U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67-111 PDF 2012

WHY WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT 

BATS: DEVASTATING IMPACT 

WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME IS 

HAVING ON ONE OF NATURE’S 

BEST PEST CONTROLLERS 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, 

OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Friday, June 24, 2011 

Serial No. 112-46 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Charles J. ‘‘Chuck’’ Fleischmann, TN 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John P. Sarbanes, MD 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS 

AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Ranking Democrat Member 

Don Young, AK 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Vacancy 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Friday, June 24, 2011 ................................................................. 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam ............... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Louisiana ....................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Boyles, Justin G., Ph.D., Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Department of 

Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville .. 43 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 45 

Chavarria, Dr. Gabriela, Science Advisor to the Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior ...................................... 5 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

Fascione, Nina, Executive Director, Bat Conservation International .......... 24 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26 

Gassett, Jon, Ph.D., Commissioner, Kentucky Department of Fish and 

Wildlife Resources ......................................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

‘‘NOTICE TO KENTUCKY CAVE OWNERS’’ submitted for the 

record ...................................................................................................... 22 

Pen ̃ a, Jim, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture .................................................... 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 12 

Youngbaer, Peter, White-Nose Syndrome Liaison, National Speleological 

Society ............................................................................................................ 29 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 31 

Letter to Dr. Jeremy Coleman, White-Nose Syndrome National 

Coordinator, dated December 26, 2010, submitted for the record ..... 36 

Additional materials supplied: 

‘‘Peer-Reviewed Published Papers on or Directly Related to White Nose 

Syndrome’’ ..................................................................................................... 58 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘WHY WE SHOULD 

CARE ABOUT BATS: DEVASTATING IMPACT 

WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME IS HAVING ON 

ONE OF NATURE’S BEST PEST CONTROLLERS.’’ 

Friday, June 24, 2011 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m. in Room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Fleming, Labrador, Wittman, and 

Bordallo. 

Dr. FLEMING. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chairman notes the presence of a quorum. Good morning. Today, we are 

having a follow-up hearing on a subject this Subcommittee first examined in June of 2009. Since it was first discovered in caves west 

of Albany, New York, in 2006, the White-Nose Syndrome has killed 

more than one million bats. It has spread to 18 U.S. states, from 

Maine to Kentucky. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), opening statements are limited to 

the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, so that 

we can hear from our witnesses more quickly. However, I ask 

unanimous consent to include any other Members’ opening statements in the hearing record if submitted to the Clerk by close of 

business today. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Dr. FLEMING. Despite a considerable amount of effort by six Federal agencies and various affected states, which have spent more 

than $16 million, we apparently are no closer to stopping this disease, which has devastated more than half of the 47 species of bats 

native to America. 

Why is this hearing important? Bats consume vast amounts of 

insects, and according to the April edition of Science magazine, 

their value to United States agriculture is between $3.7 billion to 

$53 billion each year. 

In the United States, they pollinate more than 360 plants and 

are so effective in dispersing seeds that they have been called the 

‘‘Farmers of the Tropics.’’ Also, certain bat species can capture from 

500 to 1,000 mosquitoes in just one hour. 

A single colony of 150 big brown bats in Indiana has been estimated to annually eat nearly 2.3 million pest insects. We also know 

that the one million bats that have already died from the fungus 

2 

would have consumed more than or between 660 and 1,300 metric 

tons of insects each year. 

By losing these bats, farmers and timber harvesters now have to 

spend millions of additional dollars to buy pesticides to protect 

their crops and trees. 

As a doctor, I was interested in learning that some 80 different 

medicines come from plants that need bats to survive. While it is 

reassuring to know that no human illness has been associated with 

exposure to infected bats or caves, it is important that we try to 

find out why this fungus is killing bats in the United States. 

Yet, apparently the same disease has not caused mass mortality 

in Europe. Although this disease has spread through bat-to-bat 

contact, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States 

Forest Service have closed thousands of caves and abandoned 

mines in an effort to try to stop the spread of this disease. 

I am interested in finding out the results of these efforts, and 

whether prohibiting human caving activities has saved hibernating 

bats. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses on 

how we can effectively address what many experts are now calling 

the most precipitous wildlife decline in the past century in North 

America. 

Now, before I recognize the gentlelady from Guam, I will mention 

that we are probably going to have a vote in about 10 minutes. We 

will try to get through our witnesses as much as possible. 

But I understand that it is probably one or two votes at the most, 

and so we will come right back immediately after voting, and pick 

up where we left off. With that, I am now pleased to recognize the 

gentlelady from Guam, Ms. Bordallo. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Fleming follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

Good morning, today, we are having a follow-up hearing on a subject this Subcommittee first examined in June of 2009. Since it was first discovered in caves west 

of Albany, New York in 2006, the White-Nose Syndrome has killed more than 1 million bats. It has spread to 18 U.S. states from Maine to Kentucky. 

Despite a considerable amount of effort by six federal agencies and various affected states, which have spent more than $16 million dollars, we are apparently 

no closer to stopping this disease, which has devastated more than half of the 47 

species of bats native to North America. 

Why is this hearing important? Bats consume vast amounts of insects and according to the April edition of Science magazine, their value to U. S. agriculture is between $3.7 billion to $53 billion each year. In the United States, they pollinate 

more than 360 plants and they are so effective in dispersing seeds that they have 

been called the ‘‘Farmers of the Tropics’’. 

Also, certain bat species can capture from 500 to 1,000 mosquitoes in just one 

hour. A single colony of 150 big brown bats in Indiana has been estimated to annually eat nearly 1.3 million pest insects. We also know that the one million bats that 

have already died from this fungus would have consumed between 660 and 1,300 

metric tons of insects each and every year. By losing these bats, farmers and timber 

harvesters now have to spend millions of additional dollars to buy pesticides to protect their crops and trees. 

As a doctor, I was interested in learning that some 80 different medicines come 

from plants that need bats to survive. While it is reassuring to know that no human 

illness have been associated with exposure to infected bats or caves, it is important 

that we tried to find out why this fungus is killing bats in the United States, yet 

apparently the same disease has not caused mass mortality in Europe. 

Although this disease is spread through bat-to-bat contact, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the U. S. Forest Service have closed thousands of caves and abandoned 

mines in an effort to try to stop the spread of this disease. I am interested in finding 

3 

out the results of these efforts and whether prohibiting human caving activities.has 

saved hibernating bats. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and how we can effectively address what many experts are now calling: ‘‘The most precipitous wildlife decline in the past century in North America’’. 

I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Guam, Madeline Bordallo, who 

chaired the first comprehensive Congressional hearing on the White-Nose Syndrome, for any statement she would like to make on this important subject. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, A DELEGATE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

would like to say good morning and welcome to all of our witnesses. The White-Nose Syndrome is named for the striking fungal 

growth on the muzzles, the ears, the wings, and the tails of bats. 

Much remains unknown about this disease, which was first documented west of Albany, New York, in February of 2006. Over the 

last five years, White-Nose Syndrome has spread to at least 16 

states, and also to Canada. 

The mortalities caused by the White-Nose Syndrome are astonishing, reaching up to 99 percent in some caves and mines. Over 

one million little brown bats have been killed, likely contributing 

to a 78 percent decline in the calls of these bats in the night sky 

over the Hudson River. 

White-Nose Syndrome in bats has profound public health, environmental, and economic impacts. Bats are nature’s best control of 

insect populations, as a single bat can eat its entire weight in 

insects in just one night. 

When not controlled, many insects spread disease and others are 

agricultural pests. A study by one of today’s witnesses, Dr. Justin 

Boyles, estimated that this benefit provided by bats to the agricultural sector is between $3 billion to $53 billion per year. 

Bats with White-Nose Syndrome exhibit uncharacteristic behaviors, and emerge from hibernation during the winter, consuming 

fat reserves, which may result in starvation. Transmission of the 

disease is not fully understood, but is believed to be bat-to-bat, or 

transferred by humans who visit the affected caves. 

Some caves have been closed on Federal lands, although Federally managed caves account for only 34 percent of the known roost 

areas, while 60 percent are located on privately held lands. 

It is clear that there are still large gaps in our understanding of 

this disease. We must continue to support research about causes of 

and vectors for the spread of White-Nose Syndrome, and on the 

effectiveness of potential control measures to better manage this 

disease, and ensure that the night sky is once again full of insecthunting bats. 

Two years ago this Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on 

White-Nose Syndrome, and found a commendable amount of 

cooperation and coordination among Federal and State wildlife and 

land management agencies. 

The recent release of a national plan for assisting states, Federal 

agencies, and Tribes, in managing White-Nose Syndrome in bats 

provides a framework to continue this coordination, and I do look 

forward to hearing more from our witnesses today on the 

4 

implementation, and on other recommendations on how to address 

this challenging disease. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

White-Nose Syndrome is named for the striking fungal growth on the muzzles, 

ears, wings, and tails of bats. Much remains unknown about this disease, which was 

first documented west of Albany, New York in February of 2006. Over the last five 

years, White-Nose Syndrome has spread to at least sixteen States and Canada. The 

mortalities caused by White-Nose Syndrome are astonishing, reaching up to 99 percent in some caves and mines. Over one million little brown bats have been killed, 

likely contributing to a 78 percent decline in the calls of these bats in the night sky 

over the Hudson River. 

White-Nose Syndrome in bats has profound public health, environmental, and economic impacts. Bats are nature’s best control of insect populations, as a single bat 

can eat its entire weight in insects in one night. When not controlled, many insects 

spread disease and others are agricultural pests. A study by one of today’s witnesses, Dr. Justin Boyles [boils], estimated that this benefit provided by bats to the 

agricultural sector is between $3 billion to $53 billion per year. 

Bats with White-Nose Syndrome exhibit uncharacteristic behaviors and emerge 

from hibernation during the winter, consuming fat reserves, which may result in 

starvation. Transmission of the disease is not fully understood, but is believed to 

be bat-to-bat or transferred by humans who visit affected caves. Some caves have 

been closed on federal lands, although federally managed caves account for only 34% 

of the known roost areas, while 60% are located on privately held lands. 

It is clear that there are still large gaps in our understanding of this disease. We 

must continue to support research about causes of and vectors for the spread of 

White-Nose Syndrome, and on the effectiveness of potential control measures to better manage this disease and ensure that the night sky is once again full of insecthunting bats. 

Two years ago, this Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on White-Nose Syndrome, and found a commendable amount of cooperation and coordination among 

Federal and State wildlife and land management agencies. The recent release of ‘‘A 

National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing 

White-Nose Syndrome in Bats’’ provides a framework to continue this coordination 

and I look forward to hearing more from our witnesses today on its implementation 

and on other recommendations on how to address this challenging disease. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentlelady, the Ranking Member, and 

I also want to congratulate her for having chaired the first comprehensive Congressional hearing on the White-Nose Syndrome. 

Votes have already been called. It is only one vote. So I am going 

to go ahead and release the Subcommittee to vote, and return immediately, and then we will begin hearing from our witnesses. 

I do appreciate your patience on this, but we won’t have any further interruptions after this. We will be good for the remainder of 

the hearing. 

[Recess.] 

Dr. FLEMING. The Subcommittee will come to order. I am addressing the witnesses now. Like all witnesses, your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record, and so I ask that 

you keep your oral statements to five minutes as outlined in our 

invitation letter to you and under Rule 4(a) 

Our microphones are not automatic so please press the button 

when you are ready to begin. I also want to explain how our timing 

lights work. When you begin to speak, our Clerk will start the 

timer and the green light will appear. After four minutes, a yellow 

light will appear, and that is a signal to you to go ahead and begin 

to wrap up. When the red light comes on, that means that your 

5 

time is up, your full five minutes. So we would certainly ask you 

to conclude with that sentence if at all possible. 

You may complete your sentence, but at that time I just ask that 

you stop. I would like to welcome today’s witnesses. First of all, Dr. 

Gabriela Chavarria—I hope I am coming close to the correct pronunciation on that—Science Advisor to the Director of the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service, accompanied by Dr. David 

Blehert, who is a Microbiologist at the National Wildlife Health 

Center, of the United States Geological Society, who will be available to answer questions. 

And Mr. Jim Pen ̃ a, Associate Deputy Chief, United States Forest 

Service; Dr. Jon Gassett, Commissioner, Kentucky Department of 

Fish and Wildlife Resources; Ms. Nina Fascione, Executive Director, Bat Conservation International; Mr. Peter Youngbaer, WhiteNose Syndrome Liaison, National Speleological Society; and Dr. 

Justin Boyles, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 

University of Tennessee. Dr. Chavarria, you are now recognized for 

five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. GABRIELA CHAVARRIA, SCIENCE 

ADVISOR TO THE DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE 

Dr. CHAVARRIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Fleming, 

Ranking Member Bordallo, Mr. Wittman, I am Dr. Gabriela 

Chavarria, Science Advisor to the Director of the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and I would like to also recognize with 

me Dr. David Blehert, with the National Park Service, and Dr. 

Jeremy Coleman, with the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Thank you for the opportunity to update The Subcommittee 

about White-Nose Syndrome in bats, and the Department of the 

Interior’s efforts to address this wildlife disease crisis. As you 

mentioned, White-Nose Syndrome is an emerging wildlife disease 

that was first recorded in 2007. 

But unlike a lot of the familiar wildlife diseases that we know 

of, like West Nile Syndrome, or Avian Influenza, the fungi that 

comes with the White-Nose Syndrome, Geomyces destructans, is a 

new species to science. So we were confronted with a totally new 

disease when it was first discovered. 

It was found in caves where bats hibernate during the winter, 

and it grows at low temperatures. Unlike other fungi, they found 

in the environment that it grows in living tissues, and it affects a 

lot of the bats that are hibernating. 

In infected hibernating bat populations, 80 to 100 percent of bats 

will die. Unlike most small mammals, bats have only one pup each 

year, and they only live 5 to 15 years. While it is challenging to 

estimate the number of bats skilled, or a percentage of bat loss to 

White-Nose Syndrome, losses have been significant in monitored 

caves with White-Nose Syndrome affected bats. 

The White-Nose Syndrome is now found from Canada to Tennessee. It has been confirmed in 16 states, and in four Canadian 

provinces. Evidence indicates that it is spread from bat to bat, and 

may be spread through human activity in caves and mines where 

bats hibernate. 

6 

The role of bats in ecosystems as you both have mentioned is 

critical. It is very important. But the Department of the Interior 

two years ago when this disease was recognized started to lead a 

coordinated effort and respond together with the Bureaus within 

the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

Geological Survey, and National Park Service, and the Bureau of 

Land Management, the USDA, the Department of Agriculture, and 

other affected Federal agencies, affected states, the academic community, and private non-profit organizations. 

We assembled a team of a hundred experts that come from different partners and organizations, and that are working together 

to monitor White-Nose Syndrome. They conduct and assess relevant research, develop and carry out mitigation and conservation 

efforts, and conduct outreach through the national plan. 

The team of partners is working to identify the impact of WhiteNose Syndrome on bat populations, and the ecosystem as a whole, 

the mechanisms by which the disease is transmitted, and the 

mechanisms through which it contributes to mortality in infected 

bats. 

The team is also cooperating to monitor the spread of White-Nose 

Syndrome, and to develop management and containment options 

for Federal State wildlife managers. The team of partners has developed science based approaches to addressing this disease within 

the framework of the national plan. 

We have established an executive committee that overseas the 

work of the partnership and facilitates the coordination. This executive committee is co-chaired by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

The United States Geological Survey is the science branch of the 

Department of the Interior. It conducts or partners to conduct 

much of the research supporting our response to White-Nose Syndrome. 

The National Park Service educates parks and visitors about the 

White-Nose Syndrome, and it has developed management recommendations for park units in infected or potentially infected 

areas. 

The Bureau of Land Management is an active partner. The Department works very closely with the recreational caving and cave 

research communities to improve the contamination protocols and 

cave access recommendations, and to limit the spread of the fungus 

through human activities. 

We have closed caves to prevent the spread and we understand 

and share concerns about the loss of recreational opportunities and 

tourism supported economies, because many of our lands serve 

these stakeholders, and we endeavor to find new ways to minimize 

such impacts. 

White-Nose Syndrome is the greatest challenge to bat conservation that we have ever faced. We are very happy to be here, and 

we are very happy that the Committee has a strong interest in this 

issue, and we will be happy to continue to collaborate, and I will 

be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Chavarria follows:] 

7 

1 New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, 

New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, Maine, Indiana. 

Statement of Dr. Gabriela Chavarria, Science Advisor to the Director, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I am Dr. Gabriela Chavarria, Science Advisor to the Director of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS). I am accompanied by Dr. David Blehert with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Wildlife Health Center. Thank you for the opportunity to update the Subcommittee on white-nose syndrome in bats, the National 

Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White-Nose 

Syndrome (WNS) in Bats, which was released in May of 2011 and the Department 

of the Interior’s (Department) role in addressing this problem. 

The sudden and widespread mortality associated with this disease has never before been observed in any of the more than 1,100 species of bats known to science. 

Since the Department first testified before the Subcommittee on this topic in 2009, 

significant progress has been made toward identifying and understanding the cause 

and ecology of white-nose syndrome. 

Background 

White-nose syndrome was first recorded in March of 2007 near Albany, New York. 

WNS is associated with greater than 90 percent mortality of hibernating bats in affected caves from the Northeast to the South and into the Midwest of the United 

States. It has also been confirmed in Canada. In some caves within its current 

range, close to 100% of hibernating bat populations have died. Thus far, six bat species have been confirmed with the disease, including the federally endangered Indiana bat. The fungus associated with WNS has been detected on an additional three 

bat species, including the federally endangered gray bat. 

Affected bats may display a white powdery growth on their faces and many show 

tissue damage and scarring in their wings. The powdery growth and tissue damage 

is caused by a fungus from a group of fungi that is common in the soil environment. 

However, this particular species of fungus, Geomyces destructans, was not known to 

science until it was documented in association with WNS in 2008. It grows only in 

cold temperatures, and unlike other fungi found in bat hibernation sites, it invades 

living tissues of hibernating bats. When hibernating, bats lower their body temperature significantly, and may pack tightly together—two factors which seem to promote the spread of the fungus from bat to bat. Although the primary route of transmission is believed to be from bat to bat, WNS may be inadvertently spread from 

cave to cave by human activity in caves. Although the exact cause of mortality of 

affected bats is not yet fully understood, evidence to date suggests G. destructans 

is the likely cause. Dead bats are often found to be emaciated, and bats in affected 

caves have been observed exhibiting more activity than is normal during hibernation, including leaving caves on cold winter days. Since 2007, WNS has been confirmed in over 190 sites in 16 states 1 and 4 Canadian provinces. 

The species of bats thus far affected by WNS are insectivorous, and they all rely 

on hibernation as a strategy for surviving harsh winter conditions when their insect 

food is not available. Prior to hibernation, these bats build up fat reserves to sustain 

them through the winter. Maintaining a low body temperature during hibernation, 

just a few degrees above the temperature of their cave, allows them to survive the 

winter on their stored fat, which can be quickly depleted in only a few hours of nonhibernation activity. 

G. destructans has been observed to invade the skin and underlying tissue, particularly of the wings of affected bats, where it causes significant damage. Wing 

membranes represent about 85 percent of a bat’s total surface area and play a critical role in balancing complex physiological processes, such as body temperature regulation, blood pressure, water balance, and gas exchange, as well as allowing bats 

to fly and to capture insect prey. Scientists are investigating how WNS interferes 

with these critical functions and how it contributes to the loss of body fat reserves 

in affected bats. 

For some small mammal species, a mass mortality event like that caused by WNS 

would not significantly affect the long-term sustainability of their populations. However, bats differ from most other small mammals in that they have long lives and 

reproduce slowly—a combination that precludes rapid population growth and recovery. Most of the bat species currently affected by WNS live about 5–15 years and 

have only one offspring per year. Biologists are concerned that, even if WNS and 

8 

its spread could be abated, it will take many decades for populations of WNS affected bat species to recover. 

The Department is concerned about the potential impact of WNS on bat populations, especially those species currently listed as federally endangered, due to the 

high mortality of WNS and its rapid spread. There are 25 bat species in North 

America that hibernate during the winter, and all are at risk for WNS. Of these, 

there are four species and subspecies of federally listed, hibernating bats, all of 

which hibernate in either caves or mines. 

Most recently, WNS was confirmed in Maine, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and North Carolina, demonstrating its continued spread from Northeastern 

and Mid-Atlantic states to Southeastern and Midwestern states. These regions support much larger caves and populations of hibernating bats, including millions of 

individuals of several species. These populations include the majority of the remaining populations of the federally endangered gray bat and remaining populations of 

the federally endangered Virginia big-eared bat, of which there are only about 

20,000 individuals remaining. It is possible that other federally listed bat species, 

such as the Ozark big-eared bat, may be impacted if the disease continues to spread. 

Also, significant mortality of more common species may threaten the stability and 

health of these populations. The FWS is currently reviewing the status of two bat 

species—the Eastern small-footed bat and the Northern long-eared bat—in response 

to petitions to list them under the Endangered Species Act. 

The role of bats in larger ecosystems is not well understood, but bat species comprise about one-fifth of all mammal species in the world, making their loss potentially significant to the sustainability of other animals and the plants that share 

their landscapes. One million bats can consume up to 8,000 lbs of flying insects in 

one night, including pests like mosquitoes and moths. As predators of these insects, 

bats play an important role in protecting agriculture crops and forests and in reducing risk of human disease transmitted by flying insects. 

In addition to impacts on biological resources, WNS will have impacts on some 

local economies through reduced opportunities for tourists. Caves with bats are the 

primary attractions at many national park units, including Mammoth Cave National Park (Kentucky), Carlsbad Caverns National Park (New Mexico), and 

Timpanogos Cave National Monument (Utah), Lava Beds National Monument (California) and Ozark National Scenic Riverways (Missouri).G. destructans has been detected in four national park units: Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area 

(Pennsylvania and New Jersey), Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Tennessee 

and North Carolina), New River Gorge National River (West Virginia), and Ozark 

National Scenic Riverways (Missouri). 

Cave closures and drastically reduced bat populations could impact the enjoyment 

of visitors who come to see them on national park units and other lands. The closure 

of caves could also reduce opportunities for recreational caving and could impact 

many caving organizations, clubs, and local grottos that rely on access to these resources. As caves and bat populations on federal lands are affected by WNS, gateway communities, outdoor recreation guides, and outfitters may experience loss of 

visitors and income. 

U.S. Department of the Interior Response to WNS 

The Department is leading a cooperative and coordinated response among its bureaus, including the FWS, the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), and the USGS, as well as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

the U.S. Department of Defense, and other affected Federal agencies; all states; provincial and federal Canadian agencies; the academic community; private nonprofit 

organizations; and other stakeholders. Through the FWS, the Department has assembled a team of experts from these agencies and stakeholders to address this disease. Today, more than 100 partners are working together to identify the impact 

of WNS on bat populations and the ecosystem as a whole, the mechanisms by which 

the disease is transmitted and the mechanism through which it contributes to mortality in affected bats. The team is also cooperating to monitor the spread of WNS 

and to develop management and containment options for federal and state wildlife 

managers. 

One of the team’s priorities is to provide resource managers with management 

recommendations, based on the best available science, to control the spread and 

minimize the effects of WNS. To this end, the Department and its partners, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Defense, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, tribal agencies, and others have developed a 

National Plan to guide the collective response to the research and management of 

WNS. 

The National Plan focuses on seven elements through working groups, including: 

9 

• Communications 

• Data and Technical Information Management 

• Diagnostics 

• Disease Management 

• Epidemiological and Ecological Research 

• Disease Surveillance 

• Conservation and Recovery 

The National Plan also formally establishes two oversight committees with representation from Federal, State, and tribal resource management agencies. The National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing WhiteNose Syndrome in Bats is based on similar disease response plans that have effectively been implemented in the past (e.g. Chronic Wasting Disease), and builds upon 

the coordinated efforts to address WNS, initiated in 2008. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The FWS is coordinating the Department’s response to WNS, and continues to collect and distribute critical information to other Federal agencies, States, partners, 

and the public; to administer several of the working groups and/or sub-groups established through the National Plan; and to work with stakeholders to identify and 

carry out collaborative investigations, monitoring, and management actions. The 

FWS serves as the primary resource for up-to-date information and recommendations for all partners, such as important decontamination protocols for cave researchers and visitors and a cave access advisory that requests a voluntary moratorium on activities in caves in affected states to minimize the potential spread of 

WNS. 

The FWS has dedicated funding toward WNS in fiscal years 2007 through 2011 

for coordination, research, and state assistance. In addition to developing sciencebased protocols and guidance for land management agencies and other partners to 

minimize the spread of WNS, the FWS has funded numerous research projects to 

support and assess management recommendations and improve our basic understanding of the dynamics of the disease. These have included investigations into the 

transmission and etiology of the disease, the factors that influence the apparent differences in vulnerability of different bats to WNS, the genetic differences between 

samples of G. destructans from around North America and Europe, and the potential for species or individuals to develop resistance to the effects of the fungal infection. With funds provided by the FWS, for example, the U.S. Forest Service is developing DNA-based detection techniques to distinguish the pathogenic fungus from 

many closely related non-pathogenic Geomyces species in North American caves. As 

new data are collected and analyzed, the FWS has coordinated with partners to develop science-based approaches to addressing this disease within the framework of 

the National Plan. Information on WNS-related research projects is available at: 

http://www.fws.gov/whitenosesyndrome/research.html. 

The FWS continues to work with and support states in identifying and monitoring 

bat hibernacula, surveying for WNS, and preparing response plans. This role is becoming increasingly complex as WNS continues to spread to new states and regions 

of the nation. The FWS will continue to monitor federally listed species impacted 

by WNS and to support states in monitoring and management of WNS in species 

under state jurisdiction through State Wildlife Grants and other programs. 

U.S. Geological Survey 

The USGS, DOI’s science bureau, has unique capabilities to address emerging 

wildlife diseases, including specialized facilities for diagnosing and researching wildlife diseases, as well as expertise in field studies of bats. Since 2008, researchers 

with the USGS National Wildlife Health Center and the Fort Collins Science Center, in collaboration with partners, established criteria for diagnosing WNS; identified and first documented the fungus, G. destructans; linked this newly identified fungus to the cause of the skin infection that is the hallmark of WNS; 

and developed rapid diagnostic tests for G. destructans. Additional work by 

USGS and research partners identified probable modes of disease transmission, proposed mechanisms by which WNS causes bats to die, confirmed 

the presence of viable fungus (G. destructans) in cave environments, and 

documented recovery of bats naturally infected with WNS. The USGS National Wildlife Health Center, along with many partners, continues to play 

a primary role in WNS research. Projects underway include studies to understand WNS transmission/pathogenesis/recovery, comparative genomic 

analyses to determine the origin of G. destructans, development of improved tools for molecular detection of G. destructans, and investigation 

into the microbial ecology of G. destructans in bat hibernacula. 

10 

In order to fully implement the National Plan, USGS is assessing its capacities 

to most effectively manage WNS, including better methods of detecting the disease 

early, training personnel to conduct active field surveillance and sample collection, 

increasing diagnostic testing of field samples, and additional ecological field research aimed at providing the science-based guidance needed by state and federal 

agencies managing this devastating disease. Improved diagnostics, surveillance, and 

research will contribute to a better understanding of how WNS spreads and will 

help to identify weak links in the disease cycle that can be exploited to manage and 

control WNS. 

National Park Service 

The National Park System contains 394 national park units comprising approximately 84 million acres. Nearly one in four national park units have caves, and one 

in three units contain mines that can provide habitat for bats. System-wide, all 45 

species of bats in North America occur in national park units, including seven species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered, and numerous others that 

are listed through state laws as threatened or endangered. 

The NPS comprises one of the largest systems for informal learning in the world, 

and it educates millions of visitors about cave ecosystems, bats, and the potentially 

devastating impacts of WNS. Commercial cave operations in parks, such as Mammoth Cave and Carlsbad National Parks, remain open. NPS guidance recommends 

that access to caves requires a permit or tour ticket, which has enabled NPS to be 

proactive in minimizing the risk of visitors in spreading WNS. Visitors are screened 

prior to cave entry and gear is disinfected when necessary. The NPS develops guidance for parks through a working group comprised of veterinarians, managers, and 

ecologists from across the national park system. In addition, NPS continues to work 

with multiple partners to investigate WNS and its impacts on bat populations by 

providing access to sites, samples for analyses, and assisting planning for coordinated response. 

Bureau of Land Management 

The BLM, responsible for managing more than 245 million acres of public lands, 

is working to better understand and prevent the spread of WNS. The BLM was an 

active participant in the recently released national plan and is now focused on plan 

implementation. BLM Field Offices have been instructed to consider restricting access to caves and abandoned mines on BLM-administered lands and to use a targeted approach to closure that prioritizes sites with important bat resources. Prior 

to the completion of the 2011 national plan, the BLM in New Mexico closed 28 caves 

to public visitation in an effort to reduce the threat of WNS to bats. The BLM issued 

policy to encourage the continued engagement of external stakeholders to prevent 

or contain the spread of WNS including additional cave and abandoned mine closures in areas with important bat resources. 

Limiting Potential for Human Transmission 

The Department is working closely with the recreational caving and cave research 

communities to develop and improve decontamination protocols and cave access recommendations to prevent potential spread of the fungus through human activities. 

A decontamination protocol team has been formed, consisting of participants from 

across state and federal agencies, and the cave and karst research community, and 

the team is working to maintain consistency in methodology while incorporating the 

latest procedures. In March 2009, the FWS issued an advisory recommending voluntary suspension of caving activities in the states with affected bats, as well as 

in the adjoining states. In addition, the FWS has developed guidelines for scientists 

working in hibernacula to take precautions to avoid spreading the disease. The NPS 

has closed ‘‘wild’’ caves and mines in several units of the National Park System, although large, commercial caves in national park units remain open at this time. 

More closures may occur in response to the further spread of WNS. Several states 

have closed caves on lands under their management, including Indiana, Kentucky, 

and Wisconsin. Wisconsin has also designated G. destructans as an invasive species, 

making its transport an act which can be prosecuted under state law. The National 

Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) under FWS management includes lands 

with significant bat hibernacula, including those of the federally listed gray bat. All 

caves and abandoned mines on Refuge System lands have been closed to public 

entry to protect wildlife, including bats, from human disturbance. 

Conclusion 

White-nose syndrome remains the greatest challenge to bat conservation we have 

ever faced. The Department is dedicated to continuing its coordination of research 

and response to WNS and its impact on bat populations. Through ongoing efforts 

11 

to improve diagnostic techniques, to expand disease surveillance, and to enhance research efforts, we hope to continue to further our understanding of WNS to identify 

weak links in the disease cycle that can be exploited to manage and control this 

devastating wildlife disease. We also hope to refine and improve the processes and 

framework through which we address and manage similar wildlife health crises. 

The Department appreciates your interest in WNS and our collective efforts to address it. We look forward to working with you to slow the spread of this disease 

and to mitigate its impacts on bat populations. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would be happy to 

answer any questions that you or the committee members might have. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Dr. Chavarria, and thank you for your 

testimony. Next, we have Mr. Pen ̃ a. You are now recognized, sir, 

for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JIM PEN ̃ A, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE 

Mr. PEN ̃ A. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify this morning. The subject of 

White-Nose Syndrome is important to forest managers, wildlife 

managers, agricultural producers, and members of the public. 

The Forest Service is contributing to the larger effort to better 

understand White-Nose Syndrome, and is playing a role in controlling the spread of White-Nose Syndrome to hibernation sites in 

caves, and in abandoned or inactive mines. 

The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands, and 

to meet the needs of present and future generations. 

This mission includes sustaining the health, diversity, and productivity of many species that uses the Nation’s forests and grasslands as habitat, including bats. I am going to focus my remarks 

on what we are doing to try and coordinate and collaborate, as opposed to rehash a number of the science topics. 

And so the coordination and cooperation among all parties involved in addressing White-Nose Syndrome is critical to arrest the 

spread of White-Nose Syndrome. The Forest Service is committed 

to full partnership and cooperation with other Federal, state, Tribal, wildlife management agencies, universities, industrial and nonindustrial private forest owners, and non-government organizations 

such as Bat Conservation International, and the National Speleological Society. 

The Forest Service has been a cooperator in the development of 

a White-Nose Syndrome Response Plan, and has served on WhiteNose Syndrome working groups, and is actively involved in the development of several parts of the implementation plan. 

There is evidence to suggest that humans can spread White-Nose 

Syndrome from cave to cave on their gear and equipment, and in 

an attempt to slow the spread of White-Nose Syndrome, we have 

closed nearly all caves, and abandoned or inactive mines in the 

Southern, Eastern, and Rocky Mountain regions. 

Exceptions to the close orders are for research and monitoring, 

law enforcement, research, search and rescue operations, and to 

any cave that is specifically posted as open. 

We implemented these closures because we observed the WhiteNose Syndrome jump from New York to Southwest Virginia in one 

winter, and the next winter the fungus that causes White-Nose 

12 

Syndrome was detected in the Oklahoma Panhandle, a far greater 

distance than bats could travel in such a short time frame. 

There is no known cure for White-Nose Syndrome, and so we 

must rely upon trying to limit disease spread between geographic 

regions and using decontamination procedures. Our cave closures 

may have slowed the westward spread, but it is likely too early to 

tell. 

By acting now, we hope to substantially delay the westward 

spread enough for science to inform us on more effective ways to 

manage and contain the fungus. Given growing concerns over the 

viability of bat populations and the awareness of the role of bats 

in maintaining healthy ecosystems, the Forest Service research and 

development has established bat research throughout the United 

States. 

In the past three years, we have expanded research to address 

challenges posed by the White-Nose Syndrome. Our current research efforts are aimed at understanding the pathogen associated 

with White-Nose Syndrome, including potential biological control. 

Planning for conservation and recovery of affected bat populations by evaluating populations genetics and viability, assessing 

and quantifying the economic and ecological importance of bats to 

forests and agricultural systems, and finally assessing bat habitat 

requirements, and effects of forest management on bats. 

The Forest Service understands the impacts closures are having 

and will continue to have on the recreating public. We will continue 

evaluating these decisions as new information and science becomes 

available, with the intent of balancing greater access to caves, 

while striving to maintain healthy bat populations. 

In conclusion, we are responding to the serious threat populations posed by the White-Nose Syndrome. To further the conservation and management of vast and diverse habitat on our national forests and other lands, the Forest Service is committed to 

cooperation and partnership with Federal, state, Tribal, and nongovernment organizations. I would be happy to take any questions 

at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pen ̃ a follows:] 

Statement of Jim Pen ̃ a, Associate Deputy Chief, 

National Forest System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify before you today on bat white-nose syndrome. The subject of white-nose 

syndrome is important to forest managers, wildlife managers, agricultural producers, and members of the public. This hearing is timely because white-nose syndrome is an emerging disease of cave dwelling species of bats that is both perplexing 

and devastating. 

The Forest Service is very concerned about white-nose syndrome and the future 

of bats in the United States and North America. White-nose syndrome (WNS) is a 

disease believed to be caused by a fungus recently identified as Geomyces 

destructans, which is associated with mass mortality of several bat species at hibernation sites in the New England, Mid-Atlantic and northern Appalachian States. 

Since our previous testimony on June 4, 2009, WNS has continued to spread to the 

north, south, and west. WNS has now been confirmed in 16 states stretching from 

Maine to west Tennessee, and 4 Canadian provinces. DNA from Geomyces 

destructans, the fungus that is associated with WNS, has been confirmed on a bat 

in Western Oklahoma, although the bat lacked the pathological invasion of the skin 

that is characteristic of the disease. 

Once introduced into a cave or abandoned and/or inactive mine, WNS has the potential to kill more than 90 percent of the hibernating bats (Blehert et al. 2009 

13 

Science Vol. 323 pg. 227). It is estimated WNS has killed more than 1 million bats 

during the last four years. Since 2007, when WNS was first documented in New 

York, populations from six bat species, including little brown, big brown, northern 

long-eared, eastern small-footed and tri-colored bats, as well as the endangered Indiana bat, have suffered mortality from WNS. DNA from the fungus has also been 

identified on three additional species, the southeastern bat, the cave bat, and the 

endangered gray bat, but no mortality or pathology has been documented among 

these species to date. 

The Forest Service can contribute towards the larger effort to better understand 

WNS, and can play a role in controlling the spread of WNS to hibernation sites in 

caves and abandoned and/or inactive mines. The mission of the Forest Service is, 

‘‘to sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.’’ This mission includes 

sustaining the health, diversity, and productivity of the many species that use the 

Nation’s forests and grasslands as habitat, including bats. 

Declining bat populations diminish the integrity of our forest and grassland ecosystems. The continued loss of bats in forested ecosystems could have ecological and 

economic impacts. Because bats are primary predators of night-flying insects, a significant decline in bat populations could contribute to larger insect pest populations, 

a possible decrease of agricultural crop production, and a potential decline in forest 

health. Increases in insect pest populations could lead to an increase in the perception of the need for pesticides, which would have both environmental and economic 

consequences (Kunz et al. 2011). The value of bats to agriculture was recently estimated to be $23 billion per year (Boyles et al. 2011, Science Vol 332 pages 41–42). 

The strategy to prevent WNS must be a multi-pronged one and involve strategies 

in both affected and currently unaffected regions. 

Coordination and cooperation among all parties involved in addressing WNS are 

critical to arrest the spread of WNS. The Forest Service is committed to full partnership and cooperation under the National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats, along with the Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of Land Management), State and Tribal wildlife management agencies, universities, industrial and non-industrial private forestland 

owners and non-governmental organizations, such as Bat Conservation International and the National Speleological Society. The Forest Service has been a cooperator in the development of the National WNS Response Plan and is actively involved in several parts of the implementation plan. We will continue to assist in the 

cooperative effort. Cooperative efforts include monitoring the spread of WNS,, epidemiology and isolation procedures to better understand and control the disease, and 

cave and mine management in order to reduce the spread of WNS to unaffected 

areas and regions of the United States. 

THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM 

The Eastern and Southern Regions of the National Forest System have adopted 

an appropriately aggressive response to the threat posed to bats by WNS. This includes, starting with the FY2009 Budget, specific budget direction to address bat 

species conservation relative to WNS in the Forest Service. There are approximately 

24 million acres of National Forest System lands in the Eastern and Southern Regions of the Forest Service with approximately 2,000 caves and abandoned and/or 

inactive mines that serve as bat hibernation sites. Several species of bats listed as 

endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act 

use these sites, including the Indiana bat, gray bat, Virginia big-eared bat, and 

Ozark big-eared bat. It is in these sites where WNS mortality is most evident. 

White-nose syndrome has not yet been documented in populations of migratory bat 

species that hibernate in trees or forest leaf litter. 

For the Eastern Region of the Forest Service, WNS is confirmed in an abandoned 

and/or inactive mine in the Green Mountain National Forest (Vermont), in the 

Wayne National Forest (Ohio), and in caves in West Virginia’s Monongahela National Forest and Indiana’s Hoosier National Forest. In the Southern Region, WNS 

has been confirmed in Virginia on the George Washington and Jefferson National 

Forests, as well as in the National Forests in North Carolina. Of significant concern 

is the confirmation of WNS in the privately owned Hellhole Cave, in West Virginia, 

which is designated critical habitat for both the Indiana bat and the Virginia bigeared bat—both Endangered Species. Hellhole Cave is habitat for approximately 45 

percent of the known population of Virginia big-eared bats and more than 100,000 

little brown bats, the species hit hardest by WNS. 

If we fail to contain WNS, there could be a rapid and precipitous population decline for many bat species. With discovery of WNS in three counties in Indiana, 

14 

there is great concern about the fate of the endangered Indiana bat. Nearly 50 percent of Indiana bats hibernate in Indiana and all are susceptible to WNS. Two recent and independent studies in New England determined a 73 percent overall decrease in summer bat activity (Brooks 2011, Biodiversity and Conservation, 5-pages, 

online; Frick et al. 2010, Science 679—682). Therefore, it is critical that bat hibernation locations are isolated from Geomyces destructans. There is no known cure for 

WNS, so we must rely upon the basic principles of epidemiology, which includes trying to limit disease spread between geographic regions and using decontamination 

procedures when visiting hibernacula. 

Forest Service Cave and Mine Closures 

There is evidence to suggest humans can spread WNS from cave to cave on their 

gear and equipment (Blehert, et al. 2011, Microbe: 267—277). This includes cavers 

as well as resource managers. In an attempt to slow the spread of WNS, the Forest 

Service has closed nearly all caves and abandoned and/or inactive mines in the 

Southern, Eastern, and Rocky Mountain Regions. The Forest Service acted because 

we observed WNS jump from New York to southwest Virginia in one winter. The 

next winter, DNA from the fungus that causes WNS was detected in Woodward 

County, in the Oklahoma panhandle, a far greater distance than bats could travel 

in such a short time frame. The closure orders are crafted to reduce concerns that 

they would deny access for Tribal rights and ceremonies by allowing requests for 

Tribal ceremonies to be authorized by permit on a case-by-case basis. Our Tribal 

partners are supportive of our efforts to slow the spread of WNS. 

Exceptions to the closure orders are for research and monitoring, law enforcement, search and rescue operations, and any cave specifically posted as open. The 

Forest Service has been coordinating with the National Park Service on decontamination protocols for sites that are not subject to the closure orders. We are implementing the same decontamination protocols as Mammoth Cave National Park 

to ensure that cave visitors, including researchers and managers, do not spread 

WNS. The protocols include the use of specific clothing and equipment for each individual cave and abandoned and/or inactive mine. 

Because there are critical bat hibernating sites in the Midwest and West, we are 

very concerned about the continued western spread of WNS and what we can do, 

working with partners, to enact proactive measures now, rather than waiting until 

WNS spreads to currently unaffected areas in the western United States. Opportunities exist to implement proactive habitat management monitoring and surveillance activities now in areas to which WNS has not yet spread. The hope is that 

acting now will substantially delay the westward spread, in enough time for the 

science to inform increasingly effective ways to manage and contain the fungus. In 

addition to the closures already mentioned, a response plan has been finalized for 

New Mexico which calls for targeted closure of caves determined to have significant 

bat roosts. In Arizona, a draft Response Plan has been prepared that would institute 

a similar approach. It is expected that the Arizona plan will be finalized sometime 

this summer. Closure decisions are also pending for the Northern and Intermountain Regions. These regions are working with other federal and state agencies 

to assess risk of WNS across the landscape, prioritize monitoring and surveillance 

activities, and adopt adaptive management approaches well ahead of WNS spread 

into those areas. 

Management of National Forests 

Bats need healthy forests and healthy forests need bats. Other than implementing 

the cave and abandoned and/or inactive mine closure order, the best thing we can 

do to conserve bats is to manage for healthy forests. While the national forests are 

approximately six percent of the forested lands in the Eastern and Southern U.S., 

they play a critical role in conservation of all species. We are using research findings 

to develop management strategies to benefit bats. The objective is to create suitable 

roosting and foraging habitat across the landscape in the quantities and patterns 

that mimic natural disturbance regimes, in the hopes of restoring habitat conditions 

for all species (Perry et al. 2008, Journal of Wildlife Management 72: 913—925; 

O’Keefe et al. 2009, Forest Ecology and Management 1757—1763; Hayes and Loeb 

2007, pages 207—235 in Lacki et al. editors, Bats in Forests: Conservation and 

management, John Hopkins University Press 329 pp). The Eastern and Southern 

Region national forests are ideally suited to contribute to large forested landscape 

ecosystems. There is a significant but discontinuous corridor of national forests and 

parks from northern Georgia to New Hampshire. If we can retain healthy bat populations on national forests and parks, the corridor could serve as a conduit to repopulate bat populations in areas decimated by WNS. This assumes our ability to arVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:07 Mar 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67111.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
15 

rest the spread of WNS; that the bats develop some resistance to it; or a method 

is found to address the fungus that presumptively causes WNS. 

There may be potential to increase our management efforts to develop suitable 

habitat at an accelerated rate. There is potential to increase adaptive management 

strategies in cooperation with research to enhance suitable habitat while monitoring 

the effectiveness of these treatment strategies. As mentioned earlier, the Forest 

Service is also exploring, with several other federal and state agencies, the potential 

for a broad-scale collaborative effort in the West to prioritize monitoring and implement management aimed at slowing and halting the westward spread of WNS. 

FOREST SERVICE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (R&D) ROLE IN BAT 

HABITAT RESEARCH 

Given growing concerns over the viability of bat populations and awareness of the 

role of bats in maintaining healthy ecosystems, the Forest Service Research and Development Deputy Area has established bat research throughout the United States. 

In the past three years, Forest Service has expanded this research to address the 

challenges posed by WNS in four areas: 

• WNS-related declines, assessment, and control; 

• Population genetics and population viability; 

• Basic habitat requirements and effects of forest management on bats: and 

• Economic and ecological importance of bats. 

Forest Service scientists are internationally recognized for their expertise in identifying fungi through DNA fingerprinting. Their expertise was responsible for development of DNA detection methods for screening cave soils and debris for the pathogen. These scientists are currently developing genetic techniques that can be used 

in the field to detect the pathogen in the environment or in infected bat tissue more 

accurately. This advance will save weeks in response time by enabling scientists and 

managers to identify the pathogen on site in the field. 

Forest Service scientists are also evaluating the potential for biological controls 

of the fungus. By testing naturally occurring microflora from healthy bats, they 

hope to find a microbial species that will reduce the ability of G. destructans to destroy bat skin cells. 

As part of Forest Service population viability research, scientists are developing 

viability models for Indiana bat to estimate population-wide impacts of current and 

potential future mortality. To date there is no indication of innate bat immunity to 

the disease. Modeling the possible trajectories of declining populations should provide information needed to identify management options for conservation or recovery of this species. 

Our research to understand habitat needs and inform management practices has 

identified optimal roosting requirements of bats during the maternity season. In 

general, this research has shown that bats prefer large trees or snags, often in relatively open areas. However, there is still considerable unexplained variation within 

and among bat species that requires further study. Additional research on the effects of forest management has shown that forest management practices, particularly thinning, prescribed fire, and creation of small canopy gaps or openings, generally do not reduce habitat attributes for bats and may be very beneficial. Forest 

Service scientists, in collaboration with agricultural economists, have also initiated 

development of models to quantify the ecological and economic importance of bats 

to agriculture and forest ecosystems. 

Forest Service Research and Development works closely with managers, partners, 

and the public to ensure our research informs management strategies for the National Forest System and other public and private lands in the future. Information 

gained from Forest Service R&D studies on habitat requirements, bat response to 

forest management, and the consequences of human development on bat habitat and 

populations will be critical to understanding the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of WNS and other stressors on bat populations. 

THE ROLE OF STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY AND CONSERVATION 

EDUCATION 

Another approach for the management of healthy and resilient forests is to implement efforts with State Foresters through the State and Private Forestry arm of the 

Forest Service. The Forest Stewardship Program provides financial and technical 

assistance to State Forestry organizations for private forestland management consultation and plans. Targeting private forest management efforts to implement prescriptions that would enhance or develop attributes for bat foraging, roosting or maternity habitat in privately owned forests in and near areas affected by WNS could 

help bat populations recover once WNS is controlled. 

16 

Conservation Education 

We know that the public is a critical partner in the effort to help save the bats. 

The Forest Service is actively involved in educating people regarding WNS, bat species conservation, and the ecological and economic importance of bats. Children find 

bats fascinating and are a key part of our education programs. We are informing 

people why Eastern and Southern National Forest System caves and abandoned 

and/or inactive mines are closed to the public until more is learned about the pathology of WNS. 

CONCLUSION 

The Forest Service is in the process of responding to the serious threat to bat populations posed by WNS. The Forest Service Deputy Areas for the National Forest 

System, Research and Development and State and Private Forestry are contributing 

to this vital cause. To further the conservation management of the vast and diverse 

habitat and fauna on National Forest System and other lands, the Forest Service 

is committed to cooperation and partnerships with Federal, State, Tribal and nongovernmental organizations interested in the conservation and preservation of bats. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am pleased to answer any questions 

that you or the Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Pen ̃ a, for your testimony. We now 

have Dr. Gassett, and you have five minutes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JON GASSETT, COMMISSIONER, 

KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 

RESOURCES 

Dr. GASSETT. Thank you, Chairman Fleming, and Subcommittee 

Members. I am Dr. John Gassett, Commissioner of the Kentucky 

Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, and the Vice President 

of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, as well as the 

Chair of the Association’s White-Nose Syndrome Working Group. 

During the last several years with my personal involvement with 

White-Nose Syndrome has grown from watching its advance southward and westward, to chairing the Association Working Group to 

garner further state awareness, to bearing responsibility in my 

state upon confirming White-Nose Syndrome in Kentucky this 

spring. 

And I am encouraged by the amount of dedication and commitment by the community of individuals, both here and abroad, that 

care deeply about our bat resources. But I am here today to bring 

you a state perspective on where the battle against White-Nose 

Syndrome will ultimately be won or lost. 

In my home state of Kentucky, we are known for a few products 

for our vast limestone substrate, the best thoroughbred race horses 

in the world, and fine Kentucky Bourbon, are both products of our 

limestone beneath our feet. 

But this limestone topography is also conducive to cave formation. Kentucky is home to thousands of limestone caves and caverns, some large, such as Mammoth Cave, and some so small that 

you couldn’t fit a single person inside. 

What many of these caves have in common are the bats that live 

there and the ecosystem that those bats support. Kentucky is home 

to a number of bat species, including a large percentage of the 

world’s known population of Federally endangered Gray bats and 

Indiana bats. 

The fact that we have tremendous numbers of caves that are 

homes to these bats that are now experiencing a disease that has 

17 

the potential to devastate their numbers, obviously causes us some 

concerns. 

Since the discovery of White-Nose Syndrome a few years ago, my 

agency has aggressively increased surveillance and monitoring of 

bats, and educating landowners and grottos on the importance of 

minimizing cave disturbance, and closed non-commercial caves on 

public lands that were known to house bats. 

We have initiated a voluntary cave closure on private land, and 

we have assisted the Service with a cave closure advisory. Have we 

taken some drastic measures? Yes. Will they be effective in controlling the spread of the disease? We are not sure yet. 

Our approach to preventing this disease from entering Kentucky, 

and then arresting its spread once it got there has been controversial. For example, several years prior to the discovery of the disease in Kentucky, we began initiating cave closures on state-owned 

lands. 

One of these closures was in a small community of Carter Caves, 

and on the weekend before a major caving event that had over 900 

participants registered, we decided that the event could potentially 

jeopardize the resident bats from a caver inadvertently bringing in 

infected material. 

We closed this event three days before it happened. Obviously, 

the caving community was disappointed, and we worked with a 

State Park to offset some of their revenue losses, but the local economic impact was significant to this small community. 

We followed public cave closures by turning toward private land 

caves. We worked with landowners cooperatively through an educational campaign to inform them of the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service cave closure advisory, and asked them to voluntarily close their caves. 

Of the 80 caves or 80 cave owners that we sent letters to, only 

three refused to do so, and the remainder did. So once again landowners are responding to the disease threat. 

Cave closures haven’t been the only controversial approach to 

controlling disease in Kentucky. Once it was found in Ohio this 

spring, we visited a sampling of caves across the state to be sure 

that we hadn’t missed it. Unfortunately, we did turn the disease 

up in Western Kentucky. 

So we consulted with our Federal partners, because there are 

Federal bats involved, and began an immediate recon of the cave 

system within a 10 mile radius, and it turned out that this was an 

isolated event. 

So we took what some people would say are drastic measures. 

We went in and evaluated the situation, and determined that we 

can protect the threatened and endangered bats that weren’t infected, but could remove the infected non-endangered bats. We did 

so, and we removed approximately 60 bats, which were all that we 

could get to at that time. 

We made a difficult call to alter the cave artificially, and where 

these bats were infected, and where they were hanging, we went 

in and attached artificial structures to keep bats in the future from 

roosting there. 

So obviously there were folks from the caving communities and 

from the cave biologist side of things, and who were very upset 

18 

with the fact that we had actually physically altered the cave, but 

to us, it wasn’t worth the risk of allowing those 3,500 Federally 

listed bats that were in that cave the opportunity to roost in an 

area that might become infected. 

We have taken some drastic measures in Kentucky, and we feel 

that that is what states are going to have to do to ultimately win 

this fight against this disease. There are a litany of needs to address White-Nose Syndrome properly, particularly in the realm of 

research. 

And we ask that research activities and funding focus on treatment and on the ground management needs. As White-Nose Syndrome moves across the landscape, a coordinated and informed effort is more important than ever before, and wildlife managers are 

in need of support to broaden their surveillance efforts. 

We have thousands of caves in Kentucky, and it is difficult to 

surveil them all. States need continued support of all entities, both 

public and private, Federal, and non-profit, to effectively manage 

on a broad scale, and Congressional support via funding is critical 

if we are to conserve this national biological treasure. 

While the professionals within this room realize that this may be 

the most challenging wildlife disease issue in our time, we are optimistic and hopeful that treatment controls will be found, and we 

will continue to press forward working in concert to ensure bat 

populations be afforded every opportunity to thrive. 

Mr. Chairman, and Honored Subcommittee Members, thank you 

for the opportunity to share our perspectives, and I would be 

pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gassett follows:] 

Statement of Jon Gassett, PhD, Commissioner, 

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 

Thank you, Chairman Fleming and Subcommittee Members for the opportunity 

to share the perspectives of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies on this 

important environmental issue. I am Dr. Jon Gassett, Commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources and the Vice President of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies as well as the chair of the Association’s 

White-Nose Syndrome Working Group. 

The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) promotes and facilitates 

sound fish and wildlife management and conservation, and is the collective voice of 

North America’s fish and wildlife agencies. The Association provides its member 

agencies and their senior staff with coordination services that range from migratory 

birds, fish, habitat, and invasive species, to conservation education, leadership development, and international relations. The Association represents its state fish and 

wildlife agency members on Capitol Hill and before the Administration on key conservation and management policies, and works to ensure that all fish and wildlife 

entities work collaboratively on the most important issues. All 50 states are members of the Association. 

During the last several years, my personal involvement with WNS has grown 

from watching its advance, moving southward and westward, to bearing responsibility in my own state upon confirming WNS in Kentucky this spring. I am encouraged at the amount of dedication and commitment by a community of individuals 

who care deeply about our bat resources. At the same time, I am concerned at the 

rate of spread, the high suspect ability of certain species and the lack of available 

treatment options. Again, I am encouraged by the genuine concern and interest as 

shown here by this Subcommittee. 

White-Nose Syndrome: What Is It and Where Is It? 

In the winter of 2006 the first signs of a destructive fungus (Geomyces 

destructans) appeared on hibernating bats in Howe’s Cave in upstate New York. By 

2009 thousands of hibernating bats from a variety of species across the northeast 

19 

(New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Virginia) were dying or had died from this new 

disease now known as White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) for the tell-tale white fungus 

found on the muzzle of infected bats. As of 2011 WNS has spread north to Maine 

and the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Quebec. The disease 

has also spread south to Maryland, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Tennessee as 

well as to the Midwest to Indiana and Ohio. WNS has also been confirmed in Delaware, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Thus far, of the twenty-five hibernating bat species 

in North America, six species have been affected by WNS including the endangered 

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and the endangered Gray bat (Myotis grisescens). The 

endangered Virginia big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) and Ozarks big-eared 

bat (Corynorhiunus townsendii ingenus) are both found within the geographical 

range of WNS, but no infected bats from either species have been found at this time. 

G. destructans infects not only the muzzle but also the ears, and (most importantly) the wings of bats. Once G. destructans infects an individual the fungus colonizes the area of infection, erodes the epidermal layer, and eventually reaches the 

connective tissue where damage can be intensive. Infection of the wings is of the 

great concern as they play a key role in homeostasis. The exact cause of death is 

uncertain but frequent arousals due to irritation from the infection and the subsequent depletion of fat reserves may be a factor. Bats have also been reported to 

leave their hibernacula prematurely and succumb to the cold. Mortality can be as 

high as 90–100% of an infected population and estimates suggest that over 1 million 

bats have died from WNS to date. 

Exposure to G. destructans occurs within caves and/or abandoned mines where 

certain species hibernate in huddled masses through the winter as a mechanism to 

survive cold temperatures and limited food supply. Temperatures within any given 

hibernacula range from 2–14° C which is also within the optimal range for G. 

destructans growth. North American bats have been exposed to a variety of fungal 

species with no detrimental effects until now. Surveys of European bat populations 

indicate exposure to G. destructans, but with none of the mortalities associated with 

the fungus in North America. This suggests that the fungus may have European 

origins, and bats there co-evolved with the fungus. This also suggests that G. 

destructans crossed over to North America through unintentional human importation (i.e. on caver’s boots or other caving gear) and is now spreading throughout 

immunologically naı ̈ve bat populations throughout North America. 

Importance of Bats and the Future Impacts of WNS 

Bats play an important role in the environment as well as natural resource-based 

economies such as agriculture and forestry. They may act as pest control, pollinators, or seed dispersers depending on the species. Bats are a keystone species in 

most ecosystems and help maintain balance. So far WNS has only impacted insectivorous bats, which consume large amounts of nocturnal insects that may act as 

agriculture or forestry pests. Recent estimates suggest that agriculture losses from 

WNS could exceed $3.7 billion per year. For certain crops (ex. cotton), bats play a 

prominent role in pest suppression which could lead to even larger losses. Without 

these ecosystem services, increased pesticide application will be used. Not only will 

this be expensive to farmers but could adversely affect fish and wildlife in surrounding areas through direct exposure or indirect exposure through runoff. The 

loss of large populations of insectivorous bats could also lead to future public health 

and wildlife health crises with increased cases of West Nile Virus and other similar 

diseases. 

The National Plan 

We applaud the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and their conservation partners 

for the creation of the National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and 

Tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats. State fish and wildlife agencies 

sit on the National Plan Executive Committee and on the technical teams and were 

thus significantly involved in drafting the Plan. Recently released in May of this 

year the National Plan will serve as a framework for federal, state and private entities. This National Plan is only the first step as the National WNS Implementation 

Plan is now underway. Details for each goal and objective outlined in the National 

Plan will be found here. This will serve to delineate options, responsibilities and a 

means of checks and balances to insure that previously defined goals and objectives 

can and will be met. While state fish and wildlife agencies are the ultimate decision 

makers for strategies to reduce the impact and spread of WNS, the National Plan 

acts as an overarching framework where all may move towards a common goal. 

With the far-reaching affects of WNS, it is imperative to have a clear roadmap for 

20 

success. The National Plan and the forthcoming National Implementation Plan 

serve as that roadmap 

State Action 

For more than 100 years, state fish and wildlife agencies have been managing 

natural resources for the public trust by addressing threats to fish and wildlife including habitat fragmentation, degradation, disease and pathogens, and loss from 

changing land uses, pollution and sedimentation, deleterious or invasive species, 

and unsustainable use of natural resources. State, provincial and territorial fish and 

wildlife agencies have upheld the primary responsibility for conserving and preventing the exploitation of those resources on public and private lands and waters 

within their borders. State fish and wildlife agencies are proactively combating the 

effects of WNS through collaborative efforts with their fellow state fish and wildlife 

agencies, federal agencies, and NGO partners. State biologists, on average, have numerous species and duties under their purview and are limited in their ability to 

respond to crises at the scale of WNS. In these current economic times when state 

budgets are slowly shrinking, it is these partnerships that allow states to expand 

their efforts. 

States have been resourceful in utilizing federal, state and NGO partner capacity 

for addressing WNS, along with various funding mechanisms. States have also been 

utilizing the limited funding available to further baseline knowledge and track the 

spread of WNS. 

Examples of state efforts are as follows: 

Virginia 

Through federal WNS Grant funds, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries and partners initiated three projects to assist with the understanding of 

WNS and its impacts. These efforts included banding bats with the objectives of 

monitoring demographic and biometric changes associated with WNS, determine 

changes in population levels, and monitor individuals over time to determine potential resistance. 

Western Coordinated Multi-State Response: Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, 

Nevada, Washington, and Bat Conservation International 

The major focal areas of this State Wildlife Grant (SWG) are oversight, surveillance, outreach, and research. The 6 states intend to develop response plans, purchase equipment, conduct surveillance and monitoring, outreach, and research. The 

lead state (Arizona), Bat Conservation International, and partner states will actively 

engage with existing and emerging WNS networks—connecting representatives from 

each state partner with the broader national network of partner state and federal 

agencies and nonprofits (working on WNS), as well as private landowners, recreational caving interests, and corporate and foundation interests that can provide 

critical private dollars. 

Vermont 

Vermont has applied appropriated federal funding with state match dollars 

through the SWG program and the direct federal WNS Grants to the States. In recent years, such funds have been applied to WNS surveillance, addressing public 

concerns, and participating in regional or national research projects on the disease 

itself. 

Tennessee 

Current funding from the White Nose Syndrome Grant, Endangered Species Act 

Habitat Conservation Plan and Section 6 (Indiana and Gray Bats) funds to survey 

bat populations and incidence of WNS have helped identify caves with bats. The 

WNS Grant allowed the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency to purchase an array 

of equipment used in bat surveys. 

Iowa 

With USFWS WNS Grant funds Iowa Department of Natural Resources prepared 

Web-based and written materials regarding white-nose syndrome, identification, 

cause, means of transmission, actions that landowners should take to minimize 

spread of disease, reporting protocols, links to USFWS’ and other pertinent whitenose syndrome sites and information sources, and contact information for Iowa DNR 

personnel to answer queries regarding white-nose syndrome and coordinate monitoring for disease. 

Signs were prepared for posting on public lands which harbor hibernating cave 

bats and printed written materials for distribution to target audiences were also 

done under the USFWS WNS grant. 

21 

Kentucky 

The agency has aggressively increased surveillance and monitoring, educated 

landowners and grottos on the cave closure advisory, provided signage and has 

worked with numerous researchers throughout the nation. Funding for these efforts 

was provided for through a USFWS WNS grant and State Wildlife Grant (SWG). 

Kentucky detected a WNS positive site this spring and is aggressively researching 

management measures that may help slow the spread. 

WNS–Cave Closings 

States have acknowledged and supported the USFWS’s voluntary cave closure advisory issued in 2009. While this ban affects non-commercial caves on public and 

private property, it does not address the commercial cave industry. Many state 

agencies have worked diligently with private landowners, educating them on the importance of limiting disturbance to hibernating bats during the winter, as well as, 

the threat of WNS. Conscientious landowners have allowed signage to be erected, 

talked with local cavers and indicated an overall support of the voluntary closure. 

While commercial cave operations are important to local economies, they too can 

potentially be a source of contamination. There is an effort underway by state, federal and non-governmental organizations to develop a Commercial Cave Advisory 

document that will assist commercial cave owners/operators. This will allow them 

to maintain a ‘‘clean’’ cave environment without crippling their business, during 

these difficult economic times. While recognizing the importance of caving to interest groups and commercial venues, we also recognize the associated responsibility 

to those organisms that inhabit these systems. Bats, invertebrates and other cave 

dependent species are critical to maintaining a healthy cave ecosystem. 

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife worked with landowners through an 

educational campaign and letter to inform them of the USFWS cave closure advisory. Over 80 letters were mailed to landowners asking if they would like to close 

their cave and receive signs for their property. The response was overwhelming, 

with only 3 property owners indicating that they would prefer to leave their cave 

open. 

An excellent example of partners working together for the benefit of bats, while 

acknowledging economic impacts, exists at Mammoth Cave National Park (MCNP). 

Mammoth Cave is located in south-central Kentucky and received over 400,000 visitors per year and has an enormous economic impact in the local region. Gross ticket 

sales average $3 million dollars. Mammoth Cave is also home to at least 3 caves 

harboring the federally endangered Indiana bat and Gray bat. MCNP developed a 

screening process, educational materials, hired staff and developed decontamination 

stations to assure visitors were not a potential source of spreading WNS. Overall, 

visitors have been very receptive and eager to ensure protection of this valuable resource. 

What is still needed? 

There is a litany of needs to address WNS properly, particularly in the realm of 

research. We ask that research activities and funding focus on treatment and ‘’’on 

the ground’’ management needs. As WNS moves across the landscape a coordinated, 

informed effort is more important than ever before. Wildlife managers are in need 

of support to broaden their surveillance efforts, in attempts to spot and perhaps 

slow or limit the spread of this disease. States need continued support of all entities, 

federal and private, to effectively manage on a broad scale. Congressional support 

via funding is critical if we are to conserve this national biological treasure. 

Specific needs include: 

• Strategies for collaboration with public health departments to increase surveillance 

• Identification of priority cave systems (in the west) and methods of protection 

for uninfected populations 

• Training workshops for state agency staff on protocols for samples collection, 

preparation, and euthanasia (where appropriate) 

• Education and outreach plans for the public and private land owners 

• More diagnostic facilities throughout the country 

• Increased surveillance and monitoring in both regions where WNS has not 

been detected and regions where WNS has occurred 

• State and/or Regional WNS Plans 

• Cost effective treatment for infected individuals in the wild 

• Improved survival of infected individuals from the known causes of mortality 

by WNS (starvation and dehydration) 

22 

Closing Remarks 

While the professionals within this room realize this may be the most challenging 

wildlife disease issue of our time, we are optimistic and hopeful that treatment and 

controls will be found. We will continue to press forward working in concert to ensure bat populations will be afforded every opportunity to thrive. 

Mr. Chairman and honored subcommittee members thank you for the opportunity 

to share our perspectives and I would be pleased to address any questions. 

NOTICE TO KENTUCKY CAVE OWNERS 

‘‘White Nose Syndrome—a new threat to cave bats’’ 

Cave Name:____________________________________________________ 

You are receiving this letter because you own one or more caves. If you have received this letter and do not own a cave or caves, please contact us (contact information can be found at the end of this letter) and we apologize for any inconvenience. 

Background 

In 2006, a mysterious fungus was discovered growing on the muzzles of several 

bats hibernating in a cave near Albany, New York, and the term ‘‘White Nose Syndrome’’ (WNS) was coined. Between 2006 and 2007, this syndrome spread to five 

caves in New York. Since then, WNS has spread to over 60 caves and mines in nine 

states in the northeast and eastern U.S. WNS has been associated with the deaths 

of approximately 1,000,000 bats and that number continues to rise. Several bat species have been affected, including the federally endangered Indiana bat. So far, this 

disease has not been found in Kentucky caves, and we want to do everything possible to keep it that way. This letter is being sent to you to inform you 

of the problem and to ask for your help, as an owner of an important bat cave, to 

assist in keeping this problem out of Kentucky, if possible. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recently issued a cave advisory in 

states that are affected with WNS and those states adjacent to affected states. Because it was found in West Virginia and Virginia this year (2009), Kentucky is now 

considered an adjacent state. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, 

USFWS Kentucky Field Office, and Kentucky Geological/Speleological Society have 

been working closely with cave groups and organizations through meetings to develop a state-specific response to this advisory. In Kentucky, non-commercial state 

and federally-owned caves have been temporarily closed to caving activities. 

What we know 

• Several species of bats are affected and it is estimated that over a million 

bats have been affected or have died from WNS 

• Most affected bats have a white fungus on their face and low body weight 

• Bat populations at affected sites have declined over 90% and the remaining 

bats are starving to death 

• At some sites, cave owners reported bats flying outside during the winter 

• White Nose Syndrome was found in caves in 2009 that were not affected in 

2008 

• As of April 2009, nine states are now infected with WNS 

What we don’t know 

• At this time we do not know the cause of the problem 

• A fungus is apparent on the bats, but no one knows if the fungus is the cause 

of the problem or if it is a secondary infection caused by something else 

• Several labs, including the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study 

lab, Cornell University lab, and the USGS disease lab in Madison, WI, are 

working on this problem 

• We do not know how the disease is spread from bat to bat or from cave to 

cave. It may be spread via the air, soil, or water in the cave and then transferred from cave to cave by cavers 

• Until we know more, we need to assume this is a possible means by which 

the disease spreads. If it is carried from cave to cave by the bats themselves, 

there may be little we can do 

• At this time we do not know if there are risks to humans, but the potential 

risks to humans are being assessed 

• Biologists working at affected sites in New York have not shown any signs 

of problems, but we cannot assume there are no risks to humans at this time 

• Also, potential impacts to other wildlife species are not known 

23 

Implications for Kentucky bats 

Several Kentucky caves are important hibernation sites for bats, including three 

federally endangered species: the Indiana bat, Gray bat, and Virginia big-eared bat. 

Thousands of other caves are home to many other species of bats. 

Virginia big-eared bats 

Kentucky has the second largest hibernating population of Virginia big-eared bats 

in the country! A serious concern is that our population of Virginia big-eared bats 

hibernates in only a few caves during the winter, which leaves this species vulnerable to being entirely wiped out by WNS. Virginia big-eared bat populations in 

states that have WNS such as West Virginia and Virginia appear to be unaffected; 

however, these bats hibernate in caves with species affected by WNS. 

Indiana bats 

In the past few years, populations of Indiana bats in Kentucky caves have just 

started to show an increase thanks to cave protection efforts. However, Indiana bats 

continue to decline in many other parts of their range. Populations of Indiana bats 

in the northern states are currently being severely impacted by WNS. If populations 

in Kentucky become affected, the likelihood of recovery for this species could be 

greatly reduced. 

Gray bats 

There have been great strides made towards the recovery of the gray bat since 

it was first listed as endangered in 1976. Populations in Kentucky have been on the 

rise and in the summer, the species can be found in caves throughout the Pennyrile 

Region and a few in the Bluegrass. Unfortunately, this number has only grown 

slightly as approximately 95 percent of the entire gray bat population hibernates 

in only 17 caves in 5 states, Kentucky being one of them. This concentration makes 

them very susceptible to being wiped out quickly by WNS. 

What can we do? 

1. Close bat caves to human traffic until we know more about how to contain this 

problem. This is the best precautionary step we can take at this time. The Kentucky 

Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are 

preparing a list of the caves we feel should be voluntarily closed. Cavers will be 

asked to voluntarily stay out of these caves. 

2. If, as a cave-owner, you would like to officially close your cave while we learn 

more about this problem, we will include your cave on the list of closed caves that 

will be posted on a website cavers can access. We have enclosed a self-addressed 

stamped envelope and a form to be completed by you as the cave owner. Please 

check that you would like to have your cave on the ‘‘Cave Closed’’ list and sign and 

date the form. The list of closed caves will also be distributed to local caving groups. 

You can also contact Brooke Slack or Mike Armstrong (contact information below) 

for more information. 

If you do not want your cave placed on the official closed cave list, we still plan 

to ask cavers to stay out of the cave voluntarily as we try to learn more about 

this problem. We have enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope and form to be 

completed by you as the cave owner. Please check the ‘‘Cave Open’’ box and sign 

and date the form. If you allow cavers to enter your cave, we strongly recommend 

they clean their gear, clothing, and boots before entering the cave. A procedure for 

disinfection can be found at http://www.fws.gov/northeast/wnscavers.html. If cavers 

going into your cave have been caving in New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, 

Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia 

(states known to be affected as of June 2009) or any states adjacent to these prior 

to entering your cave, we highly recommend that they replace their gear and not 

use any gear/clothing/boots that has been used in potentially affected sites. If this 

is not possible, they should disinfect their gear, clothing, and boots before going in 

to Kentucky caves following the protocols recommended by the USFWS. If cavers 

find WNS in your cave, please have them report it as soon as possible to Brooke 

Slack or Mike Armstrong. 

3. If you do not respond within 14 days, we will consider your cave(s) temporarily 

closed. 

4. Report any unusual bat activity at the cave, such as bats flying outside the 

cave during winter. Some bat activity on warm winter days is not unheard of, but 

large number of active bats would be unusual. If you find dead bats outside your 

cave, contact Brooke or Mike. 

Bat populations are doing well in Kentucky caves thanks to the cooperation and 

assistance of cave owners like you willing to help protect this resource. Great strides 

have been made in the last 20+ years. We could be taking a giant step backward 

24 

should WNS appear in Kentucky caves. Once it is here, there will be no going back. 

Your assistance at this time is greatly appreciated. We would like to have the initial 

list of closed caves available to the caving community as soon as possible, but the 

list can be updated later if you wish to change the status of your cave. 

To get the latest information on White Nose Syndrome, visit: http://www.fws.gov/ 

northeast/white_nose.html 

Sincerely, 

Brooke Slack 

Wildlife Biologist 

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 

502–564–7109 ext. 4573 

Mike Armstrong 

Endangered Species Biologist 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

502–695–0468 ext. 101 

Ÿ I have read the enclosed letter informing me about WNS and the recommendations of the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. I would like to close my cave or caves. Please include caves that 

I own on your ‘‘Cave Closed’’ list. 

Ÿ I have read the enclosed letter informing me about WNS and the recommendations of the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. At this time I am choosing to keep my cave or caves open to 

caving. I understand by doing this that I risk exposing my cave(s) to 

WNS. 

Signature of Cave(s) Owner Date 

[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Dr. Gassett. Next, Ms. Fascione. You 

are now recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF NINA FASCIONE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

BAT CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL 

Ms. FASCIONE. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman 

Fleming, Ranking Member Bordallo, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for providing this opportunity to testify on 

this important issue today. 

My name is Nina Fascione, and I am the Executive Director of 

Bat Conservation International. We are a non-profit conservation 

organization headquartered in Austin, Texas, with about 30,000 

members and supporters in all 50 states and abroad. 

Thank you for addressing an issue that can only be described as 

a massive wildlife crisis with this new emerging disease that we 

are talking about, White-Nose Syndrome, which is just decimating 

America’s bat populations. 

Scientists have described this disease as causing the most precipitous decline in wildlife in North America. Since its discovery in 

2006, more than a million bats have died, and I would say that although the official number is more than a million, bats are hard 

to count, and the number is likely in the millions. 

The disease strikes hibernating bats, bats that sleep through the 

winter in caves and mines, and of the Nation’s 45 bat species, 25 

hibernate. So more than half of our species in the United States 

are at risk. 

It currently affects nine species, including two endangered species, the Indiana Bat and the Gray Bat. Losses are so severe that 

25 

researchers are predicting a regional extinction of the Little Brown 

Bat, which was once one of North America’s most common mammals in the Northeast region, and in as little as 16 years. 

Bats provide enormous benefits to humans, and their loss would 

have serious ecological and economic consequences. They are the 

primary predators of night flying insect pests, and are critical to 

maintaining the balance of nature. 

A bat can eat to half to all of its body weight in insects each 

night, consuming huge numbers of insects that damage crops, such 

as corn, cotton, and potatoes. One million bats again is a conservative number of the amount that have died so far, and would have 

consumed nearly 700 tons of insects a year, which is a lot to lose. 

The study published this spring in the Journal of Science, which 

you both mentioned, estimates the value of bats to the agricultural 

industry of between $3 billion and $53 billion a year, and those researchers believe that the agricultural industry will see impacts of 

this in as little as four to five years. 

In additional to the crop losses, farmers will need to use more 

pesticides, which of course is an economic burden to them, as well 

as adding more pollutants to our environment. Bats also eat insects 

that damage forests, such as the Emerald Ash Borer, and that 

spread disease, such as mosquitos. 

Another issue is that the population declines from White-Nose 

Syndrome could lead to listing more bat species under the Endangered Species Act or under state laws, which could cause further 

far-ranging economic impacts. 

Already there have been several petitions for listing or status review, and many states are actively listing that species. So, regulations stemming from listing more bats could have economic impacts 

on many industries, including mining, defense, forestry, construction, transportation, tourism, and outdoor recreation. 

The national plan for assisting states, Federal agencies, and 

Tribes, in managing White-Nose Syndrome in bats represents the 

first step in combating White-Nose Syndrome, and addressing the 

critical need for a national plan for this crisis. 

We recognize that the details will appear in subsequent implementation plans developed by state and Federal agencies, but we 

must stress the implementation is urgent. We encourage the agencies to quickly identify detailed concrete actions for fighting WhiteNose Syndrome and begin to address them. 

But to do so requires funding, and the need for White-Nose Syndrome funding is increasing as the disease spreads. In Fiscal Year 

2010, the Fish and Wildlife Service awarded $1.6 million for WhiteNose Syndrome research through a granting process, for which the 

agency received $10.5 million in proposals. 

So clearly the demand for research outstrips the supply. Also, the 

westward spread of the disease is sharply increasing the need for 

a Federal response and funding as well. Western states have a 

higher portion of public land than in the East, and beyond that, 

much less is known about Western bat populations, and the rugged 

terrain out West makes data gathering more difficult. 

To this point, Fiscal Year 2012 is the first year for which BLM 

anticipates significant White-Nose Syndrome expenses, many of 

which will go toward surveying approximately 400 Western caves 

26 

and abandoned mines simply from baseline data on bat populations. 

We recognize Congress’ is facing difficult financial times, and so 

let me point out that monies spent on White-Nose Syndrome is a 

wise investment. Stopping White-Nose Syndrome now will reduce 

future expenses to the United States economy, resulting from pest 

impacts to agriculture and forestry, businesses impacted by additional bat listings, and the cost of listed species recovery. In this 

case, an ounce of prevention is truly worth a pound of cure. 

Without the efforts of the Federal Government, White-Nose Syndrome will continue to spread across the country unchecked, killing 

even more bats, and consequential ecological and economical impacts will affect all of us as consumers, taxpayers, and residents of 

a planet further impoverished by biological diversity. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to share Bat Conservation 

International’s position on this serious matter. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fascione follows:] 

Statement of Nina Fascione, Executive Director, 

Bat Conservation International 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Christensen, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. Bat Conservation 

International (BCI) is a non-profit organization that conducts and supports sciencebased research, education, and conservation to ensure that bats will still be helping 

to maintain healthy environments and human economies far into the future. We are 

based in Austin, Texas, with a membership of more than 10,000 from all 50 of the 

United States. 

WNS poses the gravest threat ever faced by U.S. bats. Since its discovery in 2006, 

the disease has killed well over one million bats. It is named for the previously unknown, cold-loving white fungus found on faces and wings of infected bats that is 

believed to cause the disease. WNS-infected bats awaken frequently during hibernation, burning the fat reserves they need to survive the winter. They often emerge 

early from hibernation, before the return of warm weather and insects, only to 

freeze or starve to death. The disease or its associated fungus has spread to 19 

states and four Canadian provinces in the five years since WNS was first observed 

in a cave near Albany, New York. The Northeast has borne the brunt of WNS so 

far, but the disease or its fungus has spread as far south as North Carolina and 

Tennessee, and as far west as Oklahoma. 

Biologists consider the WNS die-off to be North America’s most precipitous wildlife decline in the past century. The disease strikes hibernating bats—those that 

sleep through the winter in caves and mines—and has affected every hibernating 

bat species in its geographic path. Of the nation’s 45 bat species, 25 hibernate, and 

all of these hibernating species are potentially at risk of the disease. WNS or the 

fungus currently affects nine species, including the Federally endangered Indiana 

and gray bats, which could well be even closer to extinction as a result. Some WNSinfected sites experience mortality rates of almost 100%. Losses are so severe that 

researchers are predicting regional extinctions of the little brown bat—previously 

one of America’s most common mammals—in northeastern states by 2026. 

Bats provide many benefits to humankind. As primary predators of night-flying 

insects, bats are critical to maintaining the balance of nature. A bat can eat half 

to all of its body weight in insects per night, consuming pests that damage crops 

such as corn, cotton, soybeans, potatoes, and pecans. A recent article in the journal 

Science estimates the value of bats to U.S. agriculture ranges from $3.7 billion to 

$53 billion per year. Bats also eat insects that damage forests, such as the emerald 

ash borer, and that spread disease, such as mosquitoes. Some bat species pollinate 

crops and disperse seeds. Research of bat biology has yielded important chemical 

products, including a medication to prevent strokes. Bat droppings in caves support 

unique ecosystems, including microorganisms that could provide resources for detoxifying industrial wastes and producing pesticides and antibiotics. 

The loss of bats would have serious ecological and economic consequences. The 

one million-plus bats killed by WNS would have eaten more than 700 tons of insects 

each year. With the bats gone, these insects are surviving to attack crops and forests. The authors of the Science article argue that, as a result of WNS, North AmerVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:07 Mar 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67111.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
27 

ican agriculture will begin noting economic losses within four to five years, with especially severe impacts to the Midwest and Great Plains regions. In addition to crop 

losses, farmers will need to use more pesticides, increasing the financial strain on 

farming families, raising the price of food for consumers, and releasing more chemicals into our environment. Bats are important predators, so their disappearance 

could have broad, ripple effects on the environment that we cannot yet assess. 

The population declines from WNS could well lead to listing more bat species 

under the Federal Endangered Species Act, as well as state-level statutes, which 

would cause far-ranging economic costs. The Center for Biological Diversity has petitioned the FWS for listing of the northern long-eared bat and eastern small-footed 

bat because of WNS and other factors, while BCI and other organizations have requested the FWS to review the status of the little brown bat and to file an emergency listing of the species in the interim. At the state level, Ohio has designated 

four bat species as species of concern; Wisconsin listed four bat species as threatened; and other states, including New York and New Hampshire, are considering 

designations. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO–06–463R), 

the average cost for recovery of an endangered species is $15.9 million. The highest 

estimate on record is $125 million to recover the whooping crane. Bat species affected by WNS have broad geographic distributions and complex ecological patterns, 

which would likely require very high recovery costs. Finally, regulations stemming 

from listing more bat species would have economic impacts on industries such as 

mining, defense, energy, forestry, construction, transportation, tourism, and outdoor 

recreation. 

The Federal government recognizes how much is at stake from WNS and, in conjunction with state, local, and tribal agencies, academic institutions, and nonprofits, 

has mounted an admirable response to the disease. WNS and its associated fungus 

were unknown to science until discovered in New York, but since then, Federal dollars have enabled researchers at USGS and elsewhere to isolate, identify, and develop a test for the WNS fungus, to map its genome, and answer some basic questions about the nature, transmission, and diagnosis of the disease. The FWS, the 

lead agency for WNS response, coordinates government and other entities in order 

to maximize efficient use of resources, prevent redundancy, and facilitate an effective national response. In this role, the agency has funded scientific research and 

on-the-ground disease surveillance and management, developed recommendations to 

help prevent disease spread, and created the National Plan for Assisting States, 

Federal agencies, and Tribes in Managing White Nose Syndrome in Bats in collaboration with all involved Federal agencies, as well as State and other entities. Landmanagement agencies have been at the forefront in developing disease-monitoring 

techniques, gathering bat-survey data, managing resources to increase bat survival, 

and producing materials to educate the public about WNS. The NPS’s Mammoth 

Cave National Park has developed a site-based response plan that is being used as 

a model for public lands throughout the country; USFS is testing ways to improve 

bat habitat to boost post-disease survival rates; and DoD is refining acoustical batmonitoring methods. All of these agencies provide technical support to, and collaborate and pool resources with, State, Local, and Tribal agencies as well as academic 

institutions and non-profits. 

The National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing 

White Nose Syndrome in Bats represents a commendable step in combating WNS 

and addressing the urgent need for a national approach to our WNS response. BCI 

agrees with the overall framework described in this plan as a preliminary step toward guiding and coordinating WNS work nationwide. We recognize that details 

will appear in subsequent implementation plans developed by State and Federal 

agencies to meet specific needs, but we must stress that implementation is critical. 

We encourage the agencies to quickly identify detailed, concrete actions for fighting 

WNS. BCI is also pleased with the plan’s acknowledgment that effective response 

requires adequate capacity. While we patiently await the development of permanent 

funding mechanisms, we emphasize that federal funding to fight WNS is desperately needed. We encourage agencies to include adequate funding requests in 

their FY2013 budgets to ensure that their response is not hampered by lack of capacity. Additionally, BCI: underscores the importance of involving the academic and 

professional conservation community (in addition to State and Federal employees) 

in developing the implementation plan; urges agencies to fund immediate and definitive research to determine relative risk of activities and establish levels of acceptable risk (for example, research on WNS transmission); encourages an extremely 

cautious approach to removing infected or uninfected bats from the environment, 

limiting bat access to hibernacula, and deploying treatments into natural environments; supports expanding outreach and education efforts to include all scientific 

and recreational communities that may pose a risk of transmitting fungal spores or 

28 

may expect to have their activities hampered by management decisions due to WNS; 

and applauds acknowledgement of the importance of collecting baseline data on bat 

communities outside the current WNS-affected area, and of assessing the ecological 

impacts that may result from dramatic losses of insectivorous bat populations. 

Despite progress made by the Federal government as described above, the need 

for WNS-response funding continues and, in fact, is increasing. As the disease 

spreads, the number of entities involved and the scale of the response grows. While 

scientists have learned much about the disease, they cannot yet stop its spread. 

Critical research topics aimed at finding solutions include the susceptibility of different bat species to WNS, possible biological-control agents, and the disease-producing interface of the fungus, bats, and the cave environment. In FY 2010, FWS 

awarded $1.6 million for WNS research through a granting process for which the 

agency received $10.5 million in proposals. The demand for research funds clearly 

outstrips the supply. On-the-ground monitoring and management is required in both 

previously and newly infected areas. Overall coordination and communication is 

needed to ensure efficiency and the sharing of information and resources. The westward spread of WNS is sharply increasing the need for a Federal response. Western 

states have a higher proportion of public land than those in the East. Beyond that, 

much less is known about western bat populations than eastern ones, and the rugged western terrain makes data-gathering more difficult. To this point, FY 2012 is 

the first year for which BLM anticipates significant WNS expenses, many of which 

will go toward surveying approximately 400 western caves and abandoned mines for 

baseline data on bats. 

Concluding from analysis of past WNS spending and disease-spread trends, we 

have urged Congressional appropriators to ensure that Federal agencies engaged in 

the WNS response receive $11.1 million to address WNS in FY 2012. The crossagency need is broken down as follows: 

One can compare this to WNS spending from FYs 2007 to 2010 (we do not have 

reliable expenditure figures for FY 2011): 

The increase for FY 2012 over FY 2010 expenses is $4,836,200, or 77%. We believe 

this ask is conservative and in fact will barely keep pace with the disease’s spread. 

From 2007 to 2010, the disease moved from one state to 14, and from five sites to 

at least 157. From 2009 to 2010 alone, the number of affected states increased by 

56%, and the number of infected sites by 78%. Overall, the number of affected states 

and sites increased by 50 to 100+% each year. This year, WNS has been confirmed 

in five new states, and confirmed or suspected in more than 30 new counties. A 77% 

increase in WNS spending from FY 2010 to FY 2012 is therefore clearly proportionate to the disease’s expected expansion by the start of FY 2012. 

Congressional support is critical for addressing WNS. Other funding sources are 

extremely limited. State budgets have been drastically reduced and, especially given 

the spread of the disease, Federal agencies’ existing resources are not sufficient to 

meet the need. 

Congress is facing a difficult financial climate, so we underscore the fact that 

money spent on WNS is a wise investment. First, preventing the spread of WNS 

will spare businesses the regulatory and other impacts of bat die-offs. Show caves— 

small businesses that provide jobs and contribute to local economies—could also be 

hurt by WNS. States with many show caves include Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and South Dakota. In addition, implementing WNS response generates jobs. 

The USFS management of forests for bat conservation includes thinning stands of 

trees. The agency contracts with local businesses to harvest, haul, and process the 


67111.001.eps 67111.002.eps
29 

trees for timber. Finally, conducting WNS research, management, and prevention 

now will reduce future expenses to the U.S. economy resulting from pest impacts 

to agriculture and forestry, businesses affected by additional bat listings, and the 

cost of listed-species recovery. In this case, an ounce of prevention truly is worth 

a pound of cure. 

An issue of debate in the WNS community is whether caves and abandoned mines 

should be closed to prevent or delay spread of the disease. BCI supports strong preventative measures to reduce bats’ risk of WNS. However, the mechanisms of and 

risk for WNS transmission among sites is still not fully understood, and without 

this knowledge, it is difficult to evaluate the risks and benefits of cave closures as 

a disease-prevention tool. Given this state of knowledge, BCI advocates targeted regional or site-specific cave closures to reduce disturbance to hibernating bats, reduce 

the possibility of WNS transmission, and address other conservation priorities. As 

part of this stance, we support efforts such as combining research and monitoring 

activities into efficiently coordinated visits at hibernacula so as to limit disturbance 

to bats; following USFWS recommended guidelines for decontaminating clothing and 

equipment; and managing caves and mines through collaboration among natural-resource professionals, the caving community, the public and decision-makers at all 

levels of government. BCI also accepts the reality that agencies must sometimes 

make management decisions with incomplete scientific data. In such cases, an abundance of caution can be justified when the stakes are as high as they are with WNS. 

We understand that cave closures can impact cavers and other users, but we hope 

everyone can work together to achieve our common goal of stopping this devastating 

disease so we will not have to face such challenging decisions in the future. 

Without the efforts of the Federal government, WNS will continue to spread 

across the country unchecked, killing even more bats than have already died. The 

consequent ecological and economic impacts will affect all of us as consumers, taxpayers, and residents of a planet further impoverished of biological diversity. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to share BCI’s position on this serious 

matter. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Ms. Fascione. And next is Mr. 

Youngbaer. 

STATEMENT OF PETER YOUNGBAER, WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME 

LIAISON, NATIONAL SPELEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 

Mr. YOUNGBAER. Thank you, Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Bordallo, and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to return to speak with you about White-Nose Syndrome. 

My name is Peter Youngbaer, and I am testifying on behalf of 

over 10,000 members of the National Speleological Society. This 

year, we are celebrating our seventieth anniversary as the Nation’s 

oldest and largest organization dedicated to the study, exploration, 

and conservation of cave and karst resources. 

The NSS and affiliated cave conservancies own and manage dozens of caves throughout the country, including endangered habitat 

and several affected with White-Nose. Along with our written testimony, we have provided you with an April issue of our society’s 

NSS News, which includes several articles addressing many of the 

questions that you have asked of us today. 

One of those articles features a joint photo and bat survey expedition of the NSS’s West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service into Hellhole, 

West Virginia, and tells us several important things that we know 

about White-Nose. 

Over 50,000 little brown bats died here, nearly half the population. In contrast, less than two percent of the Federally Endangered Indiana Bats showed signs of the disease, and the population 

had doubled. 

30 

The Virginia big-eared bats, also Federally endangered, showed 

no signs of the disease. Concurrent with observations elsewhere, 

we know that White-Nose affects bat species differently or not at 

all, and cave microclimates are a factor in disease development. 

Finally, this cave is well fenced and protected by an electronic 

monitoring system. We know that no human has entered the cave 

since September of 2007. We know that bats transmit the disease, 

but after five years there is not a single documented case of human 

transmission. 

We do not know what epidemiologists call the multiplicity of infection, how much fungus is necessary to infect bats. Disease transmission depends on critical mass of pathogens, sufficient hosts, and 

appropriate environmental conditions. A perfect storm. 

This same fungus is widespread in Europe, but bats aren’t dying. 

Thus, we still can’t say for certain that this is the cause of the disease. Finally, we still have no treatment for stopping or curing 

White-Nose. Lots of substances kill the fungus, but can also kill the 

bats and other forms of cave life. 

Even if a treatment were developed the logistics of treating millions of bats in more than 50,000 known caves, and hundreds of 

thousands of mines, are staggering. This suggests that our efforts 

may need to shift to recovery and conservation. 

Bats are a fascinating and valuable part of our ecosystem, and 

you will hear about the potential effect the loss of bats could have 

on agriculture and forestry. However, there is already a known economic impact by White-Nose management. 

The canceling of major caving events, and the closing of State 

Parks with paid fees for caves has cost the travel and tourism industry, and state coffers. The National Caves Association, a trade 

group for commercial caves, reports a depressed environment, 

where they are receiving calls asking if they are open, or worse, 

why are they open. With revenues of more than $117 million and an economic impact effect of up to one-and-a-half times that, every new headline 

that trumpets ‘‘government closes caves’’ is harmful to commerce 

and does little to help bats. 

Regarding funding, taxpayer money has actually funded a minority of White-Nose research to date. The first appendix of our written testimony is a summary of published White-Nose research put 

together by Dr. Thomas Koonce, of Boston University, who testified 

here two years ago. 

Indeed, the NSS and BCI together have funded 32 projects totaling over $200,000. Fish and Wildlife states on its website that it 

has spent over $11 million on White-Nose, but only $3 million on 

research. This balance is wrong. There is too much bureaucracy 

and management and not enough hard science. 

The White-Nose national plan has major problems. It is little 

more than a broad outline. It lacks any measures for evaluating 

whether any of the activities are working or not. It has no budgetary component or means of prioritizing in a restricted fiscal environment. 

And finally being a Fish and Wildlife document, it is narrowly 

focused only on biology, and omitting other cave science and conservation concerns. Our second appendix contains our formal comVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:07 Mar 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\67111.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
31 

ments on the draft, which changed little despite over 12,000 public 

comments. 

Finally, we have seen no evidence that the blanket closing of 

caves and mines has done anything to slow or stop White-Nose. 

This should not be surprising. In the Eastern United States, the 

vast majority of caves are privately owned and open. 

As Tom Aley, scientist and owner of the Ozark Underground 

Laboratory points out, closing only government caves is akin to 

fighting a forest fire by building a control line on only five percent 

of the fire perimeter. 

Further, it is a strategy to be targeted only on underground bat 

habitat, and only at a potential, yet unproven, human transmission 

vector. These closures and calls for private landowners to do the 

same unfairly targets cavers and cave owners, and stigmatizes 

them as environmentally insensitive. 

Further, they alienate natural allies and belay a 70 year history 

of collaboration and conservation. We ask for Congress’ help. We 

need targeted, not blanket management, that is evidence-based and 

not speculation-based. We need significant increase in research 

funding, and we ask that Congress insist on hard science evaluative measures, and transparency and accountability. 

And we ask that you listen to the people who know caves best. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I will leave you 

with our mottos. Cave softly, cave cleanly, take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints, and kill nothing but time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Youngbaer follows:] 

Statement of Peter Youngbaer, White Nose Syndrome Liaison for the 

National Speleological Society 

Chairman Fleming and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to return to speak with you today about the status of White-Nose Syndrome, 

or WNS. 

My name is Peter Youngbaer, and I am testifying for the National Speleological 

Society as its Liaison on White-Nose Syndrome, a position I have held since April 

of 2008. 

This year, the NSS is celebrating its 70th Anniversary as the nation’s oldest and 

largest organization dedicated to the study, exploration, and conservation of cave 

and karst resources, protection of access to caves, responsible management of caves 

and their unique environments, and promotion of safe and responsible caving. 

Our Conservation Policy states that Caves have unique scientific, recreational, 

and scenic values; that these values are endangered by both carelessness and intentional vandalism; that these values, once gone, cannot be recovered; and that the 

responsibility for protecting caves must be formed by those who study and enjoy 

them. 

As we stated a little more than two years ago, our membership, numbering more 

than 10,000 in all fifty states, cares deeply about bats and the cave environment 

which is used at times by many of America’s bat species. The NSS itself, and numerous affiliated cave conservancies, both own and manage dozens of caves throughout the country, including those managed as bat habitat. Some of our own preserves 

have been infected with WNS, and we have had to respond as land managers and 

conservationists. 

The NSS operates under several Memoranda of Understanding with several federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, 

the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service. Under these auspices, the NSS has provided thousands of hours of volunteer value time, labor, and 

expertise in identifying, surveying, mapping, studying, and protecting cave resources throughout the country. 

Regarding WNS, we operate one of the most referred to websites on WNS. We 

provided funding for 13 WNS research projects, developed training videos on cleaning and disinfecting protocols, and developed outreach materials for educating both 

cavers and the public. These include the WNS brochures produced by the U.S. ForVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:07 Mar 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67111.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
32 

est Service and the National Caves Association, the trade group of commercial, or 

show caves in the U.S. Our individual members have assisted with field surveys of 

bat hibernacula, summer acoustical monitoring surveys, and in the hard science research directly related to the fungus implicated in the disease, among many other 

activities. 

We care deeply about bats. We use them as the universal symbol of caving. We 

also understand from decades of first-hand experience how they interface with the 

overall cave ecosystem, a key to developing appropriate and comprehensive cave 

conservation practices in the context of this disease, which affects just one user of 

the cave environment. 

Current State of Knowledge 

When we last testified to you, we were literally at the front end of this investigation. Much was unknown. No specific public funding had been dedicated to WNS. 

Management was taking an approach of ‘‘an abundance of caution.’’ We were all 

scrambling to try to get ahead of the disease curve. We had just come from the second Science Strategy Meeting, held in Austin, Texas, that had spent three days 

prioritizing research needs for WNS, and developing a budget request that was presented to you and your appropriations colleagues. 

Today, we still can’t say for certain that the fungus Geomyces destructans, is the 

cause of WNS, despite it being implicated in some of the physiological effects of the 

disease, and with bat mortalities. It has been found on a few bats in the U.S. (Missouri and Oklahoma) without concurrent histology (no WNS). The fungus is also 

widespread in Europe, but again without the mass mortalities seen in some U.S. 

colonies. 

We know that the disease is transmitted bat to bat. This has been proven in the 

laboratory (USGS), and the spread of the disease to bat colonies in many caves and 

mines which are gated and closed to public access demonstrates the efficiency of bat 

to bat transfer in the field. 

There is no proof of any human transmission of the disease—by people, clothing, 

or gear. 

There is a single, unpublished experiment in two mines where purportedly 

healthy bats from another state were placed into sites where the previous year’s 

local bats had died from WNS. Nearly a quarter of the bats died at the outset, suggesting some trauma or adjustment issues, but others did contract the disease. This 

suggests that at least for some period, the fungus remains viable in the environment. 

We do not know what epidemiologists call the Multiplicity of Infection (MOI) for 

the disease. How much of that pathogen (fungus) is necessary to infect a host? Disease transmission requires not only a pathogen, but a critical mass of that pathogen. It also requires a critical mass of hosts. One hypothesis, based on the European 

colony sizes, and observations at smaller sites in the U.S., is that the large, tightly 

massed colonies of certain species of bats help with disease transmission. This may 

mean that small bat colonies may not be vectors, or that small numbers of bats may 

die without significant impact. It also may have management implications for the 

Western U.S. where many known bat colonies are small and widely dispersed. 

A third critical element for disease transmission is the environment. We have long 

observed a difference in WNS disease progression in caves and mines with varied 

microclimates. In February, 2010, a joint expedition of the USFWS, West Virginia 

Department of Natural Resources, and the NSS sent three teams of cavers, biologists, and photographers into Hellhole Cave, West Virginia’s largest bat 

hibernaculum, and a more than 28-mile-long cave system. Thankfully, most bats 

roost within 3000 feet of the entrance—a dramatic 150’ drop into a bell chamber. 

Hellhole provided key information on a number of fronts. First, the population of 

Little Brown bats, Myotis lucifugus, was hard hit, as expected. Bats had been seen 

out and about on the winter landscape, a sure sign of infection. After the survey, 

we found nearly half the population had died—some 50,000 bats. However, several 

other species were doing well, including the federally-endangered Indiana bat, 

Myotis sodalis, whose population had nearly doubled to 10,000 in the three years 

since the prior survey. Although an estimated 1.7% of the bats showed signs of 

WNS, the population was clearly doing better than its cousins. These two bats tend 

to both prefer colder cave temperatures and higher humidity, but the species differences in WNS infection rates was striking, suggesting a genetic element to disease spread. 

More striking, however, was the population of federally-endangered Virginia Bigeared bats, Corynorhinus Townsendii Virginianus. These bats showed no signs of 

WNS. They also roost in near freezing temperatures and low humidity. Unlike the 

Myotis species, they also have a different arousal pattern, suggesting their immune 

33 

systems may not be in as deep a torpor and are thus able to mount a more immediate immune response. The population had also doubled since the last survey, suggesting a very healthy colony. 

Finally, Hellhole provided strong evidence that the primary method of WNS 

transmission is bat to bat. The cave entrance is privately owned, and has been 

fenced and equipped with electronic monitors for years. The last human entrance 

was in September of 2007. 

I will be bringing with me to the hearing the April, 2011 Conservation issue of 

the NSS News, in which I report in detail on the Hellhole trip. There is also a second, longer article where I report on the overall status of WNS. 

One other area of research and investigation bears highlighting, that of potential 

treatment of the disease. While there are literally dozens of substances that can kill 

this fungus, most of them will also kill the bat. Further, bats are a key element 

in a cave ecosystem, providing essential nutrients to other cave-dwelling creatures. 

Any treatment must also respect those species, some of which are also on federal 

and state endangered species lists. 

Even if a vaccine or treatment were found to be effective, the logistical challenges 

of applying treatment to individual bats or colonies are staggering to contemplate. 

Caves can be immense and terribly complex. Bats can go places humans can’t. Some 

treatments would need repeated applications. With more than 50,000 known caves 

in the U.S., and hundreds of thousands of mines, the mind boggles. It is highly unlikely that any mass cure or treatment will be found that could be effectively administered. If such treatment were developed, its application might best be focused on 

leading edge colonies or on small, declining populations of endangered species as a 

last-ditch effort, and as part of a longer-range conservation and recovery program. 

The science that would inform such a recovery program is not there. While we 

are beginning to observe some population stability in sites that have been infected 

for three or four years, we don’t know why these bats are surviving. This will take 

genetic and other study of the fungus and the disease progression itself, not simply 

field observation. 

Why Americans Should Care 

Bats are fascinating. They have provided us with knowledge of flight, echolocation, and medicine—such as the blood anti-coagulant in the saliva of vampire 

bats. More to the point, they are the primary nighttime predator of insects. Some 

of these insects are pests, such as mosquitoes, although most of these bats prefer 

larger, juicier prey, such as moths and beetles. Some of these are garden, farm, and 

forest pests, and also the transmitters of human diseases. Bats also are the primary 

source of energy and nutrients for cave ecosystems. Without bats, these unique environments and other species of animals are at risk. 

How the loss of bat populations will affect agriculture, forestry and other 

industries in this country 

One of the other witnesses will speak in detail to this subject, but the short answer is, we don’t know. We would expect that with the loss of such a significant 

number of bats, the effects would be noticeable. However, nature abhors a vacuum. 

To what extent other insectivores, such as birds or other insects, would move to fill 

the void, whether populations would increase and then crash, and at what trigger 

point farmers and foresters would make decisions on the increased use and cost of 

pesticides, would require more research. Frankly, that’s not where we would urge 

you to put scarce research dollars. 

There is another economic impact that we believe is being overlooked by current 

management responses. Numerous caving events have been cancelled, causing a loss 

of travel and tourism dollars to the local economy. For example, the Carter Caves 

Crawlathon in Kentucky has been cancelled for three years running. Typically, 600 

people would arrive in winter—the off-season—and take up otherwise empty motel 

rooms and campgrounds, shop, dine, buy gas, and more—a clear boost to the region. 

In Iowa, the Maquoketa State Park closed its popular family destination caves, resulting in annual paid visitation dropping from 250,000 to just 60,000. 

The National Caves Association reports a depressed environment where people 

are calling to inquire if the caves are open, or worse, asking why they are open. 

In an economic impact report commissioned by the NCA, show cave visitation is 

more than 6.5 million visitors a year, with @ $118 million in revenues, and employing over 4,000 people. The economic multiplier effect varies by size of the cave operation, but ranges from 1.1 to 1.5 times the revenues. Every new headline that trumpets ‘‘Government Closes Caves’’ is harmful to commerce, and does little to help the 

bats. 

34 

How taxpayer money is being spent on various White-nose Syndrome grant 

proposals 

Taxpayer money has actually funded a minority of the WNS research to date. An 

appendix to this testimony is a list of Peer-Reviewed Published Papers on or Directly Related to White Nose Syndrome. We think that speaks volumes about how 

the federal agencies have handled appropriations for WNS. 

The NSS believes that far too much of the money spent on WNS has gone to the 

bureaucracy. This includes significant increases in staff, meetings, conference calls, 

and various plans and documents. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, for example has hired a 

national coordinator, assistant coordinator, press person, and at least seven regional 

WNS coordinators. USFWS states that over $11 million of their funds have been 

spent on WNS, with about $3 million for research. That’s simply the wrong balance. 

Further, our scientists and others are concerned that they do not know the criteria by which proposals are sought, reviewed, or awarded. In the first two years 

of the WNS investigation, the Albany conference and the Austin conference came 

away with clearly identified scientific research gaps and priorities. The Pittsburgh 

conference, in May of 2010, ended with no work product. There is nothing to date 

from this year’s May Symposium. As a research grantor, the NSS relies on clearly 

defined science research priorities to allocate our precious grant resources. We do 

not have that any more. 

In 1996, the U.S. Geological Survey was separated out as the scientific research 

arm of the Department of the Interior. We have been very impressed with their 

work and supportive of specific studies undertaken and the quality of their work 

products. We suggest that Congress consider USGS as the lead research entity for 

the WNS investigation. We believe the WNS investigation, the academic scientific 

community, and perhaps other federal agencies would benefit from such a focus. 

The committee may be aware of appropriations requests for WNS research and 

other activities before other committees of Congress. These requests suggest appropriating funding directly to other agencies, as well as USFWS as a more efficient 

and accountable way to use taxpayer funds. Half the funds we advocated for two 

years ago ($1.9 million appropriated specifically for WNS) were used internally by 

USFWS; the rest weren’t awarded to grantees until this past fall. The frustration 

of many in the scientific and caving community is palpable. 

Thoughts on the WNS National Plan 

The WNS National Plan was more than two years in the making, and is little 

more than a broad outline. USFWS itself says it’s not the plan that is important, 

but the Implementation Plan that follows will be the living document. This means 

there is little to hold anyone accountable to, and the vagueness of the document provides an umbrella under which virtually anything can happen. 

The NSS submitted more than eleven pages of formal comments to the draft posted in the Federal Register. These were prepared by numerous people with varied 

backgrounds in the cave sciences and planning and management. Our comments are 

the second appendix. 

The final document changed little, and USFWS tells us that they will not post 

replies or discussion in the Federal Register, but will produce some other document. 

This is a disservice to the public, some 12,000 of whom replied. A discussion of the 

rationale for choosing what to change and what not should be provided for open, 

honest, and scientific debate. 

There are three major problems with the National Plan. First, it is largely absent 

any measures for evaluation. How do we know if any particular strategy or task is 

working without assessment? How will we know when to stop doing something because it’s not working, or do more of it because it is? 

Second, the National Plan has no budgetary component. Sure there are lots of 

ideas about a website, database, research, management, etc., but no price tag. There 

is no prioritization or prioritization process. We believe this is unrealistic in the current fiscal environment, and frankly, renders the plan virtually meaningless. 

Finally, as cave conservationists, the NSS is concerned that a plan that is essentially a U.S. Fish and Wildlife document is narrowly focused only on biology, due 

to the mission of USFWS. Yes, WNS is a biological phenomenon, but it takes place 

within a context. Caves are laboratories for studies in a variety of sciences—geology, 

paleontology, archaeology, and hydrology –just to name a few. A national plan that 

focuses management entirely on bats, without acknowledging the legitimate variety 

of needs and uses of caves is short-sighted in its vision, and in its probability of success. 

35 

How closing hundreds of caves and abandoned mines has helped to stop 

the expansion of this devastating disease 

Simply put, it hasn’t. The NSS strongly opposes the blanket closure orders that 

have been issued across the country. We don’t believe there is any evidence that 

they have done anything to slow WNS. In March of 2009, when USFWS issued its 

caving advisory (still unrevised today), many in the organized caving community 

were willing to call time-out, stop caving, or reduce caving to non-bat caves or dedicated project caves. 

The message was, we don’t know what’s going on, and we need to give science 

time to catch up to the disease to get some answers. That was two years ago. People 

have grown impatient as they have not seen science catch up, despite all our efforts 

and in the face of significantly short funding. Instead, we continue to see closure 

orders across the country, all in the name of an abundance of caution, and in the 

absence of good science. 

As we stated earlier, after all these years there is no documented evidence of 

human transmission, yet all the management is targeted there. The agencies themselves state they can’t stop the bats from transmitting the disease yet, but they can 

control people. But not all people. Show caves and government-owned commercial 

caves continue to operate. And privately-owned caves—the vast majority in the 

Eastern U.S.—remain open. 

The NSS acknowledges the possibility that humans might be a transmission vector, but after five years, if this were done easily the disease would have spread far 

beyond its current boundaries. Indeed, looking back to the bat hibernacula map that 

BCI’s Merlin Tuttle presented to the committee two years ago, the progress of the 

disease has clearly mirrored the natural movements of bats. 

We also unfortunately believe there is an element of ‘‘defensive’’ management taking place, as state and federal agencies are under legal pressure from advocacy organizations to close all caves and mines and radically alter the Endangered Species 

Act and Federal Cave Resources Protection Act. That is not good management, good 

science, nor good public policy. We suggest that Congress look at how the legal system is operating and demanding of the time and resources of particularly the 

USFWS to respond to and sometimes settle with taxpayer dollars that would better 

be directed to WNS research. 

Further, there is a strong feeling among our members that cave resources on public lands are there for the enjoyment of the people who own them and generations 

to come. The USFS talks about ‘‘multiple uses,’’ and the National Park Service protects resources for the ‘‘enjoyment’’ of the public. As a sheer matter of fact, many 

caves are not used by bats, which can be quite particular about their roosts. 

Our members have attended many meetings around the country working on state 

WNS response plans and with federal agencies. Often, the agencies say they feel 

they must ‘‘do something.’’ But blanket closures are the typical response. Thankfully, in some areas, collaborative efforts have led to targeting of key bat roosts. 

Sheer numbers of caves and mines make this a far more practical, supportable, and 

affordable approach. 

Blanket closures don’t work. Knowledgeable caving organizations are aware of 

them, but many orders aren’t followed up with signage, and little, if any expensive 

gating is done. Thus, we see unaffiliated people—locals, scouts, church groups, college outing clubs, etc. continuing to visit caves. While perhaps administratively attractive to issue a paper order, unless followed up with resources for enforcement, 

they are practically unworkable. We have seen vandalism and landowner reactions 

that fly in the face of good cave conservation. While there are quite a few great and 

long-standing partnerships between the NSS, cave conservancies, local grottos 

(chapters) and other affiliated caving organizations in some parts of the country, in 

others, agencies issuing closure orders have alienated their most natural allies, our 

members. Not only do the closures not work, they are counterproductive. 

Similarly, closing caves and mines only addressed underground roosts. Bats also 

roost in buildings, in culverts, under bridges, and in trees. Attempting to contain 

a disease on only public lands, with little practical enforcement, only underground, 

and with a myriad of exceptions, and where the known predominant means of transmission is bat to bat, we believe is folly. 

Arguments have been made that blanket closures can buy time, but continuing 

them where WNS has already marched through seems pointless. Implementing 

them where WNS is nowhere near seems equally futile. In those cases, if there is 

a human vector, the single best strategy is to inform any cave visitor—caver, tourist, or scientist—to leave any gear used in a WNS site at home. 

The one area where an argument may still have some validity is on the leading 

edge of the disease. Enforcing cleaning and disinfecting protocols and temporarily 

36 

barring visitation, may temporarily delay the disease, but if the bats are going to 

get it, they will spread it, closure order or not. 

Rather than continuing in this manner, and absent a major scientific breakthrough in treating the disease, we believe the most productive course of action may 

be to focus on the science and management of conservation and recovery. We may 

ultimately be able to do little to stop the disease from running its course, but we 

can focus on the survivors and doing all we can to help them recover and populations grow again. Funding research that targets understanding how and why 

those bats do survive should be a priority. Funding management actions that target 

significant habitat, both above and below ground, and mechanisms to enhance survivability would be critical. Let’s not waste our efforts doing ‘‘something’’ that is of 

questionable value with negative collateral consequences. 

Conclusion 

These are tough times for some of our bats, and the NSS remains deeply concerned and committed to doing what is possible to help mitigate the impact of the 

disease. However, we do insist that the decisions on funding for research and management be based on hard evidence, and prioritized use of human and financial resources. The impacts of WNS have begun to be felt in the economy, both from the 

disease itself, and from our response to it. We may not be able to control the former; 

we can control the latter. We clearly need a better focus to our management decisions, and a way to objectively evaluate and prioritize those decisions. We also need 

a significant increase in funding for research. We ask that Congress insist on hard 

science, evaluative measures, and transparency in accountability. 

Finally, we ask that you listen to the people who know caves best and have a 70- 

year history of working to study and protect our country’s cave resources, including 

its bats. Working with the organized caving community has proven mutually beneficial, and continues even in this era of WNS. Examples include the NSS’ Mammoth 

Cave Restoration Project—more than 20 years of critical work, the Fort Stanton 

Cave Study Project with the Bureau of Land Management, the Windeler Cave 

Project with the Western Cave Conservancy, which manages that cave for the U.S. 

Forest Service, and the Mark Twain National Forest work with the Cave Research 

Foundation, which has provided an immense amount of baseline research on many 

of the 600 some caves in that unit, including a recently-added WNS monitoring component. 

Some of these efforts require cavers with certain levels of expertise in areas such 

as cartography, sciences, technical caving skills, and management, but others make 

use of interested people of all skill levels. That is key, for future cave scientists, 

world-class explorers, and even career wildlife managers come from the humble beginnings of a first step into a dark void. Maintaining access to that experience for 

future generations helps build an appreciation for the resource, and fosters the development of the conservation ethic that is needed to wisely protect both caves and 

bats. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. We’ll leave you with our mottos, 

which reflect our long-standing conservation ethic and respect for our caves and the 

things that dwell within. 

Cave softly. Cave cleanly. 

Take nothing but pictures. Leave nothing but footprints. Kill nothing but time. 

[A letter submitted for the record by Mr. Youngbaer follows:] 

December 26, 2010 

Dr. Jeremy Coleman 

WNS National Coordinator 

New York Field Office 

3817 Luker Road 

Cortland, New York 13045 

Subject: Comments on Draft WNS National Response Plan—‘‘A National Plan for 

Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White-Nose 

Syndrome in Bats’’ 

Dear Dr. Coleman: 

On behalf of the National Speleological Society, Inc. (NSS), we are pleased to submit these comments on the Draft WNS National Response Plan—‘‘A National Plan 

for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats.’’ 

37 

Overview 

The NSS, founded in 1941, is a non-profit membership organization dedicated to 

the scientific study of caves and karts; protecting caves and their natural contents 

through conservation, ownership, stewardship, and public education; and promoting 

responsible cave exploration and fellowship among those interested in caves. We are 

the nation’s oldest and largest organization devoted to cave science, cave conservation, and cave exploration, with approximately 11,000 current members. 

The NSS has a long track record of collaboration with federal and state agencies 

in the areas of cave protection and management and bat conservation. We were instrumental in the enactment of the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988. 

The NSS and its internal organizations, including cave conservancies, own numerous cave nature preserves, several with endangered bats and other endangered species, and manage them appropriately. Some of our own caves in NY and West Virginia include bats affected by White Nose Syndrome. 

We have been intimately involved in the investigation of White Nose Syndrome 

(WNS) since its discovery. Our members have funded WNS research, through a special NSS grants program, and have actively participated in field work, laboratory 

research, management planning, and public education. 

Consistent with our involvement to date, the NSS Cave Conservation and Management Section is submitting under separate cover a list of NSS members who are 

willing to serve on the various Working Groups identified in the Draft WNS National Response Plan. These individuals hail from across the country and provide 

expertise and experience in the Working Group subjects. This is a direct result of 

your meeting with us at our Convention in Vermont on August 3, 2010, and expressing the need for experts to participate on the Working Groups. We hope you will 

contact them as soon as possible to discuss the required work. 

The NSS reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) draft document 

‘‘A National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing 

White-Nose Syndrome in Bats’’ (WNS National Response Plan), dated October 21, 

2010. We understand the USFWS prepared the draft WNS National Response Plan 

to provide guidance for investigation and management of White Nose Syndrome 

(WNS). The draft plan broadly identifies goals and action items, and outlines the 

roles of various agencies, to curtail the spread of WNS and to conserve species of 

bats. 

The NSS reviewed the draft WNS National Response Plan for accuracy, completeness, and conformance with the following statutes: • National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC § 4321 et seq.) • Endangered Species Act of 1973 (7 USC § 136, 16 USC § 1531 et seq.) • Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (16 USC § 4301 et seq.) 

Although these statutes, referenced in the draft WNS National Response Plan, 

provide protections for wildlife and natural resources, the NSS finds no regulations, 

guidance documents, policy directives, or conventional standards issued to address 

the preparation or implementation of a national response plan covering bat mortality and other effects across multiple genera within the order Chiroptera. The 

scale of devastation from WNS appears unprecedented in the United States; therefore, the draft WNS National Response Plan is setting a ground-breaking standard 

for controlling and mitigating the destructive consequences of WNS. 

The NSS has also reviewed the mission statements of all federal agencies which 

were represented in the plan preparation. These varied and potential competing 

mission statements are critical to enunciate in any final document in order for the 

American public to appreciate the competing interests of wildlife protection, scientific investigation in many fields, public understanding of natural resources, forest 

vitality, commercial activities, and recreational and other public use of our public 

natural resources. 

While the draft WNS National Response Plan lists the various federal and state 

agencies that assisted in the preparation of the document, the document is of and 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is clearly a wildlife-centric document. 

USFWS’s mission and statutory authority is not sufficiently broad to appropriately 

reflect all the legitimate interests that must be balanced in addressing White Nose 

Syndrome. We recognize that is not the fault of USFWS, but a limitation of its authority and mission. Were the draft plan jointly issued by the various federal agencies, we suspect a somewhat different draft plan would be before us. 

Thus it falls to us, the NSS to raise these points. Bat conservation must be considered in the broader context of cave conservation, and even conservation in general. 

This includes protecting cave as well as bat resources, including groundwater, precious and beautiful formations, archeological and paleontological relics, and the diversity of cave biology beyond bats. It includes allowing other cave science and exploration to continue while WNS is being addressed. It includes educating the public 

38 

about bat and cave conservation, and it includes inspiring the next generation of 

Americans about the beauty, wonder, and value of caves and bats through appropriate exposure to them in the natural environment. 

Any WNS National Response Plan needs to reflect this balance and be informed 

by it. Some real life examples underscore this necessity: Should a seismologist conducting vital underground geological research in a Missouri cave—a critical seismic 

area—be prevented from doing so because the cave may contain bats? Should fantastic cave formations that have stood for centuries of enjoyment be destroyed by 

vandals because conservation-minded cavers who normally monitor the site were 

kept away by management strategies? Should a commercial cave business be threatened with financial ruin, affecting not only the owners, but the community around 

them, as well as the lost opportunity to engage and educate thousands of members 

of the public? 

All of these issues deserve to be reflected and balanced in the WNS National Plan. 

They must inform how action items are determined, and how scarce financial resources are prioritized. Addressing WNS does not and cannot take place in a vacuum. The draft WNS National Response Plan sections need to enunciate how these 

competing concerns are considered, weighed, and addressed. 

The NSS offers the following general and specific comments to clarify the proposed plan. 

General Comments 

1. The WNS National Response Plan provides a broad program-level overview of 

the WNS problem, data needs, investigation methods, and response actions. At the 

program level, the plan divides the WNS issue into manageable components to be 

addressed through seven Working Groups. The plan provides Goals and Action 

Items for each Working Group without specifying the methods or implementation 

expectations to achieve the individual goals within the Working Groups. 

Evaluating the progress on each Goal and Action Item may provide an assessment 

of the Working Groups and the status of each component in its relationship to the 

overall WNS issue. However, at the program level, the plan does not list any goals 

or objectives, and the only action specified in the document is the creation of the 

Working Groups. The overall goal (or mission statement) of the WNS National Response Plan is unclear and not stated. Without a clear definition of goals and expectations, how will performance of the national response be monitored and evaluated? 

What are the performance measures, and how will success of the national response 

be gauged? What is the exit strategy? Is there a time-table, or is this an open-ended 

initiative? 

The WNS National Response Plan should be modified to clearly state the overall 

purpose and mission of the plan and to list goals and objectives for the program implementation of the plan. Explain how the goals and objectives will be implemented 

and how the overall purpose and mission will be achieved. Document and describe 

what efforts are needed at the national level, and outline the anticipated needs and 

actions at the regional, state, and local levels. Explain how these efforts will be coordinated; identify coordinating tasks; outline expected results; and, explain how the 

results will be monitored and measured. Define how the success of the National Response will be measured and assessed. 

The WNS National Response Plan should include provisions to re-assess the 

planned responses on a periodic basis through evaluation and assessment of initial 

goals and other identified measures of success. How will we evaluate whether or not 

a specific research path is being productive? How do we measure whether a management strategy is working, or not, and whether to abandon, alter, or continue it? 

2. The WNS National Response Plan focuses on relationships of Federal agencies 

with each other and with State agencies. The plan does not recognize the efforts or 

roles that private corporations, organizations, educational institutions, and even individuals are providing to the national response. For instance, individual NSS 

cavers first noted and reported the WNS issue to wildlife biologists. These same individuals and organizations already study, monitor, and provide forums for public 

presentation and discussion. The WNS National Response Plan should be modified 

to include a goal to establish partnerships with individuals and organizations that 

support bat conservation including, but not limited to, government agencies, conservancies, caving organizations, groups and individuals who are involved with bat conservation. Upon establishing these partnerships, the plan should call for coordinated 

efforts, possibly through the Steering Committee and the Working Groups, with the 

various groups and individuals involved with the national response. The Communication Working Group may be used to develop an organization chart and formalize 

lines of communication between Working Groups and between agencies and the various individuals and groups involved. 

39 

3. The plan states that a Steering Committee was formed to ensure coordination 

between Federal and State agencies. It is unclear who formed the Steering Committee, and the make-up of the committee is not identified. Clarification regarding 

formation of the Steering Committee is requested within the ‘‘Specific Comments’’ 

section of this letter. However, if the Steering Committee serves to oversee and coordinate the Working Groups as part of implementation of the national response, 

the NSS believes that stakeholder involvement with agency representatives at the 

Steering Committee level is desirable and necessary for success. Stakeholder groups, 

such as the NSS, carry enormous resource potential and knowledge base concerning 

all aspects of the WNS issue. We recommend including credible stakeholder groups 

on the Steering Committee to assist with coordination and implementation of the 

national response. The NSS stands ready to serve in such capacity with an established WNS liaison and working committee operating in all regions of the U.S. 

4. The document does not provide a Reference Section. The facts presented within 

the document should be referenced to a source of the information. Please provide 

references within the document and list those references in a Reference Section. 

Specific Comments 

1. I. Introduction, Page 1, Paragraph 1. The introduction identifies WNS as 

a disease responsible for unprecedented mortality in hibernating bats. However, it is unclear who prepared the plan, under what authority, and to 

what standard. The introduction should be expanded to identify responsible 

agencies and parties and to explain the basis and organization of the document. 

2. I. Introduction, Background, Page 1, Paragraphs 2ff. The plan provides a 

basic descriptive orientation to the WNS issue. However, the description is 

sparse with regard to information and specific details of the fungus 

Geomyces destructans and the disease White Nose Syndrome. The Background information section should be expanded to identify effects of the fungus and of the disease and to clarify the relationship of cause and effects. 

Include the historical development and current status of the disease. 

3. I. Introduction, Background, Page 2, Paragraph 1. In describing Geomyces 

destructans, the plan characterizes the preferred environment for the fungus as ‘‘conditions characteristic of bat hibernacula.’’ The conditions identified are common for the northeastern U.S.; however, bat habitats and 

hibernacula in southern and western areas of the U.S. may be warmer and 

drier than the preferred environment described. This fact may become a 

critical factor in controlling and mitigating the WNS issue. The text should 

be modified to clarify that conditions favorable for Geomyces destructans are 

most common in northern humid regions (such as the northeast). 

4. I. Introduction, Ecological Significance, Page 2, Paragraph 3. This section 

summarizes the ecological significance of bats and the impacts of WNS to 

public health and the environment. However, the information does not explain the role of bats in the ecosystem. The discussion does not document 

the potential impacts of the disease to bats and only briefly states some of 

the resulting impacts to public health and the environment. Bats are an integral part of cave and karst ecosystems. Although the bats are directly affected by WNS, the resulting impacts put entire cave and karst ecosystems 

at risk or even into crisis. The discussion should be expanded to better identify the role of bats in the ecosystem and to provide additional information 

regarding potential impacts resulting from the demise of bats. 

5. I. Introduction, The Planning Process, Page 2, Paragraph 4. This section 

justifies the need for a national response plan. The text lists the following 

factors as critical factors requiring a national response: (1) The mobility of 

bats, (2) The rapid spread of WNS, (3) The potential for human-assisted 

transmission, and (4) The severity of its (WNS) consequences. It is unclear 

whether the human-assisted vector of the disease is as much of a critical 

factor as bat-to-bat transmission or other environmental factors and vectors. If justification for a national response plan requires identification of 

disease vectors, the most important vectors should be identified with a clear 

plan to address those vectors. The text should be modified to justify the 

need for a national plan based on the severity and consequences of WNS. 

Any critical factors or vectors that require management under a national 

plan should be explicitly identified with an outline of required actions and 

mitigation. 

6. I. Introduction, The Planning Process, Page 3, Paragraph 1. The plan describes authorities under the statutes referenced in this letter. It is unclear 

whether any guidance or regulations exist addressing national response 

40 

plans. If such documents exist, the plan should provide references and describe applicable sections and requirements. 

7. I. Introduction, The Planning Process, Page 3, Paragraph 2. A. The plan 

outlines the historical development of collaboration between agencies responding to WNS. The text refers to early collaborations and formal requests. In order to understand development of the response to the WNS 

issue, these early work efforts and requests for assistance should be documented in the text with reference citation. 

B. The text indicates that the USFWS and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

response to the requests for assistance includes advice to organizations 

and the scientific community ‘‘with appropriate expertise and authorities.’’ It is unclear exactly what activities and expertise the USFW and 

USGS are providing under this plan. The discussion should elaborate 

what expertise, authorities, or other actions the agencies are providing 

as part of the national response. 

C. The text should be amended to read that it is ‘‘incumbent upon wildlife 

management agencies to advise and consult (emphasis added) nongovernment organizations and those in the scientific community with 

appropriate expertise and authorities to assist in mitigating this threat.’’ 

The plan should recognize this is a two-way street, taking expertise 

where it is found. 

8. I. Introduction, Origin of the Plan, Page 3, Paragraph 3. This section describes the formation of the Steering Committee. However, the text does not 

provide details regarding the make-up, functions, or activities of the committee. The section should be expanded to identify the Steering Committee 

and describe in more detail the committee’s function and activities, including its authorities. 

9. I. Introduction, Implementing the Plan, Page 3, Paragraph 4. A. The plan 

calls for State agencies to implement surveillance, monitoring, and management programs. It is not clear how implementation of these programs will 

be funded. The text states that federal agencies will provide tools and financial assistance when available. For States to successfully implement the 

plan, the expectations, methods, and funding must be provided to the 

states. Please explain these items within the plan and provide references 

for additional information. 

B. The Plan focuses on the States to implement the surveillance, monitoring, and management programs. However, it is not clear whether all 

States are technically and fiscally capable of establishing these programs. Will this approach result in 50 different programs? The Plan 

should consider development of the State plans and how the WNS National Response functions in relation to the States. 

10. I. Introduction, Implementing the Plan, Page 3, Paragraph 5. This section 

of the Plan calls for general principals of epidemiology, ecology, and conservation biology to inform national response actions. The text mentions 

gains in knowledge about WNS and its etiology with large gaps still apparent. The plan should provide details regarding the understanding of WNS 

and the associated knowledge base. Who conducted the principal research, 

how did this occur, what do the results determine? Identify what gaps exist 

in our knowledge base and explain how these gaps are being addressed. 

11. I. Introduction, Implementing the Plan, Page 4, Paragraph 1. A. The text 

refers to basic components of a standard outline for response plan, including 

objectives, management tools, management of contaminated environments, 

results monitoring, restoration plans, and budget. However, it is unclear 

where these components are in the WNS National Response Plan, including 

results and performance measures. The Plan should be modified to clearly 

address these components. 

B. The text suggests that funding is tied to the State Response Plans; however, it is not clear what funding is available. The text should specify 

the expectations for the State Response Plans and identify the funding 

available. 

12. II. WNS Response Strategy, Page 4, ff. A. The plan outlines Human Health 

Implications, General Practices, and Elements of the National Plan. The 

Plan does not identify directives or mandates that the Plan is required to 

address. Furthermore, the goals and performance measures of the National 

Response Plan are unclear. The Response Strategy should explain how the 

directions from the Steering Committee are implemented. The WNS Response Strategy should be an extension of the overall goals and objectives 

derived from the steering committee. This section should describe in detail 

41 

the gaps in information, the necessity of collecting this data, what is hoped 

to be achieved, and how progress will be measured. 

13. II. WNS Response Strategy, Human Health Implications, Page 4, Paragraph 3. A. This section discusses WNS human health risks. The text calls 

for ‘‘safe work practices and personal protective equipment’’ for bat researchers. The Plan does not outline or provide reference to applicable guidance on these matters. The discussion should identify safe work practices 

and reference appropriate personal protective equipment. Further, this section is silent on the dangers to humans from exposure to chemicals cleaning 

and disinfecting clothing, gear, and equipment. Perhaps the protocols themselves should be revised to include such information 

B. The Plan states that additional research is necessary to investigate potential WNS human health risks. The Plan should identify what areas 

of research are needed and how that aspect is addressed in the National 

Response Plan. 

14. II. WNS Response Strategy, General Practices, Page 5, Paragraph 1. A. The 

Plan focuses on the human vector for disease transmission. However, it is 

unclear whether the human vector is as critical of a vector as bat-to-bat or 

other environmental vectors. The Plan should address other, and possibly 

more critical, vectors in an effort to curtail the spread of the disease. 

B. The Plan provides recommendations for field activities to prevent the 

spread of WNS. It is unclear whether either the USFW or the USGS is 

able to offer assistance for meeting and maintaining the recommended 

actions. The Plan should identify any assistance that the federal agencies can offer to States and Stakeholders affected by the WNS issue. 

15. II. WNS Response Strategy, Elements of the National Plan, F. Disease Surveillance Working Group, Page 7, Paragraph 1. The stated purpose of this 

group is to develop standards for WNS surveillance. It is not clear who is 

responsible for coordinating data collection across the nation. The Plan 

should be modified to identify who will coordinate national data collection 

and by what means this data will be obtained, reviewed, and disseminated. 

16. III. Action Plans, Page 7, Paragraph 3. The plan establishes Working 

Groups to address elements of the national response. However, certain specifics regarding the groups are missing from the description. What is the 

make-up of the Working Groups; how are they established; how will the efforts be coordinated; what are the expected activities and anticipated results? The National Plan should provide more detail concerning the Working Groups and whether Regional Subcommittees may be formed to address 

region-specific needs, goals, and issues. 

17. III. Action Plans, A. Communication and Outreach, A.1. Overview, Page 7, 

Bullet 1. The National Response Plan acknowledges the investigative focus 

of Federal and State agencies researching the WNS issue. However, it appears that many private individuals, corporations, and organizations are 

also investigating the WNS issue. The WNS National Response Plan should 

recognize that non-government organizations are part of the investigative 

community. In order to make a broader appeal and a larger chance of success, the national plan should be modified to recognize the role of non-government organizations as part of a coordinated effort and capable of making 

substantial contributions. 

18. III. Action Plans, A. Communications and Outreach, A.2. Goals, Page 8. A. 

The plan lists 4 goals for the Communications and Outreach Working 

Group. It appears that this group could provide a conduit of information between the Working Groups and outside audiences. The group may disseminate information gathered through the Working Group efforts into the WNS 

research database. In order to assist in this effort, it is suggested that the 

group create a single website where partner agencies and organization can 

post and access peer-reviewed publications and data. Information from all 

the Working Groups should be provided on this website. 

B. In addition to dissemination of information, an important part of communication is feedback into the national response. Currently, the WNS 

National Response Plan does not provide for external comments or observations back to the national response. It is suggested that the Communications and Outreach Working Group may provide for this 2-way 

communication through a website-based email contact and through 

other formalized lines of communication. 

19. III. Action Plans, B. Data and Technical Information Management, Goal 2, 

Page 10. This goal appears to call on the Data and Technical Information 

Management Working Group to establish and maintain an information 

42 

website. While data collection and management is clearly the focus of this 

group, the NSS suggests that information dissemination, including website 

construction and maintenance may be better coordinated through the Communications and Outreach Working Group. Any databases maintained by 

the Data and Technical Information Management Working Group should be 

linked into the website. 

20. III. Action Plans, C. Diagnostics, C.1. Overview, Page 10. The WNS National Response Plan focuses virtually exclusively on the relationship of 

Geomyces destructans (G. destructans) as the causative agent and White 

Nose Syndrome as the effect, as evidenced in the first statement of this section. There is strong circumstantial evidence for this cause and effect relationship. For instance, studies show that fungal growth on body parts is G. 

destructans; G. destructans is found in affected cave sediments but not in 

unaffected cave sediments. Also, bats placed in an affected mine acquired 

WNS. However, standard disease research practices require the Koch’s Postulates be satisfied before establishing the cause-effect relationship. There 

remains a possibility that a bacterial or viral or some other agent may be 

the primary pathogen and that the G. destructans infection is secondary. 

The NSS is unaware of any research which infected bats from a pure culture of G. destructans. In fact, recent analyses show bats infected with G. 

destructans fungus but not the disease White Nose Syndrome. Unless 

Koch’s Postulates are satisfied, research should continue into other potential primary pathogens and not a total focus of the national response to G. 

destructans, lest our total efforts are thrown toward the wrong causative 

agent. Until G. destructans can be shown to be etiologic in WNS, searches 

should continue for other agents. The goals under the Diagnostics Working 

Group should be revised to conduct or support research to satisfy Koch’s 

Postulates to show the cause and effect relationship between G. destructans 

and WNS. 

21. III. Action Plans, C. Diagnostics, C.2. Goals and Action Items, Goal 4, Page 

11. The Action Item for this goal as stated is to work with the ‘‘Scientific 

and Technical Information Group.’’ However, the Plan does not list a Scientific and Technical Information Group. If the intended reference is the 

Data and Technical Information Management Working Group, the text 

should be so modified. 

22. III. Action Plans, D. Disease Management, D.1. Overview, Page 11. Some 

of the possible response actions include chemical or biological treatments. 

However, it is not clear whether there is a clear mechanism to evaluate 

these methods. Even after appropriate laboratory and field-scale pilot tests, 

the approach may not work or show unintended consequences. Is there a 

mechanism within the plan to determine this approach or treatment methods should be abandoned? The Plan should include an evaluation process 

for any selected treatment remedy. 

23. III. Action Plans, D. Disease Management, D.2. Goals and Action Items, 

Goal 2, Page 12. A. This goal is to reduce the risk of WNS transmission 

to bats by humans. Implicitly, this goal supports research into WNS transmission by human-to-environment-to-bats. However, this aspect of data acquisition is not explicitly stated in the plan. As indicated by other goals for 

this working group, other vectors for disease transmission will likely be 

found to be more critical for control than the human vector. The plan 

should establish a mechanism or system to evaluate the various vectors 

with regard to their importance, feasibility for control, and cost or implications of control. 

B. The Action Items under this Goal focus on human interaction with the 

bat and cave environment. However, commercial trafficking in bat 

guano for fertilizer could spread the disease if guano con be a source of 

WNS etiologic agents (such as G. destructans). If bat guano proves to be 

a vector for disease transmission, then regulation is called for imports, 

exports, and interstate trafficking of bat guano. The Action Items under 

this goal should be modified to study or support research of the potential 

for bat guano to contain WNS infective agents and its role as a disease 

vector. 

24. III. Action Plans, E. Etiology and Epidemiological Research, E.2. Goals and 

Action Items, Goal 1, Page 13. The stated goal is to review current knowledge to identify data gaps, and the listed Action Items cover expert review 

and research questions. A very critical aspect that should be a priority for 

the national response is to determine whether otherwise healthy individuals 

show evidence of exposure to G. destructans, and if so, do these individuals 

43 

produce antibodies and are these antibodies protective? This determination 

will require development of an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay 

(ELISA) technique to detect the presence of the antibody in a blood sample. 

Recent studies show that apparently there are bats exposed to and carrying 

G. destructans that do not develop WNS. Developing an ELISA test for antibodies in bat serum against G. destructans will help answer several important questions, including whether bats can mount an immune response to 

antigens from G. destructans. Also, this test is important to determine if 

there are asymptomatic carriers who could be a reservoir for infection. All 

this information is critical in any attempt to manage the WNS disease. The 

goals under the Etiology and Epidemiological Research Working Group 

should be revised to conduct or support research to develop an ELISA test 

for G. destructans antibodies. 

25. III. Action Plans, F. Disease Surveillance, F.2.Goals and Action Items, Page 

15, Goal. A. The goal is to create a nation-wide disease surveillance program. As previously mentioned herein, the National Response Plan should 

identify funding this effort and explain how that funding is provided to the 

States. If there are elements or action items that necessary for implementation and funding of the surveillance program, these components should be 

list in this section. 

B. Action Item 3 is confusing as written. Perhaps this Action Item should 

be reworded ‘‘Integrate surveillance efforts and research with other subcommittees.’’ 

26. III, Action Plans, G. Conservation and Recovery, G.2. Goals and Action 

Items, Page 16, Goal 4, Action Item 1. The Action Item call for the group 

to work closely with the ‘‘Research Working Group.’’ However, the Plan does 

not list a Research Working Group. The text should be modified to reference 

the intended Working Group. 

The NSS appreciates this opportunity to comment on the draft WNS National Response Plan. The NSS welcomes any further discussion for planning or implementation of the national response. Please contact me for further discussion or to clarify 

any of these comments. My telephone number is (802) 272–3802, and my email address is wnsliaison@caves.org. 

Sincerely, 

Peter Youngbaer 

NSS WNS Liaison 

Copied to: 

Gordon L. Birkheimer, NSS President 

NSS Board of Governors 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Thank you for those words of wisdom, Mr. 

Youngbaer. Finally, Dr. Boyles, you have five minutes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JUSTIN G. BOYLES, DEPARTMENT OF 

ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF 

TENNESSEE 

Dr. BOYLES. Thank you. Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member 

Bordallo, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify today. I have conducted research on bats for nearly 10 years, and I have been involved with research on White-Nose 

Syndrome since shortly after it was discovered. 

There are 45 species of bats in the United States, 42 of which 

are insectivorous. The bat species affected by the White-Nose Syndrome are the primary predators of night-flying insects, and the 

top predators and their respective food webs. 

Insectivorous bats in the United States are well known predators 

of pest insects, including cotton bollworms, corn rootworms, spotted 

cucumber beetles, spruce budworns, cutworms, leafhoppers, and 

many others. 

44 

These pests attack a multitude of agricultural, horticultural, and 

forestry products, including from a long list: cotton, corn, potatoes, 

tomatoes, cucumbers, squash, melons, pumpkins, apples, strawberries, beets, roses, spruce, and fir trees. 

Two studies illustrate must how many insects are consumed by 

bats. A study from Indiana, which was mentioned, reports that an 

average-sized colony of 140 big brown bats may consume on the 

order of 1.3 million pest insects each summer. 

To put this in some perspective, there are roughly 20,000 big 

brown bats that roost in the buildings in Fort Collins, Colorado 

alone. A second study, this from the Northeastern United States, 

suggests that a single little brown bat may consume four to eight 

grams of insects each night during the summer. 

Extrapolating these values to the one million bats that have died 

to date from White-Nose Syndrome means that between 1.5 and 3 

million pounds of insects are going uneaten each summer in the 

area affected by White-Nose Syndrome. 

Economic estimates of the value of bats are rare, but two studies 

from cotton dominated landscapes in Central Texas suggest that 

bats are worth between $12 and $174 per acre per year, and depending on a number of factors, including the density of crop pests 

in a given year. 

While these values will obviously vary across the United States 

because of differences in the monetary value of crops, the amount 

of pesticides used, and the bat and insect communities in each 

area, a simple extrapolation of these values to the whole of agriculture in the United States suggests that bats may be worth between $3- and $53 billion per year to the national economy. 

Importantly, bats have also been shown to limit herbivore in insects or by insects in both tropical and temperate forests. However, 

the estimates that I have just given you do not consider the value 

of bats to the forestry industry, nor do they consider the costs associated with the secondary effects of pesticide use on ecosystems and 

public health. 

Thus, all available evidence suggests that bats are extremely valuable to the economy, and I would venture that bats are the most 

economically important non-domesticated mammals in the United 

States. 

Regarding the closing of caves and mines, which has been an obvious controversial step in the management of White-Nose Syndrome, several people have argued that there is little or no evidence that exists that cave closures have slowed or will slow the 

spread of White-Nose Syndrome. 

While this statement is factually correct, or may be factually correct, it is misleading because in my opinion, it is a proposition that 

is exceedingly difficult to test scientifically, and therefore it will be 

difficult to either refute or to support. 

The evidence cited by other witnesses on the panel, among other 

quickly mounting evidence, suggests that human facilitated movements of Geomyces destructans, the fungus that we are talking 

about, are possible. 

Human facilitated dispersal events may be disproportionately 

more devastating than bat facilitated dispersal events because of 

the distances that humans can move the fungus. 

45 

For example, even a single introduction of Geomyces destructans 

by humans into the Western United States could lead to the collapse of an entirely new bat community, a fate which is unlikely 

in the next 5 to 10 years given the current rate of expansion of 

White-Nose Syndrome. 

Thus, in my professional opinion the risk of cave visitations to 

both ecosystems and the economy far outweigh the possible benefits, and I believe the cave closure policies currently implemented 

by Federal and state agencies are both warranted and prudent. 

Finally, in the roughly five years since White-Nose Syndrome has 

emerged, researchers have amassed an impressive body of knowledge about the disease. Given the scale of the problem very little 

funding has been available, and we have done a lot with very little. 

Still, large gaps remain in our understanding of White-Nose Syndrome, and many of these gaps are vital to the control of Geomyces 

destructans, and in conserving and restoring the populations of insectivorous bats. The only way to fill these gaps is through well 

targeted and well coordinated scientific research, a process that is 

unfortunately neither cheap nor quick. 

To be frank, limited funding and a lack of coordination hindered 

our progress to date. The recently released national plan by the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service addresses some of these 

shortcomings, especially those related to the communication between the various parties. 

However, as is often the case, funding has been and will remain 

the most limiting factor in our research on White-Nose Syndrome. 

I believe the ecological and economic ramifications of a collapsing 

bat community are so severe as to warrant a larger investment of 

personnel and funding to develop a better understanding of this 

devastating wildlife disease. 

Only with an increased understanding will we be able to develop 

solutions to the problem in time to make a difference. Thank you, 

and I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Boyles follows:] 

Statement of Justin G. Boyles, Ph.D., Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville 

Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I have conducted research on bats for 

nearly 10 years and have been involved with research on white-nose syndrome 

(WNS) since shortly after it was discovered. 

There are 45 species of bats in the United States, 42 of which are insectivorous. 

The bat species affected by WNS are the primary predators of night-flying insects 

and are the top predators in their respective food webs. Insectivorous bats in the 

United States are well-known predators of pest insects including cotton bollworms, 

corn rootworms, spotted cucumber beetles, leafhoppers, cutworms, and spruce 

budworms, among many others. These pests attack a multitude of agricultural, horticultural, and forest products, including cotton, corn, potatoes, tomatoes, cucumbers, squash, melons, pumpkins, apples, strawberries, beans, celery, eggplant, beets, 

roses, and spruce and fir trees. Two studies illustrate how many insects are consumed by bats. A study in Indiana reports that an average-sized colony of 150 big 

brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) may consume 1.3 million pest insects over a summer. 

Big brown bats are ubiquitous in the natural and man-made landscape—for instance, researchers estimated that approximately 20,000 big brown bats summer in 

Fort Collins, Colorado—meaning the species confers these benefits throughout our 

environment. A study from the northeastern United States suggests that a single 

little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), the species most commonly affected by WNS, can 

consume 4–8 grams of insects each night during summer. Extrapolating these values to the 1 million bats that have died from WNS to date means that between 1.5 

and 3 million pounds of insects are uneaten each summer in the area affected by 

46 

WNS. Economic estimates of the value of bats are rare, but two studies from cottondominated landscapes in central Texas suggest bats are worth between $12 and 

$174 per acre, depending on a number of factors including the density of crop pests 

in a given year. While these values will obviously vary across the United States because of differences in the monetary value of crops, the amount of pesticides used, 

the bat and insect communities in the area, and several other factors, a simple extrapolation of these values to the whole of agriculture in the United States suggests 

bats may be worth between $3 and $53 billion/year to the national economy. Bats 

have been shown to exert strong top-down control on insect populations in both tropical and temperate forests and importantly, these estimates do not consider the 

value of bats to forestry or secondary effects of pesticide use on the ecosystem and 

public health. Thus, all available evidence suggests that bats are extremely valuable 

to the economy and I would venture that bats are the most economically important 

non-domesticated mammals in the United States. While there are significant ecological and economic reasons to be deeply concerned about the impact of WNS on 

bat populations, in my opinion, we also should be concerned with bat conservation 

based on moral and ethical responsibilities to conserve our natural resources. 

The closing of caves and mines has been a controversial step in management of 

WNS. While I agree that bats are likely the most common distributor of the fungus, 

I believe cave closures are both necessary and justified because evidence implicates 

human-facilitated movements. During my research, I have spent considerable time 

in caves and mines in the eastern United States. Therefore, I understand the draw 

of caving and sympathize with the standpoint of the National Speleological Society. 

However, as a scientist, I must respectfully disagree with their views on cave closures. They have argued that little evidence exists that cave closures have slowed 

or will slow the spread of WNS. While this statement may be factually correct, it 

is misleading because, in my opinion, it is a proposition that is impossible to test 

and thereby either support or refute. If Geomyces destructans, the fungus associated 

with WNS, is verified to have originated in Europe as the circumstantial evidence 

and emerging data on the genetics of the fungus suggest, human-facilitated movements are very likely the explanation for the appearance of G. destructans in the 

United States in the first place. Thus, long-distance movements of G. destructans 

by humans are likely possible. Further, research has shown that G. destructans can survive in and on clothing and caving gear, providing a possible path for long-distance, human-facilitated expansion of the disease. Human-facilitated dispersal 

events may be disproportionately more devastating than bat-facilitated dispersal 

events because of the distances humans can move the fungus. Even a single introduction of G. destructans by humans in the western United States could lead to the 

devastation of an entirely new bat community. Such a collapse is unlikely in the 

next 5 years given the current rate of bat-driven expansion of WNS. More than a 

dozen species of hibernating bats occur in the western United States and are currently unaffected by WNS. There may be natural geographic barriers to the movement of hibernating bats, such as the Great Plains, that limit bat-facilitated, but 

not human-facilitated dispersal of G. destructans. Further, cave disturbances are implicated as one of the driving factors behind historical declines in bat populations 

because they upset the delicate energy balance that bats must maintain to survive 

winter. Given that WNS also appears to upset this delicate balance, the added 

stress caused by cave visitation could compound the effects of the disease. Thus, in 

my professional opinion, the risks of cave visitations to both ecosystems and the 

economy far outweigh the possible benefits gained by relatively few people and I believe the cave closure policies currently implemented by Federal and State agencies 

are both warranted and prudent. 

In the roughly five years since WNS emerged, a tiny number of researchers has 

amassed an impressive body of knowledge about the disease. Given the scale of the 

problem, very little research funding has been available to researchers and we have 

done a lot with very little. Still, large gaps remain in our understanding of the putative pathogen, the physiology of bat hibernation, and how the two interact to result 

in the patterns of mortality seen in WNS-affected populations. Many of these information gaps are vital to attempts to control G. destructans and conserve and restore 

populations of insectivorous bats. The only way to fill these knowledge gaps is 

through well-targeted and well-coordinated scientific research, a process that is unfortunately neither quick nor cheap. To be frank, limited funding and a lack of coordination have hindered our progress to date. The recently released National Plan 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service addresses many of these shortcomings, especially those related to communication between the various parties involved. However, as is often the case, funding has been and will remain the most limiting factor 

in our research on WNS. I believe the economic and ecological ramifications of collapsing bat communities are so severe as to warrant a larger investment of perVerDate Nov 24 2008 09:07 Mar 02, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\67111.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
47 

sonnel and funding to develop a better understanding of this devastating wildlife 

disease. Only with an increased understanding will we be able to develop solutions 

to the problem in time to make a difference. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Dr. Boyles, and again, excellent information. Again, I want to thank all of our witnesses for their valuable contributions to this hearing during National Pollinators 

Week. 

This is an extremely deadly fungus, and I hope Federal, state, 

and local, and non-governmental organizations will continue to 

work together to find a way to stop the spread of this disease. 

At this point, we will begin Member questions of the witnesses, 

and to allow all Members to participate and ensure that we hear 

from all of our witnesses today, Members are limited to five minutes for their questions. 

However, if Members have additional questions, we can have 

more than one round of questioning, and often do. I now recognize 

myself for five minutes. Just some quick questions just so I can get 

a better understanding. 

The organisms name is Geomyces destructans; is that correct, 

panel? And I am not sure who is best trained to answer this question, but I will take it from anyone, and Dr. Boyles certain seems 

to know a lot about the pathology of this, how does it actually kill 

the bat? 

Dr. BOYLES. This is something that we don’t know, and actually 

if I could defer. Dr. Blehert is probably the correct person to answer this question. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. 

Dr. BLEHERT. Thank you. So that does represent an active area 

of research. When we initially discovered it, we described the fungus as a dermatophyte, which is as you probably know defines a 

fungus that infects the dead skin layer, the dead skin layer at the 

surface of the skin. 

This fungus turns out to be quite different. It is actively invasive, 

and it invades and destroys living skin tissues. A recent publication 

put out by our group of researchers surmises that this fungus 

causes—well, we know that the focus causes devastating damage 

to bat wings. 

Bat wings skin represents over 85 percent of the surface area of 

a bat. So the skin of their wings performs much more than just a 

simple barrier function. It is also critical for many physiological 

functions, ranging from water balance, passive exchange of air, and 

other gases, temperature regulation, blood pressure regulation. 

And so we believe that it is at the heart of this disruption of 

these numerous physiological processes that are dependent on bat 

wings that are the mechanism of mortality. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. And I understand that this organism, the fungus, has been endemic to Europe, and that many, if not all, species 

have been resistant to it in the past, but yet we have, I understand, around 8 or 9 species here that are not resistant to it, and 

that die at a rate of almost 100 percent. 

Do we have an understanding of why certain species and certain 

locations, geographical locations, that species and organisms are resistant to the organism? 

48 

Dr. BLEHERT. I think that it may come down to much more than 

just differences within the species themselves, but since all diseases involve an interaction between a pathogen, and in this case, 

Geomyces destructans, a bat host, and the environment that bats 

inhabit, I think what research will ultimately support is that bats 

inhabit different ecological niches within caves. 

So, for example, a bat that inhabits a colder and dryer area may 

be less susceptible, compared to a bat like a little brown bat that 

inhabits a slightly warmer and very humid portion of the cave. 

Additionally, as the number of bats decline, disease transmission 

dynamics change dramatically. There are fewer hosts available for 

the fungus. Hosts allow that pathogen to amplify, and so as the 

number of hosts is reduced, we are finding that our American bat 

populations, which were once quite numerous, are actually becoming more like the European bat populations, in which bats are less 

numerous, and further and fewer in between. 

So it may be that not all of our populations will go to zero, and 

that we will see a much different topography with regard to hot 

bats persist with this fungus, much as they are seeing today in 

Europe. 

Dr. FLEMING. Is that to say that the main host are the affected 

species? 

Dr. BLEHERT. Yes. So, for example, we look at the little brown 

bat, which was once very numerous in these caves, is perhaps an 

amplifying species. The fungus grows to a certain degree in soil, 

but it grows dramatically on bats. 

So in the presence of a lot of bats, you can go from very few 

fungal infectious agents to literally trillions, and then that agent 

remains infectious in the cave, and associated with soil, carcasses, 

et cetera. 

And as carcasses are removed, or as they further deteriorate, 

those spores will ultimately—spore burdens should decrease over 

time. 

Dr. FLEMING. I see. Have there been any attempts, from a research standpoint, to actually spray or treat with antifungal treatments in caves just to see if reducing the spores can actually make 

a difference in survival? 

Dr. BLEHERT. There has been some work along those lines in the 

laboratory, but it is very difficult to transition some of these treatments from the laboratory to the caves. One of the very real concerns is that fungal diseases are on the rise among humans, and 

there are very few pharmacological compounds suitable for treating 

fungal diseases in humans. 

So it perhaps could be very dangerous to widely broadcast these 

compounds in the environment, and then risk breeding resistance 

to these compounds among wild animals, or among fungi in the environment, and perhaps creating more super bugs that would pose 

a risk to humans. So there are a lot of unintended consequences 

that we have to consider. 

Dr. FLEMING. And finally is there any natural predator for the 

fungus itself? 

Dr. BLEHERT. I would imagine that there likely is if you make 

an analogy to chestnut flight. There are some what are call microviruses, and so viruses that can weaken the fungus, and it is sort 

49 

of a constant battle between the fungus, which can sexually recombine, and change, and the viruses have to keep up. But as was 

mentioned by Mr. Pen ̃ a, biocontrol is another active area of research. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Most interesting. Let’s see. Next, I will recognize the Ranking Member for five minutes. And the gentlelady 

asked if we will have one round or more than one round, and we 

have three Members here. Mr. Wittman, what is your interest? 

Would you like to have a second round? 

Mr. WITTMAN. I am open for multiple rounds. 

Dr. FLEMING. As am I, and so if we don’t get them covered the 

first time, we will come back around. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first 

question is for Dr. Chavarria. What is the scientific basis for using 

bat cave closures to manage the White-Nose Syndrome? And is it 

possible that current closures have limited the spread of the WhiteNose Syndrome? 

And I know that a lot of these caves are on private properties. 

How successful have you been in closing those caves, and what percentage of those caves are still open? If you could answer that. 

Dr. CHAVARRIA. Yes, Ms. Bordallo, and I am going to ask Dr. 

Blehert to elaborate on the cave closure. But you heard the Chair, 

and that the White-Nose Syndrome in Kentucky, and they have 

strong support from Kentucky private landowners to close caves. 

The Park Service has allowed their managers at the regional 

level to close or not close their caves as necessary. The Service did 

close all of our caves. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All of the public caves? 

Dr. CHAVARRIA. Well, most of our caves are not open to the public. They are just open for research, and they are dedicated for protecting endangered bats. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Doctor, if you can expand on that? 

Dr. BLEHERT. With regard to the scientific basis, all infectious 

diseases—whether it is common cold viruses among children in day 

care centers, or Geomyces destructans among bats in a cave— 

involve a triad of interactions between an environment, and a susceptible host, and a disease agent. 

And in the case of White-Nose Syndrome, the infectious agent is 

Geomyces destructans, and the environment is caves. We have 

shown in my laboratory that the fungus does remain viable in soil 

in the bottoms of caves, and so based on basic epidemiological principles, restricting people to move in and out of those caves provides 

a means to prevent the persistent and environmentally resistant 

spores that the fungus produces for the purpose of reproducing 

itself, both out of infected caves and into new sites, or into caves. 

So it is a two-way street. It is not only preventing humans from 

accidentally introducing it to a site, but mounting molecular forensic evidence being developed by my laboratory collaboratively with 

other groups, indicates that the likely source of this fungus in 

North America is Europe. 

And the most likely means by which that happened was through 

a human transmission event. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So have you seen a decline? 

Dr. BLEHERT. I think it would be—— 

50 

Ms. BORDALLO. Since the closures? 

Dr. BLEHERT. Right. I might defer to the Fish and Wildlife Service to answer that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Is there anyone who can answer that? Has there 

been a decline? 

Mr. COLEMAN. That is a difficult thing to answer. What we have 

not seen since the management of cave closures was instituted was 

a major jump, and that is really what we are trying to target with 

this actions, is the creation of a new epicenter, far removed from 

the current locations of the disease. 

So, for example, Oregon. If White-Nose Syndrome should suddenly show up there as a result of a human transmission, and so 

that is how we are measuring success. We have not seen that, and 

we know that the bats themselves are going to be capable of transmitting the disease and moving it increasingly westward than 

south, but we have not yet seen a major jump, which has been potentially signs of the effectiveness of the policy. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. So your answer then is you really don’t 

know if there has been a decline. Is that what I am getting at here? 

Mr. COLEMAN. A decline in the transmission of the disease? 

Ms. BORDALLO. Yes, recognizing that there are more bats infected with the disease since the closure. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, we do know that it has been spreading, and 

that there has been an increase in the numbers of bats that are 

infected. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So even with the closure of the caves then, it has 

been increasing? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, the bats themselves are able to move the disease. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. Then how successful have you been 

with closing the private land, the caves that are on the private 

lands? Do you meet a lot of resistance from the private landowners 

in closing the caves? 

There is a group of people that are out there for recreational activity looking at caves, and so I just wonder could you give me 

some idea? Are you coming up with resistance to closing the caves 

on private lands? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, I would say there is some resistance to that. 

There are people who are concerned about the loss of revenue as 

we have heard, and about the loss of recreational opportunities due 

to the closures of caves. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s position has been that this is the 

scientifically justifiable route to take, and the best thing to do to 

protect our bat species, and that is why we have recommended it. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. 

Mr. COLEMAN. I would refer to Dr. Gassett to specifically talk 

about the State of Kentucky. 

Dr. GASSETT. Yes, Madam. In Kentucky on private lands, we 

have identified 80 private landowners that have what we consider 

significant bat habitat, and we sent letters to all of them to ask 

them to voluntarily close their caves, and only three refused, and 

so 77 of those 80 complied with the voluntary closure request. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. So that is in Kentucky, right? 

Dr. GASSETT. In Kentucky, correct. 

51 

Ms. BORDALLO. What about the other states? 

Dr. GASSETT. I don’t have any data on the other states. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. I just want to get an idea of closing the 

caves and what resistance we are getting. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, each state has come up with their own response plan, and many states I should say, and not everyone has 

one. In those response plans, they treat this issue differently based 

on whatever their priorities are in that state. 

So some states, like Kentucky, have seen a lot of success in outreach with the public, and private landowners, and some states 

have not seen fit to close caves as a response to White-Nose Syndrome, and others have chosen a medium ground where they posed 

partial closures, but not close to all the sites, and it really depends 

on the state, because that is how they directed it to private landowners. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Are all the states cooperating with advising these 

recreational activists that visit the caves about the situation, and 

the risks that they are taking? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, again, each state has chosen a different approach to this, and so some states have been in favor of cave closures to control human transmission. 

Ms. BORDALLO. But even if they are not closed, are there signs 

that you are entering this at your own risk? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Well, again, the states have—it is up to their jurisdiction to put up signage and that sort of thing. So everybody 

handles it a little bit differently, and again there are several states 

who have interacted and several who have not. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. 

Mr. YOUNGBAER. If I might pick up on that question. This varies 

very widely. State agencies and Federal agencies have varying authorities over lands that they own or control, but very little over 

private land ownership. 

You take a state like Tennessee, which has over 14,000 known 

caves, or Missouri, which has over 6,000 known caves, the vast majority are on private lands. Therefore, unless there is an Endangered Species present, and not subject to any government authority, all that can be done is to suggest. 

There are many people who visit these caves, and landowners, 

private landowners, have private property rights, and tend to be a 

little weary of governments, and there are iterations of that all 

across the country. 

People who visit caves are not just members of the National Speleological Society, but you have rock hounds, geocachers, scout 

groups, church groups, college outing clubs, and just locals, who 

know that the hole in the ground has been there for a couple of 

hundred years, and every Tom, Dick, and Harry in town has their 

signature up in the signature room in the back, and that is where 

you go to cool off in the summer heat. 

These are not closed in a physical sense. These are closed by administrative orders in most cases on even the government lands. 

So, therefore, the bats are free to come and go, and transmit this 

disease. 

52 

And I think that is why Tom Aley, who I quoted in my testimony, basically says that this is like putting a fire line up for only 

five percent. It simply does not work in containing this disease. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. You made it very clear. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you. Mr. Wittman, from Virginia. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I wanted to thank 

the panel members for joining us today. It is a very interesting discussion, and a very timely topic. We have heard in the past that 

the population of bats—and I am assuming overall—has been affected by a reduction in population of an estimate of about a million. 

I was wondering if you could give us what today’s estimate is 

with the reduction in bat populations by this fungus? If you could 

give us some indication about which species might be most affected 

by this, and you had alluded to some of the species that are not 

affected by it. 

But I would like to learn a little bit more about which species 

are, and is there a likelihood that any species would become extinct 

by this? We have talked about population dynamics, and some homeostasis being reached by bat populations in relation to response 

to this particular fungus, but is there one particular species, like 

the little brown bat, that could go extinct? 

And I will leave it up to which panel members are most qualified 

to answer that question. 

Mr. COLEMAN. Which species is most affected? 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. Well, let’s start with the question about what 

are the current numbers, as far as the total bat populations that 

are deceased based on an exposure to this disease, and current 

numbers, and your best estimate? 

Mr. COLEMAN. The estimate that we generated before of over a 

million bats was based on approximation of an unknown number 

of bats, and the data that we had to show known declines in select 

known sites where data existed before and after White-Nose Syndrome arrived. 

So it is actually very difficult to come up with a total number of 

bats when we didn’t know what the total population looked like 

prior to White-Nose Syndrome. We are currently working on a way 

to come up with a new estimate for that, but what we can report 

on are known declines. 

Again, in sites where we have pre-and-post White-Nose Syndrome data, and as many have quoted here, we are looking at numbers that range from about 60 percent to about 100 percent decline 

in bat populations at specific sites, and on a statewide basis, the 

numbers are consistent in affected states that have been infected 

for multiple years exceeding 80 percent in total populations by species. 

So the number as I believe Nina mentioned earlier is likely much 

higher than one million bats, but we don’t know the answer to that 

right now. We are working on it. The extinction, we have a modeling project that the Service funded a few years ago. 

It was published in the Journal of Science that showed the likelihood of the extirpation of little brown bats in the Northeast within 

the next 16 years based on the declines that we were seeing, and 

53 

actually the declines have been exceeding the values that they used 

for that 16 year estimate. 

So we could be looking at something much sooner than that for 

little brown bats, for example, which were up until now the most 

common bat in the Northeast. So there is a real potential, at least 

within the current range of White-Nose Syndrome, that that bat 

could disappear. 

There are other species that are likewise affected. The Tri-Colored Bat, and the Northern Long Ear Bat, have also shown very 

grave declines as a result of White-Nose Syndrome. 

Mr. WITTMAN. All right. Let me ask this. I know that The Smithsonian Conservation and Research Center has allocated some dollars to essentially establish a captive population of Virginia Long 

Ear Bats. 

Can you tell us what the—or does anybody know what the current state of that particular effort is, and what may be the long 

term impact of that in relation to addressing this particular disease 

across all bat populations? 

Mr. COLEMAN. We did initiate a program with The Smithsonian 

Institute a few years ago to look at captive propagation needs for 

the Virginia big-eared bat. They brought in 40 animals in 2010 to 

explore what it would take to house them. 

And this gets to some of the things that came up earlier about 

ways that we can look at this from a conservation standpoint, and 

how to care for bats after White-Nose Syndrome goes through. 

So insectivorous bats are notoriously difficult to maintain in captivity. There are only a few instances of certain species that have 

been successfully kept in captivity with the idea of propagation 

completely aside, and with very little success in propagating, or 

even keeping them in captivity. 

So we initiated that program to look at what it might take to 

house Virginia big-eared bats in captivity, and at the time WhiteNose Syndrome was basically on the doorstep of West Virginia. 

We didn’t know how that species was going to respond to the 

presence of the fungus. We anticipated the worst and thought that 

since there are very few sites that house major portions of that 

population, if White-Nose Syndrome arrived, we anticipated that it 

potentially could have wiped them out. 

There are only some 20,000 individuals alive as far as we know 

at this point. In that program, most of those bats did die over time, 

but it was a successful program, and we did learn a considerable 

amount through that exercise. 

There are still two bats remaining in captivity. They were successfully kept over the winter of this past year, and they came out 

of hibernation, and they are eating very well I am told, and are actually doing quite well in captivity. The question we are having 

now is what do we do with those last two, and we are working on 

that issue. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman. I have a couple of more 

questions. Are there other questions? OK. Well, I will go ahead and 

ask a couple of questions, and then open it up for the Ranking 

Member. 

54 

You know, whenever you have an epidemic such as this among 

human or animal populations, you tend to find that there is a subpopulation, and that for whatever reason is resistant to that disease, or they at least survive. 

And so my question is are you seeing that among some, if not 

all, of the species of bats? Certainly that would give us some encouragement in terms of the possibility of extinction, and certainly 

over time they could reproduce as a resistant population. 

And ultimately evolve themselves into healthy, and hearty, and 

resistant to White-Nose, which is kind of what I was touching on 

when I mentioned about Europe and some of the other species. So 

I would love to hear what you have to say about that. 

Dr. BLEHERT. So, yes, and I don’t have access to all of the detailed site specific data with regard to population persistence, and 

while there are reports of some populations disappearing, there are 

reports of others that decline, and then maintain a smaller number 

of animals. 

And so I believe that there are a number of means by which that 

could happen, either by the development of an immunological resistance, or also by selection for behavioral traits that provide certain bats with the ability to weather this disease, even in the absence of their immune system, which is known to become naturally 

suppressed during hibernation, and may be part of the problem 

that led to the emergence of this disease, and is one of the major 

problems in managing it. 

So as I said previously, we may see rather than populations disappearing, that our bat population demographics become more akin 

to those that we see today in Europe; small populations persisting 

more in isolation, as opposed to massive caves full of millions of 

bats. 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, is that to say that maybe this fungus, or 

some other, may be the reason why we see a little different behavior between the populations in Europe, versus here, that may be— 

that what is happening there is really the fact that whatever is 

going on happened there first, and really instead of seeing extinction, we will just see smaller and more isolated groups? I think 

that is kind of what you are suggesting? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, it is very possible, and one of our projects is 

doing a molecular forensic analysis of rates of genetic change in 

fungal isolates from bats from North America and Europe. 

This work is being done by the laboratory with Paul Keim, who 

works for the FBI, for example, to do molecular forensic work back 

at the beginning of 2000 with regard to anthrax letters, for example. 

But given enough isolates, we may actually be able to construct 

a history with regard to how long the fungus has been in Europe, 

and how it has dispersed over Europe, even to the point of pinpointing a source for how it came to the United States. So that will 

provide us some more information about that natural history. 

Dr. FLEMING. All right. Now, when you talk about humans being 

the potential vector of this, I don’t think you are really meaning 

that somehow that they have become temporary hosts, but perhaps 

on their shoes, or on some of their gear, and that sort of thing? 

55 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, it would be inadvertent mechanical transmission. 

Dr. FLEMING. And so is there a treatment perhaps for that equipment that we could educate our backpackers, and our cave explorers, that when you finish your work in one cave that you put your 

gear through a certain treatment process that may be very helpful 

in this? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, I absolutely think that is the case. There are 

certainly elements to the White-Nose Syndrome response that is 

beyond our control, and others that are within our means, and 

those within our means include regulatory measures, like site closures, decontamination procedures, which the Fish and Wildlife 

Service has instituted and recommended, as well as dedicated gear 

recommendations. 

And these are the same procedures that are used to control the 

spread of agricultural or human diseases, and serve as the very 

basis for why when you come back from another country the customs agent asks you if you visited a farm. 

Dr. FLEMING. Mr. Youngbaer, is this a methodology that we 

could pursue that would allow us to begin opening up our caves 

perhaps? 

Mr. YOUNGBAER. Well, very much so, and in fact, we have been 

very much involved working with Fish and Wildlife in the development of those protocols, and one of our scientists, a leading microbiologist at Northern Kentucky University, has been very much involved with testing materials, and treatments, and refining those 

protocols, which have existed for two-and-a-half or three years. 

We promote those through training videos. There is an element 

of safety for people because you are involving chemicals in the 

treatment of your gear and equipment, and this goes for biologists 

who were working directly in the handling of bats, and some of the 

surveillance and monitoring, as well as people who visit caves. 

But I can tell you that that is probably limited to the organized 

caving community who is within this loop of knowledge and network. It is very difficult to get it out to a lot of the other publics. 

I serve as the vice president of the Northeastern Cave Conservancy, and we have a cave with a kiosk which has White-Nose Syndrome protocols that we educate literally thousands of youth group 

visitors, camps, that come and visit these caves. 

They learn safe caving techniques, and they learn about WhiteNose Syndrome, and they learn about the potential of human 

transport. I think that we all admit that there is a potential for 

human transport, but there is little evidence that that has actually 

occurred. 

Dr. FLEMING. What is the nature of the treatment? 

Mr. YOUNGBAER. Well, for example, you need to remove and 

wash, typically with Woolite, which is a very excellent surfactant 

to remove all organic material, because the bleach or Lysol IC compound that you then use interacts with the organics, and so you 

need to make sure that they are clean before they are then treated. 

There are a range of different treatments. Some are available in 

the laboratories, and some you can do in the field, and some of 

them are boiling water for 15 minutes will kill the fungus, and 

then you rinse. 

56 

Depending on whether it is soft material or hard material, there 

are different ways that you can treat that. We have major regional 

caving events. We set up large decon stations, and we do that at 

our national conventions. We do that at regional events. 

That is something that we have been doing for years, and have 

developed in concert with U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 

Dr. FLEMING. Would this open the way perhaps to a permitting 

process, and therefore allowing only those people who have a permit that perhaps paid for such permit, and have demonstrated 

knowledge, and perhaps have been through a course, so that we 

would only have people who are properly trained in these decontamination processes that would have access to caves? 

Mr. YOUNGBAER. In fact, in a number of the government-owned 

and -managed sites, that is the current practice. If you are doing 

a permit on a BLM cave, or National Park cave, or Forest Service 

cave, that is required, as it is today. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Very good. 

Dr. CHAVARRIA. Mr. Chairman, may I add something? 

Dr. FLEMING. Sure. 

Dr. CHAVARRIA. Within the Department of the Interior and the 

National Park Service, they have a lot of recreational caves that 

are visited by millions of people every year. So, through education, 

which is a big component of the national plan, we are already educating a lot of the people that are visiting these caves. 

And we have control of who comes in and out of the caves, because they pay for a ticket, and so education, not only with the 

cave experts, but also with the general public, has become a critical 

piece of the plan. 

Dr. FLEMING. Right. Thank you, and I yield to the Ranking Member. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple 

of questions. First, for Dr. Boyles. If some bat species are not affected by the White-Nose Syndrome, or even are thriving in its 

presence, then why should we worry about other bat species dying? 

Dr. BOYLES. I guess the simplest answer to that is that not all 

species are equivalent. If we just talk about the agricultural impacts, each species has a different diet. Some of them are moth specialists, and some are beetle specialists. 

So conserving the moth specialist does little to affect the beetle 

populations, for instance, and each species is different. And specifically regarding White-Nose, I think the important part is the species that is being affected, and that is the little brown bat as we 

have heard. 

So we are seeing huge collapses in a very common species. The 

species that were mentioned a bit are doing well, and are all endangered or have small populations anyway. So we are not even 

seeing a one-to-one replacement of individuals from the common 

species, a common species crashing, and the not so common species 

doing well as of right now. 

Ms. BORDALLO. A followup. Can you comment on the role that insect eating bats play in the ecosystem, and if other animals would 

be able to fill this role? 

Dr. BOYLES. Sure. So, bats are the primary and in many cases 

the only predator of nighttime flying insects, many of which are 

57 

pests. Even the ones that aren’t pests to humans, are still important in ecosystems. 

Unfortunately, there really isn’t any other natural alternative to 

bats. The are a few birds that are nocturnal insectivorous, 

Whippoorwills and things of that sort. But they tend to be rather 

uncommon. 

They are much more limited in their foraging and will not—most 

likely will not be able to replace the bats, no. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. And, Ms. Fascione, are there examples of caves where bats are the main attraction, and what might 

be the economic impact if these bats died from the syndrome? 

Ms. FASCIONE. Yes, there are many examples of caves where bats 

are the main attraction. Carlsbad Caverns National Park is perhaps the best known example, where millions of people have been 

educated and have come to appreciate bats over the years. 

But in these White-Nose Syndrome-infected areas, there are 

many cases where—and as in my home state of Pennsylvania, they 

have many, many caves that even advertise their visits. The commercial caves, state-owned caves, and the Federal caves will advertise for bats. 

And so really they are small business owners, and families, that 

run some of these commercial caves that rely on the bats to bring 

in tourists. 

Ms. BORDALLO. What is the percentage of caves that are problematic generally, the syndrome is there, and versus those that are 

free of any of this fungus or disease? 

Ms. FASCIONE. Well, researchers are monitoring this, and—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. I mean throughout the United States. 

Ms. FASCIONE. Right. It is being monitored county by county, and 

it is spreading. So even though, for example, Pennsylvania went 

through the White-Nose Syndrome a few years ago, each year, and 

in fact in Maryland, this year there were additional counties that 

were impacted. 

So I don’t know, and I don’t know if anybody has a percentage 

of the caves. 

Ms. BORDALLO. A percentage of all the caves throughout the 

United States and Canada that are affected. 

Mr. COLEMAN. I can’t answer that question, but what I can tell 

you is that we have 190 sites that are known to be affected at this 

time, and there are thousands and thousands of sites. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So it is a small percentage, but still spreading? 

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes, that’s true, but one of the other things that 

is important to know is that many of these sites have never been 

visited. We don’t know where all the hibernacula are, and we don’t 

know if—well, we see and diagnose White-Nose Syndrome in a cave 

based on the bat populations that are there, but as Dr. Blehert said 

earlier, the fungus could be in these sites. And it could serve as an 

environmental reservoir for the infection, and even though bats 

aren’t there in the wintertime, and if they only use it transiently, 

or if people come in and pick it up from those sites and transport 

it. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any further 

questions, but I do think that we have to proceed with finding a 

solution to this problem. 

58 

Dr. FLEMING. I quite agree, and that concludes our questions 

today. We have had a great panel, and very informative, and we 

certainly thank you for that. Members of the Subcommittee may 

have additional questions for the witnesses that they may want to 

submit in writing. 

The hearing record will be open for 10 days to receive these responses. Finally, I want to thank the Members and Staff for their 

contributions to this hearing. If there is no further business, and 

without objection, this Subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

Peer-Reviewed Published Papers on or 

Directly Related to White Nose Syndrome 

Compiled by 

Thomas H. Kunz, Ph.D. 

Director, Center for Ecology and Conservation Biology 

Department of Biology 

Boston University 

Boston, MA 02215 

Date: 12 June 2011 

Published (and In Press) Research on or Related to White-Nose Syndrome 

Supported by the Department of Interior (National Park Service, Office 

of Surface Mining, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey) 

1. 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. 

2. Blehert, D.S. J.M. Lorch, A.E. Ballmann, P.M. Cryan, and C.U. Meteyer. 2011. 

Bat White-Nose Syndrome in North America. Microbe, 6: 267–273. 

3. 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, 8:135–143. 

4. Foley, J., D. Clifford, K. Castle, P.M. Cryan, and R.S. Ostfeld. 2011. Investigating 

and Managing the Rapid Emergence of White Nose Syndrome, a Novel, Fatal, 

Infectious Disease of Hibernating Bats. Conservation Biology, 25:223–231. 

5. Gargas, A., M.T. Trest, M. Christensen, T.J. Volk, and D.S. Blehert. 2009. 

Geomyces desctructans sp. nov. associated with bat white-nose syndrome. 

Mycotaxon, 108:147–154. 

6. Lorch, J.M., A. Gargas, C.U. Meteyer, B.M. Berlowski-Zier, D.E. Green, V. 

Shearn-Bochsler, N.J. Thomas, and D.S. Blehert. 2010. Rapid polymerase chain 

reaction diagnosis of white-nose syndrome in bats. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Invesgigation, 22:224–230. 

7. Meteyer, C., E. Buckles, D. Blehert, A. Hicks, D. Green, V. Shearn-Bochsler, N. 

Thomas, A. Gargas, and M. Behr. 2009. Histopathologic criteria to confirm 

white-nose syndrome in bats. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 

21:411–414. 

Published (and In Press) Research on White-Nose Syndrome Supported by 

U.S. Academic Institutions, Non-Government Organizations (BCI, NSS, 

Eppley Foundation) and Department of Interior (OSM, USFWS, USGS) 

1. Kunz, T.H., J.T. Foster, W.F. Frick, A.M. Kilpatrick, G.F. McCracken, M.S. 

Moore, J.D. Reichard, D.M. Reeder, and A.H. Robbins. 2011. White-nose syndrome: an overview of ongoing and future research needs. Pp. 195–209. In: Proceedings of Protection of Threatened Bats at Coal Mines: A Technical Interactive Forum (K.C. Vories and A.H. Caswell, eds.). USDOI Office of Surface 

Mining and Coal Research Center, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois. 

59 

2. Lindner, D.L., A. Gargas, J.M. Lorch, M.T. Banik, J. Glaeser, T.H. Kunz, and 

D.S. Blehert. 2011. DNA-based detection of the fungal pathogen Geomyces 

destructans in soils from bat hibernacula. Mycologia, 103: 241–246. 

3. Waldien, D.L., T.H. Kunz, and C. Johnson-Hughes. 2011. Successful partnerships 

for the effective management, research and conservation of bats. In: Vories, 

K.C. and A.H. Caswell. (eds.) Proceedings of Protection of Threatened Bats at 

Coal Mines: A Technical Interactive Forum. USDOI Office of Surface Mining 

and Coal Research Center, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois. 

Published (and In Press) Research on White-Nose Syndrome Funded by 

United States, European, and Canadian Academic Institutions, NonGovernment Organizations (Bat Conservation International, The 

Eppley Foundation, National Speleological Society, Morris Animal 

Foundation, and The Woodtiger Fund). 

1. Barlow, A, S. Ford, R. Green, C. Morris, and. S. Reaney. 2009. Investigations into 

suspected white-nose syndrome in two bat species in Somerset. Veterinary 

Record, 165:481–882. 

2. Boyles, J. and C. Willis. 2010. Could localized warm areas inside cold caves reduce mortality of hibernating bats affected by white-nose syndrome? Frontiers 

in Ecology and the Environment, 8: 92–98. 

3. Boyles, J.G., P.M. Cryan, G.F. McCracken, and T.H. Kunz. 2011. Economic importance of bats in agriculture. Science, 332: 41–42. 

4. Boyles, J.B., P.M. Cryan, G.F. McCracken, and T.H. Kunz. 2011. Toward a more 

robust understanding of the economic importance of bats. Science (in press). 

5. Bratsch S, N. Wertx, K. Chaloner, T.H. Kunz, and J.E. Butler. 2011. The little 

brown bat, M. lucifugus, displays a highly diverse V(H), D(H) and J(H) repertoire but little evidence of somatic hypermutation. Developmental and Comparative Immunology, 35: 421–430. 

6. Chaturvedi, V., and S. Chaturvedi. 2011. What is in a name? A proposal to use 

geomycosis instead of White Nose Syndrome (WNS) to describe bat infection 

caused by Geomyces destructans. Mycopathologia. 171:231–233. 

7. Chaturvedi, V., D. J. Springer, M. J. Behr, R. Ramani, X. Li, M. K. Peck, P. Ren, 

D. J. Bopp, B. Wood, W. A. Samsonoff, C. M. Butchkoski, A. C. Hicks, W. B. 

Stone, R. J. Rudd, and S. Chaturvedi. 2010. Morphological and molecular characterizations of psychrophilic fungus Geomyces destructans from New York bats 

with white-nose syndrome (WNS). PLoS ONE, 5:e10783. 

8. Courtin, F., W. Stone, G. Risatti, K. Gilbert, and H. Van Kruiningen. 2010. 

Pathologic findings and liver elements in hibernating bats with white-nose syndrome. Veterinary Pathology Online, 47:214. 

9. Dzal, Y., L. P. McGuire, N. Veselka, and M.B. Fenton. 2010. Going, going, gone: 

the impact of white-nose syndrome on the summer activity of the little brown 

bat (Myotis lucifugus). Biology Letters, 23: 392–394. 

10. Fuller, N.W., J.D. Reichard, M.L. Nabhan, S.R. Fellows, L.C. Pepin, and T.H. 

Kunz. 2011. Individual recovery of little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) from 

wing damage associated with white-nose syndrome. EcoHealth (in press). 

11. Francl, K.E., D.W. Sparks, V. Brack, Jr, and J. Timpone. 2011. White-nose syndrome and wing damage index scores among summer bats in the northeastern 

United States. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 47:41–8. 

12. Frick, W.F., D.S. Reynolds, and T.H. Kunz. 2010. Influence of climate and reproductive timing on demography of little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus). 

Journal of Animal Ecology, 79:128–136. 

13. Frick, W., J. Pollock, A. Hicks, K. Langwig, D. Reynolds, G. Turner, C. 

Butchkoski, and T.H. Kunz. 2010. An emerging disease causes regional population collapse of a common North American bat species. Science, 329:679–682. 

14. Hallam, T. G. and G. F. McCracken. 2010. Management of the panzootic whitenose syndrome through culling of bats. Conservation Biology, 

15. Kannan, K., S.H. Yun, R.J. Rudd, M. Behr. 2010. High concentrations of persistent organic pollutants including PCBs, DDT, PBDEs and PFOS in little 

brown bats with white-nose syndrome in New York, USA. Chemosphere, 

80:613–618. 

16. Kunz, T.H., E. Braun de Torrez, D.M. Bauer, T.A. Lobova, and T.H. Fleming. 

2011. Ecosystem services provided by bats. Pp. 1–38. In: The Year in Ecology 

and Conservation (R.A. Ostfeld and W.H. Schlesinger, eds). Annals of the New 

York Academy of Sciences, Wiley-Blackwell, New York. 

17. Li, L. J.G. Victoria, C. Wang, M. Jones, G.M. Fellers, T.H. Kunz, and E. 

Delwart. 2010. Bat guano virome: predominance of dietary viruses from insects 

and plants plus novel mammalian viruses. Journal of Virology, 84:6955–6965. 

18. Martı ́nkova ́ N., P. Bacˇkor, T. Bartonicˇka, P. Blazˇkova ́, J. Cˇ erveny ́, L. Falteisek, 

J. Gaisler, V. Hanzel., D. Hora ́ cˇek, Z. Huba ́lek, H. Jahelkova ́, M. Kolarˇ ́ık, L. 

60 

Koryta ́ r, A. Kuba ́tova ́, B. Lehotska ́. R. Lehotsky ́, R.K. Lucˇan, O. Ma ́jek, J. 

Mateˆju ̊, Z. Rˇ eha ́k, J. Sˇ afa ́ rˇ, P. Ta ́jek, E. Tkadlec, M. Uhrin, J. Wagner, D. 

Weinfurtova ́, J. Zima, J. Zukal, and I. Hora ́ cˇek 2010. Increasing incidence of 

Geomyces destructans fungus in bats from the Czech Republic and Slovakia. 

PLoS ONE, 5, e13853. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013853. 

19. Moore, M.S., and T.H. Kunz. 2011. White-nose syndrome: a fungal diseases of 

North American hibernating bats. In: Encyclopedia of Caves (D.C. Culver and 

W.B. White, eds.). Academic Press, New York. 

20. Puechmaille, S. J., P. Verdeyroux, H. Fuller, M. Gouilh, M. Bekaert, and E. C. 

Teeling. 2010. White-nose syndrome fungus (Geomyces destructans) in Bat, 

France. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 16:290–293. 

21. Puechmaille, S. J., G. Wibbelt, V. Korn, H. Fuller, F. Forget, K. M. Holdorfer, 

A. Kurth, W. Bogdanowicz, C. Borel, and T. Bosch. 2011. Pan-European distribution of white-nose ayndrome fungus (Geomyces destructans) not associated 

with mass mortality. PLoS ONE, 6:e19167. 

22. Puechmaille, S.J., W.F. Frick, T.H. Kunz, P.A. Racey, C.C. Voigt, G. Wibbelt, 

E.C. Teeling, and the White-Nose Syndrome Consortium. 2011.White-nose syndrome: is this emerging disease a threat to European bats? Trends in Ecology 

and Evolution (in press). 

23. Reeder, D.M., and G.G. Turner. 2008. Working together to combat ’White-Nose 

Syndrome’ in Northeastern U.S. bats; a report of the June 2008 meeting on 

White-Nose Syndrome held in Albany, N.Y. Bat Research News, 49: 75–78. 

24. Reichard, J. D. and T.H. Kunz. 2009. White-nose syndrome inflicts lasting injuries to the wings of little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus). Acta 

Chiropterologica, 11:457–464. 

25. Reichard, J.D., N.W. Fuller, and T.H. Kunz. 2011. Condition of wings is an important criterion of bat health: A response to Francl et al. Journal of Wildlife 

Diseases (in press). 

26. Storm, J. J. and J. G. Boyles. 2010. Body temperature and body mass of hibernating little brown bats Myotis lucifugus in hibernacula affected by white-nose 

syndrome. Acta Theriologica, 56:123–127. 

27. Turner, G.G., and D.M. Reeder. 2009. Update of White-Nose Syndrome in Bats, 

September 2009. Bat Research News, 50: 47–53. 

28. Wibbelt G., A. Kurth, D. Hellmann, M. Weishaar, A. Barlow, M. Veith, J. 

Pru ̈ ger, T. Go ̈rfo ̈l, L. Grosche, F. Bontadina, U. Zo ̈phel H. Seidl, P.M. Cryan, 

and D.S. Blehert. 2010. White-nose syndrome fungus (Geomyces destructans) in 

bats, Europe. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 16: 1237–1242. 

29. Wilder, A.P, W.F. Frick, K.E. Langwig, and T.H. Kunz. 2011. Risk factors associated with white-nose syndrome among hibernating bat colonies. Biology Letters. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2011.0355. 

Æ