# Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Florida Bonneted Bat

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2013-23401

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** October 2, 2013
- **Citation:** 78 FR 61004

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2012-0078; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY15
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Florida Bonneted Bat

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determine endangered species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, for the Florida bonneted bat (
Eumops floridanus
), a bat species from south Florida. This final rule adds this species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and implements the Federal protections provided by the Act for this species.

DATES:

This rule is effective November 1, 2013.

ADDRESSES:

This final rule is available on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov
and at the South Florida Ecological Services Field Office. Comments and materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at
http://www.regulations.gov
and by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960-3559; telephone 772-562-3909; facsimile 772-562-4288.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Williams, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES
section). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

This rule lists the Florida bonneted bat as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. We intend to publish a separate rule proposing designation of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat in the near future.

Why we need to publish a rule.
Under the Act, a species or subspecies may warrant protection through listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Listing a species as endangered or threatened can only be completed by issuing a rule. On October 4, 2012, we published a proposed rule to list the Florida bonneted bat as an endangered species (77 FR 60750). After careful consideration of all public and peer reviewer comments we received, we are publishing this final rule to list the Florida bonneted bat as an endangered species.

The basis for our action.
Under the Act, a species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We have determined that the Florida bonneted bat is an endangered species based on three of these five factors (Factors A, D, and E). Specifically, habitat loss, degradation, and modification from human population growth and associated development and agriculture have impacted the Florida bonneted bat and are expected to further curtail its limited range (Factor A). The effects resulting from climate change, including sea-level rise and coastal squeeze, are expected to become severe in the future and result in additional habitat losses, including the loss of roost sites and foraging habitat (Factor A). The Florida bonneted bat is also facing threats from a wide array of natural and manmade factors (Factor E), including small population size, restricted range, few colonies, slow reproduction, low fecundity, and relative isolation. Existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) are inadequate to reduce these threats. Overall, impacts from increasing threats, operating singly or in combination, place the species at risk of extinction.

Peer review and public comment.
We sought comments from independent specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We received responses from six peer reviewers. Peer reviewers generally concurred with the basis for listing the Florida bonneted bat and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve this final listing determination. We considered all comments and information we received during the public comment period.

Previous Federal Actions

The Florida bonneted bat (
Eumops floridanus
) was previously known as the Florida mastiff bat (
Eumops glaucinus floridanus
).

Federal actions for the Florida bonneted bat prior to October 4, 2012, are outlined in our proposed rule (77 FR 60750), which was published on that date. Publication of the proposed rule (77 FR 60750) opened a 60-day comment period, which closed on December 3, 2012.

Our proposed rule also included a finding that designation of critical habitat was prudent, but that critical habitat was not determinable. Under the Act, the Service has 2 years from the date of the proposed listing to designate critical habitat. Accordingly, we intend to publish a separate rule proposing designation of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat in the near future.

Background

The Florida bonneted bat is a member of the Molossidae (free-tailed bats) family within the order Chiroptera. The species is the largest bat in Florida (Owre 1978, p. 43; Belwood 1992, p. 216; Florida Bat Conservancy [FBC] 2005, p. 1). Males and females are not significantly different in size, and there is no pattern of size-related geographic variation in this species (Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 857).

Members of the genus
Eumops
have large, rounded pinnae (ears), arising from a single point or joined medially on the forehead (Best
et al.
1997, p. 1). The common name of “bonneted bat” originates from characteristic large broad ears, which project forward over the eyes (FBC 2005, p. 1). Ears are joined at the midline of the head. This feature, along with its large size, distinguishes the Florida bonneted bat from the smaller Brazilian (=Mexican) free-tailed bat (
Tadarida brasiliensis
).

Wings of the members of the genus
Eumops
are among the narrowest of all molossids (Freeman 1981, as cited in Best
et al.
1997, p. 3) and are well-adapted for rapid, prolonged flight (Vaughan 1959 as cited in Best
et al.
1997, p. 3). This wing structure is conducive to high-speed flight in open areas (Findley
et al.
1972 as cited in Best
et al.
1997, p. 3).

The Florida bonneted bat's fur is short and glossy, with hairs sharply bicolored with a white base (Belwood 1992, p. 216; Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 857). Like other molossids, color is highly variable, varying from black to brown to brownish-gray or cinnamon brown with ventral pelage (fur) paler than dorsal (Owre 1978, p. 43; Belwood 1992, p. 216; Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 857).

Additional details about the Florida bonneted bat can be found in the proposed listing rule (77 FR 60750).

Taxonomy

The Florida bonneted bat (
Eumops floridanus
) was previously known as Florida mastiff bat, Wagner's mastiff bat, and mastiff bat (
E. glaucinus floridanus
) (Owre 1978, p. 43; Belwood 1992, p. 216; Best
et al.
1997, p. 1). While earlier literature found the Florida bonneted bat distinct at the subspecies level, the most current scientific information confirms that
E. floridanus
is a full species, and this taxonomic change has been accepted by the scientific community (Timm and Genoways 2004, pp. 852, 856, 861; McDonough
et al.
2008, pp. 1306-1315; R. Timm, pers. comm. 2008, 2009;
in litt.
2012; Baker
et al.
2009, pp. 9-10). The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008, p. 1) and the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) (FNAI 2013, p. 25) use the name
E. floridanus.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) (FWC 2011a, pp. 1-11; 2013, pp. 1-43) also recognizes the species as
E. floridanus,
but their current endangered and threatened list uses both names, Florida bonneted (mastiff) bat,
Eumops (=glaucinus) floridanus
(see also
Factor D
below).

Additional details about the Florida bonneted bat's taxonomy are provided in the proposed listing rule (77 FR 60750).

Life History

Relatively little is known about the Florida bonneted bat's life history. Lifespan is not known. Based upon the work of Wilkinson and South (2002, pp. 124-131), Gore
et al.
(2010, p. 1) inferred a lifespan of 10 to 20 years for the Florida bonneted bat, with an average generation time of 5 to 10 years.

The Florida bonneted bat has a fairly extensive breeding season during summer months (Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 859). The maternity season for most bat species in Florida occurs from mid-April through mid-August (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 8). During the early portion of this period, females give birth and leave young in the roost while they make multiple foraging excursions to support lactation (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 8-9). During the latter portion of the season, young and females forage together until the young become sufficiently skilled to forage and survive on their own (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 9). The Florida bonneted bat is a subtropical species, and pregnant females have been found in June through September (FBC 2005, p. 1; Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 9). Examination of limited data suggests that this species may be polyestrous (having more than one period of estrous in a year), with a second birthing season possibly in January and February (Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 859; FBC 2005, p. 1).

Information on reproduction and demography is sparse. The Florida bonneted bat has low fecundity; litter size is one (FBC 2005, p. 1; Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008, p. 1). The colony studied by Belwood (1981, p. 412) consisted of eight adults and included five post-lactating females, one pregnant female with a single fetus, and one male with enlarged testicles; the other female escaped before examination. The pregnant female captured was the first record of a gestating Florida bonneted bat in September (Belwood 1981, p. 412). However, Belwood (1981, p. 412) noted that this finding is consistent with the reproductive chronology of bonneted bats in Cuba, which are polyestrous. Robson
et al.
(1989, p. 81) found an injured pregnant female in Coral Gables in late August 1988, which aborted its fetus in early September 1988. A landowner with an active colony in North Fort Myers reported that she has seen young bats appear in spring and summer, generally with only one or two births within the colony per year (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2006a). However, four young were noted in 2004 (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2006a). The capture of a juvenile male in a mist net at Picayune Strand State Forest (PSSF) on December 17, 2009, suggested that there was breeding in the area (Smith 2010, p. 1-2).

Based upon limited information, the species roosts singly or in colonies consisting of a male and several females (Belwood 1992, p. 221). G.T. Hubbell believed that individuals in Miami roosted singly (Belwood 1992, p. 221). However, Belwood (1981, p. 412) suggested that a colony, consisting of seven females and one male using a longleaf pine cavity as a roost site in Punta Gorda, was a harem group, based on its sex ratio. Belwood (1981, p. 412; 1992, p. 221) suggested that this behavior has been recorded in a few bat species and such social groupings may be facilitated by roosting in tree cavities, which can be defended from other males (Morrison 1979, pp. 11-15).

Information on roosting habits from artificial structures is also limited. The Florida bonneted bat colony using bat houses on private property in Lee County consisted of 8 to 25 individuals, including one albino (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2006a, 2006b, 2008a, 2008b, 2012a, 2013). After prolonged cold temperatures killed and displaced several bats in early 2010, a total of 10 individuals remained by April 2010, with seven occupying one house and three occupying another (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2010a, 2010b, 2010c). As of March 2013, there are 20 bats using two houses at this location (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2013). Sex ratio is not known. Some movement between the houses has been observed; the albino individual has been observed to be in one house one day and the other house the next (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2006a).

At the Fred C. Babcock/Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area (Babcock-Webb WMA), 39 to 43 individuals have been found to use 3 to 5 separate roosts (all bat houses) during periodic simultaneous counts conducted on 4 occasions over the past year (FWC,
in litt.
2012; Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 8, 12, A61; J. Myers, pers. comm. 2012a, 2012b, 2013). Simultaneous counts taken at emergence on April 2, 2013, at 4 roosts sites, documented 39 individuals with the number at each roost as follows: 37, 1, 1, and 0 (J. Myers, pers. comm. 2013). Periodic simultaneous counts taken at roosts over the course of a year suggest that use fluctuates among five roost sites (FWC,
in litt.
2012; J. Myers, pers. comm. 2013). Apparent `non-use' of a previous roost during monitoring may not be indicative of permanent abandonment (J. Myers, pers. comm. 2013). It is not known if there is movement between houses or among roost locations or between artificial and unknown natural roosts within Babcock-Webb WMA.

Understanding of roosting behavior and site selection is limited. However, there is a high probability that individuals tend towards high roost site fidelity (H. Ober,
in litt.
2012). Lewis (1995, pp. 481-496) found that bats that roost in buildings tend to be more site-faithful than those that roost in trees. Among bats that roost in trees, those that use cavities in large trees tend to be more site-faithful than those that use smaller trees (Brigham 1991; Fenton and Rautenbach 1986; Fenton
et al.
1993 as cited in Lewis 1995, p. 487; H. Ober,
in litt.
2012). Given its size, the Florida bonneted bat is likely to select large trees (H. Ober,
in litt.
2012). The large accumulation of guano (excrement) 1 meter (m) (3.3 feet (ft)) deep in one known natural roost felled in 1979 (see Belwood 1981, p. 412) suggests high roost fidelity, especially considering the small number of individuals per colony (H. Ober,
in litt.
2012).

The Florida bonneted bat is active year-round and does not have periods of hibernation or torpor. The species is not

migratory, but there might be seasonal shifts in roosting sites (Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 860). Belwood (1992, pp. 216-217) reported that, prior to 1967, G.T. Hubbell routinely obtained several individuals per year collected during the winter from people's houses.

Precise foraging and roosting habits and long-term requirements are unknown (Belwood 1992, p. 219). Active year-round, the species is likely dependent upon a constant and sufficient food supply, consisting of insects, to maintain its generally high metabolism. The available information indicates Florida bonneted bats feed on flying insects of the following orders: Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera (flies), Hemiptera (true bugs), and Lepidoptera (moths) (Belwood 1981, p. 412; Belwood 1992, p. 220; FBC 2005, p. 1; Marks 2013, pp. 1-2). An analysis of bat guano (droppings) from the colony using the pine flatwoods in Punta Gorda indicated that the sample (by volume) contained coleopterans (55 percent), dipterans (15 percent), and hemipterans (10 percent) (Belwood 1981, p. 412; Belwood 1992, p. 220). More recent analyses of bat guano collected from occupied bat houses at Babcock-Webb WMA indicated that the samples contained high percentages of Lepidoptera and Coleoptera (Marks 2013, pp. 1-2). In one analysis of 50 fecal pellets (from approximately 35 individuals taken April 2013), samples (by volume) contained about 49 percent Lepidoptera, 35 percent Coleoptera, and 17 percent unknown (Marks 2013, p. 1). Analyses of samples taken in May 2011 (n=6) and June 2011 (n=6) at the same location also indicated that high percentages of Lepidoperta (74 percent, 49 percent) and Coleoptera (26 percent, 35 percent) were consumed (Marks 2013, pp. 1-2). Florida bonneted bats were found to feed on large insects at this location; however, specific prey could not be determined because the bats apparently culled parts of the insects such as heads, legs, antennae, elytra, and wings (Marks 2013, pp. 1-2).

Researchers are planning to conduct analyses of guano to determine dietary preferences and seasonal changes (Ridgley 2012, pp. 1-4; C. Marks, FBC, pers. comm. 2012a; S. Snow, Everglades National Park (ENP), pers. comm. 2012a; Marks 2013, p. 2). This species may prey upon larger insects, which may be less abundant than smaller prey items (S. Snow, pers. comm. 2012a). Since the species can take flight from the ground like other
Eumops
species, the Florida bonneted bat may also prey upon ground insect species (Ridgley 2012, pp. 1-2). Based upon recent analyses, Marks (2013, p. 2) recommended that natural habitats conducive to insect diversity be protected and that any pesticides be used with caution.

Molossids, in general, seem adapted to fast flight in open areas (Vaughan 1966, p. 249). Various morphological characteristics (e.g., narrow wings, high wing-aspect ratios (ratio of wing length to its breadth)) make
Eumops
species well-adapted for efficient, rapid, and prolonged flight in open areas (Findley
et al.
1972, pp. 429-444; Freeman 1981, pp. 96-97; Norberg and Rayner 1987, pp. 399-400; Vaughan 1959 as cited in Best
et al.
1997, p. 3). Barbour and Davis (1969, p. 234) noted that the species flies faster than smaller bats, but cannot maneuver as well in small spaces. Belwood (1992, p. 221) stated that
Eumops glaucinus
is “capable of long, straight, and sustained flight,” which should allow individuals to travel large distances. Norberg and Rayner (1987, p. 399) attributed long distance flights of Brazilian free-tailed bats to their high wing-aspect ratios, with that species capable of traveling 65 kilometers (km) (40 miles (mi)) from its roosting site to its foraging areas (Barbour and Davis 1969, p. 203). In one study that used radiotelemetry tracking in Arizona, Tibbitts
et al.
(2002, p. 11) found Underwood's mastiff bat (
Eumops underwoodi
) ranged up to 24 km (15 mi) or more during foraging bouts from its roost site. Tracked individuals (n=3) were found to commonly cover large areas in a single evening (Tibbitts
et al.
2002, pp. 1-12). The largest single-night home range was 284.6 km
2
(109.9 mi
2
), and all three bats commonly ranged over 100 km
2
(38.6 mi
2
) on a typical night (Tibbitts
et al.
2002, p. 12). Most bats on most nights traveled 20-30 km (12.4-18.6 mi) and often more in the range of 50-100 km (31.1-62.1 mi) as a minimum estimate (Tibbitts
et al.
2002, p. 12).

Foraging and dispersal distances and home range sizes for the Florida bonneted bat are not known and have not been studied in detail (K. Gillies,
in litt.
2012; G. Marks, pers. comm. 2012; H. Ober,
in litt.
2012). Like other molossids, the species' morphological characteristics make it capable of dispersing large distances and generally adapted for low cost, swift, long distance travel from roost site to foraging areas (Norberg and Rayner 1987, pp. 399-400; K. Gillies,
in litt.
2012; H. Ober,
in litt.
2012). Given this, it seems likely that foraging areas may be located fairly long distances from roost sites (H. Ober,
in litt.
2012). However, despite its capabilities, the species likely does not travel farther than necessary to acquire food needed for survival (G. Marks, pers. comm. 2012a).

Bonneted bats are “fast hawking” bats that rely on speed and agility to catch target insects in the absence of background clutter, such as dense vegetation (Simmons
et al.
1979, pp. 16-21; Belwood 1992, p. 221; Best
et al.
1997, p. 5). Foraging in open spaces, these bats use echolocation to detect prey at relatively long range, roughly 3 to 5 m (10 to 16 ft) (Belwood 1992, p. 221). Based upon information from G.T. Hubbell, Belwood (1992, p. 221) indicated that individuals leave roosts to forage after dark, seldom occur below 10 m (33 ft) in the air, and produce loud, audible calls when flying; calls are easily recognized by some humans (Belwood 1992, p. 221; Best
et al.
1997, p. 5; Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 5). On the evening of April 19, 2012, Florida bonneted bats using bat houses at Babcock-Webb WMA emerged to forage at dusk; emergence began roughly 26 minutes after sunset and continued for approximately 20 minutes (P. Halupa, pers. obs. 2012; J. Myers, pers. comm. 2012c).

Habitat

Relatively little is known of the ecology of the Florida bonneted bat, and long-term habitat requirements are poorly understood (Robson 1989, p. 2; Robson
et al.
1989, p. 81; Belwood 1992, p. 219; Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 859). Habitat for the Florida bonneted bat mainly consists of foraging areas and roosting sites, including artificial structures. At present, no active, natural roost sites are known, and only limited information on historical sites is available.

Recent information on habitat has been obtained largely through acoustical surveys, designed to detect and record bat echolocation calls (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 5). Acoustical methods have generally been selected over mist netting as the primary survey methodology because this species flies and primarily forages at heights of 9 m (30 ft) or more (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 3). The Florida bonneted bat has a unique and easily identifiable call. While most North American bats vocalize echolocation calls in the ultrasonic range that are inaudible to humans, the Florida bonneted bat echolocates at the higher end of the audible range, which can be heard by some humans as high-pitched calls (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 5). Most surveys conducted using acoustical equipment can detect echolocation calls within a range of 30 m (100 ft); call sequences are analyzed using software that compares calls to a library of

signature calls (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 5). Florida bonneted bat calls are relatively easy to identify because calls are issued at frequencies well below that of other Florida bat species (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 5). However, most surveys conducted for the species to date have been somewhat limited in scope, with various methods used. Since bat activity can vary greatly at a single location both within and between nights (Hayes 1997, pp. 514-524; 2000, pp. 225-236), a lack of calls during a short listening period may not be indicative of lack of use within an area (H. Ober,
in litt.
2012).

In general, open, fresh water and wetlands provide prime foraging areas for bats (Marks and Marks 2008c, p. 4). Bats will forage over ponds, streams, and wetlands and will drink when flying over open water (Marks and Marks 2008c, p. 4). During dry seasons, bats become more dependent on remaining ponds, streams, and wetland areas for foraging purposes (Marks and Marks 2008c, p. 4). The presence of roosting habitat is critical for day roosts, protection from predators, and the rearing of young (Marks and Marks 2008c, p. 4). For most bats, the availability of suitable roosts is an important, limiting factor (Humphrey 1975, pp. 341-343). Bats in south Florida roost primarily in trees and manmade structures (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 8). Protective tree cover around bat roosts may be important for predator avoidance and allowing earlier emergence from the roost, thereby allowing bats to take advantage of the peak in insect activity at dusk and extend foraging time (Duverge
et al.
2000, p. 39).

Available information on roosting sites for the Florida bonneted bat is extremely limited. Roosting and foraging areas appear varied, with the species occurring in forested, suburban, and urban areas (Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008, p. 1). Data from acoustical surveys and other methods suggest that the species uses a wide variety of habitats (R. Arwood, Inside-Out Photography, Inc., pers. comm. 2008a, 2008b, 2012a, 2013a-d; Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 13-14; 2008b, pp. 2-5; 2008c, pp. 1-28; 2012, pp. 1-22; Smith 2010, pp. 1-4; S. Snow, pers. comm. 2011a, 2011b, 2012b-h;
in litt.
2012; M. Owen, pers. comm. 2012a, 2012b; R. Rau, pers. comm. 2012; Maehr 2013, pp. 1-13; S. Maehr, pers. comm. 2013a, 2013b; K. Relish, pers. comm. 2013; F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013a-c; B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2013a-f; K. Smith, pers. comm. 2013).

Attempts to locate natural roost sites (e.g., large cavity trees) in February 2013 using scent-detection dogs were inconclusive. No active natural roosts for Florida bonneted bats have been identified or confirmed to date. At this time, all known active roost sites are artificial structures (i.e., bat houses) (see
Use of Artificial Structures (Bat Houses)
below).

Use of Forests and Other Natural Areas

Bonneted bats are closely associated with forested areas because of their tree-roosting habits (Robson 1989, p. 2; Belwood 1992, p. 220; Eger 1999, p. 132), but specific information is limited. Belwood (1981, p. 412) found a small colony of Florida bonneted bats (seven females and one male, all adults) roosting in a longleaf pine (
Pinus palustris
) in a pine flatwoods community near Punta Gorda in 1979. The bats were roosting in a cavity 4.6 m (15.1 ft) high, which had been excavated by a red-cockaded woodpecker (
Picoides borealis
) and later enlarged by a pileated woodpecker (
Dryocopus pileatus
) (Belwood 1981, p. 412). Belwood (1981, p. 412) suggested that the bats were permanent residents of the tree due to the considerable accumulation of guano, approximately 1 m (3.3 ft) in depth. Eger (1999, p. 132) noted that in forested areas, old, mature trees are essential roosting sites for this species. The species also uses foliage of palm trees. Based upon information from G.T. Hubbell, specimens have been found in shafts of royal palms (
Roystonea regia
) (Belwood 1992, p. 219).

Similar roosting habitats have been reported for
E. g. glaucinus
in Cuba. Nine of 19 known
E. g. glaucinus
roost sites were located in tree cavities, including woodpecker holes and cavities in royal palms, “degame” trees (
Callycophyllum candidissimum
), and mastic trees (
Bursera simaruba
) (Silva-Taboada 1979 as cited in Robson 1989, p. 2 and Belwood 1992, p. 219). Another individual was found roosting in the foliage of the palm
Copernicia vespertilionum
(Silva-Taboada 1979 as cited in Belwood 1992, p. 219). Belwood (1992, pp. 219-220) noted that the majority of the approximately 80 specimens of
E. glaucinus
from Venezuela housed in the U.S. National Museum were collected from tree cavities in heavily forested areas.

More recent acoustical data and other information indicate that the Florida bonneted bat uses forests and a variety of other natural areas. Echolocation calls have been recorded in a wide array of habitat types: Pine flatwoods, pine rocklands, cypress, hardwood hammocks, mangroves, wetlands, rivers, lakes, ponds, canals, and so forth (see Table 1). Table 1 lists locations and habitat types where Florida bonneted bats were recorded or observed (2003 to present) (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2008a, 2008b, 2012a, 2013a-d; Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 13-14; 2008b, pp. 2-5; 2008c, pp. 1-28; 2012, pp. 1-22; Smith 2010, pp. 1-4; S. Snow, pers. comm. 2011a, 2011b, 2012b-h;
in litt.
2012; M. Owen, pers. comm. 2012a, 2012b; R. Rau, pers. comm. 2012; Maehr 2013, pp. 1-13; S. Maehr, pers. comm. 2013a, 2013b; K. Relish, pers. comm. 2013; F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013a-c; B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2013a-f; K. Smith, pers. comm. 2013). Additional details on key sites are provided below Table 1.

Table 1—Locations and Habitat Types Recorded or Observed for Florida Bonneted Bats
[2003-2013]

Site
Ownership
County
Management
Habitat type

Everglades National Park (ENP) (coastal) (2 backcountry sites along Wilderness Waterway [Darwin's Place, Watson's Place])
public
Monroe
National Park Service (NPS)
earth midden hammocks, mangroves.

ENP (mainland) (junction of Main Park Road and Long Pine Key)
public
Miami-Dade
NPS
pine rocklands, wet prairie, tropical hardwoods.

L-31N canal, proposed transmission line corridor, eastern boundary ENP
public
Miami-Dade
NPS and SFWMD
canal, mixed.

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.

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 Golf Course)
private
Miami-Dade
None
residential, urban.

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 Service
pine flatwoods, wet prairie, lakes, artificial and ephemeral ponds bordered by royal palm hammock, cypress, pond apple, oak hammock.

Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park (FSPSP) (multiple sites)
public
Collier
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
lake, canal near hardwood hammock, pine flatwoods, strand swamp, royal palms.

Picayune Strand State Forest (PSSF) (multiple sites)
public
Collier
FFS
canal, wet prairie, pine flatwoods, cypress, hardwood hammock, exotics.

Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP) (multiple sites)
public
Collier
NPS
pine flatwoods, palmetto, cypress, mixed and hardwood hammocks, mangroves, mixed shrubs, wet prairies, river, lake, campground.

North Fort Myers (2 sites, including bat houses)
private
Lee
None; private landowner
residential, rural, urban; bat houses.

Babcock-Webb Wildlife Management Area (WMA) (multiple sites)
public
Charlotte
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)
pinelands (and near red-cockaded woodpecker clusters); bat houses.

Babcock Ranch Preserve (Telegraph Swamp)
public, private
Charlotte
Private entities, FWC, FFS, and Lee County
swamp.

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 Bluff)
public
Okeecho-bee
SWFWMD and FWC
boat ramp along Kissimmee River.

In 2006, the species was found at Babcock-Webb WMA in the general vicinity of the colony found by Belwood (1981, p. 412); this was the first documentation of the Florida bonneted bat at this location since 1979 (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 6, 11, 13). Major habitat types at Babcock-Webb WMA include dry prairie, freshwater marsh, wet prairie, and pine flatwoods; all calls were recorded in pinelands (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. A7, B38-B39; 2012, pp. 8, A61, B43). The species was also recorded at an adjacent property, Babcock Ranch Preserve, in 2007; calls were recorded at Telegraph Swamp, but not in the pinelands surveyed (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. A9, B55-B57).

The species has been found within the Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park (FSPSP), using this area throughout the year (D. Giardina, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), pers. comm. 2006; C. Marks, pers. comm. 2006a, 2006b; M. Owen, FSPSP, pers. comm. 2012a, 2012b). In 2006, this species was found at a small lake and at a canal adjacent to tropical hardwood hammocks (Ballard Pond and Prairie Canal Bridge) in the FSPSP (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 11, A7-A9, B50-B51). Available data and observations indicate that the species was regularly heard at FSPSP from 2000 through 2012 at various locations, primarily in the main strand swamp and near royal palms (M. Owen, pers. comm. 2012a, 2012b; R. Rau, pers. comm. 2012). In November 2007, the species was observed along U.S. 41 at Collier-Seminole State Park in Collier County (S. Braem, FDEP, pers. comm. 2012). The FDEP also suggests that the species may occur at Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park in Charlotte County and Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park in Collier County (P. Small, FDEP, pers. comm. 2012).

The Florida bonneted bat has been found in various habitats within Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP). During surveys conducted in a variety of habitats in 2006-2007, the majority consisting of cypress swamps and wetlands, only one Florida bonneted bat call sequence was recorded in BCNP in 16 nights of effort (stationary and roving surveys) (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 11, A12-A14). The call sequence was recorded at Deep Lake along the western edge of BCNP and the eastern side of the FSPSP; the lake was surrounded by cypress and hardwood hammocks similar to the habitat around Ballard Pond in the FSPSP (see above) (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2008b). The species was recorded again in February 2012 at another location (Cal Stone's camp) in an area of pine and palmetto with cypress domes in the surrounding area (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2012a; Marks and Marks 2012, p. 13). Data derived from recordings taken in 2003 and 2007 by a contractor and provided to the Service (S. Snow, pers. comm. 2012g) and available land use covers derived from a geographic information system also suggest that the species uses a wide array of habitats within BCNP. Additional call data obtained in late 2012 and early 2013 also suggest the use

of various habitat types, including forested areas, wetlands, and open water in BCNP (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2013a-d).

Recent results from a study at Florida Panther NWR conducted in 2013 also show the species' use of forested areas, open water, and wetlands (Maehr 2013, pp. 1-13). Of the 13 locations examined, the highest detection of Florida bonneted bat calls occurred in areas with the largest amount of open water (Maehr 2013, p. 8). The area with the highest detection was an open water pond, surrounded primarily by pine flatwoods and oak hammock (S. Maehr, pers. comm. 2013a-c). That area has been regularly burned and contains a large amount of old snags that have been hollowed by woodpeckers (C. Maehr, pers. comm. 2013c).

As noted earlier, FWC biologists and volunteers caught a free-flying juvenile male Florida bonneted bat in 2009, using a mist net in the PSSF in Collier County (Smith 2010, p. 1). Habitat composition of PSSF includes wet prairie, cypress stands, and pine flatwoods in the lowlands and subtropical hardwood hammocks in the uplands, and the individual was captured in the net above the Faka-Union Canal (Smith 2010, p. 1). This was particularly notable because it may have been the first capture of a Florida bonneted bat in an area with no known roost site (Smith 2010, p. 1). The species has been detected at nine locations within PSSF (i.e., captured at one location, heard while mist netting at eight other locations), and each site was located near canals (K. Smith, pers. comm. 2013).

In 2000, the species was recorded within mangroves at Dismal Key within the Ten Thousand Islands (Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 861; Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 6, A9, B53; 2012, p. 14). Subsequent surveys in 2000, 2006, and 2007 did not document any additional calls at this location (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 6, 11, 14). In 2007, the species was recorded at a backcountry campsite (Watson's Place) within ENP, comprised of mixed hardwoods (S. Snow, pers. comm. 2012h). In 2012, the species was found within mangroves and mixed hardwoods at another backcountry campsite (Darwin's Place) along the Wilderness Waterway (Ten Thousand Islands area), approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) east-southeast of Watson's Place within ENP (Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 8, 17, A53, B35, B38; C. Marks, pers. comm. 2012b; S. Snow, pers. comm. 2012h). However, the species was not located in similar habitats during 18 survey nights in 2012 (Marks and Marks 2012, p. 14).

In 2011-2012, the species was recorded in various natural habitats elsewhere in ENP and vicinity (S. Snow, pers. comm. 2011a, 2012c-f; S. Snow,
in litt.
2012; Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 8, 14). It was recorded in wetlands, tropical hardwoods, and pinelands at the junction of the main park road and road to Long Pine Key (S. Snow, pers. comm. 2011a, 2012f;
in litt.
2012; Marks and Marks 2012, p. 8, 14, 17), and also along the L-31N canal in a rural area, at the eastern boundary of ENP (Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 8, 14, 17, A59; S. Snow, pers. comm. 2012c-f;
in litt.
2012). In March 2012, one suspect call sequence (presumed, but not confirmed) was also recorded on SR 9336 in an area of rural residential and agricultural habitat in Miami-Dade County (S. Snow, pers. comm. 2012f). In January 2012, another suspect call was recorded from the suburban streets of the village of Palmetto Bay in Miami-Dade (S. Snow, pers. comm. 2012f).

In 2008, the Florida bonneted bat was recorded at two locations along the Kissimmee River during a survey of public areas contracted by FWC (J. Morse, pers. comm. 2008, 2010; Marks and Marks 2008b, pp. 2-5; 2008c, pp. 1-28). One location was at an oxbow along the Kissimmee River in a pasture in KICCO WMA; the other was at Platt's Bluff boat ramp at a public park on the Kissimmee River (Marks and Marks 2008c, pp. 11, 17). No additional calls were detected in the Lake Kissimmee areas or along the Kissimmee River during subsequent surveys designed to more completely define the northern part of the Florida bonneted bat's range in 2010-2012 (C. Marks, pers. comm. 2012c; Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 3, 5, 8, 10). However, the Florida bonneted bat was detected elsewhere in the northern part of its range during surveys at APAFR in 2013 (B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2013a, 2013e) (see
Current Distribution
). Call sequences were recorded at two locations, including one in an area of scrubby flatwoods next to a natural open water lake/pond and near several cavity trees and snags and another near a wetland embedded in scrub habitat (B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2013b, 2013d, 2013e).

Use of Parks, Residential Areas, and Other Urban Areas

The Florida bonneted bat uses human structures and other nonnatural environments. In Coral Gables (Miami area), specimens have been found in the shafts of royal palm leaves (Belwood 1992, p. 219). Based upon observations from G.T. Hubbell, past sightings in Miami suggest that preferred diurnal roosts may be the shingles under Spanish tile roofs (Belwood 1992, p. 219). The species also roosts in buildings (e.g., in attics, rock or brick chimneys of fireplaces, and especially buildings dating from about 1920-1930) (Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008, p. 1). One individual recently reported that a single Florida bonneted bat had come down the chimney and into his residence in Coral Gables in the fall about 5 years ago (D. Pearson, pers. comm. 2012). Belwood (1992, p. 220) suggested that urban bats would appear to benefit from using Spanish tile roofs on dwellings, since the human population in south Florida is growing, and Spanish tile roofs are likely more common now than in the past. However, it is important to recognize that bats using old or abandoned and new dwellings are at significant risk; bats are removed when structures are demolished or when they are no longer tolerated by humans (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,
Factor E
).

Discovery of an adult with a specimen tag indicating “found under rocks when bull-dozing ground” suggests this species may also roost in rocky crevices and outcrops on the ground (Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 860). A colony was found in a limestone outcropping on the north edge of the University of Miami campus in Coral Gables; the limestone contained a large number of flat, horizontal, eroded fissures in which the bats roosted (Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 860). It is not known to what extent such roost sites are suitable.

Recent acoustical surveys (2006, 2008, 2012) confirmed that the species continues to use a golf course in urban Coral Gables (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 6, 11, A4; 2008b, pp. 1-6; 2012, pp. 8, 14, 16, 19, A24, B16). Despite numerous efforts, attempts to locate the roost site have been unsuccessful.

Recordings taken continuously from a balcony from a fifth floor condominium also detected presence in Naples (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2008a). Recordings taken from a house and at a boat dock along the Barron River in Everglades City also detected presence in this area (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2008a).

The species has been documented at Zoo Miami within an urban public park within the Richmond Pinelands in Miami-Dade County (Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 8, 14, 16, A26; Ridgley 2012, p. 1; F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013a, 2013b). A dead specimen was found on Zoo Miami (then known as Miami Metrozoo) grounds at the Asian Elephant barn in 2004 (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 6). Miami-Dade County

biologists observed seven bats similar in size to Florida bonneted bats and heard chatter at the correct frequency a few years ago, but were unable to obtain definitive recordings (S. Thompson, Miami-Dade Park and Recreation Department, pers. comm. 2010) until a single call was recorded by FBC outside the same enclosure in September 2011 (Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 8, 14, 16, A26; Ridgley 2012, p. 1).

Florida bonneted bats have been recorded more recently at the Zoo Miami, Larry and Penny Thompson Park, and the Martinez Preserve, with peak activity in areas of artificial freshwater lakes adjacent to intact pine rocklands (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013a-c). Surrounding habitats include pine rocklands, disturbed natural areas with invasive plant species, freshwater lakes, developed area, open recreational areas, and horticulturally altered landscape, with a variety of manmade structures (J. Maguire,
in litt.
2012; Ridgley 2012, p. 1; F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013b). Although there are five artificial lakes on the grounds of Zoo Miami and Larry and Penny Thompson Park, the Florida bonneted bat appears to utilize the two that have pine rockland adjacent to their shorelines (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013b). Possible roosting sites that exist on the properties include manmade structures, pine snags, and limestone cavities (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013b).

In 2011 and 2012, the species was recorded within tropical gardens at Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden (FTBG) in Miami-Dade County (S. Snow, pers. comm. 2011b, 2012b, 2012f; Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 8, 13-14, 17, A35, A37).

Use of Artificial Structures (Bat Houses)

The Florida bonneted bat uses non-natural environments (see
Use of Parks, Residential Areas, and other Urban Areas,
above) and artificial structures, particularly bat houses (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 8; Morse 2008, pp. 1-14; S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2012a, 2012b). In fact, all of the active known roosting sites for the species are bat houses (2 at a private landowner's house; 3 to 5 separate roosts at Babcock-Webb WMA).

The species occupies bat houses on private land in North Fort Myers, Lee County; until relatively recently, this was the only known location of an active colony roost anywhere (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2006a, 2008b; Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 7, 15). The Florida bonneted bat has used this property for over 9 years (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2012a). The bat houses are located near a small pond, situated approximately 5 m (17 ft) above the ground with a south-by-southwest orientation (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2012b). The relatively high height of the houses may allow the large bats to fall from the roosts before flying (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2012b).

The species also occupies bat houses within pinelands at Babcock-Webb WMA in Punta Gorda, Charlotte County (Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 8, A61). In winter 2008, two colonies were found using bat houses (Morse 2008, p. 8; N. Douglass, FWC, pers. comm. 2009). In 2010, approximately 25 individuals were found at two additional bat houses, bringing the potential total at Babcock-Webb WMA to 58 individuals, occupying four houses (J. Birchfield, FWC, pers. comm. 2010; Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 12, A61). In 2012, 42 individuals were found to use four roost sites, consisting of a total of seven bat houses, situated approximately 5 m (17 ft) above the ground with north and south orientations (Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 12, 19, A61; J. Myers, pers. comm. 2012a). In September 2012, five bats were observed using two triple-chambered houses mounted back-to-back; this represented the fifth roost site found at Babcock-Webb WMA (FWC,
in litt.
2012). In 2013, 39 individuals were using 3 roost sites (J. Myers, pers. comm. 2013). Roosts at Babcock-Webb WMA are mainly in hydric and mesic pine flatwoods with depression and basin marshes and other mixed habitat in the vicinity (J. Myers, pers. comm. 2012b).

Summary

In summary, relatively little is known of the species' habitat requirements. Based upon available data discussed above, it appears that the species can use a wide array of habitat types (see Table 1, above). The extremely limited available information on roosting sites is particularly problematic, as the availability of suitable roosts is an important limiting factor for most bat species. Existing roost sites need to be identified so that they can be preserved and protected (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 15; K. Gillies,
in litt.
2012). Uncertainty regarding the location of natural and artificial roost sites may contribute to the species' vulnerability (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,
Factors A
and
E,
below). As the locations of other potentially active roost sites are not known, inadvertent impacts to and losses of roosts may be more likely to occur. If roost sites are located, actions could be taken to avoid or minimize losses.

Historical Distribution

Records indicating historical range are limited. Information on the Florida bonneted bat's historical distribution is provided in the proposed listing rule (77 FR 60750). We did not receive any new information during the public comment period.

Current Distribution

Endemic to Florida, the Florida bonneted bat has one of the most restricted distributions of any species of bat in the New World (Belwood 1992, pp. 218-219; Timm and Genoways 2004, pp. 852, 856-858, 861-862). Although numerous acoustical surveys for the Florida bonneted bat have been conducted in the past decade by various parties, the best scientific information indicates that the species exists only within a very restricted range, largely confined to south and southwest Florida (Timm and Genoways 2004, pp. 852, 856-858, 861-862; Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 15; 2012, pp. 10-11).

The majority of information relating to current distribution comes from the following recent studies: (1) Rangewide surveys conducted in 2006-2007, funded by the Service, to determine the status of the Florida bonneted bat following the 2004 hurricane season, and follow-up surveys in 2008 (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 1-16 and appendices; 2008b, pp. 1-6); (2) surveys conducted in 2008 along the Kissimmee River and Lake Wales Ridge, funded by the FWC, as part of bat conservation and land management efforts (Marks and Marks 2008c, pp. 1-28; 2008d, pp. 1-21; Morse 2008, p. 2); (3) surveys conducted within BCNP in 2003 and 2007, funded by the NPS (S. Snow, pers. comm. 2012g), and surveys conducted in BCNP in 2012 and 2013 through volunteer efforts (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2012a, 2012b, 2013a-d); (4) surveys conducted in 2011-2012 in ENP by NPS staff (S. Snow, pers. comm. 2012c-f;
in litt.
2012); (5) surveys conducted in 2010-2012, funded by the Service, to fill past gaps and better define the northern and southern extent of the species' range (Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 1-22 and appendices); (6) recordings taken from proposed wind energy facilities in Glades and Palm Beach Counties (C. Coberly, Merlin Ecological, LLC., pers. comm. 2012; C. Newman, Normandeau Associates, Inc, pers. comm. 2012); and (7) surveys conducted as part of other isolated studies. Details relating to the bulk of these survey efforts and results were described in detail in the proposed listing rule (77 FR 60750). Only new information or relevant findings are provided below.

It is important to note that most surveys were limited in scope, and various methods and equipment were used. In many cases, relatively short listening intervals were employed (generally >1 hour in duration, often multiple hours). Only a few studies sampled the same areas on more than one occasion or for consecutive nights. More robust study designs would account for sources of temporal, spatial, and sampling variation and explicitly state underlying assumptions (Hayes 1997, pp. 514-524; 2000, pp. 225-236).

(1) Surveys in Big Cypress

Data from acoustical surveys conducted from December 7, 2012, through July 11, 2013, documented presence at seven sites within BCNP (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2013a-d). In this effort, continuous recordings were taken from sundown to sunrise over multiple nights at each site survey site (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2012b). As of July 11, 2013, a total of 747 Florida bonneted bat calls were recorded out of 36,441 total calls over 296 nights (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2013c). The vast majority of Florida bonneted bat calls (721 of 747) were recorded at one pond in a remote area of BCNP, with activity found on 8 of 10 nights in May and June 2013 (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2013c). It is noteworthy that in each of the seven locations, Florida bonneted bat calls were not detected on the first night of sampling. Had surveys not been conducted over multiple nights, presence would not have been detected.

(2) Surveys in the Everglades Region

Acoustical surveys conducted on 80 nights in the Everglades region from October 2011 to November 2012 by Skip Snow (pers. comm. 2012b, 2012c-f;
in litt.
2012) documented presence at several locations within ENP and surrounding locations (see Table 1). These findings are significant because the importance of the Everglades region to the Florida bonneted bat had been previously in question.

(3) Other Isolated Studies

Avon Park Air Force Range (APAFR)
—An acoustical survey was initiated at APAFR in January 2013. Surveys were conducted at 13 locations over 119 survey nights (sunset to sunrise) (B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2013f). As of August 2013, a total of 9 Florida bonneted bat call sequences (of 2,170 total bat call sequences) were recorded at two locations on APAFR in Polk County (B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2013a-f). At one location, presence was detected in scrubby flatwoods within a red-cockaded woodpecker colony next to a natural open water lake/pond (B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2013b). At the second location, presence was detected near a wetland embedded in scrub habitat about 4.0 km (2.5 mi) from the previous detection (B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2013e). These findings are significant because they provide additional evidence of current presence in the northern part of the species' range, where survey information is generally lacking. It is also noteworthy that at one location detected, Florida bonneted bats were not recorded for the first 3 weeks of sampling (B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2013d). Had surveys not been conducted over multiple weeks at the same location, presence may not have been detected.

Florida Panther NWR
—An acoustical survey was conducted at Florida Panther NWR from February 28 to May 5, 2013. Surveys using multiple detectors were conducted at 13 locations on the refuge, primarily near water bodies, over 57 survey nights (Maehr 2013, pp. 5-7; C. Maehr, pers. comm. 2013b). The number of detection devices deployed at each location ranged from 4 to 9, depending upon size and access to open water (Maehr 2013, pp. 5-7). Recordings were taken for 3 to 4 consecutive nights at each location, with all frequencies recorded from dusk plus 7 hours (Maehr 2013, p. 5). Florida bonneted bats calls were recorded at 9 of 13 locations, primarily in areas of the largest open water and in the area of the Fakahatchee Strand that bisects the refuge (Maehr 2013, pp. 7-9).

This study confirms presence on the refuge and suggests that it is an important area for the species. Of additional significance was the simultaneous recordings of Florida bonneted bats at multiple locations (Maehr 2013, p. 9). These findings, along with detection shortly after sunset, suggest that Florida bonneted bats may be roosting on the refuge, in addition to using the area for foraging (Maehr 2013, p. 9). Additional data analyses are currently underway. Detections at numerous locations may be partly attributable to the comprehensive array of detectors deployed (e.g., saturation of specific sites), multiple nights sampled, and length of hours sampled (i.e., 7 hours or more each night).

Zoo Miami, Larry and Penny Thompson Park, and Martinez Preserve
—An acoustical survey of the properties, totaling roughly ~526 ha (~1,300 ac), was conducted using a grid system and randomized sampling points (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013a-c). As of June 2013, 137 nights of recordings have been conducted, with recordings taken from dusk to dawn and microphones elevated on a portable 5.2-m (17-ft) mast (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013b). Results of the first quarter analysis yielded 154 Florida bonneted bat calls out of over 20,500 total bat call sequences (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013b). The species was detected at 23 of the 50 sampling points; 10 of those points accounted for more than 80 percent of the calls (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013b). Peak activity areas for the Florida bonneted bat within the study area are associated with artificial freshwater lakes adjacent to intact pine rockland (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013b). Although no roosting sites have been identified to date, early emergence calls (within 15-20 minutes after sunset) have been repeatedly documented, and all early calls have been on the edge of a tract of intact pine rockland (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013b).

In summary, the Florida bonneted bat appears to be largely restricted to south and southwest Florida. The core range may primarily consist of habitat within Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Monroe, and Miami-Dade Counties. Recent data also confirm use of portions of south-central Florida in Okeechobee and Polk Counties and suggest possible use of areas within Glades County. However, given limited available data, it is not clear to what extent areas outside of the core range may be used. It is possible that areas outside of the south and southwest Florida are used only seasonally or sporadically. Alternatively, these areas may be used consistently, but the species was not regularly located due to limited search efforts, imperfect survey methods, constraints of recording devices, and general difficulties in detecting the species.

Population Estimates and Status

Historical
—Little information exists on historical population levels. Details are provided in the proposed listing rule (77 FR 60750).

Current
—Based upon available data and information, the Florida bonneted bat occurs within a restricted range and in apparent low abundance (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 15; 2012, pp. 9-15; Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008, p. 1; FWC 2011a, pp. 3-4; FWC 2011b, pp. 3, 6; R. Timm, pers. comm. 2012,
in litt.
2012). Actual population size is not known, and no population viability analyses are available (FWC 2011a, p. 4; 2013, p. 16; K. Bohn,
in litt.
2012). However, population size is thought to be less than that needed for optimum viability (Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008, p. 1; K. Bohn,
in litt.
2012). As

part of their evaluation of listing criteria for the species, Gore
et al.
(2010, p. 2) found that the extent of occurrence appears to have decreased on the east coast of Florida, but trends on the west coast could not be inferred due to limited information.

In his independent review of the FWC's biological status report, Ted Fleming, Emeritus Professor of biology at University of Miami, noted that anecdotal evidence from the 1950s and 1960s suggests that this species was more common along Florida's southeast coast compared with the present (FWC 2011b, p. 3). Fleming stated that, “There can be no doubt that
E. floridanus
is an uncommon bat throughout its very small range. Its audible echolocation calls are distinctive and easily recognized, making it relatively easy to survey in the field” (FWC 2011b, p. 3). He also stated that he does not doubt that the total State population numbers “in the hundreds or low thousands” (FWC 2011b, p. 3).

Similarly, in response to a request for information as part of the Service's annual candidate notice of review, Robert Timm (pers. comm. 2012), Curator of Mammals at the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Biodiversity Institute at the University of Kansas, indicated that numbers are low, in his view, as documented by survey attempts: “
Eumops
are very obvious bats where they occur because of their large size and distinctive calls. Given the efforts to locate them throughout southern Florida, if they were there in any significant numbers, they would have been located” (R. Timm, pers. comm. 2012).

Results of the 2006-2007 rangewide survey suggested that the Florida bonneted bat is a rare species with limited range and low abundance (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 15). Based upon results of both the rangewide study and survey of select public lands, the species was found at 12 locations (Marks and Marks 2008b, p. 4), but the number and status of the bat at each location are unknown. Based upon the small number of locations where calls were recorded, the low numbers of calls recorded at each location, and the fact that the species forms small colonies, Marks and Marks (2008a, p. 15) stated that it is possible that the entire population of Florida bonneted bats may number less than a few hundred individuals.

Results of the 2010-2012 surveys and additional surveys by other researchers identified new occurrences within the established range (i.e., within Miami area, areas of ENP and BCNP) (S. Snow, pers. comm. 2011a, 2011b, 2012b-f; R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2012a, 2013a-c; Marks and Marks 2012, p. 8), however, not in sufficient numbers to alter previous population estimates. In their 2012 report on the status of the species, Marks and Marks (2012, p. 12) provided an updated estimation of population size, based upon 120 nights of surveys at 96 locations within peninsular Florida, results of other known surveys, and personal communications with others involved in Florida bonneted bat work. Based upon an average colony size of 11 and an estimated 26 colonies within the species' range, researchers estimated the total Florida bonneted bat population at 286 bats (Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 12-15). Researchers acknowledged that this was to be considered a rough estimate, intended as a starting point and a basis for future work (Marks and Marks 2012, p. 12).

In a vulnerability assessment, the FWC's biological status review team determined that the species met criteria or listing measures for geographic range, population size and trend, and population size and restricted area (Gore
et al.
2010, pp. 1-2). For population size and trend, the review team estimated <100 individuals known in roosts, with an assumed total population of mature individuals being well below the criterion of fewer than 10,000 mature individuals. Similarly, for population size and restricted area, the review team estimated <100 individuals of all ages known in roost counts, inferring a total population to number fewer than 1,000 mature individuals, and potentially three subpopulations in south Florida. Detection of the species in the northern part of its range may be suggestive of an additional subpopulation in south-central Florida (see
Current Distribution,
above). In total, there may be three or four subpopulations.

Similarly, the 2012 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species lists the species as “critically endangered” because “its population size is estimated to number fewer than 250 mature individuals, with no subpopulation greater than 50 individuals, and it is experiencing a continuing decline” (Timm and Arroyo-Cabrales 2008, p. 1). The FNAI (2013, pp. 25, 29) also considers the global element rank of the Florida bonneted bat to be G1, meaning it is critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences, or fewer than 1,000 individuals) or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction due to some natural or manmade factor.

Estimates of population size are crude, relative, and largely based upon expert opinions and inferences from available data. Due to the numerous challenges associated with censusing bats (Kunz 2003, pp. 9-17), it will likely be difficult to accurately estimate the size of the Florida bonneted bat population (FWC 2013, p. 13). Alternative approaches, such as occupancy modeling and analysis of genetic diversity, may provide better estimates and more useful information about population size in the future (K. Gillies,
in litt.
2012; FWC 2013, p. 16).

Acoustical Survey Efforts as Indicators of Rarity

A detailed discussion of acoustical survey effort and results can be found in the proposed listing rule (77 FR 60750). Only new information we received during the public comment period or relevant findings are provided below.

Results from acoustical surveys conducted in late 2012 through mid-2013 detected generally few Florida bonneted bat calls in BCNP, except for one location. In 296 nights of sampling, 747 Florida bonneted bat calls of 36,441 total bat calls were recorded on 17 nights at 7 of 44 sites surveyed (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2013c). Most of the positive calls (721) were recorded at one location (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2013c). Although it is difficult to compare studies, these results appear to confirm previous findings suggesting rarity, particularly because this study employed longer recording intervals (i.e., continuous recordings taken from sunset to sunrise) with multiple nights at each site survey site (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2012b).

Acoustical surveys conducted at Zoo Miami and adjacent pinelands over 137 nights of sampling detected 154 Florida bonneted bat calls out of over 20,500 bat call sequences recorded (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013). Although difficult to compare to other studies, it should be noted that this study also employed long recording intervals (i.e., continuous recordings taken from sunset to sunrise) taken from an elevated microphone to improve detection.

Available data and information (from previous efforts and those presented above) show comparatively few positive Florida bonneted bat calls recorded relative to other bat species with considerable survey effort expended. Although acoustical data suggest general rarity, it is not possible to estimate population size from this information, due to the limitations of the studies (e.g., large areas not surveyed, surveys primarily conducted on public lands, lack of randomization in selecting survey sites, short duration of many listening periods) and equipment (e.g., recording distance), and aspects of the

species' ecology (e.g., able to fly high and travel far distances).

Occupied and Potential Occupied Areas

The Florida bonneted bat has been recorded in various habitat types and locations in south and southwest Florida (see Table 1 and
Habitat,
above) (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2008a, 2008b, 2012a, 2013a-d; Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 13-14; 2008b, pp. 2-5; 2008c, pp. 1-28; 2012, pp. 1-22; Smith 2010, pp. 1-4; S. Snow, pers. comm. 2011a, 2011b, 2012b-h;
in litt.
2012; M. Owen, pers. comm. 2012, 2012b; R. Rau, pers. comm. 2012; Maehr 2013, pp. 1-13; S. Maehr, pers. comm. 2013a-c; K. Relish, pers. comm. 2013; F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013a-c; B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2013a-f; K. Smith, pers. comm. 2013). Still, no actual colony locations or roost sites other than occupied bat houses are currently known, and large information gaps in the species' ecology currently exist. Roosting and foraging behavior and habitat are not fully understood. It is not known how far individuals travel from roosting locations to forage or to fulfill other needs. Dietary requirements, colony composition, movement between roosts or among colonies, and many other basic aspects of the species' life history are poorly understood. Despite these uncertainties, there is evidence that the species occupies at least portions of five south and southwest Florida counties (Charlotte, Lee, Collier, Monroe, and Miami-Dade Counties) within the core of its range as explained below. In addition, there is additional evidence that the species occupies portions of south-central Florida (Polk and Okeechobee Counties) (Marks and Marks 2008b, pp. 2, 5; 2008c, pp. 11, 17; B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2013a-f). Areas adjacent to or near these locations may also be occupied.

Core Areas

Charlotte County

Babcock-Webb WMA
—Florida bonneted bats have consistently used this area since 2008 (J. Myers, pers. comm. 2013). The colonies at Babcock-Webb WMA are the only known roosts on public lands and effectively tripled the number of known active colonies (N. Douglass, pers. comm. 2009). The 33 individuals recorded in 2009 appeared to be the largest single discovery of the species recorded in recent years (N. Douglass, pers. comm. 2009). In 2010, monitoring by FWC indicated approximately 25 individuals at 2 additional bat houses, bringing the potential total at Babcock-Webb WMA to 58 individuals, occupying 4 roosts (J. Birchfield, pers. comm. 2010). In 2012-2013, periodic simultaneous counts conducted on 4 occasions showed 39 to 43 individuals using 3 to 5 separate roosts (all bat houses) (J. Myers, pers. comm. 2013). In addition, FWC biologists report also hearing Florida bonneted bat calls in the vicinity of red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees on site (J. Myers, pers. comm. 2012a). The species is likely also using natural roosts sites within the area (Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 13, 15; P. Halupa, pers. obs. 2013; M. Knight, pers. comm. 2013).

Babcock Ranch Preserve
—Florida bonneted bat calls recorded at Telegraph Swamp at Babcock Ranch Preserve in 2007 are believed to represent separate colonies from those at Babcock-Webb WMA (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. A9; 2012, p. 13).

Other Potential Areas
—The FDEP also suggested that the species may occur at Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park (P. Small, pers. comm. 2012).

Lee County

North Fort Myers
—Florida bonneted bats have continually used bat houses on one private property since December 2002 (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2006a, 2012a, 2013; Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 7). This was the first record of this species using a bat house as a roost and the only known location of an active colony roost located on private land (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2006a; Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 7-15). The colony had included approximately 20 to 24 individuals in 2 houses (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2008a, 2008b), but only 10 remained by April 2010, after the prolonged cold temperatures in January and February 2010 (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2010a-c) (see also Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, Factor E, below). In May 2011, 20 Florida bonneted bats were found using this site (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2011). In February 2012, 18 individuals were found (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2012a), and in March 2013, 20 individuals were found (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2013).

Other Potential Areas
—Florida bonneted bat calls have also been heard elsewhere in the rural North Fort Myers area, approximately 6 to 8 km (4 to 5 mi) south of Babcock-Webb WMA (S. Trokey, pers. comm. 2013).

Collier County

Naples
—Available data from a single fixed site suggest that the species is present in the area (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2008a; Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 11; 2012, p. 13).

Florida Panther NWR
—In 2013, Florida bonneted bats calls were recorded at 9 of 13 locations, primarily in areas of the largest open water and in the area of the Fakahatchee Strand that bisects the refuge (Maehr 2013, pp. 7-9; S. Maehr, pers. comm. 2013a-c).

FSPSP
—Florida bonneted bat calls have been heard and recorded throughout the year from several locations and habitat types within the FSPSP from 2000 to present (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 6, 11; M. Owen, pers. comm. 2012a, 2012b; R. Rau, pers. comm. 2012; K. Relish, pers. comm. 2013).

PSSF
—Florida bonneted bats have been detected at nine locations within PSSF (K. Smith, pers. comm. 2013). A juvenile male was captured in a mist net above a canal in PSSF in 2009, but no other Florida bonneted bats were captured during additional trapping efforts (14 trap nights) (K. Smith, pers. comm. 2010; Smith 2010, p. 1). In addition to the captured individual, the species was heard while mist netting at eight other locations (K. Smith, pers. comm. 2013).

BCNP
—Calls have been recorded at various locations by multiple parties (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2008b, 2012a, 2013a-d; Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 11, A12-A14; 2012, pp. 13-14; S. Snow, pers. comm. 2012g). Survey efforts from 2003 and 2007 by one contractor recorded presence at several locations (S. Snow, pers. comm. 2012g). However, results of the rangewide survey in 2006-2007 recorded only one call at Deep Lake in 12 nights of surveys (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2008b; Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 11, A12-A14). In 2012, five calls were recorded at Cal Stone's camp during 2 nights of surveys (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2012a; Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 13-14). Presence was also recorded at seven locations within BCNP in late 2012 through mid-2013 (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2013a-d). This latter study employed longer listening intervals and multiple survey nights at each site (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2012b).

Everglades City
—Available data suggest that the species is present in the area (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2008a; Marks and Marks 2012, p. 14).

Ten Thousand Islands area
—The Florida bonneted bat was detected at Dismal Key in Ten Thousand Islands NWR in 2000 (Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 861; B. Nottingham, pers. comm. 2006; T. Doyle, pers. comm. 2006; C. Marks, pers. comm. 2006c; Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 6). Calls were not recorded during the 2006-2007 survey in areas searched by boat from Dismal Key to Port of the Islands (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 11, 14, A9). However, Florida bonneted bat calls

were reportedly heard by a volunteer at Port of the Islands (R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2012b).

Other Potential Areas
—In November 2007, the species was observed along U.S. 41 at Collier-Seminole State Park (S. Braem, pers. comm. 2012). The FDEP also suggested that the species may occur at Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park (P. Small, pers. comm. 2012).

Monroe County

ENP (coastal)
—In 2012, only one Florida bonneted bat call was recorded at Darwin's Place in ENP in 18 survey nights in areas searched from Flamingo to Everglades City (Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 8, 14, A50). Darwin's Place is approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) from Watson's Place, where another researcher (Laura Finn, Fly-By-Night) had recorded 10 Florida bonneted bat calls in 2007 (Marks and Marks 2012, p. 14; S. Snow, pers. comm. 2012h).

Other Potential Areas
—Other coastal and remote areas within ENP may support the species; however, additional surveys are needed.

Miami-Dade County

ENP (mainland)
—Acoustical surveys conducted on 80 nights from October 2011 to November 2012 by Skip Snow (pers. comm. 2012b-f;
in litt.
2012) documented presence at several locations within ENP and surrounding locations (see Table 1). Results of the 2006-2008 survey did not detect Florida bonneted bat calls in the Long Pine Key area, which was thought to be the most likely location for the species (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 10; 2012, p. 14). However, the species was subsequently recorded in the Long Pine Key area in 2011 and 2012 (S. Snow, pers. comm. 2011a, 2012f;
in litt.
2012; Marks and Marks 2012, pp. 8, 14, 17).

Homestead area
—Calls recorded in the Homestead area in 2006 and in 2008 suggest that one colony exists, possibly located east of U.S. 1 (Marks and Marks 2008a, pp. 11, A6-A7; 2008b, p. 5; 2012, p. 14).

Coral Gables and Miami area
—Florida bonneted bat calls have been consistently recorded in acoustical surveys at the Granada Golf Course in Coral Gables, but not elsewhere in the vicinity (Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 6, A4; 2008b, pp. 1-6; 2012, p. 14). Since calls were recorded so shortly after sunset, the species may be roosting on or adjacent to the golf course (Marks and Marks 2012, p. 14). Calls recorded at Snapper Creek Park in south Miami in 2008, Zoo Miami in 2011-2013, Larry and Penny Thompson Park and Martinez Preserve in 2012 and 2013, FTBG in 2011 and 2012, and the L31-N canal in 2012 suggest that colonies are at or near these locations (Marks and Marks 2008b, pp. 1-2; 2012, pp. 1-22 and appendices; S. Snow, pers. comm. 2011b, 2012b-f; Ridgley 2012, p. 1; F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013a-c). At Zoo Miami and Larry and Penny Thompson Park, all early evening calls have been recorded at the edge of a tract of intact pine rockland (F. Ridgley, pers. comm. 2013b).

Other Potential Areas
—Other undeveloped areas within the Richmond Pinelands likely also provide habitat (J. Maguire,
in litt.
2012). These may include Federal land holdings (i.e., owned by the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Army, and General Services Administration), large parcels owned by the University of Miami, or other areas (J. Maguire,
in litt.
2012).

Non-Core Areas

Polk County

KICCO WMA
—Florida bonneted bat calls were recorded along the Kissimmee River in in May 2008 (Marks and Marks 2008b, p. 2; 2008c, pp. 11, 17). Documented presence along the Kissimmee River was significant as this was the first time the species had been detected north of Lake Okeechobee, except in fossil records, and effectively extended the known range 80 km (50 mi) north (Marks and Marks 2008b, pp. 2, 5; 2008c, pp. 1-28).

APAFR
—Florida bonneted bat calls were recorded at two of 13 locations on APAFR in 2013 (B. Scofield, pers. comm. 2013a-f). These findings are significant because they provide additional evidence of current presence in the northern part of the species' range, where survey information is generally lacking.

Other Potential Areas
—Areas along the Kissimmee or other areas within Polk County (and possibly adjacent counties) may support the species; however, additional surveys are needed.

Okeechobee County

Kissimmee River Public Use Area
—Florida bonneted bat calls were recorded at Platt's Bluff along the Kissimmee River in Okeechobee County in May 2008 (Marks and Marks 2008b, p. 2; 2008c, pp. 11, 17).

Other Potential Areas
—Areas along the Kissimmee River or other areas within Okeechobee County (and possibly adjacent counties) may support the species; however, additional surveys are needed.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the proposed rule published on October 4, 2012 (77 FR 60750), we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by December 3, 2012. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Notices inviting general public comment were published in the following Florida newspapers: The Miami Herald, Naples Daily News, Orlando Sentinel, The Palm Beach Post, The News-Press (based in Fort Myers), Charlotte Sun and Englewood Sun (based in Charlotte County), and The Ledger (based in Lakeland) on Sunday, October 14, 2012. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing.

During the comment period for the proposed rule, we received 37 comment letters (from 39 entities) directly addressing the proposed listing of the Florida bonneted bat as an endangered species, including the finding that critical habitat was prudent, but not determinable. With regard to listing the Florida bonneted bat as an endangered species, 28 comments were in support, four were in opposition, and five were neutral. With regard to critical habitat, five comment letters expressed opinions. Of these, three peer reviewers stated that more information was needed to determine critical habitat, and two environmental groups indicated that such designation should be a timely goal or completed promptly. All substantive information provided during the comment period has either been incorporated directly into this final determination or is addressed below.

Peer Review

In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from 10 individuals with recognized expertise on bats, particularly molossids, as well as general expertise on bat ecology and conservation. We received responses from six of the peer reviewers.

We reviewed all comments we received from peer reviewers for substantive and new information regarding the listing of the Florida bonneted bat as an endangered species. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final rule. Of the six reviews we received, three reviewers commented on critical habitat and agreed that additional information was needed to help define critical habitat. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and

incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

This section focuses on comments from peer reviewers and our responses to them. However, we have also included other public comments in this section (referred to as “other commenters” or “commenters”) if those comments were related in topic to peer reviewer comments.

Comments Related to the Species and Its Ecology

(1)
Comment:
One peer reviewer, who first recognized the unique morphological and genetic population of bonneted bats in southern and southwestern Florida merited recognition as a full species rather than a subspecies, reconfirmed the information summarized in the proposed rule as it related to taxonomy and stated that the Florida bonneted bat is clearly a “distinctive” species. He indicated that he has personally examined all of the specimens of the species deposited in the world's scientific collections, and that he and his colleagues have conducted the morphological and genetic studies comparing and contrasting this species to other species of
Eumops
and other molossids.

Another reviewer with expertise in systematics and evolutionary biology related to mammals, who has published articles on the evolutionary relationships of various
Eumops
species, also agreed with the interpretation of literature regarding systematics, evolution, and fossil data. She indicated that although nuclear (AFLP) and mitochondrial data do not demonstrate a distinct genetic signature when compared to
Eumops
from the Caribbean, the cranial and bacular (penile bone) morphology indicate that
Eumops
from Florida are unique and therefore merit specific status. She further suggested that genetic distances indicate that
E. floridanus
is a recent species, and this is confirmed by fossil evidence from the Pleistocene.

This reviewer also provided a Master's thesis (Bartlett 2012, pp. 1-33), which examined additional mitochondrial and nuclear data for the genus, but did not include additional nuclear data for
E. floridanus.
She indicated that the mitochondrial data in this thesis demonstrated the same results as those found in McDonough
et al.
2008 that support
E. floridanus
having a similar mitochondrial DNA sequence signature as those from the Caribbean. In her view, the signature was likely a result of incomplete lineage sorting in the mitochondrial genomes of
Eumops
from the region and represented recently diverged taxa.

Eight other commenters also indicated that the species is “evolutionarily distinct” and “unique enough to be considered a separate species.”

Our Response:
We appreciate the reviewers' confirmation that
Eumops floridanus
is unique and continue to affirm that the taxon is distinct at the species level, based upon the best scientific information available and peer review of that information. We acknowledge the recent thesis (Bartlett 2012, pp. 1-33) and subsequent paper (Bartlett
et al.
2013, pp. 867-880), but they do not alter our conclusions. Bartlett (2012, p. 13) and Bartlett
et al.
(2013, pp. 875-876) acknowledged that
E. floridanus
is distinguished from other members of the
E. glaucinus
complex based upon several features as described by Timm and Genoways (2004). However, based upon examination of the cytochrome-b dataset, researchers found a low level of sequence divergence among and between
E. ferox
and
E. floridanus
and incomplete separation of the two species; therefore, researchers suggested reevaluation of
E. floridanus
as a valid species. Additional morphological and genetic studies comparing and contrasting
E. floridanus
to other species of
Eumops
and other molossids will provide further insights into their relationships and phylogenies.

(2)
Comment:
One reviewer stated that the Florida bonneted bat's life history is very poorly understood and emphasized that a critical factor to understand is reproductive approach. The reviewer stated that it is imperative to determine if the species is indeed polyestrous, as speculated. She also underscored the need to determine other metrics, such as genetic diversity and roosting ecology, in order to prioritize conservation measures in a recovery plan.

Another reviewer stated that low reproductive rate and other factors (discussed below) make extinction highly probable. Nine commenters also expressed concern over low fecundity or slow population growth.

Our Response:
We agree that the life history of the species is poorly understood, and that determining the species' reproductive approach and other aspects of its life history and ecology (e.g., longevity, colony sizes, foraging and roosting preferences) will be essential to minimizing threats and conserving the species and its habitat. The FWC recently funded a large multi-year study that is expected to close some of the data gaps for the Florida bonneted bat. The ultimate goal of the study is to gain a better understanding of aspects of the Florida bonneted bat's biology to enable the development of recommendations for additional conservation measures for the species (Ober and McCleery 2012, p. 2). We believe this new study and other research will provide important data and insights and greatly aid in conservation of the species and its habitat.

(3)
Comment:
Three reviewers and 11 commenters in support of the listing expressed concern over the species' restricted geographic range as a factor contributing to its imperilment. One reviewer stated that the Florida bonneted bat has the most restrictive range of any bat in the United States and suggested that a single storm (such as Hurricane Sandy) could kill most of the individuals over a fairly broad area. Another reviewer acknowledged the species' extremely restricted range, but disagreed with the statement that the Florida bonneted bat has the most restricted range of any Florida mammal.

One reviewer stated that our understanding of the distribution of the species is extremely limited due to shortcomings of the surveys conducted to date and the high degree of variability in the temporal component of the survey effort. In her view, our proposed rule suggested that it is easy to survey through acoustical means; she emphasized that although the calls are distinctive, the short-duration listening intervals of many surveys may erroneously conclude that an area is not being used. Since bat activity can vary greatly at a single location both within and between nights (Hayes 1997, pp. 514-524; 2000, pp. 225-236), a lack of calls during a short listening period may not be indicative of lack of use. The variable duration of the listening periods of past surveys makes it difficult to make conclusions about changes in occupancy or activity levels over time and space.

Another reviewer emphasized that the extent of the species' range must be determined to mitigate potential impacts from land use activities and to identify areas for priority conservation.

Eight commenters in support of the proposed listing also noted that the species is “geographically isolated.”

Some in opposition to the proposed listing offered other views. One commenter noted that the recent surveys have documented the species in at least seven Florida counties, suggesting a range expansion. Another commenter indicated that the species' range is larger than previously understood and suggested additional surveys. The same commenter suggested

that range “be properly defined” through additional surveys in rural areas containing habitat similar to those areas where sightings have been recorded and that surveys be conducted over as many as 10 nights per survey region. The same commenter also suggested that a survey using Florida bonneted bat-optimized bat houses erected in strategic locations could also provide data related to the range east and west of the Kissimmee River basin. Another commenter did not think there was enough survey information available to establish range.

One commenter, who did not express an opinion on the listing action, recommended that the Service design an echolocation survey protocol based on the best scientific data that defines survey seasons, duration of surveys, methodology, number of survey periods, and types of data to be collected. He recommended that the Service require surveys to be conducted in the core range prior to construction in natural habitats. In his view, additional echolocation data would provide evidence of presence/absence and that continued surveys over time in different locations would provide additional information on the species' distribution and habitat utilization. Mist netting was also suggested in combination with echolocation surveys.

Our Response:
Our understanding of the species' distribution, as well as its abundance, biology, and habitat preferences, would benefit from additional survey information and research. We acknowledge that the surveys conducted to date have been limited in scope and inconsistent in methods used. More robust study designs would account for sources of temporal, spatial, and sampling variation (Hayes 2000, pp. 225-236). Longer surveys at more locations over additional nights and seasons using more consistent methods would undoubtedly contribute to increasing understanding. Surveys that are longer in duration (e.g., conducted throughout the entire night) and repeated over several nights would help add confidence regarding potential use of an area. We note that some of the most recent studies (see
Other Isolated Studies,
above) are employing or have used such methods. Additional surveys along peripheral portions of the range could help to better define occupancy. See also Comment 4 and our response, below.

In an effort to acquire more information, the Service purchased five acoustical recording devices in 2012, and we are working with numerous partners (BCNP, ENP, APAFR, FSPSP, FWC, Miami Zoo, FBC) to obtain and analyze additional data. For example, we are attempting to collect additional data along the northern extent of the species' known range; this could help determine if portions of Polk and Okeechobee Counties should also be considered part of the species' core range. Additional data from this area are key to determining if this is an apparent expansion of the species' known range. Recording devices are also being used in more places for longer periods of time over multiple nights in BCNP (see above, R. Arwood, pers. comm. 2013a-d). A new acoustical study was also conducted at the Florida Panther NWR, with the help and support of other NWRs in the southeast. We believe the additional data from multiple sources will be useful in better defining range and key to better understanding the species' biology, relative abundance, and habitat preferences.

Although previous surveys have limitations, there is ample scientific evidence to indicate that the Florida bonneted bat has a very restricted range, perhaps one of the most restricted of any bat in the United States. We have made clarifications to the text regarding range and have more thoroughly discussed the limitations of surveys accordingly. The data indicate that the species' limited range contributes to its imperilment; some threats (e.g., hurricanes, climate change) have the potential to have severe consequences on the species and its habitat in a single widespread or regional event.

We agree that an acoustical survey protocol or broader survey guidelines for the Florida bonneted bat should be established, and we intend to work towards that in cooperation with partners. A well-defined protocol with consistent and repeated surveys, in combination with other studies, would help to better understand distribution, relative abundance, biology, and habitat preferences. See also Comment 4 and our response, below.

(4)
Comment:
Three peer reviewers and 13 commenters in support of the listing expressed concern over the apparent rarity or small population size as a factor contributing to its imperilment. Although the minimum viable population size is not known, one reviewer predicted a “strong Allee effect” (decline in individual fitness) at low population sizes due to at least two factors. First, offspring survival in bats is usually highly correlated with maternity colony size due to thermoregulation, and colony sizes for this species are relatively small. Thus, low survival is expected if females are roosting solitarily or in numbers fewer than 10 individuals. Second, roost sites function as information centers for many species of bats (e.g., the velvety free-tailed bat (
Molossus molossus
), see Dechmann
et al.
2010). The reviewer's observations of one Florida bonneted bat colony suggested that the species is highly social, much like Brazilian free-tailed bats (Bohn
et al.
2008, pp. 1838-1848), which may have an effect on viability at low population sizes.

One reviewer acknowledged that the Service and its partners may be unable to confidently estimate a population size for the Florida bonneted bat and noted that challenges arise when trying to estimate population size for organisms that are “cryptic, volant, elusive, rare, and highly mobile.” She suggested that when detection probabilities are exceptionally low, erroneous population estimates and trends may result. Her recommendation was to use alternate approaches, including patch occupancy models, which are more appropriate tools for estimating distribution trends.

Another reviewer did not believe that population estimates could be derived from available data. In her view, there is no way to extrapolate from surveys conducted along roads to areas without roads that were not surveyed or from conservation areas that were surveyed to private agricultural areas that were not surveyed. She specifically indicated that due to the immense areas that were not surveyed, the short duration of many listening periods, and the lack of randomization when selecting survey sites, it could not be said that “it is not likely that abundance is appreciably larger than the current available population estimates given.”

Other commenters in opposition to the proposed listing offered different views. One commenter objected to listing the species as endangered due to the lack of good population studies. He argued that with no known roosting areas and just a few known sightings, there was not enough evidence to declare the bat endangered. One commenter indicated that it is difficult to have a reliable estimate of current population, given the limitations of sampling, including limitations in detection from ultrasonic devices and the high-flying habits of the species. This commenter endorsed the suggestion provided by another commenter who had recommended that the Service design an echolocation survey protocol. Another commenter stated that the surveys cannot be used to establish abundance or range, due to so few surveys being conducted, surveys mainly being conducted in open areas,

and the vast areas of potential habitat that have not been surveyed.

Another commenter indicated that the population size for the Florida bonneted bat is much larger than originally estimated based upon 12 new sightings since 2008. The same commenter used the new information to negate criteria used within the State's biological status review, suggesting that data were ignored. This commenter suggested that the survey intensity for many parts of Florida were insufficient, and that every time a survey has been performed additional sightings have been recorded in new locations.

Our Response:
We acknowledge that the survey information available to date is limited in many regards, and that it is not possible to estimate population size on this information alone. We have added clarifications regarding the limitations and short-comings of the acoustical surveys and have re-examined how we use this information. It was not our intent to imply that population estimates were derived purely or directly from acoustical surveys. We have made adjustments to the text and tried to more clearly articulate that the population estimates are only relative numbers of abundance, largely based upon expert opinions and inferences from available data. We are unable to confidently estimate population size for this species at this time.

Our understanding of the species' abundance, as well as its distribution, biology, and habitat preferences, would benefit from additional survey information and research (see Comment 3 and our response, above). We agree that it would be beneficial to use patch occupancy models and other approaches to estimating distribution trends. We agree that it would be helpful to have more randomized surveys, longer listening periods, more areas surveyed, and repeated surveys. We intend to work with our partners on an acoustical survey protocol design, which if employed consistently, could improve the quality of information obtained in the future.

The best available scientific information and the majority of expert opinions indicate that the Florida bonneted bat population is relatively small (see
Population Estimates and Status
and
Acoustical Survey Efforts as Indicators of Rarity,
above) and the species' apparent low abundance is a major factor in its overall imperilment (see
Factor E, Effects of Small Population Size, Isolation, and Other Factors,
below). We have revised the above sections to clarify and better explain uncertainty and limitations of available information.

(5)
Comment:
One reviewer acknowledged that the foraging behavior of the Florida bonneted bat has not been studied in detail and provided insights into probable foraging behavior based upon its morphology. She stated that molossids are highly adapted for hawking high-flying insects (Norberg and Rayner 1987) and are characterized by high aspect ratios, high wing loadings, long pointed wingtips, and use of low frequency narrowband echolocation calls, which collectively make them well-suited for fast flight at high altitudes and prey detection at long distances, relative to other bats. The reviewer pointed out that species with these morphological features are considered to be adapted for low cost, swift, long distance travel from roost sites to foraging areas. In her view, these morphological characteristics and echolocation call structure likely preclude their ability to maneuver or detect prey at short range in cluttered conditions, given their large turning radius and the limited information obtained through the use of low frequency, narrowband echolocation calls. Therefore, she surmised that it seems likely that foraging areas may be located fairly long distances from roost sites, and that foraging likely occurs either at high altitudes or in fairly open habitat.

Another reviewer noted that the Florida bonneted bat is a molossid, which “consists of high flying bats capable of dispersing great distances”. She recommended a study that identifies home ranges and habitat affinities to determine the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species.

The NPS (ENP) commented on an effort to better understand foraging behavior and foraging habitat. A biologist from ENP reviewed all acoustic files available, from 2000 to present, which were identified as belonging to the Florida bonneted bat to better understand foraging habitat. Review of these files did not reveal any definitive “feeding buzzes”, a feature presumed indicative of successful foraging in other bats. Biologists in south Florida conducting acoustical surveys were also queried by ENP, and they confirmed that they had yet to identify a feeding buzz attributable to the Florida bonneted bat. In this view, the ecomorphology of the Florida bonneted bat, and
Eumops
spp. in general, suggests a bat that flies high, relatively fast, and quite possibly far. Those characteristics confound acoustic detection, including capturing feeding events as indicated by the “feeding buzz.” ENP believes that it is not unreasonable to consider that the Florida bonneted bat may forage some of the time and perhaps frequently at altitudes beyond the range of detection by acoustic survey equipment.

Another commenter argued that since the species forages at heights of 10 m (33 ft) or more, it is possible that the species forages above canopied areas. This commenter contended that there was no information or extensive surveys from canopied areas and that actual foraging sites have not been scientifically determined.

Our Response:
We acknowledge that the Florida bonneted bat's dispersal capabilities, foraging behavior, habitat affinities, and home ranges are not clearly understood. We agree that the Florida bonneted bat is likely capable of dispersing large distances and believe it may have considerable home ranges. For comparison, in one study in Arizona, Underwood's mastiff bat was found to range up to 24 km (15 mi) or more on foraging bouts from its roost site, suggesting that roost sites do not need to be available in close proximity to foraging areas (Tibbitts
et al.
2002, p. 11). We have clarified the text accordingly (see Background, above).

We agree that the species' morphological characteristics make it reasonable to assume that foraging areas may be located fairly long distances from roosts sites, and that foraging likely occurs either at high altitudes or in fairly open habitat. We do not dismiss the idea that foraging habitat may include canopied areas; the species may forage above, within, or adjacent to canopied areas. We agree that the lack of or limited number of “feeding buzzes” recorded to date may further suggest that the species forages at altitudes beyond the range of detection of acoustic survey equipment. The only set of “feeding buzzes” for the species that we are aware of were recorded at the Granada Golf Course in Coral Gables in late February 2013 (C. Marks, pers. comm. 2013).

Additional studies are needed to more completely understand foraging behavior and habitat preferences. In future acoustical studies, it may be beneficial to sample vertical strata where possible, to determine activity and obtain additional insights into habitat use (Hayes 2000, p. 229). Placing recording devices at higher positions in the landscape (e.g., fire towers) may be helpful in determining if foraging is occurring at higher altitudes. Longer recording intervals, more survey locations, and additional analysis of echolocation data may be helpful in

identification of more “feeding buzzes” and improved understanding. The use of tracking devices such as transmitters, if tolerated by this species, may be extremely helpful to understanding movements, including insights into foraging distances and behavior. We note that the FWC recently funded a large multi-year study that is expected to close some of the data gaps for the Florida bonneted bat, including, in part, habitat selection. This study is expected to begin in January 2014 (H. Ober, pers. comm. 2013). Analysis of guano will be helpful in identifying prey items, assessing the availability of prey, and understanding foraging habitat. At this time, we are working with researchers and partners to conduct limited dietary analysis.

(6)
Comment:
One reviewer commented extensively on roost site selection, stating that there is a high probability that Florida bonneted bat individuals would tend towards high roost site fidelity. She pointed to the work of Lewis (1995), who in her review, found that bats that roost in buildings tend to be more site-faithful than those that roost in trees, and that among the bats that roost in trees, those that use cavities in large trees tend to more site-faithful than those using smaller trees. Given its large size, this reviewer surmised that the Florida bonneted bat is likely to select large trees. She noted the large accumulation of guano in one known historical natural roost (1 m [3.3 ft] deep) provided further evidence of high roost fidelity, especially given the small number of individuals per colony. Although it is not known if the species more commonly uses tree cavities or buildings, the reviewer stated that the loss of a roost site is likely to cause a greater hardship to the species than the loss of a roost site for other, more labile (readily open to change) species. In her view, the threat imposed by the loss of individual roost sites was understated in the proposed rule.

The same reviewer noted that larger roosts tend to have greater microclimatic variability within a roost than do smaller spaces, which could increase the relative importance of manmade roosts to the species as climate variability increases in the future. For example, she suggested that bats roosting in tree cavities may need to switch roosts in response to a cold spell, making them vulnerable to exposure, predation, or other threats, whereas individuals using larger buildings may be able to simply change locations within their roost. She pointed out that the species' use of anthropogenic structures may confer an adaptive advantage in the future and allows for the possibility of future habitat enhancement through the creation of additional artificial roosts with suitable characteristics, once determined.

One reviewer indicated that since so little is known about this species' roosting habits, it is possible that palm fronds are used for roosting. In her view, it is imperative to determine roosting ecology and other metrics to prioritize conservation measures in a recovery plan. Another reviewer indicated that roost sites function as information centers for many species of bats, including the molossid, the velvety free-tailed bat (Dechmann
et al.
2010).

With regard to roosting sites, the FWC suggested clarification for the term “key roosting sites” or using simply using the term “roosting sites” instead, indicating that there was no information to suggest that some roosting sites may be more critical than others.

Eleven commenters in support of the listing also mentioned lack of roosting information. Several suggested that we know less about this species than when it was first considered for protection.

Commenters in opposition to the proposed listing offered different views. Two commenters stated that there is not enough evidence to declare the bat endangered when we have such limited information regarding roosting areas or preferred roosting habitat. Another commenter believed the species' adaptability to human structures is a positive and questioned if the species has more roosting opportunities now than it did historically due to development.

Our Response:
We agree with views regarding roosting habits and believe that finding natural roosting sites and better understanding preferences is crucial to conserving the species. The Florida bonneted bat may indeed have high roost site fidelity, as one reviewer suggested, and the loss of any roost site for this species may have profound consequences. We agree that it is likely that all roost sites are important and clarified the importance of roosting sites accordingly. See also Comment 4 and our response, above.

We agree that the species' ability to adapt to artificial structures can be beneficial in some regards. For example, artificial structures may provide potential suitable roost sites in areas where natural roost sites are lacking, limited, or inadequate. However, we caution against the mindset that artificial structures can equally replace natural roosts. More research on the role of bat houses in the conservation of the species is needed (FWC 2013, pp. 10-11). Artificial structures may be more likely to be disturbed, may be more prone to vandalism, and may or may not be maintained.

We disagree with the views opposing the listing due to lack of information on preferred roosting habitats. Listing decisions are based upon all available data and information and threats (see Background, above, and Summary of Factors Affecting the Species and Determination of Status, below). While there may be more artificial roosting opportunities available now due to development, we do not have data that indicate the species has more suitable roosting sites overall. Natural roost sites have undoubtedly been lost due to changes in land use (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,
Factor A
), and competition for tree cavities has increased (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,
Factor E, Competition for Tree Cavities,
and Comment 9 and our response, below). Additionally, changes in building codes may have reduced opportunities in some artificial structures (see Comment 11 and our response, below).

We acknowledge that we do not fully understand roosting habitat preferences, but we are working with partners to locate roosts and better understand the ecology of the species. Additional acoustical data are being collected from more sites for longer periods of time. In February 2013, we worked with Auburn University and numerous land managers and partners across south Florida to use trained scent detection dogs in an effort to identify and locate potential natural roosts. The dogs showed interest in several large cavity trees and snags. Follow-up work (e.g., acoustical surveys, infrared cameras, cavity inspection, guano collection) is being conducted to determine if Florida bonneted bats or other bat species are using these trees and snags as roosts. To date, no active, natural roosts for the Florida bonneted bat have been confirmed.

Comments Relating to Threats

(7)
Comment:
Three reviewers and 11 commenters in support of the listing remarked on habitat loss, modification, or curtailment of range. One reviewer stated that loss of habitat, especially forested areas, is among the most important threats. Another reviewer stated that the loss of individual roost sites (from exclusion, demolition, tree harvest, or other factors) was understated in the proposed rule because of suspected high roost fidelity. Another reviewer stated that habitat loss, degradation, alteration, and fragmentation are significant threats; in

order to mitigate potential impacts from land use activities and to identify areas for priority conservation actions, the extent of the species' range must be determined.

One commenter, writing on behalf of an environmental group with more than 4,000 members with a focus in southwest Florida, stated that the species faces continued threats from habitat loss and specifically from several proposed large-scale developments, mines, and transportation projects. The group highlighted proposed projects in their five-county area of focus (i.e., Lee, Collier, Hendry, Glades, and Charlotte), stating that thousands of acres of impacts are expected in a variety of habitat types. In Charlotte County, the group specifically noted the Babcock Ranch Community (encompassing over 17,000 acres (ac)) and the Burnt Store Area Plan near Punta Gorda would allow mixed use development within an area thousands of acres in size. In Hendry County, it noted the Rodina sector plan (encompassing 26,000 ac), the King's Ranch/Consolidated Citrus sector plan (at least 15,000 ac), and the Hendry County Clean Energy Center (more than 3,000 ac). In Lee and Collier Counties, it referenced pending and potential mines totaling tens of thousands of acres. In this group's view, the most significant action was the Eastern Collier Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which it stated, if permitted as proposed, would authorize 45,000 ac of residential and commercial development. Additionally, the group contended that an “untold number of acres of potential bat habitat would be lost” to multiple land uses, including mining, oil and gas exploration/production, agriculture, infrastructure, transportation, and active and passive recreation. It also noted that the Collier County Rural Lands Stewardship Program is voluntary and does not protect some areas that may be important to bats.

With regard to issuing permits, the same group contended that since the Service cannot effectively determine the conservation measures needed to conserve the species and protect it from no net loss, the agency should not issue a take permit. Rather, it recommended that the Service and its partners focus efforts on collecting additional information to map essential habitat areas for this species. In this view, only with this information could the Service properly assess jeopardy under section 10 or section 7 of the Act. In conclusion, the group fears “the species is routinely placed in jeopardy”.

Another commenter, writing on behalf of its organization with more than 450,000 members and activists, provided extensive comments on climate change and contended that the Florida bonneted bat faces significant risks from coastal squeeze, which occurs when habitat is pressed between rising sea levels and coastal development that prevents landward movement (Scavia
et al.
2002; FitzGerald
et al.
2008; Defeo
et al.
2009; LeDee
et al.
2010; Menon
et al.
2010; Noss 2011). The group contended that human responses to sea level rise (e.g., coastal armoring and landward migration) (Defeo
et al.
2009, pp. 6-8) also pose significant risk to bat habitat, and projected human population growth and development in Florida threaten urban roosting sites with coastal squeeze, particularly in North Fort Myers, Naples, Homestead, and Coral Gables/Miami (Zwick and Carr 2006).

One commenter, who did not express support or opposition to the proposed listing action, suggested that habitat development continues in the species' range and the Service should require that surveys be conducted in the core range before construction in natural habitat is undertaken.

Our Response:
We agree that habitat loss, modification, and fragmentation are serious threats. The loss of forested habitat is particularly concerning due to the species' forest-dwelling habits. We agree that the loss of individual roosts may have been understated in the proposed rule and have clarified the text accordingly (see also Comment 6 and our response, above). We also acknowledge that we need to work with partners to more fully understand the species' range for more meaningful conservation.

Large-scale habitat losses in the core of the species' range are particularly concerning. Land use changes at smaller scales may also have individual or cumulative adverse impacts to the species. With this final rule, the Federal protections provided by the Act for this species (see Available Conservation Measures, below) are implemented. This includes evaluation of the impacts of activities and consultation under section 7 of the Act, prohibition of unauthorized take under section 9 of the Act, and allowances for incidental take with habitat conservation plans through the section 10 process. With this final listing, proposed actions will be thoroughly evaluated through the section 7 or section 10 process. With regard to the Eastern Collier Multispecies HCP, as of July 2013, the applicants have submitted incidental take permit applications, but remain in the process of developing a draft HCP. The Service has awarded grant funding through its Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund to assist in the development of the HCP. This proposed project, like others within the species' current range, will be evaluated through the regulatory framework provided by the Act.

We agree that coastal squeeze is a major problem, which will accelerate in the future. We have revised the text to more fully describe anticipated impacts (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,
Factor A, Alternative Future Landscape Models and Coastal Squeeze,
below, and Comments 8, 11, 16, and 20, and our responses to them, below).

We agree that surveys for the species should be conducted prior to large-scale land use changes within key natural habitats (e.g., forests or water bodies) within the core range. We intend on working on an acoustical survey protocol and broader survey guidelines, as indicated above (see Comments 3 and 4, and our responses to them, above). However, due to the difficulties in detection of this species, repeated acoustical surveys for long periods of time may be needed. Acoustical surveys, in combination with visual and other inspection of potential roosting locations, may be helpful to avoid or minimize some impacts to suspected roost sites. In some cases, bat activity and potential roosts can be recognized (e.g., observation at emergence, vocalizations (roost chatter), presence of “ammonia”-like smell or guano). In cases where acoustical surveys and other methods are not feasible, applicants and agencies may need to assume presence prior to assessing impacts for proposed projects and incorporate safeguards into their project designs.

(8)
Comment:
With regard to foraging habitat and climate change, one reviewer indicated that our assessment understated the negative impact of climate change on prey availability. She indicated that plant water stress would impact vegetation community structure, which would likely affect insect availability for foraging bats. She also stated that plant water stress would also affect the actual chemical composition of plants, which also would impact the phenology of phytophagous insects (i.e., those that feed on plants) and therefore the timing of insect availability to foraging bats. She provided a reference showing responses by plants and insects from experimentally induced water deficits (Huberty and Denno 2004) and another that showed that climate change is affecting the timing of seasonal flowering in Florida (Von Holle
et al.
2010). The reviewer stated that climate

change will alter prey availability to foraging bats.

Our Response:
With regard to water deficits caused by climate change, we acknowledge that we did not specifically evaluate the responses by plants and potential impacts to insects and ramifications to foraging bats in any detail. However, we briefly discussed the species' susceptibility to changes in prey availability and possible changes from climate change (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,
Factor E, Aspects of the Species' Life History and Climate Change Implications,
below). Since the reviewer's comments relate to changes to foraging habitat, we have expanded the section (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,
Factor A, Climate Change and Sea Level Rise,
below) to more fully evaluate this threat. The potential negative impact of climate change on prey availability is now more fully described in this final rule. Additional comments relating to climate change are provided below (see Comments 11 and 16, and our responses to them, below).

(9)
Comment:
One reviewer indicated that the Florida bonneted bat faces competition for tree cavities from native birds and mammals (Belwood 1992, p. 220) and now dozens of introduced species, which also use cavities (e.g., European starlings (
Sturnus vulgaris
), various parrot species, black rats (
Rattus rattus
), and Africanized honey bees (
Apis mellifera scutellata
)). He also suggested that the Florida bonneted bat populations may also be impacted by the decline of red-cockaded woodpeckers, which create cavities in living longleaf pine trees.

One commenter suggested that the species' roosting habits were “more precarious” than its small range. He noted the limited supply of woodpecker nest cavities and indicated that invasive species have a significant impact on the Florida bonneted bat by competing for limited roosting locations. In his view, introduced parrots are serious competitors for natural and manmade cavities, as most of the more than 30 species of parrots and 2 to 3 species of mynahs observed in the wild in south Florida use cavities. He indicated that Africanized honey bee hybrids, established in Florida in 2005, are having significant impacts on cavity-nesting wildlife throughout their expanding range (in Central America, South America, the Caribbean, and southeastern United States). He stated that Africanized honey bee hybrids occupy the entire range of the Florida bonneted bat. The commenter suggested that research to develop methods of reducing honey bee competition for cavities with barn owls and parrots was underway, and that techniques may be transferable to Florida bonneted bat roosting structures.

Our Response:
We agree that tree cavities in south Florida are likely limited and that competition for natural or artificial roosting structures may be greater now than previously, due to a variety of factors. Introduced species are becoming more abundant and widespread in Florida, and some are likely contributing to increased competition for a limited amount of suitable cavities or other roost sites. We have added a new section entitled
Competition for Tree Cavities
(see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species,
Factor E,
below).

We do not have information to support or refute the view that the decline of red-cockaded woodpeckers (or other woodpeckers) may be affecting Florida bonneted bat populations. One colony of Florida bonneted bats was discovered in a longleaf pine tree cavity that had been excavated by a red-cockaded woodpecker and later enlarged by a pileated woodpecker (Belwood 1981, p. 412). In general, insufficient numbers of cavities and continuing net loss of cavity trees are also identified threats to the red-cockaded woodpecker (Service 2006, p. 7).

To help conserve the Florida bonneted bat, efforts should be made to retain large cavity trees and snags wherever possible to reduce competition for suitable roosts within the species' known range. The use of artificial structures for the Florida bonneted bat may also be beneficial in some locations. More research on the role of bat houses in Florida bonneted bat conservation is needed (FWC 2013, pp. 10, 15). The FWC plans on working with stakeholders to develop and implement guidelines for building, installing, and monitoring bat houses for Florida bonneted bats (FWC 2013, pp. 10-11).

(10)
Comment:
One reviewer noted that since the species may use palm fronds for roosting, the trimming of palm fronds and removal of mature palms for landscaping purposes may cause negative impacts. In her view, these activities should be considered as potential thre

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2013-23401. Public record. Not legal advice.