DOCSLIB.ORG

NCHRP 25-25 Task 102 Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Bridging the Gap Between Bats & Transportation Projects A Manual of Best Management Practices for Bridges, Artificial Roosts, & Other Mitigation Approaches for North American Bats Prepared for AASHTO Committee on Environment and Sustainability Prepared by Dale W. Sparks, David Tull Robin Perez Ted Cable, Robert Tunison Edward Samanns Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc. Louis Berger US, Inc. Cincinnati, Ohio Morristown, New Jersey The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 102, National Cooperative Highway Research Program. SPECIAL NOTE: This report IS NOT an official publication of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, or The National Academies. Contractor’s Final Report June 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was conducted for the AASHTO Committee on Environment and Sustainability, with funding provided through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 25-25, Task 102, Artificial Bat Roost Mitigation Designs and Standardized Monitoring Criteria. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project 25- 25 is intended to fund quick response stud-ies on behalf of the Committee on Environment and Sustainability. The report was prepared by Dale W. Sparks, David Tull, Ted Cable, and Robert Tunison of Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc; and Robin Perez and Edward Samanns of Louis Berger US, Inc. The work was guided by a technical working group that included: • Timothy Hill, Ohio Department of Transportation • Amy Bailey, California Department of Transportation • Kris J. Gade, Arizona Department of Transportation • Christine (Chris) Maguire, Oregon Department of Transportation • Jeff S. Peterson Colorado Department of Transportation • Mary Kay Solberg, Iowa Department of Transportation • Kevin Moody, FHWA (Liaison) The project was managed by Ann Hartell NCHRP Senior Program Officer. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsoring agencies. This report has not been reviewed or accepted by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee or the Governing Board of the National Research Council. ii BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN BATS AND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS: A MANUAL OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR BRIDGES, ARTIFICIAL ROOSTS, AND OTHER MITIGATION APPROACHES FOR NORTH AMERICAN BATS Dale W. Sparks, David Tull, Ted Cable, and Robert Tunison Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc. 4525 Este Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45232 AND Robin Perez and Edward Samanns Louis Berger US, Inc. 412 Mt. Kemble Avenue, Morristown, NJ 07962 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 DEFINITIONS/GLOSSARY .................................................................................................... 2 3.0 INTRODUCTION TO NORTH AMERICAN BATS .................................................................. 4 3.1 Diversity .............................................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Conservation Status ............................................................................................................ 4 3.3 What Bats Eat ..................................................................................................................... 5 3.4 Financial Impact of Bats ...................................................................................................... 5 3.5 Seasonal Ecology ............................................................................................................... 6 4.0 RECOGNIZING BAT HABITAT ............................................................................................. 7 4.1 Caves, Mines, and Other Underground Habitats................................................................. 7 4.2 Forested Habitat.................................................................................................................. 8 4.3 Buildings ............................................................................................................................. 8 4.4 Rocky Habitat ...................................................................................................................... 8 4.5 Bridges, Culverts, and Transportation Infrastructure ........................................................... 8 4.6 Landscape Considerations ................................................................................................ 10 4.7 Survey Techniques ........................................................................................................... 10 4.7.1 Mist Nets ...................................................................................................................... 10 4.7.2 Harp Traps ................................................................................................................... 10 4.7.3 Acoustic Bat Detectors ................................................................................................. 10 4.7.4 Examining Potential Roosts ......................................................................................... 11 4.7.5 Emergence Counts ...................................................................................................... 11 5.0 AVOIDING AND MINIMIZING IMPACTS ............................................................................. 12 6.0 MITIGATION TYPES FOR UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ....................................................... 13 6.1 Ways to Enhance Habitat .................................................................................................. 14 6.1.1 Stand-Alone Artificial Roosts ........................................................................................ 14 6.1.2 Bat-Friendly Bridges..................................................................................................... 16 6.2 Location of Mitigation (Relative to Impacts) ...................................................................... 20 6.3 Common Financial Approaches to Mitigation .................................................................... 20 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................... 21 8.0 ADDITIONAL READING AND RESOURCES ...................................................................... 21 8.1 Papers About Mitigation .................................................................................................... 21 8.2 Papers About Artificial Roosts ........................................................................................... 21 8.3 Papers About Bats and Bridges ........................................................................................ 22 iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION There is an increase in awareness about interactions between bats and transportation infrastructure. Bats, including several federal threatened and endangered species, occupy bridges throughout the contiguous 48 states. Bridges provide critical habitat and function as sites for maternity colonies, day roosts, and night roosts. This manual provides an overview of bat ecology to inform land managers, transportation biologists, and natural resource and wildlife agencies about general bat ecology and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for addressing potential conflicts between bats and transportation structures. BMPs are divided into three categories: 1) Inspection ‒ recognizing habitat used or potentially used by bats, 2) Avoidance and Minimization ‒ taking steps (i.e., avoidance and minimization measures) to reduce or eliminate negative impacts to bats, and 3) Mitigation ‒ identifying options to off-set or mitigate negative effects of highway projects. The National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 25-25 Task 102 supported the research effort needed to create this BMP manual and a more technical companion document that includes pertinent statistical analyses and references. Most of this material is summarized herein with the goal of producing a concise and useful product for the end user. The BMP manual is targeted toward professionals who regularly address interactions between transportation projects and environmental laws. Interviews conducted as part of the research effort revealed contrasting viewpoints between the professionals employed by transportation agencies (such as Departments of Transportation, DOTs) and those employed by resource-centric organizations including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), State Departments of Natural Resources (DNRs), and academics. Such divergent viewpoints arise from different goals (i.e., building projects as opposed to species recovery efforts) and from dissimilar areas of expertise. Expecting a transportation engineer to understand the details of bat biology is not reasonable and expecting bat biologists to understand the nuanced differences among different types of bridges and culverts is equally unreasonable. Different perspectives naturally result from different objectives and can unnecessarily complicate communication. This manual contains sections dedicated to defining terminology to simplify communication, introducing the ecology of bats in the U.S., and describing methods to recognize
Recommended publications
  • Appendix B References

    Appendix B References

    Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement and Preliminary Section 4(f) Evaluation Appendix B, References July 2021 Federal Aid No. 999-M(161)S ADOT Project No. 999 SW 0 M5180 01P I-11 Corridor Final Tier 1 EIS Appendix B, References 1 This page intentionally left blank. July 2021 Project No. M5180 01P / Federal Aid No. 999-M(161)S I-11 Corridor Final Tier 1 EIS Appendix B, References 1 ADEQ. 2002. Groundwater Protection in Arizona: An Assessment of Groundwater Quality and 2 the Effectiveness of Groundwater Programs A.R.S. §49-249. Arizona Department of 3 Environmental Quality. 4 ADEQ. 2008. Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Pinal Active Management Area: A 2005-2006 5 Baseline Study. Open File Report 08-01. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Water 6 Quality Division, Phoenix, Arizona. June 2008. 7 https://legacy.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/download/pinal_ofr.pdf. 8 ADEQ. 2011. Arizona State Implementation Plan: Regional Haze Under Section 308 of the 9 Federal Regional Haze Rule. Air Quality Division, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 10 Phoenix, Arizona. January 2011. https://www.resolutionmineeis.us/documents/adeq-sip- 11 regional-haze-2011. 12 ADEQ. 2013a. Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Upper Hassayampa Basin: A 2003-2009 13 Baseline Study. Open File Report 13-03, Phoenix: Water Quality Division. 14 https://legacy.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/download/upper_hassayampa.pdf. 15 ADEQ. 2013b. Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Fact Sheet: Construction 16 General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. Arizona 17 Department of Environmental Quality. June 3, 2013. 18 https://static.azdeq.gov/permits/azpdes/cgp_fact_sheet_2013.pdf.
  • Mammal Watching in Northern Mexico Vladimir Dinets

    Mammal Watching in Northern Mexico Vladimir Dinets

    Mammal watching in Northern Mexico Vladimir Dinets Seldom visited by mammal watchers, Northern Mexico is a fascinating part of the world with a diverse mammal fauna. In addition to its many endemics, many North American species are easier to see here than in USA, while some tropical ones can be seen in unusual habitats. I travelled there a lot (having lived just across the border for a few years), but only managed to visit a small fraction of the number of places worth exploring. Many generations of mammologists from USA and Mexico have worked there, but the knowledge of local mammals is still a bit sketchy, and new discoveries will certainly be made. All information below is from my trips in 2003-2005. The main roads are better and less traffic-choked than in other parts of the country, but the distances are greater, so any traveler should be mindful of fuel (expensive) and highway tolls (sometimes ridiculously high). In theory, toll roads (carretera quota) should be paralleled by free roads (carretera libre), but this isn’t always the case. Free roads are often narrow, winding, and full of traffic, but sometimes they are good for night drives (toll roads never are). All guidebooks to Mexico I’ve ever seen insist that driving at night is so dangerous, you might as well just kill yourself in advance to avoid the horror. In my experience, driving at night is usually safer, because there is less traffic, you see the headlights of upcoming cars before making the turn, and other drivers blink their lights to warn you of livestock on the road ahead.
  • Inventory of Mammals at Walnut Canyon, Wupatki, and Sunset Crater National Monuments

    Inventory of Mammals at Walnut Canyon, Wupatki, and Sunset Crater National Monuments

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Inventory of Mammals at Walnut Canyon, Wupatki, and Sunset Crater National Monuments Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SCPN/NRTR–2009/278 ON THE COVER: Top: Wupatki National Monument; bottom left: bobcat (Lynx rufus); bottom right: Wupatki pocket mouse (Perogna- thus amplus cineris) at Wupatki National Monument. Photos courtesy of U.S. Geological Survey/Charles Drost. Inventory of Mammals at Walnut Canyon, Wupatki, and Sunset Crater National Monuments Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/SCPN/NRTR—2009/278 Author Charles Drost U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center 2255 N. Gemini Drive Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Editing and Design Jean Palumbo National Park Service, Southern Colorado Plateau Network Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, Arizona December 2009 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Technical Report Series is used to disseminate results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series provides contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
  • Lower Colorado River Bat Monitoring Protocol

    Lower Colorado River Bat Monitoring Protocol

    LOWER COLORADO RIVER BAT MONITORING PROTOCOL Patricia Brown, Ph.D. January 2006 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND European man has drastically changed the natural habitat of the Lower Colorado River (LCR) over the past 150 years. Dams for power, flood control and water export; bank stabilization and channelization have altered the flow and flood patterns, salinity and plant communities of the LCR. The destruction of the native vegetation, most notably the cottonwood/willow riparian, and its replacement by exotics, especially salt cedar continues unabated. Over the past 50 years, declines have been observed in some bat species, such as the cave myotis (Myotis velifer) and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), that were at one time relatively abundant along the LCR. Large deposits of the distinctive guano of these colonial species are found in abandoned mines that border the LCR, although the bats are now absent or present in very small numbers. Only four maternity colonies of cave myotis and one maternity colony of Corynorhinus are now known along the LCR. The Arizona myotis (Myotis occultus) appears to have disappeared from the LCR, with the last museum specimen collected in 1945. The type locality for this species was Ft. Mojave north of Needles. One hypothesis for the decline of some bat species is the removal and replacement of native floodplain vegetation that supported the insect diets of these bats. Another is the heavy pesticide spraying in agricultural areas (conducted principally at night) that directly reduces the preybase and indirectly poisons the bats. A third possible cause is the disturbance of roosts of colonial bat species by the increased resident and recreational human population along the Colorado River.
  • Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats

    Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats

    Index of Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Vol. 9. Bats A agnella, Kerivoula 901 Anchieta’s Bat 814 aquilus, Glischropus 763 Aba Leaf-nosed Bat 247 aladdin, Pipistrellus pipistrellus 771 Anchieta’s Broad-faced Fruit Bat 94 aquilus, Platyrrhinus 567 Aba Roundleaf Bat 247 alascensis, Myotis lucifugus 927 Anchieta’s Pipistrelle 814 Arabian Barbastelle 861 abae, Hipposideros 247 alaschanicus, Hypsugo 810 anchietae, Plerotes 94 Arabian Horseshoe Bat 296 abae, Rhinolophus fumigatus 290 Alashanian Pipistrelle 810 ancricola, Myotis 957 Arabian Mouse-tailed Bat 164, 170, 176 abbotti, Myotis hasseltii 970 alba, Ectophylla 466, 480, 569 Andaman Horseshoe Bat 314 Arabian Pipistrelle 810 abditum, Megaderma spasma 191 albatus, Myopterus daubentonii 663 Andaman Intermediate Horseshoe Arabian Trident Bat 229 Abo Bat 725, 832 Alberico’s Broad-nosed Bat 565 Bat 321 Arabian Trident Leaf-nosed Bat 229 Abo Butterfly Bat 725, 832 albericoi, Platyrrhinus 565 andamanensis, Rhinolophus 321 arabica, Asellia 229 abramus, Pipistrellus 777 albescens, Myotis 940 Andean Fruit Bat 547 arabicus, Hypsugo 810 abrasus, Cynomops 604, 640 albicollis, Megaerops 64 Andersen’s Bare-backed Fruit Bat 109 arabicus, Rousettus aegyptiacus 87 Abruzzi’s Wrinkle-lipped Bat 645 albipinnis, Taphozous longimanus 353 Andersen’s Flying Fox 158 arabium, Rhinopoma cystops 176 Abyssinian Horseshoe Bat 290 albiventer, Nyctimene 36, 118 Andersen’s Fruit-eating Bat 578 Arafura Large-footed Bat 969 Acerodon albiventris, Noctilio 405, 411 Andersen’s Leaf-nosed Bat 254 Arata Yellow-shouldered Bat 543 Sulawesi 134 albofuscus, Scotoecus 762 Andersen’s Little Fruit-eating Bat 578 Arata-Thomas Yellow-shouldered Talaud 134 alboguttata, Glauconycteris 833 Andersen’s Naked-backed Fruit Bat 109 Bat 543 Acerodon 134 albus, Diclidurus 339, 367 Andersen’s Roundleaf Bat 254 aratathomasi, Sturnira 543 Acerodon mackloti (see A.
  • Strong Geographic and Temporal Patterns in Conservation Status of North MARK American Bats

    Strong Geographic and Temporal Patterns in Conservation Status of North MARK American Bats

    Biological Conservation 212 (2017) 144–152 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Strong geographic and temporal patterns in conservation status of North MARK American bats ⁎ G.A. Hammersona, M. Klingb, M. Harknessc, M. Ormesd, B.E. Younge, a NatureServe, Port Townsend, WA 98368, USA b Dept. of Integrative Biology, 3040 Valley Life Sciences Building, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3140, USA c NatureServe, 2108 55th St., Suite 220, Boulder, CO 80301, USA d NatureServe, University of Massachusetts, c/o Biology Department, 100 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, MA 02125-3393, USA e NatureServe, Escazu, Costa Rica ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Conservationists are increasingly concerned about North American bats due to the arrival and spread of the Bats White-nose Syndrome (WNS) disease and mortality associated with wind turbine strikes. To place these novel Conservation status threats in context for a group of mammals that provides important ecosystem services, we performed the first Disease comprehensive conservation status assessment focusing exclusively on the 45 species occurring in North America Geographic patterns north of Mexico. Although most North American bats have large range sizes and large populations, as of 2015, Wind energy 18–31% of the species were at risk (categorized as having vulnerable, imperiled, or critically imperiled NatureServe conservation statuses) and therefore among the most imperiled terrestrial vertebrates on the con- tinent. Species richness is greatest in the Southwest, but at-risk species were more concentrated in the East, and northern faunas had the highest proportion of at-risk species. Most ecological traits considered, including those characterizing body size, roosting habits, migratory behavior, range size, home range size, population density, and tendency to hibernate, were not strongly associated with conservation status.
  • A Habitat Model for the Spotted Bat in Arizona

    A Habitat Model for the Spotted Bat in Arizona

    Volume 3, Number 2 Fall 2007 Feature Section: Bats and Mines Photos: Janene Lichtenberg (upper left and right), L. Bonewell (lower left) WESTERN BAT WORKING GROUP NEWSLETTER Fall 2007 Volume 3, No. 2 Issue 5 President's Corner ............................................................................................................... 2 Headliners ........................................................................................................................... 4 About This Newsletter ........................................................................................................ 4 FEATURE SECTION: Bats and Mines.............................................................................. 4 State/Provincial Updates................................................................................................... 16 Alaska ........................................................................................................................... 16 Alberta........................................................................................................................... 19 Arizona.......................................................................................................................... 19 British Columbia........................................................................................................... 23 California ...................................................................................................................... 24 Colorado.......................................................................................................................
  • WBBWGG NEWSS Volume 2, Number 2 November 2006 Feature Section: Bats and Wiind Energy - Page 6

    WBBWGG NEWSS Volume 2, Number 2 November 2006 Feature Section: Bats and Wiind Energy - Page 6

    WBBWGG NEWSS Volume 2, Number 2 November 2006 Feature Section: Bats and Wiind Energy - Page 6 Wind farm in SW Alberta. See Erin Baerwald’s article on page 7 Western Bat Working Group Western Bat Working Group NEWSLETTER Volume 2, Number 2 November 2006 Table of Contents President’s Corner .......................................................................................................................... 3 Headliners........................................................................................................................................4 About This Newsletter.....................................................................................................................5 WBWG Elections ............................................................................................................................5 Feature Section: Bats and Wind Energy..........................................................................................6 A Tribute to Fred Stabler.................................................................................................................9 State/Provincial Updates..................................................................................................................9 Alaska ..........................................................................................................................................9 Alberta .......................................................................................................................................10 Arizona ......................................................................................................................................12
  • Nevada Bat Conservation Plan

    Nevada Bat Conservation Plan

    Nevada Bat Working Group Nevada Bat Conservation Plan Abstract The Nevada Bat Working Group (NBWG), a subcommittee of the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) is an assemblage of wildlife scientists dedicated to the preservation, protection, management and restoration of Nevada’s bat fauna. In 1998, the NBWG dedicated itself to the production of a comprehensive conservation plan for Nevada’s 23 bat species. A plan was initially completed in 2002. This current plan represents a complete revision and update of the 2002 plan. The plan assesses the current state of bat conservation in Nevada and suggests proactive strategies for improving and standardizing the conservation of Nevada’s bats. The plan profiles each species and cross-references conservation strategies by roosting and foraging habitats specific to each bat. Conservation support materials in the form of research need summaries, survey protocols, permit requirements, standardized data collection sheets, approved gate and bridge designs, current and proposed legislation, as well as NBWG habitat position statements were appended for ease of retrieval for managers charged with the stewardship of Nevada’s bat resource. This document is designed to guide and educate public and private land managers in the conservation of Nevada’s bats into the next decade. Signatories have dedicated their agencies to the spirit of the plan and will do their best to conserve bats and bat resources within their jurisdictions. It is the intent of the NBWG that this plan is seen as a dynamic document with periodic review and complete revisions on a ten-year cycle to reflect improvements in the knowledge base of bat conservation in the State of Nevada.
  • Bat Habitat and Forest Restoration Treatments 17 January 2007

    Bat Habitat and Forest Restoration Treatments 17 January 2007

    Working Papers in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forest Restoration Ecological Restoration Institute PO Box 15017 Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5017 ERITA44 Bat Habitat and Forest Restoration Treatments 17 January 2007 Ecological Restoration Institute P.O. Box 15017 Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5017 www.eri.nau.edu Working Papers in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forest Restoration Working Papers in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forest Restoration Ecological restoration is a practice that seeks to heal degraded ecosystems by reestablishing native 1: Restoring the Uinkaret Mountains: Operational Lessons and Adaptive Management Practices species, structural characteristics, and ecological processes. The Society for Ecological Restoration International defines ecological restoration as “an intentional activity that initiates or accelerates 2: Understory Plant Community Restoration in the Uinkaret Mountains, Arizona the recovery of an ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity and sustainability….Restoration 3: Protecting Old Trees from Prescribed Fire attempts to return an ecosystem to its historic trajectory” (Society for Ecological Restoration 4: Fuels Treatments and Forest Restoration: An Analysis of Benefits International Science & Policy Working Group 2004). 5: Limiting Damage to Forest Soils During Restoration In the southwestern United States, most ponderosa pine forests have been degraded during the last 6: Butterflies as Indicators of Restoration Progress 150 years. Many ponderosa pine areas are now dominated by dense thickets of small trees, and 7:
  • Occasional Papers Museum of Texas Tech University Number 360 17 January 2019

    Occasional Papers Museum of Texas Tech University Number 360 17 January 2019

    Occasional Papers Museum of Texas Tech University Number 360 17 January 2019 FIELD IDENTIFICATION KEY AND GUIDE FOR BATS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CLINT N. MORGAN, LOREN K. AMMERMAN, KRYSTA D. DEMERE, JEFFREY B. DOTY, YOSHINORI J. NAKAZAWA, AND MATTHEW R. MAULDIN ABSTRACT Bats are the second most speciose lineage of mammals with more than 1,300 recognized species. Overall, bats are extremely ecologically and morphologically diverse, making them of interest to a wide variety of biologists. Bats are also known reservoirs for an assortment of zoonotic diseases, including rabies, for which they are commonly tested if identified as sick, behaving abnormally, or in instances where there has been a significant human exposure. In these cases, proper identification of bat species is important to public health experts as it will inform future testing procedures and management practices, as well as broaden our understand- ing of rabies virus bat variant distributions and disease ecology. Despite the multiple disciplines interested in bats, no key has been developed which includes all species found within the United States. For this reason, a dichotomous key and bat identification guide, designed to differentiate bats to species level, has been developed. This document can be used by people with a variety of backgrounds to morphologically identify bats quickly and accurately using only a scale, a ruler, and attention to detail. Key words: bat guide, bat key, bats, Chiroptera, identification key, public health, rabies virus INTRODUCTION There are 51 species of bats currently documented measurements, range maps, and additional information in the United States (Reid 2006; Baird et al.
  • Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Data Management System

    Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Data Management System

    ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT HERITAGE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Animal Abstract Element Code: AMACC01050 Data Sensitivity: Yes CLASSIFICATION, NOMENCLATURE, DESCRIPTION, RANGE NAME: Myotis velifer COMMON NAME: Cave Myotis; Cave Bat, Mexican Brown Bat SYNONYMS: Myotis velifer velifer (in part), Vespertilio incautus, Vespertilio velifer FAMILY: Vespertilionidae AUTHOR, PLACE OF PUBLICATION: Allen, J. A., 1890. Bul. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 3:177. TYPE LOCALITY: San Cruz Valley. Guadalajara, Jalisco Mexico. TYPE SPECIMEN: A. C. Buller 1889. TAXONOMIC UNIQUENESS: One of 27 North American Myotis species; one of 9 Arizona Myotis species (Hall 1981). Hoffmeister (1986), following Hayward (1970) who regarded specimens assigned to the subspecies Myotis velifer brevis as the northern end of a cline and thus not deserving of sub specific recognition, considers this subspecies to be synonymous with M. v. velifer of southern and western Mexico. DESCRIPTION: Large (total length 87.0-100.0 mm [3.5-4.0 in.]) Myotis with large hind foot (9.0-12.0 mm [0.36-0.48 in.]), long forearm (40.0-43.1 mm [1.6-1.72 in.]), robust teeth and a well-developed sagittal crest on the skull. Zygomatic breadth is 9.0-11.6 mm, breadth of braincase 7.0-8.2 mm, length of upper tooth row 6.0-7.0 mm. Breadth of maxillary teeth exceeding that in any other North American species of Myotis except M. lucifugus occultus. Color, dull gray to almost black. Only Myotis with bare patch on back between shoulder blades. May have to blow or brush bat's hair to see it.