1. Implementing a Rangewide Programmatic: The Indiana Bat and Northern Long-Eared Bat Programmatic Consultation in Practice Consultation
Panelists:
Dan Buford, FHWA
Catherine Liller, FWS
Caleb Parks, VDOT
Matt Perlik, ODOT
Collaborative effort
Chris Slesar, VTrans
Alison Whitlock, FWS
Julianne Schwarzer, USDOT Volpe Center (Moderator)

2. Indiana Bat/Northern Long-eared Bat
ESA Range-wide Programmatic Consultation
Collaborative effort

3. Formal and Informal Programmatic
The rangewide consultation covers both the Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat (NLEB). It is the culmination of a partnership between FHWA/FTA/FRA and USFWS, and is consistent with the major goals of this effort:
To achieve landscape-scale conservation for both the Indiana bat and NLEB
To reduce time, cost, and workload associated with ESA Section 7 consultation
To create consistency in ESA Section 7 consultation for the two bat species across their ranges
Image courtesy FWS

4. Project Summary Programmatic Consultation Conservation Strategy
One of the largest programmatic approaches, spanning five Regions and covering 38 States and the District of Columbia.
Includes streamlined consultation procedures, which reduce agencies’ workload and ensure appropriate interagency coordination of actions.
Conservation Strategy
Furthers landscape-scale conservation for both bat species, and species which use similar forested habitats.

5. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)
Federally endangered species, listed 1967
Range covers most of the Eastern half of the United States  
Hibernate in large numbers in caves
Roost in summer in tree snags
Estimated 9.8% population decrease from 2013 to 2015
Most ESA consultations of any species.
Main threats are habitat loss and white-nose syndrome

7. Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis)
NLEB Federally threatened, listed 2015
Found in 37 states from the Atlantic coast westward to eastern Montana and Wyoming
Main threat is white-nose syndrome
Section 1304(a) amends the definitions of “multimodal project” and of “project” in 23 U.S.C. 139(a)
Directly from the Q&A:
Project - Redefined to be consistent with the multimodal definition but adds considerations for determining a project – e.g., known sources of Federal funding or financing identified

9. Programmatic Consultation Goals
Cover common project types with predictable effects
Provide conservation for the species
Provide a predictable, efficient process
Reduce workload and shorten consultation timeframes
Increase transparency for transportation agencies
Reduce costs

10. Project History
2012
FHWA and FWS initiate an agreement to develop a range-wide Conservation and Consultation Strategy
Working group established: FHWA, FTA and FRA, with support from USDOT Volpe Center.
Collaborative development of programmatic, biweekly meetings
2015
FHWA and FWS release the Programmatic Informal Consultation, in conjunction with USDOT partners
2016
FWS signs the Programmatic Biological Opinion, effects of select transportation actions
Takes awhile when spp is so wide ranging. Much vetting
Fws, divisions, dots

11. Status of Consultation
Revised Biological Assessment reinitiated December 7, 2016
Updated/clarified activities within the scope of the programmatic
Effects of noise and maintenance activities
Modified structure and hibernacula AMMs
Revised Biological Opinion issued December 15, 2016
Through implementation you learn a bit. Gather information and feedback on use and make revisions to address issues and improve clarity.

12. Scope and Consultation Parameters
Includes projects that will result in no effect, are not likely to adversely affect (NLAA), or that are likely to adversely affect (LAA) Indiana bat and/or NLEB.
Covers most types of transportation projects which are within 300 feet from edge of road/rail AND at least 0.5 miles from Indiana bat or NLEB hibernacula.
Includes clearing of suitable roost trees up to 20 acres per project (~5 miles of road).
A project with over 20 acres of tree clearing may use the programmatic with USFWS approval on a case-by-case basis.
Try to cover routine projects with small impacts.
Establish rule sets to limit the scope
Last buller: some exceptions based on sight-specific review to establish that effects would be consistent with what was analyzed in the PBO.

13. Scope and Consultation Parameters
Does NOT include tree removal within documented Indiana bat roosting/foraging habitat or travel corridors from May 1 through July 31.
Does NOT include tree removal within 150 feet of documented NLEB roosts from June 1 through July 31.
Does NOT include tree removal within 0.5 miles of Indiana/NLEB hibernacula.
Includes a limited set of transportation NE or NLAA activities within 0.5 miles of Indiana bat/NLEB hibernacula.
Includes projects outside 300 feet of edge of road/rail with negative bat surveys (NLAA).

14. One Reasonable and Prudent Measure
The Transportation Agencies will ensure that State/local transportation agencies, which choose to include eligible projects under this programmatic action, incorporate all applicable conservation measures (avoidance, minimization, and compensation) in the project proposals submitted to USFWS for ESA Section 7 compliance using this BO.

15. Terms and Conditions: 1/2
The Transportation Agencies or their representatives will offer annual instruction to appropriate personnel who are involved in developing and implementing projects for inclusion in this programmatic action.

16. Terms and Conditions: 2/2
The Transportation Agencies, State/local DOTs will make all reasonable efforts to educate personnel to report any sick, injured, and/or dead bats (regardless of species) located in the Action Area during construction, operations, maintenance, or monitoring activities immediately to the local USFWS Field Office.
Due to the number of staff/contractors, it is not expected or required to educate all personnel working in the Action Area, but only those who are most likely to observe bats during the course of normal working conditions.

17. Consultation Process
One-tiered process for NLAA: 14 day USFWS consistency review (no USFWS response or concurrence needed).
Two-tiered process for LAA: 30 day USFWS review after receipt of completed application package.
For projects with Indiana bat, USFWS will provide a project- specific incidental take statement (ITS).
For projects with only NLEB, USFWS has 30 days to review and no USFWS concurrence/response is required. Follows the same process as the 4(d) Programmatic Biological Opinion.

18. Required Consultation Provisions
Action specific avoidance/minimization measures (AMMs).
Compensatory mitigation (such as forest preservation, enhancement, or creation) to offset project impacts and help conserve bats.
Use of different Terms of art across the country: AMMs, conservation measures, project design criteria

19. Indiana Bat Mitigation Options
National in-lieu fee program with The Conservation Fund (in development)
2. Approved conservation banks
State/local in-lieu fee programs approved by USFWS
State/local conservation project
There are options to address compensatory mitigation needs. We are close to finalizing a national in lieu fee program. Can use banks, state-created options, etc.

20. Compensatory Mitigation Measures and Conservation Focus Areas
Transportation agencies have flexibility in meeting the compensatory mitigation requirements in this consultation.
Approach allows for a wide range of ecological conditions and opportunities across the range of the species.
Funds used in State where the action occurred, with some exceptions.
Established Compensatory mitigation ratios.
Conservation Focus Areas (CFAs):
Key areas in each State on which to focus conservation efforts.
Compensatory mitigation requirements from multiple projects should be consolidated into larger CFAs to provide
greater ecological benefits for Indiana bats, when practicable.

21. Programmatic Outcomes & Benefits
Projected to be used about 1000 times per year.
Better transparency and predictability through proactive planning.
Simple and repeatable methodology.
Minimizes documentation necessary.
State DOTs are aware of surveys they need to conduct earlier, and may do so in a more systematic way.
Increased consistency throughout the species’ range.
The landscape conservation approach facilitates recovery.

22. Future Direction Range-wide in-lieu-Fee program
Revisions to Biological Assessment and supplemental consultation documents, as needed
Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Module (electronic consultation)
Continuous improvements?
Image courtesy FWS

23. IPaC Assisted Determination Key
E-Consultation Application 
Catherine – START – IPAC KEY DEMO

24. IPaC Assisted Determination Key
E-Consultation Application 

25. IPaC Assisted Determination Key
E-Consultation Application 

26. IPaC Assisted Determination Key
E-Consultation Application 

27. IPaC Assisted Determination Key
E-Consultation Application 

28. IPaC Assisted Determination Key
E-Consultation Application 

29. Visit the USFWS website for more information: http://www. fws
IPaC Assisted Determination Key Process Summary
User’s Guide
Scoping Worksheet
Project Submittal Form
AMMs
Bridge/Structure Assessment Guidelines and Form
Compensatory Mitigation Ratio % Forest Cover by County Spreadsheet
Conservation Focus Area Guidance
Summer Survey Guidance
FAQs Document

30. Consultation Contacts
Forest Clark
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
x206
Catherine Liller
Dan Buford
Federal Highway Administration
Brian Yanchik
Antoinette Quagliata & Liz Patel
Federal Transit Administration
Andrea Martin
Federal Railroad Administration
Julianne Schwarzer
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Volpe Center
Image courtesy FWS

31. PROGRAMMATIC IN PRACTICE: VIRGINIA
Positive Outcomes
Challenges to Overcome
Plan and consider consultation for project schedules and budgets
Application to maintenance projects
Heavily forested portions of state
Understanding of resources necessary
Biological Opinion conservative assumptions
6/9 districts outside known winter habitat
Development of ILF program
Advanced tree removal outside TOYR
Learning curve with changes
Faster review time

32. Vermont's 9 Species of Bats
VDF&W Photo
Cave Bats
Indiana bat – Federally Endangered
Northern long-eared bat – Federally Threatened, State Endangered
Little brown bat – State Endangered
Tri-colored bat – State Endangered
Small-footed bat – State Endangered
Big brown bat – not listed
Migratory Tree Bats
Silver-haired bat – not listed
Hoary bat – not listed
Red bat – not listed
9 species of bats in VT. 5 are legally protected. Every acoustic survey we’ve conducted has identified at least one state or federally protected bat.
Unique regulatory resource because it touches virtually every project – VTrans activities that trigger bat reviews are tree cutting, bridge work, and ledge work.
Chris Slesar – VTrans Environmental Resources Coordinator

33. Decision making protocol to identify the safest path of least resistance!
Do the least amount of harm by utilizing a combination of Rangewide PA, 4(d) Rule, and Vermont-specific BMPs.

34. Chris Slesar – VTrans Environmental Resources Coordinator
Challenges
Bridges
No predictability to bridge use at this point
Exclusionary measures for bridges not in Programmatic – spray foam
Large bridges are difficult to survey
Time of Year Restrictions
Extremely short construction season in Vermont
Even shorter bat survey season
Unrealistic to use TOY for bridges
Need to incorporate 4(d) Rule into PA – when outside of I-bat range
Inconsistent thresholds
Moving target - expect new species to be listed?
Lack of baseline information – e.g. habitat use along road edge
Chris Slesar – VTrans Environmental Resources Coordinator

35. ODOT’s Bat Programmatic
ICOET – May 16, 2017
Matt Perlik, M.S.
Office of Environmental Services
The Ohio Department of Transportation

37. Coordination