hickory, with shortleaf pine, loblolly pine, and to the north and
west, Virginia pine. The soils tend to be finer-textured than in coastal plain regions (USEPA
2002).
1.6. Eastern North Carolina NLEB Conference History, Reasoning, Assumption
and Methodology
1.6.1. Eastern North Carolina NLEB Conference History
On October 2, 2013 the USFWS proposed listing the NLEB as Endangered under the ESA. On
June 30, 2014 a six month extension on final determination of the proposal to list the NLEB as
Endangered and a reopening of comment period was issued. The NLEB is expected to become a
federally protected species on or soon after April 2, 2015.
Communication between NCDOT and the USFWS Raleigh Field Office regarding the NLEB
began immediately after the species was proposed for federal protection. Due to the size of
NCDOT's transportation program (Section 1.4), and the potential magnitude of transportation
project delays, NCDOT and FHWA opted not to wait for the result of the range-wide
programmatic agreement (Section 1.4.2) to begin our NLEB compliance efforts.
A working group composed of representatives from NCDOT, FHWA, USACE, and USFWS was
created to develop a strategy to address the potential effects that NCDOT projects may have on
the NLEB. The goal of the working group is to "Advance (transportation) projects forward
without schedule delay(s) and ensure (NLEB) species protection/uplift in the most efficient
way". Ongoing meetings of this group began May 28�', 2014 and are listed in Table 2, below.
Working group meetings will continue on a biannual basis for the life of the agreement.
TABLE 2. NLEB WORKING GROUP MEETINGS
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina
Page 6

Date Action Partici ants To ic of Discussion
6/26/2014 Meeting USFWS, USACE, FHWA, NCDOT Develop Approach
7/14/2014 Meeting USFWS, USACE, FHWA, NCDOT Develop Approach
8/4/2014 Meeting USFWS, USACE, FHWA, NCDOT Develop Approach
8/25/2014 Meeting USFWS, USACE, FHWA, NCDOT Review Draft PBA
9/18/2014 Meeting USFWS, USACE, FHWA, NCDOT Review Draft PBA
10/7/2014 Meeting USFWS, USACE, FHWA, NCDOT Review Draft PBA
10/30/2014 Meeting USFWS, USACE, FHWA, NCDOT Review Draft PBA
11/17/2014 Meeting USFWS, USACE, FHWA, NCDOT Review Draft PBA
1.6.2. Eastern North Carolina NLEB Conference Reasoning
The approach the working group developed to ensure ESA compliance is programmatic formal
consultation covering the entire NCDOT Program in Divisions 1-8. At the onset, the working
group collected, considered, and discussed the following data and concerns. For supporting
information, see Chapter 4.
Biological Information:
1. Eastern North Carolina appears to be on the fringe of the NLEB range.
2. To date, there are very few records of NLEB in eastern North Carolina.
3. NLEB appear to occur in low numbers in eastern North Carolina.
4. There are no known NLEB hibernacula and very few caves known in eastern North
Carolina. Although mines are present in some areas of eastern North Carolina, most are
collapsed or filled with groundwater, or are surface/pit mines, which do not provide
suitable winter roosting habitat for NLEB.
5. Roosting and foraging habitat in the form of forested communities do not appear to be a
limiting factor in eastern North Carolina.
6. Indiana bats do not occur in eastern North Carolina.
7. Some limited mist-netting and acoustic data indicates that NLEB may be active almost
year-round in eastern North Carolina. Given the milder winter temperatures in coastal
counties, the presence of insects through much of the winter, and the documented activity
of other bat species throughout the winter, it is reasonable to suspect that NLEB are
active in winter and may forego traditionally understood hibernation in eastern North
Carolina.
Practical Concerns:
1. There is currently very limited information far NLEB in eastern North Carolina regarding
distribution and behavior. The range map for NLEB produced by the USFWS in the
January 6, 2014 Interim and Planning Guidance is very generalized for North Carolina,
and is insufficient for project planning/analysis.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 7

2. Indiana bats do not occur in eastern North Carolina and thus "piggy-backing" NLEB onto
an Indiana bat ESA compliance strategy is not possible and/or relevant.
3. Standard survey guidelines (USFWS 2014b) may not be sufficient to thoroughly evaluate
the ecology of NLEB in eastern North Carolina, since the species may be present year
round (see Section 4.2.2).
4. Conventional conservation measures similar to those used for Indiana bats, such as date
restrictions on tree clearing, would not be applicable to NLEB in eastern North Carolina
if the species is active in the winter. Therefore, there would be no effective way to avoid
take of the species during much of the year.
5. Unlike most states, North Carolina does not have county highway departments. As a
result, North Carolina has one of the two largest state-owned and maintained highway
systems in the country with about 80,000 miles of state-owned and maintained highways.
Comparatively, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and the Indiana Department of
Transportation maintain approximately 28,000 miles and 11,000 miles, respectively
(Section 1.4).
6. NCDOT has over 1,000 projects programmed for construction over the next 5 years that
are likely to involve tree clearing activities.
7. Following a traditional approach and assessing individual transportation projects for the
purpose of rendering project specific biological conclusions would be time consuming.
In addition, the survey window for NLEB is restricted to some spring/summer months.
8. Utilizing currently available NLEB data for the purpose of rendering project specific
biological conclusions would result in a large number of transportation projects requiring
formal Section 7 consultation.
9. Even if some projects or project types could be categorized as "May affect, not likely to
adversely affect," it is doubtful that the NCDOT, the USACE, or the USFWS have the
staff necessary to review the volume of projects that would have to be reviewed for
informal consultations.
10. An overall consultation plan needed to be designed in a way to avoid any NCDOT
project delays associated with NLEB ESA compliance, and for NCDOT to provide the
conservation community with sufficient information on NLEB in eastern North Carolina
to properly focus management efforts in the future.
1.6.3. Eastern North Carolina NLEB Conference Assumptions and Methodology
The working group conducted the effects analysis (See Chapter 6) utilizing the following
premises and assumptions:
1. Suitable roosting and foraging habitat for NLEB is present throughout eastern North
Carolina (Divisions 1-8). Therefare, we assume suitable habitat is not a limiting factor
for NLEB in eastern North Carolina.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 8

2. Available information indicates there are relatively few NLEB in eastern North Carolina
(see Chapter 4), but from a conservative perspective, we are assuming NLEB are present
throughout our action area.
3. We assume the abundance of suitable NLEB habitat throughout eastern NC will act to
ameliorate the effects of NCDOT activity disturbances to habitat in terms of habitat
removal and/or habitat connectivity
4. We assume that noise generated from traffic will increase over time
5. We assume that few NLEB roost along roadsides
6. We assume that cities are not preferred NLEB habitat
7. Due to the limited available data for NLEB in eastern North Carolina, we assume the
current greatest conservation need for NLEB in eastern North Carolina is more
comprehensive information on the species' distribution and behavior.
8. Some transportation project activities adversely affect NLEB habitat:
We assume tree clearing is likely to be the activity with the greatest potential to affect
NLEB, as they primarily roost in trees.
Limited data suggests NLEB may make occasional use of bridges and other
structures. Therefore, our assumption is that maintenance andlor removal of these
structures have limited potential to affect NLEB.
We assume a wide variety of other NCDOT Program activities have potential to
affect NLEB, by affecting water quality through contaminants or sedimentation, or by
producing noise, light, vibration or other disturbances.
We assume that any effect resulting from noise and vibrations related to construction
activities could result in bats selecting roost trees further from the disturbance
We assume the probability of incidental take of NLEB from any individual NCDOT
project in eastern North Carolina to be very low due to its limited distribution (see
Chapter 4), with the probability of take in the form of mortality to be even lower.
We assume that implementing a traditional project-by-project ESA evaluation for
projects currently programmed for construction will result in substantial project
delays due to the following:
o The limited data currently available for NLEB in eastern North Carolina.
o The large number of transportation projects scheduled for construction.
o The limited survey window for NLEB.
It is our premise that with such a low probability of take, it is a more efficient use of
resources to conduct a high-level programmatic formal consultation far the entire
NCDOT Program in eastern North Carolina.
As concluded by the effects analyses presented in Chapter 6, the result of the NCDOT Program
is take of NLEB. Due to the limited data available for NLEB presence and behavior in eastern
NC, accurately quantifying take associated with the NCDOT Program is impracticable.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 9

The USFWS has found that in many cases, the biology of a listed species or the nature of the
proposed action makes it difficult to detect or monitor the precise take of individual animals. In
these cases, evaluating impacts to a"surrogate" may be the most reasonable and meaningful
measure of assessing and monitoring take of listed species. The use of surrogates is a practical
way to express the amount or extent of anticipated take in cases where the nature of the take-
related impacts and the biology of the affected listed species make it difficult and costly to detect
and accurately monitor. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_ESA/ITS.html
Based on the biological information and practical concerns presented in Section 1.6.2 in addition
to the assumptions and premises listed above, the working group elected to identify a surrogate
for estimating effects to NLEB in eastern NC by the NCDOT Program. The surrogate identified
by the working group is tree clearing resulting from NCDOT Program activities.
In order to project tree clearing totals associated with the NCDOT Program for 5 years, the
working group elected to use GIS tools. Tree clearing estimates were calculated for projects
scheduled for construction for the next two years and the results were extrapolated out to 5 years.
Because the presence of NLEB in eastern North Carolina is likely to be low, we acknowledge
that the estimated level of take is likely to be overestimated by using tree clearing as a surrogate.
Although there will be many other NCDOT activities (aside from tree clearing) with potential to
affect NLEB in eastern North Carolina (Appendix D), these effects were not analyzed in great
detail in this PBA for the following reasons:
1. Actual NLEB take from all other activities combined is likely to be less than the
estimated NLEB take level based on tree clearing due to the likely limited distribution of
NLEB in eastern North Carolina (see Chapter 4).
2. All NCDOT project activities combined (minus tree clearing) are likely to have
inconsequential effect to NLEB when compared to the effect from tree clearing activities
(see Chapter 6).
3. The amount of take resulting from structure removal will be much lower than take from
tree clearing, due to lack of evidence to suggest that NLEB regularly use structures for
roosting. Any take resulting from structure removal will be accounted for by the
overestimation of take associated with tree clearing activities.
We propose that this consultation remain effective beyond five years, but agree that it must either
be updated or replaced no later than Dec 31, 2020. Likewise, consultation will be reinitiated if
needed, particularly if the amount or extent of incidental take is anticipated to be exceeded or
any new information reveals effects of the action that may affect the NLEB in a manner or to an
extent not previously considered. In addition, if critical habitat is designated for the NLEB or if
mare significant information about the species' biology comes to light, consultation on this
species will be reinitiated.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 10

Chapter 2. Northern Long-Eared Bat
2.1. Species Description
The NLEB is a medium-sized bat species, with an average adult body weight of 5 to 8 grams,
with females tending to be slightly larger than males (Caceres and Pybus 1997). Average body
length ranges from 77 to 95 mm and wingspan between 228 and 258 mm (Barbour and Davis
1969, Caceres and Barclay 2000). Pelage (fur) colors include medium to dark brown on its back,
dark brown ears and wing membranes, and tawny to pale-brown fur on the ventral side
(Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Whitaker and Mumford 2008). As indicated by its common
name, the NLEB is distinguished from other Myotis species by its long ears (average 17 mm,
Whitaker and Mumford 2008) that, when laid forward, extend beyond the nose but less than 5
mm beyond the muzzle (Caceres and Barclay 2000). The tragus (projection of skin in front of
the external ear) is long (average 9 mm), pointed, and symmetrical (Nagorsen and Brigham
1993, Whitaker and Mumford 2008).
The NLEB was once considered a subspecies of Keen's long-eared Myotis (Myotis keenii) (Fitch
and Schump 1979), but was recognized as a distinct species by van Zyll de Jong in 1979 (1979)
based on geographic separation and difference in morphology (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993,
Caceres and Pybus 1997, Whitaker and Hamilton 1998, Caceres and Barclay 2000, Simmons
2005, Whitaker and Mumford 2008). No subspecies have been described for this species (van
Zyll de Jong 1985, Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Whitaker and Mumford 2008).
The range of the NLEB includes much of the eastern and north-central United States, and
portions of all Canadian provinces from the Atlantic Ocean west to the southern Yukon Territory
and eastern British Columbia. Within the United States, this area includes all or portions of the
following 39 States: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hapshire,
New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming (USFWS 2014a). However, throughout the majority of the species' range it is
patchily distributed and historically was less common in the southern and western portions of the
range than in the northern portion of the range (Amelon and Burhans 2006).
2.2. Life History
NLEB predominantly overwinter in hibernacula that include caves and abandoned mines.
Hibernacula used by NLEB are typically large, with large passages and entrances (Raesly and
Gates 1987), relatively constant and cooler temperatures (32 to 48 degrees F) (Raesly and Gates
1987, Caceres and Pybus 1997, Brack 2007), and with high humidity and no air currents (Fitch
and Shump 1979, Van Zyll de Jong 1985, Raesly and Gates 1987, Caceres and Pybus 1997).
NLEB are typically found roosting in small crevices or cracks in cave or mine walls or ceilings,
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 11

often with only the nose and ears visible, thus are easily overlooked during surveys (Griffin
1940, Barbour and Davis 1969, Caire et al. 1979, Van Zyll de Jong 1985, Caceres and Pybus
1997, Whitaker and Mumford 2008). Caire et al. (1979) and Whitaker and Mumford (2008)
commonly observed individuals exiting caves with mud and clay on their fur, also suggesting the
bats were roosting in tighter recesses of hibernacula. They are also found hanging in the open,
although not as frequently as in cracks and crevices (Barbour and Davis 1969, Whitaker and
Mumford 2008).
To a lesser extent, NLEB have been found overwintering in other types of habitat that resemble
cave or mine hibernacula, including abandoned railroad tunnels. In 1952 three NLEB were
found hibernating near the entrance of a storm sewer in central Minnesota (Goehring 1954).
Kurta and Teramino (1994) found NLEB hibernating in a hydro-electric dam facility in
Michigan. In Massachusetts, NLEB have been found hibernating in the Sudbury Aqueduct
(French 2012, unpublished data). Griffin (1945) found NLEB in December in Massachusetts in
a dry well.
During the summer, NLEB typically roost singly or in colonies underneath bark or in cavities or
crevices of both live trees and snags (Sasse and Perkins 1996, Foster and Kurta 1999, Owen et
al. 2002, Carter and Feldhamer 2005, Perry and Thill 2007, Timpone et al. 2010). Males and
non-reproductive females' summer roost sites may also include cooler locations, including caves
and mines (Barbour and Davis 1969, Amelon and Burhans 2006). NLEB have also been
observed roosting in colonies in manmade structures such as buildings, barns, bridges, a park
pavilion, sheds, cabins, under eaves of buildings, behind window shutters, and in bat houses
(Mumford and Cope 1964; Barbour and Davis 1969; Cope and Humphrey 1972; Keeley and
Tuttle 1999; Feldhamer et al. 2003; Amelon and Burhans 2006; Whitaker and Mumford 2008;
Timpone et al. 2010; Joe Kath 2013, pers. comm. cited in USFWS 2013, O'Keefe pers. comm.
Cited in USFWS 2014c).
The NLEB appears to be somewhat opportunistic in tree roost selection, selecting varying roost
tree species and types of roosts throughout its range, including tree species such as black oalc
(Quercus velutina), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), black
locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), sugar maple (Acer
saccharum), sourwood (O.�ydend�um a�boreum), and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) (Mumford
and Cope 1964, Clark et al. 1987, Sasse and Pekins 1996, Foster and Kurta 1999, Lacki and
Schwierjohann 2001, Owen et al. 2002, Carter and Feldhamer 2005, Perry and Thill 2007,
Timpone et al. 2010). NLEB most likely are not dependent on certain species of trees for roosts
throughout their range; rather, certain tree species will form suitable cavities or retain bark and
the bats will use them opportunistically (Foster and Kurta 1999). Carter and Felhamer (2005)
speculated that structural complexity of habitat or available roosting resources are more
important factors than the actual tree species.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 12

Many studies have documented the NLEB's selection of live trees and snags, with a range of 10
to 53 percent selection of live roosts found (Sasse and Perkins 1996, Foster and Kurta 1999,
Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001, Menzel et al. 2002, Carter and Feldhamer 2005, Perry and Thill
2007, Timpone et al. 2010). Foster and Kurta (1999) found 53 percent of roosts in Michigan
were in living trees, whereas in New Hampshire, 34 percent of roosts were in snags (Sasse and
Pekins 1996). The use of live trees versus snags may reflect the availability of such structures in
study areas (Perry and Thill 2007) and the flexibility in roost selection when there is a sympatric
bat species present (e.g., Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis) (Timpone et al. 2010). In tree roosts,
NLEB are typically found beneath loose bark or within cavities and have been found to use both
exfoliating bark and crevices to a similar degree for summer roosting habitat (Foster and Kurta
1999, Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001, Menzel et al. 2002, Owen et al. 2002, Perry and Thill
2007, Timpone et al. 2010).
Canopy coverage at NLEB roosts has ranged from 56 percent in Missouri (Timone et al. 2010),
66 percent in Arkansas (Perry and Thill 2007), greater than 75 percent in New Hampshire (Sasse
and Pekins 1996), to greater than 84 percent in Kentucky (Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001).
Studies in New Hampshire and British Columbia have found that canopy coverage around roosts
is lower than in available stands (Sasse and Pekins 1996, Caceres 1998). Females tend to roost
in more open areas than males, likely due to the increased solar radiation, which aids pup
development (Perry and Thill 2007). Fewer trees surrounding maternity roosts may also benefit
juvenile bats that are starting to learn to fly (Perry and Thill 2007). However, in southern
Illinois, NLEB were observed roosting in areas with greater canopy cover than in random plots
(Carter and Feldhamer 2005). Roosts are also largely selected below the canopy, which could be
due to the species' ability to exploit roosts in cluttered environments; their gleaning behavior
suggests an ability to easily maneuver around obstacles (Foster and Kurta 1999, Menzel et al.
2002).
Female NLEB typically roost in tall, large-diameter trees (Sasse and Pekins 1996). Studies have
found that the diameter-at-breast height (dbh) of NLEB roost trees was greater than random trees
(Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001), and others have found both dbh and height of selected roost
trees to be greater than random trees (Sasse and Pekins 1996, Owen et al. 2002). However, other
studies have found that roost tree mean dbh and height did not differ from random trees (Menzel
et al. 2002, Carter and Feldhamer 2005). Lacki and Schwierjohann (2001) have also found that
NLEB roost more often on upper and middle slopes than lower slopes, which suggests a
preference for higher elevations due to increased solar heating.
NLEB hibernate during the winter months to conserve energy from increased thermoregulatary
demands and reduced food resources. In general, NLEB arrive at hibernacula in August or
September, enter hibernation in October and November, and leave the hibernacula in March or
April (Caire et al. 1979, Whitaker and Hamilton 1998, Amelon and Burhans 2006). However,
hibernation may begin as early as August (Whitaker and Rissler 1992a). In Copperhead Cave in
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 13

west-central Indiana, the majority of bats enter hibernation during October, and spring
emergence occurs mainly from about the second week of March to mid-April (Whitaker and
Mumford 2008). In Indiana, NLEB become more active and start feeding outside the
hibernaculum in mid-March, evidenced by stomach and intestine contents. In northern latitudes,
such as in upper Michigan's copper-mining district, hibernation for NLEB may begin as early as
late August and may last far 8 to 9 months (Stones and Fritz 1969, Fitch and Shump 1979).
NLEB have shown a high degree of philopatry (using the same site multiple years) for a
hibernaculum (Pearson 1962), although they may not return to the same hibernaculum in
successive seasons (Caceres and Barclay 2000).
Typically, NLEB are not abundant and compose a small proportion of the total number of bats
hibernating in a hibernaculum (Barbour and Davis 1969, Mills 1971, Caire et al. 1979, Caceres
and Barclay 2000). Although usually found in small numbers, the species typically inhabits the
same hibernacula with large numbers of other bat species, and occasionally are found in clusters
with these other bat species. Other species that commonly occupy the same habitat include:
little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), eastern small-footed bat
(Myotis leibii), tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), and Indiana bat (Swanson and Evans 1936,
Griffin 1940, Hitchcock 1949, Stones and Fritz 1969, Fitch and Shump 1979). Whitaker and
Mumford (2008), however, infrequently found NLEB hibernating beside little brown bats,
Indiana bats, or tri-colored bats, since they found few hanging on side walls or ceilings of cave
passages. Barbour and Davis (1969) found that the species is never abundant and rarely recorded
in concentrations of over 100 in a single hibernaculum.
NLEB often move between hibernacula throughout the winter, which may further decrease
population estimates (Griffin 1940, Whitaker and Rissler 1992b, Caceres and Barclay 2000).
Whitaker and Mumfard (2008) found that this species flies in and out of some of the mines and
caves in southern Indiana throughout the winter. In particular, the bats were active at
Copperhead Cave periodically all winter, with NLEB being more active than other species
hibernating in the cave. Though NLEB fly outside of the hibernacula during the winter, they do
not feed; hence the function of this behavior is not well understood (Whitaker and Hamilton
1998). However, it has been suggested that bat activity during winter could be due in part to
disturbance by researchers (Whitaker and Mumfard 2008).
NLEB exhibited significant weight loss during hibernation. In southern Illinois, weight loss
during hibernation was found in male NLEB, with individuals weighing an average of 6.6 grams
prior to January 10, and those collected after that date weighing an average of 5.3 grams
(Pearson 1962). Whitalcer and Hamilton (1998) reported a weight loss of 41-43 percent over the
hibernation period far NLEB in Indiana. In eastern Missouri, male NLEB lost an average of 3.0
grams during the hibernation period (late October through March), and females lost an average
of 2.7 grams (Caire et al. 1979).
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 14

While the NLEB is not considered a long-distance migratory species, short migratory
movements between summer roost and winter hibernacula between 35 and 55 miles have been
documented (Griffith 1945, Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). However, movements from
hibernacula to summer colonies may range from 5 to 168 miles (Griffin 1945). Several studies
show a strong homing ability of NLEB in terms of return rates to a specific hibernaculum,
although bats may not return to the same hibernaculum in successive winters (Caceres and
Barclay 2000). Individuals have been known to travel between 35 and 60 miles between caves
during the spring (Griffin 1945, Caire et al. 1979).
NLEB switch roosts often (Sasse and Perkins 1996), typically every 2-3 days (Foster and Kurta
1999, Owen et al. 2002, Carter and Feldhamer 2005, Timpone et al. 2010). In Missouri, the
longest time spent roosting in one tree was 3 nights; however, up to 11 nights spent roosting in a
manmade structure has been documented (Timpone et al. 2010). Similarly, Carter and
Feldhamer (2005) found that the longest a NLEB used the same tree was 3 days; in West
Virginia, the average time spent at one roost was 5.3 days (Menzel et al. 2002). Bats switch
roosts for a variety of reasons, including temperature, precipitation, predation, parasitism, and
ephemeral roost sites (Carter and Feldhamer 2005). In Missouri, Tiinpone et al. (2010) radio-
tracked 13 NLEB to 39 roosts and found the mean distance between the location where captured
and roost tree was 1.1 miles (range 0.04-3.0 miles), and the mean distance traveled between
roost trees was 0.42 mile (range 0.03-2.4 miles). In Michigan, the longest distance the same bat
moved between roosts was 1.2 miles and the shortest was 20 feet (Foster and Kurta 1999). In
New Hampshire, the mean distance between foraging areas and roost trees was 1975 feet (Sasse
and Pekins 1996). In the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas, Perry and Thill (2007) found that
individuals moved among snags that were within less than 5 acres.
Some studies have found tree roost selection to differ slightly between male and female NLEB.
Male NLEB have been found to more readily use smaller diameter trees for roosting than
females, suggesting males are more flexible in roost selection than females (Lacki and
Schwierjohann 2001, Broders and Forbes 2004, Perry and Thill 2007). In the Ouachita
Mountains of Arkansas, both sexes primarily roosted in snags, although females roosted in snags
surrounded by fewer midstory trees than did males (Perry and Thill 2007). In New Brunswick,
Canada, Broders and Forbes (2004) found that there was spatial segregation between male and
female roosts, with female maternity colonies typically occupying more mature, shade-tolerant
deciduous tree stands and males occupying more conifer-dominated stands. In northeastern
Kentucky, males do not use colony roosting sites and are typically found occupying cavities in
live hardwood trees, while females form colonies more often in both hardwood and softwood
snags (Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001).
NLEB breeding occurs from late July in northern regions to early October in southern regions
and commences when males begin to swarm hibernacula and initiate copulation activity
(Whitaker and Hamilton 1998, Caceres and Barclay 2000, Amelon and Burhans 2006, Whitaker
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 15

and Mumford 2008). Copulation occasionally occurs again in the spring (Racey 1982).
Hibernating females store sperm until spring, exhibiting a delayed fertilization strategy (Racey
1979, Caceres and Pybus 1997). Ovulation takes place at the time of emergence from the
hibernaculum, followed by fertilization of a single egg, resulting in a single embryo (Cope and
Humphrey 1972, Caceres and Pybus 1997, Caceres and Barclay 2000). Gestation is
approximately 50-60 days (011endorff 2002).
Maternity colonies, consisting of females and young, are generally small, numbering from about
30 (Whitaker and Mumford 2008) to 60 individuals (Caceres and Barclay 2000); however, one
group of 100 adult females was observed in Vermilion County, Indiana (Whitaker and Mumford
2008). In West Virginia, maternity colonies in two studies had a range of 7-88 individuals
(Owen et al. 2002) and 11-65 individuals, with a mean size of 31 (Menzel et al. 2002). Lacki
and Schwierjohann (2001) found that the population size of colony roosts declined as the
summer progressed with pregnant females using the largest colonies (mean=26) and
postlactating females using the smallest colonies (mean=4), with the largest overall reported
colony size of 65 bats. Other studies have also found that the number of individuals within a
maternity colony typically decreases from pregnancy to post-lactation (Foster and Kurta 1999,
Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001, Perry and Thill 2007, Garroway and Broders 2008, Johnson et
al. 2012). Female roost site selection, in terms of canopy cover and tree height, changes
depending on reproductive stage; relative to pre- and post-lactation periods, lactating NLEB have
been shown to roost higher in tall trees situated in areas of relatively less canopy cover and tree
density (Garroway and Broders 2008).
Adult females give birth to a single pup (Barbour and Davis 1969). Birthing within the colony
tends to be synchronous, with the majority of births occurring around the same time (Krochmal
and Sparks 2007). Parturition likely occurs in late May or early June (Easterla 1968, Caire et al.
1979, Whitaker and Mumford 2008), but may occur as late as July (Whitaker and Mumfard
2008). Broders et al. (2006) estimated a parturition date of July 20 in New Brunswick.
Lactating and post-lactating females were observed in mid-June in Missouri (Caire et al. 1979),
July in New Hampshire and Indiana (Sasse and Pekins 1996, Whitaker and Mumford 2008), and
August in Nebraska (Benedict 2004). Juvenile volancy occurs by 21 days after parturition and as
early as 18 days after parturition (Kunz 1971, Krochmal and Sparks 2007). Subadults were
captured in late June in Missouri (Caire et al. 1979), early July in Iowa (Sasse and Pekins 1996),
and early August in Ohio (Mills 1971).
Adult longevity is estimated to be up to 18.5 years (Hall 1957), with the greatest recorded age of
19 years (Kurta 1995). Most mortality for NLEB and many other species of bats occurs during
the juvenile stage (Caceres and Pybus 1997).
The NLEB has a diverse diet including moths, flies, leafl�oppers, caddisflies, and beetles
(Griffith and Gates 1985, Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Brack and Whitaker 2001), with diet
composition differing geographically and seasonally (Brack and Whitaker 2001). The most
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 16

common insects found in the diets of NLEB are lepidopterans (moths) and coleopterans
(beetles), with arachnids (spiders) also being a common prey item (Brack and Whitaker 2001,
Feldhamer et al. 2009).
Foraging techniques include hawking (catching insects in flight) and gleaning in conjunction
with passive acoustic cues (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Ratcliffe and Dawson 2003).
Observations of NLEB foraging on arachnids (Feldhamer et a1.2009), presence of green plant
material in their feces (Griffith and Gates 1985), and non-flying prey in their stomach contents
(Brack and Whitaker 2001) suggest considerable gleaning behavior. NLEB have the highest
frequency call of any bat species in the Great Lakes area (Kurta 1995). Gleaning allows this
species to gain a foraging advantage for preying upon moths because moths are less able to
detect these high frequency echolocation calls (Faure et al. 1993). Emerging at dusk, most
hunting occurs above the understory, 3 to 10 feet above the ground, but under the canopy
(Nagorsen and Brigham 1993) on forested hillsides and ridges, rather than along riparian areas
(LaVal et al. 1977, Brack and Whitaker 2001). This coincides with data indicating that mature
forests are an important habitat type for foraging NLEB (Caceres and Pybus 1997). Occasional
foraging also takes place over forest clearings and water, and along roads (Van Zyll de Jong
1985).
Female home range size may range from 47 to 425 acres (Lacki et al. 2009). Owen et al. (2003)
estimated average maternal home range size to be 161 acres. Home range size of NLEB in this
study site was small relative to other bat species, but this may be due to the study's timing
(during the maternity period) and the small body size of NLEB (Owen et al. 2003). The mean
distance between roost trees and foraging areas of radio-tagged individuals in New Hampshire
was 2034 feet (Sasse and Pekins 1996).
2.3. Population Dynamics
Although they are typically found in low numbers in inconspicuous roosts, most records of
NLEB are from winter hibernacula surveys (Caceres and Pybus 1997). More than 780
hibernacula have been identified throughout the species' range in the United States, although
many hibernacula contain only a few (1-3) individuals (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). Known
hibernacula include: Arkansas (n=20), Connecticut (n=5), Georgia (n=1), Illinois (n=36),
Indiana (n=25), Kentucky (n=90), Maine (n=3), Maryland (n=11), Massachusetts (n=7),
Michigan (n=94), Minnesota (n=11), Missouri (n=>111), Nebraska (n=2), New Hampshire
(n=9), New Jersey (n=8), New York (n=58), North Carolina (n=20), Oklahoma (n=4), Ohio
(n=3), Pennsylvania (n=112), South Carolina (n=2), South Dakota (n=7), Tennessee (n=11),
Vermont (n=13), Virginia (n=8), West Virginia (n=104), and Wisconsin (n=45). Other states
within the species' range have no known hibernacula (due to no suitable hibernacula present or
lack of survey effort).
Historically, the NLEB was most abundant in the eastern portion of its range (Caceres and
Barclay 2000). NLEB have been consistently caught during summer mist net surveys and
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 17

detected during acoustic surveys in eastern populations. For example, large numbers of NLEB
have been found in larger hibernacula in Pennsylvania (e.g. an estimated 881 individuals in a
mine in Bucks County in 2004). Fall swarm trapping conducted in September—October 1988—
1989, 1990-1991, and 1999-2000 at two hibernacula with large historical numbers of NLEB had
total captures ranging from 6 to 30 bats per hour, which indicated that the species was abundant
at these hibernacula (Pennsylvania Game Commission 2012, unpublished data).
The NLEB is commonly encountered in summer mist-net surveys throughout the majority of the
Midwest and is considered fairly common throughout much of the region. However, the species
is often found infrequently and in small numbers in hibernacula surveys throughout most of the
Midwest. Historically, the NLEB was considered quite common throughout much of Indiana,
and was the fourth or fifth most abundant bat species in the state in 2009 (Whitaker and
Mumford 2008).
The NLEB is less common in the southern portion of its range than in the northern portion of the
range (Amelon and Burhans 2006). In the South, it is considered more common in states such as
Kentucky and Tennessee, and rarer in the southern extremes of the range (e.g. Alabama,
Georgia, and South Carolina).
The NLEB is generally less common in the western portion of its range than in the northern
portion of the range (Amelon and Burhans 2006). It is considered common in only small
portions of the western part of its range (e.g. Black Hills of South Dakota) and uncommon or
rare in the western extremes of the range (e.g. Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska) (Caceres and
Barclay 2000).
The NLEB occurs throughout the majority of the forested regions of Canada, although it is found
in higher abundance in eastern Canada than in western Canada, similar to in the United States
(Caceres Pybus 1997). However, the scarcity of records in the western parts of Canada may be
due to more limited survey efforts. It has been estimated that approximately 40 percent of the
NLEB's global range is in Canada (COSEWIC 2014).
2.4. Status and Distribution
On October 2, 2013, the USFWS proposed to list the NLEB as an endangered species throughout
its range under the ESA. No critical habitat has been proposed at this time (USFWS 2013).
The primary threat to and the reason for the proposed listing of the NLEB is white-nosed
syndrome (WNS), a disease caused by the fungus Pseudogymnoascus destructans (formerly
known as Geomyces destructans) that is known to kill bats. The USFWS has found that no other
threat is as severe and immediate to the species persistence as WNS. There is currently no
known cure. The species would likely not be imperiled were it not for this disease (USFWS
2013).
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 18

White-nose syndrome is an emerging infectious disease responsible for unprecedented mortality
in some hibernating insectivorous bats of the northeastern United States (Blehert et al. 2009) and
poses a considerable threat to several hibernating bat species throughout North America
(USFWS 2011). The first evidence of WNS was documented in Howes Cavern, 32 miles west of
Albany, New York, in February 2006 (Blehert et al. 2009). Since that first documented
appearance, WNS has spread rapidly throughout the Northeast and is expanding through the
Midwest. As of June 2014, WNS had been confirmed in 25 states (Alabama, Arkansas,
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) and
5 Canadian provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and
Quebec) (USFWS 2014d). Two additional states (Iowa and Minnesota) are considered suspect
for WNS. USFWS biologists and partners estimate that at least 5.7 to 6.7 million bats of several
species have now died from WNS (USFWS 2012).
The pattern of spread has generally followed predictable trajectories along recognized migratory
pathways and overlapping summer ranges of hibernating bat species. Therefore, Kunz and
Reichard (2010) assert that WNS is spread mainly through bat-to-bat contact. However,
evidence suggests that fungal spores can be transmitted by humans (Sleeman 2011). Seven
North American hibernating bat species are known to be affected by WNS, but the effects vary
by species (USFWS 2014d).
White-nose syndrome is caused by the recently described psychrophilic (cold-loving) fungus,
currently known as Pseudogymnoascus destructans. P. destNuctans may be nonnative to North
America and only recently arrived on the continent (Puechmaille et al. 2011, Minnis and Lindner
2013). The fungus grows on and within exposed tissues of hibernating bats (Gargas et al. 2009,
Lorch et al. 2011), and the diagnostic feature is the white fungal growth on muzzles, ears, or
wing membranes of affected bats, along with epidermal erosions that are filled with fungal
hyphae (Blehert et al. 2009, Meteyer 2009). P. destr�uctans grows optimally at temperatures
from 41 to 50 degrees F, the same temperatures at which bats typically hibernate. Temperatures
in WNS-affected hibernacula seasonally range from 36 to 57 degrees F, permitting year-round
growth, and may act as a reservoir maintaining the fungus (Blehert et al. 2009).
In addition to the presence of the white fungus, observations show that bats affected by WNS are
characterized by some or all of the following: (1) depleted fat reserves by mid-winter; (2) general
unresponsiveness to human disturbance; (3) apparent lack of immune response during
hibernation; (4) ulcerated, necrotic, and scarred wing membranes; and (5) aberrant behaviors,
including shifts of large numbers of bats in hibernacula to roosts near the entrances or unusually
cold areas, large numbers of bats dispersing during the day from hibernacula during midwinter,
and large numbers of fatalities, either inside the hibernacula, near the entrance, or in the
immediate vicinity of the entrance (WNS Science Strategy Group 2008, USFWS 2011).
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 19

Although the exact process by which WNS leads to death remains undetermined, it is likely that
the immune function during torpor compromises the ability of hibernating bats to combat the
infection (Bouma et al. 2010, Moore et al. 2011). Early hypotheses suggested that WNS may
affect bats before the hibernation season begins, causing bats to arrive at hibernacula with
insufficient fat to survive the winter. Alternatively, a second hypothesis suggests that bats arrive
at hibernacula unaffected and enter hibernation with sufficient fat stores, but then become
affected and use fat stores too quickly as a result of disruption to hibernation physiology (WNS
Science Strategy Group 2008). More recent observations, however, suggest that bats are arriving
at hibernacula with sufficient or only slightly lower fat stores (Courtin et al. 2010).
Boyles and Willis (2010) hypothesized that infection by P. destructans alters the normal arousal
cycles of hibernating bats, particularly by increasing arousal frequency and/or duration. In fact,
Reeder et al. (2012) and Warnecke et al. (2012) observed an increase in arousal frequency in
laboratory studies of hibernating bats infected with P. destructans. A disruption of this torpor-
arousal cycle could easily cause bats to metabolize fat reserves too quickly, thereby leading to
starvation. For example, skin irritation from the fungus might cause bats to remain out of torpor
for longer than normal to groom, thereby exhausting their fat reserves prematurely (Boyles and
Willis 2010).
Cryan et al. (2010) suggests that mortality may be caused by catastrophic disruption of wing-
dependent physiological functions. The wings of winter-collected WNS-affected bats often
reveal signs of infection, whereby the degree of damage observed suggests functional
impairment. Emaciation is a common iinding in bats that have died from WNS. The authors
hypothesized that wing damage caused by P. destructans infections could sufficiently disrupt
water balance to trigger frequent thirst-associated arousals with excessive winter flight, and
subsequent premature depletion of fat stares. In related research, Cryan et al. (2013) found that
electrolytes (sodium and chloride) tended to decrease as wing damage increased in severity.
Proper concentrations of electrolytes are necessary for maintaining physiologic homeostasis, and
any imbalance could be life-threatening. Although the exact mechanism by which WNS affects
bats is still in question, the effect it has on many hibernating bat species is well documented, as
well as the high levels of mortality it causes in some susceptible bat species.
The NLEB is known to be highly susceptible to WNS, and mortalities due to the disease have
been confirmed. From 2007 to mid-2013, the USGS National Wildlife Health Center in
Madison, Wisconsin tested 65 NLEB submissions. Twenty-eight of the 65 NLEB tested were
confirmed as positive for WNS by histopathology and another 10 were suspect (Ballmann 2013,
pers. comm.). The New York Department of Environmental Conservation has confirmed at least
29 NLEB submitted with signs of WNS since 2007 in New Yark but there were still bat
carcasses not yet analyzed (Okonieski 2012, pers. comm. cited in USFWS 2013).
Due to WNS, the NLEB has experienced a sharp decline in the northeastern part of its range, as
evidenced in hibernacula surveys. The northeastern United States is very close to saturation (i.e.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 20

WNS found in majority of hibernacula) for the disease, with the NLEB being one of the species
most severely affected (Herzog and Reynolds 2013). Turner et al. (2011) compared the most
recent pre-WNS count to the most recent post-WNS count for 6 cave bat species; they reported a
98 percent decline between pre- and post-WNS in the number of hibernating NLEB at 30
hibernacula in New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. In addition to
the Turner et al. (2011) data, the Service conducted an additional analysis that included data
from Connecticut (n=3), Massachusetts (n=4), and New Hampshire (n=4), and added one
additional site to the previous Vermont data. Using a protocol similar to Turner et al. (2011), the
Service found that the combined overall rate of decline seen in hibernacula count data for the 8
states was approximately 99 percent (USFWS 2013). Similarly, during 2013 hibernacula
surveys at 34 sites where NLEB were also observed prior to WNS in Pennsylvania, researchers
found a 99-percent decline (from 637 to 5 bats) (Turner 2013, unpublished data).
Long-term (including pre- and post-WNS) summer data for the NLEB are somewhat limited;
however, the available data parallel the population decline exhibited in hibernacula surveys.
Summer surveys from 2005-2011 near Surry Mountain Lake in New Hampshire showed a 99
percent decline in capture success of NLEB post-WNS, which is similar to the hibernacula data
for the state (a 95 percent decline) (Brunkhurst 2012, unpublished data). In Vermont, the species
was the second most common bat species in the state pre-WNS; however, it is now one of the
least likely to be encountered, with the change in effort to capture one bat increasing by nearly
13 times, and approximately a 94 percent overall reduction in captures in mist-net surveys
(Darling and Smith 2011, unpublished data). In eastern New York, captures of NLEB have
declined approximately 93 percent from pre-WNS (Herzog 2012, unpublished data). In West
Virginia, NLEB mist-net captures comprised 41 percent of all captures pre-WNS and 24 percent
post-WNS (Francl et al. 2012). Nagel and Gates (2012) reported a 78-percent decrease in NLEB
passes during acoustic surveys between 2010 and 2012 in western Maryland. At two swarm
trapping sites in Pennsylvania, researchers in 2010-20ll saw a decline in capture rates of 95
percent at one site and 97 percent at the second site post-WNS levels, which corrobarates
documented interior hibernacula declines (Turner et al. 2011, Turner 2013 unpublished data).
The area currently affected by WNS constitutes the core of the NLEB's range, where the species
was most common prior to WNS. Furthermore, the rate at which WNS has spread has been
rapid. Since its first documented occurrence in New Yark in February 2006, WNS had spread to
25 states and 5 Canadian provinces by June 2014 (USFWS 2014d). WNS has already had a
substantial effect on NLEB in the care of its range and is likely to spread throughout the species'
entire range within a short time; thus the USFWS considers it to be the predominant threat to the
species range-wide. This threat is ongoing and is expected to increase in the future as it
continues to extirpate NLEB populations (USFWS 2013).
Other threats to the NLEB include wind-energy development, winter habitat modiiication (i.e.
effects on hibernacula), summer habitat loss/modification (i.e. tree clearing from timber harvest,
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 21

development, natural resource extraction, etc.), human disturbance of hibernating bats, predation,
climate change, and contaminants (USFWS 2013). Although these threats (prior to WNS) have
not individually or cumulatively had significant effects at the species level, they may increase the
overall effects to the species when considered cumulatively with WNS.
Chapter 3. NCDOT Program Action Area
The action area for this Programmatic Biological Assessment is defined as all areas that could be
affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved
in the action (SO CFR 402).
NCDOT projects are organized first by NCDOT Division and then by county. NCDOT Divisions
are numbered from east to west. There are a total of 14 NCDOT Divisions, including all 100
counties, and each Division contains 5 to 14 counties. The action area includes NCDOT
Divisions 1-8 in eastern North Carolina, and includes all counties under the USFWS Raleigh
Field Office's jurisdiction. The projects to be covered under this PBA will take place at existing
roadways, bridges, some new locations, and other transportation-related infrastructure
maintained within NCDOT Divisions 1-8.
The action area for this PBA is the 59 eastern most counties of North Carolina. North Carolina
counties within the action area are listed by NCDOT Division in Table 3, and shown in Figure 2
(Appendix A).
TABLE 3. NCDOT DIVISIONS AND COUNTIES WITHIN ACTION AREA
Division One Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, Martin,
Northampton, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, Washington
Division Two Beaufort, Carteret, Craven, Greene, Jones, Lenoir, Pamlico, Pitt
Division Three Brunswick, Duplin, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender, Sampson
Division Four Edgecombe, Halifax, Johnson, Nash, Wayne, Wilson
Division Five Durham, Franklin, Granville, Person, Vance, Walce, Warren
Division Six Bladen, Columbus, Cumberland, Harnett, Robeson
Division Seven Alamance, Caswell, Guilford, Orange, Rockingham
Division Eight Chatham, Hoke, Lee, Montgomery Moore, Randolph, Richmond, Scotland
Chapter 4. Environmental Baseline
4.1. Status of the Northern Long-Eared Bat in Eastern North Carolina
The North Carolina Heritage Program (NCNHP) is responsible for maintaining North Carolina
state natural resource inventory data. NCWRC collects data (their own and data submitted from
recognized experts) and shares with NCNHP. The following data is from NCNHP (NCNHP
2014), supplemented with data from the USFWS website on NLEB in North Carolina, as well as
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 22

information collected from bat researchers and biologists who have conducted surveys in eastern
North Carolina. Evidence of NLEB in eastern North Carolina is listed by county below, as well
as survey efforts that resulted in presumed absence of the species. Results from acoustic surveys
which indicated the presence of NLEB in areas where netting did not confirm presence were not
considered viable "positive records", and therefore are not discussed as part of this analysis.
Figure 3 visually depicts the information outlined in the following sections.
4.1.1. Northern Long-eared Bat Capture Records in Eastern North Carolina
Camden County: Six NLEB captures in 2012, including reproductive females (Kalcounis-
Rueppell and Grider 2013).
Currituck Countv: During a bat survey conducted at a U.S. Naval facility that spans Chesapeake,
Virginia and Currituck County, North Carolina, a total of 16 NLEB were captured during the
summers of 2013 and 2014. Adult males and females and a juvenile female were captured.
Adult females were fitted with radio-transmitters and tracked. Surveys will continue in 2015. A
final report is pending (Michael Wright, US Navy, personal communication, October 29, 2014).
Washington CountX: Six NLEB captured in June of 2007, including one adult male and five
juveniles, which suggested a resident maternity colony is present (Morris et al. 2009). In 2012,
a male NLEB and a non-reproductive adult female NLEB were captured at two of four net sites
(Kalcounis-Rueppell and Grider 2013).
4.1.2. Other Records Indicating Northern Long-Eared Bat Presence in Eastern North Carolina
Lee Countv: One female collected in June on 2001 is preserved in LTNC Wilmington's Natural
History Collection.
New Hanover County: A rabies lab record from approximately 2004. No information on
location or time of year. Specimen was deposited at University of North Carolina Wilmington.
Wake Countv: Two historical records (1901 and 1902), accarding to NCNHP. Specimen from
1901 collected near a house in Raleigh. Second specimen (1902) had no locational data other
than county. In addition, two specimens collected in Raleigh from 1947 and 1981 are preserved
in UNC Wilmington's Natural History Collection.
4.1.3. Negative Records for Northern Long-Eared Bats in Eastern North Carolina
Below is a suminary of all known acoustical and mist net bat survey work in eastern North
Carolina. No NLEB were captured or recorded during these surveys.
Fort Bra /gg; Cam� Mackall —(Janice Patten, Wildlife Biologist, Fort Bragg Endangered Species
Branch, personal communication, July 1, 2014)
Multiple Sonobat acoustic transects have been conducted across Fort Bragg and Camp
Mackall from 2004-2014. Eight species have been detected, but none were NLEB.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 23

Mist-netting was conducted from 2004-2009 at 38 locations across Fort Bragg and Camp
Mackall. This included checking buildings for potential roosts. Mist netting/building
searches are being continued in 2014 and 2015. No NLEB were captured or observed.
Late in the winter of 2013-2014, several known roost locations where checked for
bats. Bats were found at two sites and several bats were swabbed for WNS. The results
were all negative. No NLEB were observed.
Uwharrie National Forest Mist-netting
Over a period of ten years, the Uwharrie National Forest has been extensively surveyed for bats.
No NLEB have been recorded or captured during these surveys.
Three nights of netting occurred during the 2004 Southeastern Bat Diversity Network bat
blitz in Montgomery, Anson, Randolph and Stanly counties at over 30 sites. Seventy-
seven bats (five species) were captured, but no NLEB were captured or recorded (SBDN
2014)
NCDOT staff conducted netting in 2007 at 4 sites in Montgomery County. No NLEB
were captured.
Pittaway and Kalcounis-Rueppell (2014) analyzed acoustic transects along 18 routes that
were run in 2009, 2010 and 2012 in Uwharrie National Farest. No NLEB calls were
recorded.
Fifty-eight nights of mist-netting at fourteen sites in Uwharrie National Forest in the
summer of 2014; 179 bats were captured, but there were no NLEB captures (King and
Kalcounis-Rueppell, 2014).
Croatan National Forest
Fourteen (14) nights of mist-netting were conducted for the US 17 project on the west side of
Croatan National Forest (CNF), but no NLEB were captured. In addition to the negative mist-
netting results for US 17, the following negative survey results were also obtained in and
adjacent to CNF:
Six nights of mist-netting in CNF along the proposed Havelock bypass corridor in 2005
(NCDOT).
Five nights of mist-netting adjacent to CNF at the NCDOT Croatan mitigation bank from
2007-2010 (NCDOT).
One night of mist-netting in Carteret County at the southern edge of CNF in 2009
(NCDOT).
Three nights of acoustic driving transects in 2010 conducted on CNF by USFS staff
(Pittaway and Kalcounis-Rueppell 2014).
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 24

NCDPR Survevs
North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences staff surveyed eight State Parks and Natural Areas
in eastern North Carolina between 1999 and 2004 [Lambiase 2000 and subsequent addendum
(unpublished)]. Mist-netting and roost checks were the primary means of survey. More than
160 bats were recorded in roughly 40 days/nights of surveys, but no NLEB were recorded during
any of these surveys. Survey locations included Eno River State Park (Durham County), Goose
Creek State Park (Beaufort County), Lake Waccamaw State Park (Columbus County), Lumber
River State Park (Columbus, Robeson, and Scotland Counties), Merchant's Millpond State Park
(Gates County), Pettigrew State Park (Tyrell County), Raven Rock State Park (Harnett County),
Weymouth Woods State Park (Moore County), Jones Lake State Park (Bladen County),
Singletary Lake State Park (Bladen County), and Theodore Roosevelt State Natural Area
(Carteret County) (Lisa Gatens, Curator of Mammals, North Carolina Museum of Natural
Sciences, November 18, 2014). Although surveys at each individual park were not numerous
enough to conclude that NLEB are absent in those particular areas, the results do lend some
evidence to that effect.
Brid�e Surve�
There is evidence of NLEB using bridges and other structures for roosting (as mentioned in
Section 2.2), but bridge surveys in eastern North Carolina have failed to find any NLEB. Two-
hundred and nineteen (219) bats were found in bridge and culvert surveys in southeastern North
Carolina by Felts and Webster (2003); three species of bats were found, but none were NLEB.
The counties surveyed were Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus, Duplin, New Hanover, Onslow and
Pender. McDonnell (2001) examined 990 bridges and culverts in 25 counties in the North
Carolina Coastal Plain. Eighty-one (81) bats were found; there were no NLEB, but the species
of three bats could not be determined.
4.2. Factors Affecting the Northern Long-Eared Bat
4.2.1. White Nose Syndrome in Eastern NC
According to White-Nose Syndrome.org, no suspected or documented cases of WNS have been
reported from eastern North Carolina, although there are documented and confirmed cases of
WNS in western NC and central South Carolina.
NCWRC and USFWS have cooperated to create North Carolina's White-nose Syndrome
Surveillance and Response Plan released in December 2013. The plan lists North Carolina
species affected by WNS (including NLEB) and details a survey plan to track the anticipated
spread of WNS (including 11 locations in the North Carolina piedmont and coastal North
Carolina). Protocols intended to reduce the spread of WNS in North Carolina are also included in
the plan.
NLEB in eastern North Carolina may differ from the core NLEB population that resides in
western North Carolina in that they may not use caves to hibernate or may not hibernate at all. If
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 25

so, they may not be as vulnerable to WNS, and could help mitigate the effects of WNS in the
core population. Ecological niche modeling predicting the potential extent of WNS based on
future climate scenarios shows that, in theory, the coastal plain of North Carolina could be
important future habitat for NLEB (Kalcounis-Rueppell et al. 2012).
NCWRC is leading an effort to determine the eastern extent of WNS in North Carolina.
NCWRC employees began surveying potential winter roost locations in central North Carolina
for the presence of bats, and swabbing the substrate of hibernacula walls (and any bats they
encountered) for Pseudogymnoascus destructans spores in 2014. They will continue to do so
in 2015 (personal communication July 17, 2014).
4.2.2. Overwintering of NLEB in Eastern North Carolina
NLEB are known to hibernate in caves throughout much of their range, and are believed not to
travel great distances between winter hibernacula and summer forging habitat. Typical distances
from summer to winter ranges are thought to be from 35 to 60 miles while distances have been
documented from 5 to 168 miles (as discussed in Section 2.2). These details complicate
understanding NLEB in eastern North Carolina. The occurrence of caves in the Piedmont and
Coastal Plain of North Carolina is extremely rare. Rock features that include fissures or
overhangs are less rare, but cannot be considered common (Phil Bradley, North Carolina
Geological Survey, personal communication), and would be less lilcely to provide suitable habitat
for NLEB hibernation. Only one cave in eastern North Carolina (Onslow County) is known to
be suitable as a roosting site for bats. The site was visited during summer months in the late
1990's and contained several roosting bats. The bats were believed to be tricolored bats
(Perimyotis subflavus) (Michael Shafale, NCNHP, personal communication, November 21,
2014).
NLEB occurring in eastern North Carolina could potentially hibernate in caves or mines in
western North Carolina or western Virginia. However, the species is not currently thought to fly
these great distances. According to Virginia Speleological Survey website (VSS 2014), the
closest caves to NLEB capture sites in eastern North Carolina are located in Halifax County,
Virginia which lies due North of Roxbaro, North Carolina. This means that the recently
documented NLEB in Camden County, North Carolina would have to fly more than 125 miles to
reach the nearest cave, unless the Onslow County cave is suitable for winter roosting.
A hypothesis proposed by Griffin (1945) indicated that NLEB may regularly hibernate in
"unsuspected retreats" in areas where caves and mines are not present and has not been
discounted. NLEB have been documented hibernating in cave-like structures such as a storm
sewer, a hydroelectric dam, an aqueduct, and a dry well (as discussed in Section 2.2). It is
possible that NLEB in eastern North Carolina may hibernate in trees, like Raiinesque's big-eared
bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) and southeastern myotis (Myotis austro�iparius).
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 26

Finally, some biologists suspect NLEB may not need to hibernate in the more temperate climate
of eastern North Carolina. There is some evidence of myotid bat activity during the winter in the
coastal plain of North Carolina (personal communication, Lisa Gatens, Curator of Mammals,
North Carolina Museum of Natural Science, 10/22/14). Furthermore, NLEB may utilize bridges
for roosting throughout the year in eastern North Carolina (as discussed in Section 2.2).
Taylor (1963) found that moths in a laboratory situation were capable of sustained flight at
temperatures as low as 8 degrees Celsius (46.4 degrees Fahrenheit). In another study, the
stomach contents of red bats (Lasiurus borealis) captured during winter months from the Great
Dismal Swamp in coastal North Carolina and Virginia was found to contain primarily moths and
flies (Whitaker et al. 1997). As mentioned in Section 2.2, the NLEB diet is known to consist of
moths and flies, among other prey items. Therefore, it is plausible that an appropriate food
source would be available to NLEB in eastern North Carolina during the winter.
Research aimed at understanding if and/or where NLEB hibernate in eastern North Carolina will
be greatly beneficial to understanding how NCDOT projects could affect NLEB.
4.2.3. Wind Energy Development
Wind turbines can kill bats, including northern long-eared bats. Wind-turbine blades cause
mortality through direct effect or through the pressure differential caused by the motion of the
spinning blades. This pressure differential causes a bat's lungs to fill with fluid as it flies near the
spinning blades and this phenomenon (known as barotrauma) kills the bat instantly (Baerwald et
al 2008). More research is underway to better understand bat wind-turbine vulnerabilities, but
current studies suggest that bats face the greatest risk during migration from summer foraging
sites to wintering grounds (tree bats) or hibernacula (cave bats) (Kunz et al 2007, Arnett et al.
2008). Only a small number of NLEB mortalities have been documented from wind energy
facilities (American Wind Energy Association 2001, as cited in USFWS 2013). However, there
are many wind projects currently within the bat's range, and more are planned. According to the
USFWS Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office, there are currently no wind energy facilities in
North Carolina, though there are several facilities in various stages of planning in the outer
coastal plain.
4.2.4. NLEB Habitat Loss/Modification
Until better NLEB data allows a more refined approach, NCDOT is considering all wooded area
to be potential NLEB habitat in eastern North Carolina. Brown and New (2013) have assigned
forested acreage percentages to the eastern North Carolina Counties as shown in Table 4. This
data indicates that the majority of eastern North Carolina is moderately to heavily forested. In
fact, the report concluded that forest area in the state is stable or trending upward, and forests
continue to cover about 60% of the State's land.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 27

TABLE 4. PERCENT FORESTED AREA (ACRES�, BY NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY
Percent Forested Area County
0-25% Carteret, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Pasquotank
26-50% Alamance, Camden, Chowan, Durham, Greene, Guilford, Johnston,
Nash, Orange, Perquimans, Pamlico, Pitt, Sampson, Tyrell, Wake,
Washington, Wayne, Wilson
51-75% Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Caswell, Caswell, Chatham,
Columbus, Cumberland, Craven, Duplin, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gates,
Granville, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Lee, Lenoir, Martin,
Montgomery, Moore, Northampton, Onslow, Pender, Person, Randolph,
Robeson, Rockingham, Scotland, Vance, Warren
76-100% Jones, Richmond
Tree clearing could affect NLEB in several ways. First and most likely, removal of trees reduces
and/or degrades NLEB foraging habitat. NLEB foraging habitat is not considered rare in eastern
North Carolina. However, NLEB may have to expend extra energy to locate new foraging habitat
due to tree clearing. Next, tree clearing could remove and/or degrade a NLEB roost site.
Potential roost sites are not considered rare in eastern North Carolina, although this may require
NLEB to expend extra energy to locate suitable roost locations. Finally, removal of trees could
(if NLEB are present) harass, harm, or kill NLEB.
As discussed previously, details regarding the possibility of NLEB hibernating in eastern North
Carolina are needed to understand if there is a seasonal effect of tree clearing on NLEB.
However without this data the working group elected to weigh the effect of tree clearing
considered without regard to season.
Due to the abundant amounts of suitable roosting and foraging habitat in the action area,
combined with the low numbers of known NLEB in the action area, the working group
concluded that roosting and faraging habitat is not a limiting factor for NLEB in eastern North
Carolina.
4.2.5. Human Disturbance of Bats
Disturbance from recreational cavers and researchers entering hibernacula can cause bats to
expend crucial fat reserves requiring bats to wake and forage in the winter when there is little
avaialable food. If disturbance occurs too often, fat reserves can be depleted and starvation can
occur (USFWS 2014d).
As discussed in Section 4.2.2, it is not known if NLEB hiberate in eastern North Carolina. In
addition there is only one known cave in eastern North Carolina and no lrnown bat monitoring
occurring in that cave. It is therefore unlikely that humans are disturbing hibernating bats in
eastern North Carolina.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 28

4.2.6. Predation
Eastern North Carolina has many predatory species which hunt NLEB. These include predatory
birds (primarily owls and hawks), snakes, raccoons, and cats. However there has been no
evidence that predation was problematic for NLEB populations in eastern North Carolina in the
past. There is no evidence that NCDOT projects will significantly alter species which prey on
NLEB.
4.2.7. Climate Change
Climate change in eastern North Carolina could result in sea level rise (SLR). SLR could flood
portions of the coastal NLEB habitat. SLR would represent a threat to wildlife conservation in
eastern North Carolina, including NLEB.
Climate change has the potential to exert a cumulative effect on NLEB. "Temperate zone bats
may be more sensitive to climate change than other groups of mammals because many aspects of
their ecology are closely linked to temperature" (Loeb and Winters 2013). Bat species that are
unable to mitigate the effects of high temperature with behavioral changes may shift their range
to avoid higher temperatures.
4.2.8. Contamination
As a predatory species bats are negatively affected by contaminants indirectly as well as directly.
The availability of insect prey can be dramatically affected by the use pesticides and presence of
pesticides in prey can result bio-accumulation which can harm and kill bats. Pesticide-induced
mortality of insectivorous bats has been documented (Garner and Gardner 1992, Mohr 1972,
Geluso et al. 1976, Clark et al. 1983).
4.2.9. Bridge and Building Use by NLEB in Eastern North Carolina
NCDOT biologists have been checking bridges across North Carolina for bat use since 2005,
primarily in western North Carolina. After checking more than 325 bridges statewide, individual
NLEB has been found using only three bridges. No NLEB colonies were found. The three
bridges were located in Madison and Swain counties (mountainous region in western North
Carolina).
No NLEB have been found roosting in bridges in eastern North Carolina. Felts and Webster
(2003) found three species of bats (Myotis austroriparius, PeNimyotis subflavus, and
Corynorhinus rafinesquii) using 15 of 423 bridges inspected in southeastern North Carolina in
winter months. This suggests that this part of the state has a climate suitable for roosting during
most of the year.
McDonnell (2001) found both solitary bats and maternity colonies of three species (Myotis
austroriparius, Perimyotis subflavus, and Corynorhinus rafinesquii) in 135 bridges in 21 eastern
North Carolina counties during investigations conducted between May and August, 1997 and
1998 (McDonald 2001). These were all day roosting sites.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 29

These researchers collectively checked more than 1,400 structures; no NLEB were found. In
general, the bats found in bridges seemed to prefer roosting in concrete more than timber or steel
bridges.
No NLEB have been documented roosting in buildings in eastern North Carolina. NCDOT is
not aware of any comprehensive studies of buildings as roost structures in eastern North
Carolina, aside from those conducted on Camp Mackall and Fort Bragg (mentioned in Section
4.1.3).
Chapter 5. Program Details
In order to conduct a thorough effects analysis of the NCDOT Program on the NLEB (see
Chapter 6 and Appendix D) the working group needed to deconstruct the proposed action. As
explained in Section 1.4.2 the NCDOT Program has been categorized following the draft federal
agency-initiated Programmatic Agreement for IBAT/NLEB (Indiana Bat/Northern Long-eared
Bat). Descriptions of activities that occur within each category were adapted from the
Washington State Department of Transportation (2007) and the USFWS (2005).
Each category was broken down into a list of potential activities (as seen in Appendix D). The
activities are the mechanisms through which project categories have potential to affect NLEB.
The North Carolina working group used these categories and activities to consider all possible
effects to NLEB in eastern North Carolina (NCDOT Divisions 1-8).
Activities and sub-activities that occur as part of the NCDOT Program are described in this
chapter in text and tabular format under the appropriate category. A complete list of activities is
also given, along with effects determinations, in Appendix D. Activities and sub-activities
classifications are included in the text below as an indication of where they can be found in
Appendix D.
5.1. New Construction (category)
New construction includes activities for roadway and railway construction and improvements,
bridge and culvert construction and replacement, and the development of construction staging
areas. Vehicle and heavy equipment use are involved in all aspects of new construction. New
construction projects typically reduce and modify habitat, increase impervious surface area, and
increase disturbance. Many of these projects affect undeveloped or undisturbed property, require
the acquisition of additional right-of-way (ROW), and involve impacts to native vegetation.
Contractars may need to establish project equipment staging areas and parking areas. Often,
existing road surfaces or parking areas can be utilized. However, if heavy equipment staging is
necessary in vegetated areas, temporary impacts to sensitive habitats could occur. New
construction projects that increase capacity may have indirect effects associated with growth and
development of the surrounding areas.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 30

The following categories of NCDOT projects are considered New Construction and we
anticipate there to be 1,436 over the 5 year period covered in this PBA: B, BD, I, P, R, SS, U, W,
X.
Staging Areas/Site Prep (activity)
Staging Areas/Project Site Prep covers preparations at the project site itself and staging areas.
Staging areas are places where equipment, a temporary field ofiice, and materials are temporarily
stored or located in preparation for their use during construction. These areas are typically
located within or closely adjacent to the construction site.
All these tasks are considered to be activities that occur during the initial phases of construction.
Descriptions of subactivities are provided below.
Lighting (subactivity under Staging Areas/Site Prep)
The use of lighting to illuminate project work involves installing permanent highway
illumination and traffic signal projects. Lighting may also be used temporarily in order to
conduct construction activities, especially during the evening and nighttime hours.
Tree clearing and Grubbing (subactivities under Staging Areas/Site Prep)
Tree clearing and clearing of other vegetation will be performed to prepare the project area for
construction activities. Clearing generally takes place within pre-marked areas in the project
action area necessary for construction purposes. The initial access into work areas for clearing
activities will be via existing public roads, but clearing for temporary access roads may also be
needed. Clearing consists of cutting and removing above ground vegetation such as grasses,
brush, and trees; removing downed timber and other vegetative debris; and salvaging marketable
timber. Grubbing will follow clearing operations to remove any remaining surface vegetation
and buried debris. Clearing typically requires less ground disturbance than grubbing.
Clearing and grubbing will be required prior to earthwork in order to remove vegetative and
other debris from wark areas so that design specifications (e.g., for compaction) can be met.
Trees, stumps, and large roots will be removed from excavation areas to a depth sufficient to
prevent such objectionable material from becoming mixed with the material being incorporated
in the embankment. Areas to be excavated will require grubbing to remove small bushes,
vegetation, and any rubbish. Within excavation and embankment limits, tree stumps, roots, and
other vegetation will be removed. All extraneous matter will be removed and disposed of in
designated waste areas on or off-site by chipping, burying, or other methods of proper disposal,
including burning. Various methods and equipment will be used for this work.
Clearing and grubbing takes place within construction limits, but may also occur in temporary
construction easements used to assemble and store the construction vehicles that are too large to
travel on the highway in one piece (e.g., haul trucks, earthmovers, large dozers, large excavators,
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 31

hoes, etc.). These areas are also used to store supplies (erosion control materials, steel rebar and
mesh, small diameter culverts, traffic signs and posts, office trailers, etc.).
Earthwork (subactivities under Staging Areas/Site Prep)
Earthwork is all earth moving activities that will occur for road and interchange construction,
access road construction/relocation, utility placement and relocation, construction of drainage
structures, and preparation of staging, maintenance, waste, and borrow areas. Earthmoving
activities will include excavating (cutting), filling, ditching, backfilling, grading, embankment
construction, auguring, disking, ripping, grading, leveling, borrowing and wasting of materials
and any other earth-moving work required in the construction of the project. Earthmoving
equipment to be used includes haul trucks, dozers, excavators, scrapers, and backhoes.
Earthwork may be conducted as part of the preparation of staging areas, bridge approaches,
alignments, embankments, fills, backfills, foundations, toe trenches, road grades, utility
relocation, stormwater treatment, ditch construction, bank stabilization, landscaping, restoration,
and mitigation.
Blasting (subactivity under Staging Areas/Site Prep)
Blasting may be required on a limited number of projects. Timing and duration of the blasting
will vary on a project-by-project basis. Blasting consists of excavating in rock to achieve smooth,
unfractured backslopes; it can also involve blasting to facilitate excavation. Bridgework may
require blasting during the construction or removal of bridge abutments. Debris or rock disposal
may be required after blasting.
Dust Control (subactivity under Staging Areas/Site Prep)
Performing earthwork activities may necessitate the use of dust control measures. This work
consists of applying water for the alleviation or prevention of dust nuisance originating from
earthwork construction operation from within the project construction limits.
Install Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) (subactivity
under Staging Areas/Site Prep)
This work includes the installation of silt fences, check dams, sediment basins, coir blankets and
temporary seeding.
Structure Demolition (subactivity under Staging Areas/Site Prep)
Structures within the project right-of-way will be purchased and either demolished or moved o
(intact) off-site prior to the commencement of construction work. Structures include
commercial, residential and public buildings and facilities. After demolition, structure debris is
hauled off-site far disposal.
Installation of Drainage Features (subactivity under Staging Areas/Site Prep)
This work may include work area isolation; stream diversion; dewatering; excavation for pipe
trenches, ditch creation and stream relocation; culvert jacking or drilling; laying pipe and
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 32

covering them; constructing headwalls on the outlet side of flow diversion; installing armoring;
and restoring flow.
Other Project Site Prep Activities/subactivities
portable fence installation/removal
temporary access road construction, which requires installation of geofabric and rock
gravel workspace
Wetland Fill (subactivity under Staging Areas/Site Prep)
When it cannot be avoided, wetland fill requires a permit from the USACE. The tree clearing
acreage presented in Chapter 6 includes acres of wooded wetlands to be filled under the NCDOT
Program.
Utility Relocation (subactivity under Staging Areas/Site Prep)
Utility relocation or placement can involve both above and below-ground work, including tree
clearing, mowing, trenching, and horizontal or directional bore. When water, sewer, electric, or
gas lines need to be relocated, these impacts are typically accounted for during project planning
and permitting. In the rare event that utility lines would need to be relocated outside a project
right of way, the utility company will be responsible for obtaining their own permits. In this rare
instance, tree clearing would not be accounted for by NCDOT.
Offsite Use Areas (activity)
Waste and borrow areas that are used to dispose of and obtain materials for earthwork, are also
subject to clearing and grubbing, but the contractor is responsible for addressing federally listed
threatened and endangered species issues per NCDOT standard specifications. Most borrow and
waste areas are sited in areas of previously disturbed habitat where tree removal is minimal.
Road Surface Preparation and Construction (activity)
The activity of road surface preparation and construction also includes the construction of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This activity may include the following sub-activities:
construct stormwater facilities
final grading and road/trail bed preparation
construct barrier wall & retaining wall (mechanically stabilized earth, soil nail, sheet pile,
soldier pile, etc.)
application of course aggregate, concrete or asphalt
striping, pavement markers and signage
guard rail installation
noise wall construction
sidewalk installation
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 33

New Rail Track Construction (activity)
New rail track construction includes the subactivities subgrade installation (building up
ballast/railbed) and laying track.
Bridge/Culvert Construction (activity)
Work included in this activity includes bridge construction and replacement, construction and
replacement of culverts over three feet in diameter, and widening of existing bridges and
culverts.
Many of NCDOT's traditional bridge replacement projects take as little as 9 months, and low-
impact bridges can be completed in as little as 3 to 6 months. Culvert replacements are typically
even shorter in duration. Installation of new bridges may require the installation of an on-site
detour bridge. Occasionally, half of the new bridge is constructed adjacent to the old bridge and
acts as the detour bridge while the original bridge is removed and replaced.
Geotechnical investigations (drilling) are necessary for any type of construction work that
requires a level of underground stability; they are normally needed to determine appropriate
designs for bridge foundations.
Foundations are required elements of every bridge construction and replacement project.
Bridge foundations consist of three general types: 1) drilled shafts; 2) columns on spread
footings; and 3) driven piles and pile-supported caps or walls. Driven piles are normally used to
support temporary structures such as detour bridges and work bridges. However, driven piles are
also used to provide additional support to spread footings.
In-water work may take place during many activities associated with bridge construction, except
for superstructure construction. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are used to protect water
quality during in-water work (NCDOT 2003). Special BMPs apply in High Quality Waters,
Outstanding Resource Waters, and in N.C. Carolina Coastal Area Management Act counties
(NCDOT 2003).
Bridge and culvert construction include the following subactivities and sub-subactivities:
barge use - anchor spud installation, mooring, operation
temporary work trestle/platform/detour bridge/causeway construction and removal —
o impact/vibratory pile driving
o deck installation
o remove piles (vibratory hammer, direct pull, etc.)
bridge demolition (for replacement)
o work area isolation (cofferdam installation, impact/vibratory pile driving,
dewatering)
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 34

o remove piles, footings, piers, bridge decking, railbed, etc. (vibratory pile driver,
clamshell bucket, containment boom)
o wire saw concrete cuttmg, crane use
o hoe ram use, debris containment, excavation
substructure construction (piers, shafts, shaft caps, footings, abutments, foundations)
o work area isolation (cofferdam installation, impact/vibratory pile driving,
dewatering)
o drilled shaft construction (auger drills hole within casing) or impact pile driving
o install casing, rebar
o pour concrete
o spread footing construction
o riprap installation
superstructure construction
o pier tables, cantilevers, decking, pre-cast concrete or steel girders, crane use
Post-construction Activities
In addition to temporary BMPs used during construction, NCDOT implements a post-
construction stormwater program in accordance with the Department's National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Post-construction structural BMPs are
permanent controls that treat stormwater runoff from stabilized drainage areas to protect water
quality, reduce pollutant loading, and minimize post-construction impacts to water quality
(NCDOT 2014b, NCDOT 2014c). Because post-construction BMPs are permanent, they require
a long-term maintenance commitment to function as designed.
Post-construction activities include the following subactivities:
temparary bmp removal (silt fencing, check dams, sediment basin)
fence installation (if required)
landscaping/beautification/site stabilization
Billboards
NCDOT has entered into an agreement with the FHWA relating to the control of outdoor
advertising in areas adjacent to any highway which is or becomes a part of the National Highway
System. No person shall erect and/or maintain any outdoor advertising within 660 feet of the
highway ROW without first obtaining a permit from NCDOT. Constructing or maintaining a
billboard may involve tree removal along highways. Vegetation cutting, thinning, pruning, or
removal by billboard owners cannot be conducted without a permit by NCDOT.
The current tree clearing limit along federal primary highways is 380 feet for rural roads and 340
feet for roads within city limits. Statewide, there are an estimated total 8,000 billboards; up to
750 permits may be issued annually for vegetation removal statewide (Coleman 2012). In
addition to tree clearing, billboards may also involve long-term lighting.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 35

5.2. Safety and Mobility Improvement (category)
Safety and mobility improvement projects include activities not covered under Section 5.1, New
Construction. Tree clearing and grubbing may be required on some safety and mobility
improvement projects. If so, this work is discussed in Section 5.1. Vehicle and heavy equipment
use will be required for all projects; portable lighting may be used for some projects. Post-
construction work that may also occur as part of safety and mobility improvement projects is
also described in Section 5.1.
Safety projects are designed to improve the safety of the highway system and not to add
capacity. These include signal and illumination improvements, sign installation, installation of
sidewalks, tree removal from the clear zone, guard rail installation, railroad grade separation, and
alignment modifications. Alignment modifications may include adding auxiliary lanes (e.g. truck
climbing and acceleration lanes), channelization (turn lanes), or on and off ramp extensions, or
realigning an intersection to improve the sight distance.
Mobility improvement projects are designed to improve traffic operations and/or capacity on
existing roadways. Typical projects include construction of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes
in urban areas, reconstructing existing interchanges, construction of new interchanges, adding
additional lanes, and sidewalk, curb and shoulder construction. Overpass, bridge and culvert
replacement and widening may occur as part of a mobility improvement project. A description of
this work is provided under Section 5.1.
Most mobility improvement projects generally occur in heavily developed urban areas. Many of
these projects affect very little undeveloped or undisturbed property and many occur in the
existing ROW in heavily urbanized areas. Projects that increase capacity may have indirect
effects associated with growth and development of the surrounding areas.
The following categories of NCDOT projects are considered Safety & Mobility Improvement
and we anticipate there to be 601 over the next 5 year period covered in this PBA: C, EB, EL, F,
I, P, R, S, SF, SI, SR, SS, U, W, Y, Z
Safety and Mobility Improvement activities and subactivities include the following:
Intelligent Transportation Systems
Intelligent transportation systems are advanced applications that strive to provide innovative
services relating to different modes of transport and traffic management and enable various users
to be better informed and make safer, more coordinated, and smarter use of transport networks.
This includes all modes of transport, and incorporates current and evolving computer and
communication technologies with the goal of improving traffic conditions, minimizing delays
and increasing safety for all commuters in the state. Within NCDOT, this primarily involves the
following subactivities: sign and camera installations
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 36

Railroad Protective Device Installation
This activity involves the installation of signals and other safety features where railroads
intersect at grade or where railroads intersect roads at grade.
Railroad Grade Separation
Railroad grade separation involves the alignment of two or more surfaces, associated with
similar or dissimilar transport types, of differing elevations. This typically consists of the
creation of an overpass or underpass to allow for continued flow of activity at the
axis/intersection of the transport facilities. Subactivities include:
staging areas
project site prep
install drainage features
utility lines
pre-watering of roads and exposed areas in construction site for dust control or grading
Road surface, Railroad Bed Preparation and Construction
The preparation of and construction of road surfaces and railroad beds involve a variety of
subactivities, including:
construct stormwater facilities
final grading and road/rail bed preparation
retaining wall construction
course aggregate application, concrete or asphalt application
striping, pavement markers and signage
railroad crossing gate installation
guard rail installation
sidewalk, curb and shoulder construction
Signal System Improvements
Signal system improvements involve changes or upgrades to signaling system.
5.3. Maintenance and Preservation (category)
All activities under this category will require the use of vehicles. Many will require the use of
heavy equipment and portable lighting. Minor tree clearing and grubbing may be required on
some maintenance, preservation, and facilities preservation projects. These activities are
discussed in detail in Section 5.1.
The following categories of NCDOT projects are considered Maintenance & Preservation and
we anticipate there to be 392 over the next 5 year period covered in this PBA: BP, I, K, Y, P, B,
F, R, U.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 37

Bridge Painting (activity)
Steel bridges or bridges with steel sections require painting on an as-needed basis, approximately
every 10 years. Bridge painting involves abrasive blasting to remove all corrosion, washing the
bridge and then applying a number of coats of paint. Paint must be applied when temperatures
are above 35 degrees Fahrenheit, and cannot be applied in rainy conditions. Bridge painting and
rehabilitation both require human presences above and below bridges.
Bridge Painting Subactivities
Construct Scaffolding
Install Full Containment (includes vacuum system for capturing wash water)
Pressure Wash Bridge (graffiti removal)
Sandblast Bridge
Prime/Paint Bridge
Remove Containment and Scaffolding
Bridge Rehabilitation (activity)
Bridge deck repairs occur regularly while bridge deck replacement is infrequent. Bridge decks
that are made of concrete are partially removed and replaced. Removal may involve
jackhammers, concrete saws, and hydro milling (high-pressure water). Longer bridges have
expansion joints that must be repaired and replaced as needed. Bridge repair, painting, and
retrofit projects may involve hanging scaffolding and containment devices under and around the
bridges.
Bridge repair and maintenance activities include washing, sandblasting, patching, bonding, and
filling voids in concrete with epoxy. Similar washing, sandblasting, and patching may be
implemented for maintenance of guardrails and other infrastructure. In addition, this action may
include minor replacement and repair of bridge structural elements, such as individual trusses,
stringers, and girders. Generally, this work requires the use of light equipment, primarily
handheld power tools. However, replacement or repair of bridge structure elements, such as
individual trusses, stringers, and girders, may require the use of heavy equipment. It is relatively
rare that an individual truss, stringer, or girder would reguire replacement or repair.
In-water work may take place during many activities associated with bridge rehabilitation
projects. Typical in-water wark activities are listed in Section 5.1 under Bridge/Culvert
Construction.
Bridge Rehabilitation Subactivities and Sub-subactivities:
Install Scaffolding and Containment
Replace Rivets, Degraded steel, Bridge railing, Joint Seals, bearing work
Seal Cracks (shotcrete)
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 38

Repair Concrete Spalling
Repair Bridge Approaches
Repair/Replace Electrical System
Bridge Deck Replacement (e.g., concrete, timber)
Bridge Demolition
o Install scaffolding and containment
o Mill, break up, or use hydrodemolition to remove existing deck
o Use vacuum truck or sweeper to remove debris
o Repair/replace finger joints
o Pour new deck
o Remove containment and scaffolding
Culvert Cleaning/Repair (subactivity)
This activity includes smaller-diameter culvert replacements (less than three feet in diameter).
Cross culverts, which convey water from one side of the highway to the other, can be blocked or
clogged by debris, sediment, beaver deposited materials, vegetation, or slide materials.
Occasionally scour within the system can result in blocking the culvert with rock or gravel.
Blocked culverts can result in flooding over the roadway, or in severe cases, the culvert and the
roadway can blow out. Regular removal of debris, vegetation, and sediment will help eliminate
the problem.
Culvert Cleaning/Repair Sub-subactivities:
Divert Flow, Dewater as previously described
Clean Culvert
Install Culvert Liner (Complete or Invert)
Patch Repair (Metal ar Concrete, Coat and Seal)
Headwall or Outfall Repair (Concrete Work or Riprap Installation)
Repair Joints (Band Installation, Inject Grout)
Line with Shotcrete or Gunnite
Sandblast/Repaint/Recoat
Drainage Improvements (activity)
Slope and ditch repair involves regrading ditches and slopes to the appropriate contour and
filling in or repairing sides of the ditches where necessary. Each construction project has an
associated staging area which contains the construction company job site headquarters, parking,
equipment, and materials storage, refueling tanks, etc. Activities in this category include all work
necessary to maintain roadside ditches and channels, cross culverts, catch basins and inlets, and
detention/retention basins. This type of work frequently requires a Nationwide permit from the
USACE which establishes a Federal nexus when Federal funding is not utilized. Roadside
ditches are affected by the accumulation of sediments, debris, vehicles that leave the roadway,
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 39

and slides. Regular maintenance is required to remove built up sediments, debris or blockages,
re-slope the sides, and maintain capacity. Removal of newly constructed beaver dams is often
necessary when the dams affect the effectiveness of storm drainage facilities.
Catch basins and inlets and retention facilities are part of the storm drain system of the highway.
These are designed to trap sediments and liquids, and require regular cleaning. Material is
removed by manual clearing methods or by using a vacuum truck. Solids are stored on NCDOT
property, tested, and then disposed of at an approved disposal facility or recycled as fill material
if suitable. Regular cleaning improves water quality and minimizes sediments that enter the
natural stream systems.
Drainage Improvement Subactivities:
Clean and Reshape Ditches (remove vegetation, sediment, debris)
Culvert Repair Work (as previously described
Clean Catch Basins/Inlets (manually or vacuum truck)
Remove Beaver Dams from Culvert Ends
Remove Sediment from Retention/Detention Facilities
Dispose of Debris and Vegetation
Guardrail Replacement Subactivities:
Remove Damaged Guardrail
Install Posts w/Post Driver
Install Steel Beam
Pavement Rehab & Resurfacing (activity)
These projects involve patching, repairing, and replacing of roadway surfaces and pavements.
Each section of highway paved with asphalt or concrete must be repaved every 10 to 14 years.
Asphalt paving is sensitive to temperature and weather. If the pavement is in good shape, it may
be overlaid with a new layer of asphalt, but badly deteriorated pavement requires the
replacement of the foundation material. Typically, the existing asphalt pavement is ground off
and replaced or simply overlaid with new asphalt. Ground off pavement is normally recycled and
used to make new asphalt pavement.
Since paving may result in a slightly higher road surface, manholes, drainage inlets, valves,
guardrails and survey monuments may require raising. Ditches and slopes may be repaired, and
culverts may be cleaned. Culverts may also require extension as part of the pavement
preservation projects; culvert extensions are addressed under Section 5.1. Many paving projects
are combined with safety improvement projects.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 40

Overlay (activity):
Apply Tack Coat and New Pavement Layer
Pavement Rehab (activity):
Seal Cracks w/Liquid Asphalt
Blanket Application of Liquid Asphalt
Apply Aggregate
Finish w/Power Roller
Resurfacing (activity):
Grind (mill) Existing Pavement
Collect and Dispose of Pavement Grindings/Slurry
Dowel Bar Placement (if concrete)
Apply New Pavement
Herbicidal Spraying within ROW (activity)
This activity involves treating roadside vegetation using chemical control treatment methods that
are applied by hand or by vehicle-mounted sprayers. Herbicide is used to control vegetation
where manual or mechanical means would be cost-prohibitive or result in excessive soil
disturbance or other resource damage. All herbicides will be used according to manufacturer's
label direction for rates, concentrations, exposure times, and application methods. Only
formulations approved for aquatio-use will be applied in or adjacent to wetlands, lakes, and
streams, in accordance with label direction. The use of spot herbicide applications is periodically
used to control tree limb growth. Over the past several years, NCDOT has utilized dormant stem
treatments during the winter months in some areas. This has allows for an expanded the window
of opportunity to control brush, without causing "brown out" to the treated vegetation.
Mowing (activity)
Mowing occurs regularly along roadside shoulders during the growing season, and extends less
frequently to the back of roadside ditches.
Mechanical Branch Removal along ROW (activity)
This is regular maintenance targeted at woody vegetation; it occurs along the edges of existing
transportation corridors. NCDOT bases its brush and tree management program primarily on the
roadside safety of the traveling public along its controlled access highways. The Department has
for years allowed for a safety recovery zone, based on FHWA guidelines, of 40 feet from the
edge of the travel to allow errant vehicles to recover. Following are the methods that the
Department has as options to manage the woods line edge.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 41

The use of A-boom mowers has been the routine method of limb removal along the tree
line. NCDOT also contracts the use of inachinery equipped with a series of high speed rotary
saws on a heavy-duty skidder apparatus which cuts the limbs smoothly as it moves along the
right-of-way. Currently there is no set schedule for addressing limb removal due to budget cuts;
trimming limbs may wait until there is a complaint or problem.
NCDOT periodically contracts for the removal of a swath of roadside trees to set the woods line
back to the original desired safety recovery distance when it has become overgrown over the
course of several years. This requires the removal of 10 to possibly 20 feet of wooded buffer
area. This allows the trees to again develop a natural woods line edge, which would not have to
be interfered with for some time.
Hazard Tree Removal (activity)
This occurs along the edges of existing transportation corridors; it involves the removal of trees
with potential to fall or drop branches in areas that may cause safety issues.
Repair ROW fence (activity)
Facility Rehabilitation (activity)
Activities in this category deal with the preservation, maintenance and construction of new
weigh stations, rest areas, rail stations, and maintenance facilities. Rehabilitation of historic
buildings and other historic structures may also occur. Subactivities at these facilities may
include paving, expansion of buildings and parking areas, septic upgrades, and minor vegetation
alteration and removal (including trees).
Facility Rehabilitation includes the following subactivities:
Installation of Erosion and Sediment Control
Minor Vegetation Removal
Overlay, Paving
Excavation
Septic Upgrades
Herbicide Application
Painting/Striping/Signing
Rehab historic rail buildings & other non-bridge structures
Reconstruct Existing Rail (activity):
Install new rail, concrete ties, and resurface stone ballast
Pavement resurfacing at crossings and approaches
Upgrade signals and warning systems
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 42

Snow Removal/Deicers (activity)
Snow removal and deicing is conducted sporadically in eastern North Carolina. Stormwater
pollution prevention plans are developed for NCDOT maintenance facilities where deicers and
stored and loaded, and where equipment repair is conducted.
Bridge Inspections (activity)
Bridge inspections involve a detailed review of each bridge's superstructure, deck, supports,
railing and pavement to check the functionality and safety of each bridge. This activity can
cause the presence of humans in close proximity to where bats may be roosting. Each bridge is
inspected every 24 months on average. A few older structures may be inspected every 12
months.
5.4. Disaster Response, Bank Stabilization and Sinkhole Repair (category)
There is no way accurately to predict all the activities that may be involved with disaster
response, as that is entirely dependent on the extent and type of damage and level of repair that
will be needed. Minor tree clearing and grubbing may be required on some disaster response,
bank stabilization, and flood and sinkhole repair projects in order to provide access for
equipment. Vehicles, heavy equipment and portable lighting may be used. These activities are
discussed in detail in Section 5.1.
There is no accurate way to predict or account for upcoming disaster response, rock stabilization,
and sinkhole repair projects, so an estimated number of projects cannot be given as part of this
document, however, disasters do not occur frequently. Most NCDOT divisions report dealing
with disaster situations once every 3-10 years.
Disaster Response (activity)
Disasters are usually weather-driven events from flooding, ice-storms or hurricanes. Disaster
response activities involve emergency work to repair and stabilize eroding banks or shoulders on
sections of rivers, streams, and the ocean adjacent to existing highways. Emergency repairs to
bridges and roadbeds may also be necessary; temporary bridges may be constructed; these
activities are discussed under Section 5. L High water flows during floods or spring runoff in a
system can cause erosion of the bank to the point that the adjoining highway is undermined.
Other flood damage can include clogged culverts and deposition of debris along transportation
corridors. Immediate repairs normally involve protection or reconstruction of the highway and
associated infrastructure such as bridges, culverts and utilities. Flood debris removed from roads
requires disposal at NCDOT designated disposal sites.
Reimbursements by FEMA and FHWA for emergency repairs require that environmental field
evaluations be conducted at each repair site. When replacement of a structure is needed due to
an emergency event, expansion of the pre-existing footprint (particularly an increase in length,
diameter or location) or upgrading of the crossing structure requires notification and
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 43

coordination with the appropriate agencies if wetland or streams will be impacted (NCDOT,
2010).
NCDOT environmental guidelines for emergency work include methods for minimizing impacts
to wetlands, streams and water quality, as well as minimizing the project footprint. All repairs
should follow the latest version of the Best Management Practices for Construction and
Maintenance Activities (NCDOT, 2003).
Disaster Response Subactivities:
Debris Removal
Construct Temporary Access Road
Vegetation Removal
Vegetation Disposal
Grading
Install/Remove Temporary Erosion Control
Barge Use
Riprap Installation
Road Reconstruction (rebuild roadbed, add drainage structures, repave, paint)
Fill newly created breaches
Sandbag installation/replacement
Water removal (pumping water from flooded areas)
Culvert Cleaning/Repair
Bank Stabilization/Flood Damage/Scour Repair (non-emergency) (activity)
Bank stabilization repair is the result of natural changes in river or stream morphology over time.
These activities normally involve protection of the highway and associated infrastructure such as
culverts and utilities. Clogged culverts often require cleaning or may need upgraded to a larger
size to prevent further flow restrictions. Other repairs involve river training techniques to redirect
the thalweg away from the road. These techniques include placing riprap, barbs, drop structures,
groins or large woody debris in the waterway.
Banl� Stabilization Subactivities:
Debris Removal
Construct Temporary Access Road
Vegetation Removal -See above
Vegetation Disposal - See above
Grading - See above
Barge Use
Riprap Installation
Willow Staking
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 44

In-stream Structure Installation (weirs, barbs, lo�jams, etc.)
Road Reconstruction - rebuild roadbed, add drainage structures, repave, paint; typically
doesn't raise the road profile
Retaining Wall Construction
Landscaping/Site Stabilization
Install/remove Temporary Erosion Control
Sinkhole Repair (acNvity)
Sinkhole repair will involve some level of earthwork and may include tree clearing and grubbing
depending on the extent of damage. However, this would be very rare.
Sinkhole Repair Subactivities:
Excavate and/or flush loose material
Place non-concrete fill material
Place concrete fill
Compact fill
Restore roadway
5.5. Transportation Enhancements (category)
Transportation enhancements can include bicycle and pedestrian facility construction and
historic bridge rehabilitation, which were addressed above in other categories. These activities
all may require staging areas, similar to new construction, but that breakdown is not repeated
here to reduce redundancy. Other activities include the construction of turnouts, overlooks,
historic markers, and viewpoints. Such activities could be consistent with new roadway
construction. However, these are much smaller in scale typically, with less vege�ation removal,
disturbance, etc. Minor tree clearing, grubbing, and earthwark may be required on some
transportation enhancement projects. These activities are discussed in detail in Section 5.1.
Portable lights, vehicles and heavy equipment may also be used.
The following categories of NCDOT projects are considered Transportation Enhancements and
we anticipate there to be 154 over the next 5 year period covered in this PBA: C, EB, EL, F, R,
and U
Subactivities for the Activity Construct Turnouts, Overlooks, Historic Markers, and
Viewpoints:
Permanent Lighting Installed
Portable Fence
Prepare Project Site
Install Drainage Features
Utility Lines
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 45

Pre-watering of Roads and Exposed Areas in Construction Site for Dust Control or
Grading
Road and Parking Lot Surface Preparation and Construction
Construct Stormwater Facilities
Final Grading and Road/Parking Lot Bed Preparation
Construct Retaining Wall (mechanically stabilized earth, soil nail, sheet pile, soldier pile,
etc.)
Course Aggregate Application, Concrete or Asphalt Application
Striping, Pavement Markers and Signage
Guard Rail Installation
Sidewalk Installation
Information Kiosk Construction
Post-construction work
5.6. Conservation Measures (category)
Conservation measures are actions which promote the recovery of listed species and are included
as an integral part of the proposed action. These actions serve to minimize or compensate for
project effects on the species under review (USFWS 1998).
NLEB Research and Data Collection Project (activity)
NCDOT has agreed to conduct a five year NLEB research study with four objectives. First,
acoustic surveys will be conducted to determine the distribution of NLEB in eastern North
Carolina. Second, results from acoustical surveys will be used to guide mist-netting surveys.
Captured NLEB will be equipped with radio transmitters and tracked to aid in the
characterization of summer and winter roosting habitat and activity. Third, NLEB will be
checked far presence and severity of White Nose Syndrome. Finally, structures (bridges, culverts
and buildings) will be assessed to determine frequency and seasonality of NLEB use.
The proposed survey work includes human activity in and around bat roosts, handling of bats,
attachment of transmitters, and use of vehicles. The effects of bat survey wark are covered under
ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) permits.
Stream and Wetland Mitigation (activity)
Stream and wetland mitigation are construction activities that include restoration of the
hydrology, soils, and vegetation to wetland systems; banlc stabilization and in-channel habitat
restoration of streams; and reforestation of riparian buffers. These combined mitigation actions
include habitat enhancement, preservation and replacement.
Stormwater Treatment (activity)
The NCDOT NPDES stormwater permit requires a BMP Retrofit Program to install stormwater
treatment facilities where no construction has occurred recently. These BMPs may be structural
(detention basin) or nonstructural (a pollution prevention plan), depending on what technique
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 46

will be the most effective and practical method of controlling stormwater pollution in a specific
area. The Retrofit Program applies or installs BMPs into the existing highway facility. Seventy
stormwater retrofits will be constructed throughout North Carolina during the current five-year
NPDES permit. An additional six are built every year in the Falls Lake watershed. Because post-
construction BMPs are permanent, they require a long-term maintenance commitment to
function as designed. (NCDOT 2014c)
Construct Wildlife Passage Facilities (activity)
The construction of wildlife crossings, which include culverts, underpasses and overpasses, will
involve some level of vegetation alteration and earth work.
Wildlife Passage Subactivities:
Prepare Project Site
Install Drainage Features
Construct Wildlife Overpass, Underpass - similar to bridge
o Construct Retaining Wall
o Final grading wildlife trail bed preparation
Post-construction work
Endangered Plant Conservation (activity)
NCDOT periodically conserves habitat to offset effects to federally protected plants through
conservation easement or purchase of property. This activity also includes habitat protection and
restoration work such as thinning, burning, and non-native invasive species controL Herbicides
may be used on non-natives, but only on a very limited basis. All herbicides are applied by
hand.
Chapter 6. Effects Analysis
Utilizing the premises and assumptions explained in Chapter 1, the working group analyzed each
activity andlor sub-activity described in Chapter 5 in order to assess potential NCDOT Program
effects to NLEB. Appendix D shows the results of this exercise.
Our effects analysis for NLEB is based on the best available scientific and commercial data. As
discussed previously there are wide gaps in useful information regarding NLEB is eastern North
Carolina. Many effects can be considered under multiple categories (i.e. an effect could be
considered a direct effect, an indirect effect and/or a cumulative effect, depending on
interpretation). In the interest of clarity, the group used best professional judgment to identify
effects in the most appropriate category. Care was taken to ensure species conservation would be
fully considered in effect type assignment.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 47

As can be seen in AppendiY D there are a multitude of activities associated with the NCDOT
Program that have the potential to affect NLEB in eastern North Carolina. The results of our
effects analysis are summarized below.
6.1. Beneficial Effects
Beneficial effects are defined as contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to
the species (USFWS and NMFS 1998). NCDOT anticipates that certain aspects of the NCDOT
Program will result in beneficial effects to NLEB.
6.1.1. Conservation Measure for NCDOT Program
As a mutually agreed upon conservation measure with USFWS, FHWA, and USACE, the
NCDOT will fund and conduct five years of extensive research and data collection to fill in
knowledge gaps for NLEB in eastern North Carolina (Appendix C). At the end of five years, the
information acquired through the NCDOT research and data collection efforts will be utilized to
reinitiate Section 7 consultation. At that time, based upon the data collected, additional
appropriate conservation measures can be developed. Data from this five year research study is
very likely to be beneficial to long-term NLEB conservation in eastern North Carolina by
helping to target management and protection efforts.
6.1.2. Wetland and Stream Mitigation
NCDOT is required to mitigate for impacts to wetlands and streams as per Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Typically, NCDOT offsets unavoidable impacts at a 2:1 ratio through a
combination of restoration, enhancement, and preservation activities.
The primary beneficial effects of mitigation activities for NLEB are generated by the restoration
of wetland and stream ecology as well as by the long term stewardship and protection of the land
acquired to perform these efforts. Mitigation activities include restoration of the hydrology, soils,
and vegetation to wetland systems; bank stabilization and in-channel habitat restoration of
streams; and reforestation of riparian buffers. These large areas of mitigation are protected in
perpetuity through conservation easements or fee simple acquisitions. Restrictions on the land
prohibit tree removal, development, and disturbance of the natural community. These mitigation
activities provide beneficial effects of habitat enhancement, preservation, and replacement for
the NLEB.
In addition to physical habitat protection, these mitigation activities have the beneficial effect of
pollutant removal from storm water, dissipation of surface flows, and increased groundwater
storage, al] of which contribute to improved water quality. Water quality improvements can
increase the productivity of aquatic insect prey and suitable drinlcing sources for the NLEB.
Conservation measures far other protected resources could also benefit NLEB habitat. Forested
areas that are preserved, enhanced, and restored for federally or state protected plants and
animals may also serve as habitat for NLEB in eastern North Carolina.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 48

While it is hard to quantify the beneficial effects of future stream, wetland, and conservation
efforts by the Department, it is worth noting that per mitigation and conservation requirements,
NCDOT has provided for the protection of over 50,000 acres of land across North Carolina over
the past 10 years. Preservation accounts for approximately 37,000 acres of intact farest land
protected in perpetuity. The reforestation associated with over 13,000 acres of restoration and
enhancement activities equates to at least 8 million trees being planted. This trend will continue
into the future and will contribute to habitat enhancement, preservation and replacement for the
NLEB.
6.1.3. NCDOT Stormwater Program
NCDOT implements a stormwater program in accordance with the Department's National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
are installed to prevent degradation of the state's surface waters through the location,
construction, and operation of the highway system. The primary objective is to regulate
stormwater from new NCDOT development and re-development by requiring structural and non-
structural practices to protect water quality, reduce pollutant loading, and minimize post-
construction impacts to water quality (NCDOT 2014b, NCDOT 2014c). Retrofitting is also done
by NCDOT in some areas where no other NCDOT projects are occurring; this is discussed more
in Section 5.5. Retrofitting will result in improved water quality which could lead to the positive
results discussed in Section 6.1.2.
6.1.4. Wildlife Passage Facilities
Bats have been documented making successful use of underpasses to cross roads (Bach et al.
2004, Kerth and Melber 2009). In addition to bridges and box culverts constructed for water
conveyance which may allow wildlife passage, the NCDOT Program has dedicated wildlife
crossing structures in eastern North Carolina. Different species have been documented to prefer
different size structures (Boonman 2011); however, no studies of NLEB use of underpasses have
been conducted. In general, larger underpasses allow more types of species to cross under roads.
There are currently three large wildlife crossing structures (bridges) in eastern North Carolina.
NCDOT has at least 15 additional large wildlife crossing structures in various stages of planning
for eastern North Carolina.
6.1.5. Endangered Plant Conservation
NCDOT protects naturally occurring populations of threatened and endangered plant species as a
conservation measure on a project by project basis. These conservation sites are protected
through conservation easement or purchase. While the primary purpose of this activity is to
protect the rare plants on site, another beneficial outcome is the protection of forested areas as
we1L Maintenance activities, such as controlled burns or non-native plant removal using
mechanical measures or herbicides, which are conducted infrequently, may cause temporary
effects/disturbance to NLEB, but are ultimately beneficial by controlling invasive vines and
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 49

shrubs that can degrade roosting habitat. Trees girdled to create canopy gaps may provide
roosting habitat after they die.
6.2. Direct Effects
Direct effects of a project on a species or its habitat, occurs during action implementation under
ESA guidelines. As described previously there is insufficient data in eastern North Carolina to
determine where and when NLEB are likely to be present and if they hibernate. To err on the
side of species conservation, NCDOT will initially assume NLEB could be present throughout
eastern North Carolina regardless of season.
6.2.1. Habitat Loss
NCDOT activities could result in habitat loss and/or degradation for NLEB in eastern North
Carolina. There is insufficient data to draw a distinction between foraging and roosting habitat
for NLEB in eastern North Carolina, although it is likely there is a great deal of overlap between
the two types of habitat. Due to a lack of data on NLEB presence in winter, no distinction is
made between summer roosting and winter habitat in eastern North Carolina.
A system for estimating tree clearing acreage was derived using a GIS-based desktop method.
Determining woodlots to measure followed the NLEB Interim Conference and Planning
Guidance (USFWS 2014b). Several data layers were inspected to make these estimations in
ArcGIS 10.1. These layers included the 2010 Digital Statewide Orthoimagery and the inost
recent roadway design files which were comprised of such information as ROW boundaries,
slope stakes, detour routes, etc. In general, the footprints of new locations projects were
calculated from outside old ROW to outside new ROW (or slope stake [SS] to slope stake) to
ensure clearing for utilities is included in calculations. STIP and Division project types and
associated calculation methods are shown in Table 5. Once an appropriate woodlot was spotted
on the aerial image that had potential to provide habitat for NLEB, the "area measurement" tool
was used to calculate the acreage of all woodlots within the project footprint. These acreages
were added to produce a total sum for each roadway project. Each roadway project sum was
further combined to provide one comprehensive tree clearing tally per county. Individual
roadway project tree clearing estimates can be provided upon request.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 50

TABLE S. TREE CLEARING ESTIMATE METHOD USED PER PROJECT TYPE
STIP/Division Method Used to
Project Prefix Estimate Tree Clearing
I
R, A, M, X
U
C
E, EB, EL, ER, L, S ROW to ROW
EE
K, L
SR
W, SF, SI
F,FS,P,Y,Z
B
BD SS to SS
BP
To obtain a tree clearing estimate for NCDOT activities for a five year period, beginning in
January 2015, the estimated acreage of tree clearing from January 2013 through December 2015
was determined based on final design electronic files. An estimate of anticipated tree clearing
was developed for this time period. However, the design process was not far enough along to
determine tree clearing acreages for the remainder of the five year period. Over a four year
period beginning January 2016 and continuing through December 2019 estimates for tree
clearing were extrapolated based on hard data analyzed far the January 2013 through December
2015 time period.
Based on our calculations, NCDOT activities anticipated to occur between January 1, 2015 and
December 31, 2019 will result in an estimated loss of 10,223 acres of trees in eastern North
Carolina. Based on the most recent county-level United States Forest Service Forest Inventory
and Analysis data for North Carolina (New 2014) an estimated loss of 10,223 acres of trees
represents 0.21% of total wooded acres in the action area. This estimate includes NCDOT
projects which were begun before the presumed NLEB listing date of Apri12, 2015 but will still
be under construction as of that date. All activities which include tree clearing will be assumed
to incur incidental take. Actual project tree clearing will be tracked and reported annually to
USFWS, FHWA, and USACE for the duration of this programmatic agreement to ensure that
actual tree clearing does not exceed the overall estimate.
Roosting
Tree cutting activity typically occurs during the daytime when NLEB bats would be roosting in
trees. Anecdotal evidence from another Myotis species (Indiana bats) suggests that some bats
may remain in their roost trees until after trees are felled; those that survive the impact of the fall
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 51

will then attempt to crawl or fly out of the tree and seek cover elsewhere (Belwood 2002). Bats
on the underside of the trees will likely be injured or killed when the trees fall to the ground. In
some instances trees may be processed immediately after cutting, leaving NLEB little time to
reorient and escape prior to the onset of additional effects.
Additional tree felling and the operation of heavy equipment (log skidders) in the vicinity of
felled trees may further reduce the survival of bats; those that survive the fall of their roost tree
have the potential to be killed or injured while attempting to escape and seek cover elsewhere.
Bats that move to a nearby tree for cover (i.e., a tree located within the area to be cleared) will
again be exposed within a short period of time to risk of death or injury as that tree is also felled,
limbed, and skidded out of the forest.
During tree clearing operations, NLEB roosting outside the activity footprint are not likely to be
killed or injured as trees are felled. However, these bats may be exposed to noise and vibrations
cause by tree clearing activities and equipment. Based on available information, the response to
these disturbances may range from no perceivable response to avoidance of the area.
Direct effects to the NLEB from tree cutting are expected to range from death or injury of bats
roosting within the project footprint to harassment or no adverse effect to bats roosting in the
vicinity of the activity. Seasonal tree clearing restrictions are unlikely reduce or eliminate affects
to NLEB because it is not known where or if NLEB hibernate or spend their winters in eastern
North Carolina, and trees may be used year round.
The loss of trees from NCDOT activities should not result in a shortage of available roosts for
NLEB as forested habitat is not limited in eastern North Carolina (see Section 4.2.4).
However, if any caves or mines are capable of providing suitable roosting habitat for NLEB in
eastern North Carolina, activities that involve filling ar excavation of soil or debris could
adversely affect the roost site and any bats inside. Altered hydrology from filling, excavating or
activities such as temporary stream diversions could cause flooding, affecting the roost site and
potentially drowning bats. NCDOT considers these effects unlikely to occur, since there are no
known NLEB hibernacula and few caves or subterranean mines in eastern North Carolina.
There is evidence that NLEB roost in structures such as bridges and buildings (see Section 2.2),
although there is limited evidence of structure use in North Carolina to date, and no evidence of
NLEB using structures in eastern North Carolina (see Section 4.2.9). Since NCDOT projects
include the demolition of bridges and buildings for bridge replacements, road widening projects,
and new location projects, there is potential for death or injury of bats similar to that described
above for tree roosts. Since use of structures for roosting is apparently less common than the use
of trees, the potential for take from structure demolition is considered to be minimal.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 52

Foraging
In addition to the direct effects associated with the loss of roost trees when bats are present, the
loss of foraging habitat may also directly affect NLEB. Effects to the bats whose foraging areas
lie entirely or mostly outside the activity area are anticipated to be minimal. Individuals whose
foraging areas occur entirely or mostly in the project area or whose foraging areas will be
significantly fragmented will have to expend an increased amount of energy to establish new
foraging areas or new travel corridors between roosting and foraging areas. Additionally, they
may be subject to an increase in inter- and intra-specific competition. Bats that remain loyal to
certain foraging areas may continue to cross through newly cleared areas in the activity footprint
and may have an increased risk of mortality from predation although this risk is not detectable or
measurable. Take of bats from the loss or fragmentation of foraging habitat is anticipated to be
short term in the form of harassment. It is anticipated that in most instances NLEB in the action
area will have little difficulty in establishing new foraging areas due to the availability of
remaining suitable foraging habitat in the surrounding landscape.
6.2.2. Direct Effects of Decreased Water Quality
NCDOT activities are likely to affect water quality in eastern North Carolina. Potential effects
include:
• temporary sedimentation from land-clearing and earth-moving activities such as site
preparation, installation of drainage features, utility installation, culvert
installation/extension, grading activities,
• potential water quality impacts during construction from accidental spills of
petrochemicals, uncured concrete, herbicides, etc.
Insects (including caddisflies) associated with aquatic habitats make up a portion of the diet of
NLEB (USFWS 2014c, Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, Brack and Whitaker 2001, Griffith and
Gates 1985). Many species of caddisflies can be negatively affected by a decrease in water
quality (Hilsenhoff 1982, Lenat 1993, Barbor et al. 1999). Therefore, a change in water quality
can affect a portion of the prey base of the species. Decreases in water quality through
contamination and the destruction of wetlands and stream habitats where NLEB are present may
reduce the availability of certain aquatic insects and reduce the availability or quality of suitable
drinking sources. A typical NCDOT project includes a number of ineasures to avoid, minimize
and offset the impacts to water quality during all phases of the project (Section 6.1.2 and 61.3).
Although water quality impacts may cause a reduction in specific portions of the prey base and
drinking sources far NLEB, adverse effects are likely to be undetectable due to the availability of
alternative prey and drinking sources in the surrounding landscape. Bats may seek alternative
areas for drinking and may turn to other types of prey. Therefore, potential direct adverse effects
to the NLEB from a reduction in water quality are anticipated to be insignificant and/or
discountable.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 53

6.2.3. Direct Effects of Light, Noise, Vibrations, and Other Disturbance
In addition to habitat destruction in the project footprint, a decrease in the quality of remaining
habitat adjacent to project footprints may occur. Increased disturbance is anticipated during
clearing and construction from the use of equipment and, to a lesser extent, from blasting.
Blasting is not utilized for projects in the Coastal Plain or Southeastern Plains. However,
blasting may be utilized, on very rare occasions, in the Piedmont. As a result, NLEB will be
exposed to noise levels, or intensity of noise and vibrations that they may not have experienced
in the past, depending on the proximity of their roost sites to NCDOT activities. The majority of
these effects will be temporary and generated solely during construction activities. However,
some effects will become permanent.
In general, the increased noise and vibrations could affect NLEB unaccustomed to such
disturbance while roosting, thereby reducing the suitability of habitat adjacent to the activity
footprint. If NLEB hibernate in eastern North Carolina, disturbance during hibernation could
cause bats to wake and expend extra energy during the winter. It is difficult to predict the degree
to which NLEB would be disturbed by the noise and vibrations associated with construction
activities.
Some studies suggest that Indiana bats may be able to tolerate disturbance from noise (no
information was available for NLEB). Noise from vehicles had no discernable effect on Indiana
bats crossing a road (Zurcher et al., 2010). Indiana bats roosted near the I-70/Indianapolis
Airport area, including a primary maternity roost 1970 feet south of I-70. This roost was not
abandoned despite constant noise from the Interstate and airport runways; their proximity to the
Interstate could also have been due to lack of a more suitable roosting area (USFWS 2002).
It is reasonable to assume that any effect resulting from noise and vibrations related to
construction activities could result in bats selecting roost trees further from the disturbance
(USFWS 2005).
If any caves or mines are capable of providing suitable roosting habitat for NLEB in eastern
North Carolina, vibrations from blasting or pile driving could cause the roost to collapse. This
effect is unlikely to occur due to the limited numbers of caves and the fact that many old mines
in eastern North Carolina collapsed or filled with groundwater long ago.
There are no data specific to the NLEB for the use or avoidance of lighted areas that may occur
along roadways. Research by Rydell and Baagoe (1996) indicates that bats in the genuses
Eptesicus (big brown bats, Eptesicus fuscus) and Lasiurus (red and hoary bats, Lasiurus borealis
and L. cinereus, respectively) are the species typically noted foraging around artiiicial lights. In
contrast, they noted that bats in the genus Myotis seem to avoid open spaces, preferring to feed in
woodlands or low over water. Other researchers have stated that Myotis foraging strategies may
be more suited to foraging in forested areas than out in open areas (Humphrey et. al. 1977; LaVal
et. al. 1976; Brack 1983; Garner and Gardner 1992; Gardner et. al. 1996; Murray 1999), which
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 54

may reduce NLEB exposure to lit areas along transportation corridors and construction sites. It
is possible that lighting may cause avoidance behavior in NLEB.
Burning woody debris to dispose of it may disturb roosting bats with smoke or heat.
6.2.4. Direct Effects of Herbicide Use
Direct effects to soil and water resources may include some limited drift from fine mists during
application. Once in the soils, herbicides can migrate via gravity, leaching, and surface runoff to
other soils, groundwater, or surface water. However, many of the herbicide treatments would be
applied directly to targeted species and relatively little herbicide would make contact with the
soil. Due to the limited acreage and dispersed extent of the areas, and the short half-lives of the
chemicals proposed for use, the effects would be temporary and minor. It is unlikely there will be
any direct effects to bats since they are highly mobile. They would most likely leave or avoid
the treatment area for the short-term while the applicators are applying herbicides. If an animal
returns to a treated site, the herbicide should have dried on the vegetation, reducing the
likelihood of dermal exposure when brushing by vegetation or during grooming activities. It is
possible that individual bats may ingest herbicide contaminated insects resulting in a negative
indirect effect. The possibility of contaminating insects would be minimal and short term.
6.2.5. Research and Management
During the five-year research study proposed by NCDOT, NLEB could be negatively affected by
mist-netting activities, such as becoming overly stressed or injured in a net. Hibernacula/winter
roost surveys can cause hibernating bats to arouse and burn energy reserves too fast and cause
starvation although this is unlikely to occur in eastern North Carolina due to milder winters.
Telemetry surveys could stress individual bats carrying transmitters. However, all of these
potential effects are covered under ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) permits.
6.3. Indirect Effects
Indirect effects are caused by or will result from the proposed action and are later in time, but are
still reasonably certain to occur.
Indirect effects may include:
• Increased traffic and noise that result from increased road capacity,
• Increased disturbance and mortality from increased traffic speed,
• Maintenance activities (such as periodic vegetation removal and culvert cleaning) that
could affect roosting bats or habitat conditions,
• Potential establishment or spread of noxious weeds that could degrade potential habitat,
• A decrease in water quality resulting from an increase in impervious surfaces, and
• A decrease in water quality due to the use of and potential spills from petro-chemicals,
herbicides, and other contaminants associated with operations and maintenance.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 55

6.3.1. Habitat Connectivity
Habitat connectivity (or habitat permeability) is the ability of wildlife to travel from one area of
habitat to another. Connectivity is high when species face few barriers and low when barriers
prevent or degrade movement. Barrier effects can be natural (i.e., a river or mountain) but are
more often considered to be from artificial structures (i.e. highway or building). When habitat
connectivity is low, habitat is said to be fragmented. Connectivity and barrier effects are species-
dependent. While highly mobile and adaptable species like deer may easily cross a four lane
highway, low mobility species like turtles can have their habitat fragmented by a two lane
highway. Projects which degrade habitat and/or increase pavement width generally cause a drop
in habitat connectivity. Although bats are volant (capable of flight), NLEB traveling height may
put NLEB at traffic level. One study documented Little Brown Bats (Myotis lucifugus) traveling
within two meters of the surface, which leaves them at traffic height, hence the presence of bats
in roadkill studies, Russell et al. (2009). NLEB foraging occurs 3.3 to 9.8 feet above the ground,
under or within the canopy (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, cited in USFWS 2014b).
Zurcher et al. (2010) found that roads can act as a barrier to bats and traffic increases the barrier
effect of roads. Kerth & Melber (2009) found that roadways may have a stronger barrier effect
on bats that forage close to surfaces than on bats that forage in open space. Berthinussen and
Al�ringham (2011) detected a decrease in bat activity and diversity in proximity to the road
Without specific data on the relationship between NLEB and current habitat connectivity levels
in eastern North Carolina, only generalizations can be made about the effects of habitat
fragmentation due to NCDOT activities. NCDOT projects will reduce NLEB habitat
connectivity; therefore, NLEB may need to expend extra energy to forage, find cover or
commute to roost sites as a result. No reasonable estimate of the reduction in habitat connectivity
can be made due to the limited NLEB data in eastern NC. It is assumed that the abundance of
NLEB habitat will act to ameliorate the effects of NCDOT activities.
6.3.2. Indirect Effects of Decreased Water Quality
Potential indirect effects to the NLEB from a reduction in water quality due construction,
operation, and maintenance of transportation activities are anticipated to be similar to direct
effects. Water quality is expected to decrease in the action area due to increased impervious
surfaces, an increase in the number of structures in waterways (e.g., culverts) and increased
vehicle use. Potential indirect adverse effects to the NLEB from a reduction in water quality are
anticipated to be insignificant.
6.3.3. Indirect Effects of Disturbance
In addition to direct effects from habitat removal, the proposed project may also indirectly
decrease the quality of habitat surrounding activity areas. NLEB remaining in the action area
during the operation of the highway will be subject to disturbance from traffic noise, headlights,
and in some areas, highway lighting. As a result, NLEB in the action area will be exposed to
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 56

lights, noise levels, or intensity of noise and vibrations that they may not have experienced in the
past, depending on the proximity of their roost sites to transportation activities.
The current ambient noise in eastern North Carolina varies greatly depending upon land use and
human population density. It is assumed that noise generated from traffic will increase over time.
No reasonable estimate of increased disurbance can be made, but it is assumed that the
availability of suitable habitat in the surrounding landscape is likely to minimize the affect of
NCDOT project-caused disturbance.
6.3.4. Indirect Effects of Vehicle Traffic
NCDOT activities may cause more NLEB to be vulnerable to vehicle strikes. Roads with higher
vehicle use can be a barrier to bats (Zurcher et al 2009); however, bats have been documented
crossing roads while commuting between roosting and foraging areas and/or while foraging on
insects attracted to road lighting (Brack 1983, Menzel et. al. 2001, Butchkoski 2003).
The home ranges for some NLEB may be partially or even entirely divided by NCDOT facilities.
Bats that continue to cross roadways after they become operational to access roosting ar foraging
areas will be subject to being struck by vehicles.
As noted previously, foraging strategies utilized by Myotis bats may be more suited to forested
areas than out in the open (Humphrey et. al. 1977; LaVal et. al. 1976; Brack 1983; Garner and
Gardner 1992; Gardner et. aL 1996; Murray 1999), which may reduce the vulnerability of NLEB
to vehicle strikes.
Some NLEB may run the risk of colliding with vehicles during operation of NCDOT facilities;
any bat that is struck by a vehicle is likely to be killed or fatally injured. However, it is difficult
to meaningfully guantify the risk of bat/vehicle collisions. Furthermore, any such strikes would
likely go either unnoticed or unreported.
6.3.5. Roost Alteration
If any caves or mines are capable of providing suitable roosting habitat for NLEB in eastern
North Carolina, activities that involve filling, excavation or alteration of hydrology could
indirectly affect the roost site by altering airflow or other roost characteristics. Vibrations from
equipment use could cause structural weakness leading to collapse of a cave/mine at a later date.
NCDOT considers these effects unlikely to occur since there are no known NLEB hibernacula
and few caves or mines in eastern North Carolina.
6.3.6. Long-Term Habitat Alteration
Loss and fragmentation of NLEB habitat could occur in eastern North Carolina. Implementation
of the NCDOT Program from January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2019 is projected to result in a
loss or degradation of 10,223 forested acres in eastern North Carolina.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 57

6.4. Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects considered in this PBA include the effects of future State, tribal, local or
private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the action area [50 CFR §402.02]. Future
Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered because they require
separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.
The PBA action area covers more than half the state. The working group concluded that due to
the availability of suitable NLEB habitat, the effect from the NCDOT Program will not likely
significantly affect NLEB survival in eastern North Carolina. Negative NLEB capture data in
eastern North Carolina may suggest the NLEB population in much of eastern North Carolina
may be low, further reducing the likelihood of effects to NLEB (Section 4.1.3, Figure 3).
The cumulative effects from the NCDOT Program are minimal and would contribute little
incremental effect when combined with impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable
future activities. Consequently, they are not expected to contribute to any measurable increase in
cumulative effects.
6.4.1. Bridge Maintenance
There will be NCDOT maintenance activities with no federal nexus like bridge painting and
maintenance which could affect NLEB. If NLEB are roosting in bridges in eastern North
Carolina, bridge painting and maintenance could harass, harm, or even kill individuals,
especially if the activity occurs during early summer when young bats are nonvolant. Current
data suggest that bridge use by NLEB in North Carolina is very limited (see Section 4.2.9), so
the effects of bridge maintenance are expected to be minimal.
6.4.2. Tree Trimming and Hazard Tree Removal
Tree trimming and hazardous tree removal are activities that may occur without a federal nexus.
These activities occur along roadside ROWs to reduce safety hazards due to falling trees or
limbs, or to improve line-of-sight issues. Potential effects to NLEB from this activity are
described in Section 6.2.1. Hazardous tree-removal occurs on an as-needed basis, so quantifying
the amount of habitat lost from this activity is not practicable. Since NLEB are a forest interior
species, it is assumed that few NLEB would be roosting along roadsides, so the effects from
these activities should be minimal.
6.4.3. Climate Change
Climate change has the potential to exert a cumulative effect on NLEB. Temperate zone bats
may be more sensitive to climate change than other groups of mammals because many aspects of
their ecology are closely linked to temperature (Loeb and Winters 2013). Bat species that are
unable to mitigate the effects of high temperature with behavioral changes may shift their range
to avoid higher temperatures.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 58

6.4.4. Herbicide Use
The impacts from the proposed herbicide treatment activities are negligible (see 6.2.4) and would
contribute little or no incremental effect when combined with impacts of other past, present, or
reasonably foreseeable future activities. Consequently, they are not expected to contribute to any
measurable increase in cumulative effects. In the unlikely event of an herbicide spill, water
quality could be affected, but the effects would be localized.
6.4.5. Human Population
Totaling 2010 US Census Bureau county data for the 59 counties in the action area, gives a
population of 5,454,579. The US Census Bureau estimated an average growth rate of 3.5% by
2013 within the action area. However, it is interesting to note that most counties are either in
decline or barely growing while the cities are rapidly growing, which accounts for the overall
growth. In general, increasing human population would likely have a negative effect on NLEB.
Although there is insufficient data to accurately discuss NLEB habitat in eastern North Carolina,
it is likely that cities are not preferred habitat. If this assumption is true it is possible that the
current human growth pattern is not likely to have significant effect on NELB in eastern North
Carolina.
There is potential for the NCDOT Program to induce additional human population growth. It is
likely that bridge replacements and maintenance activities will not increase population growth,
but new location and widening projects do have potential to increase traffic capacity, which may
induce local human population growth resulting in additional habitat loss. No quantitative
analysis is practicable for the scope of the NCDOT Program.
6.4.6. Waste and Borrow
Waste and borrow areas that are used to dispose of and obtain materials for earthwork, are also
subject to clearing and grubbing, but construction contractors are responsible for addressing
federally listed threatened and endangered species issues per NCDOT standard
specifications. Most borrow and waste areas are sited in areas of previously disturbed habitat
where tree removal is minimal.
6.5. Incidental Take
We can conclude from the results of our effects analysis that incidental take to NLEB is likely to
occur from NCDOT Program activities. It is probable that most NLEB take will be in the form of
harassment (disturbance from tree clearing, construction noise, vibration, and light), since most
NCDOT Program activities are likely to occur adjacent to existing transportation corridors, and
based on studies in North Carolina, NLEB are more active in forest interiors than at forest edges
(O'Keefe 2009, Morris et al. 2009, Morris et al. 2010). It is assumed that harassment will be the
most common type of take. However, the potential for harm or mortality from NCDOT Program
activities does exist.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 59

As explained in Chapter 1 the working group elected to identify a surrogate for estimating effects
to NLEB by the NCDOT Program in eastern North Carolina. This was in part due to the limited
amount of accurate NLEB distribution and behavior data in eastern North Carolina. The
surrogate chosen by the working group is tree clearing, and our calculations project up to 10,223
acres of trees to be cleared by the NCDOT Program over the duration of this PBA.
We anticipate that estimated tree clearing will exceed actual tree clearing amounts; therefore, we
acknowledge that we may be overestimating the actual amount of NLEB take that will occur.
6.6. Avoidance and Minimization Measures
NCDOT is funding a five year research study to survey and study NLEB in eastern North
Carolina. Data from this research can be used to in future consultations to determine the most
effective means to avoid and minimize effects on NLEB in eastern North Carolina. Other
measures include sediment and erosion control BMPs, dust control at construction sites,
construction of stormwater facilities, noise wall construction, wildlife passage construction,
wetland and stream mitigation, and the use of BMP measures when conducting in-water work.
6.7. Summary of Effects
We can conclude from our effects analysis that NLEB are likely to incur both direct, indirect and
cumulative effects from NCDOT Program activities. Although the intensity of effects may vary
by activity, season, and condition and home range of individual bats, there is insufficient data to
make that distinction. Direct effects to NLEB are anticipated during construction and
maintenance activities from the removal of habitat and disturbance from noise and vibrations.
Take may be in the form of injury or mortality during clearing activities, harm due to the loss of
roosting and foraging areas, and disturbance from clearing and construction noise. If NLEB are
hibernating in the action area, they would be subject to disturbance during construction activities
from vibrations from vehicle use, pile driving and blasting activities.
Indirect effects on NLEB are anticipated from NCDOT Program activities due to the
fragmentation of habitat, disturbance from traffic noise, and an increased risk of bat-vehicle
collisions. Take due to indirect effects is anticipated to range from death of some individuals
over time to effects which may be insignificant or discountable for other individuals whose home
ranges are mostly or entirely outside the PBA action area.
Potential cumulative effects include habitat loss from locally induced growth, waste and borrow
pits, and hazardous tree removal. Other effects include bridge maintenance activities, the use of
herbicides and potential water quality degradation from operations and maintenance activities.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 60

Chapter 7. Effect Determinations for Northern Long-Eared Bat
7.1. Effect Determination
One of the assumptions the working group used as a premise for the effects analysis (see Chapter
6& AppendiX D) is that NLEB are present throughout the PBA action area (see Chapter 1). The
result of the effects analysis is that the NCDOT Program will have an adverse effect on NLEB.
As such, NCDOT has committed to track the acreage of trees cleared during project construction
for the life of this agreement, and embark on a research study designed to provide critical
information regarding the ecology of NLEB in eastern North Carolina. As shown in Appendix
D, the activities associated with the NCDOT Program will have varying types of effects effect on
the species.
7.1.1. No Effect Determinations
When the action agency determines its proposed action will not affect a listed species or
designated critical habitat, the project is considered to have "no effect" on the species (USFWS
1998). Projects with activities that do not remove or modify potential NLEB habitat, and
activities in locations where NLEB are not expected to be present will have no effect on NLEB
and are listed in the table located in Appendix D. This could include urban projects and/or
projects without tree or structure modification.
7.1.2. May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Determinations (MA-NLAA)
When it is determined that an activity may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect a federally
protected species, the effects on that species are expected to be discountable, insignificant, or
completely beneficial. Beneficial effects are contemporaneous positive effects without any
adverse effects to the species. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should
never reach the scale where take occurs. Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to
occur. Based on best judgment, a person would not: (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect,
or evaluate insignificant effects; or (2) expect discountable effects to occur (USFWS 1998).
The working team anticipates that the majority of the effects from the NCDOT Program in
eastern North Carolina will result in insignificant or discountable effects to NLEB. Activities
that may result in a MA-NLTAA determination are listed in the table located in Appendix D.
7.1.3. May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect Determinations (MA-LAA)
When the effect to a listed species may occur as a direct or indirect result of the proposed
action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is not discountable,
insignificant, or beneficial, the activity is likely to adversely affect the listed species. If
incidental take is anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed action, an "is likely to
adversely affect" determination should be made, and requires the initiation of formal section 7
consultation (USFWS 1998).
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 61

While we believe that most NCDOT Program activities will result in insigniiicant or
discountable effects to NLEB, some NCDOT Program activities will likely result in adverse
effects to NLEB. As a result of the effects analysis conducted, we can conclude that NCDOT
Program activities where NLEB foraging and/or roosting trees or structures are removed have
the greatest potential to result in take to the species. Activities that may result in a MA-LTAA
determination are listed in the table located in Appendix D.
7.2. Making Overall Effect Determinations
As a result of the effects analysis, the working group determined that tree clearing (a common
component associated with NCDOT Program activities across the action area) represents the
activity with the greatest potential to affect NLEB in eastern North Carolina. Although the
likelihood of affecting NLEB is low, due to an assumed small population size in the PBA action
area (refer to Section 4.1), the potential for NLEB to be affected by NCDOT Program activities
is anticipated. Without a more complete understanding of the distribution, behavior, and
abundance of NLEB in Eastern North Carolina, it is not practicable to accurately quantify the
effect of the NCDOT Program on NLEB.
Over a five year period beginning in January 2015 and continuing until the end of 2019, an
estimated maximum of 10,223 acres of trees will be removed as a result of NCDOT Program
activities across the action area. Incidental takes from the NCDOT Program in eastern North
Carolina could occur in the forms of harassment, harm and/or mortality. NCDOT/FHWA believe
the greatest potential for incidental take of NLEB will occur in the form of harassment.
NCDOT will support five field seasons of specialized NLEB research in an effort to provide
valuable data on distribution, habitat preference, and behavior of NLEB in eastern North
Carolina.
Although we believe the NLEB research study will be greatly beneficial to NLEB conservation
in eastern North Carolina, there is potential for adverse effects due primarily to tree andlor
structure removal from NCDOT Program activities. Therefore, the biological conclusion for this
PBA is May Affect, Likely to Adverse Effect.
7.3. Potential Flaws in Making Effect Determinations
The best available scientific and commercial data has been used to determine the effect of
NCDOT Program activities on NLEB. However, due to several factors explained throughout this
PBA, such as the limited data available for NLEB distribution and behavior in eastern NC, there
is a potential that the assumptions detailed in this document have a degree of inaccuracy. As a
result, accurately quantifying potential effects to NLEB from implementation of the NCDOT
Program is impracticable at this time.
This PBA has equated acres of cleared trees to incidental take due to lack of any other suitable
method to measure take across eastern North Carolina. Each year, the actual acres of trees
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 62

removed as a result of NCDOT Program activities will be reported to the work group(FWHA,
USFWS, and USACE) to ensure NCDOT projects are in compliance with the guidelines
established by this PBA. If clearing amounts exceeds the estimated maximum loss,
NCDOT/FHWA and the USACE will reinitiate consultation with USFWS.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 63

Chapter 8. References
Amelon, S., and D. Burhans. 2006. Conservation assessment: Myotis septentrionalis (northern
long-eared bat) in the eastern United States. Pages 69-82 in Thompson, F.R., III (ed).
Conservation Assessments for Five Forest Bat Species in the Eastern United States. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, General
Technical Report NC-260. St. Paul, Minnesota. 82 pp.
Arnett, E.B. W. K. Brown, W. P. Erickson, J. K. Fiedler, B. L. Hamilton, T. H. Henry, A. Jain,
G. D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R. R. Koford, C. P. Nicholson, T. J. O'connell, M. D.
Piorkowski, and R. D. Tankersley, Jr. 2008. Patterns of Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy
Facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(1):61-78.
Bach, L., P. Burkhardt & H.J.G.A. Limpens 2004. Tunnels as a possibility to connect bat
habitats. Mammalia 68 (4): 411-420.
Baerwald, E. F., G. H. D'Amours, B. J. Klug, and R. M.R. Barclay. 2008. Barotrauma is a
significant cause ofbat fatalities at wind turbines. Current Biology 18 (16): R695-R696.
Ballmann, A. 2013. E-mail correspondence sent from A. Ballmann, wildlife disease specialist,
USGS-National Wildlife Health Center to J. Utrup, fish and wildlife biologist, USFWS
Green Bay Wisconsin Field Office (sent May 17, 2013).
Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. The University of Kentucky Press,
Lexington, Kentucky.
Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid bioassessment protocols
for use in streams and wadeable rivers: Periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish
(Second Edition.). EPA 841-B-99-002. US Environmental Protection Agency; Office of
Water; Washington, D.C.
Belwood, J.J. 2002. Endangered bats in suburbia: observations and concerns for the future. Pages
193-198. In Kurta, A., and J. Kennedy, editors. The Indiana bat: biology and management
of an endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas.
Benedict, R.A. 2004. Reproductive activity and distribution of bats in Nebraska. Western
North American Naturalist 64:231-248.
Berthinussen, A. & J. Altringham. 2011. The Effect of a Major Road on Bat Activity and
Diversity. Journal of Applied Ecology. 8 pages.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 64

Blehert, D.S., A.C. Hicks, M. Behr, C.U. Meteyer, B.M. Berlowski-Zier, E.L. Buckles, J.T.H.
Coleman, S.R. Darling, A. Gargas, R. Niver, J.C. Okoniewski, R.J. Rudd, and W.B.
Stone. 2009. Bat white-nose syndrome: An emerging fungal pathogen? Science
323:227.
Boonman M. 2011. Factors determining the use of culverts underneath highways and railway
tracks by bats in lowland areas. Lutra, 54, 3-16.
Bouma, H.R., H.V. Carey, and F.G.M. Kroese. 2010. Hibernation: The immune system at
rest? Journal of Leukocyte Biology 88:619-624.
Boyles, J.G. and C.K.R. Willis. 2010. Could localized warm areas inside cold caves reduce
mortality of hibernating bats affected by white-nose syndrome? Frontiers Ecology and
the Environment 8(2):92-98.
Brack, V.M., Jr. 1983. The nonhibernating ecology of bats in Indiana, with emphasis on the
endangered Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Ph.D. Dissertation. Purdue University, W.
LaFayette, IN. 280 pp.
Brack, V. 2007. Temperatures and locations used by hibernating bats, including Myotis sodalist
(Indiana bat), in a limestone mine: Implications for conservation and management.
Journal of Environmental Management 40:739-746.
Brack Jr., V. and J.O. Whitaker Jr. 2001. Foods of the northern myotis, Myotis septentrionalis,
from Missouri and Indiana, with notes on foraging. Acta Chiropterologica 3:203-210.
Broders, H.G. and G.J. Forbes. 2004. Interspecific and intersexual variation in roost - site
selection of northern long-eared and little brown bats in the Greater Fundy National Park
ecosystem. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:602-610.
Broders, H.G., G.J. Forbes, S. Woodley, and I.D. Thompson. 2006. Range extent and stand
selection for roosting and foraging in forest-dwelling northern long-eared bats and little
brown bats in the Greater Fundy Ecosystem, New Brunswick. Journal of Wildlife
Management 70:1174-1184.
Brown, M.J. and B.D. New. 2013. North Carolina, 2011 Forest Inventory and Analysis
Factsheet. e-Science Update SRS-080. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service,
Southern Research Station. Asheville, North Carolina. 5 pp.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 65

Brunkhurst, E. 2012. Unpublished data from New Hampshire Fish and Game to USFWS
Region 3 data request regarding status of 7 cave bat species (January 24, 2012).
Butchkoski, C.M. 2003. Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) investigation at Canoe Creek, Blair County,
Pennsylvania. Project annual job report to the Pennsylvania Game Commision, Bureau of
Wildlife Management Research Division.
Caceres, M.C. 1998. The summer ecology of Myotis species bats in the interior wet-belt of
British Columbia. MSc. Thesis. University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Caceres, M.C. and M.J. Pybus. 1997. Status of the northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management
Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 3. Edmonton, Alberta.
Caceres, M.C. and R.M.R. Barclay. 2000. Myotis septentrionalis. Mammalian Species No.
634:1-4.
Caire, W., RK. LaVal, M.L. LaVal, and R. Clawson. 1979. Notes on the ecology of Myotis
keenii (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) in Eastern Missouri. American Midland Naturalist
102(2):404-407.
Carter, T.C. and G. Feldhamer. 2005. Roost tree use by maternity colonies of Indiana bats and
northern long-eared bats in southern Illinois. Forest Ecology and Management 219:259—
268.
Clark, D. R., Jr., R. L. Clawson, and C. J. Stafford. 1983. Graybats killed by Dieldrin at two
additional Missouri caves:Aquatic macroinvertebrates found dead. Bull. Environ.Contam.
Toxicol. 30:214-218.
Clark, B.K, J.B. Bowles, and B.S. Clark. 1987. Status of the endangered Indiana bat in Iowa.
American Midland Naturalist ll 8(1):32-39.
Coleman, V. 2012. Billboards: New state law could curb cities' input. Independent Weekly.
http://www.ind_yweek.com/ind_yweek/new-state-law-could-curb-cities-
inaut/Content?oid=3157349
Cope, J.B. and S.R. Humphrey. 1972. Reproduction of the bats Myotis keenii and Pipistrellus
subflavus in Indiana. Bat Research News 13:9-10.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 66

COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). 2014. Myotis,
northern (Myotis septentrionalis). Accessed on June 24, 2014 at
http://www.cosewic. c.g ca/eng/sctl/searchdetail_e.cfm?id=1175&StartRow=1&boxStatus
=A11&boxTaxonomic=Al1&location=Al1&change=All&board=Al1&commonName=&sci
enceName=Myotis%20septentrionalis&returnFla —g-0&Page=1
Courtin, F., W.B. Stone, G. Risatti, K. Gilbert, and H.J. Van Kruiningen. 2010. Pathologic
findings and liver elements in hibernating bats with white-nose syndrome. Veterinary
Pathology 47(2):214-219.
Cryan, P.M., C.U. Meteyer, J.G. Boyles, and D.S. Blehert. 2010. Wing pathology of white-nose
syndrome in bats suggests life-threatening disruption of physiology. BMC Biology
8:135-142.
Cryan, P.M., C.U. Meteyer, D.S. Blehert, J.M. Lorch, D.M Reeder, G.G. Turner, J. Webb, M.
Behr, M. Verant, R.E. Russell, and K.T. Castle. 2013. Electrolyte depletion in white-
nose syndrome bats. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 49(2):398-402.
Darling, S. and R. Smith. 2011. Unpublished data from Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department
to USFWS Region 3 data request regarding status of 7 cave bat species (sent Apri126,
2011).
Easterla, D.A. 1968. Parturition of Keen's Myotis in southwestern Missouri. Journal of
Mammalogy 49(4):770.
Faure, P.A., J.H. Fullard, and J.W. Dawson. 1993. The gleaning attacks of the northern long-
eared bat, Myotis septentrionalis, are relatively inaudible to moths. Journal of
Experimental Biology 178:173-189.
Feldhamer, G.A., T.C. Carter, and J.O. Whitaker Jr. 2009. Prey consumed by eight species of
insectivorous bats from southern Illinois. The American Midland Naturalist 162(1):43-
51.
Feldhamer, George A., T.C. Carter, A.T. Morzillo, and E.H. Nicholson. 2003. "Use of
Bridges as Day Roosts by Bats in Southern Illinois". Publications. Paper 45.
http://opensiuc.lib. siu. edu/zool�ubs/45
Felts, Joseph W., and W.D. Webster. 2003. Use of Bridges as Daytime Roosts by Bats in
Southeastern North Carolina. Journal of the North Carolina Academy of Science, 119(4),
pp. 172-178.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 67

Fitch, J.H. and K.A. Shump, Jr. 1979. Myotis keenii. Mammalian Species No. 121:1-3.
Foster, R.W. and A. Kurta. 1999. Roosting ecology of the Northern bat (Myotis septentrionalis)
and comparisons with the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Journal of
Mammalogy 80(2):659-672.
Francl, K.E., W.M. Ford, D. Sparks, and V. Brack. 2012. Capture and reproductive trends in
summer bat communities in West Virginia: Assessing the impact of white-nose
syndrome. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 3(1):33�2.
French, T. 2012. Unpublished data from Massachusetts Division of Wildlife and Fisheries to
USFWS Region 3 data request regarding status of 7 cave bat species (sent January 3,
2012).
Gargas, A., M.T. Trest, M. Christensen, T.J. Volk, and D.S. Blehert. 2009. Geomyces
destructans sp. nov. associated with bat white-nose syndrome. Mycotaxon 108:147-154.
Gardner, J.E., J.E. Hofmann, and J.D. Garner. 1996. Summer distribution of the federally
endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State
Academy of Science 89: 187-196.
Garner, J.D. and J.E. Gardner. 1992. Determination of summer distribution and habitat
utilization of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) in Illinois. Champaign, IL: Illinois Natural
History Survey.
Garroway, C.J. and H.G. Broders. 2008. Day roost characteristics of northern long-eared bats
(Myotis septentrionalis) in relation to female reproductive status. Ecoscience 15(1):89-
93.
Geluso, K. N., J. S. Altenbach, and D. E. Wilson. 1976. Batmortality: pesticide poisoning and
migratory stress. Science194:184-186.
Goehring, H.H. 1954. Pipistrellus subflavus obscurus, Myotis keenii, and Eptesicus fuscus
fuscus hibernating in a storm sewer in central Minnesota. Journal of Mammalogy
35(3):434-436.
Griffin, D.R. 1940. Reviewed notes on the life histories of New England cave bats. Journal of
Mammalogy 21(2):181-187.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 68

Griffin, D.R. 1945. Travels of banded cave bats. Journal of Mammalogy 26(1):15-23.
Griffith, L.A. and J.E. Gates. 1985. Food habits of cave-dwelling bats in the central
Appalachians. Journal of Mammalogy 66(3):451-460.
Hall, J.S. 1957. Longevity records and notes on tooth wear of bats. Journal of Mammalogy
38:407-409.
Hartegen, David T., M. Gregory Fields, and Elizabeth San Jose. 2013. 20th Annual Report on
the Performance of State Highway Systems (1984-2009/10). Pp. 17. Reason Foundation.
Herzog, C. 2012. Unpublished data from New Yark State Department of Environmental
Conservation including mist-net surveys conducted pre- and post- white-nose syndrome
in New York (2003-2011).
Herzog, C. and R. Reynolds. 2013. An Update from the Heart of WNS Country.
PowerPoint presentation at the Northeast Bat Working Group 2013 annual meeting.
Albany, New York.
Hilsenhoff, W.L., 1982, Using a biotic index to evaluate water quality in streams: Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin no. 132, 22 p
Hitchcock, H.B. 1949. Hibernation ofbats in southeastern Ontario and adjacent Quebec.
Canadian Field-Naturalist 63(2):47-59.
Humphrey, S., A.R. Richter, and J.B. Cope. 1977. Summer habitat and ecology of the
endangered Indiana bat, llfotis sodalis. J. Mamm., 58: 334-346.
Johnson, J.B., W.M. Ford, and J.W. Edwards. 2012. Roost netwarks of northern myotis (Myotis
septentr�ionalis) in a managed landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 266:223-231.
Kalcounis-Rueppell, M. and J. Grider, 2013. Survey of Threatened Bats in the North Carolina
Coastal Plain with Emphasis on State Listed and White-Nose Syndrome Positive Species.
State Wildlife Grants.
Kalcounis-Rueppell, M.C., C. Thawley, M.J. Vonhof and L. Rissler. 2012. Modeling Current
and Future Potential for Peripheral Populations of Southeastern Bats to Mitigate Effects
of White Nose Syndrome in Core Populations. SBDN 17th Annual Meeting, Lousiville,
MS. February 2012.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 69

Kath, J. 2013. Email communication sent by J. Kath, endangered species manager, Illinois
Department of Natural Resources, to J. Utrup, fish and wildlife biologist, USFWS Green
Bay, Wisconsin Field Office (April 9, 2013).
Keeley, B.W., and M.D. Tuttle. 1999. Bats in American bridges. Bat Conservation
International, Inc., Austin, Texas. Resource Publications, 40 pp.
Kerth, G. and M. Melber, 2009. Species-specific barrier effects of a motorway on the habitat use
of two threatened forest-living bat species. Biological Conservation 142: 270 —279.
King, K. and M. Kalcounis-Rueppell, 2014. Distribution and Habitat Preferences of Priority Bat
Species in the North Carolina. Interim Report for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission.
Krochmal, A.R. and D.W. Sparks. 2007. Timing of birth and estimation of age of juvenile
Myotis septentrionalis and Myotis lucifugus in west-central Indiana. Journal of
Mammalogy 88(3):649-656.
Kunz, T.H. 1971. Reproduction of some Vespertilionid bats in central Iowa. American
Midland Naturalist 86(2):477-486.
Kunz, T. H., E. B. Arnett, B. M. Cooper, W. P. Erickson, R. P. Larkin, T. Mabee, M. L.
Morrison, M. D. Strickland, and J. M. Szewczak. 2007. Assessing Impacts of Wind-
Energy Development on Nocturnally Active Birds and Bats: A Guidance Document.
Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8): 2449-2486.
Kunz, T.H. and J.D. Reichard. 2010. Status review of the little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus)
and determination that immediate listing under the endangered species act is scientifically
and legally warranted. Boston University's Center for Ecology and Conservation
Biology, Boston, Massachusetts. 30 pp.
Kurta, A. 1995. Mammals of the Great Lakes Region. University of Michigan Press. Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Kurta, A. and J.A. Teramino. 1994. A novel hibernaculum and noteworthy records of the
Indiana bat and eastern pipistrelle (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). American Midland
Naturalist 132(2):410-413.
Lacki, M.J. and J.H. Schwierjohann. 2001. Day-roost characteristics of northern bats in mixed
mesophytic forest. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65(3):482-488.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 70

Lacici, M.J., D.R. Cox, L.E. Dodd, and M.B. Dickinson. 2009. Response of northern bats
(Myotis septent�ionalis) to prescribed fires in eastern Kentucky forests. Journal of
Mammalogy 90(5):1165-1175.
Lambiase, Seth J., M.K. Clark, and L.J. Gatens. September 2000. Vat (Chiroptera) Inventory of
North Carolina State Parks 1999-2000.
LaVal, R K., R. L. Clawson, W. Caire, L. R. Wingate, and M. L. LaVal. 1976. An evaluation of
the status of Myotine bats in the proposed Meramec Park Lake and Union Lake project
areas, Missouri. Special Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, MO 136pp
LaVal, R.K., R.L. Clawson, M.L. LaVal, and W. Caire. 1977. Foraging behavior and nocturnal
activity patterns of Missouri bats, with emphasis on the endangered species Myotis g
Nisescens and Myotis sodalis. Journal of Mammalogy 58(4):592-599.
Lenat, D.R., 1993. A biotic index for the southeastern Unities States: derivation and list of
tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water-quality ratings. J. N. Am.
Benthological Society 1993, 12(3) 279-290.
Loeb, S.C. and Winters, E.A. 2013. Indiana bat summer maternity distribution: effects of
current and future climates. Ecology and Evolution 3(1): 103-114.
Lorch, J.M., C.U. Meteyer, M.J. Behr, J.G. Boyles, P.M. Cryan, A.C. Hicks, A.E. Ballmann,
J.T.H. Coleman, D.N. Redell, D.M. Reeder, and D.S. Blehert. 20ll. Experimental
infection of bats with Geomyces destructans causes white-nose syndrome. Nature
480:376-379.
McDonnell, J.M. 2001. Use of Bridges as Day Roosts by Bats in the North Carolina Coastal
Plain. Master of Science Thesis. North Carolina State University. 80 pp.
Menzel, M. A.; Menzel, J. M.; Carter, T. C.; Ford, W. M.;Edwards, J. W. 2001.
Review of the forest habitat relationships of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis).Gen. Tech.
Rep. NE-284. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Northeastern Research Station. 21 p
Menzel, M.A., S.F. Owen, W.M. Ford, J.W. Edwards, P.B. Wood, B.RChapman, and K.V.
Miller. 2002. Roost tree selection by northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis)
maternity colonies in an industrial farest of the central Appalachian mountains. Forest
Ecology and Management 155:107-114.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 71

Meteyer, C.U., E.L. Buckles, D.S. Blehert, A.C. Hicks, D.E. Green, V. Shearn-Bochsler, N.J.
Thomas, A. Gargas, and M.J. Behr. 2009. Histopathologic criteria to confirm white-nose
syndrome in bats. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 21:411-414.
Mills, R.S. 1971. A concentration of Myotis keenii at caves in Ohio. Journal of Mammalogy.
52(3):625.
Minnis, A.M. and D.L. Lindner. 2013. Phylogenetic evaluation of Geomyces and allies reveals
no close relatives of Pseudogylnnoascus destructans, comb. nov., in bat hibernacula of
eastern North America. Fungal Biology 117:638-649.
Mohr, C. E. 1972. The status of threatened species of cavedwelling bats. NSS Bull. 34:33.22
Moore, M.S., J.D. Reichard, T.D. Murtha, B. Zahedi, R.M. Fallier, and T.H. Kunz. 201 l.
Specific alterations in complement protein activity of little brown myotis (Myotis
lucifugus) hibernating in white-nose syndrome affected sites. PLoS ONE 6(11): e27430.
doi:10.1371 /j ournal.pone.002743 0
Morris, A. D., M. J. Vonhof, D. A. Miller AND M. C. Kalcounis-Rueppell. 2009. Myotis
septentrionalis Trouessart (Northern Long-eared Bat) Records from the Coastal Plain of
North Carolina. Southeastern Naturalist 8:355-362.
Morris, A. D., D. A. Miller and M. C. Kalcounis-Rueppell. 2010. Use of Forest Edges by Bats
in a Managed Pine Forest Landscape Journal of Wildlife Management 74(1):26-34
Mumford R.E. and J.B. Cope. 1964. Distribution and status of the chiroptera of Indiana.
American Midland Naturalist 72(2):473-489.
Murray, S. W. 1999. Diet and nocturnal activity patterns of the endangered Indiana bat, Myotis
sodalis. MSc thesis, Eastern Michigan University.
Nagel, J. and J.E. Gates. 2012. Acoustic Survey Methodology to Assess the Impacts of White-
nose Syndrome (WNS) on Summer Distribution of Bats in Western Maryland: 2010,
2011, and 2012. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Appalachian
Laboratory, Frostburg, Maryland. 58 pp.
Nagorsen, D.W. and R.M. Brigham. 1993. The Bats of British Columbia: Royal British
Columbia Museum Handbook. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. 164
pP•
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 72

NCPedia. "Transportation Part II: Trends in Highway Use. Accessed on December 1, 2014.
http://ncpedia. org/transportation/highway-use
New, Barry D. 2014. Unpublished data from United States Forest Service Forest Inventory and
Analysis. Data request.
NCDOT (North Carolina Department of Transportation). 2003. Best Maintenance Practices for
Construction and Maintenance Activities. Available online at:
htt�s://connect.ncdot. o�v/projects/Roadway/RoadwayDesignAdministrativeDocumentsB
est%20Mana�ement%20Practices%20for%20Construction%20and%20Maintenance%20
Activities.pdf
NCDOT (North Carolina Department of Transportation). 2010. NCDOT Emergency Response
and Procedures Manual. Available online at: https://connect.ncdot.�ov/resources/Asset-
Mana�ement/StateMaintOpsDocs/Emer e�ncy%20Response%20and%20Procedures%20
Manual%202010.pdf
NCDOT (North Carolina Department of Transportation). 2014a. State Transportation
Improvement Program.
https://connect.ncdot. _gov/projects/plannin�/Planning%20Document%20Librarv/LNE_S
TIP.pdf
NCDOT (North Carolina Department of Transportation). 2014b. Stormwater Best Management
Practices Toolbox, Version 2. Accessed on December 1, 2014.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/hvdro/Stormwater%20Resources/NCDOT BMP_Toolbox_
2014_April.pdf
NCDOT (North Carolina Department of Transportation). 2014c. Post-Construction Stormwater
Program Post-Construction Stormwater Controls for Roadway and Non-Roadway
Projects. Hydraulics Unit. Raleigh, Apri12014.
NCNHP (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). 2014. Biotics Database. Office of Land and
Water Stewardship. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
011endorff, J. 2002. Myotis septentrionalis. Animal Diversity Web. Accessed June 23, 2014 at
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich. edu/accounts/Myotis_septentrionalis/
O'Keefe, J.M. 2009. Roosting and foraging ecology of forest bats in the southern Appalachian
Mountains. Dissertation, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 73

Owen, S.F., M.A. Menzel, W.M. Ford, B.R. Chapman, K.V. Miller, J.W. Edwards, and P.B.
Wood. 2003. Home-range size and habitat used by the northern Myotis (Myotis
septentrionalis). American Midland Naturalist 150(2):352-359.
Owen, S.F., M.A. Menzel, W.M. Ford, J.W. Edwards, B.R. Chapman, K.V. Miller, and P.B.
Wood. 2002. Roost Tree Selection by Maternal Colonies of Northern Long-eared
Myotis in an Intensively Managed Forest. USDA Forest Service. Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania.
Pearson, E.W. 1962. Bats hibernating in silica mines in southern Illinois. Journal of
Mammalogy 43(1):27-33.
Pennsylvania Game Commission. 2012. Unpublished 1985-2011 Myotis leibii data.
Perry, R.W. and R.E. Thill. 2007. Roost selection by male and female northern long-eared bats
in a pine-dominated landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 247:220-226.
Pittaway, L.H., and M.C. Kalcounis-Rueppell. 2014. Uwharrie National Forest Bat Transect
Data Analysis 2009, 2010, 2012. Project Report for the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission.
Puechmaille, S.J., G. Wibbelt, V. Korn, H. Fuller, F. Forget, et al. 2011. Pan-European
distribution of white-nose syndrome fungus (Geomyces destructans) not associated with
mass mortality. PLoS ONE 6(4): e19167.
Racey, P.A. 1979. The prolonged storage and survival of spermatozoa in Chiroptera. Journal of
Reproduction and Fertilization 56:391-402.
Racey, P.A. 1982. Ecology of bat reproduction. Pages 57-104 in Kunz, T.H. (ed) Ecology of
Bats. Plenum Press, New York. 425 pp.
Raesly, R.L. and J.E. Gates. 1987. Winter habitat selection by north temperate cave bats.
American MidlandNaturalist 118(1):15-31.
Ratcliffe, J.M. and J.W. Dawson. 2003. Behavioral flexibility: the little brown bat, Myotis
lucifugus, and the northern long-eared bat, M. septent�ionalis, both glean and bawk prey.
Animal Behaviour 66:847-856.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 74

Reeder D.M., C.L. Frank, G.G. Turner, C.U. Meteyer, A. Kurta, E.R. Britzke, M.E. Vodzak, S.R.
Darling, C.W. Stihler, A.C. Hicks, R. Jacob, L.E. Grieneisen, S.A. Brownlee, L.K.
Muller, and D.S. Blehert. 2012. Frequent arousal from hibernation linked to severity of
infection and mortality in bats with white-nose syndrome. PLoS ONE 7(6): e38920.
doi:10.13 71 /j ournal.pone.003 8920
Russell, A.L., Butchkoski, C.M., Saidak, L. & McCracken, G.F. 2009. Roadkilled bats,
highway design, and the commuting ecology of bats. Endangered Species Research, 8,
49-60.
Rydell J and Baag�e HJ. 1996. Gatlampor okar fladdermossens pre-dation pa fjarilar
[Streetlamps increase bat predation on moths]. Entomol Tidskr 117: 129-35
Sasse, D.B. and P.J. Pekins. 1996. Summer roosting ecology of northern long-eared bats
(Myotis septentrionalis) in the White Mountain National Forest. Bats and Forests
Symposium, October 1995. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, p.91-101.
Simmons, N.B. 2005. Myotis septentrionalis. Page 516 in Wilson, D.E. and D.M. Reeder (eds).
2005. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. The
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 2142 pp.
Sleeman, J. 2011. Universal precautions for the management of bat white-nose syndrome
(WNS). Wildlife Health Bulletin 2011-05. USGS National Wildlife Health Center,
Madison, Wisconsin. 2 pp.
Southeastern Bat Diversity Network. 2014. "Past Blitzes". Accessed on December 4, 2014
http://sbdn.org/past_blitzes.html.
Stones, R.C. and W. Fritz. 1969. Bat studies in upper Michigan's copper mining district. The
Michigan Academician 2(1):77-85.
Swanson, G. and C. Evans. 1936. The hibernation of certain bats in southern Minnesota.
Journal of Mammalogy 17(1): 39-43.
Taylor, L.R. 1963. Analysis of the Effect of Temperature on Insects in Flight. Journal of
Animal Ecology 32(1):99-ll7.
Timpone, J.C., Boyles, J.G., Murray, K.L., Aubrey, D.P., and L.W. Robbins. 2010. Overlap in
roosting habits of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) and northern bats (Myotis
septentrionalis). American Midland Naturalist 163:115-123.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 75

Turner, G.G., D.M. Reeder, and J.T.H. Coleman. 2011. A five-year assessment of mortality and
geographic spread of white-nose syndrome in North American bats and a look to the
future. Bat Research News 52(2):13-27.
Turner, G. 2013. Unpublished data from Pennsylvania Game Commission including pre- and
post- white-nose syndrome hibernacula and swarm surveys conducted through 2013 in
Pennsylvania.
USDOT (United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration). 2014.
"Highway Statistics 2012". Accessed December 1, 2014.
https://www. fhwa. dot.gov/,�olicyinformation/statistics/2012/hm81. cfm
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Level III ecoregions of the continental
United States (revision of Omernik, 1987): Corvallis, Oregon, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency-National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,
Map M-1, various scales.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Biological Opinion on the Application for an
Incidental Take Permit for the Federally Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) for the Six
Points Road Interchange and Associated Development. Unpublished Report. Bloomington
Field Office, Bloomington, Indiana. 35 pp.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998.
Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation
and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. March 1998.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. Biological Opinion on the Construction,
Operation and Maintenance of the U.S. 33 Nelsonville Bypass for the Federally —Listed
Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). Ohio Ecological Service Field Office,
Reynoldsburg. April 15, 2005.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011. A National Plan for Assisting States, Federal
Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats. Accessed on June 24,
2014 at https://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/sites/default/files/white-
nose_svndrome national�lan maX 2011.pdf
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. North American bat death toll exceeds 5.5
million from white-nose syndrome. News Release. January 17, 2012. Arlington,
Virginia.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 76

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;
12-month finding on a petition to list the eastern small-footed bat and the northern long-
eared bat as endangered or threatened species; listing the northern long-eared bat as an
endangered species; proposed rule. Federal Register 78 (191):61045-61080.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014a. Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis
septentrionalis). Accessed on June 23, 2014 at
http://www.fws. gov/midwest/endan�eredlmammals/nlba/nlbaFactSheet.html
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014b. Northern Long-eared Bat Interim Conference
and Planning Guidance, Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. January 6, 2014
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Northern Long-Eared Bat. Federal Register 79
(222):68657-68659.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014d. "White-Nose Syndrome.org: A Coordinated
Response to the Devastating Bat Disease." Accessed on December 1, 2014.
https://www.whitenosesyndrome. or�/
van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1979. Distribution and systematic relationships of long-eared Myotis in
western Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57: 987-994.
van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1985. Handbook of Canadian Mammals: Bats. National Museum of
Natural Sciences. Ottawa, Canada. 212 pp.
Virginia Speleological Society. "VSS Project Areas". Accessed November 11, 2014.
http://www.vir�iniacaves.or�/proj ects.html
Warnecke, L., J.M. Turnera, T.K. Bollinger, J.M. Lorch, V. Misra, P.M. Cryan, G. Wibbelt, D.S.
Blehert, and C.K.R. Willis. 2012. Inoculation of bats with European Geomyces
destructans supports the novel pathogen hypothesis for the origin of white-nose
syndrome. PNAS Early Edition accessed on June 24, 2014 at
www.pnas.or /�c�i/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200374109
Whitaker, J.O. and W.J. Hamilton. 1998. Mouse-eared bats, Vespertilionidae. Pages 89-102 in
Mammals of the Eastern United States, Third Edition. Cornell University Press, Ithaca,
New York. 608 pp.
Whitaker, J.O. and R.E. Mumford. 2008. Mammals of Indiana. Indiana University Press,
Bloomington, Indiana. 688 pp.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 77

Whitaker, J.O. and L.J. Rissler. 1992a. Seasonal activity of bats at copperhead cave.
Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 101:127-134.
Whitaker, J.O. and L.J. Rissler. 1992b. Winter activity of bats at a mine entrance in Vermillion
County, Indiana. American Midland Naturalist 127:52-59.
Whitaker, J.O., Robert K. Rose, and Thomas M. Padgett. 1997. Food of the Red Bat (Lasiurus
borealis) in Winter in the Great Dismal Swamp, North Carolina and Virginia. American
Midland Naturalist 137:408-411.
WNS Science Strategy Group. 2008. Questions, Observations, Hypotheses, Predictions, and
Research Needs far Addressing Effects of White-nose Syndrome (WNS) in Hibernating
Bats. 13pp. Available at http://batcon.or�/pdfs/WNSMt�RptFinal2.pdf
"White-nose syndrome." Bats Affected by WNS. USFWS. N.d. Web. December 1, 2014.
htt�s://www.whitenosesyndrome. or�;/about/bats-affected-wns
Zurcher, A.A., Sparks, D.W. & Bennett, V.J. 2010. Why the bat did not cross the road? Acta
Chiropterologica, 12, 337-340.
Programmatic Biological Assessment for
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Eastern North Carolina Page 78

APPENDIX A
FIGURES

e
�1�� ��1��
m
AsheWille Field C]ffice
Wark Area
NC E�a-Regions
Level 3
hv9iddleAtlanticCoas[al Plain
Southeastern Plains
Piedmont
Blue Ridge {not includec in BA}
- Line Qi�iding USFWS'�"orkAreas
� County BoundarV
�� ��:
i
iqr �
��� �.
,�;
�,�.A�-
Prepared 6y NCDOT 1Z'1114
Program Area a�nd
EPA Ecvregions
m
in
�
;
�
0 10 20 401#iles.
I--I--I--I--I--I--HH
USFWS
Raleigh Field C�ffic�
Wvrk Area
riTfiC��,`�11, �
FIG
U5F1N5 Work Area 1
Eastern N C

atrick Henry PittsylvanwDanVille Halifax f Mecklenburg Brunswick Greensville Southampton Suffolk GE�es ke yiryinia tseacn
_ _ ..- � �.� Cl1RRITU'CK�
NORTHAMPTON �qTES �
€iOCKINGHAM CASWELL PERSON uANCE WARREN HERTFOR� ""�'��`�
RANVILL PA QUO K
H AL IFAX
ERCkUIMAI�t� � �
OR YTH C OW,�N ' � �
FRANKLIN 'J � � �
GUILFORD LAMANC ORANG£ � BERTIE � �� '�
� DURHAM � �J �
NASH �
EDGECOMBE TYRRELL
� �r'� MARTI� ASHINGTON
A I�SON WAKE / �
RG.NDOLPH CHATHAN9 WILSON �� �
i
DARE �
�' PITT !�� �
JOHNST4N �REENE � BEAUFQRT �
� L�E HYDE
OMER HARNETT WAYNE �� � �
MOORE � �
� � LENOIR
i��
CRAVEN PAMLICO �� ��
RICHMOND ,�`
H� C MBERLAND ' JONES� /
�k60N m' SRMPSON DUPLIN � r
— �,� CARTERET,% � MYSE Positive Record `
COTLAN � L /�
� � � MYSE Negative Recard
ONSLOW r�
RoaesoN � �-�� �,r` � MYSE Positiwe Record Polygont
BLADEN
� PENDER /' - MYSE Negative Record Polygon
���
`��- " ' ` Positive and negative records are points denved from NLEB
COLUMBUS � N�w� HANo�ER data collected during acoustic surveys, rnist net data or driving
transects.
�\ 3 BRUNswicK � t Positive and negative record polygons consist of NLEB data
���� fhat lack precise point Iocations.These polygons were derived
from NCNHP or USFWS records.
woA, � � �,..,� �- ` � �F �- t �;.�
t�� F`'o�. v��� } i �i%i �;. � ;'i�.
q `� Northern Long-eared bat %� ° �,, � �� ��- � }-�,r ��;- ; � ; ° �,
r..,�'' ,�,�,, . � � � , ' -� ,r- �. F I ry
�T9 a:; Positive (+) Negative ( } ��� �_�--� �4��,�-�1�4'M;�_�l, �r�� `��-��>_�` ; J
��r r J
`�T '" 3
, p '__ I'S x, j\_ °\ � c_� ; j �,
,� <hroFrP ti� f- �\ l � �` y.
K n o w n S i t e D a t a o,o �0 40 Miles '-- =J�: ?�_ , a� ,'
� � � � � � � USFWS Raleigh Field Offiee �'r� ���'�y' �
Prepared by NCDOT 12/22I14 Work Area (Eastern NC) �'{---��

APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY OF TERMS

action area - all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the action and not merely the
immediate area involved in the action.
activity (and subactivity) - a construction process used to complete a project. i.e. tree removal,
utility relocation, etc.
categories — construction project groups; i.e. new construction, transportation enhancement, etc.
critical habitat -(i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the
time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of the ESA, on which are found those physical
or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, upon a
determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species
(defined in Section 3 of the ESA).
division — unit of ineasurement dividing NCDOT counties into groups. There are 14 NCDOT
Divisions within NC.
emergency - An emergency is a situation involving an act of God, disasters, casualties, national
defense or security emergencies, etc., and includes response activities that must be taken to
prevent imminent loss of human life or property.
exfoliating bark - tree bark that peels away from a trunk or a branch of a tree; when a tree dies,
plates of bark spring away from the bole of the tree. Some living trees, such as shagbark hickory
and white oak, have bark that peels back from the living cambium.
hibernaculum (plural hibernacula) - a site, usually a cave or mine, where bats hibernate during
the winter (see suitable habitat).
maternity colony - a group of reproductively active female bats and their young that occupy the
same summer habitat. Males may also occur in maternity colonies.
maternity roost - a summer roost, usually a tree, used by reproductively active female bats and
their young (males may also roost there).
may affect - the appropriate conclusion when a proposed action may pose any effects on listed
species or designated critical habitat.
no effect - the appropriate conclusion when the action agency determines its proposed action will
not affect a listed species or designated critical habitat.
not likely to adversely affect - the appropriate conclusion when effects on listed species are
eXpected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial. Beneficial effects are
contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species. Insignificant

effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take occurs.
Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. Based on best judgment, a person
would not: (1) be able to meaningfully measure, detect, or evaluate insignificant effects; or (2)
expect discountable effects to occur.
population - a group of bats occupying a specific geographic area.
program - all NCDOT projects; lso referred to as the STIP, or State Transportation Program.
projects — group of construction activities (i.e. bridge replacements, road widening, intersection
work etc.) organized and conducted within the NCDOT Divisions or within the State
Transportation Improvement Program.
roost tree - any tree in which bats roost (see suitable roost tree).
snag - a standing dead (or mostly dead) tree, generally with <] 0% living canopy.
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) — a multi-year schedule far all NCDOT
transportation projects. Once projects have been adopted by the Division of Bicycle and
Pedestrian Transportation and the NC Board of Transportation, they are incorporated into the
STIP.
structure- bridge, culvert, ar building
suitable habitat - Summer and/or winter habitat that is appropriate for use by NLEB (may be
known or unknown in terms of documented use). See most recent summer survey guidance)
• winter (hibernacula) is restricted to underground caves and cave-like structures (e.g.
abandoned mines, railroad tunnels). These hibernacula typically have large passages with
significant cracks and crevices for roosting; relatively constant, cooler temperatures (0-9
degrees C) and with high humidity and minimal air currents.
• summer for NLEB consists of the variety of forestedlwooded habitats where they roost,
forage, and traveL This includes forested patches as well as linear features such as
fencerows, riparian forests and other wooded corridors. These wooded areas may be
dense or loose aggregates of trees with variable amounts of canopy closure. Isolated trees
are considered suitable habitat when they eXhibit the characteristics of a suitable roost
tree and are less than 1000 feet from the next nearest suitable roost tree, woodlot, or
wooded fencerow. May also include structures for roosting (e.g., barn, bridges).
• spring staging/fall swarming for NLEBs consists of the variety of forested/wooded
habitats where they roost, forage, and travel within 5 miles of a hibernaculum. This
includes forested patches as well as linear features such as fencerows, riparian forests and
other wooded corridors. These wooded areas may be dense or loose aggregates of trees
with variable amounts of canopy closure. Isolated trees are considered suitable habitat

when they exhibit the characteristics of a suitable roost tree and are less than 1000 feet
from the next nearest suitable roost tree, woodlot, or wooded fencerow.
suitable roost tree - During summer NLEBs roost singly or in colonies in cavities, underneath
bark, crevices, or hollows of both live and dead trees and snags, typically >3 inches dbh.
survey - a method of sampling, such as mist netting, that provides data concerning the
presence/absence of bats at a site; also, the act of enumerating the bats hibernating in a cave or
mine. NLEB summer survey guidance can be found at
http://www. fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlbalpdf/NLEBinterimGuidance6Jan2014.p
df
swarm/swarming - A phenomenon in which, during late summer and autumn, numerous bats
are observed entering and exiting entrances to caves and mines, but few, if any, of the bats may
roost within the site during the day. Swarming probably is related to fall breeding activities and
locating potential hibernation sites. (See suitable habitat).
take — Take is defined in Section 3 of the ESA as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.
volant — capable of flight.

APPENDIX C
FIVE YEAR NLEB RESEARCH PROJECT

NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT RESEARCH STUDY
FOR EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA
NCDOT, 2015-2019
Obj ectives
1. Use acoustic monitoring to determine the distribution of Northern Long-eared Bat (NLEB) in eastern
North Carolina, deterinine where presence is year-round and where it is limited to the maternity season,
and develop basic understanding of northern long-eared bat habitat and temporal (year-round) activity
patterns.
2. Use the results of the acoustic surveys to conduct mist-netting/telemetry on NLEBs to locate and
characterize day roosts, especially winter roosts (if NLEB are present in eastern NC over the winter).
3. Swab bats in winter to determine presence/absence of Pseudogymnoascus destructans, the fungus that
causes white nose syndrome (WNS).
4. Conduct structure, bridge and culvert checks to determine degree of use, seasons of use and type of
structure preferences.
1. Acoustic Monitoring
For research in eastern NC, select 30 locations for conducting acoustic work, covering lO locations/year
for 3 years. At each location, sample 4 times/year (early and mid-summer, fall and winter) with 4 bat
detectors for 3 nights/sampling period. This will result in 480 detector nights/year. Sampling for three
years will result in a minimum of 1440 detector nights, which will be the minimum amount of acoustic
work to be conducted through the 5-year research program. Additional work may be needed to fill
information gaps; this will be determined as work progresses. If ten locations are sampled a year for five
years, a maximum of 2400 detector nights will be the result. Using multiple bat detectors will allow four
sites within a location to be sampled so that habitat preferences can be determined. Monitoring multiple
times a year will ensure that the species' presence is detected if some areas are only inhabited on a
seasonal basis. Sampling may be discontinued at locations with little ar no bat activity, at which point a
new location will be selected.
Thirty locations spaced out over eastern NC will provide information about the species' distribution.
Counties with NLEB capture records, counties with reliable acoustic-only records (no captures), and
counties near recent NLEB captures in Washington, Currituck and Camden counties will be prioritized
for initial monitoring. Sampling locations will be coordinated with advisors from state and federal
resource agencies and from academia to avoid duplicating efforts.
In addition to the methods listed below, all survey efforts will follow the NLEB Interim Conference and
Planning Guidance (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014) to the eXtent practicable.
Methods:
• Use Anabat SD2 detectors or SM2 Songmeters encased in weather-proof housing. Ensure that
the latest firmware is included. All detectors will have been tested within the last year for
sensitivity.
• Use sensitivity setting of 7(Anabat).
• Detectors will be placed in a variety of habitats and stand conditions.
• Bat echolocation passes will be identified using two automated systems such as EchoClass II and
BCID (Bat Call ID) as well as supervised visual examination.
• Habitat will be scored as as pine/hardwood/mixed; the landscape setting as upland/bottomland;
the timber as managed (thinned, burned, or pine plantation) or unmanaged, mature or cutover;
and the condition as more open or more forested, following Ford et aL (2006). To score human
disturbance, habitat will also be classed as natural, rural (scattered agricultural land or buildings
visible), suburban (regular houses/buildings) or mixed (patches of natural and other land use).

• Natural communities will be typed according to Schafale (2012) to give an indication of which
tree species are present.
• Assess forest basal area (m2/ha) using a 10- factor prism and canopy cover using a sighting tube
at 10 random locations within a 0.05-ha circular plot around each survey site (Cook et al. 1995,
Ford et al. 2006). This will give an indication of forest structure and how cluttered the
surrounding habitat is.
Rationale far locations far acoustic work:
• Virginia lists records for NLEB in the Dismal Swamp in VA. The swamp lies in Gates,
Pasquotank, and Camden Counties in NC. Navy biologists captured NLEB in Currituck
County, NC and adjacent Chesapeake County, VA.
• Washington, Camden, Currituck and surrounding counties were selected to gather more
information about presence/seasonal activity of NLEBs in the area.
• No NLEB records occur in the Piedmont ar coastal plain of South Carolina; all records are from
the mountains.
• There are records of NLEB in Wake County and the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) lists Lee County as a recent occurrence, so those counties and some of the surrounding
counties wi11 be targeted for work.
• New Hanover and Brunswick counties will be targeted due to a New Hanover record.
• iJNC-Greensboro has identified one NLEB call in Bladen County, so it was selected.
• iJNCG researchers felt that the swath of counties between New Hanover and
Washington would be good to survey, so counties such as Duplin, Onslow, Pitt and
Beaufort will be targeted.
• The following areas were avoided based on negative data: Uwharrie National Forest and Fort
Bragg.
Proposed Acoustic Locations for 2015 (rational for selection is indicated below each county)
1. Bladen — Bladen Lakes State Forest
One county acoustic record from UNCG
2. Currituck — North River Gameland
Proximity to known NLEB capture sites
3. Gates (or Camden/Pasquotank) - Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Proximity to known NLEB capture sites
4. Hertford — Chowan Swamp Gameland (some of the gameland may fall in an NABat priority site)
Proximity to known NLEB capture sites
5. Lee (or Chatham) — CP&L Gameland (selecting Chatham will hit part of an NABat priority site)
NLEB capture record for Lee County
6. New Hanover — NCDOT Murrayville Mitigation Site
NLEB rabies record for New Hanover County
7. Tyrell — Palmetto-Peartree Reserve (some of which falls in an NABat priority site)
Proximity to known NLEB capture sites
8. Wake — Swift Creek Bluffs, Triangle Land Conservancy
Historic NLEB record for Wake County
9. Washington - Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge
Proximiry to known NLEB capture site
10. Wayne — Waynesborough State Park (on Neuse River)
Lack of data from this area of the state; proposed NCDOT Goldsboro bypass project
Locations will be further refined based on a variety of good habitat rypes. Locations at state parks,
national wildlife refuges, and large NCDOT mitigation properties will be prioritized far sampling, as they
2

should be amenable to repeated monitoring and, if NLEBs are determined to be present, can help provide
species conservation measures. Locations will be selected to provide a wide array of vegetative
communities and management/disturbance regimes. Because of logistical constraints associated with
intensive mist-netting and day-roost research, these efforts will be concentrated initially in and around
Camden, Washington and Currituck counties, where NLEB are lrnown to occur.
The North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABat; https://www.fort.usgs.gov/science-tasks/2457)
sampling design and protocols will be followed to the extent possible. The NABat sampling frame
consists of a GIS-generated sampling grid across North America of 1Ox10 km grid cells. Two to four
stationary sampling sites are established within each cell and are sampled two times/summer within the
same week. Following repeatable protocols in a nationally standardized context will allow comparison
within and between states and regions and can reveal trends across broad landscape scales. NABat will
establish population baselines from which anticipated declines from white-nose syndrome and other
threats can be documented and will provide information about bat populations within NC.
Acoustic monitoring results will be used to determine where mist-netting should be targeted. Acoustic
data collected as a result of NCDOT research could be used to develop northern long-eared bat predictive
habitat models. Modeling will not be conducted by NCDOT, but NCDOT will cooperate with other
agencies wishing to use our data to develop models.
2. Mist-netting/telemetry
NLEBs will be netted over water, forest edges, and forested roads and outfitted with radio-transmitters.
The bats will be radio-tracked to day-roosts to describe roost and site characteristics following the
methods of Perry and Thill, (2007). Mist netting/telemehy in the northeastern part of the state (around
Camden, Currituck and Washington counties) can begin concurrently with acoustic work in early 2015
and can expand to other areas of eastern NC over time, depending on the acoustic results. If mist-netting
is not as productive as we anticipate (few NLEB captures), resources can be reallocated for more acoustic
work. The initial assumption is that there will be posirive acoustic results to justify mist-netting at least
15 locations in the eastern half of NC. This 15-location estimate is based on known occurrences and
negative survey results, while anticipating that ideally, mist-netting should occur in enough locations to
provide data from all regions of eastern NC. The target season for most netting will be in the fall, with
the intent of tracking bats to their winter roosts. Some summer netting may be conducted as well if
requested by USFWS, which would allow data to be collected on reproductive status and summer roosts.
Assume at least five locations will be surveyed with mist-nets each year for three years, with 8 nights of
surveying per location, for a minimum of 120 survey nights. If 25 locations are netted eight nights each
(67 nights of mist-netting a year over a three-year period), two hundred survey nights will be conducted.
Mist-netting will be coordinated with LTNCG researchers, who will be conducting NLEB work around
Camden and Washington counties in 2015.
Telemetry will be used to collect information about roost types and locations. For telemetry, assume that
up to 100 NLEBS will be captured and transmittered throughout the five year programmatic duration, for
a minimum of 8400 hours of telemetry (100 bats x 4 hours a day x 21 days), assuming sufficient numbers
of bats are captured.
Allowing for the possibility that up to 50 NLEB roost sites will be found, each roost will be inspected at
least four times a year for two years to determine summer/winter usage. Emergence counts may be
conducted instead of physically entering roosts. Collecting data on winter presence and roosting habitat
will prioritized over collecting summer data (e.g. 2/3 effort on winter data, ]/3 effort on summer data). If
100 NLEB roosts are found, a total of 800 roost inspections/emergence counts will be conducted.

Methods:
Nets will remain open at least iive hours a night (pre-dawn netting can count towards the five hours).
There will be a 46 degree cut-off for mist-netting, based on insect activity results from Taylor (1963).
Each bat will be tracked for at least 4 hours a day for 3 weeks, (unless the transmitter falls off or stops
working prior to that point).
Each roost will be inspected (or an einergence count will be conducted) at least four time a year:
twice in summer and twice in winter.
The following data will be collected at each roost: tree species, diameter at breast height (dbh), roost
height, cavity description, total tree height, tree condition (live vs snag), and tree location. If the roost
is in a site other than a tree, the site will be described.
The natural community surrounding each roost tree will be typed according to Schafale (2012).
Habitat surrounding each roost will be characterized in a 17.8-m radius (0.1-ha) plot centered on the
roost tree with a tally of all woody stems >1 m tall and <5 cm dbh. Woody stems (including snags)
> 1 m tall and >5 cm dbh will be recorded by dbh and species. Canopy cover will be measured at four
locations along the outer edge of each plot using a spherical densitometer (Perry and Thill, 2007).
To determine site characteristics that may have affected roost selection, data will also be collected at
random sites and compared with roost plots.
It should be noted that in addition to the above mist-netting and acoustic work, NCDOT may also conduct
NLEB surveys far one or two new location projects in eastern North Carolina in early 2015.
3. White-nose Syndrome Data Collection
Data collection to determine the presence/extent of WNS will be coordinated with the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) so as not to duplicate efforts. If winter roosts are located and
the bats can be accessed safely, they will be swabbed in winter for Pseudogymnoascus destructans. Some
winter/early spring mist-netting may be conducted at the request of USFWS in order to collect data on
WNS occurrence. In the unlikely event fungal growth is observed on bats during the summer,
photographs and wing punches will be collected. The Reichard Wing Damage Index should be recorded
for all bats regardless of season, and bats with score of 2 or 3 will be photographed per North Carolina's
White-nose Syndrome Surveillance and Response Plan (2013). Swabs and wing punches will be sent to
the Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study lab for analysis.
4. Bridge and Structure Surveys
Bridge and structure surveys will be conducted to determine if NLEB use them for roosting in eastern
NC, and if so, how often, what types of structures are used, and for which seasons. These surveys will
focus initially around Camden and Washington counties, expanding into other counties as acoustic
surveys dictate. A variety of bridge types will be selected for surveying: concrete slab, cast-in-place, steel
deck, concrete beam, wooden, etc. Large culverts will also be surveyed.
Data will be collected from 200 bridges/culverts throughout the 5 year duration. Some bridge data may
be compiled from existing NCDOT records. Bridge surveys will be conducted primarily in suinmer, but
some surveys may also be conducted in winter to look for potential winter roosts. If a bridge has
evidence of significant bat use, that structure will be checked again to collect data on seasonal use.
Buildings capable of housing bats (abandoned houses, barns, sheds, etc.) will be surveyed
opportunistically.
5. Reporting and Decision-making Process
NCDOT will develop monitoring methods and locations with technical advice from advisors from state
and federal resource agencies and from academia. Their recommendations will be considered by the

research group. The group will consist of staff from the NCDOT Biological Surveys Group, and
representatives from USFWS, NCWRC and FHWA. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will
remain informed as the research progresses, but has chosen to be silent member of the group. NCDOT
will provide quarterly reports to USFWS, FHWA, NCWRC and USACE throughout the duration of the
five year research study, and meetings will be held at least twice a year to provide results, to plan for
future efforts, and to maintain coardination between agencies. Work will begin in 2015 and will be
completed by the end of 2019. Final reports will be due by Apri12020.
Products
Levels of effort for the various objectives may vary somewhat as the wark progresses, if the research
group determines it is appropriate. Far example, if mist-netting proves to be rather unproductive, less
effort will be needed for telemetry, freeing up more resources for acoustic surveys.
Initial mist-netting and acoustic planning/installation
Year-round acoustic surveys
Acoustic data interpretation and analysis
Northern long-eared netting and tracking
Roost data collection
WNS swabbing results
Quarterly reports
Preparation and submittal of iinal acoustical activity report
Preparation and submittal of final tracking/roost report
Final report
Literature Cited
Cook, J. G., T. W. Stutzman, C. W. Bowers, K. A. Brenner and L. L. Irwin. 1995. Spherical
densiometers produce biased estimates of forest canopy cover. Wildlife Society Bulletin2 3:711-717.
Ford. W.M., J.M. Menzel, M.A. Menzel, J.W. Edwards and J.C. Kilgo. 2006. Presence and absence of
bats across habitat scales in the upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management
70:1174-1184.
NC Wildlife Resources Commission and US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. North Carolina's White-
nose Syndrome Surveillance and Response Plan.
http://www.ncwildlife. org/Portals/0/Conservin�/documents/WildlifeDiversitv/NCWNS_Surveillance%20
ResponsePlan.pdf
Perry, R.W., and R.E. Thill, 2007. Roost selection by male and female northern long-eared
bats in a pine-dominated landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 247: 220-226.
Schafale, M.P., 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
http://cvs.bio.unc. edu/pubs/4thA�proximationGuideFinalMarch2012.pdf
Taylor, L.R. 1963. Analysis of the Effect of Temperature on Insects in Flight. Journal of Animal
Ecology, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 99-117.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, January 6, 2014. Northern Long-eared Bat Interim Conference and
Planning Guidance.
http: //www. fws. gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/pdf/NLEBinterimGuidance6Jan2014.pdf

APPENDIX D
ACTIVITY EFFECTS ANALYSIS
SPREADSHEET

Activity Effects Analysis - New Construction (Category)
Resources - simplified NA Hibernacula Hibernacula Hibernacula Natural roosts Naturel roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Roosting and Roosting and Drinking water, aquatic Drinking water, Drinking water, Roosting and foraging
(bridges/ (bridges/ (bridges/ foreging habitat foreging foraging habitat aquatic foreging aquatic foreging habitat
structures) structures) structures) habitat habitat habitat
6eneral Parameters NA low noise levels, suitable roosting suitable roosting NA NA NA suitable roosting low-mod noise low-mod noise low-mod light clean water sources, clean water clean water forest patches and
safety location location location levels, safety levels, safety levels, safety insects sources, insects sources, insects travel corridors
Stressor Collision bats not Noise, Vibretion Fill, Excavate new Flooding direct Smoke, Heat Crushing direct Crushing direct Permanent Loss Noise, Vibretion, Noise construction, Light Spills, Contaminants Loss or Degradation (dust, Loss, Fragmentation
anticipated to may cause opening direct effect (drown bats) direct effects effects at effects at of Roost Site Disturbance at road use (e.g., potential for all Degradation deicers, herbicides) (tree removal)
collide with disturbance and effect (crush bats) or Indirect (alter consider hib and natural roosts artificial roosts bridge or structure increase capacity) - activities involving (sedimentation,
structures or collapse direct or indirect (alter hib) summer baseline noise vs. vehicles, equipment fill, piping of
slow-moving effect or indirect hib) new activity noise streams)
vehicles
Activity (source) Subactivity (source) Sub-subactivity (source)
All VehicleandHeavy MayAffect MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE MayAffect NE NE NE
Equipment Use
StagingAreas/Site Lighting OutdoorLighting NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE NE NE NE
Prep Construction
StagingAreas/Site Lighting PortableLighting NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect- MayAffect NE NE NE NE
Prep (temporary� generators
StagingAreas/Site PortableFence NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Prep Installation/ Removal
StagingAreas/Site TreeClearing NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE MayAffect- NE NE MayAffect MayAffect-dust MayAffect
Prep chainsaw
StagingAreas/Site Shrubs/herbaceousveg NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE MayAffect MayAffect-dust NE
Prep clearing
Staging Areas/Site Burn Vegetation Onsite NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
Prep
StagingAreas/Site HaulVegetationOffsite NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Prep
StagingAreas/Site UseofDisposalAreas NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Prep (terrestrial)
StagingAreas/Site RedistributeVegetation NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Prep Onsite (mulch or salvage)
StagingAreas/Site TemporaryFieldOffice NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE
Prep
StagingAreas/Site Grubbing NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE MayAffect MayAffect-dust NE
Prep
StagingAreas/Site Grading(cutting,filling, NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE MayAffect MayAffect-dust NE
Prep earthwork)
Staging Areas/Site Gravel workspace NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Prep
StagingAreas/Site TemporaryAccessRoad NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE
Prep Construction - install
geotextile fabric and rock
StagingAreas/Site RockRemoval-Blasting NE MayAffect MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE MayAffect-hotrock NE MayAffect-dust NE
Prep (very uncommon) exposure
StagingAreas/Site DebrisorRockDisposal NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Prep
StagingAreas/Site DustControl NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE MayAffect-positive NE
Prep (Road/Exposed Soil Pre- - dust control
watering)
StagingAreas/Site InstallErosionand NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE MayAffect- NE N
Prep Sediment Control BMPs positive
(silt fence, check dams,
sediment basin, temporary
seeding)
New Construction

Activity Effects Analysis - New Construction (Category)
Resources - simplified NA Hibernacula Hibernacula Hibernacula Natural roosts Naturel roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Roosting and Roosting and Drinking water, aquatic Drinking water, Drinking water, Roosting and foraging
(bridges/ (bridges/ (bridges/ foreging habitat foreging foraging habitat aquatic foreging aquatic foreging habitat
structures) structures) structures) habitat habitat habitat
6eneral Parameters NA low noise levels, suitable roosting suitable roosting NA NA NA suitable roosting low-mod noise low-mod noise low-mod light clean water sources, clean water clean water forest patches and
safety location location location levels, safety levels, safety levels, safety insects sources, insects sources, insects travel corridors
Stressor Collision bats not Noise, Vibretion Fill, Excavate new Flooding direct Smoke, Heat Crushing direct Crushing direct Permanent Loss Noise, Vibretion, Noise construction, Light Spills, Contaminants Loss or Degradation (dust, Loss, Fragmentation
anticipated to may cause opening direct effect (drown bats) direct effects effects at effects at of Roost Site Disturbance at road use (e.g., potential for all Degradation deicers, herbicides) (tree removal)
collide with disturbance and effect (crush bats) or Indirect (alter consider hib and natural roosts artificial roosts bridge or structure increase capacity) - activities involving (sedimentation,
structures or collapse direct or indirect (alter hib) summer baseline noise vs. vehicles, equipment fill, piping of
slow-moving effect or indirect hib) new activity noise streams)
vehicles
Activity (source) Subactivity (source) Sub-subactivity (source)
Staging Areas/Site Wetland fill NE NE NE May Affect- NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE May Affect May Affect - fill NE NE
Prep altered site
hydrology
StagingAreas/Site DebrisRemoval NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE
Prep
Staging Areas/Site Blasting NE May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect NE May Affect- Hot Rock NE May Affect - dust NE
Prep Exposure
StagingAreas/Site StructureDemolition NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE MayAffect NE NE NE MayAffect-dust NE
Prep (otherthan bridge,e.g.,
house)
Staging Areas/Site Install Drainage Features Isolate, Stream NE NE NE May Affect- NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE May Affect May Affect - piping NE NE
Prep Diversion, Dewater altered site of streams OR
hydrology sedimentation
Staging Areas/Site Install Drainage Features Excavation (pipe trench, NE May Affect May Affect May Affect- NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE May Affect May Affect - piping NE NE
Prep ditch creation & stream altered site of streams OR
relocation if necessary) hydrology sedimentation
StagingAreas/Site InstallDrainageFeatures CulvertJackingor NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE MayAffect MayAffect-piping NE NE
Prep Drilling of streams OR
sedimentation
Staging Areas/Site Install Drainage Features Lay Pipe and Cover NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE May Affect May Affect - piping NE NE
Prep of streams OR
sedimentation
StagingAreas/Site InstallDrainageFeatures NeadwallConstruction- NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE MayAffect MayAffect-piping NE NE
Prep retaining wall on outlet of streams OR
side of flow diversion sedimentation
StagingAreas/Site InstallDrainageFeatures InstallArmoring NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE MayAffect MayAffect-piping NE NE
Prep of streams OR
sedimentation
Staging Areas/Site Install Drainage Features Regrade Stream, Place NE NE NE May Affect- NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE May Affect May Affect- piping NE NE
Prep Bed Material/Habitat altered site of streams OR
features hydrology sedimentation
StagingAreas/Site InstallDrainageFeatures RestoreFlow NE NE NE MayAffect- NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect-piping NE NE
Prep altered site of streams OR
hydrology sedimentation
Staging Areas/Site Utility Lines Utility Relocation or NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Prep Placement — Above
Ground
New Construction

Activity Effects Analysis - New Construction (Category)
Resources - simplified NA Hibernacula Hibernacula Hibernacula Natural roosts Naturel roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Roosting and Roosting and Drinking water, aquatic Drinking water, Drinking water, Roosting and foraging
(bridges/ (bridges/ (bridges/ foreging habitat foreging foraging habitat aquatic foreging aquatic foreging habitat
structures) structures) structures) habitat habitat habitat
6eneral Parameters NA low noise levels, suitable roosting suitable roosting NA NA NA suitable roosting low-mod noise low-mod noise low-mod light clean water sources, clean water clean water forest patches and
safety location location location levels, safety levels, safety levels, safety insects sources, insects sources, insects travel corridors
Stressor Collision bats not Noise, Vibretion Fill, Excavate new Flooding direct Smoke, Heat Crushing direct Crushing direct Permanent Loss Noise, Vibretion, Noise construction, Light Spills, Contaminants Loss or Degradation (dust, Loss, Fragmentation
anticipated to may cause opening direct effect (drown bats) direct effects effects at effects at of Roost Site Disturbance at road use (e.g., potential for all Degradation deicers, herbicides) (tree removal)
collide with disturbance and effect (crush bats) or Indirect (alter consider hib and natural roosts artificial roosts bridge or structure increase capacity) - activities involving (sedimentation,
structures or collapse direct or indirect (alter hib) summer baseline noise vs. vehicles, equipment fill, piping of
slow-moving effect or indirect hib) new activity noise streams)
vehicles
Activity (source) Subactivity (source) Sub-subactivity (source)
Staging Areas/Site Utility Lines Utility Relocation or NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE May Affect - potential May Affect - NE NE
Prep Placement—Below fracout sedimentation
Ground (trenching or
horizontal bore or
directional)
StagingAreas/Site Pre-wateringofRoadsand NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE MayAffect-positive NE
Prep Exposed Areas in for Dust dust control
Control or Grading
Offsite Use Areas Borrow Sites NE May Affect May Affect May Affect- NE May Affect NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE May Affect May Affect
altered site
hydrology
Offsite Use Areas Waste Disposal Sites NE May Affect May Affect May Affect- NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE May Affect May Affect May Affect
altered site
hydrology
RoadSurface, ConstructStormwater NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE MayAffect- NE NE
Bike/Ped Facility Facilities positive
Construction
RoadSurface, FinalGradingand NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE MayAffect-dust NE
Bike/Ped Facility Road/Trail Bed Preparation
Construction
Road Surface, Road Median Construction NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Bike/Ped Facility —Barrier Wall
Construction
Road Surface, Construct Retaining Wall NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Bike/PedFacility (mechanicallystabilized
Construction earth, soil nail, sheet pile,
etc. )
RoadSurface, CourseAggregate NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE MayAffect-dust NE
Bike/Ped Facility Application, Concrete or
Construction Asphalt Application
Road Surface, Striping, Pavement NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Bike/Ped Facility Markers and Signage
Construction
Road Surface, Guard Rail Installation NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Bike/Ped Facility
Construction
Road Surface, Noise Wall Construction NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect, but NE NE NE NE NE
Bike/Ped Facility potential positive
Construction effect post-
construction
Road Surface, Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE May Affect - run-off NE
Bike/Ped Facility Installation from gutter
Construction
New Construction

Activity Effects Analysis - New Construction (Category)
Resources - simplified NA Hibernacula Hibernacula Hibernacula Natural roosts Naturel roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Roosting and Roosting and Drinking water, aquatic Drinking water, Drinking water, Roosting and foraging
(bridges/ (bridges/ (bridges/ foreging habitat foreging foraging habitat aquatic foreging aquatic foreging habitat
structures) structures) structures) habitat habitat habitat
6eneral Parameters NA low noise levels, suitable roosting suitable roosting NA NA NA suitable roosting low-mod noise low-mod noise low-mod light clean water sources, clean water clean water forest patches and
safety location location location levels, safety levels, safety levels, safety insects sources, insects sources, insects travel corridors
Stressor Collision bats not Noise, Vibretion Fill, Excavate new Flooding direct Smoke, Heat Crushing direct Crushing direct Permanent Loss Noise, Vibretion, Noise construction, Light Spills, Contaminants Loss or Degradation (dust, Loss, Fragmentation
anticipated to may cause opening direct effect (drown bats) direct effects effects at effects at of Roost Site Disturbance at road use (e.g., potential for all Degradation deicers, herbicides) (tree removal)
collide with disturbance and effect (crush bats) or Indirect (alter consider hib and natural roosts artificial roosts bridge or structure increase capacity) - activities involving (sedimentation,
structures or collapse direct or indirect (alter hib) summer baseline noise vs. vehicles, equipment fill, piping of
slow-moving effect or indirect hib) new activity noise streams)
vehicles
Activity (source) Subactivity (source) Sub-subactivity (source)
NewRail Subgradelnstallation- NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE MayAffect- MayAffect-dust NE
Construction - adding build up ballast/railbed sedimentation
parallel line
NewRail LayTrack NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Construction - adding
parallel line
Bridge Construction Barge Use NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect NE May Affect NE NE NE
(new, replace, widen
existing)
BridgeConstruction TemporaryWork Impact/vibratoryPile NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE MayAffect MayAffect- NE NE
(new, replace, widen Trestle/Detour Driving sedimentation, fill
existing) bridge/Causeway
Construction and Removal
BridgeConstruction TemporaryWork Decklnstallation NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE MayAffect NE NE NE
(new, replace, widen Trestle/Detour
existing) bridge/Causeway
Construction and Removal
Bridge Construction Temporary Work Remove Piles (vibratory NE May Affect- NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect NE May Affect May Affect - NE NE
(new, replace, widen Trestle/Detour hammer, direct pull, vibration sedimentation
existing) bridge/Causeway etc.)
Construdion and Removal
BridgeConstruction BridgeDemolition(for WorkArealsolation NE MayAffect- NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE MayAffect MayAffect- NE NE
(new, replace, widen replacement) (cofferdam installation vibration
sedimentation
existing) [casing, sheet pile, etc.],
impact/vibratory pile
driving, dewatering)
BridgeConstruction BridgeDemolition(for RemovePiles,Footings, NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect MayAffect MayAffect NE MayAffect MayAffect- NE NE
(new, replace, widen replacement) Piers, Bridge Decking, sedimentaTion
existing) railbed, etc.
BridgeConstruction BridgeDemolition(for PileRemoval NE MayAffect- NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect MayAffect MayAffect NE MayAffect MayAffect- NE NE
(new, replace, widen replacement) (vibratory pile driver, vibration sedimentation
existing) clamshell bucket,
containment boom)
BridgeConstruction BridgeDemolition(for WireSawConcrete NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect MayAffect MayAffect NE NE MayAffect- NE NE
(new, replace, widen replacement) Cutting, Crane Use sedimentation
existing)
Bridge Construction Bridge Demolition (for Hoe Ram Use, Debris NE May Affect- May Affect NE NE NE May Affect May Affect May Affect May Affect NE May Affect May Affect - NE NE
(new, replace, widen replacement) Containment, Excavation vibration sedimentation
existing)
New Construction

Activity Effects Analysis - New Construction (Category)
Resources - simplified NA Hibernacula Hibernacula Hibernacula Natural roosts Naturel roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Roosting and Roosting and Drinking water, aquatic Drinking water, Drinking water, Roosting and foraging
(bridges/ (bridges/ (bridges/ foreging habitat foreging foraging habitat aquatic foreging aquatic foreging habitat
structures) structures) structures) habitat habitat habitat
6eneral Parameters NA low noise levels, suitable roosting suitable roosting NA NA NA suitable roosting low-mod noise low-mod noise low-mod light clean water sources, clean water clean water forest patches and
safety location location location levels, safety levels, safety levels, safety insects sources, insects sources, insects travel corridors
Stressor Collision bats not Noise, Vibretion Fill, Excavate new Flooding direct Smoke, Heat Crushing direct Crushing direct Permanent Loss Noise, Vibretion, Noise construction, Light Spills, Contaminants Loss or Degradation (dust, Loss, Fragmentation
anticipated to may cause opening direct effect (drown bats) direct effects effects at effects at of Roost Site Disturbance at road use (e.g., potential for all Degradation deicers, herbicides) (tree removal)
collide with disturbance and effect (crush bats) or Indirect (alter consider hib and natural roosts artificial roosts bridge or structure increase capacity) - activities involving (sedimentation,
structures or collapse direct or indirect (alter hib) summer baseline noise vs. vehicles, equipment fill, piping of
slow-moving effect or indirect hib) new activity noise streams)
vehicles
Activity (source) Subactivity (source) Sub-subactivity (source)
BridgeConstruction SubstructureConstruction DrilledShaft NE MayAffect- NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE MayAffect MayAffect- NE NE
(new, replace, widen (piers, shafts, shaft caps, Construction (auger vibration sedimentation
existing) footings, abutments, drills hole within casing)
foundations) or impact pile driving
BridgeConstruction SubstructureConstruction WorkArealsolation NE MayAffect- NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE MayAffect MayAffect- NE NE
(new, replace, widen (piers, shafts, shaft caps, (cofferdam installation, vibration sedimentation
existing) footings, abutments, impact or vibratory pile
foundations) driving, dewatering)
Bridge Construction Substructure Construction Install Casing, Rebar NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE May Affect NE - done in area NE NE
(new, replace, widen (piers, shafts, shaft caps, that has been
existing) footings, abutments, isolated (in the
foundations) dry)
Bridge Construction Substructure Construction Pour Concrete NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE -done in area that NE - done in area NE NE
(new, replace, widen (piers, shafts, shaft caps, has been isolated (in the that has been
existing) footings, abutments, dry) isolated (in the
foundations) dry)
Bridge Construction Substructure Construction Spread Footing NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE - done in area that NE - done in area NE NE
(new, replace, widen (piers, shafts, shaft caps, Construction has been isolated (in the that has been
existing) footings, abutments, dry) isolated (in the
foundations) dry)
Bridge Construction Substructure Construction Riprap Installation NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE May Affect May Affect - NE NE
(new, replace, widen (piers, shafts, shaft caps, sedimentation
existing) footings, abutments,
foundations)
BridgeConstruction Superstructure PierTables,Cantilevers, NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE MayAffect NE NE NE
(new, replace, widen Construdion Decking, etc. Crane
existing) Use
Post-construction Temporary BMP Removal NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
work (silt fence, check dam,
sediment basin)
Post-construction Fenceinstallation NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
work
Post-construction Landscaping/ NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
work Beautification/Site
Stabilization
Post-construction Installpost-construction NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE MayAffect- NE NE
work stormwater BMPs positive
Billboard Permit Tree & Vegetation Clearing NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE May Affect - NE NE NE NE May Affect
Granting (more limited than for chainsaw
road construction)
BillboardPermit Billboardlnstallation NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Granting
Billboard Permit Billboard Lighting NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE
Granting
New Construction

Activity Effects Analysis - New Construction (Category)
Resources - simplified NA Hibernacula Hibernacula Hibernacula Natural roosts Naturel roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Roosting and Roosting and Drinking water, aquatic Drinking water, Drinking water, Roosting and foraging
(bridges/ (bridges/ (bridges/ foreging habitat foreging foraging habitat aquatic foreging aquatic foreging habitat
structures) structures) structures) habitat habitat habitat
6eneral Parameters NA low noise levels, suitable roosting suitable roosting NA NA NA suitable roosting low-mod noise low-mod noise low-mod light clean water sources, clean water clean water forest patches and
safety location location location levels, safety levels, safety levels, safety insects sources, insects sources, insects travel corridors
Stressor Collision bats not Noise, Vibretion Fill, Excavate new Flooding direct Smoke, Heat Crushing direct Crushing direct Permanent Loss Noise, Vibretion, Noise construction, Light Spills, Contaminants Loss or Degradation (dust, Loss, Fragmentation
anticipated to may cause opening direct effect (drown bats) direct effects effects at effects at of Roost Site Disturbance at road use (e.g., potential for all Degradation deicers, herbicides) (tree removal)
collide with disturbance and effect (crush bats) or Indirect (alter consider hib and natural roosts artificial roosts bridge or structure increase capacity) - activities involving (sedimentation,
structures or collapse direct or indirect (alter hib) summer baseline noise vs. vehicles, equipment fill, piping of
slow-moving effect or indirect hib) new activity noise streams)
vehicles
Activity (source) Subactivity (source) Sub-subactivity (source)
The Road as a The Road as a Structure May Affect - new May Affect- new NE May Affect - NE NE NE NE NE May Affect - if NE May Affect - runoff and NE May Affect - NE
Structure (temporary and roads, widening, roads may increase increased change in small spills maintenance using
permanent) more lanes, raise site access and impervious surface speed/capacity from deicers & herbicides
road profile human baseline
disturbance
Lights as Structures Lights as Structures NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE
Bridge as a Structure Bridges as Structures May Affect - if NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect - if May Affect - if NE May Affect - runoff and NE May Affect - NE
new or widened change in change in small spills maintenance using
bridge, or raised speed/capacity speed/capacity from deicers & herbicides
road profile from baseline baseline
New Construction

Activity Effects Analysis - Safety and Mobility Improvement (Category)
Activities not covered in Resources - simplified NA Hibernacula Hibernacula Hibernacula Natural roosts Natural roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Roosting and Roosting and Drinking water, Drinking water, Drinking water, Roosting and foraging
New Construction (bridges/ (bridges/ (bridges/ foraging habitat foraging aquatic foraging aquatic foraging aquatic foraging habitat
structures) structures) structures) habitat habitat habitat habitat
General Parameters NA low noise levels, suitable roosting suitable roosting NA NA NA suitable roosting low-mod noise low-mod noise low-mod light clean water sources, clean water clean water forest patches and
safety location location location levels, safety levels, safety levels, safety insects sources,insects sources,insects travelcorridors
Stressor Collision bats not Noise, Vibration Fill, Excavate Flooding direct Smoke Heat Crushing direct Crushing direct Permanent loss of Noise Vibretion Noise construction, Light Spills Contaminants Loss or Degradation (dust, Loss, Fragmentation
anticipated to may cause direct effect (crush effect (drown direct effects effects at natural effects at roost site Disturbance at road use (e.g., potential for all Degredation deicers, herbicides) (tree removal)
collide with disturbance and bats) or indirect bats) or indirect consider hib and roosts artificial roosts bridge/ structure increase capacity) - activities involving (sedimentation, fill)
structures or slow- collapse- direct or (alter hib) summer baseline noise vs. vehicles/ machinery
moving vehicles indirect new activity noise
r : �.� �1�: : Subactivity (source)
All Vehicle and Heavy Equipment Use
See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
Intelligent Sign/camerainstallations NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Transportation Systems
Railroad Protective Sign/gate/lights installation NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Device Installation
Railroad Grade Staging Areas & Project Site Prep
See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET-New Construction
Separation
Railroad Grade Install Drainage Features
See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
Separation
Railroad Grade Utility Lines
See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
Separation
Railroad Grade Pre-watering of exposed areas in
Separation construction site for dust control or See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
grading
Road bed, railroad bed Construct Stormwater Facilities See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
prep and construction
Road bed, railroad bed Final grading and road/rail bed See Final Grading and Road/Trail Bed Preparation from PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
prep and construction preparation
Road bed, railroad bed Roadway Overpass/Underpass See Bridge Construction from PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
prep and construction Construction
Road bed, railroad bed Retaining wall (mechanically See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
prep and construction stabilized earth, soil nail, sheet pile,
etc.) construction
Road bed, railroad bed Course aggregate application, See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
prep and construction concrete or asphalt application
Road bed, railroad bed Striping, pavement markers and See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
prep and construction signage
Road bed, railroad bed Railroad Crossing Gate Installation NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
prep and construction
Road bed, railroad bed Guard rail installation See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
prep and construction
Road bed, railroad bed Sidewalk, curb and gutter See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
prep and construction construction
Post-construction work Temporary BMP Installation/ See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
Removal (silt fence, check dam,
sediment basin)
Safety and Mobility

Activity Effects Analysis - Safety and Mobility Improvement (Category)
Activities not covered in Resources - simplified NA Hibernacula Hibernacula Hibernacula Natural roosts Natural roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Roosting and Roosting and Drinking water, Drinking water, Drinking water, Roosting and foraging
New Construction (bridges/ (bridges/ (bridges/ foraging habitat foraging aquatic foraging aquatic foraging aquatic foraging habitat
structures) structures) structures) habitat habitat habitat habitat
General Parameters NA low noise levels, suitable roosting suitable roosting NA NA NA suitable roosting low-mod noise low-mod noise low-mod light clean water sources, clean water clean water forest patches and
safety location location location levels, safety levels, safety levels, safety insects sources,insects sources,insects travelcorridors
Stressor Collision bats not Noise, Vibration Fill, Excavate Flooding direct Smoke Heat Crushing direct Crushing direct Permanent loss of Noise Vibretion Noise construction, Light Spills Contaminants Loss or Degradation (dust, Loss, Fragmentation
anticipated to may cause direct effect (crush effect (drown direct effects effects at natural effects at roost site Disturbance at road use (e.g., potential for all Degredation deicers, herbicides) (tree removal)
collide with disturbance and bats) or indirect bats) or indirect consider hib and roosts artificial roosts bridge/ structure increase capacity) - activities involving (sedimentation, fill)
structures or slow- collapse- direct or (alter hib) summer baseline noise vs. vehicles/ machinery
moving vehicles indirect new activity noise
�tivity (sou
Signal System NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
Improvements
Safety and Mobility

Activity Effects Analysis - Maintenance and Presevation (Category)
Resources - simplified NA Hibernacula Hibernacula Hibernacula Naturel Natural roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Roosting and Roosting and All - hib, roosting, Drinking water, Drinking water, Roosting and foraging
roosts (bridges/ (bridges/ (bridges/ foraging habitat foraging habitat foraging,travelareas aquaticforaging aquaticforaging habitat
structures) structures) structures) habitat habitat
Generel Parameters NA low noise levels, suitable roosting suitable roosting NA NA NA suitable roosting low-mod noise low-mod noise low-mod light clean water sources, clean water clean water forest patches and
safety location location location levels, safety levels, safety levels, satety insects sources, insects sources, insects travel corridors
Stressor Collision bats Noise Vibration Fill Excavate direct Flooding direct Smoke Heat Crushing direct Crushing Permanent loss Noise Vibration Noise Light Spills Contaminants Loss or Degradation (dust, Loss, Fragmentation
not anticipated may cause effect (�rush bats) effect (drown direct effects effects at (direct effects - of roost site Disturbance at Construction, potential for all Degradation deicers, herbicides) �tree removal)
to collide with disturbance and or indirect (alter bats) or indirect consider hib natural roosts at artificial bridge/ structure Road use (e.g., activities involving (sedimentation, fill)
structures or collapse- direct or hib) (alter hib) and summer roosts increase vehicles/ machinery
slow-moving indirect capacity) -
vehicles baseline noise vs.
new activity
noise
54ba `
All Vehicle and Heavy Equipment Use See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
BridgePainting Construct5caffoldling NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Bridge Painting Install full Containment (includes NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
vacuum system for capturing wash
water)
Bridge Painting Pressure Wash Bridge (graffiti NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
removal)
BridgePainting SandblastBridge NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE MayAffect MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
BridgePainting Prime/PaintBridge NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Bridge Painting Remove Containment and NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Scaffolding
Bridge Rehab Install Scaffolding and NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Containment
Bridge Rehab Replace Rivits, Degraded steel, NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Bridge railing, Joint Seals, bearing
work
Bridge Rehab Seal Cracks (shotcrete) NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
BridgeRehab RepairConcreteSpalling NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect MayAffect MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Bridge Rehab Repair Bridge Approaches NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Bridge Rehab Repair/Replace Electrical System NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Bridge Rehab Bridge Deck Replacement (e.g., Install Scaffolding and NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
concrete, timber) Containment
Bridge Rehab Mill, Break up, or use NE May Affect NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Bridge Deck Replacement (e.g., Hydrodemolition to Remove
concrete, timber) Existing Deck
Bridge Rehab Bridge Deck Replacement (e.g., Use Vacuum Truck or Sweeper to NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
concrete, timber) Remove Debris
Bridge Rehab Bridge Deck Replacement (e.g., Repair/Replace Finger Joints NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
concrete, timber)
Bridge Rehab Bridge Deck Replacement (e.g., Pour New Deck NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
concrete, timber)
Bridge Rehab Bridge Deck Replacement (e.g., Remove Containment and NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
concrete, timber) Scaffolding
BridgeRehab CulvertCleaning/Repair DivertFlow,Dewater NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE MayAffect MayAffect NE NE
Bridge Rehab Culvert Cleaning/Repair Clean Culvert NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE May Affect May Affect NE May Affect May Affect NE NE
Bridge Rehab Install Culvert liner (Complete or NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect May Affect May Affect NE May Affect NE NE NE
Culvert Cleaning/Repair Invert)
Bridge Rehab Patch Repair (Metal or Concrete, NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect May Affect May Affect NE May Affect NE NE NE
Culvert Cleaning/Repair Coat and Seal)
Bridge Rehab Headwall or Outfall Repair NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect May Affect May Affect NE May Affect NE NE NE
(Concrete Work or Riprap
Culvert Cleaning/Repair Installation)
BridgeRehab RepairJoints(Bandlnstallation, NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect MayAffect MayAffect NE MayAffect NE NE NE
Culvert Cleaning/Repair Inject Grout)
Bridge Rehab Line with Shotcrete or Gunnite NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect May Affect May Affect NE May Affect NE NE NE
Culvert Cleaning/Repair
BridgeRehab CulvertCleaning/Repair Sandblast/Repaint/Recoat NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE MayAffect MayAffect NE MayAffect NE NE NE
Drainage Improvement Clean and Reshape Ditches NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE May Affect May Affect NE NE
(remove vegetation, sediment,
debris)
Maintenance and Preservation

Activity Effects Analysis - Maintenance and Presevation (Category)
Resources - simplified NA Hibernacula Hibernacula Hibernacula Naturel Natural roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Roosting and Roosting and All - hib, roosting, Drinking water, Drinking water, Roosting and foraging
roosts (bridges/ (bridges/ (bridges/ foraging habitat foraging habitat foraging,travelareas aquaticforaging aquaticforaging habitat
structures) structures) structures) habitat habitat
Generel Parameters NA low noise levels, suitable roosting suitable roosting NA NA NA suitable roosting low-mod noise low-mod noise low-mod light clean water sources, clean water clean water forest patches and
safety location location location levels, safety levels, safety levels, satety insects sources, insects sources, insects travel corridors
Stressor Collision bats Noise Vibration Fill Excavate direct Flooding direct Smoke Heat Crushing direct Crushing Permanent loss Noise Vibration Noise Light Spills Contaminants Loss or Degradation (dust, Loss, Fragmentation
not anticipated may cause effect (�rush bats) effect (drown direct effects effects at (direct effects - of roost site Disturbance at Construction, potential for all Degradation deicers, herbicides) �tree removal)
to collide with disturbance and or indirect (alter bats) or indirect consider hib natural roosts at artificial bridge/ structure Road use (e.g., activities involving (sedimentation, fill)
structures or collapse- direct or hib) (alter hib) and summer roosts increase vehicles/ machinery
slow-moving indirect capacity) -
vehicles baseline noise vs.
new activity
noise
¢tlXffiyi - - - f 1
Drainage Improvement Culvert Repair Work (as previously See Above
described
Drainagelmprovement CleanCatchBasins/Inlets NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect-[atch MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
(manually or vacuum truck) basins on bridges
Drainage Improvement Remove Beaver Dams from Culvert NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Ends
Drainagelmprovement RemoveSedimentfrom NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE MayAffect- NE NE
Retention/Detention Facilities positive
Drainage Improvement Dispose of Debris and Vegetation NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Guardrail Replacement Remove Damaged Guardrail NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Guardrail Replacement Install Posts w/Post Driver NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Guardrail Replacement Install Steel Beam NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Overlay ApplyTackCoatandNew NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Pavement Layer
Pavement Rehab/Chip Seal Cracks w/Liquid Asphalt NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Seal
Pavement Rehab/Chip 8lanket Application of Liquid NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Seal Asphalt
PavementRehab/Chip ApplyAggregate NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Seal
Pavement Rehab/Chip Finish w/Power Roller NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Seal
Resurfacing Grind (mill) Existing Pavement NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Resurfacing CollectandDisposeofPavement NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Grindings/Slurry
Resurfacing DowelBarPlacement(ifconcrete) NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Resurfacing ApplyNewPavement NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Herbicide5praying NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect
within ROW
Mowing NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Branch/LimbRemoval NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE MayAtfect NE NE NE NE MayAffect
along ROW
Hazardtreeremoval NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE MayAffect
Repair ROW fence NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
Facility Rehabilitation Install/remove Erosion and
See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
Sediment Control BMPs
FacilityRehabilitation MinorVegetationRemoval NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect
Facility Rehabilitation Overlay, Paving NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
FacilityRehabilitation Excavation NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Facility Rehabilitation Septic Upgrades NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Facility Rehabilitation Herbicide Application NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Atfect NE
FacilityRehabilitation Painting/Striping/Signing NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE
Facility Rehabilitation Rehab historic rail buildings & NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
othernon-bridge structures
Reconstruct Existing Install new rail, concrete ties, and NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Rail resurface stone ballast
Maintenance and Preservation

Activity Effects Analysis - Maintenance and Presevation (Category)
Resources - simplified NA Hibernacula Hibernacula Hibernacula Naturel Natural roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Roosting and Roosting and All - hib, roosting, Drinking water, Drinking water, Roosting and foraging
roosts (bridges/ (bridges/ (bridges/ foraging habitat foraging habitat foraging,travelareas aquaticforaging aquaticforaging habitat
structures) structures) structures) habitat habitat
Generel Parameters NA low noise levels, suitable roosting suitable roosting NA NA NA suitable roosting low-mod noise low-mod noise low-mod light clean water sources, clean water clean water forest patches and
safety location location location levels, safety levels, safety levels, satety insects sources, insects sources, insects travel corridors
Stressor Collision bats Noise Vibration Fill Excavate direct Flooding direct Smoke Heat Crushing direct Crushing Permanent loss Noise Vibration Noise Light Spills Contaminants Loss or Degradation (dust, Loss, Fragmentation
not anticipated may cause effect (�rush bats) effect (drown direct effects effects at (direct effects - of roost site Disturbance at Construction, potential for all Degradation deicers, herbicides) �tree removal)
to collide with disturbance and or indirect (alter bats) or indirect consider hib natural roosts at artificial bridge/ structure Road use (e.g., activities involving (sedimentation, fill)
structures or collapse- direct or hib) (alter hib) and summer roosts increase vehicles/ machinery
slow-moving indirect capacity) -
vehicles baseline noise vs.
new activity
noise
Adivity Subactivity Sub-suba
Reconstruct Existing Pavement resurfacing at crossings NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affett NE NE NE NE NE
Rail and approaches
Reconstruct Existing Upgrade signals and warning NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
Rail systems
SnowRemoval/Deicers NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE
Bridgelnspections NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE NE
(human presence)
Portable Lighting See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
Maintenance and Preservation

Activity Effects Analysis - Disaster Response, Bank Stabilization and Sinkhole Repair (Category)
Resources - simplified NA Hibernacula Hibernacula Hibernacula Natural roosts Natural roosts Artificial Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Roosting and Roosting and Drinking water, Drinking water, Drinking water, Roosting and foraging
roosts (bridges/ (bridges/ foraging habitat foraging habitat aquatic foraging aquatic foraging aquatic foraging habitat
(bridges/ structures) structures) habitat habitat habitat
structures)
General Parameters NA low noise levels, suitable roosting suitable roosting NA NA NA suitable roosting low-mod noise low-mod noise low-mod light Clean water sources, Clean water sources, Clean water forest patches and
safety location location location levels, safety levels, safety levels, safety insects insects sources, insects travel corridors
Stressor Collision bats Noise, Vibretion Fill, Excavate can Flooding can be Smoke, Heat Crushing direct Crushing Permanent loss Noise, Vibration, Noise Construction, Light Spills, Contaminants - Loss or degradation Degredation Loss, Fragmentation
not anticipated may cause be direct effect direct effect (drown direct effects effects at direct effects of roost site Disturbance at Road use (e.g., potential for all (sedimentation, fill) (dust, deicers, (tree removal)
to collide with disturbance & (crush bats) or bats) or indirect consider hib natural roosts at artificial bridge/ structure increase capacity) - activities involving herbicides)
structures or collapse - direct indirect (alter hib) (alter hib) and summer roosts baseline noise vs. vehicles/ machinery
slow-moving effect or indirect new activity noise
vehicles
Activity (source) Subactivity (source)
All Vehicle and Heavy Equipment Use See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Disaster Response Debris Removal See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Disaster Response Construct Temporary Access Road
See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Disaster Response Construct Temporary Bridge See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
Disaster Response Grading See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Disaster Response Install/Remove Temporary Erosion Control
See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
BMPs
Disaster Response Barge Use See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
Disaster Response Road Reconstruction (rebuild roadbed,
add drainage structures,repave, paint)-
See Road Surface, Bike/Ped Facility Prep and Construction in PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
putting things back with minor changes
Disaster Response Fill newly created breaches (in causeways, NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE May Affect May Affect May Affect NE
roadways, etc.)
DisasterResponse Sandbaginstallation/replacement NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE MayAffect MayAffect NE NE
DisasterResponse Waterremoval(pumpingwaterfrom NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE MayAffect MayAffect NE NE
flooded areas)
Bank Stabilization /Flood Culvert Cleaning/Repair
Damage /Scour Repair See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- Maintenance and Preservation
Bank Stabilization /Flood Disposed of Debris and Vegetation
Damage /Scour Repair See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- Maintenance and Preservation
Bank Stabilization /Flood Construct Temporary Access Road
Damage /Scour Repair See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Bank Stabilization /Flood Tree Clearing/Vegetation Clearing
Damage /Scour Repair See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Bank Stabilization /Flood Haul Vegetation off Site
Damage /Scour Repair See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Bank Stabilization /Flood Grading (earthwork) See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Damage /Scour Repair
Bank Stabilization /Flood Riprap Installation
Damage /Scour Repair See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
BankStabilization/Flood Willow5taking NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect-positive NE NE
Damage /Scour Repair
Bank Stabilization /Flood Instream Structure Installation (weirs, NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE May Affect May Affect - NE NE
Damage /Scour Repair barbs, logjams, etc.) sedimentation but
also potential
beneficial effects
BankStabilization/flood Landscaping/SiteStabilization NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE MayAffect-positive NE NE
Damage /Scour Repair
Bank Stabilization /Flood Install/Remove Temporary Erosion Control
Damage /Scour Repair BMPs See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
Sinkhole Repair Excavate and/or flush loose material NE NE May Affect May Affect NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE May Affect NE NE
Sinkhole Repair Place non-concrete fill material NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE May Affect NE NE
Sinkhole Repair Place concrete fill NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE May Affect NE NE
SinkholeRepair Compactfill NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE MayAffect NE NE
Disasters, Stabil'n, Sinkholes

Activity Effects Analysis - Disaster Response, Bank Stabilization and Sinkhole Repair (Category)
Resources - simplified NA Hibernacula Hibernacula Hibernacula Natural roosts Natural roosts Artificial Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Roosting and Roosting and Drinking water, Drinking water, Drinking water, Roosting and foraging
roosts (bridges/ (bridges/ foraging habitat foraging habitat aquatic foraging aquatic foraging aquatic foraging habitat
(bridges/ structures) structures) habitat habitat habitat
structures)
General Parameters NA low noise levels, suitable roosting suitable roosting NA NA NA suitable roosting low-mod noise low-mod noise low-mod light Clean water sources, Clean water sources, Clean water forest patches and
safety location location location levels, safety levels, safety levels, safety insects insects sources, insects travel corridors
Stressor Collision bats Noise, Vibretion Fill, Excavate can Flooding can be Smoke, Heat Crushing direct Crushing Permanent loss Noise, Vibration, Noise Construction, Light Spills, Contaminants - Loss or degradation Degredation Loss, Fragmentation
not anticipated may cause be direct effect direct effect (drown direct effects effects at direct effects of roost site Disturbance at Road use (e.g., potential for all (sedimentation, fill) (dust, deicers, (tree removal)
to collide with disturbance & (crush bats) or bats) or indirect consider hib natural roosts at artificial bridge/ structure increase capacity) - activities involving herbicides)
structures or collapse - direct indirect (alter hib) (alter hib) and summer roosts baseline noise vs. vehicles/ machinery
slow-moving effect or indirect new activity noise
vehicles
Activity (source) Subactivity (source)
Sinl<hole Repair Restore roadway
All Portable Lighting
NE � NE � MayAffect � NE � NE � NE � NE � NE � NE � MayAffect � NE
See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Disasters, Stabil'n, Sinkholes
NE I MavAffect I NE I NE
2

Activity Effects Analysis - Transportation Enhancements (Category)
These activities may require staging Resources - simplified NA Hibernacula Hibernacula Hibernacula Natural roosts Natural roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Roosting and Roosting and Drinking water, Drinking water, Drinking water, Roosting and foraging
areas, similar to New Construction. (bridges/ (bridges/ (bridges/ foreging habitat foraging aquatic foreging aquatic foraging aquatic foraging habitat
That breakdown is not structures) structures) structures) habitat habitat habitat habitat
repeated here to reduce redundancy. General Parameters NA low noise levels, suitable roosting suitable roosting NA NA NA suitable roosting low-mod noise low-mod noise low-mod light clean water sources, clean water sources, clean water forest patches and
safety location location location levels,safety levels,safety levels,safety insects insects sources,insects travelcorridors
Stressor Collision bats not Noise Vibration Fill Excavate Flooding can direct Smoke Heat Crushing direct Crushing direct Permanent loss Noise Vibration Noise Light Spills Contaminants Loss or Degradation Degradation (dust, Loss, Fragmentation
anticipated to may cause direct effect (crush effect (drown bats) direct effects effects at effects at of roost site Disturbance at Construction, potential for all (sedimentation, fill) deicers, (tree removal)
collide with disturbance & bats) or indirect or indirect (alter consider hib natural roosts artificial roosts bridge /structure Road use (e.g., activities involving herbicides)
structures or slow collapse- direct (alter hib) hib) and summer increase capacity) vehicles/ machinery
moving vehicles effect or indirect baseline noise vs.
new activity noise
_ �.,� >�..�_ ��
All Vehicle and Heavy Equipment Use
See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Portable Lighting
markers, viewpoints* See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Lights as a structure
markers, viewpoints* See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Portable Fence Installation/Removal
markers, viewpoints* See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Staging Area/Site Prep
markers, viewpoints* See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Install Drainage Features
markers, viewpoints* See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Utility Lines
markers, viewpoints* See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Pre-watering of Roads and Exposed Areas in
markers, viewpoints* Construction Site for Dust Control or Grading See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Road and Parking Lot Surface Preparation and
markers, viewpoints* Construction See Road Surface, Bike/Ped Facility Prep and Construction in PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Construct Stormwater Facilities
markers, viewpoints* See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Final Grading and Road/Parking Lot Bed
markers, viewpoints* Preparation See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Construct Retaining Wall (MSE, soil nail, sheet
markers, viewpoints* pile, soldier pile, etc.) See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Course Aggregate Application, concrete or
markers, viewpoints* asphalt application See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Striping, Pavement Markers and Signage
markers, viewpoints* See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Guard Rail Installation
markers, viewpoints* See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Sidewalk Installation
markers, viewpoints* See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Information Kiosk & Historic Marker NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE
markers, viewpoints* Construction
Construct turnouts, overlooks, historic Post-construction work
markers, viewpoints* See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
*Activities are generally consistent with new roadway construction, however these projects are much smaller in scale typically (less vegetation removal, disturbance, etc).
Transportation Enhancements

Activity Effects Analysis-Conservation Measures (Category)
Resources - simplified NA Hibernacula Hibernacula Hibernacula Natural Natural roosts Artificial Artificial roosts Artificial roosts Roosting and Roosting and Drinking water, Drinking water, aquatic Drinking water, Roosting and foraging
roosts roosts (bridges/ (bridges/ foraging habitat foraging aquaticforaging foraging habitat aquaticforaging habitat
(bridges/ structures) structures) habitat habitat habitat
structures)
General Parameters NA low noise levels, suitable roosting suitable roosting NA NA NA suitable roosting low-mod noise low-mod noise low-mod light Clean water sources, Clean water sources, Clean water forest patches and travel
safety location location location levels, safety levels, safety levels, safety insects insects sources,insects corridors
Stressor Collision bats not Noise, Vibration Fill, Excavate Flooding can be Smoke, Heat Crushing direct Crushing direct Permanent loss of Noise Vibretion Noise Light Spills Contaminants - Loss or Degradation Degradation (dust, Loss, fragmentation (tree
anticipated to may cause direct effect (crush direct effect direct effects effects effects at roost site Disturbance at Construction, potential for all (sedimentation, fill) deicers, herbicides) removal)
collide with disturbance & bats) or indirect (drown bats) or consider hib artificial roosts bridge/ structure Road use (e.g., activities involving
structures or slow- collapse- direct or (alter hib) indirect (alter hib) and summer increase vehicles/ machinery
moving vehicles indirect effect capacity) -
baseline noise vs.
new activity
noise
Aetivity (sourcea Subactivity (soureeJ '
NLEB Research Project* Human Activity NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE NE
NLEB Research Project* Vehicles May Affect NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
NLEB Research Project* Bat Surveys/Captures Addressed through ESA10(a)(1)(A) permits
Construct Wildlife Passage Facilities Construction See Bridge Construction & Install Drainage Features in PREVIOUS WORKSHEET- New Construction
(overpass, underpass, culverts)
Construct Wildlife Passage Facilities Final grading wildlife trail See Final Grading and Road/Trail Bed Prep in PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
(overpass, underpass, culverts) bed preparation
Construct Wildlife Passage Facilities Post-construction work See PREVIOUS WORKSHEET - New Construction
(overpass, underpass, culverts)
Wildlife Passage as a Structure May Affect - NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect - positive - may
positive - bats may provide connectivity
use crossing
StormwaterTreatment Installdetention/retention NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE MayAffect-positive MayAffect- NE
basin positive
StormwaterTreatment Developpollutionprevention NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect-positive MayAffect-positive MayAffect- NE
plan positive
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Restoration of hydrology and NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE May Affect-positive May Affect-positive May Affect- May Affect-positive
vegetation to wetlands positive
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank stabilization and in- NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE MayAffect MayAffect NE NE MayAffect- NE NE
channel habitat restoration sedimentation, but
of streams positive effects too
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Reforestation of riparian NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect- May Affect-positive
buffers positive
Endangered Plant Conservation Thinning (tree removal) - NE NE NE NE NE May Affect NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect - positive-
very limited use girdled trees may provide
roosts sites once they die
EndangeredPlantConservation Prescribedburning-very NE NE NE NE MayAffect NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
limited use
Endangered Plant Conservation Invasive plant control, NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE May Affect May Affect - positive-
including manually applied controlling invasives vines
herbicides & shrubs may enhance
habitat
* Data from this research will be beneficial to NLEB as it can be used to target the most effective means to manage and protect NLEB in eastern North Carolina.
Conservation Measures