Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Endangered Florida Bonneted Bat, 71466-71501 [2022-25218]
Download as PDF
71466
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106;
FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018–BE10
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Endangered Florida
Bonneted Bat
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Revised proposed rule; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), are revising
our proposed designation of critical
habitat for the Florida bonneted bat
(Eumops floridanus) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act),
as amended. In response to new
information we received and public
comments on our June 10, 2020,
proposed rule, we are now proposing to
designate approximately 1,174,011 acres
(475,105 hectares) in 13 Florida
counties as critical habitat for the
species. We also announce the
availability of a draft economic analysis
(DEA) of the revised proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
Florida bonneted bat. We request
comments from all interested parties on
this revised proposed rule and the
associated DEA. Comments submitted
on our June 10, 2020, proposed rule
need not be resubmitted as they will be
fully considered in the preparation of
the final rule. If we finalize this rule as
proposed, it would extend the Act’s
protections to this species’ critical
habitat.
DATES: We will accept comments on this
revised proposed rule and the DEA that
are received or postmarked on or before
January 23, 2023. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES,
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on the closing date. We
must receive requests for a public
hearing, in writing, at the address
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT by January 6, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may
submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
Then, click on the Search button. On the
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
resulting page, in the Search panel on
the left side of the screen, under the
Document Type heading, check the
Proposed Rule box to locate this
document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
to: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see
Information Requested, below, for more
information).
Availability of supporting materials:
The DEA and other supporting
documents are included in the decision
file and are available at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106. Coordinates or
plot points or both from which the
critical habitat maps are generated are
available at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–
0106 and the Florida Ecological Services
Field Office website at https://
www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecologicalservices/library.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lourdes Mena, Classification and
Recovery Division Manager, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Florida Ecological
Services Field Office, 7915 Baymeadows
Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256;
telephone (904) 731–3134. Individuals
in the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY,
TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Endangered Species Act, when we
determine that any species is an
endangered or threatened species, we
are required to designate critical habitat,
to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable. Designations of critical
habitat can only be completed by
issuing a rule.
What this document does. This
document revises the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
Florida bonneted bat to include a total
of approximately 1,174,011 acres
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(475,105 hectares) in portions of 13
Florida counties. On October 2, 2013,
we published in the Federal Register
(78 FR 61004) a final rule listing the
Florida bonneted bat as an endangered
species. On June 10, 2020, we published
in the Federal Register (85 FR 35510) a
proposed rule to designate critical
habitat for this species. This document
revises the proposed designation of
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted
bat.
The basis for our action. Section
3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat
as (i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed, on which
are found those physical or biological
features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) which may
require special management
considerations or protections; and (ii)
specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
it is listed, upon a determination by the
Secretary that such areas are essential
for the conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the
Secretary must make the designation on
the basis of the best scientific data
available and after taking into
consideration the economic impact, the
impact on national security, and any
other relevant impacts of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat.
Draft economic analysis of the revised
proposed designation of critical habitat.
In order to consider the economic
impacts of critical habitat for the Florida
bonneted bat, we compiled information
pertaining to the potential incremental
economic impacts for this revised
proposed critical habitat designation.
The information we used in determining
the economic impacts of the revised
proposed critical habitat is summarized
in this revised proposed rule (see
Consideration of Economic Impacts,
below) and is available at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106. We are
soliciting public comments on the
economic information provided and any
other potential economic impacts of this
revised proposed designation. We will
continue to reevaluate the potential
economic impacts between this
proposal and our final designation.
Public comment. We requested and
received public comments on our June
10, 2020, proposed rule to designate
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted
bat. Those comments primarily consist
of requests for exclusion, requests for
the designation of additional areas, and
comments on the physical or biological
features and associated methodology
used to identify proposed units (see
New Information and Revisions to
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Previously Proposed Critical Habitat,
below). Those comments are already
part of the public record of this
rulemaking proceeding and are available
for public viewing at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106. We now seek
comments and solicit information from
the public on this revised proposed
designation to make sure we consider
the best scientific and commercial
information available in developing our
final designation. Because we will
consider all comments and information
we receive during the comment period,
our final determination may differ from
this proposal. We will provide
responses to comments we received
during both public comment periods in
our final rule.
Peer review. We sought peer review
on our June 10, 2020, proposed rule and
received comments from two reviewers
(see New Information and Revisions to
Previously Proposed Critical Habitat,
below). We are again seeking comments
from independent specialists to ensure
that this revised proposed designation
of critical habitat for the Florida
bonneted bat is based on scientifically
sound data and analyses. We have
invited these peer reviewers to comment
on our specific assumptions and
conclusions in this revised critical
habitat proposal.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action
resulting from this revised proposed
rule will be based on the best scientific
and commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or
information from other governmental
agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this
revised proposed rule. Please note that
comments submitted on our June 10,
2020, proposed rule need not be
resubmitted as they will be fully
considered in the preparation of the
final rule. Additionally, due to the
ongoing challenges regarding the 2019
regulations, we also seek comments on
whether and how applying the
regulations that were in effect before the
2019 regulations would alter any of
these analyses.
We particularly seek comments
concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or
should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical
habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including
information to inform the following
factors that the regulations identify as
reasons why designation of critical
habitat may be not prudent:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
(a) The species is threatened by taking
or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of such
threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species’ habitat or range
is not a threat to the species, or threats
to the species’ habitat stem solely from
causes that cannot be addressed through
management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of
the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the
United States provide no more than
negligible conservation value, if any, for
a species occurring primarily outside
the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(d) No areas meet the definition of
critical habitat.
(e) The Secretary otherwise
determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on
the best scientific data available.
In addition, we seek comment
regarding whether and how this
information would differ under the
factors that the pre-2019 regulations
identify as reasons why designation of
critical habitat may be prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of
Florida bonneted bat habitat;
(b) Any additional areas occurring
within the range of the species (i.e.,
Miami-Dade, Monroe, Lee, Collier,
Charlotte, Polk, Osceola, Okeechobee,
Highlands, Broward, Sarasota, Hardee,
Glades, Palm Beach, Martin, and DeSoto
Counties, Florida) that should be
included in the designation because
they (i) were occupied at the time of
listing and contain the physical or
biological features that are essential to
the conservation of the species and that
may require special management
considerations, or (ii) were unoccupied
at the time of listing and are essential
for the conservation of the species.
(c) Special management
considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are
proposing, including information
related to the impacts that noise and
light pollution and pesticides usage may
have on critical habitat, as well as
managing for the potential effects of
climate change; and
(d) For areas not occupied at the time
of listing essential for the conservation
of the species, we particularly seek
comments:
(i) Regarding whether occupied areas
are adequate for the conservation of the
species; and
(ii) Providing specific information
regarding whether or not unoccupied
areas would, with reasonable certainty,
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71467
contribute to the conservation of the
species and contain at least one physical
or biological feature essential to the
conservation of the species.
We also seek comments or
information regarding whether areas not
occupied at the time of listing could be
considered habitat for the species.
(3) Characteristics of roost trees.
(4) Land use designations and current
or planned activities in the subject areas
and their possible impacts on proposed
critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national
security, or other relevant impacts of
designating any area that may be
included in the final designation, and
the related benefits of including or
excluding specific areas.
(6) Information on the extent to which
the description of probable economic
impacts in the draft economic analysis
(DEA) for the revised proposed rule is
a reasonable estimate of the likely
economic impacts and any additional
information regarding probable
economic impacts that we should
consider.
(7) Whether any specific areas we are
proposing for critical habitat
designation should be considered for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, and whether the benefits of
potentially excluding any specific area
outweigh the benefits of including that
area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We
are particularly interested in
information concerning those areas
described below in tables 2 and 3. If you
think we should exclude these or any
additional areas, please provide
information regarding the benefit of
exclusion that you have not already
submitted to us, as comments submitted
on our June 10, 2020, proposed rule
need not be resubmitted and will be
fully considered in the preparation of
the final rule.
(8) Whether we could improve or
modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for
greater public participation and
understanding, or to better
accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as scientific
journal articles or other publications) to
allow us to verify any scientific or
commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely
stating support for, or opposition to, the
action under consideration without
providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered
in making a final critical habitat
determination.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71468
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
by one of the methods listed in
ADDRESSES. We request that you send
comments only by the methods
described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the website. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106.
Because we will consider all
comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final
determination may differ from this
revised proposal. Based on the new
information we receive (and any
comments on that new information), our
final designation may not include all
areas proposed, may include some
additional areas that meet the definition
of critical habitat, and may exclude
some areas if we find the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
a public hearing on this proposal, if
requested. Requests must be received by
the date specified in DATES. Such
requests must be sent to the address
shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. We will schedule a public
hearing on this proposal, if requested,
and announce the date, time, and place
of the hearing, as well as how to obtain
reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers
at least 15 days before the hearing. We
may hold the public hearing in person
or virtually via webinar. We will
announce any public hearing on our
website, in addition to the Federal
Register. The use of these virtual public
hearings is consistent with our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
Federal actions for the Florida
bonneted bat that occurred prior to
October 4, 2012, are outlined in our
proposed listing rule for the species (see
77 FR 60750, October 4, 2012). On
October 2, 2013, after consideration of
the available scientific information, and
peer review and public comments on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
the proposed listing rule, we listed the
Florida bonneted bat as an endangered
species (78 FR 61004). Critical habitat
was considered prudent but not
determinable at the time of listing due
to the lack of information on the
physical or biological features essential
for the species’ conservation. Additional
research helped define those physical or
biological features, and on June 10,
2020, we proposed to designate critical
habitat for the Florida bonneted bat (85
FR 35510). During the public comment
period on the June 10, 2020, proposed
rule, we received significant new
information on genetics as well as
presence and roost data; following the
comment period, we developed a
conservation strategy to serve as a
foundation for critical habitat criteria
and methodology, revised the physical
or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species, and revised
our proposed critical habitat designation
in lieu of preparing a final rule. This
document presents our revised
proposed critical habitat designation for
the Florida bonneted bat.
Supporting Documents
Starting in 2016, the Service has been
preparing species status assessment
(SSA) reports to compile and evaluate
the best scientific information available
to inform listing and other decisions
under the Act. Since this species was
listed before this process was
implemented, there was no SSA for the
Florida bonneted bat at the time the
proposed critical habitat designation
published (June 10, 2020). A recovery
outline and a conservation strategy have
been prepared for this species. The
Florida Bonneted Bat Recovery Outline
is a brief document that broadly
sketches the interim conservation and
management program for the Florida
bonneted bat during the time between
the final listing under the Act and
completion of a recovery plan. The
Florida Bonneted Bat Conservation
Strategy provides a technical foundation
for recovery strategies, summarizing the
best scientific data available concerning
the status of the species and threats
affecting the species, and outlines goals
and objectives for achieving recovery of
the Florida bonneted bat. These
documents have been prepared based on
input and information from researchers
and species experts.
Additional documents that we
considered in revising our proposed
critical habitat designation include a list
of conservation lands that overlap with
the proposed designation, conservation
and natural resource management plans
for areas we are considering for
exclusion, and a summary of the habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
analysis conducted to inform
delineation of the proposed critical
habitat units. All of these supporting
documents are available at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FW–R4–ES–2019–0106.
Background
The purpose of this document is to
discuss only those topics directly
relevant to this revised proposed critical
habitat designation. For more
information on the species, its habitat,
and previous Federal actions concerning
the Florida bonneted bat, refer to the
final listing rule published in the
Federal Register on October 2, 2013 (78
FR 61004) and the proposed critical
habitat rule published in the Federal
Register on June 10, 2020 (85 FR 35510).
In 2019, jointly with the National
Marine Fisheries Service, the Service
issued final rules that revised the
regulations in 50 CFR parts 17 and 424
regarding how we add, remove, and
reclassify threatened and endangered
species and the criteria for designating
listed species’ critical habitat (84 FR
45020 and 84 FR 44752; August 27,
2019; collectively, the 2019 regulations).
However, on July 5, 2022, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District
of California vacated the 2019
regulations (Center for Biological
Diversity v. Haaland, No. 4:19–cv–
05206–JST, Doc. 168 (N.D. Cal. July 5,
2022) (CBD v. Haaland)), reinstating the
regulations that were in effect before the
effective date of the 2019 regulations as
the law governing species classification
and critical habitat decisions.
Subsequently, on September 21, 2022,
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit stayed the district court’s
July 5, 2022, order vacating the 2019
regulations until a pending motion for
reconsideration before the district court
is resolved (In re: Cattlemen’s Ass’n, No.
22–70194). The effect of the stay is that
the 2019 regulations are the governing
law as of September 21, 2022.
Due to the continued uncertainty
resulting from the ongoing litigation, we
also undertook an analysis of whether
the proposal would be different if we
were to apply the pre-2019 regulations.
That analysis, which we described in a
separate memo in the decisional file and
posted on https://www.regulations.gov,
concluded that we would have reached
the same proposal if we had applied the
pre-2019 regulations because under
either regulatory scheme we find that
critical habitat is prudent and that the
occupied areas proposed for the Florida
bonneted bat are adequate to ensure the
conservation of the species.
In our June 10, 2020, proposed rule,
we proposed to designate critical habitat
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
in four units encompassing
approximately 1,478,333 acres (ac)
(598,261 hectares (ha)) in portions of 10
Florida counties. In addition, we
announced the availability of a DEA of
the proposed critical habitat
designation. We accepted comments on
the proposed critical habitat designation
and DEA for 60 days, ending August 10,
2020. Based on information we received
during the public comment period, we
are revising our proposed critical habitat
designation for the Florida bonneted
bat. This revised proposed rule has a 60day comment period (see DATES, above)
to allow all interested parties to submit
comments on our revised proposed
critical habitat designation for the
Florida bonneted bat.
New Information and Revisions to
Previously Proposed Critical Habitat
During the public comment period on
our June 10, 2020, proposed rule, we
received over 1,800 responses, as well
as comments from two peer reviewers.
We received comments questioning the
essential physical or biological features
we identified (specifically, our
description of representative forest
types, definition and use of ‘‘core
areas,’’ and definition and use of a
minimum patch size) and the
relationship of those features to our
critical habitat criteria and
methodology. Because our incorporation
of a minimum patch size precluded the
consideration of habitat within urban
Miami-Dade County, many comments
addressed the importance of this area to
the species and provided information
(e.g., historical use, observed activity)
regarding why it meets the definition of
critical habitat. Comments received also
addressed the need to directly
incorporate all available presence
information into our habitat analysis
and critical habitat methodology and
expressed concerns regarding a lack of
redundancy provided in the proposed
units for the species to withstand
catastrophic events. In addition, since
the proposed rule was published, we
received new information regarding
genetic diversity and structure of the
species, as well as new presence and
roost data. Upon further review of the
best available information, we have
decided to use average measurements to
describe the characteristics of roost trees
rather than the minimum measurements
used in our June 10, 2020, proposed
rule. In this revision, we also provide
additional roost-related measurements
to better reflect the characteristics
required by the Florida bonneted bat.
Therefore, after fully considering the
public comments we received on our
June 10, 2020, proposed rule and new
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
information that became available after
the publication of that proposed rule,
we revise our proposed critical habitat
designation for the Florida bonneted bat
based on changes to the physical or
biological features and the criteria and
methodology used to identify those
specific areas that constitute critical
habitat. Due to the comprehensive
nature of these revisions, this document
presents an entirely new, revised
proposed critical habitat designation for
the species. The DEA for the proposed
critical habitat designation has also been
revised and is summarized below (see
Consideration of Economic Impacts).
Physical or Biological Features
Essential to the Conservation of the
Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(b), in determining which areas
we will designate as critical habitat from
within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time of listing, we
consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and that may
require special management
considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define
‘‘physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species’’ as
the features that occur in specific areas
and that are essential to support the lifehistory needs of the species, including,
but not limited to, water characteristics,
soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other
features. A feature may be a single
habitat characteristic or a more complex
combination of habitat characteristics.
Features may include habitat
characteristics that support ephemeral
or dynamic habitat conditions. Features
may also be expressed in terms relating
to principles of conservation biology,
such as patch size, distribution
distances, and connectivity. For
example, physical features essential to
the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size
required for spawning, alkaline soil for
seed germination, protective cover for
migration, or susceptibility to flooding
or fire that maintains necessary earlysuccessional habitat characteristics.
Biological features might include prey
species, forage grasses, specific kinds or
ages of trees for roosting or nesting,
symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of
nonnative species consistent with
conservation needs of the listed species.
The features may also be combinations
of habitat characteristics and may
encompass the relationship between
characteristics or the necessary amount
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71469
of a characteristic essential to support
the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are
essential to the conservation of the
species, we may consider an appropriate
quality, quantity, and spatial and
temporal arrangement of habitat
characteristics in the context of the lifehistory needs, condition, and status of
the species. These characteristics
include, but are not limited to, space for
individual and population growth and
for normal behavior; cover or shelter;
sites for breeding, reproduction, or
rearing (or development) of offspring;
food, water, air, light, minerals, or other
nutritional or physiological
requirements; and habitats with
appropriate disturbance regimes (for
more information, see the proposed
listing rule (77 FR 60750; October 4,
2012) and the Florida Bonneted Bat
Conservation Strategy (see Supporting
Documents)). We summarize below the
more important habitat characteristics,
particularly those that support the
description of physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the Florida bonneted bat. For Food,
Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other
Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements, please see this section in
the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR
35510, June 10, 2020). We also consider
these habitat features relative to the
scale at which Florida bonneted bats use
the features, allowing us to more
logically organize the physical and
biological features to delineate the
critical habitat.
Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior
Due to the spatial variability of their
prey, large size, and wing morphology,
this species has significant spatial needs
for foraging. Insect abundance, density,
and community composition frequently
vary across space and over time based
on season and environmental
conditions. As a result of this spatial
variability, Florida bonneted bats may
need to travel far distances and feed
over large areas to satisfy dietary needs.
For example, Florida bonneted bats
from Fred C. Babcock-Cecil M. Webb
Wildlife Management Area (BabcockWebb WMA), on average, traveled 9.5
miles (mi) (15 kilometers (km)) from
their roosts and flew 24 mi (39 km) total
per night (Webb et al. 2018, p. 8; Webb
2018, pers. comm.). These bats also
traveled maximum distances of over 24
mi (39 km) from their roosts and over
56 mi (90 km) total in one night (Webb
et al. 2018, p. 8; Webb 2018, pers.
comm.). Florida bonneted bats also
require open areas for foraging due to
their large body size and morphology of
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
71470
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
their wings, which are designed for fast
and efficient, but less maneuverable,
flight.
This large bat relies on swarms of
larger insects for feeding; thus, foraging
habitat for the Florida bonneted bat
consists of areas that hatch and
concentrate insects of this size,
including vegetated areas and
waterways. These bats also frequently
feed on insects from agricultural areas
and golf courses (Bailey et al. 2017a,
entire).
Ecologically diverse areas of suitable
habitat representing the geographic
extent of the species’ range are also
important for population growth and
persistence. The major ecological
communities (Myers and Ewel 1990,
entire; Service 1999, entire; FNAI 2010,
entire) that provide Florida bonneted
bat roosting habitat in central and
southern Florida include: pine
rocklands (south Florida rockland,
rockland pine forest, rockland
hammock); cypress communities
(cypress swamps, strand swamps,
domes, sloughs, ponds); hydric pine
flatwoods (wet flatwoods); mesic pine
flatwoods; and high pine. A variety of
other habitats may be used as well
(Bailey et al. 2017a, entire). Diverse,
open foraging habitats (e.g., prairies,
riverine habitat) are also important.
Adequate roosting and foraging habitats
are essential to the species, as they
provide the diversity necessary to allow
for population resiliency following
minor disturbances (e.g., loss of roost
tree, cold snap) as well as more
significant stochastic events (e.g.,
hurricane, drought, forest disease,
climate change).
Structural connectivity (suitable
habitat in the form of linear corridors or
patches creating ‘‘stepping stones’’)
facilitates the recolonization of
extirpated populations; facilitates the
establishment of new populations; and
allows for natural behaviors needed for
foraging, exploratory movements, and
dispersal. Four genetically differentiated
populations of the Florida bonneted bat
have been identified (Charlotte, Polk/
Osceola, Lee/Collier, and Miami-Dade
Counties) (Austin et al. 2022, entire; see
also Florida Bonneted Bat Conservation
Strategy in Supporting Documents).
While dispersal of Florida bonneted bats
appears to be geographically restricted
between populations, the geographic
extent of the four genetically
differentiated areas is not yet known,
and maintaining structural connectivity
to allow for ongoing and future
functional connectivity (i.e., actual
movement of animals and/or exchange
of genes) between known populations
remains important to the species for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
resiliency as well as population stability
and growth (Austin et al. 2022, pp. 507–
508). Structural connectivity in the form
of vegetated corridors with
opportunities for roosting and/or
foraging, vegetated river corridors and
other areas with freshwater available
year-round, and habitat patches such as
pine rockland fragments and tree
islands are needed to provide and
maintain connections between regions
where known Florida bonneted bat
populations occur. Maintaining viable
populations in each of the known
genetically differentiated areas and
protecting connectivity is necessary for
the demographic and genetic health of
the species. Therefore, it is important
that this species has areas of
ecologically diverse and connected
habitat including sufficient amounts of
open foraging habitat.
Cover or Shelter
The Florida bonneted bat primarily
roosts in tree cavities, either as
individuals or small or large colonies
(Ober et al. 2017, p. 378; Braun de
Torrez et al. 2020a, p. 6; 2020b, entire).
Roosts provide protection from sunlight,
adverse weather, and predators; sites for
mating, rearing of young, social
interaction and information sharing,
resting, and digestion of food; and
microclimate stability (Kunz 1982,
entire; Ormsbee et al. 2007, pp. 130–
135; Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 4;
Dechmann et al. 2010, pp. 1–7; Bohn
2012, in litt.).
Florida bonneted bat roosts are
difficult to locate; only 36 natural roosts
have been identified (not all currently
occupied), the first in 2013 (Angell and
Thompson 2015, entire; Braun de Torrez
et al. 2020b, entire; Braun de Torrez
2021, pers. comm.; Borkholder 2022,
pers. comm.; Braun de Torrez 2022,
pers. comm.). Known natural roosts
have been documented in the following
tree species: slash pine (Pinus elliottii),
longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), bald
cypress (Taxodium distichum), and
royal palm (Roystonea regia) (Braun de
Torrez et al. 2020b, entire). A significant
proportion of known roosts are in snags
of these tree species (Braun de Torrez et
al. 2020b, entire). One non-volant
(flightless) pup was found at the base of
a live oak (Quercus virginiana) hours
after a tree cavity was bisected (Ridgley
2020, pers. comm.); it is not known if
this tree species is commonly used as a
roost site or may be used particularly
where suitable trees are sparse.
Upon further review of the best
available information, we have modified
the features relevant to roost trees to
more accurately reflect the
characteristics required by Florida
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
bonneted bat. Relative to surrounding
trees, Florida bonneted bat roost trees
tend to have greater overall height
(averaging 57 feet (ft) (17 meters (m)),
diameter (averaging 15-inch (in) (38centimeter (cm)) diameter at breast
height (dbh)), and canopy height
relative to the adjacent canopy
(averaging 16 ft (5 m) taller than
surrounding trees) (Braun de Torrez et
al. 2020b, entire; Braun de Torrez 2022,
pers. comm.). The species also appears
to require sufficient unobstructed space
for emergence, with cavities averaging
35 ft (10.7 m) above the ground and
roost trees averaging 14 ft (4 m) from the
nearest tree (Braun de Torrez et al.
2020b, entire; Braun de Torrez 2022,
pers. comm.), often in open or semiopen canopy and canopy gaps. Cavities
may require a minimum of
approximately 19 ft (5.7 m) of ground
clearance (Braun de Torrez et al. 2020b,
entire; Braun de Torrez 2022, pers.
comm.); however, there are two
instances of Florida bonneted bats using
bat houses with approximately 13 ft (4
m) of ground clearance in Miami-Dade
County (Ridgley 2021, unpublished
data). Collectively, this indicates that
this species prefers large trees with
adequate space around the cavity for
emergence. Solitary males may roost
under loose bark, and loose or shaggy
bark has been documented as a night
roost (e.g., Melaleuca). However, Florida
bonneted bats typically roost in cavities
made by other species (notably
woodpeckers) or by natural damage
caused by fire, storms, or decay.
The Florida bonneted bat is suspected
to have high roost-site fidelity. Some
roosts are used for several years by
Florida bonneted bat colonies, possibly
decades (Myers 2013, pers. comm.;
Scofield 2013a–b, pers. comm.; 2014a–
b, pers. comm.; Bohn 2014, pers. comm.;
Gore et al. 2015, p. 183; Angell and
Thompson 2015, p. 186; Hosein 2016,
pers. comm.; Webb 2017, pers. comm.;
B. Myers 2018, pers. comm.; Aldredge
2019, pers. comm.). Conversely, natural
roosts may frequently succumb to
natural causes (i.e., hurricanes,
wildfire), resulting in total loss or too
much damage to allow for future
roosting. At least 37 percent of the
known natural roosts discovered since
2013 are now uninhabitable (due to
decay, hurricanes, and other factors)
(Braun de Torrez et al. 2020b, entire).
Suitable roost sites are a critical
resource, are an ongoing need of the
species, and may be limiting population
growth and distribution in certain
situations. The loss of a roost site may
represent a greater impact to this species
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
relative to some other bat species (Ober
2012, in litt.).
Florida bonneted bats also roost in
artificial structures (e.g., homes with
barrel-tile roofs, chimneys, barns,
hangars, utility poles) and bat houses
(Marks and Marks 2008b, p. 8; Morse
2008, entire; Trokey 2012a–b, pers.
comm.; Gore et al. 2015, entire; see Use
of Artificial Structures (Bat Houses) in
the final listing rule (78 FR 61004,
October 2, 2013, p. 61010)). Despite
clear evidence of their use, artificial bat
houses may not be ideal or a sufficient
surrogate for natural roosts. Pup
mortalities and other events (e.g., pups
falling from roosts and unable to climb
up metal poles or wood poles with
predator guards) have raised questions
about heat build-up, insulation, proper
placement in the landscape, and bat
house design (Crawford and O’Keefe
2021, entire). Therefore, natural roosts
(i.e., live or dead trees and tree snags,
especially longleaf pine, slash pine, bald
cypress, and royal palm, on average 57
ft (17 m) in height and an average 15in (38-cm) dbh that are emergent from
the surrounding canopy (by an average
16 ft (5 m)) and have unobstructed space
for emergence) are important habitat
characteristics for this species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or
Rearing (or Development) of Offspring
Sites supporting the Florida bonneted
bats’ breeding activities appear to be
required year-round (Timm and
Genoways 2004, p. 859; Ober et al. 2017,
p. 382; Bailey et al. 2017b, p. 556; see
also Life History in the final listing rule
(78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp.
61005–61006) and Food, Water, Air,
Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements in the
proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR
35510, June 10, 2020)). Reproductively
active adults have been observed during
August, December, and April capture
sessions, and non-volant pups (young
not yet capable of flying) have been
documented in roosts in every month
other than February and March
(Scofield 2014b, pers. comm.; Angell
and Thompson 2015, p. 186; Ridgley
2015, pers. comm.; Ober et al. 2017, pp.
381, 383–384; Gore 2017, pers. comm.;
J. Myers 2018, pers. comm.; 2020, pers.
comm.). Based upon these data,
flightless young bonneted bats and
females with high energetic demands
due to pregnancy and lactation may be
vulnerable to disturbance for at least 10
months of the year. Most roosting bats
are sensitive to human disturbance
(Kunz 1982, p. 32), and maternity
colonies may be especially intolerant of
disturbance (Harvey et al. 1999, p. 13;
see also Inadvertent and Purposeful
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
Impacts from Humans in the final
listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2,
2013, pp. 61033–61034)).
Florida bonneted bat colonies
conform to a harem structure (one
dominant male, several reproductively
active females and their young; Ober et
al. 2017, p. 382). This type of social
organization, together with evidence of
high roost-site fidelity, underscores the
importance of roosts to this species for
population maintenance, growth, and
natural behaviors. Disturbance of a roost
at any time can alter social dynamics
and impact reproductive success (Ober
et al. 2017, p. 382). Accordingly, areas
where roosting and other natural
behaviors can occur undisturbed are
important in considering the
conservation of the species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or
Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements
Our discussion of these habitat
characteristics is unchanged from the
proposed rule (85 FR 35510, June 10,
2020).
Habitats With Appropriate Disturbance
Regimes
The Florida bonneted bat not only
requires healthy and ecologically
diverse habitat; the species also needs
areas with an appropriate disturbance
regime. The Florida bonneted bat’s
entire range is within the fire-dependent
and fire-adapted landscape of central
and south Florida (Noss 2018, entire).
The species uses fire-dependent
vegetation communities for roosting
(Belwood 1992, pp. 219–220; Angell
and Thompson 2015, entire; Braun de
Torrez et al. 2016, p. 240) and foraging
(Bailey et al. 2017a, entire; Braun de
Torrez et al. 2018a–c, entire). Florida
bonneted bats appear to be attracted to
recently burned areas (Braun de Torrez
et al. 2018a, entire); it appears that
Florida bonneted bats are fire-adapted
and benefit from prescribed burn
programs that closely mimic historical
fire regimes. Fires during the historical
fire season (i.e., early wet season, April
through June) at a moderate frequency
(more than 3 to 5 years) appear to
optimize habitat for bats in both pine
flatwoods and prairies (Braun de Torrez
et al. 2018b, pp. 6–9). Fire may result in
an increase of suitable roosts (i.e., create
more snags and cavities), more open
flight space, and increased prey
availability (Boyles and Aubrey 2006,
pp. 111–113; Armitage and Ober 2012,
pp. 107–109; O’Keefe and Loeb 2017, p.
271; Braun de Torrez et al. 2018a, p.
1120; 2018b, pp. 8–9).
Fire also has the potential to harm
bats through disturbance or destruction
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71471
of roost trees (Morrison and Raphael
1993, p. 328; Dickinson et al. 2010, pp.
2196–2200). Despite the risks that
Florida bonneted bats may abandon
roosts, or roosts and pups may be lost
during fires, it is critical for fires to
occur on the landscape to maintain
suitable habitat; precautions can be
taken to reduce risks appropriately (see
Inadvertent Impacts from Land
Management Practices, below).
Therefore, based on the information in
this discussion, we identify areas of
diverse habitat types and ecological
communities maintained via
appropriate disturbance regimes as
essential physical or biological features
for this species.
Summary of Essential Physical or
Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of Florida bonneted bat
from studies of the species’ habitat,
ecology, and life history as described
below and further in the Florida
Bonneted Bat Conservation Strategy (see
Supporting Documents) and the
proposed and final listing rules (77 FR
60750, October 4, 2012; 78 FR 61004,
October 2, 2013). We have determined
that the following physical or biological
features are essential to the conservation
of the Florida bonneted bat:
(1) Habitats that provide for roosting
and rearing of offspring. Such habitat
provides structural features for rest,
digestion of food, social interaction,
mating, rearing of young, protection
from sunlight and adverse weather
conditions, and cover to reduce
predation risks for adults and young,
and is generally characterized by:
(a) Live or dead trees and tree snags,
especially longleaf pine, slash pine, bald
cypress, and royal palm, that are on
average 57 ft (17 m) in height and with
an average 15-in (38-cm) dbh and that
are emergent from the surrounding
canopy (by an average 16 ft (5 m)); and
(b) Sufficient unobstructed space,
with cavities averaging 35 ft (10.7 m)
above the ground and roost trees
averaging 14 ft (4 m) from the nearest
tree, for Florida bonneted bats to emerge
from roost trees; this may include open
or semi-open canopy and canopy gaps.
(2) Habitats that provide adequate
prey and space for foraging, which may
vary widely across the Florida bonneted
bat’s range, in accordance with
ecological conditions, seasons, and
disturbance regimes that influence
vegetation structure and prey species’
distributions. Foraging habitat may be
separate and relatively far from roosting
habitat. Essential foraging habitat
consists of open areas in or near areas
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71472
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
of high insect production or
congregation, commonly including, but
not limited to:
(a) Freshwater edges and freshwater
herbaceous wetlands (permanent or
seasonal);
(b) Prairies;
(c) Wetland and upland shrub; and/or
(d) Wetland and upland forests.
(3) A dynamic disturbance regime
(e.g., fire, hurricanes, forest
management) that maintains and
regenerates forested habitat, including
plant communities, open habitat
structure, and temporary gaps, which is
conducive to promoting a continual
supply of roosting sites, prey items, and
suitable foraging conditions.
(4) A sufficient quantity and diversity
of habitats to enable the species to be
resilient to short-term impacts
associated with disturbance over time
(e.g., drought, forest disease). This
quantity and diversity are essential to
provide suitable conditions despite
temporary alterations to habitat quality.
The ecological communities the Florida
bonneted bat inhabits differ in
hydrology, fire frequency/intensity,
climate, prey species, roosting sites, and
threats, and include, but are not limited
to:
(a) Pine rocklands;
(b) Cypress communities (cypress
swamps, strand swamps, domes,
sloughs, ponds);
(c) Hydric pine flatwoods (wet
flatwoods);
(d) Mesic pine flatwoods; and
(e) High pine.
(5) Habitats that provide structural
connectivity where needed to allow for
dispersal, gene flow, and natural and
adaptive movements, including those
that may be necessitated by climate
change. These connections may include
linear corridors such as vegetated,
riverine, or open-water habitat with
opportunities for roosting and/or
foraging, or patches (i.e., stepping
stones) such as tree islands or other
isolated natural areas within a matrix of
otherwise low-quality habitat.
(6) A subtropical climate that
provides tolerable conditions for the
species such that normal behavior,
successful reproduction, and rearing of
offspring are possible.
Special Management Considerations or
Protection
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the specific areas within
the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing contain
features which are essential to the
conservation of the species and which
may require special management
considerations or protection. Recovery
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
of the Florida bonneted bat will require
special management considerations or
protection of the physical or biological
features including passive (e.g.,
allowing natural processes to occur
without intervention) and active (e.g.,
taking actions to restore and maintain
habitat conditions or address threats)
management. The features essential to
the conservation of this species may
require special management
considerations or protection to reduce
the threats that are related to
inadvertent impacts from land
management practices are discussed
below. For discussion of special
management considerations or
protection required to reduce threats
related to Habitat Loss, Climate Change
and Sea-level Rise, Environmental
Stochasticity, and Pesticides and
Contaminants, see these sections in the
proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR
35510, June 10, 2020).
Inadvertent Impacts From Land
Management Practices
Forest management can help maintain
and improve the Florida bonneted bat’s
roosting and foraging habitat (see Use of
Forests and Other Natural Areas in the
final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October
2, 2013, pp. 61007–61010)), and a lack
of forest management, including a lack
of prescribed fire, can be detrimental to
the species. Prescribed burns may
benefit Florida bonneted bats by
improving habitat structure, enhancing
the prey base, and creating openings;
restoration of fire to fire-dependent
forests may improve foraging habitat for
this species and create snags (Carter et
al. 2002, p. 139; Boyles and Aubrey
2006, pp. 111–113; Lacki et al. 2009,
entire; Armitage and Ober 2012, pp.
107–109; FWC 2013, pp. 9–11; Ober and
McCleery 2014, pp. 1–3; Braun de
Torrez et al. 2018a–b, entire).
Fire is a vital component in
maintaining suitable Florida bonneted
bat habitat (Braun de Torrez et al.
2018b, entire), and while many
prescribed fire and other land
management practices mimic natural
processes and benefit native species on
broad spatial and temporal scales, these
activities can result in inadvertent
negative impacts in the near term. For
example, extensive removal of trees
with cavities or hollows during
activities associated with forest
management, fuel reduction, vista
management, off-road vehicle trail
maintenance, prescribed fire, or habitat
restoration may inadvertently remove
roost sites or reduce the availability of
roost sites (see Land Management
Practices in the final listing rule (78 FR
61004, October 2, 2013, p. 61027)).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Cavity-roosting bats may be
susceptible to fire effects (Carter et al.
2002, p. 140). Loss of active roosts or
removal during critical life-history
stages (e.g., when females are pregnant
or rearing young) is of greatest concern,
given the species’ apparent small
population size and low fecundity
(Bailey et al. 2017b, p. 556; see also
Effects of Small Population Size,
Isolation, and Other Factors in the final
listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2,
2013, pp. 61036–61037)). Risk from
forest management may be minimized
by conducting activities outside the
bat’s peak breeding season (April 15 to
August 15), protecting known roost
sites, or avoiding potential roost sites, as
disturbance to roost sites at any time of
the year may alter social dynamics and
reproductive success (Blumstein 2010,
pp. 665–666; Ober et al. 2017, p. 382).
Special management considerations or
protections to retain the essential
physical or biological features for
Florida bonneted bat include annual or
seasonal monitoring efforts, or
monitoring conducted prior to (but
coordinated with) annual fire or forest
management planning that can identify
sensitive areas and incorporate
appropriate avoidance or minimization
measures. Developing additional
avoidance or minimization measures for
common management practices and
activities (see the Florida Bonneted Bat
Consultation Guidelines in Supporting
Documents) on specific properties can
also reduce negative effects. Retaining
potential roost trees, wherever possible,
may also reduce competition for tree
cavities (see Competition for Tree
Cavities in the final listing rule (78 FR
61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 61034–
61035)), and promote survival and the
potential for population expansion over
the long term.
The features essential to the
conservation of the Florida bonneted bat
may require special management
considerations or protection to reduce
threats and conserve these features.
Actions that could ameliorate threats
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Retaining and actively managing a
habitat network of large and diverse
conservation lands throughout the
Florida bonneted bat’s range;
(2) Protecting, restoring, or enhancing
inland or higher elevation habitats that
are predicted to be unaffected or less
affected by sea-level rise;
(3) Protecting habitats that support
high insect diversity and abundance,
and avoiding the excessive use of
pesticides wherever possible;
(4) Retaining potential roost trees and
snags (see Cover or Shelter, above);
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
(5) Conducting annual or seasonal
monitoring efforts, or monitoring
conducted prior to (but coordinated
with) annual fire or forest management
planning; and
(6) Developing and implementing
specific guidelines (see the Florida
Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines
in Supporting Documents) to minimize
impacts of activities associated with
hurricane clean-up, prescribed fire,
invasive species management, forest
management, and development.
Special Management Previously
Considered
In the June 10, 2020, proposed rule to
designate critical habitat for the Florida
bonneted bat (85 FR 35510), we
considered ecological light pollution to
be a potential threat to the Florida
bonneted bat and its habitat that would
likely require special management.
However, as we described in the final
listing rule, the Florida bonneted bat’s
behavioral response to ecological light
pollution has not been examined, and
effects are not known (78 FR 61004,
October 2, 2013, p. 61036). The species’
fast-flight and long-range flight
capabilities may make it more able to
exploit insects congregated at artificial
light sources and more susceptible to
risks associated with such responses
(e.g., increased predation or harm from
humans). Alternatively, artificial
lighting may not be influencing the
species’ foraging or other behaviors.
Accordingly, at this time, there
continues to be little information about
the potential effects of light pollution on
the Florida bonneted bat.
Therefore, upon further review of the
best available information, we have
removed ecological light pollution as a
potential threat to the species that may
require special management
considerations or protection, but we
specifically request comments on this
matter.
Conservation Strategy and Selection
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Conservation Strategy
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we use the best scientific data
available to designate critical habitat. In
accordance with the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(b), we review available
information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of the species and identify
specific areas within the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time
of listing and any specific areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the
species to be considered for designation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
as critical habitat. We are not currently
proposing to designate any areas outside
the geographical area occupied by the
species because we have not identified
any unoccupied areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat. The
occupied areas identified encompass the
varying types and distribution of habitat
needed by the species and provide
sufficient habitat to allow for
maintaining and potentially expanding
the populations.
To determine and select appropriate
occupied areas that contain the physical
or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species or areas
otherwise essential for the conservation
of the Florida bonneted bat, we
incorporated information from the
conservation strategy for the species.
The goal of our conservation strategy for
the Florida bonneted bat is to recover
the species to the point where the
protections of the Act are no longer
necessary. The role of critical habitat in
achieving this conservation goal is to
identify the specific areas within the
Florida bonneted bat’s range that
provide essential physical and
biological features without which the
Florida bonneted bat’s rangewide
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation could not be achieved.
Specifically, this conservation strategy
helped identify those areas within the
Florida bonneted bat’s range that
contain the physical and biological
features without which rangewide
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation could not be achieved.
Our conservation strategy identified
goals, from which we developed the
following six critical habitat criteria for
determining the specific areas that
contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species:
(1) Genetic diversity—To maintain
viable populations in each of the known
genetically differentiated areas (see
Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior,
above), critical habitat should include
one unit within each of the four
genetically differentiated populations.
(2) Geographic extent—To maintain
viable populations that are distributed
across the geographic range of the
Florida bonneted bat (see Current
Distribution in the final listing rule (78
FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 61010–
61011)), critical habitat units should
represent the extent of the species’
existing known range.
(3) Ecological diversity—To maintain
at least one viable population in each
major ecological community that
provides roosting habitat for the Florida
bonneted bat (see Habitats with
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71473
Appropriate Disturbance Regimes,
above), these community types should
be well represented in critical habitat
units.
(4) Climate change resilience—To
maintain at least one viable population
in suitable habitat predicted to be
unaffected or less affected by sea-level
rise and climate change, critical habitat
should include one unit in the northern,
inland portion of the Florida bonneted
bat’s range.
(5) High conservation value (HCV)
habitat—To maintain sufficient habitat
with HCV that supports the life history
of the species within each population,
critical habitat units should incorporate
multiple areas that support roosting and
foraging needs and that have HCV (as
informed by habitat analysis results and
telemetry data).
(6) Structural connectivity—To
maintain, enhance, and reestablish
connectivity within and between
Florida bonneted bat populations,
critical habitat units should be
configured within the central and south
Florida landscape to provide
connectivity based on the best available
movement data for the species (see
Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior,
above).
Selection Criteria and Methodology
Used To Identify Critical Habitat
To delineate the specific areas that are
occupied by the species and that
contain the physical and biological
features essential to the Florida
bonneted bat’s conservation, we
conducted a habitat analysis.
Acknowledging some limitations in the
information available, we used the best
available data to conduct our habitat
analysis (see Florida Bonneted Bat
Habitat Analysis in Supporting
Documents). Information used in the
habitat analysis and/or the delineation
of critical habitat units consists of the
following:
(1) Confirmed presence data compiled
in our Geographic Information System
(GIS) database from 2003 through 2021,
and provided by the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC), University of Florida (UF), and
other various sources, including survey
reports, databases, and publications;
(2) Vegetation cover types from the
Cooperative Land Cover map (CLC;
version 3.4) developed by FWC and
Florida Natural Areas Inventory;
(3) Canopy height from the global
forest canopy height map (2019)
developed by Global Land Analysis and
Discovery;
(4) Red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis) potential habitat
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
71474
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
(2016) developed by FWC, based on
evidence indicating Florida bonneted
bats use woodpecker cavities for
roosting;
(5) Artificial sky luminance from the
New World Atlas of Artificial Sky
Brightness developed by the Light
Pollution Science and Technology
Institute (Falchi et al. 2016, entire);
(6) Fire frequency data provided by
the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity
program;
(7) Urban development data (2010
baseline) from the Florida 2070 project
developed by the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, the
UF GeoPlan Center, and 1000 Friends of
Florida;
(8) Maps of unpublished telemetry
data collected and provided by UF and
FWC; and
(9) ArcGIS online basemap aerial
imagery (2018–2020) to cross-check CLC
data and ensure the presence of physical
or biological features.
To help identify potential factors
affecting Florida bonneted bat use, we
conducted a spatial analysis to quantify
relationships of habitat-related and
other environmental variables with
species occurrence (see the Florida
Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis in
Supporting Documents)). Available
presence data incorporated into the
analysis primarily consisted of acoustic
data, as well as locations of known
roosts. Maps of telemetry locations were
used to inform our evaluation of HCV
areas but were not part of the habitat
analysis dataset because coordinate data
were not available at the time. We
identified 10 covariates that related to
habitat types (e.g., pine/cypress) and
other factors (e.g., fire history) thought
to influence habitat suitability and use
by the Florida bonneted bat and
modeled those at three spatial scales
(see the Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat
Analysis in Supporting Documents).
Model output included predictive maps
representing the probability of species
occurrence based on the covariates
included in the final models, and we
used these maps to characterize the
relative habitat suitability and
conservation value of areas within
central and south Florida. We also
conducted sensitivity/specificity
analyses to identify an objective
threshold value for each model, which
we then applied to identify areas with
high conservation value to the species.
See the Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat
Analysis in Supporting Documents for
full details of our methodology and
results, including links to data sources
used.
We considered the model output and
the conservation strategy to determine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
the specific areas occupied by the
species on which are found the physical
or biological features that are essential
to the Florida bonneted bat. Those
specific areas (critical habitat units)
were identified and delineated using the
following steps:
(1) We identified areas having high
conservation value (as described above)
for the Florida bonneted bat based on
model output because those areas are
likely to contain the combination of
characteristics that we have determined
are essential physical or biological
features for the Florida bonneted bat.
(2) We refined these areas to eliminate
any unsuitable or less suitable areas that
are unlikely to contain features essential
to the conservation of the species based
on the Florida bonneted bat’s biology
(e.g., temperature requirements) and
aerial imagery.
(3) We considered telemetry maps and
certain critical habitat criteria that were
not incorporated into the models (e.g.,
connectivity). Where telemetry maps
indicated high use (e.g., HCV foraging
habitat), or where additional area was
needed to ensure sufficient
connectivity, we delineated additional
habitat using CLC data and aerial
imagery and based on model output and
covariate relationships identified in our
habitat analysis.
(4) We evaluated the resulting units to
determine whether occupied habitat is
adequate to ensure conservation of the
species. We specifically evaluated
occupied units to ensure they fulfill all
critical habitat criteria and meet the
goals and objectives in our conservation
strategy for identifying the areas that
contain the features that are essential to
the Florida bonneted bat. Based on our
determination that occupied areas are
sufficient for the conservation of the
species, no unoccupied habitat is
included in this revised proposed
critical habitat designation.
When determining revised proposed
critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including
developed areas such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other
structures because such lands lack
physical or biological features necessary
for the Florida bonneted bat. The scale
of the maps we prepared under the
parameters for publication within the
Code of Federal Regulations may not
reflect the exclusion of such developed
lands. Any such lands inadvertently left
inside critical habitat boundaries shown
on the maps of this proposed rule have
been excluded by text in the proposed
rule and are not proposed for
designation as critical habitat.
Therefore, if the critical habitat is
finalized as proposed, a Federal action
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
involving these lands would not trigger
section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat and the requirement of
no adverse modification unless the
specific action would affect the physical
or biological features in the adjacent
critical habitat.
We propose to designate as critical
habitat lands that we have determined
are occupied at the time of listing (i.e.,
currently occupied), that contain one or
more of the physical or biological
features that are essential to support
life-history processes of the species, and
that may require special management
considerations or protection. We
considered areas occupied at the time of
listing if they have documented
presence of Florida bonneted bats from
October 2013 through 2021. Due to the
species’ life span and high site fidelity,
it is reasonable to conclude that these
areas found to be occupied in 2013 to
2021 would have been inhabited by
Florida bonneted bats when the species
was listed in 2013. Each unit we
propose to designate as critical habitat
contains all the identified physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species.
The revised proposed critical habitat
designation is defined by the map or
maps, as modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document under Proposed
Regulation Promulgation. We include
more detailed information on the
boundaries of the critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this
document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based available to
the public on https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106 and at the
Florida Ecological Services Field Office
website at https://www.fws.gov/office/
florida-ecological-services/library.
Revised Proposed Critical Habitat
Designation
We are proposing to designate nine
units as critical habitat for the Florida
bonneted bat. The critical habitat areas
we describe below constitute our best
assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the
Florida bonneted bat. The nine areas we
propose as critical habitat are: (1)
Kissimmee Unit, (2) Peace River Unit,
(3) Babcock Unit, (4) Fisheating Creek
Unit, (5) Corkscrew Unit, (6) Big
Cypress Unit, (7) Everglades Tree
Islands Unit, (8) Long Pine Key Unit,
and (9) Miami-Dade Rocklands Unit. All
nine units proposed as critical habitat
are occupied by the species. Table 1
shows the revised proposed critical
habitat units and the approximate area
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71475
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
of each unit/subunit within each land
ownership category.
TABLE 1—REVISED PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS AND SUBUNITS FOR THE FLORIDA BONNETED BAT, INCLUDING
ACRES (ac) AND HECTARES (ha) BY LAND OWNERSHIP CATEGORY
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries, and land ownership was determined using the most recent parcel data
provided by each county. All units are occupied]
Land ownership: ac (ha)
Total area:
ac (ha)
Critical habitat unit/subunit
Federal
State
1. Kissimmee .....................
99 (40)
1 (<1)
1A ...............................
90 (36)
0
1B ...............................
2. Peace River ..................
9 (4)
32 (13)
1 (<1)
0
2A ...............................
2B ...............................
2C ...............................
2D ...............................
3. Babcock ........................
0
0
0
32 (13)
0
0
0
0
0
0
3A ...............................
0
0
3B ...............................
0
0
4. Fisheating Creek ...........
5. Corkscrew .....................
0
0
0
0
6. Big Cypress ...................
533,179
(215,770)
16,538 (6,693)
25,142
(10,175)
599 (242)
0
0
0
0
0
140 (57)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
458 (185)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<1
14,455 (5,850)
575,589
(232,933)
7. Everglades Tree Islands
8. Long Pine Key ..............
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Tribal
9. Miami Rocklands ...........
9A ...............................
9B ...............................
9C ...............................
9D ...............................
9E ...............................
9F ...............................
9G ..............................
9H ...............................
9I ................................
9J ...............................
9K ...............................
9L ...............................
9M ..............................
9N ...............................
9O ..............................
9P ...............................
9Q ..............................
9R ...............................
9S ...............................
9T ...............................
9U ...............................
9V ...............................
9W ..............................
9X ...............................
9Y ...............................
9Z ...............................
9AA ............................
9BB ............................
9CC ............................
9DD ............................
9EE ............................
9FF .............................
9GG ............................
9HH ............................
9II ...............................
9JJ ..............................
Total ....................
County
Local
Private/other
135,779
(54,948)
135,343
(54,771)
437 (177)
6,389 (2,586)
815 (330)
0
612 (248)
0
203 (82)
563 (228)
0
0
0
0
0
6,389 (2,586)
108,509
(43,912)
80,043
(32,392)
28,466
(11,520)
7,689 (3,112)
26,226
(10,613)
152,494
(61,712)
1 (<1)
2 (1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,457 (5,851)
0
165 (67)
36,996
(14,972)
31,241
(12,643)
5,755 (2,329)
19,047 (7,708)
0
1,850 (749)
0
0
0
563 (228)
782 (316)
0
0
0
165 (67)
19 (8)
2,603 (1,053)
5,478 (2,217)
2,029 (821)
8,938 (3,617)
23,929 (9,684)
0
200 (81)
2 (1)
1,648 (667)
322 (130)
782 (316)
19 (8)
7,392 (2,991)
322 (130)
0
0
16,536 (6,692)
0
<1
5,265 (2,131)
0
13 (5)
5,300 (2,145)
17,319 (7,009)
6 (2)
41 (17)
8,419 (3,407)
229 (93)
16,170 (6,544)
3,598 (1,456)
4 (2)
0
0
0
<1
187 (76)
60 (24)
5 (2)
796 (322)
0
0
0
10 (4)
21 (8)
0
8 (3)
235 (95)
0
60 (24)
36 (15)
77 (31)
0
18 (7)
0
48 (19)
<1
36 (15)
34 (14)
10 (4)
18 (7)
0
9 (4)
0
0
0
22 (9)
0
0
19 (8)
12 (5)
0
81 (33)
22 (9)
18 (7)
0
2,403 (972)
52 (21)
104 (42)
5 (2)
0
230 (93)
<1
0
0
22 (9)
<1
<1
<1
114 (46)
0
1,180 (478)
0
7 (3)
22 (9)
63 (25)
0
4 (2)
0
103 (42)
10 (4)
18 (7)
28 (11)
24 (10)
19 (8)
9 (4)
0
<1
39 (16)
240 (97)
0
5 (2)
105 (42)
8 (3)
0
0
0
0
<1
0
0
0
0
8 (3)
0
<1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
471 (190)
<1
<1
<1
18 (7)
13 (5)
<1
19 (8)
<1
<1
28 (11)
<1
<1
<1
<1
123 (50)
13 (5)
7 (3)
13 (5)
35 (14)
25 (10)
1 (<1)
30 (12)
<1
20 (8)
11 (4)
<1
37 (15)
23 (9)
15 (6)
<1
1 (<1)
<1
28 (11)
<1
10 (4)
<1
46 (19)
1 (<1)
1 (<1)
<1
1 (<1)
2 (1)
<1
<1
3 (1)
<1
3 (1)
<1
<1
<1
<1
1 (<1)
<1
<1
8 (3)
2 (1)
<1
<1
1 (<1)
<1
<1
4 (2)
3 (1)
<1
1 (<1)
<1
<1
5 (2)
<1
1 (<1)
<1
6 (2)
2 (1)
437,888
(177,207)
18,251 (7,386)
434 (176)
119,419
(48,327)
7,974 (3,227)
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Unidentified
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
2,047 (828)
2,047 (828)
175,737
(71,118)
169,331
(68,526)
6,405 (2,592)
28,046
(11,350)
2,603 (1,053)
5,678 (2,298)
2,031 (822)
17,734 (7,177)
133,560
(54,050)
88,559
(35,839)
45,001
(18,211)
12,995 (5,259)
48,865
(19,775)
728,544
(294,831)
16,604 (6,719)
25,337
(10,254)
4,324 (1,750)
53 (21)
104 (42)
5 (2)
28 (11)
267 (108)
140 (57)
28 (11)
238 (96)
22 (9)
99 (40)
37 (15)
77 (31)
114 (46)
18 (7)
1,762 (713)
61 (25)
14 (6)
80 (32)
135 (55)
36 (15)
23 (9)
31 (13)
112 (45)
30 (12)
32 (13)
31 (13)
84 (34)
43 (17)
24 (10)
19 (8)
18 (7)
39 (16)
351 (142)
22 (9)
39 (16)
108 (44)
1,174,011
(475,105)
71476
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
We present brief descriptions of all
units, and reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat for the
Florida bonneted bat, below.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Unit 1: Kissimmee Unit
Unit 1 encompasses 175,737 ac
(71,118 ha) of lands in Polk, Osceola,
Highlands, and Okeechobee Counties,
Florida. This unit consists of two
subunits generally located along the
eastern bank of Lake Kissimmee
northeast to SR–192, north of SR–60;
and along portions of the Kissimmee
River, south of SR–60. Unit 1
predominately consists of State-owned
conservation lands (135,779 ac (54,948
ha)) and private lands (36,996 ac (14,972
ha)). The largest conservation
landholdings within this unit include
Kissimmee Prairie Preserve State Park,
Three Lakes WMA, Herky Huffman/Bull
Creek WMA, Triple N Ranch WMA, and
South Florida Water Management
District lands along the Kissimmee
River. Other smaller conservation lands
also occur within this unit (for more
information, see the Conservation Lands
document in Supporting Documents).
Unit 1 contains all of the essential
physical or biological features for the
Florida bonneted bat and is considered
occupied at the time of listing based on
documented presence of Florida
bonneted bats within the unit. The
Kissimmee Unit represents the northern
extent of the species’ range and provides
resiliency against the expected impacts
from habitat loss due to climate change
as it includes areas considered less
vulnerable to these effects. Habitat in
this unit provides ecological diversity
(i.e., high pine and mesic flatwoods) and
includes areas identified as having HCV,
specifically high-quality roosting habitat
(e.g., potential roost trees, red-cockaded
woodpecker activity in the area) and
foraging habitat (e.g., open water,
abundant prey). In addition, the Florida
bonneted bats in this area are
genetically differentiated from those
occurring elsewhere in the range
(Austin et al. 2022, entire), and thus
contribute to the genetic diversity of the
overall population.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
Florida bonneted bat in Unit 1 may
require special management
considerations or protection due to the
following threats: Habitat loss and
fragmentation from changes in land use
(e.g., land clearing for residential/
commercial development); lack of
habitat management and/or inadvertent
impacts from these habitat management
practices (e.g., prescribed fire, snag
removal); and excessive pesticide use
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act,
we are exempting Avon Park Air Force
Range lands (99,523 ac (40,276 ha)) from
the critical habitat designation because
the U.S. Air Force has an approved
integrated natural resources
management plan (INRMP) that
provides benefits to the Florida
bonneted bat and its habitat (see
Exemptions, below, for more detailed
information).
Approximately 1.25 ac (0.5 ha) of
Tribal lands occur within Unit 1
(Miccosukee Tribe of Florida). We are
considering exclusion of these lands
from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Consideration of Other
Relevant Impacts, below).
Unit 2: Peace River Unit
Unit 2 encompasses 28,046 ac (11,350
ha) of lands in Hardee, DeSoto, and
Charlotte Counties, Florida. This unit
consists of four subunits located along
portions of the Peace River and its
tributaries (e.g., Shell Creek, Charlie
Creek), south of CR–64 with the
majority west of U.S.–17. Unit 2
predominately consists of privately
owned lands (19,047 ac (7,708 ha)) and
State-owned conservation lands (6,389
ac (2,586 ha)). The largest conservation
landholdings within this unit include
the Peace River State Forest and the
Deep Creek Preserve. Other smaller
conservation lands also occur within
this unit (for more information, see the
Conservation Lands document in
Supporting Documents).
Unit 2 contains all of the essential
physical or biological features for the
Florida bonneted bat and is considered
occupied at the time of listing based on
documented presence of Florida
bonneted bats within the unit. The
Peace River Unit encompasses a known
movement corridor (generally
connecting proposed Units 1 and 3),
allowing gene flow between these
populations, and includes areas
identified as having HCV, specifically
high-quality foraging habitat along the
Peace River and adjacent forested lands
that provide open water and abundant
prey. In addition, this unit adds
ecological diversity (a natural river
corridor) to the overall proposed
designation.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
Florida bonneted bat in Unit 2 may
require special management
considerations or protection due to the
following threats: Habitat loss,
fragmentation, or degradation from
changes in land use (e.g., land clearing
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
for residential/commercial
development); lack of habitat
management and/or inadvertent impacts
from land management practices (e.g.,
prescribed fire, snag removal); excessive
pesticide use; and climate change (e.g.,
sea level rise/inundation, saltwater
intrusion, habitat alteration/
degradation) (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Unit 3: Babcock Unit
Unit 3 encompasses 133,560 ac
(54,050 ha) of lands in Charlotte, Lee,
and Glades Counties, Florida. This unit
consists of two subunits, with the
majority of Unit 3 located in Charlotte
County, east of I–75; other portions are
in northwestern Lee and western Glades
Counties. This unit predominately
consists of State-owned conservation
lands (108,509 ac (43,912 ha)) and
private lands (23,929 ac (9,684 ha)). The
largest conservation landholdings
within this unit are Babcock-Webb
WMA and Babcock Ranch Preserve;
other smaller conservation lands also
occur within this unit (for more
information, see the Conservation Lands
document in Supporting Documents).
Unit 3 contains all of the essential
physical or biological features for the
Florida bonneted bat and is considered
occupied at the time of listing based on
documented presence of Florida
bonneted bats within the unit. Habitat
in the Babcock Unit provides ecological
diversity (i.e., hydric and mesic
flatwoods) and includes areas identified
as having HCV, specifically superior
roosting and foraging habitat. BabcockWebb WMA and surrounding areas
support the largest known population of
Florida bonneted bats and the majority
of all known roost sites. In addition, the
Florida bonneted bats in this
westernmost extent of the species’ range
are genetically differentiated from those
occurring elsewhere in the range
(Austin et al. 2022, entire), thus
contributing to the genetic diversity of
the overall population.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
Florida bonneted bat in Unit 3 may
require special management
considerations or protection due to the
following threats: Habitat loss,
fragmentation, or degradation from
changes in land use (e.g., land clearing
for residential/commercial
development); lack of habitat
management and/or inadvertent impacts
from land management practices (e.g.,
prescribed fire, snag removal); excessive
pesticide use; and climate change (e.g.,
sea level rise/inundation, saltwater
intrusion, habitat alteration/
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
degradation) (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Unit 4: Fisheating Creek Unit
Unit 4 encompasses 12,995 ac (5,259
ha) of lands in Glades and Highlands
Counties, Florida. The majority of Unit
4 is located in Glades County, west of
US–27; the remaining portion of the
unit extends north into southern
Highlands County. This unit
predominately consists of State-owned
conservation lands (7,689 ac (3,112 ha))
and private lands (5,300 ac (2,145 ha)).
Conservation landholdings within this
unit are Fisheating Creek WMA,
Fisheating Creek/Lykes Brothers
Conservation Easement, and Platt
Branch Wildlife and Environmental
Area.
Unit 4 contains all of the essential
physical or biological features for the
Florida bonneted bat and is considered
occupied at the time of listing based on
documented presence of Florida
bonneted bats within the unit. Highquality foraging habitat along Fisheating
Creek and adjacent forested lands
provide open water and abundant prey.
This unit serves as important foraging
habitat connecting bats traveling
between proposed Unit 3 and areas to
the north and east, and, along with
proposed Unit 2, this unit adds
ecological diversity (natural river
corridors) to the overall proposed
designation.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
Florida bonneted bat in Unit 4 may
require special management
considerations or protection due to the
following threats: Habitat loss,
fragmentation, or degradation from
changes in land use (e.g., land clearing
for residential/commercial
development); lack of habitat
management and/or inadvertent impacts
from land management practices (e.g.,
prescribed fire, snag removal,
hydrologic restoration); excessive
pesticide use; and climate change (e.g.,
sea level rise/inundation, saltwater
intrusion, habitat alteration/
degradation) (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Unit 5: Corkscrew Unit
Unit 5 encompasses 48,865 ac (19,775
ha) of lands in Lee and Collier Counties,
Florida. This unit straddles the Lee/
Collier county line, east of I–75, and
predominately consists of State-owned
conservation lands (26,226 ac (10,613
ha)) and private lands (17,319 ac (7,009
ha)). The largest conservation
landholdings within this unit are
Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem
Watershed and the National Audubon
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
Society’s Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary;
other smaller conservation lands also
occur within this unit (for more
information, see the Conservation Lands
document in Supporting Documents).
Unit 5 contains all of the essential
physical or biological features for the
Florida bonneted bat and is considered
occupied at the time of listing based on
documented presence of Florida
bonneted bats within the unit. Habitat
within the Corkscrew Unit provides
ecological diversity (i.e., cypress and
hydric flatwoods) and includes areas
identified as having HCV. Corkscrew
Swamp Sanctuary was established to
protect one of the largest remaining
stands of cypress in North America, and
this area likely includes high-quality
roosting habitat. The area also provides
connectivity between Babcock-Webb
WMA and areas south. The natural
habitat within Unit 5 serves as
important habitat in an area that is
otherwise under high development
pressure.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
Florida bonneted bat in Unit 5 may
require special management
considerations or protection due to the
following: Habitat loss, fragmentation,
or degradation from changes in land use
(e.g., land clearing for residential/
commercial development); lack of
habitat management and/or inadvertent
impacts from land management
practices (e.g., prescribed fire, snag
removal); and climate change (e.g., sea
level rise/inundation, saltwater
intrusion, habitat alteration/
degradation) (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Unit 6: Big Cypress Unit
Unit 6 encompasses 728,544 ac
(294,831 ha) of lands in Collier, Hendry,
and Monroe Counties, Florida. The
majority of Unit 6 is located in Collier
County, south of I–75; the remainder
occurs in southern Hendry County and
mainland portions of Monroe County.
This unit predominately consists of
Federal (533,179 ac (215,770 ha)) and
State-owned (152,494 ac (61,712 ha))
conservation lands. The largest
landholdings within this unit are Big
Cypress National Preserve, Florida
Panther National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR), Fakahatchee Strand Preserve
State Park, and Picayune Strand State
Forest; other smaller conservation lands
also occur within this unit (for more
information, see the Conservation Lands
document in Supporting Documents).
Unit 6 contains all of the essential
physical or biological features for the
Florida bonneted bat and is considered
occupied at the time of listing based on
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71477
documented presence of Florida
bonneted bats within the unit. Habitat
in the Big Cypress Unit, along with Unit
5, provides ecological diversity (i.e.,
cypress and hydric flatwoods) and
includes areas identified as having HCV.
Roosting habitat within this unit is of
particularly high quality. Despite
challenges in accessing this site to
conduct surveys, the Florida bonneted
bat has been documented throughout
this unit, including the discovery of 25
natural roosts (the most of any unit).
The Florida bonneted bats in this area
are genetically differentiated from those
occurring elsewhere in the range
(Austin et al. 2022, entire) and thus
contribute to the genetic diversity of the
overall population.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
Florida bonneted bat in Unit 6 may
require special management
considerations or protection due to the
following threats: Habitat loss,
fragmentation, or degradation from
changes in land use (e.g., land clearing
for residential, commercial,
transportation, or energy-related
development); lack of habitat
management and/or inadvertent impacts
from land management practices (e.g.,
prescribed fire, snag removal, habitat
and hydrologic restoration); excessive
pesticide use; and climate change (e.g.,
sea level rise/inundation, saltwater
intrusion, habitat alteration/
degradation, coastal squeeze) (see
Special Management Considerations or
Protection, above).
Approximately 14,455 ac (5,850 ha) of
Tribal lands occur within Unit 6
(Seminole Tribe of Florida). We are
considering exclusion of these lands
from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Consideration of Other
Relevant Impacts, below).
Unit 7: Everglades Tree Islands Unit
Unit 7 encompasses 16,604 ac (6,719
ha) of lands in Miami-Dade County,
Florida, south of Tamiami Trail and
west of Krome Avenue. Nearly this
entire unit is Federal land within
Everglades National Park (ENP; 16,538
ac (6,693 ha)).
Unit 7 contains all of the essential
physical or biological features for the
Florida bonneted bat and is considered
occupied at the time of listing based on
documented presence of Florida
bonneted bats within the unit. The
Everglades Tree Islands Unit provides
connectivity between Unit 6 and the
southeast coast (proposed Units 8 and
9), allowing gene flow between these
populations. It also includes areas
identified as having HCV. Despite
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71478
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
limited effort and challenges accessing
the area to conduct surveys, the Florida
bonneted bat has been documented
throughout this unit.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
Florida bonneted bat in Unit 7 may
require special management
considerations or protection due to the
following threats: Lack of habitat
management and/or inadvertent impacts
from land management practices (e.g.,
prescribed fire, snag removal, habitat
and hydrologic restoration) and climate
change (e.g., sea level rise/inundation,
saltwater intrusion, habitat alteration/
degradation) (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Unit 8: Long Pine Key Unit
Unit 8 encompasses 25,337 ac (10,254
ha) of lands in Miami-Dade County,
Florida, along ENP’s Main Park Road
(SR–9336) between Mahogany
Hammock and SW 237th Avenue.
Nearly this entire unit is Federal land
within ENP (25,142 ac (10,175 ha)).
Unit 8 contains all of the essential
physical or biological features for the
Florida bonneted bat and is considered
occupied at the time of listing based on
documented presence of Florida
bonneted bats within the unit. Habitat
in the unit provides ecological diversity
(i.e., pine rocklands) and includes areas
identified as having HCV, specifically
high-quality roosting and foraging
habitat within Long Pine Key, the
largest remaining contiguous occurrence
of pine rockland habitat. This unit
includes the southernmost extent of the
species’ range and provides additional
connectivity between proposed Units 6
and 9.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
Florida bonneted bat in Unit 8 may
require special management
considerations or protection due to the
following: Lack of habitat management
and/or inadvertent impacts from land
management practices (e.g., prescribed
fire, snag removal) and climate change
(e.g., sea level rise/inundation, saltwater
intrusion, habitat alteration/
degradation) (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Unit 9: Miami Rocklands Unit
Unit 9 encompasses 4,324 ac (1,750
ha) of lands in Miami-Dade County,
Florida. This unit consists of 36
subunits located between Tamiami Trail
to the north and SR–9336 to the south,
and is surrounded by a dense urban
matrix typical of the Miami
metropolitan area. This unit
predominately consists of conservation
lands owned by county (2,403 ac (972
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
ha)), State (796 ac (322 ha)), and Federal
(599 ac (242 ha)) agencies. The largest
landholdings within this unit are Zoo
Miami, Larry and Penny Thompson
Park, the U.S. Coast Guard
Communication Station, Navy Wells,
and the Deering Estate. Many countyowned preserves and parks, as well as
other smaller conservation lands, also
occur within this unit (for more
information, see the Conservation Lands
document in Supporting Documents).
Unit 9 contains all of the essential
physical or biological features for the
Florida bonneted bat and is considered
occupied at the time of listing based on
documented presence of Florida
bonneted bats within the unit. The
Miami Rocklands Unit represents the
easternmost extent of the species’ range.
Habitat in this unit provides ecological
diversity (i.e., pine rocklands) and
includes areas identified as having HCV.
This unit includes remaining fragments
of pine rockland and rockland hammock
habitat within an urbanized landscape.
These fragments of natural habitat are
used extensively by Florida bonneted
bats and provide connectivity within
the unit. Florida bonneted bats
inhabiting the area are the most
genetically differentiated from those
occurring elsewhere in the range
(Austin et al. 2022, entire), and thus
contribute to the genetic diversity of the
overall population.
The physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
Florida bonneted bat in Unit 9 may
require special management
considerations or protection due to the
following: Habitat loss, fragmentation,
or degradation from changes in land use
(e.g., land clearing for residential,
commercial, transportation, or energyrelated development); lack of habitat
management and/or inadvertent impacts
from land management practices (e.g.,
prescribed burns, snag removal, habitat
restoration); excessive pesticide use;
and climate change (e.g., sea level rise/
inundation, saltwater intrusion, habitat
alteration/degradation, coastal squeeze)
(see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act,
we are exempting Homestead Air
Reserve Base (Base) lands (280 ac (113
ha)) from critical habitat designation
because the U.S. Air Force has an
approved INRMP that provides benefits
to the Florida bonneted bat and its
habitat (see Exemptions, below, for
more detailed information).
Approximately 104 ac (42 ha) of
private lands under a habitat
conservation plan (HCP) occur within
Unit 9. We are considering exclusion of
these lands from the final critical habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Consideration of Other
Relevant Impacts, below).
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7
Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that any action they fund,
authorize, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to confer with
the Service on any agency action which
is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any species proposed to be
listed under the Act or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final rule revising the
definition of destruction or adverse
modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR
44976). Destruction or adverse
modification means a direct or indirect
alteration that appreciably diminishes
the value of critical habitat as a whole
for the conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency (action
agency) must enter into consultation
with us. Examples of actions that are
subject to the section 7 consultation
process are actions on State, Tribal,
local, or private lands that require a
Federal permit (such as a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the
Service under section 10 of the Act) or
that involve some other Federal action
(such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat—and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands
that are not federally funded,
authorized, or carried out by a Federal
agency—do not require section 7
consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of
section 7(a)(2) is documented through
our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, and are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species and/or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, we
provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable, that would avoid the
likelihood of jeopardy and/or
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable
and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR
402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and
technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director’s
opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of
the listed species and/or avoid the
likelihood of destroying or adversely
modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a
reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth
requirements for Federal agencies to
reinitiate formal consultation on
previously reviewed actions. These
requirements apply when the Federal
agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action
(or the agency’s discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by
law) and, if subsequent to the previous
consultation: (1) If the amount or extent
of taking specified in the incidental take
statement is exceeded; (2) if new
information reveals effects of the action
that may affect listed species or critical
habitat in a manner or to an extent not
previously considered; (3) if the
identified action is subsequently
modified in a manner that causes an
effect to the listed species or critical
habitat that was not considered in the
biological opinion; or (4) if a new
species is listed or critical habitat
designated that may be affected by the
identified action. In such situations,
Federal agencies sometimes may need to
request reinitiation of consultation with
us, but the regulations also specify some
exceptions to the requirement to
reinitiate consultation on specific land
management plans after subsequently
listing a new species or designating new
critical habitat. See the regulations for a
description of those exceptions.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
Application of the ‘‘Destruction or
Adverse Modification’’ Standard
The key factor related to the
destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether
implementation of the proposed Federal
action directly or indirectly alters the
designated critical habitat in a way that
appreciably diminishes the value of the
critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of the listed species. As
discussed above, the role of critical
habitat is to support physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of a listed species and
provide for the conservation of the
species. Factors considered in making
these determinations may include the
extent of the proposed action, including
its temporal and spatial scale relative to
the critical habitat unit or subunit
within which it occurs; the specific
purpose for which that unit or subunit
was identified and designated as critical
habitat; and the impact of the proposed
action on the unit or subunit’s
likelihood of serving its intended
conservation function or purpose.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, activities
involving a Federal action that may
violate section 7(a)(2) of the Act by
destroying or adversely modifying such
habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that the Service may,
during a consultation under section
7(a)(2) of the Act, consider likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly
alter roosting or foraging habitat or
habitat connectivity such that they
appreciably diminish the value of
critical habitat as a whole. Such
activities may include, but are not
limited to: Land clearing for residential,
commercial, transportation, energyrelated or other development; and water
diversion, drainage, or wetland loss or
conversion. These activities could
destroy Florida bonneted bat roosting
and foraging sites (necessary for food,
shelter, protection from predation, and
reproduction); reduce habitat conditions
below what is necessary for survival and
growth; and/or eliminate or reduce the
habitat necessary for successful
reproduction, dispersal, and population
expansion (see Physical or Biological
Features Essential to the Conservation of
the Species, above).
(2) Actions that would significantly
alter vegetation structure or composition
such that they appreciably diminish the
value of critical habitat as a whole. Such
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71479
activities could include, but are not
limited to: Habitat management or
restoration (e.g., prescribed burning and
other forest management activities, snag
removal, or hydrologic restoration)
conducted in a manner that does not
minimize disturbance to the physical
and biological features. These activities
could affect habitat that provides for the
Florida bonneted bat’s roosting and
rearing, foraging and prey, refuge from
short-term changes to habitat, and/or
protection from predation (see Physical
or Biological Features Essential to the
Conservation of the Species, above).
(3) Actions that would significantly
reduce suitability of habitat or impact
prey base (e.g., availability, abundance,
density, diversity) such that they
appreciably diminish the value of
critical habitat as a whole. These actions
include, but are not limited to:
Hydrologic alteration or excessive
pesticide applications that impact prey
or alter foraging behavior or movement.
These activities could significantly
modify habitat that currently provides
adequate prey and space for foraging
(see Physical or Biological Features
Essential to the Conservation of the
Species, above).
Activities that the Service may,
during a consultation under section
7(a)(2) of the Act, consider likely to
adversely affect critical habitat but not
likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat include actions that
significantly affect the unit or subunit’s
ability to fulfill its primary functions
(e.g., connectivity, foraging or roosting
habitat, genetic representation), but do
not appreciably diminish the value of
critical habitat as a whole. Such
activities may include a landscape-scale
hydrologic restoration project that
would convert large amounts of roosting
habitat to foraging habitat within a unit;
development that would eliminate a
small amount of high-value foraging
area or affect a known corridor; or
habitat or invasive species management
programs that are overall beneficial to
Florida bonneted bat habitat but may
result in inadvertent, but significant,
impacts to roosting habitat.
As noted above, some actions that are
beneficial to Florida bonneted bat
habitat, including actions necessary to
maintain habitat quality and suitability,
may result in inadvertent negative
effects. When conducted with guidance
from the Service or using established
best management practices (BMPs) that
prevent or minimize impacts, these
actions are beneficial and are
encouraged as a part of standard land
management practices. Avoidance and
minimization measures can also reduce
the impacts of habitat loss and other
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71480
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
impacts from development projects,
habitat alteration, and habitat
conversion. General guidance has
already been developed and is in use
(see Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation
Guidelines, Appendices D and E and
Florida Bonneted Bat Avoidance and
Minimization Measures in Supporting
Documents); additional guidance is
under development to address habitat
management practices on conservation
lands.
Some activities that the Service may
consider to be activities that may affect,
but are unlikely to adversely affect,
critical habitat include actions that are
wholly beneficial (i.e., those that
maintain, improve, or restore the
functionality of critical habitat for the
Florida bonneted bat without causing
adverse effects to the essential physical
or biological features), discountable (i.e.,
unlikely to occur), or insignificant. In
such cases, the Act’s section 7
consultation requirements can be
satisfied through the informal
concurrence process.
Whether an action will have
insignificant effects must be considered
within the context of the unit or subunit
in which the action occurs. A localized
reduction in roosting or foraging habitat
within a stand may have such a small
impact on physical and biological
features within the stand that a ‘‘not
likely to adversely affect’’ determination
is appropriate. Similarly, effects to
roosting habitat may be negligible where
a hazard tree removal project occurs in
a stand with many suitable roosting
trees.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of
1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that
includes land and water suitable for the
conservation and management of
natural resources to complete an INRMP
by November 17, 2001. An INRMP
integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with
stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP
includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological
needs on the installation, including the
need to provide for the conservation of
listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of
management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs;
and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive
management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP
must, to the extent appropriate and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife
management; fish and wildlife habitat
enhancement or modification; wetland
protection, enhancement, and
restoration where necessary to support
fish and wildlife; and enforcement of
applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–
136) amended the Act to limit areas
eligible for designation as critical
habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
provides that the Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or
other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the Department of
Defense, or designated for its use, that
are subject to an INRMP prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C.
670a), if the Secretary determines in
writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat
is proposed for designation.
We consult with the military on the
development and implementation of
INRMPs for installations with listed
species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations
located within the range of the proposed
critical habitat designation for the
Florida bonneted bat to determine if
they meet the criteria for exemption
from critical habitat under section
4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas
are Department of Defense (DoD) lands
with completed, Service-approved
INRMPs within the proposed critical
habitat designation.
Approved INRMPs
For discussion of the approved
INRMP for Avon Park Air Force Range
(Unit 1: Kissimmee Unit; 99,523 ac
(40,276 ha)), see the Exemptions section
in the proposed critical habitat rule (85
FR 35510, June 10, 2020).
Homestead Air Reserve Base (Unit 9:
Miami Rocklands Unit—Subunits KK,
LL), 280 ac (113 ha)
The Homestead Air Reserve Base
(Base) has a current and completed
INRMP, signed by the Service and the
FWC in 2017 and 2018, respectively.
The INRMP (U.S. Air Force Reserve
Command (Air Force) 2016) provides
conservation measures for the species
and management of important upland
and wetland habitats on the base.
The Base’s INRMP provides benefits
to Florida bonneted bat habitat as the
primary goals of the plan include,
‘‘conservation and enhancement of the
land and water resources of the Base
and improving and maintaining the
quality of native vegetation
communities and threatened and
endangered species’ habitats, while
supporting the military mission’’ (Air
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Force 2016, p. 75). Some objectives
identified under this goal that should
benefit the Florida bonneted bat
include: (1) Protecting, enhancing, and
maintaining natural communities to
support native fish and wildlife species;
(2) conserving and protecting the
habitats for federally and State-listed
species; (3) reducing and controlling
populations of invasive and exotic plant
species; and (4) instituting control for
nuisance and exotic wildlife.
More specifically, protecting and
maintaining wetland functions,
restoring pine rockland, controlling
invasive species, managing water
quality, and maintaining and enhancing
natural habitat values and ecosystem
functions are expected to benefit the
species and its habitat. The Base’s
INRMP also includes specific projects to
benefit the species including
incorporation of Florida bonneted bat
management strategies into conservation
programs on the Base, working with the
Service to identify and implement
management strategies for foraging and
roosting habitat, and conducting a
qualitative bat survey (Air Force 2016,
pp. A–3, A–4). The study is expected to
provide information on the bat species
present and their habitat use on the
Base. Data from the study will be used
to supplement and update existing
natural resource management plans on
the Base. Other components of the
Base’s INRMP, such as the Integrated
Pest Management Plan, the Bird/
Wildlife Aircraft Strike Hazard Plan, the
threatened and endangered species
training course, and implementation of
the pine rockland restoration and
management plan, have the potential to
reduce pesticide use and exposure to
bats, avoid aircraft strikes to bats, raise
awareness about bats using the base,
and enhance habitat quality for bats and
other species (Air Force 2016, appendix
A).
In addition, the Base’s INRMP
includes a management plan for the
Florida bonneted bat that addresses:
Conservation of wetlands to promote
foraging opportunities; promotion of
insect diversity and availability through
the appropriate application of
insecticides, mowing, and other
maintenance practices; and protection
of roosting habitat as identified through
monitoring (Air Force 2016, appendix
G). Per the management plan, guidelines
outlined in the Base’s INRMP, Pest
Management Plan, Landscape
Maintenance Plan, and the Protected
Plant Management Plan will be closely
monitored and adapted as life-history
data for the Florida bonneted bat
become available. The INRMP also
includes proposed monitoring
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71481
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
consisting of acoustic surveys and more
intensive surveys for roost sites; the
Base will seek funding and partnership
opportunities to accomplish roost site
monitoring and will adapt the
management plan to incorporate more
specific protection and avoidance
measures for the bat at identified roost
sites on the installation (Air Force 2016,
appendix G). When compatible with
mission requirements, the Base will also
promote the use of environmentally
friendly lighting practices to minimize
impacts to the bat (Air Force 2016,
appendix G). The full suite of protective
measures incorporated in the Base’s
INRMP is expected to benefit the
species and its habitat.
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that the identified lands are
subject to Avon Park Air Force Range’s
and the Base’s INRMPs and that
conservation efforts identified in the
INRMPs will provide a benefit to the
Florida bonneted bat. Therefore, lands
within these installations are exempt
from critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. Accordingly,
we are not including approximately
99,803 ac (40,389 ha) of habitat in this
proposed critical habitat designation
because of these exemptions.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary shall designate and make
revisions to critical habitat on the basis
of the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and
any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if we determine that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless we
determine, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making the determination to
exclude a particular area, the statute on
its face, as well as the legislative history,
are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to
use and how much weight to give to any
factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
may exclude an area from designated
critical habitat based on economic
impacts, impacts on national security,
or any other relevant impacts. In
considering whether to exclude a
particular area from the designation, we
identify the benefits of including the
area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion. If the analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the
Secretary may exercise discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion
would not result in the extinction of the
species. We describe below our process
for considering each category of impacts
and our analyses of the relevant
impacts.
Exclusion Requests Received During the
Previous Public Comment Period
During the public comment period for
the June 10, 2020, proposed critical
habitat designation (85 FR 35510), we
received nine requests for exclusion
from critical habitat designation. Of
these, two requests do not overlap with
this revised proposed designation, while
the remaining seven requests overlap to
some degree (see table 2, below).
Additionally, requests for exclusion of
federal lands are not included in table
2, given the high standard set in our
2016 policy regarding exclusions of
Federal lands under 4(b)(2) of the Act
(2016 Policy). As part of our final rule,
we may evaluate the areas in Table 2 for
possible exclusion from the final critical
habitat designation. All requests
received as public comments are
available for review at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106.
TABLE 2—EXCLUSION REQUESTS RECEIVED DURING THE 2020 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON THE PROPOSED CRITICAL
HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE FLORIDA BONNETED BAT AND CORRESPONDING OVERLAP WITH REVISED PROPOSED
CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS IN THIS RULE
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Requesting party
(Public comment No. on https://
www.regulations.gov)
Area requested for exclusion
Property owned by JB Ranch I, LLC,
and Sunniland Family Limited Partnership.
Lands overlapping the Florida legislature-designated Lake Belt mining
area.
All FPL electric utility sub-stations1 and
rights-of-way containing aboveground
linear facilities.
Tribal reservation lands and fee lands ..
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Comment submitted directly to the Service).
Lands enrolled in the Wetland Reserve
Easement Partnership Program (formerly called Wetland Reserve Program).
Lands within the Picayune Strand Restoration Project.
Tribal reservation lands and fee lands ..
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
Overlap with revised proposed
critical habitat
Unit/subunit
Aliese Priddy, JB Ranch I, LLC (FWS–
R4–ES–2019–0106–0464 and attachment).
Miami-Dade Limestone Products Association
(FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106–
0386 and attachment).
Florida Power & Light (FPL) (FWS–R4–
ES–2019–0106–0449 and attachment).
Miccosukee Tribe of Florida (Comment
submitted directly to the Service).
Seminole Tribe of Florida (FWS–R4–
ES–2019–0106–0380 and attachment).
Collier Enterprises Management, Inc.
(FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106–0461 and
attachment).
Basis for exclusion
per requesting party
Lands within the boundary of the draft
East Collier Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Acres
Economic, No ecological benefit.
No overlap .....
N/A.
No ecological benefit.
No overlap .....
N/A.
Conservation plans
or programs,
Economic.
Tribal lands, Conservation plans or
programs.
Economic ...............
All ...................
1 .....................
Insufficient information to determine
or estimate.
1.25.
2A ..................
387.
Economic ...............
6 .....................
64,490.
Tribal lands, Conservation plans or
programs.
Conservation plans
or programs.
6 .....................
14,455.
5 .....................
Included 2: 2,013.
Eligible 3: 163.
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71482
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—EXCLUSION REQUESTS RECEIVED DURING THE 2020 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON THE PROPOSED CRITICAL
HABITAT DESIGNATION FOR THE FLORIDA BONNETED BAT AND CORRESPONDING OVERLAP WITH REVISED PROPOSED
CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS IN THIS RULE—Continued
Requesting party
(Public comment No. on https://
www.regulations.gov)
Collier Mosquito Control District (MCD)
(FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106–0385 and
attachment).
Area requested for exclusion
Lands within the existing and proposed
Collier MCD boundaries.
Basis for exclusion
per requesting party
Economic ...............
Overlap with revised proposed
critical habitat
Unit/subunit
Acres
6 .....................
Included 2: 1,561.
Eligible 3: 35.
Existing MCD: 317.
Proposed MCD:
3,118.
Existing MCD: 166.
Proposed MCD:
78,568.
5 .....................
6 .....................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
1 As developed areas, electric utility substations were excluded by text in the June 10, 2020, proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 35510), and
remain excluded by text in this revised proposed rule.
2 ‘‘Included’’ lands are areas covered by draft HCP; certain impacts/development actions are allowed.
3 ‘‘Eligible’’ lands are not included in draft HCP but are eligible to join without amending the HCP.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its
implementing regulations require that
we consider the economic impact that
may result from a designation of critical
habitat. For information on how
probable economic impacts of a
designation were assessed, please see
the Exclusions Based on Economic
Impacts section in the proposed critical
habitat rule (85 FR 35510, June 10,
2020). For this particular revised
proposed designation, we revised the
incremental effects memorandum (IEM)
to consider the probable incremental
economic impacts that may result from
this designation of critical habitat. The
information contained in our revised
IEM was then used to develop a
screening analysis of the probable
effects of the designation of critical
habitat for the Florida bonneted bat.
This screening analysis combined with
the information contained in our IEM
constitute what we consider to be our
draft economic analysis (DEA) of the
revised proposed critical habitat
designation for the Florida bonneted
bat; our DEA is summarized in the
narrative below.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and
13563 direct Federal agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives in quantitative
(to the extent feasible) and qualitative
terms. Consistent with the E.O.
regulatory analysis requirements, our
effects analysis under the Act may take
into consideration impacts to both
directly and indirectly affected entities,
where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess
to the extent practicable the probable
impacts to both directly and indirectly
affected entities. As part of our
screening analysis, we considered the
types of economic activities that are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
likely to occur within the areas likely
affected by the critical habitat
designation. In our evaluation of the
probable incremental economic impacts
that may result from this revised
proposed designation of critical habitat
for the Florida bonneted bat, first we
identified, in the revised IEM dated June
22, 2021, probable incremental
economic impacts associated with the
following categories of activities: (1)
Commercial or residential development;
(2) transportation; (3) utilities; (4)
energy (including solar, wind, and oil
and gas); (5) water management
(including water supply, flood control,
and water quality); (6) recreation; (7)
land management (including prescribed
burning and invasive species control);
and (8) habitat and hydrologic
restoration. We considered each
industry or category individually.
Additionally, we considered whether
their activities have any Federal
involvement. Critical habitat
designation generally will not affect
activities that do not have any Federal
involvement; under the Act, designation
of critical habitat only affects activities
conducted, funded, permitted, or
authorized by Federal agencies. Because
the Florida bonneted bat is already
listed under the Act, in areas where the
species is present, Federal agencies are
currently required to consult with the
Service under section 7 of the Act on
activities they fund, permit, or
implement that may affect the species.
If we finalize this revised proposed
critical habitat designation, our
consultation would include an
evaluation of measures to avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify
the distinction between the effects that
result from the species being listed and
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
those attributable to the critical habitat
designation (i.e., difference between the
jeopardy and adverse modification
standards) for the Florida bonneted bat’s
critical habitat. The following specific
circumstances in this case help to
inform our evaluation: (1) The essential
physical or biological features identified
for critical habitat are the same features
essential for the life requisites of the
species, and (2) any actions that would
result in sufficient harm to constitute
jeopardy to the Florida bonneted bat
would also likely adversely affect the
essential physical or biological features
of critical habitat. The IEM outlines our
rationale concerning this limited
distinction between baseline
conservation efforts and incremental
impacts of the designation of critical
habitat for this species. This evaluation
of the incremental effects has been used
as the basis to evaluate the probable
incremental economic impacts of this
revised proposed designation of critical
habitat.
The revised proposed critical habitat
designation for the Florida bonneted bat
consists of nine units, all occupied by
the species, totaling 1,174,011 ac
(475,105 ha) and including lands under
Federal, Tribal, State, county, local, and
private jurisdictions (see table 1, above).
Because all areas are occupied, the
economic impacts of implementing the
rule through section 7 of the Act will
most likely be limited to additional
administrative effort to consider adverse
modification. This finding is based on
the following factors:
• Any activities with a Federal nexus
occurring within occupied habitat will
be subject to section 7 consultation
requirements regardless of critical
habitat designation, due to the presence
of the listed species; and
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
• In most cases, project modifications
requested to avoid adverse modification
are likely to be the same as those needed
to avoid jeopardy in occupied habitat.
Our analysis considers the potential
need to consult on development,
transportation, utilities, land
management, habitat restoration, and
other activities authorized, undertaken,
or funded by Federal agencies within
critical habitat. The total incremental
section 7 costs associated with the
designation of the proposed units are
estimated to be less than $70,800 per
year, with the highest costs expected in
Unit 6 (IEc 2021, pp. 2, 25). While the
revised proposed critical habitat area is
relatively large, incremental section 7
costs are kept comparatively low due to
the strong baseline protections that
already exist for this species due to its
listed status, the existence of a
consultation area map that alerts
managing agencies about the location of
the species and its habitat, and the
presence of other listed species in the
area.
We are soliciting data and comments
from the public on the DEA discussed
above, as well as on all aspects of this
revised proposed rule and our required
determinations. During the development
of a final designation, we will consider
the information presented in the DEA
and any additional information on
economic impacts we receive during the
public comment period to determine
whether any specific areas should be
excluded from the final critical habitat
designation under authority of section
4(b)(2) and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 17.90. If we
receive credible information regarding
the existence of a meaningful economic
or other relevant impact supporting a
benefit of exclusion, we will conduct an
exclusion analysis for the relevant area
or areas. We may also exercise the
discretion to evaluate any other
particular areas for possible exclusion.
Furthermore, when we conduct an
exclusion analysis based on impacts
identified by experts in, or sources with
firsthand knowledge about, impacts that
are outside the scope of the Service’s
expertise, we will give weight to those
impacts consistent with the expert or
firsthand information unless we have
rebutting information. We may exclude
an area from critical habitat if we
determine that the benefits of excluding
the area outweigh the benefits of
including the area, provided the
exclusion will not result in the
extinction of this species.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
Consideration of National Security
Impacts
For information on how probable
impacts to national security were
assessed, please see the Impacts on
National Security and Homeland
Security section in the proposed critical
habitat rule (85 FR 35510, June 10,
2020). We have evaluated whether any
of the lands within this revised
proposed designation of critical habitat
are owned by DoD or DHS or could lead
to national-security or homelandsecurity impacts if designated. In this
discussion, we describe the areas within
the revised proposed designation that
are owned by DoD or DHS or for which
designation could lead to nationalsecurity or homeland-security impacts.
For each area, we describe the available
information indicating whether we have
reason to consider excluding the area
from the designation. If, during the
comment period, we identify or receive
credible information about additional
areas for which designation may result
in incremental national-security or
homeland-security impacts, then we
will also conduct a discretionary
exclusion analysis to determine whether
to exclude those additional areas under
the authority of section 4(b)(2) of the
Act and our implementing regulations at
50 CFR 17.90.
Department of Homeland Security
We have determined that some lands
within Unit 9, Subunit O, of the revised
proposed critical habitat designation for
the Florida bonneted bat are owned,
managed, or used by the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG), which is part of the
DHS.
The USCG property is separated into
two main areas: the Communications
Station Miami and the Civil Engineering
Unit (CEU). The Communications
Station houses transmitting and
receiving antennas. The CEU plans and
executes projects at regional shore
facilities, such as construction and postdisaster assessments.
The USCG parcel contains
approximately 100 ac (40 ha) of
standing pine rocklands. The remainder
of the site, outside of the developed
areas, is made up of scraped pine
rocklands that are mowed three to four
times per year for maintenance of a
communications antenna field.
Although disturbed, this scraped area
maintains sand substrate and many
native pine rockland species; the
Florida bonneted bat has also been
documented on adjacent property. The
USCG parcel has a 2017 Natural
Resources Management Plan (Gottfried
2017, entire) that includes habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71483
management and restoration
recommendations for their Pineland
Natural Area, a 72-ac (29-ha)
conservation area within this property.
Recommended management includes
prescribed fire, control of invasive
plants, and protection of lands from
further development or degradation. In
addition, the standing pine rockland
area is partially managed through an
active recovery grant to the Institute for
Regional Conservation. Under this grant,
up to 39 ac (16 ha) of standing pine
rocklands will undergo invasive
vegetation control.
Based on a review of the specific
mission of the USCG facility in
conjunction with the measures and
efforts set forth in the management plan
to preserve pine rockland habitat and
protect sensitive and listed species, we
have determined that it is unlikely that
the critical habitat, if finalized as
proposed in this document, would
negatively impact the facility or its
operations. As a result, we do not
anticipate any impact on national
security. Consequently, the Secretary
does not intend to exercise her
discretion to exclude any of these areas
from the final designation based on
impacts on national security. We will,
however, review this determination, in
light of any new information and public
comments we receive prior to making a
decision in the final rule.
Department of Defense
We have determined that the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, a branch of
the DoD, retains ownership over a 14-ac
(6-ha)-parcel within Unit 9, Subunit O,
of the revised proposed critical habitat
designation for the Florida bonneted
bat. This area is a combination of
standing and scraped pine rocklands but
is not managed for preservation of
natural resources. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers does not have any specific
management plan for the Florida
bonneted bat or its habitat covering
these lands. Activities conducted on
this site are unknown, but we do not
anticipate any impact on national
security. Consequently, the Secretary
does not intend to exercise her
discretion to exclude any of these areas
from the final designation based on
impacts on national security. We will,
however, review this determination, in
light of any new information and public
comments we receive, prior to making a
decision in the final rule.
Consideration of Other Relevant
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider any other relevant impacts, in
addition to economic impacts and
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
71484
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
impacts on national security discussed
above. Other relevant impacts may
include, but are not limited to, impacts
to Tribes, States, local governments,
public health and safety, community
interests, the environment (such as
increased risk of wildfire), Federal
lands, and conservation plans,
agreements, or partnerships. To identify
other relevant impacts that may affect
the exclusion analysis, we consider a
number of factors, including whether
there are permitted conservation plans
covering the species in the area—such
as HCPs, safe harbor agreements (SHAs),
or candidate conservation agreements
with assurances (CCAAs)—or whether
there are non-permitted conservation
agreements and partnerships that may
be impaired by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at whether Tribal
conservation plans or partnerships,
Tribal resources, or government-togovernment relationships of the United
States with Tribal entities may be
affected by the designation. We also
consider any State, local, public-health,
community-interest, environmental, or
social impacts that might occur because
of the designation.
When analyzing other relevant
impacts of including a particular area in
a designation of critical habitat, we
weigh those impacts relative to the
conservation value of the particular
area. To determine the conservation
value of designating a particular area,
we consider a number of factors,
including, but not limited to, the
additional regulatory benefits that the
area would receive due to the protection
from destruction or adverse
modification as a result of actions with
a Federal nexus, the educational
benefits of mapping essential habitat for
recovery of the listed species, and any
benefits that may result from a
designation due to State or Federal laws
that may apply to critical habitat.
In the case of the Florida bonneted
bat, the benefits of critical habitat
include public awareness of the
presence of the species and the
importance of habitat protection and,
where a Federal nexus exists, increased
habitat protection for Florida bonneted
bat due to protection from destruction
or adverse modification of critical
habitat. Continued implementation of
an ongoing management plan that
provides conservation equal to or more
than the protections that result from a
critical habitat designation would
reduce those benefits of including that
specific area in the critical habitat
designation.
We evaluate the existence of a
conservation plan when considering the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
benefits of inclusion. We consider a
variety of factors, including, but not
limited to, whether the plan is finalized;
how it provides for the conservation of
the essential physical or biological
features; whether there is a reasonable
expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions
contained in a management plan will be
implemented into the future; whether
the conservation strategies in the plan
are likely to be effective; and whether
the plan contains a monitoring program
or adaptive management to ensure that
the conservation measures are effective
and can be adapted in the future in
response to new information.
After identifying the benefits of
inclusion and the benefits of exclusion,
we carefully weigh the two sides to
evaluate whether the benefits of
exclusion outweigh those of inclusion.
If our analysis indicates that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, we then determine whether
exclusion would result in extinction of
the species. If failure to designate an
area as critical habitat will result in
extinction, we will not exclude it from
the designation.
Private or Other Non-Federal
Conservation Plans Related to Permits
Under Section 10 of the Act
HCPs for incidental take permits
under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act
provide for partnerships with nonFederal entities to minimize and
mitigate impacts to listed species and
their habitat. In some cases, HCP
permittees agree to do more for the
conservation of the species and their
habitats on private lands than
designation of critical habitat would
provide alone. We place great value on
the partnerships that are developed
during the preparation and
implementation of HCPs.
CCAAs and SHAs are voluntary
agreements designed to conserve
candidate and listed species,
respectively, on non-Federal lands. In
exchange for actions that contribute to
the conservation of species on nonFederal lands, participating property
owners are covered by an ‘‘enhancement
of survival’’ permit under section
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, which authorizes
incidental take of the covered species
that may result from implementation of
conservation actions or specific land
uses. In the case of SHAs, the permit
would allow participants to take listed
species or modify habitat to return
population levels and habitat conditions
to those agreed upon as baseline
condition under the agreements. The
Service also provides enrollees
assurances that we will not impose
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
further land-, water-, or resource-use
restrictions, or require additional
commitments of land, water, or
finances, beyond those agreed to in the
agreements.
When we undertake a discretionary
section 4(b)(2) exclusion analysis based
on permitted conservation plans such as
CCAAs, SHAs, and HCPs, we consider
the following three factors:
(i) Whether the permittee is properly
implementing the conservation plan or
agreement;
(ii) Whether the species for which
critical habitat is being designated is a
covered species in the conservation plan
or agreement; and
(iii) Whether the conservation plan or
agreement specifically addresses the
habitat of the species for which critical
habitat is being designated and meets
the conservation needs of the species in
the planning area.
The revised proposed critical habitat
designation includes areas that are
covered by the Coral Reef Commons
HCP, a permitted plan providing for the
conservation of the Florida bonneted
bat.
Coral Reef Commons HCP
The revised proposed designation
includes the Coral Reef Commons
mixed-use community, which consists
of 900 apartments, retail stores,
restaurants, and parking. In 2017, an
HCP and associated permit under
section 10 of the Act was developed and
issued for the Coral Reef Commons
development (Church Environmental
2017, entire). As part of the HCP and
permit, an approximately 52-ac (21-ha)
on-site preserve was established under a
conservation encumbrance that will be
managed in perpetuity for pine rockland
habitat and sensitive and listed species,
including the Florida bonneted bat.
Also, an additional approximately 52-ac
(21-ha) off-site mitigation area was set
aside for Coral Reef Commons. Both the
on-site preserves and the off-site
mitigation area will be managed to
maintain healthy pine rockland habitat
through the use of invasive, exotic plant
management, mechanical treatment, and
prescribed fire. Since initiating the
Coral Reef Commons HCP, pine
rockland restoration efforts have been
conducted within all the management
units in the on-site preserve and the offsite mitigation area. A second round of
prescribed fire began in February 2021.
Currently, the on-site preserve meets or
exceeds the success criteria described in
the HCP.
Maintenance of pine rockland habitat
specifically relates to conservation of
ecological diversity described in
physical or biological feature 4, and
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
other biological objectives of the HCP
(e.g., implementation of a burn plan,
minimizing pesticide use to the extent
practicable) may provide conservation
benefits related to physical or biological
features 1, 2, and 3.
After considering the factors
described above, we have identified the
104 ac (42 ha) under the Coral Reef
Commons HCP (in Unit 9, Subunit O) as
an area we have reason to consider
excluding because of its permitted plan.
Specifically, our reasons for considering
this area for potential exclusion are not
only that the Florida bonneted bat is a
covered species within the HCP; but
also that the HCP specifically addresses
conservation of pine rockland habitat,
generally addresses four of the physical
or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species, and may
meet the conservation needs of the
species within the area covered by the
HCP. We will more thoroughly review
the HCP, its implementation of the
conservation measures for the Florida
bonneted bat and its habitat therein, and
public comment on this issue prior to
finalizing critical habitat, and if
appropriate, exclude from critical
habitat for the Florida bonneted bat
those lands associated with the Coral
Reef Commons HCP that are in the
preserve and offsite mitigation area.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Tribal Lands
Several Executive Orders, Secretarial
Orders, and policies concern working
with Tribes. These guidance documents
generally confirm our trust
responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that
Tribes have sovereign authority to
control Tribal lands, emphasize the
importance of developing partnerships
with Tribal governments, and direct the
Service to consult with Tribes on a
government-to-government basis.
A joint Secretarial Order that applies
to both the Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)—
Secretarial Order 3206, American
Indian Tribal Rights, Federal–Tribal
Trust Responsibilities, and the
Endangered Species Act (June 5, 1997)
(S.O. 3206)—is the most comprehensive
of the various guidance documents
related to Tribal relationships and Act
implementation, and it provides the
most detail directly relevant to the
designation of critical habitat. In
addition to the general direction
discussed above, the appendix to S.O.
3206 explicitly recognizes the right of
Tribes to participate fully in any listing
process that may affect Tribal rights or
Tribal trust resources; this includes the
designation of critical habitat. Section
3(b)(4) of the appendix requires the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
Service to consult with affected Tribes
‘‘when considering the designation of
critical habitat in an area that may
impact Tribal trust resources, Triballyowned fee lands, or the exercise of
Tribal rights.’’ That provision also
instructs the Service to avoid including
Tribal lands within a critical habitat
designation unless the area is essential
to conserve a listed species, and it
requires the Service to ‘‘evaluate and
document the extent to which the
conservation needs of the listed species
can be achieved by limiting the
designation to other lands.’’
Our implementing regulations at 50
CFR 17.90(d)(1)(i) are consistent with
S.O. 3206. When we undertake a
discretionary exclusion analysis, in
accordance with S.O. 3206 we consult
with any Tribe whose Tribal trust
resources, Tribally owned fee lands, or
Tribal rights may be affected by
including any particular areas in the
designation, and we evaluate the extent
to which the conservation needs of the
species can be achieved by limiting the
designation to other areas. We then
weighed nonbiological impacts to Tribal
lands and resources consistent with the
information provided by the Tribes.
However, S.O. 3206 does not override
the Act’s statutory requirement of
designation of critical habitat. As stated
above, we must consult with any Tribe
when a designation of critical habitat
may affect Tribal lands or resources.
The Act requires us to identify areas
that meet the definition of ‘‘critical
habitat’’ (i.e., areas occupied at the time
of listing that contain the essential
physical or biological features that may
require special management or
protection and unoccupied areas that
are essential to the conservation of a
species), without regard to land
ownership. While S.O. 3206 provides
important direction, it expressly states
that it does not modify the Secretary’s
statutory authority under the Act or
other statutes.
The revised proposed critical habitat
designation includes the following
Tribal lands or resources:
Seminole Tribe of Florida: The
revised proposed designation includes
an area (14,455 ac (5,850 ha)) within
Unit 6 (Big Cypress) that overlaps with
Seminole Tribe of Florida Trust lands.
The Seminole Tribe Wildlife
Conservation Plan, Fire Management
Plan, and Forest Management Plan
cover these lands for the protection of
listed and endangered species,
including the Florida bonneted bat. The
Service reviewed these plans and issued
a biological opinion on December 19,
2014, which we amended on June 9,
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71485
2017 (see Supporting Documents). The
Wildlife Conservation Plan includes
conservation measures in place that
support the Florida bonneted bat and its
habitat (e.g., limit impacts to potential
roost trees during prescribed burns and
home site/access road construction,
maintain bonneted bat habitat through
prescribed burning and construction of
bat houses). The conservation measures
specifically address conservation of
roosting and foraging habitat (i.e.,
physical or biological features 1 through
4), and maintenance of that habitat
through active management; therefore,
the measures appear to meet the
conservation needs of the Florida
bonneted bat within the area covered by
the plan. As such, we are considering
14,455 ac (5,850 ha) of Seminole Tribe
of Florida Trust lands within Unit 6 (Big
Cypress) for exclusion.
Miccosukee Tribe of Florida: The
revised proposed designation includes
an area (1.25 ac (0.5 ha)) within Unit 1
(Kissimmee) that overlaps with
Miccosukee Tribe of Florida fee lands.
At present, we do not have any
information on how this small parcel is
managed, but we are considering 1.25 ac
(0.5 ha) of Miccosukee Tribe of Florida
fee lands within Unit 1 (Kissimmee) for
exclusion.
Summary of Exclusions Considered
Under 4(b)(2) of the Act
Based on the information provided by
entities seeking exclusion, as well as
any additional public comments we
receive, we will evaluate whether
certain lands in the revised proposed
critical habitat units are appropriate for
exclusion from the final designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If the
analysis indicates that the benefits of
excluding lands from the final
designation outweigh the benefits of
designating those lands as critical
habitat, then the Secretary may exercise
her discretion to exclude the lands from
the final designation.
Table 3, below, provides approximate
areas of lands that meet the definition
of critical habitat but for which we are
considering possible exclusion under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final
critical habitat designation for the
Florida bonneted bat. In addition, we
may consider previously requested
exclusion requests received during the
public comment period on the June 10,
2020, proposed rule that overlap with
revised proposed critical habitat (see
table 2, above).
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71486
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—AREAS CONSIDERED FOR EXCLUSION WITHIN REVISED PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE 2016 POLICY
Unit
Specific area
Unit 1: Kissimmee ..........
Miccosukee Tribe of
Florida.
Seminole Tribe of Florida.
Coral Reef Commons ....
Unit 6: Big Cypress ........
Unit 9: Miami Rocklands
In conclusion, for this revised
proposed rule, we have reason to
consider excluding the areas identified
above based on other relevant impacts.
We specifically solicit comments on the
inclusion or exclusion of such areas.
During the development of a final
designation, we will consider any
information currently available or
received during the public comment
period regarding other relevant impacts
of this revised proposed designation and
will determine whether these or any
other specific areas should be excluded
from the final critical habitat
designation under the authority of
section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR
17.90.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To
better help us revise the rule, your
comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell
us the numbers of the sections or
paragraphs that are unclearly written,
which sections or sentences are too
long, the sections where you feel lists or
tables would be useful, etc.
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Information and Regulatory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
Areas meeting
the definition of
critical habitat, in
acres
(hectares)
Areas considered
for possible
exclusion, in
acres
(hectares)
1.25 (0.5)
1.25 (0.5)
14,455 (5,850)
14,455 (5,850)
104 (42)
104 (42)
Rationale for proposed exclusion
Tribal fee lands.
Tribal Trust lands; under natural resource management plans.
Lands under HCP specifically addressing the species.
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget will review all
significant rules. OIRA has determined
that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of E.O. 12866 while calling
for improvements in the nation’s
regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
Executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based
on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
this proposed rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA
to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
According to the Small Business
Administration, small entities include
small organizations such as
independent nonprofit organizations;
small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and
town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses
(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining
concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities
with fewer than 100 employees, retail
and service businesses with less than $5
million in annual sales, general and
heavy construction businesses with less
than $27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
whether potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we
considered the types of activities that
might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of
project modifications that may result. In
general, the term ‘‘significant economic
impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm’s business
operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as
understood in light of recent court
decisions, Federal agencies are required
to evaluate the potential incremental
impacts of rulemaking on those entities
directly regulated by the rulemaking
itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the
potential impacts to indirectly regulated
entities. The regulatory mechanism
through which critical habitat
protections are realized is section 7 of
the Act, which requires Federal
agencies, in consultation with the
Service, to ensure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out by the
agency is not likely to destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat.
Therefore, under section 7, only Federal
action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
(avoiding destruction and adverse
modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Consequently, it is
our position that only Federal action
agencies would be directly regulated if
we adopt this revised proposed critical
habitat designation. The RFA does not
require evaluation of the potential
impacts to entities not directly
regulated. Moreover, Federal agencies
are not small entities. Therefore,
because no small entities would be
directly regulated by this rulemaking,
the Service certifies that, if made final
as proposed in this document, the
revised proposed critical habitat
designation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered
whether this revised proposed
designation would result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. For the above
reasons and based on currently available
information, we certify that, if made
final, this revised proposed critical
habitat designation would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business
entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use—
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use) requires agencies
to prepare Statements of Energy Effects
when undertaking certain actions. In
our economic analysis, we did not find
that this revised proposed critical
habitat designation would significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or
use. As most of the area included in this
revised proposed critical habitat
designation occurs on conservation
lands (approximately 89 percent), the
likelihood of energy development
within critical habitat is low. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy
action, and no Statement of Energy
Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This proposed rule would not
produce a Federal mandate. In general,
a Federal mandate is a provision in
legislation, statute, or regulation that
would impose an enforceable duty upon
State, local, or Tribal governments, or
the private sector, and includes both
‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandates’’
and ‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C.
658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon State, local, or Tribal
governments’’ with two exceptions. It
excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal
assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty
arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,’’ unless the regulation
‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or
more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under
entitlement authority,’’ if the provision
would ‘‘increase the stringency of
conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps
upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government’s responsibility to provide
funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment,
these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; Aid to Families with
Dependent Children work programs;
Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social
Services Block Grants; Vocational
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care,
Adoption Assistance, and Independent
Living; Family Support Welfare
Services; and Child Support
Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector, except (i) a
condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.’’
The designation of critical habitat
does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal Government entities or
private parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are
indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate
in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
not apply, nor would critical habitat
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State
governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule
would significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because it will not
produce a Federal mandate of $100
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
71487
million or greater in any year, that is, it
is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The designation of critical habitat
imposes no obligations on State or local
governments and, as such, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not
required.
Takings—Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630
(Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights), we have analyzed the
potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for Florida
bonneted bat in a takings implications
assessment. The Act does not authorize
the Service to regulate private actions
on private lands or confiscate private
property as a result of critical habitat
designation. Designation of critical
habitat does not affect land ownership,
or establish any closures, or restrictions
on use of or access to the designated
areas. Furthermore, the designation of
critical habitat does not affect
landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it
preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of
incidental take permits to permit actions
that do require Federal funding or
permits to go forward. However, Federal
agencies are prohibited from carrying
out, funding, or authorizing actions that
would destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. A takings implications
assessment has been completed for the
revised proposed designation of critical
habitat for Florida bonneted bat, and it
concludes that, if adopted, this
designation of critical habitat does not
pose significant takings implications for
lands within or affected by the
designation.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132
(Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects.
A federalism summary impact statement
is not required. In keeping with
Department of the Interior and
Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and
coordinated development of this
proposed critical habitat designation
with, appropriate State resource
agencies. From a federalism perspective,
the designation of critical habitat
directly affects only the responsibilities
of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no
other duties with respect to critical
habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a
result, the proposed rule does not have
substantial direct effects either on the
States, or on the relationship between
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71488
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of powers and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. The proposed
designation may have some benefit to
these governments because the areas
that contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species are more
clearly defined, and the physical or
biological features of the habitat
necessary for the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may
occur. However, it may assist State and
local governments in long-range
planning because they no longer have to
wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would
be required. While non-Federal entities
that receive Federal funding, assistance,
or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal
agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to
avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests
squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order
12988
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
In accordance with Executive Order
12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office
of the Solicitor has determined that the
rule would not unduly burden the
judicial system and that it meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We have proposed
designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the
Act. To assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the
species, this revised proposed rule
identifies the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species. The proposed areas of
critical habitat are presented on maps,
and this revised proposed rule provides
several options for the interested public
to obtain more detailed location
information, if desired.
Common name
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain
information collection requirements,
and a submission to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not required.
We may not conduct or sponsor and you
are not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Act. We published a notice outlining
our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244). This position was upheld
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v.
Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995),
cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with Tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
Tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
Scientific name
Where listed
Status
to make information available to Tribes.
Some areas within the revised proposed
designation are included in lands
managed by the Seminole Tribe of
Florida and Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
of Florida (see Units 1 and 6
descriptions; see also Consideration of
Other Relevant Impacts, above),
constituting a total of approximately
14,457 ac (5,851 ha) of Tribal land being
proposed as critical habitat. We will
continue to work with Tribal entities
during the development of a final rule
designating critical habitat for the
Florida bonneted bat.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this rulemaking is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the Florida
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed
rule are the staff members of the Fish
and Wildlife Service’s Florida
Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise
noted.
2. In § 17.11, amend the table in
paragraph (h) by revising the entry for
‘‘Bat, Florida bonneted’’ under
MAMMALS to read as follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
*
*
Listing citations and applicable rules
Mammals
*
Bat, Florida bonneted ....
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
*
Eumops floridanus ....... Wherever found ...........
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
*
E
*
78 FR 61004, 10/2/2013;
50 CFR 17.95(a).CH
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
*
71489
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Common name
*
Scientific name
*
*
3. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (a) by
adding an entry for ‘‘Florida Bonneted
Bat (Eumops floridanus)’’ before the
entry for ‘‘Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)’’
to read as follows:
■
§ 17.95
Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.
(a) Mammals.
Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops
floridanus)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Glades,
Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Lee, MiamiDade, Monroe, Okeechobee, Osceola,
and Polk Counties, Florida, on the maps
in this entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of Florida bonneted bat
consist of the following components:
(i) Habitats that provide for roosting
and rearing of offspring. Such habitat
provides structural features for rest,
digestion of food, social interaction,
mating, rearing of young, protection
from sunlight and adverse weather
conditions, and cover to reduce
predation risks for adults and young,
and is generally characterized by:
(A) Live or dead trees and tree snags,
especially longleaf pine, slash pine, bald
cypress, and royal palm, that are on
average 57 feet (ft) (17 meters (m)) in
height and with an average 15-inch (38centimeter) diameter at breast height
and that are emergent from the
surrounding canopy (by an average 16 ft
(5 m)); and
(B) Sufficient unobstructed space,
with cavities averaging 35 ft (10.7 m)
above the ground and roost trees
averaging 14 ft (4 m) from the nearest
tree, for Florida bonneted bats to emerge
from roost trees; this may include open
or semi-open canopy and canopy gaps.
(ii) Habitats that provide adequate
prey and space for foraging, which may
vary widely across the Florida bonneted
bat’s range, in accordance with
ecological conditions, seasons, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Where listed
Jkt 259001
Status
*
Listing citations and applicable rules
*
disturbance regimes that influence
vegetation structure and prey species’
distributions. Foraging habitat may be
separate and relatively far from roosting
habitat. Essential foraging habitat
consists of open areas in or near areas
of high insect production or
congregation, commonly including, but
not limited to:
(A) Freshwater edges, and freshwater
herbaceous wetlands (permanent or
seasonal);
(B) Prairies;
(C) Wetland and upland shrub; and/
or
(D) Wetland and upland forests.
(iii) A dynamic disturbance regime
(e.g., fire, hurricanes, forest
management) that maintains and
regenerates forested habitat, including
plant communities, open habitat
structure, and temporary gaps, which is
conducive to promoting a continual
supply of roosting sites, prey items, and
suitable foraging conditions.
(iv) A sufficient quantity and diversity
of habitats to enable the species to be
resilient to short-term impacts
associated with disturbance over time
(e.g., drought, forest disease). The
ecological communities the Florida
bonneted bat inhabits differ in
hydrology, fire frequency/intensity,
climate, prey species, roosting sites, and
threats, and include, but are not limited
to:
(A) Pine rocklands;
(B) Cypress communities (cypress
swamps, strand swamps, domes,
sloughs, ponds);
(C) Hydric pine flatwoods (wet
flatwoods);
(D) Mesic pine flatwoods; and
(E) High pine.
(v) Habitats that provide structural
connectivity where needed to allow for
dispersal, gene flow, and natural and
adaptive movements, including those
that may be necessitated by climate
change. These connections may include
linear corridors such as vegetated,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
*
*
riverine, or open-water habitat with
opportunities for roosting and/or
foraging, or patches (i.e., stepping
stones) such as tree islands or other
isolated natural areas within a matrix of
otherwise low-quality habitat.
(vi) A subtropical climate that
provides tolerable conditions for the
species such that normal behavior,
successful reproduction, and rearing of
offspring are possible.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
humanmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads,
and other paved areas) and the land on
which they are located existing within
the legal boundaries on the effective
date of the final rule.
(4) Data layers defining map units
were created using ESRI ArcGIS
mapping software along with various
spatial data layers. ArcGIS was also
used to calculate the size of habitat
areas. The projection used in mapping
and calculating distances and locations
within the units was World Geodetic
System 1984, Universal Transverse
Mercator Zone 17 North. The maps in
this entry, as modified by any
accompanying regulatory text, establish
the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. The coordinates or plot
points or both on which each map is
based are available to the public at
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS–R4–ES–2019–0106, the
Florida Ecological Services Field Office
website at https://www.fws.gov/office/
florida-ecological-services/library, and
at the field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office
location information by contacting one
of the Service regional offices, the
addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR
2.2.
(5) Index map follows:
Figure 1 to Florida Bonneted Bat
(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (5)
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
71490
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Index Map of Critical Habitat Units for
Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus), Florida
Atlantic
Ocean
Gulf of
Mexico
1111 Critical Habitat
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
0
(6) Unit 1: Kissimmee Unit; Polk,
Osceola, Highlands, and Okeechobee
Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit 1 encompasses 175,737 acres
(ac) (71,118 hectares (ha)) of lands in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
20
20
Polk, Osceola, Highlands, and
Okeechobee Counties, Florida. This unit
consists of two subunits generally
located along the eastern bank of Lake
Kissimmee northeast to SR–192, north
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
40
8o Kllometers
61)
40
60
so Mites
of SR–60; and along portions of the
Kissimmee River, south of SR–60.
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
Figure 2 to Florida Bonneted Bat
(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (6)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO22.001
0
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
71491
Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat(Eumops floridanus)
Unit 1: Kissimmee Unit,
Polk, Osceola; Highlands and Okeechobee Counties; Florida
BREVARD
POLK
INDIAN RIVER
HIGHLANDS
OKEECHOBEE
1111 Critical Habitat
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
o
(7) Unit 2: Peace River Unit; Hardee,
DeSoto, and Charlotte Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit 2 encompasses 28,046 ac
(11,350 ha) of lands in Hardee, DeSoto,
and Charlotte Counties, Florida. This
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
$
5
10
10
unit consists of four subunits located
along portions of the Peace River and its
tributaries (e.g., Shell Creek, Charlie
Creek), south of CR–64 with the
majority west of U.S.–17.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
15
20 Kilometers
1s
20Miles
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
Figure 3 to Florida Bonneted Bat
(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (7)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO22.002
o
71492
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat(Eumops floridanus)
Unit 2: Peace River Unit,
Hardee, OeSotoand Charlotte Counties, Florida
MANATEE
SARASOTA
DESOTO
CHARLOTTE
1111 Critical Habitat
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
0
(8) Unit 3: Babcock Unit; Charlotte,
Lee, and Glades Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit 3 encompasses 133,560 ac
(54,050 ha) of lands in Charlotte, Lee,
and Glades Counties, Florida. This unit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
5
5
consists of two subunits, with the
majority of Unit 3 located in Charlotte
County, east of I–75; other portions are
in northwestern Lee and western Glades
Counties.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
10
15 KIiometers
10
15 Miles
(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
Figure 4 to Florida Bonneted Bat
(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (8)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO22.003
0
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
71493
Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus)
Unit 3: Babcock Unit,
Charlotte, Glades and Lee Counties, Florida
HENDRY
Critical Habitat
2.5
2.5
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(9) Unit 4: Fisheating Creek Unit;
Glades and Highlands Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit 4 encompasses 12,995 ac (5,259
ha) of lands in Glades and Highlands
Counties, Florida. The majority of Unit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
4 is located in Glades County, west of
U.S.–27; the remainder of the unit
extends north into southern Highlands
County.
(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
7.5
1O Kilometers
7.5
10 Mli
-
71494
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus)
Unit 4: Fisheating Creek Unit,
Glades and Highlands Counties, Florida
DE
HIGHLANDS
-
Critical Habitat
1.5
3
1,5
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
Counties, Florida. This unit straddles
the Lee/Collier county line, east of I–75.
6 Kilometers
4,6
6 MIies
Figure 6 to Florida Bonneted Bat
(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (10)(ii)
(ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO22.005
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(10) Unit 5: Corkscrew Unit; Lee and
Collier Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit 5 encompasses 48,865 ac
(19,775 ha) of lands in Lee and Collier
4.5
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
71495
Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops f/oridanus)
Unit 5: Corkscrew Unit,
Lee and Collier Counties, Florida
HENDRY
'29
7
~ Critical Habitat
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
0
(11) Unit 6: Big Cypress Unit; Collier,
Hendry, and Monroe Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit 6 encompasses 728,544 ac
(294,831 ha) of lands in Collier, Hendry,
and Monroe Counties, Florida. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
2
2
majority of Unit 6 is located in Collier
County, south of I–75; the remainder of
the unit occurs in southern Hendry
County and mainland portions of
Monroe County.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4
6
4
8 Kilometers
6
8 Miles
(ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:
Figure 7 to Florida Bonneted Bat
(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (11)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO22.006
0
71496
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat(Eumops f/oridanus)
Unit 6: Big Cypress Unit,
Collier, Hendry and Monroe Counties, Florida
PALM BEACH
HENbRY
CdLLIER
BROWARD
Guff of Mexico
MONROE
MIAMI-DADE
~ Critical Habitat
(12) Unit 7: Everglades Tree Islands
Unit; Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) Unit 7 encompasses 16,604 ac
(6,719 ha) of lands in Miami-Dade
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
5
I
I
5
10
I
10
County, Florida, south of Tamiami Trail
and west of Krome Avenue.
t
15
20
I
I
15
25 Kilometers
I
20
25Miles
Figure 8 to Florida Bonneted Bat
(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (12)(ii)
(ii) Map of Unit 7 follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO22.007
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
0
II
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
71497
Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus)
Unit 7: Everglades Tree Islands Unit,
Miami-Dade County, Florida
MIAMI-DADE
Tamiami.;.:Tr.::':ai::,...I_ _ _ _ _ _ __
11111 Critical Habitat
0
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(13) Unit 8: Long Pine Key Unit;
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) Unit 8 encompasses 25,337 ac
(10,254 ha) of lands in Miami-Dade
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
2
2
County, Florida, along Main Park Road
(SR–9336) between Mahogany
Hammock and SW 237th Avenue.
(ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4
6 Kilometens
4
6 MIies
Figure 9 to Florida Bonneted Bat
(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (13)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO22.008
0
71498
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops f/oridanus)
Unit 8: Long Pine Key Unit,
Miami-Dade County, Florida
MIAMI-DADE
/,. MONROE
~ Critical Habitat
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
0
(14) Unit 9: Miami Rocklands Unit;
Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) Unit 9 encompasses 4,324 ac (1,750
ha) of lands in Miami-Dade County,
Florida. This unit consists of 36
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
2
2
subunits located between Tamiami Trail
to the north and SR–9336 to the south,
and is surrounded by a dense urban
matrix typical of the Miami
metropolitan area.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
4
6 Kilometers
4
(ii) Maps of Unit 9 follow:
Figure 10 to Florida Bonneted Bat
(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (14)(ii)
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO22.009
0
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
71499
Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat(Eumops floridanus)
Unit 9: Northern, Miami Rocklands Unit,
Miami-Dade County, Florida
Dr
N
..
9M .,,,,
9N
,.....-.--,-Coral Reef
1111 Critical Habitat
0
0
2
3 Kilometers
I
I
I
2
3 Miles
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO22.010
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Figure 11 to Florida Bonneted Bat
(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (14)(ii)
71500
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat(Eumops f/oridanus)
Unit 9: Central, Miami Rocklands Unit,
Miami-Dade County, Florida
s
;
-----~----- _,_____
-,~ --- --~-~-~-l-- ----~--- - ····~
~---~gp
;:
-:~./---=-· t ____,___ _
7--,
9
~ Critical Habitat
0
3 Kilometers
2
2
3 Miles
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO22.011
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Figure 12 to Florida Bonneted Bat
(Eumops floridanus) paragraph (14)(ii)
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 / Proposed Rules
71501
Critical Habitat Units for Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus)
Unit 9: Southern, Miami Rocklands Unit,
Miami-Dade County, Florida
[
r-,~-----~·--,-----·,,-~---,---,~---1~---------
-' ' '
~ gss
!~ ' •
i
'
' } - -
' -----
~---------+------r-~{----
\l YP,4cc [_ -1,,;.\ t.hRsw344~"-·+--------t---1-■~/ . r-, grrlr ~
t@
~
i
\
9EEI
.9FF
1111 Critical Habitat
0
0
*
*
*
*
0.5
15 Kilometers
0.5
*
[FR Doc. 2022–25218 Filed 11–21–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–C
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Nov 21, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\22NOP2.SGM
22NOP2
EP22NO22.012
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 22, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71466-71501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25218]
[[Page 71465]]
Vol. 87
Tuesday,
No. 224
November 22, 2022
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Endangered Florida Bonneted Bat; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 224 / Tuesday, November 22, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 71466]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BE10
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Endangered Florida Bonneted Bat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Revised proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are revising
our proposed designation of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted
bat (Eumops floridanus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act),
as amended. In response to new information we received and public
comments on our June 10, 2020, proposed rule, we are now proposing to
designate approximately 1,174,011 acres (475,105 hectares) in 13
Florida counties as critical habitat for the species. We also announce
the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA) of the revised
proposed designation of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat.
We request comments from all interested parties on this revised
proposed rule and the associated DEA. Comments submitted on our June
10, 2020, proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they will be fully
considered in the preparation of the final rule. If we finalize this
rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this
species' critical habitat.
DATES: We will accept comments on this revised proposed rule and the
DEA that are received or postmarked on or before January 23, 2023.
Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
(see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on
the closing date. We must receive requests for a public hearing, in
writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by
January 6, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106,
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking
on ``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: The DEA and other supporting
documents are included in the decision file and are available at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106.
Coordinates or plot points or both from which the critical habitat maps
are generated are available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106 and the Florida Ecological Services Field
Office website at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Mena, Classification and
Recovery Division Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida
Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200,
Jacksonville, FL 32256; telephone (904) 731-3134. Individuals in the
United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act,
when we determine that any species is an endangered or threatened
species, we are required to designate critical habitat, to the maximum
extent prudent and determinable. Designations of critical habitat can
only be completed by issuing a rule.
What this document does. This document revises the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat to include
a total of approximately 1,174,011 acres (475,105 hectares) in portions
of 13 Florida counties. On October 2, 2013, we published in the Federal
Register (78 FR 61004) a final rule listing the Florida bonneted bat as
an endangered species. On June 10, 2020, we published in the Federal
Register (85 FR 35510) a proposed rule to designate critical habitat
for this species. This document revises the proposed designation of
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat.
The basis for our action. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines
critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) which may require special management
considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for
the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of the best
scientific data available and after taking into consideration the
economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
Draft economic analysis of the revised proposed designation of
critical habitat. In order to consider the economic impacts of critical
habitat for the Florida bonneted bat, we compiled information
pertaining to the potential incremental economic impacts for this
revised proposed critical habitat designation. The information we used
in determining the economic impacts of the revised proposed critical
habitat is summarized in this revised proposed rule (see Consideration
of Economic Impacts, below) and is available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106. We are
soliciting public comments on the economic information provided and any
other potential economic impacts of this revised proposed designation.
We will continue to reevaluate the potential economic impacts between
this proposal and our final designation.
Public comment. We requested and received public comments on our
June 10, 2020, proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the
Florida bonneted bat. Those comments primarily consist of requests for
exclusion, requests for the designation of additional areas, and
comments on the physical or biological features and associated
methodology used to identify proposed units (see New Information and
Revisions to
[[Page 71467]]
Previously Proposed Critical Habitat, below). Those comments are
already part of the public record of this rulemaking proceeding and are
available for public viewing at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106. We now seek comments and solicit
information from the public on this revised proposed designation to
make sure we consider the best scientific and commercial information
available in developing our final designation. Because we will consider
all comments and information we receive during the comment period, our
final determination may differ from this proposal. We will provide
responses to comments we received during both public comment periods in
our final rule.
Peer review. We sought peer review on our June 10, 2020, proposed
rule and received comments from two reviewers (see New Information and
Revisions to Previously Proposed Critical Habitat, below). We are again
seeking comments from independent specialists to ensure that this
revised proposed designation of critical habitat for the Florida
bonneted bat is based on scientifically sound data and analyses. We
have invited these peer reviewers to comment on our specific
assumptions and conclusions in this revised critical habitat proposal.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this revised
proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data
available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,
we request comments or information from other governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this revised proposed rule. Please
note that comments submitted on our June 10, 2020, proposed rule need
not be resubmitted as they will be fully considered in the preparation
of the final rule. Additionally, due to the ongoing challenges
regarding the 2019 regulations, we also seek comments on whether and
how applying the regulations that were in effect before the 2019
regulations would alter any of these analyses.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including information to inform the following factors that the
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may
be not prudent:
(a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
(e) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data
available.
In addition, we seek comment regarding whether and how this
information would differ under the factors that the pre-2019
regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may
be prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Florida bonneted bat habitat;
(b) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species
(i.e., Miami-Dade, Monroe, Lee, Collier, Charlotte, Polk, Osceola,
Okeechobee, Highlands, Broward, Sarasota, Hardee, Glades, Palm Beach,
Martin, and DeSoto Counties, Florida) that should be included in the
designation because they (i) were occupied at the time of listing and
contain the physical or biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the species and that may require special management
considerations, or (ii) were unoccupied at the time of listing and are
essential for the conservation of the species.
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including
information related to the impacts that noise and light pollution and
pesticides usage may have on critical habitat, as well as managing for
the potential effects of climate change; and
(d) For areas not occupied at the time of listing essential for the
conservation of the species, we particularly seek comments:
(i) Regarding whether occupied areas are adequate for the
conservation of the species; and
(ii) Providing specific information regarding whether or not
unoccupied areas would, with reasonable certainty, contribute to the
conservation of the species and contain at least one physical or
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species.
We also seek comments or information regarding whether areas not
occupied at the time of listing could be considered habitat for the
species.
(3) Characteristics of roost trees.
(4) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding
specific areas.
(6) Information on the extent to which the description of probable
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis (DEA) for the revised
proposed rule is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic impacts
and any additional information regarding probable economic impacts that
we should consider.
(7) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We are particularly interested in
information concerning those areas described below in tables 2 and 3.
If you think we should exclude these or any additional areas, please
provide information regarding the benefit of exclusion that you have
not already submitted to us, as comments submitted on our June 10,
2020, proposed rule need not be resubmitted and will be fully
considered in the preparation of the final rule.
(8) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a final critical habitat determination.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule
[[Page 71468]]
by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send
comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final determination may differ from this
revised proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any
comments on that new information), our final designation may not
include all areas proposed, may include some additional areas that meet
the definition of critical habitat, and may exclude some areas if we
find the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in
addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual public
hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
Federal actions for the Florida bonneted bat that occurred prior to
October 4, 2012, are outlined in our proposed listing rule for the
species (see 77 FR 60750, October 4, 2012). On October 2, 2013, after
consideration of the available scientific information, and peer review
and public comments on the proposed listing rule, we listed the Florida
bonneted bat as an endangered species (78 FR 61004). Critical habitat
was considered prudent but not determinable at the time of listing due
to the lack of information on the physical or biological features
essential for the species' conservation. Additional research helped
define those physical or biological features, and on June 10, 2020, we
proposed to designate critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat (85
FR 35510). During the public comment period on the June 10, 2020,
proposed rule, we received significant new information on genetics as
well as presence and roost data; following the comment period, we
developed a conservation strategy to serve as a foundation for critical
habitat criteria and methodology, revised the physical or biological
features essential for the conservation of the species, and revised our
proposed critical habitat designation in lieu of preparing a final
rule. This document presents our revised proposed critical habitat
designation for the Florida bonneted bat.
Supporting Documents
Starting in 2016, the Service has been preparing species status
assessment (SSA) reports to compile and evaluate the best scientific
information available to inform listing and other decisions under the
Act. Since this species was listed before this process was implemented,
there was no SSA for the Florida bonneted bat at the time the proposed
critical habitat designation published (June 10, 2020). A recovery
outline and a conservation strategy have been prepared for this
species. The Florida Bonneted Bat Recovery Outline is a brief document
that broadly sketches the interim conservation and management program
for the Florida bonneted bat during the time between the final listing
under the Act and completion of a recovery plan. The Florida Bonneted
Bat Conservation Strategy provides a technical foundation for recovery
strategies, summarizing the best scientific data available concerning
the status of the species and threats affecting the species, and
outlines goals and objectives for achieving recovery of the Florida
bonneted bat. These documents have been prepared based on input and
information from researchers and species experts.
Additional documents that we considered in revising our proposed
critical habitat designation include a list of conservation lands that
overlap with the proposed designation, conservation and natural
resource management plans for areas we are considering for exclusion,
and a summary of the habitat analysis conducted to inform delineation
of the proposed critical habitat units. All of these supporting
documents are available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FW-R4-ES-2019-0106.
Background
The purpose of this document is to discuss only those topics
directly relevant to this revised proposed critical habitat
designation. For more information on the species, its habitat, and
previous Federal actions concerning the Florida bonneted bat, refer to
the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on October 2,
2013 (78 FR 61004) and the proposed critical habitat rule published in
the Federal Register on June 10, 2020 (85 FR 35510).
In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
Service issued final rules that revised the regulations in 50 CFR parts
17 and 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify threatened and
endangered species and the criteria for designating listed species'
critical habitat (84 FR 45020 and 84 FR 44752; August 27, 2019;
collectively, the 2019 regulations). However, on July 5, 2022, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California vacated the 2019
regulations (Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, No. 4:19-cv-
05206-JST, Doc. 168 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2022) (CBD v. Haaland)),
reinstating the regulations that were in effect before the effective
date of the 2019 regulations as the law governing species
classification and critical habitat decisions. Subsequently, on
September 21, 2022, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit stayed the district court's July 5, 2022, order vacating the
2019 regulations until a pending motion for reconsideration before the
district court is resolved (In re: Cattlemen's Ass'n, No. 22-70194).
The effect of the stay is that the 2019 regulations are the governing
law as of September 21, 2022.
Due to the continued uncertainty resulting from the ongoing
litigation, we also undertook an analysis of whether the proposal would
be different if we were to apply the pre-2019 regulations. That
analysis, which we described in a separate memo in the decisional file
and posted on https://www.regulations.gov, concluded that we would have
reached the same proposal if we had applied the pre-2019 regulations
because under either regulatory scheme we find that critical habitat is
prudent and that the occupied areas proposed for the Florida bonneted
bat are adequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
In our June 10, 2020, proposed rule, we proposed to designate
critical habitat
[[Page 71469]]
in four units encompassing approximately 1,478,333 acres (ac) (598,261
hectares (ha)) in portions of 10 Florida counties. In addition, we
announced the availability of a DEA of the proposed critical habitat
designation. We accepted comments on the proposed critical habitat
designation and DEA for 60 days, ending August 10, 2020. Based on
information we received during the public comment period, we are
revising our proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida
bonneted bat. This revised proposed rule has a 60-day comment period
(see DATES, above) to allow all interested parties to submit comments
on our revised proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida
bonneted bat.
New Information and Revisions to Previously Proposed Critical Habitat
During the public comment period on our June 10, 2020, proposed
rule, we received over 1,800 responses, as well as comments from two
peer reviewers. We received comments questioning the essential physical
or biological features we identified (specifically, our description of
representative forest types, definition and use of ``core areas,'' and
definition and use of a minimum patch size) and the relationship of
those features to our critical habitat criteria and methodology.
Because our incorporation of a minimum patch size precluded the
consideration of habitat within urban Miami-Dade County, many comments
addressed the importance of this area to the species and provided
information (e.g., historical use, observed activity) regarding why it
meets the definition of critical habitat. Comments received also
addressed the need to directly incorporate all available presence
information into our habitat analysis and critical habitat methodology
and expressed concerns regarding a lack of redundancy provided in the
proposed units for the species to withstand catastrophic events. In
addition, since the proposed rule was published, we received new
information regarding genetic diversity and structure of the species,
as well as new presence and roost data. Upon further review of the best
available information, we have decided to use average measurements to
describe the characteristics of roost trees rather than the minimum
measurements used in our June 10, 2020, proposed rule. In this
revision, we also provide additional roost-related measurements to
better reflect the characteristics required by the Florida bonneted
bat.
Therefore, after fully considering the public comments we received
on our June 10, 2020, proposed rule and new information that became
available after the publication of that proposed rule, we revise our
proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat
based on changes to the physical or biological features and the
criteria and methodology used to identify those specific areas that
constitute critical habitat. Due to the comprehensive nature of these
revisions, this document presents an entirely new, revised proposed
critical habitat designation for the species. The DEA for the proposed
critical habitat designation has also been revised and is summarized
below (see Consideration of Economic Impacts).
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(b), in determining which areas we will designate as
critical habitat from within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing, we consider the physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that
may require special management considerations or protection. The
regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define ``physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species'' as the features that
occur in specific areas and that are essential to support the life-
history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, sites, prey,
vegetation, symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a
single habitat characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity. For example,
physical features essential to the conservation of the species might
include gravel of a particular size required for spawning, alkaline
soil for seed germination, protective cover for migration, or
susceptibility to flooding or fire that maintains necessary early-
successional habitat characteristics. Biological features might include
prey species, forage grasses, specific kinds or ages of trees for
roosting or nesting, symbiotic fungi, or a particular level of
nonnative species consistent with conservation needs of the listed
species. The features may also be combinations of habitat
characteristics and may encompass the relationship between
characteristics or the necessary amount of a characteristic essential
to support the life history of the species.
In considering whether features are essential to the conservation
of the species, we may consider an appropriate quality, quantity, and
spatial and temporal arrangement of habitat characteristics in the
context of the life-history needs, condition, and status of the
species. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, space
for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; cover or
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional
or physiological requirements; and habitats with appropriate
disturbance regimes (for more information, see the proposed listing
rule (77 FR 60750; October 4, 2012) and the Florida Bonneted Bat
Conservation Strategy (see Supporting Documents)). We summarize below
the more important habitat characteristics, particularly those that
support the description of physical and biological features essential
to the conservation of the Florida bonneted bat. For Food, Water, Air,
Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or Physiological Requirements,
please see this section in the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR
35510, June 10, 2020). We also consider these habitat features relative
to the scale at which Florida bonneted bats use the features, allowing
us to more logically organize the physical and biological features to
delineate the critical habitat.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Due to the spatial variability of their prey, large size, and wing
morphology, this species has significant spatial needs for foraging.
Insect abundance, density, and community composition frequently vary
across space and over time based on season and environmental
conditions. As a result of this spatial variability, Florida bonneted
bats may need to travel far distances and feed over large areas to
satisfy dietary needs. For example, Florida bonneted bats from Fred C.
Babcock-Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area (Babcock-Webb WMA), on
average, traveled 9.5 miles (mi) (15 kilometers (km)) from their roosts
and flew 24 mi (39 km) total per night (Webb et al. 2018, p. 8; Webb
2018, pers. comm.). These bats also traveled maximum distances of over
24 mi (39 km) from their roosts and over 56 mi (90 km) total in one
night (Webb et al. 2018, p. 8; Webb 2018, pers. comm.). Florida
bonneted bats also require open areas for foraging due to their large
body size and morphology of
[[Page 71470]]
their wings, which are designed for fast and efficient, but less
maneuverable, flight.
This large bat relies on swarms of larger insects for feeding;
thus, foraging habitat for the Florida bonneted bat consists of areas
that hatch and concentrate insects of this size, including vegetated
areas and waterways. These bats also frequently feed on insects from
agricultural areas and golf courses (Bailey et al. 2017a, entire).
Ecologically diverse areas of suitable habitat representing the
geographic extent of the species' range are also important for
population growth and persistence. The major ecological communities
(Myers and Ewel 1990, entire; Service 1999, entire; FNAI 2010, entire)
that provide Florida bonneted bat roosting habitat in central and
southern Florida include: pine rocklands (south Florida rockland,
rockland pine forest, rockland hammock); cypress communities (cypress
swamps, strand swamps, domes, sloughs, ponds); hydric pine flatwoods
(wet flatwoods); mesic pine flatwoods; and high pine. A variety of
other habitats may be used as well (Bailey et al. 2017a, entire).
Diverse, open foraging habitats (e.g., prairies, riverine habitat) are
also important. Adequate roosting and foraging habitats are essential
to the species, as they provide the diversity necessary to allow for
population resiliency following minor disturbances (e.g., loss of roost
tree, cold snap) as well as more significant stochastic events (e.g.,
hurricane, drought, forest disease, climate change).
Structural connectivity (suitable habitat in the form of linear
corridors or patches creating ``stepping stones'') facilitates the
recolonization of extirpated populations; facilitates the establishment
of new populations; and allows for natural behaviors needed for
foraging, exploratory movements, and dispersal. Four genetically
differentiated populations of the Florida bonneted bat have been
identified (Charlotte, Polk/Osceola, Lee/Collier, and Miami-Dade
Counties) (Austin et al. 2022, entire; see also Florida Bonneted Bat
Conservation Strategy in Supporting Documents). While dispersal of
Florida bonneted bats appears to be geographically restricted between
populations, the geographic extent of the four genetically
differentiated areas is not yet known, and maintaining structural
connectivity to allow for ongoing and future functional connectivity
(i.e., actual movement of animals and/or exchange of genes) between
known populations remains important to the species for resiliency as
well as population stability and growth (Austin et al. 2022, pp. 507-
508). Structural connectivity in the form of vegetated corridors with
opportunities for roosting and/or foraging, vegetated river corridors
and other areas with freshwater available year-round, and habitat
patches such as pine rockland fragments and tree islands are needed to
provide and maintain connections between regions where known Florida
bonneted bat populations occur. Maintaining viable populations in each
of the known genetically differentiated areas and protecting
connectivity is necessary for the demographic and genetic health of the
species. Therefore, it is important that this species has areas of
ecologically diverse and connected habitat including sufficient amounts
of open foraging habitat.
Cover or Shelter
The Florida bonneted bat primarily roosts in tree cavities, either
as individuals or small or large colonies (Ober et al. 2017, p. 378;
Braun de Torrez et al. 2020a, p. 6; 2020b, entire). Roosts provide
protection from sunlight, adverse weather, and predators; sites for
mating, rearing of young, social interaction and information sharing,
resting, and digestion of food; and microclimate stability (Kunz 1982,
entire; Ormsbee et al. 2007, pp. 130-135; Marks and Marks 2008a, p. 4;
Dechmann et al. 2010, pp. 1-7; Bohn 2012, in litt.).
Florida bonneted bat roosts are difficult to locate; only 36
natural roosts have been identified (not all currently occupied), the
first in 2013 (Angell and Thompson 2015, entire; Braun de Torrez et al.
2020b, entire; Braun de Torrez 2021, pers. comm.; Borkholder 2022,
pers. comm.; Braun de Torrez 2022, pers. comm.). Known natural roosts
have been documented in the following tree species: slash pine (Pinus
elliottii), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), bald cypress (Taxodium
distichum), and royal palm (Roystonea regia) (Braun de Torrez et al.
2020b, entire). A significant proportion of known roosts are in snags
of these tree species (Braun de Torrez et al. 2020b, entire). One non-
volant (flightless) pup was found at the base of a live oak (Quercus
virginiana) hours after a tree cavity was bisected (Ridgley 2020, pers.
comm.); it is not known if this tree species is commonly used as a
roost site or may be used particularly where suitable trees are sparse.
Upon further review of the best available information, we have
modified the features relevant to roost trees to more accurately
reflect the characteristics required by Florida bonneted bat. Relative
to surrounding trees, Florida bonneted bat roost trees tend to have
greater overall height (averaging 57 feet (ft) (17 meters (m)),
diameter (averaging 15-inch (in) (38-centimeter (cm)) diameter at
breast height (dbh)), and canopy height relative to the adjacent canopy
(averaging 16 ft (5 m) taller than surrounding trees) (Braun de Torrez
et al. 2020b, entire; Braun de Torrez 2022, pers. comm.). The species
also appears to require sufficient unobstructed space for emergence,
with cavities averaging 35 ft (10.7 m) above the ground and roost trees
averaging 14 ft (4 m) from the nearest tree (Braun de Torrez et al.
2020b, entire; Braun de Torrez 2022, pers. comm.), often in open or
semi-open canopy and canopy gaps. Cavities may require a minimum of
approximately 19 ft (5.7 m) of ground clearance (Braun de Torrez et al.
2020b, entire; Braun de Torrez 2022, pers. comm.); however, there are
two instances of Florida bonneted bats using bat houses with
approximately 13 ft (4 m) of ground clearance in Miami-Dade County
(Ridgley 2021, unpublished data). Collectively, this indicates that
this species prefers large trees with adequate space around the cavity
for emergence. Solitary males may roost under loose bark, and loose or
shaggy bark has been documented as a night roost (e.g., Melaleuca).
However, Florida bonneted bats typically roost in cavities made by
other species (notably woodpeckers) or by natural damage caused by
fire, storms, or decay.
The Florida bonneted bat is suspected to have high roost-site
fidelity. Some roosts are used for several years by Florida bonneted
bat colonies, possibly decades (Myers 2013, pers. comm.; Scofield
2013a-b, pers. comm.; 2014a-b, pers. comm.; Bohn 2014, pers. comm.;
Gore et al. 2015, p. 183; Angell and Thompson 2015, p. 186; Hosein
2016, pers. comm.; Webb 2017, pers. comm.; B. Myers 2018, pers. comm.;
Aldredge 2019, pers. comm.). Conversely, natural roosts may frequently
succumb to natural causes (i.e., hurricanes, wildfire), resulting in
total loss or too much damage to allow for future roosting. At least 37
percent of the known natural roosts discovered since 2013 are now
uninhabitable (due to decay, hurricanes, and other factors) (Braun de
Torrez et al. 2020b, entire). Suitable roost sites are a critical
resource, are an ongoing need of the species, and may be limiting
population growth and distribution in certain situations. The loss of a
roost site may represent a greater impact to this species
[[Page 71471]]
relative to some other bat species (Ober 2012, in litt.).
Florida bonneted bats also roost in artificial structures (e.g.,
homes with barrel-tile roofs, chimneys, barns, hangars, utility poles)
and bat houses (Marks and Marks 2008b, p. 8; Morse 2008, entire; Trokey
2012a-b, pers. comm.; Gore et al. 2015, entire; see Use of Artificial
Structures (Bat Houses) in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October
2, 2013, p. 61010)). Despite clear evidence of their use, artificial
bat houses may not be ideal or a sufficient surrogate for natural
roosts. Pup mortalities and other events (e.g., pups falling from
roosts and unable to climb up metal poles or wood poles with predator
guards) have raised questions about heat build-up, insulation, proper
placement in the landscape, and bat house design (Crawford and O'Keefe
2021, entire). Therefore, natural roosts (i.e., live or dead trees and
tree snags, especially longleaf pine, slash pine, bald cypress, and
royal palm, on average 57 ft (17 m) in height and an average 15-in (38-
cm) dbh that are emergent from the surrounding canopy (by an average 16
ft (5 m)) and have unobstructed space for emergence) are important
habitat characteristics for this species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Sites supporting the Florida bonneted bats' breeding activities
appear to be required year-round (Timm and Genoways 2004, p. 859; Ober
et al. 2017, p. 382; Bailey et al. 2017b, p. 556; see also Life History
in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 61005-
61006) and Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements in the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR
35510, June 10, 2020)). Reproductively active adults have been observed
during August, December, and April capture sessions, and non-volant
pups (young not yet capable of flying) have been documented in roosts
in every month other than February and March (Scofield 2014b, pers.
comm.; Angell and Thompson 2015, p. 186; Ridgley 2015, pers. comm.;
Ober et al. 2017, pp. 381, 383-384; Gore 2017, pers. comm.; J. Myers
2018, pers. comm.; 2020, pers. comm.). Based upon these data,
flightless young bonneted bats and females with high energetic demands
due to pregnancy and lactation may be vulnerable to disturbance for at
least 10 months of the year. Most roosting bats are sensitive to human
disturbance (Kunz 1982, p. 32), and maternity colonies may be
especially intolerant of disturbance (Harvey et al. 1999, p. 13; see
also Inadvertent and Purposeful Impacts from Humans in the final
listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 61033-61034)).
Florida bonneted bat colonies conform to a harem structure (one
dominant male, several reproductively active females and their young;
Ober et al. 2017, p. 382). This type of social organization, together
with evidence of high roost-site fidelity, underscores the importance
of roosts to this species for population maintenance, growth, and
natural behaviors. Disturbance of a roost at any time can alter social
dynamics and impact reproductive success (Ober et al. 2017, p. 382).
Accordingly, areas where roosting and other natural behaviors can occur
undisturbed are important in considering the conservation of the
species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Our discussion of these habitat characteristics is unchanged from
the proposed rule (85 FR 35510, June 10, 2020).
Habitats With Appropriate Disturbance Regimes
The Florida bonneted bat not only requires healthy and ecologically
diverse habitat; the species also needs areas with an appropriate
disturbance regime. The Florida bonneted bat's entire range is within
the fire-dependent and fire-adapted landscape of central and south
Florida (Noss 2018, entire). The species uses fire-dependent vegetation
communities for roosting (Belwood 1992, pp. 219-220; Angell and
Thompson 2015, entire; Braun de Torrez et al. 2016, p. 240) and
foraging (Bailey et al. 2017a, entire; Braun de Torrez et al. 2018a-c,
entire). Florida bonneted bats appear to be attracted to recently
burned areas (Braun de Torrez et al. 2018a, entire); it appears that
Florida bonneted bats are fire-adapted and benefit from prescribed burn
programs that closely mimic historical fire regimes. Fires during the
historical fire season (i.e., early wet season, April through June) at
a moderate frequency (more than 3 to 5 years) appear to optimize
habitat for bats in both pine flatwoods and prairies (Braun de Torrez
et al. 2018b, pp. 6-9). Fire may result in an increase of suitable
roosts (i.e., create more snags and cavities), more open flight space,
and increased prey availability (Boyles and Aubrey 2006, pp. 111-113;
Armitage and Ober 2012, pp. 107-109; O'Keefe and Loeb 2017, p. 271;
Braun de Torrez et al. 2018a, p. 1120; 2018b, pp. 8-9).
Fire also has the potential to harm bats through disturbance or
destruction of roost trees (Morrison and Raphael 1993, p. 328;
Dickinson et al. 2010, pp. 2196-2200). Despite the risks that Florida
bonneted bats may abandon roosts, or roosts and pups may be lost during
fires, it is critical for fires to occur on the landscape to maintain
suitable habitat; precautions can be taken to reduce risks
appropriately (see Inadvertent Impacts from Land Management Practices,
below). Therefore, based on the information in this discussion, we
identify areas of diverse habitat types and ecological communities
maintained via appropriate disturbance regimes as essential physical or
biological features for this species.
Summary of Essential Physical or Biological Features
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of Florida bonneted bat from studies of the species'
habitat, ecology, and life history as described below and further in
the Florida Bonneted Bat Conservation Strategy (see Supporting
Documents) and the proposed and final listing rules (77 FR 60750,
October 4, 2012; 78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013). We have determined that
the following physical or biological features are essential to the
conservation of the Florida bonneted bat:
(1) Habitats that provide for roosting and rearing of offspring.
Such habitat provides structural features for rest, digestion of food,
social interaction, mating, rearing of young, protection from sunlight
and adverse weather conditions, and cover to reduce predation risks for
adults and young, and is generally characterized by:
(a) Live or dead trees and tree snags, especially longleaf pine,
slash pine, bald cypress, and royal palm, that are on average 57 ft (17
m) in height and with an average 15-in (38-cm) dbh and that are
emergent from the surrounding canopy (by an average 16 ft (5 m)); and
(b) Sufficient unobstructed space, with cavities averaging 35 ft
(10.7 m) above the ground and roost trees averaging 14 ft (4 m) from
the nearest tree, for Florida bonneted bats to emerge from roost trees;
this may include open or semi-open canopy and canopy gaps.
(2) Habitats that provide adequate prey and space for foraging,
which may vary widely across the Florida bonneted bat's range, in
accordance with ecological conditions, seasons, and disturbance regimes
that influence vegetation structure and prey species' distributions.
Foraging habitat may be separate and relatively far from roosting
habitat. Essential foraging habitat consists of open areas in or near
areas
[[Page 71472]]
of high insect production or congregation, commonly including, but not
limited to:
(a) Freshwater edges and freshwater herbaceous wetlands (permanent
or seasonal);
(b) Prairies;
(c) Wetland and upland shrub; and/or
(d) Wetland and upland forests.
(3) A dynamic disturbance regime (e.g., fire, hurricanes, forest
management) that maintains and regenerates forested habitat, including
plant communities, open habitat structure, and temporary gaps, which is
conducive to promoting a continual supply of roosting sites, prey
items, and suitable foraging conditions.
(4) A sufficient quantity and diversity of habitats to enable the
species to be resilient to short-term impacts associated with
disturbance over time (e.g., drought, forest disease). This quantity
and diversity are essential to provide suitable conditions despite
temporary alterations to habitat quality. The ecological communities
the Florida bonneted bat inhabits differ in hydrology, fire frequency/
intensity, climate, prey species, roosting sites, and threats, and
include, but are not limited to:
(a) Pine rocklands;
(b) Cypress communities (cypress swamps, strand swamps, domes,
sloughs, ponds);
(c) Hydric pine flatwoods (wet flatwoods);
(d) Mesic pine flatwoods; and
(e) High pine.
(5) Habitats that provide structural connectivity where needed to
allow for dispersal, gene flow, and natural and adaptive movements,
including those that may be necessitated by climate change. These
connections may include linear corridors such as vegetated, riverine,
or open-water habitat with opportunities for roosting and/or foraging,
or patches (i.e., stepping stones) such as tree islands or other
isolated natural areas within a matrix of otherwise low-quality
habitat.
(6) A subtropical climate that provides tolerable conditions for
the species such that normal behavior, successful reproduction, and
rearing of offspring are possible.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection. Recovery of the Florida bonneted bat will require special
management considerations or protection of the physical or biological
features including passive (e.g., allowing natural processes to occur
without intervention) and active (e.g., taking actions to restore and
maintain habitat conditions or address threats) management. The
features essential to the conservation of this species may require
special management considerations or protection to reduce the threats
that are related to inadvertent impacts from land management practices
are discussed below. For discussion of special management
considerations or protection required to reduce threats related to
Habitat Loss, Climate Change and Sea-level Rise, Environmental
Stochasticity, and Pesticides and Contaminants, see these sections in
the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 35510, June 10, 2020).
Inadvertent Impacts From Land Management Practices
Forest management can help maintain and improve the Florida
bonneted bat's roosting and foraging habitat (see Use of Forests and
Other Natural Areas in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2,
2013, pp. 61007-61010)), and a lack of forest management, including a
lack of prescribed fire, can be detrimental to the species. Prescribed
burns may benefit Florida bonneted bats by improving habitat structure,
enhancing the prey base, and creating openings; restoration of fire to
fire-dependent forests may improve foraging habitat for this species
and create snags (Carter et al. 2002, p. 139; Boyles and Aubrey 2006,
pp. 111-113; Lacki et al. 2009, entire; Armitage and Ober 2012, pp.
107-109; FWC 2013, pp. 9-11; Ober and McCleery 2014, pp. 1-3; Braun de
Torrez et al. 2018a-b, entire).
Fire is a vital component in maintaining suitable Florida bonneted
bat habitat (Braun de Torrez et al. 2018b, entire), and while many
prescribed fire and other land management practices mimic natural
processes and benefit native species on broad spatial and temporal
scales, these activities can result in inadvertent negative impacts in
the near term. For example, extensive removal of trees with cavities or
hollows during activities associated with forest management, fuel
reduction, vista management, off-road vehicle trail maintenance,
prescribed fire, or habitat restoration may inadvertently remove roost
sites or reduce the availability of roost sites (see Land Management
Practices in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, p.
61027)).
Cavity-roosting bats may be susceptible to fire effects (Carter et
al. 2002, p. 140). Loss of active roosts or removal during critical
life-history stages (e.g., when females are pregnant or rearing young)
is of greatest concern, given the species' apparent small population
size and low fecundity (Bailey et al. 2017b, p. 556; see also Effects
of Small Population Size, Isolation, and Other Factors in the final
listing rule (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, pp. 61036-61037)). Risk
from forest management may be minimized by conducting activities
outside the bat's peak breeding season (April 15 to August 15),
protecting known roost sites, or avoiding potential roost sites, as
disturbance to roost sites at any time of the year may alter social
dynamics and reproductive success (Blumstein 2010, pp. 665-666; Ober et
al. 2017, p. 382). Special management considerations or protections to
retain the essential physical or biological features for Florida
bonneted bat include annual or seasonal monitoring efforts, or
monitoring conducted prior to (but coordinated with) annual fire or
forest management planning that can identify sensitive areas and
incorporate appropriate avoidance or minimization measures. Developing
additional avoidance or minimization measures for common management
practices and activities (see the Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation
Guidelines in Supporting Documents) on specific properties can also
reduce negative effects. Retaining potential roost trees, wherever
possible, may also reduce competition for tree cavities (see
Competition for Tree Cavities in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004,
October 2, 2013, pp. 61034-61035)), and promote survival and the
potential for population expansion over the long term.
The features essential to the conservation of the Florida bonneted
bat may require special management considerations or protection to
reduce threats and conserve these features. Actions that could
ameliorate threats include, but are not limited to:
(1) Retaining and actively managing a habitat network of large and
diverse conservation lands throughout the Florida bonneted bat's range;
(2) Protecting, restoring, or enhancing inland or higher elevation
habitats that are predicted to be unaffected or less affected by sea-
level rise;
(3) Protecting habitats that support high insect diversity and
abundance, and avoiding the excessive use of pesticides wherever
possible;
(4) Retaining potential roost trees and snags (see Cover or
Shelter, above);
[[Page 71473]]
(5) Conducting annual or seasonal monitoring efforts, or monitoring
conducted prior to (but coordinated with) annual fire or forest
management planning; and
(6) Developing and implementing specific guidelines (see the
Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines in Supporting Documents)
to minimize impacts of activities associated with hurricane clean-up,
prescribed fire, invasive species management, forest management, and
development.
Special Management Previously Considered
In the June 10, 2020, proposed rule to designate critical habitat
for the Florida bonneted bat (85 FR 35510), we considered ecological
light pollution to be a potential threat to the Florida bonneted bat
and its habitat that would likely require special management. However,
as we described in the final listing rule, the Florida bonneted bat's
behavioral response to ecological light pollution has not been
examined, and effects are not known (78 FR 61004, October 2, 2013, p.
61036). The species' fast-flight and long-range flight capabilities may
make it more able to exploit insects congregated at artificial light
sources and more susceptible to risks associated with such responses
(e.g., increased predation or harm from humans). Alternatively,
artificial lighting may not be influencing the species' foraging or
other behaviors. Accordingly, at this time, there continues to be
little information about the potential effects of light pollution on
the Florida bonneted bat.
Therefore, upon further review of the best available information,
we have removed ecological light pollution as a potential threat to the
species that may require special management considerations or
protection, but we specifically request comments on this matter.
Conservation Strategy and Selection Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
Conservation Strategy
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. In accordance
with the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of
the species and identify specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species at the time of listing and any specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species to be considered
for designation as critical habitat. We are not currently proposing to
designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species because we have not identified any unoccupied areas that meet
the definition of critical habitat. The occupied areas identified
encompass the varying types and distribution of habitat needed by the
species and provide sufficient habitat to allow for maintaining and
potentially expanding the populations.
To determine and select appropriate occupied areas that contain the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species or areas otherwise essential for the conservation of the
Florida bonneted bat, we incorporated information from the conservation
strategy for the species. The goal of our conservation strategy for the
Florida bonneted bat is to recover the species to the point where the
protections of the Act are no longer necessary. The role of critical
habitat in achieving this conservation goal is to identify the specific
areas within the Florida bonneted bat's range that provide essential
physical and biological features without which the Florida bonneted
bat's rangewide resiliency, redundancy, and representation could not be
achieved. Specifically, this conservation strategy helped identify
those areas within the Florida bonneted bat's range that contain the
physical and biological features without which rangewide resiliency,
redundancy, and representation could not be achieved. Our conservation
strategy identified goals, from which we developed the following six
critical habitat criteria for determining the specific areas that
contain the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species:
(1) Genetic diversity--To maintain viable populations in each of
the known genetically differentiated areas (see Space for Individual
and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior, above), critical habitat
should include one unit within each of the four genetically
differentiated populations.
(2) Geographic extent--To maintain viable populations that are
distributed across the geographic range of the Florida bonneted bat
(see Current Distribution in the final listing rule (78 FR 61004,
October 2, 2013, pp. 61010-61011)), critical habitat units should
represent the extent of the species' existing known range.
(3) Ecological diversity--To maintain at least one viable
population in each major ecological community that provides roosting
habitat for the Florida bonneted bat (see Habitats with Appropriate
Disturbance Regimes, above), these community types should be well
represented in critical habitat units.
(4) Climate change resilience--To maintain at least one viable
population in suitable habitat predicted to be unaffected or less
affected by sea-level rise and climate change, critical habitat should
include one unit in the northern, inland portion of the Florida
bonneted bat's range.
(5) High conservation value (HCV) habitat--To maintain sufficient
habitat with HCV that supports the life history of the species within
each population, critical habitat units should incorporate multiple
areas that support roosting and foraging needs and that have HCV (as
informed by habitat analysis results and telemetry data).
(6) Structural connectivity--To maintain, enhance, and reestablish
connectivity within and between Florida bonneted bat populations,
critical habitat units should be configured within the central and
south Florida landscape to provide connectivity based on the best
available movement data for the species (see Space for Individual and
Population Growth and for Normal Behavior, above).
Selection Criteria and Methodology Used To Identify Critical Habitat
To delineate the specific areas that are occupied by the species
and that contain the physical and biological features essential to the
Florida bonneted bat's conservation, we conducted a habitat analysis.
Acknowledging some limitations in the information available, we used
the best available data to conduct our habitat analysis (see Florida
Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis in Supporting Documents). Information
used in the habitat analysis and/or the delineation of critical habitat
units consists of the following:
(1) Confirmed presence data compiled in our Geographic Information
System (GIS) database from 2003 through 2021, and provided by the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), University of
Florida (UF), and other various sources, including survey reports,
databases, and publications;
(2) Vegetation cover types from the Cooperative Land Cover map
(CLC; version 3.4) developed by FWC and Florida Natural Areas
Inventory;
(3) Canopy height from the global forest canopy height map (2019)
developed by Global Land Analysis and Discovery;
(4) Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) potential habitat
[[Page 71474]]
(2016) developed by FWC, based on evidence indicating Florida bonneted
bats use woodpecker cavities for roosting;
(5) Artificial sky luminance from the New World Atlas of Artificial
Sky Brightness developed by the Light Pollution Science and Technology
Institute (Falchi et al. 2016, entire);
(6) Fire frequency data provided by the Monitoring Trends in Burn
Severity program;
(7) Urban development data (2010 baseline) from the Florida 2070
project developed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, the UF GeoPlan Center, and 1000 Friends of Florida;
(8) Maps of unpublished telemetry data collected and provided by UF
and FWC; and
(9) ArcGIS online basemap aerial imagery (2018-2020) to cross-check
CLC data and ensure the presence of physical or biological features.
To help identify potential factors affecting Florida bonneted bat
use, we conducted a spatial analysis to quantify relationships of
habitat-related and other environmental variables with species
occurrence (see the Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis in Supporting
Documents)). Available presence data incorporated into the analysis
primarily consisted of acoustic data, as well as locations of known
roosts. Maps of telemetry locations were used to inform our evaluation
of HCV areas but were not part of the habitat analysis dataset because
coordinate data were not available at the time. We identified 10
covariates that related to habitat types (e.g., pine/cypress) and other
factors (e.g., fire history) thought to influence habitat suitability
and use by the Florida bonneted bat and modeled those at three spatial
scales (see the Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis in Supporting
Documents). Model output included predictive maps representing the
probability of species occurrence based on the covariates included in
the final models, and we used these maps to characterize the relative
habitat suitability and conservation value of areas within central and
south Florida. We also conducted sensitivity/specificity analyses to
identify an objective threshold value for each model, which we then
applied to identify areas with high conservation value to the species.
See the Florida Bonneted Bat Habitat Analysis in Supporting Documents
for full details of our methodology and results, including links to
data sources used.
We considered the model output and the conservation strategy to
determine the specific areas occupied by the species on which are found
the physical or biological features that are essential to the Florida
bonneted bat. Those specific areas (critical habitat units) were
identified and delineated using the following steps:
(1) We identified areas having high conservation value (as
described above) for the Florida bonneted bat based on model output
because those areas are likely to contain the combination of
characteristics that we have determined are essential physical or
biological features for the Florida bonneted bat.
(2) We refined these areas to eliminate any unsuitable or less
suitable areas that are unlikely to contain features essential to the
conservation of the species based on the Florida bonneted bat's biology
(e.g., temperature requirements) and aerial imagery.
(3) We considered telemetry maps and certain critical habitat
criteria that were not incorporated into the models (e.g.,
connectivity). Where telemetry maps indicated high use (e.g., HCV
foraging habitat), or where additional area was needed to ensure
sufficient connectivity, we delineated additional habitat using CLC
data and aerial imagery and based on model output and covariate
relationships identified in our habitat analysis.
(4) We evaluated the resulting units to determine whether occupied
habitat is adequate to ensure conservation of the species. We
specifically evaluated occupied units to ensure they fulfill all
critical habitat criteria and meet the goals and objectives in our
conservation strategy for identifying the areas that contain the
features that are essential to the Florida bonneted bat. Based on our
determination that occupied areas are sufficient for the conservation
of the species, no unoccupied habitat is included in this revised
proposed critical habitat designation.
When determining revised proposed critical habitat boundaries, we
made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as lands
covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures because such lands
lack physical or biological features necessary for the Florida bonneted
bat. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless
the specific action would affect the physical or biological features in
the adjacent critical habitat.
We propose to designate as critical habitat lands that we have
determined are occupied at the time of listing (i.e., currently
occupied), that contain one or more of the physical or biological
features that are essential to support life-history processes of the
species, and that may require special management considerations or
protection. We considered areas occupied at the time of listing if they
have documented presence of Florida bonneted bats from October 2013
through 2021. Due to the species' life span and high site fidelity, it
is reasonable to conclude that these areas found to be occupied in 2013
to 2021 would have been inhabited by Florida bonneted bats when the
species was listed in 2013. Each unit we propose to designate as
critical habitat contains all the identified physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species.
The revised proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the
map or maps, as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented
at the end of this document under Proposed Regulation Promulgation. We
include more detailed information on the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2019-0106 and at the Florida Ecological Services Field Office website
at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library.
Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing to designate nine units as critical habitat for
the Florida bonneted bat. The critical habitat areas we describe below
constitute our best assessment of areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat. The nine areas we
propose as critical habitat are: (1) Kissimmee Unit, (2) Peace River
Unit, (3) Babcock Unit, (4) Fisheating Creek Unit, (5) Corkscrew Unit,
(6) Big Cypress Unit, (7) Everglades Tree Islands Unit, (8) Long Pine
Key Unit, and (9) Miami-Dade Rocklands Unit. All nine units proposed as
critical habitat are occupied by the species. Table 1 shows the revised
proposed critical habitat units and the approximate area
[[Page 71475]]
of each unit/subunit within each land ownership category.
Table 1--Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Units and Subunits for the Florida Bonneted Bat, Including Acres (ac) and Hectares (ha) by Land Ownership Category
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries, and land ownership was determined using the most recent parcel data provided by each county. All units are occupied]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land ownership: ac (ha)
Critical habitat unit/subunit ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total area: ac
Federal Tribal State County Local Private/other Unidentified (ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kissimmee.................................................... 99 (40) 1 (<1) 135,779 815 (330) 0 36,996 2,047 (828) 175,737
(54,948) (14,972) (71,118)
1A.......................................................... 90 (36) 0 135,343 612 (248) 0 31,241 2,047 (828) 169,331
(54,771) (12,643) (68,526)
1B.......................................................... 9 (4) 1 (<1) 437 (177) 203 (82) 0 5,755 (2,329) 0 6,405 (2,592)
2. Peace River.................................................. 32 (13) 0 6,389 (2,586) 563 (228) 165 (67) 19,047 (7,708) 1,850 (749) 28,046
(11,350)
2A.......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 2,603 (1,053) 0 2,603 (1,053)
2B.......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 5,478 (2,217) 200 (81) 5,678 (2,298)
2C.......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 2,029 (821) 2 (1) 2,031 (822)
2D.......................................................... 32 (13) 0 6,389 (2,586) 563 (228) 165 (67) 8,938 (3,617) 1,648 (667) 17,734 (7,177)
3. Babcock...................................................... 0 0 108,509 782 (316) 19 (8) 23,929 (9,684) 322 (130) 133,560
(43,912) (54,050)
3A.......................................................... 0 0 80,043 782 (316) 19 (8) 7,392 (2,991) 322 (130) 88,559
(32,392) (35,839)
3B.......................................................... 0 0 28,466 0 0 16,536 (6,692) 0 45,001
(11,520) (18,211)
4. Fisheating Creek............................................. 0 0 7,689 (3,112) <1 0 5,300 (2,145) 6 (2) 12,995 (5,259)
5. Corkscrew.................................................... 0 0 26,226 5,265 (2,131) 13 (5) 17,319 (7,009) 41 (17) 48,865
(10,613) (19,775)
6. Big Cypress.................................................. 533,179 14,455 (5,850) 152,494 8,419 (3,407) 229 (93) 16,170 (6,544) 3,598 (1,456) 728,544
(215,770) (61,712) (294,831)
7. Everglades Tree Islands...................................... 16,538 (6,693) 0 1 (<1) 4 (2) 0 <1 60 (24) 16,604 (6,719)
8. Long Pine Key................................................ 25,142 0 2 (1) 0 0 187 (76) 5 (2) 25,337
(10,175) (10,254)
9. Miami Rocklands.............................................. 599 (242) 0 796 (322) 2,403 (972) 8 (3) 471 (190) 46 (19) 4,324 (1,750)
9A.......................................................... 0 0 0 52 (21) 0 <1 1 (<1) 53 (21)
9B.......................................................... 0 0 0 104 (42) 0 <1 1 (<1) 104 (42)
9C.......................................................... 0 0 0 5 (2) 0 <1 <1 5 (2)
9D.......................................................... 0 0 10 (4) 0 0 18 (7) 1 (<1) 28 (11)
9E.......................................................... 0 0 21 (8) 230 (93) <1 13 (5) 2 (1) 267 (108)
9F.......................................................... 140 (57) 0 0 <1 0 <1 <1 140 (57)
9G.......................................................... 0 0 8 (3) 0 0 19 (8) <1 28 (11)
9H.......................................................... 0 0 235 (95) 0 0 <1 3 (1) 238 (96)
9I.......................................................... 0 0 0 22 (9) 0 <1 <1 22 (9)
9J.......................................................... 0 0 60 (24) <1 8 (3) 28 (11) 3 (1) 99 (40)
9K.......................................................... 0 0 36 (15) <1 0 <1 <1 37 (15)
9L.......................................................... 0 0 77 (31) <1 <1 <1 <1 77 (31)
9M.......................................................... 0 0 0 114 (46) 0 <1 <1 114 (46)
9N.......................................................... 0 0 18 (7) 0 0 <1 <1 18 (7)
9O.......................................................... 458 (185) 0 0 1,180 (478) 0 123 (50) 1 (<1) 1,762 (713)
9P.......................................................... 0 0 48 (19) 0 0 13 (5) <1 61 (25)
9Q.......................................................... 0 0 <1 7 (3) 0 7 (3) <1 14 (6)
9R.......................................................... 0 0 36 (15) 22 (9) 0 13 (5) 8 (3) 80 (32)
9S.......................................................... 0 0 34 (14) 63 (25) 0 35 (14) 2 (1) 135 (55)
9T.......................................................... 0 0 10 (4) 0 0 25 (10) <1 36 (15)
9U.......................................................... 0 0 18 (7) 4 (2) 0 1 (<1) <1 23 (9)
9V.......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 30 (12) 1 (<1) 31 (13)
9W.......................................................... 0 0 9 (4) 103 (42) 0 <1 <1 112 (45)
9X.......................................................... 0 0 0 10 (4) 0 20 (8) <1 30 (12)
9Y.......................................................... 0 0 0 18 (7) 0 11 (4) 4 (2) 32 (13)
9Z.......................................................... 0 0 0 28 (11) 0 <1 3 (1) 31 (13)
9AA......................................................... 0 0 22 (9) 24 (10) 0 37 (15) <1 84 (34)
9BB......................................................... 0 0 0 19 (8) 0 23 (9) 1 (<1) 43 (17)
9CC......................................................... 0 0 0 9 (4) 0 15 (6) <1 24 (10)
9DD......................................................... 0 0 19 (8) 0 0 <1 <1 19 (8)
9EE......................................................... 0 0 12 (5) <1 0 1 (<1) 5 (2) 18 (7)
9FF......................................................... 0 0 0 39 (16) 0 <1 <1 39 (16)
9GG......................................................... 0 0 81 (33) 240 (97) 0 28 (11) 1 (<1) 351 (142)
9HH......................................................... 0 0 22 (9) 0 0 <1 <1 22 (9)
9II......................................................... 0 0 18 (7) 5 (2) 0 10 (4) 6 (2) 39 (16)
9JJ......................................................... <1 0 0 105 (42) 0 <1 2 (1) 108 (44)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 575,589 14,457 (5,851) 437,888 18,251 (7,386) 434 (176) 119,419 7,974 (3,227) 1,174,011
(232,933) (177,207) (48,327) (475,105)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
[[Page 71476]]
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat,
below.
Unit 1: Kissimmee Unit
Unit 1 encompasses 175,737 ac (71,118 ha) of lands in Polk,
Osceola, Highlands, and Okeechobee Counties, Florida. This unit
consists of two subunits generally located along the eastern bank of
Lake Kissimmee northeast to SR-192, north of SR-60; and along portions
of the Kissimmee River, south of SR-60. Unit 1 predominately consists
of State-owned conservation lands (135,779 ac (54,948 ha)) and private
lands (36,996 ac (14,972 ha)). The largest conservation landholdings
within this unit include Kissimmee Prairie Preserve State Park, Three
Lakes WMA, Herky Huffman/Bull Creek WMA, Triple N Ranch WMA, and South
Florida Water Management District lands along the Kissimmee River.
Other smaller conservation lands also occur within this unit (for more
information, see the Conservation Lands document in Supporting
Documents).
Unit 1 contains all of the essential physical or biological
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats
within the unit. The Kissimmee Unit represents the northern extent of
the species' range and provides resiliency against the expected impacts
from habitat loss due to climate change as it includes areas considered
less vulnerable to these effects. Habitat in this unit provides
ecological diversity (i.e., high pine and mesic flatwoods) and includes
areas identified as having HCV, specifically high-quality roosting
habitat (e.g., potential roost trees, red-cockaded woodpecker activity
in the area) and foraging habitat (e.g., open water, abundant prey). In
addition, the Florida bonneted bats in this area are genetically
differentiated from those occurring elsewhere in the range (Austin et
al. 2022, entire), and thus contribute to the genetic diversity of the
overall population.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 1 may require special management
considerations or protection due to the following threats: Habitat loss
and fragmentation from changes in land use (e.g., land clearing for
residential/commercial development); lack of habitat management and/or
inadvertent impacts from these habitat management practices (e.g.,
prescribed fire, snag removal); and excessive pesticide use (see
Special Management Considerations or Protection, above).
Under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we are exempting Avon Park
Air Force Range lands (99,523 ac (40,276 ha)) from the critical habitat
designation because the U.S. Air Force has an approved integrated
natural resources management plan (INRMP) that provides benefits to the
Florida bonneted bat and its habitat (see Exemptions, below, for more
detailed information).
Approximately 1.25 ac (0.5 ha) of Tribal lands occur within Unit 1
(Miccosukee Tribe of Florida). We are considering exclusion of these
lands from the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act (see Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts, below).
Unit 2: Peace River Unit
Unit 2 encompasses 28,046 ac (11,350 ha) of lands in Hardee,
DeSoto, and Charlotte Counties, Florida. This unit consists of four
subunits located along portions of the Peace River and its tributaries
(e.g., Shell Creek, Charlie Creek), south of CR-64 with the majority
west of U.S.-17. Unit 2 predominately consists of privately owned lands
(19,047 ac (7,708 ha)) and State-owned conservation lands (6,389 ac
(2,586 ha)). The largest conservation landholdings within this unit
include the Peace River State Forest and the Deep Creek Preserve. Other
smaller conservation lands also occur within this unit (for more
information, see the Conservation Lands document in Supporting
Documents).
Unit 2 contains all of the essential physical or biological
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats
within the unit. The Peace River Unit encompasses a known movement
corridor (generally connecting proposed Units 1 and 3), allowing gene
flow between these populations, and includes areas identified as having
HCV, specifically high-quality foraging habitat along the Peace River
and adjacent forested lands that provide open water and abundant prey.
In addition, this unit adds ecological diversity (a natural river
corridor) to the overall proposed designation.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 2 may require special management
considerations or protection due to the following threats: Habitat
loss, fragmentation, or degradation from changes in land use (e.g.,
land clearing for residential/commercial development); lack of habitat
management and/or inadvertent impacts from land management practices
(e.g., prescribed fire, snag removal); excessive pesticide use; and
climate change (e.g., sea level rise/inundation, saltwater intrusion,
habitat alteration/degradation) (see Special Management Considerations
or Protection, above).
Unit 3: Babcock Unit
Unit 3 encompasses 133,560 ac (54,050 ha) of lands in Charlotte,
Lee, and Glades Counties, Florida. This unit consists of two subunits,
with the majority of Unit 3 located in Charlotte County, east of I-75;
other portions are in northwestern Lee and western Glades Counties.
This unit predominately consists of State-owned conservation lands
(108,509 ac (43,912 ha)) and private lands (23,929 ac (9,684 ha)). The
largest conservation landholdings within this unit are Babcock-Webb WMA
and Babcock Ranch Preserve; other smaller conservation lands also occur
within this unit (for more information, see the Conservation Lands
document in Supporting Documents).
Unit 3 contains all of the essential physical or biological
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats
within the unit. Habitat in the Babcock Unit provides ecological
diversity (i.e., hydric and mesic flatwoods) and includes areas
identified as having HCV, specifically superior roosting and foraging
habitat. Babcock-Webb WMA and surrounding areas support the largest
known population of Florida bonneted bats and the majority of all known
roost sites. In addition, the Florida bonneted bats in this westernmost
extent of the species' range are genetically differentiated from those
occurring elsewhere in the range (Austin et al. 2022, entire), thus
contributing to the genetic diversity of the overall population.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 3 may require special management
considerations or protection due to the following threats: Habitat
loss, fragmentation, or degradation from changes in land use (e.g.,
land clearing for residential/commercial development); lack of habitat
management and/or inadvertent impacts from land management practices
(e.g., prescribed fire, snag removal); excessive pesticide use; and
climate change (e.g., sea level rise/inundation, saltwater intrusion,
habitat alteration/
[[Page 71477]]
degradation) (see Special Management Considerations or Protection,
above).
Unit 4: Fisheating Creek Unit
Unit 4 encompasses 12,995 ac (5,259 ha) of lands in Glades and
Highlands Counties, Florida. The majority of Unit 4 is located in
Glades County, west of US-27; the remaining portion of the unit extends
north into southern Highlands County. This unit predominately consists
of State-owned conservation lands (7,689 ac (3,112 ha)) and private
lands (5,300 ac (2,145 ha)). Conservation landholdings within this unit
are Fisheating Creek WMA, Fisheating Creek/Lykes Brothers Conservation
Easement, and Platt Branch Wildlife and Environmental Area.
Unit 4 contains all of the essential physical or biological
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats
within the unit. High-quality foraging habitat along Fisheating Creek
and adjacent forested lands provide open water and abundant prey. This
unit serves as important foraging habitat connecting bats traveling
between proposed Unit 3 and areas to the north and east, and, along
with proposed Unit 2, this unit adds ecological diversity (natural
river corridors) to the overall proposed designation.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 4 may require special management
considerations or protection due to the following threats: Habitat
loss, fragmentation, or degradation from changes in land use (e.g.,
land clearing for residential/commercial development); lack of habitat
management and/or inadvertent impacts from land management practices
(e.g., prescribed fire, snag removal, hydrologic restoration);
excessive pesticide use; and climate change (e.g., sea level rise/
inundation, saltwater intrusion, habitat alteration/degradation) (see
Special Management Considerations or Protection, above).
Unit 5: Corkscrew Unit
Unit 5 encompasses 48,865 ac (19,775 ha) of lands in Lee and
Collier Counties, Florida. This unit straddles the Lee/Collier county
line, east of I-75, and predominately consists of State-owned
conservation lands (26,226 ac (10,613 ha)) and private lands (17,319 ac
(7,009 ha)). The largest conservation landholdings within this unit are
Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed and the National Audubon
Society's Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary; other smaller conservation lands
also occur within this unit (for more information, see the Conservation
Lands document in Supporting Documents).
Unit 5 contains all of the essential physical or biological
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats
within the unit. Habitat within the Corkscrew Unit provides ecological
diversity (i.e., cypress and hydric flatwoods) and includes areas
identified as having HCV. Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary was established to
protect one of the largest remaining stands of cypress in North
America, and this area likely includes high-quality roosting habitat.
The area also provides connectivity between Babcock-Webb WMA and areas
south. The natural habitat within Unit 5 serves as important habitat in
an area that is otherwise under high development pressure.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 5 may require special management
considerations or protection due to the following: Habitat loss,
fragmentation, or degradation from changes in land use (e.g., land
clearing for residential/commercial development); lack of habitat
management and/or inadvertent impacts from land management practices
(e.g., prescribed fire, snag removal); and climate change (e.g., sea
level rise/inundation, saltwater intrusion, habitat alteration/
degradation) (see Special Management Considerations or Protection,
above).
Unit 6: Big Cypress Unit
Unit 6 encompasses 728,544 ac (294,831 ha) of lands in Collier,
Hendry, and Monroe Counties, Florida. The majority of Unit 6 is located
in Collier County, south of I-75; the remainder occurs in southern
Hendry County and mainland portions of Monroe County. This unit
predominately consists of Federal (533,179 ac (215,770 ha)) and State-
owned (152,494 ac (61,712 ha)) conservation lands. The largest
landholdings within this unit are Big Cypress National Preserve,
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Fakahatchee Strand
Preserve State Park, and Picayune Strand State Forest; other smaller
conservation lands also occur within this unit (for more information,
see the Conservation Lands document in Supporting Documents).
Unit 6 contains all of the essential physical or biological
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats
within the unit. Habitat in the Big Cypress Unit, along with Unit 5,
provides ecological diversity (i.e., cypress and hydric flatwoods) and
includes areas identified as having HCV. Roosting habitat within this
unit is of particularly high quality. Despite challenges in accessing
this site to conduct surveys, the Florida bonneted bat has been
documented throughout this unit, including the discovery of 25 natural
roosts (the most of any unit). The Florida bonneted bats in this area
are genetically differentiated from those occurring elsewhere in the
range (Austin et al. 2022, entire) and thus contribute to the genetic
diversity of the overall population.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 6 may require special management
considerations or protection due to the following threats: Habitat
loss, fragmentation, or degradation from changes in land use (e.g.,
land clearing for residential, commercial, transportation, or energy-
related development); lack of habitat management and/or inadvertent
impacts from land management practices (e.g., prescribed fire, snag
removal, habitat and hydrologic restoration); excessive pesticide use;
and climate change (e.g., sea level rise/inundation, saltwater
intrusion, habitat alteration/degradation, coastal squeeze) (see
Special Management Considerations or Protection, above).
Approximately 14,455 ac (5,850 ha) of Tribal lands occur within
Unit 6 (Seminole Tribe of Florida). We are considering exclusion of
these lands from the final critical habitat designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (see Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts,
below).
Unit 7: Everglades Tree Islands Unit
Unit 7 encompasses 16,604 ac (6,719 ha) of lands in Miami-Dade
County, Florida, south of Tamiami Trail and west of Krome Avenue.
Nearly this entire unit is Federal land within Everglades National Park
(ENP; 16,538 ac (6,693 ha)).
Unit 7 contains all of the essential physical or biological
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats
within the unit. The Everglades Tree Islands Unit provides connectivity
between Unit 6 and the southeast coast (proposed Units 8 and 9),
allowing gene flow between these populations. It also includes areas
identified as having HCV. Despite
[[Page 71478]]
limited effort and challenges accessing the area to conduct surveys,
the Florida bonneted bat has been documented throughout this unit.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 7 may require special management
considerations or protection due to the following threats: Lack of
habitat management and/or inadvertent impacts from land management
practices (e.g., prescribed fire, snag removal, habitat and hydrologic
restoration) and climate change (e.g., sea level rise/inundation,
saltwater intrusion, habitat alteration/degradation) (see Special
Management Considerations or Protection, above).
Unit 8: Long Pine Key Unit
Unit 8 encompasses 25,337 ac (10,254 ha) of lands in Miami-Dade
County, Florida, along ENP's Main Park Road (SR-9336) between Mahogany
Hammock and SW 237th Avenue. Nearly this entire unit is Federal land
within ENP (25,142 ac (10,175 ha)).
Unit 8 contains all of the essential physical or biological
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats
within the unit. Habitat in the unit provides ecological diversity
(i.e., pine rocklands) and includes areas identified as having HCV,
specifically high-quality roosting and foraging habitat within Long
Pine Key, the largest remaining contiguous occurrence of pine rockland
habitat. This unit includes the southernmost extent of the species'
range and provides additional connectivity between proposed Units 6 and
9.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 8 may require special management
considerations or protection due to the following: Lack of habitat
management and/or inadvertent impacts from land management practices
(e.g., prescribed fire, snag removal) and climate change (e.g., sea
level rise/inundation, saltwater intrusion, habitat alteration/
degradation) (see Special Management Considerations or Protection,
above).
Unit 9: Miami Rocklands Unit
Unit 9 encompasses 4,324 ac (1,750 ha) of lands in Miami-Dade
County, Florida. This unit consists of 36 subunits located between
Tamiami Trail to the north and SR-9336 to the south, and is surrounded
by a dense urban matrix typical of the Miami metropolitan area. This
unit predominately consists of conservation lands owned by county
(2,403 ac (972 ha)), State (796 ac (322 ha)), and Federal (599 ac (242
ha)) agencies. The largest landholdings within this unit are Zoo Miami,
Larry and Penny Thompson Park, the U.S. Coast Guard Communication
Station, Navy Wells, and the Deering Estate. Many county-owned
preserves and parks, as well as other smaller conservation lands, also
occur within this unit (for more information, see the Conservation
Lands document in Supporting Documents).
Unit 9 contains all of the essential physical or biological
features for the Florida bonneted bat and is considered occupied at the
time of listing based on documented presence of Florida bonneted bats
within the unit. The Miami Rocklands Unit represents the easternmost
extent of the species' range. Habitat in this unit provides ecological
diversity (i.e., pine rocklands) and includes areas identified as
having HCV. This unit includes remaining fragments of pine rockland and
rockland hammock habitat within an urbanized landscape. These fragments
of natural habitat are used extensively by Florida bonneted bats and
provide connectivity within the unit. Florida bonneted bats inhabiting
the area are the most genetically differentiated from those occurring
elsewhere in the range (Austin et al. 2022, entire), and thus
contribute to the genetic diversity of the overall population.
The physical or biological features essential to the conservation
of the Florida bonneted bat in Unit 9 may require special management
considerations or protection due to the following: Habitat loss,
fragmentation, or degradation from changes in land use (e.g., land
clearing for residential, commercial, transportation, or energy-related
development); lack of habitat management and/or inadvertent impacts
from land management practices (e.g., prescribed burns, snag removal,
habitat restoration); excessive pesticide use; and climate change
(e.g., sea level rise/inundation, saltwater intrusion, habitat
alteration/degradation, coastal squeeze) (see Special Management
Considerations or Protection, above).
Under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we are exempting Homestead
Air Reserve Base (Base) lands (280 ac (113 ha)) from critical habitat
designation because the U.S. Air Force has an approved INRMP that
provides benefits to the Florida bonneted bat and its habitat (see
Exemptions, below, for more detailed information).
Approximately 104 ac (42 ha) of private lands under a habitat
conservation plan (HCP) occur within Unit 9. We are considering
exclusion of these lands from the final critical habitat designation
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see Consideration of Other Relevant
Impacts, below).
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
We published a final rule revising the definition of destruction or
adverse modification on August 27, 2019 (84 FR 44976). Destruction or
adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat as a whole for the
conservation of a listed species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require
section 7 consultation.
Compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) is documented
through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
[[Page 71479]]
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Service Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood
of jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or
avoid the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical
habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 set forth requirements for Federal
agencies to reinitiate formal consultation on previously reviewed
actions. These requirements apply when the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law) and, if
subsequent to the previous consultation: (1) If the amount or extent of
taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded; (2) if
new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed
species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously
considered; (3) if the identified action is subsequently modified in a
manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat
that was not considered in the biological opinion; or (4) if a new
species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected
by the identified action. In such situations, Federal agencies
sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation with us, but
the regulations also specify some exceptions to the requirement to
reinitiate consultation on specific land management plans after
subsequently listing a new species or designating new critical habitat.
See the regulations for a description of those exceptions.
Application of the ``Destruction or Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the destruction or adverse modification
determination is whether implementation of the proposed Federal action
directly or indirectly alters the designated critical habitat in a way
that appreciably diminishes the value of the critical habitat as a
whole for the conservation of the listed species. As discussed above,
the role of critical habitat is to support physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of a listed species and provide
for the conservation of the species. Factors considered in making these
determinations may include the extent of the proposed action, including
its temporal and spatial scale relative to the critical habitat unit or
subunit within which it occurs; the specific purpose for which that
unit or subunit was identified and designated as critical habitat; and
the impact of the proposed action on the unit or subunit's likelihood
of serving its intended conservation function or purpose.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may violate section
7(a)(2) of the Act by destroying or adversely modifying such habitat,
or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that the Service may, during a consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, consider likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter roosting or foraging
habitat or habitat connectivity such that they appreciably diminish the
value of critical habitat as a whole. Such activities may include, but
are not limited to: Land clearing for residential, commercial,
transportation, energy-related or other development; and water
diversion, drainage, or wetland loss or conversion. These activities
could destroy Florida bonneted bat roosting and foraging sites
(necessary for food, shelter, protection from predation, and
reproduction); reduce habitat conditions below what is necessary for
survival and growth; and/or eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary
for successful reproduction, dispersal, and population expansion (see
Physical or Biological Features Essential to the Conservation of the
Species, above).
(2) Actions that would significantly alter vegetation structure or
composition such that they appreciably diminish the value of critical
habitat as a whole. Such activities could include, but are not limited
to: Habitat management or restoration (e.g., prescribed burning and
other forest management activities, snag removal, or hydrologic
restoration) conducted in a manner that does not minimize disturbance
to the physical and biological features. These activities could affect
habitat that provides for the Florida bonneted bat's roosting and
rearing, foraging and prey, refuge from short-term changes to habitat,
and/or protection from predation (see Physical or Biological Features
Essential to the Conservation of the Species, above).
(3) Actions that would significantly reduce suitability of habitat
or impact prey base (e.g., availability, abundance, density, diversity)
such that they appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat as a
whole. These actions include, but are not limited to: Hydrologic
alteration or excessive pesticide applications that impact prey or
alter foraging behavior or movement. These activities could
significantly modify habitat that currently provides adequate prey and
space for foraging (see Physical or Biological Features Essential to
the Conservation of the Species, above).
Activities that the Service may, during a consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, consider likely to adversely affect
critical habitat but not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat include actions that significantly affect the unit or subunit's
ability to fulfill its primary functions (e.g., connectivity, foraging
or roosting habitat, genetic representation), but do not appreciably
diminish the value of critical habitat as a whole. Such activities may
include a landscape-scale hydrologic restoration project that would
convert large amounts of roosting habitat to foraging habitat within a
unit; development that would eliminate a small amount of high-value
foraging area or affect a known corridor; or habitat or invasive
species management programs that are overall beneficial to Florida
bonneted bat habitat but may result in inadvertent, but significant,
impacts to roosting habitat.
As noted above, some actions that are beneficial to Florida
bonneted bat habitat, including actions necessary to maintain habitat
quality and suitability, may result in inadvertent negative effects.
When conducted with guidance from the Service or using established best
management practices (BMPs) that prevent or minimize impacts, these
actions are beneficial and are encouraged as a part of standard land
management practices. Avoidance and minimization measures can also
reduce the impacts of habitat loss and other
[[Page 71480]]
impacts from development projects, habitat alteration, and habitat
conversion. General guidance has already been developed and is in use
(see Florida Bonneted Bat Consultation Guidelines, Appendices D and E
and Florida Bonneted Bat Avoidance and Minimization Measures in
Supporting Documents); additional guidance is under development to
address habitat management practices on conservation lands.
Some activities that the Service may consider to be activities that
may affect, but are unlikely to adversely affect, critical habitat
include actions that are wholly beneficial (i.e., those that maintain,
improve, or restore the functionality of critical habitat for the
Florida bonneted bat without causing adverse effects to the essential
physical or biological features), discountable (i.e., unlikely to
occur), or insignificant. In such cases, the Act's section 7
consultation requirements can be satisfied through the informal
concurrence process.
Whether an action will have insignificant effects must be
considered within the context of the unit or subunit in which the
action occurs. A localized reduction in roosting or foraging habitat
within a stand may have such a small impact on physical and biological
features within the stand that a ``not likely to adversely affect''
determination is appropriate. Similarly, effects to roosting habitat
may be negligible where a hazard tree removal project occurs in a stand
with many suitable roosting trees.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an INRMP by November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates
implementation of the military mission of the installation with
stewardship of the natural resources found on the base. Each INRMP
includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that the Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an INRMP prepared under section 101 of the
Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that
such plan provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat
is proposed for designation.
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations located within the range of the
proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat to
determine if they meet the criteria for exemption from critical habitat
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. The following areas are Department of
Defense (DoD) lands with completed, Service-approved INRMPs within the
proposed critical habitat designation.
Approved INRMPs
For discussion of the approved INRMP for Avon Park Air Force Range
(Unit 1: Kissimmee Unit; 99,523 ac (40,276 ha)), see the Exemptions
section in the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 35510, June 10,
2020).
Homestead Air Reserve Base (Unit 9: Miami Rocklands Unit--Subunits
KK, LL), 280 ac (113 ha)
The Homestead Air Reserve Base (Base) has a current and completed
INRMP, signed by the Service and the FWC in 2017 and 2018,
respectively. The INRMP (U.S. Air Force Reserve Command (Air Force)
2016) provides conservation measures for the species and management of
important upland and wetland habitats on the base.
The Base's INRMP provides benefits to Florida bonneted bat habitat
as the primary goals of the plan include, ``conservation and
enhancement of the land and water resources of the Base and improving
and maintaining the quality of native vegetation communities and
threatened and endangered species' habitats, while supporting the
military mission'' (Air Force 2016, p. 75). Some objectives identified
under this goal that should benefit the Florida bonneted bat include:
(1) Protecting, enhancing, and maintaining natural communities to
support native fish and wildlife species; (2) conserving and protecting
the habitats for federally and State-listed species; (3) reducing and
controlling populations of invasive and exotic plant species; and (4)
instituting control for nuisance and exotic wildlife.
More specifically, protecting and maintaining wetland functions,
restoring pine rockland, controlling invasive species, managing water
quality, and maintaining and enhancing natural habitat values and
ecosystem functions are expected to benefit the species and its
habitat. The Base's INRMP also includes specific projects to benefit
the species including incorporation of Florida bonneted bat management
strategies into conservation programs on the Base, working with the
Service to identify and implement management strategies for foraging
and roosting habitat, and conducting a qualitative bat survey (Air
Force 2016, pp. A-3, A-4). The study is expected to provide information
on the bat species present and their habitat use on the Base. Data from
the study will be used to supplement and update existing natural
resource management plans on the Base. Other components of the Base's
INRMP, such as the Integrated Pest Management Plan, the Bird/Wildlife
Aircraft Strike Hazard Plan, the threatened and endangered species
training course, and implementation of the pine rockland restoration
and management plan, have the potential to reduce pesticide use and
exposure to bats, avoid aircraft strikes to bats, raise awareness about
bats using the base, and enhance habitat quality for bats and other
species (Air Force 2016, appendix A).
In addition, the Base's INRMP includes a management plan for the
Florida bonneted bat that addresses: Conservation of wetlands to
promote foraging opportunities; promotion of insect diversity and
availability through the appropriate application of insecticides,
mowing, and other maintenance practices; and protection of roosting
habitat as identified through monitoring (Air Force 2016, appendix G).
Per the management plan, guidelines outlined in the Base's INRMP, Pest
Management Plan, Landscape Maintenance Plan, and the Protected Plant
Management Plan will be closely monitored and adapted as life-history
data for the Florida bonneted bat become available. The INRMP also
includes proposed monitoring
[[Page 71481]]
consisting of acoustic surveys and more intensive surveys for roost
sites; the Base will seek funding and partnership opportunities to
accomplish roost site monitoring and will adapt the management plan to
incorporate more specific protection and avoidance measures for the bat
at identified roost sites on the installation (Air Force 2016, appendix
G). When compatible with mission requirements, the Base will also
promote the use of environmentally friendly lighting practices to
minimize impacts to the bat (Air Force 2016, appendix G). The full
suite of protective measures incorporated in the Base's INRMP is
expected to benefit the species and its habitat.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to Avon Park Air Force Range's and the Base's INRMPs and
that conservation efforts identified in the INRMPs will provide a
benefit to the Florida bonneted bat. Therefore, lands within these
installations are exempt from critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. Accordingly, we are not including
approximately 99,803 ac (40,389 ha) of habitat in this proposed
critical habitat designation because of these exemptions.
Consideration of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if we determine
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless we determine, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making the determination to exclude a particular area, the
statute on its face, as well as the legislative history, are clear that
the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and
how much weight to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise discretion to exclude
the area only if such exclusion would not result in the extinction of
the species. We describe below our process for considering each
category of impacts and our analyses of the relevant impacts.
Exclusion Requests Received During the Previous Public Comment Period
During the public comment period for the June 10, 2020, proposed
critical habitat designation (85 FR 35510), we received nine requests
for exclusion from critical habitat designation. Of these, two requests
do not overlap with this revised proposed designation, while the
remaining seven requests overlap to some degree (see table 2, below).
Additionally, requests for exclusion of federal lands are not included
in table 2, given the high standard set in our 2016 policy regarding
exclusions of Federal lands under 4(b)(2) of the Act (2016 Policy). As
part of our final rule, we may evaluate the areas in Table 2 for
possible exclusion from the final critical habitat designation. All
requests received as public comments are available for review at
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106.
Table 2--Exclusion Requests Received During the 2020 Public Comment Period on the Proposed Critical Habitat
Designation for the Florida Bonneted Bat and Corresponding Overlap With Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Units
in This Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overlap with revised proposed
Requesting party (Public Area requested for Basis for critical habitat
comment No. on https:// exclusion exclusion per --------------------------------------
www.regulations.gov) requesting party Unit/subunit Acres
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aliese Priddy, JB Ranch I, LLC Property owned by JB Economic, No No overlap......... N/A.
(FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106-0464 and Ranch I, LLC, and ecological
attachment). Sunniland Family benefit.
Limited Partnership.
Miami-Dade Limestone Products Lands overlapping the No ecological No overlap......... N/A.
Association (FWS-R4-ES-2019- Florida legislature- benefit.
0106-0386 and attachment). designated Lake Belt
mining area.
Florida Power & Light (FPL) All FPL electric Conservation All................ Insufficient
(FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106-0449 and utility sub- plans or information to
attachment). stations\1\ and programs, determine or
rights-of-way Economic. estimate.
containing
aboveground linear
facilities.
Miccosukee Tribe of Florida Tribal reservation Tribal lands, 1.................. 1.25.
(Comment submitted directly lands and fee lands. Conservation
to the Service). plans or
programs.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lands enrolled in the Economic......... 2A................. 387.
(Comment submitted directly Wetland Reserve
to the Service). Easement Partnership
Program (formerly
called Wetland
Reserve Program).
Lands within the Economic......... 6.................. 64,490.
Picayune Strand
Restoration Project.
Seminole Tribe of Florida (FWS- Tribal reservation Tribal lands, 6.................. 14,455.
R4-ES-2019-0106-0380 and lands and fee lands. Conservation
attachment). plans or
programs.
Collier Enterprises Lands within the Conservation 5.................. Included \2\:
Management, Inc. (FWS-R4-ES- boundary of the draft plans or 2,013.
2019-0106-0461 and East Collier Multiple programs. Eligible \3\:
attachment). Species Habitat 163.
Conservation Plan.
[[Page 71482]]
6.................. Included \2\:
1,561.
Eligible \3\:
35.
Collier Mosquito Control Lands within the Economic......... 5.................. Existing MCD:
District (MCD) (FWS-R4-ES- existing and proposed 317.
2019-0106-0385 and Collier MCD Proposed MCD:
attachment). boundaries. 3,118.
6.................. Existing MCD:
166.
Proposed MCD:
78,568.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As developed areas, electric utility substations were excluded by text in the June 10, 2020, proposed
critical habitat rule (85 FR 35510), and remain excluded by text in this revised proposed rule.
\2\ ``Included'' lands are areas covered by draft HCP; certain impacts/development actions are allowed.
\3\ ``Eligible'' lands are not included in draft HCP but are eligible to join without amending the HCP.
Consideration of Economic Impacts
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations require
that we consider the economic impact that may result from a designation
of critical habitat. For information on how probable economic impacts
of a designation were assessed, please see the Exclusions Based on
Economic Impacts section in the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR
35510, June 10, 2020). For this particular revised proposed
designation, we revised the incremental effects memorandum (IEM) to
consider the probable incremental economic impacts that may result from
this designation of critical habitat. The information contained in our
revised IEM was then used to develop a screening analysis of the
probable effects of the designation of critical habitat for the Florida
bonneted bat. This screening analysis combined with the information
contained in our IEM constitute what we consider to be our draft
economic analysis (DEA) of the revised proposed critical habitat
designation for the Florida bonneted bat; our DEA is summarized in the
narrative below.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct Federal agencies to
assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives in
quantitative (to the extent feasible) and qualitative terms. Consistent
with the E.O. regulatory analysis requirements, our effects analysis
under the Act may take into consideration impacts to both directly and
indirectly affected entities, where practicable and reasonable. If
sufficient data are available, we assess to the extent practicable the
probable impacts to both directly and indirectly affected entities. As
part of our screening analysis, we considered the types of economic
activities that are likely to occur within the areas likely affected by
the critical habitat designation. In our evaluation of the probable
incremental economic impacts that may result from this revised proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat, first we
identified, in the revised IEM dated June 22, 2021, probable
incremental economic impacts associated with the following categories
of activities: (1) Commercial or residential development; (2)
transportation; (3) utilities; (4) energy (including solar, wind, and
oil and gas); (5) water management (including water supply, flood
control, and water quality); (6) recreation; (7) land management
(including prescribed burning and invasive species control); and (8)
habitat and hydrologic restoration. We considered each industry or
category individually. Additionally, we considered whether their
activities have any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation
generally will not affect activities that do not have any Federal
involvement; under the Act, designation of critical habitat only
affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies. Because the Florida bonneted bat is already listed
under the Act, in areas where the species is present, Federal agencies
are currently required to consult with the Service under section 7 of
the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may affect
the species. If we finalize this revised proposed critical habitat
designation, our consultation would include an evaluation of measures
to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
In our IEM, we attempted to clarify the distinction between the
effects that result from the species being listed and those
attributable to the critical habitat designation (i.e., difference
between the jeopardy and adverse modification standards) for the
Florida bonneted bat's critical habitat. The following specific
circumstances in this case help to inform our evaluation: (1) The
essential physical or biological features identified for critical
habitat are the same features essential for the life requisites of the
species, and (2) any actions that would result in sufficient harm to
constitute jeopardy to the Florida bonneted bat would also likely
adversely affect the essential physical or biological features of
critical habitat. The IEM outlines our rationale concerning this
limited distinction between baseline conservation efforts and
incremental impacts of the designation of critical habitat for this
species. This evaluation of the incremental effects has been used as
the basis to evaluate the probable incremental economic impacts of this
revised proposed designation of critical habitat.
The revised proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida
bonneted bat consists of nine units, all occupied by the species,
totaling 1,174,011 ac (475,105 ha) and including lands under Federal,
Tribal, State, county, local, and private jurisdictions (see table 1,
above). Because all areas are occupied, the economic impacts of
implementing the rule through section 7 of the Act will most likely be
limited to additional administrative effort to consider adverse
modification. This finding is based on the following factors:
Any activities with a Federal nexus occurring within
occupied habitat will be subject to section 7 consultation requirements
regardless of critical habitat designation, due to the presence of the
listed species; and
[[Page 71483]]
In most cases, project modifications requested to avoid
adverse modification are likely to be the same as those needed to avoid
jeopardy in occupied habitat.
Our analysis considers the potential need to consult on
development, transportation, utilities, land management, habitat
restoration, and other activities authorized, undertaken, or funded by
Federal agencies within critical habitat. The total incremental section
7 costs associated with the designation of the proposed units are
estimated to be less than $70,800 per year, with the highest costs
expected in Unit 6 (IEc 2021, pp. 2, 25). While the revised proposed
critical habitat area is relatively large, incremental section 7 costs
are kept comparatively low due to the strong baseline protections that
already exist for this species due to its listed status, the existence
of a consultation area map that alerts managing agencies about the
location of the species and its habitat, and the presence of other
listed species in the area.
We are soliciting data and comments from the public on the DEA
discussed above, as well as on all aspects of this revised proposed
rule and our required determinations. During the development of a final
designation, we will consider the information presented in the DEA and
any additional information on economic impacts we receive during the
public comment period to determine whether any specific areas should be
excluded from the final critical habitat designation under authority of
section 4(b)(2) and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.90. If we
receive credible information regarding the existence of a meaningful
economic or other relevant impact supporting a benefit of exclusion, we
will conduct an exclusion analysis for the relevant area or areas. We
may also exercise the discretion to evaluate any other particular areas
for possible exclusion. Furthermore, when we conduct an exclusion
analysis based on impacts identified by experts in, or sources with
firsthand knowledge about, impacts that are outside the scope of the
Service's expertise, we will give weight to those impacts consistent
with the expert or firsthand information unless we have rebutting
information. We may exclude an area from critical habitat if we
determine that the benefits of excluding the area outweigh the benefits
of including the area, provided the exclusion will not result in the
extinction of this species.
Consideration of National Security Impacts
For information on how probable impacts to national security were
assessed, please see the Impacts on National Security and Homeland
Security section in the proposed critical habitat rule (85 FR 35510,
June 10, 2020). We have evaluated whether any of the lands within this
revised proposed designation of critical habitat are owned by DoD or
DHS or could lead to national-security or homeland-security impacts if
designated. In this discussion, we describe the areas within the
revised proposed designation that are owned by DoD or DHS or for which
designation could lead to national-security or homeland-security
impacts. For each area, we describe the available information
indicating whether we have reason to consider excluding the area from
the designation. If, during the comment period, we identify or receive
credible information about additional areas for which designation may
result in incremental national-security or homeland-security impacts,
then we will also conduct a discretionary exclusion analysis to
determine whether to exclude those additional areas under the authority
of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50
CFR 17.90.
Department of Homeland Security
We have determined that some lands within Unit 9, Subunit O, of the
revised proposed critical habitat designation for the Florida bonneted
bat are owned, managed, or used by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which
is part of the DHS.
The USCG property is separated into two main areas: the
Communications Station Miami and the Civil Engineering Unit (CEU). The
Communications Station houses transmitting and receiving antennas. The
CEU plans and executes projects at regional shore facilities, such as
construction and post-disaster assessments.
The USCG parcel contains approximately 100 ac (40 ha) of standing
pine rocklands. The remainder of the site, outside of the developed
areas, is made up of scraped pine rocklands that are mowed three to
four times per year for maintenance of a communications antenna field.
Although disturbed, this scraped area maintains sand substrate and many
native pine rockland species; the Florida bonneted bat has also been
documented on adjacent property. The USCG parcel has a 2017 Natural
Resources Management Plan (Gottfried 2017, entire) that includes
habitat management and restoration recommendations for their Pineland
Natural Area, a 72-ac (29-ha) conservation area within this property.
Recommended management includes prescribed fire, control of invasive
plants, and protection of lands from further development or
degradation. In addition, the standing pine rockland area is partially
managed through an active recovery grant to the Institute for Regional
Conservation. Under this grant, up to 39 ac (16 ha) of standing pine
rocklands will undergo invasive vegetation control.
Based on a review of the specific mission of the USCG facility in
conjunction with the measures and efforts set forth in the management
plan to preserve pine rockland habitat and protect sensitive and listed
species, we have determined that it is unlikely that the critical
habitat, if finalized as proposed in this document, would negatively
impact the facility or its operations. As a result, we do not
anticipate any impact on national security. Consequently, the Secretary
does not intend to exercise her discretion to exclude any of these
areas from the final designation based on impacts on national security.
We will, however, review this determination, in light of any new
information and public comments we receive prior to making a decision
in the final rule.
Department of Defense
We have determined that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a branch
of the DoD, retains ownership over a 14-ac (6-ha)-parcel within Unit 9,
Subunit O, of the revised proposed critical habitat designation for the
Florida bonneted bat. This area is a combination of standing and
scraped pine rocklands but is not managed for preservation of natural
resources. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not have any specific
management plan for the Florida bonneted bat or its habitat covering
these lands. Activities conducted on this site are unknown, but we do
not anticipate any impact on national security. Consequently, the
Secretary does not intend to exercise her discretion to exclude any of
these areas from the final designation based on impacts on national
security. We will, however, review this determination, in light of any
new information and public comments we receive, prior to making a
decision in the final rule.
Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and
[[Page 71484]]
impacts on national security discussed above. Other relevant impacts
may include, but are not limited to, impacts to Tribes, States, local
governments, public health and safety, community interests, the
environment (such as increased risk of wildfire), Federal lands, and
conservation plans, agreements, or partnerships. To identify other
relevant impacts that may affect the exclusion analysis, we consider a
number of factors, including whether there are permitted conservation
plans covering the species in the area--such as HCPs, safe harbor
agreements (SHAs), or candidate conservation agreements with assurances
(CCAAs)--or whether there are non-permitted conservation agreements and
partnerships that may be impaired by designation of, or exclusion from,
critical habitat. In addition, we look at whether Tribal conservation
plans or partnerships, Tribal resources, or government-to-government
relationships of the United States with Tribal entities may be affected
by the designation. We also consider any State, local, public-health,
community-interest, environmental, or social impacts that might occur
because of the designation.
When analyzing other relevant impacts of including a particular
area in a designation of critical habitat, we weigh those impacts
relative to the conservation value of the particular area. To determine
the conservation value of designating a particular area, we consider a
number of factors, including, but not limited to, the additional
regulatory benefits that the area would receive due to the protection
from destruction or adverse modification as a result of actions with a
Federal nexus, the educational benefits of mapping essential habitat
for recovery of the listed species, and any benefits that may result
from a designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply to
critical habitat.
In the case of the Florida bonneted bat, the benefits of critical
habitat include public awareness of the presence of the species and the
importance of habitat protection and, where a Federal nexus exists,
increased habitat protection for Florida bonneted bat due to protection
from destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Continued
implementation of an ongoing management plan that provides conservation
equal to or more than the protections that result from a critical
habitat designation would reduce those benefits of including that
specific area in the critical habitat designation.
We evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when considering
the benefits of inclusion. We consider a variety of factors, including,
but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized; how it provides for
the conservation of the essential physical or biological features;
whether there is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions contained in a management plan will
be implemented into the future; whether the conservation strategies in
the plan are likely to be effective; and whether the plan contains a
monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the
conservation measures are effective and can be adapted in the future in
response to new information.
After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in
extinction of the species. If failure to designate an area as critical
habitat will result in extinction, we will not exclude it from the
designation.
Private or Other Non-Federal Conservation Plans Related to Permits
Under Section 10 of the Act
HCPs for incidental take permits under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Act provide for partnerships with non-Federal entities to minimize and
mitigate impacts to listed species and their habitat. In some cases,
HCP permittees agree to do more for the conservation of the species and
their habitats on private lands than designation of critical habitat
would provide alone. We place great value on the partnerships that are
developed during the preparation and implementation of HCPs.
CCAAs and SHAs are voluntary agreements designed to conserve
candidate and listed species, respectively, on non-Federal lands. In
exchange for actions that contribute to the conservation of species on
non-Federal lands, participating property owners are covered by an
``enhancement of survival'' permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the
Act, which authorizes incidental take of the covered species that may
result from implementation of conservation actions or specific land
uses. In the case of SHAs, the permit would allow participants to take
listed species or modify habitat to return population levels and
habitat conditions to those agreed upon as baseline condition under the
agreements. The Service also provides enrollees assurances that we will
not impose further land-, water-, or resource-use restrictions, or
require additional commitments of land, water, or finances, beyond
those agreed to in the agreements.
When we undertake a discretionary section 4(b)(2) exclusion
analysis based on permitted conservation plans such as CCAAs, SHAs, and
HCPs, we consider the following three factors:
(i) Whether the permittee is properly implementing the conservation
plan or agreement;
(ii) Whether the species for which critical habitat is being
designated is a covered species in the conservation plan or agreement;
and
(iii) Whether the conservation plan or agreement specifically
addresses the habitat of the species for which critical habitat is
being designated and meets the conservation needs of the species in the
planning area.
The revised proposed critical habitat designation includes areas
that are covered by the Coral Reef Commons HCP, a permitted plan
providing for the conservation of the Florida bonneted bat.
Coral Reef Commons HCP
The revised proposed designation includes the Coral Reef Commons
mixed-use community, which consists of 900 apartments, retail stores,
restaurants, and parking. In 2017, an HCP and associated permit under
section 10 of the Act was developed and issued for the Coral Reef
Commons development (Church Environmental 2017, entire). As part of the
HCP and permit, an approximately 52-ac (21-ha) on-site preserve was
established under a conservation encumbrance that will be managed in
perpetuity for pine rockland habitat and sensitive and listed species,
including the Florida bonneted bat. Also, an additional approximately
52-ac (21-ha) off-site mitigation area was set aside for Coral Reef
Commons. Both the on-site preserves and the off-site mitigation area
will be managed to maintain healthy pine rockland habitat through the
use of invasive, exotic plant management, mechanical treatment, and
prescribed fire. Since initiating the Coral Reef Commons HCP, pine
rockland restoration efforts have been conducted within all the
management units in the on-site preserve and the off-site mitigation
area. A second round of prescribed fire began in February 2021.
Currently, the on-site preserve meets or exceeds the success criteria
described in the HCP.
Maintenance of pine rockland habitat specifically relates to
conservation of ecological diversity described in physical or
biological feature 4, and
[[Page 71485]]
other biological objectives of the HCP (e.g., implementation of a burn
plan, minimizing pesticide use to the extent practicable) may provide
conservation benefits related to physical or biological features 1, 2,
and 3.
After considering the factors described above, we have identified
the 104 ac (42 ha) under the Coral Reef Commons HCP (in Unit 9, Subunit
O) as an area we have reason to consider excluding because of its
permitted plan. Specifically, our reasons for considering this area for
potential exclusion are not only that the Florida bonneted bat is a
covered species within the HCP; but also that the HCP specifically
addresses conservation of pine rockland habitat, generally addresses
four of the physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species, and may meet the conservation needs of the
species within the area covered by the HCP. We will more thoroughly
review the HCP, its implementation of the conservation measures for the
Florida bonneted bat and its habitat therein, and public comment on
this issue prior to finalizing critical habitat, and if appropriate,
exclude from critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat those lands
associated with the Coral Reef Commons HCP that are in the preserve and
offsite mitigation area.
Tribal Lands
Several Executive Orders, Secretarial Orders, and policies concern
working with Tribes. These guidance documents generally confirm our
trust responsibilities to Tribes, recognize that Tribes have sovereign
authority to control Tribal lands, emphasize the importance of
developing partnerships with Tribal governments, and direct the Service
to consult with Tribes on a government-to-government basis.
A joint Secretarial Order that applies to both the Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)--Secretarial Order 3206,
American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities,
and the Endangered Species Act (June 5, 1997) (S.O. 3206)--is the most
comprehensive of the various guidance documents related to Tribal
relationships and Act implementation, and it provides the most detail
directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat. In addition
to the general direction discussed above, the appendix to S.O. 3206
explicitly recognizes the right of Tribes to participate fully in any
listing process that may affect Tribal rights or Tribal trust
resources; this includes the designation of critical habitat. Section
3(b)(4) of the appendix requires the Service to consult with affected
Tribes ``when considering the designation of critical habitat in an
area that may impact Tribal trust resources, Tribally-owned fee lands,
or the exercise of Tribal rights.'' That provision also instructs the
Service to avoid including Tribal lands within a critical habitat
designation unless the area is essential to conserve a listed species,
and it requires the Service to ``evaluate and document the extent to
which the conservation needs of the listed species can be achieved by
limiting the designation to other lands.''
Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.90(d)(1)(i) are
consistent with S.O. 3206. When we undertake a discretionary exclusion
analysis, in accordance with S.O. 3206 we consult with any Tribe whose
Tribal trust resources, Tribally owned fee lands, or Tribal rights may
be affected by including any particular areas in the designation, and
we evaluate the extent to which the conservation needs of the species
can be achieved by limiting the designation to other areas. We then
weighed nonbiological impacts to Tribal lands and resources consistent
with the information provided by the Tribes.
However, S.O. 3206 does not override the Act's statutory
requirement of designation of critical habitat. As stated above, we
must consult with any Tribe when a designation of critical habitat may
affect Tribal lands or resources. The Act requires us to identify areas
that meet the definition of ``critical habitat'' (i.e., areas occupied
at the time of listing that contain the essential physical or
biological features that may require special management or protection
and unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of a
species), without regard to land ownership. While S.O. 3206 provides
important direction, it expressly states that it does not modify the
Secretary's statutory authority under the Act or other statutes.
The revised proposed critical habitat designation includes the
following Tribal lands or resources:
Seminole Tribe of Florida: The revised proposed designation
includes an area (14,455 ac (5,850 ha)) within Unit 6 (Big Cypress)
that overlaps with Seminole Tribe of Florida Trust lands. The Seminole
Tribe Wildlife Conservation Plan, Fire Management Plan, and Forest
Management Plan cover these lands for the protection of listed and
endangered species, including the Florida bonneted bat. The Service
reviewed these plans and issued a biological opinion on December 19,
2014, which we amended on June 9, 2017 (see Supporting Documents). The
Wildlife Conservation Plan includes conservation measures in place that
support the Florida bonneted bat and its habitat (e.g., limit impacts
to potential roost trees during prescribed burns and home site/access
road construction, maintain bonneted bat habitat through prescribed
burning and construction of bat houses). The conservation measures
specifically address conservation of roosting and foraging habitat
(i.e., physical or biological features 1 through 4), and maintenance of
that habitat through active management; therefore, the measures appear
to meet the conservation needs of the Florida bonneted bat within the
area covered by the plan. As such, we are considering 14,455 ac (5,850
ha) of Seminole Tribe of Florida Trust lands within Unit 6 (Big
Cypress) for exclusion.
Miccosukee Tribe of Florida: The revised proposed designation
includes an area (1.25 ac (0.5 ha)) within Unit 1 (Kissimmee) that
overlaps with Miccosukee Tribe of Florida fee lands. At present, we do
not have any information on how this small parcel is managed, but we
are considering 1.25 ac (0.5 ha) of Miccosukee Tribe of Florida fee
lands within Unit 1 (Kissimmee) for exclusion.
Summary of Exclusions Considered Under 4(b)(2) of the Act
Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as
well as any additional public comments we receive, we will evaluate
whether certain lands in the revised proposed critical habitat units
are appropriate for exclusion from the final designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act. If the analysis indicates that the benefits of
excluding lands from the final designation outweigh the benefits of
designating those lands as critical habitat, then the Secretary may
exercise her discretion to exclude the lands from the final
designation.
Table 3, below, provides approximate areas of lands that meet the
definition of critical habitat but for which we are considering
possible exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final
critical habitat designation for the Florida bonneted bat. In addition,
we may consider previously requested exclusion requests received during
the public comment period on the June 10, 2020, proposed rule that
overlap with revised proposed critical habitat (see table 2, above).
[[Page 71486]]
Table 3--Areas Considered for Exclusion Within Revised Proposed Critical Habitat Units in Accordance With the
2016 Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas meeting
the definition Areas considered
Unit Specific area of critical for possible Rationale for proposed
habitat, in exclusion, in exclusion
acres (hectares) acres (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: Kissimmee.............. Miccosukee Tribe 1.25 (0.5) 1.25 (0.5) Tribal fee lands.
of Florida.
Unit 6: Big Cypress............ Seminole Tribe of 14,455 (5,850) 14,455 (5,850) Tribal Trust lands;
Florida. under natural resource
management plans.
Unit 9: Miami Rocklands........ Coral Reef Commons 104 (42) 104 (42) Lands under HCP
specifically
addressing the
species.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, for this revised proposed rule, we have reason to
consider excluding the areas identified above based on other relevant
impacts. We specifically solicit comments on the inclusion or exclusion
of such areas. During the development of a final designation, we will
consider any information currently available or received during the
public comment period regarding other relevant impacts of this revised
proposed designation and will determine whether these or any other
specific areas should be excluded from the final critical habitat
designation under the authority of section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17.90.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not
significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The Executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine whether potential
economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered
the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of project modifications that may
result. In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant
to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.
Under the RFA, as amended, and as understood in light of recent
court decisions, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
potential incremental impacts of rulemaking on those entities directly
regulated by the rulemaking itself; in other words, the RFA does not
require agencies to evaluate the potential impacts to indirectly
regulated entities. The regulatory mechanism through which critical
habitat protections are realized is section 7 of the Act, which
requires Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, to ensure
that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not
likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Therefore,
under section 7, only Federal action agencies are directly subject to
the specific regulatory requirement
[[Page 71487]]
(avoiding destruction and adverse modification) imposed by critical
habitat designation. Consequently, it is our position that only Federal
action agencies would be directly regulated if we adopt this revised
proposed critical habitat designation. The RFA does not require
evaluation of the potential impacts to entities not directly regulated.
Moreover, Federal agencies are not small entities. Therefore, because
no small entities would be directly regulated by this rulemaking, the
Service certifies that, if made final as proposed in this document, the
revised proposed critical habitat designation will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In summary, we have considered whether this revised proposed
designation would result in a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. For the above reasons and based
on currently available information, we certify that, if made final,
this revised proposed critical habitat designation would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small business
entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. In our economic analysis, we did not find that this
revised proposed critical habitat designation would significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. As most of the area
included in this revised proposed critical habitat designation occurs
on conservation lands (approximately 89 percent), the likelihood of
energy development within critical habitat is low. Therefore, this
action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of Energy
Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following finding:
(1) This proposed rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In
general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or
regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
Tribal governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal
mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on
State or local governments and, as such, a Small Government Agency Plan
is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for Florida bonneted bat in a takings implications assessment.
The Act does not authorize the Service to regulate private actions on
private lands or confiscate private property as a result of critical
habitat designation. Designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership, or establish any closures, or restrictions on use of or
access to the designated areas. Furthermore, the designation of
critical habitat does not affect landowner actions that do not require
Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat
conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit
actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward.
However, Federal agencies are prohibited from carrying out, funding, or
authorizing actions that would destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. A takings implications assessment has been completed for the
revised proposed designation of critical habitat for Florida bonneted
bat, and it concludes that, if adopted, this designation of critical
habitat does not pose significant takings implications for lands within
or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism summary impact
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of this proposed critical habitat designation
with, appropriate State resource agencies. From a federalism
perspective, the designation of critical habitat directly affects only
the responsibilities of Federal agencies. The Act imposes no other
duties with respect to critical habitat, either for States and local
governments, or for anyone else. As a result, the proposed rule does
not have substantial direct effects either on the States, or on the
relationship between
[[Page 71488]]
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of
powers and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The
proposed designation may have some benefit to these governments because
the areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of
the species are more clearly defined, and the physical or biological
features of the habitat necessary for the conservation of the species
are specifically identified. This information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it may assist
State and local governments in long-range planning because they no
longer have to wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur.
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act would be required. While
non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or
permits, or that otherwise require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the
designation of critical habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely
on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule would not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. To
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species,
this revised proposed rule identifies the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. The proposed
areas of critical habitat are presented on maps, and this revised
proposed rule provides several options for the interested public to
obtain more detailed location information, if desired.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) is not
required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to Tribes. Some areas within the revised proposed
designation are included in lands managed by the Seminole Tribe of
Florida and Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (see Units 1 and 6
descriptions; see also Consideration of Other Relevant Impacts, above),
constituting a total of approximately 14,457 ac (5,851 ha) of Tribal
land being proposed as critical habitat. We will continue to work with
Tribal entities during the development of a final rule designating
critical habitat for the Florida bonneted bat.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the Florida Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Florida Ecological Services Field
Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11, amend the table in paragraph (h) by revising the
entry for ``Bat, Florida bonneted'' under MAMMALS to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Bat, Florida bonneted.......... Eumops floridanus. Wherever found.... E 78 FR 61004, 10/2/
2013;
50 CFR 17.95(a).\CH\
[[Page 71489]]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (a) by adding an entry for ``Florida
Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus)'' before the entry for ``Indiana Bat
(Myotis sodalis)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
(a) Mammals.
Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Charlotte, Collier,
DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Lee, Miami-Dade, Monroe,
Okeechobee, Osceola, and Polk Counties, Florida, on the maps in this
entry.
(2) Within these areas, the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of Florida bonneted bat consist of the
following components:
(i) Habitats that provide for roosting and rearing of offspring.
Such habitat provides structural features for rest, digestion of food,
social interaction, mating, rearing of young, protection from sunlight
and adverse weather conditions, and cover to reduce predation risks for
adults and young, and is generally characterized by:
(A) Live or dead trees and tree snags, especially longleaf pine,
slash pine, bald cypress, and royal palm, that are on average 57 feet
(ft) (17 meters (m)) in height and with an average 15-inch (38-
centimeter) diameter at breast height and that are emergent from the
surrounding canopy (by an average 16 ft (5 m)); and
(B) Sufficient unobstructed space, with cavities averaging 35 ft
(10.7 m) above the ground and roost trees averaging 14 ft (4 m) from
the nearest tree, for Florida bonneted bats to emerge from roost trees;
this may include open or semi-open canopy and canopy gaps.
(ii) Habitats that provide adequate prey and space for foraging,
which may vary widely across the Florida bonneted bat's range, in
accordance with ecological conditions, seasons, and disturbance regimes
that influence vegetation structure and prey species' distributions.
Foraging habitat may be separate and relatively far from roosting
habitat. Essential foraging habitat consists of open areas in or near
areas of high insect production or congregation, commonly including,
but not limited to:
(A) Freshwater edges, and freshwater herbaceous wetlands (permanent
or seasonal);
(B) Prairies;
(C) Wetland and upland shrub; and/or
(D) Wetland and upland forests.
(iii) A dynamic disturbance regime (e.g., fire, hurricanes, forest
management) that maintains and regenerates forested habitat, including
plant communities, open habitat structure, and temporary gaps, which is
conducive to promoting a continual supply of roosting sites, prey
items, and suitable foraging conditions.
(iv) A sufficient quantity and diversity of habitats to enable the
species to be resilient to short-term impacts associated with
disturbance over time (e.g., drought, forest disease). The ecological
communities the Florida bonneted bat inhabits differ in hydrology, fire
frequency/intensity, climate, prey species, roosting sites, and
threats, and include, but are not limited to:
(A) Pine rocklands;
(B) Cypress communities (cypress swamps, strand swamps, domes,
sloughs, ponds);
(C) Hydric pine flatwoods (wet flatwoods);
(D) Mesic pine flatwoods; and
(E) High pine.
(v) Habitats that provide structural connectivity where needed to
allow for dispersal, gene flow, and natural and adaptive movements,
including those that may be necessitated by climate change. These
connections may include linear corridors such as vegetated, riverine,
or open-water habitat with opportunities for roosting and/or foraging,
or patches (i.e., stepping stones) such as tree islands or other
isolated natural areas within a matrix of otherwise low-quality
habitat.
(vi) A subtropical climate that provides tolerable conditions for
the species such that normal behavior, successful reproduction, and
rearing of offspring are possible.
(3) Critical habitat does not include humanmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of the final rule.
(4) Data layers defining map units were created using ESRI ArcGIS
mapping software along with various spatial data layers. ArcGIS was
also used to calculate the size of habitat areas. The projection used
in mapping and calculating distances and locations within the units was
World Geodetic System 1984, Universal Transverse Mercator Zone 17
North. The maps in this entry, as modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, establish the boundaries of the critical habitat
designation. The coordinates or plot points or both on which each map
is based are available to the public at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2019-0106, the Florida Ecological Services Field
Office website at https://www.fws.gov/office/florida-ecological-services/library, and at the field office responsible for this
designation. You may obtain field office location information by
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
(5) Index map follows:
Figure 1 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (5)
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 71490]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.001
(6) Unit 1: Kissimmee Unit; Polk, Osceola, Highlands, and
Okeechobee Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit 1 encompasses 175,737 acres (ac) (71,118 hectares (ha)) of
lands in Polk, Osceola, Highlands, and Okeechobee Counties, Florida.
This unit consists of two subunits generally located along the eastern
bank of Lake Kissimmee northeast to SR-192, north of SR-60; and along
portions of the Kissimmee River, south of SR-60.
(ii) Map of Unit 1 follows:
Figure 2 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (6)(ii)
[[Page 71491]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.002
(7) Unit 2: Peace River Unit; Hardee, DeSoto, and Charlotte
Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit 2 encompasses 28,046 ac (11,350 ha) of lands in Hardee,
DeSoto, and Charlotte Counties, Florida. This unit consists of four
subunits located along portions of the Peace River and its tributaries
(e.g., Shell Creek, Charlie Creek), south of CR-64 with the majority
west of U.S.-17.
(ii) Map of Unit 2 follows:
Figure 3 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (7)(ii)
[[Page 71492]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.003
(8) Unit 3: Babcock Unit; Charlotte, Lee, and Glades Counties,
Florida.
(i) Unit 3 encompasses 133,560 ac (54,050 ha) of lands in
Charlotte, Lee, and Glades Counties, Florida. This unit consists of two
subunits, with the majority of Unit 3 located in Charlotte County, east
of I-75; other portions are in northwestern Lee and western Glades
Counties.
(ii) Map of Unit 3 follows:
Figure 4 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (8)(ii)
[[Page 71493]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.004
(9) Unit 4: Fisheating Creek Unit; Glades and Highlands Counties,
Florida. (i) Unit 4 encompasses 12,995 ac (5,259 ha) of lands in Glades
and Highlands Counties, Florida. The majority of Unit 4 is located in
Glades County, west of U.S.-27; the remainder of the unit extends north
into southern Highlands County.
(ii) Map of Unit 4 follows:
Figure 5 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (9)(ii)
[[Page 71494]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.005
(10) Unit 5: Corkscrew Unit; Lee and Collier Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit 5 encompasses 48,865 ac (19,775 ha) of lands in Lee and
Collier Counties, Florida. This unit straddles the Lee/Collier county
line, east of I-75.
(ii) Map of Unit 5 follows:
Figure 6 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (10)(ii)
[[Page 71495]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.006
(11) Unit 6: Big Cypress Unit; Collier, Hendry, and Monroe
Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit 6 encompasses 728,544 ac (294,831 ha) of lands in Collier,
Hendry, and Monroe Counties, Florida. The majority of Unit 6 is located
in Collier County, south of I-75; the remainder of the unit occurs in
southern Hendry County and mainland portions of Monroe County.
(ii) Map of Unit 6 follows:
Figure 7 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (11)(ii)
[[Page 71496]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.007
(12) Unit 7: Everglades Tree Islands Unit; Miami-Dade County,
Florida.
(i) Unit 7 encompasses 16,604 ac (6,719 ha) of lands in Miami-Dade
County, Florida, south of Tamiami Trail and west of Krome Avenue.
(ii) Map of Unit 7 follows:
Figure 8 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (12)(ii)
[[Page 71497]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.008
(13) Unit 8: Long Pine Key Unit; Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) Unit 8 encompasses 25,337 ac (10,254 ha) of lands in Miami-Dade
County, Florida, along Main Park Road (SR-9336) between Mahogany
Hammock and SW 237th Avenue.
(ii) Map of Unit 8 follows:
Figure 9 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph (13)(ii)
[[Page 71498]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.009
(14) Unit 9: Miami Rocklands Unit; Miami-Dade County, Florida.
(i) Unit 9 encompasses 4,324 ac (1,750 ha) of lands in Miami-Dade
County, Florida. This unit consists of 36 subunits located between
Tamiami Trail to the north and SR-9336 to the south, and is surrounded
by a dense urban matrix typical of the Miami metropolitan area.
(ii) Maps of Unit 9 follow:
Figure 10 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph
(14)(ii)
[[Page 71499]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.010
Figure 11 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph
(14)(ii)
[[Page 71500]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.011
Figure 12 to Florida Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus) paragraph
(14)(ii)
[[Page 71501]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO22.012
* * * * *
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-25218 Filed 11-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C