Vol. 80 Thursday, No. 63 April 2, 2015

Part V

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for the Northern Long-Eared Bat With 4(d) Rule; Final Rule and Interim Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 17974 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR midwest/Endangered. Comments and northern long-eared bat (Myotis materials we received, as well as septentrionalis) as a threatened species. Fish and Wildlife Service supporting documentation we used in The basis for our action: Under the preparing the final listing rule, are Endangered Species Act, we can 50 CFR Part 17 available for public inspection at http:// determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based [Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2011–0024; www.regulations.gov, and by 4500030113] appointment, during normal business on any of five factors: (A) The present hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or threatened destruction, modification, RIN 1018–AY98 Twin Cities Ecological Services Office, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 4101 American Blvd. East, Bloomington, MN 55425; telephone (612) 725–3548, recreational, scientific, or educational and Plants; Threatened Species Status purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) for the Northern Long-Eared Bat With ext. 2201; or facsimile (612) 725–3609. Comments on the interim rule the inadequacy of existing regulatory 4(d) Rule amending 50 CFR 17.40: You may mechanisms; or (E) other natural or AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, submit comments on the interim rule manmade factors affecting its continued Interior. amending 50 CFR 17.40 by one of the existence. We have determined that white-nose syndrome is the ACTION: Final rule, and interim rule with following methods: request for comments. (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal predominant threat to the species. eRulemaking Portal: http:// Peer review and public comment: We SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, sought comments from independent Wildlife Service (Service), determine enter FWS–R5–ES–2011–0024, which is specialists to ensure that our threatened species status under the the docket number for this rulemaking. designation is based on scientifically Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), Then click on the Search button. Please sound data, assumptions, and analyses. as amended, for the northern long-eared ensure that you have located the correct We invited these peer reviewers to bat (Myotis septentrionalis), a bat document before submitting your comment on our listing proposal. We species that occurs in 37 States, the comments. You may submit a comment also considered all comments and District of Columbia, and 13 Canadian by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ information we received during the Provinces. The effect of this final rule (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail comment periods. will be to add the northern long-eared or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Interim 4(d) Rule bat to the List of Endangered and Processing, Attn: FWS–R5–ES–2011– Threatened Wildlife. 0024; Division of Policy, Performance, The need for the regulatory action and We are also establishing an interim and Management Programs; U.S. Fish how the action will meet that need: rule under the authority of section 4(d) and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Consistent with section 4(d) of the Act, of the Act that provides measures that Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– this interim 4(d) rule provides measures are necessary and advisable to provide 3803. that are tailored to our current for the conservation of the northern We request that you send comments understanding of the conservation needs long-eared bat. We are seeking public only by one of the methods described of the northern long-eared bat. Statement of legal authority for the comments on this interim rule, and we above. We will post all comments on regulatory action: Under section 4(d) of will publish either an affirmation of the http://www.regulations.gov. This the Act, the Secretary of the Interior has interim rule or a final rule amending the generally means that we will post any discretion to issue such regulations as interim rule after we consider all personal information you provide us she deems necessary and advisable to comments we receive. If you previously (see the Public Comments Solicited on provide for the conservation of the submitted comments or information on the Interim 4(d) Rule section, below, for species. The Secretary also has the the proposed 4(d) rule we published on more information). discretion to prohibit by regulation with January 16, 2015, please do not resubmit FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa respect to a threatened species, any act them. We have incorporated them into Mandell, Deputy Field Supervisor, U.S. prohibited by section 9(a)(1) of the Act. the public record, and we will fully Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities Summary of the major provisions of consider them in our final Ecological Services Field Office, 4101 the regulatory action: The interim determination on the 4(d) rule. American Blvd. East, Bloomington, MN species-specific 4(d) rule prohibits DATES: Effective dates: The final rule 55425; telephone (612) 725–3548, ext. 2201; or facsimile (612) 725–3609. purposeful take of northern long-eared amending 50 CFR 17.11 and the interim bats throughout the species’ range, rule amending 50 CFR 17.40 are both Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the except in instances of removal of effective May 4, 2015. northern long-eared bats from human Comments on the interim rule Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. structures and authorized capture and amending 50 CFR 17.40: We will accept handling of northern long-eared bat by SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: comments on the interim rule amending individuals permitted to conduct these 50 CFR 17.40 received or postmarked on Executive Summary same activities for other bats (for a or before July 1, 2015. Comments period of 1 year after the effective date Final Listing Rule submitted electronically using the of the interim 4(d) rule). Federal eRulemaking Portal (see Why we need to publish a rule: Under In areas not yet affected by white nose ADDRESSES, below) must be received by the Endangered Species Act, a species syndrome (WNS), a disease currently 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing may warrant protection through listing affecting many U.S. bat populations, all date. if it is endangered or threatened incidental take resulting from any ADDRESSES: Document availability: The throughout all or a significant portion of otherwise lawful activity will be final listing rule is available on the its range. Listing a species as an excepted from prohibition. Internet at http://www.regulations.gov endangered or threatened species can In areas currently known to be under Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2011– only be completed by issuing a rule. affected by WNS, all incidental take 0024 and at http://www.fws.gov/ This rule will finalize the listing of the prohibitions apply, except that take

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17975

attributable to forest management and Schump 1979, p. 1), but was tragus (projection of skin in front of the practices, maintenance and limited recognized as a distinct species by van external ear) is long (average 9 mm (0.4 expansion of transportation and utility Zyll de Jong in 1979 (1979, p. 993), in); Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. rights-of-way, prairie habitat based on geographic separation and 207), pointed, and symmetrical management, and limited tree removal difference in morphology (as cited in (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, p. 87; projects shall be excepted from the take Caceres and Pybus 1997 p. 1; Caceres Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 207). prohibition, provided these activities and Barclay 2000, p. 1; Nagorsen and There is an occasional tendency for the protect known maternity roosts and Brigham 1993, p. 87; Whitaker and northern long-eared bat to exhibit a hibernacula. Further, removal of Hamilton 1998, p. 99; Whitaker and slight keel on the calcar (spur of hazardous trees for the protection of Mumford 2009, p. 207; Simmons 2005, cartilage arising from inner side of human life or property shall be excepted p. 516). The northern long-eared bat is ankle; Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, p. from the take prohibition. currently considered a monotypic 87). This can add some uncertainty in species, with no subspecies described distinguishing northern long-eared bats Previous Federal Action for this species (Caceres and Barclay from other sympatric Myotis species Please refer to the proposed listing 2000, p. 1; Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, (Lacki 2013, pers. comm.). Within its rule for the northern long-eared bat (78 p. 90; Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. range, the northern long-eared bat can FR 61046; October 2, 2013) for a 214; van Zyll de Jong 1985, p. 94). be confused with the little brown bat detailed description of previous Federal Reynolds (2013, pers. comm.) stated that (Myotis lucifugus) or the western long- actions concerning this species. On there have been very few genetic studies eared myotis (Myotis evotis). The October 2, 2013, we published in the on this species; however, data collected northern long-eared bat can be Federal Register (78 FR 61046) a in Ohio suggest relatively low levels of distinguished from the little brown bat proposed rule to list the northern long- genetic differentiation across that State by its longer ears, tapered and eared bat as an endangered species (Arnold 2007, p. 157). In addition, symmetrical tragus, slightly longer tail, under the Act. The proposed rule had a Johnson et al. (2014, upaginated) and less glossy pelage (Caceres and 60-day comment period, ending on assessed nuclear genetic diversity at one Barclay 2000, p. 1; Kurta 2013, pers. December 2, 2013. On December 2, site in New York and several sites in comm.). The northern long-eared bat 2013, we extended this comment period West Virginia, and found little evidence can be distinguished from the western through January 2, 2014 (78 FR 72058). of population structure in northern long-eared myotis by its darker pelage On June 30, 2014, we announced a 6- long-eared bats at any scale. This and paler membranes (Caceres and month extension of the final species has been recognized by different Barclay 2000, p. 1). determination on the proposed listing common names, such as: Keen’s bat Distribution and Relative Abundance rule for northern long-eared bat, and we (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998, p. 99), The northern long-eared bat ranges reopened the public comment period on northern myotis (Nagorsen and Brigham across much of the eastern and north- the proposed rule for 60 days, ending 1993, p. 87; Whitaker and Mumford central United States, and all Canadian August 29, 2014 (79 FR 36698). On 2009, p. 207), and the northern bat provinces west to the southern Yukon November 18, 2014, we again reopened (Foster and Kurta 1999, p. 660). For the Territory and eastern British Columbia the comment period on the proposed purposes of this finding, we refer to this (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, p. 89; listing for an additional 30 days, ending species as the northern long-eared bat, December 18, 2014 (79 FR 68657). Caceres and Pybus 1997, p. 1; and recognize it as a listable entity Environment Yukon 2011, p. 10) (see During the comment period we received under the Act. one request for a public hearing, which Figure 1, below). In the United States, A medium-sized bat species, the the species’ range reaches from Maine was held in Sundance, Wyoming, on northern long-eared bat’s adult body December 2, 2014. On January 16, 2015, west to Montana, south to eastern weight averages 5 to 8 grams (g) (0.2 to Kansas, eastern Oklahoma, Arkansas, we published a proposed rule to create 0.3 ounces), with females tending to be and east to South Carolina (Whitaker a species-specific rule under section slightly larger than males (Caceres and and Hamilton 1998, p. 99; Caceres and 4(d) of the Act (a ‘‘4(d) rule’’) that would Pybus 1997, p. 3). Average body length Barclay 2000, p. 2; Simmons 2005, p. provide measures that are necessary and ranges from 77 to 95 millimeters (mm) 516; Amelon and Burhans 2006, pp. 71– advisable to provide for the (3.0 to 3.7 inches (in)), tail length 72). The species’ range includes all or conservation of the northern long-eared between 35 and 42 mm (1.3 to 1.6 in), portions of the following 37 States and bat, if it were to be listed as a threatened forearm length between 34 and 38 mm the District of Columbia: Alabama, species (80 FR 2371). At that time, we (1.3 to 1.5 in), and wingspread between Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, also reopened the public comment 228 and 258 mm (8.9 to 10.2 in) Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, period on the October 2, 2013, proposed (Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 1; Barbour Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, listing rule; we accepted public and Davis 1969, p. 76). Pelage (fur) Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, comments on both proposals for 60 colors include medium to dark brown Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, days, ending March 17, 2015. on its back; dark brown, but not black, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Background ears and wing membranes; and tawny to New York, North Carolina, North pale-brown fur on the ventral side Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Taxonomy and Species Description (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, p. 87; Rhode Island, South Carolina, South The northern long-eared bat belongs Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 207). Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, to the order Chiroptera, suborder As indicated by its common name, the West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Microchiroptera, family northern long-eared bat is distinguished Wyoming. Vespertilionidae, subfamily from other Myotis species by its The October 2, 2013, proposed listing Vespertilioninae, genus Myotis, and relatively long ears (average 17 mm (0.7 rule included Florida within the range subgenus Myotis (Caceres and Barclay in); Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. of the northern long-eared bat; however, 2000, p. 1). The northern long-eared bat 207) that, when laid forward, extend since that time we have learned that the was considered a subspecies of Keen’s beyond the nose up to 5 mm (0.2 in; species was known from only a single long-eared myotis (Myotis keenii) (Fitch Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 1). The historical winter (1954) record in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 eared bat hibernacula have been have no known hibernacula (due to no historical and recent surveys at this cave identified throughout the species’ range suitable hibernacula present, lack of and 12 other caves (all in Jackson in the United States, although many survey effort, or existence of unknown County) since this record was observed hibernacula contain only a few (1 to 3) retreats). have not found the northern long-eared individuals (Whitaker and Hamilton For purposes of organization, the U.S. bat. Further, there are no known 1998, p. 100). Known hibernacula (sites portion of the northern long-eared bat’s summer records for the State (Florida with one or more winter records of range is discussed below in four parts: Fish and Wildlife Conservation northern long-eared bats) include: eastern range, midwest range, southern Commission 2013, in litt.). Historically, Alabama (2), Arkansas (41), Connecticut range, and western range. In these the species has been most frequently (8), Delaware (2), Georgia (3), Illinois sections, we have identified the species’ observed in the northeastern United (21), Indiana (25), Kentucky (119), historical status, in addition to its States and in the Canadian Provinces of Maine (3), Maryland (8), Massachusetts current status within each State. For Quebec and Ontario, with sightings (7), Michigan (103), Minnesota (11), those States where white-nose increasing during swarming and Missouri (more than 269), Nebraska (2), syndrome (WNS) has been detected (see hibernation periods (Caceres and New Hampshire (11), New Jersey (7), Table 1), we have assessed the impact Barclay 2000, p. 2). Much of the New York (90), North Carolina (22), the disease has had on the northern available data on northern long-eared Oklahoma (9), Ohio (7), Pennsylvania long-eared bat’s distribution and relative bats are from winter surveys, although (112), South Carolina, (2), South Dakota abundance to date. For a discussion on they are typically observed in low (21), Tennessee (58), Vermont (16), anticipated spread of WNS to currently numbers because of their preference for Virginia (8), West Virginia (104), and unaffected States, see ‘‘White-nose inconspicuous roosts (Caceres and Wisconsin (67). Northern long-eared Syndrome’’ and ‘‘Effects of White-nose Pybus 1997, p. 2) (for more information bats are documented in hibernacula in Syndrome on the Northern Long-eared on use of hibernacula, see Biology, 29 of the 37 States in the species’ range. Bat’’ under the Factor C discussion. below). More than 1,100 northern long- Other States within the species’ range BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C West Virginia, New York, and Rhode unpublished data). Northern long-eared Eastern Range Island. Historically, the northern long- bats continue to be distributed across eared bat was widely distributed in the much of the historical range, but there For purposes of organization in this eastern part of its range (Caceres and are many gaps within the range where rule, the eastern geographic area Barclay 2000, p. 2). Prior to bats are no longer detected or captured, includes the following States and the documentation of WNS, northern long- and in other areas, their occurrence is District of Columbia: Delaware, eared bats were consistently caught sparse. Similar to summer distribution, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, during summer mist-net surveys and northern long-eared bats were known to Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New detected during acoustic surveys in the occur in many hibernacula throughout Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, eastern United States (Service 2014, the East. Since WNS has been

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER02AP15.003 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17977

documented, multiple hibernacula now surveyed hibernacula; however, in 2013, shown a dramatic decline (99 percent) have zero reported northern long-eared only one northern long-eared bat was in northern long-eared bat numbers bats. Frick et al. (2015, p. 6) found during surveys conducted at all compared to pre-WNS numbers (NHFG documented the local extinction of three of the State’s primary hibernacula 2013, in litt.). Results from hibernacula northern long-eared bats from 69 (Maine Department of Inland Fisheries surveys conducted at four of New percent of sites included in their and Wildlife (MDIFW) 2013, in litt.). In Hampshire’s hibernacula in 2014 found analyses (468 sites where WNS has been addition, the northern long-eared bat no northern long-eared bats; previous to present for at least 4 years in Vermont, was infrequently found in summer WNS infection, the species was found in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, acoustic surveys conducted in the State relatively high numbers (e.g., 75–127 West Virginia, and Virginia). in 2013, which contrasts with individuals) in most of these In Delaware, the species is rare, but widespread, frequent acoustic hibernacula. Furthermore, a researcher has been found at two hibernacula detections of Myotis species and mist conducted mist-net surveys over 7 years within the State during winter or fall net captures of northern long-eared bats pre-and post-WNS (2005–2011) at Surry swarming periods. Summer mist-net prior to WNS impact (MDIFW 2015, in Mountain Lake in Cheshire County, surveys have documented 14 litt.). New Hampshire, and found a 98 percent individuals all from New Castle County, In Maryland, there are eight known decline in capture rate of northern long- and there is also a historical record from hibernacula for the northern long-eared eared bats (Moosman et al. 2013, p. this county in 1974 (Niederriter 2012, bat, three of which are railroad tunnels 554). pers. comm.; Delaware Division of Fish (Maryland Department of Natural In New Jersey, one of the seven and Wildlife 2014, in litt.). WNS was Resources (MD DNR) 2014, unpublished known northern long-eared bat confirmed in the State in the winter of data). WNS was first confirmed in hibernacula is a cave, and the rest are 2009–2010, and WNS was confirmed in Maryland in the winter of 2009–2010. In mines (Markuson 2011, unpublished Delaware in the two northern long-eared all five of the known caves or mines in data). Northern long-eared bats bat hibernacula during the winters of the State, the species is thought to be consisted of 6 to 14 percent of the total 2011–2012 and 2012–2013 (Delaware extirpated due to WNS (MD DNR 2014, number of summer captures at Wallkill Division of Fish and Wildlife 2014, in unpublished data). It is unknown if the River National Wildlife Refuge from litt.). Mortality of northern long-eared species is extirpated from the known 2006–2010 (Kitchell and Wight 2011, in bats due to WNS has been documented railroad tunnel hibernacula in the State, litt.). WNS was first confirmed in the at both of these hibernacula during primarily because the majority of bats in State in the winter of 2008–2009. There winter surveys. these hibernacula are not visible or have been limited consistent In Connecticut, the northern long- accessible during winter hibernacula hibernacula and summer surveys eared bat was historically one of the surveys; however, no northern long- conducted in the State to enable most commonly encountered bats in the eared bats have been observed in analyses of northern long-eared bat State, and was documented Statewide accessible areas in these tunnel population trends pre- and post-WNS. (Dickson 2011, pers. comm.). WNS was hibernacula during recent winter Although small sample sizes precluded first confirmed in Connecticut in the surveys (MD DNR 2014, unpublished statistical comparison, Kitchell and winter of 2008–2009. Prior to WNS data). Acoustic surveys conducted since Wight (2011, in litt.) and Bohrman and detection in Connecticut, northern long- 2010 (pre- and post-WNS) in the Fecske (2013, p. 77) documented a eared bats were found in large numbers western portion of Maryland have also slight, overall decline in annual (e.g., often greater than 400 and up to demonstrated northern long-eared bat northern long-eared bat mist-net 1,000 individuals) in hibernacula; declines due to WNS (MD DNR 2014, captures at Great Swamp National however, no northern long-eared bats unpublished data). Wildlife Refuge following the outbreak were found in any of the eight known In Massachusetts, there are seven of WNS. For 3 years prior to the hibernacula in the State (where the known hibernacula. WNS was first disease’s local emergence (2006–2008), species was found prior to WNS) in confirmed in the State in the winter of northern long-eared bats represented 8– 2012 or 2013 surveys (Service 2015, 2007–2008. Previous to WNS 9 percent of total bats captured. unpublished data). confirmation in the State, the northern Although the northern long-eared bat In Maine, three bat hibernacula are long-eared bat was found in relatively capture rate rose to 14 percent in 2009, known, and northern long-eared bats larger numbers for the species in some it dropped to 6 percent in 2010, and have been observed in all of these sites. hibernacula. In 2013 and 2014 winter further to 2 percent in 2012, suggesting The species has also been found in the surveys conducted in Massachusetts a downward trend. summer in Acadia National Park (DePue hibernacula, either zero or one northern Historically, the northern long-eared 2012, unpublished data), where long-eared bat individual were found in bat was found in both summer and northern long-eared bats were fairly all known hibernacula (Service 2015, winter surveys conducted across common in 2009–2010 (242 northern unpublished data). Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Game long-eared bats captured, comprising 27 In New Hampshire, northern long- Commission (PGC) 2014, in litt.). percent of the total captures for the eared bats were known to inhabit at Historically, the species was found in areas surveyed) (National Park Service least nine mines and two World War II 112 hibernacula in the State. Fall swarm (NPS) 2010, unpublished data). Recent bunkers, and have been found in trapping conducted in September and findings from Acadia National Park summer surveys (Brunkhurst 2012, October of 1988–1989, 1990–1991, and show a precipitous decline in the unpublished data). The northern long- 1999–2000 at two hibernacula with northern long-eared bat population in eared bat was one of the most common large historical numbers of northern less than 4 years, based on mist-net species captured (27 percent of long-eared bats had total captures surveys conducted 2008–2014 (NPS captures) in the White Mountain ranging from 6 to 30 bats per hour, 2014, in litt.). WNS was first confirmed National Forest in 1993–1994 (Sasse and which demonstrated that the species in the State in the winter of 2010–2011. Pekins 1996, pp. 93–95). WNS was was abundant at these hibernacula (PGC Prior to WNS, the northern long-eared confirmed in the State in the winter of 2012, unpublished data). WNS was first bat was found in numbers greater than 2008–2009. Data from both hibernacula confirmed in the State in 2008–2009. 100 at two of the three regularly surveys and summer surveys have Since that time, northern long-eared bat

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 effort during summer mist-net surveys time (Monongahela National Forest), percent, in comparison to pre-WNS conducted at sites Statewide. In 2011, average northern long-eared bat calls per numbers (PGC 2014, in litt.; PGC 2014, there was an increase in captures, with mile of acoustic route declined by 31– unpublished data). Currently, the 3.1 bats captured per unit effort. 81 percent (depending on software northern long-eared bat can still be However, in 2013 in the same survey package used) from 2009–2012 (Johnson found in portions of Pennsylvania areas, 0.05 northern long-eared bats et al. 2014, unpaginated). Similarly, during the summer; however, the were captured per 1,000 units of effort, mist-net capture rates declined by 93 number of summer captures continues which amounts to a 96 percent decline percent from 2006–2008 to 2014 to decline. The number of summer in the population (Virginia Department (Johnson et al. 2014, unpaginated). captures has declined an additional 15 of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) Overall, although northern long-eared percent annually, amounting to an 2014, unpublished data). In 2013, over bats are still captured across West overall decline of 76 percent (not 85 percent of summer surveys resulted Virginia (i.e., they have a similar including survey information from in no northern long-eared bat captures. distribution as they did pre-WNS), there 2014) from pre-WNS capture rates. The Fall swarm trends have been similar, are marked declines in capture rates. PGC stated that the data support that the with capture rates per hour declining In New York, the northern long-eared decline is attributable to WNS, rather from 3.6 in 2009, to 0.3 in 2012, bat was historically one of the most than a lack of habitat or other direct amounting to a decline of 92 percent widely distributed hibernating bat impacts (PGC 2014, in litt.). (VDGIF 2014, unpublished data). species in the State, identified in 90 out of 146 known bat hibernacula (New In Vermont, the northern long-eared In West Virginia, northern long-eared bat was once one of the State’s most York State Department of bats were historically found regularly in common bats, but is now its rarest Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) hibernacula surveys, but typically in (Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department 2014, in litt.). The species has also been small numbers (fewer than 20 (VFWD) 2014, in litt.). Prior to 2009, the observed in summer mist-net and individuals) in caves (Stihler 2012, species was found in 16 hibernacula, acoustic surveys. Summer mist-net unpublished data). The species has also totaling an estimated 458 animals, surveys conducted in New York been found in 41 abandoned coal mines which was thought to be an (primarily for Indiana bat (Myotis during fall swarming surveys conducted underestimate due to the species’ sodalis) presence-absence surveys) from from 2002 to 2011, in the New River preference for hibernating in 2003–2008 resulted in a range of 0.21– Gorge National River and Gauley River hibernacula cracks and crevices (VFWD 0.47 northern long-eared bats per net 2014, unpublished data). WNS was National Recreation Area, both managed night, and declined to 0.01 bats per net confirmed in Vermont in the winter of by the NPS; the largest number observed night in 2011 (Herzog 2012, 2007–2008. According to the VFWD, it was 157 in one of the NPS mines (NPS unpublished data). New York is is believed that all of the State’s caves 2011, unpublished data). The species considered the epicenter for WNS, and and mines that serve as bat hibernacula has been found in 104 total hibernacula the disease was first found in the State are infected with WNS. State-wide in the State. WNS was first documented in the winter of 2006–2007. The hibernacula, summer mist-net, and in hibernacula in the eastern portion of NYSDEC confirmed that the decline acoustic and fall swarm data collected West Virginia in the winter of 2008– experienced by this species due to WNS in 2010 documented 93–100 percent 2009. Similar to some other WNS- is both widespread and severe in the declines in northern long-eared bat affected States, northern long-eared bats State (NYSDEC 2014, in litt.). Most populations post-WNS (VFWD 2014, in can still be found across the State hibernacula surveys conducted after the litt.). In most recent surveys, few (similar pre- and post-WNS onset of WNS (2008 through 2013) northern long-eared bats were found in distribution); however, it is unclear if found either one or zero northern long- three hibernacula in 2012–2013; northern long-eared bat abundance is eared bats (Service 2015, unpublished however no individuals were found in greater in West Virginia than other data). There are few long-term data sets any surveyed hibernacula in 2013–2014 WNS-affected States and, therefore, for northern long-eared bats across the winter surveys. Prior to WNS detection, whether WNS impacts are less severe to State, but one such site is the Fort Drum summer capture data (from 2001–2007) date. Across the State, northern long- Military Installation, where acoustic indicated that northern long-eared bats eared bat summer captures decreased surveys and mist-net surveys have comprised 19 percent of bats captured, from 32.5 percent in 2008, and 33.8 monitored summer populations before and the northern long-eared bat was percent in 2011, to around 20 percent (2003–2007) and after the onset of WNS considered the second most common for all subsequent years (West Virginia (2008–2010). Ford et al. (2011, p. 130) bat species in the State (Smith 2011, Division of Natural Resources 2014, reported significant declines (pre- vs. unpublished data). As for fall swarm unpublished data). However, percent post-WNS) in mean acoustic call rates data, in 2013, capture surveys at Aeolus capture data alone does not indicate for northern long-eared bats as a part of Cave captured and identified 465 bats, whether the northern long-eared bat is this study at Fort Drum. No northern only 3 of which were northern long- declining in the State, especially if all long-eared bats have been captured in eared bats (VFWD 2014, in litt.). bat captures are declining, as it only mist-nets on Fort Drum since 2011. In Virginia, the northern long-eared indicates their abundance relative to There are two known hibernacula for bat was historically considered ‘‘fairly other bat species. Standardized catch bats in Rhode Island; however, no common’’ during summer mist-net per unit effort or other similar data are northern long-eared bats have been surveys; however, they were considered necessary to make population trend observed at either of these. There is also ‘‘uncommon’’ during winter hibernacula comparisons over time. Francl et al. limited summer data available for the surveys and have been found in eight (2012, p. 35) standardized data by State; however, there were six summer hibernacula (Reynolds 2012, captures per net night from 37 counties records of northern long-eared bats from unpublished data). WNS was first (31 counties pre-WNS (1997–2008) and 2011 mist-net surveys in Washington confirmed in Virginia in 2008–2009. 8 counties in 2010) in West Virginia, County (Brown 2012, unpublished Prior to WNS detection in the State and had 1.4 captures per net-night pre- data). (prior to 2011), 1.4 northern long-eared WNS and 0.3 captures per net night We have no information regarding the bats were captured per 1,000 units of post-WNS. At one site monitored over species in the District of Columbia;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 of this estimate, and it should be State park in north-central Missouri, 108 impacting the species because WNS considered a rough estimate. northern long-eared bats were captured occurs in all neighboring States. The northern long-eared bat has been during the first year, whereas only 32 were captured during the second year, Midwest Range documented in 76 of 114 counties in Missouri; its abundance in the summer with a similar level of effort between For purposes of organization in this is variable across the State and is likely years (Zimmerman 2014, unpublished rule, the midwestern geographic area related to the presence of suitable forest data). includes the following States: Missouri, habitat and fidelity to historical summer In Illinois, northern long-eared bats Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, areas. There are approximately 269 have been found in both winter Wisconsin, and Minnesota. The species known northern long-eared bat hibernacula counts and summer mist- is captured during summer mist-net hibernacula that are concentrated in the net surveys. Northern long-eared bats surveys in varying abundance karst landscapes (characterized by have been documented in 21 throughout most of the Midwest, and underground drainage systems with hibernacula in Illinois, most of which historically was considered one of the sinkholes and caves) of central, eastern, are in the southern portion of the State more frequently encountered bat species and southern Missouri (Missouri (Davis 2014, p. 5). Counts of more than in the region. However, the species was Department of Conservation 2014, in 100 bats have been documented in some historically observed infrequently and litt.). Similar to other more hibernacula, and a high of 640 bats was in small numbers during hibernacula predominantly karst areas, the northern observed in a southern Illinois surveys throughout the majority of its hibernaculum in 2005; however, much long-eared bat is difficult to find in range in the Midwest. WNS has since lower numbers of northern long-eared Missouri caves, and thus is rarely found been documented in Illinois, Indiana, bats have been observed in most Illinois in large numbers. Pseudogymnoascus Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and hibernacula (Service 2015, unpublished destructans (Pd) was first detected in Missouri. In Minnesota and Iowa, the data). WNS was first discovered in the Missouri in the winter of 2009–2010; presence of the fungus that causes WNS State during the winter of 2012–2013. however, the majority of sites in the has been confirmed, but the disease Mortality of northern long-eared bats State that have been confirmed with itself has not been observed. Overall, was observed 1 year later, during the WNS were confirmed more recently, clear declines in winter populations of winter of 2013–2014, at two of the during the winter of 2013–2014. Due to northern long-eared bats have been State’s major hibernacula, which are in observed in Ohio and Illinois (Service low numbers historically found in the central part of the State. At one 2014, unpublished data). hibernacula in the State, it is difficult to hibernaculum, there was a drop-off in There are no firm population size determine if changes in count numbers numbers of northern long-eared bats estimates for the northern long-eared bat are due to natural fluctuations or to observed over the winter, with 371 rangewide; nor do we have the benefit WNS. However, there was one northern individuals occupying the of a viability analysis; however, a rough long-eared bat mortality observed hibernaculum in November of 2013, and estimate of the population size in a during the winter of 2013–2014 (WNS by March of 2014, there were 10 portion of the Midwest has been Workshop 2014, pers. comm.). individuals, which amounts to a 97 calculated. That estimate shows there Furthermore, Elliott (2015, pers. comm.) percent decline (Davis 2014, pp. 6–18). may have been more than four million noted that surveyors are detecting At the other hibernaculum, in March of bats in the six-State area that includes indicators of decline (changes in bat 2013, there were 716 northern long- the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, behavior) as well as actual declines in eared bats counted; in November of Ohio, Michigan, and Missouri (Meinke numbers of northern long-eared bats in 2013, there were 171 individuals; and in 2015, pers. comm.). This population hibernacula in the State. As for summer March of 2014, there were 3 individuals, size estimate (for the northern long- survey data, mist-net and acoustic with a decline of over 99 percent (Davis eared bat) was developed for the surveys conducted across Missouri in 2014, pp. 6–18). Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species the summer of 2014 indicate continued During the summer, northern long- Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and distribution throughout the State. eared bats have been observed in was calculated by adjusting the 2013 However, there were fewer encounters landscapes with a variety of forest cover Indiana bat winter population size with northern long-eared bats in some throughout Illinois. Surveys conducted (within the 6 States) based on the ratio parts of the State in 2014, as compared across the State, related to highway of northern long-eared bats compared to to previous years. Specifically, surveys projects and research activities, resulted Indiana bats in summer mist-net conducted on the Mark Twain National in the capture of northern long-eared surveys. This estimate has limitations, Forest in 2014 indicate a decline in the bats in moderately forested counties in however. The principal limitation is overall number of captures of all bat western and eastern Illinois (e.g., that the estimate is based on data that species, including fewer northern long- Adams, Brown, and Edgar Counties), as were primarily gathered prior to the eared bats than expected (Amelon 2014, well as in northern counties where onset of WNS in the Midwest; thus pers. comm.; Harris 2014, pers. comm.). forests are highly limited (e.g., Will and declines that have occurred in WNS- Further, in southwest Missouri, Kankakee Counties) (Mengelkoch 2014, affected States are not reflected in the northern long-eared bats have been unpublished data; Powers 2014, estimated number. Taking into account encountered during mist-net surveys unpublished data). Pre-WNS, northern the documented effects of WNS in the conducted on the Camp Crowder long-eared bats were regularly caught in Midwest to date (declines currently Training Site in 2006, 2013, and 2014. mist-net surveys in the Shawnee limited primarily to Ohio and Illinois), Overall, the number of northern long- National Forest in southern Illinois there may still be several million bats eared bat captures has decreased since (Kath 2013, pers. comm.). The average within the six-State area. Because post- 2006, relative to the level of survey number of northern long-eared bats WNS survey numbers for the species effort (number of net nights) (Missouri caught during surveys between 1999 have not been included in this Army National Guard 2014, pp. 2–3; and 2011 at Oakwood Bottoms in the population estimate and WNS continues Robbins and Parris 2013, pp. 2–4, Shawnee National Forest was fairly to spread throughout these 6 States, Robbins et al. 2014, p. 5). Additionally, consistent (Carter 2012, pers. comm.). there is uncertainty as to the accuracy during a 2-year survey (2013–2014) at a Summer bat surveys in 2007 and 2009

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 2009, pp. 207–208). The abundance of data). The (ODNR) conducted Statewide County resulted in a low numbers of northern long-eared bats appears to vary summer acoustic surveys along driving captures (a few individuals) of northern geographically within Indiana during transects across the State from 2011 to long-eared bats, and, in 2014, no the summer. For example, during three 2014. Although they have not yet northern long-eared bats were summers (1990, 1991, and 1992) of mist- analyzed calls for individual species, encountered (Department of the Air netting in the northern half of Indiana, such as the northern long-eared bat, Force 2007, pp. 10–14; Department of 37 northern long-eared bats were initial results indicate a 56 percent the Air Force 2010, pp. 11–12). Overall, captured at 22 of 127 survey sites, and decline in recorded Myotis bat species’ summer surveys from Illinois have not they only represented 4 percent of all calls over the 3-year period (ODNR documented a decline due to WNS to bats captured (King 1993, p. 10). In 2014, unpublished data). Capture rates date. contrast, northern long-eared bats were from mist-net surveys, which were In Iowa, there are only summer mist- the most commonly captured bat primarily conducted to determine net records for the northern long-eared species (38 percent of all bats captured) Indiana bat presence, were conducted bat, and the species has not been during three summers (2006, 2007, and pre-WNS detection in Ohio (2007–2011) documented in hibernacula in the State. 2008) of mist-netting on two State and were compared to capture rates Northern long-eared bats have been forests in south-central Indiana (Sheets post-WNS (2012–2013), and it was recorded during many mist-net surveys et al. 2013, p. 193). The differences in found that capture rates of northern since the 1970s. Recent records include abundance in north versus south long-eared bats declined by 58 percent documented captures in 13 of 99 Indiana are due to there being few per mist-net site post-WNS (Service counties across the central and hibernacula in northern Indiana; 2015, unpublished data). Several parks southeastern portions of the State. In consequently, migration distances to in Summit County, Ohio, have been 2011, 8 individuals (including 3 suitable hibernacula are great, and the conducting mist-net surveys for lactating females) were captured in species is not as common in summer northern long-eared bats (among other west-central Iowa (Howell 2011, surveys in the northern as in the bat species) since 2004 (Summit Metro unpublished data). During summer southern portion of the State (Kurta Parks 2014, in litt.), with numbers 2014, one nonreproductive female was 2013, in litt.). Long-term summer mist- fluctuating. Their data noted a potential tracked to a roost in Fremont County in netting surveys in Indiana have started slight decline in northern long-eared bat southwest Iowa (Environmental to show a potential downward trend in numbers prior to WNS (however, there Solutions and Innovations, Inc. 2014, northern long-eared bat numbers (e.g., was a slight increase in 2011), and after pp. 52–56). In Scott County, Indianapolis airport project, Interstate WNS was detected in the area, a sharp southeastern Iowa, four female northern Highway 69 project; Service 2015, decline was documented in capture long-eared bats (two pregnant and two unpublished data); however, there was rates. In surveys conducted in 2013 and nonreproductive) were captured in June fluctuation in the count numbers from 2014, no northern long-eared bats were 2014, along the Wapsi River (Chenger these surveys prior to WNS detection in captured at any of the parks surveyed and Tyburec 2014, p. 6). WNS has not the State, and it may be too early to (where the species was previously been detected in Iowa to date; however, confirm a downward trend based on found; Summit Metro Parks 2014, in the fungus that causes WNS was first these data. In Indiana, the Hardwood litt.). found at a hibernaculum in Iowa in the Ecosystem Experiment has collected In Michigan, the northern long-eared bat is known from 36 (physical winter of 2011–2012. summer mist-net data from 2006 Northern long-eared bats have been detections in 33 counties and acoustic through 2014 for the northern long- observed in both winter hibernacula detections from 3 additional counties) of eared bat in Morgan-Monroe and surveys and, more commonly, in 83 counties and is commonly Yellowwood State Forests, and has summer surveys in Indiana. Indiana has encountered in parts of the northern found consistent numbers of bats 25 known hibernacula with winter Lower Peninsula and portions of the captured to date (Service 2015, records of one or more northern long- Upper Peninsula (Kurta 1982, p. 301; unpublished data). eared bat. However, it is difficult to find Kurta 2013, pers. comm.; Bohrman large numbers of individuals in caves In Ohio, there are seven known 2015, pers. comm.). WNS was first and mines during hibernation in hibernacula (Norris 2014, unpublished confirmed in Michigan in the winter of Indiana (Whitaker and Mumford 2009, data) used by northern long-eared bat, 2014–2015. Cave bat mortality was p. 208). Therefore, reliable winter and the species is regularly collected documented in 2014–2015, although population estimates are largely lacking Statewide as incidental catches in mortality was not specifically confirmed in Indiana. WNS was confirmed in the summer mist-net surveys for Indiana for northern long-eared bats. The State in the winter of 2010–2011. bats (Boyer 2012, pers. comm.). WNS majority of hibernacula in Michigan are Although population trends are difficult was first detected in the State in the in the northern and western Upper to assess because of historically low winter of 2010–2011. Two hibernacula Peninsula; therefore, there are very few numbers, mortality of northern long- in Ohio contained approximately 90 cave-hibernating bats in general in the eared bats due to WNS has been percent of the State’s overall winter bat southern half of the Lower Peninsula confirmed in the State (WNS Workshop population prior to WNS detection. The during the summer because the distance 2014, pers. comm.). Historically, the pre-WNS combined population average to hibernacula is too great (Kurta 1982, northern long-eared bat was considered (5 years of survey data) for both sites pp. 301–302). It is thought that the few common throughout much of Indiana, was 282 northern long-eared bats, which bats that do spend the summer in the and was the fourth or fifth most declined to 17 northern long-eared bats southern half of the Lower Peninsula abundant bat species captured during in winter 2013–2014 (post-WNS). This may hibernate in caves or mines in summer surveys in the State in 2009. amounts to a decline of northern long- neighboring States (Kurta 1982, pp. The species has been captured in at eared bats from pre-WNS numbers of 90 301–302). least 51 of 92 counties, often captured percent in one of the hibernacula and In Wisconsin, the northern long-eared in mist-nets along streams, and was the 100 percent in the other (Norris 2014, bat was historically reported as one of most common bat taken by trapping at pp. 19–20; Ohio Department of Natural the least abundant bats, based on mine entrances (Whitaker and Mumford Resources (ODNR) 2014, unpublished hibernacula surveys, acoustic surveys,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17981

and summer mist-netting efforts net surveys were conducted the within four maternity colonies on Fort (Amelon and Burhans 2006, pp. 71–72; previous year (2013) on the Kawishiwi Knox Military Installation during their Redell 2011, pers. comm.). However, District of the Superior National Forest, 3-year study (from 2012–2014), summer surveys conducted in 2014 and resulted in capture of 13 northern presumably due to WNS. revealed a more widespread distribution long-eared bats (38 percent of total In Tennessee, northern long-eared than previously thought (Wisconsin captures) over nine nights of netting at bats have been observed in both summer Department of Natural Resources eight sites (Grandmaison et al. 2013, pp. mist-net surveys and winter hibernacula (WDNR) 2014, unpublished data). In the 7–8). counts. Summer mist-net surveys from 2002 through 2013 resulted in the summer of 2014, WDNR radio-tracked Southern Range 12 female northern long-eared bats in capture of more than 1,000 individuals, four regions in the State and collected For purposes of organization in this including males and juveniles or information on selected roost tree rule, southern geographic area includes: pregnant, lactating, or post-lactating species and characteristics (WNDR Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, adult females (Flock 2014, unpublished 2014, unpublished data). In addition, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, data). During the winter of 2009–2010, acoustic and mist-net data was collected Oklahoma, South Carolina, and the Tennessee Wildlife Resource by a pipeline project proponent in 2014, Tennessee. In the South, the northern Agency (TWRA) began tracking which resulted in new records for the long-eared bat is considered more northern long-eared bat populations and species in many surveyed areas along a common in States such as Kentucky and has since documented northern long- corridor from the northwest part Tennessee, and less common in the eared bats in 58 hibernacula, with through the southeast part of the State southern extremes of its range (e.g., individual hibernaculum populations (WDNR 2014, unpublished data). The Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina). ranging from 1 to 136 individuals northern long-eared bat has been The absence of widespread survey (TWRA 2014, unpublished data). observed in 67 hibernacula in the State. efforts in several States is likely limiting According to TWRA, Tennessee has WNS was confirmed in Wisconsin in the known range of the species, as well over 9,000 caves and less than 2 percent the winter of 2013–2014. A recent as information on its relative abundance of those have been surveyed, which led population viability analysis in (Armstrong 2015, pers. comm.). In the them to suggest that there could be Wisconsin found that ‘‘there are no southern part of the species’ range, additional unknown northern long- known natural refugia or highly Kentucky is the only State with eared bat hibernacula in the State Statewide survey data prior to 2010, resistant sites on the landscape, which (TWRA 2013, in litt.). WNS was first primarily as a result of survey efforts for will likely lead to statewide extinction documented in Tennessee in the winter other listed bats species, such as the of the species once WNS infects the of 2009–2010. WNS-related mortality Indiana bat. WNS has been documented major hibernacula’’ (Peery et al. 2013, was documented (including northern at many northern long-eared bat unpublished data; WDNR 2014, in litt.). long-eared bat mortality) in 2014 (WNS hibernacula in this region, with Workshop 2014, pers. comm.); however, The northern long-eared bat is known mortality confirmed at many sites. there is no pre-WNS data from these from 11 hibernacula in Minnesota. WNS Northern long-eared bats were sites, and we cannot draw any has not been detected in Minnesota; historically observed in the majority of conclusions regarding population trends however, the fungus that causes WNS hibernacula in Kentucky and have been based on hibernacula surveys. TWRA was detected in 2011–2012. Prior to a commonly captured species during (2013, in litt.) indicates that summer 2014, there was little information on summer surveys (Lacki and Hutchinson mist-netting data for the eastern portion northern long-eared bat summer 1999, p. 11; Hemberger 2015, pers. of the State showed a pre-WNS (2000– populations in the State. In 2014, comm.). The northern long-eared bat has 2008) capture frequency of 33 percent passive acoustic surveys conducted at a been documented throughout the and post-WNS (2010–2012) capture new proposed mining area in central St. majority of Kentucky, with historical frequency of 31 percent. These data do Louis County detected the presence of records in 91 of its 120 counties. Eighty- not have a standardized unit of effort, northern long-eared bats at each of 13 five counties have summer records, and and, therefore, they cannot be used to sites sampled, accounting for 68 of those include reproductive records assess population trends. Conversely, approximately 14 percent of all (i.e., captures of juveniles or pregnant, Lamb (2014, pers. comm.) observed recorded bat calls (Smith et al. 2014, pp. lactating, or post-lactating adult declines in summer capture trends of 3–4). Mist-net surveys in 2014 at seven females) (Hemberger 2015, pers. several species of bats, including the sites on Camp Ripley Training Center, comm.). WNS was first observed in northern long-eared bat, at Arnold Air Morrison County, resulted in capture of Kentucky in 2011. Currently there are Force Base in south-central Tennessee 4 northern long-eared bats (5 percent of more than 60 known WNS-infected from 1998 to 2014. In the Great Smoky total captures), and at five sites on the northern long-eared bat hibernacula in Mountains National Park, 2014 capture Superior National Forest, Lake and St. the State (Kentucky Department of Fish rates of northern long-eared bats in Louis Counties, resulted in capture of 24 and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) 2014, comparison to 2009–2012 declined by northern long-eared bats (55 percent of unpublished data). Bat mortality at 71 to 94 percent (across all sites) based total captures) (Catton 2014, pp. 2–3). infected sites was first documented in on unit of effort comparisons (NPS Acoustic and mist-net data were 2013, and increased in 2014 (KDFWR 2014, in litt.; Indiana State University collected by a pipeline project 2014, unpublished report). However, 2015, in litt.). proponent in 2014, which surveyed a population trends are difficult to assess In 2000, during sampling of bat 300-mile (mi) (483-kilometer (km)) as northern long-eared bat numbers in populations in the Kisatchie National corridor through the northern third of these hibernacula have historically been Forest, Louisiana, three northern long- the State. Positive detections were variable. Summer survey data for eared bats, including two males and one recorded for Hubbard, Cass, Crow Wing, Kentucky lack a standardized unit of lactating female, were collected. These Aitkin, and Carlton Counties, and effort and, therefore, cannot be used to were the first official records of the northern long-eared bats were the most assess population trends. However, species from Louisiana, and the common species captured by mist-net Silvis et al. (2015, p. 6) documented presence of a reproductive female likely (Merjent 2014, unpublished data). Mist- significant summer population declines represents a resident summer colony

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 17982 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

(Crnkovic 2003, p. 715). Northern long- Northern long-eared bats are known fewer than 20) are observed (Sharp eared bats have not been documented from the mountain region of three 2014, unpublished data). Surveys using caves in Louisiana, including the counties in northwestern South conducted during the Southeast Bat five known caves that occur within 54 Carolina: Oconee, Pickens, and Diversity Network bat blitz in 2008 miles (87 km) of the collection site Greenville. There are two known reported the northern long-eared bat to (Crnkovic 2003, p. 715). Neither WNS northern long-eared bat hibernacula in be rather common in late summer/early nor the fungus that cause WNS has been the State: one is a cave that had 26 fall swarm at known bat caves in detected in Louisiana to date. northern long-eared bats present in Alabama (Sharp 2014, unpublished In Georgia, northern long-eared bat 1995, but has not been surveyed since, data). Summer surveys, mostly winter records are rare (Georgia and the other is a tunnel where only one conducted between 2001 and 2008, in Department of Natural Resources (GA bat was found in 2011 (Bunch 2011, Alabama have documented 71 DNR) 2014, in litt.). However, this unpublished data). In South Carolina, individual captures, including both species is commonly captured during WNS was first documented in the males and reproductively active females summer mist-net surveys (GA DNR winter of 2012–2013. Bat mortality due (Sharp 2014, unpublished data). WNS 2014, in litt.). Twenty-four summer to WNS has not been documented to was first documented in Alabama in the records were documented between 2007 date. Winter northern long-eared bat winter of 2011–2012. and 2011. Mist-net surveys were records are infrequent in the State. The northern long-eared bat is known conducted in the Chattahoochee When present in hibernacula counts, to occur in seven counties along the National Forest in 2001–2002 and 2006– their numbers range from 24 (1995 eastern edge of Oklahoma (Stevenson 2007, with 51 total individual records survey of a Pickens County 1986, p. 41). The species is known from for the species (Morris 2012, hibernaculum) to single records in nine hibernacula, where typically they unpublished data). WNS was first Oconee County (South Carolina are observed in low numbers (e.g., 1 to detected in the State in the winter of Department of Natural Resources 2015, 20 individuals). However, a larger 2012–2013. With historically small in litt.). Thus, population trends cannot colony uses a cave on the Ouachita numbers of northern long-eared bats be determined based on hibernacula National Forest in southeastern found in hibernacula surveys in surveys, due to historically low Oklahoma (LeFlore County) during the Georgia, we cannot draw conclusions numbers of northern long-eared bats winter (9 to 96 individuals) and during regarding population trends based on found. the fall (9 to 463 individuals) (Perry Northern long-eared bats are known 2014, pers. comm.). Northern long-eared hibernacula surveys. WNS-related from 41 hibernacula in Arkansas, bats have been recorded from 21 caves mortality has been documented in cave although there are typically few (7 of which occur on the Ozark Plateau bats in the State; however, northern individuals (e.g., fewer than 10 National Wildlife Refuge) during the long-eared bat mortality has not been individuals) observed (Sasse 2012, summer. The species has regularly been documented to date. unpublished data). Saugey et al. (1993, captured in summer mist-net surveys at Northern long-eared bats have been p. 104) reported the northern long-eared cave entrances in Adair, Cherokee, documented in 22 hibernacula in North bat to be rather common during fall Sequoyah, Delaware, and LeFlore Carolina. All known hibernacula are swarming at abandoned mines in the Counties, and are often one of the most caves or mines located in the western Ouachita Mountains. Additionally, common bats captured during mist-net part of the State (North Carolina Heath et al. (1986, p. 35) found 57 surveys at cave entrances in the Ozarks Wildlife Resources Commission 2014, pregnant females roosting in a mine in of northeastern Oklahoma (Stark 2013, unpublished data), although summer the spring of 1985. Summer surveys in pers. comm.; Clark and Clark 1997, p. records for the species exist for both the the Ouachita Mountains of central 4). Small numbers of northern long- eastern and western parts of the State. Arkansas from 2000–2005 tracked 17 eared bats (typical range of 1 to 17 In the summer of 2007, six northern males and 23 females to 43 and 49 day- individuals) also have been captured long-eared bats were captured in roosts, respectively (Perry and Thill during mist-net surveys along creeks Washington County, North Carolina 2007, pp. 221–222). In 2013 summer and riparian zones in eastern Oklahoma (Morris et al. 2009, p. 356). Both adults surveys in the Ozark St. Francis (Stark 2013, pers. comm.; Clark and and juveniles were captured, suggesting National Forest, the northern long-eared Clark 1997, pp. 4, 9–13). Neither WNS that there is a reproducing resident bat was the most common species nor Pd has been detected in Oklahoma population (Morris et al. 2009, p. 359). captured (Service 2014, unpublished to date. Reproductive females and adult males data). Pd was first detected in the State Although the northern long-eared bat have recently been documented in the in the winter of 2011–2012; however, was not considered abundant in northeastern part of the State. Mist- WNS was confirmed at different sites Kentucky and Tennessee historically netting and acoustic data indicate that (than where Pd was first confirmed) in (Harvey et al. 1991, p. 192), research the northern long-eared bat may be 2013–2014. Northern long-eared bat conducted from 1990–2012 found the active almost year-round in eastern mortality was documented (five species abundant in summer mist-net portions of the State, likely due to mild individuals) from one of the sites where surveys (Hemberger 2012, pers. comm.; winter temperatures and insect WNS was first confirmed in 2013–2014 Pelren 2011, pers. comm.; Lacki and availability in coastal counties (North (WNS Workshop 2014, pers. comm.). Hutchinson 1999, p. 11). With the Carolina Department of Transportation Mortality of northern long-eared bats exception of Kentucky and possibly 2014, in litt.). In North Carolina, WNS from WNS was observed in the State’s portions of Tennessee, western North was first documented in the winter of largest hibernacula in 2015; 2015 Carolina, and northwestern Arkansas, 2008–2009. Northern long-eared bats surveys found 120 northern long-eared where the species appears broadly have declined by 95 percent in bats in that hibernacula, where counts distributed, there simply was not hibernacula where WNS has been in recent years often numbered 200 to historically adequate effort expended to present for 2 or more years, with smaller 300 (Bitting 2015, pers. comm.). determine how abundant the species declines documented in hibernacula Northern long-eared bats are known was in States such as South Carolina, infected for less than 2 years (Weeks from two hibernacula in Alabama, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and and Graeter 2014, pers. comm.). where typically few individuals (e.g., Louisiana. Due to this lack of surveys,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17983

historical variability of winter eared bats. Acoustic data recorded by Wyoming, and it is unclear if there are populations, or lack of standardized bat monitoring stations operated by the existing hibernacula used by northern data, it is difficult to draw conclusions South Dakota Department of Game, long-eared bats, although the majority of about winter population trends pre- and Fish, and Parks (SDDGFP) also detected potential hibernacula (abandoned post-WNS introduction in this region. the northern long-eared bat sporadically mines) within the State occur outside of Similarly, summer population trends throughout the State (across 16 the northern long-eared bat’s range are also difficult to summarize at this counties) in 2011 and 2012 (SDDGFP (Tigner and Stukel 2003, p. 27; WGFD time due to a lack of surveys or 2014, in litt.) 2012, unpublished data). standardized data. Summer surveys in North Dakota Montana has only one known record (2009–2011) documented the species in of a northern long-eared bat in the State, Western Range the Turtle Mountains, the Missouri a male collected in an abandoned coal For purposes of organization in this River Valley, and the Badlands (Gillam mine in 1978 in Richland County rule, this region includes the following and Barnhart 2011, pp. 10–12). No (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks States: South Dakota, North Dakota, northern long-eared bat hibernacula are (MFWP) 2012, unpublished data). The Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, and known within North Dakota. During the species has not been reported in eastern Kansas. The northern long-eared bat is winters of 2010–2013, Barnhart (2014, Montana since the 1978 record, despite historically less common in the western unpublished; Western Area Power mist-net and acoustic surveys portion of its range than in the northern Administration 2015, in litt.) conducted in the eastern portion of the portion of the range (Amelon and documented 3 bat hibernacula and 18 State through 2014 (Montana Natural Burhans 2006, p. 71), and is considered potential hibernacula in Theodore Heritage Program 2015, in litt.). The common in only small portions of the Roosevelt National Park; however, no specimen of this single bat collected in western part of its range (e.g., Black northern long-eared bat were found. the State is currently undergoing genetic Hills of South Dakota) and uncommon Northern long-eared bats have been testing to determine whether the record or rare in the western extremes of the observed at two quarries located in east- is indeed a northern long-eared bat range (e.g., Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska) central Nebraska (Geluso 2011, (Montana Natural Heritage Program (Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 2); unpublished data). However, the species 2015, in litt.; MFWP 2015, in litt.). however, there has been limited survey is known to summer in the In Kansas, the northern long-eared bat effort throughout much of this part of northwestern parts of Nebraska, was first documented in 1951, when the species’ range. To date, WNS has not specifically Pine Ridge in Sheridan individual bats were documented been found in any of these States. County, and a small maternity colony hibernating in the gypsum mines of The northern long-eared bat has been has been recently documented (Geluso Marshall County (Schmidt et al. 2015, observed hibernating and residing et al. 2014, p. 2). A reproducing unpaginated). The status of the gypsum during the summer in the Black Hills population has also been documented mines as hibernaculum in Kansas is National Forest in South Dakota and is north of Valentine in Cherry County widely unknown. Northern long-eared considered abundant in the region. (Benedict et al. 2000, pp. 60–61). During bats were thought to only migrate Capture and banding data for survey an acoustic survey conducted during the through central Kansas until pregnant efforts in the Black Hills of South summer of 2012, the species was females were discovered in north- Dakota and Wyoming showed northern present in Cass County (east-central central Kansas in 1994 and 1995 (Sparks long-eared bats to be the second most Nebraska). Similarly, acoustic surveys and Choate 1995, p. 190). Since then, common bat banded (159 of 878 total in Holt County, on the Grand Prairie northern long-eared bats have been bats) during 3 years of survey effort Wind Farm, observed the northern long- considered relatively common in (Tigner and Aney 1994, p. 4). South eared bat at five of seven sites (Mattson riparian woodlands in Phillips, Rooks, Dakota contains 21 known hibernacula, et al. 2014, pp. 2–3). Limestone quarries Graham, Osborne, Ellis, and Russel all within the Black Hills, 9 of which are in Cass County are used as hibernacula Counties (Schmidt et al. 2015, abandoned mines (Bessken 2015, pers. by this species and others (White et al. unpaginated). comm.). The largest number of northern 2012, p. 3). White et al. (2012, p. 2) state Canadian Range long-eared bats was observed in a that the bat is uncommon or absent from hibernaculum near Hill City, South extreme southeastern Nebraska; The northern long-eared bat occurs Dakota; 40 northern long-eared bats however, surveys in Otoe County found throughout the majority of the forested were observed in this mine in the winter two northern long-eared bats, a female regions of Canada, although it is found of 2002–2003 (Tigner and Stukel 2003, and a male, and telemetry surveys in higher abundance in eastern Canada pp. 27–28). A summer population was identified roosts in the county (Brack than in western Canada, similar to in found in the Dakota Prairie National and Brack 2014, pp. 52–53). the United States (Caceres and Pybus Grassland and Custer National Forest in During acoustic and mist-net surveys 1997, p. 6). However, the scarcity of 2005 (Lausen undated, unpublished conducted throughout Wyoming in the records in the western parts of Canada data). Using mist-nets and echolocation summers of 2008–2011, 32 separate may be due to more limited survey detectors, northern long-eared bats have observations of northern long-eared bats efforts. It has been estimated that also been observed in small numbers in were made in the northeast part of the approximately 40 percent of the the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands State, and breeding was confirmed (U.S. northern long-eared bat’s global range is (Tigner 2004, pp. 13–30; Tigner 2005, Forest Service (USFS) 2006, in Canada (Committee on the Status of pp. 7–18). Additionally, northern long- unpublished data; Wyoming Game and Endangered Wildlife in Canada eared bats, including some pregnant Fish Department (WGFD) 2012, (COSEWIC) 2012, p. 9). The population females, have been captured during the unpublished data). Northern long-eared size for the northern long-eared bat in summer along the Missouri River in bats have also been observed at Devils Canada is unknown, but likely South Dakota (Swier 2006, p. 5; Kiesow Tower National Monument in Wyoming numbered over a million prior to the and Kiesow 2010, pp. 65–66). Swier during the summer months, and 2010 arrival of WNS in Canada (2003, p. 25) found that of 52 bats primarily used forested areas of the (COSEWIC 2013, p. xv1). The range of collected in a survey along the Missouri monument (NPS 2014, in litt.). To date, the northern long-eared bat in Canada River, 42 percent were northern long- there are no known hibernacula in includes Alberta, British Columbia,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 17984 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Manitoba, New Brunswick, three northern long-eared bats roosting and Fecske 2013, pp. 37, 74; Joe Kath Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest in the hollow core of stalactites in a 2013, pers. comm.). Territories, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward small cave in Jennings County, Indiana. The northern long-eared bat appears Island, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, To a lesser extent, northern long-eared to be somewhat flexible in tree roost and Yukon (COSEWIC 2012, p. 4). There bats have also been observed selection, selecting varying roost tree are no records of the species overwintering in other types of habitat species and types of roosts throughout overwintering in Yukon and Northwest that resemble cave or mine hibernacula, its range. Northern long-eared bats have Territories (COSEWIC 2012, p. 9). including abandoned railroad tunnels, been documented in roost in many Habitat (Service 2015, unpublished data). Also, species of trees, including: black oak in 1952, three northern long-eared bats (Quercus velutina), northern red oak Winter Habitat were found hibernating near the (Quercus rubra), silver maple (Acer Northern long-eared bats entrance of a storm sewer in central saccharinum), black locust (Robinia predominantly overwinter in Minnesota (Goehring 1954, p. 435). pseudoacacia), American beech (Fagus hibernacula that include caves and Kurta et al. (1997, p. 478) found grandifolia), sugar maple (Acer abandoned mines. Hibernacula used by northern long-eared bats hibernating in saccharum), sourwood (Oxydendrum northern long-eared bats vary in size a hydroelectric dam facility in arboreum), and shortleaf pine (Pinus from large, with large passages and Michigan. In Massachusetts, northern echinata) (e.g., Mumford and Cope entrances (Raesly and Gates 1987, p. long-eared bats have been found 1964, p. 72; Clark et al. 1987, p. 89; 20), to much smaller hibernacula (Kurta hibernating in the Sudbury Aqueduct Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. 95; Foster and 2013, in litt.). These hibernacula have (Massachusetts Department of Fish and Kurta 1999, p. 662; Lacki and relatively constant, cooler temperatures Game 2012, unpublished data). Griffin Schwierjohann 2001, p. 484; Owen et al. (0 to 9 degrees Celsius (°C) (32 to 48 (1945, p. 22) found northern long-eared 2002, p. 2; Carter and Feldhamer 2005, degrees Fahrenheit (°F))) (Raesly and bats in December in Massachusetts in a p. 262; Perry and Thill 2007, p. 224; Gates 1987, p. 18; Caceres and Pybus dry well, and commented that these bats Timpone et al. 2010, p. 119). Northern 1997, p. 2; Brack 2007, p. 744), with may regularly hibernate in long-eared bats most likely are not high humidity and no air currents (Fitch ‘‘unsuspected retreats’’ in areas where dependent on certain species of trees for and Shump 1979, p. 2; van Zyll de Jong caves or mines are not present. roosts throughout their range; rather, 1985, p. 94; Raesly and Gates 1987, p. Although confamilial (belonging to the many tree species that form suitable 118; Caceres and Pybus 1997, p. 2). The same taxonomic family) bat species cavities or retain bark will be used by sites favored by northern long-eared bats (e.g., big brown bats) have been found the bats opportunistically (Foster and are often in very high humidity areas, to using non-cave or mine hibernacula, Kurta 1999, p. 668). Carter and such a large degree that droplets of including attics and hollow trees Feldhamer (2005, p. 265) hypothesized water are often observed on their fur (Neubaum et al. 2006, p. 473; Whitaker that structural complexity of habitat or (Hitchcock 1949, p. 52; Barbour and and Gummer 1992, pp. 313–316), available roosting resources are more Davis 1969, p. 77). Northern long-eared northern long-eared bats have only been important factors than the actual tree bats, like eastern small-footed bats observed over-wintering in suitable species. (Myotis leibii) and big brown bats caves, mines, or habitat with the same In the majority of northern long-eared (Eptesicus fuscus), typically prefer types of conditions found in suitable bat telemetry studies, roost trees consist cooler and more humid conditions than caves or mines to date. predominantly of hardwoods (e.g., little brown bats, but are less tolerant of Foster and Kurta 1999, p. 662; Lacki and drier conditions than eastern small- Summer Habitat Schwierjohann 2001, p. 484; Broders footed bats and big brown bats I. Summer Roost Characteristics and Forbes 2004, p. 606). Broders and (Hitchcock 1949, pp. 52–53; Barbour Forbes (2004, p. 605) reported that and Davis 1969, p. 77; Caceres and During the summer, northern long- female northern long-eared bat roosts in Pybus 1997, p. 2). Northern long-eared eared bats typically roost singly or in New Brunswick were 24 times more bats are typically found roosting in colonies underneath bark or in cavities likely to be shade-tolerant, deciduous small crevices or cracks in cave or mine or crevices of both live trees and snags trees than conifers. Of the few northern walls or ceilings, sometimes with only (Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. 95; Foster long-eared bat telemetry studies in the nose and ears visible, and thus are and Kurta 1999, p. 662; Owen et al. which conifers represented a large easily overlooked during surveys 2002, p. 2; Carter and Feldhamer 2005, proportion of roosts, most were reported (Griffin 1940a, pp. 181–182; Barbour p. 262; Perry and Thill 2007, p. 222; as snags (e.g., Cryan et al. 2001, p. 45; and Davis 1969, p. 77; Caire et al. 1979, Timpone et al. 2010, p. 119). Males’ and Jung et al. 2004, p. 329). Overall, these p. 405; van Zyll de Jong 1985, p. 9; nonreproductive females’ summer roost data suggest that hardwood trees most Caceres and Pybus 1997, p. 2; Whitaker sites may also include cooler locations, often provide the structural and and Mumford 2009, pp. 209–210). Caire including caves and mines (Barbour and microclimate conditions preferred by et al. (1979, p. 405) and Whitaker and Davis 1969, p. 77; Amelon and Burhans maternity colonies and groups of Mumford (2009, p. 208) commonly 2006, p. 72). Northern long-eared bats females, which have more specific observed individuals exiting caves with have also been observed roosting in roosting needs than solitary males mud and clay on their fur, also colonies in human-made structures, (Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001, p. 484), suggesting the bats were roosting in such as in buildings, in barns, on utility although softwood snags may offer more tighter recesses of hibernacula. poles, behind window shutters, and in suitable roosting habitat for both Additionally, northern long-eared bats bat houses (Mumford and Cope 1964, p. genders than hardwoods (Perry and have been found hanging in the open, 72; Barbour and Davis 1969, p. 77; Cope Thill 2007, p. 222; Cryan et al. 2001, p. although not as frequently as in cracks and Humphrey 1972, p. 9; Burke 1999, 45). One reason deciduous snags may be and crevices (Barbour and Davis 1969, pp. 77–78; Sparks et al. 2004, p. 94; preferred over conifer snags is increased p. 77; Whitaker and Mumford 2009, pp. Amelon and Burhans 2006, p. 72; resistance to decay, and consequently 209–210). In 1968, Whitaker and Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 209; roost longevity, of the former (USFS Mumford (2009, pp. 209–210) observed Timpone et al. 2010, p. 119; Bohrman 1998).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17985

Many studies have documented the males, likely due to the increased solar multiple snags and trees within the northern long-eared bat’s selection of radiation, which aids pup development stand. both live trees and snags, with a range (Perry and Thill 2007, p. 224). Fewer Some studies have found tree roost of 10 to 53 percent selection of live trees surrounding maternity roosts may selection to differ slightly between male roosts found (Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. also benefit juvenile bats that are and female northern long-eared bats. 95; Foster and Kurta 1999, p. 668; Lacki starting to learn to fly (Perry and Thill Some studies have found male northern and Schwierjohann 2001, p. 484; 2007, p. 224). However, in southern long-eared bats more readily using Menzel et al. 2002, p. 107; Carter and Illinois, northern long-eared bats were smaller diameter trees for roosting than Feldhamer 2005, p. 262; Perry and Thill observed roosting in areas with greater females, suggesting males are more 2007, p. 224; Timpone et al. 2010, p. canopy cover than in random plots flexible in roost selection than females 118). Foster and Kurta (1999, p. 663) (Carter and Feldhamer 2005, p. 263). (Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001, p. 487; found 53 percent of roosts in Michigan Roosts are also largely selected below Broders and Forbes 2004, p. 606; Perry were in living trees, whereas in New the canopy, which could be due to the and Thill 2007, p. 224). In the Ouachita Hampshire, 66 percent of roosts were in species’ ability to exploit roosts in Mountains of Arkansas, both sexes live trees (Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. 95). cluttered environments; their gleaning primarily roosted in pine snags, The use of live trees versus snags may behavior suggests an ability to easily although females roosted in snags reflect the availability of such structures maneuver around obstacles (Foster and surrounded by fewer midstory trees in study areas (Perry and Thill 2007, p. Kurta 1999, p. 669; Menzel et al. 2002, than did males (Perry and Thill 2007, p. 224) and the flexibility in roost selection p. 112). 224). In New Brunswick, Canada, when there is a sympatric bat species Results from studies have found the Broders and Forbes (2004, pp. 606–607) present (e.g., Indiana bat) (Timpone et diameters of roost trees selected by found that there was spatial segregation al. 2010, p. 120). Most telemetry studies northern long-eared bats vary greatly. between male and female roosts, with describe a greater number of dead than Some studies have found that the female maternity colonies typically live roosts (e.g., Cryan et al. 2001, p. 45; diameter-at-breast height (dbh) of occupying more mature, shade-tolerant Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001, p. 486; northern long-eared bat roost trees was deciduous tree stands and males Timpone et al. 2010, p. 120; Silvis et al. greater than random trees (Lacki and occupying more conifer-dominated 2012, p. 3). A significant preference for Schwierjohann 2001, p. 485), and others stands. Data from West Virginia at the dead or dying trees was reported for have found both dbh and height of Fernow Experimental Forest and the northern long-eared bats in Kentucky selected roost trees to be greater than former Westvaco Ecosystem Research (Silvis et al. 2012, p. 3), Illinois, and random trees (Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. Forest (both of which contain both Indiana; in South Dakota (Cryan et al. 97; Owen et al. 2002 p. 2). However, relatively unmanaged, older, mature 2001, p. 45) and West Virginia, northern other studies have found that roost tree stands; early successional/mid-age long-eared bat roost plots contained a mean dbh and height did not differ from stands; and fire-modified stands) higher than expected proportion of random trees (Menzel et al. 2002, p. 111; suggest that females choose smaller snags (Owen et al. 2002, p. 4). Moreover, Carter and Feldhamer 2005, p. 266). diameter, suppressed understory trees, most studies reporting a higher Based on a consolidation of data from whereas males often chose larger, proportion of live roosts included trees across the northern long-eared bat range sometimes canopy-dominant trees for that had visible signs of decline, such as (Sasse and Pekins 1996, pp. 95–96; roosts, perhaps in contrast to other tree- broken crowns or dead branches (e.g., Schultes 2002, pp. 49, 51; Perry 2014, roosting myotids such as Indiana bats Foster and Kurta 1999, pp. 662,663; pers. comm.; Lereculeur 2013, pp. 52– (Menzel et al. 2002, p. 112; Ford et al. Ford et al. 2006, p. 20). Thus, the 54; Carter and Feldhamer 2005, p. 263; 2006, p. 16; Johnson et al. 2009a, p. tendency for northern long-eared bats Foster and Kurta 1999, p. 663; Lacki and 239). A study in northeastern Kentucky (particularly large maternity colonies) to Schwierjohann 2001, pp. 484–485; found that males did not use colony use healthy live trees appears to be Owens et al. 2002, p. 3; Timpone et al. roosting sites and were typically found fairly low. 2010, p. 118; Lowe 2012, p. 61; Perry occupying cavities in live hardwood In tree roosts, northern long-eared and Thill 2007, p. 223; Lacki et al. 2009, trees, while females formed colonies bats are typically found beneath loose p. 1,171), roost tree dbh most commonly more often in both hardwood and bark or within cavities and have been used (close to 80 percent of over 400 softwood snags (Lacki and found to use both exfoliating bark and documented maternity tree roosts) by Schwierjohann 2001, p. 486). However, crevices to a similar degree for summer northern long-eared bat maternity males and nonreproductively active roosting habitat (Foster and Kurta 1999, colonies range from 10 to 25 centimeters females are found roosting within home p. 662; Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001, (cm) (4 to 10 inches). ranges of known maternity colonies the p. 484; Menzel et al. 2002, p. 110; Owen As for elevation of northern long- majority of the time (1,712 of 1,825 et al. 2002, p. 2; Perry and Thill 2007, eared bat roosts, Lacki and capture records or 94 percent) within p. 222; Timpone et al. 2010, p. 119). Schwierjohann (2001, p. 486) have Kentucky (Service 2014, unpublished Canopy coverage at northern long- found that northern long-eared bats data), suggesting little segregation eared bat roosts has ranged from 56 roost more often on upper and middle between reproductive females and other percent in Missouri (Timpone et al. slopes than lower slopes, which individuals in summer. 2010, p. 118), to 66 percent in Arkansas suggests a preference for higher (Perry and Thill 2007, p. 223), to greater elevations, possibly due to increased II. Summer Roosting Behavior than 75 percent in New Hampshire solar heating. Silvis et al. (2012, p. 4), Northern long-eared bats actively (Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. 95), to greater found that selection of mid- and upper- form colonies in the summer (Foster and than 84 percent in Kentucky (Lacki and slope roost areas may also be a function Kurta 1999, p. 667) and exhibit fission- Schwierjohann 2001, p. 487). Studies in of the landscape position, whereby fusion behavior (Garroway and Broders New Hampshire and British Columbia forest stands are most subjected to 2007, p. 961), where members have found that canopy coverage around disturbance (e.g., wind, more intense frequently coalesce to form a group roosts is lower than in available stands fire, more drought stress, higher (fusion), but composition of the group is (Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. 95). Females incidence of insect attack) that in turn in flux, with individuals frequently tend to roost in more open areas than creates suitable roost conditions among departing to be solitary or to form

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 17986 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

smaller groups (fission) before returning roost. Central-node roost trees may be the swarming period may occur between to the main unit (Barclay and Kurta similar to Indiana bat primary roost July and early October, depending on 2007, p. 44). As part of this behavior, trees (locations for information latitude within the species’ range northern long-eared bats switch tree exchange, thermal buffering), but they (Fenton 1969, p. 598; Kurta et al. 1997, roosts often (Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. were identified by the degree of p. 479; Lowe 2012, p. 86; Hall and 95), typically every 2 to 3 days (Foster connectivity with other roost trees Brenner 1968, p. 780; Caire et al. 1979, and Kurta 1999, p. 665; Owen et al. rather than by the number of p. 405). The northern long-eared bat 2002, p. 2; Carter and Feldhamer 2005, individuals using the tree (Johnson et al. may investigate several cave or mine p. 261; Timpone et al. 2010, p. 119). In 2011, p. 228). openings during the transient portion of Missouri, the longest time spent Spring Staging the swarming period, and some roosting in one tree was 3 nights; individuals may use these areas as however, up to 11 nights spent roosting Spring staging for the northern long- temporary daytime roosts or may roost in a human-made structure has been eared bat is the time period between in forest habitat adjacent these sites documented (Timpone et al. 2010, p. winter hibernation and spring migration (Kurta et al. 1997, pp. 479, 483; Lowe 118). Bats switch roosts for a variety of to summer habitat (Whitaker and 2012, p. 51). Many of the caves and reasons, including temperature, Hamilton 1998, p. 80). During this time, mines associated with swarming are precipitation, predation, parasitism, bats begin to gradually emerge from also used as hibernacula for several sociality, and ephemeral roost sites hibernation, exit the hibernacula to species of bats, including the northern (Carter and Feldhamer 2005, p. 264). feed, but re-enter the same or alternative long-eared bat (Fenton 1969, p. 599; Ephemeral roost sites, with the need to hibernacula to resume daily bouts of Glover and Altringham 2008, p. 1498; proactively investigate new potential torpor (state of mental or physical Randall and Broders 2014, p. 109; Kurta roost trees prior to their current roost inactivity) (Whitaker and Hamilton et al. 1997, p. 484; Whitaker and Rissler tree becoming uninhabitable (e.g., tree 1998, p. 80). The staging period for the 1992a, p. 132). falls over), may be the most likely northern long-eared bat is likely short in Little is known about northern long- scenario (Kurta et al. 2002, p. 127; duration (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998, eared bat roost selection outside of Carter and Feldhamer 2005, p. 264; p. 80; Caire et al. 1979, p. 405). In caves and mines during the swarming Timpone et al. 2010, p. 119). Missouri, Caire et al. (1979, p. 405) period (Lowe 2012, p. 6). Lowe (2012, Fission-fusion dynamics also drives found that northern long-eared bats pp. 32, 58, 63) documented northern maternal roosting behaviors and moved into the staging period in mid- long-eared bats in the Northeast roosting relatedness within social groups of March through early May. In Michigan, in both coniferous and deciduous trees northern long-eared bats. Patriquin et al. Kurta et al. (1997, p. 478) determined or stumps as far away as 3 miles (7 km) (2013, p. 952) found that the average that by early May, two-thirds of the from the swarming site. Although Lowe relatedness of social group members Myotis species, including the northern (2012, pp. 61, 64) hypothesized that tree (northern long-eared bat individuals in long-eared bat, had dispersed to summer roosts used during the fall swarming nearby colonies that may occasionally habitat. Variation in timing (onset and season would be similar to summer share roosts) was low; however, familiar duration) of staging for Indiana bats was roosts, there was a difference found pairs of females (females that frequently based on latitude and weather (Service between summer and fall in the 2007, pp. 39–40, 42); similarly, timing roosted together) were more closely variation in distances bats traveled from of staging for northern long-eared bats is related than expected by chance. the capture site to roost, roost likely based on these same factors. Consistent with these genetic findings, orientation, and greater variation of Garroway and Broders (2007, p. 960), Fall Swarming roost types (e.g., roost species, size, Patriquin et al. (2010, p. 904), and The swarming season fills the time decay class) in the fall. Greater variation Johnson et al. (2011, p. 227) observed among roosts during the swarming nonrandom roosting behaviors, with between the summer and winter seasons (Lowe 2012, p. 50) and the purpose of season may be a result of the variation some female northern long-eared bats in energy demands that individual roosting more frequently together than swarming behavior may include: Introduction of juveniles to potential northern long-eared bats exhibit during with other females. this time (Lowe 2012, p. 64; Barclay and Roosts trees used by northern long- hibernacula, copulation, and stopping Kurta 2007, pp. 31–32). eared bats are often in fairly close over sites on migratory pathways proximity to each other within the between summer and winter regions Biology species’ summer home range. For (Kurta et al. 1997, p. 479; Parsons et al. Hibernation example, in Missouri, Timpone et al. 2003, p. 64; Lowe 2012, p. 51; Randall (2010, p. 118) radio-tracked 13 northern and Broders 2014, pp. 109–110). The Northern long-eared bats hibernate long-eared bats to 39 roosts and found swarming season for some species of the during the winter months to conserve the mean distance traveled between genus Myotis begins shortly after energy from increased thermoregulatory roost trees was 0.67 km (0.42 mi) (range females and young depart maternity demands and reduced food resources. 0.05–3.9 km (0.03–2.4 mi)). In Michigan, colonies (Fenton 1969, p. 601). During To increase energy savings, individuals the longest distance moved by the same this time, both male and female enter a state of torpor, when internal bat between roosts was 2 km (1.2 mi), northern long-eared bats are present at body temperatures approach ambient and the shortest was 6 meters (m) (20 swarming sites (often with other species temperature, metabolic rates are feet (ft)) (Foster and Kurta 1999, p. 665). of bats). During this period, heightened significantly lowered, and immune In the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas, activity and congregation of transient function declines (Thomas et al. 1990, Perry and Thill (2007, p. 22) found that bats around caves and mines is p. 475; Thomas and Geiser 1997, p. 585; individuals moved among snags that observed, followed later by increased Bouma et al. 2010, p. 623). Periodic were within less than 2 hectares (ha) (5 sexual activity and bouts of torpor prior arousal from torpor naturally occurs in acres). Johnson et al. (2011, p. 227) to winter hibernation (Fenton 1969, p. all hibernating mammals (Lyman et al. found that northern long-eared bats 601; Parsons et al. 2003, pp. 63–64; 1982, p. 92), although arousals remain form social groups in networks of roost Davis and Hitchcock 1965, pp. 304– among the least understood of trees often centered on a central-node 306). For the northern long-eared bat, hibernation phenomena (Thomas and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 occasionally are found in clusters with migratory movements between seasonal (e.g., reduction of metabolic waste, body these other bat species. Other species habitats (summer roosts and winter temperature, and water balance) have that commonly occupy the same habitat hibernacula) have been documented been proposed to account for the include little brown bat, big brown bat, between 56 km (35 mi) and 89 km (55 occurrence and frequency of arousals eastern small-footed bat, tri-colored bat, mi) (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993 p. 88; (Thomas and Geiser 1997, p. 585). Each and Indiana bat (Swanson and Evans Griffin 1940b, pp. 235, 236; Caire et al. time a bat arouses from torpor, it uses 1936, p. 39; Griffin 1940a, p. 181; 1979, p. 404). Griffin (1940b, pp. 235, a significant amount of energy to warm Hitchcock 1949, pp. 47–58; Stones and 236) reported that a banded male its body and increase its metabolic rate. Fritz 1969, p. 79). Whitaker and northern long-eared bat had traveled The cost and number of arousals are the Mumford (2009, pp. 209–210), however, from one hibernaculum in two key factors that determine energy infrequently found northern long-eared Massachusetts to another in Connecticut expenditures of hibernating bats in bats hibernating beside little brown bats, over the 2-month period of February to winter (Thomas et al. 1990, p. 475). For Indiana bats, or tri-colored bats. Barbour April, a distance of 89 km (55 mi). The example, little brown bats used as much and Davis (1969, p. 77) found that the spring migration period typically runs fat during a typical arousal from species was rarely recorded in from mid-March to mid-May (Caire et al. hibernation as would be used during 68 concentrations of more than 100 in a 1979, p. 404; Easterla 1968, p. 770; days of torpor, and arousals and single hibernaculum. Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 207); subsequent activity may constitute 84 Northern long-eared bats have been fall migration typically occurs between percent of the total energy used by observed moving among hibernacula mid-August and mid-October. hibernating bats during the winter throughout the winter, which may Northern long-eared bats have shown (Thomas et al. 1990, pp. 477–478). further decrease population estimates a high degree of philopatry (tendency to In general, northern long-eared bats (Griffin 1940a, p. 185; Whitaker and return to the same location) for a arrive at hibernacula in August or Rissler 1992a, p. 131; Caceres and hibernaculum (Pearson 1962), although September, enter hibernation in October Barclay 2000, pp. 2–3). Whitaker and they may not return to the same and November, and emerge from the Mumford (2009, p. 210) found that this hibernaculum in successive seasons hibernacula in March or April (Caire et species flies in and out of some mines (Caceres and Barclay 2000). Banding al. 1979, p. 405; Whitaker and Hamilton and caves in southern Indiana studies in Ohio, Missouri, and 1998, p. 100; Amelon and Burhans throughout the winter. In particular, the Connecticut show return rates to 2006, p. 72). However, hibernation may bats were active at Copperhead Cave hibernacula of 5.0 percent (Mills 1971, begin as early as August (Whitaker and periodically all winter, with northern p. 625), 4.6 percent (Caire et al. 1979, p. Rissler 1992b, p. 56). In Copperhead long-eared bats being more active than 404), and 36 percent (Griffin 1940a, p. Cave (a mine) in west-central Indiana, other species (such as little brown bats 185), respectively. An experiment the majority of bats enter hibernation and tri-colored bats) hibernating in the showed an individual bat returned to its during October, and spring emergence cave. Though northern long-eared bats home cave up to 32 km (20 mi) away occurs from about the second week of fly outside of the hibernacula during the after being removed 3 days prior (Stones March to mid-April (Whitaker and winter, they do not feed; hence the and Branick 1969, p. 158). Mumford 2009, p. 210). In Indiana, function of this behavior is not well Reproduction northern long-eared bats become more understood (Whitaker and Hamilton active and start feeding outside the 1998, p. 101). It has been suggested, Mating occurs from late July in hibernaculum in mid-March, evidenced however, that bat activity during winter northern regions to early October in by stomach and intestine contents. This could be due in part to disturbance by southern regions and commences when species also showed spring activity researchers (Whitaker and Mumford males begin to aggregate around earlier than little brown bats and tri- 2009, pp. 210–211). hibernacula and initiate copulation colored bats (Perimyotis subflavus) Northern long-eared bats exhibit activity (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998, (Whitaker and Rissler 1992b, pp. 56– significant weight loss during p. 101; Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 57). In northern latitudes, such as in hibernation. In southern Illinois, 210; Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 2; upper Michigan’s copper-mining Pearson (1962, p. 30) found an average Amelon and Burhans 2006, p. 69). district, hibernation may begin as early weight loss of 20 percent during Copulation occasionally occurs again in as late August and continue for 8 to 9 hibernation in male northern long-eared the spring (Racey 1982, p. 73), and can months (Stones and Fritz, 1969, p. 81; bats, with individuals weighing an occur during the winter as well (Kurta Fitch and Shump 1979, p. 2). Northern average of 6.6 g (0.2 ounces) prior to 2014, in litt.). Hibernating females store long-eared bats have shown a high January 10, and those collected after sperm until spring, exhibiting delayed degree of philopatry (using the same site that date weighing an average of 5.3 g fertilization (Racey 1979, p. 392; Caceres multiple years) for a hibernaculum (0.2 ounces). Whitaker and Hamilton and Pybus 1997, p. 4). Ovulation takes (Pearson 1962, p. 30), although they (1998, p. 101) reported a weight loss of place near the time of emergence from may not return to the same 41–43 percent over the hibernation hibernation, followed by fertilization of hibernaculum in successive seasons period for northern long-eared bats in a single egg, resulting in a single embryo (Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 2). Indiana. In eastern Missouri, male (Cope and Humphrey 1972, p. 9; Typically, northern long-eared bats northern long-eared bats lost an average Caceres and Pybus 1997, p. 4; Caceres were not abundant and composed a of 3 g (0.1 ounces), or 36 percent, during and Barclay 2000, p. 2); gestation is small proportion of the total number of the hibernation period (late October approximately 60 days, based on like bats observed hibernating in a through March), and females lost an species (Kurta 1995, p. 71). Males are hibernaculum (Barbour and Davis 1969, average of 2.7 g (0.1 ounces), or 31 generally reproductively inactive from p. 77; Mills 1971, p. 625; Caire et al. percent (Caire et al. 1979, p. 406). April until late July, with testes 1979, p. 405; Caceres and Barclay 2000, enlarging in preparation for breeding in pp. 2–3). Although usually observed in Migration and Homing most males during August and small numbers, the species typically While the northern long-eared bat is September (Caire et al. 1979, p. 407; inhabits the same hibernacula with large not considered a long-distance Amelon and Burhans 2006, p. 69; Kurta numbers of other bat species, and migratory species, short regional 2013, in litt.).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 17988 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Maternity colonies, consisting of and Pekins 1996, p. 95), and early northern long-eared bats (Caceres and females and young, are generally small, August in Ohio (Mills 1971, p. 625). Pybus 1997, p. 2). Occasional foraging numbering from about 30 (Whitaker and Maximum lifespan for northern long- also takes place over small forest Mumford 2009, p. 212) to 60 individuals eared bats is estimated to be up to 18.5 clearings and water, and along roads (Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 3); years (Hall et al. 1957, p. 407). Most (van Zyll de Jong 1985, p. 94). Foraging however, one group of 100 adult females mortality for northern long-eared bats patterns indicate a peak activity period was observed in Vermilion County, and many other species of bats occurs within 5 hours after sunset followed by Indiana (Whitaker and Mumford 2009, during the juvenile stage (Caceres and a secondary peak within 8 hours after p. 212). In West Virginia, maternity Pybus 1997, p. 4). sunset (Kunz 1973, pp. 18–19). Brack colonies in two studies had a range of Foraging Behavior and Whitaker (2001, p. 207) did not find 7 to 88 individuals (Owen et al. 2002, significant differences in the overall diet p. 2) and 11 to 65 individuals, with a Northern long-eared bats are of northern long-eared bats between mean size of 31 (Menzel et al. 2002, p. nocturnal foragers and use hawking morning (3 a.m. to dawn) and evening 110). Lacki and Schwierjohann (2001, p. (catching insects in flight) and gleaning (dusk to midnight) feedings; however 485) found that the number of bats (picking insects from surfaces) there were some differences in the within a given roost declined as the behaviors in conjunction with passive consumption of particular prey orders summer progressed. Pregnant females acoustic cues (Nagorsen and Brigham between morning and evening feedings. formed the largest aggregations 1993, p. 88; Ratcliffe and Dawson 2003, Additionally, no significant differences (mean=26) and post-lactating females p. 851). Observations of northern long- existed in dietary diversity values formed the smallest aggregation eared bats foraging on arachnids between age classes or sex groups (Brack (mean=4). The largest overall reported (spiders) (Feldhamer et al. 2009, p. 49), and Whitaker 2001, p. 208). presence of green plant material in their colony size of 65 bats. Other studies feces (Griffith and Gates 1985, p. 456), Home Range have also found that the number of and non-flying prey in their stomach individuals roosting together in a given Northern long-eared bats exhibit site contents (Brack and Whitaker 2001, p. roost typically decreases from fidelity to their summer home range 207) suggest considerable gleaning pregnancy to post-lactation (Foster and (Perry 2011, pp. 113–114; Johnson et al. behavior. The northern long-eared bat Kurta 1999, p. 667; Lacki and 2009a, p. 237; Jackson 2004, p. 87; has a diverse diet including moths, flies, Schwierjohann 2001, p. 485; Garroway Foster and Kurta 1999, p. 665). During leafhoppers, caddisflies, and beetles this period, northern long-eared bats and Broders 2007, p. 962; Perry and (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, p. 88; roost (Sasse and Pekins 1996, pp. 95–96; Thill 2007, p. 224; Johnson et al. 2012, Brack and Whitaker 2001, p. 207; Owen et al. 2002, p. 1; Perry and Thill p. 227). Female roost site selection, in Griffith and Gates 1985, p. 452), with 2007, pp. 224–225; Timpone et al. 2010, terms of canopy cover and tree height, diet composition differing p. 116) and forage (Owen et al. 2003, pp. changes depending on reproductive geographically and seasonally (Brack 354–355; Sheets 2010, pp. 3–4, 18; stage; relative to pre- and post-lactation and Whitaker 2001, p. 208). Feldhamer Tichenell et al. 2011, p. 985; Dodd et al. periods, lactating northern long-eared et al. (2009, p. 49) noted close 2012, p. 1120) in forests. Their home bats have been shown to roost higher in similarities of all Myotis diets in ranges, which include both the foraging tall trees situated in areas of relatively southern Illinois, while Griffith and and roosting areas, may vary by sex. less canopy cover and lower tree density Gates (1985, p. 454) found significant Broders et al. (2006, p. 1117) found (Garroway and Broders 2008, p. 91). differences between the diets of home ranges of females (mean of 8.6 ha Adult females give birth to a single northern long-eared bats and little (21.3 acres)) to be larger than males pup (Barbour and Davis 1969, p. 104). brown bats. The most common insects (mean of 1.4 ha (3.5 acres)), though Birthing within the colony tends to be found in the diets of northern long- Lereculeur (2013, p. 20) found no synchronous, with the majority of births eared bats are lepidopterans (moths) and difference between sexes at a study site occurring around the same time coleopterans (beetles) (Brack and in Tennessee. Also, Broders et al. (2006, (Krochmal and Sparks 2007, p. 654). Whitaker 2001, p. 207; Lee and p. 1117) and Henderson and Broders Parturition (birth) likely occurs in late McCracken 2004, pp. 595–596; (2008, p. 958) found foraging areas (of May or early June (Caire et al. 1979, p. Feldhamer et al. 2009, p. 45; Dodd et al. either sex) to be six or more times larger 406; Easterla 1968, p. 770; Whitaker and 2012, p. 1122), with arachnids also than roosting areas. At sites in the Red Mumford 2009, p. 213), but may occur being a common prey item (Feldhamer River Gorge area of the Daniel Boone as late as July (Whitaker and Mumford et al. 2009, p. 45). Northern long-eared National Forest, Lacki et al. (2009, p. 2009, p. 213). Broders et al. (2006, p. bats have the highest frequency call of 1169) found female home range size to 1177) estimated a parturition date of any bat species in the Great Lakes area range from 19 to 172 ha (47 to 425 July 20 in New Brunswick. Lactating (Kurta 1995, p. 71). Gleaning allows this acres). Owen et al. (2003, p. 353) and post-lactating females were species to gain a foraging advantage for estimated average maternal home range observed in mid-June in Missouri (Caire preying on moths because moths are size to be 65 ha (161 acres). Home range et al. 1979, p. 407), July in New less able to detect these high frequency size of northern long-eared bats in this Hampshire and Indiana (Sasse and echolocation calls (Faure et al. 1993, p. study site was small relative to other bat Pekins 1996, p. 95; Whitaker and 185). species, but this may be due to the Mumford 2009, p. 213), and August in Most foraging occurs above the study’s timing (during the maternity Nebraska (Benedict 2004, p. 235). understory, 1 to 3 m (3 to 10 ft) above period) and the small body size of Juvenile volancy (flight) often occurs by the ground, but under the canopy northern long-eared bats (Owen et al. 21 days after birth (Krochmal and (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993, p. 88) on 2003, pp. 354–355). The mean distance Sparks 2007, p. 651, Kunz 1971, p. 480) forested hillsides and ridges, rather than between roost trees and foraging areas of and has been documented as early as 18 along riparian areas (Brack and radio-tagged individuals in New days after birth (Krochmal and Sparks Whitaker 2001, p. 207; LaVal et al. 1977, Hampshire was 602 m (1,975 ft) with a 2007, p. 651). Subadults were captured p. 594). This coincides with data range of 60 to 1,719 m (197 to 5,640 ft) in late June in Missouri (Caire et al. indicating that mature forests are an (Sasse and Pekins 1996, p. 95). Work on 1979, p. 407), early July in Iowa (Sasse important habitat type for foraging Prince Edward Island by Henderson and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 pp. 71–74). Anthropogenic for effects to northern long-eared bats by northern long-eared bats traveling modifications to cave and mine hibernacula collapse, responses varied, approximately 1,100 m (3,609 ft) entrances, such as the addition of with the following number of between roosting and foraging areas. restrictive gates or other structures hibernacula in each State reported (not intended to exclude humans, may not all States surveyed responded) as Summary of Factors Affecting the only alter flight characteristics and susceptible to collapse: 1 (of 7) in Species access (Spanjer and Fenton 2005, p. Maryland, 3 (of 11) in Minnesota, 1 (of Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 1110), but may change airflow and alter 5) in New Hampshire, 4 (of 15) in North and its implementing regulations at 50 internal microclimates of the caves and Carolina, 1 (of 2) in South Carolina, and CFR part 424, set forth the procedures mines, eliminating their utility as 1 (of 13) in Vermont (Service 2011, for adding species to the Federal Lists hibernacula (Service 2007, p. 71). For unpublished data). Previous and current of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife example, Richter et al. (1993, p. 409) mining operations pose a direct threat to and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the attributed the decline in the number of northern long-eared bat from mine Act, we may list a species based on any Indiana bats at Wyandotte Cave, Indiana collapse in parts of its range. of the following five factors: (A) The (which harbors one of the largest known Before Federal and State cave present or threatened destruction, population of hibernating Indiana bats), protection laws were put in place, there modification, or curtailment of its to an increase in the cave’s temperature were several reported instances where habitat or range; (B) overutilization for resulting from restricted airflow caused mines were closed while bats were commercial, recreational, scientific, or by a stone wall erected at the cave’s hibernating, thereby entombing entire educational purposes; (C) disease or entrance. After the wall was removed, colonies (Tuttle and Taylor 1998, p. 8). predation; (D) the inadequacy of the number of Indiana bats increased For the northern long-eared bat, loss of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) markedly over the next 14 years (Richter potential winter habitat through mine other natural or manmade factors et al. 1993, p. 412; Brack et al. 2003, p. closures has been noted as a concern in affecting its continued existence. Listing 67). Similarly, northern long-eared bats Virginia, although visual inspections of actions may be warranted based on any were likely negatively impacted when openings are typically conducted to of the above threat factors, singly or in the entrance to John Friend Cave in determine whether gating is warranted combination. Each of these factors is Maryland was filled with large rocks in (Reynolds 2011, unpublished data). In discussed below. 1981, which closed the only known Nebraska, closing quarries, and We have carefully assessed the best access to the cave (Gates et al. 1984, p. specifically sealing quarries in Cass and scientific and commercial information 166). We conclude, based on the need Sapry Counties, is considered a available regarding the past, present, for specific hibernation requirements of potential threat to northern long-eared and future threats to the northern long- any cave-hibernating bat, that alteration bats (Geluso 2011, unpublished data). eared bat. There are several factors of hibernacula could result in adverse In general, threats to the integrity of presented below that affect the northern impacts to individual northern long- bat hibernacula have decreased since long-eared bat to a greater or lesser eared bats. the Indiana bat was listed as endangered degree; however, we have found that no In addition to the direct access in 1967, and since the implementation other threat is as severe and immediate modifications to caves discussed above, of Federal and State cave protection to the northern long-eared bat’s debris buildup at entrances or on cave laws and abandoned mine reclamation persistence as the disease, white-nose gates can also significantly modify the programs. Increasing awareness about syndrome (WNS), discussed below cave or mine site characteristics by the importance of cave and mine under Factor C. WNS is currently the restricting airflow and the course of microclimates to hibernating bats and predominant threat to the species, and natural water flow. Water flow regulation under the Act have helped to if WNS had not emerged or was not restriction could lead to flooding, thus alleviate the destruction or modification affecting the northern long-eared bat drowning hibernating bats (Amelon and of hibernation habitat, at least where the populations to the level that it has, we Burhans 2006, p. 72). For example, in Indiana bat and gray bat (Myotis presume the species’ would not be Minnesota, 5 of the 11 known northern grisescens) are present (Service 2007, p. experiencing the dramatic declines that long-eared bat hibernacula are subject to 74). The northern long-eared bat has it has since WNS emerged. Therefore, flooding, presenting a threat to likely benefited from the protections although we have included brief hibernating bats (Nordquist 2012, pers. given to the Indiana bat and the gray bat discussions of other factors affecting the comm.). Flooding has been noted in and their winter habitat, in areas where species, the focus of the discussion hibernacula in other States within the its range overlaps with those species’ below is on WNS. range of the northern long-eared bat, but ranges. to a lesser degree. Although Disturbance of Hibernating Bats Factor A. The Present or Threatened modifications to hibernacula can lead to Destruction, Modification, or mortality of northern long-eared bats, Human disturbance of hibernating Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range we do not conclude it has resulted in bats has long been considered a threat population-level effects. to cave-hibernating bat species like the Hibernation Habitat Mining operations, mine passage northern long-eared bat, and is Modifications to bat hibernacula, by collapse (subsidence), and mine discussed in detail in the Service’s erecting physical barriers (e.g., doors, reclamation activities can also affect Indiana Bat Draft Recovery Plan (Service gates), to control cave and mine access bats and their hibernacula. Internal and 2007, pp. 80–85). The primary forms of can affect the microclimate of the external collapse of abandoned coal human disturbance to hibernating bats subterranean habitat, and thus the mines was identified as one of the results from cave commercialization ability of the cave or mine to support primary threats to northern long-eared (cave tours and other commercial uses hibernating bats, including the northern bat hibernacula at sites located within of caves), recreational caving, long-eared bat. These well-documented the New River Gorge National River and vandalism, and research-related effects on cave-hibernating bat species Gauley River National Recreation Area activities (Service 2007, p. 80). Arousal were discussed in the Service’s Indiana in West Virginia (Graham 2011, during hibernation causes the greatest Bat Draft Recovery Plan (Service 2007, unpublished data). In States surveyed amount of energy depletion in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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. of hibernacula (e.g., one case of shooting and 2006, there was a net loss of 1.2 477). Human disturbance at disturbance in Maryland and one case of percent of forest across the United hibernacula, specifically non-tactile bat torching in Massachusetts where States with most losses in the Southeast disturbance such as changes in light and approximately 100 bats (northern long- and West, and a net loss of interior sound, can cause bats to arouse more eared bats and other species) were forest (a forest parcel embedded in a 40- frequently, causing premature energy killed) (Service, unpublished data), but acre landscape that has at least 90 store depletion and starvation, as well we do not have evidence that this is percent forest land cover) of 4.3 percent as increased tactile disturbance amongst happening on a large enough scale to (USFS 2014, p. 18) throughout the bats (Thomas 1995, p. 944; Speakman et have population-level effects. continental United States, which al. 1991, p. 1103), leading to marked In summary, while there are isolated increased forest fragmentation and incidents of previous disturbance to reductions in bat populations (Tuttle smaller remaining forest patches. There northern long-eared bats from both 1979, p. 3). Prior to the outbreak of is some evidence that northern long- WNS, Amelon and Burhans (2006, p. intentional disturbance and recreational eared bats have an affinity for less 73) indicated that ‘‘the widespread use of caves and mines, we conclude fragmented habitat (interior forest) recreational use of caves and indirect or that there is no evidence suggesting that direct disturbance by humans during this threat in itself has led to (Broders et al. 2006, p. 1181; Henderson the hibernation period pose the greatest population-level declines. et al. 2008, p. 1825). Also, forest ownership varies widely across the known threat to this species (northern Summer Habitat long-eared bat).’’ Olson et al. (2011, p. species’ range in the United States. 228), hypothesized that an increase in As discussed in detail in the Private lands may carry with them a the hibernating bat population Background (Biology, ‘‘I. Summer Roost higher risk for conversion than do (including northern long-eared bats) was Characteristics’’) section, above, public forests, a factor that must be related to decreased visits by northern long-eared bats require forest considered when assessing risk of forest recreational users and researchers at for roosting, raising young, foraging, and conversion now and in the future. Cadomin Cave in Alberta, Canada. commuting between roosting and Private land ownership is Bilecki (2003, p. 55) states that the foraging habitat. Northern long-eared approximately 81 percent in the East reduction of four species of bats, bats will also roost in manmade and 30 percent in the West (USFS 2014, including the northern long-eared bat, structures, to a lesser extent. The two p. 15). common causes of loss or modification was ‘‘directly related to high human use Some of the highest rates of and abuse’’ of a cave. Disturbance of habitat are conversion of forest for other land use and forest modification. development in the conterminous during hibernation could cause United States are occurring within the movements within or between caves I. Forest Conversion range of the northern long-eared bat (Beer 1955, p. 244). Of 14 States that assessed the Forest conversion is the loss of forest (Brown et al. 2005, p. 1856), and possibility of human disturbance at bat to another land cover type (e.g., contribute to loss of forest habitat. The hibernacula within the range of the grassland, cropland, development) and 2010 Resources Planning Act (RPA) northern long-eared bat, 13 identified at may result in: Loss of suitable roosting Assessment (USFS 2012) summarized least 1 known hibernacula as potentially or foraging habitat; fragmentation of findings about the status, trends, and impacted by human disturbance remaining forest patches, leading to projected future of U.S. forests. This (Service 2012, unpublished data). Eight longer flights between suitable roosting assessment was influenced by a set of of these 14 States (Arkansas, Kentucky, and foraging habitat; removal of scenarios with varying assumptions Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, (fragmenting colonies/networks) travel with regard to global and U.S. North Carolina, South Carolina, and corridors; and direct injury or mortality population, economic growth, climate Vermont) indicated the potential for (during active season clearing). While change, wood energy consumption, and human disturbance at over 50 percent of forest conversion may occur throughout land use change from 2010 to 2060. It the known hibernacula in that State. all States within the species’ range, projects forest losses of 6.5–13.8 million Nearly all States without WNS impacts to the northern long-eared bat ha (16–34 million acres or 4–8 percent identified human disturbance as the and their habitat typically occur at a of 2007 forest area) across the primary threat to hibernating bats, and more local-scale (i.e., individuals and conterminous United States, and forest all others (including WNS-positive potentially colonies). loss is expected to be concentrated in States) noted human disturbance as the The USFS (2014, p. 7) summarized the southern United States, with losses next greatest threat after WNS or of U.S. forest trends and found a decline of 3.6–8.5 million ha (9–21 million significant concern (Service 2012, from 1850 to the early 1900s, and a acres) (USFS 2012, p. 12). unpublished data). general leveling off since that time; The threat of commercial use of caves therefore, conversion from forest to Wind energy development continues and mines during the hibernation other land cover types has been fairly to increase throughout the northern period has decreased at many sites stable with conversion to forest long-eared bat’s range. Iowa, Illinois, known to harbor Indiana bats, and we (cropland reversion/plantings). For Oklahoma, Minnesota, Kansas, and New conclude that this also applies to example, according to the U.S. Forest York are amongst the top 10 States for northern long-eared bats. However, Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis, wind energy capacity (installed projects) effects from recreational caving are more the amount of forested land within the in the United States (American Wind difficult to assess. In addition to 37 States and the District of Columbia Energy Association (AWEA) 2013, unintended effects of commercial and of the northern long-eared bat’s range unpaginated). If projects are sited in recreational caving, intentional killing increased from 414,297,531 acres in forested habitats, effects from wind of bats in caves by shooting, burning, 2004 and 2005, to 423,585,498 acres in energy development may include tree- and clubbing has been documented 2013 (Association of Fish and Wildlife clearings associated with turbine (Tuttle 1979, pp. 4, 8). Intentional Agencies 2014, in litt; Miles 2014, placement, road construction, turbine killing of northern long-eared bats has http://apps.fs.fed.us/Evalidator/ lay-down areas, transmission lines, and been documented at a small percentage evalidator.jsp). However, between 2001 substations. See Factor E. Other

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17991

Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting depending on the extent of removal and torpor. Entering torpor comes at a cost Its Continued Existence for a Discussion the amount of remaining suitable of delayed parturition; bats born earlier on Effects to Bats From the Operation of roosting and foraging habitat. in the year have a greater chance of Wind Turbines Some portions of the northern long- surviving their first winter and breeding Surface coal mining is common in the eared bat’s range are more forested than in their first year of life (Frick et al. others. In areas with little forest or central Appalachian region, which 2010b, p. 133). Delayed parturition may highly fragmented forests (e.g., western includes portions of Pennsylvania, West also be costly because young of the year U.S. edge of the range, central Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and and adult females would have less time Midwestern states; see Figure 1, above), Tennessee, and is one of the major to prepare for hibernation (Broders et al. impact of forest loss would be drivers of land cover change in the 2013, p. 1180). Female northern long- disproportionately greater than similar- region (Sayler 2008, unpaginated). eared bats typically roost colonially, sized losses in heavily forested areas Surface coal mining may also destroy with their largest population counts (e.g., Appalachians and northern forest habitat in parts of the Illinois occurring in the spring (Foster and forests). Also, the impact of habitat loss Basin in southwest Indiana, western Kurta 1999, p. 667), presumably as one within a northern long-eared bat’s home Kentucky, and Illinois (King 2013, pers. way to reduce thermal costs for range is expected to vary depending on individual bats (Foster and Kurta 1999, comm.). the scope of removal. Northern long- Natural gas extraction is expanding p. 667). Therefore, similar to other eared bats are flexible in which tree across the United States, particularly temperate bats, northern long-eared bats species they select as roosts, and roost throughout the range of the northern have multiple high metabolic demands trees are an ephemeral resource; long-eared bat. Natural gas extraction (particularly in spring), and must have therefore, the species likely can tolerate involves fracturing rock formations sufficient suitable roosting and foraging some loss of roosts, provided suitable habitat available in relatively close using highly pressurized water and alternative roosts are available. Silvis et other various chemicals (Hein 2012, p. proximity to allow for successful al. (2014, pp. 283–290) modeled roost reproduction. 1). Natural gas extraction and loss of northern long-eared bats, and In summary, U.S. forest area trends transmission, particularly across the Silvis et al. (2015, pp. 1–17) removed have remained relatively stable with Marcellus Shale region, which includes known northern long-eared bat roosts some geographic regions facing more large portions of New York, during the winter in the field to conversion than others in the recent Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, determine how this would impact the is expected to expand over the coming species. Once removals totaled 20–30 past. In the future, forest conversion is years. In Pennsylvania, for example, percent of known roosts, a single expected to increase, whether from nearly 2,000 Marcellus natural gas wells maternity colony network started commercial or residential development, have already been drilled or permitted, showing patterns of break-up. Sociality energy production, or other pressures on and if development trends continue, as is hypothesized to increase reproductive forest lands. While monitoring efforts many as 60,000 more could be built by success (Silvis et al. 2014, p. 283), and for impacts to northern long-eared bats 2030 (Johnson 2010, pp. 8, 13). Habitat smaller colonies would be expected to from forest conversion did not often necessary for establishing maternity have reduced reproductive success. occur in the past, we expect that colonies and foraging may be lost and Longer flights to find alternative impacts likely occurred, but the species degraded due to the practice of forest suitable habitat and colonial disruption appears to have been resilient to these clearing for well pads and associated may result from removal of roosting or impacts prior to the emergence of WNS. infrastructures (e.g., roads, pipelines, foraging habitat. Northern long-eared In areas where WNS is present, there are and water impoundments). These bats emerge from hibernation with their additional energetic demands for actions could decrease the amount of lowest annual fat reserves, and return to northern long-eared bats. For example, suitable interior forest habitat available their summer home ranges. Because WNS-affected bats have less fat reserves to northern long-eared bats. northern long-eared bats have summer than non-WNS-affected bats when they There are a variety of reasons forests home range fidelity (Foster and Kurta emerge from hibernation (Reeder et al. are being converted (e.g., urban 1999, p. 665; Patriquin et al. 2010, p. 2012, p. 8; Warnecke et al. 2012, p. development, energy production, and 908; Broders et al. 2013, p. 1180), loss 7001) and have wing damage (Meteyer transmission) within the range of the or alteration of forest habitat may put et al. 2009, p. 412; Reichard and Kunz northern long-eared bat. Impacts to additional stress on females when 2009, p. 458) that makes migration and northern long-eared bats from loss of returning to summer roost or foraging foraging more challenging. Females that forest vary depending on the timing, areas after hibernation. Females (often survive the migration to their summer location, and extent of the removal. pregnant) have limited energy reserves habitat must partition energy resources While bats can sometimes flee during available for use if forced to seek out between foraging, keeping warm, tree removal, removal of occupied roosts new roosts or foraging areas. successful pregnancy and pup-rearing, (during spring through fall) is likely to Hibernation and reproduction are the and healing. Current and future forest result in direct injury or mortality to most energetically demanding periods conversion may have negative additive some northern long-eared bats. This is for temperate-zone bats, including the impacts where the species has been particularly likely during cool spring northern long-eared bat (Broders et al. impacted by WNS. Impacts from forest months (when bats enter torpor) and if 2013, p. 1174). Bats may reduce conversion to individuals or colonies flightless pups or inexperienced flying metabolic costs of foraging by would be expected to range from juveniles are also present. Removal of concentrating efforts in areas of known indirect impact (e.g., minor amounts of forest outside of northern long-eared bat high prey profitability, a benefit that forest removal in areas outside northern summer home range, or away from could result from the bat’s local roosting long-eared bat summer home ranges or hibernacula, would not likely directly and home range knowledge and site away from hibernacula) to minor (e.g., impact the species. However, removal of fidelity (Broders et al. 2013, p. 1181). largely forested areas, areas with robust forest within a summer home range Cool spring temperatures provide an northern long-eared bat populations) to (regardless of when it is removed) may additional energetic demand, as bats significant (e.g., removal of a large negatively impact the species, need to stay sufficiently warm or enter percentage of summer home range,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 17992 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

highly fragmented landscapes, areas forest conditions because they may et al. 2003, p. 355). When comparing with WNS impacts). receive greater solar radiation, which use and availability of habitats, northern may increase developmental rates of long-eared bats preferred diameter-limit II. Forest Management young or permit young bats a greater harvests and forest roads. In Alberta, Unlike forest conversion, forest opportunity to conduct successful Canada, northern long-eared bats management maintains forest habitat on initial flights (Perry and Thill 2007, p. avoided the center of clearcuts and the landscape, and the impacts from 224). Cryan et al. (2001, p. 49) found foraged more in intact forest than management activities are for the most several reproductive and expected (Patriquin and Barclay 2003, p. part considered temporary in nature. nonreproductive female northern long- 654). On Prince Edward Island, Canada, Forest management includes multiple eared bat roost areas in recently female northern long-eared bats practices, and this section specifically harvested (less than 5 years) stands in preferred open areas less than forested addresses timber harvest. Timber the Black Hills of South Dakota in areas, with foraging areas centered along harvesting includes a wide variety of which snags and small stems (dbh of 2 forest-covered creeks (Henderson and practices from selected harvest of to 6 inches (5 to 15 cm)) were the only Broders 2008, pp. 956–958). In mature individual trees to clearcutting. Impacts trees left standing; however, the largest forests in South Carolina, 10 of the 11 from forest management would be colony (n = 41) was found in a mature stands in which northern long-eared expected to range from positive (e.g., forest stand that had not been harvested bats were detected were mature stands maintaining or increasing suitable in more than 50 years. (Loeb and O’Keefe 2006, p. 1215). roosting and foraging habitat within Forest size and continuity are also Within those mature stands, northern northern long-eared bat home ranges) to factors that define the quality of habitat long-eared bats were more likely to be neutral (e.g., minor amounts forest for roost sites for northern long-eared recorded at points with sparse or removal, areas outside northern long- bats. Lacki and Schwierjohann (2001, p. medium vegetation rather than points eared bat summer home ranges or away 487) stated that silvicultural practices with dense vegetation, suggesting that from hibernacula) to negative (e.g., could meet both male and female some natural gaps within mature forests death of adult females or pups or both). roosting requirements by maintaining can provide good foraging habitat for The best available data indicate that large-diameter snags, while allowing for northern long-eared bats (Loeb and the northern long-eared bat shows a regeneration of forests. Henderson et al. O’Keefe 2006, pp. 1215–1217). varied degree of sensitivity to timber (2008, p. 1825) also found that forest However, in southwestern North harvesting practices. For example, fragmentation effects northern long- Carolina, Loeb and O’Keefe (2011, p. Menzel et al. (2002, p. 112) found eared bats at different scales based on 175) found that northern long-eared bats northern long-eared bats roosting in sex; females require a larger rarely used forest openings, but often intensively managed stands in West unfragmented area with a large number used roads. Forest trails and roads may Virginia; indicating that there were of suitable roost trees to support a provide small gaps for foraging and sufficient suitable roosts (primarily colony, whereas males are able to use cover from predators (Loeb and O’Keefe snags) remaining for their use. At the smaller, more fragmented areas. 2011, p. 175). In general, northern long- same study site, Owen et al. (2002, p. 4) Henderson and Broders (2008, pp. 959– eared bats prefer intact mixed-type concluded that northern long-eared bats 960) examined how female northern forests with small gaps (i.e., forest trails, roosted in areas with abundant snags, long-eared bats use the forest- small roads, or forest-covered creeks) in and that in intensively managed forests agricultural landscape on Prince forest with sparse or medium vegetation in the central Appalachians, roost Edward Island, Canada, and found that for forage and travel rather than availability was not a limiting factor. bats were limited in their mobility and fragmented habitat or areas that have Northern long-eared bats often chose activities are constrained when suitable been clearcut. black locust and black cherry as roost forest is limited. However, they also Impacts to northern long-eared bats trees, which were quite abundant and found that bats in a relatively from forest management would be often regenerate quickly after fragmented area used a building for expected to vary depending on the disturbance (e.g., timber harvest). colony roosting, which suggests an timing of removal, location (within or Similarly, Perry and Thill (2007, p. 222) alternative for a colony to persist in an outside northern long-eared bat home tracked northern long-eared bats in area with fewer available roost trees. range), and extent of removal. While central Arkansas and found roosts were In addition to impacts on roost sites, bats can flee during tree removal, located in eight forest classes with 89 we consider effects of forest removal of occupied roosts (during percent in three classes of mixed pine- management practices on foraging and spring through fall) is likely to result in hardwood forest. The three classes of traveling behaviors of northern long- direct injury or mortality to some mixed pine-hardwood forest that eared bats. In southeastern Missouri, the percentage of northern long-eared bats. supported the majority of the roosts northern long-eared bat showed a This percentage would be expected to were partially harvested or thinned, preference for contiguous tracts of forest be greater if flightless pups or unharvested (50–99 years old), and cover (rather than fragmented or wide inexperienced flying juveniles were also group selection harvest (Perry and Thill open landscapes) for foraging or present. Forest management outside of 2007, pp. 223–224). traveling, and different forest types northern long-eared bat summer home Certain levels of timber harvest may interspersed on the landscape increased ranges or away from hibernacula would result in canopy openings, which could likelihood of occupancy (Yates and not be expected to result in impacts to result in more rapid development of bat Muzika 2006, p. 1245). Similarly, in this species. However, forest young. In central Arkansas, Perry and West Virginia, female northern long- management within a summer home Thill (2007, pp. 223–224) found female eared bats spent most of their time range (regardless of when it is removed) bat roosts were more often located in foraging or travelling in intact forest, may result in impacts to this species, areas with partial harvesting than males, diameter-limit harvests (70–90 year-old depending on the extent of removal and with more male roosts (42 percent) in stands with 30–40 percent of basal area amount of remaining suitable roosting unharvested stands than female roosts removed in the past 10 years), and road and foraging habitat. (24 percent). They postulated that corridors, with no use of deferment Unlike forest conversion, forest females roosted in relatively more open harvests (similar to clearcutting) (Owen management is not usually expected to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 unpublished data). In addition, the NPS northern long-eared bats, forest roosting or foraging habitat for northern is properly gating abandoned coal mine conversion is expected to increase due long-eared bats. On the contrary, forest entrances, using a ‘‘bat-friendly’’ design, to commercial and urban development, management is expected to maintain a as funding permits (Graham 2011, energy production and transmission, forest over the long term for the species. unpublished data). All known and natural changes. Forest conversion However, localized long-term hibernacula within national grasslands can result in a myriad of effects to the reductions in suitable roosting and/or and forestlands of the Rocky Mountain species, including direct loss of habitat, foraging habitat can occur from various Region of the USFS are closed during fragmentation of remaining habitat, and forest practices (e.g., clearcuts). As the winter hibernation period, primarily direct injury or mortality. Forest stated above, northern long-eared bats due to the threat of WNS, although this management activities, unlike forest have been found in forests that have will reduce disturbance to bats in conversion, typically result in been managed to varying degrees, and as general inhabiting these hibernacula temporary (non-permanent) impacts to long as there is sufficient suitable (USFS 2013, unpaginated). Because of northern long-eared bat summer habitat. roosting and foraging habitat within concern over the importance of bat The impact of management activities their home range and travel corridors roosts, including hibernacula, the may be positive, neutral, or negative to between those areas, we would expect American Society of Mammalogists the northern long-eared bat depending northern long-eared bat colonies to developed guidelines for protection of on scale, the management practice, and continue to occur in managed roosts, many of which have been timing. However, these potential landscapes. However, in areas with adopted by government agencies and impacts can be greatly reduced with the WNS, we believe northern long-eared special interest groups (Sheffield et al. use of measures that avoid or minimize bats are likely less resilient to stressors 1992, p. 707). effects to bats and their habitat. and maternity colonies are smaller. Many States are also taking a Potential benefits to the species from Given the low inherent reproductive proactive stance to conserve and restore forest management practices include potential of northern long-eared bats forest and riparian habitats with specific keeping forest on the landscape and (max of one pup per female), death of focus on maintaining forest patches and creation and management of roosting adult females or pups or both during connectivity. For example, Montana is and foraging habitat (from some forest tree felling reduces the long-term developing best management practices management practices). viability of those colonies. for riparian habitat protection. Other Many activities continue to pose a States have established habitat threat to the summer and winter Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat protection buffers around known habitats of northern long-eared bats. Destruction, Modification, or Indiana bat hibernacula that will also While, these activities alone were Curtailment of Its Range serve to benefit northern long-eared bat unlikely to have significant, population- Although there are various forms of by maintaining sufficient quality and level effects, there is now likely a habitat destruction and disturbance that quantity of swarming habitat. Some cumulative effect on the species in present potential adverse effects to the States have also limited tree-clearing portions of range that have been northern long-eared bat, they are not activities to the winter, as a measure impacted by WNS. Also, there have considered the predominant threat to that would protect maternity colonies been numerous conservation efforts the species. Even if all habitat-related and non-volant pups during summer directed at lessening the effects of stressors were eliminated or minimized, months. Many States are undertaking habitat destruction or disturbance on the significant effects of WNS on the research and monitoring efforts to gain the species, including cross-State and northern long-eared bat would remain. more information about habitat needs of cross-agency collaboration on habitat Therefore, below we present a few and use by northern long-eared bat. restoration and hibernacula protection. examples, but not a comprehensive list, of conservation efforts that have been Summary of the Present or Threatened Factor B. Overutilization for undertaken to lessen effects from habitat Destruction, Modification, or Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or destruction or disturbance to the Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Educational Purposes northern long-eared bat. We have identified several potential There are very few records of the Direct protection of caves and mines threats to the northern long-eared bat northern long-eared bat being collected can be accomplished through due to impacts to their winter and specifically for commercial, installation of bat-friendly gates that summer habitats. Winter habitat may be recreational, scientific, or educational allow passage of bats while reducing impacted by both human and non- purposes, and thus we do not consider disturbance from human entry as well human modification of hibernacula, such collection activities to pose a as changes to the cave microclimate particularly damaging is the altering or threat to the species. Disturbance of from air restrictions. One of the threats closing of hibernacula entrances. These hibernating bats as a result of to bats in Michigan is the closure of modifications can lead to a partial or recreational use and scientific research unsafe mines in such a way that bats are complete loss of utility as hibernacula. activities in hibernacula is discussed trapped within or excluded; however, Humans can also disturb hibernating under Factor A. there have been efforts by the Michigan bats, either directly or indirectly, Department of Natural Resources and potentially resulting in an increase in Factor C. Disease or Predation others to work with landowners who energy consuming arousal bouts during Disease have open mines to encourage them to hibernation (Thomas 1995, pp. 940–945; install bat-friendly gates to close mines Johnson et al. 1998, pp. 255–260). I. White-Nose Syndrome to humans, but allow access to bats Human disturbance at hibernacula has White-nose syndrome (WNS) is an (Hoving 2011, unpublished data). The been identified by many States as the emerging infectious wildlife disease that NPS has proactively taken steps to next greatest threat after WNS. poses a considerable threat to minimize effects to underground bat During the summer, northern long- hibernating bat species throughout habitat resulting from vandalism, eared bat habitat loss is primarily due to North America (Service 2011, p. 1). recreational activities, and abandoned forest conversion and forest WNS is responsible for unprecedented mine closures (Plumb and Budde 2011, management. Throughout the range of mortality of insectivorous bats in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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. Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, the detection of the causative fungus, Pd 2009, p. 227; Turner et al. 2011, pp. 13, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, (Lorch et al. 2011, pp. 376–379; Muller 22). The first evidence of the disease (a Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, et al. 2013, pp. 253–259), on bats within photo of bats with fungus) was New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, those States, but no mortality or other documented at Howes Cave in Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, signs of the disease have been Schoharie County, New York, 32 mi (52 Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West documented at those locations as of km) west of Albany, on February 16, Virginia, and Wisconsin) and 5 December 2014. Evidence suggestive of 2006, but WNS was not actually Canadian provinces (New Brunswick, the presence of Pd on one bat in discovered until January 2007, when it Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Oklahoma was recently reassessed, and was found at four additional caves Island, and Quebec). Although WNS has it was concluded that those initial around Schoharie County (Blehert et al. not been confirmed in Rhode Island (2 findings are no longer supported 2009, p. 227). Since that time, WNS has known hibernacula) or the District of (United States Geologic Survey (USGS) spread rapidly throughout the Columbia (no known hibernacula), their Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and size and proximity to heavily impacted 2014, p. 1). Therefore, Oklahoma is no eastern Canada. As of February 2015, WNS-confirmed States make it longer considered a suspect (meaning WNS has been confirmed (meaning one reasonable to conclude that bat Pd confirmed) State for WNS. Table 1 or more bats in the State have been populations are also affected by WNS (below) provides a summary of the analyzed and confirmed with the there. Three additional States (Iowa, States in which WNS is currently disease) in 25 States (Alabama, Minnesota, and Mississippi) are present. Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, considered suspect for WNS based on

Documented WNS State or district WNS present? First winter WNS confirmed 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 high mortality and others showing low (Corynorhinus rafinesquii), Virginia big- hibernating bats have been confirmed or no appreciable population-level eared bat (C. townsendii virginianus), with WNS to date: big brown bat, gray effects (Turner et al. 2011, p. 13). The silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris bat, eastern small-footed bat, little fungus that causes WNS has been noctivagans), eastern red bat (Lasiurus brown bat, northern long-eared bat, detected on five additional species, but borealis), and southeastern bat (Myotis Indiana bat, and tricolored bat. The with no evidence of the infection austroriparius). effect of WNS appears to vary greatly by characteristic of the disease; these The impacts of WNS on North species, with several species exhibiting include Rafinesque’s big-eared bat American bat populations have been

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:09 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17995

substantial. Service and State biologists part of fungus) is the white filamentous capable of infecting a wide variety of bat estimate that at least 5.7 million to 6.7 growth visible on the muzzle, ears, or hosts across a large spatial scale. million bats of several species have died flight membranes (wings and tail) of Bats affected by WNS are from WNS (Service 2012, p. 1). Dzal et affected bats that is characteristic of characterized by some or all of the al. (2011, p. 393) documented a 78 WNS. Epidermal (skin) erosions that are following signs: (1) Excessive or percent decline in the summer activity filled with fungal hyphae (branching, unexplained mortality at or near the of little brown bats in New York State, filamentous structures of fungi) are the hibernaculum; (2) visible fungal growth coinciding with the arrival and spread diagnostic standard for WNS (Blehert et on wing and tail membranes, the of WNS, suggesting large-scale al. 2009, p. 227; Meteyer 2009, p. 412). muzzle, or the ears of live or recently population effects. Turner et al. (2011, Pd grows optimally at temperatures dead bats; (3) abnormal behaviors p. 22) reported an 88 percent decline in from 5 to 16 °C (41 to 61 °F), the same including conspicuous daytime activity the number of all hibernating bats at 42 temperature range at which North outside of the hibernaculum, shifts of sites across New York, Pennsylvania, American bats typically hibernate large numbers to the cold areas near the entrance or elsewhere in the Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. (Blehert et al. 2009, p. 227; Verant et al. hibernaculum, and decreased arousal Furthermore, Frick et al. (2010a, p. 681) 2012, p. 4). The temperature in caves with human disturbance inside concluded that the little brown bat, that serve as bat hibernacula ranges formerly the most common bat in the hibernaculum (torpid bats responding to from 2 to 14 °C (36 to 57 °F), permitting northeastern United States, is noise and vibrations in the cave); (4) year-round persistence and growth of undergoing catastrophic declines in the moderate to severe wing damage in the fungus on cave substrates, allowing region due to WNS, and is at risk of nontorpid bats; and (5) and depleted fat regional extirpation in the near future. such hibernacula to serve as a reservoir reserves by mid-winter (USGS, NWHC Similarly, Thogmartin et al. (2013, p. for maintaining the fungus through 2012, p. 1; Service 2011, p. 2). Although 171) predicted that WNS is likely to summer months in the absence of bats the exact process or processes by which extirpate the federally endangered (Blehert et al. 2009, p. 227; Reynolds et WNS leads to death remains Indiana bat over large parts of its range. al. 2015, unpaginated). Growth is unconfirmed, we do know that the While recent models by Ingersoll et al. relatively slow at optimal temperatures fungal infection is responsible, and it is ° ° (2013, p. 8) have raised some questions (5 to 16 C (41 to 61 F)), and no growth possible that reduced immune function ° about the status of bat populations prior occurs at temperatures above 21.4 C (75 during torpor compromises the ability of ° to the arrival of WNS, the empirical F) (Blehert et al. 2009, p. 227; Verant hibernating bats to combat the infection evidence from surveys of six species of et al. 2012, pp. 4, 6). Although Pd does (Bouma et al. 2010, p. 623; Moore et al. hibernating bats in New York State, not grow above 21.4 °C, it is known to 2011, p. 10; Moore et al. 2013, pp. 6– revealed populations that were likely remain viable for extended periods of 7; Reeder et al. 2012, p. 8; Johnson et stable or increasing prior to the time above that temperature (Lorch et al. 2014, unpaginated). It has also been emergence of WNS (Service 2011, p. 1). al. 2013, p. 237; Hoyt et al. 2014, pp. 2– hypothesized that immune Subsequent to the emergence of WNS, 3). Declines in Indiana bats have been reconstitution inflammatory syndrome decreases in some species of bats at greater under more humid conditions, (IRIS) causes mortality when systemic affected hibernacula have ranged from suggesting that growth of the fungus and Pd-infections established during torpor 30 to 100 percent (Frick et al. 2010a, p. either intensity or prevalence of initiate a massive inflammatory 680; Turner et al. 2011, pp. 16–19, 22). infections are higher in more humid response when the infected bat emerges The pattern of spread of WNS has conditions (Langwig et al. 2012, p. from hibernation (Meteyer et al. 2012, generally followed predictable 1055). However, the effect of humidity pp. 585, 587). trajectories along recognized migratory on impacts of WNS in bat populations No information was known about Pd pathways and overlapping summer may vary among species. Furthermore, and WNS prior to 2007. Early working ranges of hibernating bat species, with fungal load and prevalence varies hypotheses demonstrated that it was not some exception. The range expansion of among species in WNS-infected sites known whether WNS-affected bats WNS and Pd has not only been limited (Langwig et al. 2015, p. 4). before the hibernation season began or to known migratory movements of bats. if bats arrived at hibernacula sites Although Pd has been isolated from Kunz and Reichard (2010, p. 12) assert unaffected and entered hibernation with numerous bat species in Europe, it is that WNS is spread and transmitted sufficient fat stores (WNS Science mainly through bat-to-bat contact; hypothesized that these species have Strategy Group 2008, p. 7). Hibernating however, evidence suggests that fungal evolved in the presence of the fungus bats rely on stored fats to survive winter spores can be transmitted by humans (Wibbelt et al. 2010, p. 1241). Pikula et months, when insect prey is not (USGS National Wildlife Health Center al. (2012, p. 210) confirmed that bats available. In a related study, 12 of 14 (NWHC), Wildlife Health Bulletin 2011– found dead in the Czech Republic bats (10 little brown bats, 1 big-brown 05, unpaginated), and bats can also exhibited lesions consistent with WNS bat, and 1 tri-colored bat) had become infected by coming into contact infection; however, the authors also appreciable degree of fat stores, even with contaminated cave substrate stated that the lesions were not believed though they were infected with WNS (Darling and Hicks 2012, pers. comm.). to have contributed to the cause of death and were on the lower end of the White-nose syndrome is caused by the for those individuals. In all, there are normal range of body weight (Courtin et psychrophilic (cold-loving) fungus Pd, now 12 European bat species, including al. 2010, p. 214). Further research has which is likely exotic to North America, one Rhinolophid in the sub-order lead scientists to suggest that bats are and only recently arrived on the Megachiroptera, that have been capable of clearing fungal infections continent (Puechmaille et al. 2011, p. 8; confirmed with the WNS disease (Zukal during the summer in some areas, and Foster, pers. comm.; Warnecke et al. et al. 2014, p. 8) (based on the case are likely re-infected with Pd when they 2012, p. 7001). The fungus grows on and definitions established in North return to swarming sites or hibernacula within exposed soft tissues of America (USGS, NWHC 2014, in the fall (Langwig et al. 2015, p. 6). hibernating bats (Lorch et al. 2011, p. unpaginated)), although no mortality However, Dobony (2014, pers. comm.) 376; Gargas et al. 2009, pp. 147–154), has been documented to date in Europe. noted the presence of viable Pd in a and the resulting mycelium (vegetative This point illustrates the fact that Pd is maternity roost throughout summer

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 17996 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

months, indicating that in some northern long-eared bats due to the whether a decline happens (Service situations bats can be exposed to the disease has been confirmed throughout 2014, unpublished data). Microclimate fungus year-round. Boyles and Willis the majority of the WNS-affected range inside the cave, duration and severity of (2010, pp. 92–98) hypothesized that (Ballmann 2013, pers. comm.; Last 2013, winter, hibernating behavior, body infection by Pd alters the normal arousal pers. comm.). The observed spread of condition of bats, genetic structure of cycles of hibernating bats, particularly WNS in North America has been rapid, the colony, and other variables may by increasing arousal frequency, with the fungus that causes the disease affect the timeline and severity of duration, or both. In fact, Reeder et al. (Pd) expanding over 1,000 miles (1,609 impacts at the site level. However, there (2012, p. 5) and Warnecke et al. (2012, km) from the first documented evidence is no evidence to date that any of these p. 2) observed an increase in arousal in New York in February 2006, to 28 variables would greatly delay or reduce frequency in laboratory studies of States and 5 Canadian provinces by mortality in infected colonies. hibernating bats infected with Pd. A February 2015. Pd now affects an WNS has been present in the eastern disruption of this torpor–arousal cycle estimated 60 percent of the northern portion of the northern long-eared bat’s could cause bats to metabolize fat long-eared bat’s total geographic range, range the longest; therefore, there is a reserves too quickly, thereby leading to and is expected to continue to spread at greater amount of post-WNS starvation (Warnecke et al. 2012, p. 4). a similar rate through the rest of the hibernacula and summer data available The root cause of these increased range (Service 2015, unpublished data). from that region to discuss and examine arousal bouts remains under WNS has been confirmed in 25 of the the impacts of the disease on the investigation, but some have suggested 37 States (does not include the District species. Turner et al. (2011, p. 22) that skin irritation from the fungus of Columbia) in the range of northern compared the most recent pre-WNS might cause bats to arouse and remain long-eared bat. Furthermore, although count to the most recent post-WNS out of torpor for longer than normal to WNS has not been confirmed in Rhode count for 6 cave bat species and groom (Boyles and Willis 2010, p. 93). Island or the District of Columbia, those reported a 98 percent total decline in Routine arousal bouts serve to maintain areas are entirely surrounded by WNS. the number of hibernating northern critical conditions like water balance Although there is some variation in long-eared bats at 30 hibernacula in and immune function; however, spread dynamics and the impact of New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, arousals are energetically costly, and WNS on bats when it arrives at a new Virginia, and West Virginia through anything resulting in greater energy site, we have no information to suggest 2011. Data analyzed in this study were expenditure has the potential to cause that any site within the known range of limited to sites with confirmed WNS mortality. the northern long-eared bat would be mortality for at least 2 years and sites It has also been hypothesized that unsusceptible to the arrival of Pd. There with comparable survey effort across resulting mortality from infection of Pd is some evidence that microclimate may pre- and post-WNS years. is due specifically to fungal infection of affect fungal and disease progression The Service conducted an analysis of bats’ wings. Cryan et al. (2010, pp. 135– and there is a possibility that certain additional survey information at 103 142) suggests that mortality may be conditions may hinder disease sites across 12 U.S. States and Canadian caused by catastrophic disruption of progression in infected bats at some provinces (New York, Pennsylvania, wing-dependent physiological sites, but the degree to which this can Vermont, West Virginia, Virginia, New functions. The authors also be predicted at continental scales Hampshire, Maryland, Connecticut, hypothesized that Pd may cause remains uncertain. Given the Massachusetts, North Carolina, New dehydration, trigger thirst-associated appropriate amount of time for Jersey, and Quebec) and found arousals, cause significant circulatory exposure, WNS appears to have had comparable declines in winter colony and thermoregulatory disturbance, similar levels of impact on northern size. All 103 sites analyzed had disrupt respiratory gas exchange, and long-eared bats everywhere the species historical records of northern long-eared destroy wing structures necessary for has been documented with the disease. bat presence, at least one survey in the flight control (Cryan et al. 2010, p. 141). Therefore, absent direct evidence to 10-year period before WNS was Further, the wings of winter-collected suggest that some northern long-eared detected, and at least one survey WNS-affected bats often reveal signs of bats that encounter Pd do not contract conducted 2 or more years after WNS infection, and the degree of damage WNS, available information suggests was detected (Service 2014, observed suggests functional that the species will be impacted by unpublished data). In these sites, total impairment (Willis et al. 2011, pp. 370– WNS everywhere in its range. northern long-eared bat counts declined 371; Cryan et al. 2010, pp. 137–138). In Northern long-eared bats may favor by an average of 96 percent after the related research, Cryan et al. (2013, p. small cracks or crevices in cave ceilings, arrival of WNS; 68 percent of the sites 398) found that electrolytes tended to making locating them more challenging declined to zero northern long-eared decrease as wing damage increased in during hibernacula surveys than other bats, and 92 percent of sites declined by severity; electrolytes are necessary for species that are typically found in more than 50 percent. Similarly, Frick et maintaining physiological homeostasis, clusters in open areas (e.g., little brown al. (2015, p. 6) documented that and any imbalance could be life- bat, Indiana bat). However, winter northern long-eared bats are now threatening (Cryan et al. 2013, p. 398). surveys represent the best available data considered extirpated from 69 percent Again, although the exact proximate for assessing population trends for this of the hibernacula (in Vermont, New mechanism by which WNS affects bats species (Ingersoll et al. 2013, p. 9; York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, is still under investigation, the fact that Herzog 2015, pers. comm.). Progression and West Virginia) that had colonies of it can result in death for many from the detection of a few bats with northern long-eared bats prior to WNS. hibernating bat species is well visible fungus to widespread mortality Similar observations have been documented. may take a few weeks to 2 years (Turner documented over several years. In a et al. 2011, pp. 20–21). Although there study by Langwig et al. (2012, p. 1054), Effects of White-Nose Syndrome on the is variation in when the decline is 14 populations of northern long-eared Northern Long-Eared Bat observed (e.g., a few weeks to 2 years bats in New York, Vermont, and The northern long-eared bat is after detection of the disease), there Connecticut became locally extinct susceptible to WNS, and mortality of appears to be little or no variation as to within 2 years due to disease, and no

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17997

population was remaining 5 years post- percent in summer capture rates; in litt.). Also, in the Great Smoky WNS (Langwig et al. 2012, p. 1054). In additionally, the decline in summer Mountains National Park, 2014 capture addition, Langwig (2014, in litt.) stated captures continues at an average rate of rates of northern long-eared bats in that, in more than 50 caves and mines 15 percent annually (PGC 2014, in litt.). comparison to 2009–2012 declined by surveyed in New York, Vermont, New The fact that similar severe declines are 71 to 94 percent (across all sites) based Hampshire, Virginia, and Illinois, the documented in both summer and winter on unit of effort comparisons (NPS northern long-eared bat is extirpated estimates demonstrates that northern 2014, in litt.; Indiana State University from all sites (that had continuous long-eared bats are succumbing to WNS 2015, in litt.). Summer population population counts) where WNS has both at conspicuous hibernacula where trends are also difficult to summarize at been present for more than 4 years. they are surveyed and at undocumented this time, due to a lack of surveys or Hibernacula surveys conducted in hibernacula where they are not standardized data, although long-term Pennsylvania in 2013 revealed a 99 monitored directly. data at localized sites have shown percent decline (637 to 5 bats) at 34 sites Early reports from WNS-affected declines in northern long-eared bats. where northern long-eared bats were States in the Midwest reveal that similar All models of WNS spread dynamics known to hibernate prior to WNS (PGC rates of decline in northern long-eared predict that Pd, and hence the disease, 2013, unpublished data). In the bats are already occurring or are fast will continue to spread (Maher et al. Northeast, where WNS has been present approaching. As reported in the 2012, pp. 5–7; Ihlo 2013, unpublished; for 5 or more years, the northern long- Distribution and Relative Abundance Hallam et al., unpublished). These eared bat is only rarely encountered on section, above, in the two Ohio mines models estimate the disease will cover where an estimated 90 percent of Ohio’s the entirety of the northern long-eared the summer landscape. For example, in winter bat population hibernates, bat’s range (within the models limited Vermont, the species was the second northern long-eared bat numbers geographic limits (the United States)) by most common bat in the State before decreased by 94 percent (combined for sometime between 2 and about 40 years WNS, and it is now one of the least both hibernacula) from pre-WNS (although estimating WNS arrival dates likely to be encountered (VFWD 2014, average counts (ODNR 2014, was not a primary objective of the in litt.). Northern long-eared bats were unpublished data). During the summer, analysis; Maher et al. 2012, pp. 5–7; Ihlo also widespread throughout New York ODNR Statewide acoustic surveys show 2013, unpublished; Hallam et al., prior to WNS; however, post-WNS a decline in northern long-eared bats of unpublished). However, these models captures of this species have declined 56 percent since the pre-WNS years all have significant limitations (e.g., dramatically (approximately 93 percent) (ODNR 2014, unpublished data). failure to account for: Transmission in the eastern part of the State (NYSDEC Summer capture rates of northern long- through non-cave hibernacula, spread 2012, unpublished data). The one eared bats from mist-net surveys (mostly through Canada, and various biological potential exception in New York is the conducted for Indiana bat presence) aspects of disease transmission), and in Long Island population, where the have declined by 58 percent per mist- many instances have either species continues to be found in small net site post-WNS (Service 2014, overestimated (predicted WNS would numbers during summer surveys. unpublished data). Also, at two Illinois’ impact later) or underestimated the time However, these observations are major hibernacula, significant mortality at which WNS would arrive in counties unproven at this point and are the basis of northern long-eared bats was that have become infected since the for ongoing research. Long-term summer observed in the first year after WNS was model was published. WNS arrived to data (including pre- and post-WNS) for first detected, and the population at one surveyed sites 1 to 5 years (mean=2 the northern long-eared bat, where site experienced a 97 percent decline, years) earlier than predicted or when available, corroborate the population while the population decline at the predicted by the Ihlo (2013, decline observed during hibernacula second site was over 99 percent (Illinois unpublished) model. WNS arrived 1 to surveys. For example, summer surveys Department of Natural Resources 2014, 4 years later (mean=1 year) than from 2005–2011 near Surry Mountain unpublished data). predicted by Maher et al. (2012, pp. 1– Lake in New Hampshire showed a 98 As stated in the Distribution and 8) in approximately 75 counties; 1 to 46 percent decline in capture success of Relative Abundance section, above, in years earlier (mean=5 years) than northern long-eared bats post-WNS, the southern portion of the species’ predicted in approximately 75 counties; which is similar to the hibernacula data range, it is difficult to draw conclusions and when predicted in approximately for the State (a 95 percent decline) about winter population trends pre- and 25 counties. For example, Pd was (Moosman et al. 2013, p. 554). Likewise, post- WNS introduction (due to a lack documented in Jasper County, summer monitoring in Virginia from of surveys, historical variability of Mississippi, in 2014, 45 years in 2009 to present has revealed that winter populations, or lack of advance of predictions by Maher et al. declines in northern long-eared bats standardized data); however, northern (2012). Maher (2014, in litt.) also were not observed by VDGIF until 2 long-eared bat mortality associated with commented that the spread rate of Pd years after the severe declines were WNS has been observed at sites in may increase with longer winters, observed during winter and fall Arkansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, suggesting that spread of Pd in the monitoring efforts in the State (Reynolds and Tennessee. Also, some declines northern portion of the northern long- 2013, pers. comm.). These trends have been documented via hibernacula eared bat’s range with longer winters provide context for the indices of surveys in this region. For example, at would be faster than in portions with abundance of northern long-eared bats a hibernaculum in Arkansas, mortality shorter winters. reported in States such as Pennsylvania of northern long-eared bats was As described, there are limitations and West Virginia, where the arrival of documented in the first year of known and uncertainties with relying on these Pd at sites has been prolonged over infection with Pd (Sasse 2014, pers. models to predict the rate at which the several years (Miller-Butterworth et al. comm.). Over 70 percent of the 185 fungus will spread to currently 2014). For example, in Pennsylvania, northern long-eared bats tested for the unaffected areas. Thus, we instead declines of 99 percent of northern long- presence of Pd in Tennessee relied on the observed rate of spread to eared bats counted in winter surveys hibernacula between 2011 and 2014 date of Pd to develop a calculation of corresponded with declines of 76 were found to have Pd (Bernard 2014, projected rate of spread through the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 17998 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

remaining portion of the northern long- rates of evaporative water loss during is the expectation that the disease, eared bat’s range. WNS was first torpor. Langwig et al. (2012, p. 1055) wherever found, will continue to recorded in a cave in New York in 2006. suggested that these more humid negatively affect the species. WNS is the Based on the observed spread of Pd conditions could explain why northern predominant threat to the northern long- from its point of origin in New York that long-eared bats actually experience eared bat rangewide, and it is likely to has occurred to date, the area affected higher rates of infection than other spread to the entirety of the species’ by Pd in North America is expanding at species, such as Indiana bats. range. an average rate of roughly 175 miles Northern long-eared bats have been II. Other Diseases (280 km) per year. At this average rate reported to enter hibernation in October of spread, Pd can be expected to occur or November, but sometimes return to Infectious diseases observed in North throughout the range of the northern hibernacula as early as August, and American bat populations include long-eared bat in an estimated 8 to 9 emerge in March or April (Caire et al. rabies, histoplasmosis, St. Louis years from December 2014. The 1979, p. 405; Whitaker and Hamilton encephalitis, and Venezuelan equine COSEWIC used a similar method to 1998, p. 100; Amelon and Burhans encephalitis (Burek 2001, p. 519; calculate spread in their assessment of 2006, p. 72). This extended period of Rupprecht et al. 2001, p. 14; Yuill and 3 bat species; they estimated that the time (in comparison to many other cave Seymour 2001, pp. 100, 108). Rabies is entire range of the northern long-eared bat species that have been less impacted the most studied disease of bats, and bat would be infected within 12 to 15 by WNS) may explain observed can lead to mortality, although antibody years (COSEWIC 2013, p. xiv) from differences in fungal loads of Pd when evidence suggests that some bats may November 2013. compared to less susceptible species recover from the disease (Messenger et because the fungus has more time to Northern long-eared bats exhibit al. 2003, p. 645) and retain infect bats and grow. Langwig et al. behaviors (e.g., hibernating solitarily or immunological memory to respond to (2015, p. 4) determined that nearly 100 in small clusters, using alternative subsequent exposures (Turmelle et al. percent of northern long-eared bats hibernacula) that have been 2010, p. 2364). Bats are hosts of rabies sampled in 30 hibernacula across 6 hypothesized to potentially limit in North America (Rupprecht et al. States (New York, Vermont, exposure to Pd and reduce the impacts 2001, p. 14), accounting for 24 percent Massachusetts, Virginia, New of WNS; however, there currently is no of all wild animal cases reported during Hampshire, and Illinois) were infected 2009 (Blanton et al. 2010, p. 648). empirical evidence to suggest that these with Pd early in the hibernation period, behaviors have mitigated the impacts of Although rabies is detected in up to 25 and that northern long-eared bats had percent of bats submitted to diagnostic WNS, and the northern long-eared bat the highest Pd-load of any other species has been found to be one of the most labs for testing, less than 1 percent of in these sites. Similar patterns of high bats sampled randomly from wild highly susceptible bat species to WNS prevalence and fungal load in northern (Langwig et al. 2015, p. 4). Griffin (1945) populations test positive for the virus long-eared bats were reported by (Messenger et al. 2002, p. 741). Northern reported that northern long-eared bats Bernard (2014, pers. comm.; Bernard long-eared bat is among the species hibernate in ‘‘unsuspected retreats,’’ 2014, in litt.) for bats surveyed outside reported positive for rabies virus away from large colonies of other of hibernacula in Tennessee during the infection (Constantine 1979, p. 347; species and where caves and mines are winter. Furthermore, the northern long- Burnett 1989, p. 12; Main 1979, p. 458); not present, suggesting they may be able eared bat occasionally roosts in clusters however, rabies is not known to have to limit exposure to Pd. In the southern or in the same hibernacula as other bat appreciable effects to the species at a extent of their range, northern long- species that are also susceptible to WNS population level. eared bats have been documented (see the ‘‘Hibernation’’ section under sporadically arousing from torpor Biology, above,) and are susceptible to Histoplasmosis has not been throughout the winter and moving bat-to-bat transmission of WNS. associated with the northern long-eared between hibernacula (Griffin 1940a, p. Information provided to the Service bat and may be limited in this species 185; Whitaker and Rissler 1992a, p. 131; by a number of State agencies compared to other bats that form larger Caceres and Barclay 2000, pp. 2–3). It demonstrates that the area currently (as aggregations with greater exposure to has been suggested that these periodic of 2015) affected by WNS likely guano-rich substrate (Hoff and Bigler arousals provide a hypothetical constitutes the core of the species’ 1981, p. 192). St. Louis encephalitis mechanism by which fungal growth, range, where densities of northern long- antibody and high concentrations of and resulting infection, may be limited. eared bats were highest prior to WNS. Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus However, as described in the Further, it has been suggested that the have been observed in big brown bats ‘‘Hibernation’’ section under Biology, species was considered less common or and little brown bats (Yuill and above, northern long-eared bats prefer to rare in the extreme southern, western, Seymour 2001, pp. 100, 108), although hibernate at temperatures between 0 and and northwestern parts of its range data are lacking on the prevalence of 9 °C (Raesly and Gates 1987, p. 18; (Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 2; Harvey these viruses in northern long-eared Caceres and Pybus 1997, p. 2; Brack 1992, p. 35), areas where WNS has not bats. Equine encephalitis has been 2007, p. 744), which falls within the yet been detected. The northern long- detected in northern long-eared bats optimal growth limits of Pd, 5 and eared bat has been extirpated from (Main 1979, p. 459), although no known 16 °C (41 and 61 °F) (Blehert et al. 2009, hibernacula where WNS, has been population declines have been found p. 227; Verant et al. 2012, p. 4), making present for a significant number of years due to presence of the virus. Northern them susceptible to WNS infection once (e.g., 5 years), and has declined long-eared bats are also known to carry exposed to Pd, regardless of significantly in other hibernacula where a variety of pests including chiggers, hibernaculum type. Northern long-eared WNS has been present for only a few mites, bat bugs, and internal helminthes bats also roost in areas within years. A corresponding decline on the (Caceres and Barclay 2000, p. 3). hibernacula that have higher humidity. summer landscape has also been However, the level of mortality caused Cryan et al. (2010, p. 138) suggested this witnessed. As WNS expands to by WNS far exceeds mortality from all roosting preference may be due to the currently uninfected areas within the other known diseases and pests of the northern long-eared bat’s high intrinsic range of northern long-eared bat, there northern long-eared bat.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 17999

Predation Tribes in Managing White-Nose entire). These recommendations have Animals such as owls, hawks, Syndrome in Bats; https://www.white been reviewed annually and a revised raccoons, skunks, and snakes prey upon nosesyndrome.org/national-plan/white- version, including a multi-agency bats, although a limited number of nose-syndrome-national-plan) to endorsement through the national WNS animals consume bats as a regular part provide a common framework for the Steering Committee, is expected to be of their diet (Harvey et al. 1999, p. 13). investigation and management of WNS completed soon. Though not mandatory Northern long-eared bats are believed to (Service 2011, p. 1). In 2012, a sister or required, many State, Federal, and experience a small amount of predation; plan was finalized for the national Tribal agencies, along with other therefore, predation does not appear to response to WNS in Canada (A National organizations and entities, operating be a population changing cause of Plan to Manage White Nose Syndrome within the northern long-eared bat’s mortality (Caceres and Pybus 1997, p. 4; in Bats in Canada; http:// range have incorporated the Whitaker and Hamilton 1998, p. 101). www2.ccwhc.ca/publications/Canadian recommendations and protocols in the Predation has been observed at a %20WNS%20Management%20Plan. WNS National Plan in their own local limited number of hibernacula within pdf), allowing for a broader coordinated response plans. The Western Bat the range of the northern long-eared bat. response to the disease throughout the Working Group, for example, has Of the State and Federal agency two countries. The multi-agency, multi- developed a White-nose Syndrome responses received pertaining to organization WNS response team, under Action Plan, a comprehensive strategy northern long-eared bat hibernacula and the U.S. National Plan and in to prevent the spread of WNS that threat of predation, 1 hibernaculum in coordination with Canadian partners, covers States currently outside the range Maine, 3 in Maryland (2 of which were has and continues to develop of WNS (Western Bat Working Group due to feral cats), 1 in Minnesota, and recommendations, tools, and strategies 2010, pp. 1–11). 10 in Vermont were reported as being to slow the spread of WNS, minimize The NPS is currently updating their prone to predation. In one instance, disturbance to hibernating bats, and cave management plans (for parks with domestic cats were observed killing bats improve conservation strategies for caves) to include actions to minimize at a hibernaculum used by northern affected bat species. Some of these the risk of WNS spreading to uninfected long-eared bat in Maryland, although products include: Decontamination caves. These actions include WNS the species of bat killed was not protocols; cave management strategies education, screening visitors for identified (Feller 2011, unpublished and best management practices (BMPs); disinfection, and closure of caves if data). Turner (1999, personal forestry BMPs; nuisance wildlife control necessary (NPS 2013, http://www. observation) observed a snake (species operator BMPs; transportation and nature.nps.gov/biology/WNS). In April unknown) capture an emerging Virginia bridge BMPs; hibernacula microclimate 2009, all caves and mines on USFS big-eared bat in West Virginia. Tuttle monitoring recommendations; wildlife lands in the Eastern and Southern (1979, p. 11) observed (eastern) screech rehabilitator BMPs; and a bat species Regions were closed on an emergency owls (Otus asio) capturing emerging ranking document for conservation basis in response to the spread of WNS, gray bats. Northern long-eared bats are actions. These containment and other and closures on other USFS lands have known to be affected to a small degree strategies are intended to slow the been announced as well. In 2014, the by predators at summer roosts. Carver spread of WNS and allow time for closure order was extended for 5 more and Lereculeur (2013, pp. N6–N7) development of management options. years in the USFS’s Southern Region. observed predation of a northern long- The multi-agency, multi-partner Eight National Forests in the Eastern eared bat by a gray rat snake during the National WNS Decontamination Region contain caves or mines that are summer; Sparks et al. (2003, pp. 106– protocol (https://www.whitenose used by bats; caves and mines on seven 107) described attempts by raccoons to syndrome.org/topics/decontamination) of these National Forests (Allegheny, prey on both Indiana bats and evening was developed to provide specific Hoosier, Ottawa, Mark Twain, bats. Avian predators, such as owls and procedures to minimize the risk of Monongahela, Shawnee, and Wayne) magpies, have been known to transmitting the fungus when were closed, and no closure is needed successfully take individual bats as they conducting work involving close direct for the one mine on the eighth National roost in more open sites, although this contact with bats, their environments, or Forest (Green Mountain) because it is most likely does not have an effect on associated materials. In addition to bat- already gated with a bat-friendly the overall population size (Caceres and to-bat transmission of the disease agent, structure. Forest supervisors continue to Pybus 1997, p. 4). In summary, because fungal spores can also be transmitted by evaluate the most recent information on bats are not a primary prey source for human actions (USGS NWHC, Wildlife WNS to inform decisions regarding any known natural predators, it is Health Bulletin 2011–05, unpaginated), extending cave and mine closures for unlikely that predation has substantial and decontamination remains one of the the purpose of slowing the spread of effects on the species at this time. only management options available to WNS and reducing the impacts of reduce the risk of human-assisted disturbance on WNS-affected bat Conservation Efforts To Reduce Disease transmission. Decontamination populations (USFS 2013, http:// or Predation protocols have been integrated into www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r9/plants- As mentioned above, WNS is other protocols and BMPs that involve animals/wildlife/?cid=stelprdb responsible for unprecedented mortality close direct contact with bats or their 5438954). Caves and mines on USFS in some species of hibernating bats in environments. lands in the Rocky Mountain Region eastern North America, including the In 2009, the Service also issued a were closed on an emergency basis in northern long-eared bat, and the disease recommendation for a voluntary 2010, in response to WNS, but since continues to spread. In 2011, the moratorium on all caving activity in then have been reopened (USFS 2013, Service, in partnership with several States known to have hibernacula http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r2/home/ other State, Federal, and Tribal affected by WNS, and all adjoining ?cid=stelprdb5319926). In place of the agencies, finalized a national response States, unless conducted as part of an emergency closures, the Rocky plan for WNS (A National Plan for agency-sanctioned research or Mountain Region will implement an Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and monitoring project (Service 2009, adaptive management strategy that will

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 mortality of North American bat this language to require the Service to cave, prohibit use of clothing or populations. consider relevant Federal, State, and equipment used in areas where WNS is The effect of WNS on northern long- tribal laws, regulations, and other such found, require decontamination eared bats has been especially severe mechanisms that may reduce any of the procedures prior to entering any and all and has caused mortality in the species threats we describe in threat analyses caves, and require closure of all known throughout the majority of the WNS- under the other four factors. We give hibernacula caves during the winter affected range. This is currently viewed strongest weight to statutes and their hibernation period. Although the above- as the predominant threat to the species, implementing regulations and to mentioned WNS-related conservation and if WNS had not emerged or was not management direction that stems from measures may help reduce or slow the affecting northern long-eared bat those laws and regulations. An example spread of the disease, these efforts are populations to the level that it has, we would be State governmental actions not currently enough to ameliorate the presume the species would not be enforced under a State statute or population-level effects to the northern declining to the degree observed. A constitution, or Federal action under long-eared bat. recent study revealed that the northern statute. Research is also under way to develop long-eared bat has experienced a control and treatment options for WNS- precipitous population decline, Having evaluated the significance of infected bats and environments. A estimated at approximately 96 percent the threat as mitigated by any such number of potential treatments are (from hibernacula data) in the conservation efforts, we analyze under currently being explored and are in northeastern portion of its range, due to Factor D the extent to which existing various stages of development. Risks to the emergence of WNS. WNS has spread regulatory mechanisms are inadequate other biota or the environment need to to approximately 60 percent of the to address the specific threats to the be assessed when considering disease northern long-eared bat’s range in the species. Regulatory mechanisms, if they management trials in a field setting. No United States, and if the observed exist, may reduce or eliminate the treatment strategies have been tested on average rate of spread of Pd continues, effects from one or more identified the northern long-eared bat, to date, and the fungus will be found in hibernacula threats. In this section, we review there remains no demonstrated safe or throughout the entire species’ range existing State, Federal, and local effective treatment for WNS. It remains within 8 to 13 years based on the regulatory mechanisms to determine unknown whether treatment of bats may calculated rate of spread observed to whether they effectively reduce or increase survival or allow the northern date (by both the Service and remove threats to the northern long- long-eared bat to survive exposure to the COSEWIC). We expect that similar eared bat. pathogen. Potential treatment of the declines as seen in the East and portions No existing regulatory mechanisms northern long-eared bat will be further of the Midwest will be experienced in have been shown to sufficiently protect complicated by the dispersed winter the future throughout the rest of the the species against WNS, the primary roosting habits of the species and species’ range. There has been a threat to the northern long-eared bat; difficulty finding the species in sustained and coordinated effort thus, despite regulatory mechanisms hibernacula. Further, no treatment in between partners (e.g., Federal, State, that are currently in place, the species development has demonstrated any Canada, nongovernment) to curtail the is still at risk. There are, however, some potential to allow a species to adapt to spread of WNS, and while these mechanisms in place to provide some the presence of the pathogen. More measures may reduce or slow the spread protection from other factors that may research and coordination is needed to of WNS, these efforts are currently not act cumulatively with WNS. As such, address the safety and effectiveness of enough to ameliorate the population- the discussion below provides a few any treatment proposed for field use and level effects on the northern long-eared examples of such existing regulatory to meet regulatory requirements prior to bat. Also, research is under way to mechanisms. consideration of widespread develop control and treatment options application. Therefore, a landscape- for WNS-infected bats and hibernacula; Canadian Laws and Regulations scale approach to reduce the impacts of however, additional research is needed WNS is still at least a few years away. before potential treatments are In 2014, the northern long-eared bat implemented on a landscape scale. was determined, under an emergency Summary of Disease and Predation Other diseases are known or assessment, to be endangered under the The northern long-eared bat is highly suspected to infect northern long-eared Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) susceptible to white-nose syndrome and bats, but none is known to have (Species at Risk Public Registry 2014). mortality of the species due to the appreciable effects on the species. Also, The SARA makes it an offense to kill, disease has been documented it is unlikely that predation is harm, harass, capture, or take an throughout the majority of its range. significantly affecting the species at this individual of a listed species that is WNS is caused by the nonnative fungus time. endangered or threatened; possess, Pd, which is believed to have originated collect, buy, sell, or trade an individual in Europe. WNS has been found in 25 Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing of a listed species that is extirpated, States and 5 Canadian provinces since Regulatory Mechanisms endangered, or threatened, or its part or first discovered in New York in 2007, Under this factor, we examine derivative; or to damage or destroy the and at least seven bat species are whether existing regulatory mechanisms residence of one or more individuals of confirmed to be susceptible in North are inadequate to address the threats to a listed endangered or threatened America. The fungus that causes WNS the species discussed under the other species or of a listed extirpated species has been documented in an additional factors. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act if a recovery strategy has recommended three States. WNS infection, requires the Service to take into account its reintroduction. For most of the characterized by visible fungal growth ‘‘those efforts, if any, being made by any species listed under SARA, including on the bat, alters the normal arousal State or foreign nation, or any political the northern long-eared bat, the cycles of hibernating bats, causes severe subdivision of a State or foreign nation, prohibitions on harm to individuals and wing damage, and depletes fat reserves, to protect such species. . . .’’ In relation destruction of residences are limited to and it has resulted in substantial to Factor D under the Act, we interpret Federal lands.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 possessing, or sale and from activities Wind energy development regulation Several laws and regulations help that would destroy habitat and thus varies by State within the northern long- Federal agencies protect bats on their directly or indirectly cause mortality or eared bat’s range. For example, in lands, such as the Federal Cave disrupt critical behaviors.’’ In addition, Virginia, although there are not Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C. listed animals are specifically protected currently any wind energy 4301 et seq.) that protects caves on from activities that disrupt nesting, developments in the State, new Federal lands and the National breeding, feeding, or migration legislation requires operators to Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. (Massachusetts Division of Fisheries ‘‘measure the efficacy’’ of mitigation, 4321 et seq.) review, which serves to and Wildlife 2012, unpublished with the objective of reducing bat mitigate effects to bats due to document). In Wisconsin, all cave bats, fatalities (Reynolds 2011, unpublished construction activities on federally including the northern long-eared bat, data). In Vermont, all wind energy owned lands. The NPS has additional were listed as threatened in the State in facilities are required to conduct bat laws, policies, and regulations that 2011, due to previously existing threats mortality surveys, and at least two of the protect bats on NPS units, including the and the impending threat of WNS three currently permitted wind facilities NPS Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 (Redell 2011, pers. comm.). It is illegal in the State include application of et seq.), NPS management policies to take, transport, possess, process, or operational adjustments (curtailment) to (related to exotic species and protection sell any wild animal that is included on reduce bat fatalities (Smith 2011, of native species), and NPS policies the Wisconsin Endangered and unpublished data). Other States, many related to caves and karst systems Threatened Species List without a valid of which have expansive wind energy (provides guidance on placement of endangered or threatened species development, have no regulatory gates on caves not only to address permit. Certain development projects program for wind energy projects. (e.g., wind energy), however, are human safety concerns, but also for the Summary of Inadequacy of Existing excluded from regulations that are in preservation of sensitive bat habitat) Regulatory Mechanisms (Plumb and Budde 2011, unpublished place to protect the species in No existing regulatory mechanisms data). Even if a bat species is not listed Wisconsin (WDNR, unpublished have been shown to sufficiently protect under the Act, the NPS works to document, 2011, p. 4). In Vermont, the the species against WNS, the primary minimize effects to the species. In northern long-eared bat was provided threat to the northern long-eared bat. addition, the NPS Research Permitting protection by being listed as endangered Therefore, despite regulatory and Reporting System tracks research under the Vermont endangered species mechanisms that are currently in place permit applications and investigator law. Except where authorized by for the northern long-eared bat, the annual reports, and NPS management separate chapters of the law, the species is still at risk, primarily due to policies require non-NPS studies Vermont law states, ‘‘a person shall not WNS, as discussed under Factor C. conducted in parks to conform to NPS take, possess or transport wildlife or policies and guidelines regarding the plants that are members of an Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade collection of bat data (Plumb and Budde endangered or threatened species.’’ The Factors Affecting Its Continued 2011, unpublished data). northern long-eared bat is considered as Existence The northern long-eared bat is some form of species of concern in 18 Wind Energy Development considered a ‘‘sensitive species’’ States: ‘‘Species of Greatest Concern’’ in throughout the USFS’s Eastern Region Alabama and Rhode Island; ‘‘Species of Significant bat mortality has been (USFS 2012, http://www.fs.usda.gov/ Greatest Conservation Need’’ in witnessed associated with utility-scale Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/ Delaware, Iowa, and Michigan; ‘‘Species (greater than or equal to 0.66 megawatt stelprdb5384459.pdf). As such, the of Concern’’ in Ohio and Wyoming; (MW)) wind turbines along forested northern long-eared bat must receive, ‘‘Rare Species of Concern’’ in South ridge tops in the eastern and ‘‘special management emphasis to Carolina; ‘‘Imperiled’’ in Oklahoma; northeastern United States and in ensure its viability and to preclude ‘‘Critically Imperiled’’ in Louisiana; agricultural areas of the Midwest trends toward endangerment that would ‘‘Species of Conservation Concern’’ in (Johnson 2005, p. 46; Arnett et al. 2008, result in the need for Federal listing. Missouri, and ‘‘Species of Special p. 63; Cryan 2011, p. 364; Arnett and There must be no effects to sensitive Concern’’ in Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Baerwald 2013, p. 441; Hayes 2013, p. species without an analysis of the New Hampshire, North Carolina, 977; Smallwood 2013, p. 26). Recent significance of adverse effects on the Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. In estimates of bat mortality from wind populations, its habitat, and on the Kansas, the State has been petitioned to energy facilities vary considerably viability of the species as a whole. It is evaluate the northern long-eared bat as depending on the methodology used essential to establish population ‘‘threatened’’ in accordance with the and species of bat. Arnett and Baerwald viability objectives when making Kansas Nongame and Endangered (2013 p. 443) estimated that 650,104 to decisions that would significantly Species Act. 1,308,378 bats had been killed at wind reduce sensitive species numbers’’ In the following States, there is either energy facilities in the United States and (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.1, no State protection law or the northern Canada as of 2011, and expected http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm/ long-eared bat is not protected under the another 196,190 to 395,886 would be 2600/2672-2672.24a.txt). existing law: Arkansas, Connecticut, lost in 2012. Other bat mortality Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, estimates range from ‘‘well over 600,000 State Laws and Regulations Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, . . . in 2012’’ (Hayes 2013, p. 977; [but The northern long-eared bat is listed Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New see Huso and Dalthorp 2014, p. 546– in few of the States within the species’ York, North Dakota, Tennessee, 547]) to 888,000 bats per year range. The northern long-eared bat is Virginia, and West Virginia. In (Smallwood 2013, p. 26), and mortality listed as endangered under the Kentucky, although the northern long- can be expected to increase as more Massachusetts endangered species act, eared bat does not have a State listing turbines are installed on the landscape. under which all listed species are, status, it is considered protected from The majority of bats killed include ‘‘protected from killing, collecting, take under Kentucky State law. migratory foliage-roosting species the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 18002 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) and including bone fractures and soft tissue increase throughout the range in future eastern red bat, and the migratory, tree- trauma caused by collision with moving years. Wind energy facilities have been and cavity-roosting silver-haired bat blades, is the major cause of bat constructed in areas within a large (Arnett et al. 2008, p. 64; Cryan 2011 p. mortality at wind energy facilities portion of the range of the northern 364; Arnett and Baerwald 2013, p. 444). (Rollins et al. 2012, pp. 365, 368; long-eared bat, thus this species is The Service reviewed post- Grodsky et al. 2011, p. 920). Grodsky et exposed to the risk of turbine-related construction mortality monitoring al. (2011, p. 924) suggested that these mortality. However, northern long-eared studies at 62 unique operating wind injuries can lead to an underestimation bats are rarely detected as mortalities, energy facilities in the range of the of bat mortality at wind energy facilities even in areas where they are known to northern long-eared bat in the United due to delayed lethal effects. However, be common on the landscape. States and Canada. In these studies, 41 the authors also noted that the surface We conclude that there may be northern long-eared bat mortalities were and core pressure drops behind the adverse effects posed by wind energy documented, comprising less than 1 spinning turbine blades are high enough development to northern long-eared percent of all bat mortalities. Northern (equivalent to sound levels that are bats; however, there is no evidence long-eared bat mortalities were detected 10,000 times higher in energy density suggesting effects from wind energy throughout the study range, including: than the threshold of pain in humans) development itself has led to Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, to cause significant ear damage to bats population-level declines in this Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, flying near wind turbines (Grodsky et al. species. Further, given the low mortality West Virginia, and Ontario. Northern 2011, p. 924). Bats suffering from ear rates experienced and estimated, we long-eared bat mortalities were detected damage would have a difficult time believe northern long-eared bats are not at 29 percent of the facilities studied. navigating and foraging, as both of these as vulnerable to mortality from wind There is a great deal of uncertainty functions depend on the bats’ ability to turbines as other species of bats (e.g., related to extrapolating these numbers echolocate (Grodsky et al. 2011, p. 924). hoary bat, silver-haired bat, red bat, big to generate an estimate of total northern While earlier papers indicated that brown bat, little brown bat, and long-eared bat mortality at wind energy barotrauma may also be responsible for tricolored bat). However, sustained facilities due to variability in post- a considerable portion of bat mortality annual mortality of individual northern construction survey effort and at wind energy facilities (Baerwald et al. long-eared bats at a particular wind methodology (Huso and Dalthorp 2014, 2008, pp. 695–696), in a more recent energy facility could result in negative pp. 546–547). Bat mortality can vary study, researchers found only 6 percent impacts to local populations. between years and between sites, and of wind turbine killed bats at one site Climate Change detected carcasses are only a small were possibly killed by barotrauma Our analyses under the Act include percentage of total bat mortalities. (Rollins et al. 2012, p. 367). In a separate Despite these limitations, Arnett and consideration of observed or likely study, Grodsky et al. (2011, p. 920 and environmental effects related to ongoing Baerwald (2013, p. 444) estimated that 922) found that 74 percent of carcasses wind energy facilities in the United and projected changes in climate. As had bone fractures and more than half defined by the Intergovernmental Panel States and Canada killed between 1,175 had mild to severe hemorrhaging in the and 2,433 northern long-eared bats from on Climate Change (IPCC), ‘‘climate’’ middle or inner ears; thus it is difficult refers to average weather, typically 2000 to 2011. to attribute individual fatalities The number of bats actually killed at measured in terms of the mean and exclusively to either direct collision or the facilities discussed above is variability of temperature, precipitation, barotrauma. certainly larger than the 41 individuals or other relevant properties over time, that were found. Only a portion of Wind energy development is rapidly and ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a carcasses are found during post- increasing throughout the northern change in such a measure that persists construction mortality surveys, most long-eared bat’s range. Iowa, Illinois, for an extended period, typically studies only cover a 1- or 2-year period Oklahoma, Minnesota, Kansas, and New decades or longer, due to natural at a single site, and only some facilities York are within the top 10 States for conditions (e.g., solar cycles) or human- conduct monitoring and make the wind energy capacity (installed caused changes in the composition of results available to the Service (Cryan megawatts) in the United States (AWEA the atmosphere or in land use (IPCC 2011, pp. 368–369). Additionally, if 2013, unpaginated). There is a national 2013, p. 1450). Detailed explanations of mortality occurs at a specific wind movement towards a 20 percent wind global climate change and examples of facility in a given year, it is reasonable energy sector in the U.S. market by 2030 various observed and projected changes to expect that mortality will occur (United States Department of Energy and associated effects and risks at the throughout the operational life of the (US DOE)2008, unpaginated). Through global level are provided in reports wind facility (approximately 20 years). 2012, wind energy has achieved its issued by the IPCC (2014 and citations Sustained annual mortality of goals in installation towards the targeted therein); information for the United individual northern long-eared bats at a 20 percent by 2030 (AWEA 2015, States at national and region levels is particular wind facility could result in unpaginated). If the target is achieved, it summarized in the National Climate impacts to local populations. would represent nearly a five-fold Assessment (Melillo et al. 2014 entire There are three impacts of wind increase in wind energy capacity during and citations therein; see Melillo et al. turbines that may explain proximate the next 15 years (Loss et al. 2013, pp. 2014, pp. 28–45 for an overview). causes of bat fatalities, which include: 201–209). While locations of future Because observed and projected changes (1) Bats collide with turbine towers; (2) wind energy projects are largely in climate at regional and local levels bats collide with moving blades; or (3) influenced by ever-changing economic vary from global average conditions, bats suffer internal injuries (barotrauma) factors and are difficult to predict, rather than using global scale after being exposed to rapid pressure sufficient wind regimes exist to support projections we use ‘‘downscaled’’ changes near the trailing edges and tips wind power development throughout projections when they are available and of moving blades (Cryan and Barclay the range of the northern long-eared bat have been developed through 2009, p. 1331). Researchers have (US DOE 2015, unpaginated), and wind appropriate scientific procedures, recently indicated that traumatic injury, development can be expected to because such projections provide higher

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18003

resolution information that is more stable or increase, although projections insectivorous bats like northern long- relevant to spatial scales used for are highly variable (Frumhoff et al. eared bats include organochlorine analyses of a given species and the 2007, p. 8). However, in comparison, pesticides, organophosphate, carbamate conditions influencing it (see Melillo et Adams and Hayes (2008, p. 1120) and neonicotinoid insecticides, al. 2014, Appendix 3, pp. 760–763 for predict an overall decline in bat polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and a discussion of climate modeling, populations in the western United polybrominated diphenyl ethers including downscaling). In our analysis, States from reduced regional water (PBDEs), pyrethroid insecticides, and we use our expert judgment to weigh storage caused by climate warming. inorganic contaminants such as mercury the best scientific and commercial data Warmer winter temperatures may also (Clark and Shore 2001, pp. 159–214). available in our consideration of disrupt bat reproductive physiology. Detectable levels of organochlorine relevant aspects of climate change and Northern long-eared bats breed in the pesticides have been reported in related effects. fall, and spermatozoa are stored in the northern long-eared bats (Eidels et al. The unique life-history traits of bats uterus of hibernating females until 2007, p. 52). Organochlorine pesticides and their susceptibility to local spring ovulation. If bats experience (e.g., dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane temperature, humidity, and warmer hibernating conditions they (DDT), chlordane) persist in the precipitation patterns make them an may arouse prematurely, ovulate, and environment due to lipophilic (fat- early warning system for effects of become pregnant (Jones et al. 2009, p. loving) properties, and, therefore, climate change in regional ecosystems 99). Given this dependence on external readily accumulate within the fat tissue (Adams and Hayes 2008, p. 1120). temperatures, climate change is likely to of bats. Because insectivorous bats have Climate influences food availability, affect the timing of reproductive cycles high metabolic rates, associated with timing of hibernation, frequency and (Jones et al. 2009, p. 99), but making flight and small size, their food intake duration of torpor, rate of energy generalizations about the level of risk increases the amount of organochlorines expenditure, reproduction, and rates of associated with changes in bat available for concentration in the fat juvenile bat development (Sherwin et reproduction due to climate change is (Clark and Shore 2001, p. 166). Because al. 2013, p. 178). Climate change may difficult (Sherwin et al. 2013, p. 176). bats are long-lived, the potential for lead to warmer winters, which could Sherwin et al. (2013, p. 176) postulates bioaccumulation is great, and effects on lead to a shorter hibernation period, that warmer climates may benefit female reproduction have been documented increased winter activity, and reduced bats by causing earlier birth and (Clark and Shore 2001, pp. 181–190). In reliance on the relatively stable weaning of young, allowing more time maternity colonies, young bats appear to temperatures of underground to mate and store fat reserves in be at the greatest risk of mortality. This hibernation sites (Jones et al. 2009, p. preparation for hibernation. Research by is because organochlorines become 99). An earlier spring would presumably Frick et al. (2010b, p. 133) supports this concentrated in the fat of the mother’s result in a shorter hibernation period theory, whereby the authors showed milk and these chemicals continually and the earlier appearance of foraging giving birth earlier had significant and rapidly accumulate in the young as bats (Jones et al. 2009, p. 99). An earlier fitness benefits, given that young born they nurse (Clark 1988, pp. 410–411). emergence from hibernation may have in early summer had a higher In addition to indirect effects of no detrimental effect on populations if probability of surviving and breeding in organochlorine pesticides on bats via sufficient food is available (Jones et al. their first year than pups born later in prey consumption, documented cases of 2009, p. 99); however, predicting future the summer. direct effects involve application of insect population dynamics and The role of climate change in the pesticides to bats and their roosts. For distributions is complex (Bale et al. spread of WNS is largely unknown. A example, when a mixture of DDT and 2002, p. 6). Alterations in precipitation, shortened hibernation period and chlordane was applied to little brown stream flow, and soil moisture could warmer winter temperatures may bats and their roost site, mortality from alter insect populations and, therefore, shorten exposure time and slow the exposure was observed (Kunz et al. food availability for bats (Rodenhouse et spread of WNS. However, using three 1977, p. 478). Most organochlorine al. 2009, p. 250). standard IPCC scenarios (Special pesticides have been banned in the Climate change is expected to alter Report: Emissions Scenarios (SRES) B1, United States, and time trend analysis seasonal ambient temperatures and least change in climate; A1B, indicates that these pesticides have precipitation patterns across regions intermediate change; and A2, most declined significantly over the 30 years (Adams and Hayes 2008, p. 1115), change), Maher et al. (2012, p. 6) since these compounds were restricted which could lead to shifts in the range showed accelerated spread of WNS (Bayat et al. 2014, pp. 46–47). of some bat species (Loeb and Winters under all scenarios relative to Organochlorine pesticides have 2013, p. 107; Razgour et al. 2013, p. projections based on observed data. largely been replaced by 1262). Suitable roost temperatures and Although we have information that organophosphate insecticides, which water availability are directly related to suggests that climate change may affect are generally short-lived in the successful reproduction in female the northern long-eared bat, we do not environment and do not accumulate in insectivorous bats (Adams and Hayes have evidence suggesting that climate food chains; however, risk of exposure 2008, p. 1116). Adams (2010, p. 2440) change in itself has led to population is still possible from direct exposure reported decreased reproductive success declines; furthermore, the spread of from spraying or ingesting insects that in female insectivorous bats in response WNS across the species’ range is have recently been sprayed but have not to decreased precipitation. In contrast, occurring rapidly, so discerning effects died, or both (Clark 1988, p. 411). Burles et al. (2009, p. 136) and Lucan et from climate change may be difficult. Organophosphate and carbamate al. (2013, p. 154) reported decreased insecticides are acutely toxic to reproductive success in response to Contaminants mammals. Some organophosphates may increased precipitation in little brown Effects to bats from contaminant be stored in fat tissue and contribute to bats and Daubenton’s bats (Myotis exposure have likely occurred and gone, ‘‘organophosphate-induced delayed daubentonii), respectively. Annual for the most part, unnoticed in bat neuropathy’’ in humans (United States precipitation in the northeast United populations (Clark and Shore 2001, p. Environmental Protection Agency 2013, States is projected to either remain 204). Contaminants of concern to p. 44). Bats may lose their motor

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 18004 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

coordination from direct application enhancement of metabolic rate in bats A recent review on organic and are unlikely to survive in the wild (Kannan et al. 2010, p. 617). Outside of contaminants in bats by Bayat et al. in an incapacitated state lasting more laboratory experiments, there is no (2014, pp. 40–52) ‘‘suggests that bats than 24 hours (Plumb and Budde 2011, conclusive evidence that bats have been today are exposed generally to lower unpublished data). Northern long-eared killed by PCBs, although effects on contaminant concentrations, but that bats may be exposed to reproduction have been observed (Clark these can manifest in a range of sub- organophosphate and carbamate and Shore 2001, pp. 192–194). lethal neurological and physiological insecticides in regions where methyl Northern long-eared bats forage on changes that may impact bat survival. parathion is applied in cotton fields and emergent insects and can be Defining concentration endpoints for where malathion is used for mosquito characterized as occasionally foraging sub-lethal impacts, especially for the control (Plumb and Budde 2011, over water (Yates and Evers 2006, p. 5), emerging contaminants, and linking unpublished data). The and, therefore, are at risk of exposure to these to effects on bat function, behavior organophosphate, chlorpyrifos, has high bioaccumulation of inorganic or survival, and long term impacts on fat solubility and is commonly used on contaminants (e.g., cadmium, lead, populations is limited.’’ In summary, crops such as corn and soybeans (van mercury) from contaminated water the best available data indicate that Beelen 2000, p. 34 of Appendix 2; bodies. Bats tend to accumulate contaminant exposure may cause http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/ inorganic contaminants due to their diet adverse effects to northern long-eared usage/ and slow means of elimination of these bats, but if population declines have maps/show_map.php?year=2009&map= compounds (Plumb and Budde 2011, occurred due to these factors, they have CHLORPYRIFOS&hilo=L). unpublished data). In Virginia, for not been discernable. Neonicotinoids have been found to example, the North Fork Holston River cause oxidative stress, neurological is a water body that was highly Prescribed Burning damage and possible liver damage in contaminated by a waterborne point Eastern forest-dwelling bat species, rats, and immune suppression in mice source of mercury through such as the northern long-eared bat, (Kimura-Kuroda et al. 2011, p. 381; contamination by a chlor-alkali plant. likely evolved with fire management of Duzguner and Erdogan 2012, p. 58; Based on findings from a pilot study for mixed-oak ecosystems (Perry 2012, p. Badgujar et al. 2013, p. 408). Due to bats in 2005 (Yates and Evers 2006), 182). A recent review of prescribed fire information indicating that there is a there is sufficient information to and its effects on bats (USFS 2012, p. link between neonicotinoids used in conclude that bats from near- 182) generally found that fire had agriculture and a decline in bee downstream areas of the North Fork beneficial effects on bat habitat. Fire numbers, the European Union proposed Holston River have potentially harmful may create snags for roosting and a 2-year ban on the use of the body burdens of mercury, although the creates more open forests conducive to neonicotinoids, thiamethoxam, effect on bats is unknown. Yates et al. foraging on flying insects (Perry 2012, imidacloprid, and clothianidin on crops (2014, pp. 46–49) collected over 2,000 pp. 177–179), although gleaners such as attractive to honeybees, beginning in tissue samples from 10 species of bats northern long-eared bats may readily December of 2013 (Bergeson and in the northeast United States. The use cluttered understories for foraging Campbell PC, http://www.lawbc.com/ highest mercury levels in fur and blood (Owen et al. 2003, p. 355). Cavity and regulatory-developments/entry/ samples were detected in tri-colored, bark roosting bats, such as the northern proposal-for-restriction-of- little brown, and northern long-eared long-eared, use previously burned areas neonicotinoid-products-in-the-eu/). bats. Divoll et al. (in prep) found that for both foraging and roosting (Johnson The more recently developed ‘‘third northern long-eared bats showed et al. 2009a, p. 239; Johnson et al. 2010, generation’’ of pyrethroids have acute consistently higher mercury levels than p. 118). In Kentucky, the abundance of oral toxicities rivaling the toxicity of little brown bats or eastern red bats prey items for northern long-eared bats organophosphate, carbamate and sampled in Maine, which may be increased after burning (Lacki et al. organochlorine pesticides. These correlated with gleaning behavior and 2009, p. 1170), and more roosts were pyrethroids include: Esfenvalerate, the consumption of spiders by northern found in post-burn areas (Lacki et al. deltamethrin, bifenthrin, tefluthrin, long-eared bats. Bats recaptured during 2009, p. 1169). Burning may create more flucythrinate, cyhalothrin, and the study one or 2 years after their suitable snags for roosting through fenpropathrin (Mueller-Beilschmidt original capture maintained similar exfoliation of bark (Johnson et al. 2009a, 1990, p. 32). Pyrethroids are levels of mercury in fur year-to-year. p. 240), mimicking trees in the increasingly used in the United States, Biologists suggest that individual bats appropriate decay stage for roosting and some of these compounds have very accumulate body burdens of mercury bats. In contrast, a prescribed burn in high fat solubility (e.g., bifenthrin, that cannot be reduced once elevated to Kentucky caused a roost tree used by a cypermethrin) (van Beelen 2000, p. 34 a certain threshold. radio-tagged female northern long-eared of Appendix 2). Exposure to holding ponds containing bat to prematurely fall after its base was Like the organochlorine pesticides, flow-back and produced water weakened by smoldering combustion PCBs and PBDEs are highly lipophilic associated with hydraulic fracturing (Dickinson et al. 2009, p. 56). Low- and therefore readily accumulate in operations may also expose bats to intensity burns may not kill taller trees insectivorous bats. Measured toxins, radioactive material, and other directly but may create snags of smaller concentrations of PCBs and PBDEs in contaminants (Hein 2012, p. 8). trees and larger trees may be injured, little brown bats were high, in the parts- Cadmium, mercury, and lead are resulting in vulnerability (of the tree) to per-million range, in both WNS-infected contaminants reported in hydraulic pathogens that cause hollowing of the and non-infected bats (Kannan et al. fracturing operations. Whether bats trunk, which provides roosting habitat 2010, p. 617). High exposures to drink directly from holding ponds or (Perry 2012, p. 177). Prescribed burning persistent organic pollutants can contaminants are introduced from these also opens the tree canopy, providing potentially be associated with various operations into aquatic ecosystems, bats more canopy light penetration (Boyles health effects, including will presumably accumulate these and Aubrey 2006, p. 112; Johnson et al. immunosuppression, behavioral substances and potentially suffer 2009a, p. 240), which may facilitate anomalies, and contaminant-induced adverse effects (Hein 2012, p. 9). faster development of juvenile bats

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18005

(Sedgeley 2001, p. 434). Although goals, must be balanced with the 52754; August 30, 2012). In some cases, Johnson et al. (2009a, p. 240) found the exposure of bats to the effects of fire the USFS has agreed to limit or restrict amount of roost switching did not differ (Dickinson et al. 2010, p. 2201). burning in the central hardwoods from between burned and unburned areas, Currently, the Service and USFS mid- to late April through summer to the rate of switching in burned areas of strongly recommend not burning in the avoid periods when bats are active in every 1.35 days was greater than that central hardwoods from mid- to late forests (Dickinson et al. 2010, p. 2200). April through summer to avoid periods found in other studies (every 2 to 3 Summary of Factor E days) (Foster and Kurta 1999, p. 665; when bats are active in forests Owen et al. 2002, p. 2; Carter and (Dickinson et al. 2010, p. 2200). Using the best scientific and Feldhamer 2005, p. 261; Timpone et al. Bats that occur in forests are likely commercial data available, we have 2010, p. 119). equipped with evolutionary identified a number of natural or manmade factors that may have direct Direct effects of fire on bats likely characteristics that allow them to exist or indirect effects on the continued differ among species and seasons (Perry in environments with prescribed fire. existence of northern long-eared bats. 2012, p. 172). Northern long-eared bats Periodic burning can benefit habitat through snag creation and forest canopy Wind energy facilities have been built have been seen flushing from tree roosts throughout a large portion of the range shortly after ignition of prescribed fire gap creation, but frequency and timing need to be considered to avoid direct of northern long-eared bats, and have during the growing season (Dickinson et been found to cause mortality of al. 2009, p. 60). Fires of reduced and indirect adverse effects to bats when using prescribed burns as a northern long-eared bats. While intensity that proceed slowly allow management tool. Adverse impacts to mortality estimates vary between sites sufficient time for roosting bats to individual bats during the active season and years, sustained mortality at arouse from sleep or torpor and escape could be significantly reduced through particular sites could result in negative the fire (Dickinson et al. 2010, p. 2200), development of appropriate burn plans impacts to local populations. Overall, although extra arousals from fire smoke that avoid and minimize heat northern long-eared bats are rarely could cause increased energy loss production during prescribed burns. We detected as mortalities at wind facilities; (Dickinson et al. 2009, p. 52). During conclude that there may be adverse however, there is a great amount of prescribed burns, bats are potentially effects posed by prescribed burning to uncertainty associated with exposed to heat and gases; the roosting individual northern long-eared bats; extrapolating detected northern long- behavior of this species, however, may however, there is no evidence eared bat mortalities to total bat reduce its vulnerability to toxic gases. suggesting effects from prescribed mortalities. Also, wind energy When trees are dormant, the bats are burning itself have led to population development within the species’ range roosting in caves or mines (hibernacula declines. is projected to continue to increase in can be protected from toxic gases future years. through appropriate burn plans), and Conservation Efforts To Reduce Other Climate change may also affect this during the growing season, northern Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting species, as northern long-eared bats are long-eared bats roost in tree cavities or Its Continued Existence particularly sensitive to changes in under bark above the understory, above In the Midwest, rapid wind energy temperature, humidity, and the area with the highest concentration development is a concern with regard to precipitation. Impacts from climate of gases in a low-intensity prescribed its effect on bats (Baker 2011, pers. change may also indirectly affect the burn (Dickinson et al. 2010, pp. 2196, comm.; Kath 2012, pers. comm.). Due to northern long-eared bat due to changes 2200). Carbon monoxide levels did not the known impacts from wind energy in food availability, timing of reach critical thresholds that could development, in particular to listed (and hibernation, and reproductive cycles, harm bats in low-intensity burns at the species currently being evaluated to along with other factors, all of which typical roosting height for the northern determine if listing is warranted) bird may contribute to a shift in suitable long-eared bat (Dickinson et al. 2010, p. and bat species in the Midwest, the habitat. 2196); thus, heat effects from prescribed Service, State natural resource agencies, Environmental contaminants, in fire are of greater concern than gas and wind energy industry particular insecticides, pesticides, and effects on bats. Direct heat could cause representatives are developing the inorganic contaminants, such as injury to the thin tissue of bat ears and MSHCP. The planning area includes the mercury and lead, may also have is more likely to occur than exposure to Midwest Region of the Service, which detrimental effects on northern long- toxic gas levels during prescribed burns includes all of the following States: eared bats. Contaminants may (Dickinson et al. 2010, p. 2196). In Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, bioaccumulate (become concentrated) in addition, fires of reduced intensity with Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and the tissues of bats, potentially leading to shorter flame height could lessen the Wisconsin. The MSHCP would allow a myriad of sublethal and lethal effects. effect of heat to bats roosting higher in permit holders to proceed with wind Northern long-eared bats likely trees (Dickinson et al. 2010, p. 2196). energy development, which may result evolved with fire in their habitat, and Winter, early spring, and late fall in ‘‘incidental’’ taking of a listed species thus may benefit from fire-created generally contain less intense fire under section 10 of the Act, through habitat. However, there are potential conditions than during other seasons issuance of an incidental take permit (77 negative effects from prescribed and coincide with time periods when FR 52754; August 30, 2012). Currently, burning, including direct mortality. bats are less affected by prescribed fire the northern long-eared bat is included Therefore, when using prescribed due to low activity in forested areas. as a covered species under the MSHCP. burning as a management tool, fire Furthermore, no young are present The MSHCP will address protection of frequency, timing, location, and during these times, reducing the covered species through avoidance, intensity should all be considered in likelihood of heat injury to vulnerable minimization of take, and mitigation to relation to the northern long-eared bat. young to fire (Dickinson et al. 2010, p. offset ‘‘take’’ (e.g., habitat preservation, There is currently no evidence that 2200). Prescribed fire objectives, such as habitat restoration, habitat these natural or manmade factors would fires with high intensity and rapid enhancement) to help ameliorate the have significant population-level effects ignition in order to meet vegetation effect of wind development (77 FR on the northern long-eared bat when

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 18006 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

considered alone. However, these (3) We have further refined the information, clarifications, and factors may have a cumulative effect on estimated timeframe during which Pd suggestions to improve the final listing this species when considered in concert (the fungus that causes white-nose rule. Peer reviewer comments are with WNS, as this disease has led to syndrome) is expected to spread addressed in the following summary dramatic northern long-eared bat throughout the range of the northern and are incorporated into the final rule population declines (see Factor C long-eared bat. as appropriate. Specific recommended discussion, above). While there have (4) We have expanded the discussion edits were added under the been conservation efforts attempting to of white-nose syndrome and the effects corresponding section in the final listing reduce the potential mortality of of white-nose syndrome on the northern rule. northern long-eared bats, particularly long-eared bat under Factor C. (1) Comment: Peer reviewers (and involving wind energy development and (5) We have included additional (most other commenters) concurred with the prescribed burning, these factors may recent available) survey data for the Service’s assessment that factors other still affect this species when considered species in the Distribution and Relative than white-nose syndrome are not cumulatively with white-nose syndrome Abundance section, above. believed to be contributing to the (discussed below, in ‘‘Cumulative Summary of Comments and current decline of the species Effects from Factors A through E’’). Recommendations on the Proposed rangewide. However, they believed that Cumulative Effects From Factors A Listing Rule there could be localized impacts from Through E In the proposed listing rule published these other stressors and that on October 2, 2013, we requested that cumulative impacts may result from WNS (Factor C) is the primary factor these other factors, in addition to white- affecting the northern long-eared bat all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by December nose syndrome, due to a diminished and has led to dramatic and rapid population. Several public commenters population-level effects on the species. 2, 2013. Following that first 60-day further stressed that these additional WNS is the most significant threat to the comment period, we held four threats will become proportionately northern long-eared bat, and the species additional public comment periods (see more harmful to the species after the would likely not be imperiled were it 78 FR 72058, December 2, 2013; 79 FR onset of WNS, and protection from these not for this disease. However, although 36698, June 30, 2014; 79 FR 68657, other threats may affect whether the the effects on the northern long-eared November 18, 2014; 80 FR 2371, January species can stabilize post-WNS. bat from Factors A, B, and E, 16, 2015) totaling an additional 180 individually or in combination, do not days for public comments, with the final Our Response: WNS is the most have significant effects on the species, comment period closing on March 17, significant threat to the northern long- when combined with the significant 2015. We also contacted appropriate eared bat, and the species would likely population reductions due to white- Federal and State agencies, scientific not be imperiled were it not for this nose syndrome (Factor C), they may experts and organizations, and other disease. Thus, the Service proposed have a cumulative effect on this species interested parties and invited them to listing the northern long-eared bat due at a local population scale. comment on the proposed listing. primarily to the impacts of WNS. As Newspaper notices inviting general stated by commenters, other activities Summary of Changes From the public comment were published in may impact northern long-eared bats as Proposed Listing Rule multiple newspapers throughout the well; however, we conclude that these Based on our review of the public range of the species. We received a factors are not believed to be comments, comments from other request for a public hearing; we held a independently impacting the species Federal and State agencies, peer review public hearing on December 2, 2014, in rangewide. However, although the comments, issues raised at the public Sundance, Wyoming. All substantive effects on the northern long-eared bat hearing, and new relevant information information provided during comment from Factors A, B, and E, individually that has become available since the periods has either been incorporated or in combination, do not have October 2, 2013, publication of the directly into this final determination or significant effects on the species, when proposed rule, we have reevaluated our is addressed below. Comments combined with the significant proposed listing rule and made changes pertaining to the proposed 4(d) rule will population reductions due to white- as appropriate. Other than minor be addressed in the final 4(d) rule, and nose syndrome (Factor C), they may clarifications and incorporation of are not included here. have a cumulative effect on this species additional information on the species’ at a local population scale. biology and populations, this Peer Reviewer Comments (2) Comment: Peer reviewers determination differs from the proposal In accordance with our peer review encouraged the Service to conduct a in the following ways: policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR more extensive literature review. Other (1) Based on our analyses of the 34270), we solicited expert opinion commenters also recommended a more potential threats to the species, we have from seven knowledgeable individuals extensive literature search and provided determined that the northern long-eared with scientific expertise that included citations for relevant literature not bat does not meet the definition of an familiarity with the northern long-eared included in the proposed listing rule. endangered species, contrary to our bat and its habitat, biological needs, and One reviewer suggested we review proposed rule published on October 2, threats. We received responses from literature on the species’ habitat 2013 (78 FR 61046). four of the peer reviewers. requirements, and suggested that the (2) Based on our analyses, we have We reviewed all comments we species is more flexible than described determined that the species meets the received from the peer reviewers for in the proposed listing rule. One definition of a threatened species. substantive issues and new information reviewer recommended, in particular, a Therefore, on the effective date of this regarding the listing of the northern more thorough review of literature final listing rule (see DATES, above), the long-eared bat. The peer reviewers related to bat community ecology or bat species will be listed as a threatened generally concurred with our methods response to forest management where species in the List of Endangered and and conclusions in the proposed listing northern long-eared bats are one of Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h). rule, and provided additional many species examined.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 unpublished governmental and These peer reviewers further questioned literature provided by commenters and nongovernmental reports, reports if the species will be able to recover, incorporated this information into this prepared by industry, personal even if white-nose syndrome is final listing rule, where appropriate. We communication about management or curtailed. also conducted further literature other relevant topics, conservation plans Our Response: Similar to other searches to determine if there was developed by States and counties, myotid bats (e.g., Indiana bat, little additional available literature relevant biological assessments, other brown bat), the northern long-eared bat to the species’ biology or the factors unpublished materials, experts’ is considered a highly social species, affecting its status, and incorporated opinions or personal knowledge, and with females forming maternity colonies that information into this final listing other sources. You may request a copy during the summer months. Peer rule. In particular, we updated sections of many of these unpublished reports by reviewers expect that white nose- with the most recent literature contacting the Service’s Twin Cities syndrome will reduce population sizes pertaining to the predominant threat to Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR to a level that these groups may not be the species, white-nose syndrome, and FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). able to be maintained. Whether a the resulting impact of the disease on Unpublished reports that we have used species is ultimately recoverable is not the northern long-eared bat. in making our listing determination something we consider when listing (3) Comment: One peer reviewer include survey information that has species; we are obligated to list species stated that it is critical to point out that been received from State agencies, under the Act if they meet the definition these bats day-roost in an ephemeral which the public can request directly of an endangered or a threatened resource (snags and cavity-trees), and, from these State agencies. species. We will consider what actions therefore, they are adapted to handle the (5) Comment: Peer reviewers agreed might be necessary to recover the dynamic nature of roost longevity and that white-nose syndrome likely will species when we begin recovery loss of roosts from disturbance in spread throughout the range of the planning and implementation. See our temperate forest systems. northern long-eared bat. One peer Factor C discussion in the section titled, Our Response: Northern long-eared reviewer suggested that the rate of ‘‘Effects of White-nose Syndrome on the bats are flexible in their tree species spread (through bat-to-bat contact) may Northern Long-eared Bat,’’ above, for a roost selection, and roost trees are an slow in western areas, where more detailed discussion of this topic. ephemeral resource; therefore, the hibernacula are not as abundant. (7) Comment: One commenter stated species would be expected to tolerate ‘‘Barriers provided by the Great Lakes that although the proposed listing rule some loss of roosts provided suitable and isolation from major cave areas in discusses the regulatory mechanisms alternative roosts are available. North America are presumably the that several States have employed to However, the impact of loss of roosting reasons that the fungus has not yet reduce the negative impact of wind or foraging habitat within northern long- reached the populations in northern development on this species, it fails to eared bat home ranges is expected to Wisconsin and northern Michigan, and discuss potential regulatory efforts that vary, depending on the scope of the lower density of hibernacula in the could be controlled at the State level, removal. See the ‘‘Summer Habitat’’ Great Plains may slow the spread in a including the impact of highway section under Factor A, above, for a similar way. However, there is no construction, forest management, and more detailed discussion. biological reason to believe that the pest control regulations. (4) Comment: One peer reviewer disease will not spread throughout the Our Response: In general, we devoted commented that the literature cited that entire range of the species.’’ most effort to identifying conservation is posted at http://www.regulations.gov Our Response: As stated in this final efforts that have been taken to reduce was not complete, with several listing rule, based on past and current the impact of the predominant threat to references in the text not appearing in rates of spread of the disease, we agree the species: White-nose syndrome. We the literature cited section, and many of that the disease will likely spread acknowledge that additional the unpublished reports that are cited throughout the range of the species. conservation efforts are underway in are unobtainable. Regarding a slowing rate of spread in many arenas and they may address Our Response: We corrected this and western areas due to fewer hibernacula, other cumulative threats. added these missing references, in WNS has been confirmed at numerous (8) Comment: One peer reviewer addition to any new references used in hibernacula that are not caves or mines, disagreed with the assessment in the this final listing rule, to the literature including culverts, bunkers, forts, proposed listing rule that the species cited list. A complete list of references tunnels, excavations, quarries, and even clusters and, therefore, is at greater risk cited in this rulemaking is available on houses. Since this peer review was of bat-to bat transmission of Pd while in the Internet at http:// submitted, white-nose syndrome has hibernation. This reviewer stated, at www.regulations.gov and upon request been documented in Wisconsin and the least in Kentucky caves, that the species from the Twin Cities Ecological Services Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The is most often seen hibernating alone or Field Office (see FOR FURTHER spread of white-nose syndrome was in very small groupings. INFORMATION CONTACT). addressed in more detail in our Factor Our Response: We corrected this in The Act and our regulations do not C discussion in the section titled, this final listing rule. The northern long- require us to use only peer-reviewed ‘‘Effects of White-nose Syndrome on the eared bat occasionally can be found in literature, but instead require us to use Northern Long-eared Bat,’’ above. clusters with other bats, but typically is the best scientific data available in a (6) Comment: Peer reviewers noted found roosting singly during listing determination. We used that, in the proposed listing rule, we did hibernation. Certain life-history information from many different not stress the importance of the characteristics of the northern long- sources, including articles in peer- northern long-eared bat’s sociality eared bat (e.g., proclivity to roost in reviewed journals, scientific status during the summer months, and areas with increased humidity of surveys and studies completed by suggested a further explanation on how hibernacula, longer hibernation time qualified individuals, Master’s thesis social structures be maintained if period) are believed to increase the research that has been reviewed but not populations have declined dramatically species’ susceptibility to white-nose published in a journal, other due to white-nose syndrome is needed. syndrome in comparison to other cave

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 basis, but at the species, subspecies, or immediate future, but could become so species with known mortality from distinct population segment (DPS) level. in the future. WNS, the northern long-eared bat has For the northern long-eared bat, we have Our Response: As explained in the demonstrated the greatest declines, determined that the species warrants Determination section of this final based on winter count data. See our listing as a threatened species listing rule, although WNS is predicted Factor C discussion in the section titled, throughout its range based on current to spread throughout the range of the ‘‘Effects of White-nose Syndrome on the threats (primarily due to WNS) and how species, in the currently uninfected Northern Long-eared Bat,’’ above, for a those threats are likely to impact the areas we have no evidence that northern more detailed discussion. species into the future. (See our long-eared bat numbers have declined, (9) Comment: One reviewer stated response to Comment 36 for more and the present threats to the species in that understanding the extent of the information.) those areas are relatively low. Thus, impact to northern long-eared bats White-nose syndrome or Pd have been because the fungus that causes WNS remains difficult due to the behavior of confirmed in 28 States of the northern (Pd) may not spread throughout the the species during the winter, which long-eared bat’s 37-State (plus the species’ range for another 8 to 13 years, includes movement between District of Columbia) range. The species’ because no significant declines have hibernacula, particularly during range only extends into a small area in occurred to date in the portion of the swarming and staging periods, and the some of the States that remain range not yet impacted by the disease, ability of the species to hibernate in uninfected with white-nose syndrome to and because some bats persist many cracks and crevices, making it difficult date. Information provided to the years later in some geographic areas to develop population estimates for Service by a number of State agencies impacted by WNS (for unknown winter counts. and all models concerning the spread of reasons), we conclude that the northern Our Response: Despite the difficulties white-nose syndrome demonstrates that long-eared bat is not currently in danger in observing or counting northern long- white-nose syndrome will continue to of extinction throughout all of its range. eared bats, winter hibernacula counts spread throughout the range of the However, because Pd is predicted to are the recommended method, and the northern long-eared bat. Furthermore, continue to spread, we also determine only method with enough history to based on the average rate of spread to that the northern long-eared bat is likely assess trends over time, for monitoring date, Pd can be expected to occur to be in danger of extinction within the northern long-eared bats. Hibernacula throughout the range of the northern foreseeable future. Therefore, on the surveys are considered the best long-eared bat in an estimated 8 to 13 basis of the best available scientific and available data for cave-dwelling bats in years (see our Factor C discussion in the commercial information, we are listing general. However, in recognition of the section titled, ‘‘White-nose Syndrome,’’ the northern long-eared bat as a limitations of these data, we generally above). Thus we have determined that threatened species under the Act. do not use the available hibernacula the northern long-eared bat is (13) Comment: Several States counts to estimate northern long-eared threatened throughout its entire range. (Kentucky, Georgia, and Missouri) bat population size. Instead, we use the (11) Comment: Several State and other mentioned that, at the time they hibernacula data to understand and commenters stated that the species submitted their comments, there had estimate population trends for the should be listed as threatened rather not been any decline detected in species. The relative difficulty of than endangered for a variety of reasons: northern long-eared bat population observing northern long-eared bats It would provide the Service with a numbers. Specifically, Kentucky, and during hibernacula surveys should be better opportunity to protect the species Georgia stated that the species is still consistent from year to year, and these from white-nose syndrome; we lack commonly captured during summer data can be used to estimate relative understanding of white-nose syndrome surveys, even following white-nose change in numbers and indicate if the in the warmer regions with higher cave syndrome confirmation in the State. species is increasing or decreasing in temperatures and shorter hibernation Kentucky comments stated that the number in those hibernacula. Thus, the periods; a threatened status would allow species’ population in the State does not total data available for known northern for potential issuance of a 4(d) rule, seem to be susceptible to white-nose long-eared bat hibernacula can yield an which would allow the Service to syndrome. individual site and cumulative implement regulations that are Our Response: No decline has been indication of species population trend; necessary and advisable to conserve the documented in Georgia, Kentucky, or the declines estimated at hibernacula species, due to the large geographic size Missouri to date. However, mortality are also corroborated by declines in of the northern long-eared bat’s range due to white-nose syndrome has been acoustic records and mist-net captures and the habitat variability within the documented in cave bats in all four in summer. large range; and a belief that endangered States, and mortality in northern long- status is premature until more eared bats has been documented in State Agency Comments information is available. Kentucky and Missouri. Also, (10) Comment: State fish and wildlife Our Response: For the reasons stated historically, there have been small management agencies (Montana, in the Determination section of this final numbers of northern long-eared bats Louisiana, and Tennessee) commented listing rule, the Service has determined found in hibernacula in these States; that the listing of the northern long- that the northern long-eared bat is a therefore, it is challenging to detect eared bat should be limited to the threatened species, rather than an population changes based on portions of the range where decline has endangered species. Please see our hibernacula survey data alone in these been documented. Another State response to other comments, which States. Summer surveys, where (Wyoming) commented that there is address the reasons specified by available, often show a lower decline insufficient data to warrant listing of the commenters for listing the species as than corresponding hibernacula data in northern long-eared bat at a national threatened rather than endangered. general. These differences likely stem level given the absence of white-nose (12) Comment: One state commenter from a combination of different survey syndrome in much of its range. did not recommend a specific status for techniques, differential influence of Our Response: Decisions under the the species, but found that the species white-nose syndrome in the summer Act cannot be made on a State-by-State is not in danger of extinction in the versus winter northern long-eared bat

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 Appalachians, rather than the northeast, hibernacula containing northern long- the summer data do not reflect northern and commented that ‘‘Tennessee has eared bats are plentiful in many States, long-eared bat populations as well as over 9,000 caves and less than 2 percent with 89 known in New York and 119 in the winter data, given the methods and of those have been surveyed, which Pennsylvania alone. locations from which they were derived. could mean that there are many more Our Response: Although there are a Although there may not be a decline in locations within the [S]tate that have large number of known hibernacula that summer populations observed to date in significant numbers of [northern long- were historically used by northern long- these States, mortality has been eared bats].’’ eared bats, there are currently few, if documented, which indicates the Our Response: The Act requires us to any, individuals found during species is susceptible to the disease in make a determination using the best hibernacula surveys (post-WNS) in these States. available scientific and commercial data Pennsylvania and New York. Please (14) Comment: Several State in our review of the status of the refer to the Distribution and Relative commenters (Oklahoma and Midwest species. In the proposed listing rule, we Abundance section of this final listing Association of Fish and Wildlife used the best available data at the time, rule, which discusses the current status Agencies (MAFWA) letter) mentioned which did not show the species to be as of the species in these two States. that in the proposed listing rule, the common, particularly in summer (19) Comment: Several States Service described different regions of surveys. Based on more thorough data provided information on current and the northern long-eared bat’s range as provided since the October 2, 2013, past conservation efforts that may separate populations and the proposed rule (e.g., summer survey data benefit the northern long-eared bat. commenter interpreted that to mean and winter hibernacula counts, peer Also, other public comments noted that each population was a ‘‘subpopulation.’’ reviewer comments), we have since State, Federal, and private conservation Our Response: We removed learned the species may have been more efforts should be more thoroughly ‘‘population’’ from this section of the commonly encountered, historically in reviewed and included in the final rule to address any confusion. For the Kentucky and Tennessee. We have listing rule. Specifically, many purposes of organization, the northern corrected this in the final listing rule commenters mentioned that more long-eared bat’s range in the United within the ‘‘Southern Range’’ section of weight should have been given to the States is discussed in four parts: eastern the Distribution and Relative 2008 white-nose syndrome plan, State range, Midwest range, southern range, Abundance discussion, above. With white-nose syndrome plans, white-nose and western range. Separating the range regard to the potential for additional syndrome workshops, and State agency of the bat is not meant to imply that unsurveyed hibernacula in Tennessee, efforts in survey and white-nose there are distinct or separate this was noted in the Distribution and syndrome research efforts. ‘‘subpopulations’’ of the species. Relative Abundance discussion, above. Our Response: Information provided (15) Comment: State and public Also, there is no reason to believe that to us on additional conservation efforts commenters stated that white-nose white-nose syndrome will not reach bat has been added to the conservation syndrome research will be impacted if hibernacula simply because these sites efforts discussion under Factors A and the northern long-eared bat is listed, as are not monitored. Because we have C, above. It should be noted, however, treatments cannot be tested on listed documented consistently that northern that although recommendations set forth species. long-eared bat declines are severe once in these documents (e.g., 2008 white- Our Response: Under section 4 of the white-nose syndrome is confirmed in a nose syndrome plan, State white-nose Act, a species shall be listed if it meets site, it is reasonable to expect that syndrome plans), if followed, may help the definition of an endangered or northern long-eared bat declines are reduce human-aided spread of white- threatened species because of any (one similar at sites that are not or cannot be nose syndrome, the efforts outlined in or more) of the five factors (threats), monitored. these plans have not yet identified a considering solely best available (17) Comment: Two States (Minnesota method by which WNS can be halted or scientific and commercial data. Based and Missouri) and several public its impacts reduced. Also, the white- on our analysis of the five factors, we commenters requested that, if the nose syndrome national plan represents conclude the northern long-eared bat species is listed, they be included as guidance that is not strictly enforced by meets the definition of a threatened stakeholders in designating critical any agency. Thus, although these plans species, particularly considering the habitat and developing a recovery plan will prepare management agencies to act effects of WNS on the species. Research and best management plans. to stop WNS should a viable option be that is conducted for the purpose of Our Response: The Service presented, their ability to halt WNS is recovery of a species is an activity that appreciates the interest expressed by not guaranteed. can be authorized under section 10 of these commenters in being involved as (20) Comment: Many States in the the Act, normally referred to as a stakeholders and welcomes all Northeast stated that white-nose recovery permit, or can be conducted by interested parties to be involved as syndrome continues to impact the certain State conservation agencies by potential stakeholders. We will work northern long-eared bat in their virtue of their authority under section 6 with stakeholders through recovery respective States and have witnessed of the Act. White-nose syndrome planning to identify areas that would post-WNS confirmation of mortality and research will be important for recovery aid in recovery of this species, and severe declines. Vermont, New of the species, and thus the Service will determine appropriate actions to take. Hampshire, and Maine all commented continue to support such actions. The Service understands the importance that the species was considered a (16) Comment: Both State and public of stakeholder participation and support common species in the State prior to commenters stated that the species is in recovery of the northern long-eared white-nose syndrome confirmation and more common in southeast States, bat and will continue to work with all is now considered rare. Kentucky and Tennessee in particular, stakeholders to this end. Our Response: Data received during than was depicted in the proposed (18) Comment: Several commenters, data requests sent to the States listing rule. The State of Tennessee through a single letter produced by the corroborate these declines due to white- further questions if the historical core of Northeast Association of Fish and nose syndrome cited by commenters. the species’ range is in the southern Wildlife Agencies, stated that known This information is presented in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 18010 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Distribution and Relative Abundance (in Our Response: Information provided population from northern long-eared the ‘‘Eastern Range’’ and ‘‘Southern to the Service by a number of State bats in adjacent States. Range’’ sections) within the Background agencies confirms the likelihood of (25) Comment: One commenter stated section of this final listing rule. white-nose syndrome spreading that more State-specific data are needed (21) Comment: One State questioned throughout the range of the northern considering the ambiguity and what recovery actions would need to be long-eared bat. White-nose syndrome or divergence across the range of the taken to stop the spread of white-nose Pd are now detected in 28 States and 5 northern long-eared bat. syndrome throughout the northern long- Canadian provinces, all of which are in Our Response: The Act requires us to eared bat’s range. the range of the species. Pd has spread make a determination using the best Our Response: Recovery actions will over 1,000 miles (1,609 km) from the available scientific and commercial data be decided upon during recovery primary site of detection in New York after conducting a review of the status planning, after the species is listed. to western Missouri, northern of the species. In 2014, we requested Recovery planning includes the Minnesota, and as far south as Alabama, additional survey data (hibernacula and development of a recovery outline Arkansas, Georgia, and Mississippi. summer) from all of the States within shortly after a species is listed, Furthermore, although there is some the range of the species (and the District preparation of a draft and final recovery variation in spread dynamics and the of Columbia) and received information plan, and revisions to the plan as impact of WNS on bats when it arrives from the majority of States. We have significant new information becomes at a new site, no information suggests added this updated information to the available. The recovery outline guides that any site would be unsusceptible to Distribution and Relative Abundance the immediate implementation of urgent the arrival of Pd. Given the appropriate section of this final listing rule. recovery actions and describes the amount of time for exposure, WNS (26) Comment: Several commenters process to be used to develop a recovery appears to have had similar levels of stated that hibernacula survey data are plan. The recovery plan identifies site- impact on northern long-eared bats too unreliable to base the listing specific management actions that will everywhere the species has been decision on for the northern long-eared bat because northern long-eared bats are achieve recovery of the species, documented with the disease. often overlooked in winter surveys due measurable criteria that determine when Therefore, absent direct evidence to to their cryptic nature and the a species may be downlisted or delisted, suggest that some northern long-eared fluctuation of winter numbers, and that and methods for monitoring recovery bats that encounter Pd do not contract rather the Service should base its listing progress. WNS, available information suggests (22) Comment: One State commented decision on summer survey data. that the species will be impacted by that not all white-nose syndrome spread Further, some commenters stated that WNS everywhere in its range. See our models are in agreement on how the the Service did not compile and review Factor C discussion in the section titled, disease will spread. They cited a model complete summer data sets maintained ‘‘Effects of White-nose Syndrome on the presented at the White-nose syndrome by State agencies. Northern Long-eared Bat,’’ above, for Workshop in 2012 (Puechmaille 2012), Our Response: We agree that northern and indicated that this model suggested more detailed information. long-eared bats are often difficult to that the spread and impacts of the (24) Comment: Comments from observe during winter hibernacula disease presented in the proposed Oklahoma stated that the northern long- surveys due to their tendency to roost listing rule were significantly eared bat is commonly captured in the deep in cracks and crevices within overestimated. counties where it occurs in the State, hibernacula. Despite the difficulties in Our Response: The Puechmaille and survey results indicate the northern observing or counting northern long- model, cited by the commenter, has long-eared bat population throughout eared bats, winter hibernacula colony been presented in evolving forms at the the southwestern portion of the species’ counts are the recommended method, past several annual White-nose range does not need protection under and the only method with enough syndrome Workshops. The type of the Act at this time. history to assess trends over time, for model used by Puechmaille may be Our Response: We have incorporated monitoring northern long-eared bats, useful in predicting suitable habitat for information provided on the species’ and hibernacula surveys are considered WNS, but it is not sufficient to predict status for the northern long-eared bat in the best available data for cave-dwelling unsuitable habitat. Further, this model Oklahoma in the Distribution and bats in general. However, in recognition cannot be used to predict spread of Relative Abundance section of this final of the limitations of these data, we do WNS. Given the uncertainties of the listing rule. As stated in response to not use the available hibernacula counts Puechmaille model (as identified by the another comment, decisions under the to estimate northern long-eared bat author), we did not consider this model Act cannot be made on a State-by-State population size. Instead we use the in making inferences about white-nose basis, but at the species, subspecies, or hibernacula data to understand and syndrome (or Pd) spread dynamics or DPS level. When a species is listed, we estimate population trends for the population-level impacts to the northern work with all of our partners to develop species. The relative difficulty of long-eared bat. and implement practical solutions to observing northern long-eared bats (23) Comment: One State commenter conserve and protect the species while during hibernacula surveys should be agreed with the statement offered in the enabling on-the-ground projects to move consistent from year to year, and these proposed listing rule that there is no forward. The definition of ‘‘species’’ data can be used to estimate relative information to indicate that there are under the Act includes distinct change in numbers and indicate if the areas within the species’ range that will population segments. For a DPS to be species is increasing or decreasing in not be impacted by white-nose identified it must be markedly separated number in those hibernacula. Thus, the syndrome. Life-history information, as from other populations as a total data available for known northern well as what we currently know about consequence of physical, physiological, long-eared bat hibernacula can yield an the disease, suggests northern long- ecological, or behavioral factors. It is individual site and cumulative eared bats exhibit low resiliency due to unlikely, and we have no evidence, that indication of species population trend; their extreme susceptibility to the a State boundary would separate one furthermore, declines estimated at disease and their low reproductive rates. State’s northern long-eared bat hibernacula are corroborated by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 predict the disease or Pd will continue monitoring efforts in the State (Reynolds captures in summer. to spread. As mentioned under our 2012, pers. comm.). Therefore, the In 2014, we requested all available Factor C discussion in the section titled, assertion that the difference between hibernacula and summer survey data ‘‘Effects of White-nose Syndrome on the winter estimates (99 percent decline in from all State fish and wildlife agencies Northern Long-eared Bat,’’ above, count) and summer estimates (76 within the range of the species and models that provide estimates of the percent decline in captures) in received information from the majority timing of spread predict the disease will Pennsylvania represents a significant of States. We also requested information cover the entirety of the species’ range disparity in the estimated impact of from States while developing the between 2 and 40 years. However, these WNS in the State is premature and proposed listing rule. All available models all have significant limitations inconclusive in the context of the health information at the time was included in for predicting timing of spread, and in of northern long-eared bat populations the proposed listing rule. The majority many instances have overestimated the in Pennsylvania. Furthermore, summer of long-term summer monitoring time white-nose syndrome would arrive monitoring in Pennsylvania reveals that estimates corroborates the trends in currently uninfected counties by as declines in northern long-eared bat observed in hibernating colonies. much as 45 years. captures continued in 2014. Although it is important to include all As for how white-nose syndrome We agree that there are differences available relevant summer data, summer affects bats, how it is transmitted, and between summer and winter data for data likely do not reflect northern long- how it may be controlled, there has been northern long-eared bat. Specifically, eared bat populations as well as the a significant amount of research that summer data, where available, often winter data, given the variability in completed that has provided insight show a lower decline than methods and locations from which they into these questions. Please see our corresponding hibernacula data. We were derived. Although we Factor C discussion in the section titled, conclude that these differences likely acknowledge uncertainties in both ‘‘White-nose Syndrome,’’ above, for a stem from a combination of different summer and winter northern long-eared more detailed discussion. survey techniques, differential influence bat data, we believe that the winter data, (28) Comment: Several commenters, of WNS in the summer versus winter at this time, provide a more reliable through a single letter produced by northern long-eared bat populations, estimate of population trends. The MAFWA, stated that recent survey data and also the likelihood that the summer Distribution and Relative Abundance from Pennsylvania, a State amongst the data do not reflect northern long-eared section of this final listing rule includes hardest hit by WNS, indicate that bat populations as well as the winter the most recent data received from hibernacula surveys may be given the methods and locations from States within the species’ range. overestimating the decline in northern which they were derived. Although we (27) Comment: Commenters stated long-eared bat numbers. A large 2013 acknowledge uncertainties in both that the Service is making an sample of summer mist-netting shows summer and winter northern long-eared assumption that white-nose syndrome that northern long-eared bat captures bat data, we conclude that the winter will spread throughout the range of the per unit effort (over 178,000 square- data, at this time, provide a more northern long-eared bat. One commenter meter mist-net hours in 2001–2007; over reliable estimate of population trends. stated that bat experts do not know with 500,000 in 2013) remain at 24 percent (29) Comment: Comments from any degree of certainty how WNS affects of the level observed pre-WNS. In MAFWA stated that only a small bats, how it is transmitted, how quickly contrast, hibernacula surveys in proportion of known cave and mine or extensively it will spread, or how it Pennsylvania during the same time hibernacula across the species’ range might be controlled. These commenters period show a 99 percent decline in have been surveyed or monitored for the stated that these uncertainties in white- northern long-eared bat observations. northern long-eared bat. For example, nose syndrome’s spread make it ‘‘These results clearly demonstrate the ‘‘Tennessee has over 9,000 caves and impossible to forecast how the disease significant disparity between the less than 2 percent of those have been will spread and impact the species in prevalence of northern long-eared bats surveyed, which could mean that there different areas throughout its range. recorded in hibernacula surveys and in are many more locations within the Our Response: The question of if and summer surveys (Turner 2014, pers. State that have significant numbers of when white-nose syndrome will spread comm.).’’ northern long-eared bat’’ (TWRA 2014). throughout the range of the species has Our Response: Numerous counties in The commenter stated that this is been considered extensively by the western Pennsylvania were not particularly true for many areas of Service and its white-nose syndrome confirmed with WNS until 2012, Canada (COSEWIC 2013) and the central coordinators. Information provided to possibly attributable to geographic and western States where surveys of bat the Service by a number of State barriers that hinder movements of bats hibernacula are very limited. agencies demonstrates the likelihood of between eastern and western parts of Our Response: These are accurate white-nose syndrome spreading the State (Miller-Butterworth et al. statements. Additional counties in throughout the range of the northern 2014). Nevertheless, a 76 percent Tennessee have been confirmed with long-eared bat. White-nose syndrome or decline in summer captures of northern WNS each year since 2010. There is no Pd is now detected in 28 States and 5 long-eared bat (standardized for effort) reason to believe that WNS will not Canadian provinces, all of which are in represents a severe decline in the reach bat hibernacula simply because the range of the species. From initial population over the past 7 years. These these sites are not monitored. We have detection of white-nose syndrome in the summer monitoring estimates several examples of hibernacula that winter of 2006–2007, Pd has spread over corroborate the severe declines observed were only identified after WNS was 1,000 miles (1,690 km) from the primary in hibernating colonies. Furthermore, transmitted into the area and dead and site of detection in the State of New summer monitoring in Virginia from dying bats were found on the landscape. York to western Missouri, northern 2009 to the present revealed that Because we have seen consistently that Minnesota, and as far south as Alabama, declines in northern long-eared bats northern long-eared bat declines are Arkansas, Georgia, and Mississippi. All were not observed by VDGIF until 2 severe once WNS is confirmed in a site, models we have consulted concerning years after the severe declines were it is reasonable to expect that northern the spread of white-nose syndrome observed during winter and fall long-eared bat declines are similar at

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 these trends suggest that Myotid species, have, in the proposed listing rule and in monitored. In 103 hibernacula like the northern long-eared bat, are supporting documents, shows that rates throughout the East, 68 percent now capable of adapting behavioral strategies of development and forest conversion in have zero northern long-eared bats for dealing with WNS infection. general within the species’ range is not observed in winter surveys. An Our Response: These observations decreasing. For example, the USFS additional 24 percent have declined by suggest that there is an increase in body projected forest losses of 16 to 34 more than 50 percent. masses of little brown bats at some million acres (4 to 8 percent) by 2060 (30) Comment: MAFWA commented colonies where WNS has been present across the continental United States that recent research into slowing the for several years. They do not (USFS 2012). spread of WNS has documented, in a demonstrate an evolutionary shift in (33) Comment: MAFWA stated that laboratory setting, that Pd spores can be behavioral or physiological strategy. recent evidence documents a multitude killed by Rhodococcus rhodochrous Increased body mass may be a result of of species in Europe coexist with the DAP96253 (RRDAP). They suggest that lesser competition for prey during the causative agent and do so by getting this potential treatment may increase fattening period (which may still be minimal infection and without bat survival and allow the northern potentially beneficial for surviving documented mortality (Zukal et al. long-eared bat to adapt to the presence winter with WNS). Furthermore, this 2014). The commenter also stated that of WNS. pattern of increasing body masses in data recently presented at the 2014 Our Response: As noted by the States pre-hibernating little brown bats has not WNS meeting show the amount of in this comment, strategies to slow the been documented widely. It is also infection on surviving bats in the spread of WNS are in various early important to note that these Northeast has decreased significantly stages of development in the laboratory observations have been made in little from the period where mass mortality setting. Promising treatments, including brown bat only, and not in northern was experienced, and is now closer to RRDAP and others, are being considered long-eared bat. Jonasson and Willis the level of European infection. for field trials. However, considerably (2011) studied fat consumption over Our Response: Pd and WNS were not more research and coordination is winter in hibernating little brown bats investigated in Europe until after the needed to address the safety and unaffected by WNS. They hypothesized disease was identified in North effectiveness of any treatment proposed that fatter bats may be more likely to America. However, subsequent to the for field use and to meet regulatory survive WNS, but they did not test this discovery of WNS in North America, requirements prior to consideration of hypothesis. Likewise, the observations European scientists have identified widespread application. In short, in Pennsylvania have not been tested for evidence of Pd dating back many implementation of WNS treatments on a significance or repetition. decades, leading to the hypothesis that landscape-scale is likely years away. Though related, little brown bats and the fungus has been present in Europe Risks associated with application of northern long-eared bats are distinctly for a long time. We cannot know what any compound in a field setting remain different species that have exhibited the impact of Pd has been on different largely unknown and undemonstrated different responses to Pd infection and bat species in Europe throughout when considering the additional harm WNS. Banding studies in the heavily evolutionary history. The fact that 13 to bats, other biota, or the environment. affected northeastern States have species of European bats have been Furthermore, the RRDAP compound has confirmed that some little brown bats documented with WNS or Pd without not been tested on northern long-eared have survived multiple years of WNS documentation of significant declining bats, so it has not yet been demonstrated exposure and infection, and little brown populations has led to conclusions that to be safe or effective for this species. bats continue to be observed in some those European species coexist with the Therefore, the assertion that the areas. However there is little, if any, disease. However, this observation does treatment of bats with RRDAP or other data to support the same trend for not mean WNS did not severely impact agents may increase bat survival and northern long-eared bats. Efforts to band or even cause extinction of European bat allow northern long-eared bat to survive northern long-eared bat have been species at some point in the past. exposure to the pathogen is initiated; however, extremely low North American species differ unsubstantiated. No treatment in capture rates with only very few significantly in physiology and ecology development has demonstrated any individuals banded make it difficult to to similar species in Europe. We have potential to allow a species to ‘‘adapt to examine survival trends with this gained considerable understanding of the presence of the pathogen.’’ species. variability in impact of WNS among Any treatment or application (32) Comment: One commenter North American species, such as that demonstrated to slow the spread and disagreed that the highest rates of certain species like the big brown bat mortality of WNS will be an important development in the conterminous and Townsend’s big-eared bat appear tool for potential recovery actions. United States occur within the range of resilient to or unaffected by the disease, However, we cannot predict exactly the northern long-eared bat (Brown et while other species like the northern when or if a treatment will be proven al. 2005, p. 1856) and contribute to the long-eared bat have declined safe and effective for large-scale loss of forest habitat. The commenter substantially. Therefore, the best implementation that will affect species stated that forests within the range of available data indicate there are variable at a population level. the northern long-eared bat continue to response levels to WNS among bat (31) Comment: Comments from recover from unsustainable forestry species; northern long-eared bats are MAWFA stated that there is evidence practices that were employed in the late among the most susceptible species to that little brown bats in Pennsylvania 19th century. WNS. are showing an increasing trend in body Our Response: Although the (34) Comment: One commenter stated mass at time of hibernation (Turner commenter disagreed with the statement that the impact of white-nose syndrome 2014, pers. comm.), and others have in the proposed listing rule with regard may have been overstated by the suggested that there is evidence that to rates of development within the range Service. They commented that the data larger body mass increases survival from of the northern long-eared bat, there was used in the proposed listing rule only WNS infection (Jonasson and Willis no evidence presented to refute this included known winter roost sites 2011). The commenters concluded that statement. Further, information we surveys and the rule does not state that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18013

the species could be employing eared bat. In August 2014, several Tribes determined that the species warrants behavior plasticity and using alternative and multi-tribal organizations were sent listing as a threatened species roosts. This same commenter also an additional letter regarding the throughout its range based on current questioned carcass testing reports, as Service’s intent to extend the deadline threats (primarily due to WNS) and how presented in the rule, confirming only for making a final listing determination those threats are likely to impact the 50 percent of individuals tested positive by 6 months. A conference call was also species into the future. for white-nose syndrome. held with Tribes to explain the listing (37) Comment: A few commenters Our Response: We acknowledge that process and discuss any concerns. stated that the Service did not consider northern long-eared bats may be using Following publication of the proposed the benefit offered to the species from alternate, often unknown or rule, the Service established 3 protection of other listed species, such unsurveyed, winter roosts and, as a interagency teams (biology of the as the Indiana bat. One commenter result, may be unobserved during northern long-eared bat, non-WNS further stated that because of this winter. However, regardless of the type threats, and conservation measures) to overlap in the ranges of the two species, of hibernacula used, northern long- ensure that States, Tribes, and other there is no reason to list the northern eared bats require roosts with cool, Federal agencies were able to provide long-eared bat. humid conditions, which are also input into various aspects of the listing Our Response: There have been suitable for Pd growth. As for the rule and potential conservation conservation efforts that have been question of the carcass testing reports, measures for the species. Invitations for undertaken to benefit other federally this information was removed in the inclusion in these teams were sent to listed species, such as the Indiana bat, final listing rule because it was Tribes within the range of the northern within the range of the northern long- potentially misleading. A small portion long-eared bat. Two additional eared bat. More detailed information of dead bats are tested for the disease, conference calls (in January and March can be found above, under Factor A. especially in areas where WNS has not 2015) were held with Tribes to outline The Present or Threatened Destruction, been confirmed recently. Therefore, the proposed species-specific 4(d) rule Modification, or Curtailment of Its reporting on the small number of bats and answer questions. Through this Habitat or Range. However, prohibitions tested does not give an accurate coordination, some Tribal of the Act are species-specific; thus depiction of the impact of the disease on representatives expressed concern about prohibitions from take would not apply the species. Principally, the northern how listing the northern long-eared bat to the northern long-eared bat simply long-eared bat is susceptible to WNS, may impact forestry practices, housing due to another similar species being and mortality of northern long-eared development programs, and other listed. Further, benefits to the northern bats due to the disease has been activities on Tribal lands. long-eared bat that may occur as the confirmed throughout the majority of result of other similar species that are Public Comments the WNS-affected range. listed are primarily habitat-related, and (36) Comment: One commenter stated do not address the primary threat to the Tribal Comments that listing should be restricted to the northern long-eared bat, WNS. (35) Comment: One Tribe provided portion of the species’ range that has (38) Comment: Several commenters information related to the biology, experienced WNS, the current threat to stated that the peer review of the ecology, and threats faced by the this species. The commenter urged the proposed listing rule should have taken northern long-eared bat that reinforced Service to, instead of listing the species place prior to publication. the data and information included in rangewide, consider listing as a DPS, Our Response: In accordance with our the Background section of this final because the species is stable across policy published in the Federal Register rule. Additionally, the commenter much of its range and a DPS will ‘‘allow on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we are provided information in response to the Service to apply appropriate to seek the expert opinions of at least other public comments that we had conservation measures in the area of three appropriate and independent received and the letters received from greatest need.’’ specialists regarding proposed listing the Midwest and Southeast Association Our Response: When completing a actions. We are to provide a summary of of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and status review in response to a petition their review in the final decision, but Regional Forester Groups and the to list a species, we conduct that review are not required to conduct this peer Northeast Association of Fish and across the species’ range, unless the review prior to the proposal. The Wildlife Agencies. They also expressed petition requests that we evaluate a purpose of peer review is to ensure that their support for listing the species as different entity, such as a DPS. The our final listing determination is based endangered. petition to list the northern long-eared on scientifically sound data, Our Response: We appreciate the bat requested that we consider whether assumptions, and analyses. We solicited input provided and incorporated it into listing is warranted for the species; the expert opinion from seven peer the final rule where appropriate. For the petition did not specifically ask us to reviewers with scientific expertise, reasons stated in the Determination consider whether any DPSs warrant including familiarity with the northern section of this final listing rule, we have listing. In conducting status reviews, we long-eared bat and its habitat, biological determined that the northern long-eared generally follow a step-wise process needs, and threats. We received bat should be listed as threatened, rather where we begin with a rangewide responses from four of the peer than endangered. Please refer to that evaluation. If the species does not reviewers, and have addressed their section for a detailed description of that warrant listing rangewide, we then comments and incorporated relevant determination. consider the status of other listable information into this final entities. Furthermore, the Service is to determination. Tribal Coordination exercise its authority with regard to (39) Comment: A few commenters In October 2013, Tribes and multi- DPSs ‘‘sparingly and only when the stated that the proposed listing rule was tribal organizations were sent letters biological evidence indicates that such rushed due to judicial settlement. inviting them to begin consultation and action is warranted’’ (Senate Report 151, Our Response: We disagree. The coordination with the service on the 96th Congress, 1st Session). For the Service received a petition to list the proposal to listing the northern long- northern long-eared bat, we have northern long-eared bat and eastern

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 trees over the winter rather than conservation of listed species. We prefer a substantial 90-day finding on June 29, hibernating in caves and mines and, to work collaboratively with private 2011 (76 FR 38095), indicating that therefore, might avoid contracting landowners, and strongly encourage listing these two species may be white-nose syndrome. individuals with listed species on their warranted and initiating a status review. Our Response: Northern long-eared property to work with us to develop Completion of the status reviews were bats predominantly hibernate in caves incentive-based measures such as safe delayed due to listing resources and abandoned mines. There are a few harbor agreements or habitat expended on other higher priority documented instances of this species conservation plans (HCPs), which have rulemakings. On July 12, 2011, the using other types of structures that the potential to provide conservation Service filed a multiyear work plan as simulate a cave-like environment that is measures that effect positive results for part of a settlement agreement with the suitable for hibernation. To date, there the species and its habitat while Center for Biological Diversity and have been no documented cases of this providing regulatory relief for others, in a consolidated case in the U.S. species hibernating in trees. The landowners. The conservation and District Court for the District of species’ physiological demands of recovery of endangered and threatened Columbia. A settlement agreement in hibernation limit selection of winter species, and the ecosystems upon which Endangered Species Act Section 4 habitat to areas with relatively stable they depend, is the ultimate objective of Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), cool temperatures and humid the Act, and the Service recognizes the Multi-district Litigation Docket No. conditions, which are the same vital importance of voluntary, 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011) was conditions required for the persistence nonregulatory conservation measures approved by the court on September 9, of Pd. See ‘‘Hibernation’’ in the Biology that provide incentives for landowners 2011. The settlement agreement section of this final rule for a more in achieving that objective. specified that listing determinations be complete description of habitat for the (43) Comment: Commenters stated made for more than 250 candidate species. that information from New York and species, and specified dates for several (42) Comment: We received several Vermont indicates that northern long- petitioned species with delayed comments that questioned how listing eared bat populations are holding steady findings. For the northern long-eared the northern long-eared bat will address or increasing. bat, the specified date for completing a or reverse the species’ decline due to Our Response: Contrary to 12-month finding, and a listing proposal white-nose syndrome. One commenter information stated by this commenter, if that finding was warranted, was stated that listing the species as information we received from Vermont September 30, 2013, 3 years after the ‘‘endangered’’ will not reverse its and New York indicate sharp receipt of the petition. decline. Several stated that habitat loss population declines due to white-nose (40) Comment: Several commenters is not a threat to the species, and white- syndrome based on winter and summer expressed their concern as to whether nose syndrome is the only reason for the data. Please see the ‘‘Eastern Range’’ unpublished data cited in the proposed species’ decline; therefore, placing section under Distribution and Relative listing rule were peer-reviewed. additional restrictions on activities, Abundance, above, for a more detailed Our Response: Under the Act, we are such as tree clearing, will have minimal discussion of the information received obligated to use the best available impact on conserving the species and from these two States. The one potential scientific and commercial information, will not halt the spread of white-nose exception in New York is the Long which in this case included results from syndrome. Island population, where the species surveys, reports by scientists and Our Response: No other threat is as continues to be found during summer biological consultants, natural heritage severe and immediate for the northern surveys. This may suggest that there data, and expert opinion from biologists long-eared bat as white-nose syndrome. may be scattered locations where this with experience studying the northern If this disease had not emerged, it is species has not been as severely long-eared bat and its habitat, whether unlikely the northern long-eared impacted as other areas of eastern North published or unpublished. Additionally, population would be experiencing such America. However, these observations we sought comments from independent a dramatic decline. However, as white- are unproven at this point and are the peer reviewers to ensure that our nose syndrome continues to spread and basis for ongoing research to determine determinations are based on cause mortality, other sources of the validity of a white-nose syndrome scientifically sound data, assumptions, mortality could further diminish the refugia hypothesis. and analysis. We solicited information species’ resilience or ability to survive. (44) Comment: One commenter stated from the general public, White-nose syndrome has significantly that the Service should consider that nongovernmental conservation reduced the numbers of northern long- there is a lack of evidence that mass organizations, State and Federal eared bats throughout much of its range. mortality of northern long-eared bats agencies that are familiar with the Small or declining populations may be due to white-nose syndrome is species and its habitat, academic increasingly vulnerable to other occurring outside the northeastern institutions, and groups and individuals impacts, even impacts to which they United States even though white-nose that might have information that would were previously resilient. These other syndrome is continuing to spread. There contribute to our knowledge of the impacts may include indirect impact have been no reported mass mortality species, as well as the activities and (e.g., clearing important roosting or events outside of the Northeast, and the natural processes that might be foraging habitat) or direct impact (e.g., northern long-eared bat continues to be contributing to the decline of the cutting down occupied roost trees while commonly captured in mist-net surveys species. All told, this information pups are non-volant). We expect that in some regions. represents the best available scientific northern long-eared bat populations Our Response: To date, because and commercial data on which to base with smaller numbers and with impacts from WNS in the far South and this listing determination for the individuals in poor health will be less West have not yet occurred, it is northern long-eared bat. able to persist or to rebound. impossible to conclude that the (41) Comment: A few commenters The Service believes that restrictions timeframe and degree of impact will be questioned if southern populations of alone are neither an effective nor a identical. However, everything that has northern long-eared bats are roosting in desirable means for achieving the been observed to date suggests it will be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 The information that was included in put a high degree of confidence in the were infected with WNS prior to our analysis included pre- and post- conclusions drawn. Boyles and Brack development and validation of refined white-nose syndrome data. We agree (2009, p. 9) modeled survival rates of molecular tools to detect Pd. Thus, a that we may not be aware of, and thus little brown bats during hibernation and hibernaculum in the Northeast was have not been surveying, all of the determined that clustering (with other likely confirmed with white-nose northern long-eared bat hibernacula bats) and disturbances have an overall syndrome when there were visible signs within the species’ range. However, it is impact on survival rates during of the disease. With genetic tools, it may also extremely likely that if these sites hibernation; however, there was no now be 2 to 3 years from the first are used by hibernating bats, they discussion of white-nose syndrome and detection of a Pd-positive bat at a site exhibit consistently cool, humid its impact on cave bats. Ehlman et al. and visible signs of the disease in bats. conditions suitable for Pd growth. Thus, (2013, p. 581) developed a model using Therefore, there remains some the bats using them will in all evaporative water loss at the stimulus uncertainty in the applicability of the likelihood encounter Pd during for arousal in both healthy and white- timeline observed in the Northeast to activities at swarming and staging sites nose syndrome-affected little brown more recent observations in the where they interact with other bats, bats. They concluded that populations Midwest and Southeast. even if they hibernate in smaller groups experiencing shorter southern winters Additionally, there is evidence that elsewhere. We do not use the available could persist longer than their northern microclimate inside the cave, duration hibernacula counts to estimate northern counterparts when faced with white- and severity of winter, hibernating long-eared bat population size; rather nose syndrome. However, this is behavior, body condition of bats, genetic we use the hibernacula data to speculative at this time, as the authors structure of the colony, and other understand and estimate population acknowledged that there are few data on variables may affect the timeline and trends for the species. survival rates for the more southerly severity of impacts at the hibernaculum (46) Comment: One commenter stated regions where white-nose syndrome has level. However, evidence that any of that the Service mentioned that some more recently spread. these variables would greatly delay or spread models indicate that western and (47) Comment: One commenter stated reduce mortality in infected colonies southern populations of the northern that the Service did not account for the has yet to surface. Some have long-eared bat may not be impacted by limiting effects that the lower density speculated that climatic factors may white-nose syndrome; however, in the and occurrence of hibernacula in the extend the disease timeline or may proposed listing rule we said that this central United States will have on the result in lower mortality rates among bat would offer the species little respite rate of white-nose syndrome spread and populations in the southern United since this is on the edge of the species’ its effects on the northern long-eared States; however, observations from the range. This commenter stated that this bat. They referred to peer review winter of 2013–2014 demonstrated the does not represent the best scientific comments of A. Kurta (Nov. 12, 2013). potential for white-nose syndrome- and commercial data available. Another The commenter contended that Kurta related mortality at sites believed to be commenter similarly stated that Boyles stated that such lower hibernacula in their first or second year of infection and Brack (2009) and Ehlman et al. density and occurrence will help protect as far south as Alabama, Arkansas, and (2013) describe models that predict the the species from white-nose syndrome Georgia. Please see our Factor C possibility of lower mortality at lower in those areas because the disease is discussion in the section titled, ‘‘Effects latitudes, due to shorter winters and believed to infect the species primarily of White-nose Syndrome on the shorter hibernation in southern States, through bat-to-bat transmission in Northern Long-eared Bat,’’ above, for leading to reduced impact of white-nose hibernacula, where the conditions more information. syndrome. required for growth of the fungus occur. (45) Comment: One commenter stated Our Response: The model that the Our Response: We have no reason to that reported evidence for declines due commenter referenced is Hallam and believe that the northern long-eared bat to white-nose syndrome are based on McCracken. (2011), which was will be protected from white-nose localized hibernacula surveys, which discussed in the proposed listing rule. syndrome in any portion of its range, fail to provide data sufficient to Hallam and McCracken (2011) tested including the central United States. The document regional or rangewide temperature-dependence of white-nose statement that white-nose syndrome abundance or trends. Consistent with syndrome spread, which at the time of spread will slow because there are fewer this, a recent report by the Committee the model creation (2011) supported the caves or mines serving as hibernacula in on the Status of Species of Risk in current distribution of white-nose the western portion of the northern Ontario (COSSARO) states: Any syndrome. Although the analysis from long-eared bat’s range conflicts with the declines that have taken place can only this model predicted continued rapid assertion made by other commenters be inferred from pre- and post-WNS spread throughout the United States, the that the northern long-eared bat will use monitoring of known hibernacula. Even model also suggested that there may be a wide variety of sites as hibernacula then, a lack of baseline population a temperature-dependent boundary in (not just caves and mines). White-nose information precludes an evaluation of southern latitudes that may offer refuge syndrome has been confirmed at what proportion of the known to white-nose syndrome-susceptible numerous hibernacula that are not caves population is represented by inferred bats. However, there are limitations in or mines (but with similar habitat declines, since not all hibernacula are data availability for this model; several conditions), including culverts, bunkers, known, let alone receive regular States in the Midwest and central forts, tunnels, excavations, quarries, and monitoring attention (COSSARO 2013, regions were not included. In addition, even houses. In addition, all models p. 4). after formation of the model, many concerning the spread of white-nose Our Response: We received counties below Hallam and syndrome predict the disease or Pd will hibernacula data from most States McCracken’s hypothesized temperature- continue to spread throughout the throughout the range of the northern dependent boundary have been range, including the central United long-eared bat. These data have been confirmed with white-nose syndrome or States. Models that provide estimates of included in our analysis of the impact have had Pd detected. Considering the the timing of spread, predict the disease of white-nose syndrome on the species. limitations with this model, we cannot will cover the entirety of the species’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 18016 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

range (within the models limited coordination is needed to address the scientific and commercial data geographic limits: The United States) by safety and effectiveness of any treatment available. The question of whether there sometime between 2 and about 40 years proposed for field use and to meet may be some positive benefit of listing (see our Factor C discussion in the regulatory requirements prior to the species is not considered in the section titled, ‘‘Effects of White-nose consideration of widespread decision process, only if the species Syndrome on the Northern Long-eared application. In short, implementation of meets the definition of an endangered or Bat,’’ above, for more information). WNS treatments on a landscape-scale is threatened species. These models all have significant likely years away. The multi-agency and (51) Comment: Commenters stated limitations for predicting timing of multi-organization white-nose that the listing should not be used as a spread and in many instances have syndrome response team has and funding mechanism to conserve the overestimated when WNS would arrive continues to develop recommendations, species. in currently unaffected counties, in one tools, and strategies to slow the spread Our Response: Although there are case by as much as 45 years. Limitations of white-nose syndrome, minimize some funding opportunities available to include underestimating availability of disturbance to hibernating bats, and promote recovery of listed species (e.g., non-cave hibernacula, lacking relevant improve conservation strategies for grants to the States under section 6 of biological variables of affected species, affected bat species. This collaboration the Act, funding through the Service’s excluding spread through Canada or will also prepare management agencies Partner’s for Fish and Wildlife Program), counties with insufficient data, and the to implement WNS mitigation strategies we are required to make our fact that Pd is expanding its ecological once the strategies are validated. determination based on the best niche in North America by Information on some of these products scientific and commercial data available demonstrating its viability in previously developed by the response team can be at the time of our rulemaking. The unexposed environments. found in our Factor C discussion in the potential availability of funding does (48) Comment: One commenter section titled, ‘‘Conservation Efforts to not enter into this decision of whether suggested that the Service direct its Reduce Disease or Predation,’’ above. If listing is warranted for a species. efforts toward determining the exact listing is warranted, the Act requires us Instead we adhere to the requirements original cause of white-nose syndrome, to list a species regardless of whether of the Act, to determine whether a possible treatment strategies for bats, listing will ameliorate the threat to the species warrants listing based on our assessing under what conditions the species. assessment of the five-factor threats fungus is transmitted and how it (49) Comment: During the second analysis. A species may be determined spreads, determining what the optimal public comment period, one commenter to be an endangered or threatened environmental conditions are that allow requested a public hearing be held in species due to one or more of the five the growth and transmission of the Crook County, Wyoming. This factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the fungus, determining what is driving the commenter further stated that they were Act: (A) The present or threatened spread of the fungus, and determining not given sufficient notice of the first destruction, modification, or the differences in those colonies public comment period. curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) affected and unaffected by white-nose Our Response: In response to the overutilization for commercial, syndrome. This commenter stated that request from Crook County, Wyoming, recreational, scientific, or educational only when this critical information is to hold a public hearing, the Service purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) known would the Service be able to held a public hearing in Sundance, the inadequacy of existing regulatory determine appropriate listing actions, if Wyoming, on December 2, 2014. We mechanisms; or (E) other natural or necessary. consider the comment periods described manmade factors affecting its continued Our Response: Current knowledge on in the introductory text of this section existence. Listing actions may be the cause of the disease, how and under of the final rule (Summary of Comments warranted based on any of the above what conditions the fungus is and Recommendations on the Proposed threat factors, singly or in combination. transmitted, how it spreads, and the Listing Rule) to have provided the (52) Comment: Several commenters optimal conditions that allow the public a sufficient opportunity for stated that, in the proposed listing rule, growth of the fungus are explained in submitting both written and oral public the northern long-eared bat was detail under our Factor C discussion in comments. We contend that there has described as ‘‘commonly captured’’ the section titled, ‘‘White-nose been adequate time for comment, as we during summer surveys, which Syndrome,’’ above. As for treatment of accepted public comments on the contradicts presented winter survey the disease, the Service leads the proposed listing rule for the northern data. national response to white-nose long-eared bat for a total of 240 days. Our Response: The information syndrome and supports research and (50) Comment: Commenters stated presented in the ‘‘Distribution and actions identified in the national that there is no information provided in Abundance’’ section of the proposed response plan to contain white-nose the status review to indicate that the listing rule described the historical syndrome and develop treatments or proposed listing or development of a distribution and abundance of the controls. The Service has granted more recovery plan would reverse the species’ species prior to detection of white-nose than $19.5 million to institutions and decline. syndrome in a given State or portion of Federal and State agencies for research Our Response: If listing is warranted, a State. This section has been changed and response actions. Containment the Act requires us to list a species to Distribution and Relative Abundance strategies are intended to slow the based on one of the five factors, alone in this final listing rule and includes a spread of WNS and allow time to or in combination. Disease is one of description of historical and current develop management options; they are these factors to be considered. In status to better reflect the current not part of a recovery plan for affected making a determination as to whether a distribution and trend information for species. There are a number of species meets the Act’s definition of an the species. The species is often promising treatments currently in endangered or threatened species, under ‘‘commonly captured’’ during summer development, and in various stages of section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act the surveys in areas within its range where the research process. However, Secretary is to make that determination it has not been impacted by white-nose considerably more research and based solely on the basis of the best syndrome; however, in areas where the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 meets the Act’s definition of an (published in the Federal Register on period of time (the Northeast in endangered or threatened species, under July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the particular), the species is no longer section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act the Information Quality Act (section 515 of commonly captured even in summer Secretary is to make that determination the Treasury and General Government surveys. Please see the Distribution and based solely on the basis of the best Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 Relative Abundance section, above, for scientific and commercial data (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 5658)), and our more detailed information. available. The Act does not allow us to associated Information Quality (53) Comment: One commenter stated consider the impacts of listing on Guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/ that we did not provide any evidence to economics or humans activities whether informationquality/), provide criteria support the notion that other factors are over the short term, long term, or and guidance, and establish procedures acting in combination with white-nose cumulatively. The question of whether to ensure that our decisions are based syndrome to reduce the viability of the there may be some positive benefit to on the best scientific data available at species. the listing cannot by law enter into the the time of our rulemaking. They Our Response: Although we have not determination. The evaluation of require our biologists, to the extent been able to directly observe the impact economic impacts comes into play only consistent with the Act and with the use of these other factors in combination of in association with the designation of of the best scientific data available, to white-nose syndrome, we contend that critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of use primary and original sources of it is reasonable to expect that with the Act. Therefore, although we did not information as the basis for populations that have been reduced due consider the economic impacts of the recommendations to determine if a to white-nose syndrome, any additional proposed listing, as such a species warrants listing. Surveys stressors have the potential to reduce consideration is not allowable under the completed after listing will continue to viability. However, depending on the Act, we will consider the potential inform actions taken to conserve and type of stressor, the scale of impact may economic impacts of a critical habitat recover the species. differ (rangewide vs. colony-level designation (if prudent), including the (58) Comment: One researcher impact). Peer reviewers of the proposed potential benefits of such designation. commented that results from his listing rule concurred with the Service’s (56) Comment: One commenter stated research show that Pd and WNS should assessment that cumulative impacts that the Service should delay listing of be expected to occur in regions may result from other (other than white- the species for a minimum of 3 years consistent with much of the current U.S. nose syndrome) factors in addition to while work continues to develop a range of the northern long-eared bat in white-nose syndrome due to a solution to combat the disease. a relatively short time period, and diminished population. The Act Our Response: If listing is warranted, demonstrated the potential spread to the requires us to determine if these other the Act requires us to list a species majority of the contiguous United factors affect the northern long-eared regardless of if listing will ameliorate States. Further their model (Maher et al. bat’s ability to persist following the the threat to the species. We are 2012) showed that the spread rate effects of white-nose syndrome. Our required to make our determination increased with longer winters, continuing analyses are strengthening based on the best scientific and suggesting that spread of Pd and WNS our understanding of these factors and commercial data available at the time of in the northern range of the species will helping us identify ways to address our rulemaking. The Act requires the be faster. them. Service to publish a final rule within 1 (54) Comment: One commenter stated year from the date we propose to list a Our Response: We appreciate this that the proposed listing rule’s species unless there is substantial comment and have added this discussion of Factor C (disease or disagreement regarding the sufficiency information to our Factor C discussion predation) includes various hypotheses or accuracy of the available data in the section titled, ‘‘Effects of White- of the causal connection between WNS relevant to the determination or revision nose Syndrome on the Northern Long- and morbidity in the northern long- concerned, but only for 6 months and eared Bat,’’ above. This information eared bat, but the Service admits that only for purposes of soliciting supports information in this final listing ‘‘the exact process by which WNS leads additional data. Based on the comments rule regarding the spread of white-nose to death remains undetermined.’’ received and data evaluated, we syndrome within the northern long- Our Response: Although the exact determined that an extension was eared bat’s range. process or processes by which WNS necessary. However, we are able to (59) Comment: One commenter notes leads to death remains unconfirmed, we extend the listing determination by 6 that information presented in the do know that the fungal infection is months and cannot extend the proposed listing rule stated that summer responsible and it is possible that determination by 3 years, as surveys in the Northeast have confirmed reduced immune function during torpor recommended. As stated in response to rates of decline observed in northern compromises the ability of hibernating a previous comment, there are a number long-eared bat hibernacula data post- bats to combat the infection. See our of promising treatments currently in WNS, with rates of decline ranging from Factor C discussion in the section titled, development, and in various stages of 93 to 98 percent; however, the extent of ‘‘White-nose Syndrome,’’ above, for a the research process. However, these that summer survey data is not given, so more detailed discussion on white-nose potential treatments are still being it is unclear how expansive the sample syndrome and mortality in bats. analyzed in a clinical setting, and might have been, or how consistent all (55) Comment: One commenter stated potential application outside of the of the surveys were spatially across their concern that potential seasonal laboratory is years away. time. forest management restrictions due to (57) Comment: Several commenters Our Response: We have taken this the listing will have detrimental impacts stated that more time is needed to comment into consideration and have to their local forest industry and forest complete population surveys for the further explained where and when dependent communities, which will northern long-eared bat before making a declines have been observed within the outweigh benefits to the species. listing determination. species’ range in the Distribution and Our Response: In making a Our Response: Our Policy on Relative Abundance section of this final determination as to whether a species Information Standards under the Act rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 18018 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

(60) Comment: Commenters stated input into various aspects of the listing corroborated by declines in acoustic that population declines of more than rule and potential conservation records and net captures in summer. 90 percent in the core of the species’ measures for the species. The three (64) Comment: One commenter stated range, with more declines predicted due teams are: Biology of the Northern long- that although the Service finalized its to WNS, constitutes a present danger of eared bat, Non-WNS Threats, and policy regarding interpretation of extinction throughout all or a significant Conservation Measures. Invitations for ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ during portion of its range. The population inclusion in these teams were sent to all the comment period on the proposed declines do not represent a mere State agencies within the range of the listing for the northern long-eared bat, [likelihood] of becoming an endangered northern long-eared bat. Further, the Service should not rely on this species within the foreseeable future, MAFWA hosted a meeting in policy in its final determination. The rather endangerment ‘‘is not just a Bloomington, Minnesota, in October commenter asserted that the information possibility on the horizon, 2014, and invited biologists and in the proposed listing rule does not endangerment is already here.’’ foresters from all State agencies within support that any portion the bat’s range Our Response: As explained in the the species’ range to discuss the is ‘‘significant.’’ Determination section of this final rule, potential listing of the northern long- Our Response: The Service finalized although WNS is predicted to spread eared bat and conservation measures. its policy on the interpretation of the throughout the range of the species, in The information presented in the phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ the currently uninfected areas we have resulting letters from several regions of in the Act’s definitions of ‘‘endangered no evidence that northern long-eared bat the fish and wildlife and forestry species’’ and ‘‘threatened species’’ on numbers have declined, and the present associations were considered and July 1, 2014 (79 FR 37577). This policy threats to the species in those areas are included in this final listing became effective on July 31, 2014, and relatively low. Thus, because the fungus determination. the Service is now applying that that causes WNS (Pd) may not spread (62) Comment: Several commenters interpretation to its listing throughout the species’ range for addressed the Northern Long-eared Bat determinations as a matter of agency another 8 to 13 years, because no Interim Planning and Conference policy. According to that final policy, an significant declines have occurred to Guidance. analysis of whether a species is endangered or threatened in a date in the portion of the range not yet Our Response: The Interim Planning significant portion of its range is only impacted by the disease, and because and Conference Guidance was designed undertaken when a species is found to some bats persist many years later in for use until the publication of this final some geographic areas impacted by not warrant listing under the Act rule. While aspects of this guidance may WNS (for unknown reasons), we throughout its range. We have be included in the recovery plan for conclude that the northern long-eared determined that the northern long-eared northern long-eared bat, the guidance bat is not currently in danger of bat warrants listing as a threatened itself does not constitute a recovery extinction throughout all of its range. species throughout its range, and, plan. We appreciate these comments However, because Pd is predicted to therefore, we did not conduct an SPR and will consider them in developing a continue to spread, we also determine analysis for the species in this final recovery plan or any potential future that the northern long-eared bat is likely listing determination. consultation guidelines for the species. to be in danger of extinction within the (65) Comment: One commenter foreseeable future. Therefore, on the (63) Comment: One commenter stated suggested that northern long-eared bats basis of the best available scientific and that, although no scientific research may have greater potential for commercial information, we are listing technique is perfect, (as stated by survivability because they roost singly the northern long-eared bat as a Ingersoll et al. 2013) hibernacula rather than clustering in larger groups as threatened species under the Act. surveys are the most reliable and do other species during hibernation. (61) Comment: One commenter stated consistent datasets currently available Our Response: The northern long- that the Service did not adequately for long-term, regional studies of North eared bat occasionally can be found in cultivate its partnership with the States American bats. clusters with other bats, but typically is when developing the proposed listing Our Response: We agree that found roosting singly during rule and stated that it is imperative that hibernacula surveys are the hibernation. Although the species does the final decision consider regional recommended method, and the only not roost in clusters as much as other differences relative to the status of the method with enough history to assess cave-bat species during hibernation, species, as specifically identified by the trends over time, for cave-dwelling bats, there are other life-history factors that State wildlife agencies. including the northern long-eared bat. are believed to increase the northern Our Response: We requested all In this final listing rule, we use the long-eared bat’s susceptibility to white- relevant data and information from hibernacula data (in addition to summer nose syndrome in comparison to other States and Federal agencies prior to data) to understand and estimate cave bat species (e.g., proclivity to roost publishing the proposed rule. population trends for northern long- in areas with increased humidity of Additionally, in 2014, we requested all eared bat. The relative difficulty of hibernacula, longer hibernation time available hibernacula and summer observing northern long-eared bats period). See our Factor C discussion in survey data from all State fish and during hibernacula surveys should be the section titled, ‘‘Effects of White-nose wildlife agencies within the range of the consistent from year to year, and these Syndrome on the Northern Long-eared species to ensure the most up-to-date data can be used to estimate relative Bat,’’ above, for a more detailed survey information was included in this change in numbers and indicate if the discussion. final listing rule; we received species is increasing or decreasing in (66) Comment: Several commenters information from the majority of States. number in those hibernacula. Thus, the stated that forest practices conducted in Also, following publication of the total data available for known northern Minnesota on County and other proposed listing rule, the Service long-eared bat hibernacula can yield an managed lands provide habitat for the established three interagency teams to individual site and cumulative northern long-eared bat and that ensure that States, Tribes, and other indication of species population trend; properly managed forest has not affected Federal agencies were able to provide declines estimated at hibernacula are northern long-eared bat populations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 northern long-eared bat population effects to current and future efforts to five-factor analysis (Summary of Factors declines did not increase as a result of recover and provide suitable habitat for Affecting the Species) that other factors WNS. The weight of other available other threatened, endangered, and (other than white-nose syndrome, evidence contradicts this interpretation, sensitive species’’ while not addressing including forest management) are not and still supports the conclusion that the primary threat of WNS. The believed to be contributing the to the the bat was not imperiled prior to WNS. commenter stated that other species current decline species-wide. However, (69) Comment: One commenter stated may depend on some forest there could be localized impacts from that ‘‘climate change does not pose a management for needed travel corridors, these other stressors, such as forest threat to the [northern long-eared bat]’’ forest stand heterogeneity, and other management. Further, cumulative and asserted that ‘‘the Service should activities. impacts may result from these other not reevaluate potential climate change Our Response: While it is true that factors in addition to white-nose impacts on the [northern long-eared WNS is the primary threat to the syndrome due to a diminished bat]’’ as the species is unlikely affected northern long-eared bat (as discussed in population in the future. See our Factor by climate change because they are Summary of Factors Affecting the A discussion in the section titled, roosting generalists, they are unlikely to Species), forest management and other ‘‘Summer Habitat,’’ above, for a more become water stressed, and they are not stressors could have localized impacts, detailed discussion of forest limited to a northern latitude range, but as well as cumulative impacts in management and its impact on the rather occupy a large geographic range. conjunction with WNS. For a more northern long-eared bat. Our Response: Under the Act, we detailed discussion of forest (67) Comment: One commenter stated include consideration of observed or management and its impact on the that listing the northern long-eared bat likely environmental effects related to northern long-eared bat, please see our would negatively impact the species, ongoing and projected changes in Factor A discussion in the section titled, because the presumed logging climate. The information presented in ‘‘Summer Habitat,’’ above. restriction would result in a loss of the ‘‘Climate Change’’ section under the (72) Comment: Several commenters revenues from reduced logging profits Factor E discussion of this final listing stated that the proposed listing rule and force the county to sell property, rule thoroughly addresses the potential overstated the impact from shale gas resulting in habitat fragmentation. effects of a changing climate on the development. Commenters stated that Our Response: In making a northern long-eared bat using the best the statements in the proposed listing determination as to whether a species available science. rule regarding the number of wells meets the Act’s definition of an (70) Comment: One commenter projected and disturbance do not take endangered or threatened species, under questioned whether Pd could grow and into account the evolution and shift of section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act the reproduce on non-bat substrates, and technology of horizontal drilling and Secretary is to make that determination consequently spread to caves with no minimizing disturbance. Also, the based solely on the basis of the best bats present. The commenter further surface disturbance created by the scientific and commercial data states that the northern long-eared bat development of shale is temporary and available. The question of whether there should not be listed to ‘‘get ahead’’ of many States require site restoration and may be some positive benefit to the WNS, as the potential future effects of reclamation as part of the permit and listing cannot by law enter into the WNS may or may not occur. construction process. determination. The evaluation of Our Response: Lorch et al. (2014) Our Response: As stated previously economic impacts comes into play only determined that Pd remains viable in with regard to threats other than WNS, in association with the designation of cave substrate even in the absence of although shale gas development may critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of bats. Additionally, Reynolds et al. impact the species at a local level, it is the Act. Therefore, although we did not (2015) concluded that this persistence is not believed to be independently consider the economic impacts of the sufficient to allow Pd to spread in the impacting the species rangewide. proposed listing, as such a absence of bats, and determined that the (73) Comment: One commenter stated consideration is not allowable under the potential for Pd to proliferate in the that the listing proposal does not Act; we will consider the potential absence of bats greatly increases the adequately address the status of the economic impacts of the critical habitat possibility of this manner of spread. northern long-eared bat in Canada. designation, including the potential Regardless of the ability of Pd to grow Currently, one third of its estimated benefits of such designation. and reproduce on its own, the best geographic range lies within Canada, yet (68) Comment: Several commenters science supports the supposition that few data exist from this portion of the cited Ingersoll et al. (2013) as evidence white-nose syndrome is the primary and range from which a current status that the northern long-eared bat was in current cause of the decline of the assessment or population trend can be decline prior to the onset of white-nose northern long-eared bat. Pd or white- drawn. Without comprehensive data syndrome. nose syndrome has currently been from this large portion of the northern Our Response: The Service reviewed detected in 28 U.S. States and 5 long-eared bat’s geographic range, we the Ingersoll et al. (2013) paper and was Canadian provinces in the range of cannot support the concept that this not able to find support for the northern long-eared bat. All models species is in danger of extinction. conclusion that commenters made. consulted on the spread of white-nose Our Response: In 2014, the northern Based on a sampling of data from four syndrome have predicted a continued long-eared bat was determined, under States during an 11- to 12-year period, spread of Pd. We have determined that an emergency assessment, to be the models utilized in Ingersoll did not the northern long-eared bat meets the endangered under the Canadian (SARA) treat hibernacula or time periods with definition of a threatened species under (Species at Risk Public Registry 2014). It and without WNS separately. Thus, the Act based on its current status and is estimated that approximately 40 there is no way to identify the impact what we can reasonable predict will percent of its global range is in Canada of WNS on the model results, nor to occur in the future. (COSEWIC 2012, p. 9; Species at Risk show a pre-WNS model versus a post- (71) Comment: One commenter was Public Registry 2014). Despite limited WNS model. Moreover, the authors concerned that listing the northern long- survey information on the species in interpret their results to suggest that eared bat ‘‘could result in detrimental Canada, the decision was made to list

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 sites predicted to be unsuitable for Pd may only be considered for species imminent threat posed by WNS to these by Alves et al. (September 2014) have listed as threatened. With the multiple three bat species [northern long-eared already been confirmed with the public comments periods held on the bat, little brown bat, and tri-colored bat] disease. Due to these limitations, we proposal, the public was provided were substantiated by verifiable have not used these models in arriving ample opportunity to comment on the evidence, which included evidence of at the potential rate of spread of WNS listing status determination, and in fact, the declines to these bats in Canada and across the northern long-eared bat’s we received numerous comments on our the United States.’’ WNS has been range. proposal to list the northern long-eared identified in five Canadian provinces: (76) Comment: One organization bat that specifically addressed the status Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, commented that, since the Service determination. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. proposed the species as endangered, we (74) Comment: Several commenters cannot decide to change the status to Determination stated that the impact from the oil and threatened in the final rule without first Our listing determination is guided by gas industry on the northern long-eared proposing the species as threatened and statutory definitions of the terms bat is low because the technology of providing the public an opportunity to ‘‘endangered’’ and ‘‘threatened.’’ The drilling is changing, thus minimizing comment on that determination. Act defines an endangered species as disturbance. These commenters stated Our Response: In a proposed rule, the any species that is ‘‘in danger of that the discussion included in the Service proposes the status it believes is extinction throughout all or a significant proposed listing rule did not adequately warranted for the species, based on the portion of its range’’ and a threatened address this issue. information it has available at that time. species as any species ‘‘that is likely to Our Response: We acknowledge in After publishing that proposal, we seek become endangered throughout all or a this final rule that the footprint of oil comments on the underlying data and significant portion of its range within and gas projects may be lessened by this information used in that proposal, the foreseeable future.’’ The Service has new technology, and that some impact including the factors the Service further determined that the phrase ‘‘in may be temporary in nature (see our considers in making a listing danger of extinction’’ can be most Factor A discussion in the section titled, determination. In our final rulemaking, simply expressed as meaning that a ‘‘Summer Habitat,’’ above). However, we analyze additional information and species is ‘‘on the brink of extinction in gas extraction continues to expand data received in peer review and public the wild.’’ See December 22, 2011, across the range of the northern long- comments and testimony. Based on Memorandum from Acting FWS eared bat and is still viewed as a type information received, in that final Director Dan Ashe Re: Determination of of forest conversion that may result in rulemaking we may take one of the Threatened Status for Polar Bears direct or indirect impact to the species, following actions: (1) Publish a final [hereinafter the ‘‘Polar Bear Memo’’]. In comparable to other forms of forest listing rule as originally proposed, or as at least one type of situation, where a conversion. Although there could be revised, because the best available species still has relatively widespread localized impacts to northern long-eared biological data support it; or (2) distribution, but has nevertheless bat populations from forest conversion withdraw the proposal because the suffered ongoing major reductions in relating to oil and gas development, biological information does not support numbers, range, or both as a result of factors other than white-nose syndrome listing the species. Thus, any time that factors that have not been abated, the are not believed to be contributing to the we propose a species for listing, Service acknowledges that no distinct current decline of the species regardless of whether we propose to list determination exists between rangewide. the species as a threatened species or an ‘‘endangered’’ and ‘‘threatened.’’ In such (75) Comment: One commenter endangered species, there are three cases: presented two recently published possible outcomes of the rulemaking models, Alves et al. (2014) and Escobar Whether a species . . . is ultimately an process: listing the species as endangered species or a threatened species et al. (2014), which address WNS spread endangered, listing the species as depends on the specific life history and throughout North America and urged threatened, or withdrawing the ecology of the species, the nature of the careful consideration of each model in proposed rule (and not listing the threats, and population numbers and trends. estimating the potential spread of WNS species). To use the terminology of case Even species that have suffered fairly across the range of the northern long- law regarding APA rulemaking, any of substantial declines in numbers or range are eared bat. This commenter stressed the those three outcomes is necessarily a sometimes listed as threatened rather than limitations of these models in predicting logical outgrowth of any proposed endangered (Polar Bear Memo, p. 6). the rate of spread; however, they listing rule. Note also that the As discussed in more detail below, acknowledged that one of the models commenter did not argue (nor could it) the northern long-eared bat resides (Escobar et al. (2014) predicted WNS that we must reopen a comment period firmly in this category where no distinct will continue to spread to all suitable before we determine to withdraw a determination exists to differentiate areas. proposed rule to list a species as between endangered and threatened. Our Response: We concur with the endangered. It stands to reason that we Therefore, our determination that this commenter’s concerns regarding the could also determine to list as species is threatened is guided by the limitations in using these models in threatened, a result that diverges from a best available data on the biology of this predicting the rate of spread of WNS proposed endangered listing much species, and the threat posed by white- throughout the northern long-eared bat’s lesser degree that a withdrawal, without nose syndrome. range. Both Alves et al. (2014) and reopening a comment period. In determining whether to list the Escobar et al. (2014) are maximum Furthermore, in this instance, the northern long-eared bat, and if so, entropy models, which are not effective public was given additional notice that whether it should be listed as for predicting areas unsuitable for Pd. the Service may consider listing the endangered or as threatened, we are also Although these models may be useful in species as threatened instead of guided by specific criteria set forth in determining suitable habitat for Pd, they endangered when it published a section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), should not be used to predict or identify proposed species-specific rule under and its implementing regulations at 50 unsuitable habitat. For example, several section 4(d) of the Act. Such 4(d) rules CFR part 424, establishing procedures

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 throughout the entire range of the trends to those found in hibernacula of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife species, and will not likely affect the surveys. Declines documented in and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the entire range for some number of years summer surveys are sometimes smaller Act, we may list a species based on: (A) (again, most likely 8 to 13 years). In than the declines shown by winter/ The present or threatened destruction, addition, in the area not yet affected by hibernacula surveys. For example, in modification, or curtailment of its WNS (about 40 percent of the species’ Pennsylvania, pre and post-WNS winter habitat or range; (B) overutilization for total geographic range), the species has surveys showed a 99 percent decline, commercial, recreational, scientific, or not yet suffered declines and appears with summer surveys showing a 76 educational purposes; (C) disease or stable (see Distribution and Relative percent decline. Unfortunately, summer predation; (D) the inadequacy of Abundance, above). Finally, the species data tend to show a continuing decline existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) still persists in some areas impacted by (e.g., by 15 percent annually in other natural or manmade factors WNS, thus creating at least some Pennsylvania), which is likely to affecting its continued existence. Listing uncertainty as to the timing of the ultimately mirror the higher declines actions may be warranted based on any extinction risk posed by WNS. Even in documented during the winter. We do of the above threat factors, singly or in New York, where WNS was first not fully understand the reason for the combination. detected in 2007, small numbers of difference, or ‘‘lag’’ between winter and As discussed in detail below, we find northern long-eared bats persist (see summer trend data. Nonetheless, both that the northern long-eared bat is Distribution and Relative Abundance, winter and summer data ultimately appropriately categorized as a above) despite the passage of corroborate one another to demonstrate threatened species. As discussed in approximately 8 years. Finally, coarse declines in this species due to WNS; detail under Factor C, in the sections population estimates where they exist these data support our conclusion that titled ‘‘White-nose Syndrome’’ and for this species indicate a population of the species is likely to become ‘‘Effects of White-nose Syndrome on the potentially several million northern endangered within the foreseeable Northern Long-eared Bat,’’ WNS has long-eared bats still on the landscape future. impacted the species throughout much across the range of the species (see Determining whether the northern of its range, and can be expected to Distribution and Relative Abundance, long-eared bat is ‘‘in danger of eventually (from 2 to 40 years based above). No one factor alone conclusively extinction,’’ and thus either upon models of WNS spread dynamics, establishes whether the species is ‘‘on ‘‘endangered’’ or ‘‘threatened’’ under the but more probably within 8 to 13 years) the brink’’ of extinction. Taken together, Act, requires some consideration of the spread and impact the species however, the data indicate a current impact of the decline in numbers (as throughout its entire range. Once WNS condition where the species, while discussed under Factor C and becomes established in new areas, we likely to become in danger of extinction summarized above) on the species’ can expect similar, substantial losses of at some point in the foreseeable future, viability. We do not have firm bats beginning in the first few years is not on the brink of extinction at this rangewide population size estimates for following infection (Factor C). There is time. this species (pre-WNS or post-WNS), currently no effective means to stop the We have carefully assessed the best nor do we have the benefit of a viability spread of this disease, or to minimize scientific and commercial information analysis. Nonetheless, principles of bat mortalities associated with the available regarding the past, present, conservation biology are instructive in disease. The spread of WNS and its and future threats to the northern long- determining the impact of WNS on the expected impact on the northern long- eared bat. There are several factors that viability of this species. Viability can be eared bat are reasonably foreseeable, affect the northern long-eared bat; measured generally by a species’ levels and thus the species is likely to become however, no other threat is as severe of resiliency, redundancy, and an endangered species within the and immediate to the species representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, foreseeable future. persistence as WNS (Factor C). This pp. 301–321). Resiliency means having The Service also concludes, however, disease is the prevailing threat to the the ability to withstand natural that while the species is likely to species, and there is currently no known environmental fluctuations and become an endangered species within cure. While we have received some anthropogenic stressors over time; the foreseeable future, it is not at the information concerning localized redundancy means having a sufficient present time in danger of extinction. impacts or concerns (unrelated to WNS) number of populations and distribution Stated another way, the species is not regarding the status of the northern to guard against catastrophic events; and currently ‘‘on the brink’’ of extinction. long-eared bat, it is likely true that many representation means having sufficient In the time since our 2013 proposal to North American wildlife species have genetic and ecological diversity to list the species as endangered, we have suffered some localized, isolated maintain adaptive potential over time. received and considered voluminous impacts in the face of human population The presence of surviving northern input on this issue. We have also growth and the continuing development long-eared bats in areas infected by obtained and carefully considered of the continent. Despite this, based WNS for up to 8 years creates at least another 18 months of data and upon available evidence, the species as some question as to whether this species knowledge regarding the continuing a whole appears to have been doing well is displaying some degree of long-term effects of WNS on the species, and the prior to WNS. resiliency. It is unknown whether some prospects for spread of the disease Since WNS was first discovered in populations that have survived the throughout the entire range of the New York in 2007, the northern long- infection are now stabilizing at a lower species. Since publication of the eared bat has experienced a severe and density or whether the populations are proposed rule in 2013, we have also rapid decline in numbers, in the areas still declining in response to the received new population estimates for affected by the disease. As discussed in disease, and whether those populations the species in some parts of its range. detail in Factor C, the available data have been reduced below sustainable Several factors, in the aggregate, support (winter and summer surveys) indicate levels. In the long term, based upon our a finding that the species is not reductions in northern long-eared bat best understanding of conservation currently endangered. For example, numbers due to WNS. Summer data, biology, we believe the declines seen in WNS has not yet been detected although more limited, indicate similar this species may be unsustainable (see

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 would spread through the entire range Available Conservation Measures unclear whether the response of bats to of the northern long-eared bat within 12 Conservation measures provided to Pd in Europe has utility in predicting to 15 years (COSEWIC 2013, p. xiv). species listed as endangered or the long-term viability of bats in North Taking into account the passage of time threatened under the Act include America in response to Pd, as bats in since publication of the COSEWIC recognition, recovery actions, Europe are thought to have evolved with estimate, we will place the Canadian requirements for Federal protection, and the fungus (Factor C). But we must estimate of the spread of Pd and/or prohibitions against certain practices. acknowledge at least some uncertainty WNS throughout the full range of the Recognition through listing results in as to whether species numbers in the species to be 10 to 13 years. Taken public awareness, and conservation by WNS-affected areas in North America together, we conclude that the best Federal, State, Tribal, and local represent dramatically reduced, but estimate of the spread of Pd throughout agencies; private organizations; and potentially sustainable, populations. the range of the northern long-eared bat individuals. The Act encourages Given that we do not as of yet have a is likely between 8 and 13 years, noting cooperation with the States and requires means to stop the spread of WNS and that there is typically a delay (up to that recovery actions be carried out for we anticipate the same impact (high several years) in the onset of the disease all listed species. The protection mortality) observed to date to occur as from the first arrival of the fungus. required by Federal agencies and the WNS spreads across the range, Although Pd/WNS is predicted to prohibitions against certain activities substantial losses in redundancy and spread throughout the range of the are discussed, in part, below. representation are likely as well. Thus, species by 2023–2028, in the currently The primary purpose of the Act is the we believe it is likely that the northern uninfected areas, northern long-eared conservation of endangered and long-eared bat will decline to the point bat numbers have not declined, and the threatened species and the ecosystems of being ‘‘in danger of extinction.’’ present threats to the species in those upon which they depend. The ultimate Having established that the northern areas are relatively low. The presence of goal of such conservation efforts is the long-eared bat is likely to decline to the potentially millions of northern long- recovery of these listed species, so that point of being ‘‘in danger of extinction,’’ eared bats across the species’ range (see they no longer need the protective we next focus on the timing of when the Distribution and Relative Abundance, measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of species will reach the point of being ‘‘in above), while by no means dispositive the Act requires the Service to develop danger of extinction.’’ In areas currently in its own right, also indicates a current and implement recovery plans for the affected by WNS, there have clearly condition in which species is not ‘‘on conservation of endangered and been significant population effects due the brink’’ of extinction. Because the threatened species. The recovery to the disease. To date, however, WNS fungus/disease may not spread planning process involves the has not yet extended throughout the throughout the species’ range for identification of actions that are species’ range. In the proposed listing another 8 to 13 years, because no necessary to halt or reverse the species’ rule, we concluded that the species was significant declines have occurred to decline by addressing the threats to its ‘‘endangered’’ (i.e., in danger of date in the portion of the range not yet survival and recovery. The goal of this extinction presently), as we believed impacted by the disease, and because process is to restore listed species to a that the rate of decline was some bats persist many years later in point where they are secure, self- unsustainable and WNS spread some geographic areas impacted by sustaining, and functioning components throughout the range was likely. In the WNS (for unknown reasons), we of their ecosystems. listing proposal we also stated that WNS conclude that the northern long-eared Recovery planning includes the spread throughout the range would bat is not currently in danger of development of a recovery outline occur in the short term, but did not extinction throughout all of its range. shortly after a species is listed and explicitly determine the timeframe. As However, because Pd is predicted to preparation of a draft and final recovery explained under Factor C, the WNS continue to spread, we also determine plan. The recovery outline guides the spread models are not particularly that the northern long-eared bat is likely immediate implementation of urgent useful in establishing a specific to be in danger of extinction within the recovery actions and describes the timeframe; together, these models foreseeable future. Therefore, on the process to be used to develop a recovery indicate spread of WNS throughout the basis of the best available scientific and plan. Revisions of the plan may be done range by sometime between 2 and 40 commercial information, we are listing to address continuing or new threats to years. Because of the lack of clarity on the northern long-eared bat as a the species, as new substantive rate of spread obtained from the models, threatened species in accordance with information becomes available. The we believe it is more scientifically sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. recovery plan identifies site-specific relevant to look at the rate of spread that Under the Act and our implementing management actions that set a trigger for has occurred to date on the landscape as regulations, a species may warrant review of the five factors that control a guide for the timeframe of WNS listing if it is endangered or threatened whether a species remains endangered spread across the species’ entire range. throughout all or a significant portion of or may be downlisted or delisted, and Using the data compiled to date, the its range. Because we have determined methods for monitoring recovery fungus that causes WNS appears to have that the northern long-eared bat is progress. Recovery plans also establish spread in all directions in North threatened throughout all of its range, a framework for agencies to coordinate America, moving southwest at an no portion of its range can be their recovery efforts and provide average of over 175 miles (280 km) per ‘‘significant’’ for purposes of the estimates of the cost of implementing year, but expanding in every direction definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and recovery tasks. Recovery teams where bats live. At this rate, the fungus ‘‘threatened species.’’ See the Final (composed of species experts, Federal will extend throughout the bat’s entire Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase and State agencies, nongovernmental range in about 8 to 9 years (Service ‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the organizations, and stakeholders) are 2015, unpublished data). Finally, we Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of often established to develop recovery note that the Canadian COSEWIC ‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened plans. When completed, the recovery recently estimated that Pd and/or WNS Species’’ (79 FR 37577, July 1, 2014). outline, draft recovery plan, and the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires specific conservation measures, may our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/ Federal agencies to confer with the directly or indirectly affect the species. endangered), or from our Twin Cities Service on any action that is likely to Based on the best available Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR jeopardize the continued existence of a information, the following activities FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). species proposed for listing or result in may potentially result in a violation of Implementation of recovery actions destruction or adverse modification of section 9 the Act; this list is not generally requires the participation of a proposed critical habitat. If a species is comprehensive: Activities that may broad range of partners, including other listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of affect the northern long-eared bat that Federal agencies, States, Tribes, the Act requires Federal agencies to do not comport with the interim 4(d) nongovernmental organizations, ensure that activities they authorize, rule (described below); activities that businesses, and private landowners. fund, or carry out are not likely to alter a northern long-eared bat Examples of recovery actions include jeopardize the continued existence of hibernacula; activities that may disturb, habitat protection, habitat restoration the species or destroy or adversely alter, or destroy occupied maternity (e.g., restoration of native vegetation) modify its critical habitat. If a Federal colony habitat; and activities that and management, research, captive action may affect a listed species or its otherwise kill, harm, or harass northern propagation and reintroduction, and critical habitat, the responsible Federal long-eared bat at any time of the year. outreach and education. The recovery of agency must enter into consultation Questions regarding whether specific many listed species cannot be with the Service. activities would constitute a violation of accomplished solely on Federal lands Federal agency actions within the section 9 of the Act should be directed because their range may occur primarily species’ habitat that may require to the Twin Cities Ecological Services or solely on non-Federal lands. To conference or consultation or both as Field Office (see FOR FURTHER achieve recovery of these species described in the preceding paragraph INFORMATION CONTACT). requires cooperative conservation efforts include management and any other Under section 4(d) of the Act, the on private, State, and Tribal lands. landscape-altering activities on Federal Service has discretion to issue Following publication of this final lands administered by the U.S. Fish and regulations that we find necessary and listing rule, funding for recovery actions Wildlife Service, USFS, NPS, and other advisable to provide for the will be available from a variety of Federal agencies; issuance of section conservation of threatened wildlife. We sources, including Federal budgets, 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et may also prohibit by regulation with State programs, and cost-share grants for seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of respect to threatened wildlife any act non-Federal landowners, the academic Engineers; and funding for construction prohibited by section 9(a)(1) of the Act community, and nongovernmental and maintenance of roads or highways for endangered wildlife. For the organizations. In addition, under section by the Federal Highway Administration. northern long-eared bat, the Service has 6 of the Act, the States of Alabama, We may issue permits to carry out developed an interim 4(d) rule, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, otherwise prohibited activities described below, that is tailored to the Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, involving threatened wildlife under specific threats and conservation needs Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, certain circumstances. Regulations of this species. Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, governing permits are codified at 50 Provisions of the Interim Species- Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened Specific 4(d) Rule for the Northern Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, wildlife, a permit may be issued for the Long-Eared Bat New York, North Carolina, North following purposes: Scientific purposes, Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, or the enhancement of propagation or Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Rhode Island, South Carolina, South survival, or economic hardship, or Secretary may publish a species-specific Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, zoological exhibition, or educational rule that modifies the standard West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming purposes, or incidental taking, or protections for threatened species with would be eligible for Federal funds to special purposes consistent with the prohibitions and exceptions tailored to implement management actions that purposes of the Act. There are also the conservation of the species that are promote the protection or recovery of certain statutory exemptions from the determined to be necessary and the northern long-eared bat. Information prohibitions, which are found in advisable. Under this interim 4(d) rule, on our grant programs that are available sections 9 and 10 of the Act. the Service applies all of the to aid species recovery can be found at: It is our policy, as published in the prohibitions set forth at 50 CFR 17.31 http://www.fws.gov/grants. Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR and 17.32 to the northern long-eared Please let us know if you are 34272), to identify to the maximum bat, except as noted below. This interim interested in participating in recovery extent practicable at the time a species rule under section 4(d) of the Act will efforts for the northern long-eared bat. is listed, those activities that would or not remove, or alter in any way, the Additionally, we invite you to submit would not constitute a violation of consultation requirements under section any new information on this species section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 7 of the Act. whenever it becomes available and any policy is to increase public awareness of As discussed in the October 2, 2013, information you may have for recovery the effect of a listing on proposed and proposed rule (78 FR 61046), the planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER ongoing activities within the range of primary factor supporting the proposed INFORMATION CONTACT). listed species. At this time, other than determination of endangered species Section 7(a) of the Act requires those activities that are in compliance status for the northern long-eared bat is Federal agencies to evaluate their with the interim 4(d) rule described the disease, white-nose syndrome. We actions with respect to any species that below, we are unable to identify specific further determined that other threat is proposed or listed as an endangered activities that would not be considered factors (including forest management or threatened species and with respect to result in a violation of section 9 of the activities; wind-energy development; to its critical habitat, if any is Act. Because the northern long-eared bat habitat modification, destruction, and designated. Regulations implementing occurs in a variety of habitat conditions disturbance; and other threats) may this interagency cooperation provision across its range, there are many different have cumulative effects to the species in of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part types of activities that, without site- addition to WNS; however, they have

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 18024 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

not independently caused significant, documented occurrence of WNS or Pd, falls within 150 miles of a county with population-level effects on the northern as identified by the Service. a WNS detection, the entire county will long-eared bat. Therefore, we are Currently, WNS is mainly detected by be considered affected. Anywhere adopting a final rule to list the species surveillance at bat hibernacula. Thus, outside of the geographic area defined as a threatened species, as explained our direct detection of the disease is by these parameters, northern long- earlier in this document, and in concert limited largely to wintering bat eared bat populations will not be with that final rule, we are adopting an populations in the locations where they considered to be experiencing the interim rule under section 4(d) of the hibernate. However, bats are known to impacts of WNS. Act to provide exceptions to the leave hibernacula and travel great The Service defines the term ‘‘WNS prohibitions for some of these activities distances, sometimes hundreds of miles, buffer zone’’ as the set of counties that cause cumulative effects, as we to summer roosts. Therefore, the within the range of the northern long- deem necessary and advisable for the impacts of the disease are not limited to eared bat within 150 miles of the conservation of the species. the immediate vicinity around bat boundaries of U.S. counties or Canadian We conclude that certain activities hibernacula, but have an impact on a districts where the fungus Pd or WNS described in this section, when landscape scale. For northern long-eared has been detected. conducted in accordance with the bats, as with all species, this means that For purposes of this interim 4(d) rule, conservation measures identified the area of influence of WNS is much coordination with the local Service herein, will provide protection for the greater than the counties known to Ecological Services field office is northern long-eared bat during its most harbor affected hibernacula, resulting in recommended to determine whether sensitive life stages. These activities are: impacts to a much larger section of the specific locations fall within the WNS Forest management activities (subject to species’ range. To fully represent the buffer zone. For more information about certain time restrictions); maintenance extent of WNS, we must also include the current known extent of WNS and and minimal expansion of existing these summer areas. the 150-mile (241-km) buffer, please see rights-of-way and transmission Overall, northern long-eared bats are http://www.fws.gov/midwest/ corridors, also subject to certain not considered to be long-distance endangered/mammals/nlba/. restrictions; prairie management; other migrants, typically dispersing 40 to 50 projects resulting in minimal tree miles (64 to 80 kilometers) from their Conservation Measures removal; hazard tree removal; removal hibernacula. However, other bat species Under this interim 4(d) rule, take of bats from and disturbance within that disperse much farther distances are incidental to certain activities human structures; and capture, also vectors for WNS spread and may conducted in accordance with the handling, attachment of radio transmit the disease to northern long- following habitat conservation transmitters, and tracking northern long- eared bat populations. It has been measures, as applicable, will not be eared bats for a 1-year period following suggested that the little brown bat, in prohibited (i.e., will be excepted from the effective date of this interim 4(d) particular, be considered a likely source the prohibitions). For such take to be rule (see DATES). The Service concludes of WNS spread across eastern North excepted, the activity must: that incidental take that is caused by America. Little brown bats tend to • Occur more than 0.25 mile (0.4 these activities implemented on private, migrate greater distances, particularly in kilometer) from a known, occupied State, tribal, and Federal lands will not the western portions of their range, with hibernacula; be prohibited provided those activities distances up to 350 miles (563 km) or • Avoid cutting or destroying known, abide by the conservation measures in more recorded (see Ellison 2008, p. 21; occupied roost trees during the pup this interim rule and are otherwise legal Norquay et al. 2013, p. 510). In a recent season (June 1–July 31); and and conducted in accordance with study, reporting on bat band recoveries • Avoid clearcuts (and similar harvest applicable State, Federal, tribal, and of little brown bats over a 21-year methods, e.g., seed tree, shelterwood, local laws and regulations. period, Norquay et al. (2013, pp. 509– and coppice) within 0.25 mile (0.4 510) describe recaptures between kilometer) of known, occupied roost Buffer Zone Around WNS and hibernacula and summer roosts with a trees during the pup season (June 1–July Pseudogymnoascus destructans (the maximum distance of 344 miles (554 31). Fungus that Causes WNS) Positive km) and a median distance of 288 miles Note that activities that may cause Counties (WNS Buffer Zone) (463 km). take of northern long-eared bat that do Currently, not all of the range of the For the purpose of this interim rule, not use these conservation measures northern long-eared bat is affected by the counties within the northern long- may still be done, but only after WNS. Our status determination of the eared bat’s range that are considered to consultation with the Service. This northern long-eared bat as a threatened be affected by WNS are those within 150 means that, while the resulting take species is primarily based on the miles (241 km) of the boundary of U.S. from such activities is not excepted by impacts from WNS, and we also counties or Canadian districts where the this interim rule, the take may be determined that the other threats, when fungus Pd or WNS has been detected. authorized through other means acting on the species alone, are not We acknowledge that 150 miles (241 provided in the Act (section 7 causing the species to be in danger of km) does not capture the full range of consultation or an incidental take extinction. Given this information, the potential WNS infection, but represents permit). Service concludes that while all a compromise distance between the Known roost trees are defined as trees purposeful take except removal of bats known migration distances of northern that northern long-eared bats have been from human dwellings and survey and long-eared bats and little brown bats documented as using during the active research efforts conducted within a 1- that is suitable for our purpose of season (approximately April–October). year period following the effective date estimating the extent of WNS infection Once documented, a tree will be of this interim 4(d) rule will be on the northern long-eared bat. We have considered to be a ‘‘known roost’’ as prohibited, all other take incidental to chosen to use county boundaries to long as the tree and surrounding habitat other lawful activities will be allowed in delineate the boundary because they are remain suitable for northern long-eared those areas of the northern long-eared clearly recognizable and will minimize bat. However, a tree may be considered bat’s range not in proximity to confusion. If any portion of a county to be unoccupied if there is evidence

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 potentially avoiding harm, injury, or managerial, economic, social, and northern long-eared bats. Currently, mortality. policy principles to the regeneration, most states and Natural Heritage The Service concludes that a 0.25- management, utilization and Programs do not track roosts and many mile (0.4-km) buffer should be sufficient conservation of forests to meet specific have not tracked any northern long- to protect most known, occupied goals and objectives (Society of eared bat occurrences. We anticipate hibernacula and hibernating colonies. American Foresters (SAF)(a), http:// that this will improve over time, as This buffer will provide basic protection dictionaryofforestry.org/dict/term/ information on the species increases for the hibernacula and hibernating bats forest_management). Silviculture is the post-listing. in winter from direct impacts, such as art and science of controlling the Known, occupied hibernacula are filling, excavation, blasting, noise, and establishment, growth, composition, defined as locations where one or more smoke exposure. This buffer will also health, and quality of forests and northern long-eared bats have been protect some roosting and foraging woodlands to meet the diverse needs detected during hibernation or at the habitat around the hibernacula. and values of landowners and society entrance during fall swarming or spring The Service concludes that, in on a sustainable basis (SAF(b), http:// emergence. Given the documented addition to preservation of known dictionaryofforestry.org/dict/term/ challenges of surveying for northern maternity roosts, a 0.25-mile (0.4-km) silviculture). In addition to the long-eared bats in the winter (use of buffer for all clearcutting activities will conservation measures above, forest cracks, crevices), any hibernacula with be sufficient to protect the habitat management and silviculture activities northern long-eared bats observed at surrounding known maternity roosts should also adhere to any applicable least once, will continue to be during the pup season. Clearcutting and State water quality best management considered ‘‘known hibernacula’’ as similar methods is summarized here as practices, where they exist. Further, we long as the hibernacula and its the cutting of most or essentially all encourage the retention of snags and surrounding habitat remain suitable for trees from an area; however, specific trees with characteristics (e.g., cavities northern long-eared bat. However, a definitions are provided within the and cracks) favorable for the hibernaculum may be considered to be Society of American Foresters’ establishment and maintenance of unoccupied if there is evidence (e.g., Dictionary of Forestry. This buffer will maternity roosts. survey data) that it is no longer in use prevent the cutting of known occupied The conversion of mature hardwood, by northern long-eared bats. roost trees, reduce the cutting of or mixed, forest into intensively These conservation measures aim to secondary roosts used by maternity managed monoculture pine plantation protect the northern long-eared bat colonies during the pup season from stands, or non-forested landscape, is not during its most sensitive life stages. clearcutting activities, and protect some exempted under this interim rule, as Hibernacula are an essential habitat and habitat for some known maternity typically these types of monoculture should not be destroyed or modified colonies at least to some degree. pine plantations provide poor-quality (any time of year). In addition, there are Further, because colonies occupy more bat habitat. Pine plantations are densely periods of the year when northern long- than one maternity roost in a forest planted (e.g., typically 675 to 750, or eared bats are concentrated at and stand and individual bats frequently more, trees per acre) and are comprised around their hibernacula (fall, winter, change roosts, in some cases a portion of single-age or similar age class timber. and spring). Northern long-eared bats of a colony or social network is likely They are typically managed for timber are susceptible to disruptions near to be protected by multiple 0.25 mile production with, depending on the hibernacula in the fall, when they (0.4 km) buffers. product, a uniform, planned endpoint. congregate to breed and increase fat For purposes of this proposed rule Maximum stocking rates and short stores, which are depleted from and the conservation measures listed rotations result in the forfeiture of migration, before entering hibernation. above, we recommend contacting the structural diversity in exchange for During hibernation, northern long-eared local state agency, State’s Natural elevated rates of wood productivity. bat winter colonies are susceptible to Heritage database, and local Service Plantation productivity may be further direct disturbance. Briefly in spring, Ecological Services field office for enhanced through the use of genetically northern long-eared bats yet again use information on the best current sources improved stock, fertilization, extensive the habitat surrounding hibernacula to of northern long-eared bat records in site preparation, and reduction of increase fat stores for migration to their your state to determine the specific competition. These management actions summering grounds. This feeding locations of the ‘‘known roosts’’ and prohibit variably stocked stands, layers behavior is particularly important for ‘‘known hibernacula.’’ These locations of understory and midstory vegetation, the females, who must obtain enough fat will be informed by records in each and longer rotations that enhance and stores to carry not only themselves, but State’s Natural Heritage database, maintain habitat traits required by many also their unborn pups, to their summer Service records, other databases, or forest-dependent wildlife species (Allen home range. other survey efforts. et al. 1996, p. 13). Risk of injury or death from being Though forestry management and crushed when a roost tree is felled is Forest Management silviculture are vital to the long-term most likely, but not limited, to Continued forest management and survival and recovery of the species, nonvolant pups. The likelihood of roost silviculture is vital to the conservation where northern long-eared bats are trees containing larger number of and recovery of the northern long-eared present when these forest management northern long-eared bats is greatest bat. Under this interim rule, incidental activities are performed, bats could be during pregnancy and lactation (April– take that is caused by forest exposed to habitat alteration or loss or July) with exit counts falling management and silviculture activities direct disturbance (i.e., heavy dramatically after this time (Foster and that promote the long-term stability and machinery) or removal of maternity Kurta 1999, p. 667; Sasse and Pekins diversity of forests, when carried out in roost trees (i.e., harvest). In general, 1996, pp. 91,92). Once the pups can fly, accordance with the conservation however, the northern long-eared bat is this risk is reduced because the pups measures, will not be prohibited. Forest considered to have more flexible habitat will have the ability to flee their roost management is the practical application requirements than other bat species if it is being cut or otherwise damaged, of biological, physical, quantitative, (Carter and Feldhamer 2005, pp. 265–

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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), operations can continue smoothly. absence of fire, some researchers found and most types of forest management These activities may include tree tree species progressively invade and should provide suitable habitat for the trimming or removal, mowing, and will eventually dominate tallgrass species over the long term (with the herbicide spraying. However, depending prairie (Bragg and Hulbert 1976, p. 23; exception of conversion to monoculture on the purpose of the corridor or ROW, Towne and Owensby 1984, p. 397). In pine forest, as discussed above). Based maintenance may only be performed some areas, if prairies are not managed upon information obtained during infrequently, and trees and shrubs may to keep woody vegetation suppressed, previous comment periods on the encroach into, or be allowed to grow they can eventually become shrub or proposed listing rule, approximately 2 within, the ROW until such time as forest lands sometimes in as few as 40 percent of forests in States within the maintenance is required. Expansion of years (Briggs et al. 2002, p. 578; range of the northern long-eared bat are these areas requires removal of Ratajczak et. al 2011, p. 3). We conclude impacted by forest management vegetation along the existing ROW to that the overall impact of prairie activities annually (Boggess et al., 2014, increase capacity (e.g., road widening). management that removes or manages p. 9). Of this amount, in any given year Northern long-eared bats can occupy trees and brush to maintain prairies and a smaller fraction of forested habitat is various species and sizes of trees when grasslands is not expected to adversely impacted during the active season when roosting. Because of their wide variety affect conservation and recovery efforts pups and female bats are most of habitat use when roosting and for the species. vulnerable. These impacts are addressed foraging, it is possible that they may be Projects Resulting in Minimal Tree by the above conservation measures using trees within or near existing Removal adopted in this interim rule. ROWs. Therefore, vegetation removal Therefore, we anticipate that habitat within or adjacent to an existing ROW Under this interim rule, incidental modifications resulting from forest may remove maternity roost trees and take that results from projects causing management and silviculture will not foraging habitat. Individuals may also minimal tree removal, when carried out significantly affect the conservation of temporarily abandon the areas, avoiding in accordance with the conservation the northern long-eared bat. Further, the physical disturbance until the work measures, will not be prohibited (i.e., although activities performed during the is complete. While ROW corridors can will be excepted from the prohibitions). species’ active season (roughly April be large in overall distance, due to the Throughout the millions of acres of through October) may directly kill or relatively small scale of the habitat forest habitat in the northern long-eared injure individuals, implementation of alteration involved in maintenance of bat’s range, many activities involve the conservation measures provided for the existing footprint, potential take is cutting or removal of individual or in this interim rule will limit take by limited. No new forest fragmentation is limited numbers of trees, but do not protecting currently known populations expected as this expands existing open significantly change the overall nature during their more vulnerable life stages. corridors. We also expect that excepting and function of the local forested take prohibitions from ROW habitat. As such, activities that remove Routine Maintenance and Limited maintenance and limited expansion will an acre or less of forested habitat are Expansion of Existing Rights-of-way and encourage co-location of new linear expected to have little or no impact on Transmission Corridors projects within existing corridors. We the ecological value and function and, Under this interim rule, incidental conclude that the overall impact of therefore, will be considered to be take that is caused by activities for the ROW maintenance and limited ‘‘minimal’’ as defined by this rule. purpose of maintenance and limited expansion activities is not expected to Examples of activities that might fall expansion of existing rights-of-way and adversely affect conservation and within this category are firewood transmission corridors, when carried recovery efforts for the species. cutting, shelterbelt renovation, removal out in accordance with the conservation of diseased trees, culvert replacement, measures, will not be prohibited (i.e., Prairie Management habitat restoration for fish and wildlife will be excepted from the prohibitions). Under this interim rule, incidental conservation, and backyard Rights-of-way (ROW) and transmission take that is caused by activities for the landscaping. These ongoing activities corridors are in place for activities such purpose of prairie management, when can occur throughout the northern long- as transportation (highways, railways), carried out in accordance with the eared bat’s range, but we do not believe utility transmission lines, and energy conservation measures, will not be they materially affect the local forest delivery (pipelines), though they are not prohibited (i.e., will be excepted from habitat for this species and in some limited to just these types of corridors. the prohibitions). Prairie management cases increase habitat availability in the Under this interim rule, take of the involves management to maintain long term. northern long-eared bat will not be existing prairies and grasslands or With respect to the term ‘‘minimal,’’ prohibited provided the take is efforts to reestablish grasslands that had we limit the effect to an impact of one incidental to activities within the previously been converted, usually to acre or less. Furthermore, the limitation following categories: cropland. In some areas of the northern of the impact to an acre or less may be (1) Routine maintenance within an long-eared bat’s range, tree and shrub interpreted as follows: One acre of existing corridor or ROW, carried out in species are overtaking prairie areas. contiguous habitat or one acre in total accordance with the previously Landowners and agencies working to within a larger tract, whether that larger described conservation measures. establish or conserve prairies may have tract is entirely forested or a mixture of (2) Expansion of a corridor or ROW by to manage trees and brush in order to forested and non-forested cover types. up to 100 feet (30 m) from the edge of maintain grasslands. Management Tract may be further defined as the an existing cleared corridor or ROW, activities include cutting, mowing, property under the control of the project carried out in accordance with the burning, grazing, or using herbicides on proponent or ownership. We conclude previously described conservation woody vegetation to minimize that the overall impact of projects measures. encroachment into prairies (Grassland causing this type of minimal tree General ROW routine maintenance is Heritage Foundation, accessed removal is not expected to adversely designed to limit vegetation growth, December 23, 2014 http:// affect conservation and recovery efforts within an existing footprint, so that www.grasslandheritage.org/). In the for the species.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 18027

Hazardous Tree Removal Capture, Handling, and Related recognize, however, that in those areas Activities for Northern Long-Eared Bats of the country impacted by WNS, some Under this interim rule, incidental for 1 Year reasonable measures may be taken to take that is caused by removal and Under this interim rule, for a limited protect the species from additive management of hazardous trees will not period of 1 year from the effective date stresses as a result of other factors. By be prohibited (i.e., will be excepted of this interim 4(d) rule, purposeful take focusing on conservation measures that from the prohibitions). Removal of that is caused by the authorized capture, clearly protect individual bats, we hazardous trees completed, as handling, and related activities minimize needless and preventable necessary, for human safety or for the (attachment of radio transmitters and deaths of bats during the species’ most protection of human facilities is the tracking) of northern long-eared bats by sensitive life stages. Although not fully intent of this exception. Hazardous trees individuals permitted to conduct these protective of every individual, the typically have defects in their roots, same activities for other bats will be conservation measures identified in this trunk, or branches that make them likely excepted from the prohibitions. After interim rule help protect maternity and to fall, with the likelihood of causing this time period, all such take must be hibernating colonies, while allowing personal injury or property damage. The permitted following the Service’s limited impacts to habitat. We have limited removal of these hazardous trees standard procedures under 10(a)(1)(A) focused the Act’s protections on the may be widely dispersed but limited, of the Act. One method of determining landscape scale by protecting known and should result in very minimal presence/probable absence of northern hibernacula, protecting the species from incidental take of northern long-eared long-eared bats is to conduct mist- activities that would result in large-scale bat. We recommend, however, that netting at summer sites or harp trapping forest conversion or loss, and removal of hazardous trees be done at hibernacula. Gathering of this encouraging research on WNS and other during the winter, wherever possible, information is essential to monitor the aspects of the species’ biology by when these trees will not be occupied distribution and status of northern long- simplifying the permitting process. This by bats. We conclude that the overall eared bats over time. In addition, interim species-specific rule under impact of removing hazardous trees is northern long-eared bats are often section 4(d) of the Act provides the not expected to adversely affect captured incidentally to survey and flexibility for certain activities to occur conservation and recovery efforts for the study efforts targeted at other bat while not significantly impacting species. species (e.g., Indiana bats). It is habitat for this species and while still necessary and advisable for the Removal of Bats From and Disturbance promoting conservation of the species conservation of northern long-eared bats across its range. Within Human Structures to provide an exception for the Of the activities excepted by this purposeful take associated with these Under this interim rule, any take that interim rule, we project that forest normal survey activities conducted by is caused by removal of bats from and management activities will have the qualified individuals to promote and disturbance within human structures greatest potential impact on the encourage the gathering of information (e.g., harm from excluding bats from northern long-eared bat. Based upon following standard procedures their previous roost site) will not be information obtained during previous prohibited (i.e., will be excepted from (including decontamination) as these data will help us conserve and recover comment periods on the proposed the prohibitions), provided those listing rule, we expect approximately 2 actions comply with all applicable State this species. To receive an exception, proponents must have an existing percent of forests in States within the laws. Northern long-eared bats have research permit under section range of the northern long-eared bat to occasionally been documented roosting 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, or similar State experience forest management activities in human-made structures, such as collector’s permit, for other bat species. this year (Boggess et al., 2014, p. 9). Put houses, barns, pavilions, sheds, cabins, The rationale for this limited time another way, we would expect 98 and bat houses (Mumford and Cope period is that it will be difficult to percent of potential habitat to be 1964, p. 72; Barbour and Davis 1969, p. amend all permits in time for this year. completely unaffected by forest 77; Cope and Humphrey 1972, p. 9; The Service concludes, for the reasons management while this interim rule is Amelon and Burhans 2006, p. 72; specified above, that all of the in effect. Of the remaining 2 percent, a Whitaker and Mumford 2009, p. 209; conservation measures, prohibitions, smaller fraction of this forested habitat Timpone et al. 2010, p. 119; Joe Kath and exceptions identified in this interim will actually be harvested during the 2013, pers. comm.). We conclude that rule individually and cumulatively are northern long-eared bat’s active season the overall impact of bat removal from necessary and advisable for the (April–October), and a smaller portion human structures is not expected to conservation of the northern long-eared yet would be harvested during the pup adversely affect conservation and bat and will collectively promote the season. For the remaining percentage of recovery efforts for the species. In conservation of the species across its bats actually affected by forest addition, we provide the following range. management, we expect implementation recommendations: We publish this interim species- of the conservation measures to • Minimize use of pesticides (e.g., specific rule under section 4(d) of the significantly reduce the take of those rodenticides) and avoid use of sticky Act in full recognition that WNS is the individual bats where there are known traps as part of bat evictions/exclusions. primary threat to species continued northern long-eared bat roost trees. • existence. All of the other (non-WNS) When occupied roosts are cut outside of Conduct exclusions during spring threats combined did not lead to the pup season or if undocumented or fall unless there is a perceived public imperilment of the species, and northern long-eared bat roosts are cut health concern from bats present during elimination of all other non-WNS while occupied, some portion of these summer and/or winter. threats will not likely improve the individuals (particularly males) will flee • Contact a nuisance wildlife potential for recovery of this species in the roost and survive. Thus, we specialist for humane exclusion any meaningful way unless we find a anticipate only a small percentage (less techniques. means to address WNS. We also than 1 percent) of northern long-eared

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 We conclude that take of the northern publish either an affirmation of the management activities. long-eared bat excepted by this interim interim rule or a final rule amending the We anticipate that the additional rule will be small and will not pose a interim rule after we fully consider all activities covered by this interim significant impact on the conservation comments we receive. If you previously species-specific 4(d) rule will only have of the species as a whole. However, we submitted comments or information on a minimal impact on northern long- recognize that there is some uncertainty the proposed 4(d) rule we published on eared bat habitat and individuals. The regarding the level of take that may January 16, 2015 (80 FR 2371), please do activities associated with ROW result and that there are other not resubmit them. We have management and expansion, minimal approaches and additional conservation incorporated them into the public tree removal, prairie management, and measures could improve the overall record, and we will fully consider them hazard tree removal collectively impact conservation outcome of this interim in our final determination on the 4(d) only small percentages of northern long- species-specific rule under section 4(d) rule. eared bat habitat; low levels of take of of the Act. We are seeking public individuals are expected given the comments on this interim rule (see Table 2 (below) summarizes the limited scope of these activities and the Public Comments Solicited on the details of the interim species-specific season during which they occur. Interim 4(d) Rule, below), and we will 4(d) rule for the northern long-eared bat.

Is the area affected by Take exceptions in interim 4(d) rule WNS (WNS buffer Take prohibitions at 50 zone)? CFR 17.31 and 17.32 Purposeful Incidental

No ...... All apply, with the fol- Actions with the intent to remove northern Any incidental take of northern long-eared lowing exceptions long-eared bats from within human struc- bats resulting from otherwise lawful activi- listed here. tures and that comply with all applicable ties. State regulations. Actions relating to capture and handling of northern long-eared bats by individuals per- mitted to conduct these same activities for other bats, for a period of 1 year following the effective date of the interim 4(d) rule. Yes ...... All apply, with the fol- Actions with the intent to remove northern Implementation of forest management, main- lowing exceptions long-eared bats from within human struc- tenance and expansion of existing rights- listed here. tures and that comply with all applicable of-way (ROW) and transmission corridors, State regulations. prairie management, and minimal tree re- moval projects that: • Occur more than 0.25 mile (0.4 km) from a known, occupied hibernacula; • Avoid cutting or destroying known, occu- pied roost trees during the pup season (June 1–July 31); and • Avoid clearcuts (and similar harvest meth- ods, 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 • Routine maintenance within an existing northern long-eared bats by individuals per- corridor or ROW, carried out in accordance mitted to conduct these same activities for with the previously described conservation other bats, for a period of 1 year following measures. the effective date of the interim 4(d) rule. • Expansion of a corridor or ROW by up to 100 feet (30 m) from the edge of an exist- ing 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 process (granting requested extensions immediate implementation of the of the public notice-and-comment interim rule has the advantage of Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) of the period and honoring requests for public providing a conservation benefit to Administrative Procedure Act (APA), hearings or meetings), we would be northern long-eared bat that is we have good cause to find that the unable to finalize the conservation unavailable under the general delay in adopting a rule, which would measures set forth in this interim rule threatened species provisions at 50 CFR be caused by adequately addressing and concurrent with the final listing rule. 17.31 and 17.32. Under this interim responding to public comments on the This would result in the default rule, the Service can continue to except January 16, 2015, proposed rule (80 FR provisions at 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 the take that will result from the 2371), would be detrimental to the controlling northern long-eared bat activities addressed within and still conservation of the northern long-eared management until we complete the address the conservation of bats in bat and, therefore, is contrary to the standard process to adopt a 4(d) rule. individual known roost trees that need public interest. If the Secretary went That outcome would be contrary to the protection due to the impacts of WNS. through the standard rulemaking public interest in this case because The general threatened species

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 under section 4(d) of the Act that comments to allow us to verify any would not allow such protection for defines how the portion of the northern scientific or commercial information northern long-eared bat. In addition, as long-eared bat range will be identified you include. discussed in detail in the preamble, as the ‘‘WNS buffer zone.’’ We are Comments and materials we receive, applying the default provisions under seeking comments regarding the factors as well as supporting documentation we 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, unmodified by and process we used to delineate where used in preparing this interim rule, will a species-specific 4(d) rule, would not on the ground we believe WNS is likely be available for public inspection on provide any significant conservation affecting the northern long-eared bat http://www.regulations.gov, or by benefit to the species. Alternatively, and whether that delineation should appointment, during normal business another option left to the agency’s incorporate political boundaries (e.g., hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife discretion would be to have no county lines) for ease in describing the Service, Twin Cities Ecological Services prohibitions for a species determined to delineated area to the public. Field Office (see FOR FURTHER be threatened. However, as stated, we (4) Additional provisions the Service INFORMATION CONTACT). think that it is appropriate to provide may wish to consider for a revision to some protection for this species during this interim rule under section 4(d) of Critical Habitat its most sensitive life stages so that the the Act in order to conserve, recover, Background northern long-eared bat has the best and manage the northern long-eared bat. Critical habitat is defined in section 3 chance of fighting WNS. We believe this Please note that comments merely of the Act as: interim species-specific 4(d) rule stating support for or opposition to the (1) The specific areas within the provides a balance between the default action under consideration without geographical area occupied by the provisions at 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 providing supporting information, species, at the time it is listed in and no take prohibitions by providing although noted, will not be considered accordance with the Act, on which are the flexibility for certain activities to in making a determination, as section found those physical or biological occur while not significantly impacting 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that features habitat for this species and still determinations as to whether any (a) Essential to the conservation of the promoting species conservation across species is an endangered or a threatened species, and its range. species must be made ‘‘solely on the In general, interim rules are effective basis of the best scientific and (b) Which may require special immediately upon publication due to commercial data available.’’ If you management considerations or the urgency of the actions within those previously submitted comments or protection; and rules. The final rule listing the northern information on the January 16, 2015, (2) Specific areas outside the long-eared bat as threatened is proposed rule, please do not resubmit geographical area occupied by the published as a part of this document, them. We have incorporated them into species at the time it is listed, upon a and is effective in 30 days (see DATES). the public record, and we will fully determination that such areas are To avoid any confusion arising from consider them in our final essential for the conservation of the varying effective dates, and because we determination on this interim rule. Our species. cannot establish a 4(d) rule for a species final determination on this interim rule Conservation, as defined under that is not yet listed, this interim will take into consideration all written section 3 of the Act, means to use and species-specific 4(d) rule will also be comments and any additional the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an effective in 30 days (see DATES), to information we receive. The final coincide with the effective date of the decision may differ from this interim endangered or threatened species to the listing. final rule, based on our review of all point at which the measures provided information received during this pursuant to the Act are no longer Public Comments Solicited on the rulemaking proceeding. necessary. Such methods and Interim 4(d) Rule Our intent is to issue an affirmation procedures include, but are not limited We request comments or information of this interim rule or a final species- to, all activities associated with from other concerned Federal and State specific rule under section 4(d) of the scientific resources management such as agencies, the scientific community, or Act for the northern long-eared bat by research, census, law enforcement, any other interested party concerning the end of the calendar year 2015. habitat acquisition and maintenance, the interim 4(d) rule. We will consider You may submit your comments and propagation, live trapping, and all comments and information we materials concerning this interim rule transplantation, and, in the receive during our preparation of an by one of the methods listed in extraordinary case where population affirmation or final rule under section ADDRESSES. We request that you send pressures within a given ecosystem 4(d) of the Act. With regard to the comments only by the methods cannot be otherwise relieved, may interim 4(d) rule, we particularly seek described in ADDRESSES. include regulated taking. comments regarding: If you submit information via http:// Critical habitat receives protection (1) Whether measures outlined in this www.regulations.gov, your entire under section 7 of the Act through the interim rule under section 4(d) of the submission—including any personal requirement that Federal agencies Act are necessary and advisable for the identifying information—will be posted ensure, in consultation with the Service, conservation and management of the on the Web site. If your submission is that any action they authorize, fund, or northern long-eared bat. made via a hardcopy that includes carry out is not likely to result in the (2) Whether it may be appropriate to personal identifying information, you destruction or adverse modification of except incidental take as a result of may request at the top of your document critical habitat. The designation of other categories of activities beyond that we withhold this information from critical habitat does not affect land those covered by this interim rule and, public review. However, we cannot ownership or establish a refuge, if so, under what conditions and with guarantee that we will be able to do so. wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other what conservation measures. We will post all hardcopy submissions conservation area. Such designation (3) Whether the Service should on http://www.regulations.gov. Please does not allow the government or public modify the portion of this interim rule include sufficient information with your to access private lands. Such

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 18030 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

designation does not require the best scientific data available. designations made on the basis of the implementation of restoration, recovery, Further, our Policy on Information best available information at the time of or enhancement measures by non- Standards Under the Endangered designation will not control the Federal landowners. Where a landowner Species Act (published in the Federal direction and substance of future requests Federal agency funding or Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), recovery plans, HCPs, or other species authorization for an action that may the Information Quality Act (section 515 conservation planning efforts if new affect a listed species or critical habitat, of the Treasury and General information available at the time of the consultation requirements of section Government Appropriations Act for these planning efforts calls for a 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. different outcome. in the event of a destruction or adverse 5658)), and our associated Information Prudency Determination modification finding, the obligation of Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, the Federal action agency and the establish procedures, and provide Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as landowner is not to restore or recover guidance to ensure that our decisions amended, and implementing regulations the species, but to implement are based on the best scientific data (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the reasonable and prudent alternatives to available. They require our biologists, to maximum extent prudent and avoid destruction or adverse the extent consistent with the Act and determinable, the Secretary designate modification of critical habitat. with the use of the best scientific data critical habitat at the time the species is Under the first prong of the Act’s available, to use primary and original determined to be endangered or definition of critical habitat, areas sources of information as the basis for threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR within the geographical area occupied recommendations to designate critical 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation by the species at the time it was listed habitat. of critical habitat is not prudent when are included in a critical habitat When we are determining which areas one or both of the following situations designation if they contain physical or should be designated as critical habitat, exist: (1) The species is threatened by biological features (1) which are our primary source of information is taking or other human activity, and essential to the conservation of the generally the information developed identification of critical habitat can be species and (2) which may require during the listing process for the expected to increase the degree of threat special management considerations or species. Additional information sources to the species, or (2) such designation of protection. For these areas, critical may include the recovery plan for the critical habitat would not be beneficial habitat designations identify, to the species, articles in peer-reviewed to the species. extent known using the best scientific journals, conservation plans developed There is currently no imminent threat and commercial data available, those by States and counties, scientific status of take attributed to collection or physical or biological features that are surveys and studies, biological vandalism for the northern long-eared essential to the conservation of the assessments, other unpublished bat, and identification and mapping of species (such as space, food, cover, and materials, or experts’ opinions or critical habitat is not expected to initiate protected habitat). In identifying those personal knowledge. any such threat. In the absence of physical and biological features within Habitat is dynamic, and species may finding that the designation of critical an area, we focus on the principal move from one area to another over habitat would increase threats to a biological or physical constituent time. We recognize that critical habitat species, if there are any benefits to a elements (primary constituent elements designated at a particular point in time critical habitat designation, then a such as roost sites, nesting grounds, may not include all of the habitat areas prudent finding is warranted. In general, seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, that we may later determine are the potential benefits of designation soil type) that are essential to the necessary for the recovery of the may include: (1) Triggering consultation conservation of the species. Primary species. For these reasons, a critical under section 7 of the Act, in new areas constituent elements are those specific habitat designation does not signal that for actions in which there may be a elements of the physical or biological habitat outside the designated area is Federal nexus where it would not features that provide for a species’ life- unimportant or may not be needed for otherwise occur because, for example, it history processes and are essential to recovery of the species. Areas that are is or has become unoccupied or the the conservation of the species. important to the conservation of listed occupancy is in question; (2) focusing Under the second prong of the Act’s species, both inside and outside the conservation activities on the most definition of critical habitat, we can critical habitat designation, continue to essential features and areas; (3) designate critical habitat in areas be subject to: (1) Conservation actions providing educational benefits to State outside the geographical area occupied implemented under section 7(a)(1) of or county governments or private by the species at the time it is listed, the Act, (2) regulatory protections entities; and (4) preventing people from upon a determination that such areas afforded by the requirement in section causing inadvertent harm to the species. are essential for the conservation of the 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to Therefore, because we have determined species. For example, an area currently ensure their actions are not likely to that the designation of critical habitat occupied by the species but that was not jeopardize the continued existence of will not likely increase the degree of occupied at the time of listing may be any endangered or threatened species, threat to the species and may provide essential to the conservation of the and (3) section 9 of the Act’s some measure of benefit, we find that species and may be included in the prohibitions on taking any individual of designation of critical habitat is prudent critical habitat designation. We the species, including taking caused by for the northern long-eared bat. designate critical habitat in areas actions that affect habitat. Federally outside the geographical area occupied funded or permitted projects affecting Critical Habitat Determinability by a species only when a designation listed species outside their designated Having determined that designation is limited to its range would be inadequate critical habitat areas may still result in prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act to ensure the conservation of the jeopardy findings in some cases. These we must find whether critical habitat for species. protections and conservation tools will the species is determinable. Our Section 4 of the Act requires that we continue to contribute to recovery of regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state designate critical habitat on the basis of this species. Similarly, critical habitat that critical habitat is not determinable

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 features and what special management In October 2013, Tribes and multi- situations exist: (i) Information they might require. Additionally, we tribal organizations were sent letters sufficient to perform required analyses have not gathered sufficient economic inviting them to begin consultation and of the impacts of the designation is and other data on the impacts of critical coordination with the service on the lacking, or (ii) The biological needs of habitat designation. These factors must proposal to listing the northern long- the species are not sufficiently well be considered as part of the designation eared bat. In August 2014, several Tribes known to permit identification of an process. Thus, we find that critical and multi-tribal organizations were sent area as critical habitat. habitat is not determinable for the an additional letter regarding the We reviewed the available northern long-eared bat at this time. Service’s intent to extend the deadline information pertaining to the biological for making a final listing determination Required Determinations needs of the species and habitat by 6 months. A conference call was also characteristics where this species is National Environmental Policy Act (42 held with Tribes to explain the listing located. As information regarding the U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) process and discuss any concerns. biological needs of the species is not We have determined that Following publication of the proposed sufficiently well known to permit rule, the Service established 3 identification of areas as critical habitat, environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as interagency teams (biology of the we conclude that the designation of northern long-eared bat, non-WNS critical habitat is not determinable for defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act threats, and conservation measures) to the northern long-eared bat at this time. ensure that States, Tribes, and other There are many uncertainties in (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be prepared in connection with listing Federal agencies were able to provide designating hibernacula as critical input into various aspects of the listing habitat for the northern long-eared bat. a species as an endangered or threatened species under the rule and potential conservation We lack sufficient information to define measures for the species. Invitations for the physical and biological features or Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this inclusion in these teams were sent to primary constituent elements with Tribes within the range of the northern enough specificity; we are not able to determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). It is long-eared bat and a few tribal determine how habitats affected by representatives participated on those WNS (where populations previously the position of the Service that rules promulgated under section 4(d) of the teams. Two additional conference calls thrived and are now extirpated) may (in January and March 2015) were held contribute to the recovery of the species Act concurrently with listing the species fall under the same rationale as outlined with Tribes to outline the proposed or whether those areas may still contain species-specific 4(d) rule and to answer essential physical and biological in the October 25, 1983, determination. For this reason, we did not conduct questions. Through this coordination, features. Therefore, we currently lack some Tribal representatives expressed the information necessary to propose analysis under NEPA for the interim concern about how listing the northern critical habitat for the species. rule under section 4(d) of the Act. long-eared bat may impact forestry There are also uncertainties with However, it is our intent to comply with potential designation of summer habitat, NEPA standards at the time we publish practices, housing development specifically maternity colony habitat. either an affirmation of the interim 4(d) programs, and other activities on Tribal Although research has given us rule we are adopting in this document lands. indication of some key summer roost or a final rule amending the interim 4(d) Clarity of the Interim 4(d) Rule requirements, the northern long-eared rule based on comments we receive. bat appears to be somewhat We are required by Executive Orders Government-to-Government opportunistic in roost selection, 12866 and 12988 and by the Relationship With Tribes selecting varying roost tree species and Presidential Memorandum of June 1, types of roosts throughout the range. In accordance with the President’s 1998, to write all rules in plain Although research has shown some memorandum of April 29, 1994 language. This means that each rule we consistency in female summer roost (Government-to-Government Relations publish must: habitat (e.g., selection of mix of live with Native American Tribal (1) Be logically organized; trees and snags as roosts, roosting in Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive cavities, roosting beneath bark, and Order 13175 (Consultation and (2) Use the active voice to address roosting in trees associated with closed Coordination With Indian Tribal readers directly; canopy), the species and diameter of the Governments), and the Department of (3) Use clear language rather than tree (when tree roost is used) selected by the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we jargon; northern long-eared bats for roosts vary readily acknowledge our responsibility (4) Be divided into short sections and widely depending on availability. Thus, to communicate meaningfully with sentences; and it is not clear whether certain summer recognized Federal Tribes on a habitats are essential for the recovery of government-to-government basis. In (5) Use lists and tables wherever the species or whether these areas may accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 possible. require special management. of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal If you feel that we have not met these A careful assessment of the Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust requirements, send us comments by one designation of hibernacula as critical Responsibilities, and the Endangered of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES habitat will require additional time to Species Act), we readily acknowledge section. To better help us revise the 4(d) fully evaluate which features are our responsibilities to work directly rule, your comments should be as essential to the conservation of the with tribes in developing programs for specific as possible. For example, you northern long-eared bat and how those healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that should tell us the numbers of the features might change as WNS spreads. tribal lands are not subject to the same sections or paragraphs that are unclearly In addition, summer habitat will require controls as Federal public lands, to written, which sections or sentences are a similar assessment and evaluation of remain sensitive to Indian culture, and too long, or the sections where you feel the essential physical and biological to make information available to tribes. lists or tables would be useful.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3 18032 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 63 / Thursday, April 2, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

References Cited List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– Endangered and threatened species, 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise A complete list of references cited in noted. this document is available on the Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, ■ Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an Transportation. and upon request from the Twin Cities entry for ‘‘Bat, northern long-eared’’ in alphabetical order under MAMMALS to Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR Regulation Promulgation the List of Endangered and Threatened FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Accordingly, we amend part 17, Wildlife to read as follows: Authors subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: § 17.11 Endangered and threatened The primary authors of this document wildlife. are the staff members of the Twin Cities PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS * * * * * Ecological Services Field Office. (h) * * * ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Species Vertebrate population where Critical Special Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules Common name Scientific name threatened

MAMMALS ******* Bat, northern long- Myotis U.S.A. (AL, AR, CT, Entire ...... T 857 NA 17.40(o) eared. septentrionalis. 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).

*******

■ 3. Amend § 17.40 by adding paragraph provisions of §§ 17.31 and 17.32 apply prohibited in the following (o) to read as follows: to the northern long-eared bat. circumstances: (ii) Exceptions from prohibitions. (A) (A) Purposeful take: § 17.40 Special rules—mammals. Purposeful take: (1) Take resulting from actions taken * * * * * (1) Take resulting from actions taken to remove northern long-eared bats from (o) Northern long-eared bat (Myotis to remove northern long-eared bats from within human structures, if the actions septentrionalis). The provisions of this within human structures, if the actions comply with all applicable State rule are based upon the occurrence of comply with all applicable State regulations. white-nose syndrome (WNS), a disease regulations. (2) Take resulting from actions affecting many U.S. bat populations. (2) Take resulting from actions relating to capture, handling, and The term ‘‘WNS buffer zone’’ identifies relating to capture, handling, and related activities for northern long-eared the portion of the range of the northern related activities for northern long-eared bats by individuals permitted to long-eared bat within 150 miles of the bats by individuals permitted to conduct these same activities for other boundaries of U.S. counties or Canadian conduct these same activities for other species of bat until May 3, 2016. districts where the fungus Pd or WNS species of bat until May 3, 2016. (B) Incidental take: has been detected. For current (B) Any incidental (non-purposeful) (1) Implementation of forest information regarding the WNS buffer take of northern long-eared bats management, maintenance and zone, contact your local Service resulting from otherwise lawful expansion of existing rights-of-way and ecological services field office. Field activities. transmission corridors, prairie office contact information may be (2) Inside the WNS buffer zone, the management, and minimal tree removal obtained from the Service regional following provisions apply to the projects that: offices, the addresses of which are listed northern long-eared bat: (i) Occur more than 0.25 mile (0.4 in 50 CFR 2.2. (i) Prohibitions. Except as noted in kilometer) from a known, occupied (1) Outside the WNS buffer zone, the paragraphs (o)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this hibernacula; following provisions apply to the section, all prohibitions and provisions (ii) Avoid cutting or destroying northern long-eared bat: of §§ 17.31 and 17.32 apply to the known, occupied roost trees during the (i) Prohibitions. Except as noted in northern long-eared bat. pup season (June 1–July 31); and paragraphs (o)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this (ii) Exceptions from prohibitions. (iii) Avoid clearcuts (and similar section, all the prohibitions and Take of northern long-eared bat is not harvest methods, e.g., seed tree,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:08 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 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 (3) Expansion of a corridor or right-of- Dated: March 23, 2015. mile (0.4 kilometer) of known, occupied way by up to 100 feet (30 meters) from Stephen Guertin, roost trees during the pup season (June the edge of an existing cleared corridor Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1–July 31). or right-of-way, carried out in Service. (2) Routine maintenance within an accordance with the conservation [FR Doc. 2015–07069 Filed 4–1–15; 8:45 am] existing corridor or right-of-way, carried measures set forth at paragraph BILLING CODE 4310–55–P out in accordance with the conservation (o)(2)(ii)(B)(1). measures set forth at paragraph (4) Removal of hazardous trees for the (o)(2)(ii)(B)(1). protection of human life and property.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:11 Apr 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02APR3.SGM 02APR3 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3