17974 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2011–0024; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–AY98 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Threatened Species Status 

for the Northern Long-Eared Bat With 

4(d) Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule, and interim rule with 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

threatened species status under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended, for the northern long-eared 

bat (Myotis septentrionalis), a bat 

species that occurs in 37 States, the 

District of Columbia, and 13 Canadian 

Provinces. The effect of this final rule 

will be to add the northern long-eared 

bat to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife. 

We are also establishing an interim 

rule under the authority of section 4(d) 

of the Act that provides measures that 

are necessary and advisable to provide 

for the conservation of the northern 

long-eared bat. We are seeking public 

comments on this interim rule, and we 

will publish either an affirmation of the 

interim rule or a final rule amending the 

interim rule after we consider all 

comments we receive. If you previously 

submitted comments or information on 

the proposed 4(d) rule we published on 

January 16, 2015, please do not resubmit 

them. We have incorporated them into 

the public record, and we will fully 

consider them in our final 

determination on the 4(d) rule. 

DATES: Effective dates: The final rule 

amending 50 CFR 17.11 and the interim 

rule amending 50 CFR 17.40 are both 

effective May 4, 2015. 

Comments on the interim rule 

amending 50 CFR 17.40: We will accept 

comments on the interim rule amending 

50 CFR 17.40 received or postmarked on 

or before July 1, 2015. Comments 

submitted electronically using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. 

ADDRESSES: Document availability: The 

final listing rule is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2011– 

0024 and at http://www.fws.gov/

midwest/Endangered. Comments and 

materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing the final listing rule, are 

available for public inspection at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, and by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Twin Cities Ecological Services Office, 

4101 American Blvd. East, Bloomington, 

MN 55425; telephone (612) 725–3548, 

ext. 2201; or facsimile (612) 725–3609. 

Comments on the interim rule 

amending 50 CFR 17.40: You may 

submit comments on the interim rule 

amending 50 CFR 17.40 by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter FWS–R5–ES–2011–0024, which is 

the docket number for this rulemaking. 

Then click on the Search button. Please 

ensure that you have located the correct 

document before submitting your 

comments. You may submit a comment 

by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R5–ES–2011– 

0024; Division of Policy, Performance, 

and Management Programs; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by one of the methods described 

above. We will post all comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Public Comments Solicited on 

the Interim 4(d) Rule section, below, for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Mandell, Deputy Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities 

Ecological Services Field Office, 4101 

American Blvd. East, Bloomington, MN 

55425; telephone (612) 725–3548, ext. 

2201; or facsimile (612) 725–3609. 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Final Listing Rule 

Why we need to publish a rule: Under 

the Endangered Species Act, a species 

may warrant protection through listing 

if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Listing a species as an 

endangered or threatened species can 

only be completed by issuing a rule. 

This rule will finalize the listing of the 

northern long-eared bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis) as a threatened species. 

The basis for our action: Under the 

Endangered Species Act, we can 

determine that a species is an 

endangered or threatened species based 

on any of five factors: (A) The present 

or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. We have determined that 

white-nose syndrome is the 

predominant threat to the species. 

Peer review and public comment: We 

sought comments from independent 

specialists to ensure that our 

designation is based on scientifically 

sound data, assumptions, and analyses. 

We invited these peer reviewers to 

comment on our listing proposal. We 

also considered all comments and 

information we received during the 

comment periods. 

Interim 4(d) Rule 

The need for the regulatory action and 

how the action will meet that need: 

Consistent with section 4(d) of the Act, 

this interim 4(d) rule provides measures 

that are tailored to our current 

understanding of the conservation needs 

of the northern long-eared bat. 

Statement of legal authority for the 

regulatory action: Under section 4(d) of 

the Act, the Secretary of the Interior has 

discretion to issue such regulations as 

she deems necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of the 

species. The Secretary also has the 

discretion to prohibit by regulation with 

respect to a threatened species, any act 

prohibited by section 9(a)(1) of the Act. 

Summary of the major provisions of 

the regulatory action: The interim 

species-specific 4(d) rule prohibits 

purposeful take of northern long-eared 

bats throughout the species’ range, 

except in instances of removal of 

northern long-eared bats from human 

structures and authorized capture and 

handling of northern long-eared bat by 

individuals permitted to conduct these 

same activities for other bats (for a 

period of 1 year after the effective date 

of the interim 4(d) rule). 

In areas not yet affected by white nose 

syndrome (WNS), a disease currently 

affecting many U.S. bat populations, all 

incidental take resulting from any 

otherwise lawful activity will be 

excepted from prohibition. 

In areas currently known to be 

affected by WNS, all incidental take 

prohibitions apply, except that take 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17975 

attributable to forest management 

practices, maintenance and limited 

expansion of transportation and utility 

rights-of-way, prairie habitat 

management, and limited tree removal 

projects shall be excepted from the take 

prohibition, provided these activities 

protect known maternity roosts and 

hibernacula. Further, removal of 

hazardous trees for the protection of 

human life or property shall be excepted 

from the take prohibition. 

Previous Federal Action 

Please refer to the proposed listing 

rule for the northern long-eared bat (78 

FR 61046; October 2, 2013) for a 

detailed description of previous Federal 

actions concerning this species. On 

October 2, 2013, we published in the 

Federal Register (78 FR 61046) a 

proposed rule to list the northern longeared bat as an endangered species 

under the Act. The proposed rule had a 

60-day comment period, ending on 

December 2, 2013. On December 2, 

2013, we extended this comment period 

through January 2, 2014 (78 FR 72058). 

On June 30, 2014, we announced a 6- 

month extension of the final 

determination on the proposed listing 

rule for northern long-eared bat, and we 

reopened the public comment period on 

the proposed rule for 60 days, ending 

August 29, 2014 (79 FR 36698). On 

November 18, 2014, we again reopened 

the comment period on the proposed 

listing for an additional 30 days, ending 

December 18, 2014 (79 FR 68657). 

During the comment period we received 

one request for a public hearing, which 

was held in Sundance, Wyoming, on 

December 2, 2014. On January 16, 2015, 

we published a proposed rule to create 

a species-specific rule under section 

4(d) of the Act (a ‘‘4(d) rule’’) that would 

provide measures that are necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the northern long-eared 

bat, if it were to be listed as a threatened 

species (80 FR 2371). At that time, we 

also reopened the public comment 

period on the October 2, 2013, proposed 

listing rule; we accepted public 

comments on both proposals for 60 

days, ending March 17, 2015. 

Background 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

The northern long-eared bat belongs 

to the order Chiroptera, suborder 

Microchiroptera, family 

Vespertilionidae, subfamily 

Vespertilioninae, genus Myotis, and 

subgenus Myotis (Caceres and Barclay 

2000, p. 1). The northern long-eared bat 

was considered a subspecies of Keen’s 

long-eared myotis (Myotis keenii) (Fitch 

and Schump 1979, p. 1), but was 

recognized as a distinct species by van 

Zyll de Jong in 1979 (1979, p. 993), 

based on geographic separation and 

difference in morphology (as cited in 

Caceres and Pybus 1997 p. 1; Caceres 

and Barclay 2000, p. 1; Nagorsen and 

Brigham 1993, p. 87; Whitaker and 

Hamilton 1998, p. 99; Whitaker and 

Mumford 2009, p. 207; Simmons 2005, 

p. 516). The northern long-eared bat is 

currently considered a monotypic 

species, with no subspecies described 

for this species (Caceres and Barclay 

2000, p. 1; Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, 

p. 90; Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 

214; van Zyll de Jong 1985, p. 94). 

Reynolds (2013, pers. comm.) stated that 

there have been very few genetic studies 

on this species; however, data collected 

in Ohio suggest relatively low levels of 

genetic differentiation across that State 

(Arnold 2007, p. 157). In addition, 

Johnson et al. (2014, upaginated) 

assessed nuclear genetic diversity at one 

site in New York and several sites in 

West Virginia, and found little evidence 

of population structure in northern 

long-eared bats at any scale. This 

species has been recognized by different 

common names, such as: Keen’s bat 

(Whitaker and Hamilton 1998, p. 99), 

northern myotis (Nagorsen and Brigham 

1993, p. 87; Whitaker and Mumford 

2009, p. 207), and the northern bat 

(Foster and Kurta 1999, p. 660). For the 

purposes of this finding, we refer to this 

species as the northern long-eared bat, 

and recognize it as a listable entity 

under the Act. 

A medium-sized bat species, the 

northern long-eared bat’s adult body 

weight averages 5 to 8 grams (g) (0.2 to 

0.3 ounces), with females tending to be 

slightly larger than males (Caceres and 

Pybus 1997, p. 3). Average body length 

ranges from 77 to 95 millimeters (mm) 

(3.0 to 3.7 inches (in)), tail length 

between 35 and 42 mm (1.3 to 1.6 in), 

forearm length between 34 and 38 mm 

(1.3 to 1.5 in), and wingspread between 

228 and 258 mm (8.9 to 10.2 in) 

(Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 1; Barbour 

and Davis 1969, p. 76). Pelage (fur) 

colors include medium to dark brown 

on its back; dark brown, but not black, 

ears and wing membranes; and tawny to 

pale-brown fur on the ventral side 

(Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, p. 87; 

Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 207). 

As indicated by its common name, the 

northern long-eared bat is distinguished 

from other Myotis species by its 

relatively long ears (average 17 mm (0.7 

in); Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 

207) that, when laid forward, extend 

beyond the nose up to 5 mm (0.2 in; 

Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 1). The 

tragus (projection of skin in front of the 

external ear) is long (average 9 mm (0.4 

in); Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 

207), pointed, and symmetrical 

(Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, p. 87; 

Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 207). 

There is an occasional tendency for the 

northern long-eared bat to exhibit a 

slight keel on the calcar (spur of 

cartilage arising from inner side of 

ankle; Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, p. 

87). This can add some uncertainty in 

distinguishing northern long-eared bats 

from other sympatric Myotis species 

(Lacki 2013, pers. comm.). Within its 

range, the northern long-eared bat can 

be confused with the little brown bat 

(Myotis lucifugus) or the western longeared myotis (Myotis evotis). The 

northern long-eared bat can be 

distinguished from the little brown bat 

by its longer ears, tapered and 

symmetrical tragus, slightly longer tail, 

and less glossy pelage (Caceres and 

Barclay 2000, p. 1; Kurta 2013, pers. 

comm.). The northern long-eared bat 

can be distinguished from the western 

long-eared myotis by its darker pelage 

and paler membranes (Caceres and 

Barclay 2000, p. 1). 

Distribution and Relative Abundance 

The northern long-eared bat ranges 

across much of the eastern and northcentral United States, and all Canadian 

provinces west to the southern Yukon 

Territory and eastern British Columbia 

(Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, p. 89; 

Caceres and Pybus 1997, p. 1; 

Environment Yukon 2011, p. 10) (see 

Figure 1, below). In the United States, 

the species’ range reaches from Maine 

west to Montana, south to eastern 

Kansas, eastern Oklahoma, Arkansas, 

and east to South Carolina (Whitaker 

and Hamilton 1998, p. 99; Caceres and 

Barclay 2000, p. 2; Simmons 2005, p. 

516; Amelon and Burhans 2006, pp. 71– 

72). The species’ range includes all or 

portions of the following 37 States and 

the District of Columbia: Alabama, 

Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, 

Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, 

Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 

New York, North Carolina, North 

Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, South Carolina, South 

Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, 

West Virginia, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming. 

The October 2, 2013, proposed listing 

rule included Florida within the range 

of the northern long-eared bat; however, 

since that time we have learned that the 

species was known from only a single 

historical winter (1954) record in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
17976 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Jackson County, Florida, and all other 

historical and recent surveys at this cave 

and 12 other caves (all in Jackson 

County) since this record was observed 

have not found the northern long-eared 

bat. Further, there are no known 

summer records for the State (Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission 2013, in litt.). Historically, 

the species has been most frequently 

observed in the northeastern United 

States and in the Canadian Provinces of 

Quebec and Ontario, with sightings 

increasing during swarming and 

hibernation periods (Caceres and 

Barclay 2000, p. 2). Much of the 

available data on northern long-eared 

bats are from winter surveys, although 

they are typically observed in low 

numbers because of their preference for 

inconspicuous roosts (Caceres and 

Pybus 1997, p. 2) (for more information 

on use of hibernacula, see Biology, 

below). More than 1,100 northern longeared bat hibernacula have been 

identified throughout the species’ range 

in the United States, although many 

hibernacula contain only a few (1 to 3) 

individuals (Whitaker and Hamilton 

1998, p. 100). Known hibernacula (sites 

with one or more winter records of 

northern long-eared bats) include: 

Alabama (2), Arkansas (41), Connecticut 

(8), Delaware (2), Georgia (3), Illinois 

(21), Indiana (25), Kentucky (119), 

Maine (3), Maryland (8), Massachusetts 

(7), Michigan (103), Minnesota (11), 

Missouri (more than 269), Nebraska (2), 

New Hampshire (11), New Jersey (7), 

New York (90), North Carolina (22), 

Oklahoma (9), Ohio (7), Pennsylvania 

(112), South Carolina, (2), South Dakota 

(21), Tennessee (58), Vermont (16), 

Virginia (8), West Virginia (104), and 

Wisconsin (67). Northern long-eared 

bats are documented in hibernacula in 

29 of the 37 States in the species’ range. 

Other States within the species’ range 

have no known hibernacula (due to no 

suitable hibernacula present, lack of 

survey effort, or existence of unknown 

retreats). 

For purposes of organization, the U.S. 

portion of the northern long-eared bat’s 

range is discussed below in four parts: 

eastern range, midwest range, southern 

range, and western range. In these 

sections, we have identified the species’ 

historical status, in addition to its 

current status within each State. For 

those States where white-nose 

syndrome (WNS) has been detected (see 

Table 1), we have assessed the impact 

the disease has had on the northern 

long-eared bat’s distribution and relative 

abundance to date. For a discussion on 

anticipated spread of WNS to currently 

unaffected States, see ‘‘White-nose 

Syndrome’’ and ‘‘Effects of White-nose 

Syndrome on the Northern Long-eared 

Bat’’ under the Factor C discussion. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 

Eastern Range 

For purposes of organization in this 

rule, the eastern geographic area 

includes the following States and the 

District of Columbia: Delaware, 

Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, 

West Virginia, New York, and Rhode 

Island. Historically, the northern longeared bat was widely distributed in the 

eastern part of its range (Caceres and 

Barclay 2000, p. 2). Prior to 

documentation of WNS, northern longeared bats were consistently caught 

during summer mist-net surveys and 

detected during acoustic surveys in the 

eastern United States (Service 2014, 

unpublished data). Northern long-eared 

bats continue to be distributed across 

much of the historical range, but there 

are many gaps within the range where 

bats are no longer detected or captured, 

and in other areas, their occurrence is 

sparse. Similar to summer distribution, 

northern long-eared bats were known to 

occur in many hibernacula throughout 

the East. Since WNS has been 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER02AP15.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17977 

documented, multiple hibernacula now 

have zero reported northern long-eared 

bats. Frick et al. (2015, p. 6) 

documented the local extinction of 

northern long-eared bats from 69 

percent of sites included in their 

analyses (468 sites where WNS has been 

present for at least 4 years in Vermont, 

New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, 

West Virginia, and Virginia). 

In Delaware, the species is rare, but 

has been found at two hibernacula 

within the State during winter or fall 

swarming periods. Summer mist-net 

surveys have documented 14 

individuals all from New Castle County, 

and there is also a historical record from 

this county in 1974 (Niederriter 2012, 

pers. comm.; Delaware Division of Fish 

and Wildlife 2014, in litt.). WNS was 

confirmed in the State in the winter of 

2009–2010, and WNS was confirmed in 

Delaware in the two northern long-eared 

bat hibernacula during the winters of 

2011–2012 and 2012–2013 (Delaware 

Division of Fish and Wildlife 2014, in 

litt.). Mortality of northern long-eared 

bats due to WNS has been documented 

at both of these hibernacula during 

winter surveys. 

In Connecticut, the northern longeared bat was historically one of the 

most commonly encountered bats in the 

State, and was documented Statewide 

(Dickson 2011, pers. comm.). WNS was 

first confirmed in Connecticut in the 

winter of 2008–2009. Prior to WNS 

detection in Connecticut, northern longeared bats were found in large numbers 

(e.g., often greater than 400 and up to 

1,000 individuals) in hibernacula; 

however, no northern long-eared bats 

were found in any of the eight known 

hibernacula in the State (where the 

species was found prior to WNS) in 

2012 or 2013 surveys (Service 2015, 

unpublished data). 

In Maine, three bat hibernacula are 

known, and northern long-eared bats 

have been observed in all of these sites. 

The species has also been found in the 

summer in Acadia National Park (DePue 

2012, unpublished data), where 

northern long-eared bats were fairly 

common in 2009–2010 (242 northern 

long-eared bats captured, comprising 27 

percent of the total captures for the 

areas surveyed) (National Park Service 

(NPS) 2010, unpublished data). Recent 

findings from Acadia National Park 

show a precipitous decline in the 

northern long-eared bat population in 

less than 4 years, based on mist-net 

surveys conducted 2008–2014 (NPS 

2014, in litt.). WNS was first confirmed 

in the State in the winter of 2010–2011. 

Prior to WNS, the northern long-eared 

bat was found in numbers greater than 

100 at two of the three regularly 

surveyed hibernacula; however, in 2013, 

only one northern long-eared bat was 

found during surveys conducted at all 

three of the State’s primary hibernacula 

(Maine Department of Inland Fisheries 

and Wildlife (MDIFW) 2013, in litt.). In 

addition, the northern long-eared bat 

was infrequently found in summer 

acoustic surveys conducted in the State 

in 2013, which contrasts with 

widespread, frequent acoustic 

detections of Myotis species and mist 

net captures of northern long-eared bats 

prior to WNS impact (MDIFW 2015, in 

litt.). 

In Maryland, there are eight known 

hibernacula for the northern long-eared 

bat, three of which are railroad tunnels 

(Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources (MD DNR) 2014, unpublished 

data). WNS was first confirmed in 

Maryland in the winter of 2009–2010. In 

all five of the known caves or mines in 

the State, the species is thought to be 

extirpated due to WNS (MD DNR 2014, 

unpublished data). It is unknown if the 

species is extirpated from the known 

railroad tunnel hibernacula in the State, 

primarily because the majority of bats in 

these hibernacula are not visible or 

accessible during winter hibernacula 

surveys; however, no northern longeared bats have been observed in 

accessible areas in these tunnel 

hibernacula during recent winter 

surveys (MD DNR 2014, unpublished 

data). Acoustic surveys conducted since 

2010 (pre- and post-WNS) in the 

western portion of Maryland have also 

demonstrated northern long-eared bat 

declines due to WNS (MD DNR 2014, 

unpublished data). 

In Massachusetts, there are seven 

known hibernacula. WNS was first 

confirmed in the State in the winter of 

2007–2008. Previous to WNS 

confirmation in the State, the northern 

long-eared bat was found in relatively 

larger numbers for the species in some 

hibernacula. In 2013 and 2014 winter 

surveys conducted in Massachusetts 

hibernacula, either zero or one northern 

long-eared bat individual were found in 

all known hibernacula (Service 2015, 

unpublished data). 

In New Hampshire, northern longeared bats were known to inhabit at 

least nine mines and two World War II 

bunkers, and have been found in 

summer surveys (Brunkhurst 2012, 

unpublished data). The northern longeared bat was one of the most common 

species captured (27 percent of 

captures) in the White Mountain 

National Forest in 1993–1994 (Sasse and 

Pekins 1996, pp. 93–95). WNS was 

confirmed in the State in the winter of 

2008–2009. Data from both hibernacula 

surveys and summer surveys have 

shown a dramatic decline (99 percent) 

in northern long-eared bat numbers 

compared to pre-WNS numbers (NHFG 

2013, in litt.). Results from hibernacula 

surveys conducted at four of New 

Hampshire’s hibernacula in 2014 found 

no northern long-eared bats; previous to 

WNS infection, the species was found in 

relatively high numbers (e.g., 75–127 

individuals) in most of these 

hibernacula. Furthermore, a researcher 

conducted mist-net surveys over 7 years 

pre-and post-WNS (2005–2011) at Surry 

Mountain Lake in Cheshire County, 

New Hampshire, and found a 98 percent 

decline in capture rate of northern longeared bats (Moosman et al. 2013, p. 

554). 

In New Jersey, one of the seven 

known northern long-eared bat 

hibernacula is a cave, and the rest are 

mines (Markuson 2011, unpublished 

data). Northern long-eared bats 

consisted of 6 to 14 percent of the total 

number of summer captures at Wallkill 

River National Wildlife Refuge from 

2006–2010 (Kitchell and Wight 2011, in 

litt.). WNS was first confirmed in the 

State in the winter of 2008–2009. There 

have been limited consistent 

hibernacula and summer surveys 

conducted in the State to enable 

analyses of northern long-eared bat 

population trends pre- and post-WNS. 

Although small sample sizes precluded 

statistical comparison, Kitchell and 

Wight (2011, in litt.) and Bohrman and 

Fecske (2013, p. 77) documented a 

slight, overall decline in annual 

northern long-eared bat mist-net 

captures at Great Swamp National 

Wildlife Refuge following the outbreak 

of WNS. For 3 years prior to the 

disease’s local emergence (2006–2008), 

northern long-eared bats represented 8– 

9 percent of total bats captured. 

Although the northern long-eared bat 

capture rate rose to 14 percent in 2009, 

it dropped to 6 percent in 2010, and 

further to 2 percent in 2012, suggesting 

a downward trend. 

Historically, the northern long-eared 

bat was found in both summer and 

winter surveys conducted across 

Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Game 

Commission (PGC) 2014, in litt.). 

Historically, the species was found in 

112 hibernacula in the State. Fall swarm 

trapping conducted in September and 

October of 1988–1989, 1990–1991, and 

1999–2000 at two hibernacula with 

large historical numbers of northern 

long-eared bats had total captures 

ranging from 6 to 30 bats per hour, 

which demonstrated that the species 

was abundant at these hibernacula (PGC 

2012, unpublished data). WNS was first 

confirmed in the State in 2008–2009. 

Since that time, northern long-eared bat 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
17978 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

winter survey numbers declined by 99 

percent, in comparison to pre-WNS 

numbers (PGC 2014, in litt.; PGC 2014, 

unpublished data). Currently, the 

northern long-eared bat can still be 

found in portions of Pennsylvania 

during the summer; however, the 

number of summer captures continues 

to decline. The number of summer 

captures has declined an additional 15 

percent annually, amounting to an 

overall decline of 76 percent (not 

including survey information from 

2014) from pre-WNS capture rates. The 

PGC stated that the data support that the 

decline is attributable to WNS, rather 

than a lack of habitat or other direct 

impacts (PGC 2014, in litt.). 

In Vermont, the northern long-eared 

bat was once one of the State’s most 

common bats, but is now its rarest 

(Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department 

(VFWD) 2014, in litt.). Prior to 2009, the 

species was found in 16 hibernacula, 

totaling an estimated 458 animals, 

which was thought to be an 

underestimate due to the species’ 

preference for hibernating in 

hibernacula cracks and crevices (VFWD 

2014, unpublished data). WNS was 

confirmed in Vermont in the winter of 

2007–2008. According to the VFWD, it 

is believed that all of the State’s caves 

and mines that serve as bat hibernacula 

are infected with WNS. State-wide 

hibernacula, summer mist-net, and 

acoustic and fall swarm data collected 

in 2010 documented 93–100 percent 

declines in northern long-eared bat 

populations post-WNS (VFWD 2014, in 

litt.). In most recent surveys, few 

northern long-eared bats were found in 

three hibernacula in 2012–2013; 

however no individuals were found in 

any surveyed hibernacula in 2013–2014 

winter surveys. Prior to WNS detection, 

summer capture data (from 2001–2007) 

indicated that northern long-eared bats 

comprised 19 percent of bats captured, 

and the northern long-eared bat was 

considered the second most common 

bat species in the State (Smith 2011, 

unpublished data). As for fall swarm 

data, in 2013, capture surveys at Aeolus 

Cave captured and identified 465 bats, 

only 3 of which were northern longeared bats (VFWD 2014, in litt.). 

In Virginia, the northern long-eared 

bat was historically considered ‘‘fairly 

common’’ during summer mist-net 

surveys; however, they were considered 

‘‘uncommon’’ during winter hibernacula 

surveys and have been found in eight 

hibernacula (Reynolds 2012, 

unpublished data). WNS was first 

confirmed in Virginia in 2008–2009. 

Prior to WNS detection in the State 

(prior to 2011), 1.4 northern long-eared 

bats were captured per 1,000 units of 

effort during summer mist-net surveys 

conducted at sites Statewide. In 2011, 

there was an increase in captures, with 

3.1 bats captured per unit effort. 

However, in 2013 in the same survey 

areas, 0.05 northern long-eared bats 

were captured per 1,000 units of effort, 

which amounts to a 96 percent decline 

in the population (Virginia Department 

of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) 

2014, unpublished data). In 2013, over 

85 percent of summer surveys resulted 

in no northern long-eared bat captures. 

Fall swarm trends have been similar, 

with capture rates per hour declining 

from 3.6 in 2009, to 0.3 in 2012, 

amounting to a decline of 92 percent 

(VDGIF 2014, unpublished data). 

In West Virginia, northern long-eared 

bats were historically found regularly in 

hibernacula surveys, but typically in 

small numbers (fewer than 20 

individuals) in caves (Stihler 2012, 

unpublished data). The species has also 

been found in 41 abandoned coal mines 

during fall swarming surveys conducted 

from 2002 to 2011, in the New River 

Gorge National River and Gauley River 

National Recreation Area, both managed 

by the NPS; the largest number observed 

was 157 in one of the NPS mines (NPS 

2011, unpublished data). The species 

has been found in 104 total hibernacula 

in the State. WNS was first documented 

in hibernacula in the eastern portion of 

West Virginia in the winter of 2008– 

2009. Similar to some other WNSaffected States, northern long-eared bats 

can still be found across the State 

(similar pre- and post-WNS 

distribution); however, it is unclear if 

northern long-eared bat abundance is 

greater in West Virginia than other 

WNS-affected States and, therefore, 

whether WNS impacts are less severe to 

date. Across the State, northern longeared bat summer captures decreased 

from 32.5 percent in 2008, and 33.8 

percent in 2011, to around 20 percent 

for all subsequent years (West Virginia 

Division of Natural Resources 2014, 

unpublished data). However, percent 

capture data alone does not indicate 

whether the northern long-eared bat is 

declining in the State, especially if all 

bat captures are declining, as it only 

indicates their abundance relative to 

other bat species. Standardized catch 

per unit effort or other similar data are 

necessary to make population trend 

comparisons over time. Francl et al. 

(2012, p. 35) standardized data by 

captures per net night from 37 counties 

(31 counties pre-WNS (1997–2008) and 

8 counties in 2010) in West Virginia, 

and had 1.4 captures per net-night preWNS and 0.3 captures per net night 

post-WNS. At one site monitored over 

time (Monongahela National Forest), 

average northern long-eared bat calls per 

mile of acoustic route declined by 31– 

81 percent (depending on software 

package used) from 2009–2012 (Johnson 

et al. 2014, unpaginated). Similarly, 

mist-net capture rates declined by 93 

percent from 2006–2008 to 2014 

(Johnson et al. 2014, unpaginated). 

Overall, although northern long-eared 

bats are still captured across West 

Virginia (i.e., they have a similar 

distribution as they did pre-WNS), there 

are marked declines in capture rates. 

In New York, the northern long-eared 

bat was historically one of the most 

widely distributed hibernating bat 

species in the State, identified in 90 out 

of 146 known bat hibernacula (New 

York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 

2014, in litt.). The species has also been 

observed in summer mist-net and 

acoustic surveys. Summer mist-net 

surveys conducted in New York 

(primarily for Indiana bat (Myotis 

sodalis) presence-absence surveys) from 

2003–2008 resulted in a range of 0.21– 

0.47 northern long-eared bats per net 

night, and declined to 0.01 bats per net 

night in 2011 (Herzog 2012, 

unpublished data). New York is 

considered the epicenter for WNS, and 

the disease was first found in the State 

in the winter of 2006–2007. The 

NYSDEC confirmed that the decline 

experienced by this species due to WNS 

is both widespread and severe in the 

State (NYSDEC 2014, in litt.). Most 

hibernacula surveys conducted after the 

onset of WNS (2008 through 2013) 

found either one or zero northern longeared bats (Service 2015, unpublished 

data). There are few long-term data sets 

for northern long-eared bats across the 

State, but one such site is the Fort Drum 

Military Installation, where acoustic 

surveys and mist-net surveys have 

monitored summer populations before 

(2003–2007) and after the onset of WNS 

(2008–2010). Ford et al. (2011, p. 130) 

reported significant declines (pre- vs. 

post-WNS) in mean acoustic call rates 

for northern long-eared bats as a part of 

this study at Fort Drum. No northern 

long-eared bats have been captured in 

mist-nets on Fort Drum since 2011. 

There are two known hibernacula for 

bats in Rhode Island; however, no 

northern long-eared bats have been 

observed at either of these. There is also 

limited summer data available for the 

State; however, there were six summer 

records of northern long-eared bats from 

2011 mist-net surveys in Washington 

County (Brown 2012, unpublished 

data). 

We have no information regarding the 

species in the District of Columbia; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17979 

however WNS is presumed to be 

impacting the species because WNS 

occurs in all neighboring States. 

Midwest Range 

For purposes of organization in this 

rule, the midwestern geographic area 

includes the following States: Missouri, 

Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, 

Wisconsin, and Minnesota. The species 

is captured during summer mist-net 

surveys in varying abundance 

throughout most of the Midwest, and 

historically was considered one of the 

more frequently encountered bat species 

in the region. However, the species was 

historically observed infrequently and 

in small numbers during hibernacula 

surveys throughout the majority of its 

range in the Midwest. WNS has since 

been documented in Illinois, Indiana, 

Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and 

Missouri. In Minnesota and Iowa, the 

presence of the fungus that causes WNS 

has been confirmed, but the disease 

itself has not been observed. Overall, 

clear declines in winter populations of 

northern long-eared bats have been 

observed in Ohio and Illinois (Service 

2014, unpublished data). 

There are no firm population size 

estimates for the northern long-eared bat 

rangewide; nor do we have the benefit 

of a viability analysis; however, a rough 

estimate of the population size in a 

portion of the Midwest has been 

calculated. That estimate shows there 

may have been more than four million 

bats in the six-State area that includes 

the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Ohio, Michigan, and Missouri (Meinke 

2015, pers. comm.). This population 

size estimate (for the northern longeared bat) was developed for the 

Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species 

Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and 

was calculated by adjusting the 2013 

Indiana bat winter population size 

(within the 6 States) based on the ratio 

of northern long-eared bats compared to 

Indiana bats in summer mist-net 

surveys. This estimate has limitations, 

however. The principal limitation is 

that the estimate is based on data that 

were primarily gathered prior to the 

onset of WNS in the Midwest; thus 

declines that have occurred in WNSaffected States are not reflected in the 

estimated number. Taking into account 

the documented effects of WNS in the 

Midwest to date (declines currently 

limited primarily to Ohio and Illinois), 

there may still be several million bats 

within the six-State area. Because postWNS survey numbers for the species 

have not been included in this 

population estimate and WNS continues 

to spread throughout these 6 States, 

there is uncertainty as to the accuracy 

of this estimate, and it should be 

considered a rough estimate. 

The northern long-eared bat has been 

documented in 76 of 114 counties in 

Missouri; its abundance in the summer 

is variable across the State and is likely 

related to the presence of suitable forest 

habitat and fidelity to historical summer 

areas. There are approximately 269 

known northern long-eared bat 

hibernacula that are concentrated in the 

karst landscapes (characterized by 

underground drainage systems with 

sinkholes and caves) of central, eastern, 

and southern Missouri (Missouri 

Department of Conservation 2014, in 

litt.). Similar to other more 

predominantly karst areas, the northern 

long-eared bat is difficult to find in 

Missouri caves, and thus is rarely found 

in large numbers. Pseudogymnoascus 

destructans (Pd) was first detected in 

Missouri in the winter of 2009–2010; 

however, the majority of sites in the 

State that have been confirmed with 

WNS were confirmed more recently, 

during the winter of 2013–2014. Due to 

low numbers historically found in 

hibernacula in the State, it is difficult to 

determine if changes in count numbers 

are due to natural fluctuations or to 

WNS. However, there was one northern 

long-eared bat mortality observed 

during the winter of 2013–2014 (WNS 

Workshop 2014, pers. comm.). 

Furthermore, Elliott (2015, pers. comm.) 

noted that surveyors are detecting 

indicators of decline (changes in bat 

behavior) as well as actual declines in 

numbers of northern long-eared bats in 

hibernacula in the State. As for summer 

survey data, mist-net and acoustic 

surveys conducted across Missouri in 

the summer of 2014 indicate continued 

distribution throughout the State. 

However, there were fewer encounters 

with northern long-eared bats in some 

parts of the State in 2014, as compared 

to previous years. Specifically, surveys 

conducted on the Mark Twain National 

Forest in 2014 indicate a decline in the 

overall number of captures of all bat 

species, including fewer northern longeared bats than expected (Amelon 2014, 

pers. comm.; Harris 2014, pers. comm.). 

Further, in southwest Missouri, 

northern long-eared bats have been 

encountered during mist-net surveys 

conducted on the Camp Crowder 

Training Site in 2006, 2013, and 2014. 

Overall, the number of northern longeared bat captures has decreased since 

2006, relative to the level of survey 

effort (number of net nights) (Missouri 

Army National Guard 2014, pp. 2–3; 

Robbins and Parris 2013, pp. 2–4, 

Robbins et al. 2014, p. 5). Additionally, 

during a 2-year survey (2013–2014) at a 

State park in north-central Missouri, 108 

northern long-eared bats were captured 

during the first year, whereas only 32 

were captured during the second year, 

with a similar level of effort between 

years (Zimmerman 2014, unpublished 

data). 

In Illinois, northern long-eared bats 

have been found in both winter 

hibernacula counts and summer mistnet surveys. Northern long-eared bats 

have been documented in 21 

hibernacula in Illinois, most of which 

are in the southern portion of the State 

(Davis 2014, p. 5). Counts of more than 

100 bats have been documented in some 

hibernacula, and a high of 640 bats was 

observed in a southern Illinois 

hibernaculum in 2005; however, much 

lower numbers of northern long-eared 

bats have been observed in most Illinois 

hibernacula (Service 2015, unpublished 

data). WNS was first discovered in the 

State during the winter of 2012–2013. 

Mortality of northern long-eared bats 

was observed 1 year later, during the 

winter of 2013–2014, at two of the 

State’s major hibernacula, which are in 

the central part of the State. At one 

hibernaculum, there was a drop-off in 

numbers of northern long-eared bats 

observed over the winter, with 371 

individuals occupying the 

hibernaculum in November of 2013, and 

by March of 2014, there were 10 

individuals, which amounts to a 97 

percent decline (Davis 2014, pp. 6–18). 

At the other hibernaculum, in March of 

2013, there were 716 northern longeared bats counted; in November of 

2013, there were 171 individuals; and in 

March of 2014, there were 3 individuals, 

with a decline of over 99 percent (Davis 

2014, pp. 6–18). 

During the summer, northern longeared bats have been observed in 

landscapes with a variety of forest cover 

throughout Illinois. Surveys conducted 

across the State, related to highway 

projects and research activities, resulted 

in the capture of northern long-eared 

bats in moderately forested counties in 

western and eastern Illinois (e.g., 

Adams, Brown, and Edgar Counties), as 

well as in northern counties where 

forests are highly limited (e.g., Will and 

Kankakee Counties) (Mengelkoch 2014, 

unpublished data; Powers 2014, 

unpublished data). Pre-WNS, northern 

long-eared bats were regularly caught in 

mist-net surveys in the Shawnee 

National Forest in southern Illinois 

(Kath 2013, pers. comm.). The average 

number of northern long-eared bats 

caught during surveys between 1999 

and 2011 at Oakwood Bottoms in the 

Shawnee National Forest was fairly 

consistent (Carter 2012, pers. comm.). 

Summer bat surveys in 2007 and 2009 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
17980 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

at Scott Air Force Base in St. Clair 

County resulted in a low numbers of 

captures (a few individuals) of northern 

long-eared bats, and, in 2014, no 

northern long-eared bats were 

encountered (Department of the Air 

Force 2007, pp. 10–14; Department of 

the Air Force 2010, pp. 11–12). Overall, 

summer surveys from Illinois have not 

documented a decline due to WNS to 

date. 

In Iowa, there are only summer mistnet records for the northern long-eared 

bat, and the species has not been 

documented in hibernacula in the State. 

Northern long-eared bats have been 

recorded during many mist-net surveys 

since the 1970s. Recent records include 

documented captures in 13 of 99 

counties across the central and 

southeastern portions of the State. In 

2011, 8 individuals (including 3 

lactating females) were captured in 

west-central Iowa (Howell 2011, 

unpublished data). During summer 

2014, one nonreproductive female was 

tracked to a roost in Fremont County in 

southwest Iowa (Environmental 

Solutions and Innovations, Inc. 2014, 

pp. 52–56). In Scott County, 

southeastern Iowa, four female northern 

long-eared bats (two pregnant and two 

nonreproductive) were captured in June 

2014, along the Wapsi River (Chenger 

and Tyburec 2014, p. 6). WNS has not 

been detected in Iowa to date; however, 

the fungus that causes WNS was first 

found at a hibernaculum in Iowa in the 

winter of 2011–2012. 

Northern long-eared bats have been 

observed in both winter hibernacula 

surveys and, more commonly, in 

summer surveys in Indiana. Indiana has 

25 known hibernacula with winter 

records of one or more northern longeared bat. However, it is difficult to find 

large numbers of individuals in caves 

and mines during hibernation in 

Indiana (Whitaker and Mumford 2009, 

p. 208). Therefore, reliable winter 

population estimates are largely lacking 

in Indiana. WNS was confirmed in the 

State in the winter of 2010–2011. 

Although population trends are difficult 

to assess because of historically low 

numbers, mortality of northern longeared bats due to WNS has been 

confirmed in the State (WNS Workshop 

2014, pers. comm.). Historically, the 

northern long-eared bat was considered 

common throughout much of Indiana, 

and was the fourth or fifth most 

abundant bat species captured during 

summer surveys in the State in 2009. 

The species has been captured in at 

least 51 of 92 counties, often captured 

in mist-nets along streams, and was the 

most common bat taken by trapping at 

mine entrances (Whitaker and Mumford 

2009, pp. 207–208). The abundance of 

northern long-eared bats appears to vary 

geographically within Indiana during 

the summer. For example, during three 

summers (1990, 1991, and 1992) of mistnetting in the northern half of Indiana, 

37 northern long-eared bats were 

captured at 22 of 127 survey sites, and 

they only represented 4 percent of all 

bats captured (King 1993, p. 10). In 

contrast, northern long-eared bats were 

the most commonly captured bat 

species (38 percent of all bats captured) 

during three summers (2006, 2007, and 

2008) of mist-netting on two State 

forests in south-central Indiana (Sheets 

et al. 2013, p. 193). The differences in 

abundance in north versus south 

Indiana are due to there being few 

hibernacula in northern Indiana; 

consequently, migration distances to 

suitable hibernacula are great, and the 

species is not as common in summer 

surveys in the northern as in the 

southern portion of the State (Kurta 

2013, in litt.). Long-term summer mistnetting surveys in Indiana have started 

to show a potential downward trend in 

northern long-eared bat numbers (e.g., 

Indianapolis airport project, Interstate 

Highway 69 project; Service 2015, 

unpublished data); however, there was 

fluctuation in the count numbers from 

these surveys prior to WNS detection in 

the State, and it may be too early to 

confirm a downward trend based on 

these data. In Indiana, the Hardwood 

Ecosystem Experiment has collected 

summer mist-net data from 2006 

through 2014 for the northern longeared bat in Morgan-Monroe and 

Yellowwood State Forests, and has 

found consistent numbers of bats 

captured to date (Service 2015, 

unpublished data). 

In Ohio, there are seven known 

hibernacula (Norris 2014, unpublished 

data) used by northern long-eared bat, 

and the species is regularly collected 

Statewide as incidental catches in 

summer mist-net surveys for Indiana 

bats (Boyer 2012, pers. comm.). WNS 

was first detected in the State in the 

winter of 2010–2011. Two hibernacula 

in Ohio contained approximately 90 

percent of the State’s overall winter bat 

population prior to WNS detection. The 

pre-WNS combined population average 

(5 years of survey data) for both sites 

was 282 northern long-eared bats, which 

declined to 17 northern long-eared bats 

in winter 2013–2014 (post-WNS). This 

amounts to a decline of northern longeared bats from pre-WNS numbers of 90 

percent in one of the hibernacula and 

100 percent in the other (Norris 2014, 

pp. 19–20; Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources (ODNR) 2014, unpublished 

data). The (ODNR) conducted Statewide 

summer acoustic surveys along driving 

transects across the State from 2011 to 

2014. Although they have not yet 

analyzed calls for individual species, 

such as the northern long-eared bat, 

initial results indicate a 56 percent 

decline in recorded Myotis bat species’ 

calls over the 3-year period (ODNR 

2014, unpublished data). Capture rates 

from mist-net surveys, which were 

primarily conducted to determine 

Indiana bat presence, were conducted 

pre-WNS detection in Ohio (2007–2011) 

and were compared to capture rates 

post-WNS (2012–2013), and it was 

found that capture rates of northern 

long-eared bats declined by 58 percent 

per mist-net site post-WNS (Service 

2015, unpublished data). Several parks 

in Summit County, Ohio, have been 

conducting mist-net surveys for 

northern long-eared bats (among other 

bat species) since 2004 (Summit Metro 

Parks 2014, in litt.), with numbers 

fluctuating. Their data noted a potential 

slight decline in northern long-eared bat 

numbers prior to WNS (however, there 

was a slight increase in 2011), and after 

WNS was detected in the area, a sharp 

decline was documented in capture 

rates. In surveys conducted in 2013 and 

2014, no northern long-eared bats were 

captured at any of the parks surveyed 

(where the species was previously 

found; Summit Metro Parks 2014, in 

litt.). 

In Michigan, the northern long-eared 

bat is known from 36 (physical 

detections in 33 counties and acoustic 

detections from 3 additional counties) of 

83 counties and is commonly 

encountered in parts of the northern 

Lower Peninsula and portions of the 

Upper Peninsula (Kurta 1982, p. 301; 

Kurta 2013, pers. comm.; Bohrman 

2015, pers. comm.). WNS was first 

confirmed in Michigan in the winter of 

2014–2015. Cave bat mortality was 

documented in 2014–2015, although 

mortality was not specifically confirmed 

for northern long-eared bats. The 

majority of hibernacula in Michigan are 

in the northern and western Upper 

Peninsula; therefore, there are very few 

cave-hibernating bats in general in the 

southern half of the Lower Peninsula 

during the summer because the distance 

to hibernacula is too great (Kurta 1982, 

pp. 301–302). It is thought that the few 

bats that do spend the summer in the 

southern half of the Lower Peninsula 

may hibernate in caves or mines in 

neighboring States (Kurta 1982, pp. 

301–302). 

In Wisconsin, the northern long-eared 

bat was historically reported as one of 

the least abundant bats, based on 

hibernacula surveys, acoustic surveys, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17981 

and summer mist-netting efforts 

(Amelon and Burhans 2006, pp. 71–72; 

Redell 2011, pers. comm.). However, 

summer surveys conducted in 2014 

revealed a more widespread distribution 

than previously thought (Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) 2014, unpublished data). In the 

summer of 2014, WDNR radio-tracked 

12 female northern long-eared bats in 

four regions in the State and collected 

information on selected roost tree 

species and characteristics (WNDR 

2014, unpublished data). In addition, 

acoustic and mist-net data was collected 

by a pipeline project proponent in 2014, 

which resulted in new records for the 

species in many surveyed areas along a 

corridor from the northwest part 

through the southeast part of the State 

(WDNR 2014, unpublished data). The 

northern long-eared bat has been 

observed in 67 hibernacula in the State. 

WNS was confirmed in Wisconsin in 

the winter of 2013–2014. A recent 

population viability analysis in 

Wisconsin found that ‘‘there are no 

known natural refugia or highly 

resistant sites on the landscape, which 

will likely lead to statewide extinction 

of the species once WNS infects the 

major hibernacula’’ (Peery et al. 2013, 

unpublished data; WDNR 2014, in litt.). 

The northern long-eared bat is known 

from 11 hibernacula in Minnesota. WNS 

has not been detected in Minnesota; 

however, the fungus that causes WNS 

was detected in 2011–2012. Prior to 

2014, there was little information on 

northern long-eared bat summer 

populations in the State. In 2014, 

passive acoustic surveys conducted at a 

new proposed mining area in central St. 

Louis County detected the presence of 

northern long-eared bats at each of 13 

sites sampled, accounting for 

approximately 14 percent of all 

recorded bat calls (Smith et al. 2014, pp. 

3–4). Mist-net surveys in 2014 at seven 

sites on Camp Ripley Training Center, 

Morrison County, resulted in capture of 

4 northern long-eared bats (5 percent of 

total captures), and at five sites on the 

Superior National Forest, Lake and St. 

Louis Counties, resulted in capture of 24 

northern long-eared bats (55 percent of 

total captures) (Catton 2014, pp. 2–3). 

Acoustic and mist-net data were 

collected by a pipeline project 

proponent in 2014, which surveyed a 

300-mile (mi) (483-kilometer (km)) 

corridor through the northern third of 

the State. Positive detections were 

recorded for Hubbard, Cass, Crow Wing, 

Aitkin, and Carlton Counties, and 

northern long-eared bats were the most 

common species captured by mist-net 

(Merjent 2014, unpublished data). Mistnet surveys were conducted the 

previous year (2013) on the Kawishiwi 

District of the Superior National Forest, 

and resulted in capture of 13 northern 

long-eared bats (38 percent of total 

captures) over nine nights of netting at 

eight sites (Grandmaison et al. 2013, pp. 

7–8). 

Southern Range 

For purposes of organization in this 

rule, southern geographic area includes: 

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

Oklahoma, South Carolina, and 

Tennessee. In the South, the northern 

long-eared bat is considered more 

common in States such as Kentucky and 

Tennessee, and less common in the 

southern extremes of its range (e.g., 

Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina). 

The absence of widespread survey 

efforts in several States is likely limiting 

the known range of the species, as well 

as information on its relative abundance 

(Armstrong 2015, pers. comm.). In the 

southern part of the species’ range, 

Kentucky is the only State with 

Statewide survey data prior to 2010, 

primarily as a result of survey efforts for 

other listed bats species, such as the 

Indiana bat. WNS has been documented 

at many northern long-eared bat 

hibernacula in this region, with 

mortality confirmed at many sites. 

Northern long-eared bats were 

historically observed in the majority of 

hibernacula in Kentucky and have been 

a commonly captured species during 

summer surveys (Lacki and Hutchinson 

1999, p. 11; Hemberger 2015, pers. 

comm.). The northern long-eared bat has 

been documented throughout the 

majority of Kentucky, with historical 

records in 91 of its 120 counties. Eightyfive counties have summer records, and 

68 of those include reproductive records 

(i.e., captures of juveniles or pregnant, 

lactating, or post-lactating adult 

females) (Hemberger 2015, pers. 

comm.). WNS was first observed in 

Kentucky in 2011. Currently there are 

more than 60 known WNS-infected 

northern long-eared bat hibernacula in 

the State (Kentucky Department of Fish 

and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) 2014, 

unpublished data). Bat mortality at 

infected sites was first documented in 

2013, and increased in 2014 (KDFWR 

2014, unpublished report). However, 

population trends are difficult to assess 

as northern long-eared bat numbers in 

these hibernacula have historically been 

variable. Summer survey data for 

Kentucky lack a standardized unit of 

effort and, therefore, cannot be used to 

assess population trends. However, 

Silvis et al. (2015, p. 6) documented 

significant summer population declines 

within four maternity colonies on Fort 

Knox Military Installation during their 

3-year study (from 2012–2014), 

presumably due to WNS. 

In Tennessee, northern long-eared 

bats have been observed in both summer 

mist-net surveys and winter hibernacula 

counts. Summer mist-net surveys from 

2002 through 2013 resulted in the 

capture of more than 1,000 individuals, 

including males and juveniles or 

pregnant, lactating, or post-lactating 

adult females (Flock 2014, unpublished 

data). During the winter of 2009–2010, 

the Tennessee Wildlife Resource 

Agency (TWRA) began tracking 

northern long-eared bat populations and 

has since documented northern longeared bats in 58 hibernacula, with 

individual hibernaculum populations 

ranging from 1 to 136 individuals 

(TWRA 2014, unpublished data). 

According to TWRA, Tennessee has 

over 9,000 caves and less than 2 percent 

of those have been surveyed, which led 

them to suggest that there could be 

additional unknown northern longeared bat hibernacula in the State 

(TWRA 2013, in litt.). WNS was first 

documented in Tennessee in the winter 

of 2009–2010. WNS-related mortality 

was documented (including northern 

long-eared bat mortality) in 2014 (WNS 

Workshop 2014, pers. comm.); however, 

there is no pre-WNS data from these 

sites, and we cannot draw any 

conclusions regarding population trends 

based on hibernacula surveys. TWRA 

(2013, in litt.) indicates that summer 

mist-netting data for the eastern portion 

of the State showed a pre-WNS (2000– 

2008) capture frequency of 33 percent 

and post-WNS (2010–2012) capture 

frequency of 31 percent. These data do 

not have a standardized unit of effort, 

and, therefore, they cannot be used to 

assess population trends. Conversely, 

Lamb (2014, pers. comm.) observed 

declines in summer capture trends of 

several species of bats, including the 

northern long-eared bat, at Arnold Air 

Force Base in south-central Tennessee 

from 1998 to 2014. In the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park, 2014 capture 

rates of northern long-eared bats in 

comparison to 2009–2012 declined by 

71 to 94 percent (across all sites) based 

on unit of effort comparisons (NPS 

2014, in litt.; Indiana State University 

2015, in litt.). 

In 2000, during sampling of bat 

populations in the Kisatchie National 

Forest, Louisiana, three northern longeared bats, including two males and one 

lactating female, were collected. These 

were the first official records of the 

species from Louisiana, and the 

presence of a reproductive female likely 

represents a resident summer colony 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
17982 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(Crnkovic 2003, p. 715). Northern longeared bats have not been documented 

using caves in Louisiana, including the 

five known caves that occur within 54 

miles (87 km) of the collection site 

(Crnkovic 2003, p. 715). Neither WNS 

nor the fungus that cause WNS has been 

detected in Louisiana to date. 

In Georgia, northern long-eared bat 

winter records are rare (Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources (GA 

DNR) 2014, in litt.). However, this 

species is commonly captured during 

summer mist-net surveys (GA DNR 

2014, in litt.). Twenty-four summer 

records were documented between 2007 

and 2011. Mist-net surveys were 

conducted in the Chattahoochee 

National Forest in 2001–2002 and 2006– 

2007, with 51 total individual records 

for the species (Morris 2012, 

unpublished data). WNS was first 

detected in the State in the winter of 

2012–2013. With historically small 

numbers of northern long-eared bats 

found in hibernacula surveys in 

Georgia, we cannot draw conclusions 

regarding population trends based on 

hibernacula surveys. WNS-related 

mortality has been documented in cave 

bats in the State; however, northern 

long-eared bat mortality has not been 

documented to date. 

Northern long-eared bats have been 

documented in 22 hibernacula in North 

Carolina. All known hibernacula are 

caves or mines located in the western 

part of the State (North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission 2014, 

unpublished data), although summer 

records for the species exist for both the 

eastern and western parts of the State. 

In the summer of 2007, six northern 

long-eared bats were captured in 

Washington County, North Carolina 

(Morris et al. 2009, p. 356). Both adults 

and juveniles were captured, suggesting 

that there is a reproducing resident 

population (Morris et al. 2009, p. 359). 

Reproductive females and adult males 

have recently been documented in the 

northeastern part of the State. Mistnetting and acoustic data indicate that 

the northern long-eared bat may be 

active almost year-round in eastern 

portions of the State, likely due to mild 

winter temperatures and insect 

availability in coastal counties (North 

Carolina Department of Transportation 

2014, in litt.). In North Carolina, WNS 

was first documented in the winter of 

2008–2009. Northern long-eared bats 

have declined by 95 percent in 

hibernacula where WNS has been 

present for 2 or more years, with smaller 

declines documented in hibernacula 

infected for less than 2 years (Weeks 

and Graeter 2014, pers. comm.). 

Northern long-eared bats are known 

from the mountain region of three 

counties in northwestern South 

Carolina: Oconee, Pickens, and 

Greenville. There are two known 

northern long-eared bat hibernacula in 

the State: one is a cave that had 26 

northern long-eared bats present in 

1995, but has not been surveyed since, 

and the other is a tunnel where only one 

bat was found in 2011 (Bunch 2011, 

unpublished data). In South Carolina, 

WNS was first documented in the 

winter of 2012–2013. Bat mortality due 

to WNS has not been documented to 

date. Winter northern long-eared bat 

records are infrequent in the State. 

When present in hibernacula counts, 

their numbers range from 24 (1995 

survey of a Pickens County 

hibernaculum) to single records in 

Oconee County (South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources 2015, 

in litt.). Thus, population trends cannot 

be determined based on hibernacula 

surveys, due to historically low 

numbers of northern long-eared bats 

found. 

Northern long-eared bats are known 

from 41 hibernacula in Arkansas, 

although there are typically few 

individuals (e.g., fewer than 10 

individuals) observed (Sasse 2012, 

unpublished data). Saugey et al. (1993, 

p. 104) reported the northern long-eared 

bat to be rather common during fall 

swarming at abandoned mines in the 

Ouachita Mountains. Additionally, 

Heath et al. (1986, p. 35) found 57 

pregnant females roosting in a mine in 

the spring of 1985. Summer surveys in 

the Ouachita Mountains of central 

Arkansas from 2000–2005 tracked 17 

males and 23 females to 43 and 49 dayroosts, respectively (Perry and Thill 

2007, pp. 221–222). In 2013 summer 

surveys in the Ozark St. Francis 

National Forest, the northern long-eared 

bat was the most common species 

captured (Service 2014, unpublished 

data). Pd was first detected in the State 

in the winter of 2011–2012; however, 

WNS was confirmed at different sites 

(than where Pd was first confirmed) in 

2013–2014. Northern long-eared bat 

mortality was documented (five 

individuals) from one of the sites where 

WNS was first confirmed in 2013–2014 

(WNS Workshop 2014, pers. comm.). 

Mortality of northern long-eared bats 

from WNS was observed in the State’s 

largest hibernacula in 2015; 2015 

surveys found 120 northern long-eared 

bats in that hibernacula, where counts 

in recent years often numbered 200 to 

300 (Bitting 2015, pers. comm.). 

Northern long-eared bats are known 

from two hibernacula in Alabama, 

where typically few individuals (e.g., 

fewer than 20) are observed (Sharp 

2014, unpublished data). Surveys 

conducted during the Southeast Bat 

Diversity Network bat blitz in 2008 

reported the northern long-eared bat to 

be rather common in late summer/early 

fall swarm at known bat caves in 

Alabama (Sharp 2014, unpublished 

data). Summer surveys, mostly 

conducted between 2001 and 2008, in 

Alabama have documented 71 

individual captures, including both 

males and reproductively active females 

(Sharp 2014, unpublished data). WNS 

was first documented in Alabama in the 

winter of 2011–2012. 

The northern long-eared bat is known 

to occur in seven counties along the 

eastern edge of Oklahoma (Stevenson 

1986, p. 41). The species is known from 

nine hibernacula, where typically they 

are observed in low numbers (e.g., 1 to 

20 individuals). However, a larger 

colony uses a cave on the Ouachita 

National Forest in southeastern 

Oklahoma (LeFlore County) during the 

winter (9 to 96 individuals) and during 

the fall (9 to 463 individuals) (Perry 

2014, pers. comm.). Northern long-eared 

bats have been recorded from 21 caves 

(7 of which occur on the Ozark Plateau 

National Wildlife Refuge) during the 

summer. The species has regularly been 

captured in summer mist-net surveys at 

cave entrances in Adair, Cherokee, 

Sequoyah, Delaware, and LeFlore 

Counties, and are often one of the most 

common bats captured during mist-net 

surveys at cave entrances in the Ozarks 

of northeastern Oklahoma (Stark 2013, 

pers. comm.; Clark and Clark 1997, p. 

4). Small numbers of northern longeared bats (typical range of 1 to 17 

individuals) also have been captured 

during mist-net surveys along creeks 

and riparian zones in eastern Oklahoma 

(Stark 2013, pers. comm.; Clark and 

Clark 1997, pp. 4, 9–13). Neither WNS 

nor Pd has been detected in Oklahoma 

to date. 

Although the northern long-eared bat 

was not considered abundant in 

Kentucky and Tennessee historically 

(Harvey et al. 1991, p. 192), research 

conducted from 1990–2012 found the 

species abundant in summer mist-net 

surveys (Hemberger 2012, pers. comm.; 

Pelren 2011, pers. comm.; Lacki and 

Hutchinson 1999, p. 11). With the 

exception of Kentucky and possibly 

portions of Tennessee, western North 

Carolina, and northwestern Arkansas, 

where the species appears broadly 

distributed, there simply was not 

historically adequate effort expended to 

determine how abundant the species 

was in States such as South Carolina, 

Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and 

Louisiana. Due to this lack of surveys, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17983 

historical variability of winter 

populations, or lack of standardized 

data, it is difficult to draw conclusions 

about winter population trends pre- and 

post-WNS introduction in this region. 

Similarly, summer population trends 

are also difficult to summarize at this 

time due to a lack of surveys or 

standardized data. 

Western Range 

For purposes of organization in this 

rule, this region includes the following 

States: South Dakota, North Dakota, 

Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, and 

Kansas. The northern long-eared bat is 

historically less common in the western 

portion of its range than in the northern 

portion of the range (Amelon and 

Burhans 2006, p. 71), and is considered 

common in only small portions of the 

western part of its range (e.g., Black 

Hills of South Dakota) and uncommon 

or rare in the western extremes of the 

range (e.g., Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska) 

(Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 2); 

however, there has been limited survey 

effort throughout much of this part of 

the species’ range. To date, WNS has not 

been found in any of these States. 

The northern long-eared bat has been 

observed hibernating and residing 

during the summer in the Black Hills 

National Forest in South Dakota and is 

considered abundant in the region. 

Capture and banding data for survey 

efforts in the Black Hills of South 

Dakota and Wyoming showed northern 

long-eared bats to be the second most 

common bat banded (159 of 878 total 

bats) during 3 years of survey effort 

(Tigner and Aney 1994, p. 4). South 

Dakota contains 21 known hibernacula, 

all within the Black Hills, 9 of which are 

abandoned mines (Bessken 2015, pers. 

comm.). The largest number of northern 

long-eared bats was observed in a 

hibernaculum near Hill City, South 

Dakota; 40 northern long-eared bats 

were observed in this mine in the winter 

of 2002–2003 (Tigner and Stukel 2003, 

pp. 27–28). A summer population was 

found in the Dakota Prairie National 

Grassland and Custer National Forest in 

2005 (Lausen undated, unpublished 

data). Using mist-nets and echolocation 

detectors, northern long-eared bats have 

also been observed in small numbers in 

the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands 

(Tigner 2004, pp. 13–30; Tigner 2005, 

pp. 7–18). Additionally, northern longeared bats, including some pregnant 

females, have been captured during the 

summer along the Missouri River in 

South Dakota (Swier 2006, p. 5; Kiesow 

and Kiesow 2010, pp. 65–66). Swier 

(2003, p. 25) found that of 52 bats 

collected in a survey along the Missouri 

River, 42 percent were northern longeared bats. Acoustic data recorded by 

bat monitoring stations operated by the 

South Dakota Department of Game, 

Fish, and Parks (SDDGFP) also detected 

the northern long-eared bat sporadically 

throughout the State (across 16 

counties) in 2011 and 2012 (SDDGFP 

2014, in litt.) 

Summer surveys in North Dakota 

(2009–2011) documented the species in 

the Turtle Mountains, the Missouri 

River Valley, and the Badlands (Gillam 

and Barnhart 2011, pp. 10–12). No 

northern long-eared bat hibernacula are 

known within North Dakota. During the 

winters of 2010–2013, Barnhart (2014, 

unpublished; Western Area Power 

Administration 2015, in litt.) 

documented 3 bat hibernacula and 18 

potential hibernacula in Theodore 

Roosevelt National Park; however, no 

northern long-eared bat were found. 

Northern long-eared bats have been 

observed at two quarries located in eastcentral Nebraska (Geluso 2011, 

unpublished data). However, the species 

is known to summer in the 

northwestern parts of Nebraska, 

specifically Pine Ridge in Sheridan 

County, and a small maternity colony 

has been recently documented (Geluso 

et al. 2014, p. 2). A reproducing 

population has also been documented 

north of Valentine in Cherry County 

(Benedict et al. 2000, pp. 60–61). During 

an acoustic survey conducted during the 

summer of 2012, the species was 

present in Cass County (east-central 

Nebraska). Similarly, acoustic surveys 

in Holt County, on the Grand Prairie 

Wind Farm, observed the northern longeared bat at five of seven sites (Mattson 

et al. 2014, pp. 2–3). Limestone quarries 

in Cass County are used as hibernacula 

by this species and others (White et al. 

2012, p. 3). White et al. (2012, p. 2) state 

that the bat is uncommon or absent from 

extreme southeastern Nebraska; 

however, surveys in Otoe County found 

two northern long-eared bats, a female 

and a male, and telemetry surveys 

identified roosts in the county (Brack 

and Brack 2014, pp. 52–53). 

During acoustic and mist-net surveys 

conducted throughout Wyoming in the 

summers of 2008–2011, 32 separate 

observations of northern long-eared bats 

were made in the northeast part of the 

State, and breeding was confirmed (U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS) 2006, 

unpublished data; Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department (WGFD) 2012, 

unpublished data). Northern long-eared 

bats have also been observed at Devils 

Tower National Monument in Wyoming 

during the summer months, and 

primarily used forested areas of the 

monument (NPS 2014, in litt.). To date, 

there are no known hibernacula in 

Wyoming, and it is unclear if there are 

existing hibernacula used by northern 

long-eared bats, although the majority of 

potential hibernacula (abandoned 

mines) within the State occur outside of 

the northern long-eared bat’s range 

(Tigner and Stukel 2003, p. 27; WGFD 

2012, unpublished data). 

Montana has only one known record 

of a northern long-eared bat in the State, 

a male collected in an abandoned coal 

mine in 1978 in Richland County 

(Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

(MFWP) 2012, unpublished data). The 

species has not been reported in eastern 

Montana since the 1978 record, despite 

mist-net and acoustic surveys 

conducted in the eastern portion of the 

State through 2014 (Montana Natural 

Heritage Program 2015, in litt.). The 

specimen of this single bat collected in 

the State is currently undergoing genetic 

testing to determine whether the record 

is indeed a northern long-eared bat 

(Montana Natural Heritage Program 

2015, in litt.; MFWP 2015, in litt.). 

In Kansas, the northern long-eared bat 

was first documented in 1951, when 

individual bats were documented 

hibernating in the gypsum mines of 

Marshall County (Schmidt et al. 2015, 

unpaginated). The status of the gypsum 

mines as hibernaculum in Kansas is 

widely unknown. Northern long-eared 

bats were thought to only migrate 

through central Kansas until pregnant 

females were discovered in northcentral Kansas in 1994 and 1995 (Sparks 

and Choate 1995, p. 190). Since then, 

northern long-eared bats have been 

considered relatively common in 

riparian woodlands in Phillips, Rooks, 

Graham, Osborne, Ellis, and Russel 

Counties (Schmidt et al. 2015, 

unpaginated). 

Canadian Range 

The northern long-eared bat occurs 

throughout the majority of the forested 

regions of Canada, although it is found 

in higher abundance in eastern Canada 

than in western Canada, similar to in 

the United States (Caceres and Pybus 

1997, p. 6). However, the scarcity of 

records in the western parts of Canada 

may be due to more limited survey 

efforts. It has been estimated that 

approximately 40 percent of the 

northern long-eared bat’s global range is 

in Canada (Committee on the Status of 

Endangered Wildlife in Canada 

(COSEWIC) 2012, p. 9). The population 

size for the northern long-eared bat in 

Canada is unknown, but likely 

numbered over a million prior to the 

2010 arrival of WNS in Canada 

(COSEWIC 2013, p. xv1). The range of 

the northern long-eared bat in Canada 

includes Alberta, British Columbia, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
17984 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Manitoba, New Brunswick, 

Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest 

Territories, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward 

Island, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, 

and Yukon (COSEWIC 2012, p. 4). There 

are no records of the species 

overwintering in Yukon and Northwest 

Territories (COSEWIC 2012, p. 9). 

Habitat 

Winter Habitat 

Northern long-eared bats 

predominantly overwinter in 

hibernacula that include caves and 

abandoned mines. Hibernacula used by 

northern long-eared bats vary in size 

from large, with large passages and 

entrances (Raesly and Gates 1987, p. 

20), to much smaller hibernacula (Kurta 

2013, in litt.). These hibernacula have 

relatively constant, cooler temperatures 

(0 to 9 degrees Celsius (°C) (32 to 48 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F))) (Raesly and 

Gates 1987, p. 18; Caceres and Pybus 

1997, p. 2; Brack 2007, p. 744), with 

high humidity and no air currents (Fitch 

and Shump 1979, p. 2; van Zyll de Jong 

1985, p. 94; Raesly and Gates 1987, p. 

118; Caceres and Pybus 1997, p. 2). The 

sites favored by northern long-eared bats 

are often in very high humidity areas, to 

such a large degree that droplets of 

water are often observed on their fur 

(Hitchcock 1949, p. 52; Barbour and 

Davis 1969, p. 77). Northern long-eared 

bats, like eastern small-footed bats 

(Myotis leibii) and big brown bats 

(Eptesicus fuscus), typically prefer 

cooler and more humid conditions than 

little brown bats, but are less tolerant of 

drier conditions than eastern smallfooted bats and big brown bats 

(Hitchcock 1949, pp. 52–53; Barbour 

and Davis 1969, p. 77; Caceres and 

Pybus 1997, p. 2). Northern long-eared 

bats are typically found roosting in 

small crevices or cracks in cave or mine 

walls or ceilings, sometimes with only 

the nose and ears visible, and thus are 

easily overlooked during surveys 

(Griffin 1940a, pp. 181–182; Barbour 

and Davis 1969, p. 77; Caire et al. 1979, 

p. 405; van Zyll de Jong 1985, p. 9; 

Caceres and Pybus 1997, p. 2; Whitaker 

and Mumford 2009, pp. 209–210). Caire 

et al. (1979, p. 405) and Whitaker and 

Mumford (2009, p. 208) commonly 

observed individuals exiting caves with 

mud and clay on their fur, also 

suggesting the bats were roosting in 

tighter recesses of hibernacula. 

Additionally, northern long-eared bats 

have been found hanging in the open, 

although not as frequently as in cracks 

and crevices (Barbour and Davis 1969, 

p. 77; Whitaker and Mumford 2009, pp. 

209–210). In 1968, Whitaker and 

Mumford (2009, pp. 209–210) observed 

three northern long-eared bats roosting 

in the hollow core of stalactites in a 

small cave in Jennings County, Indiana. 

To a lesser extent, northern long-eared 

bats have also been observed 

overwintering in other types of habitat 

that resemble cave or mine hibernacula, 

including abandoned railroad tunnels, 

(Service 2015, unpublished data). Also, 

in 1952, three northern long-eared bats 

were found hibernating near the 

entrance of a storm sewer in central 

Minnesota (Goehring 1954, p. 435). 

Kurta et al. (1997, p. 478) found 

northern long-eared bats hibernating in 

a hydroelectric dam facility in 

Michigan. In Massachusetts, northern 

long-eared bats have been found 

hibernating in the Sudbury Aqueduct 

(Massachusetts Department of Fish and 

Game 2012, unpublished data). Griffin 

(1945, p. 22) found northern long-eared 

bats in December in Massachusetts in a 

dry well, and commented that these bats 

may regularly hibernate in 

‘‘unsuspected retreats’’ in areas where 

caves or mines are not present. 

Although confamilial (belonging to the 

same taxonomic family) bat species 

(e.g., big brown bats) have been found 

using non-cave or mine hibernacula, 

including attics and hollow trees 

(Neubaum et al. 2006, p. 473; Whitaker 

and Gummer 1992, pp. 313–316), 

northern long-eared bats have only been 

observed over-wintering in suitable 

caves, mines, or habitat with the same 

types of conditions found in suitable 

caves or mines to date. 

Summer Habitat 

I. Summer Roost Characteristics 

During the summer, northern longeared bats typically roost singly or in 

colonies underneath bark or in cavities 

or crevices of both live trees and snags 

(Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. 95; Foster 

and Kurta 1999, p. 662; Owen et al. 

2002, p. 2; Carter and Feldhamer 2005, 

p. 262; Perry and Thill 2007, p. 222; 

Timpone et al. 2010, p. 119). Males’ and 

nonreproductive females’ summer roost 

sites may also include cooler locations, 

including caves and mines (Barbour and 

Davis 1969, p. 77; Amelon and Burhans 

2006, p. 72). Northern long-eared bats 

have also been observed roosting in 

colonies in human-made structures, 

such as in buildings, in barns, on utility 

poles, behind window shutters, and in 

bat houses (Mumford and Cope 1964, p. 

72; Barbour and Davis 1969, p. 77; Cope 

and Humphrey 1972, p. 9; Burke 1999, 

pp. 77–78; Sparks et al. 2004, p. 94; 

Amelon and Burhans 2006, p. 72; 

Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 209; 

Timpone et al. 2010, p. 119; Bohrman 

and Fecske 2013, pp. 37, 74; Joe Kath 

2013, pers. comm.). 

The northern long-eared bat appears 

to be somewhat flexible in tree roost 

selection, selecting varying roost tree 

species and types of roosts throughout 

its range. Northern long-eared bats have 

been documented in roost in many 

species of trees, including: black oak 

(Quercus velutina), northern red oak 

(Quercus rubra), silver maple (Acer 

saccharinum), black locust (Robinia 

pseudoacacia), American beech (Fagus 

grandifolia), sugar maple (Acer 

saccharum), sourwood (Oxydendrum 

arboreum), and shortleaf pine (Pinus 

echinata) (e.g., Mumford and Cope 

1964, p. 72; Clark et al. 1987, p. 89; 

Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. 95; Foster and 

Kurta 1999, p. 662; Lacki and 

Schwierjohann 2001, p. 484; Owen et al. 

2002, p. 2; Carter and Feldhamer 2005, 

p. 262; Perry and Thill 2007, p. 224; 

Timpone et al. 2010, p. 119). Northern 

long-eared bats most likely are not 

dependent on certain species of trees for 

roosts throughout their range; rather, 

many tree species that form suitable 

cavities or retain bark will be used by 

the bats opportunistically (Foster and 

Kurta 1999, p. 668). Carter and 

Feldhamer (2005, p. 265) hypothesized 

that structural complexity of habitat or 

available roosting resources are more 

important factors than the actual tree 

species. 

In the majority of northern long-eared 

bat telemetry studies, roost trees consist 

predominantly of hardwoods (e.g., 

Foster and Kurta 1999, p. 662; Lacki and 

Schwierjohann 2001, p. 484; Broders 

and Forbes 2004, p. 606). Broders and 

Forbes (2004, p. 605) reported that 

female northern long-eared bat roosts in 

New Brunswick were 24 times more 

likely to be shade-tolerant, deciduous 

trees than conifers. Of the few northern 

long-eared bat telemetry studies in 

which conifers represented a large 

proportion of roosts, most were reported 

as snags (e.g., Cryan et al. 2001, p. 45; 

Jung et al. 2004, p. 329). Overall, these 

data suggest that hardwood trees most 

often provide the structural and 

microclimate conditions preferred by 

maternity colonies and groups of 

females, which have more specific 

roosting needs than solitary males 

(Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001, p. 484), 

although softwood snags may offer more 

suitable roosting habitat for both 

genders than hardwoods (Perry and 

Thill 2007, p. 222; Cryan et al. 2001, p. 

45). One reason deciduous snags may be 

preferred over conifer snags is increased 

resistance to decay, and consequently 

roost longevity, of the former (USFS 

1998). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17985 

Many studies have documented the 

northern long-eared bat’s selection of 

both live trees and snags, with a range 

of 10 to 53 percent selection of live 

roosts found (Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. 

95; Foster and Kurta 1999, p. 668; Lacki 

and Schwierjohann 2001, p. 484; 

Menzel et al. 2002, p. 107; Carter and 

Feldhamer 2005, p. 262; Perry and Thill 

2007, p. 224; Timpone et al. 2010, p. 

118). Foster and Kurta (1999, p. 663) 

found 53 percent of roosts in Michigan 

were in living trees, whereas in New 

Hampshire, 66 percent of roosts were in 

live trees (Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. 95). 

The use of live trees versus snags may 

reflect the availability of such structures 

in study areas (Perry and Thill 2007, p. 

224) and the flexibility in roost selection 

when there is a sympatric bat species 

present (e.g., Indiana bat) (Timpone et 

al. 2010, p. 120). Most telemetry studies 

describe a greater number of dead than 

live roosts (e.g., Cryan et al. 2001, p. 45; 

Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001, p. 486; 

Timpone et al. 2010, p. 120; Silvis et al. 

2012, p. 3). A significant preference for 

dead or dying trees was reported for 

northern long-eared bats in Kentucky 

(Silvis et al. 2012, p. 3), Illinois, and 

Indiana; in South Dakota (Cryan et al. 

2001, p. 45) and West Virginia, northern 

long-eared bat roost plots contained a 

higher than expected proportion of 

snags (Owen et al. 2002, p. 4). Moreover, 

most studies reporting a higher 

proportion of live roosts included trees 

that had visible signs of decline, such as 

broken crowns or dead branches (e.g., 

Foster and Kurta 1999, pp. 662,663; 

Ford et al. 2006, p. 20). Thus, the 

tendency for northern long-eared bats 

(particularly large maternity colonies) to 

use healthy live trees appears to be 

fairly low. 

In tree roosts, northern long-eared 

bats are typically found beneath loose 

bark or within cavities and have been 

found to use both exfoliating bark and 

crevices to a similar degree for summer 

roosting habitat (Foster and Kurta 1999, 

p. 662; Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001, 

p. 484; Menzel et al. 2002, p. 110; Owen 

et al. 2002, p. 2; Perry and Thill 2007, 

p. 222; Timpone et al. 2010, p. 119). 

Canopy coverage at northern longeared bat roosts has ranged from 56 

percent in Missouri (Timpone et al. 

2010, p. 118), to 66 percent in Arkansas 

(Perry and Thill 2007, p. 223), to greater 

than 75 percent in New Hampshire 

(Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. 95), to greater 

than 84 percent in Kentucky (Lacki and 

Schwierjohann 2001, p. 487). Studies in 

New Hampshire and British Columbia 

have found that canopy coverage around 

roosts is lower than in available stands 

(Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. 95). Females 

tend to roost in more open areas than 

males, likely due to the increased solar 

radiation, which aids pup development 

(Perry and Thill 2007, p. 224). Fewer 

trees surrounding maternity roosts may 

also benefit juvenile bats that are 

starting to learn to fly (Perry and Thill 

2007, p. 224). However, in southern 

Illinois, northern long-eared bats were 

observed roosting in areas with greater 

canopy cover than in random plots 

(Carter and Feldhamer 2005, p. 263). 

Roosts are also largely selected below 

the canopy, which could be due to the 

species’ ability to exploit roosts in 

cluttered environments; their gleaning 

behavior suggests an ability to easily 

maneuver around obstacles (Foster and 

Kurta 1999, p. 669; Menzel et al. 2002, 

p. 112). 

Results from studies have found the 

diameters of roost trees selected by 

northern long-eared bats vary greatly. 

Some studies have found that the 

diameter-at-breast height (dbh) of 

northern long-eared bat roost trees was 

greater than random trees (Lacki and 

Schwierjohann 2001, p. 485), and others 

have found both dbh and height of 

selected roost trees to be greater than 

random trees (Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. 

97; Owen et al. 2002 p. 2). However, 

other studies have found that roost tree 

mean dbh and height did not differ from 

random trees (Menzel et al. 2002, p. 111; 

Carter and Feldhamer 2005, p. 266). 

Based on a consolidation of data from 

across the northern long-eared bat range 

(Sasse and Pekins 1996, pp. 95–96; 

Schultes 2002, pp. 49, 51; Perry 2014, 

pers. comm.; Lereculeur 2013, pp. 52– 

54; Carter and Feldhamer 2005, p. 263; 

Foster and Kurta 1999, p. 663; Lacki and 

Schwierjohann 2001, pp. 484–485; 

Owens et al. 2002, p. 3; Timpone et al. 

2010, p. 118; Lowe 2012, p. 61; Perry 

and Thill 2007, p. 223; Lacki et al. 2009, 

p. 1,171), roost tree dbh most commonly 

used (close to 80 percent of over 400 

documented maternity tree roosts) by 

northern long-eared bat maternity 

colonies range from 10 to 25 centimeters 

(cm) (4 to 10 inches). 

As for elevation of northern longeared bat roosts, Lacki and 

Schwierjohann (2001, p. 486) have 

found that northern long-eared bats 

roost more often on upper and middle 

slopes than lower slopes, which 

suggests a preference for higher 

elevations, possibly due to increased 

solar heating. Silvis et al. (2012, p. 4), 

found that selection of mid- and upperslope roost areas may also be a function 

of the landscape position, whereby 

forest stands are most subjected to 

disturbance (e.g., wind, more intense 

fire, more drought stress, higher 

incidence of insect attack) that in turn 

creates suitable roost conditions among 

multiple snags and trees within the 

stand. 

Some studies have found tree roost 

selection to differ slightly between male 

and female northern long-eared bats. 

Some studies have found male northern 

long-eared bats more readily using 

smaller diameter trees for roosting than 

females, suggesting males are more 

flexible in roost selection than females 

(Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001, p. 487; 

Broders and Forbes 2004, p. 606; Perry 

and Thill 2007, p. 224). In the Ouachita 

Mountains of Arkansas, both sexes 

primarily roosted in pine snags, 

although females roosted in snags 

surrounded by fewer midstory trees 

than did males (Perry and Thill 2007, p. 

224). In New Brunswick, Canada, 

Broders and Forbes (2004, pp. 606–607) 

found that there was spatial segregation 

between male and female roosts, with 

female maternity colonies typically 

occupying more mature, shade-tolerant 

deciduous tree stands and males 

occupying more conifer-dominated 

stands. Data from West Virginia at the 

Fernow Experimental Forest and the 

former Westvaco Ecosystem Research 

Forest (both of which contain both 

relatively unmanaged, older, mature 

stands; early successional/mid-age 

stands; and fire-modified stands) 

suggest that females choose smaller 

diameter, suppressed understory trees, 

whereas males often chose larger, 

sometimes canopy-dominant trees for 

roosts, perhaps in contrast to other treeroosting myotids such as Indiana bats 

(Menzel et al. 2002, p. 112; Ford et al. 

2006, p. 16; Johnson et al. 2009a, p. 

239). A study in northeastern Kentucky 

found that males did not use colony 

roosting sites and were typically found 

occupying cavities in live hardwood 

trees, while females formed colonies 

more often in both hardwood and 

softwood snags (Lacki and 

Schwierjohann 2001, p. 486). However, 

males and nonreproductively active 

females are found roosting within home 

ranges of known maternity colonies the 

majority of the time (1,712 of 1,825 

capture records or 94 percent) within 

Kentucky (Service 2014, unpublished 

data), suggesting little segregation 

between reproductive females and other 

individuals in summer. 

II. Summer Roosting Behavior 

Northern long-eared bats actively 

form colonies in the summer (Foster and 

Kurta 1999, p. 667) and exhibit fissionfusion behavior (Garroway and Broders 

2007, p. 961), where members 

frequently coalesce to form a group 

(fusion), but composition of the group is 

in flux, with individuals frequently 

departing to be solitary or to form 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
17986 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

smaller groups (fission) before returning 

to the main unit (Barclay and Kurta 

2007, p. 44). As part of this behavior, 

northern long-eared bats switch tree 

roosts often (Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. 

95), typically every 2 to 3 days (Foster 

and Kurta 1999, p. 665; Owen et al. 

2002, p. 2; Carter and Feldhamer 2005, 

p. 261; Timpone et al. 2010, p. 119). In 

Missouri, the longest time spent 

roosting in one tree was 3 nights; 

however, up to 11 nights spent roosting 

in a human-made structure has been 

documented (Timpone et al. 2010, p. 

118). Bats switch roosts for a variety of 

reasons, including temperature, 

precipitation, predation, parasitism, 

sociality, and ephemeral roost sites 

(Carter and Feldhamer 2005, p. 264). 

Ephemeral roost sites, with the need to 

proactively investigate new potential 

roost trees prior to their current roost 

tree becoming uninhabitable (e.g., tree 

falls over), may be the most likely 

scenario (Kurta et al. 2002, p. 127; 

Carter and Feldhamer 2005, p. 264; 

Timpone et al. 2010, p. 119). 

Fission-fusion dynamics also drives 

maternal roosting behaviors and 

relatedness within social groups of 

northern long-eared bats. Patriquin et al. 

(2013, p. 952) found that the average 

relatedness of social group members 

(northern long-eared bat individuals in 

nearby colonies that may occasionally 

share roosts) was low; however, familiar 

pairs of females (females that frequently 

roosted together) were more closely 

related than expected by chance. 

Consistent with these genetic findings, 

Garroway and Broders (2007, p. 960), 

Patriquin et al. (2010, p. 904), and 

Johnson et al. (2011, p. 227) observed 

nonrandom roosting behaviors, with 

some female northern long-eared bats 

roosting more frequently together than 

with other females. 

Roosts trees used by northern longeared bats are often in fairly close 

proximity to each other within the 

species’ summer home range. For 

example, in Missouri, Timpone et al. 

(2010, p. 118) radio-tracked 13 northern 

long-eared bats to 39 roosts and found 

the mean distance traveled between 

roost trees was 0.67 km (0.42 mi) (range 

0.05–3.9 km (0.03–2.4 mi)). In Michigan, 

the longest distance moved by the same 

bat between roosts was 2 km (1.2 mi), 

and the shortest was 6 meters (m) (20 

feet (ft)) (Foster and Kurta 1999, p. 665). 

In the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas, 

Perry and Thill (2007, p. 22) found that 

individuals moved among snags that 

were within less than 2 hectares (ha) (5 

acres). Johnson et al. (2011, p. 227) 

found that northern long-eared bats 

form social groups in networks of roost 

trees often centered on a central-node 

roost. Central-node roost trees may be 

similar to Indiana bat primary roost 

trees (locations for information 

exchange, thermal buffering), but they 

were identified by the degree of 

connectivity with other roost trees 

rather than by the number of 

individuals using the tree (Johnson et al. 

2011, p. 228). 

Spring Staging 

Spring staging for the northern longeared bat is the time period between 

winter hibernation and spring migration 

to summer habitat (Whitaker and 

Hamilton 1998, p. 80). During this time, 

bats begin to gradually emerge from 

hibernation, exit the hibernacula to 

feed, but re-enter the same or alternative 

hibernacula to resume daily bouts of 

torpor (state of mental or physical 

inactivity) (Whitaker and Hamilton 

1998, p. 80). The staging period for the 

northern long-eared bat is likely short in 

duration (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998, 

p. 80; Caire et al. 1979, p. 405). In 

Missouri, Caire et al. (1979, p. 405) 

found that northern long-eared bats 

moved into the staging period in midMarch through early May. In Michigan, 

Kurta et al. (1997, p. 478) determined 

that by early May, two-thirds of the 

Myotis species, including the northern 

long-eared bat, had dispersed to summer 

habitat. Variation in timing (onset and 

duration) of staging for Indiana bats was 

based on latitude and weather (Service 

2007, pp. 39–40, 42); similarly, timing 

of staging for northern long-eared bats is 

likely based on these same factors. 

Fall Swarming 

The swarming season fills the time 

between the summer and winter seasons 

(Lowe 2012, p. 50) and the purpose of 

swarming behavior may include: 

Introduction of juveniles to potential 

hibernacula, copulation, and stopping 

over sites on migratory pathways 

between summer and winter regions 

(Kurta et al. 1997, p. 479; Parsons et al. 

2003, p. 64; Lowe 2012, p. 51; Randall 

and Broders 2014, pp. 109–110). The 

swarming season for some species of the 

genus Myotis begins shortly after 

females and young depart maternity 

colonies (Fenton 1969, p. 601). During 

this time, both male and female 

northern long-eared bats are present at 

swarming sites (often with other species 

of bats). During this period, heightened 

activity and congregation of transient 

bats around caves and mines is 

observed, followed later by increased 

sexual activity and bouts of torpor prior 

to winter hibernation (Fenton 1969, p. 

601; Parsons et al. 2003, pp. 63–64; 

Davis and Hitchcock 1965, pp. 304– 

306). For the northern long-eared bat, 

the swarming period may occur between 

July and early October, depending on 

latitude within the species’ range 

(Fenton 1969, p. 598; Kurta et al. 1997, 

p. 479; Lowe 2012, p. 86; Hall and 

Brenner 1968, p. 780; Caire et al. 1979, 

p. 405). The northern long-eared bat 

may investigate several cave or mine 

openings during the transient portion of 

the swarming period, and some 

individuals may use these areas as 

temporary daytime roosts or may roost 

in forest habitat adjacent these sites 

(Kurta et al. 1997, pp. 479, 483; Lowe 

2012, p. 51). Many of the caves and 

mines associated with swarming are 

also used as hibernacula for several 

species of bats, including the northern 

long-eared bat (Fenton 1969, p. 599; 

Glover and Altringham 2008, p. 1498; 

Randall and Broders 2014, p. 109; Kurta 

et al. 1997, p. 484; Whitaker and Rissler 

1992a, p. 132). 

Little is known about northern longeared bat roost selection outside of 

caves and mines during the swarming 

period (Lowe 2012, p. 6). Lowe (2012, 

pp. 32, 58, 63) documented northern 

long-eared bats in the Northeast roosting 

in both coniferous and deciduous trees 

or stumps as far away as 3 miles (7 km) 

from the swarming site. Although Lowe 

(2012, pp. 61, 64) hypothesized that tree 

roosts used during the fall swarming 

season would be similar to summer 

roosts, there was a difference found 

between summer and fall in the 

variation in distances bats traveled from 

the capture site to roost, roost 

orientation, and greater variation of 

roost types (e.g., roost species, size, 

decay class) in the fall. Greater variation 

among roosts during the swarming 

season may be a result of the variation 

in energy demands that individual 

northern long-eared bats exhibit during 

this time (Lowe 2012, p. 64; Barclay and 

Kurta 2007, pp. 31–32). 

Biology 

Hibernation 

Northern long-eared bats hibernate 

during the winter months to conserve 

energy from increased thermoregulatory 

demands and reduced food resources. 

To increase energy savings, individuals 

enter a state of torpor, when internal 

body temperatures approach ambient 

temperature, metabolic rates are 

significantly lowered, and immune 

function declines (Thomas et al. 1990, 

p. 475; Thomas and Geiser 1997, p. 585; 

Bouma et al. 2010, p. 623). Periodic 

arousal from torpor naturally occurs in 

all hibernating mammals (Lyman et al. 

1982, p. 92), although arousals remain 

among the least understood of 

hibernation phenomena (Thomas and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17987 

Geiser 1997, p. 585). Numerous factors 

(e.g., reduction of metabolic waste, body 

temperature, and water balance) have 

been proposed to account for the 

occurrence and frequency of arousals 

(Thomas and Geiser 1997, p. 585). Each 

time a bat arouses from torpor, it uses 

a significant amount of energy to warm 

its body and increase its metabolic rate. 

The cost and number of arousals are the 

two key factors that determine energy 

expenditures of hibernating bats in 

winter (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 475). For 

example, little brown bats used as much 

fat during a typical arousal from 

hibernation as would be used during 68 

days of torpor, and arousals and 

subsequent activity may constitute 84 

percent of the total energy used by 

hibernating bats during the winter 

(Thomas et al. 1990, pp. 477–478). 

In general, northern long-eared bats 

arrive at hibernacula in August or 

September, enter hibernation in October 

and November, and emerge from the 

hibernacula in March or April (Caire et 

al. 1979, p. 405; Whitaker and Hamilton 

1998, p. 100; Amelon and Burhans 

2006, p. 72). However, hibernation may 

begin as early as August (Whitaker and 

Rissler 1992b, p. 56). In Copperhead 

Cave (a mine) in west-central Indiana, 

the majority of bats enter hibernation 

during October, and spring emergence 

occurs from about the second week of 

March to mid-April (Whitaker and 

Mumford 2009, p. 210). In Indiana, 

northern long-eared bats become more 

active and start feeding outside the 

hibernaculum in mid-March, evidenced 

by stomach and intestine contents. This 

species also showed spring activity 

earlier than little brown bats and tricolored bats (Perimyotis subflavus) 

(Whitaker and Rissler 1992b, pp. 56– 

57). In northern latitudes, such as in 

upper Michigan’s copper-mining 

district, hibernation may begin as early 

as late August and continue for 8 to 9 

months (Stones and Fritz, 1969, p. 81; 

Fitch and Shump 1979, p. 2). Northern 

long-eared bats have shown a high 

degree of philopatry (using the same site 

multiple years) for a hibernaculum 

(Pearson 1962, p. 30), although they 

may not return to the same 

hibernaculum in successive seasons 

(Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 2). 

Typically, northern long-eared bats 

were not abundant and composed a 

small proportion of the total number of 

bats observed hibernating in a 

hibernaculum (Barbour and Davis 1969, 

p. 77; Mills 1971, p. 625; Caire et al. 

1979, p. 405; Caceres and Barclay 2000, 

pp. 2–3). Although usually observed in 

small numbers, the species typically 

inhabits the same hibernacula with large 

numbers of other bat species, and 

occasionally are found in clusters with 

these other bat species. Other species 

that commonly occupy the same habitat 

include little brown bat, big brown bat, 

eastern small-footed bat, tri-colored bat, 

and Indiana bat (Swanson and Evans 

1936, p. 39; Griffin 1940a, p. 181; 

Hitchcock 1949, pp. 47–58; Stones and 

Fritz 1969, p. 79). Whitaker and 

Mumford (2009, pp. 209–210), however, 

infrequently found northern long-eared 

bats hibernating beside little brown bats, 

Indiana bats, or tri-colored bats. Barbour 

and Davis (1969, p. 77) found that the 

species was rarely recorded in 

concentrations of more than 100 in a 

single hibernaculum. 

Northern long-eared bats have been 

observed moving among hibernacula 

throughout the winter, which may 

further decrease population estimates 

(Griffin 1940a, p. 185; Whitaker and 

Rissler 1992a, p. 131; Caceres and 

Barclay 2000, pp. 2–3). Whitaker and 

Mumford (2009, p. 210) found that this 

species flies in and out of some mines 

and caves in southern Indiana 

throughout the winter. In particular, the 

bats were active at Copperhead Cave 

periodically all winter, with northern 

long-eared bats being more active than 

other species (such as little brown bats 

and tri-colored bats) hibernating in the 

cave. Though northern long-eared bats 

fly outside of the hibernacula during the 

winter, they do not feed; hence the 

function of this behavior is not well 

understood (Whitaker and Hamilton 

1998, p. 101). It has been suggested, 

however, that bat activity during winter 

could be due in part to disturbance by 

researchers (Whitaker and Mumford 

2009, pp. 210–211). 

Northern long-eared bats exhibit 

significant weight loss during 

hibernation. In southern Illinois, 

Pearson (1962, p. 30) found an average 

weight loss of 20 percent during 

hibernation in male northern long-eared 

bats, with individuals weighing an 

average of 6.6 g (0.2 ounces) prior to 

January 10, and those collected after 

that date weighing an average of 5.3 g 

(0.2 ounces). Whitaker and Hamilton 

(1998, p. 101) reported a weight loss of 

41–43 percent over the hibernation 

period for northern long-eared bats in 

Indiana. In eastern Missouri, male 

northern long-eared bats lost an average 

of 3 g (0.1 ounces), or 36 percent, during 

the hibernation period (late October 

through March), and females lost an 

average of 2.7 g (0.1 ounces), or 31 

percent (Caire et al. 1979, p. 406). 

Migration and Homing 

While the northern long-eared bat is 

not considered a long-distance 

migratory species, short regional 

migratory movements between seasonal 

habitats (summer roosts and winter 

hibernacula) have been documented 

between 56 km (35 mi) and 89 km (55 

mi) (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993 p. 88; 

Griffin 1940b, pp. 235, 236; Caire et al. 

1979, p. 404). Griffin (1940b, pp. 235, 

236) reported that a banded male 

northern long-eared bat had traveled 

from one hibernaculum in 

Massachusetts to another in Connecticut 

over the 2-month period of February to 

April, a distance of 89 km (55 mi). The 

spring migration period typically runs 

from mid-March to mid-May (Caire et al. 

1979, p. 404; Easterla 1968, p. 770; 

Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 207); 

fall migration typically occurs between 

mid-August and mid-October. 

Northern long-eared bats have shown 

a high degree of philopatry (tendency to 

return to the same location) for a 

hibernaculum (Pearson 1962), although 

they may not return to the same 

hibernaculum in successive seasons 

(Caceres and Barclay 2000). Banding 

studies in Ohio, Missouri, and 

Connecticut show return rates to 

hibernacula of 5.0 percent (Mills 1971, 

p. 625), 4.6 percent (Caire et al. 1979, p. 

404), and 36 percent (Griffin 1940a, p. 

185), respectively. An experiment 

showed an individual bat returned to its 

home cave up to 32 km (20 mi) away 

after being removed 3 days prior (Stones 

and Branick 1969, p. 158). 

Reproduction 

Mating occurs from late July in 

northern regions to early October in 

southern regions and commences when 

males begin to aggregate around 

hibernacula and initiate copulation 

activity (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998, 

p. 101; Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 

210; Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 2; 

Amelon and Burhans 2006, p. 69). 

Copulation occasionally occurs again in 

the spring (Racey 1982, p. 73), and can 

occur during the winter as well (Kurta 

2014, in litt.). Hibernating females store 

sperm until spring, exhibiting delayed 

fertilization (Racey 1979, p. 392; Caceres 

and Pybus 1997, p. 4). Ovulation takes 

place near the time of emergence from 

hibernation, followed by fertilization of 

a single egg, resulting in a single embryo 

(Cope and Humphrey 1972, p. 9; 

Caceres and Pybus 1997, p. 4; Caceres 

and Barclay 2000, p. 2); gestation is 

approximately 60 days, based on like 

species (Kurta 1995, p. 71). Males are 

generally reproductively inactive from 

April until late July, with testes 

enlarging in preparation for breeding in 

most males during August and 

September (Caire et al. 1979, p. 407; 

Amelon and Burhans 2006, p. 69; Kurta 

2013, in litt.). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
17988 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Maternity colonies, consisting of 

females and young, are generally small, 

numbering from about 30 (Whitaker and 

Mumford 2009, p. 212) to 60 individuals 

(Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 3); 

however, one group of 100 adult females 

was observed in Vermilion County, 

Indiana (Whitaker and Mumford 2009, 

p. 212). In West Virginia, maternity 

colonies in two studies had a range of 

7 to 88 individuals (Owen et al. 2002, 

p. 2) and 11 to 65 individuals, with a 

mean size of 31 (Menzel et al. 2002, p. 

110). Lacki and Schwierjohann (2001, p. 

485) found that the number of bats 

within a given roost declined as the 

summer progressed. Pregnant females 

formed the largest aggregations 

(mean=26) and post-lactating females 

formed the smallest aggregation 

(mean=4). The largest overall reported 

colony size of 65 bats. Other studies 

have also found that the number of 

individuals roosting together in a given 

roost typically decreases from 

pregnancy to post-lactation (Foster and 

Kurta 1999, p. 667; Lacki and 

Schwierjohann 2001, p. 485; Garroway 

and Broders 2007, p. 962; Perry and 

Thill 2007, p. 224; Johnson et al. 2012, 

p. 227). Female roost site selection, in 

terms of canopy cover and tree height, 

changes depending on reproductive 

stage; relative to pre- and post-lactation 

periods, lactating northern long-eared 

bats have been shown to roost higher in 

tall trees situated in areas of relatively 

less canopy cover and lower tree density 

(Garroway and Broders 2008, p. 91). 

Adult females give birth to a single 

pup (Barbour and Davis 1969, p. 104). 

Birthing within the colony tends to be 

synchronous, with the majority of births 

occurring around the same time 

(Krochmal and Sparks 2007, p. 654). 

Parturition (birth) likely occurs in late 

May or early June (Caire et al. 1979, p. 

406; Easterla 1968, p. 770; Whitaker and 

Mumford 2009, p. 213), but may occur 

as late as July (Whitaker and Mumford 

2009, p. 213). Broders et al. (2006, p. 

1177) estimated a parturition date of 

July 20 in New Brunswick. Lactating 

and post-lactating females were 

observed in mid-June in Missouri (Caire 

et al. 1979, p. 407), July in New 

Hampshire and Indiana (Sasse and 

Pekins 1996, p. 95; Whitaker and 

Mumford 2009, p. 213), and August in 

Nebraska (Benedict 2004, p. 235). 

Juvenile volancy (flight) often occurs by 

21 days after birth (Krochmal and 

Sparks 2007, p. 651, Kunz 1971, p. 480) 

and has been documented as early as 18 

days after birth (Krochmal and Sparks 

2007, p. 651). Subadults were captured 

in late June in Missouri (Caire et al. 

1979, p. 407), early July in Iowa (Sasse 

and Pekins 1996, p. 95), and early 

August in Ohio (Mills 1971, p. 625). 

Maximum lifespan for northern longeared bats is estimated to be up to 18.5 

years (Hall et al. 1957, p. 407). Most 

mortality for northern long-eared bats 

and many other species of bats occurs 

during the juvenile stage (Caceres and 

Pybus 1997, p. 4). 

Foraging Behavior 

Northern long-eared bats are 

nocturnal foragers and use hawking 

(catching insects in flight) and gleaning 

(picking insects from surfaces) 

behaviors in conjunction with passive 

acoustic cues (Nagorsen and Brigham 

1993, p. 88; Ratcliffe and Dawson 2003, 

p. 851). Observations of northern longeared bats foraging on arachnids 

(spiders) (Feldhamer et al. 2009, p. 49), 

presence of green plant material in their 

feces (Griffith and Gates 1985, p. 456), 

and non-flying prey in their stomach 

contents (Brack and Whitaker 2001, p. 

207) suggest considerable gleaning 

behavior. The northern long-eared bat 

has a diverse diet including moths, flies, 

leafhoppers, caddisflies, and beetles 

(Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, p. 88; 

Brack and Whitaker 2001, p. 207; 

Griffith and Gates 1985, p. 452), with 

diet composition differing 

geographically and seasonally (Brack 

and Whitaker 2001, p. 208). Feldhamer 

et al. (2009, p. 49) noted close 

similarities of all Myotis diets in 

southern Illinois, while Griffith and 

Gates (1985, p. 454) found significant 

differences between the diets of 

northern long-eared bats and little 

brown bats. The most common insects 

found in the diets of northern longeared bats are lepidopterans (moths) and 

coleopterans (beetles) (Brack and 

Whitaker 2001, p. 207; Lee and 

McCracken 2004, pp. 595–596; 

Feldhamer et al. 2009, p. 45; Dodd et al. 

2012, p. 1122), with arachnids also 

being a common prey item (Feldhamer 

et al. 2009, p. 45). Northern long-eared 

bats have the highest frequency call of 

any bat species in the Great Lakes area 

(Kurta 1995, p. 71). Gleaning allows this 

species to gain a foraging advantage for 

preying on moths because moths are 

less able to detect these high frequency 

echolocation calls (Faure et al. 1993, p. 

185). 

Most foraging occurs above the 

understory, 1 to 3 m (3 to 10 ft) above 

the ground, but under the canopy 

(Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, p. 88) on 

forested hillsides and ridges, rather than 

along riparian areas (Brack and 

Whitaker 2001, p. 207; LaVal et al. 1977, 

p. 594). This coincides with data 

indicating that mature forests are an 

important habitat type for foraging 

northern long-eared bats (Caceres and 

Pybus 1997, p. 2). Occasional foraging 

also takes place over small forest 

clearings and water, and along roads 

(van Zyll de Jong 1985, p. 94). Foraging 

patterns indicate a peak activity period 

within 5 hours after sunset followed by 

a secondary peak within 8 hours after 

sunset (Kunz 1973, pp. 18–19). Brack 

and Whitaker (2001, p. 207) did not find 

significant differences in the overall diet 

of northern long-eared bats between 

morning (3 a.m. to dawn) and evening 

(dusk to midnight) feedings; however 

there were some differences in the 

consumption of particular prey orders 

between morning and evening feedings. 

Additionally, no significant differences 

existed in dietary diversity values 

between age classes or sex groups (Brack 

and Whitaker 2001, p. 208). 

Home Range 

Northern long-eared bats exhibit site 

fidelity to their summer home range 

(Perry 2011, pp. 113–114; Johnson et al. 

2009a, p. 237; Jackson 2004, p. 87; 

Foster and Kurta 1999, p. 665). During 

this period, northern long-eared bats 

roost (Sasse and Pekins 1996, pp. 95–96; 

Owen et al. 2002, p. 1; Perry and Thill 

2007, pp. 224–225; Timpone et al. 2010, 

p. 116) and forage (Owen et al. 2003, pp. 

354–355; Sheets 2010, pp. 3–4, 18; 

Tichenell et al. 2011, p. 985; Dodd et al. 

2012, p. 1120) in forests. Their home 

ranges, which include both the foraging 

and roosting areas, may vary by sex. 

Broders et al. (2006, p. 1117) found 

home ranges of females (mean of 8.6 ha 

(21.3 acres)) to be larger than males 

(mean of 1.4 ha (3.5 acres)), though 

Lereculeur (2013, p. 20) found no 

difference between sexes at a study site 

in Tennessee. Also, Broders et al. (2006, 

p. 1117) and Henderson and Broders 

(2008, p. 958) found foraging areas (of 

either sex) to be six or more times larger 

than roosting areas. At sites in the Red 

River Gorge area of the Daniel Boone 

National Forest, Lacki et al. (2009, p. 

1169) found female home range size to 

range from 19 to 172 ha (47 to 425 

acres). Owen et al. (2003, p. 353) 

estimated average maternal home range 

size to be 65 ha (161 acres). Home range 

size of northern long-eared bats in this 

study site was small relative to other bat 

species, but this may be due to the 

study’s timing (during the maternity 

period) and the small body size of 

northern long-eared bats (Owen et al. 

2003, pp. 354–355). The mean distance 

between roost trees and foraging areas of 

radio-tagged individuals in New 

Hampshire was 602 m (1,975 ft) with a 

range of 60 to 1,719 m (197 to 5,640 ft) 

(Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. 95). Work on 

Prince Edward Island by Henderson and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17989 

Broders (2008, p. 956) found female 

northern long-eared bats traveling 

approximately 1,100 m (3,609 ft) 

between roosting and foraging areas. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424, set forth the procedures 

for adding species to the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, we may list a species based on any 

of the following five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. Listing 

actions may be warranted based on any 

of the above threat factors, singly or in 

combination. Each of these factors is 

discussed below. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the northern longeared bat. There are several factors 

presented below that affect the northern 

long-eared bat to a greater or lesser 

degree; however, we have found that no 

other threat is as severe and immediate 

to the northern long-eared bat’s 

persistence as the disease, white-nose 

syndrome (WNS), discussed below 

under Factor C. WNS is currently the 

predominant threat to the species, and 

if WNS had not emerged or was not 

affecting the northern long-eared bat 

populations to the level that it has, we 

presume the species’ would not be 

experiencing the dramatic declines that 

it has since WNS emerged. Therefore, 

although we have included brief 

discussions of other factors affecting the 

species, the focus of the discussion 

below is on WNS. 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Hibernation Habitat 

Modifications to bat hibernacula, by 

erecting physical barriers (e.g., doors, 

gates), to control cave and mine access 

can affect the microclimate of the 

subterranean habitat, and thus the 

ability of the cave or mine to support 

hibernating bats, including the northern 

long-eared bat. These well-documented 

effects on cave-hibernating bat species 

were discussed in the Service’s Indiana 

Bat Draft Recovery Plan (Service 2007, 

pp. 71–74). Anthropogenic 

modifications to cave and mine 

entrances, such as the addition of 

restrictive gates or other structures 

intended to exclude humans, may not 

only alter flight characteristics and 

access (Spanjer and Fenton 2005, p. 

1110), but may change airflow and alter 

internal microclimates of the caves and 

mines, eliminating their utility as 

hibernacula (Service 2007, p. 71). For 

example, Richter et al. (1993, p. 409) 

attributed the decline in the number of 

Indiana bats at Wyandotte Cave, Indiana 

(which harbors one of the largest known 

population of hibernating Indiana bats), 

to an increase in the cave’s temperature 

resulting from restricted airflow caused 

by a stone wall erected at the cave’s 

entrance. After the wall was removed, 

the number of Indiana bats increased 

markedly over the next 14 years (Richter 

et al. 1993, p. 412; Brack et al. 2003, p. 

67). Similarly, northern long-eared bats 

were likely negatively impacted when 

the entrance to John Friend Cave in 

Maryland was filled with large rocks in 

1981, which closed the only known 

access to the cave (Gates et al. 1984, p. 

166). We conclude, based on the need 

for specific hibernation requirements of 

any cave-hibernating bat, that alteration 

of hibernacula could result in adverse 

impacts to individual northern longeared bats. 

In addition to the direct access 

modifications to caves discussed above, 

debris buildup at entrances or on cave 

gates can also significantly modify the 

cave or mine site characteristics by 

restricting airflow and the course of 

natural water flow. Water flow 

restriction could lead to flooding, thus 

drowning hibernating bats (Amelon and 

Burhans 2006, p. 72). For example, in 

Minnesota, 5 of the 11 known northern 

long-eared bat hibernacula are subject to 

flooding, presenting a threat to 

hibernating bats (Nordquist 2012, pers. 

comm.). Flooding has been noted in 

hibernacula in other States within the 

range of the northern long-eared bat, but 

to a lesser degree. Although 

modifications to hibernacula can lead to 

mortality of northern long-eared bats, 

we do not conclude it has resulted in 

population-level effects. 

Mining operations, mine passage 

collapse (subsidence), and mine 

reclamation activities can also affect 

bats and their hibernacula. Internal and 

external collapse of abandoned coal 

mines was identified as one of the 

primary threats to northern long-eared 

bat hibernacula at sites located within 

the New River Gorge National River and 

Gauley River National Recreation Area 

in West Virginia (Graham 2011, 

unpublished data). In States surveyed 

for effects to northern long-eared bats by 

hibernacula collapse, responses varied, 

with the following number of 

hibernacula in each State reported (not 

all States surveyed responded) as 

susceptible to collapse: 1 (of 7) in 

Maryland, 3 (of 11) in Minnesota, 1 (of 

5) in New Hampshire, 4 (of 15) in North 

Carolina, 1 (of 2) in South Carolina, and 

1 (of 13) in Vermont (Service 2011, 

unpublished data). Previous and current 

mining operations pose a direct threat to 

northern long-eared bat from mine 

collapse in parts of its range. 

Before Federal and State cave 

protection laws were put in place, there 

were several reported instances where 

mines were closed while bats were 

hibernating, thereby entombing entire 

colonies (Tuttle and Taylor 1998, p. 8). 

For the northern long-eared bat, loss of 

potential winter habitat through mine 

closures has been noted as a concern in 

Virginia, although visual inspections of 

openings are typically conducted to 

determine whether gating is warranted 

(Reynolds 2011, unpublished data). In 

Nebraska, closing quarries, and 

specifically sealing quarries in Cass and 

Sapry Counties, is considered a 

potential threat to northern long-eared 

bats (Geluso 2011, unpublished data). 

In general, threats to the integrity of 

bat hibernacula have decreased since 

the Indiana bat was listed as endangered 

in 1967, and since the implementation 

of Federal and State cave protection 

laws and abandoned mine reclamation 

programs. Increasing awareness about 

the importance of cave and mine 

microclimates to hibernating bats and 

regulation under the Act have helped to 

alleviate the destruction or modification 

of hibernation habitat, at least where the 

Indiana bat and gray bat (Myotis 

grisescens) are present (Service 2007, p. 

74). The northern long-eared bat has 

likely benefited from the protections 

given to the Indiana bat and the gray bat 

and their winter habitat, in areas where 

its range overlaps with those species’ 

ranges. 

Disturbance of Hibernating Bats 

Human disturbance of hibernating 

bats has long been considered a threat 

to cave-hibernating bat species like the 

northern long-eared bat, and is 

discussed in detail in the Service’s 

Indiana Bat Draft Recovery Plan (Service 

2007, pp. 80–85). The primary forms of 

human disturbance to hibernating bats 

results from cave commercialization 

(cave tours and other commercial uses 

of caves), recreational caving, 

vandalism, and research-related 

activities (Service 2007, p. 80). Arousal 

during hibernation causes the greatest 

amount of energy depletion in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
17990 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

hibernating bats (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 

477). Human disturbance at 

hibernacula, specifically non-tactile 

disturbance such as changes in light and 

sound, can cause bats to arouse more 

frequently, causing premature energy 

store depletion and starvation, as well 

as increased tactile disturbance amongst 

bats (Thomas 1995, p. 944; Speakman et 

al. 1991, p. 1103), leading to marked 

reductions in bat populations (Tuttle 

1979, p. 3). Prior to the outbreak of 

WNS, Amelon and Burhans (2006, p. 

73) indicated that ‘‘the widespread 

recreational use of caves and indirect or 

direct disturbance by humans during 

the hibernation period pose the greatest 

known threat to this species (northern 

long-eared bat).’’ Olson et al. (2011, p. 

228), hypothesized that an increase in 

the hibernating bat population 

(including northern long-eared bats) was 

related to decreased visits by 

recreational users and researchers at 

Cadomin Cave in Alberta, Canada. 

Bilecki (2003, p. 55) states that the 

reduction of four species of bats, 

including the northern long-eared bat, 

was ‘‘directly related to high human use 

and abuse’’ of a cave. Disturbance 

during hibernation could cause 

movements within or between caves 

(Beer 1955, p. 244). 

Of 14 States that assessed the 

possibility of human disturbance at bat 

hibernacula within the range of the 

northern long-eared bat, 13 identified at 

least 1 known hibernacula as potentially 

impacted by human disturbance 

(Service 2012, unpublished data). Eight 

of these 14 States (Arkansas, Kentucky, 

Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, and 

Vermont) indicated the potential for 

human disturbance at over 50 percent of 

the known hibernacula in that State. 

Nearly all States without WNS 

identified human disturbance as the 

primary threat to hibernating bats, and 

all others (including WNS-positive 

States) noted human disturbance as the 

next greatest threat after WNS or of 

significant concern (Service 2012, 

unpublished data). 

The threat of commercial use of caves 

and mines during the hibernation 

period has decreased at many sites 

known to harbor Indiana bats, and we 

conclude that this also applies to 

northern long-eared bats. However, 

effects from recreational caving are more 

difficult to assess. In addition to 

unintended effects of commercial and 

recreational caving, intentional killing 

of bats in caves by shooting, burning, 

and clubbing has been documented 

(Tuttle 1979, pp. 4, 8). Intentional 

killing of northern long-eared bats has 

been documented at a small percentage 

of hibernacula (e.g., one case of shooting 

disturbance in Maryland and one case of 

bat torching in Massachusetts where 

approximately 100 bats (northern longeared bats and other species) were 

killed) (Service, unpublished data), but 

we do not have evidence that this is 

happening on a large enough scale to 

have population-level effects. 

In summary, while there are isolated 

incidents of previous disturbance to 

northern long-eared bats from both 

intentional disturbance and recreational 

use of caves and mines, we conclude 

that there is no evidence suggesting that 

this threat in itself has led to 

population-level declines. 

Summer Habitat 

As discussed in detail in the 

Background (Biology, ‘‘I. Summer Roost 

Characteristics’’) section, above, 

northern long-eared bats require forest 

for roosting, raising young, foraging, and 

commuting between roosting and 

foraging habitat. Northern long-eared 

bats will also roost in manmade 

structures, to a lesser extent. The two 

common causes of loss or modification 

of habitat are conversion of forest for 

other land use and forest modification. 

I. Forest Conversion 

Forest conversion is the loss of forest 

to another land cover type (e.g., 

grassland, cropland, development) and 

may result in: Loss of suitable roosting 

or foraging habitat; fragmentation of 

remaining forest patches, leading to 

longer flights between suitable roosting 

and foraging habitat; removal of 

(fragmenting colonies/networks) travel 

corridors; and direct injury or mortality 

(during active season clearing). While 

forest conversion may occur throughout 

all States within the species’ range, 

impacts to the northern long-eared bat 

and their habitat typically occur at a 

more local-scale (i.e., individuals and 

potentially colonies). 

The USFS (2014, p. 7) summarized 

U.S. forest trends and found a decline 

from 1850 to the early 1900s, and a 

general leveling off since that time; 

therefore, conversion from forest to 

other land cover types has been fairly 

stable with conversion to forest 

(cropland reversion/plantings). For 

example, according to the U.S. Forest 

Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis, 

the amount of forested land within the 

37 States and the District of Columbia 

of the northern long-eared bat’s range 

increased from 414,297,531 acres in 

2004 and 2005, to 423,585,498 acres in 

2013 (Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies 2014, in litt; Miles 2014, 

http://apps.fs.fed.us/Evalidator/

evalidator.jsp). However, between 2001 

and 2006, there was a net loss of 1.2 

percent of forest across the United 

States with most losses in the Southeast 

and West, and a net loss of interior 

forest (a forest parcel embedded in a 40- 

acre landscape that has at least 90 

percent forest land cover) of 4.3 percent 

(USFS 2014, p. 18) throughout the 

continental United States, which 

increased forest fragmentation and 

smaller remaining forest patches. There 

is some evidence that northern longeared bats have an affinity for less 

fragmented habitat (interior forest) 

(Broders et al. 2006, p. 1181; Henderson 

et al. 2008, p. 1825). Also, forest 

ownership varies widely across the 

species’ range in the United States. 

Private lands may carry with them a 

higher risk for conversion than do 

public forests, a factor that must be 

considered when assessing risk of forest 

conversion now and in the future. 

Private land ownership is 

approximately 81 percent in the East 

and 30 percent in the West (USFS 2014, 

p. 15). 

Some of the highest rates of 

development in the conterminous 

United States are occurring within the 

range of the northern long-eared bat 

(Brown et al. 2005, p. 1856), and 

contribute to loss of forest habitat. The 

2010 Resources Planning Act (RPA) 

Assessment (USFS 2012) summarized 

findings about the status, trends, and 

projected future of U.S. forests. This 

assessment was influenced by a set of 

scenarios with varying assumptions 

with regard to global and U.S. 

population, economic growth, climate 

change, wood energy consumption, and 

land use change from 2010 to 2060. It 

projects forest losses of 6.5–13.8 million 

ha (16–34 million acres or 4–8 percent 

of 2007 forest area) across the 

conterminous United States, and forest 

loss is expected to be concentrated in 

the southern United States, with losses 

of 3.6–8.5 million ha (9–21 million 

acres) (USFS 2012, p. 12). 

Wind energy development continues 

to increase throughout the northern 

long-eared bat’s range. Iowa, Illinois, 

Oklahoma, Minnesota, Kansas, and New 

York are amongst the top 10 States for 

wind energy capacity (installed projects) 

in the United States (American Wind 

Energy Association (AWEA) 2013, 

unpaginated). If projects are sited in 

forested habitats, effects from wind 

energy development may include treeclearings associated with turbine 

placement, road construction, turbine 

lay-down areas, transmission lines, and 

substations. See Factor E. Other 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17991 

Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting 

Its Continued Existence for a Discussion 

on Effects to Bats From the Operation of 

Wind Turbines 

Surface coal mining is common in the 

central Appalachian region, which 

includes portions of Pennsylvania, West 

Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and 

Tennessee, and is one of the major 

drivers of land cover change in the 

region (Sayler 2008, unpaginated). 

Surface coal mining may also destroy 

forest habitat in parts of the Illinois 

Basin in southwest Indiana, western 

Kentucky, and Illinois (King 2013, pers. 

comm.). 

Natural gas extraction is expanding 

across the United States, particularly 

throughout the range of the northern 

long-eared bat. Natural gas extraction 

involves fracturing rock formations 

using highly pressurized water and 

other various chemicals (Hein 2012, p. 

1). Natural gas extraction and 

transmission, particularly across the 

Marcellus Shale region, which includes 

large portions of New York, 

Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, 

is expected to expand over the coming 

years. In Pennsylvania, for example, 

nearly 2,000 Marcellus natural gas wells 

have already been drilled or permitted, 

and if development trends continue, as 

many as 60,000 more could be built by 

2030 (Johnson 2010, pp. 8, 13). Habitat 

necessary for establishing maternity 

colonies and foraging may be lost and 

degraded due to the practice of forest 

clearing for well pads and associated 

infrastructures (e.g., roads, pipelines, 

and water impoundments). These 

actions could decrease the amount of 

suitable interior forest habitat available 

to northern long-eared bats. 

There are a variety of reasons forests 

are being converted (e.g., urban 

development, energy production, and 

transmission) within the range of the 

northern long-eared bat. Impacts to 

northern long-eared bats from loss of 

forest vary depending on the timing, 

location, and extent of the removal. 

While bats can sometimes flee during 

tree removal, removal of occupied roosts 

(during spring through fall) is likely to 

result in direct injury or mortality to 

some northern long-eared bats. This is 

particularly likely during cool spring 

months (when bats enter torpor) and if 

flightless pups or inexperienced flying 

juveniles are also present. Removal of 

forest outside of northern long-eared bat 

summer home range, or away from 

hibernacula, would not likely directly 

impact the species. However, removal of 

forest within a summer home range 

(regardless of when it is removed) may 

negatively impact the species, 

depending on the extent of removal and 

the amount of remaining suitable 

roosting and foraging habitat. 

Some portions of the northern longeared bat’s range are more forested than 

others. In areas with little forest or 

highly fragmented forests (e.g., western 

U.S. edge of the range, central 

Midwestern states; see Figure 1, above), 

impact of forest loss would be 

disproportionately greater than similarsized losses in heavily forested areas 

(e.g., Appalachians and northern 

forests). Also, the impact of habitat loss 

within a northern long-eared bat’s home 

range is expected to vary depending on 

the scope of removal. Northern longeared bats are flexible in which tree 

species they select as roosts, and roost 

trees are an ephemeral resource; 

therefore, the species likely can tolerate 

some loss of roosts, provided suitable 

alternative roosts are available. Silvis et 

al. (2014, pp. 283–290) modeled roost 

loss of northern long-eared bats, and 

Silvis et al. (2015, pp. 1–17) removed 

known northern long-eared bat roosts 

during the winter in the field to 

determine how this would impact the 

species. Once removals totaled 20–30 

percent of known roosts, a single 

maternity colony network started 

showing patterns of break-up. Sociality 

is hypothesized to increase reproductive 

success (Silvis et al. 2014, p. 283), and 

smaller colonies would be expected to 

have reduced reproductive success. 

Longer flights to find alternative 

suitable habitat and colonial disruption 

may result from removal of roosting or 

foraging habitat. Northern long-eared 

bats emerge from hibernation with their 

lowest annual fat reserves, and return to 

their summer home ranges. Because 

northern long-eared bats have summer 

home range fidelity (Foster and Kurta 

1999, p. 665; Patriquin et al. 2010, p. 

908; Broders et al. 2013, p. 1180), loss 

or alteration of forest habitat may put 

additional stress on females when 

returning to summer roost or foraging 

areas after hibernation. Females (often 

pregnant) have limited energy reserves 

available for use if forced to seek out 

new roosts or foraging areas. 

Hibernation and reproduction are the 

most energetically demanding periods 

for temperate-zone bats, including the 

northern long-eared bat (Broders et al. 

2013, p. 1174). Bats may reduce 

metabolic costs of foraging by 

concentrating efforts in areas of known 

high prey profitability, a benefit that 

could result from the bat’s local roosting 

and home range knowledge and site 

fidelity (Broders et al. 2013, p. 1181). 

Cool spring temperatures provide an 

additional energetic demand, as bats 

need to stay sufficiently warm or enter 

torpor. Entering torpor comes at a cost 

of delayed parturition; bats born earlier 

in the year have a greater chance of 

surviving their first winter and breeding 

in their first year of life (Frick et al. 

2010b, p. 133). Delayed parturition may 

also be costly because young of the year 

and adult females would have less time 

to prepare for hibernation (Broders et al. 

2013, p. 1180). Female northern longeared bats typically roost colonially, 

with their largest population counts 

occurring in the spring (Foster and 

Kurta 1999, p. 667), presumably as one 

way to reduce thermal costs for 

individual bats (Foster and Kurta 1999, 

p. 667). Therefore, similar to other 

temperate bats, northern long-eared bats 

have multiple high metabolic demands 

(particularly in spring), and must have 

sufficient suitable roosting and foraging 

habitat available in relatively close 

proximity to allow for successful 

reproduction. 

In summary, U.S. forest area trends 

have remained relatively stable with 

some geographic regions facing more 

conversion than others in the recent 

past. In the future, forest conversion is 

expected to increase, whether from 

commercial or residential development, 

energy production, or other pressures on 

forest lands. While monitoring efforts 

for impacts to northern long-eared bats 

from forest conversion did not often 

occur in the past, we expect that 

impacts likely occurred, but the species 

appears to have been resilient to these 

impacts prior to the emergence of WNS. 

In areas where WNS is present, there are 

additional energetic demands for 

northern long-eared bats. For example, 

WNS-affected bats have less fat reserves 

than non-WNS-affected bats when they 

emerge from hibernation (Reeder et al. 

2012, p. 8; Warnecke et al. 2012, p. 

7001) and have wing damage (Meteyer 

et al. 2009, p. 412; Reichard and Kunz 

2009, p. 458) that makes migration and 

foraging more challenging. Females that 

survive the migration to their summer 

habitat must partition energy resources 

between foraging, keeping warm, 

successful pregnancy and pup-rearing, 

and healing. Current and future forest 

conversion may have negative additive 

impacts where the species has been 

impacted by WNS. Impacts from forest 

conversion to individuals or colonies 

would be expected to range from 

indirect impact (e.g., minor amounts of 

forest removal in areas outside northern 

long-eared bat summer home ranges or 

away from hibernacula) to minor (e.g., 

largely forested areas, areas with robust 

northern long-eared bat populations) to 

significant (e.g., removal of a large 

percentage of summer home range, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
17992 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

highly fragmented landscapes, areas 

with WNS impacts). 

II. Forest Management 

Unlike forest conversion, forest 

management maintains forest habitat on 

the landscape, and the impacts from 

management activities are for the most 

part considered temporary in nature. 

Forest management includes multiple 

practices, and this section specifically 

addresses timber harvest. Timber 

harvesting includes a wide variety of 

practices from selected harvest of 

individual trees to clearcutting. Impacts 

from forest management would be 

expected to range from positive (e.g., 

maintaining or increasing suitable 

roosting and foraging habitat within 

northern long-eared bat home ranges) to 

neutral (e.g., minor amounts forest 

removal, areas outside northern longeared bat summer home ranges or away 

from hibernacula) to negative (e.g., 

death of adult females or pups or both). 

The best available data indicate that 

the northern long-eared bat shows a 

varied degree of sensitivity to timber 

harvesting practices. For example, 

Menzel et al. (2002, p. 112) found 

northern long-eared bats roosting in 

intensively managed stands in West 

Virginia; indicating that there were 

sufficient suitable roosts (primarily 

snags) remaining for their use. At the 

same study site, Owen et al. (2002, p. 4) 

concluded that northern long-eared bats 

roosted in areas with abundant snags, 

and that in intensively managed forests 

in the central Appalachians, roost 

availability was not a limiting factor. 

Northern long-eared bats often chose 

black locust and black cherry as roost 

trees, which were quite abundant and 

often regenerate quickly after 

disturbance (e.g., timber harvest). 

Similarly, Perry and Thill (2007, p. 222) 

tracked northern long-eared bats in 

central Arkansas and found roosts were 

located in eight forest classes with 89 

percent in three classes of mixed pinehardwood forest. The three classes of 

mixed pine-hardwood forest that 

supported the majority of the roosts 

were partially harvested or thinned, 

unharvested (50–99 years old), and 

group selection harvest (Perry and Thill 

2007, pp. 223–224). 

Certain levels of timber harvest may 

result in canopy openings, which could 

result in more rapid development of bat 

young. In central Arkansas, Perry and 

Thill (2007, pp. 223–224) found female 

bat roosts were more often located in 

areas with partial harvesting than males, 

with more male roosts (42 percent) in 

unharvested stands than female roosts 

(24 percent). They postulated that 

females roosted in relatively more open 

forest conditions because they may 

receive greater solar radiation, which 

may increase developmental rates of 

young or permit young bats a greater 

opportunity to conduct successful 

initial flights (Perry and Thill 2007, p. 

224). Cryan et al. (2001, p. 49) found 

several reproductive and 

nonreproductive female northern longeared bat roost areas in recently 

harvested (less than 5 years) stands in 

the Black Hills of South Dakota in 

which snags and small stems (dbh of 2 

to 6 inches (5 to 15 cm)) were the only 

trees left standing; however, the largest 

colony (n = 41) was found in a mature 

forest stand that had not been harvested 

in more than 50 years. 

Forest size and continuity are also 

factors that define the quality of habitat 

for roost sites for northern long-eared 

bats. Lacki and Schwierjohann (2001, p. 

487) stated that silvicultural practices 

could meet both male and female 

roosting requirements by maintaining 

large-diameter snags, while allowing for 

regeneration of forests. Henderson et al. 

(2008, p. 1825) also found that forest 

fragmentation effects northern longeared bats at different scales based on 

sex; females require a larger 

unfragmented area with a large number 

of suitable roost trees to support a 

colony, whereas males are able to use 

smaller, more fragmented areas. 

Henderson and Broders (2008, pp. 959– 

960) examined how female northern 

long-eared bats use the forestagricultural landscape on Prince 

Edward Island, Canada, and found that 

bats were limited in their mobility and 

activities are constrained when suitable 

forest is limited. However, they also 

found that bats in a relatively 

fragmented area used a building for 

colony roosting, which suggests an 

alternative for a colony to persist in an 

area with fewer available roost trees. 

In addition to impacts on roost sites, 

we consider effects of forest 

management practices on foraging and 

traveling behaviors of northern longeared bats. In southeastern Missouri, the 

northern long-eared bat showed a 

preference for contiguous tracts of forest 

cover (rather than fragmented or wide 

open landscapes) for foraging or 

traveling, and different forest types 

interspersed on the landscape increased 

likelihood of occupancy (Yates and 

Muzika 2006, p. 1245). Similarly, in 

West Virginia, female northern longeared bats spent most of their time 

foraging or travelling in intact forest, 

diameter-limit harvests (70–90 year-old 

stands with 30–40 percent of basal area 

removed in the past 10 years), and road 

corridors, with no use of deferment 

harvests (similar to clearcutting) (Owen 

et al. 2003, p. 355). When comparing 

use and availability of habitats, northern 

long-eared bats preferred diameter-limit 

harvests and forest roads. In Alberta, 

Canada, northern long-eared bats 

avoided the center of clearcuts and 

foraged more in intact forest than 

expected (Patriquin and Barclay 2003, p. 

654). On Prince Edward Island, Canada, 

female northern long-eared bats 

preferred open areas less than forested 

areas, with foraging areas centered along 

forest-covered creeks (Henderson and 

Broders 2008, pp. 956–958). In mature 

forests in South Carolina, 10 of the 11 

stands in which northern long-eared 

bats were detected were mature stands 

(Loeb and O’Keefe 2006, p. 1215). 

Within those mature stands, northern 

long-eared bats were more likely to be 

recorded at points with sparse or 

medium vegetation rather than points 

with dense vegetation, suggesting that 

some natural gaps within mature forests 

can provide good foraging habitat for 

northern long-eared bats (Loeb and 

O’Keefe 2006, pp. 1215–1217). 

However, in southwestern North 

Carolina, Loeb and O’Keefe (2011, p. 

175) found that northern long-eared bats 

rarely used forest openings, but often 

used roads. Forest trails and roads may 

provide small gaps for foraging and 

cover from predators (Loeb and O’Keefe 

2011, p. 175). In general, northern longeared bats prefer intact mixed-type 

forests with small gaps (i.e., forest trails, 

small roads, or forest-covered creeks) in 

forest with sparse or medium vegetation 

for forage and travel rather than 

fragmented habitat or areas that have 

been clearcut. 

Impacts to northern long-eared bats 

from forest management would be 

expected to vary depending on the 

timing of removal, location (within or 

outside northern long-eared bat home 

range), and extent of removal. While 

bats can flee during tree removal, 

removal of occupied roosts (during 

spring through fall) is likely to result in 

direct injury or mortality to some 

percentage of northern long-eared bats. 

This percentage would be expected to 

be greater if flightless pups or 

inexperienced flying juveniles were also 

present. Forest management outside of 

northern long-eared bat summer home 

ranges or away from hibernacula would 

not be expected to result in impacts to 

this species. However, forest 

management within a summer home 

range (regardless of when it is removed) 

may result in impacts to this species, 

depending on the extent of removal and 

amount of remaining suitable roosting 

and foraging habitat. 

Unlike forest conversion, forest 

management is not usually expected to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17993 

result in a permanent loss of suitable 

roosting or foraging habitat for northern 

long-eared bats. On the contrary, forest 

management is expected to maintain a 

forest over the long term for the species. 

However, localized long-term 

reductions in suitable roosting and/or 

foraging habitat can occur from various 

forest practices (e.g., clearcuts). As 

stated above, northern long-eared bats 

have been found in forests that have 

been managed to varying degrees, and as 

long as there is sufficient suitable 

roosting and foraging habitat within 

their home range and travel corridors 

between those areas, we would expect 

northern long-eared bat colonies to 

continue to occur in managed 

landscapes. However, in areas with 

WNS, we believe northern long-eared 

bats are likely less resilient to stressors 

and maternity colonies are smaller. 

Given the low inherent reproductive 

potential of northern long-eared bats 

(max of one pup per female), death of 

adult females or pups or both during 

tree felling reduces the long-term 

viability of those colonies. 

Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Range 

Although there are various forms of 

habitat destruction and disturbance that 

present potential adverse effects to the 

northern long-eared bat, they are not 

considered the predominant threat to 

the species. Even if all habitat-related 

stressors were eliminated or minimized, 

the significant effects of WNS on the 

northern long-eared bat would remain. 

Therefore, below we present a few 

examples, but not a comprehensive list, 

of conservation efforts that have been 

undertaken to lessen effects from habitat 

destruction or disturbance to the 

northern long-eared bat. 

Direct protection of caves and mines 

can be accomplished through 

installation of bat-friendly gates that 

allow passage of bats while reducing 

disturbance from human entry as well 

as changes to the cave microclimate 

from air restrictions. One of the threats 

to bats in Michigan is the closure of 

unsafe mines in such a way that bats are 

trapped within or excluded; however, 

there have been efforts by the Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources and 

others to work with landowners who 

have open mines to encourage them to 

install bat-friendly gates to close mines 

to humans, but allow access to bats 

(Hoving 2011, unpublished data). The 

NPS has proactively taken steps to 

minimize effects to underground bat 

habitat resulting from vandalism, 

recreational activities, and abandoned 

mine closures (Plumb and Budde 2011, 

unpublished data). In addition, the NPS 

is properly gating abandoned coal mine 

entrances, using a ‘‘bat-friendly’’ design, 

as funding permits (Graham 2011, 

unpublished data). All known 

hibernacula within national grasslands 

and forestlands of the Rocky Mountain 

Region of the USFS are closed during 

the winter hibernation period, primarily 

due to the threat of WNS, although this 

will reduce disturbance to bats in 

general inhabiting these hibernacula 

(USFS 2013, unpaginated). Because of 

concern over the importance of bat 

roosts, including hibernacula, the 

American Society of Mammalogists 

developed guidelines for protection of 

roosts, many of which have been 

adopted by government agencies and 

special interest groups (Sheffield et al. 

1992, p. 707). 

Many States are also taking a 

proactive stance to conserve and restore 

forest and riparian habitats with specific 

focus on maintaining forest patches and 

connectivity. For example, Montana is 

developing best management practices 

for riparian habitat protection. Other 

States have established habitat 

protection buffers around known 

Indiana bat hibernacula that will also 

serve to benefit northern long-eared bat 

by maintaining sufficient quality and 

quantity of swarming habitat. Some 

States have also limited tree-clearing 

activities to the winter, as a measure 

that would protect maternity colonies 

and non-volant pups during summer 

months. Many States are undertaking 

research and monitoring efforts to gain 

more information about habitat needs of 

and use by northern long-eared bat. 

Summary of the Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

We have identified several potential 

threats to the northern long-eared bat 

due to impacts to their winter and 

summer habitats. Winter habitat may be 

impacted by both human and nonhuman modification of hibernacula, 

particularly damaging is the altering or 

closing of hibernacula entrances. These 

modifications can lead to a partial or 

complete loss of utility as hibernacula. 

Humans can also disturb hibernating 

bats, either directly or indirectly, 

potentially resulting in an increase in 

energy consuming arousal bouts during 

hibernation (Thomas 1995, pp. 940–945; 

Johnson et al. 1998, pp. 255–260). 

Human disturbance at hibernacula has 

been identified by many States as the 

next greatest threat after WNS. 

During the summer, northern longeared bat habitat loss is primarily due to 

forest conversion and forest 

management. Throughout the range of 

northern long-eared bats, forest 

conversion is expected to increase due 

to commercial and urban development, 

energy production and transmission, 

and natural changes. Forest conversion 

can result in a myriad of effects to the 

species, including direct loss of habitat, 

fragmentation of remaining habitat, and 

direct injury or mortality. Forest 

management activities, unlike forest 

conversion, typically result in 

temporary (non-permanent) impacts to 

northern long-eared bat summer habitat. 

The impact of management activities 

may be positive, neutral, or negative to 

the northern long-eared bat depending 

on scale, the management practice, and 

timing. However, these potential 

impacts can be greatly reduced with the 

use of measures that avoid or minimize 

effects to bats and their habitat. 

Potential benefits to the species from 

forest management practices include 

keeping forest on the landscape and 

creation and management of roosting 

and foraging habitat (from some forest 

management practices). 

Many activities continue to pose a 

threat to the summer and winter 

habitats of northern long-eared bats. 

While, these activities alone were 

unlikely to have significant, populationlevel effects, there is now likely a 

cumulative effect on the species in 

portions of range that have been 

impacted by WNS. Also, there have 

been numerous conservation efforts 

directed at lessening the effects of 

habitat destruction or disturbance on 

the species, including cross-State and 

cross-agency collaboration on habitat 

restoration and hibernacula protection. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

There are very few records of the 

northern long-eared bat being collected 

specifically for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes, and thus we do not consider 

such collection activities to pose a 

threat to the species. Disturbance of 

hibernating bats as a result of 

recreational use and scientific research 

activities in hibernacula is discussed 

under Factor A. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

Disease 

I. White-Nose Syndrome 

White-nose syndrome (WNS) is an 

emerging infectious wildlife disease that 

poses a considerable threat to 

hibernating bat species throughout 

North America (Service 2011, p. 1). 

WNS is responsible for unprecedented 

mortality of insectivorous bats in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
17994 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

eastern North America (Blehert et al. 

2009, p. 227; Turner et al. 2011, pp. 13, 

22). The first evidence of the disease (a 

photo of bats with fungus) was 

documented at Howes Cave in 

Schoharie County, New York, 32 mi (52 

km) west of Albany, on February 16, 

2006, but WNS was not actually 

discovered until January 2007, when it 

was found at four additional caves 

around Schoharie County (Blehert et al. 

2009, p. 227). Since that time, WNS has 

spread rapidly throughout the 

Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and 

eastern Canada. As of February 2015, 

WNS has been confirmed (meaning one 

or more bats in the State have been 

analyzed and confirmed with the 

disease) in 25 States (Alabama, 

Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, 

Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, 

New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West 

Virginia, and Wisconsin) and 5 

Canadian provinces (New Brunswick, 

Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward 

Island, and Quebec). Although WNS has 

not been confirmed in Rhode Island (2 

known hibernacula) or the District of 

Columbia (no known hibernacula), their 

size and proximity to heavily impacted 

WNS-confirmed States make it 

reasonable to conclude that bat 

populations are also affected by WNS 

there. Three additional States (Iowa, 

Minnesota, and Mississippi) are 

considered suspect for WNS based on 

the detection of the causative fungus, Pd 

(Lorch et al. 2011, pp. 376–379; Muller 

et al. 2013, pp. 253–259), on bats within 

those States, but no mortality or other 

signs of the disease have been 

documented at those locations as of 

December 2014. Evidence suggestive of 

the presence of Pd on one bat in 

Oklahoma was recently reassessed, and 

it was concluded that those initial 

findings are no longer supported 

(United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 

2014, p. 1). Therefore, Oklahoma is no 

longer considered a suspect (meaning 

Pd confirmed) State for WNS. Table 1 

(below) provides a summary of the 

States in which WNS is currently 

present. 

State or district WNS present? First winter WNS confirmed Documented WNS 

mortality in bats 

Alabama .......................................................... Yes ............................... 2011–2012 ..................................................... Yes. 

Arkansas .......................................................... Yes ............................... 2013–2014 ..................................................... Yes. 

Connecticut ...................................................... Yes ............................... 2007–2008 ..................................................... Yes. 

District of Columbia ......................................... Unknown. 

Delaware ......................................................... Yes ............................... 2011–2012 ..................................................... Yes. 

Georgia ............................................................ Yes ............................... 2012–2013 ..................................................... Yes. 

Illinois ............................................................... Yes ............................... 2012–2013 ..................................................... Yes. 

Indiana ............................................................. Yes ............................... 2010–2011 ..................................................... Yes. 

Iowa ................................................................. Pd ................................. Pd only (2011–2012) ...................................... No. 

Kansas ............................................................. No. 

Kentucky .......................................................... Yes ............................... 2010–2011 ..................................................... Yes. 

Louisiana ......................................................... No. 

Maine ............................................................... Yes ............................... 2010–2011 ..................................................... Yes. 

Maryland .......................................................... Yes ............................... 2009–2010 ..................................................... Yes. 

Massachusetts ................................................. Yes ............................... 2007–2008 ..................................................... Yes. 

Michigan .......................................................... Yes ............................... 2013–2014 ..................................................... Yes. 

Minnesota ........................................................ Pd ................................. Pd only (2011–2012) ...................................... No. 

Mississippi ....................................................... Pd ................................. Pd only (2013–2014) ...................................... No. 

Missouri ........................................................... Yes ............................... 2011–2012 ..................................................... Yes. 

Montana ........................................................... No. 

Nebraska ......................................................... No. 

New Hampshire ............................................... Yes ............................... 2008–2009 ..................................................... Yes. 

New Jersey ...................................................... Yes ............................... 2008–2009 ..................................................... Yes. 

New York ......................................................... Yes ............................... 2006–2007 ..................................................... Yes. 

North Carolina ................................................. Yes ............................... 2010–2011 ..................................................... Yes. 

North Dakota ................................................... No. 

Oklahoma ........................................................ No. 

Ohio ................................................................. Yes ............................... 2010–2011 ..................................................... Yes. 

Pennsylvania ................................................... Yes ............................... 2008–2009 ..................................................... Yes. 

Rhode Island ................................................... Unknown. 

South Carolina ................................................. Yes ............................... 2012–2013 ..................................................... No. 

South Dakota ................................................... No. 

Tennessee ....................................................... Yes ............................... 2009–2010 ..................................................... Yes. 

Vermont ........................................................... Yes ............................... 2007–2008 ..................................................... Yes. 

Virginia ............................................................. Yes ............................... 2008–2009 ..................................................... Yes. 

West Virginia ................................................... Yes ............................... 2008–2009 ..................................................... Yes. 

Wisconsin ........................................................ Yes ............................... 2013–2014 ..................................................... Yes. 

Wyoming .......................................................... No. 

Seven species of North American 

hibernating bats have been confirmed 

with WNS to date: big brown bat, gray 

bat, eastern small-footed bat, little 

brown bat, northern long-eared bat, 

Indiana bat, and tricolored bat. The 

effect of WNS appears to vary greatly by 

species, with several species exhibiting 

high mortality and others showing low 

or no appreciable population-level 

effects (Turner et al. 2011, p. 13). The 

fungus that causes WNS has been 

detected on five additional species, but 

with no evidence of the infection 

characteristic of the disease; these 

include Rafinesque’s big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus rafinesquii), Virginia bigeared bat (C. townsendii virginianus), 

silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris 

noctivagans), eastern red bat (Lasiurus 

borealis), and southeastern bat (Myotis 

austroriparius). 

The impacts of WNS on North 

American bat populations have been 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17995 

substantial. Service and State biologists 

estimate that at least 5.7 million to 6.7 

million bats of several species have died 

from WNS (Service 2012, p. 1). Dzal et 

al. (2011, p. 393) documented a 78 

percent decline in the summer activity 

of little brown bats in New York State, 

coinciding with the arrival and spread 

of WNS, suggesting large-scale 

population effects. Turner et al. (2011, 

p. 22) reported an 88 percent decline in 

the number of all hibernating bats at 42 

sites across New York, Pennsylvania, 

Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

Furthermore, Frick et al. (2010a, p. 681) 

concluded that the little brown bat, 

formerly the most common bat in the 

northeastern United States, is 

undergoing catastrophic declines in the 

region due to WNS, and is at risk of 

regional extirpation in the near future. 

Similarly, Thogmartin et al. (2013, p. 

171) predicted that WNS is likely to 

extirpate the federally endangered 

Indiana bat over large parts of its range. 

While recent models by Ingersoll et al. 

(2013, p. 8) have raised some questions 

about the status of bat populations prior 

to the arrival of WNS, the empirical 

evidence from surveys of six species of 

hibernating bats in New York State, 

revealed populations that were likely 

stable or increasing prior to the 

emergence of WNS (Service 2011, p. 1). 

Subsequent to the emergence of WNS, 

decreases in some species of bats at 

affected hibernacula have ranged from 

30 to 100 percent (Frick et al. 2010a, p. 

680; Turner et al. 2011, pp. 16–19, 22). 

The pattern of spread of WNS has 

generally followed predictable 

trajectories along recognized migratory 

pathways and overlapping summer 

ranges of hibernating bat species, with 

some exception. The range expansion of 

WNS and Pd has not only been limited 

to known migratory movements of bats. 

Kunz and Reichard (2010, p. 12) assert 

that WNS is spread and transmitted 

mainly through bat-to-bat contact; 

however, evidence suggests that fungal 

spores can be transmitted by humans 

(USGS National Wildlife Health Center 

(NWHC), Wildlife Health Bulletin 2011– 

05, unpaginated), and bats can also 

become infected by coming into contact 

with contaminated cave substrate 

(Darling and Hicks 2012, pers. comm.). 

White-nose syndrome is caused by the 

psychrophilic (cold-loving) fungus Pd, 

which is likely exotic to North America, 

and only recently arrived on the 

continent (Puechmaille et al. 2011, p. 8; 

Foster, pers. comm.; Warnecke et al. 

2012, p. 7001). The fungus grows on and 

within exposed soft tissues of 

hibernating bats (Lorch et al. 2011, p. 

376; Gargas et al. 2009, pp. 147–154), 

and the resulting mycelium (vegetative 

part of fungus) is the white filamentous 

growth visible on the muzzle, ears, or 

flight membranes (wings and tail) of 

affected bats that is characteristic of 

WNS. Epidermal (skin) erosions that are 

filled with fungal hyphae (branching, 

filamentous structures of fungi) are the 

diagnostic standard for WNS (Blehert et 

al. 2009, p. 227; Meteyer 2009, p. 412). 

Pd grows optimally at temperatures 

from 5 to 16 °C (41 to 61 °F), the same 

temperature range at which North 

American bats typically hibernate 

(Blehert et al. 2009, p. 227; Verant et al. 

2012, p. 4). The temperature in caves 

that serve as bat hibernacula ranges 

from 2 to 14 °C (36 to 57 °F), permitting 

year-round persistence and growth of 

the fungus on cave substrates, allowing 

such hibernacula to serve as a reservoir 

for maintaining the fungus through 

summer months in the absence of bats 

(Blehert et al. 2009, p. 227; Reynolds et 

al. 2015, unpaginated). Growth is 

relatively slow at optimal temperatures 

(5 to 16 °C (41 to 61 °F)), and no growth 

occurs at temperatures above 21.4 °C (75 

°F) (Blehert et al. 2009, p. 227; Verant 

et al. 2012, pp. 4, 6). Although Pd does 

not grow above 21.4 °C, it is known to 

remain viable for extended periods of 

time above that temperature (Lorch et 

al. 2013, p. 237; Hoyt et al. 2014, pp. 2– 

3). Declines in Indiana bats have been 

greater under more humid conditions, 

suggesting that growth of the fungus and 

either intensity or prevalence of 

infections are higher in more humid 

conditions (Langwig et al. 2012, p. 

1055). However, the effect of humidity 

on impacts of WNS in bat populations 

may vary among species. Furthermore, 

fungal load and prevalence varies 

among species in WNS-infected sites 

(Langwig et al. 2015, p. 4). 

Although Pd has been isolated from 

numerous bat species in Europe, it is 

hypothesized that these species have 

evolved in the presence of the fungus 

(Wibbelt et al. 2010, p. 1241). Pikula et 

al. (2012, p. 210) confirmed that bats 

found dead in the Czech Republic 

exhibited lesions consistent with WNS 

infection; however, the authors also 

stated that the lesions were not believed 

to have contributed to the cause of death 

for those individuals. In all, there are 

now 12 European bat species, including 

one Rhinolophid in the sub-order 

Megachiroptera, that have been 

confirmed with the WNS disease (Zukal 

et al. 2014, p. 8) (based on the case 

definitions established in North 

America (USGS, NWHC 2014, 

unpaginated)), although no mortality 

has been documented to date in Europe. 

This point illustrates the fact that Pd is 

capable of infecting a wide variety of bat 

hosts across a large spatial scale. 

Bats affected by WNS are 

characterized by some or all of the 

following signs: (1) Excessive or 

unexplained mortality at or near the 

hibernaculum; (2) visible fungal growth 

on wing and tail membranes, the 

muzzle, or the ears of live or recently 

dead bats; (3) abnormal behaviors 

including conspicuous daytime activity 

outside of the hibernaculum, shifts of 

large numbers to the cold areas near the 

entrance or elsewhere in the 

hibernaculum, and decreased arousal 

with human disturbance inside 

hibernaculum (torpid bats responding to 

noise and vibrations in the cave); (4) 

moderate to severe wing damage in 

nontorpid bats; and (5) and depleted fat 

reserves by mid-winter (USGS, NWHC 

2012, p. 1; Service 2011, p. 2). Although 

the exact process or processes by which 

WNS leads to death remains 

unconfirmed, we do know that the 

fungal infection is responsible, and it is 

possible that reduced immune function 

during torpor compromises the ability of 

hibernating bats to combat the infection 

(Bouma et al. 2010, p. 623; Moore et al. 

2011, p. 10; Moore et al. 2013, pp. 6– 

7; Reeder et al. 2012, p. 8; Johnson et 

al. 2014, unpaginated). It has also been 

hypothesized that immune 

reconstitution inflammatory syndrome 

(IRIS) causes mortality when systemic 

Pd-infections established during torpor 

initiate a massive inflammatory 

response when the infected bat emerges 

from hibernation (Meteyer et al. 2012, 

pp. 585, 587). 

No information was known about Pd 

and WNS prior to 2007. Early working 

hypotheses demonstrated that it was not 

known whether WNS-affected bats 

before the hibernation season began or 

if bats arrived at hibernacula sites 

unaffected and entered hibernation with 

sufficient fat stores (WNS Science 

Strategy Group 2008, p. 7). Hibernating 

bats rely on stored fats to survive winter 

months, when insect prey is not 

available. In a related study, 12 of 14 

bats (10 little brown bats, 1 big-brown 

bat, and 1 tri-colored bat) had 

appreciable degree of fat stores, even 

though they were infected with WNS 

and were on the lower end of the 

normal range of body weight (Courtin et 

al. 2010, p. 214). Further research has 

lead scientists to suggest that bats are 

capable of clearing fungal infections 

during the summer in some areas, and 

are likely re-infected with Pd when they 

return to swarming sites or hibernacula 

in the fall (Langwig et al. 2015, p. 6). 

However, Dobony (2014, pers. comm.) 

noted the presence of viable Pd in a 

maternity roost throughout summer 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
17996 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

months, indicating that in some 

situations bats can be exposed to the 

fungus year-round. Boyles and Willis 

(2010, pp. 92–98) hypothesized that 

infection by Pd alters the normal arousal 

cycles of hibernating bats, particularly 

by increasing arousal frequency, 

duration, or both. In fact, Reeder et al. 

(2012, p. 5) and Warnecke et al. (2012, 

p. 2) observed an increase in arousal 

frequency in laboratory studies of 

hibernating bats infected with Pd. A 

disruption of this torpor–arousal cycle 

could cause bats to metabolize fat 

reserves too quickly, thereby leading to 

starvation (Warnecke et al. 2012, p. 4). 

The root cause of these increased 

arousal bouts remains under 

investigation, but some have suggested 

that skin irritation from the fungus 

might cause bats to arouse and remain 

out of torpor for longer than normal to 

groom (Boyles and Willis 2010, p. 93). 

Routine arousal bouts serve to maintain 

critical conditions like water balance 

and immune function; however, 

arousals are energetically costly, and 

anything resulting in greater energy 

expenditure has the potential to cause 

mortality. 

It has also been hypothesized that 

resulting mortality from infection of Pd 

is due specifically to fungal infection of 

bats’ wings. Cryan et al. (2010, pp. 135– 

142) suggests that mortality may be 

caused by catastrophic disruption of 

wing-dependent physiological 

functions. The authors also 

hypothesized that Pd may cause 

dehydration, trigger thirst-associated 

arousals, cause significant circulatory 

and thermoregulatory disturbance, 

disrupt respiratory gas exchange, and 

destroy wing structures necessary for 

flight control (Cryan et al. 2010, p. 141). 

Further, the wings of winter-collected 

WNS-affected bats often reveal signs of 

infection, and the degree of damage 

observed suggests functional 

impairment (Willis et al. 2011, pp. 370– 

371; Cryan et al. 2010, pp. 137–138). In 

related research, Cryan et al. (2013, p. 

398) found that electrolytes tended to 

decrease as wing damage increased in 

severity; electrolytes are necessary for 

maintaining physiological homeostasis, 

and any imbalance could be lifethreatening (Cryan et al. 2013, p. 398). 

Again, although the exact proximate 

mechanism by which WNS affects bats 

is still under investigation, the fact that 

it can result in death for many 

hibernating bat species is well 

documented. 

Effects of White-Nose Syndrome on the 

Northern Long-Eared Bat 

The northern long-eared bat is 

susceptible to WNS, and mortality of 

northern long-eared bats due to the 

disease has been confirmed throughout 

the majority of the WNS-affected range 

(Ballmann 2013, pers. comm.; Last 2013, 

pers. comm.). The observed spread of 

WNS in North America has been rapid, 

with the fungus that causes the disease 

(Pd) expanding over 1,000 miles (1,609 

km) from the first documented evidence 

in New York in February 2006, to 28 

States and 5 Canadian provinces by 

February 2015. Pd now affects an 

estimated 60 percent of the northern 

long-eared bat’s total geographic range, 

and is expected to continue to spread at 

a similar rate through the rest of the 

range (Service 2015, unpublished data). 

WNS has been confirmed in 25 of the 

37 States (does not include the District 

of Columbia) in the range of northern 

long-eared bat. Furthermore, although 

WNS has not been confirmed in Rhode 

Island or the District of Columbia, those 

areas are entirely surrounded by WNS. 

Although there is some variation in 

spread dynamics and the impact of 

WNS on bats when it arrives at a new 

site, we have no information to suggest 

that any site within the known range of 

the northern long-eared bat would be 

unsusceptible to the arrival of Pd. There 

is some evidence that microclimate may 

affect fungal and disease progression 

and there is a possibility that certain 

conditions may hinder disease 

progression in infected bats at some 

sites, but the degree to which this can 

be predicted at continental scales 

remains uncertain. Given the 

appropriate amount of time for 

exposure, WNS appears to have had 

similar levels of impact on northern 

long-eared bats everywhere the species 

has been documented with the disease. 

Therefore, absent direct evidence to 

suggest that some northern long-eared 

bats that encounter Pd do not contract 

WNS, available information suggests 

that the species will be impacted by 

WNS everywhere in its range. 

Northern long-eared bats may favor 

small cracks or crevices in cave ceilings, 

making locating them more challenging 

during hibernacula surveys than other 

species that are typically found in 

clusters in open areas (e.g., little brown 

bat, Indiana bat). However, winter 

surveys represent the best available data 

for assessing population trends for this 

species (Ingersoll et al. 2013, p. 9; 

Herzog 2015, pers. comm.). Progression 

from the detection of a few bats with 

visible fungus to widespread mortality 

may take a few weeks to 2 years (Turner 

et al. 2011, pp. 20–21). Although there 

is variation in when the decline is 

observed (e.g., a few weeks to 2 years 

after detection of the disease), there 

appears to be little or no variation as to 

whether a decline happens (Service 

2014, unpublished data). Microclimate 

inside the cave, duration and severity of 

winter, hibernating behavior, body 

condition of bats, genetic structure of 

the colony, and other variables may 

affect the timeline and severity of 

impacts at the site level. However, there 

is no evidence to date that any of these 

variables would greatly delay or reduce 

mortality in infected colonies. 

WNS has been present in the eastern 

portion of the northern long-eared bat’s 

range the longest; therefore, there is a 

greater amount of post-WNS 

hibernacula and summer data available 

from that region to discuss and examine 

the impacts of the disease on the 

species. Turner et al. (2011, p. 22) 

compared the most recent pre-WNS 

count to the most recent post-WNS 

count for 6 cave bat species and 

reported a 98 percent total decline in 

the number of hibernating northern 

long-eared bats at 30 hibernacula in 

New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, 

Virginia, and West Virginia through 

2011. Data analyzed in this study were 

limited to sites with confirmed WNS 

mortality for at least 2 years and sites 

with comparable survey effort across 

pre- and post-WNS years. 

The Service conducted an analysis of 

additional survey information at 103 

sites across 12 U.S. States and Canadian 

provinces (New York, Pennsylvania, 

Vermont, West Virginia, Virginia, New 

Hampshire, Maryland, Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, North Carolina, New 

Jersey, and Quebec) and found 

comparable declines in winter colony 

size. All 103 sites analyzed had 

historical records of northern long-eared 

bat presence, at least one survey in the 

10-year period before WNS was 

detected, and at least one survey 

conducted 2 or more years after WNS 

was detected (Service 2014, 

unpublished data). In these sites, total 

northern long-eared bat counts declined 

by an average of 96 percent after the 

arrival of WNS; 68 percent of the sites 

declined to zero northern long-eared 

bats, and 92 percent of sites declined by 

more than 50 percent. Similarly, Frick et 

al. (2015, p. 6) documented that 

northern long-eared bats are now 

considered extirpated from 69 percent 

of the hibernacula (in Vermont, New 

York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, 

and West Virginia) that had colonies of 

northern long-eared bats prior to WNS. 

Similar observations have been 

documented over several years. In a 

study by Langwig et al. (2012, p. 1054), 

14 populations of northern long-eared 

bats in New York, Vermont, and 

Connecticut became locally extinct 

within 2 years due to disease, and no 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17997 

population was remaining 5 years postWNS (Langwig et al. 2012, p. 1054). In 

addition, Langwig (2014, in litt.) stated 

that, in more than 50 caves and mines 

surveyed in New York, Vermont, New 

Hampshire, Virginia, and Illinois, the 

northern long-eared bat is extirpated 

from all sites (that had continuous 

population counts) where WNS has 

been present for more than 4 years. 

Hibernacula surveys conducted in 

Pennsylvania in 2013 revealed a 99 

percent decline (637 to 5 bats) at 34 sites 

where northern long-eared bats were 

known to hibernate prior to WNS (PGC 

2013, unpublished data). In the 

Northeast, where WNS has been present 

for 5 or more years, the northern longeared bat is only rarely encountered on 

the summer landscape. For example, in 

Vermont, the species was the second 

most common bat in the State before 

WNS, and it is now one of the least 

likely to be encountered (VFWD 2014, 

in litt.). Northern long-eared bats were 

also widespread throughout New York 

prior to WNS; however, post-WNS 

captures of this species have declined 

dramatically (approximately 93 percent) 

in the eastern part of the State (NYSDEC 

2012, unpublished data). The one 

potential exception in New York is the 

Long Island population, where the 

species continues to be found in small 

numbers during summer surveys. 

However, these observations are 

unproven at this point and are the basis 

for ongoing research. Long-term summer 

data (including pre- and post-WNS) for 

the northern long-eared bat, where 

available, corroborate the population 

decline observed during hibernacula 

surveys. For example, summer surveys 

from 2005–2011 near Surry Mountain 

Lake in New Hampshire showed a 98 

percent decline in capture success of 

northern long-eared bats post-WNS, 

which is similar to the hibernacula data 

for the State (a 95 percent decline) 

(Moosman et al. 2013, p. 554). Likewise, 

summer monitoring in Virginia from 

2009 to present has revealed that 

declines in northern long-eared bats 

were not observed by VDGIF until 2 

years after the severe declines were 

observed during winter and fall 

monitoring efforts in the State (Reynolds 

2013, pers. comm.). These trends 

provide context for the indices of 

abundance of northern long-eared bats 

reported in States such as Pennsylvania 

and West Virginia, where the arrival of 

Pd at sites has been prolonged over 

several years (Miller-Butterworth et al. 

2014). For example, in Pennsylvania, 

declines of 99 percent of northern longeared bats counted in winter surveys 

corresponded with declines of 76 

percent in summer capture rates; 

additionally, the decline in summer 

captures continues at an average rate of 

15 percent annually (PGC 2014, in litt.). 

The fact that similar severe declines are 

documented in both summer and winter 

estimates demonstrates that northern 

long-eared bats are succumbing to WNS 

both at conspicuous hibernacula where 

they are surveyed and at undocumented 

hibernacula where they are not 

monitored directly. 

Early reports from WNS-affected 

States in the Midwest reveal that similar 

rates of decline in northern long-eared 

bats are already occurring or are fast 

approaching. As reported in the 

Distribution and Relative Abundance 

section, above, in the two Ohio mines 

where an estimated 90 percent of Ohio’s 

winter bat population hibernates, 

northern long-eared bat numbers 

decreased by 94 percent (combined for 

both hibernacula) from pre-WNS 

average counts (ODNR 2014, 

unpublished data). During the summer, 

ODNR Statewide acoustic surveys show 

a decline in northern long-eared bats of 

56 percent since the pre-WNS years 

(ODNR 2014, unpublished data). 

Summer capture rates of northern longeared bats from mist-net surveys (mostly 

conducted for Indiana bat presence) 

have declined by 58 percent per mistnet site post-WNS (Service 2014, 

unpublished data). Also, at two Illinois’ 

major hibernacula, significant mortality 

of northern long-eared bats was 

observed in the first year after WNS was 

first detected, and the population at one 

site experienced a 97 percent decline, 

while the population decline at the 

second site was over 99 percent (Illinois 

Department of Natural Resources 2014, 

unpublished data). 

As stated in the Distribution and 

Relative Abundance section, above, in 

the southern portion of the species’ 

range, it is difficult to draw conclusions 

about winter population trends pre- and 

post- WNS introduction (due to a lack 

of surveys, historical variability of 

winter populations, or lack of 

standardized data); however, northern 

long-eared bat mortality associated with 

WNS has been observed at sites in 

Arkansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, 

and Tennessee. Also, some declines 

have been documented via hibernacula 

surveys in this region. For example, at 

a hibernaculum in Arkansas, mortality 

of northern long-eared bats was 

documented in the first year of known 

infection with Pd (Sasse 2014, pers. 

comm.). Over 70 percent of the 185 

northern long-eared bats tested for the 

presence of Pd in Tennessee 

hibernacula between 2011 and 2014 

were found to have Pd (Bernard 2014, 

in litt.). Also, in the Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park, 2014 capture 

rates of northern long-eared bats in 

comparison to 2009–2012 declined by 

71 to 94 percent (across all sites) based 

on unit of effort comparisons (NPS 

2014, in litt.; Indiana State University 

2015, in litt.). Summer population 

trends are also difficult to summarize at 

this time, due to a lack of surveys or 

standardized data, although long-term 

data at localized sites have shown 

declines in northern long-eared bats. 

All models of WNS spread dynamics 

predict that Pd, and hence the disease, 

will continue to spread (Maher et al. 

2012, pp. 5–7; Ihlo 2013, unpublished; 

Hallam et al., unpublished). These 

models estimate the disease will cover 

the entirety of the northern long-eared 

bat’s range (within the models limited 

geographic limits (the United States)) by 

sometime between 2 and about 40 years 

(although estimating WNS arrival dates 

was not a primary objective of the 

analysis; Maher et al. 2012, pp. 5–7; Ihlo 

2013, unpublished; Hallam et al., 

unpublished). However, these models 

all have significant limitations (e.g., 

failure to account for: Transmission 

through non-cave hibernacula, spread 

through Canada, and various biological 

aspects of disease transmission), and in 

many instances have either 

overestimated (predicted WNS would 

impact later) or underestimated the time 

at which WNS would arrive in counties 

that have become infected since the 

model was published. WNS arrived to 

surveyed sites 1 to 5 years (mean=2 

years) earlier than predicted or when 

predicted by the Ihlo (2013, 

unpublished) model. WNS arrived 1 to 

4 years later (mean=1 year) than 

predicted by Maher et al. (2012, pp. 1– 

8) in approximately 75 counties; 1 to 46 

years earlier (mean=5 years) than 

predicted in approximately 75 counties; 

and when predicted in approximately 

25 counties. For example, Pd was 

documented in Jasper County, 

Mississippi, in 2014, 45 years in 

advance of predictions by Maher et al. 

(2012). Maher (2014, in litt.) also 

commented that the spread rate of Pd 

may increase with longer winters, 

suggesting that spread of Pd in the 

northern portion of the northern longeared bat’s range with longer winters 

would be faster than in portions with 

shorter winters. 

As described, there are limitations 

and uncertainties with relying on these 

models to predict the rate at which the 

fungus will spread to currently 

unaffected areas. Thus, we instead 

relied on the observed rate of spread to 

date of Pd to develop a calculation of 

projected rate of spread through the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
17998 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

remaining portion of the northern longeared bat’s range. WNS was first 

recorded in a cave in New York in 2006. 

Based on the observed spread of Pd 

from its point of origin in New York that 

has occurred to date, the area affected 

by Pd in North America is expanding at 

an average rate of roughly 175 miles 

(280 km) per year. At this average rate 

of spread, Pd can be expected to occur 

throughout the range of the northern 

long-eared bat in an estimated 8 to 9 

years from December 2014. The 

COSEWIC used a similar method to 

calculate spread in their assessment of 

3 bat species; they estimated that the 

entire range of the northern long-eared 

bat would be infected within 12 to 15 

years (COSEWIC 2013, p. xiv) from 

November 2013. 

Northern long-eared bats exhibit 

behaviors (e.g., hibernating solitarily or 

in small clusters, using alternative 

hibernacula) that have been 

hypothesized to potentially limit 

exposure to Pd and reduce the impacts 

of WNS; however, there currently is no 

empirical evidence to suggest that these 

behaviors have mitigated the impacts of 

WNS, and the northern long-eared bat 

has been found to be one of the most 

highly susceptible bat species to WNS 

(Langwig et al. 2015, p. 4). Griffin (1945) 

reported that northern long-eared bats 

hibernate in ‘‘unsuspected retreats,’’ 

away from large colonies of other 

species and where caves and mines are 

not present, suggesting they may be able 

to limit exposure to Pd. In the southern 

extent of their range, northern longeared bats have been documented 

sporadically arousing from torpor 

throughout the winter and moving 

between hibernacula (Griffin 1940a, p. 

185; Whitaker and Rissler 1992a, p. 131; 

Caceres and Barclay 2000, pp. 2–3). It 

has been suggested that these periodic 

arousals provide a hypothetical 

mechanism by which fungal growth, 

and resulting infection, may be limited. 

However, as described in the 

‘‘Hibernation’’ section under Biology, 

above, northern long-eared bats prefer to 

hibernate at temperatures between 0 and 

9 °C (Raesly and Gates 1987, p. 18; 

Caceres and Pybus 1997, p. 2; Brack 

2007, p. 744), which falls within the 

optimal growth limits of Pd, 5 and 

16 °C (41 and 61 °F) (Blehert et al. 2009, 

p. 227; Verant et al. 2012, p. 4), making 

them susceptible to WNS infection once 

exposed to Pd, regardless of 

hibernaculum type. Northern long-eared 

bats also roost in areas within 

hibernacula that have higher humidity. 

Cryan et al. (2010, p. 138) suggested this 

roosting preference may be due to the 

northern long-eared bat’s high intrinsic 

rates of evaporative water loss during 

torpor. Langwig et al. (2012, p. 1055) 

suggested that these more humid 

conditions could explain why northern 

long-eared bats actually experience 

higher rates of infection than other 

species, such as Indiana bats. 

Northern long-eared bats have been 

reported to enter hibernation in October 

or November, but sometimes return to 

hibernacula as early as August, and 

emerge in March or April (Caire et al. 

1979, p. 405; Whitaker and Hamilton 

1998, p. 100; Amelon and Burhans 

2006, p. 72). This extended period of 

time (in comparison to many other cave 

bat species that have been less impacted 

by WNS) may explain observed 

differences in fungal loads of Pd when 

compared to less susceptible species 

because the fungus has more time to 

infect bats and grow. Langwig et al. 

(2015, p. 4) determined that nearly 100 

percent of northern long-eared bats 

sampled in 30 hibernacula across 6 

States (New York, Vermont, 

Massachusetts, Virginia, New 

Hampshire, and Illinois) were infected 

with Pd early in the hibernation period, 

and that northern long-eared bats had 

the highest Pd-load of any other species 

in these sites. Similar patterns of high 

prevalence and fungal load in northern 

long-eared bats were reported by 

Bernard (2014, pers. comm.; Bernard 

2014, in litt.) for bats surveyed outside 

of hibernacula in Tennessee during the 

winter. Furthermore, the northern longeared bat occasionally roosts in clusters 

or in the same hibernacula as other bat 

species that are also susceptible to WNS 

(see the ‘‘Hibernation’’ section under 

Biology, above,) and are susceptible to 

bat-to-bat transmission of WNS. 

Information provided to the Service 

by a number of State agencies 

demonstrates that the area currently (as 

of 2015) affected by WNS likely 

constitutes the core of the species’ 

range, where densities of northern longeared bats were highest prior to WNS. 

Further, it has been suggested that the 

species was considered less common or 

rare in the extreme southern, western, 

and northwestern parts of its range 

(Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 2; Harvey 

1992, p. 35), areas where WNS has not 

yet been detected. The northern longeared bat has been extirpated from 

hibernacula where WNS, has been 

present for a significant number of years 

(e.g., 5 years), and has declined 

significantly in other hibernacula where 

WNS has been present for only a few 

years. A corresponding decline on the 

summer landscape has also been 

witnessed. As WNS expands to 

currently uninfected areas within the 

range of northern long-eared bat, there 

is the expectation that the disease, 

wherever found, will continue to 

negatively affect the species. WNS is the 

predominant threat to the northern longeared bat rangewide, and it is likely to 

spread to the entirety of the species’ 

range. 

II. Other Diseases 

Infectious diseases observed in North 

American bat populations include 

rabies, histoplasmosis, St. Louis 

encephalitis, and Venezuelan equine 

encephalitis (Burek 2001, p. 519; 

Rupprecht et al. 2001, p. 14; Yuill and 

Seymour 2001, pp. 100, 108). Rabies is 

the most studied disease of bats, and 

can lead to mortality, although antibody 

evidence suggests that some bats may 

recover from the disease (Messenger et 

al. 2003, p. 645) and retain 

immunological memory to respond to 

subsequent exposures (Turmelle et al. 

2010, p. 2364). Bats are hosts of rabies 

in North America (Rupprecht et al. 

2001, p. 14), accounting for 24 percent 

of all wild animal cases reported during 

2009 (Blanton et al. 2010, p. 648). 

Although rabies is detected in up to 25 

percent of bats submitted to diagnostic 

labs for testing, less than 1 percent of 

bats sampled randomly from wild 

populations test positive for the virus 

(Messenger et al. 2002, p. 741). Northern 

long-eared bat is among the species 

reported positive for rabies virus 

infection (Constantine 1979, p. 347; 

Burnett 1989, p. 12; Main 1979, p. 458); 

however, rabies is not known to have 

appreciable effects to the species at a 

population level. 

Histoplasmosis has not been 

associated with the northern long-eared 

bat and may be limited in this species 

compared to other bats that form larger 

aggregations with greater exposure to 

guano-rich substrate (Hoff and Bigler 

1981, p. 192). St. Louis encephalitis 

antibody and high concentrations of 

Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus 

have been observed in big brown bats 

and little brown bats (Yuill and 

Seymour 2001, pp. 100, 108), although 

data are lacking on the prevalence of 

these viruses in northern long-eared 

bats. Equine encephalitis has been 

detected in northern long-eared bats 

(Main 1979, p. 459), although no known 

population declines have been found 

due to presence of the virus. Northern 

long-eared bats are also known to carry 

a variety of pests including chiggers, 

mites, bat bugs, and internal helminthes 

(Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 3). 

However, the level of mortality caused 

by WNS far exceeds mortality from all 

other known diseases and pests of the 

northern long-eared bat. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17999 

Predation 

Animals such as owls, hawks, 

raccoons, skunks, and snakes prey upon 

bats, although a limited number of 

animals consume bats as a regular part 

of their diet (Harvey et al. 1999, p. 13). 

Northern long-eared bats are believed to 

experience a small amount of predation; 

therefore, predation does not appear to 

be a population changing cause of 

mortality (Caceres and Pybus 1997, p. 4; 

Whitaker and Hamilton 1998, p. 101). 

Predation has been observed at a 

limited number of hibernacula within 

the range of the northern long-eared bat. 

Of the State and Federal agency 

responses received pertaining to 

northern long-eared bat hibernacula and 

threat of predation, 1 hibernaculum in 

Maine, 3 in Maryland (2 of which were 

due to feral cats), 1 in Minnesota, and 

10 in Vermont were reported as being 

prone to predation. In one instance, 

domestic cats were observed killing bats 

at a hibernaculum used by northern 

long-eared bat in Maryland, although 

the species of bat killed was not 

identified (Feller 2011, unpublished 

data). Turner (1999, personal 

observation) observed a snake (species 

unknown) capture an emerging Virginia 

big-eared bat in West Virginia. Tuttle 

(1979, p. 11) observed (eastern) screech 

owls (Otus asio) capturing emerging 

gray bats. Northern long-eared bats are 

known to be affected to a small degree 

by predators at summer roosts. Carver 

and Lereculeur (2013, pp. N6–N7) 

observed predation of a northern longeared bat by a gray rat snake during the 

summer; Sparks et al. (2003, pp. 106– 

107) described attempts by raccoons to 

prey on both Indiana bats and evening 

bats. Avian predators, such as owls and 

magpies, have been known to 

successfully take individual bats as they 

roost in more open sites, although this 

most likely does not have an effect on 

the overall population size (Caceres and 

Pybus 1997, p. 4). In summary, because 

bats are not a primary prey source for 

any known natural predators, it is 

unlikely that predation has substantial 

effects on the species at this time. 

Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease 

or Predation 

As mentioned above, WNS is 

responsible for unprecedented mortality 

in some species of hibernating bats in 

eastern North America, including the 

northern long-eared bat, and the disease 

continues to spread. In 2011, the 

Service, in partnership with several 

other State, Federal, and Tribal 

agencies, finalized a national response 

plan for WNS (A National Plan for 

Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and 

Tribes in Managing White-Nose 

Syndrome in Bats; https://www.white

nosesyndrome.org/national-plan/whitenose-syndrome-national-plan) to 

provide a common framework for the 

investigation and management of WNS 

(Service 2011, p. 1). In 2012, a sister 

plan was finalized for the national 

response to WNS in Canada (A National 

Plan to Manage White Nose Syndrome 

in Bats in Canada; http://

www2.ccwhc.ca/publications/Canadian

%20WNS%20Management%20Plan.

pdf), allowing for a broader coordinated 

response to the disease throughout the 

two countries. The multi-agency, multiorganization WNS response team, under 

the U.S. National Plan and in 

coordination with Canadian partners, 

has and continues to develop 

recommendations, tools, and strategies 

to slow the spread of WNS, minimize 

disturbance to hibernating bats, and 

improve conservation strategies for 

affected bat species. Some of these 

products include: Decontamination 

protocols; cave management strategies 

and best management practices (BMPs); 

forestry BMPs; nuisance wildlife control 

operator BMPs; transportation and 

bridge BMPs; hibernacula microclimate 

monitoring recommendations; wildlife 

rehabilitator BMPs; and a bat species 

ranking document for conservation 

actions. These containment and other 

strategies are intended to slow the 

spread of WNS and allow time for 

development of management options. 

The multi-agency, multi-partner 

National WNS Decontamination 

protocol (https://www.whitenose

syndrome.org/topics/decontamination) 

was developed to provide specific 

procedures to minimize the risk of 

transmitting the fungus when 

conducting work involving close direct 

contact with bats, their environments, or 

associated materials. In addition to batto-bat transmission of the disease agent, 

fungal spores can also be transmitted by 

human actions (USGS NWHC, Wildlife 

Health Bulletin 2011–05, unpaginated), 

and decontamination remains one of the 

only management options available to 

reduce the risk of human-assisted 

transmission. Decontamination 

protocols have been integrated into 

other protocols and BMPs that involve 

close direct contact with bats or their 

environments. 

In 2009, the Service also issued a 

recommendation for a voluntary 

moratorium on all caving activity in 

States known to have hibernacula 

affected by WNS, and all adjoining 

States, unless conducted as part of an 

agency-sanctioned research or 

monitoring project (Service 2009, 

entire). These recommendations have 

been reviewed annually and a revised 

version, including a multi-agency 

endorsement through the national WNS 

Steering Committee, is expected to be 

completed soon. Though not mandatory 

or required, many State, Federal, and 

Tribal agencies, along with other 

organizations and entities, operating 

within the northern long-eared bat’s 

range have incorporated the 

recommendations and protocols in the 

WNS National Plan in their own local 

response plans. The Western Bat 

Working Group, for example, has 

developed a White-nose Syndrome 

Action Plan, a comprehensive strategy 

to prevent the spread of WNS that 

covers States currently outside the range 

of WNS (Western Bat Working Group 

2010, pp. 1–11). 

The NPS is currently updating their 

cave management plans (for parks with 

caves) to include actions to minimize 

the risk of WNS spreading to uninfected 

caves. These actions include WNS 

education, screening visitors for 

disinfection, and closure of caves if 

necessary (NPS 2013, http://www.

nature.nps.gov/biology/WNS). In April 

2009, all caves and mines on USFS 

lands in the Eastern and Southern 

Regions were closed on an emergency 

basis in response to the spread of WNS, 

and closures on other USFS lands have 

been announced as well. In 2014, the 

closure order was extended for 5 more 

years in the USFS’s Southern Region. 

Eight National Forests in the Eastern 

Region contain caves or mines that are 

used by bats; caves and mines on seven 

of these National Forests (Allegheny, 

Hoosier, Ottawa, Mark Twain, 

Monongahela, Shawnee, and Wayne) 

were closed, and no closure is needed 

for the one mine on the eighth National 

Forest (Green Mountain) because it is 

already gated with a bat-friendly 

structure. Forest supervisors continue to 

evaluate the most recent information on 

WNS to inform decisions regarding 

extending cave and mine closures for 

the purpose of slowing the spread of 

WNS and reducing the impacts of 

disturbance on WNS-affected bat 

populations (USFS 2013, http://

www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r9/plantsanimals/wildlife/?cid=stelprdb

5438954). Caves and mines on USFS 

lands in the Rocky Mountain Region 

were closed on an emergency basis in 

2010, in response to WNS, but since 

then have been reopened (USFS 2013, 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/home/

?cid=stelprdb5319926). In place of the 

emergency closures, the Rocky 

Mountain Region will implement an 

adaptive management strategy that will 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18000 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

require registration to access an open 

cave, prohibit use of clothing or 

equipment used in areas where WNS is 

found, require decontamination 

procedures prior to entering any and all 

caves, and require closure of all known 

hibernacula caves during the winter 

hibernation period. Although the abovementioned WNS-related conservation 

measures may help reduce or slow the 

spread of the disease, these efforts are 

not currently enough to ameliorate the 

population-level effects to the northern 

long-eared bat. 

Research is also under way to develop 

control and treatment options for WNSinfected bats and environments. A 

number of potential treatments are 

currently being explored and are in 

various stages of development. Risks to 

other biota or the environment need to 

be assessed when considering disease 

management trials in a field setting. No 

treatment strategies have been tested on 

the northern long-eared bat, to date, and 

there remains no demonstrated safe or 

effective treatment for WNS. It remains 

unknown whether treatment of bats may 

increase survival or allow the northern 

long-eared bat to survive exposure to the 

pathogen. Potential treatment of the 

northern long-eared bat will be further 

complicated by the dispersed winter 

roosting habits of the species and 

difficulty finding the species in 

hibernacula. Further, no treatment in 

development has demonstrated any 

potential to allow a species to adapt to 

the presence of the pathogen. More 

research and coordination is needed to 

address the safety and effectiveness of 

any treatment proposed for field use and 

to meet regulatory requirements prior to 

consideration of widespread 

application. Therefore, a landscapescale approach to reduce the impacts of 

WNS is still at least a few years away. 

Summary of Disease and Predation 

The northern long-eared bat is highly 

susceptible to white-nose syndrome and 

mortality of the species due to the 

disease has been documented 

throughout the majority of its range. 

WNS is caused by the nonnative fungus 

Pd, which is believed to have originated 

in Europe. WNS has been found in 25 

States and 5 Canadian provinces since 

first discovered in New York in 2007, 

and at least seven bat species are 

confirmed to be susceptible in North 

America. The fungus that causes WNS 

has been documented in an additional 

three States. WNS infection, 

characterized by visible fungal growth 

on the bat, alters the normal arousal 

cycles of hibernating bats, causes severe 

wing damage, and depletes fat reserves, 

and it has resulted in substantial 

mortality of North American bat 

populations. 

The effect of WNS on northern longeared bats has been especially severe 

and has caused mortality in the species 

throughout the majority of the WNSaffected range. This is currently viewed 

as the predominant threat to the species, 

and if WNS had not emerged or was not 

affecting northern long-eared bat 

populations to the level that it has, we 

presume the species would not be 

declining to the degree observed. A 

recent study revealed that the northern 

long-eared bat has experienced a 

precipitous population decline, 

estimated at approximately 96 percent 

(from hibernacula data) in the 

northeastern portion of its range, due to 

the emergence of WNS. WNS has spread 

to approximately 60 percent of the 

northern long-eared bat’s range in the 

United States, and if the observed 

average rate of spread of Pd continues, 

the fungus will be found in hibernacula 

throughout the entire species’ range 

within 8 to 13 years based on the 

calculated rate of spread observed to 

date (by both the Service and 

COSEWIC). We expect that similar 

declines as seen in the East and portions 

of the Midwest will be experienced in 

the future throughout the rest of the 

species’ range. There has been a 

sustained and coordinated effort 

between partners (e.g., Federal, State, 

Canada, nongovernment) to curtail the 

spread of WNS, and while these 

measures may reduce or slow the spread 

of WNS, these efforts are currently not 

enough to ameliorate the populationlevel effects on the northern long-eared 

bat. Also, research is under way to 

develop control and treatment options 

for WNS-infected bats and hibernacula; 

however, additional research is needed 

before potential treatments are 

implemented on a landscape scale. 

Other diseases are known or 

suspected to infect northern long-eared 

bats, but none is known to have 

appreciable effects on the species. Also, 

it is unlikely that predation is 

significantly affecting the species at this 

time. 

Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Under this factor, we examine 

whether existing regulatory mechanisms 

are inadequate to address the threats to 

the species discussed under the other 

factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act 

requires the Service to take into account 

‘‘those efforts, if any, being made by any 

State or foreign nation, or any political 

subdivision of a State or foreign nation, 

to protect such species. . . .’’ In relation 

to Factor D under the Act, we interpret 

this language to require the Service to 

consider relevant Federal, State, and 

tribal laws, regulations, and other such 

mechanisms that may reduce any of the 

threats we describe in threat analyses 

under the other four factors. We give 

strongest weight to statutes and their 

implementing regulations and to 

management direction that stems from 

those laws and regulations. An example 

would be State governmental actions 

enforced under a State statute or 

constitution, or Federal action under 

statute. 

Having evaluated the significance of 

the threat as mitigated by any such 

conservation efforts, we analyze under 

Factor D the extent to which existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to address the specific threats to the 

species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they 

exist, may reduce or eliminate the 

effects from one or more identified 

threats. In this section, we review 

existing State, Federal, and local 

regulatory mechanisms to determine 

whether they effectively reduce or 

remove threats to the northern longeared bat. 

No existing regulatory mechanisms 

have been shown to sufficiently protect 

the species against WNS, the primary 

threat to the northern long-eared bat; 

thus, despite regulatory mechanisms 

that are currently in place, the species 

is still at risk. There are, however, some 

mechanisms in place to provide some 

protection from other factors that may 

act cumulatively with WNS. As such, 

the discussion below provides a few 

examples of such existing regulatory 

mechanisms. 

Canadian Laws and Regulations 

In 2014, the northern long-eared bat 

was determined, under an emergency 

assessment, to be endangered under the 

Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) 

(Species at Risk Public Registry 2014). 

The SARA makes it an offense to kill, 

harm, harass, capture, or take an 

individual of a listed species that is 

endangered or threatened; possess, 

collect, buy, sell, or trade an individual 

of a listed species that is extirpated, 

endangered, or threatened, or its part or 

derivative; or to damage or destroy the 

residence of one or more individuals of 

a listed endangered or threatened 

species or of a listed extirpated species 

if a recovery strategy has recommended 

its reintroduction. For most of the 

species listed under SARA, including 

the northern long-eared bat, the 

prohibitions on harm to individuals and 

destruction of residences are limited to 

Federal lands. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18001 

U.S. Federal Laws and Regulations 

Several laws and regulations help 

Federal agencies protect bats on their 

lands, such as the Federal Cave 

Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 

4301 et seq.) that protects caves on 

Federal lands and the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) review, which serves to 

mitigate effects to bats due to 

construction activities on federally 

owned lands. The NPS has additional 

laws, policies, and regulations that 

protect bats on NPS units, including the 

NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 

et seq.), NPS management policies 

(related to exotic species and protection 

of native species), and NPS policies 

related to caves and karst systems 

(provides guidance on placement of 

gates on caves not only to address 

human safety concerns, but also for the 

preservation of sensitive bat habitat) 

(Plumb and Budde 2011, unpublished 

data). Even if a bat species is not listed 

under the Act, the NPS works to 

minimize effects to the species. In 

addition, the NPS Research Permitting 

and Reporting System tracks research 

permit applications and investigator 

annual reports, and NPS management 

policies require non-NPS studies 

conducted in parks to conform to NPS 

policies and guidelines regarding the 

collection of bat data (Plumb and Budde 

2011, unpublished data). 

The northern long-eared bat is 

considered a ‘‘sensitive species’’ 

throughout the USFS’s Eastern Region 

(USFS 2012, http://www.fs.usda.gov/

Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/

stelprdb5384459.pdf). As such, the 

northern long-eared bat must receive, 

‘‘special management emphasis to 

ensure its viability and to preclude 

trends toward endangerment that would 

result in the need for Federal listing. 

There must be no effects to sensitive 

species without an analysis of the 

significance of adverse effects on the 

populations, its habitat, and on the 

viability of the species as a whole. It is 

essential to establish population 

viability objectives when making 

decisions that would significantly 

reduce sensitive species numbers’’ 

(Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.1, 

http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm/

2600/2672-2672.24a.txt). 

State Laws and Regulations 

The northern long-eared bat is listed 

in few of the States within the species’ 

range. The northern long-eared bat is 

listed as endangered under the 

Massachusetts endangered species act, 

under which all listed species are, 

‘‘protected from killing, collecting, 

possessing, or sale and from activities 

that would destroy habitat and thus 

directly or indirectly cause mortality or 

disrupt critical behaviors.’’ In addition, 

listed animals are specifically protected 

from activities that disrupt nesting, 

breeding, feeding, or migration 

(Massachusetts Division of Fisheries 

and Wildlife 2012, unpublished 

document). In Wisconsin, all cave bats, 

including the northern long-eared bat, 

were listed as threatened in the State in 

2011, due to previously existing threats 

and the impending threat of WNS 

(Redell 2011, pers. comm.). It is illegal 

to take, transport, possess, process, or 

sell any wild animal that is included on 

the Wisconsin Endangered and 

Threatened Species List without a valid 

endangered or threatened species 

permit. Certain development projects 

(e.g., wind energy), however, are 

excluded from regulations that are in 

place to protect the species in 

Wisconsin (WDNR, unpublished 

document, 2011, p. 4). In Vermont, the 

northern long-eared bat was provided 

protection by being listed as endangered 

under the Vermont endangered species 

law. Except where authorized by 

separate chapters of the law, the 

Vermont law states, ‘‘a person shall not 

take, possess or transport wildlife or 

plants that are members of an 

endangered or threatened species.’’ The 

northern long-eared bat is considered as 

some form of species of concern in 18 

States: ‘‘Species of Greatest Concern’’ in 

Alabama and Rhode Island; ‘‘Species of 

Greatest Conservation Need’’ in 

Delaware, Iowa, and Michigan; ‘‘Species 

of Concern’’ in Ohio and Wyoming; 

‘‘Rare Species of Concern’’ in South 

Carolina; ‘‘Imperiled’’ in Oklahoma; 

‘‘Critically Imperiled’’ in Louisiana; 

‘‘Species of Conservation Concern’’ in 

Missouri, and ‘‘Species of Special 

Concern’’ in Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, 

New Hampshire, North Carolina, 

Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. In 

Kansas, the State has been petitioned to 

evaluate the northern long-eared bat as 

‘‘threatened’’ in accordance with the 

Kansas Nongame and Endangered 

Species Act. 

In the following States, there is either 

no State protection law or the northern 

long-eared bat is not protected under the 

existing law: Arkansas, Connecticut, 

Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, 

Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New 

York, North Dakota, Tennessee, 

Virginia, and West Virginia. In 

Kentucky, although the northern longeared bat does not have a State listing 

status, it is considered protected from 

take under Kentucky State law. 

Wind energy development regulation 

varies by State within the northern longeared bat’s range. For example, in 

Virginia, although there are not 

currently any wind energy 

developments in the State, new 

legislation requires operators to 

‘‘measure the efficacy’’ of mitigation, 

with the objective of reducing bat 

fatalities (Reynolds 2011, unpublished 

data). In Vermont, all wind energy 

facilities are required to conduct bat 

mortality surveys, and at least two of the 

three currently permitted wind facilities 

in the State include application of 

operational adjustments (curtailment) to 

reduce bat fatalities (Smith 2011, 

unpublished data). Other States, many 

of which have expansive wind energy 

development, have no regulatory 

program for wind energy projects. 

Summary of Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

No existing regulatory mechanisms 

have been shown to sufficiently protect 

the species against WNS, the primary 

threat to the northern long-eared bat. 

Therefore, despite regulatory 

mechanisms that are currently in place 

for the northern long-eared bat, the 

species is still at risk, primarily due to 

WNS, as discussed under Factor C. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

Wind Energy Development 

Significant bat mortality has been 

witnessed associated with utility-scale 

(greater than or equal to 0.66 megawatt 

(MW)) wind turbines along forested 

ridge tops in the eastern and 

northeastern United States and in 

agricultural areas of the Midwest 

(Johnson 2005, p. 46; Arnett et al. 2008, 

p. 63; Cryan 2011, p. 364; Arnett and 

Baerwald 2013, p. 441; Hayes 2013, p. 

977; Smallwood 2013, p. 26). Recent 

estimates of bat mortality from wind 

energy facilities vary considerably 

depending on the methodology used 

and species of bat. Arnett and Baerwald 

(2013 p. 443) estimated that 650,104 to 

1,308,378 bats had been killed at wind 

energy facilities in the United States and 

Canada as of 2011, and expected 

another 196,190 to 395,886 would be 

lost in 2012. Other bat mortality 

estimates range from ‘‘well over 600,000 

. . . in 2012’’ (Hayes 2013, p. 977; [but 

see Huso and Dalthorp 2014, p. 546– 

547]) to 888,000 bats per year 

(Smallwood 2013, p. 26), and mortality 

can be expected to increase as more 

turbines are installed on the landscape. 

The majority of bats killed include 

migratory foliage-roosting species the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18002 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) and 

eastern red bat, and the migratory, treeand cavity-roosting silver-haired bat 

(Arnett et al. 2008, p. 64; Cryan 2011 p. 

364; Arnett and Baerwald 2013, p. 444). 

The Service reviewed postconstruction mortality monitoring 

studies at 62 unique operating wind 

energy facilities in the range of the 

northern long-eared bat in the United 

States and Canada. In these studies, 41 

northern long-eared bat mortalities were 

documented, comprising less than 1 

percent of all bat mortalities. Northern 

long-eared bat mortalities were detected 

throughout the study range, including: 

Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, 

Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, 

West Virginia, and Ontario. Northern 

long-eared bat mortalities were detected 

at 29 percent of the facilities studied. 

There is a great deal of uncertainty 

related to extrapolating these numbers 

to generate an estimate of total northern 

long-eared bat mortality at wind energy 

facilities due to variability in postconstruction survey effort and 

methodology (Huso and Dalthorp 2014, 

pp. 546–547). Bat mortality can vary 

between years and between sites, and 

detected carcasses are only a small 

percentage of total bat mortalities. 

Despite these limitations, Arnett and 

Baerwald (2013, p. 444) estimated that 

wind energy facilities in the United 

States and Canada killed between 1,175 

and 2,433 northern long-eared bats from 

2000 to 2011. 

The number of bats actually killed at 

the facilities discussed above is 

certainly larger than the 41 individuals 

that were found. Only a portion of 

carcasses are found during postconstruction mortality surveys, most 

studies only cover a 1- or 2-year period 

at a single site, and only some facilities 

conduct monitoring and make the 

results available to the Service (Cryan 

2011, pp. 368–369). Additionally, if 

mortality occurs at a specific wind 

facility in a given year, it is reasonable 

to expect that mortality will occur 

throughout the operational life of the 

wind facility (approximately 20 years). 

Sustained annual mortality of 

individual northern long-eared bats at a 

particular wind facility could result in 

impacts to local populations. 

There are three impacts of wind 

turbines that may explain proximate 

causes of bat fatalities, which include: 

(1) Bats collide with turbine towers; (2) 

bats collide with moving blades; or (3) 

bats suffer internal injuries (barotrauma) 

after being exposed to rapid pressure 

changes near the trailing edges and tips 

of moving blades (Cryan and Barclay 

2009, p. 1331). Researchers have 

recently indicated that traumatic injury, 

including bone fractures and soft tissue 

trauma caused by collision with moving 

blades, is the major cause of bat 

mortality at wind energy facilities 

(Rollins et al. 2012, pp. 365, 368; 

Grodsky et al. 2011, p. 920). Grodsky et 

al. (2011, p. 924) suggested that these 

injuries can lead to an underestimation 

of bat mortality at wind energy facilities 

due to delayed lethal effects. However, 

the authors also noted that the surface 

and core pressure drops behind the 

spinning turbine blades are high enough 

(equivalent to sound levels that are 

10,000 times higher in energy density 

than the threshold of pain in humans) 

to cause significant ear damage to bats 

flying near wind turbines (Grodsky et al. 

2011, p. 924). Bats suffering from ear 

damage would have a difficult time 

navigating and foraging, as both of these 

functions depend on the bats’ ability to 

echolocate (Grodsky et al. 2011, p. 924). 

While earlier papers indicated that 

barotrauma may also be responsible for 

a considerable portion of bat mortality 

at wind energy facilities (Baerwald et al. 

2008, pp. 695–696), in a more recent 

study, researchers found only 6 percent 

of wind turbine killed bats at one site 

were possibly killed by barotrauma 

(Rollins et al. 2012, p. 367). In a separate 

study, Grodsky et al. (2011, p. 920 and 

922) found that 74 percent of carcasses 

had bone fractures and more than half 

had mild to severe hemorrhaging in the 

middle or inner ears; thus it is difficult 

to attribute individual fatalities 

exclusively to either direct collision or 

barotrauma. 

Wind energy development is rapidly 

increasing throughout the northern 

long-eared bat’s range. Iowa, Illinois, 

Oklahoma, Minnesota, Kansas, and New 

York are within the top 10 States for 

wind energy capacity (installed 

megawatts) in the United States (AWEA 

2013, unpaginated). There is a national 

movement towards a 20 percent wind 

energy sector in the U.S. market by 2030 

(United States Department of Energy 

(US DOE)2008, unpaginated). Through 

2012, wind energy has achieved its 

goals in installation towards the targeted 

20 percent by 2030 (AWEA 2015, 

unpaginated). If the target is achieved, it 

would represent nearly a five-fold 

increase in wind energy capacity during 

the next 15 years (Loss et al. 2013, pp. 

201–209). While locations of future 

wind energy projects are largely 

influenced by ever-changing economic 

factors and are difficult to predict, 

sufficient wind regimes exist to support 

wind power development throughout 

the range of the northern long-eared bat 

(US DOE 2015, unpaginated), and wind 

development can be expected to 

increase throughout the range in future 

years. Wind energy facilities have been 

constructed in areas within a large 

portion of the range of the northern 

long-eared bat, thus this species is 

exposed to the risk of turbine-related 

mortality. However, northern long-eared 

bats are rarely detected as mortalities, 

even in areas where they are known to 

be common on the landscape. 

We conclude that there may be 

adverse effects posed by wind energy 

development to northern long-eared 

bats; however, there is no evidence 

suggesting effects from wind energy 

development itself has led to 

population-level declines in this 

species. Further, given the low mortality 

rates experienced and estimated, we 

believe northern long-eared bats are not 

as vulnerable to mortality from wind 

turbines as other species of bats (e.g., 

hoary bat, silver-haired bat, red bat, big 

brown bat, little brown bat, and 

tricolored bat). However, sustained 

annual mortality of individual northern 

long-eared bats at a particular wind 

energy facility could result in negative 

impacts to local populations. 

Climate Change 

Our analyses under the Act include 

consideration of observed or likely 

environmental effects related to ongoing 

and projected changes in climate. As 

defined by the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC), ‘‘climate’’ 

refers to average weather, typically 

measured in terms of the mean and 

variability of temperature, precipitation, 

or other relevant properties over time, 

and ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a 

change in such a measure that persists 

for an extended period, typically 

decades or longer, due to natural 

conditions (e.g., solar cycles) or humancaused changes in the composition of 

the atmosphere or in land use (IPCC 

2013, p. 1450). Detailed explanations of 

global climate change and examples of 

various observed and projected changes 

and associated effects and risks at the 

global level are provided in reports 

issued by the IPCC (2014 and citations 

therein); information for the United 

States at national and region levels is 

summarized in the National Climate 

Assessment (Melillo et al. 2014 entire 

and citations therein; see Melillo et al. 

2014, pp. 28–45 for an overview). 

Because observed and projected changes 

in climate at regional and local levels 

vary from global average conditions, 

rather than using global scale 

projections we use ‘‘downscaled’’ 

projections when they are available and 

have been developed through 

appropriate scientific procedures, 

because such projections provide higher 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18003 

resolution information that is more 

relevant to spatial scales used for 

analyses of a given species and the 

conditions influencing it (see Melillo et 

al. 2014, Appendix 3, pp. 760–763 for 

a discussion of climate modeling, 

including downscaling). In our analysis, 

we use our expert judgment to weigh 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available in our consideration of 

relevant aspects of climate change and 

related effects. 

The unique life-history traits of bats 

and their susceptibility to local 

temperature, humidity, and 

precipitation patterns make them an 

early warning system for effects of 

climate change in regional ecosystems 

(Adams and Hayes 2008, p. 1120). 

Climate influences food availability, 

timing of hibernation, frequency and 

duration of torpor, rate of energy 

expenditure, reproduction, and rates of 

juvenile bat development (Sherwin et 

al. 2013, p. 178). Climate change may 

lead to warmer winters, which could 

lead to a shorter hibernation period, 

increased winter activity, and reduced 

reliance on the relatively stable 

temperatures of underground 

hibernation sites (Jones et al. 2009, p. 

99). An earlier spring would presumably 

result in a shorter hibernation period 

and the earlier appearance of foraging 

bats (Jones et al. 2009, p. 99). An earlier 

emergence from hibernation may have 

no detrimental effect on populations if 

sufficient food is available (Jones et al. 

2009, p. 99); however, predicting future 

insect population dynamics and 

distributions is complex (Bale et al. 

2002, p. 6). Alterations in precipitation, 

stream flow, and soil moisture could 

alter insect populations and, therefore, 

food availability for bats (Rodenhouse et 

al. 2009, p. 250). 

Climate change is expected to alter 

seasonal ambient temperatures and 

precipitation patterns across regions 

(Adams and Hayes 2008, p. 1115), 

which could lead to shifts in the range 

of some bat species (Loeb and Winters 

2013, p. 107; Razgour et al. 2013, p. 

1262). Suitable roost temperatures and 

water availability are directly related to 

successful reproduction in female 

insectivorous bats (Adams and Hayes 

2008, p. 1116). Adams (2010, p. 2440) 

reported decreased reproductive success 

in female insectivorous bats in response 

to decreased precipitation. In contrast, 

Burles et al. (2009, p. 136) and Lucan et 

al. (2013, p. 154) reported decreased 

reproductive success in response to 

increased precipitation in little brown 

bats and Daubenton’s bats (Myotis 

daubentonii), respectively. Annual 

precipitation in the northeast United 

States is projected to either remain 

stable or increase, although projections 

are highly variable (Frumhoff et al. 

2007, p. 8). However, in comparison, 

Adams and Hayes (2008, p. 1120) 

predict an overall decline in bat 

populations in the western United 

States from reduced regional water 

storage caused by climate warming. 

Warmer winter temperatures may also 

disrupt bat reproductive physiology. 

Northern long-eared bats breed in the 

fall, and spermatozoa are stored in the 

uterus of hibernating females until 

spring ovulation. If bats experience 

warmer hibernating conditions they 

may arouse prematurely, ovulate, and 

become pregnant (Jones et al. 2009, p. 

99). Given this dependence on external 

temperatures, climate change is likely to 

affect the timing of reproductive cycles 

(Jones et al. 2009, p. 99), but making 

generalizations about the level of risk 

associated with changes in bat 

reproduction due to climate change is 

difficult (Sherwin et al. 2013, p. 176). 

Sherwin et al. (2013, p. 176) postulates 

that warmer climates may benefit female 

bats by causing earlier birth and 

weaning of young, allowing more time 

to mate and store fat reserves in 

preparation for hibernation. Research by 

Frick et al. (2010b, p. 133) supports this 

theory, whereby the authors showed 

giving birth earlier had significant 

fitness benefits, given that young born 

in early summer had a higher 

probability of surviving and breeding in 

their first year than pups born later in 

the summer. 

The role of climate change in the 

spread of WNS is largely unknown. A 

shortened hibernation period and 

warmer winter temperatures may 

shorten exposure time and slow the 

spread of WNS. However, using three 

standard IPCC scenarios (Special 

Report: Emissions Scenarios (SRES) B1, 

least change in climate; A1B, 

intermediate change; and A2, most 

change), Maher et al. (2012, p. 6) 

showed accelerated spread of WNS 

under all scenarios relative to 

projections based on observed data. 

Although we have information that 

suggests that climate change may affect 

the northern long-eared bat, we do not 

have evidence suggesting that climate 

change in itself has led to population 

declines; furthermore, the spread of 

WNS across the species’ range is 

occurring rapidly, so discerning effects 

from climate change may be difficult. 

Contaminants 

Effects to bats from contaminant 

exposure have likely occurred and gone, 

for the most part, unnoticed in bat 

populations (Clark and Shore 2001, p. 

204). Contaminants of concern to 

insectivorous bats like northern longeared bats include organochlorine 

pesticides, organophosphate, carbamate 

and neonicotinoid insecticides, 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and 

polybrominated diphenyl ethers 

(PBDEs), pyrethroid insecticides, and 

inorganic contaminants such as mercury 

(Clark and Shore 2001, pp. 159–214). 

Detectable levels of organochlorine 

pesticides have been reported in 

northern long-eared bats (Eidels et al. 

2007, p. 52). Organochlorine pesticides 

(e.g., dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

(DDT), chlordane) persist in the 

environment due to lipophilic (fatloving) properties, and, therefore, 

readily accumulate within the fat tissue 

of bats. Because insectivorous bats have 

high metabolic rates, associated with 

flight and small size, their food intake 

increases the amount of organochlorines 

available for concentration in the fat 

(Clark and Shore 2001, p. 166). Because 

bats are long-lived, the potential for 

bioaccumulation is great, and effects on 

reproduction have been documented 

(Clark and Shore 2001, pp. 181–190). In 

maternity colonies, young bats appear to 

be at the greatest risk of mortality. This 

is because organochlorines become 

concentrated in the fat of the mother’s 

milk and these chemicals continually 

and rapidly accumulate in the young as 

they nurse (Clark 1988, pp. 410–411). 

In addition to indirect effects of 

organochlorine pesticides on bats via 

prey consumption, documented cases of 

direct effects involve application of 

pesticides to bats and their roosts. For 

example, when a mixture of DDT and 

chlordane was applied to little brown 

bats and their roost site, mortality from 

exposure was observed (Kunz et al. 

1977, p. 478). Most organochlorine 

pesticides have been banned in the 

United States, and time trend analysis 

indicates that these pesticides have 

declined significantly over the 30 years 

since these compounds were restricted 

(Bayat et al. 2014, pp. 46–47). 

Organochlorine pesticides have 

largely been replaced by 

organophosphate insecticides, which 

are generally short-lived in the 

environment and do not accumulate in 

food chains; however, risk of exposure 

is still possible from direct exposure 

from spraying or ingesting insects that 

have recently been sprayed but have not 

died, or both (Clark 1988, p. 411). 

Organophosphate and carbamate 

insecticides are acutely toxic to 

mammals. Some organophosphates may 

be stored in fat tissue and contribute to 

‘‘organophosphate-induced delayed 

neuropathy’’ in humans (United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 2013, 

p. 44). Bats may lose their motor 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18004 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

coordination from direct application 

and are unlikely to survive in the wild 

in an incapacitated state lasting more 

than 24 hours (Plumb and Budde 2011, 

unpublished data). Northern long-eared 

bats may be exposed to 

organophosphate and carbamate 

insecticides in regions where methyl 

parathion is applied in cotton fields and 

where malathion is used for mosquito 

control (Plumb and Budde 2011, 

unpublished data). The 

organophosphate, chlorpyrifos, has high 

fat solubility and is commonly used on 

crops such as corn and soybeans (van 

Beelen 2000, p. 34 of Appendix 2; 

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/

usage/ 

maps/show_map.php?year=2009&map=

CHLORPYRIFOS&hilo=L). 

Neonicotinoids have been found to 

cause oxidative stress, neurological 

damage and possible liver damage in 

rats, and immune suppression in mice 

(Kimura-Kuroda et al. 2011, p. 381; 

Duzguner and Erdogan 2012, p. 58; 

Badgujar et al. 2013, p. 408). Due to 

information indicating that there is a 

link between neonicotinoids used in 

agriculture and a decline in bee 

numbers, the European Union proposed 

a 2-year ban on the use of the 

neonicotinoids, thiamethoxam, 

imidacloprid, and clothianidin on crops 

attractive to honeybees, beginning in 

December of 2013 (Bergeson and 

Campbell PC, http://www.lawbc.com/

regulatory-developments/entry/

proposal-for-restriction-ofneonicotinoid-products-in-the-eu/). 

The more recently developed ‘‘third 

generation’’ of pyrethroids have acute 

oral toxicities rivaling the toxicity of 

organophosphate, carbamate and 

organochlorine pesticides. These 

pyrethroids include: Esfenvalerate, 

deltamethrin, bifenthrin, tefluthrin, 

flucythrinate, cyhalothrin, and 

fenpropathrin (Mueller-Beilschmidt 

1990, p. 32). Pyrethroids are 

increasingly used in the United States, 

and some of these compounds have very 

high fat solubility (e.g., bifenthrin, 

cypermethrin) (van Beelen 2000, p. 34 

of Appendix 2). 

Like the organochlorine pesticides, 

PCBs and PBDEs are highly lipophilic 

and therefore readily accumulate in 

insectivorous bats. Measured 

concentrations of PCBs and PBDEs in 

little brown bats were high, in the partsper-million range, in both WNS-infected 

and non-infected bats (Kannan et al. 

2010, p. 617). High exposures to 

persistent organic pollutants can 

potentially be associated with various 

health effects, including 

immunosuppression, behavioral 

anomalies, and contaminant-induced 

enhancement of metabolic rate in bats 

(Kannan et al. 2010, p. 617). Outside of 

laboratory experiments, there is no 

conclusive evidence that bats have been 

killed by PCBs, although effects on 

reproduction have been observed (Clark 

and Shore 2001, pp. 192–194). 

Northern long-eared bats forage on 

emergent insects and can be 

characterized as occasionally foraging 

over water (Yates and Evers 2006, p. 5), 

and, therefore, are at risk of exposure to 

bioaccumulation of inorganic 

contaminants (e.g., cadmium, lead, 

mercury) from contaminated water 

bodies. Bats tend to accumulate 

inorganic contaminants due to their diet 

and slow means of elimination of these 

compounds (Plumb and Budde 2011, 

unpublished data). In Virginia, for 

example, the North Fork Holston River 

is a water body that was highly 

contaminated by a waterborne point 

source of mercury through 

contamination by a chlor-alkali plant. 

Based on findings from a pilot study for 

bats in 2005 (Yates and Evers 2006), 

there is sufficient information to 

conclude that bats from neardownstream areas of the North Fork 

Holston River have potentially harmful 

body burdens of mercury, although the 

effect on bats is unknown. Yates et al. 

(2014, pp. 46–49) collected over 2,000 

tissue samples from 10 species of bats 

in the northeast United States. The 

highest mercury levels in fur and blood 

samples were detected in tri-colored, 

little brown, and northern long-eared 

bats. Divoll et al. (in prep) found that 

northern long-eared bats showed 

consistently higher mercury levels than 

little brown bats or eastern red bats 

sampled in Maine, which may be 

correlated with gleaning behavior and 

the consumption of spiders by northern 

long-eared bats. Bats recaptured during 

the study one or 2 years after their 

original capture maintained similar 

levels of mercury in fur year-to-year. 

Biologists suggest that individual bats 

accumulate body burdens of mercury 

that cannot be reduced once elevated to 

a certain threshold. 

Exposure to holding ponds containing 

flow-back and produced water 

associated with hydraulic fracturing 

operations may also expose bats to 

toxins, radioactive material, and other 

contaminants (Hein 2012, p. 8). 

Cadmium, mercury, and lead are 

contaminants reported in hydraulic 

fracturing operations. Whether bats 

drink directly from holding ponds or 

contaminants are introduced from these 

operations into aquatic ecosystems, bats 

will presumably accumulate these 

substances and potentially suffer 

adverse effects (Hein 2012, p. 9). 

A recent review on organic 

contaminants in bats by Bayat et al. 

(2014, pp. 40–52) ‘‘suggests that bats 

today are exposed generally to lower 

contaminant concentrations, but that 

these can manifest in a range of sublethal neurological and physiological 

changes that may impact bat survival. 

Defining concentration endpoints for 

sub-lethal impacts, especially for the 

emerging contaminants, and linking 

these to effects on bat function, behavior 

or survival, and long term impacts on 

populations is limited.’’ In summary, 

the best available data indicate that 

contaminant exposure may cause 

adverse effects to northern long-eared 

bats, but if population declines have 

occurred due to these factors, they have 

not been discernable. 

Prescribed Burning 

Eastern forest-dwelling bat species, 

such as the northern long-eared bat, 

likely evolved with fire management of 

mixed-oak ecosystems (Perry 2012, p. 

182). A recent review of prescribed fire 

and its effects on bats (USFS 2012, p. 

182) generally found that fire had 

beneficial effects on bat habitat. Fire 

may create snags for roosting and 

creates more open forests conducive to 

foraging on flying insects (Perry 2012, 

pp. 177–179), although gleaners such as 

northern long-eared bats may readily 

use cluttered understories for foraging 

(Owen et al. 2003, p. 355). Cavity and 

bark roosting bats, such as the northern 

long-eared, use previously burned areas 

for both foraging and roosting (Johnson 

et al. 2009a, p. 239; Johnson et al. 2010, 

p. 118). In Kentucky, the abundance of 

prey items for northern long-eared bats 

increased after burning (Lacki et al. 

2009, p. 1170), and more roosts were 

found in post-burn areas (Lacki et al. 

2009, p. 1169). Burning may create more 

suitable snags for roosting through 

exfoliation of bark (Johnson et al. 2009a, 

p. 240), mimicking trees in the 

appropriate decay stage for roosting 

bats. In contrast, a prescribed burn in 

Kentucky caused a roost tree used by a 

radio-tagged female northern long-eared 

bat to prematurely fall after its base was 

weakened by smoldering combustion 

(Dickinson et al. 2009, p. 56). Lowintensity burns may not kill taller trees 

directly but may create snags of smaller 

trees and larger trees may be injured, 

resulting in vulnerability (of the tree) to 

pathogens that cause hollowing of the 

trunk, which provides roosting habitat 

(Perry 2012, p. 177). Prescribed burning 

also opens the tree canopy, providing 

more canopy light penetration (Boyles 

and Aubrey 2006, p. 112; Johnson et al. 

2009a, p. 240), which may facilitate 

faster development of juvenile bats 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18005 

(Sedgeley 2001, p. 434). Although 

Johnson et al. (2009a, p. 240) found the 

amount of roost switching did not differ 

between burned and unburned areas, 

the rate of switching in burned areas of 

every 1.35 days was greater than that 

found in other studies (every 2 to 3 

days) (Foster and Kurta 1999, p. 665; 

Owen et al. 2002, p. 2; Carter and 

Feldhamer 2005, p. 261; Timpone et al. 

2010, p. 119). 

Direct effects of fire on bats likely 

differ among species and seasons (Perry 

2012, p. 172). Northern long-eared bats 

have been seen flushing from tree roosts 

shortly after ignition of prescribed fire 

during the growing season (Dickinson et 

al. 2009, p. 60). Fires of reduced 

intensity that proceed slowly allow 

sufficient time for roosting bats to 

arouse from sleep or torpor and escape 

the fire (Dickinson et al. 2010, p. 2200), 

although extra arousals from fire smoke 

could cause increased energy loss 

(Dickinson et al. 2009, p. 52). During 

prescribed burns, bats are potentially 

exposed to heat and gases; the roosting 

behavior of this species, however, may 

reduce its vulnerability to toxic gases. 

When trees are dormant, the bats are 

roosting in caves or mines (hibernacula 

can be protected from toxic gases 

through appropriate burn plans), and 

during the growing season, northern 

long-eared bats roost in tree cavities or 

under bark above the understory, above 

the area with the highest concentration 

of gases in a low-intensity prescribed 

burn (Dickinson et al. 2010, pp. 2196, 

2200). Carbon monoxide levels did not 

reach critical thresholds that could 

harm bats in low-intensity burns at the 

typical roosting height for the northern 

long-eared bat (Dickinson et al. 2010, p. 

2196); thus, heat effects from prescribed 

fire are of greater concern than gas 

effects on bats. Direct heat could cause 

injury to the thin tissue of bat ears and 

is more likely to occur than exposure to 

toxic gas levels during prescribed burns 

(Dickinson et al. 2010, p. 2196). In 

addition, fires of reduced intensity with 

shorter flame height could lessen the 

effect of heat to bats roosting higher in 

trees (Dickinson et al. 2010, p. 2196). 

Winter, early spring, and late fall 

generally contain less intense fire 

conditions than during other seasons 

and coincide with time periods when 

bats are less affected by prescribed fire 

due to low activity in forested areas. 

Furthermore, no young are present 

during these times, reducing the 

likelihood of heat injury to vulnerable 

young to fire (Dickinson et al. 2010, p. 

2200). Prescribed fire objectives, such as 

fires with high intensity and rapid 

ignition in order to meet vegetation 

goals, must be balanced with the 

exposure of bats to the effects of fire 

(Dickinson et al. 2010, p. 2201). 

Currently, the Service and USFS 

strongly recommend not burning in the 

central hardwoods from mid- to late 

April through summer to avoid periods 

when bats are active in forests 

(Dickinson et al. 2010, p. 2200). 

Bats that occur in forests are likely 

equipped with evolutionary 

characteristics that allow them to exist 

in environments with prescribed fire. 

Periodic burning can benefit habitat 

through snag creation and forest canopy 

gap creation, but frequency and timing 

need to be considered to avoid direct 

and indirect adverse effects to bats 

when using prescribed burns as a 

management tool. Adverse impacts to 

individual bats during the active season 

could be significantly reduced through 

development of appropriate burn plans 

that avoid and minimize heat 

production during prescribed burns. We 

conclude that there may be adverse 

effects posed by prescribed burning to 

individual northern long-eared bats; 

however, there is no evidence 

suggesting effects from prescribed 

burning itself have led to population 

declines. 

Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other 

Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting 

Its Continued Existence 

In the Midwest, rapid wind energy 

development is a concern with regard to 

its effect on bats (Baker 2011, pers. 

comm.; Kath 2012, pers. comm.). Due to 

the known impacts from wind energy 

development, in particular to listed (and 

species currently being evaluated to 

determine if listing is warranted) bird 

and bat species in the Midwest, the 

Service, State natural resource agencies, 

and wind energy industry 

representatives are developing the 

MSHCP. The planning area includes the 

Midwest Region of the Service, which 

includes all of the following States: 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin. The MSHCP would allow 

permit holders to proceed with wind 

energy development, which may result 

in ‘‘incidental’’ taking of a listed species 

under section 10 of the Act, through 

issuance of an incidental take permit (77 

FR 52754; August 30, 2012). Currently, 

the northern long-eared bat is included 

as a covered species under the MSHCP. 

The MSHCP will address protection of 

covered species through avoidance, 

minimization of take, and mitigation to 

offset ‘‘take’’ (e.g., habitat preservation, 

habitat restoration, habitat 

enhancement) to help ameliorate the 

effect of wind development (77 FR 

52754; August 30, 2012). In some cases, 

the USFS has agreed to limit or restrict 

burning in the central hardwoods from 

mid- to late April through summer to 

avoid periods when bats are active in 

forests (Dickinson et al. 2010, p. 2200). 

Summary of Factor E 

Using the best scientific and 

commercial data available, we have 

identified a number of natural or 

manmade factors that may have direct 

or indirect effects on the continued 

existence of northern long-eared bats. 

Wind energy facilities have been built 

throughout a large portion of the range 

of northern long-eared bats, and have 

been found to cause mortality of 

northern long-eared bats. While 

mortality estimates vary between sites 

and years, sustained mortality at 

particular sites could result in negative 

impacts to local populations. Overall, 

northern long-eared bats are rarely 

detected as mortalities at wind facilities; 

however, there is a great amount of 

uncertainty associated with 

extrapolating detected northern longeared bat mortalities to total bat 

mortalities. Also, wind energy 

development within the species’ range 

is projected to continue to increase in 

future years. 

Climate change may also affect this 

species, as northern long-eared bats are 

particularly sensitive to changes in 

temperature, humidity, and 

precipitation. Impacts from climate 

change may also indirectly affect the 

northern long-eared bat due to changes 

in food availability, timing of 

hibernation, and reproductive cycles, 

along with other factors, all of which 

may contribute to a shift in suitable 

habitat. 

Environmental contaminants, in 

particular insecticides, pesticides, and 

inorganic contaminants, such as 

mercury and lead, may also have 

detrimental effects on northern longeared bats. Contaminants may 

bioaccumulate (become concentrated) in 

the tissues of bats, potentially leading to 

a myriad of sublethal and lethal effects. 

Northern long-eared bats likely 

evolved with fire in their habitat, and 

thus may benefit from fire-created 

habitat. However, there are potential 

negative effects from prescribed 

burning, including direct mortality. 

Therefore, when using prescribed 

burning as a management tool, fire 

frequency, timing, location, and 

intensity should all be considered in 

relation to the northern long-eared bat. 

There is currently no evidence that 

these natural or manmade factors would 

have significant population-level effects 

on the northern long-eared bat when 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18006 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

considered alone. However, these 

factors may have a cumulative effect on 

this species when considered in concert 

with WNS, as this disease has led to 

dramatic northern long-eared bat 

population declines (see Factor C 

discussion, above). While there have 

been conservation efforts attempting to 

reduce the potential mortality of 

northern long-eared bats, particularly 

involving wind energy development and 

prescribed burning, these factors may 

still affect this species when considered 

cumulatively with white-nose syndrome 

(discussed below, in ‘‘Cumulative 

Effects from Factors A through E’’). 

Cumulative Effects From Factors A 

Through E 

WNS (Factor C) is the primary factor 

affecting the northern long-eared bat 

and has led to dramatic and rapid 

population-level effects on the species. 

WNS is the most significant threat to the 

northern long-eared bat, and the species 

would likely not be imperiled were it 

not for this disease. However, although 

the effects on the northern long-eared 

bat from Factors A, B, and E, 

individually or in combination, do not 

have significant effects on the species, 

when combined with the significant 

population reductions due to whitenose syndrome (Factor C), they may 

have a cumulative effect on this species 

at a local population scale. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Listing Rule 

Based on our review of the public 

comments, comments from other 

Federal and State agencies, peer review 

comments, issues raised at the public 

hearing, and new relevant information 

that has become available since the 

October 2, 2013, publication of the 

proposed rule, we have reevaluated our 

proposed listing rule and made changes 

as appropriate. Other than minor 

clarifications and incorporation of 

additional information on the species’ 

biology and populations, this 

determination differs from the proposal 

in the following ways: 

(1) Based on our analyses of the 

potential threats to the species, we have 

determined that the northern long-eared 

bat does not meet the definition of an 

endangered species, contrary to our 

proposed rule published on October 2, 

2013 (78 FR 61046). 

(2) Based on our analyses, we have 

determined that the species meets the 

definition of a threatened species. 

Therefore, on the effective date of this 

final listing rule (see DATES, above), the 

species will be listed as a threatened 

species in the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h). 

(3) We have further refined the 

estimated timeframe during which Pd 

(the fungus that causes white-nose 

syndrome) is expected to spread 

throughout the range of the northern 

long-eared bat. 

(4) We have expanded the discussion 

of white-nose syndrome and the effects 

of white-nose syndrome on the northern 

long-eared bat under Factor C. 

(5) We have included additional (most 

recent available) survey data for the 

species in the Distribution and Relative 

Abundance section, above. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations on the Proposed 

Listing Rule 

In the proposed listing rule published 

on October 2, 2013, we requested that 

all interested parties submit written 

comments on the proposal by December 

2, 2013. Following that first 60-day 

comment period, we held four 

additional public comment periods (see 

78 FR 72058, December 2, 2013; 79 FR 

36698, June 30, 2014; 79 FR 68657, 

November 18, 2014; 80 FR 2371, January 

16, 2015) totaling an additional 180 

days for public comments, with the final 

comment period closing on March 17, 

2015. We also contacted appropriate 

Federal and State agencies, scientific 

experts and organizations, and other 

interested parties and invited them to 

comment on the proposed listing. 

Newspaper notices inviting general 

public comment were published in 

multiple newspapers throughout the 

range of the species. We received a 

request for a public hearing; we held a 

public hearing on December 2, 2014, in 

Sundance, Wyoming. All substantive 

information provided during comment 

periods has either been incorporated 

directly into this final determination or 

is addressed below. Comments 

pertaining to the proposed 4(d) rule will 

be addressed in the final 4(d) rule, and 

are not included here. 

Peer Reviewer Comments 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited expert opinion 

from seven knowledgeable individuals 

with scientific expertise that included 

familiarity with the northern long-eared 

bat and its habitat, biological needs, and 

threats. We received responses from 

four of the peer reviewers. 

We reviewed all comments we 

received from the peer reviewers for 

substantive issues and new information 

regarding the listing of the northern 

long-eared bat. The peer reviewers 

generally concurred with our methods 

and conclusions in the proposed listing 

rule, and provided additional 

information, clarifications, and 

suggestions to improve the final listing 

rule. Peer reviewer comments are 

addressed in the following summary 

and are incorporated into the final rule 

as appropriate. Specific recommended 

edits were added under the 

corresponding section in the final listing 

rule. 

(1) Comment: Peer reviewers (and 

other commenters) concurred with the 

Service’s assessment that factors other 

than white-nose syndrome are not 

believed to be contributing to the 

current decline of the species 

rangewide. However, they believed that 

there could be localized impacts from 

these other stressors and that 

cumulative impacts may result from 

these other factors, in addition to whitenose syndrome, due to a diminished 

population. Several public commenters 

further stressed that these additional 

threats will become proportionately 

more harmful to the species after the 

onset of WNS, and protection from these 

other threats may affect whether the 

species can stabilize post-WNS. 

Our Response: WNS is the most 

significant threat to the northern longeared bat, and the species would likely 

not be imperiled were it not for this 

disease. Thus, the Service proposed 

listing the northern long-eared bat due 

primarily to the impacts of WNS. As 

stated by commenters, other activities 

may impact northern long-eared bats as 

well; however, we conclude that these 

factors are not believed to be 

independently impacting the species 

rangewide. However, although the 

effects on the northern long-eared bat 

from Factors A, B, and E, individually 

or in combination, do not have 

significant effects on the species, when 

combined with the significant 

population reductions due to whitenose syndrome (Factor C), they may 

have a cumulative effect on this species 

at a local population scale. 

(2) Comment: Peer reviewers 

encouraged the Service to conduct a 

more extensive literature review. Other 

commenters also recommended a more 

extensive literature search and provided 

citations for relevant literature not 

included in the proposed listing rule. 

One reviewer suggested we review 

literature on the species’ habitat 

requirements, and suggested that the 

species is more flexible than described 

in the proposed listing rule. One 

reviewer recommended, in particular, a 

more thorough review of literature 

related to bat community ecology or bat 

response to forest management where 

northern long-eared bats are one of 

many species examined. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18007 

Our Response: We have reviewed the 

literature provided by commenters and 

incorporated this information into this 

final listing rule, where appropriate. We 

also conducted further literature 

searches to determine if there was 

additional available literature relevant 

to the species’ biology or the factors 

affecting its status, and incorporated 

that information into this final listing 

rule. In particular, we updated sections 

with the most recent literature 

pertaining to the predominant threat to 

the species, white-nose syndrome, and 

the resulting impact of the disease on 

the northern long-eared bat. 

(3) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that it is critical to point out that 

these bats day-roost in an ephemeral 

resource (snags and cavity-trees), and, 

therefore, they are adapted to handle the 

dynamic nature of roost longevity and 

loss of roosts from disturbance in 

temperate forest systems. 

Our Response: Northern long-eared 

bats are flexible in their tree species 

roost selection, and roost trees are an 

ephemeral resource; therefore, the 

species would be expected to tolerate 

some loss of roosts provided suitable 

alternative roosts are available. 

However, the impact of loss of roosting 

or foraging habitat within northern longeared bat home ranges is expected to 

vary, depending on the scope of 

removal. See the ‘‘Summer Habitat’’ 

section under Factor A, above, for a 

more detailed discussion. 

(4) Comment: One peer reviewer 

commented that the literature cited that 

is posted at http://www.regulations.gov 

was not complete, with several 

references in the text not appearing in 

the literature cited section, and many of 

the unpublished reports that are cited 

are unobtainable. 

Our Response: We corrected this and 

added these missing references, in 

addition to any new references used in 

this final listing rule, to the literature 

cited list. A complete list of references 

cited in this rulemaking is available on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Twin Cities Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

The Act and our regulations do not 

require us to use only peer-reviewed 

literature, but instead require us to use 

the best scientific data available in a 

listing determination. We used 

information from many different 

sources, including articles in peerreviewed journals, scientific status 

surveys and studies completed by 

qualified individuals, Master’s thesis 

research that has been reviewed but not 

published in a journal, other 

unpublished governmental and 

nongovernmental reports, reports 

prepared by industry, personal 

communication about management or 

other relevant topics, conservation plans 

developed by States and counties, 

biological assessments, other 

unpublished materials, experts’ 

opinions or personal knowledge, and 

other sources. You may request a copy 

of many of these unpublished reports by 

contacting the Service’s Twin Cities 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Unpublished reports that we have used 

in making our listing determination 

include survey information that has 

been received from State agencies, 

which the public can request directly 

from these State agencies. 

(5) Comment: Peer reviewers agreed 

that white-nose syndrome likely will 

spread throughout the range of the 

northern long-eared bat. One peer 

reviewer suggested that the rate of 

spread (through bat-to-bat contact) may 

slow in western areas, where 

hibernacula are not as abundant. 

‘‘Barriers provided by the Great Lakes 

and isolation from major cave areas in 

North America are presumably the 

reasons that the fungus has not yet 

reached the populations in northern 

Wisconsin and northern Michigan, and 

the lower density of hibernacula in the 

Great Plains may slow the spread in a 

similar way. However, there is no 

biological reason to believe that the 

disease will not spread throughout the 

entire range of the species.’’ 

Our Response: As stated in this final 

listing rule, based on past and current 

rates of spread of the disease, we agree 

that the disease will likely spread 

throughout the range of the species. 

Regarding a slowing rate of spread in 

western areas due to fewer hibernacula, 

WNS has been confirmed at numerous 

hibernacula that are not caves or mines, 

including culverts, bunkers, forts, 

tunnels, excavations, quarries, and even 

houses. Since this peer review was 

submitted, white-nose syndrome has 

been documented in Wisconsin and the 

Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The 

spread of white-nose syndrome was 

addressed in more detail in our Factor 

C discussion in the section titled, 

‘‘Effects of White-nose Syndrome on the 

Northern Long-eared Bat,’’ above. 

(6) Comment: Peer reviewers noted 

that, in the proposed listing rule, we did 

not stress the importance of the 

northern long-eared bat’s sociality 

during the summer months, and 

suggested a further explanation on how 

social structures be maintained if 

populations have declined dramatically 

due to white-nose syndrome is needed. 

These peer reviewers further questioned 

if the species will be able to recover, 

even if white-nose syndrome is 

curtailed. 

Our Response: Similar to other 

myotid bats (e.g., Indiana bat, little 

brown bat), the northern long-eared bat 

is considered a highly social species, 

with females forming maternity colonies 

during the summer months. Peer 

reviewers expect that white nosesyndrome will reduce population sizes 

to a level that these groups may not be 

able to be maintained. Whether a 

species is ultimately recoverable is not 

something we consider when listing 

species; we are obligated to list species 

under the Act if they meet the definition 

of an endangered or a threatened 

species. We will consider what actions 

might be necessary to recover the 

species when we begin recovery 

planning and implementation. See our 

Factor C discussion in the section titled, 

‘‘Effects of White-nose Syndrome on the 

Northern Long-eared Bat,’’ above, for a 

more detailed discussion of this topic. 

(7) Comment: One commenter stated 

that although the proposed listing rule 

discusses the regulatory mechanisms 

that several States have employed to 

reduce the negative impact of wind 

development on this species, it fails to 

discuss potential regulatory efforts that 

could be controlled at the State level, 

including the impact of highway 

construction, forest management, and 

pest control regulations. 

Our Response: In general, we devoted 

most effort to identifying conservation 

efforts that have been taken to reduce 

the impact of the predominant threat to 

the species: White-nose syndrome. We 

acknowledge that additional 

conservation efforts are underway in 

many arenas and they may address 

other cumulative threats. 

(8) Comment: One peer reviewer 

disagreed with the assessment in the 

proposed listing rule that the species 

clusters and, therefore, is at greater risk 

of bat-to bat transmission of Pd while in 

hibernation. This reviewer stated, at 

least in Kentucky caves, that the species 

is most often seen hibernating alone or 

in very small groupings. 

Our Response: We corrected this in 

this final listing rule. The northern longeared bat occasionally can be found in 

clusters with other bats, but typically is 

found roosting singly during 

hibernation. Certain life-history 

characteristics of the northern longeared bat (e.g., proclivity to roost in 

areas with increased humidity of 

hibernacula, longer hibernation time 

period) are believed to increase the 

species’ susceptibility to white-nose 

syndrome in comparison to other cave 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18008 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

bat species. Furthermore, of the six 

species with known mortality from 

WNS, the northern long-eared bat has 

demonstrated the greatest declines, 

based on winter count data. See our 

Factor C discussion in the section titled, 

‘‘Effects of White-nose Syndrome on the 

Northern Long-eared Bat,’’ above, for a 

more detailed discussion. 

(9) Comment: One reviewer stated 

that understanding the extent of the 

impact to northern long-eared bats 

remains difficult due to the behavior of 

the species during the winter, which 

includes movement between 

hibernacula, particularly during 

swarming and staging periods, and the 

ability of the species to hibernate in 

cracks and crevices, making it difficult 

to develop population estimates for 

winter counts. 

Our Response: Despite the difficulties 

in observing or counting northern longeared bats, winter hibernacula counts 

are the recommended method, and the 

only method with enough history to 

assess trends over time, for monitoring 

northern long-eared bats. Hibernacula 

surveys are considered the best 

available data for cave-dwelling bats in 

general. However, in recognition of the 

limitations of these data, we generally 

do not use the available hibernacula 

counts to estimate northern long-eared 

bat population size. Instead, we use the 

hibernacula data to understand and 

estimate population trends for the 

species. The relative difficulty of 

observing northern long-eared bats 

during hibernacula surveys should be 

consistent from year to year, and these 

data can be used to estimate relative 

change in numbers and indicate if the 

species is increasing or decreasing in 

number in those hibernacula. Thus, the 

total data available for known northern 

long-eared bat hibernacula can yield an 

individual site and cumulative 

indication of species population trend; 

the declines estimated at hibernacula 

are also corroborated by declines in 

acoustic records and mist-net captures 

in summer. 

State Agency Comments 

(10) Comment: State fish and wildlife 

management agencies (Montana, 

Louisiana, and Tennessee) commented 

that the listing of the northern longeared bat should be limited to the 

portions of the range where decline has 

been documented. Another State 

(Wyoming) commented that there is 

insufficient data to warrant listing of the 

northern long-eared bat at a national 

level given the absence of white-nose 

syndrome in much of its range. 

Our Response: Decisions under the 

Act cannot be made on a State-by-State 

basis, but at the species, subspecies, or 

distinct population segment (DPS) level. 

For the northern long-eared bat, we have 

determined that the species warrants 

listing as a threatened species 

throughout its range based on current 

threats (primarily due to WNS) and how 

those threats are likely to impact the 

species into the future. (See our 

response to Comment 36 for more 

information.) 

White-nose syndrome or Pd have been 

confirmed in 28 States of the northern 

long-eared bat’s 37-State (plus the 

District of Columbia) range. The species’ 

range only extends into a small area in 

some of the States that remain 

uninfected with white-nose syndrome to 

date. Information provided to the 

Service by a number of State agencies 

and all models concerning the spread of 

white-nose syndrome demonstrates that 

white-nose syndrome will continue to 

spread throughout the range of the 

northern long-eared bat. Furthermore, 

based on the average rate of spread to 

date, Pd can be expected to occur 

throughout the range of the northern 

long-eared bat in an estimated 8 to 13 

years (see our Factor C discussion in the 

section titled, ‘‘White-nose Syndrome,’’ 

above). Thus we have determined that 

the northern long-eared bat is 

threatened throughout its entire range. 

(11) Comment: Several State and other 

commenters stated that the species 

should be listed as threatened rather 

than endangered for a variety of reasons: 

It would provide the Service with a 

better opportunity to protect the species 

from white-nose syndrome; we lack 

understanding of white-nose syndrome 

in the warmer regions with higher cave 

temperatures and shorter hibernation 

periods; a threatened status would allow 

for potential issuance of a 4(d) rule, 

which would allow the Service to 

implement regulations that are 

necessary and advisable to conserve the 

species, due to the large geographic size 

of the northern long-eared bat’s range 

and the habitat variability within the 

large range; and a belief that endangered 

status is premature until more 

information is available. 

Our Response: For the reasons stated 

in the Determination section of this final 

listing rule, the Service has determined 

that the northern long-eared bat is a 

threatened species, rather than an 

endangered species. Please see our 

response to other comments, which 

address the reasons specified by 

commenters for listing the species as 

threatened rather than endangered. 

(12) Comment: One state commenter 

did not recommend a specific status for 

the species, but found that the species 

is not in danger of extinction in the 

immediate future, but could become so 

in the future. 

Our Response: As explained in the 

Determination section of this final 

listing rule, although WNS is predicted 

to spread throughout the range of the 

species, in the currently uninfected 

areas we have no evidence that northern 

long-eared bat numbers have declined, 

and the present threats to the species in 

those areas are relatively low. Thus, 

because the fungus that causes WNS 

(Pd) may not spread throughout the 

species’ range for another 8 to 13 years, 

because no significant declines have 

occurred to date in the portion of the 

range not yet impacted by the disease, 

and because some bats persist many 

years later in some geographic areas 

impacted by WNS (for unknown 

reasons), we conclude that the northern 

long-eared bat is not currently in danger 

of extinction throughout all of its range. 

However, because Pd is predicted to 

continue to spread, we also determine 

that the northern long-eared bat is likely 

to be in danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future. Therefore, on the 

basis of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we are listing 

the northern long-eared bat as a 

threatened species under the Act. 

(13) Comment: Several States 

(Kentucky, Georgia, and Missouri) 

mentioned that, at the time they 

submitted their comments, there had 

not been any decline detected in 

northern long-eared bat population 

numbers. Specifically, Kentucky, and 

Georgia stated that the species is still 

commonly captured during summer 

surveys, even following white-nose 

syndrome confirmation in the State. 

Kentucky comments stated that the 

species’ population in the State does not 

seem to be susceptible to white-nose 

syndrome. 

Our Response: No decline has been 

documented in Georgia, Kentucky, or 

Missouri to date. However, mortality 

due to white-nose syndrome has been 

documented in cave bats in all four 

States, and mortality in northern longeared bats has been documented in 

Kentucky and Missouri. Also, 

historically, there have been small 

numbers of northern long-eared bats 

found in hibernacula in these States; 

therefore, it is challenging to detect 

population changes based on 

hibernacula survey data alone in these 

States. Summer surveys, where 

available, often show a lower decline 

than corresponding hibernacula data in 

general. These differences likely stem 

from a combination of different survey 

techniques, differential influence of 

white-nose syndrome in the summer 

versus winter northern long-eared bat 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18009 

populations, and also the likelihood that 

the summer data do not reflect northern 

long-eared bat populations as well as 

the winter data, given the methods and 

locations from which they were derived. 

Although there may not be a decline in 

summer populations observed to date in 

these States, mortality has been 

documented, which indicates the 

species is susceptible to the disease in 

these States. 

(14) Comment: Several State 

commenters (Oklahoma and Midwest 

Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies (MAFWA) letter) mentioned 

that in the proposed listing rule, the 

Service described different regions of 

the northern long-eared bat’s range as 

separate populations and the 

commenter interpreted that to mean 

each population was a ‘‘subpopulation.’’ 

Our Response: We removed 

‘‘population’’ from this section of the 

rule to address any confusion. For the 

purposes of organization, the northern 

long-eared bat’s range in the United 

States is discussed in four parts: eastern 

range, Midwest range, southern range, 

and western range. Separating the range 

of the bat is not meant to imply that 

there are distinct or separate 

‘‘subpopulations’’ of the species. 

(15) Comment: State and public 

commenters stated that white-nose 

syndrome research will be impacted if 

the northern long-eared bat is listed, as 

treatments cannot be tested on listed 

species. 

Our Response: Under section 4 of the 

Act, a species shall be listed if it meets 

the definition of an endangered or 

threatened species because of any (one 

or more) of the five factors (threats), 

considering solely best available 

scientific and commercial data. Based 

on our analysis of the five factors, we 

conclude the northern long-eared bat 

meets the definition of a threatened 

species, particularly considering the 

effects of WNS on the species. Research 

that is conducted for the purpose of 

recovery of a species is an activity that 

can be authorized under section 10 of 

the Act, normally referred to as a 

recovery permit, or can be conducted by 

certain State conservation agencies by 

virtue of their authority under section 6 

of the Act. White-nose syndrome 

research will be important for recovery 

of the species, and thus the Service will 

continue to support such actions. 

(16) Comment: Both State and public 

commenters stated that the species is 

more common in southeast States, 

Kentucky and Tennessee in particular, 

than was depicted in the proposed 

listing rule. The State of Tennessee 

further questions if the historical core of 

the species’ range is in the southern 

Appalachians, rather than the northeast, 

and commented that ‘‘Tennessee has 

over 9,000 caves and less than 2 percent 

of those have been surveyed, which 

could mean that there are many more 

locations within the [S]tate that have 

significant numbers of [northern longeared bats].’’ 

Our Response: The Act requires us to 

make a determination using the best 

available scientific and commercial data 

in our review of the status of the 

species. In the proposed listing rule, we 

used the best available data at the time, 

which did not show the species to be as 

common, particularly in summer 

surveys. Based on more thorough data 

provided since the October 2, 2013, 

proposed rule (e.g., summer survey data 

and winter hibernacula counts, peer 

reviewer comments), we have since 

learned the species may have been more 

commonly encountered, historically in 

Kentucky and Tennessee. We have 

corrected this in the final listing rule 

within the ‘‘Southern Range’’ section of 

the Distribution and Relative 

Abundance discussion, above. With 

regard to the potential for additional 

unsurveyed hibernacula in Tennessee, 

this was noted in the Distribution and 

Relative Abundance discussion, above. 

Also, there is no reason to believe that 

white-nose syndrome will not reach bat 

hibernacula simply because these sites 

are not monitored. Because we have 

documented consistently that northern 

long-eared bat declines are severe once 

white-nose syndrome is confirmed in a 

site, it is reasonable to expect that 

northern long-eared bat declines are 

similar at sites that are not or cannot be 

monitored. 

(17) Comment: Two States (Minnesota 

and Missouri) and several public 

commenters requested that, if the 

species is listed, they be included as 

stakeholders in designating critical 

habitat and developing a recovery plan 

and best management plans. 

Our Response: The Service 

appreciates the interest expressed by 

these commenters in being involved as 

stakeholders and welcomes all 

interested parties to be involved as 

potential stakeholders. We will work 

with stakeholders through recovery 

planning to identify areas that would 

aid in recovery of this species, and 

determine appropriate actions to take. 

The Service understands the importance 

of stakeholder participation and support 

in recovery of the northern long-eared 

bat and will continue to work with all 

stakeholders to this end. 

(18) Comment: Several commenters, 

through a single letter produced by the 

Northeast Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies, stated that known 

hibernacula containing northern longeared bats are plentiful in many States, 

with 89 known in New York and 119 in 

Pennsylvania alone. 

Our Response: Although there are a 

large number of known hibernacula that 

were historically used by northern longeared bats, there are currently few, if 

any, individuals found during 

hibernacula surveys (post-WNS) in 

Pennsylvania and New York. Please 

refer to the Distribution and Relative 

Abundance section of this final listing 

rule, which discusses the current status 

of the species in these two States. 

(19) Comment: Several States 

provided information on current and 

past conservation efforts that may 

benefit the northern long-eared bat. 

Also, other public comments noted that 

State, Federal, and private conservation 

efforts should be more thoroughly 

reviewed and included in the final 

listing rule. Specifically, many 

commenters mentioned that more 

weight should have been given to the 

2008 white-nose syndrome plan, State 

white-nose syndrome plans, white-nose 

syndrome workshops, and State agency 

efforts in survey and white-nose 

syndrome research efforts. 

Our Response: Information provided 

to us on additional conservation efforts 

has been added to the conservation 

efforts discussion under Factors A and 

C, above. It should be noted, however, 

that although recommendations set forth 

in these documents (e.g., 2008 whitenose syndrome plan, State white-nose 

syndrome plans), if followed, may help 

reduce human-aided spread of whitenose syndrome, the efforts outlined in 

these plans have not yet identified a 

method by which WNS can be halted or 

its impacts reduced. Also, the whitenose syndrome national plan represents 

guidance that is not strictly enforced by 

any agency. Thus, although these plans 

will prepare management agencies to act 

to stop WNS should a viable option be 

presented, their ability to halt WNS is 

not guaranteed. 

(20) Comment: Many States in the 

Northeast stated that white-nose 

syndrome continues to impact the 

northern long-eared bat in their 

respective States and have witnessed 

post-WNS confirmation of mortality and 

severe declines. Vermont, New 

Hampshire, and Maine all commented 

that the species was considered a 

common species in the State prior to 

white-nose syndrome confirmation and 

is now considered rare. 

Our Response: Data received during 

data requests sent to the States 

corroborate these declines due to whitenose syndrome cited by commenters. 

This information is presented in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18010 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Distribution and Relative Abundance (in 

the ‘‘Eastern Range’’ and ‘‘Southern 

Range’’ sections) within the Background 

section of this final listing rule. 

(21) Comment: One State questioned 

what recovery actions would need to be 

taken to stop the spread of white-nose 

syndrome throughout the northern longeared bat’s range. 

Our Response: Recovery actions will 

be decided upon during recovery 

planning, after the species is listed. 

Recovery planning includes the 

development of a recovery outline 

shortly after a species is listed, 

preparation of a draft and final recovery 

plan, and revisions to the plan as 

significant new information becomes 

available. The recovery outline guides 

the immediate implementation of urgent 

recovery actions and describes the 

process to be used to develop a recovery 

plan. The recovery plan identifies sitespecific management actions that will 

achieve recovery of the species, 

measurable criteria that determine when 

a species may be downlisted or delisted, 

and methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. 

(22) Comment: One State commented 

that not all white-nose syndrome spread 

models are in agreement on how the 

disease will spread. They cited a model 

presented at the White-nose syndrome 

Workshop in 2012 (Puechmaille 2012), 

and indicated that this model suggested 

that the spread and impacts of the 

disease presented in the proposed 

listing rule were significantly 

overestimated. 

Our Response: The Puechmaille 

model, cited by the commenter, has 

been presented in evolving forms at the 

past several annual White-nose 

syndrome Workshops. The type of 

model used by Puechmaille may be 

useful in predicting suitable habitat for 

WNS, but it is not sufficient to predict 

unsuitable habitat. Further, this model 

cannot be used to predict spread of 

WNS. Given the uncertainties of the 

Puechmaille model (as identified by the 

author), we did not consider this model 

in making inferences about white-nose 

syndrome (or Pd) spread dynamics or 

population-level impacts to the northern 

long-eared bat. 

(23) Comment: One State commenter 

agreed with the statement offered in the 

proposed listing rule that there is no 

information to indicate that there are 

areas within the species’ range that will 

not be impacted by white-nose 

syndrome. Life-history information, as 

well as what we currently know about 

the disease, suggests northern longeared bats exhibit low resiliency due to 

their extreme susceptibility to the 

disease and their low reproductive rates. 

Our Response: Information provided 

to the Service by a number of State 

agencies confirms the likelihood of 

white-nose syndrome spreading 

throughout the range of the northern 

long-eared bat. White-nose syndrome or 

Pd are now detected in 28 States and 5 

Canadian provinces, all of which are in 

the range of the species. Pd has spread 

over 1,000 miles (1,609 km) from the 

primary site of detection in New York 

to western Missouri, northern 

Minnesota, and as far south as Alabama, 

Arkansas, Georgia, and Mississippi. 

Furthermore, although there is some 

variation in spread dynamics and the 

impact of WNS on bats when it arrives 

at a new site, no information suggests 

that any site would be unsusceptible to 

the arrival of Pd. Given the appropriate 

amount of time for exposure, WNS 

appears to have had similar levels of 

impact on northern long-eared bats 

everywhere the species has been 

documented with the disease. 

Therefore, absent direct evidence to 

suggest that some northern long-eared 

bats that encounter Pd do not contract 

WNS, available information suggests 

that the species will be impacted by 

WNS everywhere in its range. See our 

Factor C discussion in the section titled, 

‘‘Effects of White-nose Syndrome on the 

Northern Long-eared Bat,’’ above, for 

more detailed information. 

(24) Comment: Comments from 

Oklahoma stated that the northern longeared bat is commonly captured in the 

counties where it occurs in the State, 

and survey results indicate the northern 

long-eared bat population throughout 

the southwestern portion of the species’ 

range does not need protection under 

the Act at this time. 

Our Response: We have incorporated 

information provided on the species’ 

status for the northern long-eared bat in 

Oklahoma in the Distribution and 

Relative Abundance section of this final 

listing rule. As stated in response to 

another comment, decisions under the 

Act cannot be made on a State-by-State 

basis, but at the species, subspecies, or 

DPS level. When a species is listed, we 

work with all of our partners to develop 

and implement practical solutions to 

conserve and protect the species while 

enabling on-the-ground projects to move 

forward. The definition of ‘‘species’’ 

under the Act includes distinct 

population segments. For a DPS to be 

identified it must be markedly separated 

from other populations as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors. It is 

unlikely, and we have no evidence, that 

a State boundary would separate one 

State’s northern long-eared bat 

population from northern long-eared 

bats in adjacent States. 

(25) Comment: One commenter stated 

that more State-specific data are needed 

considering the ambiguity and 

divergence across the range of the 

northern long-eared bat. 

Our Response: The Act requires us to 

make a determination using the best 

available scientific and commercial data 

after conducting a review of the status 

of the species. In 2014, we requested 

additional survey data (hibernacula and 

summer) from all of the States within 

the range of the species (and the District 

of Columbia) and received information 

from the majority of States. We have 

added this updated information to the 

Distribution and Relative Abundance 

section of this final listing rule. 

(26) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that hibernacula survey data are 

too unreliable to base the listing 

decision on for the northern long-eared 

bat because northern long-eared bats are 

often overlooked in winter surveys due 

to their cryptic nature and the 

fluctuation of winter numbers, and that 

rather the Service should base its listing 

decision on summer survey data. 

Further, some commenters stated that 

the Service did not compile and review 

complete summer data sets maintained 

by State agencies. 

Our Response: We agree that northern 

long-eared bats are often difficult to 

observe during winter hibernacula 

surveys due to their tendency to roost 

deep in cracks and crevices within 

hibernacula. Despite the difficulties in 

observing or counting northern longeared bats, winter hibernacula colony 

counts are the recommended method, 

and the only method with enough 

history to assess trends over time, for 

monitoring northern long-eared bats, 

and hibernacula surveys are considered 

the best available data for cave-dwelling 

bats in general. However, in recognition 

of the limitations of these data, we do 

not use the available hibernacula counts 

to estimate northern long-eared bat 

population size. Instead we use the 

hibernacula data to understand and 

estimate population trends for the 

species. The relative difficulty of 

observing northern long-eared bats 

during hibernacula surveys should be 

consistent from year to year, and these 

data can be used to estimate relative 

change in numbers and indicate if the 

species is increasing or decreasing in 

number in those hibernacula. Thus, the 

total data available for known northern 

long-eared bat hibernacula can yield an 

individual site and cumulative 

indication of species population trend; 

furthermore, declines estimated at 

hibernacula are corroborated by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18011 

declines in acoustic records and net 

captures in summer. 

In 2014, we requested all available 

hibernacula and summer survey data 

from all State fish and wildlife agencies 

within the range of the species and 

received information from the majority 

of States. We also requested information 

from States while developing the 

proposed listing rule. All available 

information at the time was included in 

the proposed listing rule. The majority 

of long-term summer monitoring 

estimates corroborates the trends 

observed in hibernating colonies. 

Although it is important to include all 

available relevant summer data, summer 

data likely do not reflect northern longeared bat populations as well as the 

winter data, given the variability in 

methods and locations from which they 

were derived. Although we 

acknowledge uncertainties in both 

summer and winter northern long-eared 

bat data, we believe that the winter data, 

at this time, provide a more reliable 

estimate of population trends. The 

Distribution and Relative Abundance 

section of this final listing rule includes 

the most recent data received from 

States within the species’ range. 

(27) Comment: Commenters stated 

that the Service is making an 

assumption that white-nose syndrome 

will spread throughout the range of the 

northern long-eared bat. One commenter 

stated that bat experts do not know with 

any degree of certainty how WNS affects 

bats, how it is transmitted, how quickly 

or extensively it will spread, or how it 

might be controlled. These commenters 

stated that these uncertainties in whitenose syndrome’s spread make it 

impossible to forecast how the disease 

will spread and impact the species in 

different areas throughout its range. 

Our Response: The question of if and 

when white-nose syndrome will spread 

throughout the range of the species has 

been considered extensively by the 

Service and its white-nose syndrome 

coordinators. Information provided to 

the Service by a number of State 

agencies demonstrates the likelihood of 

white-nose syndrome spreading 

throughout the range of the northern 

long-eared bat. White-nose syndrome or 

Pd is now detected in 28 States and 5 

Canadian provinces, all of which are in 

the range of the species. From initial 

detection of white-nose syndrome in the 

winter of 2006–2007, Pd has spread over 

1,000 miles (1,690 km) from the primary 

site of detection in the State of New 

York to western Missouri, northern 

Minnesota, and as far south as Alabama, 

Arkansas, Georgia, and Mississippi. All 

models we have consulted concerning 

the spread of white-nose syndrome 

predict the disease or Pd will continue 

to spread. As mentioned under our 

Factor C discussion in the section titled, 

‘‘Effects of White-nose Syndrome on the 

Northern Long-eared Bat,’’ above, 

models that provide estimates of the 

timing of spread predict the disease will 

cover the entirety of the species’ range 

between 2 and 40 years. However, these 

models all have significant limitations 

for predicting timing of spread, and in 

many instances have overestimated the 

time white-nose syndrome would arrive 

in currently uninfected counties by as 

much as 45 years. 

As for how white-nose syndrome 

affects bats, how it is transmitted, and 

how it may be controlled, there has been 

a significant amount of research 

completed that has provided insight 

into these questions. Please see our 

Factor C discussion in the section titled, 

‘‘White-nose Syndrome,’’ above, for a 

more detailed discussion. 

(28) Comment: Several commenters, 

through a single letter produced by 

MAFWA, stated that recent survey data 

from Pennsylvania, a State amongst the 

hardest hit by WNS, indicate that 

hibernacula surveys may be 

overestimating the decline in northern 

long-eared bat numbers. A large 2013 

sample of summer mist-netting shows 

that northern long-eared bat captures 

per unit effort (over 178,000 squaremeter mist-net hours in 2001–2007; over 

500,000 in 2013) remain at 24 percent 

of the level observed pre-WNS. In 

contrast, hibernacula surveys in 

Pennsylvania during the same time 

period show a 99 percent decline in 

northern long-eared bat observations. 

‘‘These results clearly demonstrate the 

significant disparity between the 

prevalence of northern long-eared bats 

recorded in hibernacula surveys and in 

summer surveys (Turner 2014, pers. 

comm.).’’ 

Our Response: Numerous counties in 

western Pennsylvania were not 

confirmed with WNS until 2012, 

possibly attributable to geographic 

barriers that hinder movements of bats 

between eastern and western parts of 

the State (Miller-Butterworth et al. 

2014). Nevertheless, a 76 percent 

decline in summer captures of northern 

long-eared bat (standardized for effort) 

represents a severe decline in the 

population over the past 7 years. These 

summer monitoring estimates 

corroborate the severe declines observed 

in hibernating colonies. Furthermore, 

summer monitoring in Virginia from 

2009 to the present revealed that 

declines in northern long-eared bats 

were not observed by VDGIF until 2 

years after the severe declines were 

observed during winter and fall 

monitoring efforts in the State (Reynolds 

2012, pers. comm.). Therefore, the 

assertion that the difference between 

winter estimates (99 percent decline in 

count) and summer estimates (76 

percent decline in captures) in 

Pennsylvania represents a significant 

disparity in the estimated impact of 

WNS in the State is premature and 

inconclusive in the context of the health 

of northern long-eared bat populations 

in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, summer 

monitoring in Pennsylvania reveals that 

declines in northern long-eared bat 

captures continued in 2014. 

We agree that there are differences 

between summer and winter data for 

northern long-eared bat. Specifically, 

that summer data, where available, often 

show a lower decline than 

corresponding hibernacula data. We 

conclude that these differences likely 

stem from a combination of different 

survey techniques, differential influence 

of WNS in the summer versus winter 

northern long-eared bat populations, 

and also the likelihood that the summer 

data do not reflect northern long-eared 

bat populations as well as the winter 

given the methods and locations from 

which they were derived. Although we 

acknowledge uncertainties in both 

summer and winter northern long-eared 

bat data, we conclude that the winter 

data, at this time, provide a more 

reliable estimate of population trends. 

(29) Comment: Comments from 

MAFWA stated that only a small 

proportion of known cave and mine 

hibernacula across the species’ range 

have been surveyed or monitored for the 

northern long-eared bat. For example, 

‘‘Tennessee has over 9,000 caves and 

less than 2 percent of those have been 

surveyed, which could mean that there 

are many more locations within the 

State that have significant numbers of 

northern long-eared bat’’ (TWRA 2014). 

The commenter stated that this is 

particularly true for many areas of 

Canada (COSEWIC 2013) and the central 

and western States where surveys of bat 

hibernacula are very limited. 

Our Response: These are accurate 

statements. Additional counties in 

Tennessee have been confirmed with 

WNS each year since 2010. There is no 

reason to believe that WNS will not 

reach bat hibernacula simply because 

these sites are not monitored. We have 

several examples of hibernacula that 

were only identified after WNS was 

transmitted into the area and dead and 

dying bats were found on the landscape. 

Because we have seen consistently that 

northern long-eared bat declines are 

severe once WNS is confirmed in a site, 

it is reasonable to expect that northern 

long-eared bat declines are similar at 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18012 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

sites that are not or cannot be 

monitored. In 103 hibernacula 

throughout the East, 68 percent now 

have zero northern long-eared bats 

observed in winter surveys. An 

additional 24 percent have declined by 

more than 50 percent. 

(30) Comment: MAFWA commented 

that recent research into slowing the 

spread of WNS has documented, in a 

laboratory setting, that Pd spores can be 

killed by Rhodococcus rhodochrous 

DAP96253 (RRDAP). They suggest that 

this potential treatment may increase 

bat survival and allow the northern 

long-eared bat to adapt to the presence 

of WNS. 

Our Response: As noted by the States 

in this comment, strategies to slow the 

spread of WNS are in various early 

stages of development in the laboratory 

setting. Promising treatments, including 

RRDAP and others, are being considered 

for field trials. However, considerably 

more research and coordination is 

needed to address the safety and 

effectiveness of any treatment proposed 

for field use and to meet regulatory 

requirements prior to consideration of 

widespread application. In short, 

implementation of WNS treatments on a 

landscape-scale is likely years away. 

Risks associated with application of 

any compound in a field setting remain 

largely unknown and undemonstrated 

when considering the additional harm 

to bats, other biota, or the environment. 

Furthermore, the RRDAP compound has 

not been tested on northern long-eared 

bats, so it has not yet been demonstrated 

to be safe or effective for this species. 

Therefore, the assertion that the 

treatment of bats with RRDAP or other 

agents may increase bat survival and 

allow northern long-eared bat to survive 

exposure to the pathogen is 

unsubstantiated. No treatment in 

development has demonstrated any 

potential to allow a species to ‘‘adapt to 

the presence of the pathogen.’’ 

Any treatment or application 

demonstrated to slow the spread and 

mortality of WNS will be an important 

tool for potential recovery actions. 

However, we cannot predict exactly 

when or if a treatment will be proven 

safe and effective for large-scale 

implementation that will affect species 

at a population level. 

(31) Comment: Comments from 

MAWFA stated that there is evidence 

that little brown bats in Pennsylvania 

are showing an increasing trend in body 

mass at time of hibernation (Turner 

2014, pers. comm.), and others have 

suggested that there is evidence that 

larger body mass increases survival from 

WNS infection (Jonasson and Willis 

2011). The commenters concluded that 

these trends suggest that Myotid species, 

like the northern long-eared bat, are 

capable of adapting behavioral strategies 

for dealing with WNS infection. 

Our Response: These observations 

suggest that there is an increase in body 

masses of little brown bats at some 

colonies where WNS has been present 

for several years. They do not 

demonstrate an evolutionary shift in 

behavioral or physiological strategy. 

Increased body mass may be a result of 

lesser competition for prey during the 

fattening period (which may still be 

potentially beneficial for surviving 

winter with WNS). Furthermore, this 

pattern of increasing body masses in 

pre-hibernating little brown bats has not 

been documented widely. It is also 

important to note that these 

observations have been made in little 

brown bat only, and not in northern 

long-eared bat. Jonasson and Willis 

(2011) studied fat consumption over 

winter in hibernating little brown bats 

unaffected by WNS. They hypothesized 

that fatter bats may be more likely to 

survive WNS, but they did not test this 

hypothesis. Likewise, the observations 

in Pennsylvania have not been tested for 

significance or repetition. 

Though related, little brown bats and 

northern long-eared bats are distinctly 

different species that have exhibited 

different responses to Pd infection and 

WNS. Banding studies in the heavily 

affected northeastern States have 

confirmed that some little brown bats 

have survived multiple years of WNS 

exposure and infection, and little brown 

bats continue to be observed in some 

areas. However there is little, if any, 

data to support the same trend for 

northern long-eared bats. Efforts to band 

northern long-eared bat have been 

initiated; however, extremely low 

capture rates with only very few 

individuals banded make it difficult to 

examine survival trends with this 

species. 

(32) Comment: One commenter 

disagreed that the highest rates of 

development in the conterminous 

United States occur within the range of 

the northern long-eared bat (Brown et 

al. 2005, p. 1856) and contribute to the 

loss of forest habitat. The commenter 

stated that forests within the range of 

the northern long-eared bat continue to 

recover from unsustainable forestry 

practices that were employed in the late 

19th century. 

Our Response: Although the 

commenter disagreed with the statement 

in the proposed listing rule with regard 

to rates of development within the range 

of the northern long-eared bat, there was 

no evidence presented to refute this 

statement. Further, information we 

have, in the proposed listing rule and in 

supporting documents, shows that rates 

of development and forest conversion in 

general within the species’ range is not 

decreasing. For example, the USFS 

projected forest losses of 16 to 34 

million acres (4 to 8 percent) by 2060 

across the continental United States 

(USFS 2012). 

(33) Comment: MAFWA stated that 

recent evidence documents a multitude 

of species in Europe coexist with the 

causative agent and do so by getting 

minimal infection and without 

documented mortality (Zukal et al. 

2014). The commenter also stated that 

data recently presented at the 2014 

WNS meeting show the amount of 

infection on surviving bats in the 

Northeast has decreased significantly 

from the period where mass mortality 

was experienced, and is now closer to 

the level of European infection. 

Our Response: Pd and WNS were not 

investigated in Europe until after the 

disease was identified in North 

America. However, subsequent to the 

discovery of WNS in North America, 

European scientists have identified 

evidence of Pd dating back many 

decades, leading to the hypothesis that 

the fungus has been present in Europe 

for a long time. We cannot know what 

the impact of Pd has been on different 

bat species in Europe throughout 

evolutionary history. The fact that 13 

species of European bats have been 

documented with WNS or Pd without 

documentation of significant declining 

populations has led to conclusions that 

those European species coexist with the 

disease. However, this observation does 

not mean WNS did not severely impact 

or even cause extinction of European bat 

species at some point in the past. 

North American species differ 

significantly in physiology and ecology 

to similar species in Europe. We have 

gained considerable understanding of 

variability in impact of WNS among 

North American species, such as that 

certain species like the big brown bat 

and Townsend’s big-eared bat appear 

resilient to or unaffected by the disease, 

while other species like the northern 

long-eared bat have declined 

substantially. Therefore, the best 

available data indicate there are variable 

response levels to WNS among bat 

species; northern long-eared bats are 

among the most susceptible species to 

WNS. 

(34) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the impact of white-nose syndrome 

may have been overstated by the 

Service. They commented that the data 

used in the proposed listing rule only 

included known winter roost sites 

surveys and the rule does not state that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18013 

the species could be employing 

behavior plasticity and using alternative 

roosts. This same commenter also 

questioned carcass testing reports, as 

presented in the rule, confirming only 

50 percent of individuals tested positive 

for white-nose syndrome. 

Our Response: We acknowledge that 

northern long-eared bats may be using 

alternate, often unknown or 

unsurveyed, winter roosts and, as a 

result, may be unobserved during 

winter. However, regardless of the type 

of hibernacula used, northern longeared bats require roosts with cool, 

humid conditions, which are also 

suitable for Pd growth. As for the 

question of the carcass testing reports, 

this information was removed in the 

final listing rule because it was 

potentially misleading. A small portion 

of dead bats are tested for the disease, 

especially in areas where WNS has not 

been confirmed recently. Therefore, 

reporting on the small number of bats 

tested does not give an accurate 

depiction of the impact of the disease on 

the species. Principally, the northern 

long-eared bat is susceptible to WNS, 

and mortality of northern long-eared 

bats due to the disease has been 

confirmed throughout the majority of 

the WNS-affected range. 

Tribal Comments 

(35) Comment: One Tribe provided 

information related to the biology, 

ecology, and threats faced by the 

northern long-eared bat that reinforced 

the data and information included in 

the Background section of this final 

rule. Additionally, the commenter 

provided information in response to 

other public comments that we had 

received and the letters received from 

the Midwest and Southeast Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and 

Regional Forester Groups and the 

Northeast Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies. They also expressed 

their support for listing the species as 

endangered. 

Our Response: We appreciate the 

input provided and incorporated it into 

the final rule where appropriate. For the 

reasons stated in the Determination 

section of this final listing rule, we have 

determined that the northern long-eared 

bat should be listed as threatened, rather 

than endangered. Please refer to that 

section for a detailed description of that 

determination. 

Tribal Coordination 

In October 2013, Tribes and multitribal organizations were sent letters 

inviting them to begin consultation and 

coordination with the service on the 

proposal to listing the northern longeared bat. In August 2014, several Tribes 

and multi-tribal organizations were sent 

an additional letter regarding the 

Service’s intent to extend the deadline 

for making a final listing determination 

by 6 months. A conference call was also 

held with Tribes to explain the listing 

process and discuss any concerns. 

Following publication of the proposed 

rule, the Service established 3 

interagency teams (biology of the 

northern long-eared bat, non-WNS 

threats, and conservation measures) to 

ensure that States, Tribes, and other 

Federal agencies were able to provide 

input into various aspects of the listing 

rule and potential conservation 

measures for the species. Invitations for 

inclusion in these teams were sent to 

Tribes within the range of the northern 

long-eared bat. Two additional 

conference calls (in January and March 

2015) were held with Tribes to outline 

the proposed species-specific 4(d) rule 

and answer questions. Through this 

coordination, some Tribal 

representatives expressed concern about 

how listing the northern long-eared bat 

may impact forestry practices, housing 

development programs, and other 

activities on Tribal lands. 

Public Comments 

(36) Comment: One commenter stated 

that listing should be restricted to the 

portion of the species’ range that has 

experienced WNS, the current threat to 

this species. The commenter urged the 

Service to, instead of listing the species 

rangewide, consider listing as a DPS, 

because the species is stable across 

much of its range and a DPS will ‘‘allow 

the Service to apply appropriate 

conservation measures in the area of 

greatest need.’’ 

Our Response: When completing a 

status review in response to a petition 

to list a species, we conduct that review 

across the species’ range, unless the 

petition requests that we evaluate a 

different entity, such as a DPS. The 

petition to list the northern long-eared 

bat requested that we consider whether 

listing is warranted for the species; the 

petition did not specifically ask us to 

consider whether any DPSs warrant 

listing. In conducting status reviews, we 

generally follow a step-wise process 

where we begin with a rangewide 

evaluation. If the species does not 

warrant listing rangewide, we then 

consider the status of other listable 

entities. Furthermore, the Service is to 

exercise its authority with regard to 

DPSs ‘‘sparingly and only when the 

biological evidence indicates that such 

action is warranted’’ (Senate Report 151, 

96th Congress, 1st Session). For the 

northern long-eared bat, we have 

determined that the species warrants 

listing as a threatened species 

throughout its range based on current 

threats (primarily due to WNS) and how 

those threats are likely to impact the 

species into the future. 

(37) Comment: A few commenters 

stated that the Service did not consider 

the benefit offered to the species from 

protection of other listed species, such 

as the Indiana bat. One commenter 

further stated that because of this 

overlap in the ranges of the two species, 

there is no reason to list the northern 

long-eared bat. 

Our Response: There have been 

conservation efforts that have been 

undertaken to benefit other federally 

listed species, such as the Indiana bat, 

within the range of the northern longeared bat. More detailed information 

can be found above, under Factor A. 

The Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range. However, prohibitions 

of the Act are species-specific; thus 

prohibitions from take would not apply 

to the northern long-eared bat simply 

due to another similar species being 

listed. Further, benefits to the northern 

long-eared bat that may occur as the 

result of other similar species that are 

listed are primarily habitat-related, and 

do not address the primary threat to the 

northern long-eared bat, WNS. 

(38) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the peer review of the 

proposed listing rule should have taken 

place prior to publication. 

Our Response: In accordance with our 

policy published in the Federal Register 

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we are 

to seek the expert opinions of at least 

three appropriate and independent 

specialists regarding proposed listing 

actions. We are to provide a summary of 

their review in the final decision, but 

are not required to conduct this peer 

review prior to the proposal. The 

purpose of peer review is to ensure that 

our final listing determination is based 

on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We solicited 

expert opinion from seven peer 

reviewers with scientific expertise, 

including familiarity with the northern 

long-eared bat and its habitat, biological 

needs, and threats. We received 

responses from four of the peer 

reviewers, and have addressed their 

comments and incorporated relevant 

information into this final 

determination. 

(39) Comment: A few commenters 

stated that the proposed listing rule was 

rushed due to judicial settlement. 

Our Response: We disagree. The 

Service received a petition to list the 

northern long-eared bat and eastern 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18014 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

small-footed bat in 2010. We published 

a substantial 90-day finding on June 29, 

2011 (76 FR 38095), indicating that 

listing these two species may be 

warranted and initiating a status review. 

Completion of the status reviews were 

delayed due to listing resources 

expended on other higher priority 

rulemakings. On July 12, 2011, the 

Service filed a multiyear work plan as 

part of a settlement agreement with the 

Center for Biological Diversity and 

others, in a consolidated case in the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia. A settlement agreement in 

Endangered Species Act Section 4 

Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), 

Multi-district Litigation Docket No. 

2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011) was 

approved by the court on September 9, 

2011. The settlement agreement 

specified that listing determinations be 

made for more than 250 candidate 

species, and specified dates for several 

petitioned species with delayed 

findings. For the northern long-eared 

bat, the specified date for completing a 

12-month finding, and a listing proposal 

if that finding was warranted, was 

September 30, 2013, 3 years after the 

receipt of the petition. 

(40) Comment: Several commenters 

expressed their concern as to whether 

unpublished data cited in the proposed 

listing rule were peer-reviewed. 

Our Response: Under the Act, we are 

obligated to use the best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

which in this case included results from 

surveys, reports by scientists and 

biological consultants, natural heritage 

data, and expert opinion from biologists 

with experience studying the northern 

long-eared bat and its habitat, whether 

published or unpublished. Additionally, 

we sought comments from independent 

peer reviewers to ensure that our 

determinations are based on 

scientifically sound data, assumptions, 

and analysis. We solicited information 

from the general public, 

nongovernmental conservation 

organizations, State and Federal 

agencies that are familiar with the 

species and its habitat, academic 

institutions, and groups and individuals 

that might have information that would 

contribute to our knowledge of the 

species, as well as the activities and 

natural processes that might be 

contributing to the decline of the 

species. All told, this information 

represents the best available scientific 

and commercial data on which to base 

this listing determination for the 

northern long-eared bat. 

(41) Comment: A few commenters 

questioned if southern populations of 

northern long-eared bats are roosting in 

trees over the winter rather than 

hibernating in caves and mines and, 

therefore, might avoid contracting 

white-nose syndrome. 

Our Response: Northern long-eared 

bats predominantly hibernate in caves 

and abandoned mines. There are a few 

documented instances of this species 

using other types of structures that 

simulate a cave-like environment that is 

suitable for hibernation. To date, there 

have been no documented cases of this 

species hibernating in trees. The 

species’ physiological demands of 

hibernation limit selection of winter 

habitat to areas with relatively stable 

cool temperatures and humid 

conditions, which are the same 

conditions required for the persistence 

of Pd. See ‘‘Hibernation’’ in the Biology 

section of this final rule for a more 

complete description of habitat for the 

species. 

(42) Comment: We received several 

comments that questioned how listing 

the northern long-eared bat will address 

or reverse the species’ decline due to 

white-nose syndrome. One commenter 

stated that listing the species as 

‘‘endangered’’ will not reverse its 

decline. Several stated that habitat loss 

is not a threat to the species, and whitenose syndrome is the only reason for the 

species’ decline; therefore, placing 

additional restrictions on activities, 

such as tree clearing, will have minimal 

impact on conserving the species and 

will not halt the spread of white-nose 

syndrome. 

Our Response: No other threat is as 

severe and immediate for the northern 

long-eared bat as white-nose syndrome. 

If this disease had not emerged, it is 

unlikely the northern long-eared 

population would be experiencing such 

a dramatic decline. However, as whitenose syndrome continues to spread and 

cause mortality, other sources of 

mortality could further diminish the 

species’ resilience or ability to survive. 

White-nose syndrome has significantly 

reduced the numbers of northern longeared bats throughout much of its range. 

Small or declining populations may be 

increasingly vulnerable to other 

impacts, even impacts to which they 

were previously resilient. These other 

impacts may include indirect impact 

(e.g., clearing important roosting or 

foraging habitat) or direct impact (e.g., 

cutting down occupied roost trees while 

pups are non-volant). We expect that 

northern long-eared bat populations 

with smaller numbers and with 

individuals in poor health will be less 

able to persist or to rebound. 

The Service believes that restrictions 

alone are neither an effective nor a 

desirable means for achieving the 

conservation of listed species. We prefer 

to work collaboratively with private 

landowners, and strongly encourage 

individuals with listed species on their 

property to work with us to develop 

incentive-based measures such as safe 

harbor agreements or habitat 

conservation plans (HCPs), which have 

the potential to provide conservation 

measures that effect positive results for 

the species and its habitat while 

providing regulatory relief for 

landowners. The conservation and 

recovery of endangered and threatened 

species, and the ecosystems upon which 

they depend, is the ultimate objective of 

the Act, and the Service recognizes the 

vital importance of voluntary, 

nonregulatory conservation measures 

that provide incentives for landowners 

in achieving that objective. 

(43) Comment: Commenters stated 

that information from New York and 

Vermont indicates that northern longeared bat populations are holding steady 

or increasing. 

Our Response: Contrary to 

information stated by this commenter, 

information we received from Vermont 

and New York indicate sharp 

population declines due to white-nose 

syndrome based on winter and summer 

data. Please see the ‘‘Eastern Range’’ 

section under Distribution and Relative 

Abundance, above, for a more detailed 

discussion of the information received 

from these two States. The one potential 

exception in New York is the Long 

Island population, where the species 

continues to be found during summer 

surveys. This may suggest that there 

may be scattered locations where this 

species has not been as severely 

impacted as other areas of eastern North 

America. However, these observations 

are unproven at this point and are the 

basis for ongoing research to determine 

the validity of a white-nose syndrome 

refugia hypothesis. 

(44) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the Service should consider that 

there is a lack of evidence that mass 

mortality of northern long-eared bats 

due to white-nose syndrome is 

occurring outside the northeastern 

United States even though white-nose 

syndrome is continuing to spread. There 

have been no reported mass mortality 

events outside of the Northeast, and the 

northern long-eared bat continues to be 

commonly captured in mist-net surveys 

in some regions. 

Our Response: To date, because 

impacts from WNS in the far South and 

West have not yet occurred, it is 

impossible to conclude that the 

timeframe and degree of impact will be 

identical. However, everything that has 

been observed to date suggests it will be 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18015 

similar. Many sites in the Northeast 

were infected with WNS prior to 

development and validation of refined 

molecular tools to detect Pd. Thus, a 

hibernaculum in the Northeast was 

likely confirmed with white-nose 

syndrome when there were visible signs 

of the disease. With genetic tools, it may 

now be 2 to 3 years from the first 

detection of a Pd-positive bat at a site 

and visible signs of the disease in bats. 

Therefore, there remains some 

uncertainty in the applicability of the 

timeline observed in the Northeast to 

more recent observations in the 

Midwest and Southeast. 

Additionally, there is evidence that 

microclimate inside the cave, duration 

and severity of winter, hibernating 

behavior, body condition of bats, genetic 

structure of the colony, and other 

variables may affect the timeline and 

severity of impacts at the hibernaculum 

level. However, evidence that any of 

these variables would greatly delay or 

reduce mortality in infected colonies 

has yet to surface. Some have 

speculated that climatic factors may 

extend the disease timeline or may 

result in lower mortality rates among bat 

populations in the southern United 

States; however, observations from the 

winter of 2013–2014 demonstrated the 

potential for white-nose syndromerelated mortality at sites believed to be 

in their first or second year of infection 

as far south as Alabama, Arkansas, and 

Georgia. Please see our Factor C 

discussion in the section titled, ‘‘Effects 

of White-nose Syndrome on the 

Northern Long-eared Bat,’’ above, for 

more information. 

(45) Comment: One commenter stated 

that reported evidence for declines due 

to white-nose syndrome are based on 

localized hibernacula surveys, which 

fail to provide data sufficient to 

document regional or rangewide 

abundance or trends. Consistent with 

this, a recent report by the Committee 

on the Status of Species of Risk in 

Ontario (COSSARO) states: Any 

declines that have taken place can only 

be inferred from pre- and post-WNS 

monitoring of known hibernacula. Even 

then, a lack of baseline population 

information precludes an evaluation of 

what proportion of the known 

population is represented by inferred 

declines, since not all hibernacula are 

known, let alone receive regular 

monitoring attention (COSSARO 2013, 

p. 4). 

Our Response: We received 

hibernacula data from most States 

throughout the range of the northern 

long-eared bat. These data have been 

included in our analysis of the impact 

of white-nose syndrome on the species. 

The information that was included in 

our analysis included pre- and postwhite-nose syndrome data. We agree 

that we may not be aware of, and thus 

have not been surveying, all of the 

northern long-eared bat hibernacula 

within the species’ range. However, it is 

also extremely likely that if these sites 

are used by hibernating bats, they 

exhibit consistently cool, humid 

conditions suitable for Pd growth. Thus, 

the bats using them will in all 

likelihood encounter Pd during 

activities at swarming and staging sites 

where they interact with other bats, 

even if they hibernate in smaller groups 

elsewhere. We do not use the available 

hibernacula counts to estimate northern 

long-eared bat population size; rather 

we use the hibernacula data to 

understand and estimate population 

trends for the species. 

(46) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the Service mentioned that some 

spread models indicate that western and 

southern populations of the northern 

long-eared bat may not be impacted by 

white-nose syndrome; however, in the 

proposed listing rule we said that this 

would offer the species little respite 

since this is on the edge of the species’ 

range. This commenter stated that this 

does not represent the best scientific 

and commercial data available. Another 

commenter similarly stated that Boyles 

and Brack (2009) and Ehlman et al. 

(2013) describe models that predict the 

possibility of lower mortality at lower 

latitudes, due to shorter winters and 

shorter hibernation in southern States, 

leading to reduced impact of white-nose 

syndrome. 

Our Response: The model that the 

commenter referenced is Hallam and 

McCracken. (2011), which was 

discussed in the proposed listing rule. 

Hallam and McCracken (2011) tested 

temperature-dependence of white-nose 

syndrome spread, which at the time of 

the model creation (2011) supported the 

current distribution of white-nose 

syndrome. Although the analysis from 

this model predicted continued rapid 

spread throughout the United States, the 

model also suggested that there may be 

a temperature-dependent boundary in 

southern latitudes that may offer refuge 

to white-nose syndrome-susceptible 

bats. However, there are limitations in 

data availability for this model; several 

States in the Midwest and central 

regions were not included. In addition, 

after formation of the model, many 

counties below Hallam and 

McCracken’s hypothesized temperaturedependent boundary have been 

confirmed with white-nose syndrome or 

have had Pd detected. Considering the 

limitations with this model, we cannot 

put a high degree of confidence in the 

conclusions drawn. Boyles and Brack 

(2009, p. 9) modeled survival rates of 

little brown bats during hibernation and 

determined that clustering (with other 

bats) and disturbances have an overall 

impact on survival rates during 

hibernation; however, there was no 

discussion of white-nose syndrome and 

its impact on cave bats. Ehlman et al. 

(2013, p. 581) developed a model using 

evaporative water loss at the stimulus 

for arousal in both healthy and whitenose syndrome-affected little brown 

bats. They concluded that populations 

experiencing shorter southern winters 

could persist longer than their northern 

counterparts when faced with whitenose syndrome. However, this is 

speculative at this time, as the authors 

acknowledged that there are few data on 

survival rates for the more southerly 

regions where white-nose syndrome has 

more recently spread. 

(47) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the Service did not account for the 

limiting effects that the lower density 

and occurrence of hibernacula in the 

central United States will have on the 

rate of white-nose syndrome spread and 

its effects on the northern long-eared 

bat. They referred to peer review 

comments of A. Kurta (Nov. 12, 2013). 

The commenter contended that Kurta 

stated that such lower hibernacula 

density and occurrence will help protect 

the species from white-nose syndrome 

in those areas because the disease is 

believed to infect the species primarily 

through bat-to-bat transmission in 

hibernacula, where the conditions 

required for growth of the fungus occur. 

Our Response: We have no reason to 

believe that the northern long-eared bat 

will be protected from white-nose 

syndrome in any portion of its range, 

including the central United States. The 

statement that white-nose syndrome 

spread will slow because there are fewer 

caves or mines serving as hibernacula in 

the western portion of the northern 

long-eared bat’s range conflicts with the 

assertion made by other commenters 

that the northern long-eared bat will use 

a wide variety of sites as hibernacula 

(not just caves and mines). White-nose 

syndrome has been confirmed at 

numerous hibernacula that are not caves 

or mines (but with similar habitat 

conditions), including culverts, bunkers, 

forts, tunnels, excavations, quarries, and 

even houses. In addition, all models 

concerning the spread of white-nose 

syndrome predict the disease or Pd will 

continue to spread throughout the 

range, including the central United 

States. Models that provide estimates of 

the timing of spread, predict the disease 

will cover the entirety of the species’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18016 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

range (within the models limited 

geographic limits: The United States) by 

sometime between 2 and about 40 years 

(see our Factor C discussion in the 

section titled, ‘‘Effects of White-nose 

Syndrome on the Northern Long-eared 

Bat,’’ above, for more information). 

These models all have significant 

limitations for predicting timing of 

spread and in many instances have 

overestimated when WNS would arrive 

in currently unaffected counties, in one 

case by as much as 45 years. Limitations 

include underestimating availability of 

non-cave hibernacula, lacking relevant 

biological variables of affected species, 

excluding spread through Canada or 

counties with insufficient data, and the 

fact that Pd is expanding its ecological 

niche in North America by 

demonstrating its viability in previously 

unexposed environments. 

(48) Comment: One commenter 

suggested that the Service direct its 

efforts toward determining the exact 

original cause of white-nose syndrome, 

possible treatment strategies for bats, 

assessing under what conditions the 

fungus is transmitted and how it 

spreads, determining what the optimal 

environmental conditions are that allow 

the growth and transmission of the 

fungus, determining what is driving the 

spread of the fungus, and determining 

the differences in those colonies 

affected and unaffected by white-nose 

syndrome. This commenter stated that 

only when this critical information is 

known would the Service be able to 

determine appropriate listing actions, if 

necessary. 

Our Response: Current knowledge on 

the cause of the disease, how and under 

what conditions the fungus is 

transmitted, how it spreads, and the 

optimal conditions that allow the 

growth of the fungus are explained in 

detail under our Factor C discussion in 

the section titled, ‘‘White-nose 

Syndrome,’’ above. As for treatment of 

the disease, the Service leads the 

national response to white-nose 

syndrome and supports research and 

actions identified in the national 

response plan to contain white-nose 

syndrome and develop treatments or 

controls. The Service has granted more 

than $19.5 million to institutions and 

Federal and State agencies for research 

and response actions. Containment 

strategies are intended to slow the 

spread of WNS and allow time to 

develop management options; they are 

not part of a recovery plan for affected 

species. There are a number of 

promising treatments currently in 

development, and in various stages of 

the research process. However, 

considerably more research and 

coordination is needed to address the 

safety and effectiveness of any treatment 

proposed for field use and to meet 

regulatory requirements prior to 

consideration of widespread 

application. In short, implementation of 

WNS treatments on a landscape-scale is 

likely years away. The multi-agency and 

multi-organization white-nose 

syndrome response team has and 

continues to develop recommendations, 

tools, and strategies to slow the spread 

of white-nose syndrome, minimize 

disturbance to hibernating bats, and 

improve conservation strategies for 

affected bat species. This collaboration 

will also prepare management agencies 

to implement WNS mitigation strategies 

once the strategies are validated. 

Information on some of these products 

developed by the response team can be 

found in our Factor C discussion in the 

section titled, ‘‘Conservation Efforts to 

Reduce Disease or Predation,’’ above. If 

listing is warranted, the Act requires us 

to list a species regardless of whether 

listing will ameliorate the threat to the 

species. 

(49) Comment: During the second 

public comment period, one commenter 

requested a public hearing be held in 

Crook County, Wyoming. This 

commenter further stated that they were 

not given sufficient notice of the first 

public comment period. 

Our Response: In response to the 

request from Crook County, Wyoming, 

to hold a public hearing, the Service 

held a public hearing in Sundance, 

Wyoming, on December 2, 2014. We 

consider the comment periods described 

in the introductory text of this section 

of the final rule (Summary of Comments 

and Recommendations on the Proposed 

Listing Rule) to have provided the 

public a sufficient opportunity for 

submitting both written and oral public 

comments. We contend that there has 

been adequate time for comment, as we 

accepted public comments on the 

proposed listing rule for the northern 

long-eared bat for a total of 240 days. 

(50) Comment: Commenters stated 

that there is no information provided in 

the status review to indicate that the 

proposed listing or development of a 

recovery plan would reverse the species’ 

decline. 

Our Response: If listing is warranted, 

the Act requires us to list a species 

based on one of the five factors, alone 

or in combination. Disease is one of 

these factors to be considered. In 

making a determination as to whether a 

species meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered or threatened species, under 

section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act the 

Secretary is to make that determination 

based solely on the basis of the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available. The question of whether there 

may be some positive benefit of listing 

the species is not considered in the 

decision process, only if the species 

meets the definition of an endangered or 

threatened species. 

(51) Comment: Commenters stated 

that the listing should not be used as a 

funding mechanism to conserve the 

species. 

Our Response: Although there are 

some funding opportunities available to 

promote recovery of listed species (e.g., 

grants to the States under section 6 of 

the Act, funding through the Service’s 

Partner’s for Fish and Wildlife Program), 

we are required to make our 

determination based on the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

at the time of our rulemaking. The 

potential availability of funding does 

not enter into this decision of whether 

listing is warranted for a species. 

Instead we adhere to the requirements 

of the Act, to determine whether a 

species warrants listing based on our 

assessment of the five-factor threats 

analysis. A species may be determined 

to be an endangered or threatened 

species due to one or more of the five 

factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. Listing actions may be 

warranted based on any of the above 

threat factors, singly or in combination. 

(52) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that, in the proposed listing rule, 

the northern long-eared bat was 

described as ‘‘commonly captured’’ 

during summer surveys, which 

contradicts presented winter survey 

data. 

Our Response: The information 

presented in the ‘‘Distribution and 

Abundance’’ section of the proposed 

listing rule described the historical 

distribution and abundance of the 

species prior to detection of white-nose 

syndrome in a given State or portion of 

a State. This section has been changed 

to Distribution and Relative Abundance 

in this final listing rule and includes a 

description of historical and current 

status to better reflect the current 

distribution and trend information for 

the species. The species is often 

‘‘commonly captured’’ during summer 

surveys in areas within its range where 

it has not been impacted by white-nose 

syndrome; however, in areas where the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18017 

disease has been present for a longer 

period of time (the Northeast in 

particular), the species is no longer 

commonly captured even in summer 

surveys. Please see the Distribution and 

Relative Abundance section, above, for 

more detailed information. 

(53) Comment: One commenter stated 

that we did not provide any evidence to 

support the notion that other factors are 

acting in combination with white-nose 

syndrome to reduce the viability of the 

species. 

Our Response: Although we have not 

been able to directly observe the impact 

of these other factors in combination of 

white-nose syndrome, we contend that 

it is reasonable to expect that with 

populations that have been reduced due 

to white-nose syndrome, any additional 

stressors have the potential to reduce 

viability. However, depending on the 

type of stressor, the scale of impact may 

differ (rangewide vs. colony-level 

impact). Peer reviewers of the proposed 

listing rule concurred with the Service’s 

assessment that cumulative impacts 

may result from other (other than whitenose syndrome) factors in addition to 

white-nose syndrome due to a 

diminished population. The Act 

requires us to determine if these other 

factors affect the northern long-eared 

bat’s ability to persist following the 

effects of white-nose syndrome. Our 

continuing analyses are strengthening 

our understanding of these factors and 

helping us identify ways to address 

them. 

(54) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the proposed listing rule’s 

discussion of Factor C (disease or 

predation) includes various hypotheses 

of the causal connection between WNS 

and morbidity in the northern longeared bat, but the Service admits that 

‘‘the exact process by which WNS leads 

to death remains undetermined.’’ 

Our Response: Although the exact 

process or processes by which WNS 

leads to death remains unconfirmed, we 

do know that the fungal infection is 

responsible and it is possible that 

reduced immune function during torpor 

compromises the ability of hibernating 

bats to combat the infection. See our 

Factor C discussion in the section titled, 

‘‘White-nose Syndrome,’’ above, for a 

more detailed discussion on white-nose 

syndrome and mortality in bats. 

(55) Comment: One commenter stated 

their concern that potential seasonal 

forest management restrictions due to 

the listing will have detrimental impacts 

to their local forest industry and forest 

dependent communities, which will 

outweigh benefits to the species. 

Our Response: In making a 

determination as to whether a species 

meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered or threatened species, under 

section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act the 

Secretary is to make that determination 

based solely on the basis of the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available. The Act does not allow us to 

consider the impacts of listing on 

economics or humans activities whether 

over the short term, long term, or 

cumulatively. The question of whether 

there may be some positive benefit to 

the listing cannot by law enter into the 

determination. The evaluation of 

economic impacts comes into play only 

in association with the designation of 

critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act. Therefore, although we did not 

consider the economic impacts of the 

proposed listing, as such a 

consideration is not allowable under the 

Act, we will consider the potential 

economic impacts of a critical habitat 

designation (if prudent), including the 

potential benefits of such designation. 

(56) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the Service should delay listing of 

the species for a minimum of 3 years 

while work continues to develop a 

solution to combat the disease. 

Our Response: If listing is warranted, 

the Act requires us to list a species 

regardless of if listing will ameliorate 

the threat to the species. We are 

required to make our determination 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available at the time of 

our rulemaking. The Act requires the 

Service to publish a final rule within 1 

year from the date we propose to list a 

species unless there is substantial 

disagreement regarding the sufficiency 

or accuracy of the available data 

relevant to the determination or revision 

concerned, but only for 6 months and 

only for purposes of soliciting 

additional data. Based on the comments 

received and data evaluated, we 

determined that an extension was 

necessary. However, we are able to 

extend the listing determination by 6 

months and cannot extend the 

determination by 3 years, as 

recommended. As stated in response to 

a previous comment, there are a number 

of promising treatments currently in 

development, and in various stages of 

the research process. However, these 

potential treatments are still being 

analyzed in a clinical setting, and 

potential application outside of the 

laboratory is years away. 

(57) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that more time is needed to 

complete population surveys for the 

northern long-eared bat before making a 

listing determination. 

Our Response: Our Policy on 

Information Standards under the Act 

(published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the 

Information Quality Act (section 515 of 

the Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 

(Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658)), and our 

associated Information Quality 

Guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/

informationquality/), provide criteria 

and guidance, and establish procedures 

to ensure that our decisions are based 

on the best scientific data available at 

the time of our rulemaking. They 

require our biologists, to the extent 

consistent with the Act and with the use 

of the best scientific data available, to 

use primary and original sources of 

information as the basis for 

recommendations to determine if a 

species warrants listing. Surveys 

completed after listing will continue to 

inform actions taken to conserve and 

recover the species. 

(58) Comment: One researcher 

commented that results from his 

research show that Pd and WNS should 

be expected to occur in regions 

consistent with much of the current U.S. 

range of the northern long-eared bat in 

a relatively short time period, and 

demonstrated the potential spread to the 

majority of the contiguous United 

States. Further their model (Maher et al. 

2012) showed that the spread rate 

increased with longer winters, 

suggesting that spread of Pd and WNS 

in the northern range of the species will 

be faster. 

Our Response: We appreciate this 

comment and have added this 

information to our Factor C discussion 

in the section titled, ‘‘Effects of Whitenose Syndrome on the Northern Longeared Bat,’’ above. This information 

supports information in this final listing 

rule regarding the spread of white-nose 

syndrome within the northern longeared bat’s range. 

(59) Comment: One commenter notes 

that information presented in the 

proposed listing rule stated that summer 

surveys in the Northeast have confirmed 

rates of decline observed in northern 

long-eared bat hibernacula data postWNS, with rates of decline ranging from 

93 to 98 percent; however, the extent of 

that summer survey data is not given, so 

it is unclear how expansive the sample 

might have been, or how consistent all 

of the surveys were spatially across 

time. 

Our Response: We have taken this 

comment into consideration and have 

further explained where and when 

declines have been observed within the 

species’ range in the Distribution and 

Relative Abundance section of this final 

rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18018 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(60) Comment: Commenters stated 

that population declines of more than 

90 percent in the core of the species’ 

range, with more declines predicted due 

to WNS, constitutes a present danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. The population 

declines do not represent a mere 

[likelihood] of becoming an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future, 

rather endangerment ‘‘is not just a 

possibility on the horizon, 

endangerment is already here.’’ 

Our Response: As explained in the 

Determination section of this final rule, 

although WNS is predicted to spread 

throughout the range of the species, in 

the currently uninfected areas we have 

no evidence that northern long-eared bat 

numbers have declined, and the present 

threats to the species in those areas are 

relatively low. Thus, because the fungus 

that causes WNS (Pd) may not spread 

throughout the species’ range for 

another 8 to 13 years, because no 

significant declines have occurred to 

date in the portion of the range not yet 

impacted by the disease, and because 

some bats persist many years later in 

some geographic areas impacted by 

WNS (for unknown reasons), we 

conclude that the northern long-eared 

bat is not currently in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

However, because Pd is predicted to 

continue to spread, we also determine 

that the northern long-eared bat is likely 

to be in danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future. Therefore, on the 

basis of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we are listing 

the northern long-eared bat as a 

threatened species under the Act. 

(61) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the Service did not adequately 

cultivate its partnership with the States 

when developing the proposed listing 

rule and stated that it is imperative that 

the final decision consider regional 

differences relative to the status of the 

species, as specifically identified by the 

State wildlife agencies. 

Our Response: We requested all 

relevant data and information from 

States and Federal agencies prior to 

publishing the proposed rule. 

Additionally, in 2014, we requested all 

available hibernacula and summer 

survey data from all State fish and 

wildlife agencies within the range of the 

species to ensure the most up-to-date 

survey information was included in this 

final listing rule; we received 

information from the majority of States. 

Also, following publication of the 

proposed listing rule, the Service 

established three interagency teams to 

ensure that States, Tribes, and other 

Federal agencies were able to provide 

input into various aspects of the listing 

rule and potential conservation 

measures for the species. The three 

teams are: Biology of the Northern longeared bat, Non-WNS Threats, and 

Conservation Measures. Invitations for 

inclusion in these teams were sent to all 

State agencies within the range of the 

northern long-eared bat. Further, 

MAFWA hosted a meeting in 

Bloomington, Minnesota, in October 

2014, and invited biologists and 

foresters from all State agencies within 

the species’ range to discuss the 

potential listing of the northern longeared bat and conservation measures. 

The information presented in the 

resulting letters from several regions of 

the fish and wildlife and forestry 

associations were considered and 

included in this final listing 

determination. 

(62) Comment: Several commenters 

addressed the Northern Long-eared Bat 

Interim Planning and Conference 

Guidance. 

Our Response: The Interim Planning 

and Conference Guidance was designed 

for use until the publication of this final 

rule. While aspects of this guidance may 

be included in the recovery plan for 

northern long-eared bat, the guidance 

itself does not constitute a recovery 

plan. We appreciate these comments 

and will consider them in developing a 

recovery plan or any potential future 

consultation guidelines for the species. 

(63) Comment: One commenter stated 

that, although no scientific research 

technique is perfect, (as stated by 

Ingersoll et al. 2013) hibernacula 

surveys are the most reliable and 

consistent datasets currently available 

for long-term, regional studies of North 

American bats. 

Our Response: We agree that 

hibernacula surveys are the 

recommended method, and the only 

method with enough history to assess 

trends over time, for cave-dwelling bats, 

including the northern long-eared bat. 

In this final listing rule, we use the 

hibernacula data (in addition to summer 

data) to understand and estimate 

population trends for northern longeared bat. The relative difficulty of 

observing northern long-eared bats 

during hibernacula surveys should be 

consistent from year to year, and these 

data can be used to estimate relative 

change in numbers and indicate if the 

species is increasing or decreasing in 

number in those hibernacula. Thus, the 

total data available for known northern 

long-eared bat hibernacula can yield an 

individual site and cumulative 

indication of species population trend; 

declines estimated at hibernacula are 

corroborated by declines in acoustic 

records and net captures in summer. 

(64) Comment: One commenter stated 

that although the Service finalized its 

policy regarding interpretation of 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ during 

the comment period on the proposed 

listing for the northern long-eared bat, 

the Service should not rely on this 

policy in its final determination. The 

commenter asserted that the information 

in the proposed listing rule does not 

support that any portion the bat’s range 

is ‘‘significant.’’ 

Our Response: The Service finalized 

its policy on the interpretation of the 

phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ 

in the Act’s definitions of ‘‘endangered 

species’’ and ‘‘threatened species’’ on 

July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37577). This policy 

became effective on July 31, 2014, and 

the Service is now applying that 

interpretation to its listing 

determinations as a matter of agency 

policy. According to that final policy, an 

analysis of whether a species is 

endangered or threatened in a 

significant portion of its range is only 

undertaken when a species is found to 

not warrant listing under the Act 

throughout its range. We have 

determined that the northern long-eared 

bat warrants listing as a threatened 

species throughout its range, and, 

therefore, we did not conduct an SPR 

analysis for the species in this final 

listing determination. 

(65) Comment: One commenter 

suggested that northern long-eared bats 

may have greater potential for 

survivability because they roost singly 

rather than clustering in larger groups as 

do other species during hibernation. 

Our Response: The northern longeared bat occasionally can be found in 

clusters with other bats, but typically is 

found roosting singly during 

hibernation. Although the species does 

not roost in clusters as much as other 

cave-bat species during hibernation, 

there are other life-history factors that 

are believed to increase the northern 

long-eared bat’s susceptibility to whitenose syndrome in comparison to other 

cave bat species (e.g., proclivity to roost 

in areas with increased humidity of 

hibernacula, longer hibernation time 

period). See our Factor C discussion in 

the section titled, ‘‘Effects of White-nose 

Syndrome on the Northern Long-eared 

Bat,’’ above, for a more detailed 

discussion. 

(66) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that forest practices conducted in 

Minnesota on County and other 

managed lands provide habitat for the 

northern long-eared bat and that 

properly managed forest has not affected 

northern long-eared bat populations. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18019 

Our Response: We state within the 

five-factor analysis (Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species) that other factors 

(other than white-nose syndrome, 

including forest management) are not 

believed to be contributing the to the 

current decline species-wide. However, 

there could be localized impacts from 

these other stressors, such as forest 

management. Further, cumulative 

impacts may result from these other 

factors in addition to white-nose 

syndrome due to a diminished 

population in the future. See our Factor 

A discussion in the section titled, 

‘‘Summer Habitat,’’ above, for a more 

detailed discussion of forest 

management and its impact on the 

northern long-eared bat. 

(67) Comment: One commenter stated 

that listing the northern long-eared bat 

would negatively impact the species, 

because the presumed logging 

restriction would result in a loss of 

revenues from reduced logging profits 

and force the county to sell property, 

resulting in habitat fragmentation. 

Our Response: In making a 

determination as to whether a species 

meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered or threatened species, under 

section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act the 

Secretary is to make that determination 

based solely on the basis of the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available. The question of whether there 

may be some positive benefit to the 

listing cannot by law enter into the 

determination. The evaluation of 

economic impacts comes into play only 

in association with the designation of 

critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act. Therefore, although we did not 

consider the economic impacts of the 

proposed listing, as such a 

consideration is not allowable under the 

Act; we will consider the potential 

economic impacts of the critical habitat 

designation, including the potential 

benefits of such designation. 

(68) Comment: Several commenters 

cited Ingersoll et al. (2013) as evidence 

that the northern long-eared bat was in 

decline prior to the onset of white-nose 

syndrome. 

Our Response: The Service reviewed 

the Ingersoll et al. (2013) paper and was 

not able to find support for the 

conclusion that commenters made. 

Based on a sampling of data from four 

States during an 11- to 12-year period, 

the models utilized in Ingersoll did not 

treat hibernacula or time periods with 

and without WNS separately. Thus, 

there is no way to identify the impact 

of WNS on the model results, nor to 

show a pre-WNS model versus a postWNS model. Moreover, the authors 

interpret their results to suggest that 

northern long-eared bat population 

declines did not increase as a result of 

WNS. The weight of other available 

evidence contradicts this interpretation, 

and still supports the conclusion that 

the bat was not imperiled prior to WNS. 

(69) Comment: One commenter stated 

that ‘‘climate change does not pose a 

threat to the [northern long-eared bat]’’ 

and asserted that ‘‘the Service should 

not reevaluate potential climate change 

impacts on the [northern long-eared 

bat]’’ as the species is unlikely affected 

by climate change because they are 

roosting generalists, they are unlikely to 

become water stressed, and they are not 

limited to a northern latitude range, but 

rather occupy a large geographic range. 

Our Response: Under the Act, we 

include consideration of observed or 

likely environmental effects related to 

ongoing and projected changes in 

climate. The information presented in 

the ‘‘Climate Change’’ section under the 

Factor E discussion of this final listing 

rule thoroughly addresses the potential 

effects of a changing climate on the 

northern long-eared bat using the best 

available science. 

(70) Comment: One commenter 

questioned whether Pd could grow and 

reproduce on non-bat substrates, and 

consequently spread to caves with no 

bats present. The commenter further 

states that the northern long-eared bat 

should not be listed to ‘‘get ahead’’ of 

WNS, as the potential future effects of 

WNS may or may not occur. 

Our Response: Lorch et al. (2014) 

determined that Pd remains viable in 

cave substrate even in the absence of 

bats. Additionally, Reynolds et al. 

(2015) concluded that this persistence is 

sufficient to allow Pd to spread in the 

absence of bats, and determined that the 

potential for Pd to proliferate in the 

absence of bats greatly increases the 

possibility of this manner of spread. 

Regardless of the ability of Pd to grow 

and reproduce on its own, the best 

science supports the supposition that 

white-nose syndrome is the primary and 

current cause of the decline of the 

northern long-eared bat. Pd or whitenose syndrome has currently been 

detected in 28 U.S. States and 5 

Canadian provinces in the range of 

northern long-eared bat. All models 

consulted on the spread of white-nose 

syndrome have predicted a continued 

spread of Pd. We have determined that 

the northern long-eared bat meets the 

definition of a threatened species under 

the Act based on its current status and 

what we can reasonable predict will 

occur in the future. 

(71) Comment: One commenter was 

concerned that listing the northern longeared bat ‘‘could result in detrimental 

effects to current and future efforts to 

recover and provide suitable habitat for 

other threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species’’ while not addressing 

the primary threat of WNS. The 

commenter stated that other species 

may depend on some forest 

management for needed travel corridors, 

forest stand heterogeneity, and other 

activities. 

Our Response: While it is true that 

WNS is the primary threat to the 

northern long-eared bat (as discussed in 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species), forest management and other 

stressors could have localized impacts, 

as well as cumulative impacts in 

conjunction with WNS. For a more 

detailed discussion of forest 

management and its impact on the 

northern long-eared bat, please see our 

Factor A discussion in the section titled, 

‘‘Summer Habitat,’’ above. 

(72) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the proposed listing rule 

overstated the impact from shale gas 

development. Commenters stated that 

the statements in the proposed listing 

rule regarding the number of wells 

projected and disturbance do not take 

into account the evolution and shift of 

technology of horizontal drilling and 

minimizing disturbance. Also, the 

surface disturbance created by the 

development of shale is temporary and 

many States require site restoration and 

reclamation as part of the permit and 

construction process. 

Our Response: As stated previously 

with regard to threats other than WNS, 

although shale gas development may 

impact the species at a local level, it is 

not believed to be independently 

impacting the species rangewide. 

(73) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the listing proposal does not 

adequately address the status of the 

northern long-eared bat in Canada. 

Currently, one third of its estimated 

geographic range lies within Canada, yet 

few data exist from this portion of the 

range from which a current status 

assessment or population trend can be 

drawn. Without comprehensive data 

from this large portion of the northern 

long-eared bat’s geographic range, we 

cannot support the concept that this 

species is in danger of extinction. 

Our Response: In 2014, the northern 

long-eared bat was determined, under 

an emergency assessment, to be 

endangered under the Canadian (SARA) 

(Species at Risk Public Registry 2014). It 

is estimated that approximately 40 

percent of its global range is in Canada 

(COSEWIC 2012, p. 9; Species at Risk 

Public Registry 2014). Despite limited 

survey information on the species in 

Canada, the decision was made to list 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18020 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

the species under SARA because ‘‘the 

imminent threat posed by WNS to these 

three bat species [northern long-eared 

bat, little brown bat, and tri-colored bat] 

were substantiated by verifiable 

evidence, which included evidence of 

the declines to these bats in Canada and 

the United States.’’ WNS has been 

identified in five Canadian provinces: 

Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, 

Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. 

(74) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the impact from the oil and 

gas industry on the northern long-eared 

bat is low because the technology of 

drilling is changing, thus minimizing 

disturbance. These commenters stated 

that the discussion included in the 

proposed listing rule did not adequately 

address this issue. 

Our Response: We acknowledge in 

this final rule that the footprint of oil 

and gas projects may be lessened by this 

new technology, and that some impact 

may be temporary in nature (see our 

Factor A discussion in the section titled, 

‘‘Summer Habitat,’’ above). However, 

gas extraction continues to expand 

across the range of the northern longeared bat and is still viewed as a type 

of forest conversion that may result in 

direct or indirect impact to the species, 

comparable to other forms of forest 

conversion. Although there could be 

localized impacts to northern long-eared 

bat populations from forest conversion 

relating to oil and gas development, 

factors other than white-nose syndrome 

are not believed to be contributing to the 

current decline of the species 

rangewide. 

(75) Comment: One commenter 

presented two recently published 

models, Alves et al. (2014) and Escobar 

et al. (2014), which address WNS spread 

throughout North America and urged 

careful consideration of each model in 

estimating the potential spread of WNS 

across the range of the northern longeared bat. This commenter stressed the 

limitations of these models in predicting 

the rate of spread; however, they 

acknowledged that one of the models 

(Escobar et al. (2014) predicted WNS 

will continue to spread to all suitable 

areas. 

Our Response: We concur with the 

commenter’s concerns regarding the 

limitations in using these models in 

predicting the rate of spread of WNS 

throughout the northern long-eared bat’s 

range. Both Alves et al. (2014) and 

Escobar et al. (2014) are maximum 

entropy models, which are not effective 

for predicting areas unsuitable for Pd. 

Although these models may be useful in 

determining suitable habitat for Pd, they 

should not be used to predict or identify 

unsuitable habitat. For example, several 

sites predicted to be unsuitable for Pd 

by Alves et al. (September 2014) have 

already been confirmed with the 

disease. Due to these limitations, we 

have not used these models in arriving 

at the potential rate of spread of WNS 

across the northern long-eared bat’s 

range. 

(76) Comment: One organization 

commented that, since the Service 

proposed the species as endangered, we 

cannot decide to change the status to 

threatened in the final rule without first 

proposing the species as threatened and 

providing the public an opportunity to 

comment on that determination. 

Our Response: In a proposed rule, the 

Service proposes the status it believes is 

warranted for the species, based on the 

information it has available at that time. 

After publishing that proposal, we seek 

comments on the underlying data and 

information used in that proposal, 

including the factors the Service 

considers in making a listing 

determination. In our final rulemaking, 

we analyze additional information and 

data received in peer review and public 

comments and testimony. Based on 

information received, in that final 

rulemaking we may take one of the 

following actions: (1) Publish a final 

listing rule as originally proposed, or as 

revised, because the best available 

biological data support it; or (2) 

withdraw the proposal because the 

biological information does not support 

listing the species. Thus, any time that 

we propose a species for listing, 

regardless of whether we propose to list 

the species as a threatened species or an 

endangered species, there are three 

possible outcomes of the rulemaking 

process: listing the species as 

endangered, listing the species as 

threatened, or withdrawing the 

proposed rule (and not listing the 

species). To use the terminology of case 

law regarding APA rulemaking, any of 

those three outcomes is necessarily a 

logical outgrowth of any proposed 

listing rule. Note also that the 

commenter did not argue (nor could it) 

that we must reopen a comment period 

before we determine to withdraw a 

proposed rule to list a species as 

endangered. It stands to reason that we 

could also determine to list as 

threatened, a result that diverges from a 

proposed endangered listing much 

lesser degree that a withdrawal, without 

reopening a comment period. 

Furthermore, in this instance, the 

public was given additional notice that 

the Service may consider listing the 

species as threatened instead of 

endangered when it published a 

proposed species-specific rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act. Such 4(d) rules 

may only be considered for species 

listed as threatened. With the multiple 

public comments periods held on the 

proposal, the public was provided 

ample opportunity to comment on the 

listing status determination, and in fact, 

we received numerous comments on our 

proposal to list the northern long-eared 

bat that specifically addressed the status 

determination. 

Determination 

Our listing determination is guided by 

statutory definitions of the terms 

‘‘endangered’’ and ‘‘threatened.’’ The 

Act defines an endangered species as 

any species that is ‘‘in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range’’ and a threatened 

species as any species ‘‘that is likely to 

become endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range within 

the foreseeable future.’’ The Service has 

further determined that the phrase ‘‘in 

danger of extinction’’ can be most 

simply expressed as meaning that a 

species is ‘‘on the brink of extinction in 

the wild.’’ See December 22, 2011, 

Memorandum from Acting FWS 

Director Dan Ashe Re: Determination of 

Threatened Status for Polar Bears 

[hereinafter the ‘‘Polar Bear Memo’’]. In 

at least one type of situation, where a 

species still has relatively widespread 

distribution, but has nevertheless 

suffered ongoing major reductions in 

numbers, range, or both as a result of 

factors that have not been abated, the 

Service acknowledges that no distinct 

determination exists between 

‘‘endangered’’ and ‘‘threatened.’’ In such 

cases: 

Whether a species . . . is ultimately an 

endangered species or a threatened species 

depends on the specific life history and 

ecology of the species, the nature of the 

threats, and population numbers and trends. 

Even species that have suffered fairly 

substantial declines in numbers or range are 

sometimes listed as threatened rather than 

endangered (Polar Bear Memo, p. 6). 

As discussed in more detail below, 

the northern long-eared bat resides 

firmly in this category where no distinct 

determination exists to differentiate 

between endangered and threatened. 

Therefore, our determination that this 

species is threatened is guided by the 

best available data on the biology of this 

species, and the threat posed by whitenose syndrome. 

In determining whether to list the 

northern long-eared bat, and if so, 

whether it should be listed as 

endangered or as threatened, we are also 

guided by specific criteria set forth in 

section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and its implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 424, establishing procedures 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18021 

for adding species to the Federal Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, we may list a species based on: (A) 

The present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. Listing 

actions may be warranted based on any 

of the above threat factors, singly or in 

combination. 

As discussed in detail below, we find 

that the northern long-eared bat is 

appropriately categorized as a 

threatened species. As discussed in 

detail under Factor C, in the sections 

titled ‘‘White-nose Syndrome’’ and 

‘‘Effects of White-nose Syndrome on the 

Northern Long-eared Bat,’’ WNS has 

impacted the species throughout much 

of its range, and can be expected to 

eventually (from 2 to 40 years based 

upon models of WNS spread dynamics, 

but more probably within 8 to 13 years) 

spread and impact the species 

throughout its entire range. Once WNS 

becomes established in new areas, we 

can expect similar, substantial losses of 

bats beginning in the first few years 

following infection (Factor C). There is 

currently no effective means to stop the 

spread of this disease, or to minimize 

bat mortalities associated with the 

disease. The spread of WNS and its 

expected impact on the northern longeared bat are reasonably foreseeable, 

and thus the species is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future. 

The Service also concludes, however, 

that while the species is likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future, it is not at the 

present time in danger of extinction. 

Stated another way, the species is not 

currently ‘‘on the brink’’ of extinction. 

In the time since our 2013 proposal to 

list the species as endangered, we have 

received and considered voluminous 

input on this issue. We have also 

obtained and carefully considered 

another 18 months of data and 

knowledge regarding the continuing 

effects of WNS on the species, and the 

prospects for spread of the disease 

throughout the entire range of the 

species. Since publication of the 

proposed rule in 2013, we have also 

received new population estimates for 

the species in some parts of its range. 

Several factors, in the aggregate, support 

a finding that the species is not 

currently endangered. For example, 

WNS has not yet been detected 

throughout the entire range of the 

species, and will not likely affect the 

entire range for some number of years 

(again, most likely 8 to 13 years). In 

addition, in the area not yet affected by 

WNS (about 40 percent of the species’ 

total geographic range), the species has 

not yet suffered declines and appears 

stable (see Distribution and Relative 

Abundance, above). Finally, the species 

still persists in some areas impacted by 

WNS, thus creating at least some 

uncertainty as to the timing of the 

extinction risk posed by WNS. Even in 

New York, where WNS was first 

detected in 2007, small numbers of 

northern long-eared bats persist (see 

Distribution and Relative Abundance, 

above) despite the passage of 

approximately 8 years. Finally, coarse 

population estimates where they exist 

for this species indicate a population of 

potentially several million northern 

long-eared bats still on the landscape 

across the range of the species (see 

Distribution and Relative Abundance, 

above). No one factor alone conclusively 

establishes whether the species is ‘‘on 

the brink’’ of extinction. Taken together, 

however, the data indicate a current 

condition where the species, while 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

at some point in the foreseeable future, 

is not on the brink of extinction at this 

time. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the northern longeared bat. There are several factors that 

affect the northern long-eared bat; 

however, no other threat is as severe 

and immediate to the species 

persistence as WNS (Factor C). This 

disease is the prevailing threat to the 

species, and there is currently no known 

cure. While we have received some 

information concerning localized 

impacts or concerns (unrelated to WNS) 

regarding the status of the northern 

long-eared bat, it is likely true that many 

North American wildlife species have 

suffered some localized, isolated 

impacts in the face of human population 

growth and the continuing development 

of the continent. Despite this, based 

upon available evidence, the species as 

a whole appears to have been doing well 

prior to WNS. 

Since WNS was first discovered in 

New York in 2007, the northern longeared bat has experienced a severe and 

rapid decline in numbers, in the areas 

affected by the disease. As discussed in 

detail in Factor C, the available data 

(winter and summer surveys) indicate 

reductions in northern long-eared bat 

numbers due to WNS. Summer data, 

although more limited, indicate similar 

trends to those found in hibernacula 

surveys. Declines documented in 

summer surveys are sometimes smaller 

than the declines shown by winter/

hibernacula surveys. For example, in 

Pennsylvania, pre and post-WNS winter 

surveys showed a 99 percent decline, 

with summer surveys showing a 76 

percent decline. Unfortunately, summer 

data tend to show a continuing decline 

(e.g., by 15 percent annually in 

Pennsylvania), which is likely to 

ultimately mirror the higher declines 

documented during the winter. We do 

not fully understand the reason for the 

difference, or ‘‘lag’’ between winter and 

summer trend data. Nonetheless, both 

winter and summer data ultimately 

corroborate one another to demonstrate 

declines in this species due to WNS; 

these data support our conclusion that 

the species is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future. 

Determining whether the northern 

long-eared bat is ‘‘in danger of 

extinction,’’ and thus either 

‘‘endangered’’ or ‘‘threatened’’ under the 

Act, requires some consideration of the 

impact of the decline in numbers (as 

discussed under Factor C and 

summarized above) on the species’ 

viability. We do not have firm 

rangewide population size estimates for 

this species (pre-WNS or post-WNS), 

nor do we have the benefit of a viability 

analysis. Nonetheless, principles of 

conservation biology are instructive in 

determining the impact of WNS on the 

viability of this species. Viability can be 

measured generally by a species’ levels 

of resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, 

pp. 301–321). Resiliency means having 

the ability to withstand natural 

environmental fluctuations and 

anthropogenic stressors over time; 

redundancy means having a sufficient 

number of populations and distribution 

to guard against catastrophic events; and 

representation means having sufficient 

genetic and ecological diversity to 

maintain adaptive potential over time. 

The presence of surviving northern 

long-eared bats in areas infected by 

WNS for up to 8 years creates at least 

some question as to whether this species 

is displaying some degree of long-term 

resiliency. It is unknown whether some 

populations that have survived the 

infection are now stabilizing at a lower 

density or whether the populations are 

still declining in response to the 

disease, and whether those populations 

have been reduced below sustainable 

levels. In the long term, based upon our 

best understanding of conservation 

biology, we believe the declines seen in 

this species may be unsustainable (see 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18022 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Biology, above). Finally, it is also 

unclear whether the response of bats to 

Pd in Europe has utility in predicting 

the long-term viability of bats in North 

America in response to Pd, as bats in 

Europe are thought to have evolved with 

the fungus (Factor C). But we must 

acknowledge at least some uncertainty 

as to whether species numbers in the 

WNS-affected areas in North America 

represent dramatically reduced, but 

potentially sustainable, populations. 

Given that we do not as of yet have a 

means to stop the spread of WNS and 

we anticipate the same impact (high 

mortality) observed to date to occur as 

WNS spreads across the range, 

substantial losses in redundancy and 

representation are likely as well. Thus, 

we believe it is likely that the northern 

long-eared bat will decline to the point 

of being ‘‘in danger of extinction.’’ 

Having established that the northern 

long-eared bat is likely to decline to the 

point of being ‘‘in danger of extinction,’’ 

we next focus on the timing of when the 

species will reach the point of being ‘‘in 

danger of extinction.’’ In areas currently 

affected by WNS, there have clearly 

been significant population effects due 

to the disease. To date, however, WNS 

has not yet extended throughout the 

species’ range. In the proposed listing 

rule, we concluded that the species was 

‘‘endangered’’ (i.e., in danger of 

extinction presently), as we believed 

that the rate of decline was 

unsustainable and WNS spread 

throughout the range was likely. In the 

listing proposal we also stated that WNS 

spread throughout the range would 

occur in the short term, but did not 

explicitly determine the timeframe. As 

explained under Factor C, the WNS 

spread models are not particularly 

useful in establishing a specific 

timeframe; together, these models 

indicate spread of WNS throughout the 

range by sometime between 2 and 40 

years. Because of the lack of clarity on 

rate of spread obtained from the models, 

we believe it is more scientifically 

relevant to look at the rate of spread that 

has occurred to date on the landscape as 

a guide for the timeframe of WNS 

spread across the species’ entire range. 

Using the data compiled to date, the 

fungus that causes WNS appears to have 

spread in all directions in North 

America, moving southwest at an 

average of over 175 miles (280 km) per 

year, but expanding in every direction 

where bats live. At this rate, the fungus 

will extend throughout the bat’s entire 

range in about 8 to 9 years (Service 

2015, unpublished data). Finally, we 

note that the Canadian COSEWIC 

recently estimated that Pd and/or WNS 

would spread through the entire range 

of the northern long-eared bat within 12 

to 15 years (COSEWIC 2013, p. xiv). 

Taking into account the passage of time 

since publication of the COSEWIC 

estimate, we will place the Canadian 

estimate of the spread of Pd and/or 

WNS throughout the full range of the 

species to be 10 to 13 years. Taken 

together, we conclude that the best 

estimate of the spread of Pd throughout 

the range of the northern long-eared bat 

is likely between 8 and 13 years, noting 

that there is typically a delay (up to 

several years) in the onset of the disease 

from the first arrival of the fungus. 

Although Pd/WNS is predicted to 

spread throughout the range of the 

species by 2023–2028, in the currently 

uninfected areas, northern long-eared 

bat numbers have not declined, and the 

present threats to the species in those 

areas are relatively low. The presence of 

potentially millions of northern longeared bats across the species’ range (see 

Distribution and Relative Abundance, 

above), while by no means dispositive 

in its own right, also indicates a current 

condition in which species is not ‘‘on 

the brink’’ of extinction. Because the 

fungus/disease may not spread 

throughout the species’ range for 

another 8 to 13 years, because no 

significant declines have occurred to 

date in the portion of the range not yet 

impacted by the disease, and because 

some bats persist many years later in 

some geographic areas impacted by 

WNS (for unknown reasons), we 

conclude that the northern long-eared 

bat is not currently in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

However, because Pd is predicted to 

continue to spread, we also determine 

that the northern long-eared bat is likely 

to be in danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future. Therefore, on the 

basis of the best available scientific and 

commercial information, we are listing 

the northern long-eared bat as a 

threatened species in accordance with 

sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is endangered or threatened 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. Because we have determined 

that the northern long-eared bat is 

threatened throughout all of its range, 

no portion of its range can be 

‘‘significant’’ for purposes of the 

definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and 

‘‘threatened species.’’ See the Final 

Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase 

‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the 

Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014). 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness, and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies; private organizations; and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and requires 

that recovery actions be carried out for 

all listed species. The protection 

required by Federal agencies and the 

prohibitions against certain activities 

are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of 

the Act requires the Service to develop 

and implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning includes the 

development of a recovery outline 

shortly after a species is listed and 

preparation of a draft and final recovery 

plan. The recovery outline guides the 

immediate implementation of urgent 

recovery actions and describes the 

process to be used to develop a recovery 

plan. Revisions of the plan may be done 

to address continuing or new threats to 

the species, as new substantive 

information becomes available. The 

recovery plan identifies site-specific 

management actions that set a trigger for 

review of the five factors that control 

whether a species remains endangered 

or may be downlisted or delisted, and 

methods for monitoring recovery 

progress. Recovery plans also establish 

a framework for agencies to coordinate 

their recovery efforts and provide 

estimates of the cost of implementing 

recovery tasks. Recovery teams 

(composed of species experts, Federal 

and State agencies, nongovernmental 

organizations, and stakeholders) are 

often established to develop recovery 

plans. When completed, the recovery 

outline, draft recovery plan, and the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18023 

final recovery plan will be available on 

our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/

endangered), or from our Twin Cities 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat protection, habitat restoration 

(e.g., restoration of native vegetation) 

and management, research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

Following publication of this final 

listing rule, funding for recovery actions 

will be available from a variety of 

sources, including Federal budgets, 

State programs, and cost-share grants for 

non-Federal landowners, the academic 

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, under section 

6 of the Act, the States of Alabama, 

Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, 

Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, 

Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 

New York, North Carolina, North 

Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, South Carolina, South 

Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, 

West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming 

would be eligible for Federal funds to 

implement management actions that 

promote the protection or recovery of 

the northern long-eared bat. Information 

on our grant programs that are available 

to aid species recovery can be found at: 

http://www.fws.gov/grants. 

Please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for the northern long-eared bat. 

Additionally, we invite you to submit 

any new information on this species 

whenever it becomes available and any 

information you may have for recovery 

planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as an endangered 

or threatened species and with respect 

to its critical habitat, if any is 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to confer with the 

Service on any action that is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

species proposed for listing or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. If a species is 

listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act requires Federal agencies to 

ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species or destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. If a Federal 

action may affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency must enter into consultation 

with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

conference or consultation or both as 

described in the preceding paragraph 

include management and any other 

landscape-altering activities on Federal 

lands administered by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, USFS, NPS, and other 

Federal agencies; issuance of section 

404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 

seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers; and funding for construction 

and maintenance of roads or highways 

by the Federal Highway Administration. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving threatened wildlife under 

certain circumstances. Regulations 

governing permits are codified at 50 

CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened 

wildlife, a permit may be issued for the 

following purposes: Scientific purposes, 

or the enhancement of propagation or 

survival, or economic hardship, or 

zoological exhibition, or educational 

purposes, or incidental taking, or 

special purposes consistent with the 

purposes of the Act. There are also 

certain statutory exemptions from the 

prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a listing on proposed and 

ongoing activities within the range of 

listed species. At this time, other than 

those activities that are in compliance 

with the interim 4(d) rule described 

below, we are unable to identify specific 

activities that would not be considered 

to result in a violation of section 9 of the 

Act. Because the northern long-eared bat 

occurs in a variety of habitat conditions 

across its range, there are many different 

types of activities that, without sitespecific conservation measures, may 

directly or indirectly affect the species. 

Based on the best available 

information, the following activities 

may potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 the Act; this list is not 

comprehensive: Activities that may 

affect the northern long-eared bat that 

do not comport with the interim 4(d) 

rule (described below); activities that 

alter a northern long-eared bat 

hibernacula; activities that may disturb, 

alter, or destroy occupied maternity 

colony habitat; and activities that 

otherwise kill, harm, or harass northern 

long-eared bat at any time of the year. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Twin Cities Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Under section 4(d) of the Act, the 

Service has discretion to issue 

regulations that we find necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of threatened wildlife. We 

may also prohibit by regulation with 

respect to threatened wildlife any act 

prohibited by section 9(a)(1) of the Act 

for endangered wildlife. For the 

northern long-eared bat, the Service has 

developed an interim 4(d) rule, 

described below, that is tailored to the 

specific threats and conservation needs 

of this species. 

Provisions of the Interim SpeciesSpecific 4(d) Rule for the Northern 

Long-Eared Bat 

Under section 4(d) of the Act, the 

Secretary may publish a species-specific 

rule that modifies the standard 

protections for threatened species with 

prohibitions and exceptions tailored to 

the conservation of the species that are 

determined to be necessary and 

advisable. Under this interim 4(d) rule, 

the Service applies all of the 

prohibitions set forth at 50 CFR 17.31 

and 17.32 to the northern long-eared 

bat, except as noted below. This interim 

rule under section 4(d) of the Act will 

not remove, or alter in any way, the 

consultation requirements under section 

7 of the Act. 

As discussed in the October 2, 2013, 

proposed rule (78 FR 61046), the 

primary factor supporting the proposed 

determination of endangered species 

status for the northern long-eared bat is 

the disease, white-nose syndrome. We 

further determined that other threat 

factors (including forest management 

activities; wind-energy development; 

habitat modification, destruction, and 

disturbance; and other threats) may 

have cumulative effects to the species in 

addition to WNS; however, they have 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18024 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

not independently caused significant, 

population-level effects on the northern 

long-eared bat. Therefore, we are 

adopting a final rule to list the species 

as a threatened species, as explained 

earlier in this document, and in concert 

with that final rule, we are adopting an 

interim rule under section 4(d) of the 

Act to provide exceptions to the 

prohibitions for some of these activities 

that cause cumulative effects, as we 

deem necessary and advisable for the 

conservation of the species. 

We conclude that certain activities 

described in this section, when 

conducted in accordance with the 

conservation measures identified 

herein, will provide protection for the 

northern long-eared bat during its most 

sensitive life stages. These activities are: 

Forest management activities (subject to 

certain time restrictions); maintenance 

and minimal expansion of existing 

rights-of-way and transmission 

corridors, also subject to certain 

restrictions; prairie management; other 

projects resulting in minimal tree 

removal; hazard tree removal; removal 

of bats from and disturbance within 

human structures; and capture, 

handling, attachment of radio 

transmitters, and tracking northern longeared bats for a 1-year period following 

the effective date of this interim 4(d) 

rule (see DATES). The Service concludes 

that incidental take that is caused by 

these activities implemented on private, 

State, tribal, and Federal lands will not 

be prohibited provided those activities 

abide by the conservation measures in 

this interim rule and are otherwise legal 

and conducted in accordance with 

applicable State, Federal, tribal, and 

local laws and regulations. 

Buffer Zone Around WNS and 

Pseudogymnoascus destructans (the 

Fungus that Causes WNS) Positive 

Counties (WNS Buffer Zone) 

Currently, not all of the range of the 

northern long-eared bat is affected by 

WNS. Our status determination of the 

northern long-eared bat as a threatened 

species is primarily based on the 

impacts from WNS, and we also 

determined that the other threats, when 

acting on the species alone, are not 

causing the species to be in danger of 

extinction. Given this information, the 

Service concludes that while all 

purposeful take except removal of bats 

from human dwellings and survey and 

research efforts conducted within a 1- 

year period following the effective date 

of this interim 4(d) rule will be 

prohibited, all other take incidental to 

other lawful activities will be allowed in 

those areas of the northern long-eared 

bat’s range not in proximity to 

documented occurrence of WNS or Pd, 

as identified by the Service. 

Currently, WNS is mainly detected by 

surveillance at bat hibernacula. Thus, 

our direct detection of the disease is 

limited largely to wintering bat 

populations in the locations where they 

hibernate. However, bats are known to 

leave hibernacula and travel great 

distances, sometimes hundreds of miles, 

to summer roosts. Therefore, the 

impacts of the disease are not limited to 

the immediate vicinity around bat 

hibernacula, but have an impact on a 

landscape scale. For northern long-eared 

bats, as with all species, this means that 

the area of influence of WNS is much 

greater than the counties known to 

harbor affected hibernacula, resulting in 

impacts to a much larger section of the 

species’ range. To fully represent the 

extent of WNS, we must also include 

these summer areas. 

Overall, northern long-eared bats are 

not considered to be long-distance 

migrants, typically dispersing 40 to 50 

miles (64 to 80 kilometers) from their 

hibernacula. However, other bat species 

that disperse much farther distances are 

also vectors for WNS spread and may 

transmit the disease to northern longeared bat populations. It has been 

suggested that the little brown bat, in 

particular, be considered a likely source 

of WNS spread across eastern North 

America. Little brown bats tend to 

migrate greater distances, particularly in 

the western portions of their range, with 

distances up to 350 miles (563 km) or 

more recorded (see Ellison 2008, p. 21; 

Norquay et al. 2013, p. 510). In a recent 

study, reporting on bat band recoveries 

of little brown bats over a 21-year 

period, Norquay et al. (2013, pp. 509– 

510) describe recaptures between 

hibernacula and summer roosts with a 

maximum distance of 344 miles (554 

km) and a median distance of 288 miles 

(463 km). 

For the purpose of this interim rule, 

the counties within the northern longeared bat’s range that are considered to 

be affected by WNS are those within 150 

miles (241 km) of the boundary of U.S. 

counties or Canadian districts where the 

fungus Pd or WNS has been detected. 

We acknowledge that 150 miles (241 

km) does not capture the full range of 

potential WNS infection, but represents 

a compromise distance between the 

known migration distances of northern 

long-eared bats and little brown bats 

that is suitable for our purpose of 

estimating the extent of WNS infection 

on the northern long-eared bat. We have 

chosen to use county boundaries to 

delineate the boundary because they are 

clearly recognizable and will minimize 

confusion. If any portion of a county 

falls within 150 miles of a county with 

a WNS detection, the entire county will 

be considered affected. Anywhere 

outside of the geographic area defined 

by these parameters, northern longeared bat populations will not be 

considered to be experiencing the 

impacts of WNS. 

The Service defines the term ‘‘WNS 

buffer zone’’ as the set of counties 

within the range of the northern longeared bat within 150 miles of the 

boundaries of U.S. counties or Canadian 

districts where the fungus Pd or WNS 

has been detected. 

For purposes of this interim 4(d) rule, 

coordination with the local Service 

Ecological Services field office is 

recommended to determine whether 

specific locations fall within the WNS 

buffer zone. For more information about 

the current known extent of WNS and 

the 150-mile (241-km) buffer, please see 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/

endangered/mammals/nlba/. 

Conservation Measures 

Under this interim 4(d) rule, take 

incidental to certain activities 

conducted in accordance with the 

following habitat conservation 

measures, as applicable, will not be 

prohibited (i.e., will be excepted from 

the prohibitions). For such take to be 

excepted, the activity must: 

• Occur more than 0.25 mile (0.4 

kilometer) from a known, occupied 

hibernacula; 

• Avoid cutting or destroying known, 

occupied roost trees during the pup 

season (June 1–July 31); and 

• Avoid clearcuts (and similar harvest 

methods, e.g., seed tree, shelterwood, 

and coppice) within 0.25 mile (0.4 

kilometer) of known, occupied roost 

trees during the pup season (June 1–July 

31). 

Note that activities that may cause 

take of northern long-eared bat that do 

not use these conservation measures 

may still be done, but only after 

consultation with the Service. This 

means that, while the resulting take 

from such activities is not excepted by 

this interim rule, the take may be 

authorized through other means 

provided in the Act (section 7 

consultation or an incidental take 

permit). 

Known roost trees are defined as trees 

that northern long-eared bats have been 

documented as using during the active 

season (approximately April–October). 

Once documented, a tree will be 

considered to be a ‘‘known roost’’ as 

long as the tree and surrounding habitat 

remain suitable for northern long-eared 

bat. However, a tree may be considered 

to be unoccupied if there is evidence 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18025 

that the roost is no longer in use by 

northern long-eared bats. Currently, 

most states and Natural Heritage 

Programs do not track roosts and many 

have not tracked any northern longeared bat occurrences. We anticipate 

that this will improve over time, as 

information on the species increases 

post-listing. 

Known, occupied hibernacula are 

defined as locations where one or more 

northern long-eared bats have been 

detected during hibernation or at the 

entrance during fall swarming or spring 

emergence. Given the documented 

challenges of surveying for northern 

long-eared bats in the winter (use of 

cracks, crevices), any hibernacula with 

northern long-eared bats observed at 

least once, will continue to be 

considered ‘‘known hibernacula’’ as 

long as the hibernacula and its 

surrounding habitat remain suitable for 

northern long-eared bat. However, a 

hibernaculum may be considered to be 

unoccupied if there is evidence (e.g., 

survey data) that it is no longer in use 

by northern long-eared bats. 

These conservation measures aim to 

protect the northern long-eared bat 

during its most sensitive life stages. 

Hibernacula are an essential habitat and 

should not be destroyed or modified 

(any time of year). In addition, there are 

periods of the year when northern longeared bats are concentrated at and 

around their hibernacula (fall, winter, 

and spring). Northern long-eared bats 

are susceptible to disruptions near 

hibernacula in the fall, when they 

congregate to breed and increase fat 

stores, which are depleted from 

migration, before entering hibernation. 

During hibernation, northern long-eared 

bat winter colonies are susceptible to 

direct disturbance. Briefly in spring, 

northern long-eared bats yet again use 

the habitat surrounding hibernacula to 

increase fat stores for migration to their 

summering grounds. This feeding 

behavior is particularly important for 

the females, who must obtain enough fat 

stores to carry not only themselves, but 

also their unborn pups, to their summer 

home range. 

Risk of injury or death from being 

crushed when a roost tree is felled is 

most likely, but not limited, to 

nonvolant pups. The likelihood of roost 

trees containing larger number of 

northern long-eared bats is greatest 

during pregnancy and lactation (April– 

July) with exit counts falling 

dramatically after this time (Foster and 

Kurta 1999, p. 667; Sasse and Pekins 

1996, pp. 91,92). Once the pups can fly, 

this risk is reduced because the pups 

will have the ability to flee their roost 

if it is being cut or otherwise damaged, 

potentially avoiding harm, injury, or 

mortality. 

The Service concludes that a 0.25- 

mile (0.4-km) buffer should be sufficient 

to protect most known, occupied 

hibernacula and hibernating colonies. 

This buffer will provide basic protection 

for the hibernacula and hibernating bats 

in winter from direct impacts, such as 

filling, excavation, blasting, noise, and 

smoke exposure. This buffer will also 

protect some roosting and foraging 

habitat around the hibernacula. 

The Service concludes that, in 

addition to preservation of known 

maternity roosts, a 0.25-mile (0.4-km) 

buffer for all clearcutting activities will 

be sufficient to protect the habitat 

surrounding known maternity roosts 

during the pup season. Clearcutting and 

similar methods is summarized here as 

the cutting of most or essentially all 

trees from an area; however, specific 

definitions are provided within the 

Society of American Foresters’ 

Dictionary of Forestry. This buffer will 

prevent the cutting of known occupied 

roost trees, reduce the cutting of 

secondary roosts used by maternity 

colonies during the pup season from 

clearcutting activities, and protect some 

habitat for some known maternity 

colonies at least to some degree. 

Further, because colonies occupy more 

than one maternity roost in a forest 

stand and individual bats frequently 

change roosts, in some cases a portion 

of a colony or social network is likely 

to be protected by multiple 0.25 mile 

(0.4 km) buffers. 

For purposes of this proposed rule 

and the conservation measures listed 

above, we recommend contacting the 

local state agency, State’s Natural 

Heritage database, and local Service 

Ecological Services field office for 

information on the best current sources 

of northern long-eared bat records in 

your state to determine the specific 

locations of the ‘‘known roosts’’ and 

‘‘known hibernacula.’’ These locations 

will be informed by records in each 

State’s Natural Heritage database, 

Service records, other databases, or 

other survey efforts. 

Forest Management 

Continued forest management and 

silviculture is vital to the conservation 

and recovery of the northern long-eared 

bat. Under this interim rule, incidental 

take that is caused by forest 

management and silviculture activities 

that promote the long-term stability and 

diversity of forests, when carried out in 

accordance with the conservation 

measures, will not be prohibited. Forest 

management is the practical application 

of biological, physical, quantitative, 

managerial, economic, social, and 

policy principles to the regeneration, 

management, utilization and 

conservation of forests to meet specific 

goals and objectives (Society of 

American Foresters (SAF)(a), http://

dictionaryofforestry.org/dict/term/

forest_management). Silviculture is the 

art and science of controlling the 

establishment, growth, composition, 

health, and quality of forests and 

woodlands to meet the diverse needs 

and values of landowners and society 

on a sustainable basis (SAF(b), http://

dictionaryofforestry.org/dict/term/

silviculture). In addition to the 

conservation measures above, forest 

management and silviculture activities 

should also adhere to any applicable 

State water quality best management 

practices, where they exist. Further, we 

encourage the retention of snags and 

trees with characteristics (e.g., cavities 

and cracks) favorable for the 

establishment and maintenance of 

maternity roosts. 

The conversion of mature hardwood, 

or mixed, forest into intensively 

managed monoculture pine plantation 

stands, or non-forested landscape, is not 

exempted under this interim rule, as 

typically these types of monoculture 

pine plantations provide poor-quality 

bat habitat. Pine plantations are densely 

planted (e.g., typically 675 to 750, or 

more, trees per acre) and are comprised 

of single-age or similar age class timber. 

They are typically managed for timber 

production with, depending on the 

product, a uniform, planned endpoint. 

Maximum stocking rates and short 

rotations result in the forfeiture of 

structural diversity in exchange for 

elevated rates of wood productivity. 

Plantation productivity may be further 

enhanced through the use of genetically 

improved stock, fertilization, extensive 

site preparation, and reduction of 

competition. These management actions 

prohibit variably stocked stands, layers 

of understory and midstory vegetation, 

and longer rotations that enhance and 

maintain habitat traits required by many 

forest-dependent wildlife species (Allen 

et al. 1996, p. 13). 

Though forestry management and 

silviculture are vital to the long-term 

survival and recovery of the species, 

where northern long-eared bats are 

present when these forest management 

activities are performed, bats could be 

exposed to habitat alteration or loss or 

direct disturbance (i.e., heavy 

machinery) or removal of maternity 

roost trees (i.e., harvest). In general, 

however, the northern long-eared bat is 

considered to have more flexible habitat 

requirements than other bat species 

(Carter and Feldhamer 2005, pp. 265– 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18026 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

266; Timpone et al. 2010, pp. 120–121), 

and most types of forest management 

should provide suitable habitat for the 

species over the long term (with the 

exception of conversion to monoculture 

pine forest, as discussed above). Based 

upon information obtained during 

previous comment periods on the 

proposed listing rule, approximately 2 

percent of forests in States within the 

range of the northern long-eared bat are 

impacted by forest management 

activities annually (Boggess et al., 2014, 

p. 9). Of this amount, in any given year 

a smaller fraction of forested habitat is 

impacted during the active season when 

pups and female bats are most 

vulnerable. These impacts are addressed 

by the above conservation measures 

adopted in this interim rule. 

Therefore, we anticipate that habitat 

modifications resulting from forest 

management and silviculture will not 

significantly affect the conservation of 

the northern long-eared bat. Further, 

although activities performed during the 

species’ active season (roughly April 

through October) may directly kill or 

injure individuals, implementation of 

the conservation measures provided for 

in this interim rule will limit take by 

protecting currently known populations 

during their more vulnerable life stages. 

Routine Maintenance and Limited 

Expansion of Existing Rights-of-way and 

Transmission Corridors 

Under this interim rule, incidental 

take that is caused by activities for the 

purpose of maintenance and limited 

expansion of existing rights-of-way and 

transmission corridors, when carried 

out in accordance with the conservation 

measures, will not be prohibited (i.e., 

will be excepted from the prohibitions). 

Rights-of-way (ROW) and transmission 

corridors are in place for activities such 

as transportation (highways, railways), 

utility transmission lines, and energy 

delivery (pipelines), though they are not 

limited to just these types of corridors. 

Under this interim rule, take of the 

northern long-eared bat will not be 

prohibited provided the take is 

incidental to activities within the 

following categories: 

(1) Routine maintenance within an 

existing corridor or ROW, carried out in 

accordance with the previously 

described conservation measures. 

(2) Expansion of a corridor or ROW by 

up to 100 feet (30 m) from the edge of 

an existing cleared corridor or ROW, 

carried out in accordance with the 

previously described conservation 

measures. 

General ROW routine maintenance is 

designed to limit vegetation growth, 

within an existing footprint, so that 

operations can continue smoothly. 

These activities may include tree 

trimming or removal, mowing, and 

herbicide spraying. However, depending 

on the purpose of the corridor or ROW, 

maintenance may only be performed 

infrequently, and trees and shrubs may 

encroach into, or be allowed to grow 

within, the ROW until such time as 

maintenance is required. Expansion of 

these areas requires removal of 

vegetation along the existing ROW to 

increase capacity (e.g., road widening). 

Northern long-eared bats can occupy 

various species and sizes of trees when 

roosting. Because of their wide variety 

of habitat use when roosting and 

foraging, it is possible that they may be 

using trees within or near existing 

ROWs. Therefore, vegetation removal 

within or adjacent to an existing ROW 

may remove maternity roost trees and 

foraging habitat. Individuals may also 

temporarily abandon the areas, avoiding 

the physical disturbance until the work 

is complete. While ROW corridors can 

be large in overall distance, due to the 

relatively small scale of the habitat 

alteration involved in maintenance of 

the existing footprint, potential take is 

limited. No new forest fragmentation is 

expected as this expands existing open 

corridors. We also expect that excepting 

take prohibitions from ROW 

maintenance and limited expansion will 

encourage co-location of new linear 

projects within existing corridors. We 

conclude that the overall impact of 

ROW maintenance and limited 

expansion activities is not expected to 

adversely affect conservation and 

recovery efforts for the species. 

Prairie Management 

Under this interim rule, incidental 

take that is caused by activities for the 

purpose of prairie management, when 

carried out in accordance with the 

conservation measures, will not be 

prohibited (i.e., will be excepted from 

the prohibitions). Prairie management 

involves management to maintain 

existing prairies and grasslands or 

efforts to reestablish grasslands that had 

previously been converted, usually to 

cropland. In some areas of the northern 

long-eared bat’s range, tree and shrub 

species are overtaking prairie areas. 

Landowners and agencies working to 

establish or conserve prairies may have 

to manage trees and brush in order to 

maintain grasslands. Management 

activities include cutting, mowing, 

burning, grazing, or using herbicides on 

woody vegetation to minimize 

encroachment into prairies (Grassland 

Heritage Foundation, accessed 

December 23, 2014 http://

www.grasslandheritage.org/). In the 

absence of fire, some researchers found 

tree species progressively invade and 

will eventually dominate tallgrass 

prairie (Bragg and Hulbert 1976, p. 23; 

Towne and Owensby 1984, p. 397). In 

some areas, if prairies are not managed 

to keep woody vegetation suppressed, 

they can eventually become shrub or 

forest lands sometimes in as few as 40 

years (Briggs et al. 2002, p. 578; 

Ratajczak et. al 2011, p. 3). We conclude 

that the overall impact of prairie 

management that removes or manages 

trees and brush to maintain prairies and 

grasslands is not expected to adversely 

affect conservation and recovery efforts 

for the species. 

Projects Resulting in Minimal Tree 

Removal 

Under this interim rule, incidental 

take that results from projects causing 

minimal tree removal, when carried out 

in accordance with the conservation 

measures, will not be prohibited (i.e., 

will be excepted from the prohibitions). 

Throughout the millions of acres of 

forest habitat in the northern long-eared 

bat’s range, many activities involve 

cutting or removal of individual or 

limited numbers of trees, but do not 

significantly change the overall nature 

and function of the local forested 

habitat. As such, activities that remove 

an acre or less of forested habitat are 

expected to have little or no impact on 

the ecological value and function and, 

therefore, will be considered to be 

‘‘minimal’’ as defined by this rule. 

Examples of activities that might fall 

within this category are firewood 

cutting, shelterbelt renovation, removal 

of diseased trees, culvert replacement, 

habitat restoration for fish and wildlife 

conservation, and backyard 

landscaping. These ongoing activities 

can occur throughout the northern longeared bat’s range, but we do not believe 

they materially affect the local forest 

habitat for this species and in some 

cases increase habitat availability in the 

long term. 

With respect to the term ‘‘minimal,’’ 

we limit the effect to an impact of one 

acre or less. Furthermore, the limitation 

of the impact to an acre or less may be 

interpreted as follows: One acre of 

contiguous habitat or one acre in total 

within a larger tract, whether that larger 

tract is entirely forested or a mixture of 

forested and non-forested cover types. 

Tract may be further defined as the 

property under the control of the project 

proponent or ownership. We conclude 

that the overall impact of projects 

causing this type of minimal tree 

removal is not expected to adversely 

affect conservation and recovery efforts 

for the species. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18027 

Hazardous Tree Removal 

Under this interim rule, incidental 

take that is caused by removal and 

management of hazardous trees will not 

be prohibited (i.e., will be excepted 

from the prohibitions). Removal of 

hazardous trees completed, as 

necessary, for human safety or for the 

protection of human facilities is the 

intent of this exception. Hazardous trees 

typically have defects in their roots, 

trunk, or branches that make them likely 

to fall, with the likelihood of causing 

personal injury or property damage. The 

limited removal of these hazardous trees 

may be widely dispersed but limited, 

and should result in very minimal 

incidental take of northern long-eared 

bat. We recommend, however, that 

removal of hazardous trees be done 

during the winter, wherever possible, 

when these trees will not be occupied 

by bats. We conclude that the overall 

impact of removing hazardous trees is 

not expected to adversely affect 

conservation and recovery efforts for the 

species. 

Removal of Bats From and Disturbance 

Within Human Structures 

Under this interim rule, any take that 

is caused by removal of bats from and 

disturbance within human structures 

(e.g., harm from excluding bats from 

their previous roost site) will not be 

prohibited (i.e., will be excepted from 

the prohibitions), provided those 

actions comply with all applicable State 

laws. Northern long-eared bats have 

occasionally been documented roosting 

in human-made structures, such as 

houses, barns, pavilions, sheds, cabins, 

and bat houses (Mumford and Cope 

1964, p. 72; Barbour and Davis 1969, p. 

77; Cope and Humphrey 1972, p. 9; 

Amelon and Burhans 2006, p. 72; 

Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 209; 

Timpone et al. 2010, p. 119; Joe Kath 

2013, pers. comm.). We conclude that 

the overall impact of bat removal from 

human structures is not expected to 

adversely affect conservation and 

recovery efforts for the species. In 

addition, we provide the following 

recommendations: 

• Minimize use of pesticides (e.g., 

rodenticides) and avoid use of sticky 

traps as part of bat evictions/exclusions. 

• Conduct exclusions during spring 

or fall unless there is a perceived public 

health concern from bats present during 

summer and/or winter. 

• Contact a nuisance wildlife 

specialist for humane exclusion 

techniques. 

Capture, Handling, and Related 

Activities for Northern Long-Eared Bats 

for 1 Year 

Under this interim rule, for a limited 

period of 1 year from the effective date 

of this interim 4(d) rule, purposeful take 

that is caused by the authorized capture, 

handling, and related activities 

(attachment of radio transmitters and 

tracking) of northern long-eared bats by 

individuals permitted to conduct these 

same activities for other bats will be 

excepted from the prohibitions. After 

this time period, all such take must be 

permitted following the Service’s 

standard procedures under 10(a)(1)(A) 

of the Act. One method of determining 

presence/probable absence of northern 

long-eared bats is to conduct mistnetting at summer sites or harp trapping 

at hibernacula. Gathering of this 

information is essential to monitor the 

distribution and status of northern longeared bats over time. In addition, 

northern long-eared bats are often 

captured incidentally to survey and 

study efforts targeted at other bat 

species (e.g., Indiana bats). It is 

necessary and advisable for the 

conservation of northern long-eared bats 

to provide an exception for the 

purposeful take associated with these 

normal survey activities conducted by 

qualified individuals to promote and 

encourage the gathering of information 

following standard procedures 

(including decontamination) as these 

data will help us conserve and recover 

this species. To receive an exception, 

proponents must have an existing 

research permit under section 

10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, or similar State 

collector’s permit, for other bat species. 

The rationale for this limited time 

period is that it will be difficult to 

amend all permits in time for this year. 

The Service concludes, for the reasons 

specified above, that all of the 

conservation measures, prohibitions, 

and exceptions identified in this interim 

rule individually and cumulatively are 

necessary and advisable for the 

conservation of the northern long-eared 

bat and will collectively promote the 

conservation of the species across its 

range. 

We publish this interim speciesspecific rule under section 4(d) of the 

Act in full recognition that WNS is the 

primary threat to species continued 

existence. All of the other (non-WNS) 

threats combined did not lead to 

imperilment of the species, and 

elimination of all other non-WNS 

threats will not likely improve the 

potential for recovery of this species in 

any meaningful way unless we find a 

means to address WNS. We also 

recognize, however, that in those areas 

of the country impacted by WNS, some 

reasonable measures may be taken to 

protect the species from additive 

stresses as a result of other factors. By 

focusing on conservation measures that 

clearly protect individual bats, we 

minimize needless and preventable 

deaths of bats during the species’ most 

sensitive life stages. Although not fully 

protective of every individual, the 

conservation measures identified in this 

interim rule help protect maternity and 

hibernating colonies, while allowing 

limited impacts to habitat. We have 

focused the Act’s protections on the 

landscape scale by protecting known 

hibernacula, protecting the species from 

activities that would result in large-scale 

forest conversion or loss, and 

encouraging research on WNS and other 

aspects of the species’ biology by 

simplifying the permitting process. This 

interim species-specific rule under 

section 4(d) of the Act provides the 

flexibility for certain activities to occur 

while not significantly impacting 

habitat for this species and while still 

promoting conservation of the species 

across its range. 

Of the activities excepted by this 

interim rule, we project that forest 

management activities will have the 

greatest potential impact on the 

northern long-eared bat. Based upon 

information obtained during previous 

comment periods on the proposed 

listing rule, we expect approximately 2 

percent of forests in States within the 

range of the northern long-eared bat to 

experience forest management activities 

this year (Boggess et al., 2014, p. 9). Put 

another way, we would expect 98 

percent of potential habitat to be 

completely unaffected by forest 

management while this interim rule is 

in effect. Of the remaining 2 percent, a 

smaller fraction of this forested habitat 

will actually be harvested during the 

northern long-eared bat’s active season 

(April–October), and a smaller portion 

yet would be harvested during the pup 

season. For the remaining percentage of 

bats actually affected by forest 

management, we expect implementation 

of the conservation measures to 

significantly reduce the take of those 

individual bats where there are known 

northern long-eared bat roost trees. 

When occupied roosts are cut outside of 

the pup season or if undocumented 

northern long-eared bat roosts are cut 

while occupied, some portion of these 

individuals (particularly males) will flee 

the roost and survive. Thus, we 

anticipate only a small percentage (less 

than 1 percent) of northern long-eared 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18028 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

bats will be impacted by forestry 

management activities. 

We anticipate that the additional 

activities covered by this interim 

species-specific 4(d) rule will only have 

a minimal impact on northern longeared bat habitat and individuals. The 

activities associated with ROW 

management and expansion, minimal 

tree removal, prairie management, and 

hazard tree removal collectively impact 

only small percentages of northern longeared bat habitat; low levels of take of 

individuals are expected given the 

limited scope of these activities and the 

season during which they occur. 

We conclude that take of the northern 

long-eared bat excepted by this interim 

rule will be small and will not pose a 

significant impact on the conservation 

of the species as a whole. However, we 

recognize that there is some uncertainty 

regarding the level of take that may 

result and that there are other 

approaches and additional conservation 

measures could improve the overall 

conservation outcome of this interim 

species-specific rule under section 4(d) 

of the Act. We are seeking public 

comments on this interim rule (see 

Public Comments Solicited on the 

Interim 4(d) Rule, below), and we will 

publish either an affirmation of the 

interim rule or a final rule amending the 

interim rule after we fully consider all 

comments we receive. If you previously 

submitted comments or information on 

the proposed 4(d) rule we published on 

January 16, 2015 (80 FR 2371), please do 

not resubmit them. We have 

incorporated them into the public 

record, and we will fully consider them 

in our final determination on the 4(d) 

rule. 

Table 2 (below) summarizes the 

details of the interim species-specific 

4(d) rule for the northern long-eared bat. 

Is the area affected by 

WNS (WNS buffer 

zone)? 

Take prohibitions at 50 

CFR 17.31 and 17.32 

Take exceptions in interim 4(d) rule 

Purposeful Incidental 

No ................................ All apply, with the following exceptions 

listed here.

Actions with the intent to remove northern 

long-eared bats from within human structures and that comply with all applicable 

State regulations.

Actions relating to capture and handling of 

northern long-eared bats by individuals permitted to conduct these same activities for 

other bats, for a period of 1 year following 

the effective date of the interim 4(d) rule.

Any incidental take of northern long-eared 

bats resulting from otherwise lawful activities. 

Yes .............................. All apply, with the following exceptions 

listed here.

Actions with the intent to remove northern 

long-eared bats from within human structures and that comply with all applicable 

State regulations.

Implementation of forest management, maintenance and expansion of existing rightsof-way (ROW) and transmission corridors, 

prairie management, and minimal tree removal projects that: 

• Occur more than 0.25 mile (0.4 km) from a 

known, occupied hibernacula; 

• Avoid cutting or destroying known, occupied roost trees during the pup season 

(June 1–July 31); and 

• Avoid clearcuts (and similar harvest methods, e.g., seed tree, shelterwood, and 

coppice) within 0.25 mile (0.4 km) of 

known, occupied roost trees during the pup 

season (June 1–July 31). 

Actions relating to capture, and handling of 

northern long-eared bats by individuals permitted to conduct these same activities for 

other bats, for a period of 1 year following 

the effective date of the interim 4(d) rule.

• Routine maintenance within an existing 

corridor or ROW, carried out in accordance 

with the previously described conservation 

measures. 

• Expansion of a corridor or ROW by up to 

100 feet (30 m) from the edge of an existing cleared corridor or ROW, carried out in 

accordance with the previously described 

conservation measures. 

Removal of hazard trees for the protection of 

human life and property. 

Need for Interim Final Rule 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 

we have good cause to find that the 

delay in adopting a rule, which would 

be caused by adequately addressing and 

responding to public comments on the 

January 16, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR 

2371), would be detrimental to the 

conservation of the northern long-eared 

bat and, therefore, is contrary to the 

public interest. If the Secretary went 

through the standard rulemaking 

process (granting requested extensions 

of the public notice-and-comment 

period and honoring requests for public 

hearings or meetings), we would be 

unable to finalize the conservation 

measures set forth in this interim rule 

concurrent with the final listing rule. 

This would result in the default 

provisions at 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 

controlling northern long-eared bat 

management until we complete the 

standard process to adopt a 4(d) rule. 

That outcome would be contrary to the 

public interest in this case because 

immediate implementation of the 

interim rule has the advantage of 

providing a conservation benefit to 

northern long-eared bat that is 

unavailable under the general 

threatened species provisions at 50 CFR 

17.31 and 17.32. Under this interim 

rule, the Service can continue to except 

the take that will result from the 

activities addressed within and still 

address the conservation of bats in 

individual known roost trees that need 

protection due to the impacts of WNS. 

The general threatened species 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18029 

provisions at 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 

would not allow such protection for 

northern long-eared bat. In addition, as 

discussed in detail in the preamble, 

applying the default provisions under 

50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, unmodified by 

a species-specific 4(d) rule, would not 

provide any significant conservation 

benefit to the species. Alternatively, 

another option left to the agency’s 

discretion would be to have no 

prohibitions for a species determined to 

be threatened. However, as stated, we 

think that it is appropriate to provide 

some protection for this species during 

its most sensitive life stages so that the 

northern long-eared bat has the best 

chance of fighting WNS. We believe this 

interim species-specific 4(d) rule 

provides a balance between the default 

provisions at 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 

and no take prohibitions by providing 

the flexibility for certain activities to 

occur while not significantly impacting 

habitat for this species and still 

promoting species conservation across 

its range. 

In general, interim rules are effective 

immediately upon publication due to 

the urgency of the actions within those 

rules. The final rule listing the northern 

long-eared bat as threatened is 

published as a part of this document, 

and is effective in 30 days (see DATES). 

To avoid any confusion arising from 

varying effective dates, and because we 

cannot establish a 4(d) rule for a species 

that is not yet listed, this interim 

species-specific 4(d) rule will also be 

effective in 30 days (see DATES), to 

coincide with the effective date of the 

listing. 

Public Comments Solicited on the 

Interim 4(d) Rule 

We request comments or information 

from other concerned Federal and State 

agencies, the scientific community, or 

any other interested party concerning 

the interim 4(d) rule. We will consider 

all comments and information we 

receive during our preparation of an 

affirmation or final rule under section 

4(d) of the Act. With regard to the 

interim 4(d) rule, we particularly seek 

comments regarding: 

(1) Whether measures outlined in this 

interim rule under section 4(d) of the 

Act are necessary and advisable for the 

conservation and management of the 

northern long-eared bat. 

(2) Whether it may be appropriate to 

except incidental take as a result of 

other categories of activities beyond 

those covered by this interim rule and, 

if so, under what conditions and with 

what conservation measures. 

(3) Whether the Service should 

modify the portion of this interim rule 

under section 4(d) of the Act that 

defines how the portion of the northern 

long-eared bat range will be identified 

as the ‘‘WNS buffer zone.’’ We are 

seeking comments regarding the factors 

and process we used to delineate where 

on the ground we believe WNS is likely 

affecting the northern long-eared bat 

and whether that delineation should 

incorporate political boundaries (e.g., 

county lines) for ease in describing the 

delineated area to the public. 

(4) Additional provisions the Service 

may wish to consider for a revision to 

this interim rule under section 4(d) of 

the Act in order to conserve, recover, 

and manage the northern long-eared bat. 

Please note that comments merely 

stating support for or opposition to the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, will not be considered 

in making a determination, as section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made ‘‘solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available.’’ If you 

previously submitted comments or 

information on the January 16, 2015, 

proposed rule, please do not resubmit 

them. We have incorporated them into 

the public record, and we will fully 

consider them in our final 

determination on this interim rule. Our 

final determination on this interim rule 

will take into consideration all written 

comments and any additional 

information we receive. The final 

decision may differ from this interim 

final rule, based on our review of all 

information received during this 

rulemaking proceeding. 

Our intent is to issue an affirmation 

of this interim rule or a final speciesspecific rule under section 4(d) of the 

Act for the northern long-eared bat by 

the end of the calendar year 2015. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this interim rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the Web site. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on http://www.regulations.gov. Please 

include sufficient information with your 

comments to allow us to verify any 

scientific or commercial information 

you include. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this interim rule, will 

be available for public inspection on 

http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Twin Cities Ecological Services 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Such designation 

does not allow the government or public 

to access private lands. Such 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18030 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even 

in the event of a destruction or adverse 

modification finding, the obligation of 

the Federal action agency and the 

landowner is not to restore or recover 

the species, but to implement 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it was listed 

are included in a critical habitat 

designation if they contain physical or 

biological features (1) which are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and (2) which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. For these areas, critical 

habitat designations identify, to the 

extent known using the best scientific 

and commercial data available, those 

physical or biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (such as space, food, cover, and 

protected habitat). In identifying those 

physical and biological features within 

an area, we focus on the principal 

biological or physical constituent 

elements (primary constituent elements 

such as roost sites, nesting grounds, 

seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, 

soil type) that are essential to the 

conservation of the species. Primary 

constituent elements are those specific 

elements of the physical or biological 

features that provide for a species’ lifehistory processes and are essential to 

the conservation of the species. 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by the species at the time it is listed, 

upon a determination that such areas 

are essential for the conservation of the 

species. For example, an area currently 

occupied by the species but that was not 

occupied at the time of listing may be 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and may be included in the 

critical habitat designation. We 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographical area occupied 

by a species only when a designation 

limited to its range would be inadequate 

to ensure the conservation of the 

species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Endangered 

Species Act (published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), 

the Information Quality Act (section 515 

of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we are determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include the recovery plan for the 

species, articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, other unpublished 

materials, or experts’ opinions or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of listed 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, continue to 

be subject to: (1) Conservation actions 

implemented under section 7(a)(1) of 

the Act, (2) regulatory protections 

afforded by the requirement in section 

7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to 

ensure their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered or threatened species, 

and (3) section 9 of the Act’s 

prohibitions on taking any individual of 

the species, including taking caused by 

actions that affect habitat. Federally 

funded or permitted projects affecting 

listed species outside their designated 

critical habitat areas may still result in 

jeopardy findings in some cases. These 

protections and conservation tools will 

continue to contribute to recovery of 

this species. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, HCPs, or other species 

conservation planning efforts if new 

information available at the time of 

these planning efforts calls for a 

different outcome. 

Prudency Determination 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, the Secretary designate 

critical habitat at the time the species is 

determined to be endangered or 

threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR 

424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation 

of critical habitat is not prudent when 

one or both of the following situations 

exist: (1) The species is threatened by 

taking or other human activity, and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of threat 

to the species, or (2) such designation of 

critical habitat would not be beneficial 

to the species. 

There is currently no imminent threat 

of take attributed to collection or 

vandalism for the northern long-eared 

bat, and identification and mapping of 

critical habitat is not expected to initiate 

any such threat. In the absence of 

finding that the designation of critical 

habitat would increase threats to a 

species, if there are any benefits to a 

critical habitat designation, then a 

prudent finding is warranted. In general, 

the potential benefits of designation 

may include: (1) Triggering consultation 

under section 7 of the Act, in new areas 

for actions in which there may be a 

Federal nexus where it would not 

otherwise occur because, for example, it 

is or has become unoccupied or the 

occupancy is in question; (2) focusing 

conservation activities on the most 

essential features and areas; (3) 

providing educational benefits to State 

or county governments or private 

entities; and (4) preventing people from 

causing inadvertent harm to the species. 

Therefore, because we have determined 

that the designation of critical habitat 

will not likely increase the degree of 

threat to the species and may provide 

some measure of benefit, we find that 

designation of critical habitat is prudent 

for the northern long-eared bat. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

Having determined that designation is 

prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

we must find whether critical habitat for 

the species is determinable. Our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state 

that critical habitat is not determinable 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18031 

when one or both of the following 

situations exist: (i) Information 

sufficient to perform required analyses 

of the impacts of the designation is 

lacking, or (ii) The biological needs of 

the species are not sufficiently well 

known to permit identification of an 

area as critical habitat. 

We reviewed the available 

information pertaining to the biological 

needs of the species and habitat 

characteristics where this species is 

located. As information regarding the 

biological needs of the species is not 

sufficiently well known to permit 

identification of areas as critical habitat, 

we conclude that the designation of 

critical habitat is not determinable for 

the northern long-eared bat at this time. 

There are many uncertainties in 

designating hibernacula as critical 

habitat for the northern long-eared bat. 

We lack sufficient information to define 

the physical and biological features or 

primary constituent elements with 

enough specificity; we are not able to 

determine how habitats affected by 

WNS (where populations previously 

thrived and are now extirpated) may 

contribute to the recovery of the species 

or whether those areas may still contain 

essential physical and biological 

features. Therefore, we currently lack 

the information necessary to propose 

critical habitat for the species. 

There are also uncertainties with 

potential designation of summer habitat, 

specifically maternity colony habitat. 

Although research has given us 

indication of some key summer roost 

requirements, the northern long-eared 

bat appears to be somewhat 

opportunistic in roost selection, 

selecting varying roost tree species and 

types of roosts throughout the range. 

Although research has shown some 

consistency in female summer roost 

habitat (e.g., selection of mix of live 

trees and snags as roosts, roosting in 

cavities, roosting beneath bark, and 

roosting in trees associated with closed 

canopy), the species and diameter of the 

tree (when tree roost is used) selected by 

northern long-eared bats for roosts vary 

widely depending on availability. Thus, 

it is not clear whether certain summer 

habitats are essential for the recovery of 

the species or whether these areas may 

require special management. 

A careful assessment of the 

designation of hibernacula as critical 

habitat will require additional time to 

fully evaluate which features are 

essential to the conservation of the 

northern long-eared bat and how those 

features might change as WNS spreads. 

In addition, summer habitat will require 

a similar assessment and evaluation of 

the essential physical and biological 

features and what special management 

they might require. Additionally, we 

have not gathered sufficient economic 

and other data on the impacts of critical 

habitat designation. These factors must 

be considered as part of the designation 

process. Thus, we find that critical 

habitat is not determinable for the 

northern long-eared bat at this time. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with listing 

a species as an endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). It is 

the position of the Service that rules 

promulgated under section 4(d) of the 

Act concurrently with listing the species 

fall under the same rationale as outlined 

in the October 25, 1983, determination. 

For this reason, we did not conduct 

analysis under NEPA for the interim 

rule under section 4(d) of the Act. 

However, it is our intent to comply with 

NEPA standards at the time we publish 

either an affirmation of the interim 4(d) 

rule we are adopting in this document 

or a final rule amending the interim 4(d) 

rule based on comments we receive. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to tribes. 

In October 2013, Tribes and multitribal organizations were sent letters 

inviting them to begin consultation and 

coordination with the service on the 

proposal to listing the northern longeared bat. In August 2014, several Tribes 

and multi-tribal organizations were sent 

an additional letter regarding the 

Service’s intent to extend the deadline 

for making a final listing determination 

by 6 months. A conference call was also 

held with Tribes to explain the listing 

process and discuss any concerns. 

Following publication of the proposed 

rule, the Service established 3 

interagency teams (biology of the 

northern long-eared bat, non-WNS 

threats, and conservation measures) to 

ensure that States, Tribes, and other 

Federal agencies were able to provide 

input into various aspects of the listing 

rule and potential conservation 

measures for the species. Invitations for 

inclusion in these teams were sent to 

Tribes within the range of the northern 

long-eared bat and a few tribal 

representatives participated on those 

teams. Two additional conference calls 

(in January and March 2015) were held 

with Tribes to outline the proposed 

species-specific 4(d) rule and to answer 

questions. Through this coordination, 

some Tribal representatives expressed 

concern about how listing the northern 

long-eared bat may impact forestry 

practices, housing development 

programs, and other activities on Tribal 

lands. 

Clarity of the Interim 4(d) Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 4(d) 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, or the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
18032 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this document is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Twin Cities 

Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are the staff members of the Twin Cities 

Ecological Services Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Bat, northern long-eared’’ in 

alphabetical order under MAMMALS to 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate 

population where 

endangered or 

threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

MAMMALS 

* * * * * * * 

Bat, northern longeared.Myotis 

septentrionalis.

U.S.A. (AL, AR, CT, 

DE, DC, GA, IL, 

IN, IA, KS, KY, 

LA, ME, MD, MA, 

MI, MN, MS, MO, 

MT, NE, NH, NJ, 

NY, NC, ND, OH, 

OK, PA, RI, SC, 

SD, TN, VT, VA, 

WV, WI, WY); 

Canada (AB, BC, 

LB, MB, NB, NF, 

NS, NT, ON, PE, 

QC, SK, YT).

Entire ...................... T 857 NA 17.40(o) 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.40 by adding paragraph 

(o) to read as follows: 

§ 17.40 Special rules—mammals. 

* * * * * 

(o) Northern long-eared bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis). The provisions of this 

rule are based upon the occurrence of 

white-nose syndrome (WNS), a disease 

affecting many U.S. bat populations. 

The term ‘‘WNS buffer zone’’ identifies 

the portion of the range of the northern 

long-eared bat within 150 miles of the 

boundaries of U.S. counties or Canadian 

districts where the fungus Pd or WNS 

has been detected. For current 

information regarding the WNS buffer 

zone, contact your local Service 

ecological services field office. Field 

office contact information may be 

obtained from the Service regional 

offices, the addresses of which are listed 

in 50 CFR 2.2. 

(1) Outside the WNS buffer zone, the 

following provisions apply to the 

northern long-eared bat: 

(i) Prohibitions. Except as noted in 

paragraphs (o)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 

section, all the prohibitions and 

provisions of §§ 17.31 and 17.32 apply 

to the northern long-eared bat. 

(ii) Exceptions from prohibitions. (A) 

Purposeful take: 

(1) Take resulting from actions taken 

to remove northern long-eared bats from 

within human structures, if the actions 

comply with all applicable State 

regulations. 

(2) Take resulting from actions 

relating to capture, handling, and 

related activities for northern long-eared 

bats by individuals permitted to 

conduct these same activities for other 

species of bat until May 3, 2016. 

(B) Any incidental (non-purposeful) 

take of northern long-eared bats 

resulting from otherwise lawful 

activities. 

(2) Inside the WNS buffer zone, the 

following provisions apply to the 

northern long-eared bat: 

(i) Prohibitions. Except as noted in 

paragraphs (o)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 

section, all prohibitions and provisions 

of §§ 17.31 and 17.32 apply to the 

northern long-eared bat. 

(ii) Exceptions from prohibitions. 

Take of northern long-eared bat is not 

prohibited in the following 

circumstances: 

(A) Purposeful take: 

(1) Take resulting from actions taken 

to remove northern long-eared bats from 

within human structures, if the actions 

comply with all applicable State 

regulations. 

(2) Take resulting from actions 

relating to capture, handling, and 

related activities for northern long-eared 

bats by individuals permitted to 

conduct these same activities for other 

species of bat until May 3, 2016. 

(B) Incidental take: 

(1) Implementation of forest 

management, maintenance and 

expansion of existing rights-of-way and 

transmission corridors, prairie 

management, and minimal tree removal 

projects that: 

(i) Occur more than 0.25 mile (0.4 

kilometer) from a known, occupied 

hibernacula; 

(ii) Avoid cutting or destroying 

known, occupied roost trees during the 

pup season (June 1–July 31); and 

(iii) Avoid clearcuts (and similar 

harvest methods, e.g., seed tree, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18033 

shelterwood, and coppice) within 0.25 

mile (0.4 kilometer) of known, occupied 

roost trees during the pup season (June 

1–July 31). 

(2) Routine maintenance within an 

existing corridor or right-of-way, carried 

out in accordance with the conservation 

measures set forth at paragraph 

(o)(2)(ii)(B)(1). 

(3) Expansion of a corridor or right-ofway by up to 100 feet (30 meters) from 

the edge of an existing cleared corridor 

or right-of-way, carried out in 

accordance with the conservation 

measures set forth at paragraph 

(o)(2)(ii)(B)(1). 

(4) Removal of hazardous trees for the 

protection of human life and property. 

Dated: March 23, 2015. 

Stephen Guertin, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–07069 Filed 4–1–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3