?/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, Illinois, 60604
EPA 905 / 3-78-001
April, 1978
WATfiR
Bat Management in
the United States:
A Survey of
Legislative Actions,
Court Decisions and
Agency Interpretations
-------
DISCLAIMER
Publication of this report does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
April, 1978 EPA-905/3-78-OOJ
•< )
t-
BAT MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES:
A Survey of Legislative Actions,
Court Decisions
and
Agency Interpretations
Thomas M. Lera
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Sue Fortune
East Sherman Street
Whittemore, Michigan 48770
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th
Chicago, It 60604-3590
-------
ABSTRACT
In 1966, Congress passed legislation which afforded native animals
legal protection. Since that time, this legislation has been twice
revised. The current Endangered Species Act of 1973, provides not only
animals but also plants with what appears to be a reasonable degree of
protection and survival. Recent court decisions support the concept and
validity of the 1973 Act.
This paper is the result of a survey conducted throughout fourteen
federal departments and agencies in order to obtain their interpretation
of the 1973 Act, and more specifically, how bats are protected by this
interpretat ion.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ii
INTRODUCTION 1
Sect ion
I CONGRESSIONAL ACTION 3
Endangered Species Act 5
Habitat Preservation 8
Department of the Interior Actions 10
II COURT DECISIONS 13
Froehl ke 13
National Wildlife Federation 14
Hill 14
Defenders of Wildlife 15
Capparet 15
III SURVEY PROCEDURE 17
IV AGENCY RESPONSE 19
Department of Agriculture 19
Department of Commerce 20
Department of Defense 21
Department of Health, Education & Welfare. . . 22
Department of Housing & Urban Development. . . 23
Department of Interior 2k
Department of Justice 27
Department of Labor 28
Department of State 28
Department of Transportation 28
Environmental Protection Agency 29
Tennessee Valley Authority 30
Council of Environmental Quality 31
Office of Science and Technology Policy. ... 31
V CONCLUSION 33
VI APPENDIX I 37
APPENDIX II 38
-------
Section Page
APPENDIX III 39
APPENDIX IV l)Q
APPENDIX V 1»3
VII FOOTNOTES ^5
VIM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4
-------
INTRODUCTION
Between the years 1600 and 1850, five American animal species
vanished. In startling contrast, fifty-seven additional mammal, fish, and
bird species have been forced into extinction just since the year 1850.
This represents a twenty-two fold increase in the rate of extinction of
numerous North American species in a little more than 125 years. The
basic reason for this dramatic increase in species extinction is the
rapid, and in some cases, uncontrolled development and advancement of
2
our modern industrial and technological society.
Ironically, while we have made remarkable advancements industrially
and technologically and maximized the potential and usefulness of many
of our resources, we have in effect, reduced drastically and irreversibly
some of what must be considered our most precious assets as well as resources,
In an attempt to counter this ongoing and potentially disastrous pro-
cess, Congress passed, during the years 1969-1973, three major legislative
acts which were designed to encompass and provide impetus to the concept
of protection to any and all endangered species.
The purpose of this paper is two-fold: 1) an attempt will be made
to acquaint the reader with the development and history of these three
acts with primary focus resting on the most recent Act and subsequent
evaluation of its effectiveness in recent court decisions; and 2) to
specifically analyze the impact this Act has had upon the preservation
and/or eradication of bats. The application of this Act toward specific
species of bats has been determined by having thoroughly surveyed the
major federal agencies to determine if their policies and practices are,
indeed,uniform and consistent both internally and externally at all levels.
-1-
-------
SECTION I
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
The first formal involvement by Congress in endangered species legis-
lation began with the Endangered Species Preservation Act of October 15,
1966, hereinafter referred to as the "1966 Act." This law acknowledged
a national responsibility to act on behalf of native species of wildlife
which were threatened with extinction. It required that the Secretary of
the Interior implement a comprehensive program to conserve restore, and
where necessary, bolster wild populations found threatened with extinction.
It also required the Secretary to determine which species were endangered
and to publish this list in the Federal Register by scientific and common name.
Its amended version, the Endangered Species Conservation Act was
4
enacted on December 5, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the "1969 Act."
This amendment to the 1966 Act greatly expanded the scope of effort to
conserve endangered species in several significant respects:
1. It broadened coverage to include all vertebrates,
mollusks, and crustaceans on a world-wide basis.
2. It permitted the consideration of subspecies as
wel1 as species.
3- It ensured that the United States would not con-
tribute to the extinction of other nations' wildlife.
't. It protected native endangered species by making
their sale or purchase unlawful.
5. It increased the funds authorized to acquire lands
for the purpose of conserving, protecting, restoring
and propagating any endangered species.
Although the 1969 Act had laid the framework for an effective endangered
species conservation program, with controls on traffic in threatened species
as well as habitat preservation and restoration, it did not automatically
-3-
-------
afford native endangered species adequate protection.
President Nixon stated in his Environmental Message of February 8,
1972, that the existing law "...simply does not provide the kind of
management tools needed to act early enough to save a vanishing species."
A Congressional study had found "...that various species of fish, wildlife,
and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence
of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and con-
servation" and that others are "...threatened with extinction."
The 1969 Act also did not prohibit the killing of any endangered
species. The only endangered species that were protected by state or
federal laws were those incorporated into the revisions of the Lacey Act.
As a result, Congress then found it necessary to improve protection for
all species designated as endangered. By now it had also determined that
o
"...the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanism" was one of several
factors, two of which were hunting and destruction of natural habitats,
that were contributing enormously to the continuing problem of animal
9
ext met ion.
After Congressional study and Presidential urging, the Endangered
Species Act was passed on December 28, 1973, hereinafter referred to as
the "1973 Act." It totally replaced the 1969 Act, and superceded all
of the 1966 Act except for the provisions relating to the National
Wildlife Refuge System.
-4-
-------
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
A major purpose of the 1973 Act is the "conservation of endangered
and threatened species", and "conservation" is strictly defined as:
"...the use of all methods and procedures which are
necessary to bring any endangered or threatened
species to the point at which the measures provided
pursuant to this chapter (1973 Act) are no longer
necessary."' 2
The 1973 Act empowers the Secretary of the Interior to compile and
maintain separate official lists of threatened and endangered species.
An "endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger
14
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range..."
This definition is further specified by the requirement that animals may
be listed as endangered "on the basis of the best scientific and commercial
data available."
The term "threatened species" is defined to include "any species
which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." The
Secretary is also empowered to issue "such regulations as he deems necessary
and advisable for the conservation of such species." This action provides
the Department of the Interior with the power to act to protect animals
before they actually become endangered.
The 1973 Act also commits all federal agencies to "utilize their
authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter by...taking such
action necessary to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out
by them do not jeopardize the continued existence of such endangered and
threatened species or result in the destruction or modification of habitat
18
of such species which is determined by the Secretary...to be critical."
-5-
-------
The Secretary of the Interior, in order to fulfill the requirements
of the 1973 Act, must determine whether or not the habitat to be affected
by any project might be critical to the endangered species to ensure that
19
the actions will not harm the habitat. This requirement imposes on
federal agencies the mandatory duty of ensuring that their actions will
not either jeopardize the existence of an endangered species or destroy
and/or modify the critical habitat of an endangered species. The primary
responsibility for implementing this section lies with the Secretary of
the Interior. Federal agencies are required to consult and obtain the
assistance of the Secretary before any actions are taken which may affect
any endangered species or their critical habitat.
The 1973 Act also specifically provides that no other State law or
regulation intended as a conservation measure should be construed as
void. "State laws respecting the taking of an endangered or threatened
species may be more restrictive than the permits or exemptions provided
for in this chapter (1973 Act) or in any regulation which implements this
2
chapter (1973 Act) but not less restrictive than the prohibitions so defined."
It should also be noted that the 1973 Act keynotes that "The President
shall provide assistance to foreign countries and urge international cooper-
21
at ion in establishing programs to protect endangered species."
The 1973 Act expanded the list of prohibited activities far beyond
any of the previous two Acts. In addition to prohibitions against importation
(included in the 1969 Act) and prohibitions against the movement in inter-
state commerce of animals taken in violation of local laws (included in the
Lacey Act), the 1973 Act bans "exporting, taking within the United States
or its territorial seas or on the high seas, possessing or transporting any
endangered species illegally taken, transporting any endangered species in
interstate or foreign commerce for commercial purposes, or offering to sell
-6-
-------
22
or selling such animals in interstate or foreign commerce." Finally,
protection was also aforded for the first time to endangered species of
23
plants.
Although Congress had recognized that hunting and destruction of
natural habitat were two major causes of extinction, the 1973 Act ad-
dressed still another cause of extinction - "overuti1ization for com-
24
mercial, sporting, scientific or educational purposes." Even the
prohibition against "taking" also addresses the overuti1ization issue,
since "taking" is defined to include "harrass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
25
wound, kill, trap, capture or collect."
Finally, the 1973 Act authorized suits by private citizens seeking
"to enjoin any person, including the United States and any agency or
other governmental instrumentality...who is alleged to be in violation
of any provision of this chapter or regulation issued under the authority
26
thereof" and may obtain injunctive relief.
-7-
-------
HABITAT PRESERVATION
As previously stated, the 1973 Act specifically mentions habitat
27
preservation. Habitat, as defined, consists of a spatial environment
in which a species lives including the elements of land, water, air and
geographical boundary. A critical habitat for any species, not the
least of which includes man, is the entire habitat or any portion of it,
if and only if, any constituent element is necessary to the normal needs
or survival of that species. Critical habitat may not be restricted to
the habitat necessary to maintain a minimum viable population. The
following needs, therefore, are relevant in the determination of a cri-
tical habitat for any given species:
1. Space for normal growth, movement or territorial
behavior;
2. Nutritional requirements, such as food, water or
essential minerals;
3. Sites for breeding, reproduction or rearing of
offspring;
k. Cover or shelter; or
28
5. Other biological, physical or behavioral requirements.
Under this concept, the destruction, disturbance, modification,
curtailment or subjection to human activity of any habitat considered
critical for a given species, would not conform with the 1973 Act if
such action might be expected to result in a reduction in the numbers
or distribution of that species of sufficient magnitude to place said
species in further jeopardy or were to result in a restriction of the
potential and reasonable expansion or recovery of that species. Federal
conservation actions involving critical habitats may include "the develop-
ment of regulations, land and water acquisition, leasing arrangements,
federal/state cooperation in implementing the 1973 Act and other administrative
29
research and management plans and activities.
-8-
-------
It should be noted that there may be many kinds of actions which can
be carried out within the critical habitat of a species that would not be
expected to result in a reduction in the numbers or distribution or other-
wise adversely affect that species.
-9-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ACTIONS
After the 1966 Act was passed on March 11, 1967, seventy-eight
species were listed as endangered including the Indiana bat (Myot i s
sodalis). When the 1966 Act was replaced by the 1969 Act, another
United States endangered species list was published. This list named
101 species including the Indiana bat and the Hawaiian hoary bat
(Las i urus ci nereus semotus), and as expected, with the passage of
the 1973 Act, yet another list was published. This list, however,
32
included threatened and endangered wildlife, and by April 28, 1976
a third species of bat had been added to the ever-growing list; the
Gray bat (Myotis grisescens).
In accordance with the 1973 Act, the Department of the Interior
now requested determination of critical habitat for 108 species which
3^4
included the Hawaiian hoary bat and the Indiana bat. Critical habi-
tat was finally determined for the Indiana bat on September 2k, 1976.
(Appendix I lists known areas of critical habitat for the Indiana bat).
At the time of this writing, the Department of Interior is also
considering placing two additional bat species on the endangered list with
critical habitat proposal for one of the species. These are the Ozark big-
eared bat (Plecotus townsendii tngens) and the Virginia big-eared bat
(Plecotus townsendii v?rginianus). Notice was given in the Federal
Register and there is a 90-day review and comment period. If no adverse
comments are received or reasons given as to why these species should not
be considered as endangered, the Department of the Interior will determine
that they are endangered and as such, they will be protected by the 1973
Act. (Appendix II lists the proposed critical habitat for the Virginia big-
eared bat).
-10-
-------
As previously stated, the 1973 Act's primary objective is "to conserve"
species by providing protection and monitoring populations. The Indiana
bat, however, has been one of the endangered species where a recovery team
was formed and a recovery plan was prepared. This pfan was approved on
•jO
June 1, 1976. The plan lists three major goals to preserve the Indiana
bat and bring it back to the status where it can be removed from the endan-
gered species list. These goals are:
1. To preserve critical winter habitat, secure primary
caves and mines and restrict entry;
2. Initiate an information and educational program; and
3. Monitor population levels and habitats.
The plan has an implementation schedule and is proceeding accordingly.
-11-
-------
SECTION I I
COURT DECISIONS
In recent years court decisions concerning endangered species have
increased in frequency and have proven to be of major significance in
that they have embodied individual and governmental attempts to make
difficult and yet practical decisions concerning the preservation of
species in an increasingly technological and urbanized environment which
often casts aside the fate of endangered species. Since passage of the
1973 Act, there have been several landmark federal court decisions which
have, 1) greatly affected application of the 1973 Act, 2) established a
burden of proof responsibility upon those wishing to utilize the Act as
a deterrent against further habitat and/or species destruction, and 3)
yet, in actuality, have strengthened the position of the endangered
species themselves.
39
The primary issue in Froehlke, became whether the Army Corps of
Engineers had adequately considered the fate of the Indiana bat (Myotis
sodali s) in its environmental impact statement regarding the construction
of the Meremec Dam near St. Louis, Missouri. The Indiana bat had ori-
ginally been listed as an endangered species pursuant to the 1966 Act.
The Sierra Club maintained that the Army Corps of Engineers did not assess
primary and secondary impacts of dam construction and its resultant flooding
of certain caves known as critical habitats of the Indiana bat. Both the
kO
District Court and Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Sierra Club
failed to meet its burden of proof, which was to show that the actions
taken or considered by the Army Corps of Engineers had or would jeopardize
the continued existence of the Indiana bat.
-13-
-------
In National Wildlife Federation, the issue centered upon construc-
tion of a highway through a critical habitat of the Mississippi sandhill
crane (Grus canadensis pulla). The court ruled that once a federal agency
has had a meaningful consultation with the Secretary'of the Interior con-
cerning actions which may affect an endangered species, the final decision,
of whether or not to proceed with the actions, lies with the federal agency
itself. The 1973 Act does not give the Secretary of the Interior a veto
over the actions of other federal agencies, provided that the required con-
sultations have occurred. It follows that after consulting with the Secre-
tary of the Interior, the federal agency involved must determine whether it
has taken all necessary precautions to ensure that its actions and their
subsequent secondary impacts will not jeopardize the continued existence
of an endangered species, destroy or modify the habitat critical to the
existence of the species. The federal agency cannot rely on another agency's
proposal to provide substitute habitat in order to satisfy its burden of
ensuring continued existence of the species irrespective of the past destruc-
tive actions of others. Once the decision on whether or not to proceed is
made, it is then subject to judicial review to ascertain whether "the deci-
sion was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there
k2
has been a clear error of judgment." The decision by the Circuit Court of
Appeals in National Wildlife Federation was to enjoin the Department of
Transportation from building the highway until the effects of construction
on the Mississippi sandhill crane and its habitat had been adequately eva-
1uated.
A3 kk
In Hill, the Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the District Court
and enjoined the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) from completion of con-
struction of the Tellico Dam. The Appeals Court stated that in its opinion,
once a living species has been eradicated (in this case the snail darter
-14-
-------
(Percina imostoma tanasi), discretion loses its significance. When a project
is on-going and substantial resources have been expended, the conflict be-
tween national incentives to conserve living things and the pragmatic momen-
tum to complete the project on schedule is most inclusive. Whether the
project is 50% or 90% completed is irrelevant in calculating the social
and scientific costs attributable to the disappearance of a unique form of
life. The on-going nature of a project does not preclude enforcement of
the 1973 Act. The court ruled that a citizen suit is one method to preserve
the status quo where endangered species are threatened, thereby guaranteeing
the legislative or executive branches sufficient time and opportunity to
analyze alternatives. Enforcement of the 1973 Act must be taken to its
logical extreme.
Finally, it should be noted that the court restated it was not authorized
to override the Secretary of the Interior by arbitrarily reading species
out of the endangered species list or by redefining boundaries of existing
critical habitats on a case-by-case basis. The standard of judicial review
of such rule-making is restrictive and does not permit substitution of
judgment. The welfare of the snail darter and its critical habitat, along
the Little Tennessee River, weighed more heavily on the Court's conscience
than the write-off of millions of dollars already expended on the Tellico
Dam.
45
In Defenders of Wildlife, the District Court ruled that the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service must do far more than merely avoid eli-
mination of protected species. It must use all methods necessary to bring
those species back from the brink of extinction so that they may be removed
from the endangered 1ist.
In Capparet, the United States sought a declaratory judgment of its
rights to the use of water adjacent to land in Death Valley National Monument,
-15-
-------
necessary to maintain a pool of water for the Devil's Hole pupfish (Cyprinodon
diaboli s), an endangered species. The evidence established that the defen-
dant's pumping of underground water for commercial purposes had drawn water
from underground sources which supplied the pool and threatened the survival
of the pupfish. The defendants were enjoined so as to limit their pumping
to achieve and maintain a stated daily mean water level in the pool. The
significance of this decision is the importance which was attached to the
protection of an endangered species ranking it superior to property rights.
The court supported the 1973 Act and the federal policy of protecting en-
dangered species through the preservation of their natural habitat.
These decisions begin to show the basic judicial interpretation of
the 1973 Act.
1. Initially, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff
and not with the federal agency responsible for the action.
2. Secondary impacts must be evaluated in order to ensure
the continued existence of an endangered species and
to ensure that the critical habitat will not be modified
or destroyed.
3. Social and scientific costs are more relevant than the
financial resources which have been expended.
4. The federal government must use all methods to encourage
and promote recovery of an endangered species.
5. The protection of an endangered species is more important
than private property rights.
It would appear that, at least for the moment, through application
of the 1973 Act, the courts are engaged in ecological tinkering, getting
species through the bottlenecks until management of entire ecosystems,
including habitats, can be realized and accomplished.
-16-
-------
SECTION I I I
SURVEY PROCEDURE
As previously stated, the original concept and intent of this
paper was to have been evaluation of all Cabinet Department and
relevant federal agencies responses to four basic questions con-
cerning the protection and/or eradication of bats. These questions
we re:*
1. What Federal laws, regulations and guidelines
govern your agency's actions regarding both the
protection and/or eradication of bats?
2. How has your agency interpreted these laws, regu-
lations and guidelines in formation of its internal
polici es?
3- What do your protection policies include: i.e.,
cave management, acquisition, fencing, publication
of locations, preservation of critical habitat, etc.?
4. If eradication is necessary, what methods and recom-
mendations are followed? What chemicals and in what
dosages are allowed?
* A copy of the original contact letter and a list of agencies
are contained in Appendix III and IV.
As more information became available and was subsequently re-
searched, it became apparent that this was a subject which could not
be limited in scope to merely responses to four questions. It was,
therefore, deemed necessary to provide a substantial historical back-
ground of past and present endangered species legislation.
The following subsections provide an agency-by-agency review of
the existing federal policies as applied specifically to bats. It
will become apparent that these policies are not solely confined to
bats but encompass all endangered and/or threatened species.
-17-
-------
SECTION IV
AGENCY RESPONSE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
The Department of Agriculture (DOA) works to enhance the environment
and to maintain national food and fiber production by helping landowners
protect their soil, water, forests and other national resources. There
are no programs or policies that specifically concern bats. Three agencies
under DOA responded to the survey; Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), Forest Service (FS), and Soil Conservation Service (SCS).
APHIS was established to conduct regulatory and control programs
to protect and improve animal and plant health for the benefit of man
and his environment including the eradication of pests and diseases and
has no responsibilities concerning bats.
The Forest Service was created on February 1, 1905 and this action
transferred federal forest reserves and responsibility for their manage-
ment from the Department of the Interior to DOA. Its primary objective,
policy, and use is the promotion and achievement of a pattern of natural
resources that will best meet the needs of people now and in the future.
Today, there are 15^ national forests and 19 national grasslands comprising
187 million acres. The FS responded to each question separately and stated
that there was an umbrella of federal laws which managed and protected bats
and their habitats. These laws are: The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act
of I960, National Environmental Policy Act of 19&9, hereinafter referred
to as "NEPA of 1969", Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
of 1972, hereinafter referred to as "FIFRA of 1972", the 1973 Act, previously
referred to as "1973 Act", the Sikes Act of 197^ and the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976, hereinafter referred to as "FLPMA of 1976."
-19-
-------
In the manual of the FS, Sections 2600 and 2630 reflect their policy
regarding the interpretation of these laws. Section 2600 "Wildlife Manage-
ment" states that the FS wi11 aid in the enforcement of the laws of the
State for the protection of fish and game. Section 2630 "Management of
Wildlife and Fish Habitat" states that threatened and endangered species
will receive the highest priority.
In order to protect bat habitats, the FS will either acquire the
land or fence the cave entrances to restrict public entry and all possible
steps to preserve critical habitats will be taken. Disclosure of these
locations is generally not made but can be specifically requested through
the Freedom of Information Act. The FS has no control or eradication
programs.
The SCS is responsible for developing and carrying out a national
soil and water conservation program in cooperation with landowners and
operators, other resource groups and federal agencies. Their survey
response referenced NEPA of 1969, the 1973 Act, and Section 6^*0.22 of
the Soil Conservation Service Manual. This section covers rare, threatened,
and endangered species of plants and animals. It sets forth background,
policy responsibility, coordination, and implementation. The SCS also
has published general guidelines and procedures for preparing an environ-
mental assessment for complying with NEPA of 1969 (k2 Fed. Reg. itOlUt (1977))
Since SCS is not a landowning or management agency, there are no
management policies for caves. If a critical habitat is encountered, the
1973 Act takes effect. The SCS does not participate in or recommend any
bat eradication or control programs.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
The Department of Commerce (DOC) encourages, serves and promotes the
nation's economic development and technological advancement. It seeks to
-20-
-------
improve the understanding of the earth's physical, environmental and oceanic
resources. The DOC responded to the survey by stating that it has no direct
responsibility for the preservation or eradication of bats.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), under the
DOC, responded stating that it was created to explore, map, and chart the
global oceans and their living resources including weather monitoring.
NOAA has no direct responsibilities regarding bats, however, it referred
responsibility for the control and regulation of pesticides to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
The Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for providing the
military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of the
country. It maintains bases throughout the world. In response to the
survey, the DOD has no programs for bat or cave management, no critical
habitats on military lands, and no evidence of the existence of bat
species in any quantity on its properties. If bat species were found,
the 1973 Act would apply.
The Department of the Army (DOA), under the DOD, responded to the
survey. One program is aimed at protecting the environment, improving
waterway navigation, flood and beach control and water resources develop-
ment. This program is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers.
The Corps stated that they did not have any bat control programs but
referred to the 1973 Act, the NEPA of 1969, the FIFRA of 1972 and the
Center for Disease Control programs. Should any bats be located during
the completion of a federal project, DOA would coordinate with the local
health officials, the Department of the Interior, the Center for Disease
Control, and the Environmental Protection Agency. If the bats were located
-21-
-------
within DOA buildings, they would attempt control and bat proofing
through mechanical methods.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) is most concerned
with people and most involved with the nation's public health. Two HEW
agencies, the Bureau of Veterinary Medicine and the Center for Toxicological
Research, are conducting research to study the biological effects of toxic
chemical substances found in man's environment emphasizing the basic bio-
logical process for chemical toxicants in animal organisms. The response
to the survey by HEW and these two agencies was that bat programs were the
responsibility of the Public Health Service (PHS), Center for Disease
Control (CDC).
The PHS was created to assess and promote the highest level of health
attainable for every individual and family in American and to develop
international health projects, including the prevention and control of
communicable diseases.
The CDC administers national programs for the prevention, epidemiology
and control of communicable and vector-borne diseases and responded to the
survey as follows: the CDC was registered by the Environmental Protection
Agency on May 28, 1976 to release DDT for the control of bats in man-made
structures where they constitute human health hazards as potential rabies
vectors. CDC has prepared a document titled, "Guidelines for the Use of
DDT in the Control of Bats." This document outlines stringent criteria
for the correct procedures as to requests, application, use, technique
and reports. The CDC is reluctant to release DDT for bat control because
of the benefits derived from bats. Each state has a DDT coordinator re-
sponsible for reviewing all DDT requests made in his state. The applicants
-22-
-------
must show that an abnormal rabies risk of human exposure exists and that
other methods of repelling or physically excluding bats have failed before
releasing DDT. The CDC will not approve any requests for the use of DDT
to kill bats in caves.
Where approval is given, people spraying DDT must be licensed pest
control operators familiar with the health hazards of DDT and rabies to
minimize the risk of exposure. Also, it is recommended that the persons
concerned with bat control be pre-immunized against rabies. Special use
of DDT can also be obtained through the FIFRA of 1972, Section 18 - Crisis
Exemption. This section allows the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to exempt (a state) if he determines that an emergency
condition exists. Before he makes his decision, he must consult with the
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and the Governor of the state making the
request. The regulations clearly state that a responsible official deter-
mines there must be the possibility of an unpredictable outbreak of pests
where there is no readily available pesticide registered for the particular
use to eradicate or control the pest, and that there is a critical time
requirement. Within 10 days after application, or use of the pesticide,
the applicant must file in writing, with the Environmental Protection
Agency, specific information justifying its use.
The CDC recognizes that total elimination of rabies is seldom a prac-
ticable goal and that the reduction to a normal level of risk, is a more
realistic goal. The CDC will not approve programs simply to control
depredating or nuisance animals.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is responsible
for programs concerned with housing needs and the improvement and develop-
ment of the nation's communities. HUD's response to the survey was that
-23-
-------
they have no jurisdiction regarding bat management.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is the nation's principal con-
r
servation agency and has responsibility for most of the nationally-owned
public lands and natural resources including the protection of fish and
wildlife. It has over 500 million acres of federal land under its juris-
diction. Seven agencies under DOI responded to the survey. These agencies
were: The Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Mines, Bureau of Reclamation,
Endangered Species Scientific Authority, Fish and Wildlife Service, Geological
Survey, and the National Park Service.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has management authority over 473
million acres of public lands. Its programs provide for the protection,
orderly development, and use of these lands and their resources, while
maintaining and enhancing the quality of the environment.
The BLM has no specific bat management plans. It is responsible for
the management of wildlife habitat on public lands, under the FLPMA of
1976. Under FLPMA of 1976, the Secretary of the Department of Interior
shall prepare and maintain, on a continuing basis, an inventory of all
public lands and their resources and other values, giving priority to
areas of critical environmental concern. Other laws that govern BLM
actions regarding bats are the 1973 Act, NEPA of 1969, Sikes Act of I960,
Bald Eagle Protection Act of 19^0, and the FIFRA of 1972.
The BLM also has a policy manual which directs its actions. Section 1063
provides guidance on the protection and use of species through the enhance-
ment and maintenance of wildlife habitat components. Section 6620 provides
guidance on the preparation of habitat management plans and Section 6840
provides guidance for the conservation of animals which are officially listed
in categories that imply significant potential for extinction.
-2k-
-------
BLM requires permits as a means of controlling visitor use in cave
entries. This permit system allows BLM to restrict the number of visitors,
to close an entire cave, to permit only certain portions to be used and to
restrict the size and number of parties using a cave. BLM also gates sig-
nificant caves as a protection measure. These gates are so designed to
allow bats to pass.
If the BLM feels that bat eradication is necessary, they will contact
the State Wildlife Agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They will
complete an environmental assessment prior to eradication to identify
possible impacts of this action. The eradication will be accomplished by
the State Wildlife Agency, State Public Health Agency and/or the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
The Bureau of the Mines is primarily a research and fact-finding agency
responsible to stimulate private industry to produce a substantial share of
the nation's mineral needs in ways that best protect the public interest.
Their response to the survey was that they had no responsibility regarding
bat management.
The Bureau of Reclamation was established to locate, construct, operate,
and maintain works for the storage, diversion and development of waters for
the reclamation of the arid and semi-arid lands in the western states. Their
survey response was that they had no programs involving bats or their habitats,
however, should bats be encountered, the Bureau would prevent or mitigate im-
pacts by suitable modification or additions to the plan.
The Endangered Species Scientific Authority (ESSA) was created to ensure
the scientific soundness of governmental decisions concerning trade in en-
dangered species of plants and animals. It is the U.S. Scientific Authority
for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora.
-25-
-------
ESSA responded to the survey by stating that they are not involved in
any bat habitat management or eradication programs and they are primarily
concerned with international trade. Trade includes the movement of specimens
whether for commercial, scientific, exhibition or other reasons. There are
five species of bats listed by the Convention (these species are listed in
Appendix V). Unless trade appears to be more of a problem than at present
for the survival of a bat species, ESSA probably will not be involved more
extensively with bats in the future.
The objective of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is to assure maxi-
mum opportunity for the American people to benefit from fish and wildlife
resources including, but not limited to, resource management, biological
monitoring, restoration and preventive protective measures involving en-
dangered and threatened species. There are over 3&7 National Wildlife
Refuges comprising more than 30 million acres of public lands under its
juri sd ict ion.
The FWS has direct responsibility for bat protection and control
through the 1973 Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1956.
They have issued "Guidelines to Assist Federal Agencies in Complying with
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973-" These guidelines are
intended to furnish a broad framework within which federal agencies may
prepare internal procedures to guide their activities or programs and may
be used at their discretion. The working concepts mentioned in Section 7
are critical habitat, jeopardizing the continued existence, and destruction
or adverse modification.
FWS has several protection policies. These policies depend on the state
of the individual species or population and are dictated by a recovery plan
prepared by FWS. They include cave management, land acquisition, cave fencing,
preservation of critical habitat, and a moratorium on bat banding.
-26-
-------
The FWS policy prohibits the uses of DDT and other chemicals placed on
its prohibitive list. FWS recommends "bat-proofing" buildings as an alter-
native to DDT spraying. Bat proofing is a non-chemical bat management tool.
It involves sealing the entry holes of a structure when the bats are out
feeding or migrating. When a lethal toxicant is used, it may cause moribund
bats to be scattered throughout a wide area thus increasing the likelihood
that persons and pets may be bitten. The indiscriminate killing of bats
under the guise of public health is not acceptable to the FWS. Bat proofing
or architectural modification is the most promising method presently available.
The FWS is preparing a technical bulletin on bat management.
The Geological Survey is responsible for performing surveys, investi-
gations and research covering topography, geology, and the mineral and water
resources of the United States. Their response to the survey was that they
had no jurisdiction in bat management.
The National Park Service (NFS) administers the national system of parks,
monuments, historic sites and recreation areas in order to protect the natural
environment of these areas. This includes the preservation, management, and
interpretation of the land and its resources. There are over 300 units in
the National Park system. The NPS responded to the survey by stating that
they had no bat eradication policy. Their objective was to maintain diversity
and natural abundance of all endemic wildlife species. NPS manages underground
cave systems as total systems. They have management policies for animal popu-
lations, wildlife populations, threatened and endangered plants and animals,
pesticide use and cave management. NPS will preserve all critical habitat
areas.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
The Department of Justice represents the citizens in enforcing the law
in the public interest. Their response to the survey was that they had no
-27-
-------
direct or indirect responsibilities regarding the protection or eradication
of bats.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
The Department of Labor was created to foster, promote and develop
the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their
working conditions and to advance their opportunities for profitable
employment and as such, they have no jurisdiction regarding bat manage-
ment .
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
The Department of State's primary responsibility is to advise the
President in the formulation and execution of foreign policy and to
promote the long-range security and well-being of the United States.
Their survey response was that they had no programs or jurisdiction re-
garding bat management.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The Department of Transportation (DOT) establishes the nation's overall
transportation policy and develops programs conducive to the provision of
fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation and as such, it has
no policies nor any direct responsibility regarding bat management. Three
agencies under DOT responded to the survey - Coast Guard, Federal Aviation
Administration and the Federal Highway Administration.
The Coast Guard is a branch of the Navy and is the primary maritime
law enforcement agency. In its response to the survey, it stated that they
have no policies regarding bats. They referenced to the FIFRA of 1972 by
stating that Commandant Instruction 6250 I.E., implements the FIFRA of 1972
requiring all pest control activities to be conducted in accordance with the
-28-
-------
regulations developed under the FIFRA of 1972.
The Federal Aviation Administration was established to regulate air
commerce and to foster aviation safety. It does not have any policies
dealing with bats. '
The Federal Highway Administration seeks to coordinate highways with
other modes of transportation. It is concerned with the total operation
and environment of the highway. Their survey response was that although
they did not have any specific regulations regarding bat management, they
did have a policy on the preparation of an environmental impact assessment
which is contained in the "Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual" Volume 7,
Chapter 7, Section 2. Reference was made to the 1973 Act and should bats
be encountered, they would coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created to protect and
enhance the environment to the fullest extent possible under the laws
enacted by Congress. Its mission is to control and abate pollution in
areas of air, water, solid waste, pesticides, noise and radiation.
EPA responded to the survey by stating that it was primarily a regulatory
agency and not directly involved in wildlife management programs and does
not have any formal bat management policies. They have responsibility for
enforcing the FIFRA of 1972 which regulates the marketing of pesticides and
requires that such products be registered on the basis of proven effective-
ness and safety to humans, livestock, wildlife and the environment. The regu-
lations under FIFRA of 1972 are very specific. They list the criteria for
determinations of unreasonable adverse affects of pesticides. Forms of plant
and animal life and viruses declared to be pests and which are injurious to
health or to the environment are listed. They prepare guidelines for regis-
-29-
-------
tering pesticides in the United States and list the criteria when exemptions
under emergency conditions may be given, which was discussed previously under
HEW's survey response.
EPA cancelled all products which have DDT (dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane)
on July 7> 1972 except for the following uses: the control of vector diseases
as determined by the Public Health Service: health quarantine; controlling
body lice; and use in the formulation of prescription drugs. There are three
other products that can be used for bat control: Rozol tracking powder (EPA
Registration Number 7173"!13) for use in New Jersey only; naphthalene flakes
(USDA Registration Number 462-10); and chlorophacinone (for use only in
Maine, Vermont, Ohio and New Jersey). These products can only be used in
buildings where humans may be in close contact and only with the approval
of the Center for Disease Control.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) conducts a unified program of
resource development for the advancement of economic growth in the Tennessee
Valley region including flood control, recreation improvement, forestry and
wildlife development.
TVA's response to the survey was that bat populations are best encouraged
by avoiding attempts at management referring to NEPA of 1969 and the 1973
Act. They recognized the ecological significance of bat populations and the
importance of their protection. There are frequent consultations with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service experts and national bat experts. TVA does
not support any chemical eradication programs but rather place their emphasis
on the protection of bat caves. TVA has worked with local grottoes (chapters)
of the National Speleological Society to protect caves against vandalism and
wanton destruction. They generally use fencing and gating of caves as a last
-30-
-------
resort. Finally, they limit the publication of the exact locations of caves
to further their protection.
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was established by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 19&9 to formulate and recommend national
policies to promote the improvement of the quality of the environment. In
responding to the survey, CEQ stated that it had no agency responsibility
nor stated policy regarding bat management. CEQ's major legislative mandate
is the NEPA of 19&9 which requires an environmental impact statement to be
prepared on proposed major federal actions such as: the background and descrip-
tion of the proposed action; alternatives; environmental impacts of the
proposed legislation; adverse impacts which cannot be avoided; steps to
minimize harm; relationship between local short-term uses and the maintenance
and enhancement of long-term productivity; irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources and, problems and objections raised during the review
process.
CEQ believes protection should be provided since it is appropriate for
bat preservation. They are opposed to unnecessary use of pesticides since
most eradication programs are ineffective, uneconomical and environmentally
unsound. They are preparing an "Integrated Pest Management Concept" which
will be available shortly.
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is the source of
scientific, engineering and technological analysis and judgement for the
President with respect to major policies, plans and programs including
environmental issues.
OSTP's survey response was that it is not governed by any laws,
-31-
-------
regulations or guidelines regarding bat management and also acknowledged
that the use of DDT may scatter bats throughout the area thereby increasing
the likelihood that persons may be bitten. OSTP also recognzied that there
is a serious health hazard associated with the use of long-lived bio-degrada-
bility of toxicants within the home. They referred to the Center for Disease
Control's policy and restated that a high risk must be present before re-
leasing DDT to an applicant.
-32-
-------
SECTION V
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, the responses to the questions indicate that there
exists several federal policies relative to bats, all of which are
basicially uniform and consistent at the major levels; i.e., nationally
down through to the regional field offices. Ultimately, however, the
Department of the Interior, Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
and the Environmental Protection Agency have the primary responsibility
for decisions made regarding bat management. Judging from these agency
responses, it is apparent that the actual eradication of bats, when
proven to be of potential human danger, is not a decision taken lightly.
It is, in fact, one subjected to careful scrutiny, preparation and inter-
agency coordination.
Ironically, in our opinion, it appears that those persons upon whom
the actual burden of bat eradication falls, seem to view the procedure,
notwithstanding, with a degree of reluctance. In contrast, the man-on-
the street tends to view all bats as something conceived directly from
the pages of Dracula. The frightening scenerio of the "dreaded" super-
natural vampire fluttering whisper-soft into the night to claim yet another
unsuspecting victim remains first and foremost in our minds and countless
numbers of bats, both protected and non-protected, have undoubtedly been
annihilated simply through ignorance and misunderstanding.
It can be concluded, then, that a more concerted effort should be made
to educate the general public about this tiny fragile creature which is
unique in the animal kingdom. Such a program would, undoubtedly, be an
up-hill struggle given the awesome power of the media but it should be
attempted.
It has also been determined through the survey results that the existing
endangered species legislation provides a basic tempering tool - one which
-33-
-------
must be applied judiciously yet forcefully. Such a tool will enable us
to provide the necessary protection to prevent any further species ex-
tinction and which, through intelligent application, will allow all
r
creatures to exist without perpetual threat of extinction. We must co-exist
with all animal, fish and plant life, and we must also come to grips with
the fact that while animals and plants may very well exist harmoniously
one with another without human intrusion, we cannot survive without them..
a very sobering thought.
Effective endangered species legislation has been a long time evolving
to its present level, and as a result many species are now irretrievably
gone. The existing legislation, however, does appear more capable of coping
with the potential problems of future species extinction.
It is the authors' hope that this paper has proven to be informative,
interesting and thought-provoking. Many species are now endangered, and
in some cases even extinct, which remains a burden we must bear. It also
remains our responsibility to see that this pattern is not repeated in
future generations.
We have suggested that it is difficult for us to live one with
another within our own species; therefore, it is hoped that the insiduous
process of extinction ceases to be a by-product of what is generally
termed "growth." The chilling concept of one day viewing rabbits, deer,
birds, plants and even bats, through glassed-in cages or walled wildlife
preserves as relics of our past may prove to be a major human tragedy.
We are intricately tied one to another and our survival is basically con-
tingent upon theirs. When viewed thusly, endangered species legislation
loses the aura of "legislative" luster and should become a matter of ernest
concern if we remember that legislation does not necessarily ensure protection.
We hope the reader may view it also in this manner because to do other-
-34-
-------
wise, we may one day discover that our own survival has become the matter
of primary global concern and is contingent upon some form of legislative
dictate. And who will be there to ensure our survival?
-35-
-------
SECTION VI
APPENDIX I
INDIANA BAT CRITICAL HABITAT35
The following areas (exclusive of those settlements or man-made
structures which are not necessary to the normal needs or survival
of the species) are critical habitat for the Indiana bat (Myotis soda!is).
1. Illinois The Blackball Mine, LaSalle County
2. Indiana Big Wyandotte Cave, Crawford County
Ray's Cave, Green County
3- Kentucky Bat Cave, Carter County
Coach Cave, Edmonson County
4. Missouri" Cave 021, Crawford County
Cave 009, Franklin County
Cave 017, Franklin County
Pilot Knob Mine, Iron County
Bat Cave, Shannon County
Cave 029, Washington County
5- Tennessee White Oak Blowhold Cave,
Blount County
6. West Virginia Hellhole Cave, Pendleton County
* Numbers assigned by Division of Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Region 6.
-37-
-------
APPENDIX I I
PROPOSED VIRGINIA BIG-EARED BAT CRITICAL HABITAT3
1. Kentucky Still house Cave Lee County
2. West Virginia Cave Mountain Cave Pendleton County
Hellhole Cave Pendleton County
Hoffman School Cave Pendleton County
Sinnit Cave Pendleton County
Cave Hollow Cave Pendleton County
-38-
-------
APPENDIX III
ORIGINAL CONTACT LETTER
Dear
As part of a research project for the National Speleological Society's
Conservation Committee, I am currently seeking information from various
federal and state agencies relative to any policies which may presently
exist as to the protection of and/or eradication of bats. If possible,
could you please supply the following information:
1. What federal laws, regulations and guidelines govern
your agency's actions regarding both the protection
and/or eradication of bats? Please cite specific laws
or regulations and enclose a copy of these guidelines,
if possible.
2. How has your agency interpreted these laws, regulations
and guidelines in the formation of its internal policies?
Please enclose a copy of the policy if available.
3. What do your protection policies include: i.e., cave management,
acquisition, fencing, publication of locations, preservation
of critical habitat, etc.?
4. If eradication is necessary, what methods and recommendations
are followed? What chemicals and in what dosages are allowed?
If, upon receiving your response, additional information or clarification
should be required, would you please designate a prime contact? If your
agency has no direct responsibility in this area, please so indicate.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Any information you may
be able to provide will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
-39-
-------
APPENDIX IV
AGENCY CONTACTS
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Washington, D. C. 20250
J. W. Gentry, Acting Deputy Administrator
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Eastern Region, U.S. Forest Service
633 West Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203
Mr. Robert E. Radtke
Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Box 2890
Washington, D. C. 20013
202+ 447-5991
Carl H. Thomas, Chief Biologist
Department of Commerce
Office of the Secretary
Washington, D. C. 20230
Patricia M. Parks, Correspondence Review Specialist
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Washington, D. C. 20230
James W. Brennan, Deputy General Counsel
Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
Washington, D. C. 20301
Perry J. Fliakas, Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense
Department of the Army
Office of the Chief of Engineers, DAEN-CWO-R
Washington, D. C. 20314
LTC. John R. Hill, Jr., Assistant Director of Civil Works
DAEN-FEB-N
Buildings and Ground Division
Robert B. McGough, Chief
Department of Health, Education and V/elfare
Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
Rockville, Maryland 20857
Bureau of Veterinary Medicine
Philip D. Cazier, D.V.M., Acting Director
-40-
-------
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Center for Disease Control
Viral Diseases Division
Atlanta, Georgia 30333
Everette F. Baker, Jr., D.V.M.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Public Health Service
National Center for Toxicological Research
Rockville, Maryland 20852
Buelah M. Sink, Assistant to the Director
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Washington, D. C. 20410
John J. Triste, Director of Community Development Programs
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
Division of WiIdlife
Washington, D. C. 20240
Dick Vernimen, Non-game Biologist
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Mines
Washington, D. C. 20240
J. D. Morgan, Acting Director
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
Washington, D. C. 20240
R. Higgiman, Commissioner
Endangered Species Scientific Authority
18th and C. Streets, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20240
Peter C. Escherich, Staff Zoologist
202+343-5687
Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Wildlife Research
Washington, D. C. 20240
Arthur M. Greenhal1
Department of the Interior
Geological Survey
907 National Center
Reston, Virginia 22092
Catherine D'Agostino, Geological Inquiries Assistant
United States Department of Justice
Land and Natural Resources Division
Washington, D. C. 20530
Martin Green, Legislative Assistant
-41-
-------
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
Washington, D. C. 20213
Albert Mapou, Office of Research and Development
State Department
Oceans and International Environment and Scientific Affairs
Washington,D. C. 20520
Patsy T. Mink, Assistant Secretary
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
Washington, D. C. 20590
William W. Bishop, Chief, News Division
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
Washington, D. C. 20590
Harry Allen, Rear Admiral
Chief - Office of Health Services
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
Washington, D. C. 20591
Charles R. Foster, Director of Environmental Quality
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Washington, D. C. 20590
Charles Des Jardins, Ecologist
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Edwin L. Johnson, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Pesticides Programs
Tennessee Valley Authority
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902
Lynn Seeber, General Manager
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Carroll Leslie Bastian, Senior Staff Member
Executive Office of the President
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Washington, D. C. 20500
William J. Montgomery, Executive Officer
Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Washington, D. C. 202^0
Gary Everhardt, Director
-1*2-
-------
APPENDIX V
INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES
OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA ^7
The below listed species are prohibited from importing into, exporting
from the United States without a valid foreign certificate of origin.
1. Horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus euryale - Tunisia (4-22-76)
2. Horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus ferrumequinum - Tunisia (4-22-76)
3- Horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus hipposideros -Tunisia (4-22-76)
4. Pipistrelle bat, Pi pistrel lus spp. (all species) - Tunis ia (4-22-76)
5- White-lined bat, Vampyrops lineatus -Uruguay (7-14-76)
-43-
-------
SECTION VI I
FOOTNOTES
1 120 Cong. Rec. 12749 (1974).
2 115 Cong. Rec. 6245 (1969).
3 Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, P.L. No. 89-669, 80 Stat.
926 (1966).
Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969, P.L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275
(1969).
Excerpted from the President's Environmental Message of February 8, 1972
in the United States Code Cong, and Admin. News 2991 (1973)-
6 16 U.S.C. 1531 (1975).
7 The Lacey Act of 1900, 16 U.S.C. 701 (197*0.
Q
United States Code Congressional and Administrative News. Senate Report
No. 93-307, 93rd CongT, 1st Session 2, 2990 (1973).
9 16 U.S.C. 1533a (4) (1975),
10 Endangered Species Act of 1973, P.L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884 (1973).
11 16 U.S.C. 1531 (5)(b) (1975).
12 16 U.S.C. 1532 (2) (1975),
13 16 U.S.C. 1533 (a)(2)(1975).
14 16 U.S.C. 1532 (4) (1975).
15 16 U.S.C. 1533 (D(b)(1975).
16 16 U.S.C. 1532 (15) (1975).
17 16 U.S.C. 1533 (d)(1975).
18 16 U.S.C. 1536 (1975).
19 16 U.S.C. 1536 (1975).
-45-
-------
^ 16 U.S.C. 1535 (f)(1975).
21 16 U.S.C. 1537 (a)(b)(1975)-
22 16 U.S.C. 1538 (a)(l)(1975).
23 16 U.S.C. 1538 (a)(2)(1975).
24 16 U.S.C. 1533 (a)(2)(1975).
25 16 U.S.C. 1532 (110(1975).
26 16 U.S.C. 1540 (g)(D(A)(1975).
27 16 U.S.C. 1536 (1975).
26 40 Fed. Reg. 17764 (1975).
29 40 Fed. Reg. 177&5 (1975).
30 32 Fed. Reg. 4001 (1967).
31 35 Fed. Reg. 16047-48 (1970).
32 41 Fed. Reg. 17736-40 (1976).
33 41 Fed. Reg. 47180-98 (1976).
3 40 Fed. Reg. 21499-501 (1975).
35 41 Fed. Reg. 41914-16 (1976).
36 42 Fed. Reg. 61290-92 (1977).
37 16 U.S.C. 1532 (2)(1975).
oQ
Indiana Bat Recovery Plan, U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, June 1, 1976, 31* pp.
39 Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 392 F. Supp. 130 (8th Cir. 1975).
4n
Sierra Club v. Froehlke, 53^ F. 2nd 1289 (E.D. Mo. 1976).
National Wildlife Federation v. Coleman, 529 F. 2d 359 (5th Cir. 1976)
-46-
-------
42
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 91S. Ct.
814, 28L. Ed 2d 136 (1971).
^ Hiram G. Hill v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 549 F. 2d 1064 (6th Cir. 1977)
44
Hiram G. Hill v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 419 F. Supp. (E.D. Tenn. 1976)
^ Defenders of Wildlife v. Andrus, 428 F. Supp. 167 (O.D.C. 1977).
United States v. Capparet, 375 F. Supp. 456 (D. Nev. 1974).
kl 42 Fed. Reg. 10462 (1977).
-iy-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We wish to express our appreciation to those individuals who
so ably refereed this paper especially Mr. Eugene Hargrove and
Mr. James Hedges, Editor of the NSS Bulletin.
Our special thanks must be expressed to Mr. Arthur Greenhall,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, for
his invaluable assistance and consistent encouragement during
preparation of the final draft of the Bat Management paper.
•&U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978—750-162
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Hcasc read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-905/3-78-001
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
BAT MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: A Survey of
Legislative Actions, Court Decisions and Agency
Interpretat ions
5. REPORT DATE
April,
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Thomas M.
Lera and Sue Fortune
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region V
Water Division, Planning Branch
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, 11 1 inois 6060*4
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region V
Water Division, Planning Branch
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Fi nal
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
To be published, in
Society Bui let in.
part, in the quarterly issue of National Speleological
16. ABSTRACT
In 1966, Congress enacted legislation which afforded native animals legal protec-
tion. Since that time, this legislation has been twice revised. The current Endan-
gered Species Act of 1973, provides not only animals but also plants with what appears
to be a reasonable degree of protection and survival. Recent court decisions support
the concept and validity of the Endangered Species Act of 1973-
This paper is the result of a survey conducted throughout ]k Federal departments
and agencies in order to obtain their interpretation of this legislation, and more
specifically, how bats are protected by this interpretation. The survey included
four questions:
1) What Federal laws, regulations and guidelines govern your Agency's actions
regarding both the protection and/or eradication of bats?
2) How has your Agency interpreted these laws, regulations and guidelines in
the formation of its internal policies?
3) What do your protection policies include?
k) If eradication is necessary, what methods and recommendations are followed,
and what chemicals and in what dosages are allowed?
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Endangered Species
Legi slation
Bats
Animal Management
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimi ted
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclass i fled
21. NO. OF PAGES
50
20. SECURITY CLASS /Thispage)
Unclass if led
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |