Northern Myotis Evaluation
This document describes the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario’s evaluation of the Northern Myotis. This evaluation determines whether the species will receive protection under the Endangered Species Act.
On this page Skip this page navigation
Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO)
Assessed by COSSARO as Endangered
Part 1 - Current status and distribution
GRANK – G4 (Last Reviewed 19/04/2005) (NatureServe, accessed 09/05/2012)
NRANK Canada – N4 (Assessed 31/12/2011) (NatureServe, accessed 09/05/2012)
COSEWIC – Endangered (COSEWIC, February 2012)
SARA – Not Listed
ESA 2007 – Not Listed
SRANK – S3 (NHIC, accessed 09/05/2012)
Distribution in Ontario:
The Northern Myotis (formerly known as Northern Long-eared Bat) (Myotis septentrionalis) is a forest-dependant bat found throughout much of southern Canada. This species occurs throughout southern Ontario, to the north shore of Lake Superior and occasionally as far north as Moosonee (Cochrane District), and west to Lake Nipigon (Natural Heritage Information Centre 2012). Information on summer distribution and overwintering sites (hibernacula) are well known in central-eastern Canada, but less so westward where the species appears to be less common. This species occurs throughout the forested and temperate regions of Ontario.
Distribution and status outside Ontario:
Outside Ontario, Northern Myotis occur in 36 US states and 12 Canadian provinces/territories (NatureServe 2012). In the US it occurs westward to the Great Plains (ND, SD, NE, KS, OK) and southward to Florida. In Canada, it occurs in all of the southern provinces and northwestward to the Yukon and Northwest Territories (NatureServe 2012). Where it occurs it is primarily restricted to forested regions, patchily distributed, and rarely found in large numbers. Approximately 40% of its global range is in Canada (COSEWIC 2012). States and provinces are increasingly listing or getting ready to list this species on endangered species lists. As of this writing, Northern Myotis have been listed as endangered in Vermont and Massachusetts, and Special Concern in Maine, Indiana, and Ohio. In an emergency assessment that took place in January 2012, this bat species was assessed as Endangered in Canada by COSEWIC. A petition to list the species as Threatened or Endangered was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the Center for Biodiversity in December 2010, which initiated a review by the USFWS.
Part 2 - Eligibility for Ontario status assessment
2.1 Application of eligibility criteria
Yes. Originally described in 1897 as Vespertilio gryphus, based on a specimen from Halifax, Nova Scotia, Miller and Allen (1928) assigned it as one of two subspecies of Keen’s Bat (Myotis keenii septentrionalis). In an analysis of many specimens from Canada, Van Zyll de Jong (1979) concluded that the two keenii subspecies were actually separate species, and re-named the populations east of the Rockies Myotis septentrionalis, a classification that also has been confirmed by genetic data (Caceres and Pybus 1997).
One Designatable Unit. There is no known significant genetic or other differentiation within the species range in Ontario to warrant separate designatable unit status.
2.2 Eligibility results
- The putative taxon or DU is valid. Yes.
- The taxon or DU is native to Ontario. Yes.
- The taxon or DU is present in Ontario, extirpated from Ontario or extinct? Present.
Part 3 - Ontario status based on COSSARO evaluation criteria
3.1 Application of primary criteria (rarity and declines)
1. Global rank
Not in any category. G4. (NatureServe 2012). The G-rank of this species was last reviewed in 2005, prior to the onset of White Nose Syndrome.
2. Global decline
Threatened. White Nose Syndrome (WNS) has been the major cause of documented mortality in Northern Myotis since the disease was first detected in North America in 2006. Population size and trends for this species across its global range are not known, but were assumed to be abundant and stable before the arrival of WNS (COSEWIC 2012). Any declines that have taken place can only be inferred from pre- and post-WNS monitoring of known hibernacula. Even then, a lack of baseline population information precludes an evaluation of what proportion of the population is represented by such inferred declines, since not all hibernacula are known, let alone receive regular monitoring attention. The majority of underground hibernacula, mainly caves and mines in North America, have never been surveyed for bats.
A further complication to status assessment relates to the fact that the Northern Myotis is very similar to the Little Brown Myotis (formerly known at Little Brown Bat) (Myotis lucifugus) in size and life-history characteristics (i.e. age to breeding, number offspring, life expectancy) (Caceres and Barclay 2000). In fact, the two species are only distinguishable morphologically by ear length and tragus shape (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993), which makes it very difficult for other than highly experienced field biologists to differentiate between the two species in hibernacula, particularly as they tend to hide in crevices (ASRDACA 2009). Northern Myotis tend to occur in much lower numbers than the Little Brown Myotis, but can be the second most abundant bat species in mines and caves in the winter. Like Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis are highly susceptible to White Nose Syndrome because they hibernate in the same hibernacula. Little Brown Myotis are considered much more common but, because most data on abundance in hibernacula do not separate Little Brown Myotis and Northern Myotis, mortality statistics are commonly reported as Little Brown Bats or “bats”.
As of January 2012, WNS has been recorded in over 200 hibernacula in 19 states and 4 provinces (Coleman 2012), and is spreading at a rate of approximately 200-400 km per year (COSEWIC 2012). First recorded in New York state, WNS has spread south and west. While WNS has been recorded in approximately 30% of the global range of Northern Myotis (COSEWIC 2012), declines have been steep and the spread has been swift. Population declines in infected areas (much of northeastern United States) have resulted in >98% declines for Northern Myotis (Appendix 1; Turner et al. 2011). It is plausible to assume the same results likely are occurring in Canada where WNS has been reported for > 2 years.
A lack of baseline population information precludes any knowledge of what proportion of the global population has already been affected. It is, however, assumed that the rate of spread and the mortality levels recorded to date will continue westward and impact most of the global population within the next 20 years (Frick et al. 2010). For example, Hallam and Federico (2011) predicted that much of the United States has the conditions for WNS, assuming spread between colonies will occur as it has in eastern North America, based on growing conditions of the fungus that causes WNS, including minimum and maximum temperatures in hibernacula, and the relationship of temperature and lipid reserves in bats. This could be characterized as a serious regional decline that would therefore qualify this species as Threatened under this criterion.
3. Northeastern North America ranks
Special Concern. Northern Myotis is a native species in 29 of 29 northeastern jurisdictions and ranking information is available for 23 (79%) of these jurisdictions (see Appendix 1). The species is ranked as S1 or S2 in 6 of 23 jurisdictions (26%) using the most current website information, which qualifies it for Special Concern status.
However, the ranks of most jurisdictions were evaluated pre-WNS, and many states and provinces have changed the ranks recently, although these are not yet implemented in the website database (Appendix 1). For example, Quebec, PEI, Nova Scotia, Vermont, and West Virginia all recently changed their ranks (see Appendix 1), bringing the proportion of high ranked jurisdictions up to 30% which qualifies this species for Special Concern category under this criterion. Other states (e.g., Ohio, Massachusetts, New York, New Brunswick) are preparing to re-evaluate jurisdictional S-ranks.
4. Northeastern North America decline
Endangered. As noted in Global Decline above, the epicentre of the WNS epizootic is located in northeastern North America (near Albany, New York), and 20 of 29 northeastern jurisdictions have confirmed the presence WNS, with all others anticipating this inevitability (Appendix 1). The general pattern for the northeastern United States has been an average decline of >98% for Northern Myotis, recorded in 32 infected hibernacula in the northeastern U.S. (Turner et al. 2011) with more than 2 years’ exposure to WNS.
In Quebec, 1 hibernaculum (Mine-aux-Pipistrelles, southern Quebec) had a decrease from >5000 to 8 bats (all species); Northern Myotis abundance was 526-769 during the two preceding, pre-WNS years then declined to 1 bat in November 2011, a 99% decline, concurrent with hundreds of dead bats of several species on the ground (Mainguy and Desrosiers 2011). In New Brunswick, over 80% of 6000 bats (mostly Little Brown Myotis, but Northern Myotis were also included) in a cave died in 1 month (McAlpine et al.; 2011) and only 350 live bats were recorded the following year (December 2011). Of a sample of 357 dead bats, 8.4% (30) were the Northern Myotis (D. McAlpine, pers. comm.). WNS was recorded in an additional 3 sites in New Brunswick in December 2011. In New York, Northern Myotis declined by an average of 94.5% in 17 sites (of 18 surveyed); average decline of the species in Pennsylvania was 100% in 4 sites; average decline in Vermont was 98.2% in 5 sites; decline at 1 site in Virginia was 29%; and decline at 1 site in West Virginia was 100% (Turner et al. 2011).
In Canada, the rate of spread of WNS from the epicentre to the first site in New Brunswick was 200 km/yr, and from the epicentre to the farthest western site to date (Wawa, Ontario) was 250 km/yr. The average rate of spread appears to range between 200-400 km/yr (COSEWIC 2012). Given this rapid spread of WNS in the Northeastern North American jurisdiction (200-400 km/yr) and the drastic levels of population decline (92%-99%) in study sites affected by WNS over 2 years, this species qualifies as Endangered under this criterion of ≥50% noncyclical decline in abundance in this region over the past 5 years -- well within 3 generations for this species (generation time 3-10 years; COSEWIC 2012).
5. Ontario occurrences
Special Concern. There are currently 67 known sites recorded as element occurrences in Ontario’s NHIC database, 20 of which are extant (Natural Heritage Information Centre 2012).
6. Ontario decline
Insufficient information. Mortality estimates for bats post-WNS in Ontario are severely limited because of government’s general policy of denying staff/people from entering caves in winter, a practice that can preclude monitoring. Acoustic surveys have begun, but it is unclear if some areas had already been impacted by WNS before these surveys. Population size and trends for the Northern Myotis before the arrival of WNS are not known in the province, and as noted above, this species is difficult to distinguish from Little Brown Myotis, further complicating trend estimates.
In Ontario, average declines in bat populations for 8 hibernacula with > 2 years exposure to WNS is 92%. Although all occur within Northern Myotis range, there are no specific data on this species at those sites (COSEWIC 2012). Data from winter 2012 are not yet available as of this writing (Lesley Hale, pers. comm.) None of these sites are monitored frequently enough in the winter to observe major mortality episodes; however, a notable decline in bat populations is evident at all monitored sites (see COSSARO Little Brown Myotis report). Apart from the general lack of monitoring attention on bats, other factors including government policies forbidding access to caves in winter and abandoned mines and the possibility of scavengers consuming carcasses before they are counted (e.g., McAlpine et al. 2011) create further challenges for documenting WNS mortality events.
In 2010, white nose syndrome was confirmed in bats in Bancroft-Minden, Kirkland Lake, Flesherton, Faraday, Belleville and Renfrew County, and in 2011, it was confirmed from the Timmins, Wawa, Mattawa, Simcoe, Peel and Halton areas (OMNR 2012). WNS has not been documented in hibernacula west of Wawa (Martinez et al. 2012).
WNS has affected hibernacula in the southeastern part of the province in a short period of time, which coincides directly with the Northern Myotis range. Those few sites where pre- and post-WNS data exist, have average decline rates of 92% for all bats, but there is no way of knowing what proportion of the Northern Myotis population these represent. However, the Northern Myotis is known to be susceptible to WNS, having been found dead in many WNS-affected hibernacula (Blehert et al. 2009).
7. Ontario’s conservation responsibility
Threatened. The range map (NatureServe 2012) suggests that Ontario accounts for 14.5% of the species range, above the threshold for Threatened under this criterion. The population of Northern Myotis in Ontario, as a percentage of the total population, is unknown.
3.2 Application of secondary criteria (threats and vulnerability)
8. Population sustainability
Endangered. The decline rates mentioned above provide definite evidence of recruitment failure. Moreover, model predictions (Frick et al. 2010) for Little Brown Myotis in the northeastern US based on 30 years of pre-WNS data and 4 years of documented declines since WNS, predict a 99% probability of ’regional extinction’ of this species within 16 years. If WNS spreads at the current rate (range: 200-400 km/yr), it could occur across Canada within 11-22 years, approaching the estimated range of 5 generations (15-50 years) (COSEWIC 2012). It would be reasonable to assume this prediction to be applicable to Northern Myotis, given similar size, life history, and susceptibility to WNS (COSEWIC 2012).
9. Lack of regulatory protection for exploited wild populations
Not in any category. Northern Myotis are listed as specially protected mammals under Schedule 6 of Ontario’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA). The FWCA prohibits bats from being hunted or trapped in Ontario.
10. Direct threats
Endangered. Canadian bats that hibernate underground, including Northern Myotis, are dying from White Nose Syndrome, caused by a fungus, Geomyces destructans, that was (inadvertently) imported from Europe to North America. The fungus grows in humid, cold environments, typical of underground hibernacula used by bats (Blehert et al. 2009). An estimated 1 million bats, including Northern Myotis, have died in northeastern US within 3 years of exposure (Kunz and Tuttle 2009), with a recent mortality estimate of 5.7-6.7 million bats made by the WNS management team in the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service news release; January 17, 2012). WNS kills by disrupting the hibernation cycle of bats, ensuring that they exhaust supplies of stored food (body fat) in January or February, rather than in March of April (Warnecke et al. 2012). Physiological processes associated with hydration, and damage to wings may also be related to mortality (Cryan et al. 2010). WNS was first recorded 6 years ago (February 2006) in a cave near Albany, New York (Frick et al. 2010), spreading at a rate of approx. 200-400 km per year and reaching Ontario and Quebec in 2010, and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in 2011. More than 75% of Ontario hibernation sites are at high risk of disappearance due to WNS alone, which has been documented to have a devastating effect on Northern Myotis populations in Ontario and elsewhere. Mass die-offs simply mean that there are no individuals left to reproduce.
An additional potential agent of mortality in Ontario that has appeared relatively recently is wind farms. Although there are both federal (Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry) and government-industry cooperative (Wind Energy Bird and Bat Monitoring Database) central repositories for wind farm mortality data, the lack of both baseline population data and coordination and/or collation of results means that there is little understanding of the significance of this source of mortality for Northern Myotis in Ontario. It should be noted, however, that Northern Myotis, by virtue of their tendency to fly and capture prey within cluttered forest environments (e.g. gleaning insects off of leaves of trees/shrubs; ASRDACA 2009) are considered less vulnerable to wind turbine mortality than migratory species and those that fly in the open.
There is also evidence that habitat loss can serve as an additional stressor to Northern Myotis populations, although this threat is largely unquantified. This species is forest- dependant, and forages in the forest interior. Evidence suggests that it preferentially uses forest patches at least 16 hectares in size (reviewed in ASRDACA 2009).
11. Specialized life history or habitat-use characteristics
Endangered. Temperate bats, including such as those that occur in Canada (and Ontario), are insectivorous and many species hibernate underground. WNS from Europe has a deadly effect on North American bats, but not European congeners. The use of underground hibernation sites exposes the bats to the fungus, and bat-bat contact during swarming ensures its spread. This vulnerability, coupled with life history features (long life span, low reproductive rate), puts Northern Myotis on a trajectory to possible extirpation (Fenton 2012). As such, populations of bat species that occur in Canada do not have the reproductive capacity to recover from previously unencountered mortality, such as WNS. This puts Ontario Northern Myotis at a very high level of risk due to the threat of widespread mortality from WNS, thereby qualifying it for Endangered under this criterion.
3.3 COSSARO evaluation results
1. Criteria satisfied in each status category
Endangered – [1/3]
Threatened – [2/0]
Special concern – [2/0]
Ontario-specific criteria (primary criteria numbers 5, 6 and 7):
Endangered – 
Threatened – 
Special concern – 
2. Data deficiency
No. The number of criteria assessed as “insufficient information” is 1.
3. Status based on COSSARO evaluation criteria
The application of COSSARO evaluation criteria suggests that Northern Myotis is Endangered in Ontario.
Part 4 - Ontario status based on COSEWIC evaluation criteria
4.1 Application of COSEWIC criteria
Regional (Ontario) COSEWIC criteria assessment
Criterion A – Decline in total number of mature individuals
A3c, e: COSEWIC Criterion of ’projected reduction in total number of mature individuals is >50% over 3 generations’ is met, based on documented declines. With three generations at 30-42 years, spread of WNS is expected to occur across the entire Canadian range in 22 years. Subcriterion c relates to reduction in quality of habitat, in this case hibernacula, a critical limiting habitat feature are (or soon will be) infected with Geomyces destructans; and subcriterion e applies because Geomyces destructans, the cause of WNS, is believed to be an introduced pathogen from Europe.
A4c,e also applies because the impact of WNS at present, combined with future predictions exceeds 50%, and reduction or cause may not cease and may not be reversible, given lack of remedy.
Criterion B – small distribution range and decline or fluctuation
Not Applicable. EO and IAO exceed thresholds.
Criterion C – Small and declining number of mature individuals
Not Applicable. Although there is evidence of decline in mature individuals, the population likely still exceeds thresholds.
Criterion D – Very small or restricted total population
Not applicable. Population size likely still exceeds thresholds
Criterion E – Quantitative analysis
Endangered. Using results from Little Brown Myotis as a surrogate for Northern Myotis Bat, COSEWIC Criterion of minimum 20% probability of extinction within 20 years or 5 generations is met because results from nearby and similar regions have modeled regional extinction of Little Brown Myotis within 20 years at 99% probability (Frick et al. 2010). Northern Myotis have a similar life history strategy and are impacted by WNS. Northern Myotis are predicted to be impacted to a great extent across Canadian range before the 5 generation (15-50 years) threshold.
No. There is a very low likelihood of a rescue effect. The Northern Myotis in Canada is at the northern edge of its geographic range and therefore any rescue would need to come from southern populations in the United States. The high mortality rates associated with WNS have occurred in the regions south of Canada and populations are so reduced that immigration north into Canada is very unlikely. There is no expectation that western populations of Northern Myotis will be immune to WNS, further precluding the possibility of rescue effect.
Special concern status
4.2 COSEWIC evaluation results
1. Criteria satisfied in each status category
Indicate whether or not a criterion is satisfied in each of the status categories.
Endangered – [Yes]
Threatened – [N/A]
Special concern – [N/A]
2. Data deficiency
3. Status based on COSEWIC evaluation criteria
The application of COSEWIC evaluation criteria suggests that Northern Myotis is Endangered in Ontario.
Part 5 - Ontario status determination
5.1 Application of COSSARO and COSEWIC criteria
Determine the appropriate method of applying the results obtained in parts 3 and 4:
COSSARO and COSEWIC criteria give the same result. Yes
5.2 Summary of status evaluation
Northern Myotis is classified as Endangered in Ontario.
Until recently, the Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) (formerly Northern Long- eared Bat) has been a widespread insect-eating bat found throughout forest regions of a large portion Canada and the United States. Usually found with or near groups of Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus), this species is never as common and is difficult for all but experienced fieldworkers to identify. Feeding primarily at night on aerial insects, members of this species roost in trees during the summer and hibernate during winter months in cool, damp caves and abandoned mines. White Nose Syndrome, a disease caused by a cold-loving fungus Geomyces destructans, has caused dramatic declines at hibernacula of this species in Northeastern North America since it was first recorded 6 years ago (February 2006) in a cave near Albany, New York. It has spread at a rate of approx. 200-400 km per year, reaching Ontario and Quebec in 2010, and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in 2011. In Ontario, WNS is not yet known to be present west of Wawa, but declines in all 8 caves that have been monitored in infected areas of Ontario before and after WNS have averaged >90%. An unknown proportion of these bats are Northern Myotis, but confirmed mortalities for this species elsewhere have exceeded 90%. Lack of monitoring attention and baseline knowledge about population numbers pre-WNS precludes any precise estimate of impact to the population at large, but evidence of WNS mortality events in New Brunswick, New England and New York is a cause of profound concern for the continued persistence of this species in Ontario.
1. Literature Cited
Alberta Sustainable Resource Development and Alberta Conservation Association (ASRDACA). 2009. Status of the Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) in AlbertaL Update 2009. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. Wildlife Status Report No. 3 (Update 2009). Edmonton, Alberta.
Blehert, D., A. Hicks, M. Behr, C. Meteyer, B. Berlowski-Zire, E. Buckles, J. Coleman, S. Darling, A. Gargas, R. Niver, J. Okoniewski, R. Rudd, and W. Stone. 2009. Bat white- nose syndrome: An emerging fungal pathogen. Science 323:227.
Caceres, C., and R. Barclay. 2000. Myotis septentrionalis. Mammalian Species. 634:1-3. American Society Mammalogists.
Coleman, J.T.H. Current status of the research and management of bat white-nose syndrome. Northeastern Bat Working Group Annual Meeting. Carlisle, PA; Northeastern Bat Working Group: 2012.
COSEWIC. 2012. Technical summary and supporting information for an emergency assessment of the Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa.
Cryan P., C. Meteyer, J. Boyles and D. Blehert. 2010. Wing pathology of white-nosed syndrome in bats suggests life-threatening disruption of physiology. BMC Biology 2010, 8:135, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/135.
Fenton, M.B. 2012. Bats and white-nose syndrome. PNAS 109(18):6794-6795.
Frick, W., J. Pollock, A. Hicks, K. Langwig, S. Reynolds, G. Turner, C. Butchkoski and T. Kunz. 2010. An emerging disease causes regional population collapse of a common North American bat species. Science 329:679-682.
Hallam. T. and P. Federico. 2011. The panzootic white-nose syndrome: An environmentally constrained disease? Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 1-10.
Kunz, T. and M. Tuttle. 2009. White-nose syndrome science strategy meeting II. http://www.bacon.org/pdfs/whitenose/WN2FinalReport.pdf. [link not active]
Mainguy, J. and N. Desrosiers. 2011. Cave-dwelling bats in the province of Quebec: historical data about hibernacula population surveys. Unpublished report. Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune. 6 pp.
Martinez, F., A. Menzies, Z. Czenze. 2012. Bat hibernacula survey report 2012 for the northwestern Ontario area. Unpublished report. University of Winnipeg. 6 pp.
McAlpine, D., K. Vanderwolf, G. Forbes and D. Malloch. 2011. Consumption of bats (Myotis spp.) by raccoons (Procyon lotor) during an outbreak of White-nose Syndrome in New Brunswick, Canada: implications for estimates of bat mortality. The Canadian Field-Naturalist 125(3):257-260.
Miller, G. S., Jr., and G. M. Allen. 1928. The American bats of the genera Myotis and Pizonyx. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 144:1-218.
Nagorsen, D.W. and R.M. Brigham. 1993. Bats of British Columbia. Royal British Columbia Museum Handbook. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, BC
NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. www.natureserve.org/explorer. Last updated February 2012. Accessed May 9, 2012.
Natural Heritage Information Centre. 2012. Element Summary Report for Myotis septentrionalis. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. http://www.biodiversityexplorer.mnr.gov.on.ca/nhicWEB/nhicIndex.jsp.Last updated July 30, 2010. Accessed May 9, 2012. [link not active]
OMNR. 2012. Status of White Nose Syndrome in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. /page/wildlife-and-nature. Last updated April 27, 2011. Accessed May 17, 2012. [link not active]
Turner, G., D. Reeder, and J. Coleman. 2011. A five-year assessment of mortality and geographic spread of white-nose syndrome in North American bats and a look to the future. Bat Research News 52:13-27.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Press Release). “North American Bat Death Toll Exceeds 5.5 Million From White-nose Syndrome”. January 17, 2012. Retrieved May 16, 2012. Archive copy at http://onlinepressroom.net/fws/. [link not active]
Van Zyll de Jong, C. G. 1979. Distribution and systematic relationships of long-eared Myotis in Canada. Can. J. Zool. 57:987-994.
Warnecke, L., J.M. Turner, T.K. Bollinger, J.M. Lorch, V. Misra, P.M. Cryan, G. Wibbelt, D.S. Blehert, and C.K.R. Willis. 2012. Inoculation of bats with European Geomyces destructans supports the novel pathogen hypothesis for the origin of white-nose syndrome. PNAS 109(18):6999-7003.
2. Community and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Sources
MNR staff in Timmins submitted bat pass data for Little Brown Myotis and Tri-colored Bat from several locations in year 2009-2011 (Mills, S. 2012 and Phoenix, D. 2012, community knowledge forms).
Many thanks to Bridget Conneely, who provided invaluable assistance collating information, Chris Risley, Lesley Hale and Fiona McGuinness from the OMNR who helped obtain data from the Wind Energy Bird and Bat Monitoring Database and Graham Forbes (University of New Brunswick and co-chair COSEWIC Terrestrial Mammal subcommittee) for additional assistance.
Appendix 1 - Northeastern North America status rank and decline
Note: Most decline statistics are for all bats unless otherwise noted (NM=Northern Myotis)
|State/Province||Subnational Rank (NatureServe 2012)||WNS present? And declines/mortality if known.||Source(s)|
|SNR||WNS first detected in 2008; 80-90% mortality in the state’s major hibernacula in 2009-10||http://whitenosesyndrome.org/sites/default/files/files/ctdep_march_2008 .pdf [link not active]|
http://whitenosesyndrome.org/sites/default/files/files/ctdep_wns_april_2 010.pdf [link not active]
|DE||SNR||WNS first recorded in 2010||http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/News/Pages/White-Nose-Syndrome- detected-in-Delaware-bats.aspx [link not active]|
|IL||S4||WNS not known to be present||http://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/sites/default/files/files/idnr.pdf [link not active]|
|IN||S3||WNS first recorded in 2011||http://www.in.gov/portal/news_events/66544.htm|
|IA||S4||WNS not known to be present||http://www.iowadnr.gov/Education/IowasWildlife/WhiteNoseBatSyndro me.aspx|
|LB||SNR||WNS not known to be present|
|KY||S4||WNS first recorded in 2010||http://www.fws.gov/WhiteNoseSyndrome/pdf/Breckinridge_Co_KY_WN S_Press_Release_Final_02062012 .pdf [link not active]|
|MA||S4||WNS first recorded in 2007; 72% reduction in bat activity on the watershed compared to pre-WNS; rate of decline reported from cave hibernacula surveys 73%. In largest hibernaculum declines from 8,000 -10,000 bats to 14 bats after 2 years of WNS exposure.||http://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/sites/default/files/files/mass_bat_m ortalities.pdf Brooks 2011|
|MB||S4||WNS not known to be present|
|MD||S4||WNS first recorded in 2010||http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/pressrelease2011/032911a.asp [link not active]|
|ME||S4||WNS first recorded in 2011||http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=IFW_News&id= 247640&v=article http://www.dnr.state.md.us/dnrnews/pressrelease2011/032911a.asp|
|MI||SNR||WNS not known to be present||http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12150-246555--,00.html|
|MN||S3||WNS not known to be present||http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/news/question_week/jan12.html [link not active]|
|NB||S4||WNS first recorded in 2011; 8/10 known hibernacula surveyed since 2008 for total of 89% decline since WNS||D. McAlpine and K. Vanderwolf, NB Museum, unpubl. data.|
|NF||S2||WNS not known to be present|
|NH||S3||WNS first recorded in 2007; some populations declining 99%||http://www.wildnh.com/Wildlife/Nongame/bats/wns.html [link not active]|
|NJ||SNR||WNS first recorded in 2007. Media reports in 2010 give estimates of 90% declines by scientists||http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/04/fungus_kills_90_percent_of_nj.html|
|NS||S1* (J. Klymko, Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre)||WNS first recorded in 2011.||H. Broders, St. Mary’s University, unpubl. data|
|NY||S3||WNS first recorded in 2006; Of the 18 bat colonies surveyed, 17 were in decline. For these 17 colonies, the average decline of NM was 94.5% (SD 16.29); Range (-100%, -50%)||Turner et al. 2011|
|OH||SNR||WNS first recorded in 2011.||http://ohiodnr.com/home_page/NewsReleases/tabid/18276/EntryId/219 4/White-nose-Syndrome-Detected-in-Ohio.aspx|
|ON||S3||WNS first recorded in 2010. In eastern Ontario, 8 hibernacula had average declines of 92% in all bats after 2 years of exposure to WNS||/page/wildlife-and-nature OMNR, unpubl. data|
|PA||S1||WNS first recorded in 2006. Of the 4 bat colonies surveyed, all were in decline. The average decline of NM was 100% (SD 0), Range = (-100%, - 100%)||Turner et al. 2011|
|PE||S1||WNS not known to be present, although declines of bats are suspected in maternal roosts||J. Klymko, Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre, in litt.|
|QC||S1||WNS first recorded in 2010. Decline of 98- 99% in 5 hibernacula.||Mainguy and Desrosiers 2011|
|RI||S2||WNS not known to be present|
|VA||S3||WNS first recorded in 2009; 1 bat colony surveyed was in decline by 29%||http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/ bats/white-nose-syndrome/ Turner et al. 2011|
|VT||S3* (S. Darling, Vermont Fish & Wildlife Dept)||WNS first recorded in 2008. Darling and Smith found a 97% decline of NM in 8 hibernacula. Turner et al. found of the 5 bat colonies surveyed, all were in decline. The average decline of NM was 98.2% (SD 4.02), Range = (-100%, -91%)||http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/Detail.cfm?Agency__ID=1273 Turner et al. 2011; Darling and Smith 2011 [link not active]|
|WI||S2||WNS not known to be present||http://dnr.wi.gov/wnrmag/2010/08/bats.pdf [link not active]|
|WV||S3||WNS first recorded in 2009; 1 bat colony surveyed had NM declining by 100%||http://www.wvdnr.gov/2009news/09news033.shtm Turner et al. 2011|
Occurs as a native species in 29 of 29 northeastern jurisdictions
Srank or equivalent information available for 23 of 29 jurisdictions = (79%)
S1, S2, SH, or SX in 7 of 23 = (30%)