O’SHEA, CRYAN & BOGAN: UNITED STATES BAT SPECIES OF CONCERN 
35 
recommendation that vegetation removal around these structures be restricted to avoid increasing 
light penetration (Ferrara and Leberg, 2005a). 
In many areas the natural roosts favored by this species are in hollow trees in or near bottom¬ 
land hardwood forests, more frequently in live trees rather than snags (Clark, 2003; Gooding and 
Langford, 2004; Trousdale and Beckett, 2005; see above and review by Trousdale, 2011). Studies 
in Georgia emphasized that management practices that retain and recruit large trees with large 
internal cavities in flooded areas are critical for maintaining roosting populations of this species in 
bottomland hardwoods (Clement and Castleberry, 2013c). Anecdotal observations in Texas have 
documented that roost trees used by Rafinesque’s big-eared bats can be destroyed in severe storms 
and hurricanes (Stuemke et al., 2014). 
A detailed overview of the likely impacts of forest habitat loss and degradation on 
Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is available in Lacki and Bayless (2013). In general, the bottomland 
hardwood forests of the southeastern U.S. have suffered marked declines since historic times, and 
this has likely impacted populations of Rafinesque’s big-eared bats throughout their distribution 
(for example, Twedt and Loesch, 1999; see also Clark, 2003 for review). In Louisiana, maintenance 
of mature deciduous forest is considered important for conservation of Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, 
particularly black gums, water tupelos, and other trees that form hollows suitable as day roosts 
(Lance et al., 2001; Gooding and Langford, 2004). Retention of large-diameter, hollow trees with 
large cavities has also been recommended in South Carolina (Lucas et al., 2015; Loeb, 2017), as 
has been management that promotes the recruitment and survival of tree species that eventually 
form large cavities (Trousdale, 2011; Loeb, 2017). Based on studies in South Carolina, Loeb (2017) 
also recommended that in areas with the least history of habitat disturbance, preservation of tupe- 
lo and bald cypress trees will be most beneficial for maintaining roosting trees on the landscape, 
whereas in areas with a history of greater habitat change preservation of large oaks, sweetgums, 
sycamores, and beech trees is also suggested. In Mississippi, Stevenson (2008) recommended that 
in particular American beech, American sycamore, black tupelo, sweetgum, and bald cypress trees 
should be retained in forest stands for cavity production. Trousdale (2011) also recommended that 
in addition to retention of suitable roost trees, management should also consider protecting associ¬ 
ated stands so that removal of surrounding trees does not result in altered microclimates of roost 
trees. 
In a preliminary assessment of the availability of natural roosting habitat for Rafinesque’s big- 
eared bat, Miller et al. (2011) calculated areal coverage of bottomland hardwoods with water tupe¬ 
lo trees more than 50 centimeter girth within the Coastal Plain of nine Southeastern States in 2010. 
The three states with the greatest potential habitat were Louisiana (90,000 ha, 89% privately 
owned), Florida (56,000 ha, 25% privately owned), and North Carolina (35,000 ha, 89% privately 
owned). Overall potential habitat totaled 309,000 ha, with 72% privately owned (Miller et al., 
2011). Clearly future conservation and management for this species will require cooperation and 
partnerships involving private entities. 
In upland forests in the Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky, the U.S. Forest Service has 
developed a “Cliffline Management Policy” (Lacki, 1996:42) designed to benefit this species, as 
well as the endangered Virginia big-eared bat, Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus. This policy 
affords full protection to a 92 meter-wide strip of forest, 61 meters below and 31 meters above 
cliffs within the known range of Virginia big-eared bats and within 1.6 kilometers of any known 
roosts of Rafinesque’s big-eared bats, and further prohibits timber harvest within a 0.4 kilometers 
radius ‘no-disturbance zone’ around any such roost (Lacki, 1996, p.42). As pointed out by Hurst 
and Lacki (1999), the 0.4-kilometer radius zone is probably adequate to sustain microclimates 
around roosts, provide cover for foraging bats, and provide foraging habitat for newly volant 
