Vol. 78 Wednesday, No. 191 October 2, 2013

Part II

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and ; Endangered Species Status for the Bonneted ; Final Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61004 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Listing a species as endangered or Previous Federal Actions threatened can only be completed by The ( Fish and Wildlife Service issuing a rule. On October 4, 2012, we floridanus) was previously known as the published a proposed rule to list the Florida mastiff bat (Eumops glaucinus 50 CFR Part 17 Florida bonneted bat as an endangered floridanus). [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2012–0078; species (77 FR 60750). After careful Federal actions for the Florida 4500030113] consideration of all public and peer bonneted bat prior to October 4, 2012, reviewer comments we received, we are are outlined in our proposed rule (77 FR RIN 1018–AY15 publishing this final rule to list the 60750), which was published on that Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Florida bonneted bat as an endangered date. Publication of the proposed rule and Plants; Endangered Species species. (77 FR 60750) opened a 60-day comment period, which closed on Status for the Florida Bonneted Bat The basis for our action. Under the December 3, 2012. AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Act, a species may be determined to be Our proposed rule also included a Interior. an endangered or threatened species finding that designation of critical based on any of five factors: (A) The ACTION: Final rule. habitat was prudent, but that critical present or threatened destruction, habitat was not determinable. Under the SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and modification, or curtailment of its Act, the Service has 2 years from the Wildlife Service, determine endangered habitat or range; (B) overutilization for date of the proposed listing to designate species status under the Endangered commercial, recreational, scientific, or critical habitat. Accordingly, we intend Species Act of 1973, as amended, for the educational purposes; (C) disease or to publish a separate rule proposing Florida bonneted bat (Eumops predation; (D) the inadequacy of designation of critical habitat for the floridanus), a bat species from south existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Florida bonneted bat in the near future. Florida. This final rule adds this species other natural or manmade factors Background to the List of Endangered and affecting its continued existence. We Threatened Wildlife and implements have determined that the Florida The Florida bonneted bat is a member the Federal protections provided by the bonneted bat is an endangered species of the Molossidae (free-tailed ) Act for this species. based on three of these five factors within the order Chiroptera. The DATES: This rule is effective November (Factors A, D, and E). Specifically, species is the largest bat in Florida 1, 2013. habitat loss, degradation, and (Owre 1978, p. 43; Belwood 1992, p. 216; Florida Bat Conservancy [FBC] ADDRESSES: This final rule is available modification from human population 2005, p. 1). Males and females are not on the internet at http:// growth and associated development and significantly different in size, and there www.regulations.gov and at the South agriculture have impacted the Florida Florida Ecological Services Field Office. is no pattern of size-related geographic bonneted bat and are expected to further variation in this species (Timm and Comments and materials we received, as curtail its limited range (Factor A). The well as supporting documentation we Genoways 2004, p. 857). effects resulting from climate change, Members of the genus Eumops have used in preparing this rule, are available including sea-level rise and coastal large, rounded pinnae (ears), arising for public inspection at http:// squeeze, are expected to become severe from a single point or joined medially www.regulations.gov and by in the future and result in additional on the forehead (Best et al. 1997, p. 1). appointment, during normal business habitat losses, including the loss of roost The common name of ‘‘bonneted bat’’ hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sites and foraging habitat (Factor A). originates from characteristic large South Florida Ecological Services Field The Florida bonneted bat is also facing broad ears, which project forward over Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL threats from a wide array of natural and the eyes (FBC 2005, p. 1). Ears are 32960–3559; telephone 772–562–3909; manmade factors (Factor E), including joined at the midline of the head. This facsimile 772–562–4288. small population size, restricted range, feature, along with its large size, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: few colonies, slow reproduction, low distinguishes the Florida bonneted bat Larry Williams, Field Supervisor, U.S. fecundity, and relative isolation. from the smaller Brazilian (=Mexican) Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor free-tailed bat ( brasiliensis). Ecological Services Field Office (see D) are inadequate to reduce these Wings of the members of the genus ADDRESSES section). If you use a threats. Overall, impacts from increasing Eumops are among the narrowest of all telecommunications device for the deaf threats, operating singly or in molossids (Freeman 1981, as cited in (TDD), call the Federal Information combination, place the species at risk of Best et al. 1997, p. 3) and are well- Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. extinction. adapted for rapid, prolonged flight SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (Vaughan 1959 as cited in Best et al. Peer review and public comment. We 1997, p. 3). This wing structure is Executive Summary sought comments from independent conducive to high-speed flight in open This rule lists the Florida bonneted specialists to ensure that our areas (Findley et al. 1972 as cited in bat as an endangered species under the designation is based on scientifically Best et al. 1997, p. 3). Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The Florida bonneted bat’s fur is short as amended. We intend to publish a We received responses from six peer and glossy, with hairs sharply bicolored separate rule proposing designation of reviewers. Peer reviewers generally with a white base (Belwood 1992, p. critical habitat for the Florida bonneted concurred with the basis for listing the 216; Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 857). bat in the near future. Florida bonneted bat and provided Like other molossids, color is highly Why we need to publish a rule. Under additional information, clarifications, variable, varying from black to brown to the Act, a species or subspecies may and suggestions to improve this final brownish-gray or cinnamon brown with warrant protection through listing if it is listing determination. We considered all ventral pelage (fur) paler than dorsal endangered or threatened throughout all comments and information we received (Owre 1978, p. 43; Belwood 1992, p. or a significant portion of its range. during the public comment period. 216; Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 857).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61005

Additional details about the Florida through September (FBC 2005, p. 1; 2012a, 2013). After prolonged cold bonneted bat can be found in the Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 9). temperatures killed and displaced proposed listing rule (77 FR 60750). Examination of limited data suggests several bats in early 2010, a total of 10 that this species may be polyestrous individuals remained by April 2010, (having more than one period of estrous with seven occupying one house and The Florida bonneted bat (Eumops in a year), with a second birthing season three occupying another (S. Trokey, floridanus) was previously known as possibly in January and February (Timm pers. comm. 2010a, 2010b, 2010c). As of Florida mastiff bat, Wagner’s mastiff bat, and Genoways 2004, p. 859; FBC 2005, March 2013, there are 20 bats using two and mastiff bat (E. glaucinus floridanus) p. 1). houses at this location (S. Trokey, pers. (Owre 1978, p. 43; Belwood 1992, p. Information on reproduction and comm. 2013). Sex ratio is not known. 216; Best et al. 1997, p. 1). While earlier demography is sparse. The Florida Some movement between the houses literature found the Florida bonneted bonneted bat has low fecundity; litter has been observed; the albino individual bat distinct at the subspecies level, the size is one (FBC 2005, p. 1; Timm and has been observed to be in one house most current scientific information Arroyo-Cabrales 2008, p. 1). The colony one day and the other house the next (S. confirms that E. floridanus is a full studied by Belwood (1981, p. 412) Trokey, pers. comm. 2006a). species, and this taxonomic change has consisted of eight adults and included At the Fred C. Babcock/Cecil M. Webb been accepted by the scientific five post-lactating females, one pregnant Wildlife Management Area (Babcock- community (Timm and Genoways 2004, female with a single fetus, and one male Webb WMA), 39 to 43 individuals have pp. 852, 856, 861; McDonough et al. with enlarged testicles; the other female been found to use 3 to 5 separate roosts 2008, pp. 1306–1315; R. Timm, pers. escaped before examination. The (all bat houses) during periodic comm. 2008, 2009; in litt. 2012; Baker pregnant female captured was the first simultaneous counts conducted on 4 et al. 2009, pp. 9–10). The International record of a gestating Florida bonneted occasions over the past year (FWC, in Union for Conservation of Nature and bat in September (Belwood 1981, p. litt. 2012; Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 8, Natural Resources (Timm and Arroyo- 412). However, Belwood (1981, p. 412) 12, A61; J. Myers, pers. comm. 2012a, Cabrales 2008, p. 1) and the Florida noted that this finding is consistent with 2012b, 2013). Simultaneous counts Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) (FNAI the reproductive chronology of taken at emergence on April 2, 2013, at 2013, p. 25) use the name E. floridanus. bonneted bats in , which are 4 roosts sites, documented 39 The Florida Fish and Wildlife polyestrous. Robson et al. (1989, p. 81) individuals with the number at each Conservation Commission (FWC) (FWC found an injured pregnant female in roost as follows: 37, 1, 1, and 0 (J. 2011a, pp. 1–11; 2013, pp. 1–43) also Coral Gables in late August 1988, which Myers, pers. comm. 2013). Periodic recognizes the species as E. floridanus, aborted its fetus in early September simultaneous counts taken at roosts over but their current endangered and 1988. A landowner with an active the course of a year suggest that use threatened list uses both names, Florida colony in North Fort Myers reported fluctuates among five roost sites (FWC, bonneted (mastiff) bat, Eumops that she has seen young bats appear in in litt. 2012; J. Myers, pers. comm. (=glaucinus) floridanus (see also Factor spring and summer, generally with only 2013). Apparent ‘non-use’ of a previous D below). one or two births within the colony per roost during monitoring may not be Additional details about the Florida year (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2006a). indicative of permanent abandonment bonneted bat’s taxonomy are provided However, four young were noted in (J. Myers, pers. comm. 2013). It is not in the proposed listing rule (77 FR 2004 (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2006a). known if there is movement between 60750). The capture of a juvenile male in a mist houses or among roost locations or Life History net at Picayune Strand State Forest between artificial and unknown natural (PSSF) on December 17, 2009, suggested roosts within Babcock-Webb WMA. Relatively little is known about the that there was breeding in the area Understanding of roosting behavior Florida bonneted bat’s life history. (Smith 2010, p. 1–2). and site selection is limited. However, Lifespan is not known. Based upon the Based upon limited information, the there is a high probability that work of Wilkinson and South (2002, pp. species roosts singly or in colonies individuals tend towards high roost site 124–131), Gore et al. (2010, p. 1) consisting of a male and several females fidelity (H. Ober, in litt. 2012). Lewis inferred a lifespan of 10 to 20 years for (Belwood 1992, p. 221). G.T. Hubbell (1995, pp. 481–496) found that bats that the Florida bonneted bat, with an believed that individuals in Miami roost in buildings tend to be more site- average generation time of 5 to 10 years. roosted singly (Belwood 1992, p. 221). faithful than those that roost in trees. The Florida bonneted bat has a fairly However, Belwood (1981, p. 412) Among bats that roost in trees, those extensive breeding season during suggested that a colony, consisting of that use cavities in large trees tend to be summer months (Timm and Genoways seven females and one male using a more site-faithful than those that use 2004, p. 859). The maternity season for cavity as a roost site in smaller trees (Brigham 1991; Fenton and most bat species in Florida occurs from Punta Gorda, was a group, based Rautenbach 1986; Fenton et al. 1993 as mid-April through mid-August (Marks on its sex ratio. Belwood (1981, p. 412; cited in Lewis 1995, p. 487; H. Ober, in and Marks 2008a, p. 8). During the early 1992, p. 221) suggested that this litt. 2012). Given its size, the Florida portion of this period, females give birth behavior has been recorded in a few bat bonneted bat is likely to select large and leave young in the roost while they species and such social groupings may trees (H. Ober, in litt. 2012). The large make multiple foraging excursions to be facilitated by roosting in tree cavities, accumulation of guano (excrement) 1 support lactation (Marks and Marks which can be defended from other meter (m) (3.3 feet (ft)) deep in one 2008a, pp. 8–9). During the latter males (Morrison 1979, pp. 11–15). known natural roost felled in 1979 (see portion of the season, young and Information on roosting habits from Belwood 1981, p. 412) suggests high females forage together until the young artificial structures is also limited. The roost fidelity, especially considering the become sufficiently skilled to forage and Florida bonneted bat colony using bat small number of individuals per colony survive on their own (Marks and Marks houses on private property in Lee (H. Ober, in litt. 2012). 2008a, p. 9). The Florida bonneted bat County consisted of 8 to 25 individuals, The Florida bonneted bat is active is a subtropical species, and pregnant including one albino (S. Trokey, pers. year-round and does not have periods of females have been found in June comm. 2006a, 2006b, 2008a, 2008b, hibernation or torpor. The species is not

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61006 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

migratory, but there might be seasonal habitats conducive to insect diversity be for survival (G. Marks, pers. comm. shifts in roosting sites (Timm and protected and that any pesticides be 2012a). Genoways 2004, p. 860). Belwood (1992, used with caution. Bonneted bats are ‘‘fast hawking’’ bats pp. 216–217) reported that, prior to Molossids, in general, seem adapted that rely on speed and agility to catch 1967, G.T. Hubbell routinely obtained to fast flight in open areas (Vaughan target insects in the absence of several individuals per year collected 1966, p. 249). Various morphological background clutter, such as dense during the winter from people’s houses. characteristics (e.g., narrow wings, high vegetation (Simmons et al. 1979, pp. Precise foraging and roosting habits wing-aspect ratios (ratio of wing length 16–21; Belwood 1992, p. 221; Best et al. and long-term requirements are to its breadth)) make Eumops species 1997, p. 5). Foraging in open spaces, unknown (Belwood 1992, p. 219). well-adapted for efficient, rapid, and these bats use echolocation to detect Active year-round, the species is likely prolonged flight in open areas (Findley prey at relatively long range, roughly 3 dependent upon a constant and et al. 1972, pp. 429–444; Freeman 1981, to 5 m (10 to 16 ft) (Belwood 1992, p. sufficient food supply, consisting of pp. 96–97; Norberg and Rayner 1987, 221). Based upon information from G.T. insects, to maintain its generally high pp. 399–400; Vaughan 1959 as cited in Hubbell, Belwood (1992, p. 221) metabolism. The available information Best et al. 1997, p. 3). Barbour and Davis indicated that individuals leave roosts indicates Florida bonneted bats feed on (1969, p. 234) noted that the species to forage after dark, seldom occur below flying insects of the following orders: faster than smaller bats, but cannot 10 m (33 ft) in the air, and produce Coleoptera (), Diptera (flies), maneuver as well in small spaces. loud, audible calls when flying; calls are (true bugs), and Lepidoptera Belwood (1992, p. 221) stated that easily recognized by some humans (moths) (Belwood 1981, p. 412; Belwood Eumops glaucinus is ‘‘capable of long, (Belwood 1992, p. 221; Best et al. 1997, 1992, p. 220; FBC 2005, p. 1; Marks straight, and sustained flight,’’ which p. 5; Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 5). On 2013, pp. 1–2). An analysis of bat guano should allow individuals to travel large the evening of April 19, 2012, Florida (droppings) from the colony using the distances. Norberg and Rayner (1987, p. bonneted bats using bat houses at pine flatwoods in Punta Gorda indicated 399) attributed long distance flights of Babcock-Webb WMA emerged to forage that the sample (by volume) contained Brazilian free-tailed bats to their high at dusk; emergence began roughly 26 coleopterans (55 percent), dipterans (15 wing-aspect ratios, with that species minutes after sunset and continued for percent), and hemipterans (10 percent) capable of traveling 65 kilometers (km) approximately 20 minutes (P. Halupa, (Belwood 1981, p. 412; Belwood 1992, (40 miles (mi)) from its roosting site to pers. obs. 2012; J. Myers, pers. comm. p. 220). More recent analyses of bat its foraging areas (Barbour and Davis 2012c). guano collected from occupied bat 1969, p. 203). In one study that used Habitat houses at Babcock-Webb WMA radiotelemetry tracking in Arizona, indicated that the samples contained Relatively little is known of the Tibbitts et al. (2002, p. 11) found high percentages of Lepidoptera and ecology of the Florida bonneted bat, and Underwood’s mastiff bat (Eumops Coleoptera (Marks 2013, pp. 1–2). In one long-term habitat requirements are underwoodi) ranged up to 24 km (15 mi) analysis of 50 fecal pellets (from poorly understood (Robson 1989, p. 2; or more during foraging bouts from its approximately 35 individuals taken Robson et al. 1989, p. 81; Belwood 1992, roost site. Tracked individuals (n=3) April 2013), samples (by volume) p. 219; Timm and Genoways 2004, p. were found to commonly cover large contained about 49 percent Lepidoptera, 859). Habitat for the Florida bonneted areas in a single evening (Tibbitts et al. 35 percent Coleoptera, and 17 percent bat mainly consists of foraging areas and 2002, pp. 1–12). The largest single-night roosting sites, including artificial unknown (Marks 2013, p. 1). Analyses 2 2 of samples taken in May 2011 (n=6) and home range was 284.6 km (109.9 mi ), structures. At present, no active, natural and all three bats commonly ranged roost sites are known, and only limited June 2011 (n=6) at the same location 2 2 also indicated that high percentages of over 100 km (38.6 mi ) on a typical information on historical sites is Lepidoperta (74 percent, 49 percent) night (Tibbitts et al. 2002, p. 12). Most available. and Coleoptera (26 percent, 35 percent) bats on most nights traveled 20–30 km Recent information on habitat has were consumed (Marks 2013, pp. 1–2). (12.4–18.6 mi) and often more in the been obtained largely through acoustical Florida bonneted bats were found to range of 50–100 km (31.1–62.1 mi) as a surveys, designed to detect and record feed on large insects at this location; minimum estimate (Tibbitts et al. 2002, bat echolocation calls (Marks and Marks however, specific prey could not be p. 12). 2008a, p. 5). Acoustical methods have determined because the bats apparently Foraging and dispersal distances and generally been selected over mist culled parts of the insects such as heads, home range sizes for the Florida netting as the primary survey legs, antennae, elytra, and wings (Marks bonneted bat are not known and have methodology because this species flies 2013, pp. 1–2). not been studied in detail (K. Gillies, in and primarily forages at heights of 9 m Researchers are planning to conduct litt. 2012; G. Marks, pers. comm. 2012; (30 ft) or more (Marks and Marks 2008a, analyses of guano to determine dietary H. Ober, in litt. 2012). Like other p. 3). The Florida bonneted bat has a preferences and seasonal changes molossids, the species’ morphological unique and easily identifiable call. (Ridgley 2012, pp. 1–4; C. Marks, FBC, characteristics make it capable of While most North American bats pers. comm. 2012a; S. , Everglades dispersing large distances and generally vocalize echolocation calls in the National Park (ENP), pers. comm. 2012a; adapted for low cost, swift, long ultrasonic range that are inaudible to Marks 2013, p. 2). This species may distance travel from roost site to humans, the Florida bonneted bat prey upon larger insects, which may be foraging areas (Norberg and Rayner echolocates at the higher end of the less abundant than smaller prey items 1987, pp. 399–400; K. Gillies, in litt. audible range, which can be heard by (S. Snow, pers. comm. 2012a). Since the 2012; H. Ober, in litt. 2012). Given this, some humans as high–pitched calls species can take flight from the ground it seems likely that foraging areas may (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 5). Most like other Eumops species, the Florida be located fairly long distances from surveys conducted using acoustical bonneted bat may also prey upon roost sites (H. Ober, in litt. 2012). equipment can detect echolocation calls ground insect species (Ridgley 2012, pp. However, despite its capabilities, the within a range of 30 m (100 ft); call 1–2). Based upon recent analyses, Marks species likely does not travel farther sequences are analyzed using software (2013, p. 2) recommended that natural than necessary to acquire food needed that compares calls to a library of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61007

signature calls (Marks and Marks 2008a, suggest that the species uses a wide Based upon information from G.T. p. 5). Florida bonneted bat calls are variety of habitats (R. Arwood, Inside- Hubbell, specimens have been found in relatively easy to identify because calls Out Photography, Inc., pers. comm. shafts of royal palms ( regia) are issued at frequencies well below that 2008a, 2008b, 2012a, 2013a–d; Marks (Belwood 1992, p. 219). of other Florida bat species (Marks and and Marks 2008a, pp. 13–14; 2008b, pp. Similar roosting habitats have been Marks 2008a, p. 5). However, most 2–5; 2008c, pp. 1–28; 2012, pp. 1–22; reported for E. g. glaucinus in Cuba. surveys conducted for the species to Smith 2010, pp. 1–4; S. Snow, pers. Nine of 19 known E. g. glaucinus roost date have been somewhat limited in comm. 2011a, 2011b, 2012b–h; in litt. sites were located in tree cavities, scope, with various methods used. 2012; M. Owen, pers. comm. 2012a, including woodpecker holes and Since bat activity can vary greatly at a 2012b; R. Rau, pers. comm. 2012; Maehr cavities in royal palms, ‘‘degame’’ trees single location both within and between 2013, pp. 1–13; S. Maehr, pers. comm. (Callycophyllum candidissimum), and nights (Hayes 1997, pp. 514–524; 2000, 2013a, 2013b; K. Relish, pers. comm. mastic trees ( simaruba) (Silva- pp. 225–236), a lack of calls during a 2013; F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013a–c; Taboada 1979 as cited in Robson 1989, short listening period may not be B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2013a–f; K. p. 2 and Belwood 1992, p. 219). Another indicative of lack of use within an area Smith, pers. comm. 2013). individual was found roosting in the (H. Ober, in litt. 2012). Attempts to locate natural roost sites foliage of the palm Copernicia In general, open, fresh water and (e.g., large cavity trees) in February 2013 vespertilionum (Silva-Taboada 1979 as wetlands provide prime foraging areas using scent-detection dogs were cited in Belwood 1992, p. 219). Belwood for bats (Marks and Marks 2008c, p. 4). inconclusive. No active natural roosts (1992, pp. 219–220) noted that the Bats will forage over ponds, streams, for Florida bonneted bats have been majority of the approximately 80 and wetlands and will drink when identified or confirmed to date. At this specimens of E. glaucinus from flying over open water (Marks and time, all known active roost sites are housed in the U.S. National Marks 2008c, p. 4). During dry seasons, artificial structures (i.e., bat houses) (see Museum were collected from tree bats become more dependent on Use of Artificial Structures (Bat Houses) cavities in heavily forested areas. remaining ponds, streams, and wetland below). areas for foraging purposes (Marks and More recent acoustical data and other Marks 2008c, p. 4). The presence of Use of Forests and Other Natural Areas information indicate that the Florida roosting habitat is critical for day roosts, Bonneted bats are closely associated bonneted bat uses forests and a variety protection from predators, and the with forested areas because of their tree- of other natural areas. Echolocation calls rearing of young (Marks and Marks roosting habits (Robson 1989, p. 2; have been recorded in a wide array of 2008c, p. 4). For most bats, the Belwood 1992, p. 220; Eger 1999, p. habitat types: Pine flatwoods, pine availability of suitable roosts is an 132), but specific information is limited. rocklands, cypress, hardwood important, limiting factor (Humphrey Belwood (1981, p. 412) found a small hammocks, , wetlands, rivers, 1975, pp. 341–343). Bats in south colony of Florida bonneted bats (seven lakes, ponds, canals, and so forth (see Florida roost primarily in trees and females and one male, all adults) Table 1). Table 1 lists locations and manmade structures (Marks and Marks roosting in a longleaf pine (Pinus habitat types where Florida bonneted 2008a, p. 8). Protective tree cover palustris) in a pine flatwoods bats were recorded or observed (2003 to around bat roosts may be important for community near Punta Gorda in 1979. present) (R. Arwood, pers. comm. predator avoidance and allowing earlier The bats were roosting in a cavity 4.6 m 2008a, 2008b, 2012a, 2013a–d; Marks emergence from the roost, thereby (15.1 ft) high, which had been excavated and Marks 2008a, pp. 13–14; 2008b, pp. allowing bats to take advantage of the by a red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides 2–5; 2008c, pp. 1–28; 2012, pp. 1–22; peak in insect activity at dusk and borealis) and later enlarged by a pileated Smith 2010, pp. 1–4; S. Snow, pers. extend foraging time (Duverge et al. woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) comm. 2011a, 2011b, 2012b–h; in litt. 2000, p. 39). (Belwood 1981, p. 412). Belwood (1981, 2012; M. Owen, pers. comm. 2012a, Available information on roosting p. 412) suggested that the bats were 2012b; R. Rau, pers. comm. 2012; Maehr sites for the Florida bonneted bat is permanent residents of the tree due to 2013, pp. 1–13; S. Maehr, pers. comm. extremely limited. Roosting and the considerable accumulation of guano, 2013a, 2013b; K. Relish, pers. comm. foraging areas appear varied, with the approximately 1 m (3.3 ft) in depth. Eger 2013; F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013a–c; species occurring in forested, suburban, (1999, p. 132) noted that in forested B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2013a–f; K. and urban areas (Timm and Arroyo- areas, old, mature trees are essential Smith, pers. comm. 2013). Additional Cabrales 2008, p. 1). Data from roosting sites for this species. The details on key sites are provided below acoustical surveys and other methods species also uses foliage of palm trees. Table 1.

TABLE 1—LOCATIONS AND HABITAT TYPES RECORDED OR OBSERVED FOR FLORIDA BONNETED BATS [2003–2013]

Site Ownership County Management Habitat

Everglades National Park (ENP) (coastal) (2 public ...... Monroe ...... National Park Service earth midden hammocks, mangroves. backcountry sites along Wilderness Wa- (NPS). terway [Darwin’s Place, Watson’s Place]). ENP (mainland) (junction of Main Park Road public ...... Miami-Dade NPS ...... pine rocklands, wet prairie, tropical hard- and Long Pine Key). woods. L–31N canal, proposed transmission line public ...... Miami-Dade NPS and SFWMD ..... canal, mixed. corridor, eastern boundary ENP. Homestead, FL ...... private ...... Miami-Dade None ...... residential, urban. Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden (FTBG) ... private ...... Miami-Dade FTBG ...... pine rockland, hardwood hammock, water, tropical garden, residential.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61008 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1—LOCATIONS AND HABITAT TYPES RECORDED OR OBSERVED FOR FLORIDA BONNETED BATS—Continued [2003–2013]

Site Ownership County Management Habitat type

Zoo Miami ...... public ...... Miami-Dade Miami-Dade County .. pine rocklands, disturbed nonnative areas, developed park lands, groves, artificial freshwater lakes. Larry and Penny Thompson Park ...... public ...... Miami-Dade Miami-Dade County .. pine rocklands, developed park lands, groves, artificial freshwater lake. Martinez Preserve ...... public ...... Miami-Dade Miami-Dade County .. pine rocklands, remnant transition glade. Coral Gables (2 sites, including Granada private ...... Miami-Dade None ...... residential, urban. Golf Course). Snapper Creek Park ...... public ...... Miami-Dade Miami-Dade County .. residential, urban. Everglades City ...... private ...... Collier ...... None ...... residential, urban. Naples ...... private ...... Collier ...... None ...... residential, urban. Florida Panther NWR (multiple sites) ...... public ...... Collier ...... U.S. Fish and Wildlife pine flatwoods, wet prairie, lakes, artificial Service. and ephemeral ponds bordered by royal palm hammock, cypress, pond apple, oak hammock. Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park public ...... Collier ...... Florida Department of lake, canal near hardwood hammock, pine (FSPSP) (multiple sites). Environmental Pro- flatwoods, strand swamp, royal palms. tection (FDEP). Picayune Strand State Forest (PSSF) (mul- public ...... Collier ...... FFS ...... canal, wet prairie, pine flatwoods, cypress, tiple sites). hardwood hammock, exotics. Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP) public ...... Collier ...... NPS ...... pine flatwoods, palmetto, cypress, mixed (multiple sites). and hardwood hammocks, mangroves, mixed shrubs, wet prairies, river, lake, campground. North Fort Myers (2 sites, including bat private ...... Lee ...... None; private land- residential, rural, urban; bat houses. houses). owner. Babcock-Webb Wildlife Management Area public ...... Charlotte ...... Florida Fish and Wild- pinelands (and near red-cockaded wood- (WMA) (multiple sites). life Conservation pecker clusters); bat houses. Commission (FWC). Babcock Ranch Preserve (Telegraph public, pri- Charlotte ...... Private entities, FWC, swamp. Swamp). vate. FFS, and Lee County. KICCO WMA ...... public ...... Polk ...... SWFWMD and FWC oxbow along Kissimmee River. Avon Park Air Force Range (APAFR) ...... public ...... Polk ...... Air Force ...... scrubby flatwoods, next to open water lake/ pond; wetland in scrub habitat. Kissimmee River Public Use Area (Platt’s public ...... Okeecho- SWFWMD and FWC boat ramp along Kissimmee River. Bluff).

In 2006, the species was found at lake and at a canal adjacent to tropical wetlands, only one Florida bonneted bat Babcock-Webb WMA in the general hardwood hammocks (Ballard Pond and call sequence was recorded in BCNP in vicinity of the colony found by Belwood Prairie Canal Bridge) in the FSPSP 16 nights of effort (stationary and roving (1981, p. 412); this was the first (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 11, A7– surveys) (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. documentation of the Florida bonneted A9, B50–B51). Available data and 11, A12–A14). The call sequence was bat at this location since 1979 (Marks observations indicate that the species recorded at Deep Lake along the western and Marks 2008a, pp. 6, 11, 13). Major was regularly heard at FSPSP from 2000 edge of BCNP and the eastern side of the habitat types at Babcock-Webb WMA through 2012 at various locations, FSPSP; the lake was surrounded by include dry prairie, freshwater marsh, primarily in the main strand swamp and cypress and hardwood hammocks wet prairie, and pine flatwoods; all calls near royal palms (M. Owen, pers. comm. similar to the habitat around Ballard were recorded in pinelands (Marks and 2012a, 2012b; R. Rau, pers. comm. Pond in the FSPSP (see above) (R. Marks 2008a, pp. A7, B38–B39; 2012, 2012). In November 2007, the species Arwood, pers. comm. 2008b). The pp. 8, A61, B43). The species was also was observed along U.S. 41 at Collier- species was recorded again in February recorded at an adjacent property, Seminole State Park in Collier County 2012 at another location (Cal Stone’s Babcock Ranch Preserve, in 2007; calls (S. Braem, FDEP, pers. comm. 2012). camp) in an area of pine and palmetto were recorded at Telegraph Swamp, but The FDEP also suggests that the species with cypress domes in the surrounding not in the pinelands surveyed (Marks may occur at Charlotte Harbor Preserve area (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2012a; and Marks 2008a, pp. A9, B55–B57). State Park in Charlotte County and Marks and Marks 2012, p. 13). Data The species has been found within Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park in derived from recordings taken in 2003 the Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Collier County (P. Small, FDEP, pers. and 2007 by a contractor and provided Park (FSPSP), using this area throughout comm. 2012). to the Service (S. Snow, pers. comm. the year (D. Giardina, Florida The Florida bonneted bat has been 2012g) and available land use covers Department of Environmental Protection found in various habitats within Big derived from a geographic information (FDEP), pers. comm. 2006; C. Marks, Cypress National Preserve (BCNP). system also suggest that the species uses pers. comm. 2006a, 2006b; M. Owen, During surveys conducted in a variety of a wide array of habitats within BCNP. FSPSP, pers. comm. 2012a, 2012b). In habitats in 2006–2007, the majority Additional call data obtained in late 2006, this species was found at a small consisting of cypress swamps and 2012 and early 2013 also suggest the use

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61009

of various habitat types, including survey nights in 2012 (Marks and Marks Miami suggest that preferred diurnal forested areas, wetlands, and open water 2012, p. 14). roosts may be the shingles under in BCNP (R. Arwood, pers. comm. In 2011–2012, the species was Spanish tile roofs (Belwood 1992, p. 2013a–d). recorded in various natural habitats 219). The species also roosts in Recent results from a study at Florida elsewhere in ENP and vicinity (S. Snow, buildings (e.g., in attics, rock or brick Panther NWR conducted in 2013 also pers. comm. 2011a, 2012c–f; S. Snow, in chimneys of fireplaces, and especially show the species’ use of forested areas, litt. 2012; Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 8, buildings dating from about 1920–1930) open water, and wetlands (Maehr 2013, 14). It was recorded in wetlands, (Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008, p. 1). pp. 1–13). Of the 13 locations examined, tropical hardwoods, and pinelands at One individual recently reported that a the highest detection of Florida the junction of the main park road and single Florida bonneted bat had come bonneted bat calls occurred in areas road to Long Pine Key (S. Snow, pers. down the chimney and into his with the largest amount of open water comm. 2011a, 2012f; in litt. 2012; Marks residence in Coral Gables in the fall (Maehr 2013, p. 8). The area with the and Marks 2012, p. 8, 14, 17), and also about 5 years ago (D. Pearson, pers. highest detection was an open water along the L–31N canal in a rural area, comm. 2012). Belwood (1992, p. 220) pond, surrounded primarily by pine at the eastern boundary of ENP (Marks suggested that urban bats would appear flatwoods and oak hammock (S. Maehr, and Marks 2012, pp. 8, 14, 17, A59; S. to benefit from using Spanish tile roofs pers. comm. 2013a–c). That area has Snow, pers. comm. 2012c–f; in litt. on dwellings, since the human been regularly burned and contains a 2012). In March 2012, one suspect call population in south Florida is growing, large amount of old snags that have been sequence (presumed, but not confirmed) and Spanish tile roofs are likely more hollowed by woodpeckers (C. Maehr, was also recorded on SR 9336 in an area common now than in the past. However, pers. comm. 2013c). of rural residential and agricultural it is important to recognize that bats As noted earlier, FWC biologists and habitat in Miami–Dade County (S. using old or abandoned and new volunteers caught a free–flying juvenile Snow, pers. comm. 2012f). In January dwellings are at significant risk; bats are male Florida bonneted bat in 2009, 2012, another suspect call was recorded removed when structures are from the suburban streets of the village using a mist net in the PSSF in Collier demolished or when they are no longer of Palmetto Bay in Miami-Dade (S. County (Smith 2010, p. 1). Habitat tolerated by humans (see Summary of Snow, pers. comm. 2012f). composition of PSSF includes wet Factors Affecting the Species, Factor E). In 2008, the Florida bonneted bat was Discovery of an adult with a specimen prairie, cypress stands, and pine recorded at two locations along the tag indicating ‘‘found under rocks when flatwoods in the lowlands and Kissimmee River during a survey of bull-dozing ground’’ suggests this subtropical hardwood hammocks in the public areas contracted by FWC (J. species may also roost in rocky crevices uplands, and the individual was Morse, pers. comm. 2008, 2010; Marks and outcrops on the ground (Timm and captured in the net above the Faka- and Marks 2008b, pp. 2–5; 2008c, pp. 1– Genoways 2004, p. 860). A colony was Union Canal (Smith 2010, p. 1). This 28). One location was at an oxbow along found in a limestone outcropping on the was particularly notable because it may the Kissimmee River in a pasture in north edge of the University of Miami have been the first capture of a Florida KICCO WMA; the other was at Platt’s campus in Coral Gables; the limestone bonneted bat in an area with no known Bluff boat ramp at a public park on the contained a large number of flat, roost site (Smith 2010, p. 1). The species Kissimmee River (Marks and Marks horizontal, eroded fissures in which the has been detected at nine locations 2008c, pp. 11, 17). No additional calls bats roosted (Timm and Genoways 2004, within PSSF (i.e., captured at one were detected in the Lake Kissimmee p. 860). It is not known to what extent location, heard while mist netting at areas or along the Kissimmee River such roost sites are suitable. eight other locations), and each site was during subsequent surveys designed to Recent acoustical surveys (2006, 2008, located near canals (K. Smith, pers. more completely define the northern 2012) confirmed that the species comm. 2013). part of the Florida bonneted bat’s range continues to use a golf course in urban In 2000, the species was recorded in 2010–2012 (C. Marks, pers. comm. Coral Gables (Marks and Marks 2008a, within mangroves at Dismal Key within 2012c; Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 3, 5, pp. 6, 11, A4; 2008b, pp. 1–6; 2012, pp. the Ten Thousand Islands (Timm and 8, 10). However, the Florida bonneted 8, 14, 16, 19, A24, B16). Despite Genoways 2004, p. 861; Marks and bat was detected elsewhere in the numerous efforts, attempts to locate the Marks 2008a, pp. 6, A9, B53; 2012, p. northern part of its range during surveys roost site have been unsuccessful. 14). Subsequent surveys in 2000, 2006, at APAFR in 2013 (B. Scofield, pers. Recordings taken continuously from a and 2007 did not document any comm. 2013a, 2013e) (see Current balcony from a fifth floor condominium additional calls at this location (Marks Distribution). Call sequences were also detected presence in Naples (R. and Marks 2008a, pp. 6, 11, 14). In 2007, recorded at two locations, including one Arwood, pers. comm. 2008a). the species was recorded at a in an area of scrubby flatwoods next to Recordings taken from a house and at a backcountry campsite (Watson’s Place) a natural open water lake/pond and near boat dock along the Barron River in within ENP, comprised of mixed several cavity trees and snags and Everglades City also detected presence hardwoods (S. Snow, pers. comm. another near a wetland embedded in in this area (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2012h). In 2012, the species was found scrub habitat (B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2008a). within mangroves and mixed 2013b, 2013d, 2013e). The species has been documented at hardwoods at another backcountry Zoo Miami within an urban public park campsite (Darwin’s Place) along the Use of Parks, Residential Areas, and within the Richmond Pinelands in Wilderness Waterway (Ten Thousand Other Urban Areas Miami-Dade County (Marks and Marks Islands area), approximately 4.8 km (3 The Florida bonneted bat uses human 2012, pp. 8, 14, 16, A26; Ridgley 2012, mi) east-southeast of Watson’s Place structures and other nonnatural p. 1; F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013a, within ENP (Marks and Marks 2012, pp. environments. In Coral Gables (Miami 2013b). A dead specimen was found on 8, 17, A53, B35, B38; C. Marks, pers. area), specimens have been found in the Zoo Miami (then known as Miami comm. 2012b; S. Snow, pers. comm. shafts of royal palm leaves (Belwood Metrozoo) grounds at the Asian 2012h). However, the species was not 1992, p. 219). Based upon observations Elephant barn in 2004 (Marks and located in similar habitats during 18 from G.T. Hubbell, past sightings in Marks 2008a, p. 6). Miami-Dade County

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61010 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

biologists observed seven bats similar in approximately 5 m (17 ft) above the Historical Distribution size to Florida bonneted bats and heard ground with a south-by-southwest Records indicating historical range are chatter at the correct frequency a few orientation (S. Trokey, pers. comm. limited. Information on the Florida years ago, but were unable to obtain 2012b). The relatively high height of the bonneted bat’s historical distribution is definitive recordings (S. Thompson, houses may allow the large bats to fall provided in the proposed listing rule (77 Miami-Dade Park and Recreation from the roosts before flying (S. Trokey, FR 60750). We did not receive any new Department, pers. comm. 2010) until a pers. comm. 2012b). information during the public comment single call was recorded by FBC outside The species also occupies bat houses period. the same enclosure in September 2011 within pinelands at Babcock-Webb (Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 8, 14, 16, Current Distribution WMA in Punta Gorda, Charlotte County A26; Ridgley 2012, p. 1). Endemic to Florida, the Florida Florida bonneted bats have been (Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 8, A61). In winter 2008, two colonies were found bonneted bat has one of the most recorded more recently at the Zoo restricted distributions of any species of Miami, Larry and Penny Thompson using bat houses (Morse 2008, p. 8; N. Douglass, FWC, pers. comm. 2009). In bat in the New World (Belwood 1992, Park, and the Martinez Preserve, with pp. 218–219; Timm and Genoways peak activity in areas of artificial 2010, approximately 25 individuals were found at two additional bat 2004, pp. 852, 856–858, 861–862). freshwater lakes adjacent to intact pine Although numerous acoustical surveys rocklands (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. houses, bringing the potential total at for the Florida bonneted bat have been 2013a–c). Surrounding habitats include Babcock-Webb WMA to 58 individuals, conducted in the past decade by various pine rocklands, disturbed natural areas occupying four houses (J. Birchfield, parties, the best scientific information with invasive species, freshwater FWC, pers. comm. 2010; Marks and indicates that the species exists only lakes, developed area, open recreational Marks 2012, pp. 12, A61). In 2012, 42 within a very restricted range, largely areas, and horticulturally altered individuals were found to use four roost confined to south and southwest Florida landscape, with a variety of manmade sites, consisting of a total of seven bat (Timm and Genoways 2004, pp. 852, structures (J. Maguire, in litt. 2012; houses, situated approximately 5 m (17 856–858, 861–862; Marks and Marks Ridgley 2012, p. 1; F. Ridgley, pers. ft) above the ground with north and 2008a, p. 15; 2012, pp. 10–11). comm. 2013b). Although there are five south orientations (Marks and Marks The majority of information relating artificial lakes on the grounds of Zoo 2012, pp. 12, 19, A61; J. Myers, pers. to current distribution comes from the Miami and Larry and Penny Thompson comm. 2012a). In September 2012, five following recent studies: (1) Rangewide Park, the Florida bonneted bat appears bats were observed using two triple- to utilize the two that have pine chambered houses mounted back-to- surveys conducted in 2006–2007, rockland adjacent to their shorelines (F. back; this represented the fifth roost site funded by the Service, to determine the Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013b). Possible found at Babcock-Webb WMA (FWC, in status of the Florida bonneted bat roosting sites that exist on the properties litt. 2012). In 2013, 39 individuals were following the 2004 hurricane season, include manmade structures, pine using 3 roost sites (J. Myers, pers. and follow-up surveys in 2008 (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 1–16 and snags, and limestone cavities (F. comm. 2013). Roosts at Babcock-Webb appendices; 2008b, pp. 1–6); (2) surveys Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013b). WMA are mainly in hydric and mesic conducted in 2008 along the Kissimmee In 2011 and 2012, the species was pine flatwoods with depression and River and Lake Wales Ridge, funded by recorded within tropical gardens at basin marshes and other mixed habitat the FWC, as part of bat conservation and Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden in the vicinity (J. Myers, pers. comm. land management efforts (Marks and (FTBG) in Miami-Dade County (S. 2012b). Snow, pers. comm. 2011b, 2012b, 2012f; Marks 2008c, pp. 1–28; 2008d, pp. 1–21; Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 8, 13–14, 17, Summary Morse 2008, p. 2); (3) surveys conducted A35, A37). within BCNP in 2003 and 2007, funded In summary, relatively little is known by the NPS (S. Snow, pers. comm. Use of Artificial Structures (Bat Houses) of the species’ habitat requirements. 2012g), and surveys conducted in BCNP The Florida bonneted bat uses non- Based upon available data discussed in 2012 and 2013 through volunteer natural environments (see Use of Parks, above, it appears that the species can efforts (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2012a, Residential Areas, and other Urban use a wide array of habitat types (see 2012b, 2013a–d); (4) surveys conducted Areas, above) and artificial structures, Table 1, above). The extremely limited in 2011–2012 in ENP by NPS staff (S. particularly bat houses (Marks and available information on roosting sites is Snow, pers. comm. 2012c–f; in litt. Marks 2008a, p. 8; Morse 2008, pp. 1– particularly problematic, as the 2012); (5) surveys conducted in 2010– 14; S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2012a, availability of suitable roosts is an 2012, funded by the Service, to fill past 2012b). In fact, all of the active known important limiting factor for most bat gaps and better define the northern and roosting sites for the species are bat species. Existing roost sites need to be southern extent of the species’ range houses (2 at a private landowner’s identified so that they can be preserved (Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 1–22 and house; 3 to 5 separate roosts at Babcock- and protected (Marks and Marks 2008a, appendices); (6) recordings taken from Webb WMA). p. 15; K. Gillies, in litt. 2012). proposed wind energy facilities in The species occupies bat houses on Uncertainty regarding the location of Glades and Palm Beach Counties (C. private land in North Fort Myers, Lee natural and artificial roost sites may Coberly, Merlin Ecological, LLC., pers. County; until relatively recently, this contribute to the species’ vulnerability comm. 2012; C. Newman, Normandeau was the only known location of an (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Associates, Inc, pers. comm. 2012); and active colony roost anywhere (S. Species, Factors A and E, below). As the (7) surveys conducted as part of other Trokey, pers. comm. 2006a, 2008b; locations of other potentially active isolated studies. Details relating to the Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 7, 15). The roost sites are not known, inadvertent bulk of these survey efforts and results Florida bonneted bat has used this impacts to and losses of roosts may be were described in detail in the proposed property for over 9 years (S. Trokey, more likely to occur. If roost sites are listing rule (77 FR 60750). Only new pers. comm. 2012a). The bat houses are located, actions could be taken to avoid information or relevant findings are located near a small pond, situated or minimize losses. provided below.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61011

It is important to note that most to a natural open water lake/pond (B. from dusk to dawn and microphones surveys were limited in scope, and Scofield, pers. comm. 2013b). At the elevated on a portable 5.2-m (17-ft) mast various methods and equipment were second location, presence was detected (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013b). Results used. In many cases, relatively short near a wetland embedded in scrub of the first quarter analysis yielded 154 listening intervals were employed habitat about 4.0 km (2.5 mi) from the Florida bonneted bat calls out of over (generally >1 hour in duration, often previous detection (B. Scofield, pers. 20,500 total bat call sequences (F. multiple hours). Only a few studies comm. 2013e). These findings are Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013b). The sampled the same areas on more than significant because they provide species was detected at 23 of the 50 one occasion or for consecutive nights. additional evidence of current presence sampling points; 10 of those points More robust study designs would in the northern part of the species’ accounted for more than 80 percent of account for sources of temporal, spatial, range, where survey information is the calls (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. and sampling variation and explicitly generally lacking. It is also noteworthy 2013b). Peak activity areas for the state underlying assumptions (Hayes that at one location detected, Florida Florida bonneted bat within the study 1997, pp. 514–524; 2000, pp. 225–236). bonneted bats were not recorded for the area are associated with artificial first 3 weeks of sampling (B. Scofield, freshwater lakes adjacent to intact pine (1) Surveys in Big Cypress pers. comm. 2013d). Had surveys not rockland (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. Data from acoustical surveys been conducted over multiple weeks at 2013b). Although no roosting sites have conducted from December 7, 2012, the same location, presence may not been identified to date, early emergence through July 11, 2013, documented have been detected. calls (within 15–20 minutes after presence at seven sites within BCNP (R. Florida Panther NWR—An acoustical sunset) have been repeatedly Arwood, pers. comm. 2013a–d). In this survey was conducted at Florida documented, and all early calls have effort, continuous recordings were taken Panther NWR from February 28 to May been on the edge of a tract of intact pine from sundown to sunrise over multiple 5, 2013. Surveys using multiple rockland (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. nights at each site survey site (R. detectors were conducted at 13 2013b). Arwood, pers. comm. 2012b). As of July locations on the refuge, primarily near In summary, the Florida bonneted bat 11, 2013, a total of 747 Florida bonneted water bodies, over 57 survey nights appears to be largely restricted to south bat calls were recorded out of 36,441 (Maehr 2013, pp. 5–7; C. Maehr, pers. and southwest Florida. The core range total calls over 296 nights (R. Arwood, comm. 2013b). The number of detection may primarily consist of habitat within pers. comm. 2013c). The vast majority of devices deployed at each location Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Monroe, and Florida bonneted bat calls (721 of 747) ranged from 4 to 9, depending upon size Miami-Dade Counties. Recent data also were recorded at one pond in a remote and access to open water (Maehr 2013, confirm use of portions of south-central area of BCNP, with activity found on 8 pp. 5–7). Recordings were taken for 3 to Florida in Okeechobee and Polk of 10 nights in May and June 2013 (R. 4 consecutive nights at each location, Counties and suggest possible use of Arwood, pers. comm. 2013c). It is with all frequencies recorded from dusk areas within Glades County. However, noteworthy that in each of the seven plus 7 hours (Maehr 2013, p. 5). Florida given limited available data, it is not locations, Florida bonneted bat calls bonneted bats calls were recorded at 9 clear to what extent areas outside of the were not detected on the first night of of 13 locations, primarily in areas of the core range may be used. It is possible sampling. Had surveys not been largest open water and in the area of the that areas outside of the south and conducted over multiple nights, Fakahatchee Strand that bisects the southwest Florida are used only presence would not have been detected. refuge (Maehr 2013, pp. 7–9). seasonally or sporadically. This study confirms presence on the Alternatively, these areas may be used (2) Surveys in the Everglades Region refuge and suggests that it is an consistently, but the species was not Acoustical surveys conducted on 80 important area for the species. Of regularly located due to limited search nights in the Everglades region from additional significance was the efforts, imperfect survey methods, October 2011 to November 2012 by Skip simultaneous recordings of Florida constraints of recording devices, and Snow (pers. comm. 2012b, 2012c–f; in bonneted bats at multiple locations general difficulties in detecting the litt. 2012) documented presence at (Maehr 2013, p. 9). These findings, species. several locations within ENP and along with detection shortly after surrounding locations (see Table 1). sunset, suggest that Florida bonneted Population Estimates and Status These findings are significant because bats may be roosting on the refuge, in Historical—Little information exists the importance of the Everglades region addition to using the area for foraging on historical population levels. Details to the Florida bonneted bat had been (Maehr 2013, p. 9). Additional data are provided in the proposed listing rule previously in question. analyses are currently underway. (77 FR 60750). Detections at numerous locations may Current—Based upon available data (3) Other Isolated Studies be partly attributable to the and information, the Florida bonneted Avon Park Air Force Range comprehensive array of detectors bat occurs within a restricted range and (APAFR)—An acoustical survey was deployed (e.g., saturation of specific in apparent low abundance (Marks and initiated at APAFR in January 2013. sites), multiple nights sampled, and Marks 2008a, p. 15; 2012, pp. 9–15; Surveys were conducted at 13 locations length of hours sampled (i.e., 7 hours or Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008, p. 1; over 119 survey nights (sunset to more each night). FWC 2011a, pp. 3–4; FWC 2011b, pp. 3, sunrise) (B. Scofield, pers. comm. Zoo Miami, Larry and Penny 6; R. Timm, pers. comm. 2012, in litt. 2013f). As of August 2013, a total of 9 Thompson Park, and Martinez 2012). Actual population size is not Florida bonneted bat call sequences (of Preserve—An acoustical survey of the known, and no population viability 2,170 total bat call sequences) were properties, totaling roughly ∼526 ha analyses are available (FWC 2011a, p. 4; recorded at two locations on APAFR in (∼1,300 ac), was conducted using a grid 2013, p. 16; K. Bohn, in litt. 2012). Polk County (B. Scofield, pers. comm. system and randomized sampling points However, population size is thought to 2013a–f). At one location, presence was (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013a–c). As of be less than that needed for optimum detected in scrubby flatwoods within a June 2013, 137 nights of recordings have viability (Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales red–cockaded woodpecker colony next been conducted, with recordings taken 2008, p. 1; K. Bohn, in litt. 2012). As

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61012 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

part of their evaluation of listing criteria pers. comm. 2011a, 2011b, 2012b–f; R. challenges associated with censusing for the species, Gore et al. (2010, p. 2) Arwood, pers. comm. 2012a, 2013a–c; bats (Kunz 2003, pp. 9–17), it will likely found that the extent of occurrence Marks and Marks 2012, p. 8), however, be difficult to accurately estimate the appears to have decreased on the east not in sufficient numbers to alter size of the Florida bonneted bat coast of Florida, but trends on the west previous population estimates. In their population (FWC 2013, p. 13). coast could not be inferred due to 2012 report on the status of the species, Alternative approaches, such as limited information. Marks and Marks (2012, p. 12) provided occupancy modeling and analysis of In his independent review of the an updated estimation of population genetic diversity, may provide better FWC’s biological status report, Ted size, based upon 120 nights of surveys estimates and more useful information Fleming, Emeritus Professor of biology at 96 locations within peninsular about population size in the future (K. at University of Miami, noted that Florida, results of other known surveys, Gillies, in litt. 2012; FWC 2013, p. 16). anecdotal evidence from the 1950s and and personal communications with 1960s suggests that this species was others involved in Florida bonneted bat Acoustical Survey Efforts as Indicators more common along Florida’s southeast work. Based upon an average colony of Rarity coast compared with the present (FWC size of 11 and an estimated 26 colonies A detailed discussion of acoustical 2011b, p. 3). Fleming stated that, ‘‘There within the species’ range, researchers survey effort and results can be found in can be no doubt that E. floridanus is an estimated the total Florida bonneted bat the proposed listing rule (77 FR 60750). uncommon bat throughout its very population at 286 bats (Marks and Only new information we received small range. Its audible echolocation Marks 2012, pp. 12–15). Researchers during the public comment period or calls are distinctive and easily acknowledged that this was to be relevant findings are provided below. recognized, making it relatively easy to considered a rough estimate, intended Results from acoustical surveys survey in the field’’ (FWC 2011b, p. 3). as a starting point and a basis for future conducted in late 2012 through mid- He also stated that he does not doubt work (Marks and Marks 2012, p. 12). 2013 detected generally few Florida that the total State population numbers In a vulnerability assessment, the bonneted bat calls in BCNP, except for ‘‘in the hundreds or low thousands’’ FWC’s biological status review team one location. In 296 nights of sampling, (FWC 2011b, p. 3). determined that the species met criteria 747 Florida bonneted bat calls of 36,441 Similarly, in response to a request for or listing measures for geographic range, total bat calls were recorded on 17 information as part of the Service’s population size and trend, and nights at 7 of 44 sites surveyed (R. annual candidate notice of review, population size and restricted area (Gore Arwood, pers. comm. 2013c). Most of Robert Timm (pers. comm. 2012), et al. 2010, pp. 1–2). For population size the positive calls (721) were recorded at Curator of at the Department and trend, the review team estimated one location (R. Arwood, pers. comm. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology <100 individuals known in roosts, with 2013c). Although it is difficult to and Biodiversity Institute at the an assumed total population of mature compare studies, these results appear to University of Kansas, indicated that individuals being well below the confirm previous findings suggesting numbers are low, in his view, as criterion of fewer than 10,000 mature rarity, particularly because this study documented by survey attempts: individuals. Similarly, for population employed longer recording intervals ‘‘Eumops are very obvious bats where size and restricted area, the review team (i.e., continuous recordings taken from they occur because of their large size estimated <100 individuals of all ages sunset to sunrise) with multiple nights and distinctive calls. Given the efforts to known in roost counts, inferring a total at each site survey site (R. Arwood, pers. locate them throughout southern population to number fewer than 1,000 comm. 2012b). Florida, if they were there in any mature individuals, and potentially significant numbers, they would have three subpopulations in south Florida. Acoustical surveys conducted at Zoo been located’’ (R. Timm, pers. comm. Detection of the species in the northern Miami and adjacent pinelands over 137 2012). part of its range may be suggestive of an nights of sampling detected 154 Florida Results of the 2006–2007 rangewide additional subpopulation in south- bonneted bat calls out of over 20,500 bat survey suggested that the Florida (see Current Distribution, call sequences recorded (F. Ridgley, bonneted bat is a rare species with above). In total, there may be three or pers. comm. 2013). Although difficult to limited range and low abundance four subpopulations. compare to other studies, it should be (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 15). Based Similarly, the 2012 IUCN Red List of noted that this study also employed upon results of both the rangewide Threatened Species lists the species as long recording intervals (i.e., continuous study and survey of select public lands, ‘‘’’ because ‘‘its recordings taken from sunset to sunrise) the species was found at 12 locations population size is estimated to number taken from an elevated microphone to (Marks and Marks 2008b, p. 4), but the fewer than 250 mature individuals, with improve detection. number and status of the bat at each no subpopulation greater than 50 Available data and information (from location are unknown. Based upon the individuals, and it is experiencing a previous efforts and those presented small number of locations where calls continuing decline’’ (Timm and Arroyo- above) show comparatively few positive were recorded, the low numbers of calls Cabrales 2008, p. 1). The FNAI (2013, Florida bonneted bat calls recorded recorded at each location, and the fact pp. 25, 29) also considers the global relative to other bat species with that the species forms small colonies, element rank of the Florida bonneted considerable survey effort expended. Marks and Marks (2008a, p. 15) stated bat to be G1, meaning it is critically Although acoustical data suggest general that it is possible that the entire imperiled globally because of extreme rarity, it is not possible to estimate population of Florida bonneted bats rarity (5 or fewer occurrences, or fewer population size from this information, may number less than a few hundred than 1,000 individuals) or because of due to the limitations of the studies individuals. extreme vulnerability to extinction due (e.g., large areas not surveyed, surveys Results of the 2010–2012 surveys and to some natural or manmade factor. primarily conducted on public lands, additional surveys by other researchers Estimates of population size are lack of randomization in selecting identified new occurrences within the crude, relative, and largely based upon survey sites, short duration of many established range (i.e., within Miami expert opinions and inferences from listening periods) and equipment (e.g., area, areas of ENP and BCNP) (S. Snow, available data. Due to the numerous recording distance), and aspects of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61013

species’ ecology (e.g., able to high Birchfield, pers. comm. 2010). In 2012– recorded at 9 of 13 locations, primarily and travel far distances). 2013, periodic simultaneous counts in areas of the largest open water and in conducted on 4 occasions showed 39 to the area of the Fakahatchee Strand that Occupied and Potential Occupied Areas 43 individuals using 3 to 5 separate bisects the refuge (Maehr 2013, pp. 7– The Florida bonneted bat has been roosts (all bat houses) (J. Myers, pers. 9; S. Maehr, pers. comm. 2013a–c). recorded in various habitat types and comm. 2013). In addition, FWC FSPSP—Florida bonneted bat calls locations in south and southwest biologists report also hearing Florida have been heard and recorded Florida (see Table 1 and Habitat, above) bonneted bat calls in the vicinity of red- throughout the year from several (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2008a, 2008b, cockaded woodpecker cavity trees on locations and habitat types within the 2012a, 2013a-d; Marks and Marks site (J. Myers, pers. comm. 2012a). The FSPSP from 2000 to present (Marks and 2008a, pp. 13–14; 2008b, pp. 2–5; species is likely also using natural Marks 2008a, pp. 6, 11; M. Owen, pers. 2008c, pp. 1–28; 2012, pp. 1–22; Smith roosts sites within the area (Marks and comm. 2012a, 2012b; R. Rau, pers. 2010, pp. 1–4; S. Snow, pers. comm. Marks 2012, pp. 13, 15; P. Halupa, pers. comm. 2012; K. Relish, pers. comm. 2011a, 2011b, 2012b–h; in litt. 2012; M. obs. 2013; M. Knight, pers. comm. 2013). Owen, pers. comm. 2012, 2012b; R. Rau, 2013). PSSF—Florida bonneted bats have pers. comm. 2012; Maehr 2013, pp. 1– Babcock Ranch Preserve—Florida been detected at nine locations within 13; S. Maehr, pers. comm. 2013a–c; K. bonneted bat calls recorded at Telegraph PSSF (K. Smith, pers. comm. 2013). A Relish, pers. comm. 2013; F. Ridgley, Swamp at Babcock Ranch Preserve in juvenile male was captured in a mist net pers. comm. 2013a–c; B. Scofield, pers. 2007 are believed to represent separate above a canal in PSSF in 2009, but no comm. 2013a–f; K. Smith, pers. comm. colonies from those at Babcock–Webb other Florida bonneted bats were 2013). Still, no actual colony locations WMA (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. A9; captured during additional trapping or roost sites other than occupied bat 2012, p. 13). efforts (14 trap nights) (K. Smith, pers. houses are currently known, and large Other Potential Areas—The FDEP also comm. 2010; Smith 2010, p. 1). In information gaps in the species’ ecology suggested that the species may occur at addition to the captured individual, the currently exist. Roosting and foraging Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park (P. species was heard while mist netting at behavior and habitat are not fully Small, pers. comm. 2012). eight other locations (K. Smith, pers. comm. 2013). understood. It is not known how far Lee County individuals travel from roosting BCNP—Calls have been recorded at locations to forage or to fulfill other North Fort Myers—Florida bonneted various locations by multiple parties (R. needs. Dietary requirements, colony bats have continually used bat houses Arwood, pers. comm. 2008b, 2012a, composition, movement between roosts on one private property since December 2013a–d; Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. or among colonies, and many other 2002 (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2006a, 11, A12–A14; 2012, pp. 13–14; S. Snow, basic aspects of the species’ life history 2012a, 2013; Marks and Marks 2008a, p. pers. comm. 2012g). Survey efforts from are poorly understood. Despite these 7). This was the first record of this 2003 and 2007 by one contractor uncertainties, there is evidence that the species using a bat house as a roost and recorded presence at several locations species occupies at least portions of five the only known location of an active (S. Snow, pers. comm. 2012g). However, south and southwest Florida counties colony roost located on private land (S. results of the rangewide survey in 2006– (Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Monroe, and Trokey, pers. comm. 2006a; Marks and 2007 recorded only one call at Deep Miami-Dade Counties) within the core Marks 2008a, pp. 7–15). The colony had Lake in 12 nights of surveys (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2008b; Marks and Marks of its range as explained below. In included approximately 20 to 24 2008a, pp. 11, A12–A14). In 2012, five addition, there is additional evidence individuals in 2 houses (S. Trokey, pers. calls were recorded at Cal Stone’s camp that the species occupies portions of comm. 2008a, 2008b), but only 10 during 2 nights of surveys (R. Arwood, south-central Florida (Polk and remained by April 2010, after the pers. comm. 2012a; Marks and Marks Okeechobee Counties) (Marks and prolonged cold temperatures in January 2012, pp. 13–14). Presence was also Marks 2008b, pp. 2, 5; 2008c, pp. 11, 17; and February 2010 (S. Trokey, pers. recorded at seven locations within B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2013a–f). Areas comm. 2010a–c) (see also Summary of BCNP in late 2012 through mid-2013 (R. adjacent to or near these locations may Factors Affecting the Species, Factor E, Arwood, pers. comm. 2013a–d). This also be occupied. below). In May 2011, 20 Florida bonneted bats were found using this site latter study employed longer listening Core Areas (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2011). In intervals and multiple survey nights at each site (R. Arwood, pers. comm. Charlotte County February 2012, 18 individuals were found (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2012a), 2012b). Babcock-Webb WMA—Florida and in March 2013, 20 individuals were Everglades City—Available data bonneted bats have consistently used found (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2013). suggest that the species is present in the this area since 2008 (J. Myers, pers. Other Potential Areas—Florida area (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2008a; comm. 2013). The colonies at Babcock- bonneted bat calls have also been heard Marks and Marks 2012, p. 14). Webb WMA are the only known roosts elsewhere in the rural North Fort Myers Ten Thousand Islands area—The on public lands and effectively tripled area, approximately 6 to 8 km (4 to 5 mi) Florida bonneted bat was detected at the number of known active colonies (N. south of Babcock-Webb WMA (S. Dismal Key in Ten Thousand Islands Douglass, pers. comm. 2009). The 33 Trokey, pers. comm. 2013). NWR in 2000 (Timm and Genoways individuals recorded in 2009 appeared 2004, p. 861; B. Nottingham, pers. to be the largest single discovery of the Collier County comm. 2006; T. Doyle, pers. comm. species recorded in recent years (N. Naples—Available data from a single 2006; C. Marks, pers. comm. 2006c; Douglass, pers. comm. 2009). In 2010, fixed site suggest that the species is Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 6). Calls monitoring by FWC indicated present in the area (R. Arwood, pers. were not recorded during the 2006–2007 approximately 25 individuals at 2 comm. 2008a; Marks and Marks 2008a, survey in areas searched by boat from additional bat houses, bringing the p. 11; 2012, p. 13). Dismal Key to Port of the Islands (Marks potential total at Babcock-Webb WMA Florida Panther NWR—In 2013, and Marks 2008a, pp. 11, 14, A9). to 58 individuals, occupying 4 roosts (J. Florida bonneted bats calls were However, Florida bonneted bat calls

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61014 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

were reportedly heard by a volunteer at N canal in 2012 suggest that colonies are requested that all interested parties Port of the Islands (R. Arwood, pers. at or near these locations (Marks and submit written comments on the comm. 2012b). Marks 2008b, pp. 1–2; 2012, pp. 1–22 proposal by December 3, 2012. We also Other Potential Areas—In November and appendices; S. Snow, pers. comm. contacted appropriate Federal and State 2007, the species was observed along 2011b, 2012b–f; Ridgley 2012, p. 1; F. agencies, scientific experts and U.S. 41 at Collier–Seminole State Park Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013a–c). At Zoo organizations, and other interested (S. Braem, pers. comm. 2012). The FDEP Miami and Larry and Penny Thompson parties and invited them to comment on also suggested that the species may Park, all early evening calls have been the proposal. Notices inviting general occur at Delnor–Wiggins Pass State Park recorded at the edge of a tract of intact public comment were published in the (P. Small, pers. comm. 2012). pine rockland (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. following Florida newspapers: The Monroe County 2013b). Miami Herald, Naples Daily News, Other Potential Areas—Other Orlando Sentinel, The Palm Beach Post, ENP (coastal)—In 2012, only one undeveloped areas within the The News–Press (based in Fort Myers), Florida bonneted bat call was recorded Richmond Pinelands likely also provide Charlotte Sun and Englewood Sun at Darwin’s Place in ENP in 18 survey habitat (J. Maguire, in litt. 2012). These (based in Charlotte County), and The nights in areas searched from Flamingo may include Federal land holdings (i.e., Ledger (based in Lakeland) on Sunday, to Everglades City (Marks and Marks owned by the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. October 14, 2012. We did not receive 2012, pp. 8, 14, A50). Darwin’s Place is Army, and General Services any requests for a public hearing. approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) from Administration), large parcels owned by During the comment period for the Watson’s Place, where another the University of Miami, or other areas proposed rule, we received 37 comment researcher (Laura Finn, Fly-By-Night) (J. Maguire, in litt. 2012). letters (from 39 entities) directly had recorded 10 Florida bonneted bat addressing the proposed listing of the calls in 2007 (Marks and Marks 2012, p. Non-Core Areas Florida bonneted bat as an endangered 14; S. Snow, pers. comm. 2012h). Polk County species, including the finding that Other Potential Areas—Other coastal KICCO WMA—Florida bonneted bat critical habitat was prudent, but not and remote areas within ENP may calls were recorded along the determinable. With regard to listing the support the species; however, additional Kissimmee River in in May 2008 (Marks Florida bonneted bat as an endangered surveys are needed. and Marks 2008b, p. 2; 2008c, pp. 11, species, 28 comments were in support, Miami-Dade County 17). Documented presence along the four were in opposition, and five were ENP (mainland)—Acoustical surveys Kissimmee River was significant as this neutral. With regard to critical habitat, conducted on 80 nights from October was the first time the species had been five comment letters expressed 2011 to November 2012 by Skip Snow detected north of Lake Okeechobee, opinions. Of these, three peer reviewers (pers. comm. 2012b–f; in litt. 2012) except in fossil records, and effectively stated that more information was documented presence at several extended the known range 80 km (50 needed to determine critical habitat, and mi) north (Marks and Marks 2008b, pp. locations within ENP and surrounding two environmental groups indicated 2, 5; 2008c, pp. 1–28). locations (see Table 1). Results of the that such designation should be a timely APAFR—Florida bonneted bat calls goal or completed promptly. All 2006–2008 survey did not detect Florida were recorded at two of 13 locations on bonneted bat calls in the Long Pine Key substantive information provided APAFR in 2013 (B. Scofield, pers. during the comment period has either area, which was thought to be the most comm. 2013a-f). These findings are likely location for the species (Marks been incorporated directly into this final significant because they provide determination or is addressed below. and Marks 2008a, p. 10; 2012, p. 14). additional evidence of current presence However, the species was subsequently in the northern part of the species’ Peer Review recorded in the Long Pine Key area in range, where survey information is 2011 and 2012 (S. Snow, pers. comm. In accordance with our peer review generally lacking. policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 2011a, 2012f; in litt. 2012; Marks and Other Potential Areas—Areas along Marks 2012, pp. 8, 14, 17). 34270), we solicited expert opinion the Kissimmee or other areas within from 10 individuals with recognized Homestead area—Calls recorded in Polk County (and possibly adjacent the Homestead area in 2006 and in 2008 expertise on bats, particularly counties) may support the species; molossids, as well as general expertise suggest that one colony exists, possibly however, additional surveys are needed. located east of U.S. 1 (Marks and Marks on bat ecology and conservation. We 2008a, pp. 11, A6–A7; 2008b, p. 5; 2012, Okeechobee County received responses from six of the peer p. 14). Kissimmee River Public Use Area— reviewers. Coral Gables and Miami area— Florida bonneted bat calls were We reviewed all comments we Florida bonneted bat calls have been recorded at Platt’s Bluff along the received from peer reviewers for consistently recorded in acoustical Kissimmee River in Okeechobee County substantive and new information surveys at the Granada Golf Course in in May 2008 (Marks and Marks 2008b, regarding the listing of the Florida Coral Gables, but not elsewhere in the p. 2; 2008c, pp. 11, 17). bonneted bat as an endangered species. vicinity (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 6, Other Potential Areas—Areas along The peer reviewers generally concurred A4; 2008b, pp. 1–6; 2012, p. 14). Since the Kissimmee River or other areas with our methods and conclusions, and calls were recorded so shortly after within Okeechobee County (and provided additional information, sunset, the species may be roosting on possibly adjacent counties) may support clarifications, and suggestions to or adjacent to the golf course (Marks and the species; however, additional surveys improve the final rule. Of the six Marks 2012, p. 14). Calls recorded at are needed. reviews we received, three reviewers Snapper Creek Park in south Miami in commented on critical habitat and 2008, Zoo Miami in 2011–2013, Larry Summary of Comments and agreed that additional information was and Penny Thompson Park and Recommendations needed to help define critical habitat. Martinez Preserve in 2012 and 2013, In the proposed rule published on Peer reviewer comments are addressed FTBG in 2011 and 2012, and the L31– October 4, 2012 (77 FR 60750), we in the following summary and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61015

incorporated into the final rule as sorting in the mitochondrial genomes of study is to gain a better understanding appropriate. Eumops from the region and of aspects of the Florida bonneted bat’s represented recently diverged taxa. biology to enable the development of Peer Reviewer Comments Eight other commenters also indicated recommendations for additional This section focuses on comments that the species is ‘‘evolutionarily conservation measures for the species from peer reviewers and our responses distinct’’ and ‘‘unique enough to be (Ober and McCleery 2012, p. 2). We to them. However, we have also considered a separate species.’’ believe this new study and other included other public comments in this Our Response: We appreciate the research will provide important data section (referred to as ‘‘other reviewers’ confirmation that Eumops and insights and greatly aid in commenters’’ or ‘‘commenters’’) if those floridanus is unique and continue to conservation of the species and its comments were related in topic to peer affirm that the taxon is distinct at the habitat. reviewer comments. species level, based upon the best (3) Comment: Three reviewers and 11 scientific information available and peer Comments Related to the Species and Its commenters in support of the listing review of that information. We Ecology expressed concern over the species’ acknowledge the recent thesis (Bartlett restricted geographic range as a factor (1) Comment: One peer reviewer, who 2012, pp. 1–33) and subsequent paper contributing to its imperilment. One first recognized the unique (Bartlett et al. 2013, pp. 867–880), but reviewer stated that the Florida morphological and genetic population they do not alter our conclusions. bonneted bat has the most restrictive of bonneted bats in southern and Bartlett (2012, p. 13) and Bartlett et al. range of any bat in the and southwestern Florida merited (2013, pp. 875–876) acknowledged that suggested that a single storm (such as recognition as a full species rather than E. floridanus is distinguished from other Hurricane Sandy) could kill most of the a subspecies, reconfirmed the members of the E. glaucinus complex individuals over a fairly broad area. information summarized in the based upon several features as described Another reviewer acknowledged the proposed rule as it related to taxonomy by Timm and Genoways (2004). species’ extremely restricted range, but and stated that the Florida bonneted bat However, based upon examination of disagreed with the statement that the is clearly a ‘‘distinctive’’ species. He the cytochrome-b dataset, researchers Florida bonneted bat has the most indicated that he has personally found a low level of sequence restricted range of any Florida . examined all of the specimens of the divergence among and between E. ferox One reviewer stated that our species deposited in the world’s and E. floridanus and incomplete understanding of the distribution of the scientific collections, and that he and separation of the two species; therefore, species is extremely limited due to his colleagues have conducted the researchers suggested reevaluation of E. shortcomings of the surveys conducted morphological and genetic studies floridanus as a valid species. Additional to date and the high degree of variability comparing and contrasting this species morphological and genetic studies in the temporal component of the to other species of Eumops and other comparing and contrasting E. floridanus survey effort. In her view, our proposed molossids. to other species of Eumops and other rule suggested that it is easy to survey Another reviewer with expertise in molossids will provide further insights through acoustical means; she systematics and evolutionary biology into their relationships and phylogenies. emphasized that although the calls are related to mammals, who has published (2) Comment: One reviewer stated distinctive, the short-duration listening articles on the evolutionary that the Florida bonneted bat’s life intervals of many surveys may relationships of various Eumops history is very poorly understood and erroneously conclude that an area is not species, also agreed with the emphasized that a critical factor to being used. Since bat activity can vary interpretation of literature regarding understand is reproductive approach. greatly at a single location both within systematics, evolution, and fossil data. The reviewer stated that it is imperative and between nights (Hayes 1997, pp. She indicated that although nuclear to determine if the species is indeed 514–524; 2000, pp. 225–236), a lack of (AFLP) and mitochondrial data do not polyestrous, as speculated. She also calls during a short listening period may demonstrate a distinct genetic signature underscored the need to determine not be indicative of lack of use. The when compared to Eumops from the other metrics, such as genetic diversity variable duration of the listening , the cranial and bacular and roosting ecology, in order to periods of past surveys makes it difficult (penile bone) morphology indicate that prioritize conservation measures in a to make conclusions about changes in Eumops from Florida are unique and recovery plan. occupancy or activity levels over time therefore merit specific status. She Another reviewer stated that low and space. further suggested that genetic distances reproductive rate and other factors Another reviewer emphasized that the indicate that E. floridanus is a recent (discussed below) make extinction extent of the species’ range must be species, and this is confirmed by fossil highly probable. Nine commenters also determined to mitigate potential evidence from the Pleistocene. expressed concern over low fecundity or impacts from land use activities and to This reviewer also provided a slow population growth. identify areas for priority conservation. Master’s thesis (Bartlett 2012, pp. 1–33), Our Response: We agree that the life Eight commenters in support of the which examined additional history of the species is poorly proposed listing also noted that the mitochondrial and nuclear data for the understood, and that determining the species is ‘‘geographically isolated.’’ genus, but did not include additional species’ reproductive approach and Some in opposition to the proposed nuclear data for E. floridanus. She other aspects of its life history and listing offered other views. One indicated that the mitochondrial data in ecology (e.g., longevity, colony sizes, commenter noted that the recent this thesis demonstrated the same foraging and roosting preferences) will surveys have documented the species in results as those found in McDonough et be essential to minimizing threats and at least seven Florida counties, al. 2008 that support E. floridanus conserving the species and its habitat. suggesting a range expansion. Another having a similar mitochondrial DNA The FWC recently funded a large multi- commenter indicated that the species’ sequence signature as those from the year study that is expected to close range is larger than previously Caribbean. In her view, the signature some of the data gaps for the Florida understood and suggested additional was likely a result of incomplete lineage bonneted bat. The ultimate goal of the surveys. The same commenter suggested

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61016 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

that range ‘‘be properly defined’’ FWC, Miami Zoo, FBC) to obtain and than 10 individuals. Second, roost sites through additional surveys in rural analyze additional data. For example, function as information centers for areas containing habitat similar to those we are attempting to collect additional many species of bats (e.g., the velvety areas where sightings have been data along the northern extent of the free-tailed bat ( molossus), see recorded and that surveys be conducted species’ known range; this could help Dechmann et al. 2010). The reviewer’s over as many as 10 nights per survey determine if portions of Polk and observations of one Florida bonneted region. The same commenter also Okeechobee Counties should also be bat colony suggested that the species is suggested that a survey using Florida considered part of the species’ core highly social, much like Brazilian free- bonneted bat-optimized bat houses range. Additional data from this area are tailed bats (Bohn et al. 2008, pp. 1838– erected in strategic locations could also key to determining if this is an apparent 1848), which may have an effect on provide data related to the range east expansion of the species’ known range. viability at low population sizes. and west of the Kissimmee River basin. Recording devices are also being used in One reviewer acknowledged that the Another commenter did not think there more places for longer periods of time Service and its partners may be unable was enough survey information over multiple nights in BCNP (see to confidently estimate a population available to establish range. above, R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2013a- size for the Florida bonneted bat and One commenter, who did not express d). A new acoustical study was also noted that challenges arise when trying an opinion on the listing action, conducted at the Florida Panther NWR, to estimate population size for recommended that the Service design an with the help and support of other organisms that are ‘‘cryptic, volant, echolocation survey protocol based on NWRs in the southeast. We believe the elusive, rare, and highly mobile.’’ She the best scientific data that defines additional data from multiple sources suggested that when detection survey seasons, duration of surveys, will be useful in better defining range probabilities are exceptionally low, methodology, number of survey periods, and key to better understanding the erroneous population estimates and and types of data to be collected. He species’ biology, relative abundance, trends may result. Her recommendation recommended that the Service require and habitat preferences. was to use alternate approaches, surveys to be conducted in the core Although previous surveys have including patch occupancy models, range prior to construction in natural limitations, there is ample scientific which are more appropriate tools for habitats. In his view, additional evidence to indicate that the Florida estimating distribution trends. echolocation data would provide bonneted bat has a very restricted range, Another reviewer did not believe that evidence of presence/absence and that perhaps one of the most restricted of population estimates could be derived continued surveys over time in different any bat in the United States. We have from available data. In her view, there locations would provide additional made clarifications to the text regarding is no way to extrapolate from surveys information on the species’ distribution range and have more thoroughly conducted along roads to areas without and habitat utilization. Mist netting was discussed the limitations of surveys roads that were not surveyed or from also suggested in combination with accordingly. The data indicate that the conservation areas that were surveyed to echolocation surveys. species’ limited range contributes to its Our Response: Our understanding of imperilment; some threats (e.g., private agricultural areas that were not the species’ distribution, as well as its hurricanes, climate change) have the surveyed. She specifically indicated that abundance, biology, and habitat potential to have severe consequences due to the immense areas that were not preferences, would benefit from on the species and its habitat in a single surveyed, the short duration of many additional survey information and widespread or regional event. listening periods, and the lack of research. We acknowledge that the We agree that an acoustical survey randomization when selecting survey surveys conducted to date have been protocol or broader survey guidelines sites, it could not be said that ‘‘it is not limited in scope and inconsistent in for the Florida bonneted bat should be likely that abundance is appreciably methods used. More robust study established, and we intend to work larger than the current available designs would account for sources of towards that in cooperation with population estimates given.’’ temporal, spatial, and sampling partners. A well-defined protocol with Other commenters in opposition to variation (Hayes 2000, pp. 225–236). consistent and repeated surveys, in the proposed listing offered different Longer surveys at more locations over combination with other studies, would views. One commenter objected to additional nights and seasons using help to better understand distribution, listing the species as endangered due to more consistent methods would relative abundance, biology, and habitat the lack of good population studies. He undoubtedly contribute to increasing preferences. See also Comment 4 and argued that with no known roosting understanding. Surveys that are longer our response, below. areas and just a few known sightings, in duration (e.g., conducted throughout (4) Comment: Three peer reviewers there was not enough evidence to the entire night) and repeated over and 13 commenters in support of the declare the bat endangered. One several nights would help add listing expressed concern over the commenter indicated that it is difficult confidence regarding potential use of an apparent rarity or small population size to have a reliable estimate of current area. We note that some of the most as a factor contributing to its population, given the limitations of recent studies (see Other Isolated imperilment. Although the minimum sampling, including limitations in Studies, above) are employing or have viable population size is not known, one detection from ultrasonic devices and used such methods. Additional surveys reviewer predicted a ‘‘strong Allee the high–flying habits of the species. along peripheral portions of the range effect’’ (decline in individual fitness) at This commenter endorsed the could help to better define occupancy. low population sizes due to at least two suggestion provided by another See also Comment 4 and our response, factors. First, offspring survival in bats commenter who had recommended that below. is usually highly correlated with the Service design an echolocation In an effort to acquire more maternity colony size due to survey protocol. Another commenter information, the Service purchased five thermoregulation, and colony sizes for stated that the surveys cannot be used acoustical recording devices in 2012, this species are relatively small. Thus, to establish abundance or range, due to and we are working with numerous low survival is expected if females are so few surveys being conducted, surveys partners (BCNP, ENP, APAFR, FSPSP, roosting solitarily or in numbers fewer mainly being conducted in open areas,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61017

and the vast areas of potential habitat explain uncertainty and limitations of events as indicated by the ‘‘feeding that have not been surveyed. available information. buzz.’’ ENP believes that it is not Another commenter indicated that the (5) Comment: One reviewer unreasonable to consider that the population size for the Florida bonneted acknowledged that the foraging behavior Florida bonneted bat may forage some of bat is much larger than originally of the Florida bonneted bat has not been the time and perhaps frequently at estimated based upon 12 new sightings studied in detail and provided insights altitudes beyond the range of detection since 2008. The same commenter used into probable foraging behavior based by acoustic survey equipment. the new information to negate criteria upon its morphology. She stated that Another commenter argued that since used within the State’s biological status molossids are highly adapted for the species forages at heights of 10 m review, suggesting that data were hawking high-flying insects (Norberg (33 ft) or more, it is possible that the ignored. This commenter suggested that and Rayner 1987) and are characterized species forages above canopied areas. the survey intensity for many parts of by high aspect ratios, high wing This commenter contended that there Florida were insufficient, and that every loadings, long pointed wingtips, and use was no information or extensive surveys time a survey has been performed of low frequency narrowband from canopied areas and that actual additional sightings have been recorded echolocation calls, which collectively foraging sites have not been in new locations. make them well-suited for fast flight at scientifically determined. Our Response: We acknowledge that high altitudes and prey detection at long Our Response: We acknowledge that the survey information available to date distances, relative to other bats. The the Florida bonneted bat’s dispersal is limited in many regards, and that it reviewer pointed out that species with capabilities, foraging behavior, habitat is not possible to estimate population these morphological features are affinities, and home ranges are not size on this information alone. We have considered to be adapted for low cost, clearly understood. We agree that the Florida bonneted bat is likely capable of added clarifications regarding the swift, long distance travel from roost dispersing large distances and believe it limitations and short-comings of the sites to foraging areas. In her view, these may have considerable home ranges. For acoustical surveys and have re- morphological characteristics and comparison, in one study in Arizona, examined how we use this information. echolocation call structure likely Underwood’s mastiff bat was found to It was not our intent to imply that preclude their ability to maneuver or range up to 24 km (15 mi) or more on population estimates were derived detect prey at short range in cluttered foraging bouts from its roost site, purely or directly from acoustical conditions, given their large turning radius and the limited information suggesting that roost sites do not need surveys. We have made adjustments to obtained through the use of low to be available in close proximity to the text and tried to more clearly frequency, narrowband echolocation foraging areas (Tibbitts et al. 2002, p. articulate that the population estimates calls. Therefore, she surmised that it 11). We have clarified the text are only relative numbers of abundance, seems likely that foraging areas may be accordingly (see Background, above). largely based upon expert opinions and located fairly long distances from roost We agree that the species’ inferences from available data. We are sites, and that foraging likely occurs morphological characteristics make it unable to confidently estimate either at high altitudes or in fairly open reasonable to assume that foraging areas population size for this species at this habitat. may be located fairly long distances time. Another reviewer noted that the from roosts sites, and that foraging Our understanding of the species’ Florida bonneted bat is a molossid, likely occurs either at high altitudes or abundance, as well as its distribution, which ‘‘consists of high flying bats in fairly open habitat. We do not biology, and habitat preferences, would capable of dispersing great distances’’. dismiss the idea that foraging habitat benefit from additional survey She recommended a study that may include canopied areas; the species information and research (see Comment identifies home ranges and habitat may forage above, within, or adjacent to 3 and our response, above). We agree affinities to determine the physical and canopied areas. We agree that the lack that it would be beneficial to use patch biological features essential to the of or limited number of ‘‘feeding occupancy models and other conservation of the species. buzzes’’ recorded to date may further approaches to estimating distribution The NPS (ENP) commented on an suggest that the species forages at trends. We agree that it would be effort to better understand foraging altitudes beyond the range of detection helpful to have more randomized behavior and foraging habitat. A of acoustic survey equipment. The only surveys, longer listening periods, more biologist from ENP reviewed all acoustic set of ‘‘feeding buzzes’’ for the species areas surveyed, and repeated surveys. files available, from 2000 to present, that we are aware of were recorded at We intend to work with our partners on which were identified as belonging to the Granada Golf Course in Coral Gables an acoustical survey protocol design, the Florida bonneted bat to better in late February 2013 (C. Marks, pers. which if employed consistently, could understand foraging habitat. Review of comm. 2013). improve the quality of information these files did not reveal any definitive Additional studies are needed to more obtained in the future. ‘‘feeding buzzes’’, a feature presumed completely understand foraging The best available scientific indicative of successful foraging in other behavior and habitat preferences. In information and the majority of expert bats. Biologists in south Florida future acoustical studies, it may be opinions indicate that the Florida conducting acoustical surveys were also beneficial to sample vertical strata bonneted bat population is relatively queried by ENP, and they confirmed where possible, to determine activity small (see Population Estimates and that they had yet to identify a feeding and obtain additional insights into Status and Acoustical Survey Efforts as buzz attributable to the Florida habitat use (Hayes 2000, p. 229). Placing Indicators of Rarity, above) and the bonneted bat. In this view, the recording devices at higher positions in species’ apparent low abundance is a ecomorphology of the Florida bonneted the landscape (e.g., fire towers) may be major factor in its overall imperilment bat, and Eumops spp. in general, helpful in determining if foraging is (see Factor E, Effects of Small suggests a bat that flies high, relatively occurring at higher altitudes. Longer Population Size, Isolation, and Other fast, and quite possibly far. Those recording intervals, more survey Factors, below). We have revised the characteristics confound acoustic locations, and additional analysis of above sections to clarify and better detection, including capturing feeding echolocation data may be helpful in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61018 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

identification of more ‘‘feeding buzzes’’ adaptive advantage in the future and 11). Artificial structures may be more and improved understanding. The use allows for the possibility of future likely to be disturbed, may be more of tracking devices such as transmitters, habitat enhancement through the prone to vandalism, and may or may not if tolerated by this species, may be creation of additional artificial roosts be maintained. extremely helpful to understanding with suitable characteristics, once We disagree with the views opposing movements, including insights into determined. the listing due to lack of information on foraging distances and behavior. We One reviewer indicated that since so preferred roosting habitats. Listing note that the FWC recently funded a little is known about this species’ decisions are based upon all available large multi-year study that is expected roosting habits, it is possible that palm data and information and threats (see to close some of the data gaps for the fronds are used for roosting. In her view, Background, above, and Summary of Florida bonneted bat, including, in part, it is imperative to determine roosting Factors Affecting the Species and habitat selection. This study is expected ecology and other metrics to prioritize Determination of Status, below). While to begin in January 2014 (H. Ober, pers. conservation measures in a recovery there may be more artificial roosting comm. 2013). Analysis of guano will be plan. Another reviewer indicated that opportunities available now due to helpful in identifying prey items, roost sites function as information development, we do not have data that assessing the availability of prey, and centers for many species of bats, indicate the species has more suitable understanding foraging habitat. At this including the molossid, the velvety free- roosting sites overall. Natural roost sites time, we are working with researchers tailed bat (Dechmann et al. 2010). have undoubtedly been lost due to and partners to conduct limited dietary With regard to roosting sites, the FWC changes in land use (see Summary of analysis. suggested clarification for the term ‘‘key Factors Affecting the Species, Factor A), (6) Comment: One reviewer roosting sites’’ or using simply using the and competition for tree cavities has commented extensively on roost site term ‘‘roosting sites’’ instead, indicating increased (see Summary of Factors selection, stating that there is a high that there was no information to suggest Affecting the Species, Factor E, probability that Florida bonneted bat that some roosting sites may be more Competition for Tree Cavities, and individuals would tend towards high critical than others. Comment 9 and our response, below). roost site fidelity. She pointed to the Eleven commenters in support of the Additionally, changes in building codes work of Lewis (1995), who in her listing also mentioned lack of roosting may have reduced opportunities in review, found that bats that roost in information. Several suggested that we some artificial structures (see Comment buildings tend to be more site-faithful know less about this species than when 11 and our response, below). than those that roost in trees, and that it was first considered for protection. We acknowledge that we do not fully among the bats that roost in trees, those Commenters in opposition to the understand roosting habitat preferences, that use cavities in large trees tend to proposed listing offered different views. but we are working with partners to more site-faithful than those using Two commenters stated that there is not locate roosts and better understand the smaller trees. Given its large size, this enough evidence to declare the bat ecology of the species. Additional reviewer surmised that the Florida endangered when we have such limited acoustical data are being collected from bonneted bat is likely to select large information regarding roosting areas or more sites for longer periods of time. In trees. She noted the large accumulation preferred roosting habitat. Another February 2013, we worked with Auburn of guano in one known historical commenter believed the species’ University and numerous land managers natural roost (1 m [3.3 ft] deep) adaptability to human structures is a and partners across south Florida to use provided further evidence of high roost positive and questioned if the species trained scent detection dogs in an effort fidelity, especially given the small has more roosting opportunities now to identify and locate potential natural number of individuals per colony. than it did historically due to roosts. The dogs showed interest in Although it is not known if the species development. several large cavity trees and snags. more commonly uses tree cavities or Our Response: We agree with views Follow-up work (e.g., acoustical buildings, the reviewer stated that the regarding roosting habits and believe surveys, infrared cameras, cavity loss of a roost site is likely to cause a that finding natural roosting sites and inspection, guano collection) is being greater hardship to the species than the better understanding preferences is conducted to determine if Florida loss of a roost site for other, more labile crucial to conserving the species. The bonneted bats or other bat species are (readily open to change) species. In her Florida bonneted bat may indeed have using these trees and snags as roosts. To view, the threat imposed by the loss of high roost site fidelity, as one reviewer date, no active, natural roosts for the individual roost sites was understated suggested, and the loss of any roost site Florida bonneted bat have been in the proposed rule. for this species may have profound confirmed. The same reviewer noted that larger consequences. We agree that it is likely Comments Relating to Threats roosts tend to have greater that all roost sites are important and microclimatic variability within a roost clarified the importance of roosting sites (7) Comment: Three reviewers and 11 than do smaller spaces, which could accordingly. See also Comment 4 and commenters in support of the listing increase the relative importance of our response, above. remarked on habitat loss, modification, manmade roosts to the species as We agree that the species’ ability to or curtailment of range. One reviewer climate variability increases in the adapt to artificial structures can be stated that loss of habitat, especially future. For example, she suggested that beneficial in some regards. For example, forested areas, is among the most bats roosting in tree cavities may need artificial structures may provide important threats. Another reviewer to switch roosts in response to a cold potential suitable roost sites in areas stated that the loss of individual roost spell, making them vulnerable to where natural roost sites are lacking, sites (from exclusion, demolition, tree exposure, predation, or other threats, limited, or inadequate. However, we harvest, or other factors) was whereas individuals using larger caution against the mindset that understated in the proposed rule buildings may be able to simply change artificial structures can equally replace because of suspected high roost fidelity. locations within their roost. She pointed natural roosts. More research on the role Another reviewer stated that habitat out that the species’ use of of bat houses in the conservation of the loss, degradation, alteration, and anthropogenic structures may confer an species is needed (FWC 2013, pp. 10– fragmentation are significant threats; in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61019

order to mitigate potential impacts from Another commenter, writing on behalf The Service has awarded grant funding land use activities and to identify areas of its organization with more than through its Cooperative Endangered for priority conservation actions, the 450,000 members and activists, Species Conservation Fund to assist in extent of the species’ range must be provided extensive comments on the development of the HCP. This determined. climate change and contended that the proposed project, like others within the One commenter, writing on behalf of Florida bonneted bat faces significant species’ current range, will be evaluated an environmental group with more than risks from coastal squeeze, which occurs through the regulatory framework 4,000 members with a focus in when habitat is pressed between rising provided by the Act. southwest Florida, stated that the sea levels and coastal development that We agree that coastal squeeze is a species faces continued threats from prevents landward movement (Scavia et major problem, which will accelerate in habitat loss and specifically from al. 2002; FitzGerald et al. 2008; Defeo et the future. We have revised the text to several proposed large-scale al. 2009; LeDee et al. 2010; Menon et al. more fully describe anticipated impacts developments, mines, and 2010; Noss 2011). The group contended (see Summary of Factors Affecting the transportation projects. The group that human responses to sea level rise Species, Factor A, Alternative Future highlighted proposed projects in their (e.g., coastal armoring and landward Landscape Models and Coastal Squeeze, five-county area of focus (i.e., Lee, migration) (Defeo et al. 2009, pp. 6–8) below, and Comments 8, 11, 16, and 20, Collier, Hendry, Glades, and Charlotte), also pose significant risk to bat habitat, and our responses to them, below). stating that thousands of acres of and projected human population growth We agree that surveys for the species impacts are expected in a variety of and development in Florida threaten should be conducted prior to large-scale habitat types. In Charlotte County, the urban roosting sites with coastal land use changes within key natural group specifically noted the Babcock squeeze, particularly in North Fort habitats (e.g., forests or water bodies) within the core range. We intend on Ranch Community (encompassing over Myers, Naples, Homestead, and Coral working on an acoustical survey 17,000 acres (ac)) and the Burnt Store Gables/Miami (Zwick and Carr 2006). protocol and broader survey guidelines, Area Plan near Punta Gorda would One commenter, who did not express as indicated above (see Comments 3 and allow mixed use development within an support or opposition to the proposed 4, and our responses to them, above). area thousands of acres in size. In listing action, suggested that habitat However, due to the difficulties in Hendry County, it noted the Rodina development continues in the species’ detection of this species, repeated sector plan (encompassing 26,000 ac), range and the Service should require that surveys be conducted in the core acoustical surveys for long periods of the King’s Ranch/Consolidated Citrus range before construction in natural time may be needed. Acoustical sector plan (at least 15,000 ac), and the habitat is undertaken. surveys, in combination with visual and Hendry County Clean Energy Center Our Response: We agree that habitat other inspection of potential roosting (more than 3,000 ac). In Lee and Collier loss, modification, and fragmentation locations, may be helpful to avoid or Counties, it referenced pending and are serious threats. The loss of forested minimize some impacts to suspected potential mines totaling tens of habitat is particularly concerning due to roost sites. In some cases, bat activity thousands of acres. In this group’s view, the species’ forest–dwelling habits. We and potential roosts can be recognized the most significant action was the agree that the loss of individual roosts (e.g., observation at emergence, Eastern Collier Multispecies Habitat may have been understated in the vocalizations (roost chatter), presence of Conservation Plan (HCP), which it proposed rule and have clarified the text ‘‘ammonia’’-like smell or guano). In stated, if permitted as proposed, would accordingly (see also Comment 6 and cases where acoustical surveys and authorize 45,000 ac of residential and our response, above). We also other methods are not feasible, commercial development. Additionally, acknowledge that we need to work with applicants and agencies may need to the group contended that an ‘‘untold partners to more fully understand the assume presence prior to assessing number of acres of potential bat habitat species’ range for more meaningful impacts for proposed projects and would be lost’’ to multiple land uses, conservation. incorporate safeguards into their project including mining, oil and gas Large-scale habitat losses in the core designs. exploration/production, agriculture, of the species’ range are particularly (8) Comment: With regard to foraging infrastructure, transportation, and active concerning. Land use changes at smaller habitat and climate change, one and passive recreation. It also noted that scales may also have individual or reviewer indicated that our assessment the Collier County Rural Lands cumulative adverse impacts to the understated the negative impact of Stewardship Program is voluntary and species. With this final rule, the Federal climate change on prey availability. She does not protect some areas that may be protections provided by the Act for this indicated that plant water stress would important to bats. species (see Available Conservation impact vegetation community structure, With regard to issuing permits, the Measures, below) are implemented. This which would likely affect insect same group contended that since the includes evaluation of the impacts of availability for foraging bats. She also Service cannot effectively determine the activities and consultation under stated that plant water stress would also conservation measures needed to section 7 of the Act, prohibition of affect the actual chemical composition conserve the species and protect it from unauthorized take under section 9 of the of plants, which also would impact the no net loss, the agency should not issue Act, and allowances for incidental take phenology of phytophagous insects (i.e., a take permit. Rather, it recommended with habitat conservation plans through those that feed on plants) and therefore that the Service and its partners focus the section 10 process. With this final the timing of insect availability to efforts on collecting additional listing, proposed actions will be foraging bats. She provided a reference information to map essential habitat thoroughly evaluated through the showing responses by plants and insects areas for this species. In this view, only section 7 or section 10 process. With from experimentally induced water with this information could the Service regard to the Eastern Collier deficits (Huberty and Denno 2004) and properly assess jeopardy under section Multispecies HCP, as of July 2013, the another that showed that climate change 10 or section 7 of the Act. In conclusion, applicants have submitted incidental is affecting the timing of seasonal the group fears ‘‘the species is routinely take permit applications, but remain in flowering in Florida (Von Holle et al. placed in jeopardy’’. the process of developing a draft HCP. 2010). The reviewer stated that climate

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61020 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

change will alter prey availability to cavities with barn owls and parrots was events are threats to the species and its foraging bats. underway, and that techniques may be habitat. One reviewer emphasized the Our Response: With regard to water transferable to Florida bonneted bat threat of hurricanes as direct killing of deficits caused by climate change, we roosting structures. bats and impacts to larger hollow trees acknowledge that we did not Our Response: We agree that tree and bat houses. He noted the intensity specifically evaluate the responses by cavities in south Florida are likely and increasing damage of tropical plants and potential impacts to insects limited and that competition for natural storms and contended that one large, and ramifications to foraging bats in any or artificial roosting structures may be intense storm (similar to Hurricane detail. However, we briefly discussed greater now than previously, due to a Sandy in the northeast) could kill most the species’ susceptibility to changes in variety of factors. Introduced species are of the Florida bonneted bats over a prey availability and possible changes becoming more abundant and broad area. from climate change (see Summary of widespread in Florida, and some are Another reviewer indicated that Factors Affecting the Species, Factor E, likely contributing to increased hurricanes may become more frequent Aspects of the Species’ Life History and competition for a limited amount of and intense with climate change. She Climate Change Implications, below). suitable cavities or other roost sites. We suggested that the species may occupy Since the reviewer’s comments relate to have added a new section entitled large snags with cavities, and that these changes to foraging habitat, we have Competition for Tree Cavities (see trees and artificial structures are likely expanded the section (see Summary of Summary of Factors Affecting the to be damaged or destroyed during Factors Affecting the Species, Factor A, Species, Factor E, below). serious storm events. She recommended Climate Change and Sea Level Rise, We do not have information to that bat house structures be reinforced below) to more fully evaluate this threat. support or refute the view that the and duplicated to prevent loss. The potential negative impact of climate decline of red-cockaded woodpeckers One group cited additional studies change on prey availability is now more (or other woodpeckers) may be affecting that show that the frequency of high- fully described in this final rule. Florida bonneted bat populations. One severity hurricanes is increasing in the Additional comments relating to climate colony of Florida bonneted bats was Atlantic (Elsner et al. 2008; Bender et al. change are provided below (see discovered in a longleaf pine tree cavity 2010; Kishtawal et al. 2012), along with Comments 11 and 16, and our responses that had been excavated by a red- an increased frequency of hurricane– to them, below). cockaded woodpecker and later generated large surge events (Grinsted et (9) Comment: One reviewer indicated enlarged by a pileated woodpecker al. 2012) and wave heights (Komar and that the Florida bonneted bat faces (Belwood 1981, p. 412). In general, Allan 2008). The group contended that competition for tree cavities from native insufficient numbers of cavities and high winds, waves, and storm surge can birds and mammals (Belwood 1992, p. continuing net loss of cavity trees are cause significant damage to the species’ 220) and now dozens of introduced also identified threats to the red- coastal habitat, noting that when storm species, which also use cavities (e.g., cockaded woodpecker (Service 2006, surges coincide with high tides, the European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), p. 7). chances for damage are greatly various parrot species, black rats (Rattus To help conserve the Florida increased (Cayan et al. 2008). Examples rattus), and Africanized honey bonneted bat, efforts should be made to and additional references regarding sea (Apis mellifera scutellata)). He also retain large cavity trees and snags level rise, storm surge, and flooding suggested that the Florida bonneted bat wherever possible to reduce were also provided. This group stated populations may also be impacted by competition for suitable roosts within that the Service must take into account the decline of red–cockaded the species’ known range. The use of the added impacts from more severe woodpeckers, which create cavities in artificial structures for the Florida hurricanes and increasing storm surge living longleaf pine trees. bonneted bat may also be beneficial in and coastal flooding on the species’ One commenter suggested that the some locations. More research on the habitat. Another commenter also noted species’ roosting habits were ‘‘more role of bat houses in Florida bonneted that severe hurricanes can cause precarious’’ than its small range. He bat conservation is needed (FWC 2013, wetland degradation. noted the limited supply of woodpecker pp. 10, 15). The FWC plans on working One commenter indicated that the nest cavities and indicated that invasive with stakeholders to develop and limited supply of woodpecker nest species have a significant impact on the implement guidelines for building, cavities has been compounded by the Florida bonneted bat by competing for installing, and monitoring bat houses for loss of snags due to hurricanes (e.g., limited roosting locations. In his view, Florida bonneted bats (FWC 2013, pp. 1994, hurricanes of introduced parrots are serious 10–11). 2004 and 2005). He added there has also competitors for natural and manmade (10) Comment: One reviewer noted been a ‘‘secondary hurricane effect with cavities, as most of the more than 30 that since the species may use palm significant changes to the South Florida species of parrots and 2 to 3 species of fronds for roosting, the trimming of Building Codes post Hurricane Andrew mynahs observed in the wild in south palm fronds and removal of mature that reduces roosting locations under Florida use cavities. He indicated that palms for landscaping purposes may tile roofs.’’ Africanized honey bee hybrids, cause negative impacts. In her view, Our Response: We agree that the established in Florida in 2005, are these activities should be considered as species and its habitat appear highly having significant impacts on cavity- potential threats. vulnerable to hurricanes and storms. nesting wildlife throughout their Our Response: We agree and have Intense events could kill or injure expanding range (in , clarified the text accordingly (see individual bats and destroy limited South America, the Caribbean, and Summary of Factors Affecting the roosting habitat (see Summary of southeastern United States). He stated Species, Factor E, Inadvertent and Factors Affecting the Species, Factor E, that Africanized honey bee hybrids Purposeful Impacts from Humans, Environmental Stochasticity, below). occupy the entire range of the Florida below). Even one event can have devastating bonneted bat. The commenter suggested (11) Comment: Three reviewers and impacts due to the species’ restricted that research to develop methods of four commenters indicated that range. Increased frequency and intensity reducing honey bee competition for hurricanes, storms, or other stochastic of hurricanes, storm surges, and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61021

flooding events are also expected with since it does not hibernate and the educate wildlife trappers, law climate change. We have revised disease has only impacted hibernating enforcement, county health portions of our assessment accordingly species to date. However, she also departments, and local control (see Summary of Factors Affecting the cautioned that since the is new on rules and regulations that are Species, Factors A and E below). See to science and , how it required to protect the Florida bonneted also detailed comments on climate may evolve and change is unknown. bat and other bat species. change in Comment 16 and our She urged that the Service be cautious One commenter, in opposition to the response, below. and not assume that impacts will not proposed listing, suggested that We believe that natural roost sites are occur in the future. development of educational programs limiting and that the use of artificial Our Response: We agree and have and materials may be the most structures can play an important role in updated the text of this final rule important conservation measure, citing conserving the species. We concur with accordingly. Robson (1989). The same commenter the suggestion that bat houses be (14) Comment: One reviewer stated recommended that the species not be reinforced and duplicated to prevent that although the death of bats at wind listed and instead suggested that public loss. energy facilities is fairly well education on the value and importance We do not dispute the claim that documented, the numbers of bats killed of bats be stressed. This commenter changes to the South Florida Building is still considerably underappreciated. specifically recommended further Codes after Hurricane Andrew reduced He stated that bats die in considerable education on appropriate bat house potential roosting locations under tile numbers at wind turbines, and with the designs and the use of environmentally roofs. However, it is not known the current push to develop greener energy friendly lighting practices. extent to which the species uses such sources, the loss of bats at wind turbines Our Response: We believe that structures. It is possible that changes in will increase. regulatory (see Summary of Factors building codes affected roosting Our Response: We acknowledge that Affecting the Species, Factor D, below) opportunities in residential and urban the number of bats killed at wind energy and other mechanisms to deal with bat areas. facilities is not known, and that the and human interactions can be (12) Comment: Two reviewers and the extent of mortality, in some locations, improved. We agree that education for FWC remarked on predation as a threat may not be fully understood. Although the public and various groups is to the species. One reviewer suggested increases in the number of wind energy imperative, and that this should be an that the loss of bats to snake predation facilities are likely to cause increases in integral part of conservation efforts for is under appreciated, especially with bat mortality, numerous factors are the Florida bonneted bat. We appreciate the increasing numbers of introduced involved (see Summary of Factors both suggestions from the FDACS on snakes, and recommended that Affecting the Species, Factor E, ways to reduce the taking of this species additional measures be taken to protect Proposed Wind Energy Facilities, during wildlife removal and pest control bats and other native species. He also below). In some cases, impacts may be operations and their willingness to help emphasized the fragile nature of the avoided and minimized. Available raise awareness, improve training, and Florida bonneted bat populations, guidelines, if implemented, can help expand education. We look forward to noting that although some are located reduce bird and bat mortalities. We working with partners on this. on protected lands, these populations agree that this threat is likely to increase While expanded education and are still quite exposed to severe threats. as demand increases, and we revised the outreach programs are important Another reviewer noted that the species text of this final rule accordingly. components of conservation, the species presumably experiences some level of (15) Comment: One reviewer stated meets the definition of an endangered predation from native wildlife (e.g., that ‘‘the lack of regulatory mechanisms species and faces numerous significant hawks, owls, raccoons, rat snakes), but particularly when in contact with threats (see Determination of Status, that introduced reptiles (e.g., young humans’’ was among the most important below), many of which could not be Burmese pythons (Python molurus potential threats to the species, alleviated through education alone. We bivittatus) and boa constrictors (Boa emphasizing that public education are hopeful that improved awareness constrictor)) may also have or will have about bats is crucial. and education, along with the an impact on the Florida bonneted bat The Florida Department of protections afforded to the species and population. Agriculture and Consumer Services habitat (see Available Conservation The FWC questioned our conclusion (FDACS), expressing neither support of Measures, below), will allow the species that predation is not impacting the nor opposition to the proposed listing, to continue to persist and recover. See species and offered that a more indicated that there may be opportunity also Comment 32 and our response, conservative approach is that too little to provide education and outreach to below. information exists to draw any professional wildlife trappers and pest (16) Comment: With regard to climate conclusions about the impacts of control operators ‘‘to limit take of this change, two reviewers provided specific predation. imperiled species.’’ FDACS offered to comments. One reviewer felt that Our Response: We generally agree develop, with the help of FWC and the climate change has the potential to with the comments we received Service, an informational bulletin, negatively impact the species, especially regarding predation and have adjusted which could be distributed to pest in the context of impacts from altered the text accordingly (see Summary of control operators either during training storm frequency and intensity. Another Factors Affecting the Species, Factor C. for certification or renewal. reviewer appeared to generally agree Disease or Predation, below). Additionally, information relating to the with our assessment of anticipated (13) Comment: One reviewer bat, including identification, could be impacts from climate change, but commented on white-nose syndrome incorporated as a component of training indicated that the negative impact of (WNS) and noted that very little is and exams for limited certification for climate change on prey availability had known about the fungus, Geomyces commensal rodent control. The FDACS been understated. destructans, and the disease. She also expressed willingness to meet with One group provided extensive suggested that the Florida bonneted bat the FWC and the Service to discuss comments and references. The group’s may not be impacted by the disease, training and outreach opportunities to main points included the following: (a)

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61022 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Global sea-level rise is accelerating in Portions of the species’ roosting habitat species’ roosting affinities should be pace and is likely to increase by one to are vulnerable to sea-level rise, and defined prior to designation. She two meters within the century; (b) sea- impacts to foraging habitat may also indicated that if that was not possible, level rise of 1 to 2 meters in south occur with climate change (see also then additional future information that Florida is highly likely within this Comment 8 and our response, above). informs habitat use should be used to century; (c) storms and storm surges are Detailed comments related to storms modify any critical habitat designation. increasing in intensity; (d) coastal and storm surges are provided and Two commenters, both representing squeeze threatens the species’ habitat; addressed above (see Comment 11 and environmental groups, indicated that (e) climate change threats should be our response, above). Detailed critical habitat designation should be a analyzed through the year 2100 at comments related to coastal squeeze are timely goal or completed promptly. One minimum; and (f) sea-level rise will provided and addressed above (see group specifically stated that the Service have significant impacts on Florida Comment 7 and our response, above). should seek the scientific information bonneted bat roost sites. We have revised portions of our necessary to propose critical habitat More specifically, the group asserted assessment accordingly (see Summary promptly, and that until critical habitat that the Service analyze the impacts of of Factors Affecting the Species, Factors can be identified and designated, the sea-level rise of up to 2 meters on the A and E, below). Eastern Collier Multispecies HCP Florida bonneted bat’s habitat since this Comments regarding climate change should not move forward. falls within the range of likely scenarios in relation to critical habitat are Another group reminded the Service and since sea-level rise will be provided below (see Comment 20 and of its responsibilities under the Act, exacerbated by increasing storm surge. our response, below). stating that a ‘‘not determinable’’ With regard to roost sites, the group (17) Comment: One reviewer stated finding allows the Service to extend the estimated impacts to roost site locations that the species was not a widely time for designating critical habitat. from climate change, based upon the distributed species prior to development Under the Act, the Service has 2 years colony numbers and locations provided in southern Florida in the past century, from the date of the proposed listing in the proposed rule and using NOAA’s but the ‘‘increased and indiscriminate decision (or, in this case, 1 year from the sea level rise and coastal flooding use of pesticides in the 1950s–1960s no date of the final listing decision) to impacts viewer. Based upon this tool, doubt started the species in decline.’’ designate critical habitat. The group the group suggested that 9 of 11 roost Other commenters offered alternate and cited case law and stated that the locations would either be fully or partly more detailed views about pesticides. deadlines apply even if longer inundated with sea-level rises ranging Our Response: We agree that the deliberation would produce a ‘‘better’’ from 30 centimeters (11.8 inches) to 1.8 species appears to not have been widely critical habitat designation. In this view, m (5.9 ft). This analysis highlights the distributed during the past century, ‘‘not determinable’’ findings should ‘‘extreme vulnerability’’ of bonneted bat based upon available information. rarely be made, and the Service should roosting habitat to sea-level rise. However, we have no evidence make ‘‘the strongest attempt possible’’ to The group also provided additional indicating that the use of pesticides led determine critical habitat. The group comments with regard to critical habitat to the species’ decline (see Comments further stated that the Service is to use and climate change. Relating to Pesticides, below). the best available science, and that Our Response: With regard to climate (18) Comment: One reviewer ‘‘optimal conditions’’ are unknown is change, we agree with the general explicitly stated that listing the Florida not a barrier to designating critical comments provided. The additional bonneted bat as an endangered species habitat. The group stated that it is not literature on climate change provided by will provide several benefits that will the Service’s task to understand what one group largely reinforces our aid in the protection and possible features of occupied habitat are lacking, assessment of the threat of climate recovery of the species. He pointed to but to synthesize information about change to the Florida bonneted bat and conservation actions taken at Florida what is known about the species and its its habitat. We appreciate the references Caverns State Park in the 1990s for the habitat needs. provided and have revised our endangered gray bat (Myotis grisescens), Our Response: The Service continues assessment accordingly. which would not have been to work with researchers, other With regard to specific comments, we implemented had it not been for Service agencies, and stakeholders on filling agree with the view that sea-level rise is funding made available through the Act. large information gaps regarding the likely to have significant impacts on Our Response: We agree that listing species and its habitat needs and Florida bonneted bat roosts. However, provides many benefits for species and preferences. We intend to publish a the locations of natural roost sites and their habitats (see Available proposed critical habitat designation for colony locations are not known (see also Conservation Measures, below). the Florida bonneted bat in a separate Comment 21 and our response, and rule within our statutory timeframe and Comments Relating to Critical Habitat Summary of Changes from Proposed have continued to fund research and Rule, below). Given the limited (19) Comment: With regard to timing, study the habitat requirements of the available information, it is not possible three peer reviewers agreed with our bat. to quantify the number of roosting finding that critical habitat was not With this final listing determination, locations that will be impacted by sea- determinable due to lack of knowledge the species will now receive regulatory level rise. Still, we anticipate significant or the need for more information. One consideration under sections 7 and 10 of losses of occupied and potential reviewer stated that a study that the Act and will benefit from other occupied habitat in coastal areas due to identifies home ranges and habitat protections (see Available Conservation climate change (see Summary of Factors affinities is imperative to determining Measures, below). Potential impacts Affecting the Species, Factor A, Climate the physical and biological features from proposed projects within the Change and Sea Level Rise and essential to the conservation of the species’ current range will be evaluated Alternative Future Landscape Models species. In her view, designation of under these regulatory frameworks. and Coastal Squeeze, and Factor E, critical habitat is appropriate, but for it (20) Comment: One peer reviewer Aspects of the Species’ Life History and to be meaningful and effective, the stated that properties occupied by Climate Change Implications, below). extent of the species’ range and the extant and active colonies are clearly

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61023

essential to the conservation of the agency a written justification for his (22) Comment: The FDACS stated that species. She suggested that the roost and failure to adopt regulations consistent the protective provisions under Florida surrounding habitats in both Lee County with the agency’s comments or Administrative Code (F.A.C.) chapter and at Babcock-Webb WMA provide petition.’’ Comments we received from 68A–27 and chapter 68A–9.010 are elements essential to the conservation of the State of Florida are addressed below. important for the Florida bonneted bat the colonies and should be designated (21) Comment: The FWC provided since professional wildlife trappers and as such. She recommended that additional information regarding a new pesticide control operators may not be conservation easements for the private roost documented at Babcock-Webb able to identify the species of bat they property in Lee County be pursued and WMA, suggested alternatives for are attempting to exclude and may not that conservation of Florida bonneted characterizing roosting sites and be aware of the take prohibitions for bats and their roosts be prioritized in colonies, offered clarifications relating listed species. The FDACS also the long-term management of Babcock- to threats, and suggested other minor indicated that the State’s Structural Pest Webb WMA. clarifications and corrections. Control Act (Florida Statutes, chapter One group requested that the With regard to colonies, the FWC 482) does consider bats to be pests proposed critical habitat designation suggested a more conservative approach under certain situations and includes account for seasonal shifts in roosting may be to identify an area as occupied, bats in the definition of ‘‘rodent,’’ even sites. In addition, the group requested without attempting to estimate the though bats are in the order Chiroptera. that the Service consider, ‘‘specific areas number of colonies. The FWC noted that Despite the definition, however, the outside the geographical area occupied much of the information for estimation FDACS does not regulate commercial by the species at the time it is listed, of colony size, number of colonies, and trapping or removal of bats, as they are upon a determination that such areas locations was based on acoustical data protected under F.A.C. chapter 68A– are essential for the conservation of the and inferences, and that since so little 9.010. The FDACS does regulate control species.’’ is known about roosting and foraging of ‘‘commensal rodents’’ (i.e., rats and Another group provided extensive ecology, it is difficult to correlate bat mice) in or near structures and the use comments relating to how a critical calls to colonies. In this view, even at of pesticides, including pesticides to habitat designation must buffer the sites with roosts identified (e.g., control nuisance wildlife (i.e., poisons species from climate change threats. Babcock-Webb WMA), determining the and repellants). This group provided new literature number of colonies present is difficult The FDACS also stated that limited related to climate change and contended because of the composition of colonies certification does not authorize the use that coastal Florida is particularly (e.g., harem, maternity, bachelor, and of any ‘‘pesticide or chemical vulnerable to habitat losses caused by potential seasonal changes) is not well substances, other than adhesive climate change (e.g., Cameron Devitt et understood, and the movement between materials, to control rodents or other al. 2012). It argued that unoccupied roost sites by a colony has not been nuisance wildlife in, on, or under inland habitat area that can provide studied. structures.’’ For bats, only exclusion roosting and foraging habitat should be The FWC also confirmed that it is devices or registered chemical identified and designated as critical currently developing a management habitat for the species. It also contended plan that is similar in scope to a Federal repellents can be used as specified that as species and habitats shift in recovery plan and stated that the under F.A.C. chapter 68A–9.010. response to climate change, it will be objectives of the State plan will be to Currently, only naphthalene (e.g., Bat-A- important to protect habitat areas reverse threats causing the decline of Way) is registered as a bat repellent in outside of the current range, including the species. The FWC expressed desire Florida. Since this product is a ‘‘stepping stone patches’’ and corridors. to continue coordination with the pesticide, a professional applicator In the group’s estimation, 9 of 11 Service in the development of both the would need to possess a full pest roosting locations are highly vulnerable State management plan and the Federal control operator’s license. to inundation by sea-level rise; recovery plan. The FDACS stated that all bat species therefore, proactive protection of Our Response: We have incorporated in Florida are protected under F.A.C. suitable inland areas for future roosting the new information and have clarified chapter 68A–9.010, but unlisted bats and foraging habitat is necessary. The portions of the text accordingly. We can be taken (federally listed or State- group also provided examples of the agree that it is better to identify areas as listed species require an incidental take Service’s designation of unoccupied occupied rather than attempting to permit) if located within a structure habitat as critical habitat to buffer six estimate the number of colonies and through the use of an exclusion device species from climate change impacts. It their locations. Therefore, we have or a registered repellant if used from stated that there was ‘‘ample precedent, substantially revised our discussion of August 15 to April 15. The use of a legal authority, and conservation colonies, replacing it with a more repellent by professional pest control or imperative’’ for the Service to similarly general discussion (see Background, wildlife management personnel to identify and designate unoccupied above) based upon comments from the remove bats from within a structure inland habitat for the Florida bonneted FWC, peer reviewers, and other requires a pest control operator’s bat to buffer it from the effects of sea commenters. See also Comment 6 and license. The use of poisons on bats is level-rise and increasing storm surge. our response, above, and Summary of not permitted. Our Response: The Service will fully Factors Affecting the Species, Factors C, Our Response: We appreciate the consider these comments and all D, and E, below. clarifications provided and have available information during the process We intend to draw upon the State’s adjusted the text accordingly (see of identifying areas essential to the management plan and all other relevant Summary of Factors Affecting the conservation of the species and in its sources during recovery planning and Species, Factor D, below). We maintain proposal to designate critical habitat. implementation efforts. We will be that existing regulatory measures, due to soliciting input from the State and other a variety of constraints, do not provide Comments From the State stakeholders, who are integral in the adequate protection (see Factor D). The Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the conservation of the species, during species also remains at risk due to the Secretary shall submit to the State recovery planning. effects of a wide array of threats (see

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61024 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Summary of Factors Affecting the impacted the bat directly or reduced contaminants, as well as characterizing Species, Factors A and E, below). insect populations that serve as the food the biological effects related to such source for the Florida bonneted bat exposure scenarios. While assessing Comments Relating to Pesticides without providing scientific evidence in exposure, we maintain that there is a (23) Comment: The FDACS explained support of such claims. One commenter possibility that the Florida bonneted bat the role that it assumes during the suggested that the entire Pesticides and may be exposed to pesticides, including registration and regulation of pesticide Contaminants section be removed from mosquito control chemicals. We also products in Florida under the Federal the text, and if not removed, revised to acknowledge that such exposures, while Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide indicate that mosquito control possible, have not been quantified. A Act (FIFRA). The FDACS also confirmed pesticides are not a threat. risk estimate presented in the Interim that organophosphate (OP) pesticides Our Response: We appreciate the Reregistration Eligibility Decision for are highly toxic to mammals and that explanations provided by FDACS and Naled (EPA 2002, pp. 36, 38) indicates pyrethroids are generally of low toxicity have made adjustments to the text, that a conservative endangered species to mammals. It also noted the marked where applicable. We agree with the level of concern is exceeded for decrease in OP pesticides in residential commenters’ assertion that no direct insectivorous mammals when and urban areas in recent years and scientific evidence exists that links considering mosquito control usages. replacement with synthetic pyrethroids, mosquito control activities (or While this conservative estimate does which are much less toxic to birds and pesticides) with impacts to the Florida not indicate imminent adverse impacts, mammals. bonneted bat, either directly or through it does suggest that potential mosquito Naled, an OP pesticide, has reportedly a reduction in prey base. Although control impacts should be evaluated. been used for decades for both mosquito dietary studies are underway, We plan to conduct limited analysis as control and agriculture, but no incidents information on the species’ prey base a first step toward understanding concerning direct impacts to bats have and prey availability are generally possible pathways of exposure and hope been reported to the U.S. Environmental lacking. Studies to assess the to expand studies, if possible. Protection Agency (EPA) (EPA 2008). In availability of prey in portions of the The same type of assessment was this view, it is possible that Florida species’ range using various methods conducted for invertebrates that the bonneted bats are exposed to OP (e.g., emergence traps, radar and remote Florida bonneted bat may prey upon. insecticides used in agriculture, but sensing) could help better assess habitat We maintain that it is possible that non- their habits of flying at heights of 9 m needs and potential threats. target invertebrates, some of which may (30 ft) or more would likely minimize We do not agree with the assertion be prey for the Florida bonneted bat, are exposure to OP pesticide residues, that mosquito control activities are exposed to mosquito control chemicals. which tend to kill insects quickly at implicated as having an adverse impact We also acknowledge that such an crop level. The FDACS also indicated on the Florida bonneted bat. Impacts exposure, while possible, has not been that it is not aware of data that from mosquito control activities are not quantified. Without quantifiable document significant reductions in the basis for the listing of the Florida exposure scenarios, environmentally larger insect species (coleopterans, bonneted bat. The suggestions by the relevant biological effects on the Florida dipterans, and hemipterans) that are commenters that mosquito control bonneted bat or its prey base cannot be primarily consumed by bats in areas operations would cease or be severely attributed to mosquito control activities. that receive mosquito control. The limited, and thus impact tourism and The fact that quantifiable exposure and FDACS also noted that without the economy, if the Florida bonneted bat effects data are not available does not scientific evidence, claims that is listed are not accurate. Such actions preclude an examination of potential mosquito control has reduced the have not been recommended by the impacts and an acknowledgement of Florida bonneted bat’s food supply Service. what is known and unknown. We have should be considered anecdotal. We do not have evidence to clarified this section accordingly (see Two commenters contended that substantiate the commenters’ Summary of Factors Affecting the listing of the Florida bonneted bat may characterizations of Florida bonneted Species, Factor E, Pesticides and limit mosquito control activities, bat population increases in the North Contaminants, below). leading to an increase in the public’s Fort Myers area or that the densest (24) Comment: The FDACS indicated risk of exposure to West Nile virus, populations of Florida bonneted bats that in an agricultural setting OP dengue fever, Saint Louis encephalitis, occur in areas that have been treated pesticides are expected to quickly kill eastern equine encephalitis, and other with mosquito control pesticides for 30 insects at crop level, well below the diseases transmitted by mosquitoes. years. In fact, the size of the colony in expected foraging height of the Florida Concerns that quality of life for North Fort Myers has remained bonneted bat. residents and visitors would be reduced, relatively constant since 2008, except Another commenter stated that tourism would be hindered, and the for the mortality observed after a insecticides used against flying insects economy would suffer if mosquito prolonged cold event in 2010 (S. quickly impair their nervous systems control operations were limited were Trokey, pers. comm. 2008a–b; 2010a–c; and render them unable to fly, thus also expressed. The commenters also 2011, 2012a, 2013). We have no avoiding a scenario where pesticide- noted that a location in North Fort information on population density for laden flying insects would be consumed Myers that regularly receives aerial any areas. by the Florida bonneted bat. The mosquito control application has Content in the Pesticides and commenter stated that most of the spray continued to support a Florida bonneted Contaminants section (see Summary of cloud of mosquito adulticide following bat population, which has increased in Factors Affecting the Species, Factor E, truck application remains below 10 m recent years. It was also stated that the below) is meant to be an assessment of (33 ft), which is lower than the Florida species’ densest populations occur the current state of knowledge regarding bonneted bat is expected to forage. It where mosquito control has existed for contaminant impacts to the Florida was also stated that mosquitoes are 30 years. Both commenters stated that bonneted bat. Such an assessment small-bodied insects that make up less the proposed rule suggested that involves characterizing an organism’s than 1 percent of a bat’s diet and that mosquito control activities have either known or potential field exposure to higher application rates than what are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61025

currently used would be needed to kill biologists to gain insight into foraging use pesticides, dispersing seeds, and larger bodied insects. Similarly, another habitat. A correction was suggested for pollinating plants. Another commenter commenter stated that for the Florida Table 1. provided a reference (Kunz et al. 2011, bonneted bat to use mosquitos as a food Our Response: We have incorporated pp. 1–38), which discusses the source would be highly inefficient the new data and information and have ecosystem services provided by bats. energetically. clarified portions of the table and text Our Response: We agree and Our Response: We agree that accordingly. See also Comment 5 and acknowledge that bats are vital mosquitoes and other small-bodied our response, above. components of ecosystems and provide insects are not likely to be consumed by enormous benefits. However, the role of Public Comments the Florida bonneted bat, which is bats in the ecosystem and their thought to prey upon larger insects (see (27) Comment: One commenter contributions are beyond the purpose of Background, Life History, above). Small- indicated that the Florida bonneted bat our assessment and not part of our bodied insects that have been exposed may be found in the following counties: determination. to mosquito control chemicals or Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Monroe, Miami– (30) Comment: One commenter in agricultural pesticides through ground Dade, Okeechobee, Polk, and Glades. opposition to the proposed listing applications may also die quickly near Our Response: We agree that the argued that survey information was ground level, as one commenter Florida bonneted bat occurs in most of inadequate and actual forage sites have purports. The likelihood of larger- the aforementioned counties. Available not been scientifically determined. In bodied insects that are exposed to data indicate presence of the Florida this view, the use of this type of sublethal concentrations of pesticides bonneted bat in portions of Charlotte, information to indicate level of threat to being consumed by the Florida Lee, Collier, Monroe, Miami-Dade, the species’ foraging habitat is not valid. bonneted bat remains unknown, but Okeechobee, and Polk Counties (see Our Response: Although we agree that warrants further investigation. Although Table 1 and Occupied and Potential foraging habitat is not fully known, we foraging likely occurs either at high Occupied Areas, above). Range maps disagree that our assessment is not altitudes or in fairly open habitat (H. also include fractions of Glades, valid. As directed by the Act, we have Ober, in litt. 2012), the Florida bonneted Hendry, and Broward Counties (Marks used the best available scientific bat may also prey upon ground insect and Marks 2008a, p. 11; 2012, p. 11); information to identify and assess species because it can take flight from however, current presence in these threats to the Florida bonneted bat and the ground like other Eumops spp. counties is uncertain. make our listing determination. (Ridgley 2012, pp. 1–2). Dietary (28) Comment: One commenter Uncertainties are also explained for preferences and foraging behavior requested clarification to the place individual threats (see Summary of remain poorly understood. The Service referred to as ‘‘Snapper Creek Park’’ in Factors Affecting the Species, below). is working with researchers and Table 1, indicating that it is not known More information on the species, its partners to fill information gaps to better by that name, adding that Snapper habitat, and threats will undoubtedly understand and conserve the species Creek is a water management canal that improve understanding and enhance and its habitat. is lined by a number of small parks and conservation efforts in the future. (25) Comment: The FDACS suggested also linear bikeways. (31) Comment: One commenter that characterizing pesticide exposure The commenter also provided questioned our use of unpublished data should be given lower priority than additional information for the area from a 1982 survey of pest control obtaining more information regarding surrounding the Zoo Miami, known as operators showing a dramatic decrease the basic life history of the Florida Richmond Pinelands. This commenter in requests for nuisance bat removal bonneted bat. It also suggested that stated that the 10–km2 (4– mi2) area beginning in the 1960s as being future considerations for researching the contains 344 hectares (ha) (850 ac) of indicative of reduced bat abundance. potential impacts of mosquito control pine rockland forest and that Miami- The commenter stated that this only practices on the Florida bonneted bat Dade Parks manages 223 ha (550 ac). It indicated that fewer people had bats in should be discussed at a meeting of the was also noted that the Federal their buildings, which may be attributed Florida Coordinating Council for Government and University of Miami to a change in building techniques to Mosquito Control’s Subcommittee for hold large parcels in this area. In this conserve energy and provide better bat Imperiled Species. view, undeveloped open spaces owned exclusion. In this view, this survey Our Response: We believe that by Miami-Dade County, the Federal cannot be used to justify listing the obtaining additional information on the Government, and the University of Florida bonneted bat. species’ life history should be a high Miami likely provide habitat for the Our Response: We do not have priority. We agree that the Florida bonneted bat. information to support or refute the aforementioned subcommittee is a good Our Response: We have verified that commenter’s claim as to the cause for venue to discuss pesticide risk and ‘‘Snapper Creek Park’’ is the correct the decrease in requests for bat removal. exposure with other agencies and name for the place where the Florida Taken alone, results of the survey mosquito control personnel. We look bonneted bat was recorded. It is a small (provided in Belwood (1992, p. 217)) forward to working with researchers and park located near a canal; signage would not be enough to justify a listing partners on better understanding and indicates that the property is owned by action. However, we assessed this reducing threats to the species. Miami-Dade County (C. Marks, pers. information and all other available data comm. 2013). We agree that the and information (see Background, Federal Agency Comments Richmond Pinelands area may also above, and Summary of Factors (26) Comment: The NPS (ENP) provide habitat for the species and have Affecting the Species, below) in making provided additional data from 39 clarified portions of the text of this final our determination (see Determination of acoustical surveys in and around ENP rule. Status, below). from June 2012 to November 2012; the (29) Comment: Seven commenters (32) Comment: One commenter in species was detected during 4 surveys. stated that bats are crucial parts of opposition to the proposed listing ENP also provided results from searches ecosystems, providing benefits such as suggested that artificial night lighting is for ‘‘feeding buzzes’’ and queried consuming insects, reducing the need to affecting the prey base of bats. The

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61026 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

commenter cited Rich and Longcore (4) We assessed the potential effects of information on roosting sites and (2006) who stated that artificial lighting competition for limited roost sites in a important foraging areas, inadvertent is extremely detrimental to many insect new section entitled Competition for impacts to and losses of habitat may be populations and can change the Tree Cavities (see Summary of Factors more likely to occur through various diversity of insects in some locations. It Affecting the Species, Factor E, below). sources and stressors (see below), and was also noted that night lighting is (5) We revised our assessment of habitat losses will likely be more widespread, is unregulated, and kills predation to more fully consider the difficult to avoid. Since the Florida insects every night. The commenter potential impacts from native wildlife bonneted bat is suspected to have high suggested that night lighting may be and nonnative snakes (see Summary of roost site fidelity, the loss of a roost site contributing to the loss of habitat, Factors Affecting the Species, Factor C, may cause greater hardship to the noting that some bats use streetlights as below). species than the loss of a roost site for hunting opportunities, while others (6) We incorporated data from new other, more labile species (H. Ober, in avoid the lights. The commenter and ongoing studies (see Background, litt. 2012). recommended that bat houses be placed above). The new additions and modifications Land Use Changes and Human away from night lighting and that the Population Growth use of environmentally friendly lighting summarized above did not change our practices be promoted. determination. Significant land use changes have occurred through time in south Florida, Our Response: We agree that artificial Summary of Factors Affecting the including major portions of the species’ lighting can have negative impacts on Species wildlife and may be affecting insect historical and current range. In his Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), examination of Florida’s land use abundance and diversity in some and its implementing regulations at 50 locations. How artificial lighting affects history, Solecki (2001, p. 350) stated CFR part 424, set forth the procedures that tremendous land use changes took the Florida bonneted bat’s activities and for adding species to the Federal Lists place from the early 1950s to the early prey base needs further investigation. of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and mid-1970s. During this time, ‘‘an We have added a section to our threats and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the almost continuous strip of urban analysis (see Summary of Factors Act, we may list a species based on any development became present along the Affecting the Species, Factor E, of the following five factors: (A) The Atlantic coast’’ and urban land uses Ecological Light Pollution, below). present or threatened destruction, became well established in the extreme Where lighting is necessary, we modification, or curtailment of its southeastern portion of the region, encourage the use of environmentally habitat or range; (B) overutilization for particularly around the cities of Miami friendly lighting practices to minimize commercial, recreational, scientific, or and Fort Lauderdale and along the impacts to wildlife. educational purposes; (C) disease or entire coastline northward to West Palm Summary of Changes From Proposed predation; (D) the inadequacy of Beach (Solecki 2001, p. 350). Similarly, Rule existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) Solecki (2001, p. 345) found tremendous other natural or manmade factors urban expansion within the Gulf coast We made changes to the final listing affecting its continued existence. Listing region, particularly near Ft. Myers since rule, after consideration of the actions may be warranted based on any the 1970s, with the rate of urban land comments we received during the of the above threat factors, singly or in conversion superseding the rate of public comment period (see above) and combination. Each of these factors is agricultural conversion in recent new information we received since discussed below. decades. publication of the proposed rule. Many In another examination, the extent of Factor A. The Present or Threatened small, nonsubstantive changes and land use conversions for southwest corrections, not affecting the Destruction, Modification, or Florida (Collier, Lee, Hendry, Charlotte, determination (e.g., updating the Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range and Glades Counties) between 1986 and Background section in response to Habitat loss and alteration in forested 1996 was estimated using a change comments, and to make minor and urban areas are major threats to the detection analysis performed by Beth clarifications) were made throughout Florida bonneted bat (Belwood 1992, p. Stys (FWC, unpublished data) (Service the document. The more substantial 220; Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008, p. 2008, p. 37). The area of disturbed lands changes are: 1). In natural areas, this species may be increased 31 percent in these five (1) We revised our discussion of impacted when forests are converted to counties between 1986 and 1996, with colonies, removed the section entitled other uses or when old trees with the greatest increases in disturbed lands Estimating Colony Sizes and Locations, cavities are removed (Belwood 1992, p. occurring in Hendry and Glades and added a more general section 220; Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008, p. Counties. Most (66 percent) of the land entitled Occupied and Potential 1). In urban settings, this species may be use change over the 10-year period was Occupied Areas (see Background, impacted when buildings with suitable due to conversion to agricultural uses. above). roosts are demolished (Robson 1989, p. Forest cover types accounted for 42 (2) We assessed the potential effects of 15; Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008, p. percent of land use conversions, dry artificial night lighting in a new section 1) or when structures are modified to prairies accounted for 37 percent, entitled Ecological Light Pollution (see exclude bats. Although the species’ freshwater marsh accounted for 9 Summary of Factors Affecting the habitat preferences and extent of range percent, and shrub and brush lands Species, Factor E, below). are not well understood, significant land accounted for 8 percent. (3) We revised our assessment of use changes have occurred in south In another analysis, Stys calculated climate change and more fully included Florida and additional habitat losses are the extent of seminatural and natural potential impacts to prey availability expected in the future, placing the lands that were converted to agricultural and foraging habitat from climate species at risk. Uncertainty regarding and urban or developed areas in Florida change (see Summary of Factors the species’ specific habitat needs and between 1985–1989 and 2003 (B. Stys, Affecting the Species, Factors A and E, requirements arguably contributes to the pers. comm. 2005; Service 2008, p. 38). below). degree of this threat. Without more Based upon this analysis, approximately

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61027

1,476 km2 (570 mi2) of natural and be almost entirely urbanized (Zwick and expected to continue (Wear and Greis seminatural lands in Glades, Hendry, Carr 2006, p. 2). In an independent 2002, p. 56). In the Southern Forest Lee, Collier, Broward, Monroe, and review of the FWC’s biological status Resource Assessment, Florida was Miami-Dade Counties were converted report for the species, Fleming stated, identified as one of the areas expected during this time period (FWC, ‘‘Continued urbanization of south to experience substantial losses of forest unpublished data). Of these, Florida will undoubtedly have a in response to human population and approximately 880 km2 (340 mi2) were negative impact on this bat’’ (FWC changes in income (Wear and Greis conversions to agricultural uses and 596 2011b, p. 3). 2002, p. 164). In the Southern Forest km2 (230 mi2) to urban uses. In Futures Project, peninsular Florida is Loss of Forested Habitat Charlotte County, 26,940 ac (10,902 ha) forecasted to lose the most forest land (9.6 percent of the county) were Loss of native forested habitat and (34 percent) of any of the 21 sections converted to agriculture, and 21,712 ac roost sites are major threats to the analyzed in the southern United States (8,787 ha) (7.8 percent) were converted Florida bonneted bat. A highway (Wear and Greis 2011, p. 35). to urban uses in the time period construction project in Punta Gorda in Land Management Practices examined. In Lee County, 16,705 ac 1979 destroyed a roost tree (Belwood (6,760 ha) (6.3 percent) were converted 1981, p. 412; 1992, p. 220). One Although species occurrences on to agriculture, and 44,734 ac (18,103 ha) museum specimen was originally conservation lands are inherently more (16.8 percent) were developed. In discovered under a rock that was turned protected than those on private lands, Collier County, 34,842 ac (14,100 ha) over by a bulldozer clearing land habitat alteration during management (3.1 percent) were converted to (Robson 1989, p. 9). Robson (1989, pp. practices may impact natural roosting agriculture, and 38,331 ac (15,512 ha) 1–18) attributed the loss of native sites because the locations of such sites (3.4 percent) were developed. Several forested habitat, reduced insect are unknown. For example, removal of large-scale developments, mines, and abundance (see Factor E), and the old or live trees with cavities during transportation projects, totaling ‘‘active persecution of bats by humans’’ activities associated with forest thousands of acres, are being planned, (see Factor E) as the likely major management (e.g., thinning, pruning), have been reportedly proposed, or are impacts on the Florida bonneted bat in prescribed fire, exotic species treatment, pending in portions of south and Miami-Dade County. Similarly, or trail maintenance may inadvertently southwest Florida occupied by the Belwood (1992, pp. 217, 220) indicated remove roost sites, if such sites are not species (A. Crooks, in litt. 2012). that bats in south Florida, including this known. Loss of an active roost or Habitat loss and human population species, appear to have declined removal during critical life-history growth in south Florida are continuing. drastically in numbers in recent years stages (e.g., when females are pregnant The human population in south Florida due to loss of roosting sites and effects or rearing young) can have severe has increased from fewer than 20,000 of pesticides (see Factor E). More ramifications, considering the species’ people in 1920, to more than 4.6 million recently, Timm and Genoways (2004, p. small population size and low fecundity by 1990 (Solecki 2001, p. 345). The 861) stated that habitat loss from (see Factor E). population of Miami-Dade County, one development, in combination with other Overall, occupied and potential area where the Florida bonneted bat was threats (i.e., pesticides and hurricanes, habitat for the Florida bonneted bat on historically common, increased from see Factor E), may have had a significant forested or wooded lands, both private fewer than 500,000 people in 1950, to impact upon the already low numbers of and public, continues to be at risk due nearly 2.6 million in 2012 (http:// Florida bonneted bats. to habitat loss, degradation, and quickfacts.census.gov). In one Belwood (1992, p. 220) stated that fragmentation from a variety of sources. projection, all counties with current forested areas are becoming rare as a Additional searches for potential Florida bonneted bat occurrences were result of human encroachment and that roosting sites in forested and other forecasted to increase in human this will severely affect the forest natural areas are especially needed. occurrences of this species. Similarly, population density, with most counties Loss of Artificial Structures expected to grow by more than 750 Robson (1989, p. 15) indicated that pine people per square mile by 2060 (Wear rockland, live oak, and tropical Since the Florida bonneted bat will and Greis 2011, pp. 26–27). hardwood hammocks constituted most use human dwellings and other artificial In another model, three counties with of the remaining, natural forest in the structures, it is also vulnerable to current known occurrences of the Miami area and that these communities habitat loss and alteration in urban Florida bonneted bat—Charlotte, Lee, are essential to this species’ survival. environments (Belwood 1992, p. 220; and Collier—are expected to reach Belwood (1992, p. 220) argued that tree Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008, p. 1). buildout (fully develop) before 2060 cavities are rare in southern Florida and Owre (1978, p. 43) stated that all recent (Zwick and Carr 2006, pp. 12–13, 16). competition for available cavities (e.g., specimens had been collected within For the period between 2040 and 2060, southern flying squirrel [Glaucomys the suburbs of greater Miami from the population of Lee and Collier volans], red-headed woodpecker structures built in the 1920s and 1930s. Counties is projected to exceed the [Melanerpes erythrocephalus], corn Owre (1978, p. 43) indicated that three available vacant land area, so the snake [Elaphe guttata guttata]) is specimens were taken on the ground, population was modeled to allow intense. She suggested that nonurban one in a rocky field that was being spillover into adjacent counties (Zwick natural areas such as ENP, Big Cypress/ bulldozed, one next to sewer conduits and Carr 2006, p. 13). According to Fakahatchee areas, and State WMAs piled near freshly dug excavations, and human population distribution models, may be the only areas where this species one on a lawn near a university building south Florida is expected to become may be found in the future, provided in which the bats roosted. Removal of mostly urbanized, with the exception of old trees with hollows and cavities are buildings with spaces suitable for some of the agricultural lands north and retained (Belwood 1992, p. 220) (see roosting is a threat to this species (Timm south of Lake Okeechobee (Zwick and Land Management Practices, below). and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008, p. 1). Robson Carr 2006, p. 2). Even the central Florida Approximately 90 percent of the (1989, p. 15) stated that seemingly region, at what would be the northern forested habitats in Florida have been innocuous activities like destroying limit of this species’ distribution, will altered or eliminated, and losses are abandoned buildings and sealing barrel-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61028 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

tile roof shingles may have a severe century, and that the magnitude and 2010), and 0.5 m to 1.40 m (1.6 to 4.6 impact on remaining populations in rate of change will be influenced ft; The National Academy of Sciences urban areas. Cyndi and George Marks substantially by the extent of GHG 2012). (pers. comm. 2008) stated that Florida emissions (IPCC 2007, pp. 44–45; Meehl When analyzed using NOAA’s Sea bonneted bats can move into new et al. 2007, pp. 760–764 and 797–811; Level Rise and Coastal Impacts viewer buildings as well and ‘‘the fact that they Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555–15558; (http://www.csc.noaa.gov/slr/viewer/#), adapt well to manmade structures has Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). we can generalize as to the impact of a most likely been a large factor in their Various changes in climate may have 1.8-m (5.9-ft) sea level rise (the decline’’ (see Factor E). The use of direct or indirect effects on species. maximum available using this tool) on buildings or other structures inhabited These effects may be positive, neutral, the areas currently used by the Florida by or near humans places bats at risk of or negative, and they may change over bonneted bat. This approach is a gross inadvertent or purposeful removal and time, depending on the species and estimation, confounded by the fact that displacement (see Factor E). other relevant considerations, such as no natural active roost sites are known interactions of climate with other and individuals are capable of traveling Climate Change and Sea Level Rise variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) large distances and likely have large Our analyses under the Act include (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). home ranges. In addition, it is a consideration of ongoing and projected We use ‘‘downscaled’’ projections conservative estimate since large changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’ when they are available and have been portions of the species’ occupied range and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the developed through appropriate fell into the category of ‘‘area not Intergovernmental Panel on Climate scientific procedures, because such mapped’’ using this tool. A 1.8-m (5.9- Change (IPCC). The term ‘‘climate’’ projections provide higher resolution ft) rise would inundate roughly half of refers to the mean and variability of information that is more relevant to the locations where the species has been different types of weather conditions spatial scales used for analyses of a recorded or observed (see Table 1, over time, with 30 years being a typical given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. above), but not necessarily the entirety period for such measurements, although 58–61, for a discussion of downscaling). of each site. Within the species’ range, shorter or longer periods also may be With regard to our analysis for the low-lying areas in Collier, Lee, Miami- used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term Florida bonneted bat, downscaled Dade, and Monroe Counties appear most ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a change projections suggest that sea-level rise is vulnerable to inundation. In Collier in the mean or variability of one or more the largest climate-driven challenge to County, portions of FSPSP, PSSF, measures of climate (e.g., temperature or low-lying coastal areas and refuges in BCNP, Everglades City, and Naples will ) that persists for an the subtropical ecoregion of southern likely be partially inundated. In Lee extended period, typically decades or Florida (U.S. Climate Change Science County, areas near the occupied bat longer, whether the change is due to Program (CCSP) 2008, pp. 5–31, 5–32). houses in North Fort Myers may be natural variability, human activity, or Although not strictly tied to coastal partially inundated. In Miami-Dade both (IPCC 2007, p. 78). areas, the Florida bonneted bat uses, in County, three sites will likely be Scientific measurements spanning part, forests and other habitats near sea inundated and others in low-lying areas several decades demonstrate that level in areas of south Florida where are vulnerable. In Monroe County, changes in climate are occurring, and considerable habitat is projected to be coastal areas within ENP will be that the rate of change has been faster lost to sea level rise by 2100 (Saha et al. impacted. In this analysis, it appears since the 1950s. Examples include 2011, pp. 81–108). Three that occupied areas of Charlotte, Polk, warming of the global climate system, subpopulations of the Florida bonneted and Okeechobee Counties are the most and substantial increases in bat occur in at-risk coastal locations secure, in terms of remaining unaffected precipitation in some regions of the (Gore et al. 2010, pp. 1–2), and the from inundation. In summary, much of world and decreases in other regions effects of sea level rise are expected to low-lying, coastal south Florida ‘‘will be (for these and other examples, see IPCC be a continual problem for species using underwater or inundated with saltwater 2007, p. 30; and Solomon et al. 2007, coastal habitats (Saha et al. 2011, p. 81). in the coming century’’ (CCSP 2008, p. pp. 35–54, 82–85). Subsequent to the 2007 IPCC Report, 5–31). This means that large portions of Scientists use a variety of climate the scientific community has continued occupied, suitable, and potential models, which include consideration of to model sea level rise. Recent peer roosting and foraging habitat for the natural processes and variability, as reviewed publications suggest increased Florida bonneted bat in low-lying areas well as various scenarios of potential acceleration of sea level rise. Observed will likely be either submerged or levels and timing of greenhouse gas sea level rise rates are already trending affected by increased flooding. (GHG) emissions, to evaluate the causes along the higher end of the 2007 IPCC Climate change is likely to increase of changes already observed and to estimates, and it is now widely the occurrence of saltwater intrusion as project future changes in temperature predicted that sea level rise will exceed sea level rises (IPCC 2008, pp. 87, 103)). and other climate conditions (e.g., the levels projected by the IPCC Since the 1930s, increased salinity of Meehl et al. 2007, entire; Ganguly et al. (Grinsted et al. 2010, p. 470; Rahmstorf coastal waters contributed to the decline 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. et al. 2012, p.1). Taken together, these of cabbage palm forests on the west 2011, pp. 527, 529). Although studies support the use of higher end coast of Florida (Williams et al. 1999, projections of the magnitude and rate of estimates now prevalent in the scientific pp. 2056–2059), expansion of warming differ after about 2030, the literature. Recent studies have estimated mangroves into adjacent marshes in the overall trajectory of all the projections is a mean global sea level rise of 1 to 2 m Everglades (Ross et al. 2000, pp. 108, one of increased global warming (3.3 to 6.6 ft) by 2100, based upon 110–111), and loss of pine rockland in through the end of this century, even for individual projections as follows: 0.75 the Keys (Ross et al. 1994, pp. 144, 151– the projections based on scenarios that m to 1.90 m (2.5 to–6.2 ft; Vermeer and 155). Saha et al. 2011 (pp. 81, 105) assume that GHG emissions will Rahmstorf 2009), 0.8 m to 2.0 m (2.6 to predicted changes in plant species stabilize or decline. Thus, there is strong 6.6 ft; Pfeffer et al. 2008), 0.9 m to 1.3 composition and a decline in the extent scientific support for projections that m (3 to 4.3 ft; Grinsted et al. 2010), 0.6 of coastal hardwood hammocks and warming will continue through the 21st m to 1.6 m (2.0 to 5.2 ft; Jevrejeva et al. buttonwood forests in ENP before the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61029

onset of inundation, based upon bonneted bat, considering its forest- combination with available acoustical tolerance to salinity and drought. Such dwelling nature and general data to project what may occur to changes in vegetation will likely impact vulnerability due to its small population occupied Florida bonneted bat habitat the Florida bonneted bat, since the size, restricted range, few colonies, low in the future, assuming that all occupied species uses forested areas and coastal fecundity, and relative isolation (see areas are known, that acoustical data habitats. Factor E). represented approximate locations of Hydrology has a strong influence on Climate changes may also affect colonies in the future, and that plant distribution in these and other foraging habitat and prey availability. projected impacts to colonies are solely coastal areas (IPCC 2008, p. 57). Such Increased plant water stress is likely to tied to roosting habitat. Potential communities typically grade from salt to impact vegetation community impacts to foraging habitat were brackish to freshwater species. Human composition and chemical composition expected but not analyzed, since developments will also likely be of plants, which would likely affect foraging distances are not known. We significant factors influencing whether insect availability and the timing of acknowledge that this analysis was natural communities can move and insect availability to foraging bats (H. crude and conservative (e.g., foraging persist (IPCC 2008, p. 57; CCSP 2008, p. Ober, in litt. 2012). In one study, habitat not analyzed; effects analyzed 7–6). Climate change, human Huberty and Denno (2004, pp. 1383– only up to 2060, the maximum time population growth, forest management, 1398) examined water stress on plants period of the model scenarios). Actual and land use changes are also expected (e.g., changes in nitrogen, outcomes may substantially differ from to increase water stress (water demand allelochemistry) and consequences for that projected depending upon exceeding availability) within areas of herbivorous insects, examining deviations in the assumptions or the south, and south Florida is parameters such as survivorship, estimated variables. considered a hot spot for future water density, fecundity, and relative growth In the best-case scenario, which stress (Wear and Greis 2011, pp. 46–50). rate. Water stress in plants was found to assumes low sea level rise, high For the Florida bonneted bat, this means affect the population dynamics of financial resources, proactive planning, that some habitat in coastal areas will herbivorous insects, with varying effects and only trending population growth, likely change as vegetation changes and depending upon insect guild (Huberty analyses suggest that four broad additional human developments and Denno 2004, pp. 1383–1398). In occupied areas may be lost. Based upon encroach. Any deleterious changes to another study, Von Holle et al. (2010, the above assumptions, occupied areas important roosting sites or foraging pp. 1–10) found that climatic variability in North Fort Myers, the Ten Thousand areas could further diminish the is leading to later seasonal flowering of Islands area, coastal portions of ENP likelihood of the species’ survival and plants in Florida. Although the dietary (multiple sites), and the Miami area recovery. needs of the Florida bonneted bat are (multiple sites) appear to be most In the southeastern United States, not understood, climate changes may susceptible to future losses, with losses drier conditions and increased affect foraging habitat and insect attributed to increases in sea level and variability in precipitation associated availability in ways not readily human population. In the worst-case with climate change are expected to apparent. scenario, which assumes high sea level hamper successful regeneration of rise, low financial resources, a ‘business Alternative Future Landscape Models forests and cause shifts in vegetation as usual’ approach to planning, and a and Coastal Squeeze types through time (Wear and Greis doubling of human population, 10 broad 2011, p. 58). In their study on the The Florida bonneted bat is occupied areas may be lost—the areas impact and implications of climate anticipated to face major risks from noted in the best-case scenario above as change on bats, Sherwin et al. (2012, p. coastal squeeze, which occurs when well as some in BCNP (multiple sites), 8) suggested that bats specialized in habitat is pressed between rising sea Naples, Everglades City, mainland individual roost sites (i.e., cave and tree levels and coastal development that portions of ENP (multiple sites), roosts) at distinct life-history stages are prevents landward movement (Scavia et Homestead, and Coral Gables. Actual at great risk from changing vegetation al. 2002; FitzGerald et al. 2008; Defeo et impacts may be greater or less than and climatic conditions. Rebelo et al. al. 2009; LeDee et al. 2010; Menon et al. anticipated based upon high variability (2010, pp. 561–576) found that tree- 2010; Noss 2011). Habitats in coastal of factors involved (e.g., sea level rise, roosting bats in Europe may face a areas (i.e., Charlotte, Lee, Collier, human population growth) and reduction in suitable roosts if the rate of Monroe, Miami-Dade Counties) are assumptions made. climate change is too rapid to allow the likely the most vulnerable. Although it development of equivalent areas of is difficult to quantify impacts due to Summary of Factor A mature broadleaf forests in new uncertainties involved, coastal squeeze We have identified a number of ‘climatically suitable areas’ as their will likely result in losses in roosting threats to the habitat of the Florida range extends northward. Decreases in and foraging habitat for the Florida bonneted bat which have occurred in forest regeneration may further limit bonneted bat in several areas. the past, are impacting the species now, available roosting sites for the Florida Various model scenarios developed at and will continue to impact the species bonneted bat or increase competition for the Massachusetts Institute of in the future. Habitat loss, them. Technology (MIT) have projected fragmentation, and degradation, and Drier conditions and increased possible trajectories of future associated pressures from increased variability in precipitation are also transformation of the south Florida human population are major threats; expected to increase the severity of landscape by 2060 based upon four these threats are expected to continue, wildfire events. Climate changes are main drivers: climate change, shifts in placing the species at greater risk. The forecasted to extend fire seasons and the planning approaches and regulations, species’ use of conservation areas frequency of large fire events throughout human population change, and tempers some impacts, yet the threats of the Coastal Plain (Wear and Greis 2011, variations in financial resources for major losses of habitat remains. In p. 65). Increases in the scale, frequency, conservation (Vargas-Moreno and natural or undeveloped areas, the or severity of wildfires could also have Flaxman 2010, pp. 1–6). The Service Florida bonneted bat may be impacted severe ramifications on the Florida used various MIT scenarios in when forests are converted to other uses

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61030 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

or when old trees with cavities are both disease and predation could pose altered environments (i.e., bats may be removed. Routine land management threats to its survival. more susceptible to disease if they are activities (e.g., thinning, prescribed fire) stressed by other threats). These authors Disease may also impact unknown roost sites. In contended that bats are excellent urban areas, suitable roost sites may also White-nose syndrome (WNS) is an potential bioindicators because they are be lost when buildings are demolished emerging infectious disease affecting reservoirs of a wide range of emerging or when structures are modified to insectivorous, cave-dwelling bats. It was infectious diseases whose epidemiology exclude bats. Uncertainty regarding the first documented in 2006, in caves west may reflect environmental stress. Jones species’ specific habitat needs and of Albany, New York. Since its et al. (2009, p. 109) suggested that an requirements (i.e., location of roost discovery, WNS has spread rapidly increased incidence of disease in bats sites) arguably contributes to these throughout the eastern and central may be an important bioindicator of threats, by increasing the likelihood of United States and southeastern Canada, habitat degradation in general. Sherwin inadvertent impacts to and losses of killing millions of bats. It is expected to et al. (2012, p. 14) suggest that warming habitat. The effects resulting from continue spreading westward and temperatures associated with climate climatic change, including sea level rise southward. By June 2012, WNS had change may increase the spread of and coastal squeeze, are expected to been confirmed in well over 200 caves disease (along with other impacts; see become severe in the future and result and mines within 20 States and 4 Factor E), which could cause significant in additional habitat losses, including Canadian provinces (J. Coleman, pers. mortalities to bat populations in general. the loss of roost sites and foraging comm. 2012). As of June 2013, the At this time, it is difficult to assess habitat. Although efforts are being made number of affected sites is rapidly whether disease is currently or likely to to conserve natural areas and, in some changing, and bats with WNS have now become a threat to the Florida bonneted cases, retain cavity trees, the long-term been confirmed in 22 States and 5 bat. With anticipated climatic changes effects of large-scale and wide-ranging Canadian provinces (http://www.white and increased environmental stress, it is habitat modification, destruction, and nosesyndrome.org/about/where-is-it- possible that disease will have a greater curtailment will last into the future. now). It has not yet been documented in impact on the Florida bonneted bat in Therefore, based on our analysis of the Florida. the future. WNS is caused by the cold-loving best available information, present and Predation future loss and modification of the fungus, Geomyces destructans, a newly species’ habitat is a threat to the Florida described fungus, and is named after the In general, such as owls, bonneted bat throughout all of its range. white fungal growth that often occurs on hawks, raccoons, skunks, and snakes the muzzle of affected bats (Gargas et al. prey upon bats (Harvey et al. 1999, p. Factor B. Overutilization for 2009, pp. 147–154; Lorch et al. 2011, 13). However, few animals consume Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or pp. 376–379). In North America, G. bats as a regular part of their diet Educational Purposes destructans appears to infect bats only (Harvey et al. 1999, p. 13). There is only Key features of the basic life history, during winter hibernation. Mortality one record of natural predation on the ecology, reproductive biology, and rates have been observed to vary by Florida bonneted bat (Timm and habitat requirements of many bats, species and site, but have been as high Genoways 2004, p. 860). A skull of one including the Florida bonneted bat, are as 100 percent at some hibernacula specimen was found in a regurgitated unknown. Species-specific ecological (winter bat roosts). owl pellet at the FSPSP in June 2000 requirements have not been determined WNS has been recorded in seven (Timm and Genoways 2004, pp. 860– (e.g., natural roost sites, seasonal North American bat species, all of 861; C. Marks, pers. comm. 2006a; changes in roosting habitat, dietary which are known to hibernate in caves Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 6; M. Owen, needs, seasonal changes in diet, prime and mines. WNS and G. destructans pers. comm. 2012a, 2012b). foraging habitat). The majority of have not been detected in bats that Although evidence of predation is information comes from examination of typically live outside of caves, such as lacking, the species is presumably dead specimens, chemical analyses of eastern red-bats (Lasiurus borealis), and affected by some level of predation from samples taken from dead specimens, the fungus is believed to need the cave native wildlife (e.g., hawks, owls, analysis of guano, and collection and environment to survive. Because the raccoons, rat snakes) and the large analysis of nonintrusive acoustical Florida bonneted bat spends its entire number of introduced and nonnative recordings. To our knowledge, those life cycle outside of caves and mines reptiles (e.g., young Burmese pythons, individuals who have studied or are and in subtropical environments where boa constrictors) (Krysko et al. 2011; M. actively studying the Florida bonneted no torpor or hibernation is required, we Ludlow, in litt. 2012; R. Timm, in litt. bat are sensitive to its rarity and do not anticipate that it will be 2012). Several species of nonnative, endemism (restricted range). adversely affected by WNS. However, giant constrictor snakes have become Consequently, collection for scientific since the fungus is new to science and established in Florida, causing major and educational purposes is extremely North America, it is not known how it ecological impacts (http:// limited. We are not aware of any known may evolve or change in the future. www.fort.usgs.gov/FLConstrictors/ 77 commercial or recreational uses for the Prior to the discovery of WNS, FR 3330, January 23, 2012). Giant species. For these reasons, we find that infectious diseases had rarely been constrictors are habitat generalists, can overutilization for commercial, documented as a large-scale cause of grow and reproduce rapidly, and are recreational, scientific, or educational mortality in bat populations and had not arboreal when young, placing birds and purposes does not currently pose a been considered a major issue arboreal mammals, such as bats, at risk threat to the species, nor is it likely to (Messenger et al. 2003 as cited in Jones (http://www.fort.usgs.gov/FL do so in the future. et al. 2009, p. 108). Jones et al. (2009, Constrictors/). Given the small pp. 108–109) contended that because population of the Florida bonneted bat, Factor C. Disease or Predation increased environmental stress can it is possible that the loss to snake The effects of disease or predation are suppress the immune systems of bats predation is under appreciated now or not well known. Given the Florida and other animals, increased prevalence this may become more of a threat in the bonneted bat’s overall vulnerability, of diseases may be a consequence of future (M. Ludlow, in litt. 2012; R.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61031

Timm, in litt. 2012). Some efforts to As a consequence of the revision of the taking of species listed under F.A.C. control nonnative snakes and other the FWC’s listing classification system, chapter 68A–27 (without an incidental species are being made on some the former classification levels of take permit from the State), these rules conservation lands (e.g., ENP; Harvey et Florida’s endangered and threatened do allow other bat species to be taken al. 2013; http://www.fort.usgs.gov/FL species were re–classified as a single under certain circumstances. These Constrictors), but we do not have data level, named ‘‘State-designated include when: (1) The take is incidental on how these efforts may be impacting Threatened,’’ and include any species to the use of an exclusion device, a the Florida bonneted bat. that met the FWC criteria based on the device which allows escape from and Due to limited information, we are not IUCN criteria for a . blocks reentry into a roost site located able to determine the extent to which All species formerly listed as within a structure, or incidental to the predation may be impacting the Florida endangered and reclassified as State- use of a registered chemical repellant, at bonneted bat at this time. However, designated Threatened maintain the any time from August 15 to April 15; or given the species’ apparent small protections of the former endangered (2) the take is incidental to permanent population size and overall classification. Hence, the Florida repairs that prohibit the egress of bats vulnerability, it is reasonable to assume bonneted bat’s status technically from a roost site located within a that predation is a potential threat, changed on November 8, 2010, but the structure, provided an exclusion device which may increase in the future. species’ original protective measures is used as above for a minimum of four remained in place (F.A.C. chapter 68A– consecutive days or nights for which the Summary of Factor C 27.003, amended). As part of the FWC’s low temperature is forecasted to remain ° ° Disease and predation have the revision of its classification system, above 10 C (50 F) prior to repairs and potential to impact the Florida bonneted biological status review reports were during the time period specified. F.A.C. bat’s continued survival, given its few prepared for numerous imperiled chapter 68A–9.010 provides the occupied areas, apparent low species in Florida, including the Florida methods that may not be used to take abundance, restricted range, and overall bonneted bat. Based upon a literature nuisance wildlife, including any vulnerability. At this time, we do not review and the biological review group’s method prohibited pursuant to section have evidence to suggest that disease or findings, FWC staff recommended that 828.12 of the Florida Statutes (Florida predation is currently having species- the Florida bonneted bat remain listed Cruelty to Animals Statutes). level impacts on the Florida bonneted as a threatened species (FWC 2011a, p. Use of bat exclusion devices or any other intentional device or materials at bat. However, given the uncertainties 5). The biological status review a roost site that may prevent or inhibit (e.g., evolving disease) and factors recognized the taxon as the Florida the free ingress or egress of bats is involved (e.g., more introduced bonneted bat, and the State’s current prohibited from April 16 through predators), coupled with the general threatened and endangered list uses August 14. While these restrictions help vulnerability of the species, we consider both names, Florida bonneted (mastiff) to limit potential impacts during the both disease and predation to be bat, Eumops (=glaucinus) floridanus. maternity season for many bat species in potential threats to the Florida bonneted The FWC’s draft Species Action Plan for the species uses the name E. floridanus Florida, regulations do not require bat. (FWC 2013, pp. 1–43). definitive identification of the bat Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing As part of the FWC’s revision to species to be excluded prior to the use Regulatory Mechanisms Florida’s imperiled species rule, of the device. In addition, it is not clear management plans will be developed for if this time period is broad enough to Despite the fact that regulatory all species (F.A.C. chapter 68A–27), prevent potential impacts to the Florida mechanisms provide several protections including the Florida bonneted bat. One bonneted bat, which is possibly for the Florida bonneted bat, Federal, component of these management plans polyestrous and more tropical in nature, State, and local laws have not been is to include needed regulations and with a potentially prolonged sensitive sufficient to prevent past and ongoing protections that are not provided in the time window where females and young impacts to the species and its habitat current rule (M. Tucker, in litt. 2012). A are especially vulnerable. Pregnant within its current and historical range. first draft for the Florida bonneted bat Florida bonneted bats have been found The taxon was originally listed as management plan is in development (J. in June through September (Marks and endangered in the State of Florida as the Myers, pers. comm. 2012c; M. Tucker, Marks 2008a, p. 9), and a second Florida mastiff bat (Eumops glaucinus in litt. 2012). When completed, the birthing season can occur possibly in floridanus) (F.A.C., chapter 68). As management plan should allow for January–February (Timm and Genoways such, it is afforded protective provisions tailored protections for the species, 2004, p. 859; FBC 2005, p. 1). During the specified in F.A.C. chapter 68A–27 which may improve the ability of FWC early portion of the maternal period, (68A–27.0011 and 68A–27.003). This to address habitat issues in addition to females may give birth to young and designation prohibits any person from take of individuals (M. Tucker, in litt. leave them in the roost while making pursuing, molesting, harming, 2012). Objectives of the State plan will multiple foraging excursions to support harassing, capturing, possessing, or be to reverse threats causing the decline lactation (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. selling this species, or parts thereof, of the species (FWC, in litt. 2012). 8–9). Therefore, despite regulations except as authorized by specific permit, Humans often considered bats to be restricting the use of exclusion devices, with permits being issued only when ‘‘nuisance’’ species when they occur in it is still possible that use of such the permitted activity will clearly or around human dwellings or devices can affect the species during enhance the survival potential of the infrastructure (see Factor E, below). The sensitive time periods, including species. The protection afforded the rules for taking of nuisance wildlife are possible impacts to pregnant females, Florida bonneted bat by the State of provided under F.A.C. chapter 68A– newborns, or juvenile pups. Florida primarily prohibits direct take of 9.010. Under these rules, property The FWC, FBC, Bat Conservation individuals (J. Gore, pers. comm. 2009). owners can take nuisance wildlife or International, and other groups maintain However, there is no substantive may authorize another person to take a list of qualified exclusion devices, but protection of habitat or protection of nuisance wildlife on their behalf. it is not clear how often work is potentially suitable habitat at this time. Although these rules do not authorize performed by recommended personnel

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61032 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

or if it is in accordance with State near structures (M. Tucker, in litt. 2012). management is derived under article IV, regulations. It is also not clear if those To obtain this license, operators will be section 9 of the Florida Constitution, who install exclusion devices can required to complete an educational and guidance and directives under the readily distinguish between Florida program and pass a test based on a Florida Statutes (FWC 2003, p. 4). At bonneted bats and other bat species in training manual in development by staff PSSF, the FFS manages the forest using Florida (M. Tucker, pers. comm. 2012). with the University of Florida–Institute the multiple-use concept, providing a Despite regulations, in some cases, of Food and Agricultural Sciences (M. balance for recreational, environmental, nuisance bats are likely being removed Tucker, in litt. 2012). The manual will and resource use needs, including forest by nuisance wildlife trappers through include information on proper and wildlife management. Miami-Dade methods that are not approved (e.g., exclusion techniques and existing County Park lands are fragmented, removed from roosts with vacuum regulations protecting bats during the heavily used, and also try to balance cleaner-like apparatuses) or excluded maternity season (M. Tucker, in litt. recreational, natural, and cultural uses. during time periods that are not 2012). The FDACS, with assistance from The Florida bonneted bat’s presence permitted (e.g., inside the maternity other agencies, offered to develop an on Federal, State, and county lands season) (A. Kropp, FWC, pers. comm. informational bulletin on the Florida provides some protection, but does not 2009). Pest control companies unaware bonneted bat that can be distributed to insulate it from many threats (see Factor of or not complying with the regulations pest control operators directly or during A and Factor E). These lands provide that apply to bats have been known to training for certification or renewal clear conservation benefits to the remove them through methods other (FDACS, in litt. 2012). species, but protections may be limited than legal exclusions (FWC 2013, p. 9). Additional educational efforts are in extent (e.g., within the boundaries of Private landowners and individual underway. To better address violations the parcel). In some cases, conservation property owners may also be unaware of of the maternity season and exclusion benefits for the Florida bonneted bat regulations. rule, FWC is training law enforcement may not be fully realized on In addition, there are discrepancies officers (M. Tucker, in litt. 2012). conservation lands due to various between legislation passed by the Training on the importance of bats and missions of individual parcels and the FDACS, which classifies bats as rodents, the rules relating to exclusions has been demands of balancing the management and the current FWC nuisance wildlife provided to some officers in the of other wildlife and habitats or regulations above (Florida Bat Working northern part of the State, and an online multiple purposes and uses (e.g., Group [FBWG] 2009, p. 3). According to training module is being developed as recreation). Even where wildlife the State’s Structural Pest Control Act part of the FWC law enforcement conservation is the primary purpose, (Florida Statutes, chapter 482) bats may educational curriculum that all officers routine land management practices (e.g., be considered pests, and pest control must complete (M. Tucker, in litt. 2012). prescribed fire) can cause the loss of including methods to prevent, destroy, The FWC, FDACS, Service, and other roost sites, especially since locations of control, or eradicate pests in, on, or partners are also planning to increase natural roosts are unknown (see Factor under a structure, lawn, or ornamental awareness among land managers, A). Human use can cause disturbance are allowable under certain rules and environmental professionals, pest and the use of pesticides may increase provisions (FDACS, in litt. 2012). The control operators, wildlife trappers, the likelihood of direct exposure or may FDACS regulates the control of county health departments, local animal impact the prey base (see Factor E). ‘‘commensal rodents’’ (rats and mice) in control, and others who may be in a Collecting permits can be issued ‘‘for or near structures and the use of position to have an impact on bat scientific or educational purposes.’’ pesticides, including the pesticides used habitat or bat roosts (FDACS, in litt. Permits are required from the FWC for for the control of nuisance wildlife (i.e., 2012). It is not clear to what extent scientific research on the Florida poisons and repellents) (FDACS, in litt. training programs will be supported in bonneted bat. For work on Federal lands 2012). However, FDACS does not the future or how effective efforts to (e.g., ENP, BCNP), permits are required regulate commercial trapping or raise awareness will be in reducing from the NPS or the Service, if work is removal of wildlife, including bats, as violations. on NWRs. For work on State lands, these are protected under F.A.C. chapter With regard to Federal lands, the NPS permits are required from FDEP, FFS, 68A–9.010 (FDACS, in litt. 2012). The manages the natural resources on its FWC, or Water Management District, use of poisons on bats is not permitted. lands (e.g., BCNP, ENP) in accordance depending upon ownership and The use of a repellant (e.g., with NPS-specific statutes, including management. Permits are also required naphthalene) by professional pest the NPS Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et for work on county-owned lands. control or wildlife management seq.), as well as other general Summary of Factor D personnel to remove bats from a environmental laws and applicable structure requires a pest control regulations. The Florida Panther NWR Despite existing regulatory operator’s license (FDACS, in litt. 2012). operates under the Fish and Wildlife mechanisms, the Florida bonneted bat Bat advocacy groups and others are Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a et seq.), the remains at risk due to the effects of a concerned over the lack of awareness of Endangered Species Act, and the Refuge wide array of threats (see Factors A and the regulations among people paid to Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd- E). Based on our analysis of the best perform exclusions (FBWG 2009, p. 3; 668ee). With regard to State lands, all available information, we find that FWC 2013, p. 21). Education is needed property and resources owned by FDEP existing regulatory measures, due to a about the dates during which exclusion are generally protected from harm in variety of constraints, do not provide is prohibited for nuisance wildlife chapter 62D–2.013(2), and animals are adequate protection, and, in some trappers, pest control companies, law specifically protected from instances, may be harmful (i.e., taking of enforcement, county health unauthorized collection in chapter 62D– bats as ‘‘nuisance’’ wildlife). departments, and local animal control 2.013(5), of the Florida Statutes. At Educational efforts and training should (FBWG 2010, p. 3). The FDACS is Babcock-Webb WMA, the FWC is the help to raise awareness and address currently developing a limited license lead managing agency, with FFS as a some violations of existing regulations. for those individuals or companies that cooperating agency, and is responsible When finalized, the FWC’s Florida conduct wildlife removal services in or for operation through a lease agreement; bonneted bat management plan may

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61033

contain additional measures that can of flying)) (A. Kropp, pers. comm. 2009). trees for landscaping may negatively help protect habitat. However, we do Pest control companies unaware of or impact individuals (K. Gillies, in litt. not have information to indicate that the not in compliance with the regulations 2012). Harvey et al. (1999, p. 13) aforementioned regulations and that apply to bats have been known to indicated that disturbance to summer programs, which currently do not offer remove them through methods other maternity colonies of bats is extremely adequate protection to the Florida than legal exclusions (FWC 2013, p. 9). detrimental. In general, maternity bonneted bat, will be revised and Such activities can result in direct colonies of bats do not tolerate sufficiently supported, so that they mortality or injury of adults, juveniles, disturbance, especially when flightless would be adequate to provide protection dependent newborn pups, or fetuses, if newborns are present (Harvey et al. for the species in the future. Therefore, pregnant females are affected. In some 1999, p. 13). Newborns or immature bats we find that the existing regulatory cases, excluded individuals may not be may be dropped or abandoned by adults mechanisms are inadequate to address able to readily locate other suitable if disturbed (Harvey et al. 1999, p. 13). threats to the species throughout all of roosts (due to competition with other Disturbance to maternity colonies of the its range. species, lack of availability, or other Florida bonneted bat may be factors). Since the breeding season of particularly damaging because of this Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade the Florida bonneted bat is uncertain species’ low fecundity and low Factors Affecting Its Continued and adults may have young outside of abundance. In short, wherever this Existence the typical maternity season, the FWC’s species occurs in or near human In general, bat populations are in draft species action plan recommends dwellings or structures, it is at risk of decline due to their sensitivity to that individuals consult with the FWC inadvertent or purposeful removal, environmental stresses and other before excluding Florida bonneted bats displacement, and disturbance. factors, such as slow reproductive rates from a roost at any time of the year Routine maintenance and repair of (Jones et al. 2009, pp. 93–115). The (FWC 2013, p. 10). bridges and overpasses is a potential Florida bonneted bat is likely affected In his dissertation on the ecological threat. Bats can use highway structures by a wide array of natural and distribution of bats in Florida, Jennings either as day or night roosts (Keeley and anthropogenic threats, operating singly (1958, p. 102) stated that Florida Tuttle 1999, p. 1). An estimated 24 of or synergistically, and in varying bonneted bats are encountered more the 45 species of bats in the United immediacy, severity, and scope. often by humans than other bat species States have been documented to use Inadvertent and Purposeful Impacts known to frequent the Miami area. He bridges or culverts as roosts, and 13 From Humans attributed this to the species’ habits, other bat species are likely to use such which make it more conducive to structures based upon their known In general, bats using old or discovery by humans. Jennings (1958, p. roosting preferences (Keeley and Tuttle abandoned and new dwellings are at 102) noted, ‘‘Some individuals were 1999, p. 1). To date, the Florida significant risk. Bats are often removed taken in shrubbery by gardners [sic], bonneted bat has not been documented when they are no longer tolerated by some flew into houses at dusk and other to use these structures. However, a large humans or inadvertently killed or isolated individuals were taken under colony of Brazilian free-tailed bats was displaced when structures are conditions indicating injury of some documented using the I–75 overpass at demolished. Adverse human impacts on kind.’’ The Florida bonneted bat’s the entrance of Babcock–Webb WMA, bats involve direct killing, persecution, ability to adapt well to manmade and a single Florida bonneted bat call vandalism, and disturbance of structures contributes to its was recorded within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of hibernating and maternity colonies vulnerability and has likely been a this overpass (S. Trokey, pers. comm. (Harvey et al. 1999, p. 13). Belwood factor in its decline (C. Marks and G. 2008c). Given the species’ flight (1992, p. 217) indicated that bats in Marks, pers. comm. 2008). Since capabilities and roosting behaviors, the south Florida appeared to decline roosting sites are largely unknown, the Florida bonneted bat could use this drastically in years just prior to that potential to remove and exclude Florida overpass or other such structures (C. publication. Unpublished data by bonneted bats from human dwellings Marks and G. Marks, pers. comm. 2008; Belwood from a 1982 survey of 100 pest and artificial structures, either S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2008c). The control companies on the southeastern inadvertently or accidentally, is high. colony of Brazilian free-tailed bats was coast of Florida showed that requests to Despite regulatory protections provided excluded from the overpass in October remove ‘‘nuisance’’ bats from this area under Florida law (see Factor D, above), 2011, prior to a widening project on I– all but ceased in the 20 years prior to direct and indirect threats from humans 75, after the Florida Department of that publication (Belwood 1992, p. 217). continue, especially in urban, suburban, Transportation (FDOT) coordinated the Homeowners and professionals use a and residential areas. exclusion with FWC and the FBC (FWC, variety of methods to remove bats, Similarly, Robson (1989, p. 15) stated in litt. 2012). The FWC had also including lethal means (C. Marks and G. that urban development has resulted in constructed a community bat house near Marks, pers. comm. 2008). Even when the persecution of bats wherever they the overpass in 2009, to provide an attempts are made to remove bats come in contact with humans: alternate roost site (J. Morse, pers. humanely, bats may be sealed into ‘‘Seemingly innocuous activities like comm. 2010). Although it is not known buildings (C. Marks and G. Marks, pers. removing dead pine or royal palm trees, if Florida bonneted bats will use comm. 2008). Despite regulations and pruning landscape trees (especially community bat houses, space was efforts to raise awareness (see Factor D, cabbage palms), sealing barrel-tile roof included to accommodate larger-bodied above), in some situations, bats are still shingles with mortar, destroying bats in that structure (J. Morse, pers. likely removed through inhumane and abandoned buildings, and clearing small comm. 2010). To date, the species has prohibited methods (e.g., removed from lots of native vegetation cumulatively not been found in the large community roosts with vacuum cleaner–like may have a severe impact on remaining bat house at this site. apparatuses) and excluded from populations in urban areas’’ (Robson Maintenance and repair of bridges artificial roost sites during sensitive 1989, p. 15). As the species may also use and overpasses or other infrastructure time periods (e.g., inside the maternity palm fronds for roosting, the trimming may impact this species. For example, season before young are volant (capable of fronds and removal of mature palm when bridges and overpasses are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61034 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

cleaned, bats may be subjected to high Proposed Wind Energy Facilities speeds are <6m/second (19.7 ft/second) water pressure from hoses, which likely Wind power is one of the fastest (Kerns et al. 2005, p. 76). Bat mortalities results in injury or death (C. Marks, growing sectors of the energy industry were also negatively correlated with pers. comm. 2007). Incidences involving (Horn et al. 2008, p. 123; Cryan and (Kerns et al. 2005 p. 76). It should high pressure water hoses have Barclay 2009, p. 1330), and the be noted, however, that mortality reportedly decreased in Florida, and the development of wind energy facilities in monitoring at wind energy facilities is FDOT is working with FWC to increase Florida may be of particular concern for not standardized, and there is a paucity their efforts to protect bats during the Florida bonneted bat as demand of data for analysis. Most studies maintenance and repair activities at increases. include less than a full field season and bridge sites with bats (FWC, in litt. Migratory, tree-dwelling, and may miss significant bat mortality 2012). insectivorous bat species are being events. Differences between sites including scavenging rates, carcass Competition for Tree Cavities killed at wind turbines in large numbers across North America (Kunz et al. 2007, detection, and observer bias may all Suitable natural roost sites in south contribute to variations in bat mortality Florida appear limited, and competition pp. 317–320; Cryan and Barclay 2009, pp. 1330–1340). Although it is not clear records (Arnett et al. 2008, pp. 71–72). for available tree cavities may be greater The cause of bat mortality at wind why such species are particularly now than historically. In 1992, Belwood energy facilities is not a simple one of susceptible (Boyles et al. 2011, p. 41), (1992, p. 220) stated that tree cavities direct contact with blades or towers. are rare in southern Florida and that Kunz et al. (2007, pp. 315–324) Baerwald et al. (2008, pp. 695–696) competition for available cavities from proposed 11 hypotheses for the large found that barotrauma is the cause of native wildlife (e.g., southern flying numbers of fatalities at wind energy death in a high proportion of bats found squirrel, red-headed woodpecker, corn facilities. Some of these include at wind energy facilities. Barotrauma snake) was intense. Competition for attraction to tall structures as potential involves tissue damage to air– cavities since that time has presumably roost sites, attraction to enhanced containing structures (such as lungs) increased, due largely to continued loss foraging opportunities (e.g., insects caused by rapid or excessive pressure of cavity trees and habitat (see Factor A, attracted to heat of turbines), change; wind turbine blades may create above) and the influx of nonnative or echolocation failure, electromagnetic zones of low pressure as air flows over introduced species, which vie for field disorientation, and decompression them. In their examination, Baerwald et available roosting or nesting locations. (rapid pressure changes causing internal al. (2008, pp. 695–696) found 90 percent Native wildlife and dozens of other injuries or disorientation of bats while of the bat fatalities involved internal nonnative or introduced species (e.g., foraging). Similarly, Cryan and Barclay hemorrhaging consistent with European starlings, black rats, (2009, pp. 1330–1340) categorized the barotrauma, suggesting that even if Africanized honey bees) in south causes of fatalities into two categories: echolocation allows for bats to detect Florida also now compete for tree proximate, which explain the direct and avoid turbine blades, they may be cavities for nesting, roosting, or other means by which bats die, and ultimate, incapacitated or killed by internal uses (W. Kern, Jr., in litt. 2012; M. which explain why bats come close to injuries caused by rapid pressure Ludlow, in litt. 2012). turbines. reductions that they cannot detect. In addition, numerous species of Based upon data modified from Baerwald et al. (2008, pp. 695–696) nonnative birds now occur in Florida, Johnson (2005 as cited in Arnett et al. suggested that the differences in and many are cavity nesters. More than 2008, p. 64), researchers found that the respiratory anatomy between bats and 30 species of parrots and 2 to 3 species Brazilian free-tailed bat comprised 85.6 birds may explain the higher incidence of mynahs observed in the wild in south percent of bat mortalities noted at a of bat fatalities from wind energy Florida use cavities, and some may be wind energy facility in Woodward, facilities (see also Barclay et al. 2007, competing with the Florida bonneted Oklahoma, and 41.3 percent of bat pp. 381–387). In short, the large pliable bat and other native wildlife, for mortalities at a High Wind, California, lungs of bats expand when exposed to available natural or artificial structures wind energy facility. Since the Florida sudden drop in pressure, causing tissue (W. Kern, Jr., in litt. 2012; http:// bonneted bat is also a free-tailed bat, it damage, whereas birds’ compact, rigid myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/nonnatives/ may demonstrate some similar lungs do not respond in the same birds/). Africanized honey bee hybrids, behaviors that place it at risk when manner (Baerwald et al. 2008, pp. 695– established in Florida in 2005, are encountering wind energy facilities. 696). having significant impacts on cavity- Bat mortalities at wind energy Wind turbine facilities are being nesting wildlife throughout their facilities may be seasonal in nature planned for sites east and west of Lake expanding range in Central America, (Johnson 2005, as cited in Kunz et al. Okeechobee, and these may have an South America, the Caribbean, and 2007, p. 317). Most documented impact on the Florida bonneted bat (M. southeastern United States (Kern, Jr. mortalities in North America occurred Tucker, in litt. 2012). One proposed 2011, pp. 1–4; W. Kern, Jr., in litt. 2012). between late summer and early fall facility in Glades County is roughly 14.5 Africanized honey bee hybrids now (Johnson 2005, as cited in Arnett et al. km (9 mi) south of locations where the occupy the entire range of the Florida 2008, p. 66); Kunz et al. 2007, p. 317; species was recorded on the Kissimmee bonneted bat (W. Kern, Jr., in litt. 2012). Arnett et al. 2008, pp. 65–66). Taller River in 2008 (M. Tucker, in litt. 2012). In summary, the extent of competition turbines with greater rotor-swept areas In 2011, ‘‘possible’’ Florida bonneted for cavity trees in south Florida is not may be responsible for more bat bat calls were also recorded on the well understood. It appears that cavity mortalities than shorter turbines with proposed project site (C. Coberly, pers. trees are limited and competition is smaller rotor-swept areas (Arnett et al. comm. 2012). Potential impacts from greater now than historically. Despite 2008, p. 68). Bat mortalities are absent this proposed facility cannot be the lack of data, the possibility certainly where turbines are not spinning, accurately assessed at this time because exists for the Florida bonneted bat to be indicating that bats do not strike it is not clear that the species uses the impacted by competition for tree stationary blades or towers (Kerns et al. site (i.e., occurs on site or moves to it cavities from native or nonnative 2005, p. 91). Fatalities at wind energy during activities such as foraging). The wildlife. facilities tend to occur when wind other proposed facility in Palm Beach

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61035

County has not recorded Florida Florida bonneted bat in Florida are evaluate the impact of such pesticides bonneted bat calls on site (C. Newman, largely unknown. on the Florida bonneted bat, additional pers. comm. 2012), and this county is Organochlorine (OC) pesticides have work characterizing both pesticide not part of the species’ known historical been linked to lethal effects in bats exposure and effects in bats is needed. or current range. Both wind energy (Clark et al. 1978, p. 1358; Clark et al. A reduction in the number of flying development companies have indicated 1983, pp. 215–216; O’Shea and Clark insects is a potential secondary effect to that areas around Lake Okeechobee are 2002, p. 239). Such pesticides have not consider when evaluating the impact of the most suitable sites in Florida for been registered for use in the United pesticides on the Florida bonneted bat. wind development, and if successfully States for several decades, but due to the In his status survey for the Florida developed, additional sites could be extreme ability of OCs to persist in the bonneted bat, Robson (1989, p. 15) proposed, increasing the risk of impacts environment, residues are still suggested that mosquito control from wind energy to the Florida detectable in soil and sediment in some programs are contributing to reduced bonneted bat (M. Tucker, in litt. 2012). locations in south Florida. The food supplies for bats. Robson (1989, p. While bat fatalities from wind energy possibility exists that the Florida 14) attributed the general reduced facilities are well documented, potential bonneted bat may consume activity of bats along the southeastern impacts to the Florida bonneted bat are invertebrates with elevated OC coastal ridge to the reduction of forested difficult to evaluate at this time, partly concentrations in areas with substantial habitat and reduced insect abundance. due to the uncertainty involving many OC environmental concentrations, Although insect activity was not factors (e.g., location of facilities, though this scenario would be limited to measured, Robson (1989, p. 14) noted operations, foraging distance). Certain specific sites and would not be expected that the ‘‘lack of insects on the aspects of the species’ status and life to be a widespread threat. No studies southeastern coastal ridge was striking history may increase vulnerability to have been conducted that attempt to when contrasted to all other areas.’’ impacts from wind energy facilities. The assess the historical impact of OC While it is reasonable to suggest that pesticides on the Florida bonneted bat. reduced food supply or increased species’ small population and low Currently, OC pesticides have largely exposure to pesticides may have led to fecundity make any additional potential been replaced with OP, carbamate, and the decline of the population in the sources of mortality cause for concern. pyrethroid pesticides. Carbamate and Miami area, this link is only speculative The species’ high and strong flight OP pesticides act as cholinesterase because no rigorous scientific studies or capabilities and fast-hawking foraging inhibitors and are generally more toxic direct evidence exists. Timm and behavior may increase risk. Conversely, to mammals than OC pesticides. Genoways (2004, p. 861) indicated that as the species is nonmigratory, potential However, they are not as persistent in the extant, although small, population impacts from wind energy facilities may the environment and do not tend to of the bat in the Fakahatchee-Big not be as great in magnitude as perhaps bioaccumulate in organisms. Despite Cypress area of southwest Florida is other bat species that are migratory. this lack of persistence, Sparks (2006, located in one of the few areas of south Implementation of the Service’s new pp. 3–4, 6–7) still found OP residues in Florida that has not been sprayed with land–based wind energy guidelines may both bats and guano in Indiana and pesticides. Marks and Marks (2008a, p. also help to avoid and minimize some suspected that the residues originated 15) contended that if the species’ rarity impacts (Service 2012, pp. 1–71). from consuming contaminated insects. and vulnerability are due to a Pesticides and Contaminants Pyrethroids, one of which is permethrin, dependence on a limited food source or are commonly used mosquito control habitat, then the protection of that food The impacts of pesticides and other pesticides in south Florida that display source or habitat is critical. Marks environmental contaminants on bat greater persistence than OP and (2013, p. 2) also recommended that species are largely unstudied, carbamate pesticides, but still degrade natural habitats conducive to insect particularly in the case of the Florida much more rapidly than OC pesticides diversity be protected and that any bonneted bat. The life history of the and are believed to exhibit low toxicity pesticides be used with caution. At this Florida bonneted bat may make it to mammals. time, however, it is not known what susceptible to pesticide exposure from a Grue et al. (1997, pp. 369–388) food source or habitat is most important variety of sources. Mosquito control reviewed the sublethal effects of OPs to the Florida bonneted bat. spraying activities commonly begin at and carbamates on captive small In addition to pesticide exposure, dusk when mosquitoes are most active mammals and birds and found impaired mercury represents another potential (http://www.miamidade.gov/ thermoregulation, reduced food threat to the Florida bonneted bat that publicworks/mosquito-spraying.asp). consumption, and reproductive has not been investigated. According to Because the Florida bonneted bat alterations. Clark (1986, p. 193) the National Atmospheric Deposition forages at dusk and after dark, the observed a depression in cholinesterase Program, the mercury deposition rate in possibility exists for individuals to be activity in little brown bats following south Florida is among the highest in directly exposed to airborne mosquito both oral and dermal application of the the United States (http:// control chemicals or to consume OP pesticide methyl parathion. Bats nadp.isws.illinois.edu). The movement invertebrates containing pesticide with reduced cholinesterase activity of mercury through the aquatic system residues from recent applications. may suffer loss of coordination, and into the terrestrial food web through Additionally, because the Florida impaired echolocation, and elongated emergent invertebrates has been bonneted bat has been documented to response time. Alteration of documented in other areas (Cristol et al. roost in residential areas (Belwood thermoregulation could have serious 2008, p. 335; Konkler and 1992, pp. 219–220), it is possible for ramifications to bats, given their high Hammerschmidt 2012, p. 1659). individuals to be exposed, either metabolic and energy demands (Sparks Assuming that a similar mechanism is directly or through diet, to a variety of 2006, pp. 1–2). Reduced reproductive occurring in south Florida coupled with undocumented, localized pesticide success would be of concern because high mercury deposition rates, the applications conducted by homeowners. the Florida bonneted bat already consumption of such invertebrates may The potential exposure to or impacts of displays a low reproductive rate (Sparks constitute a pathway for the Florida agricultural chemical application on the 2006, p. 2). In order to accurately bonneted bat to be exposed to mercury.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61036 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Nam et al. (2012, pp. 1096–1098) Further research is needed to determine availability and prey base in some documented mercury concentrations in if such mercury exposure is having an locations. brain, liver, and fur in little brown bats adverse impact on the Florida bonneted Some species of bats are attracted to near a mercury–contaminated site in bat. artificial lights to exploit accumulations Virginia that were significantly greater In summary, the effects of pesticides of insects that congregate at light than mercury concentrations in the and contaminants on bat populations in sources (Griffin 1958; Bell 1980; same tissues of little brown bats at a general have not been studied Belwood and Fullard 1984; Haffner and reference site, indicating the potential thoroughly. In the case of the Florida Stutz 1985/86; Baagee 1986; Schnitzler for bats to be exposed to and accumulate bonneted bat, data concerning the et al. 1987; Barak and Yom-Tov 1989 as mercury near mercury–impacted effects of pesticides and other cited in Rydell 1991, p. 206; Frank 1988, systems. It is likely that the Florida contaminants are virtually nonexistent. pp. 63, 76). In one study examining bonneted bat experiences some degree Despite this lack of data, the possibility seasonal use of illuminated areas in of mercury exposure when foraging to a exists for the Florida bonneted bat to be Sweden, Rydell (1991, p. 206) found large extent above mercury–impacted exposed to a variety of compounds significant concentrations of foraging water bodies. While no known studies through multiple routes of exposure. northern bats (Eptesicus nilssoni) only have attempted to evaluate the impact of Additionally, areas with intensive in villages illuminated by streetlights, mercury on bat populations in south pesticide activity may not support an supporting the hypothesis that northern Florida, the neurotoxic effects of adequate food base for the species. bats were attracted to the villages by mercury on mammals in general have Further study is required to more fully lights and not houses. Artificial lights been well characterized in the scientific assess the risk that pesticides and appeared to provide local patches of literature. contaminants pose to the Florida food for some bat species during periods that may be critical for survival (Rydell In 2012–2013, the Service worked bonneted bat. 1991, pp. 203–207). In another study, with FDEP, UF, and other partners to Ecological Light Pollution Rydell (1992, pp. 744–750) examined analyze available Florida bonneted bat the exploitation of insects around fur samples for total mercury in an Ecological light pollution is described streetlamps by bats in Sweden and attempt to assess mercury exposure. as artificial light that alters the natural found that only the fast–flying species Nine fur samples were obtained from patterns of light and dark in ecosystems (Longcore and Rich 2004, p. 191). It that use long–range echolocation frozen specimens collected from a bat systems regularly foraged around includes ‘‘direct glare, chronically house in North Fort Myers in 2010, streetlamps, but others did not. increased illumination, and temporary, following a cold temperature event. An Longcore and Rich (2004, p. 195) unexpected fluctuations in lighting,’’ additional six fur samples were suggested that the increased food and many sources (e.g., streetlights, obtained from available specimens from concentration at artificial light sources lighted buildings and towers, sky glow) UF’s Natural History Museum. Three of may be a positive effect for those species contribute to the phenomenon the museum specimens were collected that can exploit such sources, but it also (Longcore and Rich 2004, pp. 191–192). in Miami, Florida, in the 1950s. The could result in altered community Depending upon scale and extent, remaining three museum specimens structure. were collected from Babcock-Webb ecological light pollution can have The Florida bonneted bat’s behavioral WMA in 1979. Results of the mercury demonstrable effects on behavioral and response to ecological light pollution analysis revealed an overall mean of population ecology of organisms, by has not been examined, and effects are 24.69 milligram (mg) Hg (mercury)/kg disrupting orientation (or causing not known. The species’ fast-flight and (kilogram) fur (FDEP 2013, pp. 1–7; A. disorientation), affecting movements long range flight capabilities may make Sowers, pers. comm. 2013). A wide (attraction or repulsion), altering it more able to exploit insects range of variability was observed reproductive behaviors, and influencing congregated at artificial light sources or between the samples as the measured communication (Longcore and Rich more susceptible to risks associated values ranged from 5.7 to 57 mg Hg/kg 2004, pp. 193–195). Behaviors exhibited with such responses (e.g., increased fur (FDEP 2013, pp. 1–7; A. Sowers, by individuals in response to artificial predation or harm from humans). pers. comm. 2013). For reference, Evers lighting can affect community Alternatively, artificial lighting may not et al. (2012, p. 9) provided mercury fur interactions (e.g., competition and be influencing the species’ foraging or concentrations in 802 bats spread across predation), and cumulative effects have other behaviors. Research on the effects 13 species from the northeastern United the potential to disrupt key ecosystem of artificial lighting on the Florida States. Based upon limited data, the functions (Longcore and Rich 2004, pp. bonneted bat and its prey would be mean mercury concentrations of the 195–196). beneficial. Florida bonneted bat samples (24.69 mg The effects of artificial lighting on Hg/kg fur) were higher than the means bats and their prey have been partially Effects of Small Population Size, reported for any of the 13 species (Evers studied. A wide array of insects have Isolation, and Other Factors et al. 2012, p. 9). None of the mean been found to be attracted to lights The Florida bonneted bat is mercury concentrations of the (Frank 1988, pp. 63–93; Eisenbeis and vulnerable to extinction due to its small northeastern bat species exceeded 20 mg Hassel 2000, Kolligs 2000 as cited in population size, restricted range, few Hg/kg fur (Evers et al. 2012, p. 9). It Longcore and Rich 2004, p. 194). For occupied areas, low fecundity, and should be noted, however, that some of example, Frank (1988, pp. 63–93) relative isolation. The Florida bonneted the maximum mercury values reported examined the impact of outdoor lighting bat only occurs in south Florida and by Evers et al. (2012, p. 9) did exceed on moths and found that it disturbs only in limited numbers (Timm and what was observed as maximum values many necessary functions and may Genoways 2004, pp. 861–862; Marks in the Florida bonneted bats. The results affect some moth populations. Although and Marks 2008a, pp. 11, 15; 2008b, p. from the Florida bonneted bat analysis, the primary prey items for the Florida 4; 2012, pp. 12–15). Based on the small compared with those of other bat bonneted bat are not known, it is number of locations where calls were species across the northeast, suggest that possible that artificial lighting may be recorded, the low numbers of calls exposure to mercury is of concern. affecting insect abundance or recorded at each location, and the fact

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61037

that the species forms small colonies, extinction due to genetic drift (loss of County with sustained surface Marks and Marks (2008a, p. 15) stated unique genes through time), inbreeding windspeeds of more than 145 mph and that it is possible that the entire depression (reduced fitness or survival gusts exceeding 175 mph (Timm and population of Florida bonneted bats due to low genetic diversity), extreme Genoways 2004, p. 861). The winds may number less than a few hundred weather events (e.g., hurricanes), and destroyed the majority of older trees and individuals. Other experts suggested the random or chance changes to the snags within several kilometers of the population may be ‘‘in the hundreds or environment (Lande 1988, pp. 1455– coast that were potentially available as low thousands’’ (FWC 2011b, p. 3). Due 1459; Smith 1990, pp. 310–321) that can roost trees (Timm and Genoways 2004, to its small population size and significantly impact its habitat (see p. 861; W. Kern, Jr., in litt. 2012). Timm restricted range, the species is Environmental Stochasticity, below). and Genoways (2004, p. 861) indicated considered to be one of the ‘‘most Information on the extent of genetic that habitat loss from development (see critically endangered’’ mammals in diversity in historical or current Factor A), increased use of pesticides, North America (Timm and Genoways populations is lacking. and Hurricane Andrew may have had a 2004, p. 861). In general, species with In general, isolation, whether caused significant impact on an already small restricted ranges are often characterized by geographic distance, ecological population of the Florida bonneted bat. by small population sizes and high factors, or reproductive strategy, will For example, historical hurricane habitat specialization and are, therefore, likely prevent the influx of new genetic damage in the Miami area eliminated all more vulnerable to stochastic, material and can result in low diversity, of the large pine snags in one study area, demographic, and environmental which may impact viability and leaving less than half a dozen large processes (Lande et al. 2003 as cited in fecundity (Chesser 1983, pp. 66–77). snags within a 526–ha (1,300–ac) area Lee and Jetz 2011, p. 1333). Distance between subpopulations or (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013b). In a vulnerability assessment, the colonies, the small sizes of colonies, and Several less intense hurricanes have FWC’s biological status review team the general low number of bats may impacted both coasts of Florida during determined that the species met criteria make recolonization unlikely if any site the past decade. Acoustical surveys or listing measures for geographic range, is extirpated. Isolation of habitat can conducted in south Florida prior to the population size and trend, and prevent recolonization from other sites hurricane season of 2004 (from 1997 population size and restricted area (Gore and potentially result in extinction. The through 2003) were compared with et al. 2010, pp. 1–2). For geographic probability of extinction increases with results after the hurricanes (Marks and range, the review team estimated that decreasing habitat availability (Pimm et Marks 2008a, pp. 12, D1–D6, E1–E26). the species occurs in a combined area of al. 1988, pp. 758–762, 776; Noss and The limited number of locations and roughly 17,632 km2 (6,808 mi2), well Cooperrider 1994, pp. 162–165; Thomas low number of recorded calls suggested below the criterion of <20,000 km2 1994, pp. 373–378; Kale 1996, pp. 7– that the species was rare before the 2004 (7,722 mi2). The review team also 11). Although changes in the storm season and that the population inferred a severely fragmented range, environment may cause populations to remained low afterward (Marks and with three subpopulations, all of which fluctuate naturally, small and low- Marks 2008a, pp. 12–15). Prior to the occur in coastal locations susceptible to density populations are more likely to 2004 hurricane season, calls were hurricanes and other losses in habitat fluctuate below a minimum viable recorded at 4 of 10 locations; after the (see Climate Change and Sea Level Rise population (i.e., the minimum or hurricane season, calls were recorded at and Land Use Changes and Human threshold number of individuals needed 9 of 44 locations (Marks and Marks Population Growth, above). The review in a population to persist in a viable 2008a, pp. 12–15). Actions taken by a team also inferred continuing decline in state for a given interval) (Shaffer 1981, private landowner to reinforce bat both extent of occurrence and area, pp. 131–134; Shaffer and Samson 1985, houses prior to Hurricane Charlie in extent, or quality of habitat. For pp. 146–151; Gilpin and Soule´ 1986, pp. 2004, and Hurricane Wilma in 2005, population size and trend, the review 19–34). If populations become likely prevented the only known extant team estimated <100 individuals known fragmented, genetic diversity will be roost site (at that time) from being in roosts, with an assumed total lost as smaller populations become destroyed; these storms caused population of mature individuals being more isolated (Rossiter et al. 2000, pp. significant damage to both trees and well below the criterion of fewer than 1131–1135). Fragmentation and aspects other property on the site (S. Trokey, 10,000 mature individuals. Similarly, of the species’ natural history (e.g., pers. comm. 2008c). for population size and restricted area, reliance on availability of suitable roost Major impacts of intense storms may the review team estimated <100 sites, constant supply of insects) can include mortality during the storm, individuals of all ages known in roost contribute to and exacerbate other exposure to predation immediately counts, inferring a total population to threats facing the species. following the storm, loss of natural or number fewer than 1,000 mature Overall, the Florida bonneted bat is artificial roost sites, and impacts on individuals, and three subpopulations vulnerable to a wide array of factors, foraging areas and insect abundance were located in at-risk coastal zones. including apparent small population (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 7–9; W. Slow reproduction and low fecundity size, restricted range, few occurrences, Kern, Jr. in litt. 2012; R. Timm, in litt. are also serious concerns because this low fecundity, and relative isolation. 2012). In general, bats could be blown species produces only one young at a These threats are significant and into stationary objects or impacted by time and roosts singly or in small expected to continue or possibly flying debris, resulting in injury or groups (FBC 2005, p. 1; Timm and increase. mortality (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 7). Arroyo-Cabrales 2008, p. 1). Assuming a Trees with cavities can be snapped at lifespan of 10 to 20 years for bats of this Environmental Stochasticity their weakest point, which for the size (Wilkinson and South 2002, pp. Natural events such as severe Florida bonneted bat may have the most 124–131), the average generation time is hurricanes may cause the loss of old severe impact since the species uses estimated to be 5 to 10 years (Gore et al. trees with roosting cavities (Timm and cavities (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 8); 2010, p. 7). The small numbers within Genoways 2004, p. 861). In August competition for available cavities in localized areas may also make the 1992, Hurricane Andrew, a category 5 south Florida is intense (Belwood 1992, Florida bonneted bat vulnerable to hurricane, struck southern Miami–Dade p. 220), and suitable roosting sites in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61038 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

general are often limiting factors Bender et al. 2010, pp. 454–458; years (Hallac et al. 2010, p. 1). The (Humphrey 1975, pp. 341–343). Grinsted et al. 2012, pp. 19601–19605). effects of this severe and prolonged cold Displaced bats may be found on the One model projects a doubling of event on the Florida bonneted bats or ground or other unsuitable locations frequency of category 4 and 5 storms by other bats in Florida are not known, but and exposed to natural predators, the end of the 21st century with a some mortality was observed. At least 8 domestic pets, and humans (Marks and decrease in the overall frequency of Florida bonneted bats were lost from the Marks 2008a, p. 8). As pregnant females tropical cyclones (Bender et al. 2010, North Fort Myers colony during the have been found in June through pp. 454–458). In another study that event, before 12 remaining bats were September, hurricanes in Florida can examined records since 1923, warm brought into captivity, warmed, and fed occur at critical life-history stages— years in general were more active in all (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2010a). Those when females are pregnant or rearing cyclone size ranges than cold years, and rescued were emaciated and in poor young—possibly resulting in losses of a significant trend in the frequency of pregnant females, newborns, or juvenile large surge events was detected condition. Initially, only 9 individuals pups (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 7–9). (Grinsted et al. 2012, pp. 19601–19605). appeared to survive after this event, Because the entire population may be Increases in hurricane-generated wave although 10 individuals were still alive less than a few hundred individuals heights have also been detected along at this site in April 2010 (S. Trokey, (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 15; 2012, the Atlantic coast (Komar and Allan pers. comm. 2010a-c). Approximately 30 pp. 12–15), the Florida bonneted bat 2008, pp. 479–488). Brazilian free–tailed bats were found may not be able to withstand losses If hurricanes and tropical storms dead below a bat house in Everglades from intense storms or storms at a increase in severity, frequency, or City during this event (R. Arwood, pers. critical life-history stage. Alternatively, distribution, vulnerable, tropical, tree- comm. 2010). Overall, approximately less intense hurricanes or mild, isolated roosting bat species may be heavily 100 Brazilian free-tailed bats using bat storms may create roosting impacted (Gannon and Willig 2009, pp. houses were found dead following this opportunities, if tree snags (dead trees) 281–301). Given the Florida bonneted severe cold event (C. Marks, pers. are left in place. bat’s tree-roosting habits, apparent low comm. 2011). South Florida again According to the Florida Climate abundance, few isolated colonies, and experienced cold temperatures in Center, Florida is by far the most use of coastal areas, the species is at risk December 2010. Temperatures in vulnerable State in the United States to from hurricanes, storms, or other December 2010 were among the coldest hurricanes and tropical storms (http:// extreme weather. Depending on the on record within ENP (J. Sadle, NPS, climatecenter.fsu.edu/topics/tropical- location and intensity, it is possible that pers. comm. 2011). In the short term, the weather). Based on data gathered from the majority of Florida bonneted bats severe and prolonged cold events in 1856 to 2008, Klotzbach and Gray (2009, could be killed in a fairly broad area p. 28) calculated the climatological and during a single, large, high-intensity south Florida resulted in mortality of at current-year probabilities for each State hurricane (R. Timm, in litt. 2012). More least several adult Florida bonneted bats being impacted by a hurricane and frequent and intense storms, increased at one observed site (S. Trokey, pers. major hurricane. Of the coastal States storm surges, and coastal flooding can comm. 2010a). However, it is not known analyzed, Florida had the highest impact Florida bonneted bats and if the species persisted at all sites climatological probabilities for roosting and foraging habitat. Due to the previously documented following the hurricanes and major hurricanes, with a bat’s overall vulnerability, intense prolonged and repeated cold 51 percent probability of a hurricane hurricanes are a significant threat, temperatures in 2010. Overall, the long- and a 21 percent probability of a major which is expected to continue or term effects of prolonged and repeated hurricane over a 152-year timespan. Of increase in the future. cold events on the species are not the States analyzed, Florida also had the Other processes to be affected by known. climate change include temperatures, highest current-year probabilities, with Molossids, the family of bats which a 45 percent probability of a hurricane rainfall (amount, seasonal timing, and includes the Florida bonneted bat, and an 18 percent probability of a major distribution), and storms (frequency and appear to be an intermediate between hurricane (Klotzbach and Gray 2009, p. intensity). Temperatures are projected to 28). Based upon data from the period rise approximately 2 °C to 5 °C (3.6 °F tropical and temperate zone bat families 1886–1998, Neumann et al. (1999, pp. to 9 °F) for North America by the end of (Arlettaz et al. 2000, pp. 1004–1014). 29–30) also found that the number of this century (IPCC 2007, pp. 7–9, 13). In Members of this family that inhabit the tropical cyclones within south Florida is addition to climate change, weather warmer temperate and subtropical zones high; analyses suggested that areas variables are extremely influenced by incur much higher energetic costs for within the species’ range (e.g., Fort other natural cycles, such as El Nin˜ o thermoregulation during cold weather Myers, Miami) are expected to Southern Oscillation with a frequency events than those inhabiting northern experience more than 50 occurrences of every 4 to 7 years, solar cycle (every regions (Arlettaz et al. 2000, pp. 1004– (tropical cyclones) per 100 years. In 11 years), and the Atlantic Multi- 1014). At such temperatures, bats are addition, the analyses suggested that the decadal Oscillation. All of these cycles likely unable to find food and cannot re- incidence of hurricanes in south Florida influence changes in Floridian weather. warm themselves. Such a stochastic, but was roughly 30 per 100 years, higher The exact severity, direction, and potentially severe, event poses a than any other area except for North distribution of all of these changes at the significant threat to the entire Carolina (Neumann et al. 1999, pp. 29– regional level are difficult to project. population. Impacts of past cold 30). The number of major hurricanes This species is also vulnerable to weather events are evident, but the prolonged extreme cold weather events. (roughly 14 per 100 years) was higher effect on all colonies is not known. Air temperatures dropped to below than any other area examined Additional extreme weather events are (Neumann et al. 1999, p. 30). freezing and reached a low of –2.0 °C anticipated in the future, and such Studies suggest that the frequency of (28 °F) in ENP on January 11, 2010; air high-severity hurricanes in the Atlantic temperatures at Royal Palm for the first extremes can have disastrous impacts will become more frequent as climate 2 weeks of January marked the coldest on small populations of mammals (R. warms (Elsner et al. 2008, pp. 92–95; period recorded over the previous 10 Timm, pers. comm. 2012).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61039

Aspects of the Species’ Life History and bridge maintenance) can lead to history (e.g., aerial-hawking foraging, Climate Change Implications mortality or disturbances to maternity tree-roosting habits) and environmental For bats in general, climate changes colonies. The Florida bonneted bat’s stochasticity may also contribute to its can affect food availability, timing of ability to adapt well to manmade imperilment. Multiple anthropogenic hibernation, frequency of torpor, rate of structures has likely been a factor in its factors are also threats (e.g., impacts or energy expenditure, reproduction, and decline because the bat tends to inhabit intolerance by humans) or potential development rate (Sherwin et al. 2012, structures that place it at risk from threats (e.g., wind energy projects, pp. 1–18). Although increased inadvertent or purposeful harm by ecological light pollution) of varying temperatures may lead to benefits (e.g., humans. Competition for tree cavities severity. As an insectivore, the species from native and nonnative wildlife is a increased food supply, faster is also likely exposed to a variety of potential threat. Proposed wind energy development, range expansion), other pesticides and contaminants through facilities in the species’ habitat can negative outcomes may also occur (e.g., multiple routes of exposure; pesticides cause mortalities, and this threat may extreme weather, reduced water may also affect its prey base. Given its increase as the demands for such availability, spread of disease) (Sherwin vulnerability, disease and predation (see facilities increase. The species may be et al. 2012, p. 14). Food abundance is a exposed to a variety of chemical Factor C) have the potential to impact fundamental factor influencing bat compounds through multiple routes of the species. Finally, existing regulatory activity (Wang et al. 2010, pp. 315–323). exposure, and intensive pesticide use mechanisms (see Factor D), due to a Insectivorous bats are dependent upon may alter insect prey availability. variety of constraints, do not provide ectothermic (cold–blooded) prey, whose Ecological light pollution may also be a adequate protection for the species. activity is affected by climate conditions potential threat. Small population size, Overall, impacts from increasing threats, (Burles et al. 2009, pp. 132–138). Aerial- restricted range, low fecundity, and few operating singly or in combination, hawking species such as the Florida and isolated colonies are serious place the species at risk of extinction. bonneted bat are likely highly sensitive ongoing threats. Catastrophic and to climatic changes due to their Section 3 of the Act defines an stochastic events are of significant endangered species as ‘‘any species dependence on a food supply that is concern. All occupied areas are at risk highly variable in both time and space which is in danger of extinction due to hurricanes, which can cause throughout all or a significant portion of (Sherwin et al. 2012, p. 3). direct mortality, loss of roost sites, and In assessing implications of climate its range’’ and a threatened species as other impacts. More frequent intense ‘‘any species which is likely to become change, Sherwin et al. (2012, p. 4) hurricanes may be anticipated due to identified two risk factors directly an endangered species within the climate change. Extreme cold weather foreseeable future throughout all or a related to foraging: (1) Bats inhabiting events can also have severe impacts on significant portion of its range.’’ By all water-stressed regions, and (2) aerial- the population and increase risks from indications, the species occurs only in hawking species, which are reliant on other threats by extirpating colonies or spatially variable food sources. Bats further reducing colony sizes. limited numbers within a restricted generally have higher rates of Collectively, many of these threats have range and faces considerable and evaporative water loss than other operated in the past, are impacting the immediate threats, which place it at risk similarly sized terrestrial mammals and species now, and will continue to of extinction. Aspects of the species’ birds (Herreid and Schmidt-Nielsen impact the Florida bonneted bat in the natural history may also contribute to 1966; Studier 1970 as cited in Chruszcz future. and exacerbate threats and increase its and Barclay 2002, p. 24; Webb et al. vulnerability to extinction. Since 1995, p. 270). Due to their high surface Determination of Status immediate and ongoing significant area to volume ratios and large, naked We have carefully assessed the best threats to the Florida bonneted bat flight membranes (wings), the potential scientific and commercial information extend throughout its entire range, we for loss of evaporative water is generally available regarding the past, present, have determined that the species is high (Webb et al. 1995, pp. 269–278). and future threats to the Florida currently in danger of extinction Travelling farther to access water and bonneted bat. The species occurs in throughout all of its range. Because food entails more energy expenditure limited numbers in a restricted range in threats extend throughout the entire and may affect reproductive success south Florida. Habitat loss, degradation, range, it is unnecessary to determine if (Sherwin et al. 2012, p. 4). Considering and modification from human the Florida bonneted bat is in danger of foraging risk alone, the Florida bonneted population growth and associated extinction throughout a significant bat may be especially susceptible to development and agriculture have portion of its range. Therefore, on the impacted the Florida bonneted bat and climate changes since it is an basis of the best available scientific and insectivorous, aerial-hawking species are expected to further curtail its limited commercial information, we have largely restricted to south and southwest range (see Factor A). Environmental determined that the Florida bonneted Florida, a region expected to become effects from climate change, including bat meets the definition of an water-stressed in the future (see Factor sea level rise and coastal squeeze, are A, above). predicted to become severe in the endangered species under the Act. In future, resulting in additional habitat other words, we find that a threatened Summary of Factor E losses that are expected to place the species status is not appropriate for the Based on our analysis of the best species at greater risk (see Factor A). Florida bonneted bat because of the available information, we have The Florida bonneted bat also faces severity and immediacy of the threats, identified a wide array of natural and threats from a wide array of natural and the restricted range of the species, and manmade factors affecting the manmade factors (see Factor E). Effects its apparent small population size. continued existence of the Florida of small population size, restricted Consequently, we are listing the Florida bonneted bat. Inadvertent or purposeful range, few colonies, slow reproduction, bonneted bat as an endangered species impacts by humans caused by low fecundity, and relative isolation throughout its entire range in intolerance or lack of awareness (e.g., contribute to the species’ vulnerability. accordance with sections 3(6) and removal, landscaping activities, and Other aspects of the species’ natural 4(a)(1) of the Act.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61040 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Available Conservation Measures Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR management and any other landscape- Conservation measures provided to FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). altering activities on Federal lands species listed as endangered or Implementation of recovery actions administered by the Department of threatened species under the Act generally requires the participation of a Defense, Fish and Wildlife Service, include recognition, recovery actions, broad range of partners, including other National Park Service, and U.S. Forest requirements for Federal protection, and Federal agencies, States, Tribal, Service; habitat restoration by the U.S. nongovernmental organizations, prohibitions against certain practices. Department of Agriculture, Natural businesses, and private landowners. Recognition through listing results in Resources Conservation Service; Examples of recovery actions include public awareness and conservation by issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of Federal, State, Tribal, and local (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the native vegetation), research, captive agencies; private organizations; and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; propagation and reintroduction, and individuals. The Act encourages permitting of construction and outreach and education. The recovery of cooperation with the States and requires management of gas pipeline, power line many listed species cannot be that recovery actions be carried out for rights-of-way, and wind energy facilities accomplished solely on Federal lands all listed species. The protection by the Federal Energy Regulatory because their range may occur primarily Commission; construction and required by Federal agencies and the or solely on non-Federal lands. To prohibitions against certain activities maintenance of roads, highways, or achieve recovery of these species bridges by the Federal Highway are discussed, in part, below. requires cooperative conservation efforts The primary purpose of the Act is the Administration; and pesticide on private, County, State, and Tribal conservation of endangered and registration by the U.S. Environmental lands. threatened species and the ecosystems Protection Agency. Once this species is listed (see DATES), The Act and its implementing upon which they depend. The ultimate funding for recovery actions may be regulations set forth a series of general goal of such conservation efforts is the available from a variety of sources, prohibitions and exceptions that apply recovery of these listed species, so that including Federal budgets, State to all endangered wildlife. The they no longer need the protective programs, and cost share grants for non- prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of Federal landowners, the academic codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered the Act requires the Service to develop community, and nongovernmental wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any and implement recovery plans for the organizations. In addition, pursuant to person subject to the jurisdiction of the conservation of endangered and section 6 of the Act, the State of Florida United States to take (includes harass, threatened species. The recovery will be eligible for Federal funds to harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, planning process involves the implement management actions that identification of actions that are promote the protection and recovery of trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt necessary to halt or reverse the species’ the Florida bonneted bat. Information any of these), import, export, ship in decline by addressing the threats to its on our grant programs that are available interstate commerce in the course of survival and recovery. The goal of this to aid species recovery can be found at: commercial activity, or sell or offer for process is to restore listed species to a http://www.fws.gov/grants. sale in interstate or foreign commerce point where they are secure, self- Section 7(a) of the Act requires any listed species. Under the Lacey Act sustaining, and functioning components Federal agencies to evaluate their (18 U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378), of their ecosystems. actions with respect to any species that it is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, Recovery planning includes the is proposed or listed as an endangered carry, transport, or ship any such development of a recovery outline or threatened species and with respect wildlife that has been taken illegally. shortly after a species is listed, to its critical habitat, if any is Certain exceptions apply to agents of the preparation of a draft and final recovery designated. Regulations implementing Service and State conservation agencies. plan, and revisions to the plan as this interagency cooperation provision The Florida bonneted bat is listed by the significant new information becomes of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part State of Florida; therefore, certain State available. The recovery outline guides 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires laws also apply. Listing will also require the immediate implementation of urgent Federal agencies to confer with the Federal agencies to avoid actions that recovery actions and describes the Service on any action that is likely to might jeopardize the species (16 U.S.C. process to be used to develop a recovery jeopardize the continued existence of a 1536(a)(2)), and will provide plan. The recovery plan identifies site- species proposed for listing or result in opportunities for funding of specific management actions that will destruction or adverse modification of conservation measures and land achieve recovery of the species, proposed critical habitat. If a species is acquisition that would not otherwise be measurable criteria that determine when listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of available to them (16 U.S.C. 1534, a species may be downlisted or delisted, the Act requires Federal agencies to 1535(d)). and methods for monitoring recovery ensure that activities they authorize, We may issue permits to carry out progress. Recovery plans also establish fund, or carry out are not likely to otherwise prohibited activities a framework for agencies to coordinate jeopardize the continued existence of involving endangered and threatened their recovery efforts and provide the species or destroy or adversely wildlife species under certain estimates of the cost of implementing modify its critical habitat. If a Federal circumstances. Regulations governing recovery tasks. Recovery teams action may affect a listed species or its permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for (comprising species experts, Federal critical habitat, the responsible Federal endangered species, and at 17.32 for and State agencies, nongovernmental agency must enter into consultation threatened species. With regard to organizations, and stakeholders) are with the Service. endangered wildlife, a permit must be often established to develop recovery Federal agency actions within the issued for the following purposes: for plans. When completed, the draft and species’ habitat that may require scientific purposes, to enhance the final recovery plans will be available on conference or consultation or both as propagation or survival of the species, our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/ described in the preceding paragraph and for incidental take in connection endangered), or from our South Florida include, but are not limited to: with otherwise lawful activities.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61041

It is our policy, as published in the within areas used by the Florida species at the time it is listed, upon a Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR bonneted bat that results in take of the determination that such areas are 34272), to identify to the maximum species. essential for the conservation of the extent practicable at the time a species We will review other activities not species. is listed, those activities that would or identified above on a case-by-case basis Conservation, as defined under would not constitute a violation of to determine whether they may be likely section 3 of the Act, means to use and section 9 of the Act. The intent of this to result in a violation of section 9 of the the use of all methods and procedures policy is to increase public awareness of Act. We do not consider these lists to be that are necessary to bring an the effect of a listing on proposed and exhaustive, and we provide them as endangered or threatened species to the ongoing activities within the range of information to the public. point at which the measures provided the federally listed species. Questions regarding whether specific pursuant to the Act are no longer We estimate that the following activities would constitute a violation of necessary. Such methods and activities would be likely to result in a section 9 of the Act should be directed procedures include, but are not limited violation of section 9 of the Act; to the Field Supervisor of the Service’s to, all activities associated with however, possible violations are not South Florida Ecological Services Field scientific resources management such as limited to these actions alone: Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION research, census, law enforcement, (1) Unauthorized possession, CONTACT). Requests for copies of the habitat acquisition and maintenance, collecting, trapping, capturing, killing, regulations concerning listed animals propagation, live trapping, and harassing, sale, delivery, or movement, and general inquiries regarding transplantation, and, in the including interstate and foreign prohibitions and permits may be extraordinary case where population commerce, or harming or attempting addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife pressures within a given ecosystem any of these actions, of Florida bonneted Service, Endangered Species Permits, cannot be otherwise relieved, may bats. Research activities where Florida 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA include regulated taking. bonneted bats are handled, captured 30345 (Phone 404–679–7313; Fax 404– Critical habitat receives protection (e.g., netted, trapped), tagged, fitted with 679–7081). under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies radiotransmitters or other Jeopardy Standard instrumentation, or collected will ensure, in consultation with the Service, require authorization pursuant to the Prior to and following listing, the that any action they authorize, fund, or Act. Service applies an analytical framework carry out is not likely to result in the (2) Incidental take of the Florida for jeopardy analyses that relies heavily destruction or adverse modification of bonneted bat without authorization on the importance of core area critical habitat. The designation of pursuant to section 7 or section populations to the survival and recovery critical habitat does not affect land 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. of the species. The section 7(a)(2) ownership or establish a refuge, (3) Sale or purchase of specimens of analysis is focused not only on these wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other this taxon, except for properly populations but also on the habitat conservation area. Such designation documented antique specimens of this conditions necessary to support them. does not allow the government or public taxon at least 100 years old, as defined The jeopardy analysis usually to access private lands. Such by section 10(h)(1) of the Act. expresses the survival and recovery designation does not require (4) Unauthorized destruction or needs of the species in a qualitative implementation of restoration, recovery, alteration of Florida bonneted bat fashion without making distinctions or enhancement measures by non- occupied or potentially occupied habitat between what is necessary for survival Federal landowners. Where a landowner (which may include, but is not limited and what is necessary for recovery. requests Federal agency funding or to, unauthorized grading, leveling, Generally, if a proposed Federal action authorization for an action that may plowing, mowing, burning, clearing, is incompatible with the viability of the affect a listed species or critical habitat, lighting, or pesticide application) in affected core area populations(s), the consultation requirements of section ways that kills or injures individuals by inclusive of associated habitat 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even significantly impairing the species’ conditions, a jeopardy finding is in the event of a destruction or adverse essential breeding, foraging, sheltering, considered to be warranted, because of modification finding, the obligation of or other essential life functions. the relationship of each core area the Federal action agency and the (5) Unauthorized release of biological population to the survival and recovery landowner is not to restore or recover control agents that attack any life stage of the species as a whole. the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to of this taxon. Critical Habitat (6) Unauthorized removal or avoid destruction or adverse destruction of cavity trees and other Background modification of critical habitat. natural structures being utilized as Critical habitat is defined in section 3 Section 4 of the Act requires that we roosts by the Florida bonneted bat that of the Act as: designate critical habitat on the basis of results in take of the species. (1) The specific areas within the the best scientific data available. (7) Unauthorized removal or geographical area occupied by the Further, our Policy on Information exclusion from buildings or artificial species, at the time it is listed in Standards Under the Endangered structures being used as roost sites by accordance with the Act, on which are Species Act (published in the Federal the species that results in take of the found those physical or biological Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), species. features the Information Quality Act (section 515 (8) Unauthorized maintenance or (a) Essential to the conservation of the of the Treasury and General repair of bridges or overpasses that are species and Government Appropriations Act for being used as roost sites by the Florida (b) Which may require special Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. bonneted bat that results in take of the management considerations or 5658)), and our associated Information species. protection; and Quality Guidelines provide criteria, (9) Unauthorized building and (2) Specific areas outside the establish procedures, and provide operation of wind energy facilities geographical area occupied by the guidance to ensure that our decisions

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 61042 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

are based on the best scientific data (5) Habitats that are protected from Required Determinations available. They require our biologists, to disturbance or are representative of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 the extent consistent with the Act and historical, geographical, and ecological U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with the use of the best scientific data distribution of a species. available, to use primary and original We conducted an evaluation to find if We have determined that sources of information as the basis for the designation of critical habitat for the environmental assessments and recommendations to designate critical Florida bonneted bat is determinable. environmental impact statements, as habitat. Based on that evaluation, we are defined under the authority of the When we are determining which areas currently unable to identify the physical National Environmental Policy Act, should be designated as critical habitat, and biological features essential for the need not be prepared in connection our primary source of information is conservation of the Florida bonneted bat with listing a species as an endangered generally the information developed because information on those features or threatened species under the Act. We during the listing process for the for this species remains uncertain. The published a notice outlining our reasons species. Additional information sources apparent poor viability of the species for this determination in the Federal may include the recovery plan for the recorded in recent years indicates that Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR species, articles in peer-reviewed current conditions are not sufficient to 49244). journals, conservation plans developed meet the basic biological requirements by States and counties, scientific status of the species in most areas of its References Cited surveys and studies, biological current range. A complete list of references cited in assessments, other unpublished Species-specific ecological this rulemaking is available on the materials, or experts’ opinions or requirements (e.g., natural roost sites, Internet at http://www.regulations.gov personal knowledge. seasonal changes in roosting habitat, and upon request from the Field dietary needs, seasonal changes in diet, Critical Habitat Prudency Supervisor, South Florida Ecological prime foraging habitat) are currently Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER We found that designation of critical being researched. Population dynamics, INFORMATION CONTACT). habitat for the Florida bonneted bat is such as species interactions and prudent. For further discussion, see the community structure, population Authors proposed listing rule (77 FR 60749; trends, and population size and age October 4, 2012). class structure necessary to maintain The primary authors of this rule are Critical Habitat Determinability long-term viability, have not been fully the staff members of the South Florida determined. As we are unable to Ecological Services Field Office. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) identify many physical and biological further state that critical habitat is not List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 features essential to the conservation of determinable when one or both of the the Florida bonneted bat, we are unable Endangered and threatened species, following situations exist: (1) to identify areas that contain features Exports, Imports, Reporting and Information sufficient to perform the necessary for long-term viability. recordkeeping requirements, required analysis of the impacts of the Therefore, we find that critical habitat is Transportation. designation is lacking, or (2) the not determinable at this time. biological needs of the species are not Regulation Promulgation As one peer reviewer stated during sufficiently well known to permit the public comment period, identifying identification of an area as critical Accordingly, we amend part 17, home ranges and habitat affinities of the habitat. subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) Florida bonneted bat is imperative to Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations determining the physical and biological PART 17—[AMENDED] at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which features essential to the conservation of areas to propose as critical habitat, we the species. In order for designation of must consider those physical and critical habitat to be meaningful and ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 biological features essential to the effective, the extent of the species’ range continues to read as follows: conservation of the species. These and the species’ roosting affinities Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– include, but are not limited to: should be defined prior to designation. 1544; 4201–4245, unless otherwise noted. (1) Space for individual and The Service continues to work with ■ population growth and for normal researchers, other agencies, and 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an behavior; stakeholders on filling large information entry for ‘‘Bat, Florida bonneted’’ to the (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or gaps regarding the species and its List of Endangered and Threatened other nutritional or physiological habitat needs and preferences. We Wildlife in alphabetical order under requirements; continue to fund research and study the Mammals, to read as follows: (3) Cover or shelter; habitat requirements of the bat and we intend to publish a proposed critical § 17.11 Endangered and threatened (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, wildlife. and rearing (or development) of habitat designation for the Florida offspring; bonneted bat in a separate rule in the * * * * * and near future. (h) * * *

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 61043

Species Vertebrate popu- Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed Critical Special Common name Scientific name gered or threatened habitat rules

MAMMALS

******* Bat, Florida Eumops floridanus U.S.A. (FL) ...... Entire ...... E 822 NA NA bonneted.

*******

* * * * * Dated: September 19, 2013. Rowan W. Gould, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2013–23401 Filed 10–1–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:45 Oct 01, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2